Present:
Bill Pittman
Bruce Clark
Nelson Waters
George Ianson
Mary Lou Doulin
Ch. Robert Goetsch
Graham Bailey, Zoning Enforcement Officer
Mary Jo Keeler, Recording Secretary
Absent:
Tina King
Ch. Goetsch opened the Public Hearing at 7 pm.
OXFORD/TIER: 76.20-1-3
Silver Bay Rd.
TR-1r
ZEO Bailey read letter from Fred and Ruth Klinger, adjoining property owners, supporting the project.
The Warren Co. Planning Board recommends no county impact with the condition that septic system location be confirmed and the appropriate cross easement search apply to the subdivision.
Mrs. Oxford spoke from the audience. She would like to revert to two parcels, putting it in half as it was a few years ago because her brothers are not interested in keeping their portion of the property. There are already separate septic systems and driveways.
David Swanson spoke from the audience and clarified that originally the property consisted of one legal lot and one undersized lot. He verified with Mrs. Oxford that she now wants two lots of equal size.
ZEO Bailey informed the ZBA that the Planning Board voted 4-2 recommending against the subdivision.
N. Waters made a motion to close the Public Hearing; M.L. Doulin seconded. All members voted aye.
REGULAR MEETING
Ch. Goetsch opened the meeting and Members of the Board introduced themselves.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The word “applicant” needed to be included in the outline for procedure for processing variances. B. Clark made a motion to approve the amended minutes of the May 27 meeting; G. Ianson seconded. All members voted aye. The minutes were accepted with a 6-0 vote.
OLD BUSINESS
1. OXFORD/TIER: 76.20-1-3
Silver Bay Rd.
TR-1r
The applicant wishes to subdivide property into two lots, both of which would be nonconforming. Originally the 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.
This is clearly a hardship for Mrs. Oxford, although self-imposed. Each of the lots will be valued at $600,000, by the current Town appraisal standards. If it is sold, a very large house will probably be built on it. Also, if the land is re-subdivided, a precedent could be set for the future.
ZEO Bailey suggested that a portion of the Zoning law, Gifts and Devices, would allow a person to deed land to sons and/or daughters and they could then subdivide the property.
G. Ianson made a motion to reject the application; M.L. Doulin seconded. The motion is based on the following:
- This request would create an undesirable change in the neighborhood character because it would be setting a precedent for undersized nonconforming lots.
- The benefit can be achieved by some other feasible method.
- The request is substantial.
- This request would not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood because the lakefront would still be above the minimum.
- This request is a self-created difficulty.
Roll Call Vote:
G. Ianson yes
M.L. Doulin yes
B. Clark yes
B. Pittman yes
N. Waters no
R. Goetsch yes
The application was denied with a 5-1 vote.
2. REINGOLD
Silver Bay Rd.
TR-1r
Applicant has sent letter to ZEO describing plans to move accessory structure and attach it to existing house which will be modified. Applicant has sent neighbors copy of plans. The location of the relocated structure will range from 40 to 60 feet from the Lake and thus will require a variance. When application is received, it will be referred to ZBA for action.
ZEO Bailey placed this on the agenda to let the Board know that Reingold has submitted new plans which will be placed on the July agenda.
3. MIZER: 12.18-1-9
Mohawk Lane
TR-2
Applicant wishes to replace house with new house. New house will reduce the degree of nonconformance with respect to the setback requirement but it will not meet the side and shoreline required setbacks. The proposed new house will not exceed the 25% square footage limitation.
After a site visit, some suggestions have been made to the Mizers which they have taken into consideration. The present application is no longer complete.
NEW BUSINESS
1. GRAVES : 93.16-1-25
The applicant wishes to retain a 6-foot fence recently installed along her property line. This was to replace an existing shorter section of a 6-foot fence, which according to applicant, was installed prior to 1978 closer to the house.
ZEO Bailey provided pictures showing the old fence and the new fence. He informed the Board that there would have to be a Public Hearing which would be scheduled for next month’s meeting. He further said that if the new fence were put in the original location of the old fence, he would have concluded that it was grandfathered and not subject to a variance. Or if the new fence was 4-feet, there would be no problem. The issue is if they put the same length of 6-foot fence on the property line that they had closer to the house and then brought the rest of it down to 4-feet, it would be conforming. To replace something, it needs to be put in the same location, not a different one. The new fence is 9-feet from the other one. The fence runs to the road, which is approximately 36-feet longer than the old fence. On the lakeside, the old fence was 60-feet from the lake than the new fence.
The violation notice sent to the Graves stated that a 4-foot fence can be no closer than 50’ to the lake or 20-foot to the pavement.
N. Waters made a motion to put this on the agenda for next month; W. Pittman seconded. All voted aye. The motion passed 6-0.
Members of the Board requested a sketch of where the fence, how long it is, and what it was.
Mr. Bailey will also place this on the Planning Board agenda for next month.
OTHER BUSINESS
The recording secretary was commended for her efforts.
ADJOURNMENT
B. Clark made a motion to adjourn the meeting; N. Waters seconded. All members voted aye. The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Jo Keeler
Recording Secretary