Elegant Letter



MINUTES

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

DATE: November 17th 2020 at 6:00 PM

LOCATION: Willsboro Town Hall

Present: Chairman: Carol DeMello; Board Members: Peter Sowizdrzal, Margaret Adkins (Alternate), Anne Lincoln, Lawrence Allen

Excused: Anthony Galioto

Members of the Public: Moe Wilkins, Kevin Hall, Creig & Samantha Cullum, Peter Smith, Bruce King

Chairman DeMello called the meeting to order at 6:03 pm.

MINUTES:

The October 2020 minutes were approved as presented

(Allen/Sowizdrzal) A motion was made by Allen and seconded to approve the October 20th, 2020 minutes as presented. All in favor, motion carried.

PUBLIC HEARING:

--Creig Cullum—2 Cayuga Place---11.13-1-55.000—RL-1---Adding 16’ x 25’ addition to existing residence

Open Public Hearing at 6:08 pm

DeMello introduced the Cullum project. DeMello stated the applicant would like to remove a small addition and replace it will an addition on the east side of the existing residence, 16 x 25 feet adding about 400 sq feet. This impacts section 4.10, p.29, Schedules of Use and Area Regulations, seeking variance relief of 21’ from side yard setback requirement of 50’. DeMello questioned if there were any questions or if anyone sent in letters or called in regards to the Cullum project. Crandall stated she did not receive anything in regards to the Cullum project. Cullum questioned when they do get the permit, if they are granted the variance, how long the permit will be good for as the project will not start now until May. Sowizdrzal stated that he believes the permit will last 3 years and DeMello stated that the ZBA decision is good for 6 months.

Close Public Hearing at 6:11pm with the right to ask the applicant questions.

Allen questioned after the old addition is removed and the new one is put on what would the aesthetics be. Cullum stated it will match the house the best they can. DeMello asked if the board had any other questions. The board members discussed their 5 area variance questions*.

(Allen/Adkins) A motion was made by Allen to approve the variance from Section 4.10, Schedules of Use and Area Regulation, granting relief of 21’ from side yard setback requirement of 50’ on the east side and seconded. All in favor, motion carried.

--Peter Smith—33Hilton Terr—21.13-2-23.112/21.13-2-4.001—RL-1—New Home Construction

.

Open Public Hearing at 6:24 pm

DeMello introduced the Smith project. DeMello stated the applicant would like to build a single-family house, 2 level, cape-style home with 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, 1966 sq. ft. with detached garage of 780 sq. feet. This impacts Section 4.10, p.29, Schedules of Use and Area Regulations, specifically side yard setback requirement of 50’ where part of the house will sit 10’ from the property line located near the “elbow” of the “L” shaped lot and 22’ for the setback for the foundation of the actual house (approximately 32’6”—about half of it). Sowizdrzal questioned if they had any luck on purchasing the other lot. Smith stated he has had no luck. DeMello stated a letter was received from Maureen Wilcox, the letter was read and noted that the neighbor was concerned about the project and that it can reduce her property value and she strongly disapproves of the project. DeMello stated that the Wilcox property is 150’ away from the building site at the Smiths. DeMello also stated that on the Smith application they put a proposed 35’ no-construction setback to existing natural swale to minimize impact on the local drainage.

Close Public Hearing at 6:29 pm with the right to ask the applicant questions.

DeMello and the other board members discussed the 5 area variance questions*. Lincoln stated while discussing the 5 questions that the applicant could not have a porch which would make the variance less and when he purchases the land, he could then add the porch. DeMello stated that the applicant may never purchase the land. DeMello also stated that she spoke with the training attorneys at The Department of State (DOS) of New York and they advised that the ZBA cannot consider future possibilities--decisions have to be made on what is in front of them at that moment.

(Allen/Sowizdrzal) A motion was made by Allen to grant the variance from Section 4.10, Schedules of Use and Area Regulations--specifically, side yard setback requirement of 50’. Relief of 40’ for a corner of the screened porch which will sit 10’ from the property line located at the “elbow” of the “L” shaped lot and relief of 28’ for the portion of the house (foundation) set 22’ from the upper south boundary line with the stipulation that no construction will be done within 35’ of the existing natural swale. All in favor, motion carried.

