September 23, 2004

Present:

Mary Lou Doulin, Acting Chairperson;

Bruce Clark,

George Ianson,

Tina King,

Nelson Waters,

Bill Pittman

Absent:

Chairman Robert Goetsch

Also in attendance: 

Graham Bailey, Zoning Enforcement Officer

Judy Stock, Acting Recording Secretary

PUBLIC HEARING

Tina King moved and Nelson Waters seconded a motion to open the Public Hearing on Reingold. Approved 6-0. Mary Lou Doulin presided at 7:05 PM in the absence of the Chairman.

1.  REINGOLD

Neighbor Jim Schnabel noted that there is a problem with the excessive percentage of increased living space.  The application figures show a 59% increase which would be disregarding the  25% limitation in the Zoning Code.  ZEO Bailey noted that for shoreline property the square footage includes living space, attics, porches, decks, stairs and attached garages.  In this application there is a functioning attic so the floor space of the attic is included. 

Mrs. Schnabel questioned the figures used in the calculations but the ZEO stated he believed those to be correct.  Mrs. Schnabel noted that the 59% still is excessive and quoted from the July 2002 Hague Chronicle under the Planning and Zoning Report of the July 9, 2002 Town Board meeting. “The Board accepted a petition from residents who ‘ask that appropriate steps be taken to stop the building overgrowth, issuance of improperly processed...permits, and disregard for Zoning and Planning regulations and the lack of enforcement of these regulations in the entire Town of Hague.’ ”  She continued, “This is what concerns us - to keep to the regulations in the zoning laws.  This is another variance which doesn’t meet the zoning code.”  She also referred to the Zoning Code ¶ 160-70, A. (2), which lists the 5 different conditions where denial of a variance is appropriate and felt that all 5 relate to denying this request.

Dick Gladu, Town Councilman, introduced himself as the Zoning and Planning interface for the Town Board.  He noted, “A lot of good faith efforts have been put in by the Reingolds and the Boards over the past year to come up with a solution.  The 25 % increase limitation is one which the Town Board will probably consider removing in my personal assessment.  In my opinion, the front, rear and side setbacks, lot coverage and height restrictions adequately cover any situations.  Although neither right nor wrong, Hague is the only town on Lake George which still has the 25% limit.”

George Ianson, ZBA member, noted that another consideration is what would be allowed if there was no house on the property.  He asked, “Do you penalize someone for expanding when someone could do it on an empty lot with just the setback conditions?”

Alison Craig, former long-time Planning Board member, read a statement about where she sees zoning is going.  See attachment A.

Ken Engler, representative of the Lake George Association, read a letter with comments applying to both the Reingold and Schnabel applications.  See attachment B.

ZEO Bailey noted for the record that there have been several letters.  A letter from the Schnabels in opposition, neutral letters from Engler and the LGA and a supportive letter from neighbor Nikolay Wilen.

Bruce Clark moved and George Ianson seconded a motion to close the Public Hearing on Reingold.  Approved 6-0.

Tina King moved and Nelson Waters seconded a motion to open the Public Hearing on Schnabel.

2.  SCHNABEL

ZEO Bailey noted for the record receipt of a letter from neighbor Mr. Engler commenting on the Schnabel application and asking a few questions.  Mr. Bailey also noted that since the issue of an attic had just come up (or if he had been told about it earlier he had forgotten it) and that there probably is no variance needed now for the 25% limitation.  A variance still would be needed because the vertical projection is within 50 ft of the water.

George Ianson noted that there was a variance granted in August of last year for a deck and so the % of increase should use figures before the deck was added.

Neighbor Dan Reingold stated they had no objections but wanted to be sure the proper erosion control and screening were done.

Nelson Waters moved and Bruce Clark seconded a motion to close the Public Hearing.  Approved 6-0.

REGULAR MEETING

Mary Lou Doulin opened the regular meeting at 7:45 PM.  Bruce Clark moved and George Ianson seconded a motion to approve the minutes of August 26, 2004 as revised. Approved 6-0.

OLD BUSINESS

VARIANCE

    1.  REINGOLD (43.13-1-5; TR-1; VAR 06-02), 15 Abenakis Drive

The applicant wishes to move an accessory structure and attach it to the existing house which will be modified to add a second floor.  A variance is requested because a portion will be within 50 feet of the Lake, 50 feet of a brook and will exceed a 25% increase in square footage.  Site visits have been conducted several times by PB and ZBA members.  The Planning Board has recommended approval with conditions.

Nelson Waters moved and George Ianson seconded a motion to approve the Reingold variance with the following conditions recommended by the Planning Board:

    1.  There is implementation of a stormwater runoff plan satisfactory to the ZEO.

    2.  The sewer is hooked up.

    3.  The 8 x 30 back house is cut back by a minimum of 10 feet (to the first window).

        (The maximum dimensions of the back house will therefore be 8’ x 20’.)

