ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

Date: March 14, 2007

Town Hall - 5910 Sacandaga Road

Galway, New York 12074

Meeting called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chair, Jon Hallgren. Clerk called the roll:

MEMBERS PRESENT: Jon Hallgren, Herb Kopper, Brian Hendrie and Tom Thomson.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Bogdan (excused)

ALSO PRESENT: Carol DeLorme, Clerk, George Weed, town board liaison, and approximately 10 people in the audience (including applicants)

PURPOSE AND PROCEDURE OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

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 previous meeting (12/13/06). Motion by Tom Thomson to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Brian Hendrie. Voice vote: All ayes. Carried.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED by Chair @ 7:35 P.M.

NOTE: Applications #07-001 – 07-004 were rescheduled from the February 2007 meeting, which was cancelled due to extreme adverse weather conditions (blizzard conditions) that night.

Chair reported that Sheldon Stanton has withdrawn his application.

In order to move the proceedings along, Chair instituted a 15-minute limit for initial discussion on each application. Once all applications have been initially reviewed, they can be revisited for further comment.

Clerk then read the legal notices as they appeared in the Daily Gazette on 3/5/07 and 3/13/07.

Application #07-001 – Application of Thomas Shippey for area variances required to construct/situate a new house (26’ x 60’ including attached garage) less than 50’ from the south and east side property lines of property located at 5999 Greens Corner Road in the Town of Galway, tax parcel #172.-1-29.21 - Mr. and Mrs. Shippey were both present. Mr. Shippey explained it is their intent to build a new home (26’ x 60’) on the property. Reason for this location is that there are wetlands behind the house (west) - don’t want to infringe on the wetland boundaries/buffer zone. Pushing it towards the east within 20’ of east property line will keep the house out of the wetlands area. Desire to push the house 15’ to the south is due to the fact that the north side is very wet and “drops”, which would require quite a bit of fill. Chair confirmed applicants are looking for a 35’ variance (from the required 50’ setback). Mr. Shippey replied affirmatively. Chair asked if applicant looked at other alternatives (i.e., putting the house more parallel to the boundary line and pushing it further over?) Brief discussion regarding alternative locations/grade of property. Chair – Could not see the need to place the house 15’ off the boundary line. Also felt it made more sense to try to keep access from the driveway clear (moving the house another 15 – 20’ over). Mr. Shippey responded could go more north [with the house] but remained concerned with going back any further. Chair – Also concerned with the 20’ setback on the front. Comment from audience: Neil Cayey – Asked for clarification from Mr. Shippey if it is his intent to stay out of the “DEC designated wetland” buffer. Mr. Shippey answered affirmatively. (Other wet area is not designated wetlands.) Chair indicated he would like to see both requests minimized a little more. Brian Hendrie indicated agreement. Chair suggested 25’ on front and 30’ on the side. No further discussion/comments at this time.

Application #07-003 – Application of Sheldon Stanton for a use variance to allow temporary placement of a mobile home on property located at 6230 Fish House Road in the Town of Galway, tax parcel #172.-1-3.2, where there is a pre-existing mobile home located within 1000’

Clerk read Mr. Stanton’s letter requesting that his application be rescinded into the record (original in file). Also noted: Letter of notification regarding this matter addressed to Shelton/Diane Cook was returned as undeliverable.

Application #07-004 – Application of Gayle Henry to amend previously granted area variances for an addition to an existing summer cottage (increasing the size of the proposed addition) on property located at 9362 Hart’s “B” Grove in the Lake District of the Town of Galway, tax parcel #185.18-1-19 - Mrs. Henry was present. Explained that she is requesting that a previously approved [side lot] variance be increased. Reported that she has to take down some trees that she had previously not planned on doing; therefore she can now expand the size of the proposed addition. Chair confirmed setback requirement is 25’; therefore asking for a 15’ variance. In order to conform more with the front setback, applicant has pushed the addition backwards. Proposed addition is 12’ w by 37’ long. Chair suggested that sliding the addition forward toward the road (more in line with the existing camp) would move the corner further away from the neighbor’s (Rexford) property line. Brief discussion among board members. Comments from audience: Tony LaCosta (neighbor next door) – Asked about the overall percentage of building on the property. Also raised issue of location of well to septic. Questioned if it can meet the required 100’ separation distance. Chair acknowledged that these questions often come up. Stated that whenever one modifies a footprint to this extent, septic and well must be brought up to current NYS building code. This is a matter that is overseen by the code enforcement officer, However, ZBA can approve a variance based on compliance with NYS building code. David Rexford – Asked how far off the property line the proposed addition will be. Chair – It is the board’s understanding that Mrs. Henry is requesting a 15’ side lot variance, which would put the addition 10’ off the property line (drip line must be 10’ from the property line). No other discussion/comments at this time.

