Town of Bolton SEQR = State Environmental Quality Review
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PB = (Town of Bolton) Planning Board
MINUTES WCPB = Warren County Planning Board
Monday, March 15, 2004 APA = Adirondack Park Agency
6:30 p.m. LGPC = Lake George Park Commission
- DEC = Dept of Environmental Conservation
Present: Chairman Greg Smith, Tony DePace, Kam Hoopes, Meredith McComb,
Michael Murray, Bill Pfau, Fred Ross, Zoning Administrator Pam Kenyon, Town Counsel Michael Muller
G. Smith opened the meeting at 6:38 pm by asking for corrections to the February 2004 minutes. M. McComb had 3 corrections involving her own statements, which were inaudible during the discussion of Byers, V03-24. On page 8, 5th line from the bottom, it should read: “…of the 4 groups of retention rocks.” On page 9, at the end of the 8th paragraph, it should read: “…if you put a pilaster--”. On page 19, at the end of the 5th paragraph, it should read: “… a referendum of Pam’s decision,” or “ a referendum of Pam’s popularity.” There were no other corrections, so a motion was made by K. Hoopes to approve the February 23, 2004 minutes as corrected. Seconded by M. Murray. All in favor. Motion carried.
1) V04-03 BROOKER, BRIAN & SUSAN. Represented by Dennis Dickinson. For the construction of a proposed single-family dwelling, seek area variance for 1) a deficient shoreline setback. 75’ is required: 44’ is proposed and 2) deficient side yard setbacks. 20’ is required: 18’ is proposed on both sides. Section 186.10, Block 1, Lot 8, Zone RM1.3. Property Location: 23 Sweet Briar Lane. Subject to WCPB and APA review.
Mr. Dickinson stated that the shoreline variance is caused somewhat by the shape of the property and the location of two adjacent homes that are actually out in front of the shoreline of the subject property. The existing cottage on the property is only 13’ from the shoreline, and the Brookers would rather build a new structure (in a more compliant location) than improve the one that is there. They are asking for a variance so that they may obtain some sort of view beyond the adjacent structures, which would basically block the new structure if they were to adhere to the shoreline setback. Regarding the sideline setbacks, Mr. Dickinson noted that the sides of the house itself meet the setbacks, but the overhangs encroach. He added that WCPB unanimously approved the application with the condition that stormwater and erosion control measures be implemented in conformance with local regulations.
Mr. Brooker spoke, referred to the responses included in the application that address the criteria for granting area variances. B. Pfau stated that he understood why the applicant was requesting the shoreline variance, but did not understand the need to encroach the sideline setbacks by 2’ on each side. Mr. Brooker stated that the property is only approximately 100’ wide, where 125’ (Mr. Brooker stated 130’) is required in this zone. This would only allow for a 90’ wide house, and Mr. Brooker had already invested a substantial amount in architectural drawings prior to learning that overhangs are included when calculating setback distance. The house width Mr. Brooker is proposing is necessary to allow for a master bedroom, great room and kitchen on the first floor. He stated that he could consider removing the eaves back, but doing so would not be architecturally appealing. The Board felt this was not a good option.
B. Pfau noted that the proposed dwelling is further away from the shoreline substantially than what is there now. M. McComb felt that the proposed structure was significantly larger than the existing, and she was unclear as to why locating the structure in compliance with the shoreline setback wouldn’t give the applicant the exact same view toward the front of the lot, if not a greater view to the north and south because the structure would be further behind the adjacent structures. She asked if there was a reason, other than the applicant’s desire to be closer to the Lake, that the shoreline setback wasn’t being met. Mr. Dickinson stated that obviously there was no physical reason they couldn’t meet the setback since the land is very flat, but this is a lakefront lot, and the applicant would like to be able to enjoy the Lake as much as possible. Mr. Dickinson stated that the request was in line with existing conditions in the neighborhood, which is something the Board should consider.
There was a dotted line on the map that extended across from the closest point to the Lake of both neighbors’ structures (labeled “apparent lake side line of existing adjacent structures”). M. McComb and M. Murray did not think the Board should take this into consideration, as these are pre-existing, non-conforming structures. M. McComb noted that the zoning ordinance encourages compliance within the 75’ shoreline, especially when dealing with new construction.
