MEMBERS ABSENT: None
Chair Hallgren reviewed the purpose
and procedure of the Zoning Board of Appeals and reviewed the criteria for
granting an area variance.
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
All members of the Board
previously reviewed the minutes of the March 14, 2007 meeting. Motion by Herb Kopper to approve the
minutes as presented. Seconded by
Brian Hendrie. Voice vote: All ayes. Carried.
PUBLIC
HEARING OPENED by Chair @ 7:33 P.M.
Clerk read the legal notice
as it appeared in the Daily Gazette on 4/02/07
Application #07-006 Application of John and
Elizabeth Rowe and Bradley Johnson for variances required to construct a new
cottage with an attached deck and detached garage at less than the required
setbacks on property located at 9440 Hart B Road in the Lake District, town
of Galway, tax parcel #185.18-1-13
Mr. and Mrs. Rowe were present, as was the
co-applicant, Bradley Johnson confirmed that the Rowes and Mr. Johnson
jointly own the property. Bradley
Johnson presented the application. Want
to remove an existing camp and rebuild a new, 2-bedroom camp, along with a
detached garage. New structures will not
encroach the property lines any more than the present ones, but due to the
[small] size of the lot, impossible to build without variances. House will be 2-story (a walk-out basement,
main floor and loft). Chair asked
applicants if they were aware that well and septic have to meet current
code. (Applicants forwarded a septic system
drawing along with their application - in file.
Board members took time to review the plan/drawing.) Chair asked if building inspector had
reviewed the plan. Mr. Johnson answered
affirmatively. Brian Hendrie noted 100
separation between well and septic system does not exist, stating state
law. Discussion took place Applicants
allege they were informed that since it is an improvement over existing system,
it is okay. Chair acknowledged that
while the ZBA does not approve septic systems, any variances granted tonight
would be contingent upon the applicants meeting minimum state code for well and
septic. Brian Hendrie Will this be a
year-round house? Mr. Johnson Used
seasonally but will be built to meet year-round construction standards. Brian Hendrie Concerned about pitch of the
garage roof (9/12) blocking the view for neighbors. Jon Hallgren Roof on house is also
9/12. Would be in compliance with
house. Brief discussion transpired. Jon Hallgren His concern is distance from
the side of the garage to the property line.
Historically, board has not granted anything less than 5 from the drip
line. Mr. Johnson Maintained proposal
is in one foot farther than existing garage; therefore, eave will not be any
closer than the existing garage. Brief
discussion took place. Chair explained
they could build on same exact footprint as previous garage and would not need
a variance. However, any change in the
foundation size/footprint requires a variance; then must conform to requirement
of minimum 5 setback from drip line.
Discussion about moving garage closer to the house to help meet the 5
setback requirement. Board members asked
if a survey has been done. Tim Bogdan
Noted that new garage is proposed at 14 off roadway. If they moved the garage back one foot
further, would not need a variance on that side. Subsequent discussion revealed that property
owners are not really sure where pins are located or of their exact property
lines. Applicants had provided only a
partial survey of the entire [Harts] grove with their application. Therefore, amount of variance needed for the
garage is uncertain. Board prefers to
grant variances for the entire project, not just the house and then later
address the garage. Applicants stated
they would rebuild the garage on the exact same footprint if that was what was
needed to proceed with request for variances for the house tonight. Chair and other board members strongly urged
applicants to have a survey done prior to requesting a variance in order to
properly define property lines (protects them as well as clearly defines amount
of variance needed). Chair -
Acknowledged that while applicants are trying to conform more to required
setbacks, board needs to approve variances on exact distances not guess
distances. Board is willing to work with
applicants on variance request but needs accurate information to make an
informed decision. Reiterated concerns
regarding proposed septic system. Mr.
Johnson Engineer and building inspector went to the property, selected a
spot, engineer drew up drawings (presented with application) as best possible
solution, which is better than what they have.
Comments from audience: Tony LaCosta (neighbor) Distance
from other peoples well is also a consideration. Does not feel present proposal addresses
that. Need a survey to know where other
well systems are located. Chair Must
comply with state code. Never seen
anything in
Motion by Tim Bogdan to close
the public hearing. Seconded by Tom
Thomson. Voice Vote: All ayes.
Motion carried. Public
hearing closed.
PUBLIC MEETING
Application #07-006 John and Elizabeth Rowe and
Bradley Johnson
tax parcel #185.18-1-13
Chair No need to review SEQRA
based on the probability of denial.
Motion by Brian Hendrie to deny
the request of John and Elizabeth Rowe and Bradley Johnson for area variances
(Application #07-006) based on the fact that the property lines are unclear and
that distances to the buildings are unclear; therefore, the amount of variances
required cannot be determined. Seconded
by Tim Bogdan. No further
discussion. Roll call vote: All ayes.
Motion carried. REQUEST
FOR VARIANCE DENIED. Chair informed the
applicants that if they wish to continue to pursue the request for variance,
they will need to reapply, providing a survey of the property with a plot plan
that shows accurate dimensions of the buildings relative to the property lines. Tim Bogdan Once lines are determined,
perhaps they could move the garage (drip lines) to within 5 and still have
adequate room between the house and garage.
Chair Highly recommend that.
Believes they have the room to do that.
Dimensions (size) of all buildings should also be included on the plot
plan. Best would be the plot plan
superimposed on the survey map.
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR None requested
OTHER BUSINESS
Jon If there is a June meeting,
he will not be available. Asked Tim
Bogdan to sit in as chair.
Jon will call Mark Concilla
regarding: 1) Start requiring surveyed plot plans for all applications in the
Lake District (mandatory). Surveyed plot
plans in all other districts preferred but Mark can exercise discretion
as to whether or not needed, based on the amount of variance being requested
and for what (e.g., minimal variance for a deck may not require a survey). 2)
Mark needs to determine the exact setbacks and amount of variance(s) being
requested on all applications. (Need to
be clearly stated on the applications.)
3) Will also again request that Mark attend meetings. If he cannot, can he submit a narrative with
all applications stating the reason for denial and his views/comments. (E.g., tonights applicants allege Mark
helped plot, reviewed and approved the proposed septic system. We have no way of confirming that as
true.) 4) Applications should be amended
to state plot plan should include all buildings (sizes, location current and
proposed), location of all wells and septic systems (current and proposed) on
subject lot and adjoining lots.
George Weed to check with town
board to see if ZBA can amend application forms or if the town board would need
to review and approve new application forms prior to using them.
Motion to
adjourn by Brian Hendrie. Seconded
by Tom Thomson. Voice Vote: All ayes.
Motion carried. Meeting
adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Carol L. DeLorme, Clerk
04/23/07