Dear Town Board and Town Clerk,
I am very disturbed by the very large “garage” that has just been built on London Bridge Road. At this time it does meet the code for residential use. Evidence supports that it is being used as a commercial property to store water craft for stated costs.
I urge you as town officers to support the code regulations which were issued for this property – as residential use, NOT commercial use.
This is very important for the Town of Caroga. If the existing codes can simply be changed on appeal, then there are no codes.
Sincerely,
Ellen Freeman
206 Sand Point Rd
No one could have missed the new garage built on London Bridge Road across from Fulton Road. The garage was constructed by David Falvo, Northern Pine Cove LLC. Last November he received a permit to construct a residential garage. As part of the permit, a principal residence needs to be constructed. As of yet there is no evidence of this being constructed.
According to the Town's definition of a “residential garage,” it should be for the storage of motor vehicles
...owned by the occupants of the principal building, provided that no business, occupation, or service is conducted therein.This past week the following ad appeared on Facebook Marketplace:
This use of the structure for rental storage makes this a commercial not a residential garage. This clearly disregards the defined function of a “residential garage.” I have submitted a complaint to the Code Enforcement Office with copies to the Supervisor, Town Board members, and the Town Clerk. It is likely that the owner will appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a special use variance. It is also possible that the Planning Board will conduct a Site Plan Review.
I think the time has come for concerned citizens to speak out in opposition to any attempt to reclassify the project. If this is allowed to go through our zoning rules will become virtually meaningless. We need to make sure that the Town follows its own guidelines. I would encourage you to:
Email your Town Board and Town Clerk here.
Email also the Code Enforcer, Anthony Fancher here.
Zoning Board of Appeals, Laura Nealon, Clerk here.
Planning Board: Al Kozakiewicz, Chair here.
It would be good to have any letters addressed to the Town Board be submitted before the next board meeting on September 14.
I am afraid that silence will be a tacit approval of the Town's actions. I think it is time for concerned residents to speak up.
Sincerely,
Allen Farber
222 Sand Point Road
518-835-3407Copyright © 2022 Canada Lakes Conservation Association, All rights reserved.
Our mailing address is:
Canada Lakes Conservation Association
PO Box 483
Caroga Lake, NY 12032
Date: 9/5/22
Location of Complaint: 300 County Highway 111
Property Owner: David Falvo, Northern Pine Cove LLC
Mailing Address of Property Owner:
300 County Highway 111, PO Box 310
Caroga Lake, NY 12032
SBL Number: 68.5-2-2
Nature of Complaint: Permit Issued 11/5/21 for a residential garage
This is to express concerns about the new “residential garage” that has been constructed along London Bridge Road at the end of Fulton Road (300 County Highway 111; SBL68.5-2-2). Looking at the records available online (townofcaroga.com), there are serious concerns about this structure as a “residential garage.” By definition a “residential garage” is “An enclosed accessory structure or portion of a main structure used primarily for the storage of one or more motor vehicles, owned by the occupants of the principal building, provided that no business, occupation, or service is conducted therein.” As an “accessory building” the garage can not be considered a principal building. This was the interpretation of the Zoning Board of Appeals in reaching its November 30, 2021 decision.
While a permit (#2021277) has been issued for a “Single Family Dwelling”, there is no available evidence that this primary structure is being planned to be built. The permit document states “Plans to Come for the house.” Offering a permit without plans seems like offering a blank check. The permit appears to have been issued without answering important questions. For example does the proposed structure meet dimensional standards? The siting of the structure is unclear. Was there a State environmental quality review (SEQR) conducted to insure that the building does not encroach adjacent wetlands? How about plans for a well and septic system? Will the building be completed within the time frame allowed by the permit? Since the permit was issued last November 5, there is no public record of plans being submitted for this structure that would answer these questions.
It is hard to understand how a building of the size of the newly built structure (40’ × 60’) qualifies as a “residential garage.” This structure clearly does not meet the spirit of a single family garage. The Zoning Board's definition of a “Residential Garage” makes it clear that the garage is “for storage of one or more motor vehicles, owned by the occupants of the principal building, provided that no business, occupation, or service is conducted therein.” Was there a Special Use Permit issued as requested by the November 30, 2021 ZBA ruling? Northern Pine Cove, LLC cannot use this structure to store boats or snowmobiles belonging to others. If it does, this would make this structure a commercial and not a residential structure in clear violation of the issued permit.
