Loading...
1988-05-18 ""--' ---- QUEENS BURY ZONIRG BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting Held: Wednesday May 18, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. Present: Theodore Turner, Chairman Charles O. Sicard Michael Muller Jeffrey Kelley Susan Goetz, Secretary Gustave Behr Daniel Griffin R. Case Prime, Counsel , Mary Jane F. Moeller, Stenographer Mr. Turner called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Behr noted corrections to the April 20, 1988 minutes were as follows: Page 4: 3rd paragraph, 6th sentence, ...there a second... should read ...there is a second... Page 13: 1st paragraph, 1st sentence, delete one set of -had received- Mr. Sicard moved APPROVAL of minutes as corrected. Seconded by Mrs. Goetz. Passed unaniaously. NEW BUSIRBSS AREA VARIARCE RO. 1351 Harvey Wilson Mrs. Goetz read the application to maintain a storage shed of 14 ft. x 16 ft., which is situated on the north side of the house on Glen Lake Road, SFR-30. The storage shed has already been constructed and a Build- ing Permit not issued. The applicant did not know he needed a Variance or Building Permit. Mr. Harvey Wilson represented the application and confirmed that he had lived in the area for approximately four years, had previously never owned property and was not aware that a Building Permit or Variance was necessary for a storage shed over 100 square feet. The lot is pie-shaped which made placement of the shed difficult. The shed is being used for storage of personal effects belonging to his parents who were deceased in the past couple of years. This is a rental piece of property, he lives 1 --.. .- across the street. There are approximately two to three feet between the house and the shed. In the future, Mr. Wilson plans on acquiring a lot directly in back of the house. The land, which is 100 ft. x 100 ft., would be secured in a right-of-way trade with someone who is landlocked. With the additional land, there would be room enough to slide the shed back. The frontage on the road of the present property is 194.1 feet, and is pre-existing and non-conforming. The right-of-way will be on the West side of the lot; Mr. Wilson will give the persons land suitable in size for such a purpose, and does not know if the two people involved in the trade plan on developing the land in back. Mr. Wilson was strongly advised to secure a lawyer. Public Rearing Opened. no comment. Public Hearing Closed. Correspondence. Mrs. Goetz read notations of a May 16th telephone conversation that Sue Davidsen (Planning Department) had with Frank Donohue, who called from Port St. Lucie, Florida and stated slight objections to the proposal, ie. clean up the mess in the yard, not to use the area for a workshop, adhere to building codes, etc. (Letter and note of telephone conversation on file). The Warren County Planning Board approved the project. Mr. Wilson confirmed to Mrs. Goetz that there is one unregistered vehicle on each piece of property. He has four or five cars on the road at a time, because he works for the newspaper and needs the transporta- tion. The tenant in the principle house does not have use of the shed, and Mr. Wilson said that he is responsible for keeping the grounds clean. There is no electrical service going to the shed, and there is no room for the shed on the land across the street where Mr. Wilson lives, as the property is small - 100 ft. x 90 ft. - and the house is a duplex. Recently Mr. Wilson started his own general contracting business and has people working for him. Mr. Turner expressed concerned the children might get into the shed, where lawn mowers and other equipment is stored; however, the applicant said it is kept locked. There are no gas cans in the shed. There is no other storage area available because it is rental property. The reason the shed is so large is because it contains at least two lawn mowers, 8 to 10 tires, and belongings from a farm in Schenectady. Mr. Behr questioned whether the shed is a true accessory use, because it is perhaps being used for items other than what is associated with the principle building. Mr. Muller pointed out if he was using the shed for a construction business it would be a violation; however, because it is being used for -dead storage- it is hard to say whether or not there is a violation. Mr. Muller suggested allowing Mr. Wilson one year in which to 2 ~ clean up the yard, prove that he is not running a construction business out of the shed, and make an attempt to get the additional land. Mr. Muller moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1351, Harvey Wilson, conditionally for a period of one year. Within that year, Mr. Wilson is to store the items associated with the principal residence in the shed and clean up the area. The applicant has represented that he is trying to make efforts to attach an additional parcel of land to his narrow parcel, which may alleviate the practical difficulty. Considering that the shed has been built, it is oversized, too close to the back lot line, too close to the house, and would give an unpleasant appearance if out in the open, the Board feels that the motion is a medium approach to the problem. The Board has stated that this is an accomplished fact and it is displeased with the situation. Seconded by Mr. Turner. Mr. Wilson stated that he was in agreement with the conditions in the motion, and that everything had to be straightened up and stored inside. Mr. Muller explained that Mr. Wilson was to return in one year, if he substantially changes the facts to alleviate the practical difficulty. The Board does not require the applicant to purchase additional propertYJ however, if he is able to do so within the next year, it