Zoning Board of Appeals October 23, 2018 Minutes

Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals in attendance by roll call were:

Chairman Kenneth Coirin — here
Douglas Purcell — here
Mike Frasier — absent
Frank Malagisi — absent
D Peter Welker — here
Kathleen Ellerby — here

Members of the public in attendance: Christopher Maddalone, Lucia Maddalone, Eugene Mierzwa, Monika Mierzwa, John Lavender, Linda Stevens, Steven Becker, Sidney Greenwood

Chairman Kenneth Coirin opened the public hearing at 7:00pm.

Douglas Purcell moved to dispense with the reading of and accept the minutes as presented for September 20, 2018. Kathleen Ellerby seconded the motion. All were in favor.

Application Number #Z2018-11

Owner: Christopher & Lucia Maddalone 525 Union Street Schenectady NY 12305 of the property located at: 108 Montayne Lane Caroga Lake NY 12032 and identified as parcel # 83.9-2-25 for a variance to the Town of Caroga Zoning Ordinance which is in violation of Article 4 Sections 4.050 and 4.101 of said code.

Owner Desires to: demolish existing structure and build a single family dwelling. The lakefront setback and lot coverage are at issue.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: This is a public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals. It is a two-part hearing. The first part is to hear anything from the public and to get an explanation of the applicants as to what they’d like to do. Then, we’ll close that and open it up to the board session and then we will make a determination, hopefully, from there.

There was no correspondence. Town Clerk Linda Gilbert left a note saying she was unable to deliver two emails.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: Would you give us a quick overview of what you’d like to do?

Christopher Maddalone: I brought some posters to make it a little easier. Is that alright?

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: Sure.

Christopher Maddalone presented posters of the proposed project to the board.

The following are salient excepts of the dialog.

Christopher Maddalone: This first poster is basically a picture of the location. So, you can be a little familiar with where it is. A little backstory. My wife and I bought this home. We’re here to talk about 108 Montayne Lane. We bought this home back in 2005 […]

The home is roughly 800 square feet: 25x40 was great when we had kids. purchased this lot with home in 2005. Built that house: one story with a garage. also purchased 105 Montayne Lane. Together, they are almost 9000 square feet. This is the survey by Ferguson and Foss [surveyors]. Currently we have a 50 foot frontage on the water. We are 51 feet from lake to front of home. Requesting. Side lots move 13 foots. Leave 21.7 in back and 51 in front. Expand four feet and put a front porch 144 square feet. Requesting a variance of 306 square feet additional. Overall, we are decreasing the coverage. The brown house... 20x40 800 square feet. propose. We would decrease the coverage by 7 percent.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: OK. I see also in here that you were considering combining the two lots.

Christopher Maddalone: I said that to John [Duesler]. I have no problem combining the lots. I have no problem since I’m going to put a septic on that space, I wouldn’t be able to sell that lot anyway, because I’ll need it for the new proposed home. So, I have no problem combining the lots. It is not a problem.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: OK.

Christopher Maddalone: John King designed an engineered system for the septic tanks and the leach field would be over here.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: Is there anybody else who’d like to speak to this?

John Lavender: A couple concerns I have. Just a couple questions — not so much concerns. 105 [Montayne Lane], right now that’s the existing structure which is torn down. If that was going to have a septic on it, would there be certain stipulations on a future well for 108, for distance, because we’re limited on distance separation between road and septic?

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: That would be a question more for the building inspector as to where the proposed well would be in relation to where the septic would be.

John Lavender: It wouldn’t affect anything across the street — across the private road?

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: Not that I’m aware of. No.

John Lavender: If you were to combine 105 and 108 [Montayne Lane] as one parcel, what would be the address? Number two, is it possible with the road that separates them — between them right now — a private drive that’s never supposed to be obstructed, according to all deeds?

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: What house number it would be? What would the address be?

John Lavender: Yes.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: I would believe it would be 108, because that’s where the dwelling is.

John Lavender: All three parcels would be 108?

Christopher Maddalone: No, we’re combining two parcels. Green space — green space wouldn’t have an address.

John Lavender: It would still be 105. But, you combine those it would be 108. Then it would be called a lot with an SBL number. It wouldn’t have an address.

Christopher Maddalone: Right.

John Lavender: Last concern is property lines. There's been some previous somewhat survey disputes over property lines between 106 and 108. I have three. I have three. Two of them are saying the same thing. One of them will show an easement. I would have to bring it up to you, if you don’t mind.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: Yeah, sure.

John Lavender approached the board.

John Lavender: I can get you paper copies. I think that would be the most important topic I would bring up. Here’s a survey from Ferguson [and Foss, surveyors].

Christopher Maddalone: John, are those the surveys that are right here? They probably are, right? You have your own survey?

John Lavender: I do. I have my own survey.

Christopher Maddalone: Yes, Ferguson [and Foss, surveyors]. So, the ones I submitted — I submitted two different surveys. They’re both from Ferguson [and Foss, surveyors]. For 105 [Montayne Lane] and one is for 108 [Montayne Lane].

