Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout02.24.2020 - PB Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF IRONDEQUOIT HELD AT THE IRONDEQUOIT TOWN HALL, 1280 TITUS AVENUE, MONROE COUNTY, NEW YORK, ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2020 AT 7:00 P.M. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING CASES: BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Bernard Blocchi Chairman Michael Eveland Member (Departed the meeting at 10:27pm) Mary Hollenbeck Member Bradley Huber Member Michael Palermo Member Spencer Read Member Allan Richards Member STAFF PRESENT: Daniel Brennan Deputy Town Attorney Kerry Ivers Director Michelle Nichols Recording Secretary Krista Greer Conservation Board Chair The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Blocchi instructed the applicants and the public as to the procedure to be followed for presentation of cases and public input. He stated that the meeting is being recorded and is not intended to be a verbatim record but only to indicate the sum and substance of the proceedings. Case No: PB2020-02-1 Upon the matter of request by Taylored Architecture PLLC, acting as agent for Robert & Christina Brinkman, for SITE PLAN APPROVAL & FLOODPLAIN & COASTAL EROSION HAZARD ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT (EPOD) PERMITS, to construct a new single-family dwelling on premises, 930 ROCK BEACH ROAD, in an R-1 Residential District. After hearing the applicant’s presentation, the following spoke at public input. Kristen Werner, 896 Rock Beach Road: • Owner of the property to the west. • Extremely concerned for a number of reasons. • 13’ from my property line to have condensers facing my property is extremely concerning. • There is no way it is 55 feet from my home. • This will have an adverse effect on my property values from a noise standpoint, as I have three little children • Not clear how close they are building to the lake where they are looking for a height variance that will obstruct my view. • Concerned about erosion and property impact on property values. • Primary concern about the adverse effect this will have on my property value. Public Hearing was closed. Monroe County Department of Planning Referral: N/A After Board discussion, the Board determined: The Board classified this as a TYPE II ACTION pursuant to SEQRA. ON MOTION by Board Member Read, seconded by Board Member Richards, carried: 7 Aye, 0 Nay, 0 Absent, 0 Abstained the Board: Granted SITE PLAN APPROVAL & FLOODPLAIN & COASTAL EROSION HAZARD ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT (EPOD) PERMITS with the following conditions: 1. Obtain Zoning Variances, if needed 2. Town Engineer review and approve the distance from the crown of the steep slope. 3. Screen condenser unit with landscaping. 4. Erosion control for storm water control be provided and reviewed by the Town Engineer on the construction plans submitted with the building permit. Case No: PB1911-2 Upon the matter of request by Land Tech Planning and Surveying, acting as agent for Craig Ristuccia, for SITE PLAN APPROVAL, to construct a new single-family dwelling, on premises 301 LAKE FRONT, in an R-1 Residential District. Chairman Blocchi added into the record: As a reminder the Town is holding a public hearing due to the fact the plans have had some modifications to the proposed layout of the site. In this zoning district a single-family home is a permitted use by right, this board can not decide if a home can be constructed on the site, our review is limited to the terms outlined in section 235-76. There has been a large amount of communications received on this proposed development and would like our Deputy Town Attorney to address the legal aspects of this development. All comments during this public hearing should be directly to this board. Mr. Brennan stated that the main legal issue is the existence of an easement walking path across the property. The Board is only deciding whether the site plan that is been presented by the applicant meets the criteria for site plan review under the code. The Board does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate any private property rights. The Board is not in a position to tell the applicant or any neighbors whether an existing easement, private easement between two properties can be enforced, the Board is not in any position to tell the applicant or the neighboring property owners whether those easements are in effect and how they can be enforced. What the board has to do here today is decide whether the site plan that has been presented meets the criteria under the code. You can take all the evidence you have on the record and determine whether this proposed site plan can be built. To the extent that the applicants has told you they have the right to build on this property and to the extent that the Board finds that they do, then you can approve the site plan, but do not believe the Board should be determining whether a recorded easement is enforceable because the applicant here has stated they have the right to build on the property. The other thing worth mentioning is that the applicant goes forward with this project at their own risk. If they don’t in fact have the right to build what they are proposing and there is a private easement, the beneficiary of that easement could enforcement that easement and they won’t be able to construct the project and potentially obtain a building permit but this is not this board’s issue to decide. After hearing the applicant’s presentation, the following spoke at public input: Douglas Kripple, 44 Madison Terrace: • Has a deed that has a descriptive easement that has been in