G. Smith indicated he was willing to consider the shoreline setback, but felt there was no reason the sideline setbacks could not be met. He felt that the same function could be achieved interiorly if the structure were narrowed by 4’. K. Hoopes agreed, noting that the sideline setback request would have a difficult time meeting the self-created criteria of granting an area variance. When asked if he would consider amending his application, Mr. Brooker indicated that the most critical variance is the shoreline setback, adding that he would have to redesign the house to meet the sideline setback(s) if the Board would not grant it. Mr. Brooker intends to use cedar siding and a slate roof. G. Smith wished to make sure that bright colors, such as yellow, would not be proposed along the Lake. Mr. Brooker agreed to use earth tones.
The Board chose to vote on both portions of the variance request separately, as follows:
RESOLUTION:
The Zoning Board of Appeals received an application from Brian and Susan Brooker for an area variance(s) as described above.
And, due notice of the public hearing of the ZBA at which time the application was to be considered having been given and the application having been referred to the Warren County Planning Board;
and, whereas the Warren County Planning Board determined that there was no County impact with the condition that stormwater erosion control measure information be in conformance with the local regulations or the applicant should work with Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District to implement the appropriate controls;
and, after reviewing the application and supporting documents of the same, and there being no public comment regarding the application;
this Board makes the following findings of fact:
The application of the Applicant is as described in Item #1 of the agenda.
The Board makes the following conclusions of law:
The request, relative to the side yard setback variances of 18’ on both sides, was denied based on the following findings of the Board:
1) The benefit can be achieved by another mean feasible to the applicant;
2) While there may not be a gross undesirable change in the neighborhood, it seems like this is a case where they can meet the setbacks and ought to;
3) The request is not substantial;
4) The request will not have adverse physical and environmental effects;
5) The alleged difficulty is entirely self-created, and it’s important to maintain the requirements of the ordinance.
Now, upon motion duly made by M. McComb and seconded by M. Murray, it is resolved that the ZBA does hereby deny the portion of the variance request relative to the 18’ side yard setback(s) as presented. All in favor. Motion carried.
Relative to the shoreline variance of 44’, this request was approved based on the following findings of the Board:
1) The benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant other than an area variance. It’s the only way this is going to work. There are mitigating circumstances both to the north and the south and in the shape of the bay, which offer screening of the visual impact from the Lake;
2) Undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties: I don’t think that’s going to be the case;
3) Whether the request is substantial: 45’ from the Lake in these particular circumstances is not substantial, neither in a numerical way nor by visual (standards);
4) Whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects: assuming that the stormwater management is in place, that doesn’t seem to be the case;
5) Whether the alleged difficulty is self-created: in this particular case, the shape of the bay, the existing point of land to the south, and the (location of the) house to the north is not due to the applicant’s activities at all.
Now, upon motion duly made by K. Hoopes and seconded by B. Pfau, it is resolved that the ZBA does hereby grant the portion of the variance request relative to the shoreline setback as presented. It is noted that it was agreed upon by the applicant that, in some form or another, the house will be treated in earth tone colors. 4 in favor. 3 (M. McComb, M. Murray and F. Ross) opposed. Motion carried.
2) V04-04 FR SMITH & SONS MARINA. Represented by Chris Gabriels. In accordance with Section 200-56A of the Zoning Ordinance, seeks area variance to alter a non-conforming structure, specifically to enclose a portion of existing boathouse and to install a gas pump. Approximately 10’ exists on the north side and 0’ exists on the south side. Section 171.15, Block 3, Lot 56, Zone GB5000. Property Location: 36 Sagamore Road. Subject to WCPB review.
G. Smith recused himself as he is related to the applicant.
Mr. Gabriels explained that there are two aspects to the project. He noted that the agenda should read that the proposal is to install a gas pump cover, not the pumps themselves, as they already exist. There is a fire suppression system over the gas pumps that will also be enclosed, as will the existing ice machine. The other aspect of the proposal is to enclose an existing porch. The existing roofline will not be extended. Mr. Gabriels believes that either the State or the insurance company mandates that the pumps be enclosed. B. Pfau felt the request was minimal, and there were no negative aspects to the proposal.
There was no one from the public to speak on the application, and the only correspondence was from the County, who recommended no County impact with the condition that a spill containment plan be included with the application, and the project is compliant with the LGPC.
RESOLUTION
The Zoning Board of Appeals received an application from FR Smith & Sons Marina for an area variance as described above.
And, due notice of the public hearing of the ZBA at which time the application was to be considered having been given and the application having been referred to the Warren County Planning Board;
and, whereas the Warren County Planning Board determined that there was no County impact with the condition that a spill containment plan be included with the application, and the project is compliant with the LGPC;
and, after reviewing the application and supporting documents of the same, and there being no public comment regarding the application;
this Board makes the following findings of fact:
The application of the Applicant is as described in Item #2 of the agenda.