--Charles Eaton—192 Cedar Lane—20.20-2-2.000—RL-1—Addition to the West side of the Existing Camp

Open Public Hearing at 6:51 pm

DeMello introduced the Eaton project. DeMello stated the applicant would like to build an addition on the west side of the camp totaling approximately 384 sq. ft. (16’ x 24’) providing space for a master bedroom and bath, large closet/storage area, and one-half bath. This impacts Section 4.10, p.29, Schedules of Use and Area Regulations and Section 6, Setback from the Shoreline, Lot Width and Side Yards, p.58, specifically, need relief from side yard setback requirement of 20’. Closest corner of the addition would be 9’5”. DeMello stated that the applicant included 5 or 6 letters with his applications from all of his neighbors; all of the neighbors were in favor. DeMello asked if there were any questions. Hall stated the applicant is expanding the number of bedrooms so they needed a new septic system per state regulations, and so the applicant got plans from Mark Buckley for a new septic that will accommodate the extra bedroom. DeMello questioned how many bedrooms the home has now and how many it will have after the addition. Wilkins stated currently it is 3 bedrooms and with the addition of the new bedroom it will be 4.

Close Public Hearing at 6:58 pm with the right to ask the applicant questions.

DeMello and the board discussed the 5 area variance questions*. DeMello stated we will include the applicant’s answers to the 5 area variance questions as well* as they were very detailed and had a lot of information in them.

(DeMello/Sowizdrzal) A motion was made by DeMello to grant a variance for relief of 10’7” on the west side yard setback allowance of 20’ (Section 4.10, Schedules of Use and Area Regulations, and Section 6.12 Setback from the Shoreline, Lot Width and Side Yards) to build a seasonal addition of 16’ x 24’ consisting of a master bedroom and bath, large closet/storage area, and one half-bath and seconded. All in favor, motion carried.

OLD BUSINESS: No Old Business

NEW BUSINESS: No New Business

ADJOURNMENT: Meeting was adjourned at 7:15pm.

(DeMello/Sowizdrzal) A motion was made by DeMello and seconded, to close the meeting. All in favor and the motion carried.

*See attached

Respectfully Submitted,

Codia Crandall

Secretary for Planning and Zoning Board

ZBA Area Variance Questions DRAFT

Submitted by Anne Lincoln

Name: Creig and Samantha Cullum Area Variance Application Number: ___2020-50Z Date of Vote: 11/17/2020

Findings:

1. As to whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant other than an area variance, I find that:

The location of the home and utilities limits the ability to add an addition to the home.

2. As to whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created, I find that:

There will not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood. The addition will be similar in appearance to the existing home.

3. As to whether the requested area variance is substantial, I find that:

The proposed addition increases the variance needed by 6 feet. This is not substantial relative to the preexisting setback of the house.

4. As to whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, I find that:

No, there will be very little change to the physical conditions with the removal of the ‘bunkhouse” and placement of the new addition. The drainage will be unaffected.

5. As to whether an alleged difficulty is self-created, I find that: (This consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.)

No, this property is a preexisting undersized lot.

ZBA Area Variance Questions DRAFT

Submitted by Pete Sowizdrzal

Name___Creig and Samantha Cullum __Tax Map # 11.13-1-55.000

Area Variance Application Number: ___2020-50Z_ Date of Vote: ____11-17-2020__

Findings:

1. As to whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant other than an area variance, I find that:

It cannot. This is their primary residence and they need to have a bigger bedroom, closet and bathroom. They are removing the smaller existing bedroom to make way for the addition.

2. As to whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created, I find that:

Not it will not. The addition is designed to look similar to the existing design of the original structure. It is not increasing the size to similar structures in the area and will fall well within the 15% lot coverage.

3. As to whether the requested area variance is substantial, I find that:

It is not. The side yard setback requirement for RL-1 is 50’. With the addition the east side yard setback is 29’. They will need relief of 21’ on the east side.

4. As to whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, I find that:

It will not. The physical size of the new structure will look similar in size to the neighborhood and there will be no environmental or drainage issues.

5. As to whether an alleged difficulty is self-created, I find that: (This consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.)

Not self-created. Most camps are small in nature in that area. Since they made the decision to live there year-round, they need to additional space.

