Page 1 of 13 TOWN OF BALLSTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Monthly Meeting: July 11, 2108 Present: Michael Lesniak, Chairman Marilyn Bell, Vice Chairwoman Ellen Brown Robin Kane Stephen Merchant Daniel Mertzlufft Daniel Russell Tim Long, 1 st Alternate Joanne Hull, 2 nd Alternate Peter Reilly, Esq. Members of the General Public ABSENT: Brian Theriault, Building Inspector Chairman Lesniak called July 11, 2108 meeting at 7:30 p.m. and Ms. Kane led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Lesniak asked for corrections to the June 6, 2018 minutes. Page 1, 3 rd paragraph add having MOTION: Mr. Russell made a motion to accept the June 6, 2018 minutes as amended. Ms. Brown seconded the motion and all voted in favor; Ms. Kane abstained was not present at said meeting. CARRIED.
Page 2 of 13 OLD BUSINESS: Marc Gervais 101 Goode Street; 257.5-1-30 Special Use Permit pursuant to 138-8 to allow farm animals (goats, chickens and a pig) Marc Gervais 101 Goode Street. Application, pursuant to Section 138-8, for a special use permit to allow the applicant to harbor 5 hens, 3 goats and 1 mini-potbelly pig at the premises. Agricultural operations, with custody of animals, is allowed in the Hamlet Residential zone upon the issuance of a special use permit. Chairman Lesniak apologized to the applicant from what happened last month. Chairman Lensiak stated the applicant rents the property, but needed a statement from the owner of the property, Steve Casper giving Mr. Gervais permission to represent the owner for this application. (see letter below).
Page 3 of 13 Chairman Lensiak read the applicant s narrative. Three years ago after calling to get information on the allowance of farm animals on our property and being told it was ok, as long as we did not make it over crowded and constructed an adequate area for our goats, mini pot-bellied pig to live in and a coop for five hens. These animals have grown near and dear to us and the four kids as well as the majority of the people on the street, which was represented last month and had never, had any intentions of deceiving or ignoring County Laws or making anyone in our neighborhood feel uneasy. After recently discovering that a Special Use Permit was required and that one or more people on the street were upset with the esthetic value of the enclosure, we began diligently working on obtaining the needed Special Use Permit and improving the esthetics quality of the enclosure. These measures include, but not limited to, a more suitable and eye pleasing coop for our
Page 4 of 13 chickens so they can t escape, purchase white paint to make the wood enclosure look clean and inviting the acquisition of the siding for the shed for the animals to sleep in. Mr. Grevais provided the Board with a photograph of the shed to the Board for their review. Chairman Lesniak stated the shed looks very nice. Mark Grevias presented. Mr. Grevias stated there are many neighbors here this evening in support of this application. The neighbors have become attached to the animals just as he and his family have. Mr. Merchant stated a top rail is needed around the fence for the goats. Mr. Grevias stated he is working on getting that completed. Ms. Bell asked how the feed is being stored. Mr. Grevais stated it being stored inside his home in bins; brings food out for each feeding. Ms. Bell asked about manure. Mr. Grevias stated the nice part about goats is that they have the same manure as a deer; it does not smell and dissipates into the ground quite rapidly and uses the manure in his garden for fertilizer. Mr. Russell asked if the applicant is involved with any activity with the goats. Mr. Russell stated he had goats and he and his children were involved in 4-H and the Saratoga County Fair. Mr. Russell encourages 4-H they teach you how to care for the animals. Mr. Grevais stated he has his Bachelor s Degree in Fish and Wildlife. Chairman Lensiak asked if the fence has been shored up. Mr. Grevais stated yes, with metal rods. Chairman Lesniak stated there is no real noise or odor from these animals. Mr. Grevais stated no. Chairman Lesniak asked if the animals ever get out. Mr. Grevais stated a couple times before the back part of the fence was reinforced; a stronger wire mesh was installed along the back edge. Mr. Grevais stated his intention for using the wire mesh for the fence was to help maintain the esthetic value of the trees.
