Chairman John Santiago opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.

Transcription

1 Minutes of the Town of Lake George Zoning Board of Appeals, held on Thursday, at 6:00 p.m., at the Town Center, Old Post Road, Lake George, New York. Members Present: Chairman John Santiago Janie Green Kevin Mulcahy Grant Gentner Absent: Bob Risman Also Present: Patty McKinney, Clerk Robb Hickey Gary Moon Mark Lebowitz John Caffry, Esq. Chuck LaPlante Melissa Vito Jim Grey Todd Fellegy Mike & Dana Seguljic Karen Hanchett Peter Keating Daelin Roman Joe Stanek Kathy Bozony Tom Wessling Kristen Demers Darrah Land Surveyors Alice Cassels Rich Barton Chairman John Santiago opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. A motion was made by Grant Gentner and seconded by Kevin Mulcahy to accept the February 11, 2010 minutes. All in favor. Motion carried. Chairman Santiago stated for the public s knowledge that items number 1 and 3 had been tabled. REGULAR MEETING 1

2 1. Appeal for alleged Zoning Enforcement Officer determination supposedly made at an unspecified time in an unspecified manner regarding whether Phoenix Determination # was subject to Site Plan Review, for property located at 7 Sand Pebble Cove ( ). This application was tabled at the applicant s request. 2. Area Variance Application # submitted by Charles R. LaPlante to allow two fences that currently exist to remain with minor additions to the fences. For the southern property line fence the applicant is requesting a 75 foot shoreline setback variance; to allow 110 feet of the fence to be 8 feet tall instead of the required 6 feet and to request the good side of the fence face the applicant s property, for property located at 3722 Lake Shore Drive ( ). Chairman Santiago stated that last month Kevin had made a motion to approve but then rescinded based on the fact that he was looking for Town Counsel s decision and language. The board has received this information from Town Counsel. A motion was made by Kevin Mulcahy and seconded by Janie Green to approve as submitted. Kevin Mulcahy read the following resolution: TOWN OF LAKE GEORGE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESOLUTION APPROVING AREA VARIANCE # WHEREAS, Charles LaPlante (the applicant ), owner of the Stepping Stones Resort, proposes to replace the existing fence along the southerly portion of his property; and WHEREAS, the existing fence is 6 high and extends approximately 534 from the shoreline of Lake George to NY Route 9N with the good side of the fence facing the applicant; and WHEREAS, although the existing fence has been in place for several years, no permit was ever issued for it so it is not considered to be lawfully pre-existing for purposes of Article VIII of the Town Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the proposed fence would consist of (a) a 4 high section extending 50 from the shoreline with the good (high grade) side facing the neighbor, (b) an 2

3 8 high section extending another 110 with the good side facing the neighbor and (c) a 6 high section extending another 374 to NY Route 9N with the good side facing the applicant; and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") for area variances to permit (a) the 4 high fence section extending 50 from the shoreline within the Shoreline Overlay Zone established by Section of the Zoning Ordinance which prohibits any building or structure except docks and boathouses within 75 of the shoreline in the RCH-LS District, (b) the 8 high fence section in excess of the 6 height allowed under Section (A) of the Town Zoning Ordinance and (c) the good side of the 6 high fence section to face the applicant rather than the neighbor as required by Section (D) of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on February 11, 2010 the ZBA conducted a public hearing on the variance application; and WHEREAS, the ZBA has determined that the proposed variance is an Unlisted Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the applicant has submitted a SEQRA Short Environmental Assessment Form; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the ZBA hereby determines that the requested variance would not have an adverse impact on the environment an authorizes the issuance of a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and be it RESOLVED, that the ZBA hereby determines that the application meets the requirements set forth in Section (C)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance for issuance of an area variance as further discussed below. 1. An undesirable change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood nor will a detriment to nearby properties be created by the granting of the area variance. The existing 6 high fence would be reduced to 4 high within 50 of the shoreline so that it would be below typical adult eye level. This would allow a view of Lake George from the neighboring property. The existing 6 high fence would be increased to 8 high only along a portion of the property where it is not highly visible but is adjacent to cabins which are higher. Therefore, the increased height would not be noticeable. The good side of the fence would face the neighbor for approximately 160 from the shoreline. The good side would face the applicant only in the area closest to Route 9N which is behind the Olympian Motel and not highly visible to its patrons. Fences are not uncommon in this area and the fence allowed by the requested variances would not result in any change to the neighborhood or be detrimental to nearby properties. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. 3

