Town of Hague Planning Board
August 3, 2006
Members present: David Swanson, Chairman;
Rolly Allen, John Brown, Peter Foster, Pam Peterson
Members absent: Tim Costello, Katy Wells
Also in attendance: Catherine Clark, Zoning Enforcement Officer; Dominick
Viscardi, Town Attorney, Judy Stock, Acting Recording Secretary
Public Hearing
David Swanson called the Public Hearing to order at 7:00 pm.
The Notice of Public Hearing, as it appeared in the Post Star on July 24, 2006
was read by Cathy Clark.
Henry, (10.1-28) 151 New Hague Rd.,OCI
One letter in favor of the project was received. No one
spoke for or against it.
The hearing was closed at 7:10 pm.
Regular Meeting
The regular monthly meeting was then called to order by Chairman Swanson.
He stated that Dominick Viscardi, Esq. will be attending the meetings and “legally
guide us in what we do.”
Approval of Minutes
The first item on the agenda was to approve the minutes of July 6, 2006.
Bruce Clark spoke from the audience and stated, “My letter to the Board was not
read at the June meeting and was refused at the July meeting and I would like
to see it entered into the records.” Rolly Allen stated that it was not on the
agenda. Dominick Viscardi stated that the issue of approval of the minutes
should only be discussed by the Board members at this point.
Rolly said that he and Ms Clark had discussed the first sentence on page 2 and
the word “govern” should be replaced by “claim jurisdiction over” so that the
sentence will read, “According to Ms. Clark, there is a possibility they will
only claim jurisdiction over the proposed parcels that involve wetlands.”
There was discussion about the last sentence of that paragraph: “ The Town of Hague/Planning Board have been given the opportunity to comment on the storm water review
by the LGPC.” Ms. Clark explained, “Any project that I send to the Lake George Park Commission (LGPC), or any project that has been submitted to the LGPC,
always comes back to the town of its origin so that the zoning administrator or
a town representative can add their comments to the project.” Attorney Viscardi
then recommended that the sentence read as follows: “The Town of Hague Planning Board has been given the opportunity to comment on the storm water review by
the LGPC which are submitted to the Town for their review.”
Rolly then noted on page 4 under Kruger that the Planning Board may want Chris Navitsky to develop a storm water plan but that he was under no obligation to do so and
therefore that sentence was not relevant. It was stated that it is the
responsibility of the homeowner.
The minutes from July 6, 2006 were approved as amended on a motion by Rolly
Allen with a second by John Brown.
Vote: Carried, 5-0
Subdivisions:
1. Henry, (10.1-28) 151 New Hague Rd.,OC1
The applicant is requesting a two lot subdivision. She currently owns 9.2
acres in a 2.9 acre zone district. The proposed subdivision, if approved, will
create one lot of 6.2 acres and one lot of 3 acres. In 1987 when the land was
purchased, it was 3 lots of approximately 3 acres each. There is no
documentation of any action by the owner to merge them. ZEO Clark stated that
she has been in touch with the APA on this proposal and has given them the
language from the deed. The APA reviewed the application and found that they
are being considered as one lot on the tax maps by the county so a subdivision
will be necessary. The zoning issues are: Section 150-6, Minor Subdivision;
Agency interaction, APA - subdivision; and Warren County - 500’ from a county
road.
The Board recognizes that Ms. Henry’s house straddles 2 of the lots which she
is requesting become a single 6.2 acre lot and that the original 3rd lot of 3
acres is the other lot in this proposed subdivision.
Rolly Allen moved to approve the application as submitted assuming the facts by
survey map are accurate. Seconded by Peter Foster. Vote: Carried, 5-0
2. Stock, (43.13-1-3) 8910 Lakeshore Drive.,TR-1
Application withdrawn.
3. IHH Properties, LL (26.18-1-1.1) Lakeshore Mine Road, OCII
The applicant is applying for a two lot subdivision of a 24.24 acre parcel
which is not fully surveyed yet. The proposal is for one lot of two acres and
one lot of 22.24 acres. The proposed two acre lot currently has a single family
residence in place with the remaining 22.24 acres being encumbered by a
conservation easement. Due to the density of OCII a variance is being
requested. The subdivision and zoning issues are 160-29 OCII - A. Area and
150-6 Review of Minor subdivisions.
John Breitenbach made the initial presentation on behalf of IHH properties and
Rob Pedlow, who owns the Island Harbor property. He stated that the smaller lot
with the residence is currently being rented and is being subdivided out in
order for it to be purchased by that individual. He further stated that the
conservation easement on the entire parcel allows for this lot to be subdivided
out. The easement also allows placement of a septic system if the current
septic system of the Pedlow house fails. However, this should not be a problem
since the proposed sewer will go by these properties. This lot is in OCII which
requires 8 acres so a variance is needed. Mr. Breitenbach stated, “On the one
hand it’s a fairly substantial request for a variance, on the other hand it is
a simple 2 lot subdivision maintaining the status quo” which will “meet the
light development intent of the OCII zone.” There will be no net change in
density. Ms. Clark will make a special request for the APA density guidelines
in this zone. Mr. Breitenbach will get a copy of the conservation easement for
the Board members and to answer Attorney Viscardi’s question, “Is it a recorded
easement?” He will also find out if there are any other rental houses as part
of the larger lot and will make a jurisdictional inquiry of the APA. Mr.
