TOWN OF PITTSFORD
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
September 23, 2019
Zoning Board of Adjustment Members Present – Stanley Markowski – Chairman, Rick Conway – Vice Chairman, Dan Adams, Ed Keith, Jr., Nicholas Michael, Clarence Greeno, and Jack Orvis.
Others Present –
Neil Martinez, Trudi Beaman-Martinez, Cheryl Parker, Ramon Davis, David Fitzgerald, Joseph House, Brenda House, Jason Fischer, Nichole Fischer, Keith Maseroni, Christine Maseroni, Atty. Gary Kupferer, Jeff Biasuzzi – Zoning Administrator and Kelly Giard – Recording Secretary
S. Markowski, Chairman, called the Zoning Board of Adjustment to order at 7:00 PM.
S. Markowski introduced the members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
S. Markowski swore in all in attendance and explained the process of the hearing.
Motion by R. Conway and seconded by C. Greeno to approve the agenda as presented. Following a discussion of a letter that was received regarding the Martinez hearing, R. Conway moved and C. Greeno seconded to rescind the motion. Motion by R. Conway and seconded by D. Adams to amend the agenda to remove the Martinez hearing. Motion by R. Conway and seconded by D. Adams to adopt the amended agenda. Motion passed unanimously 7 – 0.
Atty Kupferer discussed the letter that was received from Atty Lorentz, the attorney representing the Martinez’ regarding permit 19-32. The letter requested that the permit be voided. J. Biasuzzi stated that formal appeal was received and recommended that the hearing on permit 19-32 be rescheduled until a date and time that the residents of Blanchard Avenue had time to review the letter that was received on September 23, 2019. Mr. Fitzgerald inquired if there was a permit obtained. D. Adams stated that the Martinez’ presented a letter that was written to the tenants to vacate by November 1, 2019. Atty Kupferer stated that they were in compliance with the Landlord/Tenant Law. N. Michael inquired if the abutters would be notified if there was a permit issued. J. Biasuzzi stated that the Town complies with the statute of posting in 3 places around town (Keith’s Store, the Post Office and the Town Office). N. Michael stated that he feels that a notification would be a courtesy. R. Conway stated that if there was a permit that this would set a presidence of notifying for 1 permit and not all. Mr. Fitzgerald agreed that posting in the 3 places was acceptable and that making an exception could cause an issue. Motion by C. Greeno and seconded by N. Michael to void permit 19-32, per request of the letter that was received. Motion passed unanimously 7 – 0.
Mr. House, Mrs. House, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Martinez and Mrs. Martinez exited at 7:19 PM.
Public Hearing for Appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision by Ramon Davis of 5166 Whipple Hollow Road, that allowed a 12’ X 12’ detached shed to be placed on adjacent lands belonging to Jason and Nicole Fischer, of 5190 Whipple Hollow Road, without a town permit. Mr. Davis claims the shed encroaches on the minimum prescribed 25 foot side setback (per Article IV of 2019 Town Zoning Regulations).
J. Biasuzzi stated that the shed was under the required 150 square feet to require a permit, which is located ion the south boundary of the Fischer property. J. Biasuzzi read the definition of a structure from the Zoning Regulations. D. Adams inquired if a setback was required. J. Biasuzzi stated that this was not defined as a structure and he had been to the property twice and measured twice. S. Markowski inquired if there was a licensed survey of the property. Mr. Davis presented a map for discussion, which he stated was done by the State of Vermont, Jim Purdy, who was sent by Rick Oberkirk. R. Conway inquired if the shed could be moved. Mr. Davis stated that the shed measures 16’ 2” from the fence line. Mr. Fischer stated that the shed could be moved, however, would be a hassle. S. Markowski inquired if the deeds were in place. Mr. and Mrs. Fischer stated that they have lived there for 12 years and the house was existing. S. Markowski inquired if the deed referenced a property line. J. Biasuzzi stated that there was no survey recorded in the town records. Mr. Fischer stated that there is no definition of where the road was located. Mr. Davis stated that his mother owns the road as she never sold it and she is now deceased. C. Greeno stated that he has a shed on his property and was told by a former Zoning Administrator that no permit was required for a shed under 150 square feet. Mr. Davis state that this shed was constructed on a private road. Mr. Adams stated that Mr. Purdy is not a licensed surveyor, however, is a site technician. Mr. Fischer stated that there is nothing in his deed with regard to a road or Right of Way.
S. Markowski stated that Atty Kupferer has read the regulations and interpretations. Atty Kupferer stated that if this was a structure, then a setback would be required and read the exemption, which stated that a permit was not required if the setback was met. The definition of a structure was read. Mr. and Mrs. Fischer stated that they constructed the shed to store the children’s bikes, etc. Atty Kupferer stated that according to the definitions, no permit was required. D. Adams inquired how long the shed has been on the property. Mr. Fischer stated approximately 1 – 2 months. Mr. Davis stated that he spoke with the Zoning Administrator when the construction began. D. Adams stated that this project does fall under the current zoning regulations.