ZBA Area Variance Questions DRAFT

Submitted by Carol de Mello

Name_____Cullum, Creig & Samantha____________________ Tax Map #___11.13-1-55.000___

Area Variance Application Number: ___2020-50Z___________ Date of Vote: ____2020-11-17_

Findings:

1. As to whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant other than an area variance, I find that:

There are no other alternatives; the only way would be to buy land on the east side of the house and there is no vacant land available. All of the original lots on Cayuga are part of the Hatch Brothers Subdivision created in 1928 well before the Zoning Law was created. Most of the lots were just 50’ wide and often sold in blocks of two making each new lot approximately 100’ wide. None of these lots can be built upon without a variance because the Zoning Law states that lots in the RL-1 district have a side yard setback of 50’.

2. As to whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created, I find that:

According to the plans submitted, there will be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood as the addition will be made to look exactly like the original house.

3. As to whether the requested area variance is substantial, I find that:

The requested encroachment of 21’ into a 50’ setback may seem substantial at 42% by the numbers, but when viewing the placement on the property overall, it will hardly be noticed from what now exists.

4. As to whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, I find that:

There will be no adverse impact on either physical or environmental conditions when built to current NYS building codes and regulations.

5. As to whether an alleged difficulty is self-created, I find that: (This consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.)

As the lot in question was created long before the Zoning Law, I find that the alleged difficulty is not self-created.

Decision Form:

|Board: |Zoning Board of Appeals |

|Date of Appeal: |November 17, 2020 |

|Application Number: |2020-50Z |

|Name: |Cullum, Creig & Samantha |

|Project Address: |2 Cayuga Place |

|Tax Map Number: |11.13-1-55.000 |

|Request for Variance From: |Section 4.10, p. 29, Schedules of Use and Area Regulations-- Seeking |

| |variance relief of 21’ from side yard setback requirement of 50’. |

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Add small addition to east side of existing residence for master bedroom, walk-in closet and master bath. Size is 16’ x 25’ adding about 400 sq. ft.

Review of Area Variance Criteria:

Area Variance Criteria:

1. How could the benefit not be achieved by any other feasible means?

The Board finds there are no other alternatives; the only way would be to buy land on the east side of the house and there is no vacant land available. All of the original lots on Cayuga are part of the Hatch Brothers Subdivision created in 1928 well before the Zoning Law was created. Most of the lots were just 50’ wide and often sold in blocks of two making each new lot approximately 100’ wide. None of these lots can be built upon without a variance because the Zoning Law states that lots in the RL-1 district have a side yard setback of 50’. Also the location of the home and utilities limits the ability of where to add an addition on the home.

2. How will it not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood?

The Board finds that according to the plans submitted, there will be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood as the addition will be made to look exactly like the original house and will still fall within the 50% lot coverage.

3. Is the request substantial?

The Board finds that the requested encroachment of 21’ into a 50’ setback may seem substantial at 42% by the numbers, but when viewing the placement on the property overall, it will hardly be noticed from what now exists.

4. Adverse physical or environmental effects?

The Board finds there will be no adverse impact on either physical or environmental conditions when built to current NYS building codes and regulations and is of similar size to the neighborhood homes. The drainage will also be unaffected.

5. How is this hardship not self-created?

The Boards finds that the alleged difficulty is not self-created as the lot in question was created long before the Zoning Law.

|Proposed Motion: |Motion to approve the variance from Section 4.10, Schedules of Use and Area Regulation, granting relief|

| |of 21’ from side yard setback requirement of 50’ on the east side. |

|Motion Made By: |Lawrence Allen |

|Motion |Margaret Adkins |

|Seconded By: | |

|Member Vote: |Member Name: |Yes |No |

| |Chairman, Carol de Mello |X | |

| |Vice Chair, Peter Sowizdrzal |X | |

| |Anthony Galioto |EXCUSED | |

| |Larry Allen |X | |

| |Anne Lincoln |X | |

| |Margaret Adkins, Alternate |X | |

| | | | |

|Signature of | |

|ZBA Chairman: | |

ZBA Area Variance Questions DRAFT

Submitted by Carol de Mello

Name_____Smith, Katherine & Peter Tax Map #___21.13-2-4.001 & 21.13-2-23.112

Area Variance Application Number: ___2020-51Z Date of Vote: ____2020-11-17

Findings:

1. As to whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant other than an area variance, I find that:

A possible alternative would be to buy the adjoining vacant lot which the Smith’s would like to do, but there has been no response to their efforts from the landowner and one cannot force someone to sell their property. A second possible alternative would be to move the house closer to Hilton Terrace but that would still require a variance because of the odd shape of the lot. There would also be a significant loss of privacy. While these are possible alternatives, they are not feasible for this project for the stated reasons.

