While Code Enforcement is certainly an important role for Town Government.... one would have thought that the "Public Service" role -- which would include helping to guide and educate people through a building process, and actually assisting and enabling taxpaying residents achieve their objectives in the least stressful way would be the primary mission.
The August 27, 2024 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting highlighted several cases of the department providing mediocre service, at best, to applicants (yes, those people paying taxes and fees).
First up - an adjourned public hearing for an applicant looking to replace a current home on Stonykill Road with a new build. The applicant first came to the ZBA on June 25. Through the discussion, it became clear that in two months that have transpired, the building department had not briefed the Director of Strategic Planning & Management on the details. She didn't know the property, the size of a garage on the property (in which the applicant had taken the time to move away from the property line based on previous direction -- only to be told ... "oh! it is bigger than I thought, that requires more of a setback or a variance". ) Apparently there is an issue between the survey provided and the survey marks on the property.... leading to confusion about the amount of feet required for setback variances. The applicant indicated that a new survey would be provided the following day. There may be an issue, with a neighbors driveway being on the applicant's property. The "helpful" guidance was that a lawyer might have to be involved. The public hearing was adjourned until the September 24 ZBA meeting. Perhaps someone from the building department could actually drive one of the town cars, that the tax payers provide, to the site and get a view of what is going on, and provide some appropriate guidance, kindly delivered, to the applicant on information needed, additional work to be done in preparation for the next meeting and an outline of what to expect in the process.
Next up was a request for a variance on a 15.74 acre property on Widmer Road. where a second front door to an accessory apartment is requested - the town code only allows one front door. Apparently during the site visit, it was noted that there are 2 car ports that were installed without building permits. The applicant stated that they were both going to be removed, one was storing the lumber required to build the accessory apartment. So a discussion about whether permits would be required, with the decision that the Condition for a variance/ certificate of occupancy would include removing the car ports.
The variance for the front door was approved.
The continuing Spook Hill Road request was next on the agenda.... the applicant built a porch, insisting that that was part of a previously approved plan. The discussion went round and round -- but ultimately the board denied the request for a 23.3 set-back variance for the porch. The applicant was very courteous and requested that the documentation denying the variance be sent to him.
A variance for set backs for a garden shed of 160 square feet on Martin Drive was approved - after discussions about how the applicant thought that the garden shed was legal, based on advice received at the time the shed was built from a Town Building Department member, but because it is larger than 144 square feet, additional setbacks are required, thus the request for a variance.
New requests for variances -
Applicants on Pleasant Lane are requesting a setback variance to construct a 8' x 22" front porch. Things went a bit catywumpus when it was discovered that the building department had provided an incorrect survey to the ZBA members (another property on Pleasant Lane) -- throwing all the measurements for the variances requested into question. The applicants were "helpfully" reminded that if the town had to republish the legal notice the applicant would have to be charged additional fees... so getting the requested setback distances correct was required. No kidding... next time... a check on the address/name on the survey would be helpful. A site visit is scheduled for September 7, public hearing September 10.
The owners of a property on Macintosh Lane would like to build an accessory apartment over the garage, so that a son can move closer to his mom and help her. A setback variance of 4 feet to a side yard is requested, as well as a 4% increase in the allowable gross floor area. Again, the concern of the board is how best to turn it back into a 1 family house at some point (one hopes the Town Board will rectify this soon... more flexible housing is needed if we are going to keep residents living in the community). A site visit is scheduled for September 7, public hearing September 10.
Comments