existence. • Have a judgement from the appellate division. • Entitled to full 150’ wide easement. • Unobstructed use of the whole strip. • No obstructions should interfere with this use. • This covenant should run with this land. • One reason I purchased my property was because of the ease of the use of the lake front. • Look at exhibit liber 550, deeds 458 agreement on June 5, 1893 which refers to the original agreement. • Should be maintained in its present location. • All the parties here agree that no driveway shall be constructed or maintained on said beach. Diane White, 873 Washington Avenue: • Agreement between the property’s owners of Summerville, liber 550 deed 458 the covenant will run with the land. • It was built as a boulevard to be walking up to the lake. • Claim to have it certified as an historical site with the State of New York. • This is a covenant that we paid for by the property owners. • This runs with the land. This is in our deed, so any attorney that could not find anything on this was completely incorrect. • Commissioner of Public Works was absolutely right, keep it where it is. • With respect to SEQRA, the application presents several potential negative environmental impacts with number one is the signatures of over seven hundred people opposing this project, the dumping of construction materials during the period of 2002 – 2019 which has elevated the land to build on. • Contamination into the soil and contamination of running into the lake because of this. • He is sitting on property he does not own or has a right to give away. • His proposed home is much farther north than all others. • Lake Front is designated as an actual sidewalk. • Community character that the house is sitting too far to the north and that creates a negative potential impact. • The potential of this sidewalk and the town has no right to move or give away anything with respect to the sidewalk. • Who is going to be liable when the little kids get hit walking on that new sidewalk? • Who is going to maintain the new sidewalk? Rebecca Rogers, 842 Washington Avenue: • Here as a mother and a grandmother. • I use that sidewalk with my grandchildren. • Have concerns with the curve and cars. • We walk across the easements with the lights they want to move. • Do not want my grandchildren exposed to the blind traffic. Tim Sengle, 82 Wabash Ave: • Quoted a letter dated January 24, 2020 that the construction of the sidewalk north of the proposed house should be abandoned. • Have discovered wo deeds with one being false. Using dimensions of a false deed to use this property. • Suggest the site plan be abandoned at this time and resubmitted. • No permits were required for the driveway for the environmental protection zone or for dumping stone and fill there. • Will not be able to sell this property with a false deed. • Deed states nothing shall be built on this property to north of lot 1 as to obstruct the view of the lake. Dan Driffill, 816 Washington Avenue: • About 10 houses from the proposed house. • Several hundred sign petition on change.org opposing this development. • The ability to walk the lake front and see the beauty is enjoyed daily and year-round not just during the summer. • No other lake front property has been able to develop north of the sidewalk. • Moving the proposed sidewalk will cause concerns for accidents and injuries. • The land has been raised with unknown materials and no one seems to know if the dumping was permitted. • Lake Ontario is all of our drinking water source. • Have experienced runoff issues. • A circular driveway has been installed with-out a permit. • Applicant continues to enter the driveway he wrong way on the one-way street. • Do you want to be remembered as the town planning board that changed this forever? • This proposed plan keeps changing between each meeting. • Height should be a major concern for you as it is for us. • Due to the lack of these detailed plans, we respectfully propose that this proposal is denied. • Obtain a approve environmental impact study. • It is a private easement and we will proceed with that. Patricia Carroll, 1136 Whitlock Road: • Think it is great someone is willing to build a single-family home. • We need more single-family homes in Irondequoit, not some low-income subsidized housing project. • Promote single-family homes all day long. Barbara Kleman, 543 Rock Beach Road: • Concerned with final page that shows the lot that goes into the water and that is based on the NYS Trust doctrine state all navigable waterways in NYS belong to the people up to the high-water level. • If this is outlining the deed of the property, it defiantly is wrong. • The NYS Trust Doctrine states that NYS law is across all shorelines and is based from the low to the high tide lines, so that’s public access. • Concerned myself because I walk my dog in that area. • NYS resident should be able to walk along all waterlines. Richard Barone, 154 Allwood Drive: • Do not ever recall the Town Planning Board approving anything over an easement that has been legally filed. • If the attorney tells you something that you have to do or don’t have to do, get it in writing. • If you approve this site, and I do not suggest you should, approve it contingent. • How dare you consider building something on someone’s legal rights. • There a legal issue called encroachment by use, as these people have been using this property for over a number of years, they now have a legal right to use the property. • If the use is there, it is an easement. Christine Anderson, 40 Anchor Terrace: • Walk Summerville every day from Anchor Terrace down Washington. • In fully of support of the addition of