2. As to whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created, I find that:

The design is quite in character with other nearby homes and is suitable for this lakeside Adirondack community. I feel it will be an asset to the neighborhood.

3. As to whether the requested area variance is substantial, I find that:

The proposed setbacks of 10’ where 50’ is required and 22’ where 50’ is required for side yard setbacks are substantial. Further analysis of the situation reveals that since the lot is unusual in shape (somewhat of an “L” shape), it would be difficult to place this home on the lot anywhere else without running into a problem with the setbacks or areas of the land that would be too wet to support a septic system. These lots are pre-existing to the Zoning Law and with a width of only 100’ in the back portion of the lot where one-half of the house will be placed, there is no way to build without a variance.

4. As to whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, I find that:

The proposed variance will have a positive effect on the physical and environmental conditions by preserving a natural swale and stream used for water runoff in the neighborhood. The placement of the home and septic system were carefully chosen to “minimize impact on local drainage” (from the Smith’s plot plan).

5. As to whether an alleged difficulty is self-created, I find that: (This consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.)

The two lots are pre-existing and nonconforming and were created well before the Zoning Law. The Zoning Law requirements for the RL-1 district do not fit a majority of the properties in this neighborhood. The alleged difficulty is not self-created.

ZBA Area Variance Questions DRAFT

Submitted by Pete Sowizdrzal

Name_____Katherine and Peter Smith____ Tax Map # 21.13-2-4.001 & 21.13-2-23.112__

Area Variance Application Number: ___2020-51-Z___ Date of Vote: ____11-17-2020__

Findings:

1. As to whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant other than an area variance, I find that:

The way the lot is configured and drainage is, the buildable area of the lot will not be able to accomplish the south side yard setback. To accomplish this there would need to be major drainage work which would be cost prohibitable.

2. As to whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created, I find that:

It will not produce an undesirable change to the neighborhood. The structures are being built in the back of the lot away from the road. Minimal cutting of trees will be needed on the lot.

3. As to whether the requested area variance is substantial, I find that:

It is substantial but necessary to build on the existing lot. The side yard setbacks for RL-1 are 50’ They are requesting a 10’ side yard setback for the south side of the property for a relief of 40’. A major portion of the lot has a drainage swale on the property which make that section of the lot unbuildable. The applicants have reached out to the neighboring property owner to see if they would be willing to sell the property. That would make the variance request moot.

4. As to whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, I find that:

It will not. They will not be changing the pattern of the existing drainage swale so the environmental conditions will not be affected. The physical conditions will not be affected because they have enough land and fall well within the 15% lot coverage requirements.

5. As to whether an alleged difficulty is self-created, I find that: (This consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.)

It is not. The terrain and drainage conditions on the lot determined this variance request.

ZBA Area Variance Questions DRAFT

Submitted by Anne Lincoln

Name_____Katherine and Peter Smith Tax Map #___21.13-2-4.001 and 21.13-2-23.112

Area Variance Application Number: ___2020-51Z_____ Date of Vote: ____11/17/2020

Findings:

1. As to whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant other than an area variance, I find that:

Although the applicant has chosen the most desirable spot on the property to build, the amount of variance requested could be reduced by eliminating the screened porch or moving the house closer to the road.

2. As to whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created, I find that:

The new home would enhance the neighborhood but may affect the nearest property. The lot next door is wet and has a drainage ditch running through it. This would limit any building in that lot, as it would need to be near the applicant’s structure.

3. As to whether the requested area variance is substantial, I find that:

The request of 40’ is 80% of the required setback. This is substantial.

4. As to whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, I find that:

The home will be located on the most appropriate part of the lot for drainage and the least impact on wet portions and drainage of the lot. The septic location also further limits the location of the house.

.

5. As to whether an alleged difficulty is self-created, I find that: (This consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.)

This lot is “L” shaped and the upper, drier portion of the lot is too narrow for the proposed home to meet the side yard setback requirements. The shape of the lot is not self-created, but the addition of the screened-in porch is a self-created difficulty.

FINDINGS OF FACT--Revised

Submitted by Carol de Mello

Variance Application 2020-51Z—Smith, Katherine & Peter

November 17, 2020

Property location: 33 Hilton Terrace, Willsboro (21.13-2-4.001 and 21.13-2-23.112)

Zoning District: RL-1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Construct a new, single family house for a family of four in the Buena Vista Park. It is a 2-level cape, 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, 1966 sq. ft. with detached garage of 780 sq. ft.—IMPACTS Section 4.10, p. 29, Schedules of Use and Area Regulations--specifically, side yard setback requirement of 50’. A corner of the screened porch will sit 10’ from the property line located at the “elbow” of the “L” shaped lot and a portion of the house (foundation) will be set 22’ from the upper south boundary. The majority of the screened porch will be in compliance.

