TOWN OF NORTH HARMONY
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
WEDNESDAY, 4/28/2021 7:00 PM
ZBA MEMBERS PRESENT: JAMES LEVESQUE ROGER VAILLANCOURT
HELEN EMICK DAN THOMAS
GREG MICHALAK WILL ORTMAN
Brad Lawson, Zoning C.E.O.
Dale Robbins, Attorney
Others Present: James Bukowski Robert Sippos Linda Gogniat
Brian Wahlgren Patrick Hildebrandt Louise Ortman
Tom & Mary Mulroy Nancy & Larry Meyer Brandon VanCuren
Andy & Lorraine Post
Mr. Levesque brought the hearing to order at 7:00 PM. Mr. Robbins swore in all who expressed intent to speak regarding the applications.
Mr. Levesque motioned to adopt the minutes of the 3/24/2021 Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing as submitted by the Clerk. Mr. Ortman seconded. Yes (7): Levesque, Michalak, Vaillancourt, Thomas, Emick, Ortman, Henck. No (0). The motion was carried.
MJJ Equipment requesting an Area Variance to construct a 32’x40’ pole building 32’ in height (16’ is allowed) at property located in the R5 District at 5396 Bootey Bay Rd., Ashville NY, specifically Sec. 332.11-1-17.2.
Mr. Bukowski appeared to represent the property owner Mr. Salvatore. Mr. Bukowski said they would like to build a 32’ x 40’ pole barn on the property for boat storage but they need additional height to have a 14’ garage door. He said the roof pitch will be the same as the cottage at 12/12 and there will be a second floor for additional storage. He said the cottage is approximately 28’ height and the barn will be 32’. He said the barn will have water and electric and the upstairs is strictly for storage and no habitable space will be created. Mr. Levesque asked if anyone wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. Levesque read into the record Zoning Ordinance SECTION 904 – Use and Area Variances; C. Area Variances – 2. a) no b) yes c) yes d) no e) yes.
Mr. Levesque motioned to grant MJJ Equipment an Area Variance to construct a 32’x40’ pole building 32’ in height (16’ is allowed) at property located in the R5 District at 5396 Bootey Bay Rd., Ashville NY, specifically Sec. 332.11-1-17.2 as outlined in the application and these minutes. Mr. Michalak seconded. Yes (7): Levesque, Michalak, Vaillancourt, Thomas, Emick, Ortman, Henck. No (0). The motion was carried.
Andrew & Lorraine Post requesting an Area Variance to construct a 40’x80’ pole building 23.4’ in height (18’ is allowed) at property located in the AG District at 5576 Bly Hill Rd. Ashville NY, specifically Sec. 366.00-1-4.
Mr. Post said he would like to construct a 40’x80’ pole building 23.4’ in height to store vehicles, camper, equipment, and personal belongings. He said there will be two overhead doors 14’ x 16’. It was noted that all other setbacks are compliant. He said at this time there are no plans for electric/water. Mr. Levesque asked if anyone wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. Levesque read into the record
4/28/2021 (Pg. 2)
Zoning Ordinance SECTION 904 – Use and Area Variances; C. Area Variances – 2. a) no b) no c) no d) no e) yes.
Mr. Levesque motioned to grant an Area Variance to Andrew & Lorraine Post to construct a 40’x80’ pole building 23.4’ in height (18’ is allowed) at property located in the AG District at 5576 Bly Hill Rd. Ashville NY, specifically Sec. 366.00-1-4 as outlined in the application and these minutes. Mr. Thomas seconded. Yes (7): Levesque, Michalak, Vaillancourt, Thomas, Emick, Ortman, Henck. No (0). The motion was carried.
- William Ortman requesting an Area Variance to construct a 32’x20’ extension on a barn structure closer to the side setback than allowed in Zoning Code Sec. 403 at property located in the R1 District at 3660 Watson Rd. Stow NY, specifically Sec. 332.16-1.5.
