Town of Otsego Zoning Board of Appeals

Minutes - September 19, 2006

REGULAR MEETING

The monthly Town of Otsego Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) meeting was held on this date. Chairman Greg Crowell called the meeting to order at 7:34 PM. Roll
call was taken by Secretary Bill Deane. Board members present were Crowell, Tony Scalici (Vice-Chairman), Joe Potrikus, and Sam Hoskins. Zoning Enforcement Officer Mike
Miller was also present. Board member Jim Ferrari was absent.

The Board reviewed the minutes of the July 18 meeting, mailed in August. Sam Hoskins moved to approve them as written. Joe Potrikus seconded the motion and it
was approved, 4-0.

The only correspondence was the Summer, 2006 issue of Planning News, copies of which were distributed to the members. The Board moved on to applications.

APPLICATIONS

06.06 - James Brophy - Area variance, installation of in-ground pool - 916 County Highway 26, Fly Creek (#98.00-1-21.00)

James Brophy wants to install a 17x35' in-ground pool beside his residence. The pool would be surrounded by a three-foot-wide cement walkway and a
four-foot-high fence. After choosing the optimum site, he found that the fence around the pool would be only ten feet from the southern property line, so he would need a
ten-foot area variance on that side.

Joe Potrikus said that Brophy should make sure the area between the pool and property line allows for vehicle access. Brophy said that he would work with his
contractor to see if they could position the pool farther from the property line. Asked why he could not put the pool on the other side or in back of the house, Brophy said
that those sides were encroached by the leech field and the creek, and his contractor had chosen the southern spot as the most viable site. Tony Scalici said that Brophy
should write down the rationale for the location of the pool for file documentation. Scalici also said that Brophy should document (preferably with sketches on a tax map)
the location of structures of neighboring properties.

Scalici moved to deem the application complete and schedule a public hearing for October 17, contingent on the aforementioned documents to be submitted to the
Town Building by October 3. Sam Hoskins seconded the motion and it was approved, 4-0.

06.07 - James Brophy - Interpretation of Land Use Law Section 3.11, re: pool fence - 916 County Highway 26, Fly Creek (#98.00-1-21.00)

This application was submitted in conjunction with #06.06 above. As Zoning Enforcement Officer Miller explained, he was not sure how much of a variance James
Brophy would need, as it depended on whether the fence was considered part of the building project. Miller could not find anything in the Land Use Law which addressed
fences, except Section 3.11, which did not apply. He felt the ZBA should issue a decision which would apply to any application involving fences.

Tony Scalici said that a fence fits the definition of "structure" in the Land Use Law. Bill Deane asked whether everyone who put up fences along their property
lines would have to get area variances, and Scalici said that, according to the Land Use Law, they would. Scalici also pointed out that the Board had already considered
the fence in discussing the width of the area variance sought in the above application. The consensus of the Board was that there was no need for interpretation of the law
in this case.

In light of this discussion, Brophy agreed to withdraw this application.

06.08 - Village of Cooperstown (Brian Clancy) - Interpretation of Land Use Law Section 1.04, re: outdoor wood furnace - 60 Linden Avenue, Cooperstown (#131.00-1-20.00)

Bill Deane distributed copies of the minutes (not yet approved) of the September 5 Planning Board meeting, and Chairman Crowell read aloud the relevant part:

"Brian Clancy, Superintendent of Public Works, represented the Village of Cooperstown. They have placed a 6-by-8 foot outdoor wood furnace next to the Village
Barn, but have not yet hooked it up, as they were told it requires Planning Board review. Clancy said it would save the Village $2,500 per year.

"Chairman Bass noted that the Village Barn represents a pre-existing, non-conforming use in the general business (GB-1) district, which has no permitted uses.
The question is whether the furnace constitutes an expansion of the non-conformity, in which case it would not be allowed.

"Bass said the furnace is a structure, not a building. John Phillips noted that it is well under the 100 square feet which is allowed for a shed. John Stucin
said it would create a lot of smoke. The members agreed that, if it were placed inside the building, it would not be an issue.

"Bass polled the members as to whether they considered the furnace an expansion of the non-conformity. Three said they thought it was, and three said they did
not think it was. Bass said that, according to Land Use Law Section 1.04, 'If there is any doubt as to whether or not this paragraph applies to a specific project, the
Zoning Board of Appeals shall determine applicability.' Thus, since there is no consensus by the Planning Board, the applicant will have to go before the ZBA."

The ZBA reviewed Land Use Law Sections 1.04 and 2.06, along with the survey map submitted by Clancy. They discussed whether the Village Barn qualifies as a special
permitted use, such as a motor vehicle repair shop, but the consensus was that it does not. Chairman Crowell pointed out that the Village was heating the same amount of
space, whether it was using the new furnace or the existing heating system; it was not an increase of non-conformity, but merely a change in the way the building was being
heated. Tony Scalici added that the Village was not increasing the usage or capacity of the building space.

Scalici moved that the project does not constitute an expansion of a non-conformity. Sam Hoskins seconded the motion and it was approved, 4-0.

With no other business before the Board, at 8:34 Joe Potrikus moved to adjourn the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

Bill Deane, Secretary