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 February 28, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present or absent:

Present: Gerhard Endal, Chair

Kevin Elms

James Hooper

Others present: F. Joseph Patricke, Building Inspector

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of the Nov 26, 2006 meeting were not reviewed because the members present at that meeting were not present.

The Board reviewed Appeal No. 662, a request of Fletcher T. Finke, Bobcat of Saratoga LLC of 1279 Route 9, Gansevoort, NY 12831 for a Special Permit pursuant to Chapter 117, Section 117-4(B) of the Code of the Town of Moreau. Applicant is requesting erect a sign on the façade of the building that will exceed the maximum square footage allowed by the code. This property is located in a C-1, General Commercial District and is designated as 77.1-1-45 on the Town Assessment Map.

Fletcher Finke, whose family owns Bobcat, appeared and said that they rent lightweight construction equipment. The Appeal is regarding the sign on front of the building. He brought his sign from a prior location on Maple Ave. in Saratoga Springs, and it is bigger than what the codes allow. The face mounted 4 x 18 foot signs is intended for the face of the building. They also brought another, double sided sign for the highway, and it is 4 x 8.

Chairman Endal asked whether this sign was already in place on the highway. Mr. Finke said that the property owner, Groundworks Utilities’ Rick Shields, has one and the Bobcat sign matches it on the poles by the road.

Mr. Patricke explained to the Board that the applicant’s sign was made for the other location and it doesn’t fit the guidelines for the Town of Moreau. Chairman Endal asked whether that building is no longer open and was told that the business has moved to Moreau entirely.

Mr. Elms asked how much of a change is in question. Mr. Finke explained that they’re short 5 sq. ft. in the size of the facade from what’s required for a sign of this size..

Chairman Endal explained that the Board has to consider whether it will be noticeable and facing traffic. Mr. Patricke explained that the sign on the road is legal and that the one on the building covers more area than the code permits.

Chairman Endal asked for comments from the public and there were none, but Mr. Patricke told the applicant that the site looks very nice. Mr. Finke said that he would like to do more, but ran out of good weather.

Mr. Elms motioned to approve No. 662 for an Area Variance allowing the 4 x 18 sign, a variance of 5 sq feet. Mr. Hooper seconded. The sign is pre-existing and meets the requirements for an Area Variance.

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

A roll call vote resulted as follows:

Mr. Elms Yes

Mr. Hooper Yes

Chairman Endal Yes

Motion carried and Appeal No. 662 was approved.

The Board reviewed Appeal No. 663, a request of Mark and Lucianna Samu of 1478 West River Road, Gansevoort, New York 12831 for an Area Variance pursuant to Chapter 149, Article X, Section 149-59 (A), Schedule of Regulations for an R-5, Agriculture, One and Two Family Residential District and Town Law 267-b. Applicants are requesting an Area Variance for the minimum lot area required for Agricultural Use in that District. The property is designated as 79.-1-1 on the Town Assessment Map.

Mrs. Samu explained that they would like a variance so that they can keep a pair of horses on the site. The home is 206 years old and there are a garage or barn and outhouse on the site as well.

Mr. Patricke explained that the applicants have two horses that are more or less pets, currently kept at a remote site. The odd configuration of this site was created when West River Road was moved. The applicants have looked at purchasing more land across the street to make a 5 acre site, but that would not allow them to have the horses near the house where they can take care of them.

Chairman Endal asked and the applicant came to the front to point out the area on her map. Mrs. Samu explained that the paddock was placed so that it is within the setbacks for buildings, staying away from the curve and the sight of other people.

Mr. Hooper recommended that the applicant build a very good fence, because there is a lot of fast traffic in that area and could be a danger for the horses. Mrs. Samu explained that the animals are used to a fenced pasture, and that a landscaper is going to collect manure when it accumulates.

Mr. Hooper said that since they have the property, he would encourage the applicant to give the horses more than the planned half acre of fenced in area. That will benefit the animals and the applicant because they won’t have to bring in hay and deal with mud.

Mrs. Samu explained that she was not sure how much of the lot could be fenced in. Mr. Patricke told her that the Town would not limit how much land was used for that purpose, since it’s zoned for it.

Mr. Hooper stated that for the benefit of the horses and the property you should expand it if you can afford the fencing. Mrs. Samu stated that she wants to strike a balance with impacting the neighbors, the landscape and having the horses there. She will consider it because she doesn’t want a mud pit either and is mindful of the proximity to the water.

Chairman Endal asked what the requirements were and was told that for an agricultural use there is a 5 acre minimum, and the applicant has 3.9 acres. This is an Area variance because they don’t have enough for the Agricultural Use, it’s only permitted on lots 5+.

Chairman Endal noted that SEQR was not necessary and asked whether there were any comments from the neighbors? (None).

