Robyn Burgess,

Let me start by thanking you for taking the time to alert the Town of the concerns the Adirondack Park Agency has with regard to the variance granted by the ZBA for Baker/Mott application (Z2020-04). In reviewing the concerns, I feel that several of the concerns are covered in the documentation and hope this response can address these concerns and enable the Agency to move forward with its determination.

You state:

Based on the record, it appears that both new dwellings will be larger in footprint than the existing dwellings, though the exact dimensions of these expansions are unclear. In addition, it appears that the dwellings will be expanding in width (laterally) along the shoreline, through increases in interior space and by connection to the proposed breezeway, though these dimensions are also not clear. Finally, while heights for the proposed dwellings are shown on an architectural rendering in the record, the height of the original dwellings and whether there will be any increase is not documented.

Documents included in the ALLUP referral should have included files SK-02.2 residence floor plan and elevation for the structure referred to as “camp”; file SK012_revised.pdf for the structure referred to as “residence” and file SK013_revised.pdf for the garage and other structures. The dimensions for the “camp” and “residence” should be fairly clear. The dimensions on the final drawing are busy, but do highlight the areas of increase and include a comparison by structure of the increase in footprint. The architect on the project, Fred Franko, has updated the project plans to include color shading of the increases to the residence, camp and garage and a different highlight for the breezeway with additional dimensional details to help clarify the project. I will admit that no consideration was given to any increase in elevation since the proposed structures meet the ordinance requirements. Pictures of the existing structures with elevations shown are attached and are summarized below:

You state:

Given the lack of documentation on the bulk of the proposed expansions within the shoreline setback area, it is not clear in the record whether the replacement dwellings would cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, or have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. For example, if the proposed dwellings will be taller than the existing dwellings, the record should demonstrate consideration of any visual impacts that this increase might cause along the shoreline. It is also unclear whether the increased structural footprint within the shoreline setback area would lead to visual, storm water, or other impacts. This lack of information also suggests that the Board may not have fully considered whether the variances granted were the minimum necessary.

When looking at increases in coverage, the ZBA looks at the increase in total, giving consideration to whether the increase is within the shoreline setback. During the review of this application, ZBA members inquired about several different alternatives that might have been considered in an effort to minimize the coverage increase within the shoreline setback area; either by moving the construction away from the shoreline or by consolidating the structures into one structure. The distance between the shoreline setback and the front setback was noted as being only 24 feet, leaving very little room to work with. The updated drawings that are attached have had the setback boundaries highlighted to illustrate how little space there was for expansion. The record documents the reasoning the applicants rejected these considerations. Using the diagrams originally provided, the breakdown of increase in coverage within the shoreline setback is as follows:

While not detailed, the ZBA addresses the impact on the neighborhood and neighboring properties through the visual inspection of the property. In this case, the property is along the shoreline at a point where the side yard neighbors have unobstructed views of the lake and the neighbor to the rear faces the lake in a different direction.

In terms of granting the minimum necessary, there was considerable discussion concerning the dimensions in the questioning of the applicants. The following excerpt is taken from the minutes of the initial meeting:

The existing camps are small and built the way that camps were built back in the old days so they are not up to contemporary standards in terms of stair slopes and room size. The intent is to keep as much as we can to the existing footprint, but to do some minor enlargements to the camp in order to make it more suitable for contemporary standards and a permanent residence. We have used, and you can take a look at the site plan to see, I have a conceptual site plan that we have included, there are shaded areas on the proposed plans that show where we are actually expanding from the existing footprints. So the intent is that it’s a very minor expansion as much as possible. If you take a look at the site plan and you were going to go by contemporary ordinance requirements, you basically end up with a 10 to 12-foot swatch through the middle of the property that really is the only buildable area on that site.

I have personal experience making the transition from using a lakefront property on weekends and summer vacations to a year-round residence. My personal transition required almost a 50% increase in property coverage, requiring an area variance for coverage and became one of the driving factors in my interest in serving on the ZBA.

You state: Conditions that could mitigate any impacts from the expanded structures were also not discussed in the record. For example, restrictions on vegetative cutting or on the color of the new dwellings could help to limit visual impacts, and requirements related to storm water and the proposed on-site wastewater treatment system could help to protect the water quality of Canada Lake.

As noted above from the initial presentation, the applicant’s proposal was designed to minimize the impact on the environment with regard to vegetation cutting / tree removal. Several of the alternatives discussed with the applicants by the board would have required considerable vegetation cutting as evidenced in the attached pictures of the existing structure. The issue of the proposed waste water system was discussed in both meetings with the applicants. The record shows that the system proposed was an improvement over the existing systems and took steps to move the waste stream away from Canada Lake. In terms of color of the new dwelling, I am unaware of any specifics in the ordinance relative to this aspect. Suffice it to say, the applicants indicate the structures will be done in an “Adirondack” style. Based on my experiences with the architect of record and his work as a Planning Board member working with the lead agency for the proposed Dollar General in Caroga, I have every faith in his word that the proposed structures will not have a negative visual impact.

Finally, you state: Finally, it is unclear from the record how the proposed breezeway affects the request. Is the square footage of the breezeway considered as part of the expansion in footprint of the two dwellings? Perhaps more importantly, would the dwellings become a single structure through their attachment to the breezeway? Multiple family dwellings are prohibited in the LF-2.5 district; therefore, if the dwellings, breezeway, and garage would comprise a single structure, a use variance may be required for the proposal.

The permit denial and application presented to the ZBA for consideration indicated an area variance was being requested. In reviewing the ordinance, I feel that the proposal does not meet the standard of a multiple family dwelling. The following definitions were taken from the ordinance:

The record indicates that the applicant intends to use the “camp”, once constructed, as a residence until such time as the project is completed. At that time, the applicants will move into the “residence” and use the “camp” as a guest house when family and friends visit.

As previously noted, it is hoped that these address the concerns raised by the Agency and that a final determination might be forthcoming.

Regards,

Doug Purcell

Douglas H. Purcell, Jr.
ZBA Chairperson
P. O. Box 713
Caroga Lake, NY 12032
(518) 835-3023
Dpurcell6@nycap.rr.com

Copyright © James McMartin Long 2017–2024