Loading...
1991-03-27 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 27TH, 1991 INDEX Area Variance No. 25-1991 Dr. Joseph & Rose Guerra 1. Area Variance No. 19-1991 Glens Falls. NY Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. Robert Chattin 2. Use Variance No. 20-1991 Glens Falls, NY Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. Robert Chattin 6. Area Variance No. 23-1991 Area Variance No. 21-1991 Area Variance No. 22-1991 Area Variance No. 24-1991 Linda and Robert Wall 8. Alice M. Genthner 11. Margaret F. & Theodore M. Hans 13. David and Cathleen Gallagher 21. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 27TH, 1991 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER. CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ. SECRETARY JOYCE EGGLESTON CHARLES SICARD JEFFREY KELLEY BRUCE CARR MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL SHEA DEPUTY TOlIN ATTORNEY- KARLA CORPUS PLANNER-JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES February 20th. 1991: Page 15. down at the bottom of the page. where it says Hubbles old beach. sib Hovels old beach; Page 28, fifth one up from the bottom, Mr. Stewart is speaking. at the very end of the fi rst sentence. I'm here toni ght wi th a Mr. Harriman the Presi dent of C. D. K. Electri c; Page 9, down at the bottom. Motion to approve Area Variance 78-1990. it says they're seeking a variance from the rear yard setback. The requirement is a 30 foot rear yard setback and this particular plan shows the building to be 10 feet from the rear property line. This would be a variance of ~ feet at the rear. not 30 MOTION TO APPROVE THE ABOVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption. seconded by Susan Goetz: Duly adopted this 27th day of March. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley. Mr. Sicard. Mrs. Goetz. Mr. Carr. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Eggleston ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. TURNER-Before we get started. we have one application, the very last one, Area Variance No. 25-1991. withdrawn until next month by the applicant. MR. GORALSKI-Actually. Mr. Chairman. that's a request to be tabled. MR. TURNER-Tabled, right. MR. GORALSKI-I would recommend that the Board pass a motion to that respect and if you wish. include in your motion that the applicant should pay for re-advertisement of the public hearing. MRS. GOETZ-Could I ask a question on that one? Was that the same exact application that we had before and denied? MR. GORALSKI-No. It's a not. MRS. GOETZ-A little bit of a difference. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. GORALSKI-It's a slightlY different application. MR. TURNER-All right. We'll have a motion. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-1991 DR. JOSEPH I ROSE GUERRA. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Bruce Carr: 1 - At the request of the applicant and that the applicant will pay the fee to re-advertise the application. Duly adopted this 27th day of March. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard. Mrs. Goetz. Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Kelley. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-1991 TYPE II LI-lA GLENS FALLS, NY CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, ROBERT CHATTIN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CORNER OF CORINTH AND OGDEN ROADS FOR AN EXPAllSION OF THE AUDITORIUM WITH 24 FT. BY 40 FT. ADDITIO" ON THE SOUTH END OF THE KINGDOM HALL AND ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER, SQUARE IT OFF FOR MORE OFFICE SPACE. ADDITION WILL BE 6 FT. FROM PROPERTY LINE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 147-1-8 LOT SIZE: 53,000 SQ. FT. SECTION 4.020 ff, 4.032 ROBERT CHATTIN. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski. Planner. Area Variance No. 19-1991. GF, NY Congo of Jehovah's Witnesses. dated March 25. 1991. Meeting Date: March 27. 1991 "The applicant requires an area variance to construct the proposed addition 6 feet from the property line. A 15 foot sideyard setback is required. It does not appear that there are special circumstances applying to this property nor does it appear that the applicant is being denied reasonable use of the property. The applicant states that a 15 foot setback "would create an unworkable shape." This is not a practical difficulty. This proposal would not be materially detrimental to the Ordinance or to properties in the area. There would be no impact on public facilities or services." MR. GORALSKI-Excuse me. Mr. Turner. I made an incorrect statement there. that the required sideyard setback in the Light Industrial One Acre Zone is 30 feet. not 15. MR. TURNER-Right. MRS. GOETZ-John. I thought there was a front setback required also. MR. TURNER-There is. The office is in the front. John. the vestibule in the front has got to be 50 feet. They're putting a little addition there. in the front. It's got to be 50 feet. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. I guess they need a one foot six inch variance from the front yard setback also. for that vestibule part. MR. TURNER-A 50 foot front. MR. GORALSKI-Right. is required. So they would need one foot six inches of relief. MR. KELLEY-Does this lot have two fronts. because Corinth Road's an arterial right? MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. KELLEY-And it fronts on that as well as Ogden Road. MR. TURNER-Right. Yes. it's got to. MR. KELLEY-So that's a 75 foot. right? MR. TURNER-That's 75 there. right. MR. KELLEy-It has two fronts. It fronts on Corinth Road and Ogden Road and that's one of those designated arterial roads. MR. TURNER-It's the corner lot. Two fronts, 75 from Corinth Road. MR. GORALSKI-That's right. Corinth is a designated arterial. MR. KELLEY-So it's got to be 75 foot. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. TURNER-Yes. 2 -" MR. GOETZ-Jeff. what page is the arterial road? MR. KELLEY-Page 59. MRS. EGGLESTON-Did you find it. Sue? MRS. GOETZ-It's under Page 61, the regulations of. you know. MR. GORALSKI-What is it you're looking for? MRS. GOETZ-The 75 feet back. MRS. EGGLESTON-Where it says 75. MR. GORALSKI-Corinth Road is an arterial road and therefore a 75 foot setback is required. MR. KELLEY-It's on that page that I just mentioned. 4.032. Page 59. It's under 4.033. All buildings herein erected. MRS. GOETZ-I see it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Thank you, Jeff. MR. KELLEY-So we've got that one plus. MR. TURNER-Plus the front. plus the rear. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. MR. KELLEY-Well. the other front needed to be what? MR. TURNER-That's 50 feet. MR. GORALSKI-It's 50 from Ogden Road. 75 feet from Corinth Road and 30 feet from the side. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. TURNER-John, what's that scale off with your ruler there. from Corinth Road? MR. GORALSKI-To Corinth Road? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Well, according to the dimensions on the plan it's 48 feet 6 inches from the property line to the building and from Ogden Road it scales out to approximately 40 feet. I can't tell you exactly. I don't have an architect's scale with me. MR. KELLEY-Well. the dimension from Ogden Road to the existing building on my map, it looks like that's 54 feet and if the little proposed addition sticks out 10. that would be 44. MR. GORALSKI-Then it would be 44. right. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. TURNER-All right. Is that it? Have you read everything? MRS. GOETZ-No. The Warren County Planning Board returned saying. "No County Impact". MR. TURNER-All right. Who's going to represent the applicant? MR. CHATTIN-Robert Chattin. MR. TURNER-Okay. Does anyone have any questions of Mr. Chattin? MR. KELLEY-Mr. Chattin. I guess you're proposed addition I think it stated was a meeting place. right. or that's the present use? MR. CHATTIN-Right. MR. KELLEY-And this addition is going to be to. what. a main? 3 - MR. CHATTIN-The main auditorium, the major. the big addition. the 24 by 40. The other part wou1d just give us a 1itt1e office space, the one up in the corner. MR. KELLEY-The 10 foot by 10 foot 8 inch. MR. CHATTIN-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Okay. There isn't any way to incorporate that into the other addition some way, is there? MR. CHATTIN-We11, that's kind of one of those things where it's. MR. KELLEY-I don't know. I didn't see the interior 1ayout of the bu11ding. So I'm not fam11iar with what you've got going on. MR. CHATTIN-We have some office space in that corner and we've got a coat room out. kind of what we're doing is just going out and running between the two and we'd open it up and have more office space. MR. KELLEY-So that's an office. then. I guess I'd ask the question. what are your 10ng term future p1ans for this piece of property and the bui1ding? Do you have anticipated a 10t more growth or? MR. CHATTIN-Not rea11y. Not in the sense of ever having to expand. You see. the expansion isn't rea11y brought on. I wou1d say. so much by growth as to end up with more space on the interior that we can use. Perhaps even some of it a 1itt1e bit different1y than we're using right now. We certain1y. it's not very feasib1e to bu11d. We needed even more office space than that 11tt1e space in the corner and if we pushed our auditorium kind of ahead. that wou1d 1eave us, we cou1d partition off the back and we have two, what we ca11 theocratic ministry schoo1s and right now we're meeting one in a 1ibrary area and one in a sma11er office and it's kind of cramped. So if we pushed the auditorium. the auditorium won't actua11y seat if we got done. It's going to seat the same amount. It's just that we'11 have the space at the back to use. MR. KELLEY-I guess I just 100k at the shape of the 10t and the size of it and square footage. You've basica11y got a 10t of square footage. It's the shape of it that cou1d be restrictive. I guess that's why I asked about the future. If it sounded 11 ke you were going to go major expansion in the next 10 years. you know. wou1d you be better off to 100k at another piece of property or try to buy additiona1 1ands. MR. CHATTIN-True. No, usua11y. if our current Congregations get 1arger, as far as the number of peop1e that are part of it. we 1ike to keep them in a manageab1e size and usua11y we end up dividing it. more or 1ess. and ending up with two Congregations meeting in the same bu11ding rather than just trying to get a bigger bui1ding. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. TURNER-So, basica11y. right now. the 1ayout of the bu11ding that's existing. you have to shuff1e a 10t of things around to uti1ize it for what it was meant for? MR. CHATTIN-Yes. To what we're using it for, as far as, 1ike. the schoo1s that we have to train our peop1e to speak we11 pub1ic1y. MR. TURNER-We11. cou1d you come up here and maybe sketch out where the partitions are so I can kind of get a fee1 for what's inside. MR. CHATTIN-Okay. Right now, interna11y, it's probab1y 11ke this and go down and take a jog. We've got restrooms down in this area. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CHATTIN-We have one office space up in this area. Over this way we have a spot just about 1ike that. This is our 1ibrary. MR. TURNER-Then the rest of this is open? MR. CHATTIN-The rest of this is open. inc1uding this part where you wa1k in 1ike this. MR. TURNER-Okay. So then this is the genera1 meeting room? MR. CHATTIN-Right. Yes. this is where a11 the seating is. We have a stage down at this end. It goes across. about 1ike that. MR. TURNER-Right. So then this. where the vestibu1e now is. you're going to open this? 4 ..- MR. CHATTIN-Well, what we're going to do is go from this room. out. is what we would do and we'd leave this alone. where it is. the carport. The vestibule would stay. actually. where it is. It's just that we would be able to. if we built on here. we could go out this way. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. CHATTIN-Because with the bathrooms on the front. there's nothing. Plus you're already close to Corinth Road. MR. TURNER-All right. MR. CHATTIN-We couldn't see any other way to even add on. I mean. if you come out so many feet. you're back. already. on to Ogden Road. MR. KELLEY-No matter what you do. you've got to get a variance. MR. CHATTIN-Yes. MR. KELLEY-What's you're, well. you're not anticipating. really. adding on. in terms of the number of members. MR. CHATTIN-No. MR. KELLEY-So you're parking situation shouldn't be any different than it currently is. MR. CHATTIN-That would be about right. We don't use all of our parking. even now. down in the L-shaped part of the lot. It's mainly along the main area. Once in a while. if we happen to have a special meeting where there's more people invited, then they go down around the corner. MR. KELLEY-You haven't had a problem where you're parking on the street or an overflow that way? MR. CHATTIN-No. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. TURNER-All right. MR. CARR-I have one question. Why are we doing the area variance first because if we give a six foot side yard setback. then what's the sense of even talking about whether we're going to give a use variance? MR. TURNER-We're doing it in the order it's on the agenda. MR. CARR-Right. but I think, just for the future, if there's a use and an area variance. always do the use variance first because if you give them the area variance, we can't deny the use variance. otherwise he wouldn't need the six foot setback. MR. KELLEY-It has it's own criteria. MR. CARR-Right, but I'm just saying. if we give him a six foot sideyard setback and then turn around and deny the additional use. I mean. MR. KELLEY-No. I think you're right. The order should be reversed. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. CARR-That would be my only suggestion. for future reference. MR. TURNER-All right. MR. KELLEY-Do we want to do that. or do we want to continue on? I suppose if we just come back and pick up with the public hearing, right? MRS. GOETZ-We could. MR. TURNER-We could come back. MRS. GOETZ-Yes, lets do that. MR. TURNER-We could come back and pick it up. We can do the use variance first. We'll do the use vari ance fi rst. 5 USE VARIANCE NO. 20-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA GLENS FALLS, NY CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, ROBERT CHATTIN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CORNER OF CORINTH AND OGDEN ROADS FOR AN EXPANSION OF THE AUDITORIUM WITH 24 FT. BY 40 FT. ADDITION ON THE SOUTH END OF THE KINGDOM HALL AND ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER, SQUARE IT OFF FOR MORE OFFICE SPACE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 147-1-8 LOT SIZE: 53,000 SQ. FT. SECTION 9.020 N ROBERT CHATTIN. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski. Planner. Use Variance No. 20-1991. GF, NY Congo of Jehovah's Witnesses. dated March 25. 1991. Meeting Date: March 27. 1991 "The applicant requires a use variance because they propose to expand a structure containing a nonconforming use. It does not appear that there are any unique circumstances applying to this property and not applying to other properties in the area. In considering whether a reasonable financial return can be realized. the Board should consider the applicants statement that this building cannot be used for any allowable use. The purpose of the light industrial zone is to provide opportunities for the expansion of light industry without competition from other uses. This application is for expansion of an existing use. The fact that the use exists means the property is unavailable for light industrial expansion. Does this classify as competition? It does not appear that this proposal would be detrimental to other properties in the district." MRS. GOETZ-The Warren County Planning Board returned indicating "No County Impact". MR. TURNER-All right. Mr. Chattin. You've been there since '75. MR. CHATTIN-Right. John, no record of a variance of '75? MR. GORALSKI-No. there's not. MR. CARR-What was the zone back then? MR. GORALSKI-I don't know. MR. TURNER-It was probably Rl, 2. or 3. MR. KELLEY-The application says residential area. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-Mr. Chattin. when you built the vestibule and the carport that's existing, did you get a variance at that point? MR. CHATTIN-That was all part of the original structure. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. CHATTIN-Yes. We haven't made any external changes since 1975. MR. KELLEY-It kind of sounds like it was a preexisting. nonconforming use. MR. TURNER-Well. you know, the use variance. in a sense. doesn't really apply because he's got vested rights. MR. KELLEY-Right. MR. TURNER-He doesn't have to show hardship. He doesn't have to show reasonable return. He's got vested rights in the property. MR. KELLEY-Well. that's the part where we talk about the preservation of a property right. MR. TURNER-That's right. MR. KELLEY-Yes. He just wants to continue doing what he's doing. MR. TURNER-That's all. There's going to be no change at all. He just wants to go on with what they had there. Any further questions? Okay. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 6 "- - MR. TURNER-Any further comment from anyone? MRS. GOETZ-Was it changed to light industrial in '84? That doesn't sound right. MR. TURNER- I don't know. John. can you refresh our memory. Was that part of the change that was incorporated by the Town Board just recently. MR. GORALSKI-I believe it was, but I'm not positive. I believe it was in 1988. the October '88. MR. TURNER-I think it is. isn't it? Doesn't that go down as far as Tri County Kitchens, all that light industrial use? MR. GORALSKI-Excuse me? MR. TURNER-The light industrial use goes down as far as Tri County Kitchens. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. now it does. This was not included in that 1990 re-zoning. MR. TURNER-No. MR. GORALSKI-This was zoned light industrial. at the latest. in October of 1988. MR. TURNER-This is typical of the application we had last week that was SR-20. was Highway Commercial and then they changed it. It was a split zone. It was Highway Commercial and SR-20. Then it went to SR-20. then it went back to Light Industrial One Acre, now. So this is typical of the application we had Wednesday. The hardship is created by the change of zone. Okay. If there's no further comment. I'll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 20-1991 GLENS FALLS, NY CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES. Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption. seconded by Bruce Carr: I feel that the strict application of the Ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship to the applicant due to the fact that the building has been in existence for some 16 years and to deny this applicant the continued use of this building would be unreasonable. I feel that the variance is necessary for the preservation of his property right. I do not feel that the variance would be detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance. There appears to be no neighborhood opposition and this variance would be the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the applicant's practical difficulty. The Short Environmental Assessment Form appears to have no negative impact and it should be noted that during the ownership of this piece of property. the zoning has been changed from a residential zone to a Light Industrial zone and that due to the applicant's property right. the proof of reasonable financial return is not necessary. Duly adopted this 27th day of March. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. TURNER-Now. we'll go back to the area variance. Okay. We had no further questions of Mr. Chattin at the time. I'll open the public hearing on that one. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO CO_NT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further discussion? Okay. If not. a motion's in order on that one. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-1991 GLENS FALLS, NY CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption. seconded by Theodore Turner: The applicant is seeking three area variances. The first one being they propose putting on a 10 foot by 10 foot 8 inch office addition on the west side of their existing building and by this addition they will require a variance of 6 feet from the 50 foot required front yard setback from Ogden Road. The second variance required is that this same office addition is 48 feet 6 inches from Corinth Road property line and the Ordinance calls for a 75 foot setback from a major arterial highway. This would be a variance of 26 feet 6 inches. The third variance would be from the rear yard property line. or the easterly property line. The Ordinance calls for a setback of 30 feet. The proposed addition on 7 '- -" the south end of the existing building would be 6 feet from this easterly property line. Therefore. the variance needed would be 24 feet. I feel the reasons for granting this variance are as follows: there are special circumstances due to the unusual lot shape. This particular lot has 100 feet of frontage on Corinth Road and 430 feet frontage on Ogden Road and also there's a 100 by 100 foot L-shape. which would be on the southeast portion of this lot. Difficulty with the shape of this lot becomes apparent by virtue of the setbacks required in this zone. If you had a 50 foot setback from Ogden Road and a 30 foot setback from the east property line. you would only have 20 feet of usable property left. This in itself is a special circumstance and creates practical difficulty. Also. the 75 foot setback from Corinth Road came about after this building was already in existence. There was no neighborhood opposition and public facilities and services would not be adversely effected. It does not appear to be detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance and therefore this is the minimum variance necessary to allow the applicant reasonable use of his property. Duly adopted this 27th day of March. