TOWN OF HAGUE
Zoning Board of Appeals
5/26/05
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Robert Goetsch at 7pm. All other members were present: Bruce Clark, Mary Lou Doulin, Martin Fitzgerald, George Ianson, Tina King and Bill Pittman.
A Public Hearing was opened on the variance request by PHELPS (43.5-2-38), Dock Rd, Hamlet.
ZEO Graham Bailey said that no letters or calls were received for or against the request. The County has said there is no impact. The APA does not typically comment until after the ZBA decision.
Bruce Clark made and Tina King seconded a motion to close the Public Hearing. Approved 7-0.
Chairman Goetsch opened the regular meeting. Bruce Clark made and George Ianson seconded a motion to approve the minutes of 4/28/05. Approved 7-0.
OLD BUSINESS
PHELPS (43.5-2-38), Dock Rd, TR-1.
The applicant wishes to add a second story above the existing house. Although the proposed addition will be further back from the Lake than the existing portion of the house, and will be entirely within the footprint of the existing house, it will be within the required 50 foot shoreline setback and within the required side setback dimensions. Applicant has scaled back the additional square footage and the height from what was submitted in the original application.
The new height is 36 ft from the lowest point on the ground to the highest point on the house. This is an additional height of 7 ft from the previous 29 ft. but lower than the original plans first submitted to the Planning Board. The new plans address a concern by the APA. The new structure will come up to about the level of the road. There will be a reverse gable so the roofline will be perpendicular to the road rather than parallel.
The existing building occupies 57% of the land which is no change. The dirt road is owned by the Town but their property goes up to Rt. 9N (Lakeshore Drive).
ZEO Bailey said there is no stormwater issue. However, he looked at the site with Chris Navitsky, Lake George waterkeeper who felt there could be small improvement but not really very meaningful.
The new construction will be set back further from the town dock than the existing house. The sideline setback will be 6-7ft. On the other side the setback is staying at 12ft.
The boathouse which is tied into the house is under the jurisdiction of the LGPC. But all the new construction will only be over the land. Nothing will change on the first floor.
The Planning Board unanimously recommended approving the request with conditions.
1) No new construction shall occur over the water or beyond the mean high water mark.
2) The increase in height shall be no more than 7 feet from the existing height and the total height shall not be more than 36 feet.
3) The ridge line of the new construction shall be perpendicular to the road as per the plans submitted.
4) Because of its lakeside location, the owner is encouraged to use an earth tone finish on the outside of the house.
5) The environmental concerns shall be taken care of to the satisfaction of the ZEO.
ZEO Bailey said that the Planning Board treated this as a site plan review so the conditions are conditions for the site plan review.
Martin Fitzgerald moved and George Ianson seconded a motion to approve the request with the updated plans submitted.
Some discussion ensued about whether or not this request was “substantial” and the amount of nonconformity.
Martin Fitzgerald read the considerations for granting the variance with Chairman Goetsch providing the responses.
No.
No, because they are not increasing the area
No, because they are not increasing the use of the area.
No, only a slight height difference.
They all are at one point.
The vote was taken: Ianson - yes; Pittman - yes; Doulin - no; Clark - no; King - no; Fitzgerald -yes ; Goetsch - yes. Approved 4-3.
OTHER BUSINESS
ZEO Bailey noted a new document he has created for site plan review. He said that what the Planning Board should be looking at are issues pertinent like site plan comments and not those of the ZBA such as “is it substantial”. He urged that the ZBA continue to use their five criteria items and that they might “even want to write down some notes before they come”.
Questions arose as to the reason for the letter received from the Town Board. Councilman Rudy Meola, who was in attendance, suggested that it was self-explanatory and that comments could be made to the Town Board. Later in the meeting ZBA members Ianson, Doulin and King remarked that more detail is required to document reasons for their decisions. Councilman Meola then, in reference to the Planning Board, said if they make a decision which is challenged in court they need reasons why they had made that decision. He said the Board’s letter was just a reminder to be balanced in decisions and to go by regulations rather than personal orientation.
There were some feedback comments from the May workshop. Mary Lou Doulin said she was concerned about minimizing things that are self-created. She said that NYS said that was one of the important conditions to be considered. Others felt it was more in the guidelines not a requirement. ZEO Bailey said that from previous training he learned that the granting or not granting of a variance should be a kind of a balancing act - considering whether the benefit to the applicant is outweighed by the harm to the community and that these (variance considerations) are the questions that get you to that point.
One of the topics at the workshop was the environmental form. ZEO Bailey said that any development of a single family house is considered Category 2 from SEQRA and requires no action. If it is a Category 1, it requires as a minimum a full environmental assessment form. Subdivisions require either a short or long form.
Mr. Bailey also discussed subdivisions. Someone could subdivide a property into 4 parcels as a minor subdivision and the next year they could divide it again into another 4 parcels which would still be considered a minor subdivision. Once you reach a total of 15 (in TR-1) that triggers APA to consider it a major subdivision.
Mr. Bailey mentioned that a request to make the commercial special use zone uniformly all OC-1 which will require a full environmental assessment and the APA will probably take the lead agency role and the Town will assume the sponsor role. We will need to be sure that we adequately document the 5 areas rather than just yes or no.
More discussion ensued about interpretations of the zoning code. Mr. Bailey noted that a discussion is needed with the Planning Board about who has responsibility for what and what the implications are. He said he has sent an email to the Department of State, the Town Attorney and the Zoning and Planning Boards talking about the integration of the site plan review and the variance process.
Bruce Clark moved and George Ianson seconded a motion to adjourn. Approved.
Meeting adjourned at 7:55pm
Respectfully submitted,
Judy Stock
Temporary Recording Secretary