Town of Hague

Zoning Board of Appeals

March 24, 2005

 

Present:  Bruce Clark, Deputy Chairman;  Mary Lou Doulin, George Ianson, Tina Barth King, Bill Pittman and Nelson Waters.

 

Absent:  Robert Goetsch, Chairman

 

Public Hearing

The Public Hearing was opened at 7:05 pm by Deputy Chair Bruce Clark.  He then read the public announcement that went into the newspaper.

 

                                                Notice of Public  Hearing

The Zoning Board of Appeals will conduct a public hearing on Thursday, March 24, 2005, beginning at 7:00 pm in the Hague Community Center, 9793 Graphite Mt. Rd., Hague, NY to consider a request for an area variance.

 

            1.  DOUGHERTY (43.13-1-36), Cranberry Dr. (Cape Cod Village) TR-1

               Applicants would like to remove the existing structure and replace it with a new house, that increases existing nonconformance of setbacks.

            The records regarding the above project are available for review at the Hague Community Center, 9793 Graphite Mt. Rd., Hague, NY.  Persons wishing to appear at such hearing may do so in person, by attorney, or other representative.  Communications may be filed with the Town of Hague Zoning Enforcement Officer or the Hague Zoning Board.

                        A. Graham Bailey

                        Zoning Enforcement Officer

                        Pub. March 15, 2005

 

The Deputy Chairman announced that of the 52 letters that were sent out to neighbors within 500 ft of the property, they had received 6 written responses - 4 letters for the project and 2 opposed.  He read the letters received in opposition from Bambach and Manley and letters in favor from Belden, Brown, Megow and Coleman.   He then asked for any Public comments.

           

Claire Best read a letter from the President of Cape Cod Village:

 

 

                        Attn: A. Graham Bailey, Zoning Enforcement Officer

                        Subject: Variance Dougherty property, 43.13-1-36,

                                       4 Cranberry Lane, Cape Cod Village

 

                        I want to convey Cape Cod Village Club’s current position on the proposed variance by Pat and George Dougherty.  Although in the  future we may recommend this structure and configuration, internal processes in the Club which regulate changes to all Club structures have not been completed.  Without having the specific structure plans reviewed by the architect committee of Cape Cod Village Club we cannot approve the current         request as submitted to the Town of Hague Zoning. 

                        We ask that the request for a variance be tabled until this proposed structure meets our code’s building restrictions according to the revision of Bylaws of the Cape Cod Village Club, Inc . dated September 1, 2001. We will work diligently with the Doughertys to help them through the Cape Cod Village Club’s Bylaws in the replacement of their home. 

                     Sincerely, Mike Milowsky, President Cape Cod Village Club.  3/21/05

 

Lu Megow voiced approval to have the project go forward.  He noted that it is sometimes difficult to know which approvals to get first.  The Club doesn’t have definite considerations such as the Town Zoning Code.  He also noted that with high taxes on the land, new year-round homes are being built that are fitting to what is being paid.  This home will be an improvement to the community.

           

George Ianson said he has no personal objection as a neighbor.  He received a clarification that the letter read by Claire Best from the CCVC President reflects the position of the CCVC Board.  He noted that persons buying property in Cape Cod will have an expansion in the back of their minds.  He felt there is an obligation on the part of the association and on the seller to make it known that these variances may be needed before remodeling work is done.  And he noted that this Board is bound by the zoning law rather than CCVC restrictions although “we want to hear how the neighbors feel.”

 

Bruce Clark read the minutes of the site visit report and subsequent Planning Board meeting on March 19.  The group wanted more specific information and approved a motion to make no recommendation to the ZBA because of incomplete information. He said one missing page was signed and is now in the file.

 

George Ianson clarified that the lack of information was on the part of Graham Bailey due to vacation.

           

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

 

Old Business

The business part of the meeting was convened by Deputy Chair Bruce Clark.  He introduced the members of the Board and thanked Nelson Waters, who is attending his last meeting, for his service to the Zoning Board.

Motion

George Ianson moved and Tina King seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the February 24, 2005 meeting as written.  Approved 6-0.

 

Dougherty (43.13-1-36), 4 Cranberry Lane, Cape Cod Village, TR-1

Applicant wishes to remove existing structure and replace it with a new house that increases the nonconformance of the setback dimensions and exceeds the square footage limitation.  As of tonight, 4 letters of support have been received and 3 in opposition.

 

George Ianson was concerned about setting a precedent.  Three houses in Cape Cod have already added second story enlargements.  He could not find out what stance the CCVC took.  Anybody coming in to buy today will want to build something larger so it is going to come up again and again. 

 

Bruce Clark read a memo from ZEO Bailey after looking into the Fillare/Coleman file.

             A variance was granted by the ZBA in 1981.  The house that was approved complied with the CCVC 8 ft set-back variance.  Depending on where the height was taken at least one view complies with the 22 ft          height limitation. Other elevation views did not.  I cannot be certain that what was finally built was what was approved.

 

Tina King requested information that was not in her packet.  The original square footage was  700 sq. ft and the proposed is 1800 sq. ft. with an increase of 1100 sq. ft.  However, since this is a completely new structure discussion suggested that the 25% increase limitation does not apply.  The application, however, indicated that a variance was needed under Zoning Code Section 160-62 for square footage. 

           

The application also indicated that a variance is needed for yard set-backs and lot coverage under Zoning Code Section 160-23.  Tina then clarified that the lot coverage  is 21% existing and 34% proposed.  The Board agreed that the application does have the needed information and is complete.                    

                       

Tina noted that she also had concerns about no planning board recommendation which is not a requirement but can be factored in.  And she was most concerned that “legally we did not notify the adjacent property owners within the required 10 day period.“ The notice was sent out only 9 days beforehand.  There is concern about legality of the procedure.  A continuance would allow the CCVC to work with the Dougherty’s but the need for the continuance would be based solely on the legality of the 9 day notification.

 

Bruce Clark noted that too much precedence would be set if this is approved.  It is a substantial request that was self-created - the property was a non-conforming structure when it was bought.

 

Pat  Dougherty referred to the diagram and figures on page 4 of their application.  The current setbacks are 9.2 ft on the front, 2.1 ft on the side and 8.7 ft.  in the rear for a total of 20.1 ft.  The proposed setbacks are 6.5 ft on the front, 6.5 ft on the side and 7.0 ft in the rear for a total of 20.0 ft.  Pat stated, “This would make it more non-conforming but only by 0.1 ft and we can work with that.”

 

Pat also noted that the total ft. on the proposed structure includes the dripline.  The dripline sets out 1 ft from the actual foundation.  If the overhang were 6 inches less then it would be less non-conforming. The dotted line indicates the foundation and there is no dripline over the current structure.

           

Nelson Waters said that as far as he is concerned “when notices go out, those who do not respond are a positive vote” and that “this proposal is negligible”.

 

Mary Lou Doulin said she was bothered by the fact that  every set-back dimension is less than required.  The zoning code states that on a new lot the front setback should be 25 ft., the side setback should be 10 ft and the rear setback should be 25 ft.

 

Motion

Tina King moved and Bill Pittman seconded a motion to withdraw the previous motion to close the Public Hearing and to hold the Public Hearing open until next month in order to be able to comply with the 10 day notification.  Approved  6-0.  No new mailing needs to be sent out but additional comments will be accepted through the next meeting.

 

Other Business

Deputy Chair Clark noted that there will be training by the Department of State and the APA on Wednesday, May 4th held at the Community Center during the day.

 

Adjournment

George Ianson moved and Bill Pittman seconded a motion to adjourn.  Approved 6-0.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Judy Stock

Acting Recording Secretary