The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Town of Moreau, Saratoga County, and State of New York was held on the lawn at the Moreau Town Hall, 61 Hudson Street, South Glens Falls, NY 12803 on July 26, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present or absent:
Present: Kevin Elms, acting chair
Chester Joslin
James Hooper
Others present: Attorney. Martin Auffredou
The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. and the minutes from the April 26 and June 28, 2006 minutes were reviewed. Mr. Hooper motioned to accept the April minutes and Mr. Joslin seconded. Chairman Elms motioned to accept the June minutes and Mr. Hooper seconded. Both motions passed unanimously.
The Board then reviewed Appeal No. 658, a request of Anthony Girard of 13 Daffodil Drive, South Glens Falls, NY 12803 for an Area Variance pursuant to Chapter 149, Article X, Section 149-59(A) and Town Law 267b. Applicant is requesting to construct an addition on the front of his Single Family Dwelling that will not meet the required front yard setback in an R-2 (One and Two Family Residential District). This property is designated as 49.19-2-8 on the Town Assessment Map.
The Girards were present and requested 2.5 feet relief from the setback where the front yard setback requirement is 40 feet. He would like to build the addition 38.5 feet from the front property line. He can’t build on the back because of septic and the other side is sloped. The front is the only feasible option. This is not a corner lot, but it is curved.
Mr. Hooper stated that the variance is no where near substantial and the applicant could be given a more generous relief of 10 feet in case it might become necessary to change plans. The applicant had originally thought that the requirement was 45 feet, and he would need 7 feet relief.
Frank and Mary Briggs of 14 Dogwood Drive, neighbors at the sloped side of the property, appeared in support of the variance. There were no other members of the public present and no correspondence.
The board agreed that this house would probably not appear to be any different from the other houses in the neighborhood.
The Board reviewed the criteria for granting an Area Variance and found as follows:
There would be no adverse effect on the character of the neighborhood.
There are no other feasible means of achieving the desired benefit. The curve in the lot makes a generous setback possible.
The variance is not at all substantial.
The Board did not identify any adverse environmental impact relevant to this variance.
The difficulty was not self-created.
Mr. Hooper motioned to approve Appeal No. 658 for a maximum variance of 10 feet from the 40 foot front yard setback requirement, including the overhang, and Mr. Elms seconded. A roll call vote resulted as follows:
Mr. Joslin Yes
Mr. Hooper Yes
Chairman Elms Yes
Motion carried and Appeal No. 658 was approved.
Attorney Auffredou reported that Topnotch Self Storage had submitted a letter with regard to Appeal No. 642, represented by Elizabeth Coreno at Matt Jones’ office. On June 21, 2006 they had met with Attorney Auffredou and Mr. Patricke with regard to the use of the Topnotch Storage Office as a residence for the manager. This plan was not reflected in the record when the Special Use Permit was granted.
The applicant has requested that the office be used as a residence only for the resident manager and his family. This is a commercial zone and should not have two uses, both commercial and residential.
Attorney Auffredou and Joe Patricke have discussed allowing the residential use only for a resident manager who is on the payroll of TopNotch Self Storage, with immediate family only. This would require an amendment to the Special Use Permit. Right now, they are in violation of their Special Use Permit because the manager is living there. The distinction raised by the applicant is that the house was already there. Mr. Hooper stated that he didn’t feel a resident manager was afar-fetched idea, even though it is not commonly done in the area. Mr. Joslin agreed that the arrangement might be a selling point. On the other hand, enforcement and the setting of precedent with regard to zoning regulations present a problem.
The Board agreed that they would like the applicant to come before the Board and discuss an amendment to his Special Use Permit.
Next meeting August 23, 2006. The meeting was adjourned at 7:35p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Tricia S. Andrews