4 A fence is the only feasible method to provide the privacy and security sought by the applicant. Landscaping in place of the 4 fence extending from the shoreline would be unlikely to prevent access to the property unless it was so substantial that it created more of a visual barrier than the low fence. Although the cabins cannot be totally screened from the noise and smoke from the activities at the adjacent property, the 8 high fence proposed is likely to be more effective than the existing 6 fence which is the highest permitted without a variance. Screening other than a fence would be even less effective. The area where the applicant is seeking to have the good side of the fence face his property is highly visible to the Stepping Stones Resort guests but much less visible to guests at the Olympian Motel. The only alternatives would be a double-sided fence, which would be cost-prohibitive, or screening which would be unlikely to fit in the space available. 3. The requested area variance is not too substantial. Although the 4 high fence section would not be permitted without a variance in the Shoreland Overlay District, it meets the height requirement for fences in Section of the Zoning Ordinance. Although the variance requested for the 8 fence section represents a variance of 30% increase in height over the authorized 6 height, the fence would be located adjacent to higher structures and would not be substantial in actual effect. The variance to allow the good side of a portion of the fence to face the applicant is not substantial because the difference in the appearance of each side is not substantial. 4. The proposed variance would not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. As discussed above, the 4 high fence section would allow a view of Lake George. The 8 fence section would be seen against cabins which are higher so it would not be significantly more visible than the existing 6 high fence. The 6 high fence section with the good side facing the applicant would not be highly visible from other properties or the road. 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created. The need to provide privacy and protect the property of guests is the result of an adjacent use which has been in conflict with these rights which are important to the business operations of the applicant. 6. The proposed variance is the minimum variance that is necessary and adequate to achieve the applicant s goal and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. The 4 high fence would discourage trespass onto the applicant s property while still allowing a view of the Lake. A lower fence would not provide a sufficient barrier. The 8 high fence extends only along the area which has experienced the greatest disturbance and demonstrated a need for a barrier higher than the existing 6 fence. The applicant is requesting that the good side of the fence face the applicant 4

5 and be it only for the most visible portion which is not highly visible for the neighbor, and the good side would face the neighbor for the remaining length of the fence. 7. The benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant. The benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted would be enhancement of his business by providing greater privacy and security for guests. The detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant would be minimal as the proposed fence would not interfere with views of Lake George and would not be incompatible with other fences in the vicinity. Therefore, the benefit to the applicant is greater than the possible detriment to the community. FURTHER RESOLVED, that the ZBA therefore grants the requested area variances. Kevin Yes Grant - No Janie Yes John Yes Motion carried. 3. Area Variance Application # submitted by Cohold, LLC to construct a 24 unit townhouse development. The applicant is requesting a 14 unit density variance, for property located at Route 9L and Bloody Pond Road ( , , and ). This application was tabled at the applicant s request. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Area Variance Application # submitted by Gail Schaefer to replace existing one story two bedroom structure with a two story three bedroom structure. The applicant is requesting a 12.1 foot stream setback variance and a 6.4 foot front yard setback, for property located at 8 Beatty Road ( ). Kristen Demers of Darrah Land Surveyors was present representing the applicant. 5

6 Grant Gentner read the application into the record. A motion was made by Kevin Mulcahy and seconded by Grant Gentner to accept the application as complete. All in favor. Motion carried. Kristen Demers advised the board that Ms Schaefer purchased this property last year with the intent to replace the current seasonal home with a larger 3 bedroom home. Approvals are needed to meet the minimum setbacks allowed in order to maintain the position of the new building as it currently is and accommodate a bigger structure. Kevin Mulcahy asked what the plans for parking were. He stated the front porch, the blacktop and patio will all be removed. The driveway remaining is only 8 x 10 which is inadequate for one car unless you park in the Town right-of-way. Kristin stated the applicant is planning on keeping parking as is. Kevin is concerned with the stream on the side and with stormwater. If Ms. Schaefer were to need additional parking this parking would be on town property which is too unpredictable and could change, if this were to happen it would change the ratio and blacktop would be too close to stream. Kevin liked the plan and layout and the fact that the roof is pitched away from brook but parking is still a concern and he would like to see more protection for the brook. Kristin Demers advises that in the area of proposed construction, the brook is encased in 24 reinforced concrete pipe which runs underground. Kevin confirms that from an area in back of the property the stream goes into a culvert which exits out to the road. Robb Hickey advised that there is no stormwater requirement for this plan and that his suggestion is that once they go to the Planning Board they will have to submit a more detailed plan. Kristin agrees that this is their first stop and once they get an agreement they will go further with the plan. Janie Green asked why they wanted to demolish this structure. 6

