Peter Keating, Vice Chairman Karen Hanchett Tom Jenne Gary Moon Bob Risman, Jr. (Alternate Member) Denise Paddock (Alternate Member)

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Peter Keating, Vice Chairman Karen Hanchett Tom Jenne Gary Moon Bob Risman, Jr. (Alternate Member) Denise Paddock (Alternate Member)"

Maria Holt
5 years ago
Views:

1 Minutes of the Town of Lake George Zoning Board of Appeals meeting held on February 3, 2016 at 6:00 p.m., at the Town Center, 20 Old Post Road, Lake George, New York. Members Present: Also Present: Peter Bauer, Chairman Peter Keating, Vice Chairman Karen Hanchett Tom Jenne Gary Moon Bob Risman, Jr. (Alternate Member) Denise Paddock (Alternate Member) Adele Behrmann, Dan Barusch, Curt Dybas and others. The meeting was called to order at 6:01 p.m. by Chairman Bauer. Acceptance of the Minutes: A motion is introduced by Chairman Bauer; seconded by Gary Moon to accept the January 6, 2016 minutes. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Application for Area Variance AV submitted by Curt Dybas as agent for DEJAMO, LLC with a proposal to construct a walkway bridge from the residence basement level to the proposed boathouse sundeck for property located at 18 Colony Cove Rd. Tax Map No Lot Size is 1.17 acres. Zoning Classification RCH-LS. Sections & SEQRA is Type 2. Chairman Bauer reads the application into the record. A motion is introduced by Tom Jenne; seconded by Peter Keating to accept the application as read. Chairman Bauer: welcome Mr. Dybas. Curt Dybas: good evening; for the record my name is Curt Dybas representing Dejamo which means a beautiful place to come back to. This project as you know has been ongoing for quite some time. The residence and the guest house are currently under construction and the time frame for the completion of the guest house is May which would be in time for Dad, Mr. Sliter s return; the main house should be completed in July. I don t know if you ve been down there but it is progressing nicely thanks to a nice winter. Last summer we started looking at the shoreline but with everything going on we really didn t want to get into it and they kept putting it off until they finally decided to get going on this. I am going to give you a little bit of history; the dock was rebuilt 2 or 3 years ago and it is not going anywhere and the idea is to construct a sundeck above the dock by raising it up to the requirements of the Lake George Park Commission and then a bridge to connect the lower level of the residence to the sundeck. The elevation difference between the proposed sundeck and the basement level of the house is a little less than 2 ft. making it almost level. The problem arises in any dock/bridge scenario since you have a chicken and an egg scenario; which comes first? The Park Commission governs everything from the mean high water into the lake and the ZBA and the Town control everything else that s built from the mean high water inward and so trying to figure out what would be the proper approach here; I chose to do the bridge first for the simple reason that if that s not approved then it changes the whole scenario of going to the Lake George Park Commission. The other way and I get all this approved and then come to the ZBA and it is not approve and then have to go back to the Lake George Park Commission and modify all that paperwork. I decided to go for the bridge first which is roughly 35 ft. distance from the mean high water vertically to the front of the house which was granted by the ZBA at previous meetings and try to make it as inconspicuous as possible but it is a bridge. The property to the north, as you can see in the pictures, has a large boathouse sundeck and a short bridge that goes from a very high wall to the top of the sundeck and it is between 5 ft. to 6 ft. The property to the south, and I Zoning Board of Appeals P a g e 1 February 3, 2016 Minutes

2 haven t walked there because I don t want to violate that, I looked at it on Google and from what I can tell their sundeck is right up a big stone wall that is right at the shore line and it looks like a man made stonewall. This project really doesn t adversely affect the character of the neighborhood but I don t know of any other way to approach this. As I said in the summary, Herb, the father, is 83 years old in a wheelchair with arthritis and Jamie has a disabled sister in a wheelchair. I know last summer they took Dad down on the boat and during a conversation with him he told that this wasn t going to happen again; he wasn t going to go to the boat and back up again. As you can see from the pictures, the site has about 20 steps to get down to the dock and there comes a time when you don t do certain things anymore but they thought it would be nice to provide access to the sundeck for him. In the house they re talking about getting stairs incline system or a moving chair that goes up and down. The house and the deck would be accessible from a parking area in the back with great access to the house. This is where I am at and if you have any questions I d be happy to answer them. Tom Jenne: the application reads to construct a bridge to the proposed sundeck, so (interruption). Dan Barusch: it is from to the house. Tom Jenne: yes; from the house to the basement into a 2 ft. drop to the proposed new sundeck and so both of those criteria would have to be either approved or denied; I am asking if they are both on the table, correct? The raising of the sundeck and the bridge. Dan Barusch: the bridge is for us but the raising of the sundeck and the other part of the bridge is for the Park Commission. Tom Jenne: oh, I see; that s what I didn t understand and so we re here to decide whether or not that bridge (interruption). Dan Barusch: over land; as soon as it hits the retaining wall, the part that connects to the house is for the ZBA. As Curt was saying earlier, if it doesn t get approved here then it s pointless to go to the Park Commission. Tom Jenne: I get it. Curt Dybas: as I said, it s a chicken or an egg; how do I approach this? It s a catch 22 and I just decided myself to approach it this way because if it s not approved here and then when I go there it will just be a sundeck and won t need a bridge but if I don t get an approval here then I have to go there and change everything with their rules and regs; there are basically driven by DEC and have more stringent regulations as far as areas, heights and everything else. The drawings that are in this package will be the same that go to the Park Commission which explains why there are details as to heights, profiles for boats, lifting boats, etc. are in that package. Tom Jenne: thank you that was all the clarification I needed. Peter Keating: Curt, in looking at your drawings it appears that any stairs, if approved per your drawings, do not reach land, is that correct? Curt Dybas: that s correct. Peter Keating: it goes to the decking on the dock/boathouse. Curt Dybas: that s true. Peter Keating: will there be electricity out there? Curt Dybas: there already is electricity out there now. This boat house is shown on the 1958 Lake George Park Commission surveys and when the Park Commission permitted all the docks in the lake, Herb Sliter received his permit in The dimensions of the dock and everything is already set and built and it s not going anywhere; it s from there up that (pause). Chairman Bauer: is it a crib dock? Zoning Board of Appeals P a g e 2 February 3, 2016 Minutes

