Tim Larson, Ray Liuzzo, Craig Warner, Dave Savage, Cynthia Young, Leo Martin Leah Everhart, Zoning Attorney Sophia Marruso, Sr.

Transcription

1 The Town of Malta Zoning Board of Appeals held their regular meeting on July at the Malta Town Hall with David Savage, Chairman presiding. The Introductory Statement was read. Legal Advertisement was published in the Daily Gazette on June 18, PRESENT: ABSENT: Tim Larson, Ray Liuzzo, Craig Warner, Dave Savage, Cynthia Young, Leo Martin Leah Everhart, Zoning Attorney Sophia Marruso, Sr. Planner Bob Bush, Kevin Cronin Minutes: Motion made by Liuzzo, seconded by Larson June 4, 2013 ZBA minutes be approved as stated. AGENDA APPEAL NO Glenn Witecki DENIED Area Variance for construction of a concrete block patio Location: 2 Crum Road APPEAL NO Malta Associates, LLC/Nigro Companies POSTPONED Shops of Malta/Kendall Way/Route 9 Interpretation and area variances for a new 7 building commercial development APPEAL NO Glenn Witecki, 2 Crum Road, requested an area variance for front yard setback, side yard setback and minimum lot size to construct a raised concrete patio onto the front of the residence to be located close to the property lines. The property is 5,427sq.ft. in size, faces Saratoga Lake and is a corner lot on two paper roads, Crum Road on the south side of the property and Lake Shore Drive on the east side of the property.

2 ZBA MINUTES 2 Mr. Witecki is close to finishing this house after 11 years of construction. He currently has a Temporary CO. To obtain a final Certificate of Occupancy he needs to put stairs at the entrance of the home. The proposal is to build a raised concrete block patio onto the front of the home. The final height of the patio will be 16 inches below the first floor height of the residence. The patio is to be approximately 3 3½ feet above the ground. The reason for this height is because the house is construction above the flood plain of the area therefore the patio would have to be built higher. The survey map dated 5/23/2013 indicates the front patio to be 6 inches from the front property, 6 inches from the north property line and 9ft from the south property line. Mr. Witecki submitted pictures of neighboring homes with decks similar in location to what is being proposed. Area variance Criteria: Undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties: WITECKI said right now he has mounds of dirt in front of house. By putting in a nice concrete patio it would be an improvement. And it would be consistent with patios and decks in the area. Whether benefit can be achieved by other means feasible: WITECKI said he only has 5000sf. This is the only place he can put in a patio where he can get a lake view. Whether the request is substantial: WITECKI said he didn t see where it is substantial. Whether request will have adverse physical or environmental effects: WITECKI said there is no impact. Whether alleged difficulty is self-created: WITECKI said these lots were subdivided around It was the Town requirement that the house be built on that above the flood plain. He believes it is only reasonable to build a patio with steps. If it is built much lower there are times when the lake would rise to where the patio would be under water. SAVAGE asked if a smaller patio was considered not so close to the property line. WITECKI said to do something smaller, the steps would cut into the patio substantially. You have steps coming out of the house and you have a walk way. He doesn t see in relation to the size of the house that the patio is that big. You have an area to place a table and couple of chairs, and a cooker. SAVAGE said there is already a variance on the setbacks. Did you consider building within that setback and shifting the stairs to the north. You could put in a small patio within the approved setbacks then you (Mr. Witecki) would not need to be here. YOUNG read the previous variance granted: In 2002 an area variance was granted: the southeast corner (the closest corner) of the proposed new structure to be 9.3ft from the property line along Lake Shore Drive; south side of the proposed new structure to be 17.7ft from the property line along Crum Road; north side of the proposed structure to be 6.9ft to the closest corner and 8.3ft from the property line as stated in a survey map dated 7/23/01. WITECKI asked the Board how much the patio has to be setback to make this Board happy. SAVAGE said the Board tries to give the least amount of relief that we can. He suggested that the Board more likely consider a patio not so close to the property line. Don t know what that size would be. COUNSEL EVERHART said that the Board is not supposed to make any recommendation. It is the applicant that has to do it. This is a give and take. It is the applicants obligation to identify what the necessary size is.

