DRAFT COPY
Town of Hague
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 28, 2004
Present:
Robert Goetsch, Chair,
Bruce Clark,
Mary Lou Doulin,
George Ianson,
Tina King,
Bill Pittman,
Nelson Waters
Also in Attendance:
Graham Bailey, Zoning Enforcement Officer
Nancy Trombley, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC HEARING
Marchetti (93.1-1-10)
Chairman Goestch opened the Public Hearing at 7:00 pm.
ZEO Bailey explained the Marchettis’ request to extend a deck on their residence located on Bass Bay Rd. New construction will be within 50 feet of the lake, but will not extend any closer than the existing building. A Site Visit was made to the property and ZBA members had been provided a copy of those findings. In addition, members were copied the recommendation of approval made by the Hague Planning Board on October 8th.
With no one from the audience speaking for or against the project, Clark moved to close the Public Hearing at 7:03 pm. Waters seconded and all members voted approval.
REGULAR MEETING
class=Section2>
The regular meeting of the Hague Zoning Board of Appeals was opened at 7:03 by Ch. Goetsch.
After members introduced themselves, the minutes from the previous meeting were unanimously approved on a motion by Ianson, second by King.
Schnabel (43.13-1-6)
Ch. Goestch explained the Schnabels’ request for a second floor addition to their home located on Abenakis Dr. in Zone TR-1. While not extending beyond the existing footprint of the home, the upward expansion falls within 50 feet of the lake. The current structure has an attic, therefore no increase of square footage is requested.
Discussion:
Although the addition is not any closer to the lake, and does not exceed the allowable .
class=Section3>
amount of expansion, it is still new construction within 50 feet of the shoreline, thus requiring a variance. Members referenced section 160-50B(1)(b) of the Town Zoning Ordinance related to shoreline setbacks and new construction
Recommendations from the LGA, (letter dated 9/23/04), regarding storm water runoff were noted. Said letter also suggests the Board consider the visual impact from the lake when reviewing second story additions.
A Site Visit was made to the property. ZEO Bailey also visited the property with Chris Navitsky, Waterkeeper to review possible storm water measures.
It was noted that the Planning Board has made a conditional recommendation for approval.
There was discussion concerning the definition of “attic”. ZEO Bailey reviewed the NYS Building Code definition of attic used in determining the square footage of this project – area above ceiling and below the roof.
Motion:
Ianson moved to approve the variance with conditions regarding storm water runoff set forth by the Hague Planning Board - that storm water plans and implementation are satisfactory to the ZEO. Ch. Goetsch seconded the motion.
Further discussion:
Although no one in the neighborhood objected to the project at the Public Hearing, ZBA members had differing opinions concerning the visual impact from the lake.
Members concluded that a lateral expansion of living space would have greater impact to the property.
The requested variance cannot be considered substantial because it does not infringe upon the shoreline any more than the current structure.
The project poses minimal environmental and physical impact to the neighborhood because of the wooded location.
The alleged hardship was determined to be self-created.
Vote: Approved 4-3
Ayes: Clark, Doulin, Goetsch, Ianson
Nays: King, Pittman, Waters
Marchetti, (93.1-1-10)
Ch. Goetsch briefly reviewed the Marchettis’ request, (see Public Hearing.)
Motion:
Pittman moved to approve with the condition that the homeowners install suitable gutters and drainage. Waters seconded the motion.
Further discussion:
The requested change will not have an undesirable effect to the neighborhood.
The homeowner cannot achieve the same benefit by any other means.
The request was not considered substantial.
The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
Members agreed that the alleged difficulty was self created.
It was noted that the proposal shows the existing stairway moved to a new location further from the lake.
Vote: Motion unanimously approved.
Jones, (25.20-1-12)
The proposal to expand an existing porch at the residence on Graphite Mt. Rd. was briefly reviewed by Ch. Goestch. Located in the hamlet, the new construction will extend beyond the side line setback. ZEO Bailey informed members that the affected neighbor, the Blessed Sacrament Church, has agreed to provide written support of the project.
Because of his relationship with the homeowner and church, Ianson requested that he be recused from the reviewing this project.
Motion:
Waters moved to accept the application for Public Hearing. Clark seconded.
