Town of Hague
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 1, 2004
Present: Robert Goetsch, Chair
Bruce Clark, Mary Lou Doulin, George Ianson, Bill Pittman
Absent: Tina King, Nelson Waters
Also in Attendance: Graham Bailey, Zoning Enforcement Officer
Nancy Trombley, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Public Hearing portion of the meeting was called to order at 7:02 pm. by R. Goetsch.
Jones, (25.20-1-12)
The applicant wishes to expand an existing porch on a residence located in the hamlet on Graphite Mountain Rd. The new construction will extend beyond the side line setback.
R. Goetsch read a letter of support written by Sr. Fran Husselbeck from the Blessed Sacrament Church, adjacent property owners.
Vince Jones and Debra Cooper, property owners, attended in support of their project.
No one spoke in opposition of the project.
Lemma, (60.9-1-41)
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. The proposal would also replace the existing wood retaining wall with a stone one.
G. Bailey read a letter dated November 30 from Maria Dudin Goodwin, adjacent property owner. Ms. Goodwin outlined several unresolved issues with the property and expressed concern about the proposal.
No one in the audience spoke for or against the project.
Brown, (60.5-1-19)
The Browns’ wish to add a deck to their home, located on Pine Cove Rd. in Zone TR-1. which will fall within 50 feet of the shoreline.
G. Bailey read two letters of support for the project:
Joseph and Barbara Malloy, neighbors, dated November 16
The Pine Cove Beach Association, Dated Novebner 30
The Browns appeared in support of their project.
No one spoke against the proposal.
Whiteman, (12.14-1-18.1)
The Whitemans hope 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.
No letters were received related to this proposal.
No one spoke for or against the project.
Motion to adjourn the Public Hearing at 7:10 pm was heard from B. Clark and seconded by G. Ianson.
Approved: 5-0
REGULAR MEETING
R. Goetsch called the regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals to order at 7:10 pm.
The minutes from the previous meeting on 10.28.04 were approved as written.
Motion made by B. Clark and seconded by G. Ianson.
Vote: Approved, 5-0
Jones, (25.20-1-12)
R. Goetsch briefly reviewed the proposal to enlarge an existing deck on a residence located on Graphite Mountain Rd. The new construction will reduce the side line setback to 4 feet. There was no opposition heard for the project during the Public Hearing.
Motion:
B. Clark moved to approve the variance request.
The proposal will not have an undesirable effect to the character of the neighborhood or to the detriment of nearby properties.
The benefit cannot be achieved by any other method feasible to the applicant other than an area variance.
The request is not substantial.
The project will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
The alleged difficulty is self created.
G. Ianson seconded the motion.
Vote: Approved 5-0
Lemma, (60.9-1-41)
The Bobkat Lane proposal was briefly reviewed by R. Goetsch. G. Bailey informed the group that in light of Ms. Goodwin’s concerns, (letter read during the Public Hearing), he re-visited the property. After measuring the distance of the porch to the shoreline, he found it to be greater than 50 ft., therefore it is not necessary for the Lemmas to obtain a variance to screen in the porch. Ms. Goodwin’s letter also expressed concern about the location of certain retaining walls, but Mr. Bailey indicated the survey shows they are not the retaining walls reference in the application.
Discussion:
G. Bailey gave a brief history about the property. The home was built in the late 1970's in violation of the Arcady Bay Estates and Town of Hague setback regulations. The Lemmas are proposing to remove a deck which falls within the 10 ft. side line setback, bringing the structure into compliance with town code.
The Planning Board recommended approval on the condition there be an adequate storm water plan.
The Arcady Bay Homeowners Association will also review this project.
Motion:
B. Clark moved to approve the variance request.
There will not be any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties.
The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by any other feasible means. It is a replacement, in better, of an existing structure.
The request is not substantial
The variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental. It will improve the neighborhood.
The difficulty is not self created. It was created by former owners.
Approval of this variance is based upon the removal of a non-conforming deck and a satisfactory storm water management plan.
This variance deals only with the two lakefront retaining walls as described on the survey.