ZONING REQUIREMENTS:

Minimum lot size: 40,000 sq. ft. (original lot size 0.96 acres = 41,818 sq. ft.)

Front yard setback: 50’ (in compliance)

Rear yard setback: 50’ (in compliance)

Side Yard setback: 50’ (Request relief of 40’ as portion of deck to be located at 10’ and relief of 28’ for portion of house located 22’)

Maximum Lot Coverage: 15% (not an issue)

Maximum bldg. height: 35’ (not an issue)

According to the property record, the buildings and improvements total 3,332.5 sq. ft., under the 6,273 sq. ft. allowance.

Move to public hearing?—Yes, November 17, 2020

Decision Form:

|Board: |Zoning Board of Appeals |

|Date of Appeal: |November 17, 2020 |

|Application Number: |2020-51Z |

|Name: |Smith, Katherine & Peter |

|Project Address: |33 Hilton Terrace |

|Tax Map Number: |21.13-2-4.001 and 21.13-2-23.112 |

|Request for Variance From: |Section 4.10, p. 29, Schedules of Use and Area |

| |Regulations--specifically, side yard setback requirement of 50’. A |

| |corner of the screened porch will sit 10’ from the property line |

| |located at the “elbow” of the “L” shaped lot and a portion of the |

| |house (foundation) will be set 22’ from the upper south boundary. The|

| |majority of the screened porch will be in compliance. |

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Construct a new, single family house for a family of four in the Buena Vista Park. It is a 2-level cape, 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, 1966 sq. ft. with detached garage of 780 sq. ft.

Review of Area Variance Criteria:

Area Variance Criteria:

1. How could the benefit not be achieved by any other feasible means?

The Board finds that a possible alternative would be to buy the adjoining vacant lot which the Smith’s would like to do, but there has been no response to their efforts from the landowner and one cannot force someone to sell their property. A second possible alternative would be to move the house closer to Hilton Terrace, but that would still require a variance because of the odd shape of the lot. There would also be a significant loss of privacy. While these are possible alternatives, they are not feasible for this project for the stated reasons. Lincoln stated that although the applicant has chosen the most desirable spot on the property to build, the amount of variance requested could be reduced by eliminating the screened porch or moving the house closer to the road.

2. How will it not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood?

The Board finds the design is quite in character with other nearby homes and is suitable for this lakeside Adirondack community. DeMello feels it will be an asset to the neighborhood.

3. Is the request substantial?

The Board finds the proposed setbacks of 10’ where 50’ is required and 22’ where 50’ is required for side yard setbacks are substantial. Further analysis of the situation reveals that since the lot is unusual in shape (somewhat of an “L” shape), it would be difficult to place this home on the lot anywhere else without running into a problem with the setbacks or areas of the land that would be too wet to support a septic system. These lots are pre-existing to the Zoning Law and with a width of only 100’ in the back portion of the lot where one-half of the house will be placed, there is no way to build without a variance.

4. Adverse physical or environmental effects?

The Board finds the proposed variance will have a positive effect on the physical and environmental conditions by preserving a natural swale and stream used for water runoff in the neighborhood. The placement of the home and septic system were carefully chosen to “minimize impact on local drainage” (from the Smith’s plot plan).

5. How is this hardship not self-created?

The Board finds the two lots are pre-existing and nonconforming and were created well before the Zoning Law. The Zoning Law requirements for the RL-1 district do not fit a majority of the properties in this neighborhood. The alleged difficulty is not self-created.