7 Kristin advised the she wanted more living space and to be a little more modern. The home will be changed from seasonal to year-round. She advised the board that the camp was purchased with the intent to renovate it to year-around. Janie brought up the moratorium. Robb Hickey advises that the moratorium is for additional hook ups for six months and it would not apply to this camp if it were not for the fact that an additional bedroom is planned. Therefore, this structure cannot be used as a 3 bedroom until the moratorium is over. This plan can be approved by the Zoning Board but additional the hook up cannot happen until moratorium is lifted. Kevin Mulcahy brings up the fact that there is no assurance that it can be used as a 3 bedroom in August either. It would be subject to whatever happens to the moratorium at that time. Kevin suggested to leave the project as a 2 bedroom plan for now, and if or when moratorium is lifted then revisit the plan as a 3 bedroom. Janie Green requested clarification because she felt the moratorium restricted applicants from applying to the Zoning Board. Robb Hickey advised Janie they can proceed with this plan but they cannot hook up until moratorium is lifted and if moratorium remains then they will have to build a 2 bedroom home. Janie questions how they would get a CO for a 3 bedrooms home if it may remain 2 bedrooms how will it work at the County level. Grant Gentner asked how does the Town police the fact that home is not being used as a 3 bedroom. Robb confirms that no projects can be put aside because of the moratorium. Grant does not know what the disposition of the moratorium will be and technically after six months she can reapply regardless of what happens. Robb says that moratorium is not for volume but a way for the town and village to check water flow, inspect the pipes, etc. at the end of the 6 months it may go on but the intent is not to stop projects going through the system. All projects are aware of the moratorium and are allowed to go before the Boards and present their plans. Janie Green stated she wanted clarification on the moratorium. 7

8 Janie asked if house can be moved back further. Kristin stated if it was necessary, yes. The current plan is to use the existing foot print in order to apply for the least amount of variances and any changes would decrease the distance between the building and the stream, however they will make the changes if necessary. Robb stated that more variances would be necessary if home is moved back. Kevin agrees that lot is small and that moving home back will put it closer to the unprotected part of the stream. Chairman Santiago stated the prior owner had done a lot line change and actually pulled area from this parcel and put to another parcel on Cedar Lane. Kristin stated this was a different owner. Chairman Santiago stated both lots received variances. The lot line change variance for this lot made a pre-existing, non-conforming lot smaller to begin with and now a new variance is being presented to double the size of the house. Kristin does not know why this was done, she believes that the Wilsons owned both lots prior to Ms Schaefer but Ms Schaefer was not aware of this when she purchased the lot. The board reviewed the minutes from prior variances granted in Janie reads that on the prior application, the applicant states no new structures would be added to smaller lot. The Wilson s owned both lots, 35 feet was taken from the lot on Beatty Rd and added to lot on Cedar Lane. The minutes from 2001 state the Wilsons were aware of the fact that the lot on Beatty would be very small and they might have a problem selling it. They chose to keep this option instead of erasing the property line and make both lots into one with two houses on it. Kristin wanted the board to know they are not trying to get away with second set of variances on same lot. She stated her client was unaware of this variance. Chairman Santiago opened the comments to the audience. 8

9 Alice Cassels: I live at 9 Cedar Lane. I drove up from Connecticut. I received the notice and because of a cottage that was torn down on Beatty Road about 5 years ago and a new one put up that meets me in the corner and I wasn t sure of the house numbers going up Beatty so I decided to come up for myself and take a look. The house that affected me is number 14 that has caused me a huge water problem where I get a river across my backyard because that property was built up so much from what it was originally. I was afraid that this house was directly behind me. I did come over last summer and talk with the Highway Department and Zoning on how we can straighten out the water problem. I know the Town was in the process of hoping to take over Cedar Lane and Beatty Road at some point and correct some water problems that way. This house, the water comes down because he built up so high, it swirls around his property and dumps right into my backyard and I just put a new foundation in about 5 years ago. I didn t raise the house higher. I picked it up, put in cinderblock down 4 feet and I m starting to have problems already. All I m asking is be careful of the water problems on that road because it can cause problems for people on Cedar Lane and Beatty Road. Do I really want to see mega-mansions? No. I don t like the little mansions. I don t like the one on Rose Point. It s gigantic. People are still talking about the ugly house on Cedar Lane; the very first one, the raised ranch. It doesn t keep with the character of the neighborhood. Gary Moon: Cedar Lane. I ve been before the board talking about the fact that there is a lot of overcrowding going on. Everyone who buys a lot needs something at least twice as big. In today s world, that is not unusual. The problem is those lots are very small and everyone asks for a variance on all four sides to do that and we re getting a lot of overcrowding as a result. Instead of going out, they are going up. They are towering over our backyards with new homes that are much larger than that whole area can support. Besides that overcrowding issue is a parking issue that keeps getting worse. The fact that there is one person owning a house has no bearing on the reality that when they get a house in Lake George, they invite all of their friends and every friend has an SUV. Now, owners on the corners; owners on the lots that have been overbuilt, don t have any place to park their friends. So what they are doing is they are parking on Cedar Lane and blocking the road and parking all over the place especially during the holidays, so we have what looks like a parking lot on Cedar Lane and Beatty Road. The other thing I want to mention is that stream. The stream is more critical than is being portrayed and I m glad there is some attention being paid to it. The stream empties into wetland and has a lot of silt. It goes under Cedar Lane. Barb Wilson has had to pay for that to be backhoed out because it 9