3 ZBA MINUTES 3 WITECKI asked if he could amend his application verbally then submit a new survey. SAVAGE said that if you (Witecki) said you want to make the patio this size and I want this much of a relief on each property line. He believes this Board would consider that change. MARRUSO said we would need an updated survey showing the changes to the location of the patio and the setbacks as granted by the ZBA. Public hearing opened at 7:22 pm. Don Flynn, 12 Rockrose Way, has no vested interest in this. He said that the guy (Witecki) has made an effort to come up with a plan that seems aesthetically pleasing to his neighbors. He is a taxpayer. He is in support of him building this patio. Mike Galloway, 4126 Silver Beach Road, had some questions if it is a stone patio and about drainage. This is in a floodplain is this going to cause other drainage problems to the Lake Assoc. property or to our property which is right next door. Also, Crum Road is impassable. He noticed on the survey map it says no defined width of Crum Road. He is 95% sure that within their deeds it is a 10ft width all the way down to the lake. He had a question about the steps going right onto Lake Shore Drive, which is the association property. Why would your main entrance and exit be right on a paper road? MARRUSO confirmed that the Code Enforcement Officer had made the determination that even though the material makes it seem as it is a patio, he is treating it as a structure due to the height above grade, the number of risers and the use of railings. A building permit would need to be issued for it. It is a corner lot. There are two front yard setbacks that need relief and a side yard setback relief along with a relief for the lot size. The building coverage is adequate. Public hearing closed at 7:25 pm. LIUZZO reviewed with the Board the criteria for an area variance. Whether an undesirable change to the neighborhood character or to nearby properties: LIUZZO thinks it does not produce undesirable change. YOUNG said the stairs enter onto the association property. WITECKI said he is a member of the association and he has common deeded rights with the other members. He is free to use it as his own can t put up a structure. LIUZZO asked if the road could be improved could they put the road right up to the lot line? WITECKI said it is unlikely. Farther up the road gravel was put in but the area he is in is low and it floods every year there is a telephone pole in the middle of Crum Road. LIUZZO asked how does Mr.Witecki access his property. WITECKI said part of Crum Road has crushed stone on it into his driveway. The driveway is located behind his house. YOUNG said she did go down there. Lake Shore Dr. is misleading because it is just grass. Whether benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by other means: LIUZZO said in his opinion he would still need an area variance of some sort. But the benefit could be achieved with lesser of a variance. Whether the request of area variance is substantial: LIUZZO said a 99% he would considered that substantial. Whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects: LIUZZO said in his opinion it would not have any impact. YOUNG said she agreed. LARSON asked Cynthia since she was down there was there any concern about flooding. YOUNG said didn t see flooding right there but she couldn t go all the way around to the next street because it was flooded. We know

4 ZBA MINUTES 4 there is a flood issue down there. We have had a lot of rain. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: LIUZZO said in his opinion this substandard lot is not of his making. LARSON said he was questioning whether or not the structure that was rebuilt could have been moved to the west. If that was done there would have been more room in front to put in a patio. WITECKI said the reason he wanted to leave the northern and eastern boundaries alone at the time for his neighbor, The Voelkers, the more he (Witecki) would have moved west the more he would have blocked The Voelkers view of the lake. He was trying to be a good neighbor. MARTIN asked when the original variance was applied for, there were sliding glass doors on the front of the structure, did you make the Board aware of the fact that you were going to put in a patio down the road. WITECKI said he didn t think that far ahead at the time. He didn t think it would take 11 years to build the house and it has. WITECKI said he would like to amend his proposal. Instead of the 6 inch setback to have a 2ft setback on the north, so that there is room to do maintenance on his own property, and instead of the 6 inch setback along Lake Shore Drive, he requested a 1ft setback. If has to go more than 1ft on the Lake Shore Drive side it is not going to make much sense to him because he won t be able to get steps up there or have any kind of a landing. In terms of accessing Lake Shore Drive, he has deeded beach rights on Saratoga Lake and he has the right to use that property as well as the rest of his neighbors. MARTIN said he likes this better. LARSON said the two feet on the north side is okay but the one foot on Lake Shore Drive is still too close. Is there any reason why the stairs can t be moved to access the patio from the south. WITECKI said there are steps on the side of the house that come up from the driveway. But to get down to the lake are the other steps. It is just a graded slope up to the patio. It doesn t make sense to him to come out the front door and go half way around the side to get to the lake. YOUNG said she did agree that with one way or another you should be able to move the stairs so that they are not right off the front and pull the front in at least a little more. SAVAGE said he thinks the applicant said if two feet north and one foot back isn t acceptable to the Board, he was not willing to give us more. SAVAGE said that under SEQR this is an unlisted type II action therefore no further action is necessary from this Board. COUNSEL EVERHART said it should be noted that the EAF form Part II was filled out by the applicant; the ZBA didn t fill it out. MOTION made by Larson seconded by Martin, APPEAL NO be as amended for an area variance to construct a patio to be placed 1foot from Lake Shore Drive and 2 feet from the north property line: front yard setback(lake Shore Dr.) 1ft proposed difference of 39ft which is a 98% relief; side yard setback(north side) 2ft proposed difference of 10ft which is a 85% relief, no change in front yard setback; minimum lot size relief of 64%; be denied. Anthony Tozzi said that the Shops 4U applicant was determined to be incomplete and additional information was requested. Tony was told that the application would probably be modified and possibly a new application submitted. Motion made by Liuzzo seconded by Larson to adjourn meeting

5 ZBA MINUTES 5 Respectfully submitted by Phyllis Mullany Secretary ZBA