TOWN OF PITTSFORD
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
November 19, 2012
Zoning Board of Adjustment Members Present –Rick Conway – Vice Chairman, John Mitchell, Clarence Greeno, Jack Orvis, Jim Morale. Absent: Stanley Markowski – Chairman.
Others Present – Dave Boles, Retha Boles, Mavis Windsor, Atty. Jack Facey, Ken Niemczyk – Zoning Administrator, and Kelly Giard – Recording Secretary.
R. Conway, Vice Chair, called the Zoning Board of Adjustment to order at 7:00 PM.
R. Conway introduced the members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment and there were no conflicts of interest indicated.
R. Conway swore in: Dave Boles – Civil Engineer – Pittsford, VT
R. Conway explained that this was an application for variance by David Boles (applicant and owner) and Mavis Windsor, Retha Boles, and David Boles (owners for a variance from the setback requirements to a new property line as part of a proposed subdivision of property located at 15 and 22 Colburn Lane, Parcel ID #1228 and, consisting of approximately 2.21 acres in the Town of Pittsford, Vermont. Section 301 of the Zoning Ordinance for the Town of Pittsford requires that buildings be set back from a side property line by a minimum of 15 feet in the Village zoning district. The applicant is proposing a new property line that will be 10 feet from two existing buildings and 5 feet from the porch on one of the buildings.
K. Niemczyk indicated that the meeting was warned in the Rutland Herald on November 3, 2012 and on the town website on November 2, 2012.
K. Niemczyk explained that the property owner proposed a subdivision with 1 proposed line between 2 existing buildings, however, the setbacks would not be met between the buildings. Following the approval of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, the Planning Commission will be reviewing the same project.
Atty. Facey inquired the boundary line. Mr. Boles outlined the boundary line and explained that this was for a 3 lot subdivision. Mr. Boles explained that there were formerly 2 mobile homes located on the properties and the concrete pads, electric and water are still in place.
Atty. Facey inquired if the adjoining property owners were aware of the proposed project and this meeting. Mr. Boles explained that the property owners were aware, however, the owners immediately adjoining are deceased and the owners of the property across the street were made aware.
Atty. Facey inquired if the property line was intended to separate the main house from the carriage house. Mr. Boles explained that the house and the carriage house are 30 feet apart and to remove the porch, the driveway would not line up with the property line. Atty. Facey inquired the distance between the structures without removing the porch. Mr. Boles indicated that the distance was approximately 27 feet.
K. Niemczyk inquired if the property line would be centered in the driveway. Mr. Boles indicated that the property line would be centered between the 2 structures, closer to the porch.
J. Morale inquired if the structures indicated on the sketch were currently existing. Mr. Boles explained that all items were currently existing.
J. Mitchell inquired the minimum frontage in the village. Mr. Boles explained that 75 feet were required. Atty. Facey inquired if the proposal complied with regulations. Mr. Boles agreed that this did comply.
Atty. Facey inquired if the westerly lot would require an easement. Mr. Boles indicated that an easement would be required through the driveway. Mr. Boles explained that lot 1 has the main house; lot 2 has the carriage house; and lot 3 is the former mobile home lots. J. Mitchell inquired if the sewer was still on-site. Mr. Boles explained that there are individual septic systems on the property.
Atty. Facey inquired the possibility of bringing the property line horizontal with Route 7. Mr. Boles explained that the angle of the property line would need to change to keep the easement simple without a “jog” in the line.
Following the discussion of the variance criteria, R. Conway requested an amended set of plans, detailing the scale of distances. Mr. Boles agreed to submit the amended plans.
Atty. Facey inquired if there was a surveyor that would be surveying the property. Mr. Boles indicated that there was a surveyor.
Motion by C. Greeno and seconded by J. Mitchell to accept the request for variance and request an amended set of plans. Motion passed unanimously 5 – 0.
Atty. Facey explained the request as moving the property line points to maximize the use of the property.
K. Niemczyk requested that R. Conway review the amended plans.
Motion by C. Greeno and seconded by J. Morale to adjourn. Motion passed unanimously 5 – 0.
Meeting was adjourned at 7:37 PM.
Kelly Giard, Recording Secretary
Stanley Markowski, Chair
Richard Conway, Vice Chair