Vote: All approved
Lemma (60.9-1-41)
The variance request was explained by Ch. Goetsch. The homeowners desire to construct a screened porch over an existing deck which lies within 50 feet of the shoreline. The residence is located on Bobkat Lane in Zone TR-1. In addition, the Lemmas hope to replace the existing wood retaining wall with a stone one.
Discussion:
The APA considers a stone wall in excess of 100 sq. ft. a structure, requiring a variance if located within 50 ft. of the shoreline, according to ZEO Bailey.
Contractor, Tom LaPoint, representing the homeowner, explained that the 500 sq. ft.(approx.) wall was originally built 15 years ago without variance.
T. King indicated that preservatives used for a wooden wall may pose a greater threat to the environment.
A Site Visit will be made to the property.
ZEO Bailey noted the Arcady Board will be reviewing this request, as well.
Motion:
Waters moved to place the application on the agenda for a public hearing next month. King seconded.
Vote: All members approved.
Brown (60.5-1-19)
The details of the project located on Pine Cove Rd. in Zone TR-1 were explained by Ch. Goetsch. The Browns’ home, which is currently under construction, is a modular replacement for their former residence destroyed by fire. They wish to add a deck to the structure, falling within 50 feet of the shoreline.
Discussion:
Mrs. Brown is confined to a wheelchair and requires the deck to access the lake, according to ZEO Bailey. The requested 7 ft width is the minimum required to maneuver a wheelchair.
The deck will extend the full length on the north and lake sides of the home and half way on the south side.
Motion:
Clark moved to schedule a Public Hearing for next month. Waters seconded.
Vote: Unanimous approval.
Whiteman, (12.12-1-18.1)
Ch. Goetsch reviewed the request to build a timber retaining wall and a concrete seawall with steps. The proposed project, located on Rt. 9N in the TR-1 zone, will exceed 100 sq. ft. and will fall within 50 feet of the shoreline, less than 10 feet from the property line.
Discussion:
The residence is located across the highway from the lake. This proposal will allow the homeowners to access the narrow lakeside piece of property, according to ZEO Bailey.
Motion:
A motion to schedule a Public Hearing for next month was made by Waters and seconded by King.
Vote: All members voted to approve.
Further discussion:
A Site Visit will be made to the property.
Planning Board recommendation is needed.
Morgan/Levy (61-1-4)
Mr. Levy is appealing the decision by the ZEO regarding the location of a newly constructed 3 car garage by Mr. Morgan. Levy contends the garage, located on Lakeshore Dr., in zone TR-1, has been built closer to the property line than Planning Board approval allowed. The Planning Board approval provided that the new construction not come any closer to the line than a storage building formerly located on the site. Levy has an access easement along the affected property line.
Discussion:
Mr. Steves, Mr. Morgan’s surveyor, addressed the Board to explain a discrepancy between a survey he prepared in 1995 for Morgan and a more recent one related to the placement of the buildings. Although the building placement on the 1995 survey is correct, the figure shown, 8.11 ft., does not represent the true distance from the shed to the line, but rather the distance from the center of a “shadow boxed” line representing the exterior wall of the shed. The true figure is 7.60 ft.. He assured the Board the garage is no closer to the property line than the storage building was and presented a revised survey for them to review.
Mr. Englert, attorney for Levy, expressing concern for the ZEO decision, outlined the events leading up to this appeal. He contends the confusion around the figures shown on the two surveys affects the decision of approval previously made by the Planning Board. He would also like the Board to consider the setback of the porch on the house. The Board determined this to be an issue for separate discussion. In order for ZEO Bailey to adequately measure the porch, the northern property line will need to be staked.
According to ZEO Bailey, he based his decision on the observation of the old (storage shed) footings, and ZEO Bailey indicated that he was not able to verify the location of the building itself with respect to the footings but relied on a verbal description from the builder of how the original building was placed.
The Site Visit to the property appeared to confirm ZEO Bailey’s findings.
ZEO Bailey indicated that when the property line is staked in the vicinity of the porch, he will check the setback to determine if enforcement action will be necessary.
Motion:
Waters made a motion confirming the decision made by the ZEO that the location of the newly constructed three car garage is consistent with the Planning Board approval. Second by Pittman.
Vote: 6-1 approved
Ayes: Clark, Doulin, Goetsch, Ianson, Pittman, Waters
Nay: King
Motion to adjourn:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 pm on a motion made by Clark and seconded by King.
Vote:
All members voted to approve.