    4.  The sewer and water are removed from the garage and include filling in the foundation to build to grade.

    5.  There will be revised drawings satisfactory to the ZEO.

    6.  There is no change to the existing porch roofline.

    7.  The height of the roof peak of the addition to the existing cabin be no greater than 24’ 6’’.

The following considerations were 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?

    Comment: Doesn’t seem to be.  The visibility will be nil from both areas we looked at. It’s reasonably wooded.

b.  Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant other than an area variance?

    Comment: Difficult to assess since an original application was for a garage and that is not what ended up getting built and now we are considering som ething substantially larger than what might have been originally approved.  Any other ways may not be a financially good solution.

c.  Is the requested variance substantial?

    Comment: Yes. But - the new portion is less non-conforming than the structure in its entirety. The % increase is large because the original house was so small.

d.  Will the proposed variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district?

    Comment: Should not be.

e.  Is the alleged difficulty self-created?

    Comment: Many people contributed over the three years to get this far, not just self-created.

Other considerations: Doesn’t have to be a precedent but a reasonable solution.  The history of this application getting to where we are after three years and getting approved permits, whether right or wrong-   leads us to a decision we might not make if it was a brand new application. Approve for the sake of the taxpayers (to eliminate) further litigation.

The roll call vote: Clark - yes, Doulin -no, Ianson -yes, Pittman -yes, Waters -yes. Approved 4-1.  Tina King recused herself from the discussion and vote.

    2.  SCHNABEL (43.13-1-6, TR-1), Abenakis Drive

Applicant wishes to add a second floor addition to their existing house.  A joint site visit has been conducted.

During the Public Hearing portion of the meeting there was further information given on an existing attic and questions about the actual percent increase. The applicant agreed to waive the 60 day period in which final action must be taken by the ZBA so that the issues can be clarified.

NEW BUSINESS

    INTERPRETATION

    1.  MORGAN (61-1-4, TR-1), Lakeshore Drive

Neighbor, Mr. Levy,  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 and no variance was needed.  Mr. Morgan actually built a 3 car garage so a stop work order was issued. A new application was filed and then approved by the Planning Board as long as the new 3-car garage was no closer to the property line than the footprint of the old storage building.  An as-built survey had to be submitted and they had to get a wastewater permit. The NW corner of the old building was 8.11 ft from the property line and that set the limit where the new garage should be.  The dimensions shown on the new survey  were less than 8.11 ft.  Mr. Morgan advised the ZEO that the new garage is actually on the same location as the old footings. Mr. Morgan’s construction workers showed the ZEO where the old footings were.  In ZEO Bailey’s judgment the new garage is no closer to the property line than the old building.

Mr. Levy, who has access rights to his dock along Mr. Morgan's property line,  claims that the garage is closer than the original.  Mr. Levy is challenging the ruling of the Zoning Enforcement Officer.

Mr. Levy appeared with his attorney, Michael Englert, and a  professional surveyor from South Glens Falls, Bill Rourke.  Mr. Levy showed pictures he had taken of the property which was completely graded after the old building was demolished and said that it showed no pier existed.  They also showed a survey of the property done by Mr. Rourke, with references to dimensions done in a 1995 survey for Mr. Morgan by another surveyor, which showed the corner in question on the old structure was  9.3  ft from the property line. Mr. Rourke’s current survey shows the corner of the new structure is  7.3 ft from the line ( and with the overhang it is 5.3 ft from the line).

There was disagreement on the interpretation of the survey done for Mr. Morgan and the surveyor was not present.

Mr. Englert noted that in his appeal document they also were concerned about the covered wood deck of the house that also encroaches on the setback.  He also stated that the garage was an entirely new use and felt that the code setback of 10 feet should have been required.

The Board tabled the appeal until next month subject to a site review on October 9th at 8am. 

VARIANCE

    2.  MARCHETTI (93.1-1-10, TR-1), Bass Bay Road

The applicant wishes to extend a deck on the residence between 2 corners of the existing house.  The proposed extension will be within 50 feet of the Lake but no closer than the existing house.  The percent of the lot to be occupied is 26.9% with the addition.  The addition to the screened in portion will be covered.

Bruce Clark moved and Nelson Waters seconded a motion to accept the application and schedule a Public Hearing.  Approved 6-0.

ADJOURNMENT

    ZEO Bailey noted that codes of towns can be found at <www.generalcode.com>.

    Tina King moved and Bill Pittman seconded a motion to adjourn. Approved  6-0.  Meeting adjourned at 9:55 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Judy Stock

Acting Recording Secretary