will make the problem less difficult for the Board and Mr. Wilson. In addition, good faith is to be shown in terms of cleaning up the area, so the Board can extend some understanding in allowing the building to remain erected. Also, there is to be no construction business and store construction equipment that is associated with the business in the building. Passed 6 Yes (Kelley, Muller, Sicard, Turner, Griffen, Behr) 1 No (Goetz) AREA VARIABCE RO. 1352 Michael DiPalma Mrs. Goetz stated that the application is to add 20 feet to the existing dock at Ridge Road, Route 9L, Warner Bay Inlet (Creek), LC-42A. The water level is preventing the use of the dock. Although there was no representative present initially, Mr. Turner said that the Board would review the application. Mr. Muller requested clarification on why the Board is to review a Variance to extend a dock. Answer: It has to do with the size of the dock and the right-of-way. Mr. people Charles running B1eibtrey, owner a charter/fishing of the property, said there are two business in the area, Tracey Stevenson 3 '--- ~ and Michael DiPalma. He has asked both of them to stop and they have refused to do so. The Town has written letters to Mr. DiPalma, however, the action has not stopped, so Mack Dean of the Building Department said he would write Mr. DiPalma another letter. Mrs. Goetz suggested reporting the action to the Town Board and the Town Supervisor. Mr. Bleibtrey presented the deed which limits the size of the docka -not to exceed the lesser of 100 square feet or half the total number of square feet permitted in such zoned district without a license or permit.- Mr. Behr felt that if this is a covenant in a deed, the Board cannot rule on it. However, Mr. Prime said the applicant is asking for something beyond what is authorized. Mr. Muller referred to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 7.011 2b) -no dock shall extend more than forty (40) feet offshore from the mean low water mark.- Tracey Stevenson, who owns the charter boat business, came forth to represent the applicant. He claimed that since complaints came from the Town and Mr. Bleibtrey, the business has stopped, although he still does run his boat in and out, he does not deal with clients at that particular point. Mr. Stevenson clarified the two separate businesses a he owns the charter boat that takes Michael DiPalma's clients fishing. Mr. DiPalma is a New York State licensed river guide. Mr. Stevenson explained that the reason for the variance to extend the dock is because the water is very shallow and, at certain times of the year, the propeller hits objects and the engine is damaged from silt. The mean low water mark is past the end of the present dock, he has measured the distance and presented it to DEC. There is a portion of the existing stake dock that is on land. Mr. Stevenson owns a 21 foot, 4 cylinder engine, 170 hp. boat, Mr. DiPalma a 19 foot boat with 180 hp. Mr. Muller asked about the status Department of Environmental Conservation. know because it is in the startup period. on the habitat, etc. of the application before the Answer a Mr. Stevenson did not DEC has to look at the effect Mr. Bleibtrey disagreed with Mr. Stevenson regarding docking, because he said he has never had a problem with his 21 foot boat. He feels Mr. Stevenson has nothing to do with the property, he does not have a right-of- way, and he is forcing himself on Mr. Bleibtrey's property to run a fish- ing business, which was still being carried on as of a week ago. Mr. Bleibtrey also mentioned that Mr. DiPalma has mentioned that he will be purchasing another boat upon his retirement and, contrary to what has been said, there is more than one boat. In since taken f~ boat his defense, Mr. Stevenson said he was telling the truth that, the Town letter was delivered to Mr. Dipalma, no charters have been off the dock. Charters have been taken from other places, and the people that he (Bleibtry) has seen are friends and not charters. The is not used solely for charter. Mr. Stevenson advised Mr. Behr that 4 ~ he is using the dock on Mr. Dipalma's authority, with no rental charge, and they have been advised they are within legal limits. Public Hearing: Mr. and Mrs. Bleibtrey spoke, however, this portion of the hearing was not on tape. Public Hearing Closed. Correspondence: Warren County Planning Board approved. Mr. Kelley moved DENIAL of Area Variance No. 1352, Michael DiPalma, as the deed which describes the dock that can be built on the property says it is limited in size and an extension cannot be built. Another diffi- culty of the dock is the location on Lake George in a shallow creek entrance and the size of the boat is limited. Seconded by Mr. Griffen. Passed unaniaously. AREA VARIANCE NO. 1353 David and Chellie Mitchell Mrs. Goetz read the request for a four-foot relief, the garage is set back 26 feet from the pedestrian walkway in lieu of the required 30 feet on Northwest Road, RC-3A. Mr. Tom Albrecht, agent, represented the project and stated that it was very difficult to turn into the former garage, before it burnt down. The new two-car garage, if approved, would be set straight in from the driveway and would measure 24 feet x 24 feet. Mr. Behr noted that the 26 foot distance noted is the farthest point from the pedestrian walkway, therefore, a relief of more than four feet will be needed. Mr. Albrecht noted that he was working from the original survey. The pedestrian walkway is a green area and is access to ski trails. Public Hearing Opened: no comment. Public Hearing Closed. Correspondence: Mrs. Goetz read letters from Michael Brandt and Shirley and Fred Shank approving the request (on file). 