G. Ianson seconded the motion.
B. Pittman recused himself.
Vote: Approved, 4-0-1
Brown, (60.5-1-19)
The proposal to add a deck to the residence located on Pine Cove Rd. in zone TR-1 which will encroach upon the shoreline setback was briefly reviewed by R. Goetsch.
Discussion:
G. Bailey made note of the Planning Board Site Visit and recommendation for approval, subject to an adequate storm water management plan. He further explained they would like verification of the side line setback on the north and had concerns about the location of an existing exhaust fan located under the proposed deck. Additionally, they suggested the Brown’s explore other options to access the driveway from the street side entry to the home.
Motion: A motion was heard from G. Ianson to approve the variance request.
There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to the nearby properties.
There are no other feasible means available to the applicants.
It is not a substantial request.
The project will pose no adverse effect and will not negatively impact the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. It will improve the architecture.
The hardship is self created.
The variance approval is based on the condition the deck will not violate any other building codes.
B. Pittman seconded the motion
Vote: Approved 5-0
Whiteman, (12.4-1-18.1)
R. 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:
G. Bailey is expecting approval from the Warren County Planning Board.
He noted the Site Visit made by the Planning Board. They recommended approval subject to a storm water plan and would like to see the concrete wall faced with stone.
Motion: B. Pittman moved to approve the variance request with the condition cultured stone be used to face the concrete as per the Planning Board recommendation and subject to adequate storm water management methods as determined by the ZEO.
The variance request will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood.
The benefit sought cannot be achieved by other feasible means.
The request is not substantial.
The variance will not have an adverse effect and will not negatively impact the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
The difficulty is not self created.
G. Ianson seconded the motion.
Vote: Approved 5-0
Wilen, (43.13-1-4)
Mr. Wilen wishes to divide his property located on Lakeshore Dr., zone TR-1 in half, resulting in two 1.08 acre lots, less than the required 1.1 acres.
Discussion:
A more detailed drawing is needed prior to the Public Hearing.
A sewer tap would be needed for the second lot.
Driveway access to the second lot must be considered.
A new survey will be needed before any subdivision can be formally approved.
Motion: B. Clark moved to schedule a Public Hearing for the next meeting on 12.23.04.
R. Goetsch seconded.
G. Ianson recused himself.
Vote: Approved 4-0-1
Further discussion:
To assist both the Planning and Zoning Boards when they visit the site, Mr. Wilen agreed to mark all existing and proposed property lines. He will provide the Board with a scaled drawing showing the placement of all buildings. If needed, he will describe how he intends to bring any buildings into compliance, or if he will be requesting any additional variances. G. Bailey will need this information before he can write the notice for the Public Hearing.
Wilson, (93.12-1-10)
R. Goetsch explained the request to extend a roof over an existing deck on a residence located in zone TR-1, on Lakeshore Dr. The deck extends beyond the 10 ft. sideline setback requirement.
Discussion:
The distance of the deck from the side line ranges from 3ft to 7 ft. The roof line will come closer to said property line. Members agreed on the need to “tighten up” the rules regarding roof overhang. It was noted that measuring for building setback has been inconsistent.
Historical information about the property was provided by G. Bailey. Approval for a porch over the deck was given by the ZEO in 1987. According to G. Bailey, the ZEO at the time probably determined work on the lawful, non-conforming structure did not require a variance.
Motion: G. Ianson made a motion to schedule a Public Hearing for the next meeting.
B. Clark seconded.
Vote: Approved, 5-0
Other Business
G. Bailey listed several training opportunities available to Board members.
After identifying the need to clarify the language around several items in the Zoning Code, the group discussed the possibility of a joint board/task group which would include members from the Planning, Zoning and Town Boards.
B. Clark noted concern about the process used to review certain projects brought forth by outside agencies. He referenced the recent Planning Board approval for the LGA to create a storm water containment pond on the Smith property, (25.4-1-11, 25.4-1-12). He voiced the need for public input, if possible, for future projects of this type. G. Bailey agreed to investigate whether other agencies, such as the APA, participated with this review, and whether public input was solicited.
Motion: A motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 pm was heard form B. Clark.
G. Ianson seconded the motion.
Vote: Approved, 5-0