Home Calendar Departments Directory Gallery Documents History
ZBA home About Notices Applications Decisions APA Letters Resources
Zoning Board Chairman Ken Coirin opened the public session of the hearing at 7:00pm. Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals in attendance by roll call were:
Chairman Ken Coirin - present
Doug Purcell – present
Pete Welker – present
Frank Malagisi – present
Robert Kane – absent
Others in attendance: Mary Ellen Charles, Kathy and Dave VanVolkenburg, Frank Garger, Cecile and Skip Vickerson, Jim and Linda Nicosia, Carol Mark, Bob Gulick and Brian Gulick.
Chairman Ken Coirin asked if there are any additions or corrections of the previous hearing minutes. The present board members replied there were none. Mr. Coirin asked for a motion to be made to waive reading and to accept the minutes as written. Pete Welker made the motion and Doug Purcell 2nd the motion. All Zoning Board members agreed.
Chairman Ken Coirin advised that the Town of Caroga Board of Appeals was meeting to hear variance applications. The hearings are two part hearings. The first part is a public session to hear the applicants and the public about the application. The second part is an open session when the board discusses the application.
Mr. Coirin advised the Town of Caroga Zoning Board of Appeals will hear Application Z2012-13 by James & Linda Nicosia of 31 Henrietta Blvd Amsterdam NY 12010 of the property located at 720 South Shore Rd East Caroga Lake NY 12032 and identified as Parcel # 83.13-5-30.2 for a variance to the Town of Caroga Zoning Ordinance which is in violation of Article 4 Section 4.050 of said code.
Owner desires to: Construct an attached garage to an existing structure. Front and side yard setbacks are at issue.
Mr. Coirin asked the applicant to explain what he wanted to do. Mr. Nicosia explained he wanted to add an attached garage to his camp. He asked to board members to refer to the sketch he had drawn that shows the outline of his property, the location of the existing camp, location of the proposed garage addition , property lines and estimated side yard setbacks with the addition.
Ken Coirin asked if the fence will be removed. Mr. Nicosia stated that he will remove a section of the fence to accommodate the proposed garage. Frank Malagisi asked if the fence marked the property line and if there was a survey of the property. Mr. Nicosia replied that he does not have a current survey. Ken Coirin asked about the lane located on the other side of the fence. Mr. Nicosia states it was a driveway used by neighbors to access the lake and was not a public right of way. Mr. Nicosia states that he had spoken to his neighbors and they had no problems with the proposed garage.
Mr. Coirin asked if there was and comments from the public and there was none.
Mr. Coirin asked if there was any correspondence for this application and the secretary replied there was none.
With no other questions, Mr. Coirin closed the public part of the meeting at 7:10PM and went into open session.
Roll call was taken with the same results as previously recorded.
Ken Coirin and Pete Welker both stated they had an issue with the side line setback. Frank Malagisi states that he would like to see the recorded survey of the property. He also questioned the lane that is currently used as access to the lake and whether it is a right of way and wants that noted on the survey whether it is used for public access. Mr. Nicosia states that the access is used by the former property owners only. Frank Malagisi asked if the fence marks the actual property line or if the line is further from the fence. Mr. Nicosia replied that he believes that the actual property line is beyond the fence approx. 8’ using a property pin as a marker. Pete Welker, Ken Coirin and Frank Malagisi states that they would like to see that the pin marker is the actual property line. Frank Malagisi and Pete Welker states that they would like to see the application tabled until a survey is completed and recorded with the county clearly showing the east line of the property in question. Ken Coirin asked Mr. Nicosia if he would agree to that he replied that he would have the survey done.
Mr. Coirin asked if the board members if they agree to table the application members replied that all agree.
Mr. Coirin asked for a motion to vote. Pete Welker made the motion to Table the application until the applicant can have a survey done and recorded and Frank Malagisi 2nd the motion.
Mr. Coirin stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals would now vote to Table the application.
The voting results are as follows;
Ken Coirin – yes
Frank Malagisi – yes
Doug Purcell - yes
Pete Welker – yes
Mr. Coirin advised the applicant that the application Z2012-13 for a variance was Tabled until the applicant can have survey completed and recorded with the county.
Chairman Ken Coirin advised that the Zoning Board of appeals was back in public session to hear Application Z2012-14 by Dave & Kathy VanVolkenburg of 212 n Shore Rd West Stoner Lake Caroga Lake NY 12032 of the property located at 212 n Shore Rd West Stoner Lake Caroga Lake NY 12032 and identified as Parcel # 12.17-1-5 for a variance to the Town of Caroga Zoning Ordinance which is in violation of Article 4 Section 4.050 of said code.
Owner desires to: Obtain permission to keep the woodshed built too close to the lot line. Side yard setbacks are at issue.
Mr. Coirin states that he had six (6) letters of correspondence for this application and asked the secretary to read them. Thomas Stuart writes that he believes the property is not to be allowed to be developed anymore and referred to the woodshed and future development. Beverly Stautzenbach writes that as a near-by property owner she thinks the variance should be denied until an accurate survey is done. Frank Garger writes that he is opposed to a variance being granted. John Garger writes that he believes the hearing would be unfair since the Gulicks could not be present. Agnes and John Gulick writes as neighboring property owners the variance should be denied for various reasons. John Garger and Carol Mark write that the variance should be denied for various reasons. A copy of each letter with full details will be submitted and filed with the application.