an ADA compliant sidewalk. • The grass walkway is very popular but is no way ADA compliant. • Fully in support of the sidewalk itself off of the street. Linda Loria, 49 Anchor Terrace: • Lived here over 40 years. • Took some pictures of the gravel driveway and signs posted on Anchor and Batteau Terrace – No Trespassing. • Now also have a fence installed and was told it is because of the sand. • The guardrail along Washington is gone now, it was used to keep people safe. • Beach access to deed holders only – that would be all of us. • Private property signs posted. • Driveway was installed on the easement. • Could see my grandchildren getting hit in this area. Anita O’Brien, 872 Washington Ave: • Last summer when on the beach met Mr. Ristuccia. • A couple weeks later received a picture of the cute single-family dwelling with his intentions written on the back. • Have heard he is building a three-car garage, 27’ gable roof on the garage, 27’ gable on the house, easements being moved, house being built in the easement. • Have not seen any architectural drawings. • Heard a contractor has bid the development. • Heard there are restrictions on the square footage. • Worry about the driveways being so close to the easements. • Approval of the location of the driveway should be very carefully considered with safety in mind. • Worry about the environmental impact in this area, this area has already experienced the shift in the ground. • Need clarity and transparency on this project. • Show me something that we will respond too. • Encourage the board to look up the arts and crafts houses. Richard Wiederhold, 42 Harrison Terrace: • Concern of the highwater levels. • Being so close to one of the great lakes, we have to treat this as a special area. • The sidewalk easement has always been a walkway. • Heading east to west heading through to St. Paul Blvd. used to be a sanitary sewer. • After the 1972 hurricane, the properties were all under water. • The town moved the sewer down Washington, down beach and onto St Paul. • We are all in disagreement with this project moving forward. • If the applicant gets the approval to move ahead, I would hate to see the amounts of variances that would need to be met. • The light poles are not just power poles, but cable lines and telephone lines are attached to them. This will be a big undertaking. Tim Camp, 309 Lake Front: • One house removed to the east of 301 Lake Front. • Agree with the installment of an ADA sidewalk. • Do not object to a house being built on this highly restricted privately owned parcel. • Most of the attention is centered around the one right of way, east west path and the view. • There are people who walk this east west path. • Submitted an over embellished flyer that was stuffed in out mailboxes and posted on the RGE poles. • Most of the neighbors are walking south to north using the Beitry Beach access to the water’s edge. • If you want to keep the vacant lot and view, then they should purchase that lot, why are we even discussing someone’s view at these meetings. • We have a public tot lot with benches and views and all along the east west path. • Mr. Ristuccia has the right to build a house, he bought the land and has paid a lot of taxes on this land. • He has let people use his lot for the residents in the area. • There is a lot of problematic activity on that lot with police coming down there, with a house there we could curb a lot of this. Mike Spitale, 5236 St. Paul Blvd: • Four doors to the west. • Kind of crazy when people talk about views, they are not paying the taxes on this property, he is. • If you do not want him to build there, then buy it from him and keep it vacant. • There are a lot of problems down there at night and by building a house will eliminate a lot of these issues. • In order for the house to be built it would need to be approved within all of the legal building codes. • Main concern he was building north of the sidewalk. No other properties are allowed to build north of the sidewalk. • Excellent idea to build the ADA sidewalk as well. • A lot of the residents down there are opposed to this property being built because it will impose their view. • Spoke in favor of this project. Frank Dorobiala, 26 Tone Terrace: • Lived here for 44 years and used to write history articles. • Submitted copies of the town zoning maps showing the sidewalk. • The Beitry Beach map drawn in 1915 shows the walk. • Once you are on the walk you are on the beach. • The sidewalk defines where the beach is, and you can see this on the map all the way down the sidewalk. • They all have in their deeds you cannot build on them. • Allowing him to move the sidewalk is not acceptable. • Do not see how you even have the authority to act on this at all. Rob Lindsey, 5230 St. Paul Blvd: • In favor of building on this lot. • Do not see where he is stopping anyone from walking down to the beach. • Going to make the neighborhood look better than a vacant lot. • Moving the sidewalk is a good start. • He has moved the house back to work with us. Gary Rushton, 819 Washington Ave: • Do not appreciate the project because it will ruin my view of the lake. • Its going to ruin the person across the street view too. • Not necessary to build a house where a house has never been built. • We do not need no sidewalk there or anywhere. • We are going to be able to see anything or enjoy the view with a house being built there. Joe Mullin, 21 Summerville Drive: • Resident of the area for 37 years. • Do use the sidewalk, use it in the winter. • Found it ironic that the town would move a sidewalk they never paid attention to. • The sidewalk begins at the Westage, it is not plowed and