MINUTES OF ZBA MEETING

Meeting Date: June 11, 2008

Town Hall - 5910 Sacandaga Road

Galway, New York 12074

Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chair, Jon Hallgren. Clerk called the roll:

MEMBERS PRESENT: Jon Hallgren, Herb Kopper, Brian Hendrie, and Mark Kindinger

MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Bogdan (excused)

ALSO PRESENT: Carol DeLorme, Clerk; George Weed, town board liaison; and 5 people in audience

PURPOSE AND PROCEDURE OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

Chair explained the purpose and procedure of the ZBA. Applicants indicated they understood.

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING

All members of the Board previously reviewed the minutes of the previous meeting (May 14, 2008). Motion by Mark Kindinger to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded – Brian Hendrie. Voice vote: All ayes. Carried. Minutes approved without correction.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED by Chair @ 7:32 P.M - Clerk read the legal notice as it appeared in the Daily Gazette on 06/03/08.

Application #08-006 – Request of Stephen J. and Bernice Honicki for area variances needed to construct/attach a wheelchair ramp to an existing dwelling on property located at 3029 South Shore Drive West (Weiss’s Grove) in the Lake District in the Town of Galway, tax parcel #198.11-1-90

Mr. and Mrs. Honicki were present, along with their son-in-law (also Stephen), who explained the application/request. Mr. Honicki suffers from Parkinson’s disease and other conditions that limit his mobility, including climbing stairs. Currently, the camp has a single step attached to the entrance of the camp. The proposed ramp would come along the front side (towards the roadway) to the doorway to level the entrance so Mr. Honicki can enter with a wheelchair or walker with relative ease. Will also continue the ramp past the doorway to the deck facing the lake so Mr. Honicki can access/enjoy that area. Chair – acknowledged that the Honicki’s have been before the board previously and asked how this proposal is different from that proposal. Stephen – Originally, [setbacks] were only from the drip lines. This ramp would be attached to the side and extend beyond the drip line. Also, in the front (facing the water) they were limited to a 9’ extension towards the water; now would like to go 12’. Additional width of the deck would make more room for a table and chairs and allow more maneuverability (for “Hover Round” – electric wheelchair). Extension would be level with deck. Ramp will be constructed of pressure-treated lumber and Trex composite material -- More economical vs. concrete. Chair - During site visit noted the sight line seems pretty consistent with other camps (appears extreme on paper until you walk the property). Mark Kindinger asked for clarification: Previously approved for a 9’ deck on the front? Chair – Yes. Clerk read previous variance (July 2007): a 16’ side lot variance (west side) and a 10’ side lot variance on the east side for new home, 24’ x 36’. Chair confirmed width of walkway is to be 5’; therefore asking to increase to a 15’ variance on the east side. Herb Kopper – Asked if measurement (on map) of 11’ is from the 5’ ramp? Stephen – 11’ includes the 5’ ramp width. Herb – When he measured from the lake end of the foundation to the edge of the right-of-way he came up with 14’. Chair – Would require a 16’ variance then. Herb agreed. Also, when he measured from the front of the camp (from the deck) to measure 12’ out, it came out to exactly 50’ to the water edge (to the shore). Therefore, doesn’t see where there would be any variance required for that end of it. Chair – Would be from the property line. Last time applicants were also given a 21’ variance on the front (lake) side. Required lake side setback is 50’. This measurement (on map) also appears to be a little inaccurate. Chair – Unfortunately, this drawing helps prove board’s case for requiring scaled plot plans. Explained that someone coming before the board with the wrong measurements (without surveyed measurements) could underestimate their need and end up with an invalid request. Herb having taken measurements will help the board to recalculate. Chair continued: Had a 21’ variance last time (which should have put the building at 29’ away from property line). Looking for a 12’ deck. Mark K – That measurement would have been correct for the foundation but not the 9’ deck. Applicant – Moved the building back 9’ (towards the road). Mark K – Original plan was to include a 9’ deck on the front. Their foundation, according to plot plan provided, is 30’ (a 20’ variance). Now with the deck on the front, looking at a 32’ variance. Chair – Came up with 33, but … close. Asking for an additional 12’ from the last time. Mark K – Then asked for clarification if building was moved back 9’ (from this plan). Applicant – According to that plan, yes. Maintains that when they were before the board initially, engineer was here and discussed that the building was going to be moved back 9’. Board reviewed minutes and map from previous submission (July 2007). This plan appears to be the same plan. Chair - Drawing seems to be completely inaccurate. Drawing shows 18’ when really should be 27’ from the property line, if in fact, the house was moved back (lake side). Concern now is that we are trying to work with dimensions given and the drawing does