Loading...
2001-01-24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/24/01) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 24, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY PAUL HAYES CHARLES ABBATE NORMAN HIMES JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ALLAN BRYANT ROBERT MC NALLY CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. STONE-There are two items on the agenda tonight, and the first one is Area Variance No. 3- 2001. AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2001 TYPE II MIKE & HOLLY DANSBURY AGENT: PHILIP J. HAAKENSON OWNER: MIKE & HOLLY DANSBURY LOCATION: 9 HEMLOCK DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 8 FT. BY 6 FT. DORMER TO BATHROOM ON THE SECOND STORY. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. ALSO, SEPTIC VARAINCE REQUESTED FROM TOWN BOARD OF HEALTH ON MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2001. OLD TAX MAP NO. 43-2-19 NEW TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-31 ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79 MR. STONE-I understand that at the Town Board meeting at which a septic variance was requested on Monday night, there was nobody here. Therefore, the Town Board did not act on it. They tabled it. We’re going to do the same thing, because we cannot act if the septic variance is in limbo. Until it’s decided, we can’t act. So, the easiest way is to just table it, and we’ll put it on the agenda for next month, after the Town Board has had a chance to rule on the septic variance. So, having said that. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2001 MIKE AND HOLLY DANSBURY , Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 9 Hemlock Drive. The application is being tabled because a septic variance has not been acted upon by the Town Board, and at such time as the Town Board acts favorably on this application, this Board will then put it on the agenda and act on the variance requested. Duly adopted this 24 day of January, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally MR. STONE-That’s it. AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2001 TYPE II ROBERT & PATRICIA END AGENT: CREATIVE CONSTRUCTION-WILLIAM DEAN AND JARRETT-MARTIN, PLLC OWNER: ROBERT AND PATRICIA END LOCATION: SEELEY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A RELOCATED CONSTRUCTION OF A 554 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF AS WELL AS RELIEF FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND GARAGE. ALSO, SEPTIC VARIANCE REQUESTED FROM TOWN BOARD OF HEALTH ON MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2001. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 1/10/2001 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY OLD TAX MAP NO. 16-1-14 NEW TAX 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/24/01) MAP NO. 227.17-1-31 ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOT SIZE: 0.63 ACRES SECTION 179-7, 179-16 TOM JARRETT & BILL DEAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 4-2001, Robert & Patricia End, Meeting Date: January 24, 2001 “Project Location: Seeley Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a relocated reconstruction of a 554 sf garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 26 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement as well as both 15 and 18 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Further, since the residence on the property currently has an attached garage, relief is requested for the construction of a second garage. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize additional garage space. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the garage to a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative requests for relief may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate to substantial effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, since there appears to be a feasible alternative to this proposal. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP2001-010 issued 1/8/01 residential alterations BP98-548 issued 10/23/98 residential alterations BP92-424 issued 7/20/92 attached 2 car garage Staff comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. There appears to be, from the information submitted, to be sufficient area for compliant construction. It does not appear that the applicant would be denied a reasonable use of the property by constructing the proposed garage in a compliant location. The existing garage is located approximately 8 feet from the property line and approximately 51 feet from the driving surface of Seelye Road. The proposed garage is located 2 feet from the property line and approximately 25 feet from the driving surface of Seelye Road. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January 10, 2001 Project Name: End, Robert & Patricia Owner: Robert and Patricia End ID Number: QBY- AV-4-2001 County Project: Jan01-13 Current Zoning: WR-1 Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to move a detached garage for the purpose of constructing a new septic system. Relief is sought from front yard and side yard setback requirements. Site Location: 8 Waters Edge Dr. Route 9L to Cleverdale Road, Cleverdale Road to Seeley Road to Waters Edge Drive. Tax Map Number: 16-1-14 Staff Notes: As the attached drawings indicate, the proposed setback deficiencies are fairly extreme for the relocated garage (2 feet from the road and 5 feet from the adjacent lot). However, a new septic system located as far as possible from Lake George is the best course for lake water quality. It does appear that there may be other possible sites for a garage on the lot than that proposed. Given the Board’s empirical close scrutiny of projects that could impact Lake George, Staff recommends discussion. Local actions to date (if any): Public hearing set for January 24, 2001. County Planning Board Recommendation: No Action due to no Board majority vote.” Signed Thomas E. Haley Warren County Planning Board 1/16/01. MR. STONE-Craig, what does that mean? MR. BROWN-They just make a recommendation. MR. STONE-So it’s not a negative vote? MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. Gentlemen, go ahead. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. My name is Tom Jarrett. I’m a partner in the firm Jarrett/Martin Engineers, and with me is Bill Dean of Creative Construction. We’re representing the Ends tonight in this Variance application. The primary purpose of this variance is to construct a new septic system as far from Lake George on the property as possible. In order to do that, the existing garage, as you’ve noted, has to be relocated, and the most practical location, according to the Ends, is tucked in to the corner that we’ve shown on our drawing. That would give them access to Waters Edge Lane and maintain open space use of the property that they have right now. MR. STONE-Okay. You are aware that by tearing this garage down, it’s like it never existed, in terms of zoning, in terms of the variance is concerned? MR. JARRETT-The garage has not been torn down as of yet. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/24/01) MR. STONE-No, I know that. MR. JARRETT-It’ll only be torn down if permission is granted for this project. MR. STONE-Okay, but you recognize that we have to act on the basis that it’s a second garage and all that? I mean, I know you know that, I just want to. MR. JARRETT-Essentially, the Ends could build a new septic system further to the east toward Lake George, and not require a variance, not require moving the garage. However, they want to get the septic system as far from the lake as possible. So we felt this was a reasonable application to the Town. MR. STONE-We certainly appreciate, I, personally, and I, from the rest of the Board, appreciates the concern for Lake George by wanting to do that. I have a series of questions, but I think I’ll let my fellow members start. Go ahead. MR. STONE-Are you done with your presentation? MR. JARRETT-For the moment. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Now, let me make sure who I’m addressing. You are? MR. JARRETT-Tom Jarrett. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Jarrett, and you are? MR. DEAN-Bill Dean. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Just out of curiosity, is there any reason why Mr. and Mrs. End are not here this evening? Because I have some specific questions I thought I’d like to ask. MR. JARRETT-Well, they don’t live locally, and Mr. End is out of the Country often. So he asked if we could represent this application. MR. STONE-And there’s no prejudice for them representing them. MR. ABBATE-No, not at all. I don’t have any problem with that, but I always have concerns about attempting to interpret the feelings and getting into the minds of other individuals, going through a third party. So what you’re suggesting, what you would like to see, then, is to, you’d like relief to have another attached garage go up, and when the attached garage goes up, a second garage, the first garage will come down. Is that what you’re suggesting? MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. STONE-Unattached garage. MR. ABBATE-Yes. Unattached. MR. JARRETT-Yes, unattached. MR. DEAN-Detached garage. MR. STONE-You said attached. MR. ABBATE-I’m sorry. Okay. I’m sorry. Unattached garage, and then you’re also seeking 26 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback and 15 feet and 18 feet relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback as well. My question, basically, is this. Why cannot this proposed garage be constructed in a more compliant area? I’m not sure I understand why it cannot be. MR. JARRETT-Well, essentially, the only locations that we see for construction of the garage are along the waters edge, in a configuration similar to what we’ve shown, or along the existing driveway, which would have two drawbacks associated with it. One is they want to use this garage for storage of boats, and it would be much more difficult to negotiate the boat into the garage off the driveway, and number two, it would interrupt, it would be right in the middle of their open space area that they used for children’s play. So they don’t want to interrupt that space. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/24/01) MR. STONE-Any questions? MR. ABBATE-No, I’m done. MR. STONE-What is the small house? Let’s go through all the buildings on the property. What is the small house? What’s in there? MR. JARRETT-The northwest corner of the property? MR. STONE-No, no. Their building, where it says building and brick steps. MR. JARRETT-There is a northwest on this property. That’s a guest cottage. MR. STONE-That’s a guest cottage. Kitchen, full facilities? MR. DEAN-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. So, right now, and I know it’s not in our jurisdiction, because it’s there, but it represents a second house on one piece of property? MR. JARRETT-Pre-existing. MR. STONE-I understand, pre-existing, but it’s there. Okay. Now, what is, is the new garage going to be smaller? MR. JARRETT-Exactly the same size as the old one. MR. STONE-I can’t tell from the drawing, and it’ll be only boat storage? It’ll be a big, open space? MR. JARRETT-Well, they may store other things in it, but it’s essentially storage, and they want to use it for boat storage in the winter. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HAYES-The same height, everything? MR. JARRETT-Yes, I think exactly, maybe slightly lower, actually. MR. DEAN-Yes. It may end up being lower just because of Code issues and because of, I guess it was power line concerns. MR. STONE-If the proposed garage is built, how close would it be to the garage on the adjoining property? MR. JARRETT-The one that’s shown in the diagram there, or? MR. STONE-I believe there’s another one closer to the corner, as I saw it. MR. HAYES-Yes, on the Liapes property. MR. DEAN-Probably 20 feet away. MR. JARRETT-You’re right. I don’t know the exact dimension. MR. BROWN-It scales 25 on the drawing. MR. STONE-Twenty-five between the new position of the garage? MR. HAYES-He’s referring to the one to the south. There’s a garage to the south of that garage. That’s yours? Okay. MR. STONE-Any other questions? MR. HIMES-Just a couple of minor comments. I think, it looks like there’s a vehicle stored in there now. It’s covered, in the garage in question. MR. JARRETT-That could be, yes. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/24/01) MR. DEAN-Yes. MR. HIMES-Also, there’s a rather ornate chimney stone, fieldstone or chimney there, it may be a fireplace, with a back porch on, has this ever been used as another guest cottage? MR. DEAN-I really don’t know, to be honest with you. It hasn’t as long as they’ve owned it. MR. HIMES-That’s going to be maintained? MR. DEAN-No. The chimney would go, and the garage would be built as footprint size of what’s there. So basically that open porch on the back turns into enclosed storage, built in the same outside dimensions. MR. URRICO-Have other locations been considered? MR. DEAN-Yes. As I alluded to before, we’ve looked at all the footprints along Water’s Edge, as well as along the existing driveway. They did not look to build the structure on the lawn area closer to the lake, however. MR. ABBATE-I’m really, I’m not sure I understand the rationale here. So if you’ll bear with me, help me out. Currently, we have a house on this property. We have an existing, well, actually two houses, even though they’re pre-existing, a garage, a shed, and what you’re suggesting is that you would like to have a new garage constructed in your proposed area, and the other, the old garage taken down. Correct? And if that happens, then we have a rather large space between the building, a building, and the garage, and the proposed garage, of course, will be close to the boundary line, and that’s why you’re requesting this kind of relief. Help me out. Why is the old garage coming down? MR. JARRETT-I think you’ll see on the diagram that between the guest cottage and the proposed garage, there would be a new septic system constructed. MR. HAYES-That’s where the actual leach fields are going to be? MR. JARRETT-Right. Correct. MR. DEAN-Yes. That’s the whole intention of taking the garage and moving it. Otherwise, that leach field would automatically move 35, 40 feet. MR. JARRETT-Closer to the lake. In other words, if you denied the application, then the Ends could build a septic system closer to Lake George, but they’d rather not do that. MR. ABBATE-Are you suggesting that the current septic system has to be replaced? Is that what you’re saying? MR. JARRETT-No. It doesn’t have to be replaced now. They acknowledge that the system is old and probably is going to have to be replaced at some point in the future, and they’re trying to up. MR. STONE-And how far is it now from the lake? MR. JARRETT-We believe less than 100 feet. Nobody knows exactly where the leaching system is, but we believe it’s less than 100 feet. MR. STONE-How much less than 100 feet? MR. JARRETT-I was guessing between 75 and 90 feet, the edge of it. MR. DEAN-It’s kind of hard to tell, because you don’t really know exactly where it is. The tanks are evident, but the field is. MR. STONE-Where are the tanks? MR. JARRETT-The lawn area is where the existing septic system is, the center part of the property. We don’t know exactly what the extent of the leaching system is. MR. STONE-Where are the tanks? MR. DEAN-Next to the main house, and there’s another one at the guest house. MR. STONE-Okay, feeding into one leach field? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/24/01) MR. DEAN-That’s a good question. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but, see, you know, this is what’s bugging me. We’ve got to have people here who are able to answer questions, and these questions are important. Are we having two tanks feeding into one leach field? MR. JARRETT-The Ends don’t know either. MR. STONE-I would assume they don’t know. MR. ABBATE-Well, then perhaps they should spend some money into an engineering plan. MR. JARRETT-That’s what they’re trying to do. MR. ABBATE-Before you come to us. MR. MC NULTY-Well, the only way, if it’s a regular leach field, the only way they’re going to know is if they dig the entire yard up. MR. ABBATE-I understand all that. MR. STONE-But you certainly can place the tanks. MR. MC NULTY-You can place the tanks, and if there’s a drywell, you can usually find the drywell. If it’s a leach field, good luck. MR. STONE-No, I understand that. MR. JARRETT-And the point is, I think though even then, if they did know where it is, if it’s 50 feet from the lake, what’s being proposed is a whole lot better than that. MR. ABBATE-I understand all of that. MR. STONE-What’s the, and it should be on here. I don’t see it. What’s the size of the lot? MR. JARRETT-It is, I think it’s on that diagram. MR. STONE-Do we have that, Craig? MR. BROWN-It’s about 6/10ths of an acre. MR. STONE-Six tenths, 25,000. MR. BROWN-Yes, approximately. MR. STONE-Six times forty-four, twenty-six, four. MR. BROWN-Twenty-seven thousand. MR. STONE-Twenty-seven thousand. What you’re asking for, granted, it is a pre-existing, nonconforming