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley. Mr. Sicard. Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. GORALSKI-Excuse me. Mr. Chairman. In an effort to maybe not make some people sit around here all night. Mr. Rehm approached me on the Wall application and if I could have him come in here. they'd like to request that that application be tabled until next month. WALTER REHM MR. REHM-My name is Walter Rehm and I represent Mr. and Mrs. Wall. After picking up the Planning Comments yesterday and reading them. we decided that it would be wise for the applicants to take a fresh look at this project. There are concerns in terms of a stream that's on the property. concerns in terms of setbacks. the size of the property, traffic safety and so on and we just don't have the information to present to you this evening. Also the size of the dwelling is in question and I think that. after conversations with the Walls today. I think there's a fair chance that a real effort will be made to reduce the size the building and therefore I would appreciate it if we could table this maybe for a maximum of 60 days with the plan of making the changes and coming back next month. but not the guarantee of doing it next month. MR. GORALSKI-The submission deadline for April's agenda was today at 2 o'clock. MR. REHM-Sixty days. MR. TURNER-Sixty days. You've got it. Is that it? MRS. GOETZ-I just wondered if the people that are in the audience for this application are aware of what you mean by the Planning Comments, because those would be available in the Planning Department and I want to make sure they realize that. MR. REHM-Sure. MRS. GOETZ-The Staff Input, that's a matter of public record. right? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. and if anyone would like to come to the Planning Office and review the comments or review anything in the file. they're welcome to do so. I would also mention that it might be wise to re-advertise this when it does come back. MR. TURNER-It will be. MR. GORALSKI-At who's expense? MR. TURNER-At the applicant's. MR. REHM-At our expense. and I think it'll be a substantially different application. maybe not application. but a substantially different project from several points of view and I think we're required, and will anyway. pick up the advertising cost. MR. TURNER-Okay. Yes. you are. MR. REHM-Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. I would move to table. JAMES DAVIDSON 8 MR. DAVIDSON-Mr. Chairman. a point of order before you make the motion please. My name is James Davidson. My wife and I own property about four lots north of the applicant's property. I would announce to the Board that there are representatives of four households here this evening to oppose this application. Now this same issue came up one time before. before this Board. where the people either didn't appear or wanted to table it. The Board saw fit at our request to listen to what we had to say. Now. I would have no objection, I'm sure the other people wouldn't. if the applicant decides to withdraw the application. but they're playing Mickey Mouse with this tabling it. According to what Mr. Rehm says. he's prepared to come back here with an entirely different proposal. Fine. Why not make him go back and start from scratch, or let us have our say tonight. Now some people have come here from a considerable distance and as far as I'm concerned. this is just continued Mickey Mouse stuff by the applicant. We would either li ke to be heard or we would request the Board to deny the motion to table and if the applicant wishes to withdraw his application. fine. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. What's the Board's pleasure? MR. REHM-May I say something? I think the zoning process is to try to come up with the best plan available under all the circumstances and we did submit an application on behalf of the Walls. Yesterday. we received the planning comments and today we have reacted to them. I know Mr. Davidson has been around for a long time. I hardly consider that to be. in his words a "Mickey Mouse" move and I must tell you that I somewhat resent that comment. Nevertheless, since it really makes no difference to us. if it would make the Board more comfortable. we'll withdraw and re-submit. MR. TURNER-I think, from my point of view. since it's going to be a brand new ball game. lets just withdraw it and then present a new application down the road. MR. REHM-That's fine. It makes no difference to us. It makes no difference to anyone. MR. TURNER-Fine. MR. REHM-Thank you. MR. TURNER-Let the record show that Mr. Rehm has withdrawn Area Variance 23-1991. that of Linda and Robert Wall. EDWARD BURCHER MR. BURCHER-Mr. Turner, may I say something? My name is Edward Burcher. I also live up on Assembly Point. I'm about five lots north of the proposed Wall property. What I would like to ask is. when you send notifications out to people. I believe it's within 500 feet of the proposed piece of property? Well. this particular circumstance is going to involve more people than just those people within 500 feet. We have people down on Brayton Lane. We have people down on Holly Lane which are way over. 500 feet over, a 1.000 feet which are going to be effected by the safety hazards which will be gotten if this development goes on. So I would recommend that notification be made to all the people on Holly Lane, all the people on Brayton Lane. plus more of the people north of this proposed area. MRS. GOETZ-Can we do that. legally? MR. CARR-We can't do that. MRS. GOETZ-Don't you