Application #07-005 – Application of Michael Casadei for area variances necessary to construct a new residence (27’ x 38’) and attached 2-car garage (27’ x 26’) on property located at 8061 Crooked Street in the Lake District, town of Galway, tax parcel #185.15-1-8 - Mr. Casadei was in attendance with his realtor, Jeff Gordon, to assist him in presenting the application. Mr. Gordon – Assuming required setbacks are 25’, 25’ and 15’ on an existing lot in the lake district. Mr. Casadei – Proposed dwelling is 27’ x 64’. Lot size is 65’ x 200’. Looking for a 5’ setback on one side. Believes he meets criteria on everything else. Discussion between Mr. Casadei and Chair regarding need for placement 5’ off property line, why not more centered, alternative of putting garage in front of house, and possibility of moving it over another 10’. Mr. Casadei – Not opposed to 10’ instead of 5’. Chair – A lot of reservations regarding a 5’ setback for a piece of property this size. Chair – Asked if Mr. Casadei owns the property at this time (have title to it?) Mr. Casadei responded that the deed is being recorded at this time. Mr. Gordon is the realtor who brokered the transaction and verified that Mr. Casadei did purchase it and that the deed is being filed with the County, in Mr. Casadei’s name, at this time. Chair reiterated his question was is the deed officially filed with the County in Mr. Casadei’s name at this point? Mr. Casadei again stated that the deed was submitted to the County for filing. The paper work was filled out, signed, notarized, and is in the County’s hands at this time -- has been given a number. Chair explained his reason for asking, citing a past experience as reason this board has concern if the owner of the property is representing the property or if a future or previous owner is representing the property. Brief discussion ensued. Upon questioning from Brian Hendrie, Mr. Casadei confirmed that he is looking for a variance to build in order to enhance the property and then sell it; house will not be for his personal use. Chair – Makes sense for the offset for the turn around; however, he would prefer to see a 15’ setback. Does not feel it warrants a 5’ setback. There is no hardship with an existing building on the property. Comments from audience: Anthony Zumbolo – He and brother, Marco, are owners of adjacent property (not on the side where the 5’ setback is being requested but the other side), as well as several other parcels in the neighborhood. Lot appears to be quite small for any building. However, if there is to be a variance, feels the way it is laid out is probably the best design on the small lot, given all the parcels and their usage that surround it. Other concern – what the design for the well and septic will be, since their well could potentially be affected by its placement. Jeff Gordon – Property adjacent to requested 5’ setback (currently owned by Trosan – for sale also). Mr. Trosan also owns a 2+-acre lot in the rear, which is for sale. If someone was to purchase that, they will need 40’ of road frontage. Therefore, what would potentially be between the 5’ [setback] and Mr. Trosan’s existing house would be a driveway to the rear property. Chair – Does not feel that improves the situation. Still feels a 5’ setback on new construction with this amount of width on the lot is a bit extreme. Brian Hendrie – Suggested could also place doors on north side of garage. Marco Zumbolo – Stated concern is that if the structure is moved 15’ closer to their property, it would be closer to their well and could have an adverse affect. Mr. Casadei came forward to show locations of existing and proposed wells and septics. Chair – Being new construction, well and septic must be engineered and meet current code and are engineered relative to neighbors’ properties. Again, compliance is a function/responsibility of the code enforcement officer. Discussion regarding whether or not Mr. Casadei knows his exact property lines (reports no survey completed). Brian Hendrie – Asked that the minutes reflect his comment that building inspector will need to work with applicant and neighbor to determine the exact lot line. No further comments at this time.

Application #07-002 – Re-application of Drew Roeters for area variances required to construct/situate a new house (74’ x 31’ including attached garage) at less than the required setbacks on property located at 1379 Point Road in the Lake District of the Town of Galway, tax parcel #198.06-1-27 - Mr. Roeters was present and explained his request. Reported that when he bought the property 2 – 3 years ago he had the existing camp torn down. Would like to add a 2-car garage (22’ x 26’) on the back now. Will be making it his year-round residence. Herb Kopper – Asked for clarification -- Drawings presented show an attached garage; property layout drawing shows a porch between the garage and house. Mr. Roeters responded it will be attached. Brian Hendrie – Application indicates he is planning to put a garage up, but no mention of a house. Asked if he understands he has to have a house before he can build a garage? Mr. Roeters – Stated he has plans for both garage and house. Brian Hendrie – Reiterated that per his application, he is only applying for a variance for the garage; must also apply for a variance for the house. Chair – Thought this was explained/covered the last time [he applied]. Must request both variances at the same time. A use variance would be required to build just a garage on a property without a residential structure (current code does not allow storage building/garages on a property without a residential structure). Chair – Closeness to the property line (for the length of the building) is extreme. Asked how far he plans to build the structure from the property line. Mr. Roeters – Was under the impression he had to build on the same footprint (alleged both realtor and Mark [Concilla] told him that), which would put the structure 3’ off the line. Chair – Technically, once a structure is taken down, you have to conform [to setback requirements]. Doesn’t mean board would not show leniency, but board must try to make what applicant wants to do fit within the character of the neighborhood (not rigid enforcement and exact to code) and grant the least amount of variance necessary. Herb Kopper – reported on telephone call received from neighbor, Faye Thompson. Major concern is that garage will be built without a house. Chair – Information before the board at this time is not adequate to render a decision tonight. More information is needed. Suggested making an appointment with the Chair outside of the meeting to assist him in making his information presentable. Also suggested tabling the application pending more information. Tom Thomson – Generally, board has not granted anything less than a 5’ variance. Request has basically not changed from original application. Chair reiterated that applicant needs to present the entire project on the survey, showing the distances and variances requested. Clerk – Stated for the record that in February, Mrs. Thompson called her, expressing the same concerns relayed to Herb Kopper. Also noted that one letter of notification addressed to Roger/Donna Malebranche was returned as undeliverable. Chair – Stated Faye Thompson called him also and related concerns expressed to him. No further questions/comments.

