TOWN OF PITTSFORD
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
June 6, 2011
Zoning Board of Adjustment Members Present – Stanley Markowski, Chair, Richard Conway – Vice Chair, Jack Orvis, Clarence Greeno and Jack Shedd. Absent – James Morale, and John Mitchell.
Others Present – Stephen Hitchcock, Robert Kerstan, Stephan Wright, Ken Gagnon, Atty. Jack Facey, Amy Loomis– Zoning Administrator, Kelly Giard – Recording Secretary.
R. Conway, Vice Chair, called the Zoning Board of Adjustment to order at 7:04 PM.
R. Conway introduced the members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
The purpose of the meeting was for a Variance Permit by Stephen Hitchcock for the construction of a one car pre-built garage. The property is located at 794 Hitchcock Road, Pittsford, VT. The parcel ID # is 0671.
The warning in town was displayed in the Municipal Office, Pittsford Post Office and the Florence Town Office, and on the town website on May 18, 2011, as well as published in the Rutland Herald on May 20, 2011, with a certificate of mailing to the abutters on May 19, 2011. R. Conway read the warning.
The hearing was not heard originally (on May 2, 2011) due to the lack of a quorum.
A site visit was made by S. Markowski, J. Orvis, and R. Conway to review the property. The exact date was not disclosed.
A. Loomis indicated that this property is located in the Conservation 1 district, thus requiring a front setback of 40’ and 25’ setbacks on the sides and rear of the structure. The minimum lot size is 2 acres. The original permit was dated March 27, 2011. The original posting was on April 6, 2011 for the May 2, 2011 meeting and there were no changes to the current application.
R. Conway indicated that there was some confusion to the payment of the original permit. A. Loomis indicated that there was no stamp indicating that there were fees received. Mr. Hitchcock indicated that he has not paid any fees and was not aware that there were any fees necessary. A. Loomis explained the fees that are associated. Mr. Hitchcock agreed to pay the fees on June 7, 2011. Atty. Facey recommended that in the future is to require fees before any application can be considered “complete”.
A. Loomis explained the project as to build a garage, which is 27’ from the center of the road, thus, lacking the 40’ frontage that is required. The side and rear setbacks are met. Mr. Hitchcock explained that the size of the structure is 12’ X 24’ maximum.
R. Conway swore in Stephen Hitchcock – 551 Hitchcock Road – Pittsford, VT.
R. Conway read Title 24 Section 4469.
The uniqueness of the property circumstances. Mr. Hitchcock submitted a letter dated May 26, 2011, which was read and entered into evidence as exhibit ‘A’.
R. Conway explained the site visit and the members expressed an opinion that the structure could be constructed within the setback requirements. Mr. Hitchcock expressed concern of the well in the back and the slope of the property is away from the well. Mr. Hitchcock expressed concern of the spillage of any liquids from vehicles may run into the well, which is his only source of water. Mr. Hitchcock indicated in his letter that the construction of a structure would not be allowed within the proximity of a public water source, therefore, feels that the construction should not be close to a private source.
S. Markowski explained the topography of the property. The garage could be moved closer to the house, therefore, would be within the setback limitations. The land in the rear of the house slopes away from the house and the top of the well casing is higher and the ground slopes away, described as being a “north to south” slope. S. Markowski explained that the water would need to run uphill. Mr. Hitchcock explained that the slope would also depend on how much dirt is moved during the construction of the garage and is not comfortable saying that “maybe” contaminants would run away from the water source. There was discussion concerning the amount of fluid drainage. Mr. Hitchcock indicated that the supplier recommended crushed rock as the foundation.
R. Conway indicated that the excavation required could ensure that the flow of fluids would flow toward the water supply.
R. Conway reviewed the criteria as outlined in 4469 Title 24 Section 117. S. Markowski explained that the well location presents unique physical circumstances due to the topographical uniqueness of the area. Mr. Hitchcock indicated that the original distance from the house was stated as being 53’ and moving the structure would lessen this distance.
S. Markowski inquired if the location of the garage was not able to be moved 13’. Mr. Hitchcock explained that there was “quite a rise” and that in the basement of the house is on bedrock and fears that the bedrock continues into the yard.
C. Greeno inquired the width of the road. S. Markowski believes that this may be a 3-rod road, thus, a 50-foot road. The proposed structure would be approximately 3’ from the right of way.
Atty. Facey indicated that the attachment sketch shows the edge of the structure facing Hitchcock Road. Mr. Hitchcock explained the sketch and believes that the proposal is on bedrock. There was discussion concerning the measuring of the property from the centerline of the road.
R. Conway inquired where fluids would flow, in the event of a leak. Mr. Hitchcock indicated that the fluids would flow away from the water source and run toward the road.
S. Markowski inquired the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Mr. Hitchcock indicated that the structure would be white, with a minimal number of windows, pitched steep roof. S. Markowski inquired if the siding of the structure would be in harmony with the house. Mr. Hitchcock indicated that the siding would be a vinyl clapboard siding. Atty. Facey inquired the roofing material. Mr. Hitchcock indicated that the roof would be of an asphalt shingle material. R. Conway inquired the height of the structure. Mr. Hitchcock indicated that the structure would not be as high as the house. Atty. Facey inquired what the structure would be set on. Mr. Hitchcock indicated that the supplier recommended 2” crushed stone. C. Greeno inquired if there would be any footings in place. Mr. Hitchcock indicated that there would be no footings. R. Conway inquired what measures would be in place to prevent wind movement. Mr. Hitchcock is not sure of the wind movement, but, feels that the supplier would take that into thought.
S. Markowski and seconded by C. Greeno to enter into Deliberative Session at 7:45 PM. The Deliberative Session will follow the hearing of the permit that was scheduled to follow the Hitchcock hearing.
The deliberative session was declared over at 9:45 PM by the acting chair, Rick Conway. Sam Markowski made the following motion: to deny the Applicants permit on the basis that there are at least two other locations on applicants lot to build applicants propose garage; accordingly, the variance fails due to the applicants say to demonstrate that the host application was the minimum variance necessary under all the circumstances; applicant also failed to carry his burden of proof that there was no possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the applicable setbacks and that the authorization was necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property. Clarence Greeno seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously 4-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kelly Giard, Recording Secretary
_________________________________
Stanley Markowski, Chair
_________________________________
Richard Conway, Vice Chair
____________ABSENT_____________
James Morale
_________________________________
Clarence Greeno
_________________________________
Jack Orvis
_________________________________
John Shedd
_ABSENT___________
John Mitchell (Alternate)