10 had silted up so much over the past few years that it was emptying out onto her lawn which looked like a swamp. I have other neighbors who are right nearby and they want their lawns pristine, so there is a lot of fertilizer, completely contrary to everything that the Waterkeeper and the LGA want to do near the lake. All these chemicals are spilling in the wetland and subsequently into the lake. All these conditions will worsen with increased construction and overcrowding. Todd Fellegy: 207 Beach Road. Basically I just want to agree with everything that has been said so far. The neighborhood is overcrowded with houses of every size. Also, about the brook and what goes into it. When you walk down there, it is always flooded. Thank you. Mike Seguljic: Diamond Point. We do agree with the previous speakers related to potential concerns with this proposed tear down/re-build on an undersized lot. As you have heard us say numerous times before - Something is happening to the waters of Lake George I recently heard some folks say the Lake looks green. It is pretty sad to hear that the Lake looks green in March during ice out. One reason the Lake is suffering is due to density related issues. This includes the problematic practice of permitting oversized homes on undersized lots. This is not just an adverse aesthetic issue, but it also severely impacts the waters of Lake George. Our streams need to be protected, not just during construction, but also by proper & appropriate Planning, which includes granting only the minimum variance necessary and not increasing an already exceeded setback distance. In addition, as the Board discussed, the Town of Lake George is currently under a sewer connection moratorium, which may or may not impact the project. Regardless, of what is constructed we sincerely hope that it is reflective of the Adirondacks, and not Westchester County or Upper New Jersey. We also agree with Gary Moon concerning his comment on the overuse of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. We noted that people who move here and profess to love the area, then plant a big lawn reminiscent of their previous suburban roots in Westchester or New Jersey Since a beautiful lawn will not typically 10

11 grow here naturally in the Adirondacks they resort to the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides its hurting the Lake. They just do not seem to understand the damage they are causing to Lake George. We d like to share with you a picture (to be included in the Meeting minutes) of a home (Keating Residence Area Variance Application # / SBL ) that was recently built along Beach Road. This oversized home was allowed on this small lot due to the recent granting of variances by the ZBA. As you can see, the large home you permitted is completely out of character with the surrounding homes. In addition, due to the poor positioning of the home, the home looks like a big firehouse to people who view it from Beach Road. If we lose the Lake, we lose everything. Kathy Bozony: I reiterate what Kevin had mentioned, the concern that this applicant is proposing a 3 bedroom home with one parking space. It s all constrained around there and for all these homes to have more than one bedroom or two bedroom in these cottages, there is no place to 11