Zoning Ordinances are designed to protect the community from indiscriminate development. The Zoning Board of Appeals did its job in protecting the community by issuing on November 30, 2021 its ruling directing the Code Enforcement Officer to revoke the permits. There is no evidence on either the old town website (townofcaroga.com) or the new website (Caroga.town) to indicate that the additional information required for the issuance of the building permit was provided. Was there a Special Use Permit issued? I would ask the Code Enforcement Officer and the Town for an explanation for this decision. Have there been documents submitted to answer the questions raised above and in the November 30, 2021 ZBA ruling? As a FOIL request to the Town Clerk, I ask for any additional information about this project (permits: 2021277 (single family dwelling) and 2021276 (garage)).
Additionally, Falvo's deceitful building of a commercial storage facility, his clear cutting of the land, and his choice of architectural design and color, is not in keeping with all of your hard work maintaining the historic beauty of our community.
Knowing you, I just cannot imagine that you would let this slip through. I feel that you may have been duped and deceived as we were. I have complete confidence that you will not allow any appeal to the Zoning Board and that you will not allow such atrocity and disrespect in our community. That building should be removed and a proper residential garage should be put in it's place, after the house plans and the site plan have been submitted and reviewed through the planning board. Thank you greatly, for all your efforts.
Respectfully Submitted,
[Name redacted at the request of the author]
Date: Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 8:56 AM
Subject: Commercial Business being operated at 300 County Highway 111
I am concerned that my neighbor, Mr. David Falvo is operating a commercial storage facility from his newly erected garage at 300 County Highway 111.
Based on the public meetings and filings, I was under the impression that Mr. Falvo's garage was for personal use only.
I am opposed to any commercial endeavor operating out of structures at 300 County Highway 111.
Enclosed please find my formal complaint on this matter which includes a 9/1/2022 screenshot from Facebook Marketplace in which Mr Falvo is soliciting storage customers.
I urge the town to investigate this matter and to ask Mr. Falvo to cease his commercial operations at this location.
Regards,
Richard T. Fischer
155 Kasson Drive
Caroga Lake, NY 12032
Mailing Address:
3 Dixon Woods
Honeoye Falls, NY 14472
Falvo's Garage
Dear Caroga Town Board and Town Clerk,
If you've driven down London Bridge Road in the last few weeks, you couldn't help but notice the new large warehouse style building erected on a large cleared lot at the junction with Fulton Road. It is supposed to be a residential garage, but there is no residence in sight and the building is now advertised on Facebook for commercial boat storage. Does his permit allow this use? Please do something about this situation before a new business gets established in a non commercial zoned area. As it now stands, he has ruined a beautiful area by cutting all the trees. Hopefully he won't be allowed to put more blight on that lot.
Thank you for your consideration.
Michael Hoffman 176 Sand Point Road, Canada Lake.
Dear Town Board and Town Clerk,
I am very grateful to the many well researched and articulate complaints concerning the very large, ugly blue."residential" garage on London Bridge Rd. In simple terms: Where is the residence? Why was Mr Falvo allowed to clear cut his lot and put his building so close to the road? Why is it being used as commercial property to store watercraft, snow mobiles and who knows what else and charging storage fees. This is not residential use. I believe Mr Falvo should be held accountable for his total disregard for the integrity of our town, the people who live here and the zoning laws that are designed to protect the community from indiscriminate development.
We trust that you will address these issues.
Sincerely
Deonie & Ed Finkbeiner
145 Kasson Dr
Concerning the Falvo Garage on County Highway 111
TO: Supervisor Scott Horton
Town Board Members: DeLuca, Glenn, Sturgess, and Travis
Town Clerk: Linda Gilbert
Code Enforcement: Anthony Fancher and Jennifer Blowers
ZBA Clerk Laura Nealon
Planning Board: Al Kozakiewicz
FROM: Allen S. Farber, 222 Sand Point Road, Canada Lake
DATE: September 8, 2022
RE: Garage at 300 County Highway 111 (SBL 68.5-2-2)
On August 31, 2022, I submitted a formal Resident Complaint Form to the Code Enforcement officer with copies sent to the Supervisor, Town Board members, and the Town Clerk. The complaint was concerning the newly built garage located at 300 County Highway 111. The basis of my complaint was that the garage was built under a permit for a “residential garage,” but a Facebook advertisement [see attached] documents that the garage is being used to rent space for boat and car storage in direct contradiction of the Town's definition of a Residential Garage included in the Town's Zoning Ordinance:
An enclosed accessory structure or portion of a main structure used primarily for the storage of one or more motor vehicles, owned by the occupants of the principal building, provided that no business, occupation, or service is conducted therein.
