X hits on this document





2 / 14

In summary, Mr. Contino said that the size of the building is compatible with the neighborhood, there would be a live-in owner, the activity level would be similar to a single family residence and it would be screened from the park.

Attorney Place asked what the size of the house would be. Mr. Contino said it would be 2900 - 3000 sq. ft. The submitted plans show a building of 3,000+ sq. ft.

Councilperson Glossner asked Mr. Contino to define upscale. Mr. Contino said that construction costs for the house would be more than $300,000. Councilperson Glossner said that the median price for a home in Perinton was $185,000; doubled, since the proposal is for a duplex, would be $370,000. Mr. Contino said the $300,000 figure is for the house only, it does not include land costs.

Councilperson Saum asked if they owned the land. Mr. Contino said they did not, they have an option to buy the parcel.

Councilperson Glossner said that there were few similarities between White Brook and Beechwoods Parks; White Brook is a nature center, Beechwoods a pocket park. He said he is concerned about the impact a duplex would have on White Brook Park. Mr. Contino said that the duplex would not be near the nature center but would border an open field. He said the building would be invisible from the park.

Councilperson Saum asked Mr. Contino if he owned other rental property. He said he did not. She asked what the rent would be for the duplex units. He said it would be $9 - $10 per square foot.

A man in the audience, who lived next door to the proposed site, commented on the size of the building. He said that his home was 1,800 sq. ft., the proposed duplex is 3,000 sq. ft. - nearly double the size of his home. Mr. Contino said that the proposed house is two-story. The footprint is the same but the square footage is larger. He said that the duplex garage is smaller and the appearance from the road is of a smaller house.

The woman who lives at 312 Aldrich Road stated her objections to the proposal. She said that the two properties share a driveway, which is only 200 feet long. She did not think it could support three households - especially if there were multiple cars in each household.

She also had concerns if the plans were to change and the duplex were not owner occupied. She said that the original plan for the development of the two lots was for two single-family houses. They bought one of the lots and developed it as proposed, knowing that the second parcel would be developed the same way. She asked the Board to follow that original intent and not allow the duplex.

A man in the audience asked if a 3,000 sq. ft. single family house could be built on the lot. Building Director Copp said it could. The man asked if a single family house with an in-law apartment could be built on the site. Mr. Copp said it could. The man said he was a neighbor of James Contino and spoke in favor of the project. He said that Mr. Contino is a good neighbor who takes care of his property.

Supervisor Smith said that he has concerns with the proposal. He said that, when these parcels were subdivided from the parent parcel, the intent was that they be residential with small ranch houses built on them. The seller preferred residential development on these two lots to having them become park land; the contract for purchase of the majority of the parent parcel says that two single-family houses will be constructed. Supervisor Smith said he had problems with the construction of a duplex, rather than a single-family house as originally planned - especially since the topography of the site will make the construction of such a structure difficult.

Mr. Contino asked why the Town was allowing a new subdivision in the area. Supervisor Smith said that the development was for single-family houses on large lots. Mr. Contino asked if the objection was because it was a duplex or because of the

Document info
Document views13
Page views13
Page last viewedSat Oct 22 02:15:21 UTC 2016