Mr. Ortman recused himself from the dais as he is representing himself in a variance request. He said he would like to add an extension onto an existing storage building (28’x20’) for boat storage and other items. He said it will be open on 3 sides with a roof. He said it is roughly 77’ to Watson Rd.; 23’ from the property line on the south side and 10’ from the line on the north side. It was noted that he owns the neighboring lot on the north side. He said the trusses will match the existing slope and pitch 6/12 of the roof. Mr. Levesque noted that neighbor Groth had sent a letter stating they have no issue with the application. Mr. Levesque asked if anyone wished to speak regarding the application. Mrs. Emick said she feels this application should be tabled because the application is incomplete. Mr. Ortman said the copies to the board were made before he signed them, but Mr. Lawson does have a signed copy. Mrs. Thomas noted that copies for the record are kept by Mr. Lawson and his are both signed. Mrs. Emick said she feels we are missing important information. There was further general discussion of this. Mr. Robbins said it is not a good practice for the board to consider applications that are not fully complete.
Mr. Levesque motioned to table William Ortman’s request for an Area Variance to construct a 32’x20’ extension on a barn structure closer to the side setback than allowed in Zoning Code Sec. 403 at property located in the R1 District at 3660 Watson Rd. Stow NY, specifically Sec. 332.16-1.5 pending receipt of a signed complete application. Mrs. Emick seconded. Yes (4): Levesque, Emick, Henck, Vaillancourt. No (2): Thomas, Michalak. The motion was carried.
- Patrick Hildebrandt (re-hear ref. 3/24/21 mins.) requesting Area Variances to construct a house in the R-1 District which does not meet Zoning requirements for setbacks; lot size and coverage at property located at 4908 Ashville Bay Rd., specifically Section 367.14-1-12.
Mr. Wahlgren, Contractor, said the house (978 sq. ft.) itself is under the 20% allowed lot coverage, but with the inclusion of the covered porch (285 sq. ft.) in the corner it will be 24.4%. He said if necessary, the porch can be removed. He said they have adjusted the footprint on the easterly side to make the entire structure 8’ from the property line. He said the roof pitch is 10/12 and the height will be 32’. Mr. Lawson noted that lot coverage allowed in the R-1 is 25%. He also noted that the property is one parcel which includes the land across the ROW which was not included in the lot coverage calculation. There was general discussion of ingress/egress to the property for contractor access, etc. Mr. Wahlgren said supplies will be delivered by barge or a one-ton truck and any damage to the ROW will be repaired to the prior condition. Mr. Hildebrandt said he has hired an independent adjustor to determine the cost of the repair to the ROW and the civil matter is in the hands of attorneys. Mr. Lawson said the only variances needed are for side setbacks
4/28/2021 (Pg. 3)
and front setback. He referenced Section 502 as it relates to contiguous parcels and said he believes the house lot and lakeside lot are considered one parcel as they receive only one tax bill. Mr. Levesque asked if anyone wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. Levesque said if in fact the back lot is considered in the lot coverage, the structure does not exceed the allowed 25% and that is no longer an issue. Mr. Robbins said if it is later determined that it is two parcels the applicant will want to come back to Mr. Lawson.
Mr. Mulroy (4906 Ashville Bay Rd.) said he believes the other lot is a separate parcel. He questioned the boards authority under the existing zoning code to grant this variance because it is not a restoration on an existing building. He expressed concern about the viability of the existing road and retaining walls built to hold the road up. He said all the stone put on the ROW previously, has been pounded into the mud and asked the board to make it a condition that a bond be posted to repair/restore the road to its original condition. Mr. Levesque asked Mr. Robbins if this is typical. Mr. Robbins said not if it is not a town road. Mr. Levesque asked Mr. Mulroy if he has any concerns about the following: house will be 8’ from the property line. Mr. Mulroy replied that he is not concerned about the house being built but is concerned about property and road damage and repairs to the road if necessary. He requested that the board make it a condition that a performance bond for restoration of the road in favor of the property owners be posted. There was discussion of the old 1920 Trolley Line which would have reverted back to property owners but the section in question was never taken over by the town.