use. You have a lot which is undersized for the area, for our zoning. You have a property with two houses on it where one is allowed. You have a property with two garages where one is allowed, nine hundred square feet of garage, and you come, the applicant comes before us saying, aren’t we nice people, we’re going to put a better septic system in, and yet we want everything we had before, and we may very well grant that, but I just want it on the record that there’s an awful lot being asked, notwithstanding the actual numbers. I mean, there are, not being asked, because some of it is pre-existing, but we have to consider, as I said earlier, that if we grant this variance, it means you have taken down the garage, and we are allowing a totally new second garage on this property, and we can talk about that. I just want to get the record clear. If there’s any other questions, since we have some people who want to speak, I can open the public hearing. Is everybody ready for that? Okay. I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of the application? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to this application? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HAYES-Craig, could they fix that septic system? Is that grandfathered, the one that’s in place? Could they fix that? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/24/01) MR. BROWN-No, I don’t think so. My understanding of the Septic Ordinance is limited, but I think once you get into repairing the system, you’ve got to bring it up to standards. If you have a 400 gallon tank in there and you want to repair it with a 400 gallon tank, you can’t do that. You have to bring it up to the minimum requirements. That’s my understanding. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Salvador? JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Yes. My name is John Salvador. My wife and I attended the January 22 Town nd Board meeting, and there was no discussion of a septic variance requested at that meeting, as it’s noted here. MR. STONE-Where? MR. SALVADOR-It says also septic variance requested from Town Board of Health on Monday, January 22. nd MR. BROWN-There is a description in the. MR. ABBATE-Where is that? I’m missing that. MR. BROWN-It’s in the agenda, the description in the agenda. MR. ABBATE-In the agenda. MR. BROWN-My understanding is that the applicant’s agent, Mr. Jarrett, and Dave Hatin from the Building and Codes Department made a determination or. MR. STONE-Why don’t you come up and explain that. Why don’t we wait until we hear everybody. So that’s the concern you have? MR. SALVADOR-Well, just a comment. There was no request before the Town Board. MR. STONE-I think we’re going to hear it was not, decided it wasn’t necessary, but we’ll. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Secondly, I’m sorry. I do not subscribe to the fact that you can’t locate this leach field. If all else fails, you can flood it. Just pump water into it. You’ll find it. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-It’s very simple. Then you let it rest for a number of days, and the people seem to be away, out of town, not going to be using it, but it can be located, very exactly. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak opposed or any part of this subject, this application? Any letters, any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-Going once, going twice, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Now, Mr. Jarrett, would you like to explain what happened on Monday night? MR. JARRETT-Well, it happened prior to Monday night, a clarification issued by the Town Attorney’s office that a variance was not required, that for replacement of existing systems, you have to be 100 feet from the lake, not 200 feet from the lake. So no variance was required in this situation. MR. STONE-Okay, and that brings up a question. Is it possible to get a sufficiently large leach field in where the old one is, 100 feet from the lake? MR JARRETT-Yes. MR. STONE-Without doing anything? MR. JARRETT-When you say without doing anything, without removing or moving structures? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/24/01) MR. STONE-Yes. MR. JARRETT-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. So, in other words, you have just said, I just want to make sure it’s clear, that this leach field can be brought up to Code, without moving a structure? MR. JARRETT-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. JARRETT-If I might add, we didn’t approach this with the fact that it had to be, that a variance had to be granted. What we’re saying is that we think we can gain a better environmental perspective on the property by relocating a garage and moving the septic system further to the west. MR. STONE-And we appreciate that, but, as you have said, and as I am aware, it’s supposed to be 100 feet from the lake. You have just told us that a septic system that is up to Code can be put on this property, without getting any variances as far as the buildings are concerned. MR. JARRETT-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else? Any other questions of the applicant? If not, let’s talk about it. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Given the fact that it could be relocated without moving the buildings, you know, I see this more as maybe a sideways attempt to create a new garage there on the property, and I, you know, I would be opposed to that, given the fact that it’s going to require such shorter setbacks from the property lines and the road. MR. STONE-Okay. Norm? MR. HIMES-My sentiments are, I agree with what Jim has just said. I think the existing garage is already too close to the road, dangerously close, and to put it where it’s proposed would add to possible problems on Seeley Road, too, being closer to that road. I think that the septic system, if it’s going to be replaced or upgraded, it should be done within the area that’s available, without moving anything. So I would not be in favor of the variance. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Well, Mr. Salvador makes a good point, because that was my major concern. I’m not an engineer. That’s originally why I said why aren’t the original applicants here. Because I’d like to know, you know, where the leach field is located, specifically, and Mr. Salvador made a point, well, you could pump water into it, and I’m assuming this is correct, because I’m not an engineer, and discover it. That, coupled with the fact that it is a small lot, and there are two pre-existing homes currently there, and there’s a garage there, it would seem to me that this application is, putting aside the fact that they want to ensure that none of the leakage goes into Lake George, which is admirable, this is an application for convenience, and quite frankly I would be opposed to it. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-When I look at the five criteria for considering a variance I think, one, yes, there is a benefit to the applicant. Two, the feasible alternatives, there are feasible alternatives. We discussed them and they appear to be doable, and is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I think it is. We’re taking a pre-existing, nonconforming use and making it more nonconforming, and that’s going in the wrong direction, I believe, and the effects on the neighborhood or community, well, we haven’t heard from the community, but I can’t see how this could help. I think it’s a detriment, and is the difficulty self-created? Yes, yes it is. So, based on the weight of the evidence that we have before us, I think it’s a no go, for me. MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I mean, I analyzed it the same way Roy did, and I think if you go by the parts of the test, I think that there’s no doubt that there’s feasible alternatives, in this particular case, and certainly the relief is substantial. So I won’t elaborate any further, because most of it’s been said, but when you take the balancing test as a whole, I don’t think this carries tonight. So I would be opposed. MR. STONE-Chuck? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/24/01) MR. MC NULTY-I can echo what’s been said already. I think there’s two things that leave me on the negative side on this. One is the setbacks that are fairly extreme, given that there’s plenty of room to locate a garage somewhere else, and also as has been pointed out, we need to consider this as though it were a new structure being built. We have to look at it, first it’s torn down, and then we talk about the relief requested from the new structure, and if this were a new application coming in, somebody wanted to build a second garage on this lot, I would say, no, there’s a garage on it already, and there’s no justification for a second garage. So I’m on the negative side, too. MR. STONE-Well, I certainly concur with the rest of the Board. There is no doubt that there’s a tremendous amount of relief being asked for here. That, coupled with the fact that there is a very positive feasible alternative, certainly makes it very clear to me, and makes it very easy to deny this application. Having said that, I need a motion to deny. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2001 ROBERT AND PATRICIA END, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Seeley Road. The applicant proposes to relocate a reconstruction of a 550 square foot garage. The applicant requests 26 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement, as well as both 15 and 18 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. Further, since the residence on the property currently has an attached garage, relief is requested for the construction of a second garage. I recommend we deny this application, based on the following criteria. The benefit to the applicant, yes, there would be a benefit to the applicant. They would be permitted to construct and utilize an additional garage space. Are there feasible alternatives? Yes, there are feasible alternatives which may include the relocation of the garage to a compliant location. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The cumulative request for relief may be interpreted as substantial. The effects on the neighborhood or community. There would be moderate to substantial effects on the community that may be anticipated as a result of this action. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created since there appears to be a feasible alternative to this proposal. The applicant is interested in upgrading the septic system, and is proposing that the current garage be relocated so that a septic system can be put in that location, far away from the lake, but it’s been determined that that septic system can be located in a compliant area and still far enough from the lake. Duly adopted this 24 day of January, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. ABBATE-Should we, just as an afterthought, should we also include the size of the lot that currently is pre-existing, two homes, one garage? MR. STONE-No. MR. ABBATE-Not necessary? Okay. Fine. MR. STONE-It’s not germane. I don’t think it’s germane, in terms of what we’ve done. MR. ABBATE-No. MR. STONE-Okay. Do I hear a second? MR. ABBATE-Second. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty MR. STONE-Sorry. MR. JARRETT-Okay. Thanks for your consideration. MR. STONE-Any other business to come before this Board? I move to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 9