|Proposed Motion: |Motion to grant the variance from Section 4.10, Schedules of Use and Area Regulations--specifically, |

| |side yard setback requirement of 50’. Relief of 40’ for a corner of the screened porch which will sit |

| |10’ from the property line located at the “elbow” of the “L” shaped lot and relief of 28’ for the |

| |portion of the house (foundation) set 22’ from the upper south boundary line, and with the stipulation |

| |that no construction will be done within 35’ of the existing natural swale. |

|Motion Made By: |Lawrence Allen |

|Motion |Peter Sowizdrzal |

|Seconded By: | |

|Member Vote: |Member Name: |Yes |No |

| |Chairman, Carol de Mello |X | |

| |Vice Chair, Peter Sowizdrzal |X | |

| |Anthony Galioto |EXCUSED | |

| |Larry Allen |X | |

| |Anne Lincoln |X | |

| |Margaret Adkins, Alternate |X | |

| | | | |

|Signature of | |

|ZBA Chairman: | |

ZBA Area Variance Questions DRAFT

Submitted by Pete Sowizdrzal

Name_____Charlie and Lisa Eaton_____________________ Tax Map #___20.20-2-2.000________

Area Variance Application Number: ___2020-52ZP______ Date of Vote: __11-17-2020________

Findings:

1. As to whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant other than an area variance, I find that:

The Applicant looked at all options and with visiting the site they choose the most beneficial location to do the addition without changing the character of the area. Moving the septic would be a major undertaking and would be extremely cost prohibitive.

2. As to whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created, I find that:

It will not change the character of the neighborhood. The location addition will be 45’ from the Wyatt’s older camp with the boundaries and property obscured by bushes, trees and other plants. The Applicant has talked with all of his neighbors and all of them have signed onto the project.

3. As to whether the requested area variance is substantial, I find that:

No, it is not substantial. Side yard setbacks for this lakeshore property is 20’. With the addition the westside side yard setback will be 9’ 4” requiring a relief of 10’ 7”. With the boundary obscured from the neighbor it makes it less substantial. He has plenty of land that the addition will not impede on the 15% lot coverage.

4. As to whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, I find that:

No. It will not affect the septic system or any physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Existing drainage will not be affected. The addition will be built similar to the existing structure and will not be seen from the road.

5. As to whether an alleged difficulty is self-created, I find that: (This consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.)

It is not self-created. These lots where made before the zoning regulations were put in place. The applicants have retired and want to utilize the camp more than in the past.

ZBA Area Variance Questions DRAFT

Submitted by Carol de Mello

Name________Eaton, Charles & Lisa ________________ Tax Map #___20.20-2-2.00_____

Area Variance Application Number: ___2020-52ZP___ Date of Vote: ____2020-11-17__

Findings:

1. As to whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant other than an area variance, I find that:

If one were to try and make it conform at least to the minimum side yard setback of 10’ for either a lakefront property of up to 90’ or an accessory structure, the proposed addition would have to be moved forward towards the lake a distance of at least 3-4’ which would make the structure more noticeable to the westerly neighbors, probably need a variance for the waterfront variance of 50’. Because the house is set at an angle on the property, moving the addition back or locating it next to the back room would require the same variance. Locating the addition on the south side would interfere with the flooding that occurs in the spring near the wood retaining wall (see survey). Locating it on the opposite side of the house is not an option because it would ruin the aesthetics of the current family room, make the interior flow of the house awkward, and there would be a major cost of relocating utilities. The major reason for the addition is to make the house more useable for a longer time period as the homeowners have recently retired and would like to extend their stay to the spring and fall seasons. To tear it down and rebuild entirely is not feasible because of the expense. There are no plans to convert the structure to year-round living.

2. As to whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created, I find that:

The proposed addition is minimal in size for a master bedroom, bath and one-half bath and extra storage to replace some of the closets lost to a new hallway to connect the addition. The addition will blend with the current style and have a minimal impact on the neighborhood because it will hardly be seen from either the lake or street because of the trees.

3. As to whether the requested area variance is substantial, I find that:

The requested relief of 10’7” is 52% of the required side yard setback of 20’ and is substantial by the numbers. I don’t feel it’s substantial when I am standing on the proposed building site and looking at the surroundings. The impact to the closest neighbor is very minimal because the shed on that neighboring property blocks most of the view of the Eaton’s house. There are also trees that block the views. The two houses will maintain a buffer of about 42’.

4. As to whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, I find that:

There will be no adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. There will actually be improvements to the drainage on the property as a result of the new construction.

5. As to whether an alleged difficulty is self-created, I find that: (This consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.)

This is a pre-existing, nonconforming lot created before the Zoning Law was created and the alleged difficulty is not self-created.

ZBA Member Area Variance Questions

Submitted by Anne Lincoln

Name: Charles and Lisa Eaton

Tax map # 20.20-2-2.000

Date of vote: 11/17/2020

Findings:

1. As to whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant other than an area variance, I find that:

Due to the size and shape of the lot and existing structures, this addition is located in the most appropriate spot on the property. Even if the addition were located on the opposite side of the house, it would still need a variance due to the width of the property.