have the Assembly Point Association? MR. BURCHER-Yes. we do. MRS. GOETZ-The burden. really. is going to be on you to get your people out that live beyond the 500 feet and that might be a vehicle that you could use. MR. BURCHER-Well. the thing is. a lot of these people are in Florida or elsewhere and the point I'm getting at is that Brayton Lane and Holly Lane. which are two side roads off of the main road which is Assembly Point Road are going to really effect these people by this piece of property which is on the corner. MR. CARR-But sir. we're restricted by law as to how far we can send notices. but we do put it in the paper under General Notices. all these applications are notified. So. if you feel the people should be notified. we would have to ask that you do it yourself. because we can't change the rules for each application. MR. BURCHER-I see. Thank you. MR. TURNER-And what you might do is call Planning and find out when it's on the agenda and then you can alert your people. well ahead of time. before their notices come out. when it's scheduled to come up. and then you can notify them and you'll be on board with it. 9 MR. BURCHER-Thank you. LINDA WYMAN MRS. WYMAN-May I ask a question? I'm Linda Wyman and I'm also involved in the 500 feet. The Assembly Point Association. at their meeting last year. brought up the concern of this particular corner as a safety hazard when there were only bushes and shrubs there. So, I'm sure that if they thought a building was going to go there they'd be very upset also. Should we have the Association submit something to the Board. as an Association. of their concerns? MR. TURNER-Yes. you could. Yes. MRS. GOETZ-As you know. I'm well familiar with that piece of property and I really feel that you should get these people out. Of course, we don't know what the new proposal is going to be either. but definitely. MRS. WYMAN-Okay. My concern was that they were upset last year when it was just shrubbery that hadn't been cut. and I think a building is going to be a lot more of a hazard than shrubs would be. So we should have the Association put something together and submit. MRS. GOETZ-Many times that happens that happens. with other applications. MRS. WYMAN-Okay. Thank you. JAMES WYMAN MR. WYMAN-I'm James Wyman. the husband of Linda Wyman. We're from Clifton Park and we have a house just three doors down from thi s proposed site and one of the things that maybe we don't know about this site that you should know about is that behind there is a wetland. It's a swamp with a stream running through it and they have proposed to put the septic tank system right on the, and I don't know if the APA should be involved in this, or the Lake George Association? MR. TURNER-We can't discuss it. We're getting beyond the scope of it now. MR. WYMAN-Yes. but they should be notified about this because it is a wetland. MR. CARR-Well. they will be notified if it's proper to notify them. MR. WYMAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. TURNER-All the agencies involved will be notified. MR. WYMAN-Good. So. they win come up and inspect that property. as a part of the Lake George Park Commission? MR. TURNER-If it's part of it. If not. they won't. MR. WYMAN-Okay. but they do get notified? MR. TURNER-Everyone that's involved will get notified. MR. GORALSKI-The Lake George Park Commission. Department of Environmental Conservation. Adirondack Park Agency. MR. WYMAN-Do they know it's a wetland. though? MR. GORALSKI-They're the one's who designate it a wetland. MR. TURNER-They're the ones that designate it. MR. WYMAN-Okay. good. MR. KELLEY-If it is. they would know. MR. TURNER-They would know. MR. WYMAN-All right. because it wasn't in the proposal. that it was a wetland and it is a wetland. MR. TURNER-Well. just because it's wet doesn't mean it's a wetland. MR. KELLEY-It has to be designated as such. MR. TURNER-It has to be designated. 10 --- MR. WYMAN-Okay. So. who takes care of that? MR. TURNER-DEC. MRS. GOETZ-You might want to get in touch with them yourself. MR. WYMAN-Okay. The Lake George Park Commission? Would they be the one that's concerned in that? MR. GORALSKI-The Department of Environmental Conservation and the Adirondack Park Agency. MR. WYMAN-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. TURNER-All right. AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-1991 TYPE II WR-IA ALICE M. GENTHNER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE EAST SIDE OF GLEN LAKE AT BIRCH AND CHESTNUT ROADS, PROCEED UP SMALL HILL UNTIL YOU COME TO A SIGN ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE ROAD MARKED BHERVIEUX·. TO TEAR DOliN AN EXISTING STRUCTURE (SUMMER CAMP) AND CONSTRUCT A YEAR ROUND RESIDENCE WITH NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. STRUCTURE WILL NOT MEET REAR AND SIDE YARO SETBACKS, AND DOES NOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON A TOWN ROAD. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP 11). 39-1-24 LOT SIZE: 9,629.34 SQ. FT. SECTION 4.020 0, 7.077, 7.012 BOB NEDIMEYER. REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner. Area Variance No. 21-1991. Alice M. Genthner. dated March 18. 