5 '- -- Mr. Griffin moved APPROVAL Chellie Mitchell, as they have there is no other area on the setback is 24 feet, which is a verse affect on the neighbors and of Area Variance No. 1353, David and demonstrated pratical difficulty, because property on which to build a garage. The minimum six-foot relief. There is no ad- it is a reasonable use of the property. Seconded by Mrs. Goetz. Passed unanimously. AREA VARIANCB NO. 1354 Stephen W. Adler (Builder) for Brian and Pamela Hayes Mrs. Goetz read that the house foundation, cellar and frame are com- plete on the corner of Park Place/Linden Avenue, SFR-10. The applicant misreferenced a survey point and is asking for relief from setback require- ments. Requirement is for a 30 foot front setback. The dwelling is located on a corner lot, therefore, the setbacks must be 30 feet from Linden Avenue and 30 feet from Park Place. The applicant is asking for relief from the setback on Park Place. The corners of the dwelling are setbacks of 27 feet and 25.89 feet in lieu of the required 30 feet. Mrs. Goetz read a letter from Stephen Adler dated 4/19/88, in which he requested the setback variance because the builder (Adler) had uninten- tionally violated the Town setback requirements and, since the project was well under construction, relocation of the house would be difficult and financially destructive. This lot has two fronts and the reliefs being asked for are 1.54 feet from Linden Avenue and 4.11 feet from Park Place. Mr. Muller explained that one reason this type of mistake happens is because the bank wants to see a survey to make sure the foundation is on the lot and within the setbacks, therefore, it is difficult to have the survey before the mis- take. However, Mr. Turner informed Mr. Adler that the problem could have been alleviated if the builder had not tried to crowd the front lines. Public Hearing Opened a Brian Hayesa owner Mr. Hayes presented a letter from Ed Bartholomew, Sr. supporting the project (on file). In addition, neighbors were approached to see if there was an objection, and they signed a petition to grant the Variance. Public Hearing Closed. 6 -- Mr. Behr moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1354, Stephen W. Adler (Builder). The reliefs will be 4.11 feet from Park Place; 1.54 feet from Linden Avenue. The practical difficulty is the unintentional spotting of the foundation on the property, and there is no negative affect on the neighborhood. Seconded by Mr. Turner. Passed unanimously. AREA VARIANCE RO. 1355 Freda Tierney Mrs. Goetz read that this is for construction of a 348 sq. ft. addi- tion onto the existing camp on the east side of Cleverdale Road, two doors north of the Post Office, LR-1A. There will be one additional bedroom, and there will be an extension (addition) constructed onto the porch. If the Variance is approved, there will be a total of three bedrooms. The proposed addition/alterations will improve the side lot setback violation from 5 feet to 8 feet. Bill Tierney, agent, represented the project. Mr. Sehr noted a cor- rection in the Legend: there is no porch -C,- it has yet to be built. Mr. Tierney noted his corrections I 1) the addition is 348 sq. ft. (not 248 sq. ft.): 240 sq. ft. addition to the second level, 108 sq. ft. addition at the ground level, plus about 100 sq. ft. addition to the porch. 2) On the Plot Plan at Porch -A-, the distance between the porch and right-of-way (boundary line) is 7 feet not 9 feet (pre-existing). 3) On the variance, Page 1, #8, rent is accepted from relatives basically during the entire summer season. The purpose of the renovation is to take a old camp that has had additions at different times, and turn it into a build- ing with architectural integrity and style. Adirondack Contracting has obtained a permit for the new septic system, with the new plans and dimensions of the house in mind. The new system will only service the little camp. The discharge is into a septic tank, then gravitates into a pump station, and pumps into two dry wells on the lake side of the garage. It is a functioning system and will remain as is. The dry wells for the new septic tank will be between the camp to be renovated and the garage, the feeder will go to a distribution box going south and then the leach lines going in front of the garage. The existing building -F- on the plan will be completely rebuilt into a two-story structure; the size of -F and H- combined. This will be a new structure. -H- will be on 8- Sonotube footings dug five foot deep and 7 '- -- beams installed. Mr. Behr noted the setback variations I a 2 ft. setback on the north; and 1 feet on the south. Public ReariDg Opeaedl Support I Joan Robertsonl Cleverdale Mrs. Robertson asked if the owner was planning to insulate and pos- sibly convert to year-round use. Answer I According to DEC requirements, insulation is a necessity. Mrs. Robertson felt that two year-round structures on the site would be detrimental to Lake George. Mr. Muller advised that the site can be converted to year-round camp; even though there are two camps, they pre-exist. She is not against the Variance. Opposedl Joseph Vendettil neighbor to the north He is not necessarily objecting, but requesting information. 1) The building has a gambrel roof and the height will increase by about two feet. The building will be squared off. Increasing the height by two feet does not require a Variance. 2) The proposed increase is approx- imately 458 square feet increase including porches. 4) The purpose of the property is for rental. 3) No building has been started. 4) Work has been done in the past such as replacing floorboards on the porch. 