not appear to be accurate/understandable. Applicant – This plan was accepted by [ZBA] last time. Chair – But have numbers on drawing that do not add up, mathematically. Applicant – Confused as to why they don’t add up. Going based on lines that are shown for east side of building (16’ to the line). Chair – Showing a building that, on this picture, is 30’ from property line but tonight saying it is really 39’ from the property line. Also showing that the edge of the deck is 18’ but sounds like it should be a longer distance – doesn’t make sense. Already determined that measurement for the side lot was incorrect. Applicant – This is the drawing they brought for the original variance. Chair – Having trouble with this drawing – an inaccurate drawing. Very difficult to determine the amount of variance needed. Asked applicant to consider waiting and providing a more accurate drawing. Use the survey and represent accurate measurements. Asked them to stake out those spots on the site, so when [board] comes back to visit, can visually see what’s going on. Mrs. Honicki became very upset with the idea of having to wait another month – Husband can’t go anywhere, can’t do anything because he can’t get around. Want to be able to use their camp – only thing he can do and presently can’t get into the camp. Very upset. Son-in-law – “Splitting hairs”. Well within the property lines, not encroaching on anyone else’s property. Mrs. Honicki – Have had the property for 30+ years. Husband can’t go anywhere or do anything, so thought they would build a new camp so he has some place to go. Now he can’t use it. Son-in-Law – Very emotional thing. Chair – Agreed; feels bad. Explained what’s going on. Measurements around the lake are very, very tight. Properties are twisted, camps run into other people’s property, lines are disputable, etc. Have to watch what we grant/don’t grant based on accuracy. Have been questioning accuracy – applicants brought very inaccurate information. Showing building as 30’ away when it is actually 39’ away. Applicant– Maintained that original minutes show it was explained that camp was going to be [moved] 9’ back from the water line. Brian Hendrie – Unless the designer included the 9’ deck as part of this drawing – in other words, not designating the house vs. the deck. Further discussion revealed foundation is 24’; therefore drawing does show the house. Herb Kopper– Think we could make an adjustment on the numbers (based on this drawing and previous one) with a re-measuring – still better than many other drawings received in the past. If we can make the adjustment on the numbers to accommodate the movement of the house, can move ahead to consider the variance request. Brian Hendrie – In agreement. Not really a lot of problem with it. The 5’ ramp going into the house is going to be 5’ no matter what is done. Would give him the 5’ variance no matter how close [to the boundary line]. Quiveling over distances going to the lake side. If concerned about the inaccuracy, could perhaps pass a resolution and have him come back with a more accurate measurement. E.g., we are going to allow them to put a 12’ deck on the front (lake) side of their house so many feet, more or less, from the lake front.) Then, have them come back with a specific dimension to be more accurate. George Weed – Agree – Think we should try to make accommodation. Brian – Got a man/family here that needs this – No way he is going to deny it. Mark K – Only problem is that it has to be filed with the county as to what the variance is. Brian – Ok – then give them a few more feet. Instead of 21’, give him 25’ and just specify that it’s going to be a 12’ deck. Provides latitude for dimensions. Chair – Agreed. Other consideration would be to approve the walk way and then come back for the front, but is it really necessary? Request is not substantial but have a poor drawing and wanted to go through the motion to discuss it, as we have put other people through this. To make an exception here without discussion would be incorrect. Herb – Suggested a revised drawing be submitted showing correct positioning of the camp on the property with the deck and the ramp. Could then be filed as an updated, corrected drawing. Brian – Suggested giving a variance that includes margin for error but stipulate it has to be a 12’ deck and a 5’ ramp. Chair – Agreed; deck can be no greater than 12’ and the ramp no greater than 5’. Here is the minimum variance and no additional variances are to be requested. All members were in agreement. Chair noted for record that minutes of July 2007 were reviewed and do not reflect discussion regarding moving the building back 9’, just a 21’ variance. Mark K – That would match what the map says. Assuming that is the case, then this [request] is an additional 12’ variance, making it 33’. Chair – If we say building can be extended no more than 12’, we will be covered. All board members and applicant agreed. No further discussion/comments from public. Chair – Also noted that this is a pre-existing substandard size building lot – Considered buildable in town of Galway without variance request as it preexists zoning requirement. Motion – Mark Kindinger to close the public hearing. Seconded – Brian Hendrie. Voice vote: All ayes. Motion carried. Public hearing closed – 8:22 pm.

PUBLIC MEETING

Application #08-006 … Request of Stephen J. & Bernice Honicki for area variances … tax parcel #198.11-1-90