12 park. Also, the application read that this is a seasonal use representative yet, the applicant s representative stated differently. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The proposed new construction of a single family dwelling (SFD) should include a stormwater management plan. Replacement of this SFD within 17.9 ft of a tributary to East Brook should require that stormwater management is brought into compliance with existing code in order to help mitigate the negative impacts associated with construction within close proximity to the stream. STREAM BUFFER A mowed lawn is not an adequate buffer to protect a stream that is a tributary to Lake George. The stream on this property is an identified tributary to East Brook. It has been channelized in an underground concrete pipe under Beatty Rd and on half of this property, within 17.9 ft from the proposed SFD. The stream is then daylighted, and runs within 22 ft of the SFD with no vegetative buffer. Because there is no reason that this stream should be compromised inside a 24 inch concrete pipe underground, we request that it be daylighted and protected. In order to protect the water quality of Lake George, an enhanced vegetative buffer should be required to be planted along the stream, replacing the existing mowed lawn with a variety of mixed height native plants, including trees and shrubs. Vegetation lessens the impact of heavy rainfall on the soils and utilizes available nutrients that would otherwise flow into Lake George. A restriction on fertilizer and pesticide use on this property should also be conditioned with this project because of its close proximity to an East Brook tributary. See Lake George Fact Sheets about Stream Buffers and the impact of Fertilizer and Pesticide use. SITE PLAN REVIEW Site Plan Review is required for all projects within 100 ft of all streams and waterbodies as stated in the Town of Lake George Zoning - Chapter 175; specifically C. (1) (c). This application should require a Site Plan Review by the Planning Board in order to address stormwater management and the evaluation and approval of a planting plan on the property (including buffering along the stream). In conclusion, the Lake George Waterkeeper recommends that this variance request requires: 1) a Site Plan Review; 2) a stormwater management plan; and, 3) a planting plan using native species that addresses both vegetation on the property and the buffering of the 12

13 stream. In addition, daylighting the compromised underground stream on this property should be addressed. Thank you very much. Melissa Vito: I wonder if applicants are aware of the importance of vegetative buffers in order to protect the lake. Applicants should be educated on vegetative buffers, run offs and fertilizer from lawns and how they damage the lake. If this variance goes through, would you condition this to require that she put a vegetative buffer in to the stream. Chairman Santiago stated it is actually the Planning Board s purview to put stormwater into place and this could be a recommendation to the Planning Board. Kristin Demers stated that with response to the concern about the stream she spoke to Marc Migliore with DEC Region 5 about the stream. He said it is a Double A Special classified stream, DEC s interest in this stream is not as a habitat but to protect the water quality. His suggestion is to add a second section of pipe onto the existing pipe to bury more of the stream on the property. Robb stated that he has discussed stormwater with the applicant and that this would be addressed at the Planning Board. Kevin Mulcahy stated that comments from other property owners were good and hearing about the other houses being raised up and since this camp may also be raised up, proper drainage needs to be provided away from this home. The pitch of the roof should be within the first 10 ft and with this home it will be 7.19, vegetative barriers or buffers are great but still to close to the brook. Even though the proposed plan is labeled as a replacement foot print, the new home will increase in size and since a porch is proposed to be added as well the lot area is being reduced further. There is still a concern with the parking. If this were a new plan, it would not meet the required parking. The only space left to park is an 18ft space between the home and the culvert. Grant Gentner stated that the Board needs to take several factors into consideration before making a decision. He stated it would behoove the applicant to take into consideration the comments put forth, go back to the drawing board and come up with a new plan. He believes the home is too large for the lot. Ms Schaefer knew what she was getting when she purchased the lot and should have done more extensive research prior to the purchase. They should have known that this was one separate parcel and that Wilsons moved the lot line in

14 Janie Green stated she agrees with the lot being too small for the planned size of the new house and with the fact that Ms Schaefer knew she was purchasing a small, seasonal camp. She is sorry that the lot line had been changed prior to the purchase. The Boards are being put in precarious situations, especially the Zoning Board. Applicants are coming to the Zoning Board looking for variances before they to go to the Planning Board, the lots are getting smaller & smaller and the homes are getting bigger & bigger. The problem is compounded when the lake and the water shed around the lake is in question. We need to protect the lake. She agrees that the plan should be rescaled. Kevin stated he would like to see it more in conformity with our codes because variances are often associated with existing buildings that we cannot do anything with. Robb asked if the Board would entertain the idea of pushing the building back and giving Ms Schaefer a variance for the back lot instead. Chairman Santiago confirms that because of lot line change in 2001, this originally non conforming lot was made even more non-confirming. Nothing has changed with this lot. The fact remains that the minutes in 2001 state that nothing else was going to be done with this lot even on the prior approval. Janie Green stated that the Board has a responsibility to conform with previous variances because they go with the lots and the Board s charge is to make minimum variances. She thought about pushing the house back but she would not want Ms Schaefer to go through all that work with the possibility of not receiving the approvals. Chairman Santiago stated letters have been received by the Lake George Waterkeeper and one from an adjoining neighbor, Scott Walton. Kristin Demers stated she will go back to her client and explain the full picture now that they have it. A motion was made by Kevin Mulcahy and seconded by Janie Green to hold the Public Hearing open. All in favor. Motion carried. 14

15 A motion was made by Grant Gentner and seconded by Kevin Mulcahy to adjourn the meeting at 7:15 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Patricia McKinney Planning & Zoning Clerk 15