Varick Planning Board
October 23, 2014
In attendance: Members
Thomas Björkman, Herhey Sensenig, Linda Mastellar, David Kidd. Visitor, Jeff
Hogue, chair of the Varick Zoning Board of Appeals.
Absent: Todd Horton and
Barry Somerville. One vacancy.
Meeting called to order at
7:20 pm by acting chair Björkman in the absence of chair Horton.
Agenda:
Recommendations for
revisions to code to resolve or prevent issues that reach the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
Review revisions to code
that incorporate all of our changes pertaining to Depot rezoning.
Revising Zoning Compliance
Permit Application.
At the request of Code
enforcement Officer Larry Colton, the Zoning Board of Appeals made several
edits to the application that we developed and issued last year in order to
make it easier for him to use. After some experience with the form, there were
a few instructions and form fields that were not followed as
easily as intended. These issues often end up with the ZBA, making that a good
venue for making experience-based adjustments. One change is to require the
third-agency approvals before issuing the permit so that the CEO can deny an
application for something that is obviously against state law without having to
try to enforce state law. One of the most common problems is that people think
that they are exempt from getting a permit due to agricultural use when they
don’t qualify. ZBA Chair Jeff Hogue presented the revisions and rationale for
making them.
Mr. Hogue will provide an
electronic copy to put on the town website.
Linda Mastellar moved to
adopt the revised application, David Kidd seconded. Motion passed 4-0.
Mr. Hogue provided several
examples of issues where the language in the Zoning Code is ambiguous or silent
on issues that come before the ZBA. He asked the we revisit those sections to
provide more clarity.
Nuisance. There is a
nuisance provision (noise, lights, etc.) for the Lakeshore Residential and
Hamlet Residential Districts, but not in the Agriculture and Rural Residential
District. A similar provision would help resolve some neighbor complaints.
Bulk Table for accessory
structures. The county also has a rule on this
subject, and it would be helpful to be consistent. It
is not helpful for the town to allow reduced setbacks that are then disallowed by
the county building inspector.
309.1 Bulk Table
CHANGE:
"Side and rear
setbacks for accessory structures under 200 sq ft and less than 15 ft
high."
to
"Side and rear
setbacks for accessory structures under 140 sq ft and less than 15 ft
high."
Have language that
specifies which construction and land use requires a Town Zoning Compliance
Permit. The most common actions for which people are failing to apply for
permits are: putting barns on land that does not have an ag exemption,
installing docks, and clearing land. Furthermore, Mr. Hogue’s understanding was
that while construction of agricultural buildings on land that meets the
agricultural exemption does not require a county building permit, compliance
with town zoning codes is still required. Our codeis unclear on this point, and
it would be helpful to resolve the issue.
The suggested revision.
102.2 “In order to ensure
the purpose and intent of the requirements of the Zoning Code, the issuance of
a permit is required for any construction, substantial improvements and certain
other uses. (Some examples include new structures, additions, docks, fences,
pools, andcertain uses.).”
We thought that wording was
a good start, but “certain other uses” needed more definition. We also need to
be clear about whether demolition requires a permit. While permits for
demolition have a special zero fee, the word “demolition” is not in the code.
The demolition permit provides a record that a specific use has ended, and also
an opportunity to ensure that demolition debris is removed.
Definition of “structure.”
Some things still fall in a gray area.
The current definition is
“walled or roofed building” but we also use that term to mean antennas, docks
and fences elsewhere in the code. We need to review all instances of
“structure” in the code and expand the definition of structure so that use is
included.
Nonconforming use
clarification. (Section 501.) Our discussion led to a desire to make the
language be more direct and create an incentive for owners to do the better
thing rather than skirting the rules. A particular issue applies to rebuilding
from the foundation up, which is not mentioned. Is it a major renovation where
non-conforming setbacks can be retained, or new construction where the setbacks
must be corrected? We want to encourage rebuilding deteriorated residences in
the hamlets even if the foundation is non-conforming to current setbacks. The
language also makes itdifficult. On the other hand, crowding between houses along the lakeshore
is a significant problem, and one of the high-priority risks identified in the
Comprehensive Plan.
The language is mainly
about structures not other uses. Make sure that it is clear that once a
non-conforming use ceases, it is not allowed to restart. Also that a non-conforming
use is in compliance if the property is transferred to a new owner, as long as
it remains continuous. Specify what constitutes “continuous use.” A new owner
may need to close a business to the public for a time while renovating the
facility, which is legitimate. On the other hand, uses may cease for a time for
lack of interest or customers, and that should not be continuous use. Also, be
clear that the definition of the use is fairly narrow. For instance, if the use
was a “Vehicle Repair Shop” as defined in the code, then that specific use may
continue but it cannot be converted to a different non-conforming use. There
has been the incorrect notion that if there is any historic commercial use,
then other commercial uses are permitted even if they are non-conforming to the
current code. Those are new uses and must conform to the code.
Setback variance is one of
the main things that ZBA does.
We asked Mr. Hogue to also
send an electronic variance application form so that it could be on town
website.
Mr. Hogue invited VPB
members to attend ZBA meetings on the second Tuesday of odd months. 7:00 pm at
the town hall to continue fostering a good working relationship between the two
organizations.
Discussion of Depot
language.
We confirmed that the map
borders are correct.
We checked the Special Use
Permit considerations, where there was new language. We added flexibility to
the screening item so that it applied to more than just residential neighbors
(e.g. scenic landscapes, a desirable character of some areas).
311.1 (D) Landscaping and Screening. All
parking, storage, loading, and service areas shall be reasonably screened at
all seasons of the year from the view of adjacent residential areas and the
general landscaping of the site shall be in character with the surrounding
areas. Screening may not be required if existing or proposed features of the
site will mitigate any potential adverse effect on nearby properties.
Adjournment.At 9:30 pm Hershey Sensenig moved to adjourn the meeting, Linda
Mastellar seconded. Passed 4-0.
Meeting notes compiled by
Thomas Björkman
No comments:
Post a Comment