Mr. Elms calculated that the variance is 30% and Mr. Patricke added that the dimensions are hard to define because of the odd shape of the lot. Mr. Hooper asked whether the location of other new buildings and fences is coordinated with the building inspector and was told that barns and agricultural uses do not require building permits, but still have to comply with the code.

Chairman Endal asked whether the Board was concerned with limiting the amount of the property can be used that way, and how many horses can be kept on the property. Mr. Patricke explained that there is nothing in the code, but he thought the applicant would be happy to have just the two she currently owns.

The public hearing was closed and Chairman Endal asked for a motion. Mr. Hooper motioned to approve Appeal No. 663 with the restriction that no more than two horses be kept on the property. Chairman Endal seconded.

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

A roll call vote resulted as follows:

Mr. Elms Yes

Mr. Hooper Yes

Chairman Endal Yes

Motion carried and Appeal No. 663 was approved.

The Board reviewed Appeal No. 664, a request of Gilles Beaudoin of 23 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. Applicant is proposing to construct a shed that will not meet the required side yard setback. This property is located in an R-2, One and Two Family residential District and is designated as 49.15-2-33 on the Town Assessment Map.

The applicant explained that the back of his house is 25 feet from the river, and slopes downward, it is horseshoe shaped. He plans to use railroad ties, fill the area with stone, and put a shed to put on top of it.

Mr. Patricke explained that this is one of those cases where if the applicant complied with the setbacks, the shed would be right in the middle of what little back yard he has. That is demonstrated by a picture provided. The applicant could chop down a few more trees, but prefers to keep them. There is a 25 acre parcel which runs along the back of all these properties, and the owner has a house at the Northern end of it.

Mr. Elms asked whether that lot is buildable and was told that it’s very wet in the spring and has a slope. Mr. Elms calculated that this would be 8 feet relief from the setback.

Chairman Endal asked if there were comments or letters from the neighbors and was told there were none. The applicant said that one neighbor had visited his home and seen what he has planned. and has no concerns.

Chairman Endal motioned to approve Appeal No. 664 for an 8 foot variance from the side setback. He reminder the applicant that the setback includes the eaves. Mr. Elms seconded.

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

A roll call vote resulted as follows:

Mr. Elms Yes

Mr. Hooper Yes

Chairman Endal Yes

Motion carried and Appeal No. 664 was approved.

The Board reviewed Appeal No. 665, A request of Dr. Eileen Leary-Kelly of P.O. Box 117, Greenfield Center, New York 12833 for a Special Permit pursuant to Chapter 149, Article V, Section 149-33, Home Occupation. Applicant is proposing to purchase 249 Old Saratoga Road, Gansevoort, New York 12831 and operate her Counseling practice from an office located on the property. This property is located in an R-4, Agriculture, One and Two Family Residential District and is designated as 88.-1-9.212 on the Town Assessment Map.

The applicant explained that she and her husband are pursuing buying the property. There is a building already on the premises dedicated to office purposes in the site plan. She expects one patient per hour, and there is off street parking so there are no traffic or other concerns.

Mr. Patricke told the Board that this is unique because the home occupation location is not in her home, but in a building on the property which was intended for that purpose.

Chairman Endal asked about lines on the map and whether they are plot lines, and the location of the office, which the applicant said closer to the road than the house. Mr. Patricke demonstrated the office on the map and explained that the map was made for a different purpose. Dr. Leary-Kelly said that some of the buildings on the site plan have been removed.

Chairman Endal asked for questions or comments from the public and there were none.

He reviewed the criteria for this type of variance, including the health, safety and morals of the neighborhood or change in character. The applicant had said that there would be plenty of parking for the traffic she expects to be generated. The use was not expected to impact surrounding property values because there are no physical changes planned. Such use will not cause congestion or hazard of traffic. The chairman reminded the applicant that she can have one employee. A sign is also allowed, but there are limits on it.

Mr. Elms motioned to approve Appeal No. 665, the Special Use Permit. Mr. Hooper seconded.

A roll call vote resulted as follows:

Mr. Elms Yes

Mr. Hooper Yes

Chairman Endal Yes

Motion carried and Appeal No. 665 was approved.

The Board briefly reviewed Appeal No. 666, A request of Mark Reynolds of 4 Jay Road E., Lake George, New York 12845 for an Area Variance pursuant to Chapter 149, Article X, Section 149-59 (A) and Town Law 267-b. Applicant is proposing to subdivide a parcel at 398-400 Reynolds Road, Fort Edward, New York 12828 into two parcels that will not meet the required lot area for an R-2, One and Two Family Residential District. This parcel is designated as 63.18-1-1 on the Town Assessment Map.

The applicant was not present. Chairman Endal motioned to continue this Appeal to the next meeting, Mr. Elms seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Neighbors present were informed that there will probably not be a meeting in March, so they should come on April 25^th. Mr. Patricke and his secretary will not be in the office for a few weeks in March and Chairman Endal will not be available for the usual date in March, so that meeting was cancelled.

The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Tricia S. Andrews