Linda Gogniat (Ashville Bay Rd.) spoke and denied having given permission to Mr. Hildebrandt to use her driveway during the demolition. She said she had received an email from Mr. Hildebrandt in November and had been waiting for a call from the contractor to discuss this. She said on 1/22/21 she received a call they were starting work immediately. She replied that they should note there is new drainage on the side yard and the dock and stanchions are there. They replied they would move it all. She said her stanchions were thrown into her yard and broken. She said so far as fixing everything, they offered her 2 bags of peat moss and some grass seed. She said her part of the private road was paved by Kingsview one year ago and they had also cracked that. She indicated that Mr. Hildebrandt’s independent auditor had sent a letter stating they saw no damage in the driveway even though he stated the opposite when he first viewed it. She said the drainage installed last year was crushed into the mud and is no longer even visible. Mrs. Gogniat provided photos of the dock. She said this is affecting her in a negative way. Mr. Levesque asked Mrs. Gogniat if she had seen the house plans. She said no, she did not care about the house but was concerned about the road during demolition. She said she had asked they discontinue using her lawn and they had continued doing further damage.
Mr. Sippos said Mr. Hildebrandt had continuously mislead the board in regard to accessibility rights and permission. He feels Mr. Hildebrandt has defrauded himself and his wife, Mrs. Gogniat.
Larry Meyer (4902 Ashville Bay Rd.) said he has no issue with the house construction but is concerned about the safety of area children and parking problems during summer construction.
Mr. Levesque asked if anyone else wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. Henck asked about the grandfather law regarding building in the footprint of the demolished structure as it relates to the increase in size of the structure. This was discussed as it relates to the addition of the patio which was not present in the previous drawings. Mr. Levesque noted the covered patio is a further encroachment on an already existing encroachment. Mr. Hildebrandt said they could remove or redesign the patio. It was suggested that it could be squared off to make the encroachment less.
Mr. Ortman said with the new information received, he feels the application should be tabled for further examination. He and Mrs. Emick said there is a big difference between the existing structure and the proposed structure. Mr. Thomas asked for clarification on what actually falls within the purview of the board as it relates to the application. He said a number of people have spoken on issues that are not within the bounds of the board. Mr. Levesque said that is why he specifically asked those present if they had an issue with the 8’ setback because there is nothing relevant to the board’s decision other than the entire view of the neighborhood; the concerns of the neighbors and where the setbacks will be. He said other property issues are not within the board’s authority. Mr. Michalak said criteria can be identified in the motion. Mr. Lawson said Zoning Code Sec. 505 Establishing Sub-standard Size Lot, should be taken into consideration. He said as he interprets it, if you have a home on a sub-standard lot and you tear it down you can pin the foundation and can rebuild it in the same footprint within one year. He said he wanted to clear up the vacant lot issue. Mr. Vaillancourt said even with the increase in size, the lot coverage is still met. Mr. Lawson said he had viewed the GIS Map and the property is one parcel number. After discussion and agreement with the applicant that the proposed patio/porch should be squared to the existing house dimension of 23.8’ x 46’
the following setbacks were stated: westside approximately 17’; eastside 8’; lakeside 33.5’ (1310 from highwater mark); and roadside 25.5’. Mr. Levesque asked the board if they wished to place any conditions on this request. Mr. Lawson said he would be discussing rain gardens and drainage plan with the applicant in order to comply with requirements. He said the only condition he would add is that they pin their house and make sure S&CCLSD sewer line is clear and there are no issues with locations. Mr. Levesque read into the record Zoning Ordinance SECTION 904 – Use and Area Variances; C. Area Variances – 2. a) no b) no c) yes d) no e) yes.
Mr. Levesque motioned to grant Area Variances to Patrick Hildebrandt (re-hear ref. 3/24/21 mins.) to construct a house in the R-1 District which does not meet Zoning requirements for setbacks; lot size and coverage at property located at 4908 Ashville Bay Rd., specifically Section 367.14-1-12 as outlined in these minutes and with the following conditions:
- House location will be pinned and verified for S&CCLSD Sewer purposes
- Full drainage plans be provided to C.E.O. prior to construction
- Following are setbacks as agreed upon by the applicant and ZBA:
No closer than 8 feet on the eastside No closer than 17 feet on the westside
No closer than 25.5 ft. On roadside (ROW) No closer than 33.5 ft. To lakeside 1310 mark
Mr. Thomas seconded. Yes (7): Levesque, Michalak, Vaillancourt, Thomas, Emick, Ortman, Henck. No (0). The motion was carried.
Mr. Levesque encouraged the applicant to try and make amends with his new neighbors regarding the property damages.
On a motion made by Mr. Levesque, seconded by Mrs. Emick and none being opposed the
hearing was adjourned at 9:15 PM.