Chair recapped: Reviewing a 16’ variance on the east side of the home to construct an access ramp and widen the deck on the lake front. On the lake front side, would like to increase the variance to 33’ (from the previous variance of 21’), contingent on the structure only increasing the distance toward the lake by 12’. Have concern for the measurements but minutes and motion should reflect that it gives a maximum building structure of 12 feet, and the variance from the lake allows the applicants to build within 17’ of the property line (for a 33’ variance). On the west side would need to continue the 16’ variance for the additional 12’ of deck. Therefore, three variances requested. Feel the character of the neighborhood is not changed. This additional construction lines up with buildings on either side, does not crowd the lake any more and thinks the nature of the applicant’s quality of life is dependent upon the requested changes and is duly considered by the board. Motion – Brian Hendrie – That application #08-006 falls under the Type II list under SEQR and, therefore, no further action under SEQR is required. Seconded – Mark Kindinger. Voice vote: All ayes. Motion carried. Motion – Mark Kinginger to grant Stephen J. and Bernice Honicki (application #08-006) a 16’ variance on the east side property line for construction of a handicap access ramp and to widen the deck by 5’ (towards the east), to extend the deck on the lake side by no more than 12’ (towards the lake) for a maximum 33’ front lot (lake side) variance, and to continue the 16’ variance on the west side of the property for the 12’ deck. Also noted that this is a pre-existing substandard size building lot in the Lake District but considered buildable because it pre-exists one acre minimum zoning requirement in the Lake District. Therefore, no area variance needed. Further discussion: Herb Kopper strongly urged applicants to put a number on the house, noting he had difficulty locating the house for the site visit. Has advocated for this for years. In the case of an emergency, precious time could be wasted trying to locate the home. Very important that numbers are on the house, easy to read and highly visible, especially since, in this case, there is a heightened possibility for a call for an emergency vehicle. Applicants indicated they understood the importance of issue raised by Mr. Kopper. No further discussion. Motion seconded – Herb Kopper – Roll call vote: Jon Hallgren, yes; Mark Kindinger, yes; Herb Kopper, yes; Brian Hendrie, yes. Motion carried. VARIANCES GRANTED. Chair explained that as soon as they receive letter of approval from ZBA, applicants can contact Mark Concilla for building permit.

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR – None requested

OTHER BUSINESS

Chair – Received a letter from George Hargrave that the town board would like input from ZBA members at any time regarding questions concerning zoning or concerns about the new zoning regulations. George Weed reported that the zoning hearing was postponed so that board could get more input. New date has not been set; therefore, ample time to make contact.

Chair – Has not caught up with George or Mark Concilla re: Mark’s ability to attend more of our meetings. Will again add it to his “To Do” list. Chair requested minutes reflect that board would like to know town’s and Mark’s thoughts on his attending our meetings.

Chair – Did talk with Marty Posefsky (new board attorney). He would prefer to attend all meetings but has been instructed by the town to consider attendance at only more difficult meetings. Chair anticipates this would probably be a use variance request. However, he has a permanent conflict as he is also attorney for the town of Milton planning board, which meets the same night as we do (he has an agreement with them to attend all meetings). Obvious question is should we change our meeting night back to the first Wed of the month to be compatible with his available time. Clerk reported that time-wise, having two weeks between planning board and ZBA meetings is preferable – helpful in getting work completed between meetings. Board discussed the issue. Instances when attorney is needed are few. George Weed suggested that Marty could possibly send someone else from his firm (believes town hired the firm, not Marty exclusively. Believes there is room for that to occur). Didn’t think meeting night should be changed just due to his availability. Chair – Reasons for switching and reasons for not switching. Decision was to think about it and discuss it further at next meeting. Chair also reported that he discussed with Marty, the possibility of submitting information/opinions in writing, rather than verbally, when he can’t attend a meeting. Not attending a meeting and having to give input on the meeting was something new to him. Chair offered that if he is uncomfortable with that, then he should consider attending the meeting to answer the question(s) at the meeting.

Herb Kopper – Brought up Cassadei property (west side of Galway Lake) for discussion. Some years ago [ZBA] approved a rather modest addition with a small deck. His recent observation is that it now seems to have projected almost to lake shore. Does not recall [Mr. Cassadei] coming before the board for variances for any additional expansions. Chair – Also thinks there have been quite a few changes after initial variances were approved. Herb – Tonight talked about setting precedents, etc. Haven’t had the opportunity to set any precedents where [Cassadei] is concerned -- seems to have a blanket go ahead with whatever he wants to do. Board reviewed previous files and could not see where Mr. Cassadei has returned for any further variances for this property.

Chair – Another suggestion from Mary Posefsky was that the board make up a binder of decisions made (as a quick reference for precedents or if we want to go back and find something). Chair suggested copy of letters of approval sent to applicants put in a binder could satisfy this recommendation. Believes Marty was talking about retrospect, but suggested starting with this month and moving forward. Clerk suggested that reports generated from building dept software could possibly be used; however, reports currently generated for Zoning variances are unsatisfactory in the way they present information (don’t give information in a readable format). Clerk has had conversations with Mark Concilla regarding possible upgrades to software to produce a better report. Asked that it be discussed with Jay Greenblat (software consultant), but to date nothing has happened. George Weed suggested submitting request in writing to George Hargrave.

Motion to adjourn by Brian Hendrie. Seconded - Mark Kindinger. Voice Vote: All ayes. Motion carried.

Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Carol L. DeLorme

Carol L. DeLorme, Clerk