2. As to whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created, I find that:

The nearby properties will not be greatly affected and it will not cause an undesirable change in the neighborhood as the addition will be hidden by existing structures. The areas neighbors have voiced their approval of the project.

3. As to whether the requested area variance is substantial, I find that:

It is substantial as the required setback is 20’ and the requested setback is over 50% of this requirement.

4. As to whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, I find that: The proposed addition will not adversely affect the physical or environmental conditions. It will be placed to reduce visibility and impact to the current drainage. It is also located far enough away from the lake to reduce the impact on the lake.

5. As to whether an alleged difficult is self-created, I find that:

This is a long narrow, preexisting lot. The existing structure was built prior to the current zoning laws, so this is not self-created.

Addendum to Town of Willsboro Area Variance Application submitted by Charles and Lisa Eaton October 9, 2020

Introduction and Project Description: This year we retired. As a result, we decided to stay much longer at the Lake, for up to six months a year. Willsboro has for decades been our family getaway. With retirement, and spending more time here, we realized that there are changes we should make to improve our time spent in Willsboro.

The addition (see attached preliminary drawing and elevation drawing) contemplates adding an approximately 384 square foot (16 feet by 24 feet) one story addition starting about 7 feet 3 inches north from the southwest corner on the west wall of the main cabin. The roof will have the same pitch as current main cabin roof. The addition will consist of a master bedroom that will also provide office/study space; a master bath; a closet for the master bedroom; a common shared closet for storage and for the other bedrooms; and a one-half bath. This one-story addition is consistent with our existing camp and the original Wyatt’s camp which is contiguous to the proposed addition. Attached is a drawing of the proposed addition. Its location is shown on the preliminary map/plot plan provided by Kevin Hall Land Surveyors. A final map/plot plan will be forthcoming and provided to the ZBA.

As noted below and in the attached letters from each, all immediate neighbors are in full support of our project and signed letters to that effect. Feel free to contact them.

1) How can the benefit that you desire not be achieved by other feasible means? We explored other options. To build to the south of our existing camp would interfere with the 3 septic leach fields which go back about 70 feet from the existing camp. To build to the east would also require a shoreline side yard setback (area) variance and would be awkward with a master bedroom on the opposite side of the camp from existing smaller bedrooms. To build up and to the north and west within the sideline limit would change the sight line and character of our camp and its similarity to the Wyatt’s (contiguous neighbor to our west) older camp.

2) How will your project not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood? The addition of a master bedroom, bathroom, etc. will not impact neighbors. The distance between the Wyatt’s older camp, adjacent to ours, will be approximately 45 feet after the addition and they have a shed near our proposed project’s continuous boundary as well as bushes, trees and other plant life that provide a natural barrier from the proposed addition. Also, since the addition is primarily for sleeping and bathroom use, the level of activity and noise would not be at all significant. In some ways this addition will reduce the impact of our family on the Wyatt’s because the east wall of the addition will be contiguous to most of the current lake facing deck on its west side, and therefore the wall provides a buffer for noise and as well as visual impact.

Other neighbors should not be impacted and will not even see the addition as it is west of them and the west of our camp. And in the case of Charles Denison, to the south west. Note that all neighbors living at the end of this street starting with Michael and Debra Stark at 174 Cedar Lane, Paul and Joyce Marcianti at 180 Cedar Lane, Charles Denison at 183 Cedar Lane (who also owns the lake side lot between #180 and #186 Cedar Lane), Michael Higgins at 186 Cedar Lane and JC and Jo Ann Wyatt at 194 Cedar Lane (the property which is contiguous to the project) are supportive of this variance, and the proposed addition, and provided letters of support. Christine Benedict who, with Rick Benedict, owns significant undeveloped acreage to the south of our property is also supportive of this addition.

3) Is this request substantial? The size of our lot is about 23,500 square feet. Using the total lot coverage not to exceed 15% guideline, the coverage or footprint number could be 3,525 square feet. We fall significantly below this important measure, even with the addition. The square footage of the existing camp is about 1,128 square feet, not including decks or sheds. Decks and wood sheds add about 975 square feet for a total footprint before the 384 square foot addition of 2,103 square feet, and a 2,487 square feet footprint after the addition. The total after the addition is 1,038 square feet, or 29% below the guideline used in New York State.