This suggests that the owner David Falvo / Northern Pine Cove, LLC did not submit his permit application in good faith, but had the intention from the outset to use it as a commercial structure for rental storage. This is further suggested by the absence of any evidence of construction of the necessary principal structure. If the Town accepts such an apparent bad faith application it will make a mockery of the whole permitting process. My understanding of the “Use Table” that is included in the Zoning Ordinances is that an Accessory Structure like the Garage would have needed a Special Use Permit in advance of construction. There is no evidence that this was done. A retroactive application for a Special Use Permit or seeking a Site Plan Review will only reward the applicant for gaming the system and undermine the citizens' confidence in the Town's oversight of its zoning ordinance.
If there is a decision to apply for a Special Use Permit or a Site Plan Review a public hearing is required. The Town's ordinance for the Special Use Permit (Article 7 § V(C)(1)) states:
The Planning Board shall hold a public hearing on a complete Special Use Permit application …
The regulations call for public notification 5 days before the hearing. If there had been a public hearing in advance of construction, it is likely that there would have been strong public opposition to the project. The zoning ordinance assumes that the project has not been started beyond the planning stage. By applying retroactively for the Special Use Permit, it appears that this was a way to avoid a contentious public hearing.
As articulated in Article 7 § I(C):
The issuance of a Special Use Permit shall ensure that certain land uses are appropriate to their surroundings, the natural environment, the historic character of the Town and the long-term development of the Town.
It is hard to see how the Falvo garage is consistent with this purpose of the Special Use Permit.
Conducting a Site Plan Review retroactively would contradict the Town's Zoning Ordinance which states (Article 6 § II(C)):
Until such Site Plan has been approved and a Zoning / Building Permit issued, no building shall be erected, moved, structurally altered, added to enlarged and no excavation or site preparation activities shall commence.
Reviewing the Town's guidelines for a Site Plan Review the existing structure would be found lacking. For example Article 6 § V(C)(1)(c) states that:
Where feasible, setbacks shall maintain and continue the existing setback pattern of surrounding properties.
The structures along County 111 in the area of the Falvo garage have large setbacks with natural screening. This is in marked contrast to the Falvo garage which has a minimal setback from the road with no natural screening. No attempt has been made to follow the Landscaping guidelines called for in Article 6 § C(2). The property has been clear cut with no attempt to have (Article 6 § C(2)(c):
…existing trees and other vegetation … be conserved and integrated into the landscape design plan.
There are other issues involved with this project. Pole Barns like the one under discussion have been constructed in various locations in the Town. The vast majority of these are not problematic. For example there is one at 146 Kasson Drive that looks to be about the same size as Falvo's that is not offensive at all. It is set back in the woods so you hardly notice it when you drive by. It is painted brown so it blends in. It is also positioned so that the principal axis of the building is at right angles to the road. There is another located at 1962 State Hwy 10, that is equally non-offensive and barely noticeable when you drive by. It is set back with good natural screening. The color blends in with the environment. The building is also sited so the principal axis is perpendicular to the road. While it is not known whether these were reviewed by the Planning Board, the owners of these structures should be commended for their thoughtful planning.
In contrast, the Falvo garage has little setback with no natural screening, painted an unnatural blue, and positioned parallel to the road. All of these make it impossible to miss the garage. The location of the barn directly opposite the beginning of Fulton Road, makes it an eyesore to the large number of residents who use Fulton and Sand Point Roads as well as anyone driving along County Highway 111.
Zoning ordinances are designed to protect the community from indiscriminate development and insure the maintenance of the character of the area. As stated in the Town's ordinance Article 7 § I(A):
The Town of Caroga desires to encourage and balance a variety of land uses in the Town while promoting economic growth provided that certain land uses do not unreasonably and adversely affect neighboring properties, the natural environment, the historic character of the Town …
The barn detracts from the natural beauty of the site and consequently likely hurts the property values in the area.
I would urge the Town to insist that the pole barn be removed, and in the future pay closer attention to the development within the Town. Families like mine have been long term summer residents. We have invested in the community, and want the Town to develop so that it lives up to its full potential with its natural beauty.
