TOWN OF CHARLTON

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

 

DECISION OF JANUARY 10, 2006

 

Applicants: John Nigriny and Regina Nigriny

Applicant Address: 669 St. David’s Lane, Niskayuna, NY  12309

Case No.:  06-01

Tax Map No.: 247.00-1-50.12

Appeal Request: Two (2) Area Variances: 1. Barn setback from side and rear property boundary lines; 2. Lot line setback from pond perimeter

Newspaper Publication of Notice:  Daily Gazette

Date of Notice: December 30, 2005

Date of Public Hearing: January 10, 2006

Location:  Charlton Town Hall, 8:00 p.m.

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Mary A. Schmidt, Chair; Kurt Vanderhorst;  Nilda Burke; Edmund Malis and Audrey Ketchum (Alternate Member).

 

Absent and excused: Carlton W. (Chip) Ellms, III

 

Two matters were appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals, as follows:

 

            First, the applicants made a request for an area variance to an existing barn location at the northeast corner of the subject premises.  The Charlton Zoning Law requires a side line and rear line setback distance of 100 feet in a residential/agricultural zone.  The existing barn is located 93 feet from the rear line of the subject premises and 14.6 feet from the side line of the subject premises. 

 

            Second, the subject premises are proposed to be subdivided, with a common boundary line located 15 feet from the southerly boundary, as it winds and turns, of a certain pond located on the subject premises.  The Charlton Zoning Law requires a setback distance of 40 feet from a pond boundary line. 

 

            The matter having come to be heard before a duly convened meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on the 10th day of January, 2006 and the facts, matters and evidence having been produced by the applicants, Town Zoning Administrator, Town Environmental Conservation Commission (by letter), Town Engineer (by letter), Planning Board Chair (by letter) and all other interested parties having been heard, received and considered with all due deliberation, the Zoning Board of Appeals then made the following determinations:

 

            The Board designated itself lead agency for SEQRA review.  The Board determined that the proposed variances were of minimal environmental significance, constituted a Type II action and that no further action was required.

 

            The Board then considered the five factors required by Town Law and Local Law with respect to an area variance.  Based upon the documentary and testimonial evidence presented during the public hearing, the result of that consideration is as follows:

 

            1.  Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties would be created by the granting of the variance: 

 

            The Board considered each of the variances (barn location and pond setback) during its deliberations.  Based upon the information presented during the public hearing, the Board determined that the granting of either of the requested variances would produce an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood and would be detrimental to nearby properties.  Issues specifically considered included lot drainage, manure storage and removal, pond use and potential contamination, practical use of the barn lot if subdivision were approved and related items.   

 

            2.  Whether the benefit sought could be achieved by some other means:

 

            The Board determined that, based on all information provided, the requested relief could not be obtained by any other means.

 

            3.  Whether the request was substantial:

 

            The Board determined that the requested variance for the barn was substantial, being 7 feet from the rear property line (not substantial), but being almost 86 feet from the side property line (substantial), requiring a variance of over 700% of the existing legislation.

 

            The Board determined that the requested variance for the pond setback was also substantial, being 60% adjustment to the existing legislation (25 feet/40 feet).

 

            4.  Whether the proposed variance would have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district:

 

            The Board answered this question in the affirmative, based primarily on the information provided at the public hearing and related to drainage issues, pond contamination, potential on-site and off-site well contamination, lack of alleged management of animal waste and related items.  

 

            5.  Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created:

 

            The Board determined that the barn was at its current location at the time of purchase of the subject premises by the applicants (not self-created).

 

            The Board determined that the pond setback was self-created in that there is no necessity, with respect to the use and enjoyment of this property, requiring it to be subdivided.

 

 

            Based upon the above analysis of this appeal, the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously to deny the two area variances requested by the applicants.

 

            The applicants’ representatives were advised that this decision would be communicated to the Town of Charlton Planning Board as well as to the applicants’ and the Town Clerk.

 

 

                                                                        Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

 

                                                                        Mary A. Schmidt, Chair

                                                                        Charlton Zoning Board of Appeals