Motion by Brian Hendrie to close the public hearing. Seconded by Tom Thomson. Voice Vote: All ayes. Motion carried. Public Hearing closed – 8:30 p.m.

PUBLIC MEETING Opened

Motion by Brian Hendrie that all four of tonight’s applications fall under the Type II list of SEQRA; therefore, no further action under SEQRA is required. Seconded by Tom Thomson. Voice vote: All ayes. Motion carried.

Application #07-001 – Thomas Shippey … tax parcel #172.-1-29.21

Chair’s thoughts: Changing requested 30’ variance on the front (east side) of the property to a 25’ variance (25’ setback) and a 20’ variance (for a 30’ setback) on the south side would be more in conformity with what [board] has been trying to do and still reasonable for the applicant to accomplish his objective of staying away from the wetlands. Mr. Shippey indicated agreement. All board members agreed, as well.

(Upon suggestion from Brian Hendrie, Chair informed all applicants that since there is one member absent tonight there is a chance for a tie vote. Explained they have the right to table their application until next month when a full board may be available. No one voiced a concern or desire to delay.)

Motion by Brian Hendrie to grant final approval to the request of Thomas and Amber Shippey (Application #07-001) for a 25’ variance on the front (east side) for a 25’ setback from the drip line, as well as a 20’ variance on the south side (30’ setback from the drip line) for construction of a new 26’ x 60’ house and attached garage on property located at 5999 Greens Corner Road in the town of Galway, tax parcel #172.-1-29.21, as per plot plan submitted 1/05/07 and amended following discussion on 3/14/07. Seconded by Tom Thomson. No further discussion. Roll call vote: Jon Hallgren, yes; Tom Thomson, yes; Herb Kopper, yes; and, Brian Hendrie, yes. Motion carried. GRANTED TWO AREA VARIANCES: 25’ EAST SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND 20’ SOUTH SIDE.

Application #07-004 – Gayle Henry … tax parcel #185.18-1-19

Chair recapped – Mrs. Henry has increased her request for area variance from a 10’ to a 15’ variance for the north side of the property. Noted concerns of the board that Mrs. Henry will probably have to bring her well and septic up to code. Does not see requested setback as substantial (it’s one corner of the proposed addition), applicant has tried to maintain front setback, [proposal] fits within the neighborhood. Brian Hendrie – Likes ‘move back’ better than previous because it is farther away from the road. Tom Thomson – Satisfied with it. Herb Kopper – agreed it maintains more distance from the road. Proposed addition is 37’ x 12’. Motion by Tom Thomson to grant Gayle Henry’s request (#07-004) for a 15’ side lot variance (north side – from the drip line) for a 37’ x 12’ addition to an existing camp located at 9362 Hart “B” Grove in the Lake District, town of Galway, tax parcel #185.18-1-19, as per plot plan submitted 1/10/07, with the stipulation that the applicant work with the code enforcement officer in bringing the well and septic up to code. Seconded by Brian Hendrie. No further discussion. Roll call vote: All ayes. Motion carried. GRANTED A 15’ AREA VARIANCE (NORTH SIDE).