5) This is not commercial property, any property can be rented. Public Bearing Closed. Mr. Kelley requested to know the existing square footage of the living space. Answer I 643 square feet, or about 50% increase. The number of rooms increases by one; the increase to ground level takeup is about 100 feet of living building and about 100 feet of porch. The reason for the extension is to make the existing rooms livable size; the present bedroom is barely big enough for a bed. The garage and parking is for both camps and there is enough room; there is no parking on Cleverdale Road. Mr. Vendetti was informed that there are two main buildings on the same lot. No Variance is required, because the existing structures are pre-existing, non-conforming. No Variance is required to use both build- ings. Mr. Vendetti informed the Board he had originally requested a postpone- ment of the opinion; he is now making the same request. Mrs. Goetz read the request dated May 17 (on file); however, Mr. Prime said that unless there is something specific, the review should continue. Correspondence I Warren County Planning Board approved. 8 -- --- Mr. Behr moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1355, Freda Tierney. The relief asked for is minimal. The request asked for is an extra two feet on the North side and a one foot setback on the South side. Seconded by Mrs. Goetz. Passed unanimously. AREA VARIAlICE RO. 1356 Wesley C. Veysey Building Contractor for William Powers Mrs. Goetz stated this is for the construction of professional offices/stores at the corner of Dix Avenue and Park Avenue, HC-15. At pre- sent the land is vacant. Because of the size of the property a building cannot be constructed within the setback requirements. Wesley C. Veysey represented the project and said that he is in the process of purchasing the property from Mr. Powers, with the contingency that a Variance is granted. He is not acting as agent for Mr. Powers. He explained that the site is a unique-shaped parcel of land, which is 50 feet wide bordering on Dix Avenue, it is a corner lot bordering on Park Avenue, extends down Park Avenue 153 feet. The problem is trying to place a building on the property in a suitable manner for its designated use. Mrs. Goetz asked about the number of professional offices. Answer I The building is going to be 24 feet wide and 40 feet deep; the plan is to divide it up into two stores, either combination of professional office and store or two offices or two stores. They would have to be a low-volume type of business. Ingress/egress would be only from Park Avenue; parking would be at the rear of the building and there would be one entrance. Front portion (north side) will be a green area, and the septic will be located there. Mr. Griffin felt the lot to be very narrow for a building. Mr. Veysey did not know how actively Mr. Powers had tried to sell the property for Highway Commercial use, perhaps a year at least. Public Hearing Openedl Support I none Opposed I Donald Hessl Hess Ventures Mr. Hess was not exactly in opposition, but requested some clarifi- cation. 1) Regarding no negative effect on the neighborhood, he asked what type of Variance is being requested. The current setback require- ments would have to be changed extensively, which he feels would be 9 '--- a negative affect on the rest of the neighborhood. 2) The area has a great deal of rock ledge. Will the small property support a septic system for a professional office building? On the Hess property the rock ledge varies from the surface down to about five or six feet. Mr. Turner pointed out that, with professional offices, there will be the barest amen- ities. 3) How close are the applicants planning to encroach? 8 feet on the building and 10 feet on the parking. It should be 20 feet between commercial. Mr. Hess remarked that the building would not interfere with his operation, unless the drainage came onto his property. That is a real concern, especially since the applicant's elevation is higher. The flood- ing fills the blacktop driveway. Several years ago, Mr. Hess told Mr. Powers that he would be interested in buying the property if he wanted to sell it, however, neither party has approached each other recently. Mr. Veysey said there would be a 10 foot buffer at the parking line. The Beautification Committee is strongly suggesting that a hedge row be planted in parking space '10, thereby leaving nine spaces. The runoff is being pitched more towards Park Avenue. A 50 foot buffer is required between the commercial land, which borders on residential. Maggie Seney: Ms. Avenue. Seney wanted to request that no parking be allowed on Park She was told that all parking will be on the property. Public Hearing Closed. Correspondence: Warren County Planning Board approved. Beautification Committee approved with stipulations (Exhibit A). Mr. Muller moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1356, Wesley C. Veysey. The applicant needs relief from two front setbacks: 25 feet from Dix Avenue (required 50 feet), on the West, 18 feet from Park Avenue (required 50 feet). On the rear or southerly side, there will be no buffer zone, but the applicant has agreed to comply with the Beautifi- cation Committee alternatives. On the East, the requirement is 20 feet and the building will be eight feet. This is a reasonable use because the property stands independent and alone, and is pre-existing and non- conforming. The many uses listed in the Highway Commercial zone would be inappropriate. This request is the least offensive for such a small lot. The practical difficulty has been demonstrated, and the applicant will comply with the Beautification Committee recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Turner. Passed Votes: 6 Yes (Kelley, Muller, Sicard, Turner, Griffen, Behr) 1 No (Goetz) 10 '~ --- AREA VARIANCB NO. 1357 Donald E. Nolte Mrs. construct bedroom, ft. 6 in. Goetz read the application to remove a mobile home trailer and an addition onto the existing building, which will be used for a on Assembly point, LR-1A. The setback on the north end will be 2 in lieu of the required 5 feet. Mr. Nolte represented the used as a bedroom. The plan is square up the whole building, entire structure, which will property to the north is all the woods, and beyond that is a front. project. The trailer at present is being to get rid of the trailer, add a bedroom, extend the porch, put a new roof over the be covered with Texture 111. Bob Randles' woods. There is a driveway that goes past parking area. Mr. Randles' camp is far in Pu~lic Bearing Openedr no comment PUblic Bearing Closedr Correspondencer Warren County Planning Board approved. Mr. Sicard moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1357, Donald E. Nolte. a reasonable request as it is good improvement to remove the The practical difficulty is that the camp and setback already none of this will be changed. This is trailer. exist and Seconded by Mr. Kelley. Passed uaa.lmo.sly. USB VARIUCB RO. 1358 AREA VARIANCB RO. 1359 Jeffery Bean Mrs. Goetz read that this is construction for a 24 ft. x 24 ft. two-car garage on the northerly side of Lake Sunnyside North, SR-30. The parcel in question is a pre-existing, non-conforming lot of record and is 50 ft. in width and 150 ft. in depth. The applicant has been advised by the Building Department that it cannot issue a Building Permit for an accessory use, such as a garage, where no primary use is planned, unless the Zoning Board of Appeals grants a Use Variance. The applicant is also requesting an Area Variance, both the north and south side setbacks cannot 11 '~ be met. 15 feet. Setbacks will be 13 feet from each side in lieu of the required Robert Stewart, Esq., represented the project and mentioned that he feels a number of years ago the parcels in the subject area were cut in two by a road. His clients have a residence on the front lot, which is closest to the lake, and are left with the back lot, it is separate and distinct. Sunnyside Road would be the front of the lot. There is no room for another garage on the main house lot. The reason for the second garage is that the family is growing and the owners would like to expand their house on the lakefront. Mr. Stewart stated that he would abide by any conditions made, iel garage only, no utilities, no living quarters, no kitchens, etc. The hardship is that the lot is not suitable and would not generate a fair return if used for the use required by the Ordinance, which is a single family residence. A 50 foot wide lot is not wide enough for a residence, and would not be good for the neighborhood. The Use Vari- ance for the garage would be the most minimal deviation that could be considered, even better than a house. Mr. Kelley felt the garage would be a lesser use than a structure with a septic system and well. Mr. Behr expressed concern that the garage will not be used as a garage. Mr. Stewart presented a petition signed by the neighbors indicating that they are in support of the garage. Mr. Muller expressed his thoughts that it would be better to have open space instead of a house, and the neighbors would rather see a garage there in lieu of open storage, iel cars, boats. The client will abide by a stipulation that the structure will be used as a garage as an accessory or use incidental to the residence across the street. Mr. Stewart acknow- ledged to Mrs. Goetz that the garage will not be used for commercial rental, a business, residential use (temporary or permanent), it will be limited exclusively to a garage to service the adjacent house. Public Hearing Opened I no comment Public Hearing Closed. Correspondence I Warren County Planning Board approved. Mr. Kelley moved APPROVAL of Use Variance No. 1358, Jeffrey Bean. The intended use of the 24 foot x 24 foot garage is a less intensive use than what could be put there under the present zoning. The reasonable return question would be waived. The uniqueness of the property is 50 feet x 150 feet in depth. The proposed garage is a minimum structure to put on the lot, and there will be ample space in the rear to protect the openness of the neighborhood. It will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. There will be stipulations as follows I 1) it will be limited to a two-car garage, 2) used for the storage of the owner's personal property, 3) no 12 --- -' living quarters, 4) it will be a private parking garage with no commercial use and no rental. This is a pre-existing, non-conforming lot of record. The access to the garage will be from Sunnyside Drive. Seconded by Mrs. Goetz. Passed unanimously. Mr. Stewart tion for Area motion. stated Variance he would waive all the formalities of a presenta- No. 1359, therefore, Mr. Turner called for a Mr. Kelley moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1359, Jeffrey Bean. The applicant has proposed to build a 24 foot x 24 foot garage, located in the center of a 50 foot x 150 foot lot, which leaves a 13 foot side set- back on each side, rather than the required 15 feet on each side. The practical difficulty is the width of the lot. This is a minimal relief and a reasonable use of the property. Seconded by Mr. Sicard. Passed unanimously. AREA VARIANCE NO. 1360 Harry Ruecker Mrs. Goetz stated this proposal is for a four-lot subdivision of Parcel II with the entire beachfront parcel being dedicated to the use of Parcel II, with the provision that no residence is to be constructed on the common area parcel, LR-lA. Parcel I is located on the west side of Gunn