Public Hearing
August 26, 2004
Present:
Robert Goetsch, Chairman;
Bruce Clark,
Mary Lou Doulin,
George Ianson,
Tina King,
Nelson Waters
Absent:
Bill Pittman
Also in attendance:
Graham Bailey, Zoning Enforcement Officeer
Judy Stock, Acting Recording Secretary
Chairman Goetsch opened the Public Hearing on the Mizer application at 7 PM.
ZEO Bailey noted that letters had been received from Waterkeeper Chris Navitsky and the Warren County Planning Board as well as letters of support from neighbors. Tina King asked if the neighbors were aware of the revisions to the application since the original letters predate the revisions. Mr. Mizer responded, "Yes."
The compacted parking area is over the leach field. Mr. Navitsky, Waterkeeper, stated his concern that by NYS DOH code you cannot have an impervious surface over an absorption field. It needs vegetation. He also recommended that the septic be designed by a professional engineer.
ZEO Bailey said that entire leach field should not be under any parking area and because the septic is close to the Lake on a legally non-conforming lot a professional engineer would be required for design of the septic system. He would be guided by the recommendations of the licensed professional engineer. Mr. Navitsky would be available to assist with the stormwater management plan (to see if any specifics are needed such as gutters) and to help evaluate the septic system.
Peter Spencer who lives just north of the Mizers is pleased with what the Mizers have done and welcomes it. Janice Vogel also expressed support.
Nelson Waters made and George Ianson seconded a motion to close the public hearing. Approved 6-0.
REGULAR MEETING
OLD BUSINESS
Tina King made and Nelson Waters seconded a motion to approve the minutes of July 22, 2004. Approved 6-0.
1. MIZER (12.18-1-9; TR-1), Mohawk Lane
Applicant wishes to replace 2 existing houses with a single house. Variances required because part of the new house will be within 50 feet of the Lake. Proposed house will increase the square footage of the principal structure by more than 25%. The Planning Board has recommended that the variance be granted.
Mary Lou Doulin noted that the survey map shows .39 acres and the tax map lists .48 acres. Calculations were done and with the .39 acres the lot coverage would be 25.9% which would not be a factor since it is less than 30%.
Tina King suggested redoing the calculations for the area of the living space because the 68.6% increase is misleading when they are actually reducing living space. Since there are currently two buildings with living space, they both should be considered in the starting figure for calculations. The square footage of the original main house is 1600 sq ft and what they will keep of the cabin is about 600 sq ft which gives a starting value of 2200 sq ft. The increase in square footage in the main house is about 1100 sq ft so the new area of the main house will be 2700 sq ft. The cabin will no longer contain
living space and will just be an accessory structure. The actual increase is therefore 500 sq ft (2700 - 2200). An increase of 500 sq ft over the original of 2200 sq ft yields a new figure of 22.7% increase in living space. Since that is less than 25%, the percent increase in living space is not an issue.
The only variance still required is because the house is within 50 ft of the Lake. The original house was 14 feet from the Lake but with the new design it is now 16 feet from the Lake. That makes the property "less non-conforming". Other setbacks are met. There is no height issue.
Tina King made and Nelson Waters seconded a motion to approve the variance for shoreline setbacks subject to the following conditions:
1) The recommendations in the 8/26/04 letter from Waterkeeper Chris Navitsky are followed,
2) The conditions recommended by the Planning Board in their 8/5/04 meeting are followed,
3) That the second building be converted to a storage facility with no plumbing, and
4) A licensed professional will examine the leach field and his recommendation must be implemented.
The following considerations are made in granting the variance:
a. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or to the detriment of nearby properties?
No. The character will be improved since 1) the number of lived in buildings is being reduced from 2 to 1 and 2) the setback from the Lake is going from 16ft to 14 ft.
b. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant other than an area variance?
No. Whatever is done will be non-conforming but this plan is making it less non-conforming.
c. Is the requested variance substantial?
No. In terms of what currently exists and the changes being made, it is less non-conforming.
d. Will the proposed variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district?
No. It will have a positive effect because (they are) reducing the number of livable dwellings and fixing the house up. Additionally there is an environmental plus because the existing wastewater system doesn't come close to meeting standards since there are currently 5 bedrooms but the existing 1000 gal system will now be used for only 3 bedrooms.
e. Is the alleged difficulty self-created?
Partially but that is not required.
The roll call vote:
Goetsch - yes,
Clark - yes,
Doulin -yes,
Ianson -yes,
King -yes,
Waters -yes.
Approved 6-0.
NEW BUSINESS
1. MORGAN (61-1-4, TR-1), Lakeshore Drive
Neighbor has filed a variance to appeal the decision by the ZEO that the location of the newly constructed 3-car garage is consistent with the permit issued. The issue pertains to the setback dimension between Mr. Morgan's recently completed garage and the northerly property line. Mr. Levy has an access easement along the northerly property line.
ZEO Bailey gave historical background on the issue. The Planning Board originally approved a house and 2 car garage with the garage no closer to the property line than the old building which was torn down. Mr. Morgan actually
built a 3 car garage which was then approved by the Planning Board as long as it is no closer to the property line than the original. Mr. Levy has access rights to his dock along Mr. Morgan's property line. Mr. Levy claims that the garage is closer than the original. Mr. Morgan disagreed and had it surveyed. ZEO Bailey visited the property and found the old footings which were visible and concluded that the new garage is no closer than the old. He also spoke to the builders who tore the building down. Mr. Levy is challenging the ruling of the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
The matter was tabled until next month.
2. SCHNABEL (43.13-1-6, TR-1), Abenakis Drive
Applicant wishes to add an addition to their existing house. The addition would be a second floor above the existing house. While this would be generally within the existing footprint, the addition would also be within 50 ft of the Lake and would be in excess of 25% increase in square footage.
This item is a preliminary review to see if the application is complete.
The Board reviewed pictures of the property and discussed the concrete walkway which is under the recently approved deck. The height of the house with the addition will be under 30 feet. There is no change in the footprint.
House is on the Town sewer system. There will be a site visit on August 31 at 4 pm.
Bruce Clark moved and Tina King seconded a motion to schedule a Public Hearing on the application for next month. Approved 6-0.
ADJOURNMENT
Bruce Clark noted that the minutes should be available within ten days and suggested that they be emailed where possible. ZEO Bailey said that it could be done.
Nelson Waters moved and Tina King seconded a motion to adjourn.
Approved 6-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:55 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Judy Stock
Acting Recording Secretary