The Board makes the following conclusions of law:
1) The benefit cannot be achieved by the Applicant by other feasible means;
2) There will be no undesirable change produced in the neighborhood character. It’s a marina now. There’s gas pumps now;
3) The requested variance is not substantial. They’re basically just enclosing space that they have;
4) It will have a positive effect on physical, environmental aspects by maybe taking another look at any spill containment plan, and be safer;
5) The alleged difficulty is not self-created. The cover was put out there (is being proposed) to meet State regulations and they’re just trying to make it look nicer and more in character with the surrounding business, and the neighbors’ properties as well.
Now, upon motion duly made by M. McComb and seconded by M. Murray, it is resolved that the ZBA does hereby grant approval for said project as presented with the condition that a spill containment plan be implemented as per the County’s suggestion. 6 in favor. 1 (G. Smith) abstained, as he is related to the applicant. Motion carried.
3) V04-07 POWERS, JOHN & TERRY. For the construction of a proposed single-family dwelling, seek area variance for a deficient front yard setback. 50’ is required from the edge of the right-of-way: 25’ is proposed. Section 200.00, Block 1, Lot 19, Zone LC25. Property Location: Former Tomahawk property off of Route 9N.
Mr. Powers explained that they did some test holes on the property and discovered that there was a lot of ledge rock. He indicated that if they were to meet the setbacks, it would most definitely require blasting. The proposed location will significantly decrease the need to blast, if not eliminate it. They basically are asking for the option to place the house in the proposed location, but they may find that they’re better able to meet the setbacks once they begin digging at the site.
Mr. Powers stated that the closest neighbor indicated they had no problems with the proposal. The site cannot be seen from Route 9N. Mr. Powers stated that they purchased the property in March of 1997. The suggestion was made that access be gained off the road above the site, but Mr. Powers indicated that there were water paths they would interfere with by doing so. It was also suggested that the building site be moved down toward the cul-de-sac, where it is more level, but Mr. Powers noted that by doing so they would lose the view effect they are trying to achieve, adding that there would likely still be the need to blast in that location.
From the public, adjacent landowner to the north, Judith Resnik, spoke saying that she supports a proposal that involves the least amount of blasting because there are watershed problems in the (lake) cove below. There was no correspondence on the application.
RESOLUTION
The Zoning Board of Appeals received an application from John and Terry Powers for an area variance as described above.
And, due notice of the public hearing of the ZBA at which time the application was to be considered having been given;
and, after reviewing the application and supporting documents of the same, and public comment regarding the application having been heard;
this Board makes the following findings of fact:
The application of the Applicant is as described in Item #3 of the agenda.
The Board makes the following conclusions of law:
1) The benefit can’t be achieved by other means feasible other than an area variance. This definitely has to do with physical limitations of the site and the property itself;
2) (Regarding whether there will be an) undesirable change in the neighborhood character to nearby properties, this will be the neighborhood for the time being while it’s (the house) being built. This is a variance from the right-of-way itself, (inaudible) both sides, but so far from the Lake it will be almost invisible;
3) Whether the request is substantial: this is in the LC25 zone, so 25’ is about half of what the setback is supposed to be, but again, considering the fact that that is the window of opportunity for building on that lot, the substantiality of that is mitigated;
4) Whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects: it hasn’t been established that either one of those is at risk here;
5) Whether the alleged difficulty is self-created: no, that ledge has been there for centuries;
Now, upon motion duly made by K. Hoopes and seconded by M. McComb, it is resolved that the ZBA does hereby grant approval for said project as presented. All in favor. Motion carried.
On other business, P. Kenyon referred to a letter from Mark Rehm, Esq. of Howard Krantz’ office on behalf of neighbors Curtis/Resnik, who are requesting that the Board rehear the variance on the Abbott subdivision (V03-52 for SD03-29), due to the potential impacts on Middlebrook Stream. The Board felt that they had given the matter thorough discussion at the time, determining that the brook was far enough away so as not to be (adversely) impacted. M. McComb felt that if the neighbors were to present material that would be cause for reopening the matter, she would consider it, but she also felt the Board gave ample consideration at the time. The Board decided not to rehear the variance. P. Kenyon indicated she would send a letter of response indicating the Board’s position.
Additionally, P. Kenyon referred to a memo from Dave Decker of the LG Watershed Conference, regarding its Regulatory Review Activities meetings schedule, encouraging attendance from Planning and Zoning Board members.
Meeting adjourned at 7:37 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Melanie Quigan
Recording Secretary
03/30/04