Application #07-005 – Michael Casadei … tax parcel #185.15-1-8

Chair confirmed request is for the east side of the property. Feels 5’ setback is extreme; appreciates the turning radius applicant is trying to accomplish and marketability issues raised but feels when this much space is available, not necessary. Asked for opinion of other board members. Brian Hendrie – Could put entrance to garage on north side or could detach the garage and put back further on the property -- more inclined to request centering [of the house]. Herb Kopper – Many other properties around with garages in the front – does not believe it would be a problem to sell. Also prefers to see more centered. Tom Thomson – Would not like to see the garage in the front, is in keeping with the character of surrounding lots/camps, but feels a 10’ setback would not encumber the swing into the garage. Garage makes sense where it is proposed. Chair would like to see 15’. (Discussion regarding minimum turning radius required.) Mr. Casadei – Again stated his reasons for not wanting the garage in the front citing aesthetics and marketability. Understands board’s concerns; prefers 5’ [setback], but could live with 10’ if it ‘has to be’. Chair – Likes the 15’ with a turnaround and parking in the back but could move to 10’. Brian Hendrie – Disagreed, preferring to center house and put garage entrance on north side. Herb Kopper – Agrees with Brian. Tom Thomson – Likes the 10’. Gives room on the other side (still have good access) but does not encroach too much on east. Discussion regarding alternatives, including placing turn-around and entry to garage in rear, pros and cons, took place. Herb Kopper posed the question of whether the lot would be sold [vacant] or if the house would be built prior to selling. Mr. Gordon and Mr. Casadei both responded they hoped/thought the house would be built prior to sale. Chair took Herb’s point; board will approve a variance for a 27’ x 38’ house with a 26’ x 27’ attached garage. Any deviation from that would require a new variance. Mr. Casadei indicated his understanding. Chair then stated he is willing to agree with Tom regarding 10’ setback and provided the reasoning used to arrive at his decision. Brian Hendrie agreed to go along. Herb Kopper – reluctant but agreed to go along. Chair asked if there was a motion for approval. Motion by Tom Thomson to grant Michael Casadei (Application #07-005) a 15’ area variance (for a 10’ setback from the drip line) on the east side of the property for a 27’ w x 38’ long house with a 27’ w x 26’ long attached garage on a vacant lot located on Lake Road in the Lake District of the town of Galway, tax parcel #185.15-1-8, as per plot plan submitted 1/25/07 and amended following discussion on 3/14/07, with the stipulation that the well and septic must conform with current state code (work with the code enforcement officer). Seconded by Brian Hendrie. No further discussion. Roll call vote: All ayes (with Herb Kopper stating not because he thinks it is the way to go, but as a compromise, reluctantly willing to go along). Motion carried. GRANTED A 15’ AREA VARIANCE (EAST SIDE).

Application #07-002 - Drew Roeters … tax parcel #198.06-1-27

Chair reiterated he does not believe enough information has been supplied. House plans and plot plan submitted with application do not seem anything alike. Other board members agree. Chair insistent on minimum setback of 5’ and would rather see 10’ if there is room. Applicant needs to accurately superimpose what he wants to do on the survey/plot plan with specific dimensions. Mr. Roeters explained he did not include a request for variance for the house because he was under the impression that if he rebuilt in the original footprint, the house would not require a variance (thought it was “grandfathered” in). Chair stated it was explained to the applicant the last time that he needed to do the whole thing at one time; perhaps Mr. Roeters misunderstood. Property is a 50’ wide, long, skinny lot. House as currently proposed would only allow about 10’ on each side. Discussion regarding reducing the size of the building took place. Suggested compromise from Board: A 24’ wide building, maintain the 18’ from the boundary with Thompson (which would provide access for emergency vehicles); would then allow a 7’ setback on the other side (Malebranche). Could perhaps extend the length of the house to maintain living space. Additional discussion took place. Chair clarified for Mr. Roeters that even if he applied for a building permit without the garage, he still would need a variance. Applicant was cautioned that in reconfiguring his request, must take the drip line into account (variances are from the drip line). Mr. Roeters advised that since this application was a re-application of his original request, revised plan will require a new application, including fee. Mr. Roeters asked if his plan to have the garage coming straight into the back is okay. Members replied affirmatively (house faces the lake). Motion by Brian Hendrie to deny the request of Drew Roeters for area variances (Application #07-002) based on the fact that the application was for a garage only (not the entire project) and inadequate information was provided. Seconded by Tom Thomson. No further discussion. Roll call vote: All ayes. Motion carried. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE DENIED. Chair informed Mr. Roeters that if he sends him a copy of his new application/plan via the mail, he would review it and offer assistance prior to formal filing. Was also informed that he need not submit such formal, detailed drawings (of the proposed structures) with his application. Something that includes specific dimensions of the proposed structure, distances, etc. on the plot plan is sufficient.

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR – None requested

OTHER BUSINESS

Jon Hallgren to talk with Mark Concilla regarding questions some board members had regarding the “hot dog stand” at the corner of Fish House and Route 29.

Discussion regarding whether or not applicants understand setback requirements are from the drip line, with the majority of members feeling it is understood.

Motion to adjourn by Herb Kopper. Seconded by Tom Thomson. Voice Vote: All ayes. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Carol L. DeLorme, Clerk

03/24/07