overgrown with trees. • Several residents put up flower plants to divert people. • As you continue east you do reach the Beitry easement and Washington easement and there are lamp posts there. • When standing on this lot, is does have environmental issues because the lot is abnormal. It is the only raised property in front of the sidewalk. • Have concerns about what will be uncovered when digging. • What will be exposed when he starts to build. • Find it problematic that the Board would resolve an issue without understanding whether the sidewalk is a private or public easement. • People may not think views are not much but when heading down Washington Avenue home and you make that turn and see view of lake and I can relax and leave all my pressures at work. • Is the law that allows you to prevent a building based on view, does that apply in this situation? • The city takes great care of their sidewalk and encourage the public to use it. Our Town now wants to block the only public access we have. Jason Aymerich, 5250 St. Paul Blvd: • Property west of 301 Lake Front. • Use the path frequently. • The corner on St. Paul is a dicey corner. My garage has been hit three times. • When purchased the property you take the chance that a house could be built on an adjacent vacant lot. • Having the lot unsupervised has caused a lot of issues down there. • My one request is if something were approved to be built there that it would be in the same line of all the other homes along Lake Front and not obstructing any easements. • Having a sidewalk would be nice and if the sidewalk were to be put in would suggest that it would connect to the St. Paul Sidewalk. Lois Shaffer, 5168 St. Paul Blvd: • Would like to continue to walk the sidewalk path. • Do not mind if Craig builds a house but would like it back in line with the other houses. • Come up with a plan that complies with others in the neighborhood. • The house should be a size reasonable with the others. • Feel like it needs to be in keeping with the neighborhood. Public Hearing Closed. Rebuttal: • The plan does not affect the Beitry Beach easement. • We are over 200’ from Lake Ontario. • Not in an environmental protection district. • Public water is at this site. • Issues with the curve, not like any other curves we have within our town. • Statement about a false deed, we will be reviewing that. • Tax map shows lot dimensions as we show the lot lines. • There is a hill, if there was some historic fill, we cannot speak to that. • Does not hold the threshold of an impact statement. • The height of the building is compliant in the R-1 Code and the Waterfront Regulations. • Bringing the sidewalk along St. Paul, the sidewalk will be maintained by the Town. • There was construction work that was being done by MC DOT, the left over was left by the builders. • The only public access is the Washington Avenue extension. • Not proposing a basement so not digging down. • Bringing the house back makes it line of the other homes. • Many other three car garages in the area. • Show the silt fence that is on the property, that will be put up prior to construction. The fence does not block the current east west path. • Got an estimate from RGE in a verbal agreement to move the lines and anything else attached to the poles will be moved by RGE. • Have provided legal documentation as to where a house could be built on this parcel. Monroe County Department of Planning Referral: N/A The Board classified this as a TYPE II ACTION pursuant to SEQRA at their November 25, 2019 Meeting. ON MOTION by Board Member Blocchi, seconded by Board Member, Palermo carried: 6 Aye, 1 Nay, 0 Absent, 0 Abstained, the Board: Approved the application with the following conditions: • Provide title review sufficient for Town Counsel to determine that no easement to the Town is encumbered by the site plan as proposed. • Contingent on receipt of other necessary Board and Agency approvals, including RGE, prior to issuance of building permit. Recommendation: • Work with the Town to extend the sidewalk to the west of the property within the right-of-way, if feasible, to complete the connection to the sidewalk on St. Paul Blvd. Item for Board Action: Case No: PB1912-1 Upon the matter of request by Bergmann, acting as agent for Rochester Management Inc., for FINAL SITE PLAN, SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, STEEP SLOPE & WOODLOT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT (EPOD) PERMIT APPROVAL, to construct a new 3-story, 80-unit multi-family senior housing complex with site related improvements, on premises 2590 & 2662 CULVER ROAD, in an R-5 Residential District. Monroe County Department of Planning Referral: IR19014SZ The Board classified this as an Unlisted Action and made a Negative Declaration as its Determination of significance pursuant to SEQRA based on the Part 2 and 3 of the EAF at their January 27, 2020 meeting. Board discussion, the Board determined: ON MOTION by Board Member Blocchi, seconded by Board Member, Hollenbeck, carried: 6 Aye, 0 Nay, 0 Absent, 1 Abstained; the Board: Approve Final Site Plan, Subdivision, Steep Slope & Woodlot Environmental Permits as presented. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: ON MOTION by Board Member Richards, seconded by Board Member, Hollenbeck carried: 6 Aye, 0 Nay, 1 Absent, 0 Abstained, the Board Approved the JANUARY 27, 2020 Planning Board Minutes. There being no further business to come before the Board, on Motion by Board Member Blocchi, seconded by Board Member Read and carried: 6 Aye, 0 Nay, 1 Absent, 0 Abstained, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00p.m. Michelle Nichols Recording Secretary