Breitenbach said that the buyer of the residence lot, Mr. Winters, would like
to be able to make normal expansion but that no other primary building was
planned for the property and that restriction could be placed on the property.
The Board also had questions about Lake Shore Mine Road. If a road has not been
maintained by the Town in at least 6 years it is considered abandoned so it is
not a Town Road now even if it once was since it has not been serviced by the
Town in 6 years.
No action was taken.
Referrals to the Zoning Board of Appeals:
1. Keating (43.5-1-5), 9823 Graphite Mt. Rd., Hamlet
Applicant is requesting a variance for an 8 foot fence across front and
sidelines of his property for health reasons. The zoning issues are 160-20
Hamlet - Sideline setbacks & Front Yard Setbacks and 160-51 Fences.
Mr. Keating has not been able to sleep because of the noise issues in the Town
parking lot which is across the road from his house and where most of the
parked cars in the evening are patrons of The Firehouse Restaurant. ZEO Clark spoke to the DOT about their easement which “accepts the rights of public use” and
reminded them that 1 ft has already been taken for the sidewalk. Ms. Clark said
that the Town Code does not have commercial or residential zones by right but
by sight review although an 8 foot fence is allowed in “commercial zones” which
is referenced in 160-52.
Chairman Swanson asked Councilman Dick Gladu, who was present in the audience,
what the current status was for a noise ordinance. Mr. Gladu responded that he
was going to request a committee be approved at the next Town Board meeting and
a meeting would be set up for public input.
Rolly Allen said that the source of the noise had not been established but it
seemed to be a problem with the Town parking lot and felt that an 8 ft fence
was not reasonable in terms of aesthetics. Attorney Viscardi said he didn’t
think it would be permissible under our codes.
Pam Peterson felt that Mr. Keating should be allowed to do something for relief
and reminded the Board that when they approved the restaurant they said “if
there were issues of noise we would address it - and have Chris and Sheri
(owners of the Firehouse Restaurant) come in to talk about it.”
Chairman Swanson will draft a letter to Chris and Sheri citing the previous
conditions and asking them to come in to discuss the possible resolution of the
complaints. Before it is sent, the letter will be reviewed by the Planning
Board and the Town Attorney.
There was additional discussion about areas of noise, disturbances and
enforcement in the Town including the possible use of a police officer.
The fence request was tabled for further investigation and in consideration
that the Town is in the discovery phase of a noise ordinance.
Old Business:
1. Kruger (12-1-4) 1008 New Hague Road , OC-1
Applicant is applying for after-the-fact approval for an addition to an
existing camp with a 120% increase in square footage without a building permit
or a Town of Hague Compliance certificate. A new septic system is needed and
was supposed to be installed but there has been a delay by the contractor. The
ZEO has stated that no approval should be given until the septic system is
installed. There was no further action by the Board.
New Business:
Bruce Clark addressed the Board about his letter concerning the approval given
to the Firehouse Restaurant and later to the addition of a deck. He stated, “If
there is something which may have a detrimental effect on the Town, it is the
Planning Board’s responsibility to schedule a public hearing. (In this case
they) should have scheduled a public hearing or at least put a noise
restriction on it. Actually it should have gone to the ZBA for a change of
use.”
Other Business
Cathy Clark reported the APA has returned suggested wording of the proposed
changes to the “square footage” language for review. A resolution to the Town
Board (for their approval) is needed for a code modification. The ZEO
recommended to accept the definition of “Square Footage” as suggested.
Under the suggested modification to 160-50 “Shoreline” the Planning Board
should closely review, before any modifications are made. ZEO recommendations
are to remove the words “navigable by boat, including canoe” in section 160-50B
(1). This would protect all Streams and Brooks in the Town of Hague, without
imposing the NY State Fresh Water Act.
One more suggestion would be in section 160-50 b [2] [e] the words “toilet and”
should be removed since toilets are not allowed in accessory structures.
The Board agreed that Attorney Viscardi would sit down with Ms. Clark to put
together a proposal to bring back to the Planning Board.
ZEO Clark reported that the ZBA determined that the word “list”, mentioned
under Type II, only refers to Type II Site Reviews. [ “List” is mentioned in
section 160-23 C.(2) (l), 160-25 C. (2) (k), 160-26 C. (2) (m), 160-27 C. (2)
(n), 160-29 C. (2) (p), and 160-31 C. (2) (l)]
In the question about the meaning of navigable, Attorney Viscardi stated that
according to the Army Corps of Engineers “any stream that could be made
navigable is a navigable stream.”
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 pm on a motion heard from John Brown and
seconded by Pam Peterson.
Vote: Carried, 5-0
Respectfully submitted,
Judy Stock
Acting Recording Secretary