Motion by N. Michael and seconded by J. Orvis to support the Zoning Administrators decision. Atty Kupferer explained that these types of buildings do not require permits going forward. R. Conway inquired if there were any other decisions similar to this one recently. J. Biasuzzi stated that this is a common inquiry and residents are informed that no permit was required for a building under 150 square feet. R. Conway inquired if there was a permit on the structure. J. Biasuzzi stated that there was no permit issued, but a notice of hearing on this situation. J. Biasuzzi explained the answers when asked about size and permit requirements and a 25’ setback is encouraged at all times. J. Biasuzzi stated that there is no definitive location for the boundary lines in this case. D. Adams inquired if this shed was an encroachment. J. Biasuzzi stated that there was no survey recorded. R. Conway inquired if the shed was on their land. Mr. Davis stated that it is not an either persons land, however, on his mothers’ road. Mr. Fischer stated that the fence went down the middle of the road. Mrs. Fischer stated that the shed was right next to the road. S. Markowski inquired if there was a land marking pin on the property corner. Mr. Fischer stated that he knows the location of the road pins. S. Markowski inquired if there was a licensed survey. J. Biasuzzi stated that there is no survey recorded in the Town records. Ms. Parker stated that they will have a survey done. D. Adams recommends to rescind the motion and recess. Atty Kupferer stated that a plan for moving forward needs to be discussed. R. Conway recommended to table the discussion until a survey can be completed.
Ms. Parker stated that their property includes Back Meadow Road. Atty Kupferer believes that the Zoning Board of Adjustment is at status quo until the survey is received and that the next appeal would be to the Environmental Court. Following discussion, motion by N. Michael and seconded by J. Orvis to rescind the motion. Motion by D. Adams and seconded by R. Conway to recess the hearing until January 27, 2020 at 7:00 PM to allow Mr. Davis to obtain a survey. Motion passed unanimously 7 – 0.
The hearing was recessed at 8:18 PM.
Re-Open Hearing for Application #19-33 from Outfront, LLC, Keith & Christine Maseroni (property owners) for a change of use for the building and grounds at 3036 US Route 7, Pittsford Village (Town Parcel #0201). The Owner/Applicants request the hearing (held and closed on August 26, 2019) be re-opened to additional testimony; to allow for additional and corrected information. Application 19-33 requests using the property for one to tow offices; residential rental of one dwelling unit; and sale, rental, storage and transportation of shipping containers/storage structures; and new signage.
Atty Kupferer stated that there was a request for his office to research this situation and there was no statutory authority in the Vermont Case Law. Atty Kupferer stated that the interested parties did not need to be notified of the reopening as this is a discretionary action of the board as the decision was not signed. J, Biasuzzi stated that this was an unusual circumstance and the interested parties were notified. J. Biasuzzi stated that the applicant was surprised at the number of containers allowed. R. Conway stated that he was not present at the hearing and inquired if the 45 day clock would be reset. Atty Kupferer stated that this would be reset. N. Michael inquired the procedure to reopen. Atty Kupferer stated that there needed to be a motion and a second. J. Biasuzzi stated that he received a call from Barbara Schmidt, an adjoining property owner, who stated that she supported the Maseroni’s. J. Biasuzzi stated that the notification that was sent to the Gladski’s was returned as they were out of town.
Motion by N. Michael and seconded by C. Greeno to reopen the hearing. Motion passed 6 – 0 – 1 (Conway – absent initially).
S. Markowski inquired the reason to reopen the hearing. Mr. Maseroni stated that when he was asked how many containers would be in the yard and he stated 20, he went home and counted 17. R. Conway stated that he discussed the decision with Mr. Maseroni who stated that J. Biasuzzi had mailed the draft decision with no signature or approval. R. Conway stated that the application was for use of a pre-existing non-conforming use and wondered why the containers were discussed. Mr. Maseroni stated that he had been conducting business at this location for 25 years and the containers were a business for the last 10 years and this was discussed as he moved away from the property to a different residence. Mr. Maseroni stated that he would like to grow his business. Mr. Maseroni stated that he agreed that avoiding stacking above 2 high was reasonable; agreed with the location being kept behind the house, however, feels that the number is too limiting. S. Markowski stated that the decision did not have a number defined. C. Greeno stated that restricting the area restricts the number allowed to be on the property. D. Adams inquired why there was no site plan submitted. J. Biasuzi explained that the initial permit was for a trucking business and the new permit was a new phase of the business, which the business owner was not residing. Following discussion of location of the storage containers, an aerial photo was accepted in lieu of a site plan. Motion by N. Michael and seconded by C. Greeno to accept the written decision as presented with Exhibit 1 (aerial map showing the area). Motion passed 6 – 0 – 1 (Conway).
The hearing was closed at 8:58 PM.
Public Hearing for Application 19-37 – A request by the Pittsford Recreation Department to install a 14’ X 12’ Open Pavilion (Life Guard Station) by the Swim Area at 223 Recreation Road (Parcel #1723). This is a Conditional Use for a Municipal Park/Playground and for a structure within a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area.
J. Biasuzzi explained that the Select Board approved the project and that the structure would be within the flood plane. Motion by C. Greeno and seconded by D. Adams to approve the permit to construct a 12’ X 14’ open pavilion. Motion passed unanimously 7 – 0.
The Public Hearing was closed at 9:05 PM.
Motion by N. Michael and seconded by C. Greeno to approve the minutes of the August 26, 2019 meeting. Motion passed 6 – 0 – 1.
Meeting adjourned at 9:11 PM.
Kelly Giard, Recording Secretary
Following the seven day comment & review period by ZBA Members, the Chairman is duly authorized to approve these Minutes on behalf of the Zoning Board of Adjustment;
Approved this __________ day of October 2019, by:
Stanley Markowski, Chair