3 Curt Dybas: yes; it s a crib dock. Chairman Bauer: are you anticipating issues with the Park Commission with raising the height? Curt Dybas: there is a rule for the Park Commission that a property line extending into the lake with a 20 ft. setback from that property line that extends into the lake; this boathouse falls in non-conformity because of that therefore it s going to require a variance to raise it. If I were back beyond that 20 ft. I wouldn t need a variance as long as I stayed within the 16 ft. in height top of railing, I d have no issue. But since it is an existing non-conforming dock that I want to modify, I am going to need a variance from the Park Commission which is a whole other dance. Dan Barusch: Curt, I have a question and this is something that we haven t talked about yet. Let s say that everything goes well tonight and you go to the Park Commission and they approve the height bump but they don t approve the sundeck for some reason, what happens to the bridge? Curt Dybas: the bridge goes away. Let s say that they approve the raising of the boathouse, for boat clearance but they don t approve the sundeck (interruption). Dan Barusch: and if it s flip flopped and for some reason they don t approve the height bump but approve the sundeck than the bridge is going to be much more sloped. Tom Jenne: on a 1and 10 pitch because he said it was 2 ft. on the distance. Dan Barusch: 2 ft. on the distance because of the bump up. Curt Dybas: with the bump up it s 2 ft. on the distance. I really can t see that happening because the increase in height; let s say for instance that the roof level has to stay where it is but you can put a sundeck on it, it doesn t make sense because the railing would go up 3 ft. anyway but I can t see that happening Dan. Chairman Bauer asks the Board members including the alternate members if they have any other questions for the applicant. Dan Barusch informs the Chairman that the alternate members are not allowed to speak on the project as they recently learned at the Saratoga County Planning Conference. A motion is introduced by Chairman Bauer; seconded by Tom Jenne to close the public hearing. Chairman Bauer: what is the sense of the Board? A motion is introduced by Tom Jenne; seconded by Gary Moon to approve Area Variance AV as per the following criteria: 1) Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance. It is definitely in tune with the adjoining properties. 2) Whether the benefit sought by the Applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the Applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. No, it would not be able to be sought in another manner. 3) Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Zoning Board of Appeals P a g e 3 February 3, 2016 Minutes

4 No, I don t think it is substantial. 4) Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. No, I do not think that it would cause any physical impact. 5) Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance. The alleged difficulty was self-created but not to the point that it shouldn t be approved. Tom Jenne: I would like to add that this is an approval for the construction of the walkway bridge from the basement level of the house to the proposed sundeck stopping at the property line. Ayes: 5 Moon, Jenne, Keating, Hanchett, Chairman Bauer Nayes: 0 Abstain: 0 Jack Gillette Order to Remedy ITEMS OF DISCUSSION Dan Barusch: we have received the appeal from Jack Gillette s attorney and I am talking to our counsel about our options because he has missed the 60 day deadline. His attorneys seem to think that they didn t miss the deadline because we were supposed to file our paperwork with the Town Clerk but per Town law this is not a requirement unless a resolution has been passed by the Town Board although we have no proof that any such resolution has been passed. So, as long as they cannot provide proof of that resolution, which they can t, then it is supposed to be filed in our office which it is. The Town Board is considering letting them appear in front of you in March; I personally don t agree with that decision because if we do allow them to come in March we are basically waiving the time on his violation of the 60 day clause; I am trying to figure what our next course of action will be and we ll know in the next week or two. Bob Risman: what was the file that was supposed to have been filed with the Clerk? Dan Barusch: the notice of appeal. Bob Risman: is that statutory? Dan Barusch: Our document was not supposed to be filed with the Town Clerk unless there is a resolution that states that it has to by the Town Board. The Town Law says Determination, violations and other documents need to be filed in our office within 5 days however there is a clause to that stating that it can be filed with the Town Clerk if passed by Town Board Resolution. I don t know if they read that clause correctly because they automatically thought that it had to go to the Town Clerk. Gary Moon: if this comes to the Zoning Board will there be a possibility that we can get a summary of the events to date? Dan Barusch: yes, if it comes to the Zoning Board you ll get the whole record meaning every document that I have written to them. Gary Moon: it s not a summary. Zoning Board of Appeals P a g e 4 February 3, 2016 Minutes