Supervisor Horton et al.:
After submitting the attached letter concerning the Falvo “garage,” I realized that I overlooked a critical point. The permit that was applied for was erroneously for a “residential garage.” Following the Definitions included in the Town's Zoning Ordinance, the size of the structure qualifies this as an “Accessory Structure”: “…Any structure greater than 100 square feet in size and used for storage is considered an Accessory Structure.” According to the “Use Table,” an Accessory Structure requires a Special Use Permit. For the Special Use Permit, a public hearing would be required in advance of construction. It would seem by labeling this a “residential garage” the applicant was trying to avoid a public hearing which would not have been required for a “residential garage.”
This type of “bait and switch” of a project is reminiscent of the Herms “boathouse,” which led to years of litigation.
Respectfully,
Allen Farber
Dear Town Board and Town Clerk,
This email is concerning the Big, blue Falvo garage located on London Bridge Rd. I don't understand how this garage was allowed to be built! There is no main house built. It is way too big for a residential garage, too close to the road & there is not supposed to be any commercial business allowed to function. An ad for boat or vehicular storage appeared on Facebook Marketplace last week. I feel the garage detracts from our natural beauty of trees and the surrounding landscape. Respectfully submitted, Audrey Smith, 244 Fulton Road, Canada Lake.
To: codes@caroga.town
CC: Scott Horton
Subject: GarageThis situation is an embarrassment for the Town. We certainly appear to have been snookered by a classic bait and switch. If allowed to stand, this gambit provides a template for short-circuiting our regulations. It's an affront to everyone who plays by the rules if the rules are allowed to be gamed so easily.
Chris Rohrs
194 Fulton Road
Dear Town Board, Town Clerk, and others,
Good morning.
I join the objections that have been made about the Falvo Commercial Building that was allowed to be built at the end of Fulton Road. I have read emails from other residents objecting to the structure and agree with what has already been stated. In particular, if you have not already done so, you must read Allen Farber's email that succinctly sums up the failures of the permitting process and the individuals charged with administering and enforcing the process and zoning code. The only solution to correct the mistakes that have been made is for the structure to be torn down and the property restored as best as possible to a pre-construction condition.
Another concern is that if the zoning code and permit process are not enforced, the board and town will be a party to lawsuits brought by property owners demanding adherence to the zoning code and permit process. These lawsuits will be a drain on the town's limited resources and are entirely preventable if the town leadership follows the law.
Regards,
Cameron Parkhurst
210 Sand Point Road
Canada Lake
Caroga, NY 12032
I am very concerned about the new “residential garage” built by Dave Falvo, 300 County Highway 111 (SBL68.5-2-2). By definition, a residential garage is
an enclosed accessory structure or portion of a main structure used primarily for the storage of one or more motor vehicles owned by the occupants of the principal building, provided that no business, occupation, or service is conducted therein.
I do not understand how this 40’ × 60’ structure can in any way be considered a “residential garage”.
Most people need to submit plans for a primary structure and a site plan for septic and well before building a garage. There don’t seem to be any Falvo plans for a primary structure. The permit simply states “house plans to come”. Why was a permit even issued?
Much of his land is wetlands so there certainly should also have been a state environmental quality review (SEQR) for anything built on this property. He clear cut the lot and has still not cleaned up the debris along the edges. He was not acting in good faith when he built a 40’ × 60’ pole barn (not a “residential garage”) close to the road in a color that does not blend in but slaps you in the face. It is an eyesore, not to mention that he is using it for commercial purposes. He placed an ad on Facebook Marketplace advertising boat storage for rent in this building. The ad has been taken down, but what assurance do we have that he has not already had responses to his ad or that he will not use other tactics to solicit business for his commercial storage building?
I am strongly opposed to this property being used for commercial purposes and hope the board will do its job in protecting the community from indiscriminate and noncomplying development.
Nor am I in favor of a Special Use Permit being issued. As stated in Article 7 § I(C):
The issuance of a Special Use Permit shall ensure that certain land uses are appropriate to their surroundings, the natural environment, the historic character of the Town and the long-term development of the Town.
I cannot see how this use of this building is consistent with any of the purposes of the Special Use Permit.
This is not the case of someone honestly building a primary residence, and wanting a building to store tools in but clearly only a way to get around zoning and planning requirements meant to protect the Town and its residents. As our elected officials charged with maintaining and enforcing the laws of the town, now is the time to ensure that ongoing nonconformance is corrected. It may not be easy or cheap but it needs to be corrected, not glossed over.
Nancy Schreher