John Lavender: This is another Ferguson right here, but it doesn’t show a picture of 106’s cottage. This one does. There's a 20 foot wide easement that goes right through the master bedroom, right through the stairwell, and right through the main living area of his structure. Nobody was aware of this easement before. This is all new to me. I believe the property lines are not correct. This pin by this telephone pole: there’s a pipe — iron rod that’s been dated — about 93 years old now — that is on multiple deeds in this area that I’ve just dug up two Saturdays ago and we reconnected with our surveyor — existing property lines that are pretty much etched in stone and there is a pin over here that ultimately gives us 48 foot frontage, give or take, instead of the 50 foot frontage that was originally on his deed. Now, you cross over that pin that Ferguson [and Foss, surveyors] put in and you go down this line here. It’s off of this monument here, OK — which the iron rod is over here. That’s stated with all his amenities. So, that’s something we’d have to take into consideration with — it might benefit you — and it might not, but I’d like to get this straightened out before anything because this is obviously incorrect. It goes through here.

Christopher Maddalone: How are two different surveys, done at two different times, incorrect? I’m not sure what — you’re paying a surveyor who is licensed by the State of New York. How can he be wrong?

John Lavender: Your surveyor went off a gospel point that isn’t the gospel point that is supposed to be off of, according to everybody’s deed. There’s one right here by a pole that nobody had bothered picking up. You can obviously see that it’s 93 plus or [multiple simultaneous speakers]

Christopher Maddalone: John, can I ask: what’s the main concern? Are you talking about the easement? Because if you’re concerned about an easement, when I knock the house down, I combine the lots, there’s no more easement. You don’t have to worry about it.

John Lavender: I’m not worried about the easements.

At this point, multiple conversations were going on between between members of the public. Discussion centered on differences between deeds, differences between surveys, and differences in lake frontage measurements.

Linda Stevens: One question I have about the variance has to do with the lakefront setback. Have you let others to go as close in the past? And, if not, I’d rather not have that precedent set. That’s one thing. And again, not that I have anything against you: it’s just how I feel. In the variance, is says how removing the property at 105 Montayne Lane was helpful because it was removing and eyesore. Well, to me, it wasn't an eyesore. I have enjoyed looking on Caroga Lake. I liked it, because it is a small lake and a small town. To me, it's good when people buy property, but, — and again nothing against either one of you, but — and I know it’s the way things are going now — but, I still have to say it. I don't really care for when the small camps are bought and they’re replaced with big, tall buildings which just don’t really seem to fit in with the lake. And one more thing, and this might not be the time or place, but I just have to mention that in the past when someone got work done, given that trucks going down the driveway, it was left a mess. So, if you decided to put gravel, I would be happy to do it, because I’m assuming you are going to rebuild whether you get the variance or not. Right? You are going up. And, that’s accepted by the APA. Please let me know, because I’d like to pay my fair share and continue it out to the road so that water doesn't drain on to my property.

Christopher Maddalone: You mean the stone in the driveway, right?

Linda Stevens: Yes. I mean, I don’t know if you are planning on doing that right now, but — I just — for me, it was the time to mention it. That’s it. Thank you.

Eugene Mierzwa: Are you thinking of putting a leach field there?

Christopher Maddalone: Yes. It has to be an engineered system — an elevated system.

Eugene Mierzwa: So, elevated — where’s the runoff going to go? Going to go towards the well? What are you going to do because the runoff?

Christopher Maddalone: No, there’s no runoff on an engineered system. It’s three feet high.

Multiple simultaneous conversations on the topic septic systems among attendees.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: OK, we’re going to close the public portion of the meeting now and go into the board’s session.

Chairmen Ken Coirin closed the public portion at 7:26 pm.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: I don't think we're going to resolve this. We have three different surveys — two of them agree — one does not. So, these two do not agree, that we have here.

Multiple simultaneous conversations.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: Alright, well, suggestions? Ideas?

Kathleen Ellerby: This just needs to be resolved first.

Douglas Purcell: It wouldn’t be unusual for us to table a decision on something like this until the issue of the property lines are resolved.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: Which is, I think, what we are going to do. What we are going to have to do with this is have the two different surveyors hammer this out — come to a decision as to who’s right, who’s wrong. This is going to come out between the two different surveyors. So, it goes back to you folks. We need surveys. And, those two surveyors have to talk with each other until they agree on what’s the proper lines. Once we have that, then we’ll take this off the table and we’ll hear it again. So, we need a survey from you and your surveyor needs to talk with his surveyor until we come up with what is the actual lines. Once we have that, then we’ll take this off the table and we’ll hear it again.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: I’ll entertain a motion to table this until we have a decision from the surveyors.

Douglas Purcell: I make a motion that we table any decision and further discussion on application Z2018-11 until such time as the parties involved resolve the surveys.

Kathleen Ellerby: I’ll second that.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: All those in favor?

All board members said: Aye.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: So that's where we are folks.

Douglas Purcell: Do you have any other business that needs to be conducted?

Tuesday before Thanksgiving, November 20th is the next meeting date.

Douglas Purcell: If not, I’ll make a motion to adjourn.

Kathleen Ellerby: I’ll second that.

Chairman Kenneth Coirin: All in favor?

All were in favor.

Meeting adjourned 7:31 pm.

Respectfully submitted
James McMartin Long
Town of Caroga Deputy Supervisor,
acting as Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary

Copyright © James McMartin Long 2017–2024