SEPTEMBER 22, 2009

[DRAFT]

ATTENDANCE: John Grady, Elizabeth Morris, Ken Marcheselli, John MacMillen, Bill Oliver, Arnold Jensen, and Secretary Pat Smith. Also in attendance was Zoning Administrator Walt Tennyson. Absent was Mary Jane Dower.

MINUTES: Mr. Grady proposed an amendment on page 7 of the August 25th Minutes, Paragraph 3, 2nd sentence: “… shall be assigned or transferred to another by the holder thereof…”. (Original Minutes were written as “hold”, instead of holder). Mr. Oliver then made a motion to accept the Minutes, as amended, of the August 25th, 2009 meeting. Motion seconded by Mrs. Morris and carried 5/0.

CORRESPONDENCE: ZBA Minutes of August 25th, 2009; Planning Board Minutes of August 17th, 2009; Zoning Administrator’s Activity Report for August 2009; and blank Appeal Application Form to be reviewed and revised/amended.

PUBLIC HEARING: Having been duly advertised, the Public Hearing was opened at 6:05 p.m. by Chairman Marcheselli.

#390-V ~ Mary Ollmann Rohde proposed relief from front and rear setbacks. Applicant was present along with James Hutchins, Engineer, acting as agent for Mrs. Rohde. The original subdivision was known as the “Jones Subdivision”, and was configured in 1924. The map that was supplied with the application, done by James Nestor, last revised 8/21/05, shows lot configurations from the original subdivision, which caused some confusion at the outset. Application makes reference to two lots, both in Mrs. Rohde’s ownership, #86.10-1-20 (now marked as Lot C, made up of 3 - 50‘ parcels, labeled originally as lots 28, 29, and 30.), and #86.10-1-26 (now marked as Lot B, to be made up of originally designated lot #’s 41-49). Lot 20 (or Lot C), has no principal building rights associated with it, and is not a suitable building site by Adirondack Park Agency standards. The slope of the site is greater than the allowable 15%, and there is a small stream running through the lot that would not allow for meeting the 100’ setback for a leaching component of a wastewater treatment system. Applicant stated that the first 50’ of lot #20, on the north side, also has deed restrictions associated with it, as it has a spring on it that everyone can use to dip water from with pails or dippers. The properties are located off Jones Road, and the two lots in particular are located along a road known as Third Avenue, which is not finished, and does not, at this time, extend to the lots in question. Lot B and Lot C are separated by this non-existent road, and applicant wishes to combine Lot C and a portion of Lot B, consisting of old lot #‘s 41-46, so that Lot B, the buildable lot, would have additional land associated with it. Lot B is 100’ +/- wide, and would require a variance for a dwelling to be erected. Property is located in a Moderate Intensity Land Use Area, and a principal structure is required to be setback from the front lot line a minimum of 60 feet, and from the rear, 50 feet. Each sideline setback must be 25 feet. The sideline setbacks are a non-issue with this lot, but applicant seeks relief for front and rear, requesting a 20 foot front setback, which equates to a 40 foot variance, and a 25 foot rear setback, which is equivalent to a 25 foot variance. Applicant explained that a dwelling constructed thereon would sit at an angle, and Mr. Hutchins felt that a typical 35 ft. by 70 ft. dwelling, including decks and porches, could easily occupy the lot, given the requested setback variances, and also accommodate water and septic treatment system required separation distances. Third Avenue, such as it is, would be further constructed from the existing driveway to serve entry into Lot B. It is unclear who owns the roadway between Lots B and C, as ownership seems to belong to Jordan and Marie Jones, original developers in 1924 & 1925, now deceased, and it is unclear what will happen to original Lots #47-49, which continue on past Lot B, and would have no principal building rights associated with them. Applicant wishes to sell the parcel (combined Lots B & C), but it is difficult to grant a variance for setbacks to a phantom dwelling for which there is not yet a plan, that a proposed buyer may not want to erect in that designated location, with no guarantee that they will build within the stipulated parameters, should a variance be granted. There was also some question with regard to unmentioned accessibility of the Lots located below Lots B & C, and others, as well.