Lane and Parcel II is located on the east side of Gunn Lane. Mr. Robert Stewart, Esq., represented the project. Mr. Ruecker has four small cabins on the Parcel II and docks on the Parcel I, which he rents. The docks mayor may not be in conjunction with the cabins. There have been social problems and friction between the owner and the neigh- bors. A previous application was made to build a house on the beachfront lot, that it was separate and distinct from the back lot, and pre-existing and non-conforming. In addition, a request was made to convert four rental cabins into four private ownerships. This was denied by the Warren County Planning Board, Queensbury Planning Board, and opposed bitterly by the neighbors, the application was withdrawn. A revised concept was made which included dividing the back land into roughly equal size, dedicating the 155 ft. beach lot exclusively to the four lots, so there would be no 13 ~ building on the beach lot. It would be used to provide access to bathing and boat docking for owners of the four lots. This concept was presented to the Queensbury Planning Board on May 17. The essence of the meeting is that the neighbors and Board feel that the proposal of four lots, no beach construction, the beach is not to be used for commercial purposes or as a marina, but only to support the four back lots, is a good compromise and are in favor of it, in principle. The neighbors want to see in writing what Mr. Ruecker plans to do, the lot lines, etc. The Planning Board felt that, if the Zoning Board does not approve the concept of the four-lot subdivision, there is no point in reviewing the details because it is an impossibility without the Zoning Board's approval. The reason for the Area Variance is because the land is just shy of four acres, the requirement is one acre per parcel. Each lot will most likely not be the same size because of water, lowlands, septic systems, etc. Mr. Stewart advised that Mr. Ruecker plans to build his home on Lot #2 and, as the camps are sold, the new owners will most likely tear down the old camps and build new homes. The lots per acre, if divided as shown on the map today, would bea Lot #1, .81, Lot #2, .97, Lot #3, .93, and Lot #4, 1 acre. Mr. Stewart reviewed for Mrs. Goetz the problems in the neighborhood. The people who rent the cabins have boats, people outside the area keep their boats there, there is an illegal marina, and loud parties. It is unknown at this point how many docks the Lake George Park Commission will allow. Mr. Ruecker will make a commitment that there will be no commer- cial renting of any docks and the docks will be used exclusively by the four property owners in the back. Public Hearing Openeda Jim Hagena neighbor on Gunn Lane In tion. hood. work part Mr. concept, the neighbors are in agreement with Mr. Stewart's presenta- This is the first productive step to improve the entire neighbor- If the Board will agree to the basic concept, and the neighbors can out the details with the Planning Board, there will be for the most a pretty happy neighborhood. Speaking for the neighbors and himself, Hagen stated that, at this point and for conceptual presentation only, neighbors are in favor of the Variance. the Ronald Faulknera neighbor Mr. Faulkner is representing himself, his wife and Mr./Mrs. Lloyd Lawrence. The Faulkner property is Lot # 13 on the water, four lots south of the subject beachfront and in front of proposed Lot '4. He agrees in concept that he and the neighbors would like to see the variance approved. He feels it important that some type of approval be granted. Mr. Ruecker 14 has not been a good neighbor and there has to be faith that he will sell these parcels to people who will improve the class of the neighborhood. The waterfront is also of a concern; it must be kept as one parcel. Public Hearing Closeda Correspondence a for one month. Warren County Planning Board tabled the application Mr. Kelley asked the residents if there was conversation regarding dividing the back lot into three parcels that would meet the ordinance versus four that do not. Mr. Faulkner said he made that suggestion at the planning Board meeting; however, he wanted to compromise so that the waterfront could be ·sealed· so that nothing could be built on the beach. The neighbors said they could live with four parcels, and he was not in disagreement. Mr. Faulkner's lot is 100 ft. x 185 ft., approximately; Mr. Hagen's lot is 230 ft. x 2.5 acres. Mr. stewart acknowledge to Mr. Muller that the 3.2 acres on the east side could legally be divided into three lots and the beachfront parcel remain in its entirety. In answer to Mr. Griffin regarding control of the docks, they are a Site Plan Review matter, in addition to the Lake George Park Commission or the DEC, whichever commission is in charge. Mr. Muller moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1360, Harry Ruecker. This Area Variance approval will allow a four-lot subdivision. The pro- posed lots are less than a one-acre requirement. The practical difficulty and tortured history of the property has been demonstrated. As proposed, there will be no adverse effect on the neighborhood, as it will be an improvement. There is no negative impact on public facilities. One feas- ible alternative, without a variance, would be that the 3.2 acre parcel that is not associated with the lake frontage could be made into three conforming lots. The applicant would then be able to build a dwelling on the lakefront lot, because it is a pre-existing, non-conforming parcel. This would be unacceptable. The acceptable alternative is to keep the lakeside lot as an undivided, common area solely for the property owners of this subdivision. The neighbors seem to agree to this proposal because they have not objected to it. The zoning Board of Appeals is advising the Town Planning Board that the Zoning Board's approval is on condition that the lakefront lot is to remain a common area solely for the property owners of the four lots in the proposal, with no construction. There will be no lot smaller than the smallest lot on the proposed map, which will be 30,800 square feet. Seconded by Mr. Behr. passed unanimously. 