REGULAR MEETING

June 2, 2004

 

 

Present:     

                  Rolly Allen, Acting Chairman                                 

                  Peter Foster                                                          

                  Cathy Clark

                  Nancy Harrigan                                                                                                     

                  Graham Bailey, Zoning Enforcement Officer

                  Mary Jo Keeler, Recording Secretary

 

Absent:      

                  Ch. David Swanson

                  Pam Peterson

                  John Brown, Clerk

 

Acting Ch. Allen opened the Regular Meeting at 7 pm and the members of the Board introduced themselves.

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 

 

      Meeting of April 14, 2004

Since a quorum is needed to pass a motion and R. Allen was not in attendance at the April 14 meeting, C. Clark made a motion to table approval of the April 14 minutes; N. Harrigan seconded.  All members voted aye.  The motion was carried with a 4-0 vote.

 

 

OLD BUSINESS:

 

      SITE PLAN REVIEW

      Aldrich  (42-1-28.2)  Dev 14-04

      Dodd Hill Rd.  TR2

              

      Applicant wishes to construct a house on the lot.  Applicant is in review process with APA since wetlands and possible archeological sites are in approximate area of house.  House proposed within 100 feet of wetland.  A site visit was conducted on May 22.

 

      ZEO Bailey informed the Board that there were no apparent issues at the Site Review.  According to John Breitenbach, the applicant has gone through the archeological process and is in good shape with that.  C. Clark requested copies of the decisions on the wetland and archeological findings to keep in our files.

 

      C. Clark made a motion to approve the application with the condition that when the APA makes a determination on the wetland and archeological issue, a copy of that determination be sent to the ZEO for placement in the file; R. Allen seconded.

 

            Roll Call Vote

               C. Clark – yes

               P. Foster – yes

               N. Harrigan – yes

               R. Allen - yes

            Motion approved 4-0

 

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

      VARIANCE

 

MIZER  (12,18-1-9)  sp 11-04

Mohawk Lane  TR-1

 

Applicant wishes to replace house with new house.  The proposed new house will not exceed the 25% square footage limitation.  New house will not increase the degree of nonconformance with respect to the setback requirement but it will not meet the side and shoreline required setbacks.  A variance application has been submitted and the Zoning Board has requested a recommendation from the Planning Board.

 

      Mr. and Mrs. Mizer were in attendance.  Mr. Mizer explained drawings of the proposed project showing the existing house, garage, cabins and the existing leach field.  The drawings also showed a gravel parking lot on the leach field.  ZEO Bailey explained that the soil over a leaching field should not be compacted.  A request was made of Mr. Mizer to change the parking area.

 

      Mrs. Mizer has a copy of the drawing of the existing septic system from when it was originally constructed. The Mizers said they would be able to park cars away from the leach field.  The original property had 3 cabins on it in “1940-something”.  In the early 1950’s Mrs. Mizer’s parents purchased the property with 3 cabins and removed 2 of them and built the current 3-bedroom house.  The cabin also has 2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom.  The septic system serves both of these buildings.

 

      ZEO Bailey requested information on the design of the septic system, which Mrs. Mizer will provide.

 

      A Site Visit will be performed on June 12 at 8:30 am.  The following issues will be looked at then:

-         Septic system

-         Drawings

-         Capability of the septic

-         Parking on the leach field

-         Tentative location of the new parking place

-         When the 2nd house was built

-         The proposed addition will be staked out

 

 

SUBDIVISION

 

OXFORD/TIER  (76.30-1-3)

Silver Bay Rd.  TR-1r

 

      Applicant wishes to subdivide property into two lots, both of which would be nonconforming.  Originally lot was comprised of two parcels.  Recently they were combined into a single lot.  Applicant wishes to now revert to a 2-lot subdivision requiring a variance in order that her brothers may dispose of their portion of the property.

 

      One other purpose for placing item on agenda is to discuss process to be used where proposed subdivisions may result in what would be a variance to the minimum lot size as required in Section 160 of the Town Code.  Please review the attached procedure that I plan to follow.  This will also be discussed with the Zoning Board.

 

      ZEO Bailey is in receipt of a letter from Ch. Swanson, which he will read at the Public Hearing at the next Planning Board meeting.  Mr. Bailey explained that the 2 parcels were of unequal size (one was over 1.1 acres and the other one much less than 1 acre).  The lots were combined into one parcel at the recommendation of a member of the Town in order to reduce taxes.  Mrs. Oxford would now like to re-subdivide the parcel into equal lots.  Each lot will have 105’ of shoreline but will be approximately .81 acre, which would be nonconforming lots.  Mrs. Oxford will continue to occupy the lot that was originally smaller.

 

      Mr. Bailey says it is not clear in the regulations whether the Planning Board or Zoning Board has jurisdiction to approve subdivisions.  He is proposing in a memo that the Planning Board has the right to approve subdivisions but when they are nonconforming they would have to go before the ZBA and then the ZBA could send it back to the Planning Board when they have made their decision.

 

      A Site Visit will be conducted on June 12 at 9:15 am.  Issues for to be looked at would be:

-         Topography

-         Location of the septic

-         Is it shared by everyone

-         Is the water source lake water or a well

-         Mrs. Oxford needs to be able to show the location of all the lot lines

 

 

OTHER BUSINESS

 

1.      Proposed sign to permit View patrons to park on “motel” property.  It does not appear that this would alter the zoning classification of the property (now residential).  Determination from Planning Board is requested.

 

ZEO Bailey told the Board he does not feel the sign would change the character of the zoning regulations.

 

The Board discussed options for overflow parking.  This parking would accommodate an additional 10 cars.  Mr. Bailey is of the opinion it would be safer to get the cars off the highway.  The question was also raised whether overflow parking on residential property would change the character of the neighborhood and whether it is a required action for the Board to vote on?

 

N. Harrigan would like to approve the parking for the season and then review it at the end of the season.  The other members of the Board do not feel Mr. Whisher should have to come back.  Also, there is a question of whether it is a required action on the part of the Planning Board to approve the parking.  The Code does not address parking in OC-1. 

 

P. Foster made a motion to approve the overflow parking on Mr. Whisher’s OC-1 property subject to the condition that if any issues or complaints are brought to the ZEO during the next 12 months, the approval can be rescinded.  In the absence of any complaints or issues, the approval stands.  C. Clark seconded.

 

            Roll Call Vote

               C. Clark – yes

               P. Foster – yes

               N. Harrigan – yes

               R. Allen - yes

            Motion approved 4-0

 

2.      ZEO Bailey explained his procedure regarding whether the Planning Board thinks something should or should not go forward.  If conditions warrant consideration and the Planning Board wants to recommend going forward, the Board should identify nonconformance to go before the ZBA for a variance.  R. Allen suggested tabling the memo until the whole Board is together for discussion.  He further suggested that everyone on the Board read Mr. Bailey’s procedure and be prepared for discussion at the next meeting.  The Board was in agreement.

 

3.   The Board sent the Height definition to the Town Board but it wasn’t in Zoning Code form.  The Town Board did not vote on it.  ZEO Bailey informed the Board that he checked with other towns in Warren Co. and Hague is the only town in Warren Co. that has a 25% increase rule.  His feeling is that once height restrictions are in place, over-building would not happen.  A discussion of the definition of building height measurement ensued.

     

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

      R. Allen made a motion to adjourn; P. Foster seconded.  All members voted aye.  The meeting was closed at 8:20 pm.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Mary Jo Keeler

Recording Secretary