Page 5 of 13 Chairman Lesniak asked Mr. Grevais if he intends to increase the number of animals. Mr. Grevais stated no. Chairman Lensiak opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Jan Black, 105 Goode Street stated her and her husband are next door neighbors and love the animals. Ms. Black stated she pet sits and has no complaints. Chairman Lensiak closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Mertzlufft read through the four criteria of a Special Use Permit. 1) The use shall be of such location, size and character that it will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the district in which it is situated and will not be detrimental to the orderly development of the adjacent districts. The Board concurred will not 2) The location and size of the use, the nature and intensity of the operation involved or conducted in connection therewith, its site layout, and its relation to streets giving access to which shall be of such that traffic to and from the use and the assembly of persons in connection with it will not be hazardous or inconvenient to the neighborhood or conflict with the normal traffic of the neighborhood. The Board concurred will not 3) The location and height of buildings, the location, nature and height of walls and fences, and that the use will not hinder or discourage the proper development and use of adjacent land and buildings or impair the value thereof. The Board concurred will not 4) The public convenience and welfare will be substantially served and appropriate use of neighboring property will not be substantially or permanently injured, subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards as determined necessary to promote the public health, safety and welfare. The Board concurred will not MOTION: Ms. Bell motioned to name The the Lead Agency in the SEQR process. Mr. Russell seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. MOTION: Ms. Bell motioned to declare this an Unlisted Action under the SEQR process therefore will declare this a Negative Declaration under the SEQR process. Mr. Russell seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. Ms. Bell asked the applicant if he plans on having hens only and no roosters. Mr. Grevais stated he does not plan on having any roosters.
Page 6 of 13 MOTION: Ms. Bell made a motion for the property at 101 Goode Street pursuant to 138-8 for a Special Use Permit to house five hens, no roosters, three goats and one mini potbellied pig on those premises. Mr. Russell seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS: Christopher Kurkjian 4 Lakeshore Ave; 249.5-1-30 Dock Ordinance Variance (size and length) New Dock 4 Lake Shore Avenue. Application, pursuant to Section 54-2(L) of Chapter 54 of the Code of the Town of Ballston Docks, Moorings, Boathouses and Marinas (the Dock Ordinance ) for relief from Section 54-2 (G). The applicant proposes to construct a 461 square foot dock. Section 54-2 (G) allows for a maximum square footage of 350, thus a variance of 111 square feet is being requested. In addition, the dock proposed by the applicant would be 61 feet in length. Section 54-2 (G) provides that [n]o dock shall extend more than 35 feet from the mean high-water mark which is 251 feet above sea level. The applicant has requested a variance of 26 feet. However, it is unclear if that 61-foot length is measured from the high water mark, as defined in the Dock Ordinance. The map submitted with the application indicates the length is measured from the mean low water level. The needed variance to construct the dock, as proposed, may be less, Section 54-2 (L) grants the ZBA authority, to grant variances to Section 54-2 (G) if it determines that the strict application of [the] regulations would cause practical difficulties or undue hardship. If such is deemed the case, then a public hearing will be held wherein the views and opinions of all those concerned will be given due consideration. The ZBA would then make its determination based on all the facts, circumstances and opinions indicated and with a view towards the best interests of the lake/river and the intent of these regulations. Chairman Lesniak read the applicant s narrative.
Page 7 of 13 Chairman Lesniak stated he had measured the area based on the sketch provided by the applicant that what you are saying is true it goes out very gradually and does drop off at 34. Chairman Lesniak asked the applicant to explain his intent because there is a possibility that the applicant may not need a variance. Christopher Kurkjian presented. Mr. Kurkjian stated when he started the planning process; he had reached out the BLIA and spoke to Dr. Herman who heads BLIA. Dr. Herman went to his house to review the plans together and agreed with the proposal. Mr. Kurkjian stated that Dr. Herman was an author of that Dock Ordinance and had indicated back when it was done, it would keep people from doing more then they needed to do. Mr. Kurkjian stated his intention is to do no more than what he needs to. Mr. Kurkjian stated he is proposing Trex decking for the dock with steel posts in the water; no sides to the boathouse a simple boathouse. Mr. Reilly asked if the applicant is aware of additional permits besides the building permit; permits are needed from ACOE and NYSDEC.
