The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Town of Moreau, Saratoga County, and State of New York was held at the Moreau Town Hall, 61 Hudson Street, South Glens Falls, NY 12803 on April 26, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present or absent:

Present: Gerhard Endal, Chair

Kevin Elms

Darrell Finlayson

Chester Joslin

James Hooper

Others present: Atty. Martin J. Auffredou, Attorney for the Town

The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. and the members present reviewed the minutes of the March 22, 2006 meeting. Mr. Elms motioned to approve the minutes with an amendment, and Chairman Endal seconded. Motioned passed unanimously.

The first order of business was a letter from Topnotch Self Storage requesting to adjourn his appeal until May 24, 2006. Mr. Vittengl had obtained representation and needed additional time to have a meeting with Mr. Patricke and Atty. Auffredou. The Board agreed to do so.

The next business was a Appeal No. 649, which had been continued. Mr. Peoples appeared and said that he had been at the Planning Board meeting on January 23rd, 2006. Atty. Auffredou said that the applicant had been through site plan approval and needed his Special Permit. Chairman Endal noted that the business has already opened. The Board reviewed the criteria for granting a Special Permit and found that there would be no detriment or change to the character of the neighborhood.

Mr. Finalyson asked whether there would be outdoor testing of the cycles and Mr. Peoples stated that there is a small parking lot in the back where customers can ride. SEQR had been completed by the Planning Board, but the Zoning Board performed it’s own. Mr. Elms motioned to make a negative declaration and Mr. Hooper seconded.

A roll call vote resulted as follows:

Mr. Joslin Yes

Mr. Finlayson Yes

Mr. Elms Yes

Mr. Hooper Yes

Chairman Endal Yes

Motion carried and a negative declaration was found.

The County had submitted a letter stating that there were no issues. There was no concern expressed by the public. Mr. Elms motioned to approve Appeal No. 649, the Special Permit, as the use in question meets the standards and requirements in the codes. Mr. Hooper seconded. A roll call vote resulted as follows:

Mr. Joslin Yes

Mr. Finlayson Yes

Mr. Elms Yes

Mr. Hooper Yes

Chairman Endal Yes

Motion carried and Appeal No. 649 was granted..

The Board then reviewed Appeal No. 654, a request of Michael and Dannae Bock of 11 Iris Ave., South Glens Falls, New York 12803 for an Area Variance pursuant to Chapter 149, Article X, Section 149-59 (A) and Town Law 267-b. Applicants are proposing to construct a garage addition that will not meet the required side yard setback in an R-2 (Residential, One and Two Family) Zoning District. This property is designated as 49.15-1-5 on the Town Assessment Map.

Dannae Bock appeared and explained that the house came with a one car garage. They had added another bay, but now they are adding on to the living and dining room area next to the garage. They want to convert that original garage bay into living space, but still have a second one. They would like to have a 9’setback instead of the required 15 feet. The garage is currently 21ft. from the property line. The plans have allowed for a 1ft. overhang. This is 6 ft. relief from the code. She explained that they would like to increase their living space into the garage in order to add an upstairs master bedroom. The additions include the upstairs, so that what was garage will completely line up with the house.

Mr. Finlayson asked whether they had considered a 9 ft. garage door instead of a 10 ft. and the applicant stated that the existing door is 10 ft. and the new one is intended to match. They have lived there 13 years. The applicant was asked if there were alternatives and said that to place the garage on the other side of the house would cost $20,000 more. They have 36.1 ft on that side, but their septic is also on that side. They did have plans done for redesigning only the front of the house to add space there, but did not feel that that was attractive and fit into the neighborhood.

The Board asked how close the neighbors’ house was on the affected side, and they were not sure. Their garage is on that side of the house, so they are not concerned about the views, etc. All the houses in that area are about in the center of their lot, and were built about the same time.

Atty. Auffredou stated that this action is SEQR exempt.

The Board reviewed the criteria for granting an Area Variance and found as follows:

    1. There would be no adverse effect on the character of the neighborhood.
    2. There are no other feasible means of achieving the desired benefit. The applicant had in fact explored other possibilities.
    3. The area variance is not substantial; it is 6 ft relief from 15 ft.
    4. The Board did not identify any adverse environmental impact.
    5. The difficulty was not self-created.

The Batty’s, the neighbors most affected by this change, were present and had said that they have no objections to the proposed changes. There were no other comments, and the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Elms motioned to approve Appeal No. 654 for 6 ft. relief from the 15ft. setback, and Mr. Joslin seconded. A roll call vote resulted as follows:

Mr. Joslin Yes

Mr. Finlayson Yes

Mr. Elms Yes

Mr. Hooper Yes

Chairman Endal Yes

Motion carried and Appeal No. 654 was approved.

The meeting was adjourned at 7:47p.m., and the next meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was scheduled for May 24, 2006.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Tricia S. Andrews