Mr. Coirin asked the applicant to explain what they wanted to do. Dave VanVolkenburg explained that he built the woodshed near the line that was marked with pink taped survey markers. Mary Ellen Charles, who is the real estate agent for the Gulicks, neighboring property owners, states that the property markers between the VanVolkenburgs and Gulicks property were removed and the woodshed is partly located over on the Gulicks property. Dave VanVolkenburg that the markers to his knowledge are still there and have not been moved or removed. Mary Ellen Charles states that the Gulicks waterline in located under the woodshed built by the VanVolkenburgs making it an issue for any problems that may develop. Dave VanVolkenburg states that he believes that the woodshed is not over the Gulicks waterline and when he asked for the exact location, the Gulicks were unsure. Mary Ellen Charles states that the Gulicks claim the VanVolkenburg property is also overdeveloped referring to the future plans of a garage addition. Ken Coirin states that the property is 4860 square feet with a maximum 25% allowed coverage and the VanVolkenburgs are under that, no over as claimed. They also questioned why the VanVolkenburgs are allowed to have additional living accommodations over their garage that includes a bathroom and kitchen. Mr. VanVolkenberg states that there is nothing like that over the garage. Mr. Coirin states they are here only to deal with the woodshed. Brian Gulick states that he must have been misinformed of the allowable coverage. He would like to see a valid survey done. He also states that the woodshed has a negative visual impact when coming up the driveway to his parent’s house. Bob Gulick states the shed is unsightly when entering his parents driveway. Mary Ellen Charles states that as the real estate agent, trying to sell the Gulicks property, the woodshed is negative issue to potential buyers. John Garger states that previous owners have always piled there wood neatly by the house and covered it. He questions why the VanVolkenburgs need a woodshed and its location and believes it should be moved. Carol Mark, a neighboring property owner, states that this whole process is upsetting and the variance of a woodshed is out of order. Skip Vickerson states that this process should not have gotten this far. Mary Ellen Charles states the VanVolkenburgs were issued a permit to build the woodshed and questions why the Zoning Board is hearing to grant a variance. She gave the Zoning Board members a copy of paperwork showing the permit being issued. Ken Coirin and Pete Welker state that the board should seek legal advice as to whether this is a zoning issue or civil issue.
With no other questions, Mr. Coirin closed the public part of the meeting at 7:53PM and went into open session.
Roll call was taken with the same results as previously recorded.
Ken Coirin states that the Zoning Board of Appeals has conflicting information regarding a permit being issued to the VanVolkenburg’s for building the woodshed and a letter of denial for having the woodshed. Ken Coirin states that any decision for the application should be tabled until the board can obtain legal advice from the Town Attorney and a survey is done to show the exact location of the property pins.
Mr. Coirin asked if the board members if they agree to table the application members replied that all agree.
Mr. Coirin asked for a motion to vote. Doug Purcell made the motion to Table the application until the the board can obtain advice from the Town Attorney and the applicant can have a survey done and recorded and Pete Welker 2nd the motion.
Mr. Coirin stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals would now vote to Table the application.
The voting results are as follows;
Ken Coirin – yes
Frank Malagisi – yes
Doug Purcell - yes
Pete Welker – yes
Mr. Coirin advised the applicant that the application Z2012-14 for a variance was Tabled until the Zoning Board of Appeals can obtain legal advice from the Town Attorney and the applicant can have survey completed and recorded with the county.
Chairman Ken Coirin advised that the Zoning Board of appeals was back in public session to hear Application Z2012-15 by Gene & Christine Centi of 52 Orchard Rd Ringwood NJ 07456 of the property located at 218 South Shore Rd East Caroga Lake, Caroga Lake NY 12032 and identified as Parcel # 83.18-3-33 for a variance to the Town of Caroga Zoning Ordinance which is in violation of Article 4 Section 4.050 of said code.
Owner desires to: Add a second story addition. Lakefront setbacks are at issue.
Mr. Coirin states that the applicants were not present, there was no one to comment on the application and there was no correspondence so he closed the public part of the hearing at 8:05PM and went into open session.
Roll call was taken with the same results as previously recorded.
Pete Welker states that he has no problem with what the applicants want to do other than the new APA restrictions for construction and square footage within 75’ of lake front. Doug Purcell states that the proposed 2nd addition is a good idea since it is better to build up. Frank Malagisi states that the proposed 2nd story addition will fit in structurally with the surrounding existing structures on neighboring properties.
Mr. Coirin asked if the board members had any other comments or questions. The board members replied that had no other comments and understood what the applicant wanted to do.
With no other comments Mr. Coirin stated to the board members that they will review the five criteria for application Z2012-15 for an area variance that are from the Town of Caroga Zoning Ordinance
Mr. Coirin advised that the Zoning Board Appeals, in granting area variance, shall grant the minimum variance that it shall deem necessary and adequate and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community.
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this variance.
All board members agreed and replied no
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other methods feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance.
all board members agreed and replied no.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial.
All board members agreed and replied no.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
All board members agreed and replied no.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.
All board members agreed and replied no.
Mr. Coirin asked for a motion to vote. Frank Malagisi made the motion to approve the application as written and Doug Purcell 2nd the motion.
Mr. Coirin stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals would now vote. A yes vote would grant the variance and a no vote would deny the variance.
The voting results are as follows;
Ken Coirin – yes
Frank Malagisi – yes
Doug Purcell - yes
Pete Welker – yes
Mr. Coirin advised the applicants will be notified that application Z2012-15 for a variance was approved by the Town of Caroga Zoning Board of Appeals. It goes to the APA for their review and final decision. The APA has thirty (30) to ninety (90) days upon receipt of the application paperwork to respond with their decision for approval or denial.
Ken Coirin asked for motion to close the hearing at 8:10PM. Doug Purcell made the motion and Pete Welker 2nd the motion.
Respectfully Submitted
Mary Johnson
Town of Caroga Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary
Copyright © James McMartin Long 2017–2024