4) Will your project have adverse physical or environmental effects? There should be no negative impacts. This location should be able to accommodate existing trees and not impact anything.

5) How is this hardship not self-created? This variance request was not self-created. The character of the neighborhood will not be impacted by granting the variance.

Decision Form:

|Board: |Zoning Board of Appeals |

|Date of Appeal: |November 17, 2020 |

|Application Number: |2020-52ZP |

|Name: |Eaton, Charles & Lisa |

|Project Address: |192 Cedar Lane |

|Tax Map Number: |20.20-2-2.00 |

|Request for Variance From: |Section 4.10, p. 29, Schedules of Use and Area Regulations, and |

| |Section 6.12 Setback from the Shoreline, Lot Width and Side Yards, p. |

| |58—specifically, need relief from side yard setback requirement of |

| |20’. Closest corner of addition would be 9’5”; the other corner would|

| |be 14’3” from the side boundary—need variance relief of 10’7”. |

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

To construct an addition on the west side of the existing camp totaling approximately 384 sq. ft. (16’ x 24’) and consisting of a master bedroom and bath, large closet/storage area, and one half bath.

Review of Area Variance Criteria:

Area Variance Criteria:

1. How could the benefit not be achieved by any other feasible means?

The Board finds that if one were to try and make it conform to at least the minimum side yard setback of 10’ for either a lakefront property of up to 90’ or an accessory structure, the proposed addition would have to be moved forward towards the lake a distance of at least 3-4’ which would make the structure more noticeable to the westerly neighbors, and probably need a variance from the waterfront setback of 50’. Because the house is set at an angle on the property, moving the addition back or locating it next to the back room would require the same variance. Locating the addition on the south side would interfere with the flooding that occurs in the spring near the wood retaining wall (see survey). Locating it on the opposite side of the house is not an option because it would ruin the aesthetics of the current family room, make the interior flow of the house awkward, and there would be a major cost of relocating utilities. The major reason for the addition is to make the house more useable for a longer time period as the homeowners have recently retired and would like to extend their stay to the spring and fall seasons. To tear it down and rebuild entirely is not feasible because of the expense. There are no plans to convert the structure to year-round living. Also, the applicant has looked at all options and has chosen the most beneficial location without changing the character of the area. Also, with the size and shape of the lot and existing structures, the addition is located in the most appropriate spot on the property.

2. How will it not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood?

The Board finds the proposed addition is minimal in size for a master bedroom, bath and one-half bath and extra storage to replace some of the closets lost to a new hallway to connect the addition. The addition will blend with the current style and have a minimal impact on the neighborhood because it will hardly be seen from either the lake or street because of the trees. The location of the addition will be 45’ away from the Wyatt’s older camp with the boundaries and property obscured by bushes and trees and other plants.

3. Is the request substantial?

The Board finds that the requested relief of 10’7” is 52% of the required side yard setback of 20’ and is substantial by the numbers. DeMello doesn’t feel it’s substantial when standing on the proposed building site and looking at the surroundings. The impact to the closest neighbor is very minimal because the shed on that neighboring property blocks most of the view of the Eaton’s house. There are also trees that block the views. The two houses will maintain a buffer of about 42’.

4. Adverse physical or environmental effects?

The Board finds there will be no adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. There will actually be improvements to the drainage on the property as a result of the new construction.

5. How is this hardship not self-created?

The Board finds this is a pre-existing, nonconforming lot created before the Zoning Law was created and the alleged difficulty is not self-created.

|Proposed Motion: |Motion to grant a variance for relief of 10’7” on the west side yard setback allowance of 20’ (Section |

| |4.10, Schedules of Use and Area Regulations, and Section 6.12 Setback from the Shoreline, Lot Width and|

| |Side Yards) to build a seasonal addition of 16’ x 24’ consisting of a master bedroom and bath, large |

| |closet/storage area, and one half-bath. |

|Motion Made By: |Carol DeMello |

|Motion |Peter Sowizdrzal |

|Seconded By: | |

|Member Vote: |Member Name: |Yes |No |

| |Chairman, Carol de Mello |X | |

| |Vice Chair, Peter Sowizdrzal |X | |

| |Anthony Galioto |EXCUSED | |

| |Larry Allen |X | |

| |Anne Lincoln |X | |

| |Margaret Adkins, Alternate |X | |

| | | | |

|Signature of | |

|ZBA Chairman: | |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download