15 -- AREA VARIABCE NO. 1361 Gorman H. Rich Mrs. Goetz read the application to construct an open deck 55 ft. long on the lake side and 20 ft. on the south end on Glen Lake, Jay Road, SFR-30. Also proposed is construction of a 14 ft. x 16 ft. addition to be used as a bedroom. In another two to three years, the applicant wishes to use the dwelling as a permanent home. Mr. Gorman Rich represented the project and stated that this will be used as a permanent home. When Mr. Sehr disagreed with the footage shown on the map, Mr. Rich informed him that the land has eroded about 20 feet over the years; there is a marker six feet out from the shore. Mr. Sehr also questioned 75 feet of deck; however, Mr. Rich said that the land can- not be used for sitting or walking because it is very soggy, and any other use is very marginal. Two alternatives would be a concrete slab or a deck, and he felt the deck was better for appearance and would get better use. The septic system will not be overloaded because the Rich's will be in Florida part time. The neighbors do not oppose. Public Hearing Opened. no comment Public Rearing Closed. Mr. Turner moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1361, Gorman H. Rich. The applicant has testified that the property on the lakeside has eroded to some degree and makes the condition relevant that he needs the deck. The ground is soggy and cannot be used. The relief is 36 feet on the North and 20 feet on the West. The practical difficulty is that the house pre-existed. Seconded by Mr. Griffin. Passed unaniaously. AREA VARIANCE NO. 1362 S. Paul Miller Mrs. Goetz stated this is construction of a sun roof (7 ft. x 19 ft.), and construction of a laundry/utility room (12 ft. x 19 ft.) on Sunnyside Road North. The parcel is a pre-existing, non-conforming lot. Mr. Paul Miller represented the project and mentioned two errors in 16 ---- the application: 1) the small greenhouse is a sun roof construction (7 ft. x 19 ft.) and 2) the laundry/utility room is 12 ft. x 19 ft. There has been no survey yet because of the delay on part of the surveyors. The lines perpendicular to the lakeshore have been pretty well defined, but the back line is questionable. Mr. Miller has a verbal commitment on the first option to purchase the property to the south, which is pre-existing and non-conforming. The property in question was destroyed by fire. Mr. Miller does plan to rebuild the deck back to its former lines, facing the lake would be a master bedroom area. The area in between will have a balcony into the sun room, with two bedrooms in the back. Mr. Miller presented an elevation drawing of the building. Phase I would incorporate the house renovation. Phase II would be the garages, if Lot 66 is purchased. The second story deck area will be built only on the lake side. The dormer will stay the same, but a wood arch would be installed up into the roof system, so there will be a balcony by the cathedral ceiling. Therefore one would be able to look from the second story into the lower level. The well does not exist, if 100 ft. from the septic cannot be maintained, Mr. Miller said he will draw from the lake. Mr. Muller asked for clarification of the expansion of the dwelling. There will be encroachments with the new kitchen addition and new sun porch. There will be reconstruction of an existing porch. The deck did exist but, because of the deterioration of the lumber, it had to be torn down. The beam structure is still there and there will be no expansion beyond that point, just replacing the joist system. There will be no encroachment with the new porch. Public Hearing Opened: Support: David Pine: lives across the driveway. Mr. Pine it will be an neighborhood. it was good to wanted to go on record as favoring the project overall, and improvement to the existing dwelling and to the looks of the The former tenants were very unfavorable, and Mr. Pine felt have a year-round resident. Dick Cutting: Lake Sunnyside Mr. Cutting is in favor of Mr. Miller building his house. In the past, he has experienced a great deal of renovation in the house, but it was of poor quality and did not last. He verified that Mr. Miller would do it properly. In addition to several fine constructions, Mr. Cutting noted that Mr. Miller was the general contractor for the medical building in Whitehall. Opposed: none Public Hearing Closed. 17 '--- Correspondence: Warren County Planning Board approved. Mr. Turner moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1362, S. Paul Miller. The practical difficulty is that the lot pre-existed and is non-conform- ing, and all the lots in the area are small. The setback variance will be as follows: S ft. 6 in. in North, 14 ft. on the rear in the Northeast corner, and 7 feet on the South side. Seconded by Mr. Griffin. Passed unaaiaously. SIGN VARIAlCE NO. 1363 Lake George Plaza Outlet Center GMP Associates Mrs. Goetz stated that the proposal is for two free-standing signs that would indicate -Lake George Plaza Parking- on Route 9 North, south of Route 149, HC-lS. Also proposed is a free-standing sign that would indi- cate -Lake George Plaza Outlet Center,- this sign would be replacing the existing sign there now. The seven (7) existing signs on the front of the building