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 October 25, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present or absent:
Present:
Gerhard Endal, Chair
Kevin Elms
Chester Joslin
Darrell Finlayson
James Hooper
Others present: Martin Auffredou, Attorney for the Town
F. Joseph Patricke, Building Inspector
The meeting was called to order at 7:09 and the July 26, 2006 minutes were reviewed. Mr. Elms motioned to accept the minutes and Mr. Hooper seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
The Board then reviewed Appeal No. 659, a request of Matthew Gabryshak of 22 Sydney Hill Road, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 for an Area Variance pursuant to Chapter 149, Article X, Section 149-59(A) and Town Law 267-b. The applicant is seeking to divide a parcel into two lots, each lot occupied by a dwelling. The lots created will not meet the minimum lot width, lot depth or square footage for the zoning district in which they are located. This property is located at 262 Old Saratoga Road in an R-4, Agriculture, One and Two Family Residential District and is designated as 88.-1-9.1 on the Town Assessment Map.
Mr. Gabryshak appeared and explained that he had previously purchased 249 Old Saratoga Road, across the street from Mr. Reale MacKenzie. He now wants to purchase the property across the street, which has a duplex and a single family home on it. They wish to subdivide the property to make it legal, because the bank will not finance it. The CO was issued in 1988. The reason for the subdivision is to make the property legal. It will be a rental property. The bank will not finance the property because it is an illegal use to have both a duplex and a single family dwelling on the property.
Atty. Auffredou explained that this is accurate and that the properties were not in compliance, but the Town had mistakenly given the building permit and CO in the distant past. The building inspector had suggested this division of the property to solve the problem. The current owner can not sell the property while it is an illegal use.
Mr. Hooper asked how much of a variance from the requirements there will be. The min. lot size is 3 acres is an R-4. The lot is currently 1.67 acres, before the division. Mr. Patricke stated that there is no way to make the lot compliant without a variance. Also the location of the wells determined the location of the division line.
Mr. Mackenzie stated that the land is sandy and there has never been a failure of the well and septic. Mr. Patricke added regarding character of the neighborhood, no actual difference would be noted as there is no additional construction planned, and the lot has been non-conforming for years. Atty. Auffredou stated that this would set a good precedent for granting this type of relief. Mr. Patricke added that under the zoning in place when this happened, the permit was granted and the owner didn’t do anything wrong.
Mr. Finlayson asked whether the new owner could build a larger house on the undersized lot in the future. Mr. Patricke said he could if he met Health Department guidelines and met requirements. He would be able to build the right house. The Board agreed that this type of relief would be granted to anyone who got a building permit or CO in this manner. He also said that because there used to be a summer camp, there are multiple duplexes and close houses that do not conform to zoning requirements.
There was no correspondence or public comment.
The Board reviewed the criteria for granting an Area Variance and found as follows:
Mr. Hooper motioned to approve Appeal No. 659 to subdivide an undersized, non conforming lot into two undersized, non-conforming lots. Consideration being given to the fact that the addition of the second use was permitted by the building inspector 18 years ago in error. The lot has several pre-existing non-conformities. The dimensions reflected in the map dated May 16 2006 with the parcel line dated 9/13/06, represent significant variance from setback requirements. Mr. Elms seconded the motion. A roll call vote resulted as follows:
Mr. Finlayson Yes
Mr. Joslin Yes
Mr. Hooper Yes
Mr. Elms Yes
Chairman Endal Yes
Motion carried and Appeal No. 659 was approved.
The Board reviewed Appeal No. 660, a request of Robert Stevens of 241 Washburn Road, Gansevoort, NY 12831 for an Area Variance pursuant to Chapter 149, Article X, Section 149-59 (A) and Town Law 267-b. Applicant is requesting to construct a garage that will not meet the required side yard setback in that zoning district. This property is located in an R-5, Agriculture, One and Two Family Residential District and is designated as 89.-2-30.2 on the Town Assessment Map.
Mr. Stevens explained that he wants to add a single car garage to the side of his home and setbacks do not allow a big enough garage. He has an undersized lot and the required setback in R-5 is 25 feet, from which he requires 8 feet relief.
Mr. Patricke stated that the zoning in effect allowed for a 30,000 sq. foot lot, and older homes are on these small lots. The setbacks were reduced by the building inspector according to the formula to 18 feet, and the applicant wants the garage at 17 feet from the line. This requires a much smaller garage than he originally planned. The applicant has reduced his building to the smallest possible request. No other location on the property makes sense because of the location of the well and the layout of the house. The neighbor on the affected side is the applicant’s mother, and her house is 75 feet from the line. The applicant’s request is for a 1 foot variance which allows for a 15’garage.
Mr. Patricke suggested that the applicant request a 3 foot variance in case he decides he would like more room after the project begins. There was no comment from the public.
The Board reviewed the criteria for granting an Area Variance and found as follows:
Mr. Elms motioned to approve a 3 foot variance on the side setback and Mr. Hooper seconded.
Mr. Finlayson Yes
Mr. Joslin Yes
Mr. Hooper Yes
Mr. Elms Yes
Chairman Endal Yes
Motion carried and Appeal No. 660 was approved.
Mr. Patricke brought before the Board a concern from the public about tractor (trailer tractors) being parked in residential areas. He interprets the law to state that this is a commercial vehicle, and can not be parked in a public area. The Atty. general says that these can not be separated from vans or other autos with names on them which are commercial. He asked for direction on what type or use parking represents.
One difference discussed was the noise and air pollution concern that comes with a tractor and not with a service van or RV. Some towns have designated areas where drivers can park before taking other transportation home. This created liability in the case of vandalism. Mr. Patricke suggested that a person could come ask for a use variance to park a commercial use vehicle in a residential neighborhood. Other Board members suggested that this was a nuisance that people would have to tolerate. There night be some restrictions on running time that would reduce the impact. There is already a state law that they can not be left running for more than 5 minutes. Most drivers have been complaint and found other places to park when concerns were raised by neighbors.
Smoothwater Sports at the Corner of Route 9 and Old Saratoga Road, would like to expand their business on an angular lot. The owner has three fronts and one side, which leaves very little room for setbacks on his expansion. His plans do not make the buildings any closer to the road because he is building to connect existing buildings. There is no actual access to the property from the two fronts on Route 9, only on Old Saratoga Road. The Board agreed conceptually that the applicant could use the front on Old Saratoga Road.
The next meeting was scheduled for November 29, 2006. The meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Tricia S. Andrews