Town of Hague
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 23, 2007
Members present: Chairman Robert Goetsch, George Ianson, Martin Fitzgerald,
Lindsay Mydlarz, Bill Pittman
Members absent: Donna Charboneau, Glenn McKee
Also attending: Zoning Enforcement Officer Catherine Clark
Recording Secretary Nancy Young
Call to Order
Robert Goetsch called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm.
Public Hearings
Hume (26.6-1-9) 34 Forest Bay Rd. N (TR-1R)
Robert Goetsch explained that the applicant is requesting a variance for an addition to an existing deck. The proposed project includes enclosing part of the deck. The current structure is a legal non-conforming deck due to its shoreline setback (44 feet). The addition, if approved, would increase the shoreline setback by an additional 3 feet (41 feet).
Mr. Hume was present and spoke in behalf of his proposal. He explained that he is applying once again for a variance because the APA denied his first request. He has provided three possible options for review, including the original. Because alternatives #2 and #3 pose more detriment to the environment, Mr. Hume feels alternative #1, the original, is still the best option. Although the hardship is self-created, Mr. Hume explained that one person originally owned the home for fifty years. Three families with children and grandchildren have inherited the property. A screened porch is needed for safety reasons, to support the current usage and contain young children.
No one else spoke for or against the proposal.
No written comments were received.
George Ianson moved to close the Public Hearing at 7:07 pm. Lindsay Mydlarz seconded.
Vote: Carried, 5-0
Ayes: Goetsch, Fitzgerald, Ianson, Mydlarz, Pittman
Nays: none
Regular Meeting
The regular monthly meeting of the ZBA began immediately at 7:07 pm.
Minutes
The minutes from the July 19, 2007 meeting were approved as submitted on a motion made by George Ianson and seconded by Robert Goetsch.
Vote: Carried, 5-0
Ayes: Goetsch, Fitzgerald, Ianson, Mydlarz, Pittman
Nays: none
Old Business
Hume (26.6-1-9) 34 Forest Bay Rd. N (TR-1R)
The applicant is resubmitting an application for a deck addition to a legal non-conforming house. On November 30, 2006 the ZBA approved a 3½-foot addition to the existing deck with the condition that storm water prevention be installed to the entire structure. The APA denied the approval, stating a hardship was not established. The applicant has now submitted three different sets of plans. Alternative #1 is the plan the ZBA approved in November; alternatives #2 and #3 are new. On July 12, 2007 an “Informal Review Request” was sent to the APA.
Zoning issues: 160-50 Shoreline Setbacks
Robert Goetsch has spoken with Brian Grisi of the APA concerning this project. Mr. Grisi explained the APA denied the original application because it lacked information, and the findings of fact for approval were not well documented by the Hague Zoning Board of Appeals. According to Cathy Clark, the new application has more detail concerning the need for a screened in porch.
ZBA members discussed the application. Comments:
• Why make the shoreline setback more non-conforming?
• Alternatives #2 and #3, which do not change the setbacks, are preferable
• Still not able to see the hardship
• Alternatives #2 and #3 require removing larger trees…more impact to the lake.
• Elevated deck, with no foundation…. changing dimensions but not at ground level. Both alternatives (2 & 3) affect the ground, drainage and the impact to the lake.
• When you start taking the vegetation away there is more potential for erosion.
• The ZBA approval of the first proposal, with the drainage and gutters directing water away from the lake addressed erosion issues. The approval also contained the stipulation that it can never become living space.
• The APA has visited the property. In Mr. Grisi’s opinion, alternative #1 is the better solution, but he stated the decision belongs to the Hague ZBA, not the APA.
• Mr. Hume has provided additional information concerning the hardship.
• The elevated deck will provide under cabin storage.
• The Planning Board suggested the deck be built around the trees…. cannot build a screened-in porch around trees.
• The hardship stated the need to keep young children away from dangers such as hot grills.
• The property is shaped like a peninsula; an indentation is noted on the map.
• Concerned with losing the vegetative screen to the lake.
• Mr. Hume will only remove one row of saplings…. should not be noticeable from the lake.
Martin Fitzgerald moved to approve a 3½ ft. extension to the north, allowing for a screened porch, resulting in a 41 ft. setback, with the following conditions:
The porch must remain a screened-in porch and cannot ever be converted to living space.
Gutters must be installed on eaves to the house, draining away from the lake.
A storm water plan must be developed.
George Ianson seconded the motion.
Further discussion by Mr. Fitzgerald:
Will an undesirable change be produced to the character of the neighborhood or the detriment of nearby properties?
No, the character of the neighborhood will not change. We are just cutting by 3 ft.; no adjacent homes should be able to see it. Hopefully, it will be screened and nobody can see it from the lake.
Can the benefit sought be achieved by other methods feasible to the applicant other than an area variance?
We looked at the other options. The best one is option #1. The other two require removing larger trees, more of a detriment than going 3 ft. closer to the lake. Also, the pathways, and people walking around could undermine the shoreline, and could create runoff.
Is the requested variance substantial?
No, due to the topography. Without the little indentation on the shoreline it would not be much of an issue.
Is the alleged difficulty self created?
Yes, but families do grow.
Vote: Carried, 4 -1
Ayes: Goetsch, Ianson, Fitzgerald, Pittman
Nays: Mydlarz
At the Board’s request, Mr. Hume agreed to limit the cutting of the existing vegetative buffer.
New Business
Brown, (60.5-1-19) 51 Pine Cove Rd. (TR-IR)
The applicant is requesting a variance for a deck addition to a legal non-conforming structure. Currently, there is only means of egress from the house. If approved, the deck will provide two more exits. The shoreline setback to the house is 47 ft. The proposed deck will be located 40 ft. from the lake.
Zoning issue: 160-5 B (b) Shorelines
Contactor David Fitzgerald, representing the homeowner, was present.
Cathy Cark reminded ZBA members that a similar request for a slightly larger deck addition was approved by the ZBA in December 2004. Mr. Brown was not able to complete the work in a timely fashion and the approval has expired.
Lindsay Mydlarz moved to deem the application complete, and schedule a Public Hearing for the next meeting. George Ianson seconded.
Vote: Carried, 5-0
Ayes: Goetsch, Fitzgerald, Ianson, Mydlarz, Pittman
Nays: none
Other business – none
Martin Fitzgerald moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:48 pm. Lindsay Mydlarz seconded.
Vote: Carried, 5-0
Ayes: Goetsch, Fitzgerald, Ianson, Mydlarz, Pittman
Nays: None