Page 8 of 13 Mr. Kurkjian stated he is aware and has not started that process; did receive a permit from NYSDEC for the wall that he had put in; his intention is that his builder will help in this process of retaining proper permits. Mr. Reilly asked if the boathouse will be a floating boathouse. Mr. Kurkjian stated no. Mr. Reilly said, after looking at the drawing describes this as the deck (refers to this Board as the dock), and then at the end versus this as this as being the boathouse there is no covering on the right. Mr. Reilly said, He would argue to the Board that the reason the Chairman alluded the applicant may not have to be in front of the Board and feels it is a reasonable interpretation that the dock position is less than the 350 sf that is allowed (does not need that variance) and also less than 35 there is some issue with low water and high water, but does not need any length variance. Mr. Reilly said, then you get into the boathouse portion; as long as the applicant meets the ordinances required and is not really part of the dock but the boathouse. Mr. Reilly stated if the Board agrees with that; feels it s a reasonable interpretation. Chairman Lensiak stated we do not need to worry about the configuration of the dock. Mr. Reilly asked the applicant when talking to Dr. Herman, did the configuration not come up in the conversation. Mr. Kurkjian stated the first sketch he sent to Dr. Herman was the F shape; if the F shape is constructed, can come back 4 or 5. Mr. Kurkjian stated there is no one on the lake that has got an F shaped dock with a boathouse that is parallel to the shore. Mr. Reilly stated that the applicant has not violated any configurations as set forth in the Dock Ordinance.
Page 9 of 13 Chairman Lesniak said, The dock is straight, it s F shaped, which is permitted so, there is no problem. Mr. Reilly said, It s between the applicant and the Building Department. Chairman Lesniak asked the Board members agree. Mr. Russell said, For clarity would suggest the drawings be more clearly annotated if the applicant does move forward, we know that is on post or pilings and is not a floating dock and annotate the area more clearly; there is a single cross-hatch, if you do a different cross-hatch for the boathouse designated separately from dock. Mr. Kurkjian stated the drawings were prepared by him and when will have the builder provide stamped plans to the Building Department. Ms. Kane stated she had no difficulties. Ms. Brown said, The Dock Ordinance states 35 and if the applicant adds a 27 boathouse it s going to be out quite far, but it may fit in that part of the lake and there are other parts of the lake that are narrower and this kind of dock and boathouse would be too long. Ms. Brown is suggesting granting the applicant a variance for the extra distance. Ms. Bell said, I don t think we follow because what is being said is 34 is the dock and then the 27 boathouse; a total of 61 is what the applicant has for the existing dock. Mr. Kurkjian said 65. A further discussion was held on the other areas of the lake where it drops off at the shore and is narrower. Mr. Reilly said, There may be an oversight in the Dock Ordinance as far as conventional requirements on boathouses; the applicant can do what is being requested without any variances.
