Zoning Board Agendas and Minutes

MINUTES OF THE COHOES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD IN THE COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF COHOES CITY HALL ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2014 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Mark Cotch Mrs. Joyce Baranski Mr. Francis Houle, Vice-Chairman Mr. John Hughes, Chairman Mr. Dan Kelly ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Melissa Ashline-Heil, Director of Building and Planning CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 26, 2014. Chairman Hughes called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. The Chairman asked the recording secretary to take attendance. Member Cotch moved to approve the minutes of February 26, 2014. Vice Chairman Houle seconded the motion, roll of call was taken and the motion passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN John Hughes X Joyce Baranski X Dan Kelly X Frank Houle X Mark Cotch X CONSIDERATION OF AN AREA VARIANCE FROM SETBACKS AT 109 RENSSELAER AVENUE Father and son, Stephen and Shane Matzen, applied for permission to construct a deck off the riverside of the residential structure located at 109 Rensselaer Avenue. Mr. Stephen Matzen explained that the proposal wouldn’t infringe on neighbors in any way. He would cantilever the structure to the 0’ setback. Member Kelly asked if any DEC regulations prohibited the proposal. The building permit application had been reviewed by the City’s Engineering Office. Member Cotch asked how occupants would access the deck. Mr. Matzen intends to create a door opening that would lead to the deck. As a result, Vice Chairman Houle moved to approve the variance. Member Kelly seconded the motion which passed unanimously. YES NO ABSTAIN John Hughes X Joyce Baranski X Dan Kelly X Frank Houle X Mark Cotch X \\cohoes.local\CoC-Data\Users\mashline-heil\Boards, Commissions, & Agencies\ZBA\ZBA\minutes\ZBA Minutes 2014\ZBA Minutes 4.23.2014.doc CONSIDERATION OF AN AREA VARIANCE FROM FENCE HEIGHT AT 43 DAVID DRIVE Steven and Barbara Elinski requested approval for three panels of 8’ cedar privacy fencing 1’ from the property line shared with 42 David Drive. The Elinskis describe the neighbor’s above ground pool and deck as higher than the chain link fence with privacy slats that the neighbor installed. As a result, they cannot enjoy the use of their backyard as the neighbors do not get along. The couple had installed Rose of Sharon bushes in 2009. However the bushes aren’t growing as well in that location as on the other side of the property. The bushes were planted on the other side to create privacy as well. However, they do not experience any difficulty getting along with the neighbor on the other side. The neighbor, Laurie Kmiec, opposes the variance request because the fence requires maintenance; the 1’ setback doesn’t provide enough space to maintain the land or the fence; and the height differential would create a billboard affect from Ms. Kmiec’s perspective. Chairman Hughes asked how long each has lived in the neighborhood. Ms. Kmiec has been in her home a decade, while the Elinskis moved in approximately 6 years ago. Chairman Hughes asked for clarification on Ms. Kmiec’s concerns. He questioned whether she thought the additional 2’ of fencing created the appearance of a billboard, as 6’ is the maximum allowed that close to the property line without a variance. She explained that her chain link fencing is 5’ high so this fence would sit 3’ higher than hers. She also confirmed that the added height would create a billboard appearance from her yard. Chairman Hughes asked who would maintain the area between the fences. The Elinskis have been maintaining that land and would continue. The fencing company, Siena, would install the fence 3” off the ground to provide access for weeding. The fence company would install landscape fabric. At this time the couple weeds the property daily. However, Member Baranski pointed out that the variance goes with the land, not the property owner. Chairman Hughes asked the neighbor if she would agree to a 5’ cedar fence at the same location. Ms. Kmiec would not because of the close proximity and difficulty with maintenance. Ms. Kmiec stated that she would agree to allow the Elinskis to remove her chain link fence and replace it with vinyl fencing at their expense. She stated that vinyl fencing doesn’t require any maintenance. Chairman Hughes asked if Ms. Kmiec under those circumstances would be opposed to 8’ height, which she confirmed she wouldn’t be opposed to so long as the whole side was consistent. He also asked if she thought that since she was there first, and installed her fencing first that the neighbors are precluded from installing a fence of their own and choosing the style. She reiterated concerns regarding maintenance of cedar fencing. Chairman Hughes asked if Ms. Kmiec would permit the neighbor to walk onto her property to maintain the fencing. Ms. Kmiec said she would not permit the neighbor to maintain the fence on her side by walking on her property. In addition she doesn’t like cedar fencing. Member Kelly asked the applicants why they chose cedar over vinyl. The Elinskis chose cedar because it fit in as a landscaping element with the flowers and bushes they’ve planted. \\cohoes.local\CoC-Data\Users\mashline-heil\Boards, Commissions, & Agencies\ZBA\ZBA\minutes\ZBA Minutes 2014\ZBA Minutes 4.23.2014.doc Chairman Hughes then asked the applicants to clarify their position. The Elinskis reiterated the lack of privacy in the backyard. Vice Chairman Houle asked if three panels would suffice. The Elinskis thought it was a compromise as it blocks the pool and deck in as few panels as possible. The length of the backyard from their own fencing would require five panels total. However, the side walls of the homes as well as the neighbor’s corner shed provides some blockage. Mr. Elinski added that the cedar fencing proposed is guaranteed for 20 years and turns silvery gray as it ages without any needed maintenance. Ms. Kmiec asked for strict enforcement of the City zoning code which would require the fence be installed 8’ from the property line. Chairman Hughes suggested that would place the fence in an odd location, cutting up the yard. He also asked Ms. Kmiec if she obtained a variance for her pool. She stated the pool met setbacks but she required one for her shed. Chairman Hughes added that the purpose of the variance was for maximizing space in her backyard, which is also at issue with the fence request. Member Kelly asked if 2’ from the property line would resolve the concern regarding maintenance. Mrs. Elinski agreed to 1.5’ back, although it would require more landscaping fabric and would be more difficult to manage and prevent growth in a larger area. Ms. Kmiec added that the applicant also has an aboveground pool and deck on the opposite side of their property. Mrs. Elinski responded that the Rose of Sharon trees have grown successfully on that side of the property so that they cannot see into their neighbor’s yard even though that neighbor has an inground pool. Ms. Kmiec countered that the fence will look like a billboard. Chairman Hughes asked if it differed significantly in appearance from the wall of a shed. He added that the properties were divided years before anyone foresaw aboveground or inground pools, and decks in every backyard. He pointed out it is the role of the Zoning Board to accommodate unforeseen changes or unusual circumstances whereby the zoning code impairs use of property. As a result, Member Kelly moved to approve the variance. Member Cotch seconded the motion which passed with four votes supporting and one abstention. YES NO ABSTAIN John Hughes X Joyce Baranski ABSTAIN Dan Kelly X Frank Houle X Mark Cotch X Member Cotch moved to adjourn at 7:40 PM seconded by Member Baranski. The motion passed unanimously. \\cohoes.local\CoC-Data\Users\mashline-heil\Boards, Commissions, & Agencies\ZBA\ZBA\minutes\ZBA Minutes 2014\ZBA Minutes 4.23.2014.doc