Town of Hague Zoning Board of Appeals
July 27, 2006
Members present: Robert Goetsch, Chairman
MaryLou Doulin, Martin Fitzgerald, Jr., George Ianson, Lindsay Mydlarz, Bill Pittman
Members absent: Glen McKee
Also in attendance: Catherine Clark, ZEO
Nancy Young, Recording secretary
Public Hearings
The Public Hearings were called to order at 7:03 by Robert Goetsch.
Berger, (12.18-1-17) Lakeshore Dr. TR1
Robert Goetsch explained the Berger’s request to remove a portion of an existing deck/walkway on the northern property line which encroaches on the neighboring property. They would like to build a new staircase, with a top landing on the lake side of their lot, parallel to the existing deck. They are also seeking retroactive approval for a portion of the pre-existing deck.
Noted for the record: a letter from Roy E. and Carol T. Johnson, dated July 21, 2006 to the Town of Hague Zoning Board of Appeals. The 3 page letter plus attachments 1, 2 and 3 will be placed in the property file.
No one in attendance chose to speak for or against the project.
George Ianson moved to close the Berger’s Public Hearing at 7:04 pm. Martin Fitzgerald seconded.
Vote: Carried, 6-0
Rebenack, (93.16-1-38) Sabbath Day Point Rd. TR1R
The proposal to install a retaining wall was explained by Robert Goetsch. The applicants hope to build a 52 ft long, 5 ft. high retaining wall to control erosion of the shoreline. The wall would start on the eastern property line and extend to the existing dock to the west. Construction will be of natural stone and rock. No concrete will be used.
Letters/e-mails were read by Nancy Young.
1) Thomas Mahar, dated 7/27/2006 to Catherine Clark, with questions about the proposal
2) Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper to Robert Goetsch and the Zoning Board of Appeals, dated 7/27/06 with questions and suggestions concerning the project.
Mr. and Mrs. Rebenack addressed the Board and provided additional details about the proposal. They were assisted by Chip Maynard, their contractor.
The wall will run parallel to the shoreline, only in the area where erosion is a problem. The Rebenacks feel the proposal is modest, intended only to control the erosion situation. They have all necessary permits in hand. There will be no change to the contour of the land. No fill material will be used. Work will be timed around the house construction, allowing easier access to the site. The Rebenacks plan to leave all mature trees and remove only a limited amount of vegetation.
Kim Brown, a neighbor, addressed the Board. She is not opposed to the proposal but requested clarification of its placement with regards to the shoreline.
Dick Mathews, a neighbor, had a concern for future erosion caused by other, new retaining walls.
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:20 on a motion made by Martin Fitzgerald and seconded by Lindsay Mydlarz.
Vote: Carried, 6-0
Regular Meeting
The regular monthly meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals began at 7:20 pm.
After introductions, the minutes were approved, as written, on a motion heard from George Ianson and seconded by Bill Pittman.
Vote: Carried, 6-0
Berger, (12.18-1-17) Lakeshore Dr. TR1
The applicants wish to remove a portion of an existing deck/walkway on the northern property line which encroaches on the neighboring property. They would like to build a new staircase, with a top landing on the lake side of their lot, parallel to the existing deck. They are also seeking retroactive approval for a portion of the pre-existing deck. New construction will be within 50 ft. of the lake. A portion of the existing deck violates the sideline setback.
The Town of Hague Planning Board voted to recommend approval on 6/6/2006.
The Warren County Planning Board determined No County Impact, with the condition that there is clarification the stairs are or are not being built to the dock stairs.
George Ianson moved to approve the variance.
There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or to the detriment of nearby properties. The applicants are actually making an improvement by removing the deck.
The benefit sought could not be achieved by another method. The applicants have tried several approaches; this is the most viable.
The request is not substantial.
The variance will not have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
The difficulty was created by someone else, causing a hardship to the Bergers and the neighbors.
Approved with the following condition:
maintain the 10 ft. sideline setback for the new staircase.
Lindsay Mydlarz seconded the motion.
Vote: Carried, 6-0
Rebenack, (93.16-1-38) Sabbath Day Point Rd. TR1R
Robert Goetsch reviewed the retaining wall request which will require variances for the shoreline and the sideline setbacks.
The Warren County Planning Board has determined No County Impact with the condition a drawing be provided for the files and that the materials of the wall and supports are lake safe with minimal use of concrete.
Cathy Clark provided photos taken during a Site Visit to the property.
A motion to approve the variance request was heard from George Ianson.
There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or to the detriment of nearby properties. With the potential effects of erosion, this will be an improvement.
The benefit sought could not be achieved by another method. This is a sophisticated approach for erosion control.
The request is not substantial.
The variance will not have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. No impact is expected to area beaches.
The difficulty was not self created.
Martin Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
Vote: Carried, 6-0
The project will be timed around house construction to limit the use/impact of heavy equipment.
VanVoorhis, (42.12-1-25) Lakeshore Dr. TR1
Application withdrawn according to Cathy Clark. Revised plans place construction beyond the setback from the stream
ZEO Request for Interpretation
In the Town of Hague Ordinance, Section 160-27 C (2) (n) references a “list” under Type II Site Plan Review. Cathy Clark explained she has received conflicting advice concerning the interpretation of this word. Her question to the ZBA:
“Should item (n) apply to only structures included in Type II Site Plan Review, Type I and II Site Review or all structures listed under the density guideline for OC, Section 1609-27?”
Zoning Board members agreed on the need for the ZEO to be consistent.
A motion by Martin Fitzgerald: The ZBA interpretation of “list” refers to Type II Site Plan Review.
Lindsay Mydlarz seconded the motion.
Vote: Carried, 5-1
Ayes: Fitzgerald, Mydlarz, Ianson, Pittman, Goetsch
Nay: Doulin
The meeting was closed at 7:50 pm. Motion by George Ianson, second by Bill Pittman.
Vote: Carried, 6-0