Page 10 of 13 Chairman Lesniak said, We (the Board) depend on the Building Inspector to be the filter and to catch that. Chairman Lesniak stated he will be in contact with the Building Inspector. Mr. Murtzlufft stated he is in favor of Mr. Reilly s comment. Mr. Merchant said, He spoke with Mr. Kurkjian about getting the boat out into deeper water 16 is to go the other way with it. Chairman Lesniak said, That is really up-to the applicant. Mr. Merchant is in agreement. Ms. Bell stated when she first saw the application she saw 60 and thought it would be in the middle of the lake until she realized that the boat is so far in she as she saw the depth of the water; the applicant is actually bringing it in a bit Ms. Bell has no issues. Chairman Lesniak stated he agrees with Ms. Bell and is important for the Board to visit each property to review the sites. Chairman Lesniak is in favor and wishes the applicant luck and feels the applicant has been very attentive to the Board and the lake and that is important to all of us. Chairman Lesniak said, The applicant is not granted any variances because you do not need any. MOTION: Ms. Bell made a motion to dismiss this case for 4 Lakeshore Ave due to discussions that the application does not require any variances. Ms. Kane seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. Townley & Wheeler Funeral Home 21 Midline Road; 257.12-1-10 Special Use Permit to allow an additional prep room 21 Midline Road. Application, pursuant to Section 138-6 (C), for a special use permit to allow for an extension of a pre-existing nonconforming use. Section 138-6 (C) allows for the limited extension of a
Page 11 of 13 nonconforming use upon the issuance of a special use permit subject to such conditions as may be deemed necessary by said Board to comply with the intent of this chapter and to preserve the character of the district. The applicant must show that the extension, the construction of a 21 x 16 addition to house an embalming room, will meet the criteria set forth in Section 138-94. Chairman Lesniak read the applicant s narrative. Kathleen Sanvidge presented. Mr. Merchant stated the addition is going to be exactly in the same footprint of the existing one that was already there not going any closer to the boundaries. Mr. Merchant said, He feels it s all good. Chairman Lesniak stated the applicant does not need any variances. Mr. Mertzlufft asked if embalming is currently being done on the property. Ms. Sanvidge stated no, she is not and is choosing to establish an embalming room to be able to serve our families. Mr. Russell asked if this property serviced by municipal water or a private well. Ms. Sanvidge stated municipal water and embalming will be online and functioning when we have the integration of municipal sewers. Mr. Russell stated you currently have a septic system at that location.
Page 12 of 13 Ms. Sanvidge stated yes. Mr. Russell asked if there will be storage of chemicals. Ms. Sanvidge stated yes, there will be storage of embalming fluid and other chemicals related to the embalming fluid. Ms. Sanvidge stated everything will be in that room, locked in a cabinet and regulated by NYSDOH and OSHA; she is all about doing things the right way. Ms. Bell said, Wasn t Harold Townley in before you actually sealed the deal and bought the business and the property from him to actually convert the other (what was kind of a back side porch that was extended and enclosed thought that was to be the embalming room). Ms. Sanvidge said it originally was and when she saw the framework structures go up, it was 2014 when that addition was being done and that was the original intent. Ms. Sanvidge stated her friend came to visit the property and said, You cannot waste this beautiful space on an embalming room. Chairman Lesniak opened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. No one wished to speak. Chairman Lesniak closed the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. Mr. Merchant went through the four criteria of a Special Use Permit. 1) The use shall be of such location, size and character that it will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the district in which it is situated and will not be detrimental to the orderly development of the adjacent districts. The Board concurred yes. 2) The location and size of the use, the nature and intensity of the operation involved or conducted in connection therewith, its site layout, and its relation to streets giving access to which shall be of such that traffic to and from the use and the assembly of persons in connection with it will not be hazardous or inconvenient to the neighborhood or conflict with the normal traffic of the neighborhood. The Board concurred no.
Page 13 of 13 3) The location and height of buildings, the location, nature and height of walls and fences, and that the use will not hinder or discourage the proper development and use of adjacent land and buildings or impair the value thereof. The Board concurred no. 4) The public convenience and welfare will be substantially served and appropriate use of neighboring property will not be substantially or permanently injured, subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards as determined necessary to promote the public health, safety and welfare. The Board concurred no. MOTION: Ms. Bell motioned to name The the Lead Agency in the SEQR process. Mr. Russell seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. MOTION: Ms. Bell motioned to declare this an Unlisted Action under the SEQR process therefore will declare this a Negative Declaration under the SEQR process. Mr. Russell seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. MOTION: Ms. Bell made a motion for the property at 21 Midline Road pursuant to 138-6 (C) for a Special Use Permit for the expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming operation to build a 21 x 16 addition to the wood framed building for the embalming room. Ms. Kane seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. MOTION: Ms. Kane made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Russell seconded the motion all present voted in favor. CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 8:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michelle L Dingman Secretary