are proposed to be placed onto the roof/canopy. There was no representative for the project. Mr. Tom Jones, of Tom's Exit 20 Motel, wanted to express for the record his deep concern for the lack of concern on the part of the Lake George Plaza Outlet Center. Before a decision was made by the Board, three residents requested to express their views, as they had waited five hours at this meeting for the application to be heard. Public Hearing Opened: Tom Jones: Tom's Exit 20 Motel Mr. Jones said he personally has no objection to the signs over the roof, no objection to the free-standing sign which is more in keeping with the present signs. He is not sure of the purpose of the large parking signs. Bob Eddy: Mr. Eddy presented pictures taking in the morning. He noted that the colors do not conform to the specifications and do not conform to what was originally presented. The signs do not do anything for the Adirondack image, which is all rustic. There is no reason why the parking signs could not be four square feet, which is conforming, or the signs on the 18 -- - canopy. He does suggest that a directory be placed on either side of the doors to the inside, and on both ends of the building. He advised the Board that much of the building is vacant. David Kenny: property to the north Mr. Kenny expressed his thoughts that he does not know why the appli- cant is in for a variance for the canopy signs, because they are legal. The parking lot signs are way oversized, they are not in with the charac- ter of the neighborhood, in addition, the other store owners are making an attempt to color-coordinate the signs and make them uniform. He strongly opposes the application. Mr. Kenny further stated that, if the applicants do re-app1y, they should only come in for the signs that do not meet the code. Mr. Behr moved DENIAL of Outlet Center.. The request is magnitude and not represented, is denying the Sign Variance. Sign Variance No. 1363, Lake George Plaza excessive and, anything submitted of this is a problem. Because of this, the Board Seconded by Mr. Sicard. Passed unanimously. ZONING BOARD BUSINBSS USE VARIANCE NO. 1327 Glen Gregory Mr. Turner received a letter from Bartlett, pontiff, Stewart, eta a1. stating that the applicant has withdrawn his application. Meeting adjourned at 12:40 a.m. ~Çl~ Theodore Turner, Chairman Minutes transcribed ~ary J~ F.~ler, Steno~rapher ¡ ~ ;t-'7~ (p, b· ff 19 -- ~- r.::ç- Jown 0/ QueentJbup'j Q!jEENSBUR Y TOWN OFFICE BUILDING BAY AT HAVILAND ROAD QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK, 12801 TELEPHONE: (518) 792-5832 5/6/88 To: Warren County Planning Board Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals Applicant From: Robert L. Eddy, Chairman ~ Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification Re: Variance #1386 Wesley Veysey Dix and Park Avenue Planting plans for this setback variance were approved. Instead of plants appearing like wooden soldiers along the front, west and south sides of the building, it was recommended that cluster planting be used with either a columner or pyramidal evergreen be used at each corner of the building, each surrounded by two low-growing spreading yews or deciduous shrubs, such as burning bush (cork bark euonymous). Flowers are to be planted to provide summer color. Grass is planned between Dix Avenue and the front of the building and the entire length of the east side of the property. A dumpster will be placed on the east side at the rear of the building screened by a chainlink fence with plastic slats. The residence to the south will be screened by a hemlock hedge placed in a staggered fashion three feet apart. All plants will be mulched with fiberglass mat covered with suitable material or 4 to 5 inches of other mulch. ¿ 'XII-113fT ,/1 SETTLED 1763. . . HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE - flII"'" . -- Jown 0/ Queen:Jbuf''1 Q1JEENSBU~ Y TOWN OFFICE BUILDING ~ ........:. ( ---~. .".- .---.--..._--'---'-'-~-----.- ....__.:;::.:x:~__.-,--) ,-,.. /, BAY IU HAVILAND ROAD QUEI:NSßURY, NEW YORK, 12801 TELEPIIONE: ()18) H2-5832 Hay 16, 1988 Mr. Joseph Kelly, H,cgioUi.d Traffic Engineer NYS Dept. of Transportation 84 Holland Ave" Albany, NY 12208 HE: Courthouse Estates, Town of Queensbury, Warren County Dear Hr. Kelly: , Thank you for you rapid response to our request of Hay 3,.;:We sincendy appreciate your speed and detailed suggestions. We have grave concerns about adding additional traffic Road - even if it was a genuine possibility for a new road. s new entrance road there does not seem to be possible. to the Glen Lake At this moment, The Glen Lake Road/Route 9 accidents over the years, and has problems south of the intersection. intersection a definite has been the limitation due scene of to sight numerous distance We believe that the Exit 20 signal proposal is best because'- of the dght angle alignment of the proposed intersection, and because of the existing light. The existing "bike/snowmobile trail" is only a dirt path, with no official designation. It is not part of a trail system of any so£t, and its loss would not be a negative factor. , - So that you lIIay help us to resolve this issue, we request that a member of your staff visit this site with our Senior Planner, Lee York. We realÜ.e the burdens of your time schedule, but ask that you help us within the next week. if possible. This entire issue has taken on proportions of concern for beyond what was anticipated, and we need professional guidance from DOT to permit us to resolve our problem ~. -' Thank you again fOI~ your interest. , '--~ .-/. ) Sß:sa cc:Hrs. York JE Taylor lŒ Steffens EXHIBIT B ~1111.l.LJ l/ú3" .IIIJMI III r1^IIIIU.1 I\i Alii I ",\ (,(JiI II"d I I( II...·