Following extended discussion, Mr. Marcheselli asked that the stakes be made more visible on the parcel, as he had been unable to locate them before the meeting. There was also some question as to the actual, accurate setbacks, with regard to the stakes, and Mr. Hutchins agreed to check them. Mr. Marcheselli then made a motion to table the public hearing to the October 27th meeting, at 6:00 p.m. Motion was seconded by Mr. MacMillen, and carried 5/0.

OLD BUSINESS: #A-18 ~ Appeal by June Maxam regarding determination of the Zoning Local Law by the Zoning Administrator with regard to issuance of sign permits and related issues pertaining to property of Charles W. Redmond, 6229 State Route 9, tax map parcel #104.14-1-44.31.

Chairman Marcheselli explained that some things had occurred since the last meeting. One of them was the changes that Mr. Redmond had referred to in his letter of June 28th. These changes had all been made, a new application had been filed, sign has been inspected, and a permit has been issued. Mr. Tennyson agreed. Mr. Marcheselli stated that, in his opinion, these actions made the sign more legal than before and less in question. Therefore, he felt that the application, referring to the prior permit which has now been replaced, in accordance with the new sign, is now, basically, moot. Mr. Marcheselli then made a motion that no further action be taken on this appeal. Motion was seconded by Mr. MacMillen, and carried 5/0.

Mr. Marcheselli then made mention that correspondence and an appeal application with regard to Zoning Certificate #S2009-08, of September 28th, 2009, had been received from June Maxam. This is in regard to the sign that has just been put up. He stated that it is not on the agenda, but he brings it up because it has been received.

Mr. Marcheselli stated that he was unable to read the application, and stated that the bottom line on his copy had been cut off, (did not show up on the paper), so he was unable to read that, as well. He continued that, in view of the fact that the appeal application had been requested before the sign was even up, unless he saw anything new and different in it that he had not seen before, he was not sure that it even had to be considered by the board. He added, for the record, that he was not terribly swayed by the first sentence: “this will finally be resolved in State Supreme Court, where Tennyson and Redmond will have to appear under oath under penalty of perjury.” This letter and the application had been date stamped as received on September 22nd, 2009.

He added, further, that no action could be taken at this time, anyway. He and the board would review it, and get back to the Secretary with regard to whether or not it would be accepted in the first place.

Mr. Grady made a personal observation that with everything that has been going on with this sign, and for quite some time, he thinks this is beginning to border on harassment, and is way out of line. He feels that review has been done carefully, and at great expense and lots of other people’s time, in addition to the board, and he cannot comprehend how this can reasonably continue, and be viewed as anything other than harassment.

Mr. Marcheselli feels that if they are dealing with something new, then a hearing will be held. However, he stated, “this is based on a Zoning Certificate that was issued in response to the changes to the sign, which had been recommended, to make it more legal then it was. The fact that the sign is red, or blue, or green or somebody doesn’t like what the handwriting is in, is a subjective complaint, and we could hear these forever. In that respect, John (Grady) is right. It gives even more ammunition to our planned discussion with the Town Board, because if we are going to do this again, it will cost the town even more money. And it’s all over one sign that has been in existence for I don’t even know how long.”

Mr. Grady stated that the proposal that he had made to approach the Town Board for clarification of the Ordinance, wording wise, definitely does not pertain only to this application. This is a clarification that he believes needs to be made and is long overdue, and can actually apply to any number of fields. He feels that they should be represented at the next Town Board meeting, and make that recommendation.

Mr. Marcheselli mentioned Section 10.06-A under Appeals: Hearing and Decision. “The cost of sending and publishing any notices relating to such appeal, or a reasonable fee relating thereto, shall be borne by the appealing party and shall be paid to the Board of Appeals prior to the hearing of such appeal.” He continued, “I suppose the question is, does this sentence relate to the advertising and the publishing of the hearing, or does it relate back to the fee charged by the Town Board for the application?” So, maybe this is another item that needs clarification. He stated that this was all he had on the matter. He then recommends that a legible and original copy be provided, that has all of the words on it, it will be looked over, and if it is not a complete application, it will be returned.

ADJOURNMENT: On a motion by Mr. Grady, seconded by Mrs. Morris, the meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Patricia M. Smith

Secretary