5 Dan Barusch: it s not that big but I am having Mark draft a memo which will summarize what s been going on with this process and really how to look at this. Again, if we let them come in March, we ll then waive that 60 days. Bob Risman s comments are not clearly audible. Dan Barusch: the decision by the Town Board was an informal decision. They can appeal this by sending it to the Supreme Court but they don t have any grounds unless they can prove that we adopted a resolution that states that we have to file with the Town Clerk however it they can t then it is going to be dismissed. If they do find that resolution then it has to come to (not audible). Bob Risman s comments are not clearly audible. Chairman Buaer: yes but also these dates are not hard and fast; they would have a straight faced case if they met the 60 days. Karen Hanchett: which was the other agency involved? Dan Barusch: the Park Commission. Karen Hanchett: and what is happening with that? Dan Barusch: it s in limbo. The Park Commission asked him to apply for a marina permit and he has not done so yet. Technically, he would not have to come for Site Plan Review for a marina permit through us because he is not on the waters of Lake George but he needs the Park Commission s marina permit so he can get a commercial boat storage permit. Karen Hanchett: and also zoning. Dan Barusch: he would essentially need a use variance permit from us in order to keep those boats there. He is appealing the determination that I made that it is the use of commercial boat storage that is not correct; that s what the appeal is. Bob Risman: is that a permitted activity? Dan Barusch: no, it s not allowed in that zone. Tom Jenne: I thought there was something about the flushing of the motors and the winterization stuff that made it a marina. Peter Keating: isn t it the storage of more than 3 boats considered a marina? Dan Barusch: the problem is that the definition wording is strange; the last couple of words say within a marina but if you read the whole paragraph in tune the second half of the paragraph basically says except for kayaks, rowboats, and canoes within a marina. This is how I interpreted it; that s what my determination said. Their appeal basically says that commercial boat storage is within a marina. Peter Keating: Dan, I don t know if it s putting the cart before the horse but let me just mention it. In past scenarios, and I know we have 62 days I believe from the time of our determination if they come before us, we ve asked Mark or one of his associates to write up and approval or denial in advance for us. Tom Jenne: legally so that we have copies. Dan Barusch: that s what the memo is going to include. Peter Keating: both approval and denial? Dan Barusch: it s going to include his suggestions. Zoning Board of Appeals P a g e 5 February 3, 2016 Minutes

6 Peter Keating: ok, because I believe we have 62 days from our determination to finalize the answer. If that s going to be done then that answers my question. Dan Barusch: I will share the memo with you when it comes in however I still don t know who is going to make the final decision whether it s going to be the Town Board or myself since it s my department on sending them. I told Brian when he submitted the appeal that I needed some documentation that backs up his reasoning why he believes it s not late because as far as I know it s late; it was submitted on the 66 th day from the determination. This is a little convoluted because I issued a determination on November 18, 2015 and then I issued an order to remedy on November 30, 2015 and so the appeal he submitted is within the 60 days of the order to remedy. The appeal is appealing the determination and not the order to remedy; if it would be appealing the order to remedy then he would have grounds to come in front of this Board or if he had submitted it a week ahead of time. All of this will be included in Mark s memo specifically how it passed the time frame for my determination. Peter Keating: it s appealing your violation order. Dan Barusch: my first letter. Chairman Bauer: so that may be here in March. Dan Barusch: possibly but we ll let you know by the time the packages come out. Bob Risman: it seems that this conversation should be in executive session. Dan Barusch: are you recording? Adele Behrmann: yes. Chairman Bauer: we have not adjourned the meeting and I don t see anything inappropriate of what we talked about. A motion is introduced by Karen Hanchett; seconded by Chairman Bauer to adjourn the meeting at 6:40 p.m. All in favor; motion carries. Respectfully Submitted, Adele Behrmann Planning & Zoning Clerk Zoning Board of Appeals P a g e 6 February 3, 2016 Minutes

SUMMARY. Mr. Swenson Public Hearing Set Mr. Mustakas Public Hearing set Page 1 of 5. Members Present: Zoning Administrator

SUMMARY. Mr. Swenson Public Hearing Set Mr. Mustakas Public Hearing set Page 1 of 5. Members Present: Zoning Administrator Page 1 of 5 Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, NY DRAFT MINUTES s Present: Mr. Dellacorte Mr. Casella Mr. Johnston Mr. Galotti Mr. Prager Chairman Others Present: Mrs. Roberti Mrs. Gale Zoning