1991, Meeting Date: March 27, 1991 "The applicant is requesting rear and side yard setback variances to be able to demolish an existing structure and construct a single faml1y residence and garage. The applicant also lacks frontage on a Town road. This project is within a designated Critical Environmental Area. The Warren County Planning Board requested that this application be returned to them since the application did not address the proposed garage which will also require setback variances. A review of this plan revealed that the applicant would require a variance from the permeable area requirement of 65 percent in a WR-IA zone. The applicant currently has 63.38 percent permeable area. This is 156 square feet over the requirement. This application is a Type I Action under SEQRA. Both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals will be involved agencies. A decision as to which Board should take lead agency status should be made within the next 30 days." MRS. GOETZ-The Warren County Planning Board returned indicating "Need more information-plans contrary to what application states. Plans depict an expansion of an existing camp and the construction of a garage. Application states that summer camp will be replaced with a year round residence." MR. TURNER-Okay. So the first issue I think we ought to discuss and decide on is who will be lead agency on the project. since this is a coordinated review. It would be my suggestion that we recommend that the Planning Board be lead agency. MR. CARR-I agree. MRS. GOETZ-I'd agree. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Is that a motion? MR. TURNER-Yes. I'd make that a motion. MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD BE LEAD AGENCY IN THE MATTER OF AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-1991 ALICE M. GENTHNER. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: Duly adopted this 27th day of March. 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz. Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. TURNER-So at this point in time I think it would be ludicrous to even consider the application since this has to take place first. So since that review is required, I think that's the process we're going to start with first, and once that is done, then you'll come back to us after the dec1aration is made on the SEQRA. MRS. GOETZ-Do we have an amended plan? 11 - .....-' MR. GORALSKI-The plan shows the garage. the garage. The application did not request relief for the setback on MRS. GOETZ-Was that because the garage wasn't going to be put up now. or why was that? MR. GORALSKI-I don't know. You'd have to ask the applicant. MR. NEDIMEYER-My name is Bob Nedimeyer. I represent Alice Genthner. only because I drew the plans for her. What was your question? MR. TURNER-The garage. MRS. GOETZ-I wondered. is the garage to be built at the same time as the home? MR. NEDIMEYER-It was originally going to be built before, because they required a place to store furniture and things that were in the garage. If that's a problem, that can be eliminated. That's not a necessity. MR. CARR-Well. it's just. they need setbacks from side yard. right? MR. GORALSKI-It just has to be included in the application. if that's what they wish to do. MR. TURNER-It has to be included in the application. yes. MR. NEDIMEYER-Okay. If that's not a problem we can include it in the application or if it becomes a problem we can delete it. MRS. GOETZ-That changes the permeability. right? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Right. MR. GORALSKI-If the proposed garage was eliminated. they would meet the permeability requirements. MR. TURNER-They would meet it. MRS. GOETZ-But if it's not, it's going to come into play. MR. GORALSKI-Then they would require permeability variance also. MR. NEDIMEYER-We can negate the garage. That's no problem. MRS. GOETZ-The thing is, you might want the garage later. It's something to think about. Just because you take it out now doesn't mean it couldn't be a problem later. if it were to be built. MR. NEDIMEYER-Yes. we'd have to. I'm sure. go through the process of getting a variance for the garage later. That would be just something we'd have to deal with. MR. TURNER-Yes. but I mean. you might better address the whole thing right now. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MR. TURNER-You know. if you're going to go with it down the road. you might better do it right now and be done with it. MR. NEDIMEYER-Okay. That's okay. That's fine, too. MR. SICARD-How much is it lacking in permeability now. with the garage? MR. TURNER-He's got to have 156 square feet. I don't think it's that big of a deal. MR. GORALSKI-If you can cut down the garage by 156 square feet, I don't know if that's possible. then you wouldn't need the permeability variance. MR. TURNER-You wouldn't need it. It's going to be tough. MR. NEDIMEYER-I don't think so. MR. TURNER-It doesn't look like it, does it. MR. GORALSKI-A one car garage instead of a two car garage? 12 - MR. NEDIMEYER-Well. that might be. Do you want to withdraw it. I don't know. MR. CARR-Well, it's not an issue tonight. MR. TURNER-It's not an issue tonight. MR. GORALSKI-It's not an issue tonight. MR. NEDIMEYER-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-I would recommend that either the Genthners or their agent come in to the Planning Department office and we can get this aU settled so that we can get the correct application forwarded to the County for their next meeting. MR. NEDIMEYER-Okay. When would I need to do that? MR. GORALSKI-As soon as you'd like to come in. Somebody's there from 8:30 to 4:30 everyday. MR. NEDIMEYER-Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. NEDIMEYER-Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. MR. CARR-So we table this now? MR. TURNER-No. This goes to SEQRA first. We can't act on it until it gets through SEQRA. MR. CARR-So we don't do anything on it. MR. TURNER-We don't do anything. MR. GORALSKI-You don't have to take any action whatsoever. MR. TURNER-No action at all. MR. KELLEY-From what the County said. this says it's an existing two story frame house with a proposed expansion and really what they're going to do is tear down the old house. So probably this plan should have on it. MR. TURNER-It should identify what the building was. MR. KELLEY-With some kind of a dotted line what the existing footprint was. MR. NEDIMEYER-I believe that's on the plans. MR. KELLEY-Well. yes. but I think they got confused, Bob. by the way it was described on here. I talked to you. So I know what was going on. but I think that's why they said they need more information. John can go over how to re-label that I think. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. It shouldn't be a problem. !,\f^ \ 3.3 AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-1991 TYPE II IIR-IA MARGARET F. AND THEODORE M. HANS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE GUNN LANE, CLEVERDALE TO DEMOLISH A PREEXISTING HOME AND ATTACHED GARAGE AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME AND ATTACHED GARAGE. STRUCTURE WILL NOT MEET SHORELINE OR SIDE YARD SETBACKS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 12-3-16 LOT SIZE: 0.42 ACRES SECTION 4.020 D SECTION 9.011 B - 50S EXPAllSION WALTER REHM. REPRESENTING APPLICANT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner. Area Variance No. 22-1991. Margaret F. and Theodore M. Hans. dated March 22, 1991. Meeting Date: March 27. 1991 "The variance requested is to demolish the existing residence and reconstruct a residence and garage. The applicant cannot meet the shoreline setback of 75 feet and proposes 28 feet. The applicant also cannot meet the sideyard setbacks which are the sum of 50 feet with a minimum of 20. It appears the applicant will maintain 31 feet on the south and 8 feet 8 inches on the north. The plan is extremely difficult to read. The Zoning Administrator reviewed this application and determined that a variance for a 50 percent expansion (Section 9.011). This is an Unlisted Action under SEQRA and because Lake George and environs is a Critical Environmental Area 13 -- the review becomes a Type I Action. I have requested that the applicant suppiy the Board with a iong environmentai assessment form. Mrs. Conard has determined that this project does not require site pian review (memo attached). This is not a coordinated review with the Pianning Board because of this. The Zoning Board win have to take Lead Agency status in the environmentai review. The Lake George Park Commission is an invoived agency because they win be granting a permit. The Adirondack Park Agency win aiso be invoived. Since the Zoning Board win have to review how this deveiopment impacts the character of the neighborhood. the aesthetic resource. the impact on water and iand. I wouid recommend that the Board request a more readabie site pian which aiso inciudes the neighboring properties and the iocation of the structures on these. The Board shouid decide if it wants to take Lead Agency status. I have spoken with the other invoived agencies and it is their preference to have the iocai jurisdictionai Board handie this. If the Board chooses to take Lead Agency status. the Pianning Staff shouid be instructed to start the SEQRA process. I reviewed this application with regard to the requirements for an Area Variance. The Board may wish to have this information to discuss with the applicant. 1. Is there an adverse effect on the neighborhood character? Further information on this win be obtained during the SEQRA review. However. the applicant purchased this iot on December 27. 1989. The iot size is 0.42 acres and the current living area is 1.210 square feet(MRS. GOETZ-Okay. and then it's crossed off and it says 1564 and then it says 1964 in pencii. so.). The assessment records show the house having 1 bath. 4 bedrooms, and a carport. On Aprii 10. 1991. the app11cant received a site pian review for construction of a 28 ft. by 35 ft. boathouse with a deck on the top (pictures attached). The proposai is to reconstruct a singie famiiy residence with the fonowing dimensions. First fioor: 1.572 square feet. garage: 640 square feet, screened porch: 420 square feet. deck: 192 square feet. second story: 1.252 square feet. The house footprint win be 2,824 square feet. The Board shouid request that the app11cant provide information on the increase in the impermeabie area. The size of the proposed structure in reiation to what is in existence couid be significant as far as the aesthetic impacts. The Board shouid request the applicant provide information regarding whether the new structure win restrict the neighbors view of the Lake and how substantiaiiy it win affect the iakeshore view as compared with the existing structure. The Board may aiso want to request information on how the increase in stormwater from the site wiii be handied. so the Lake is protected. Another issue might be the abiiity of the septic system to handie the increase. 2. Is there an adverse effect on pub11c faciiities. Increased stormwater may affect the Lake. Aesthetic enjoyment of the Lake may be a concern. 3. Are there any feasibie aiternatives? An aiternative couid be to upgrade the existing structure or buiiding in the existing footprint. This wouid not create any greater impermeabie area or greater stormwater runoff. If the appiicant is removing a nonconforming structure. an aiternative is to construct a unit which comes cioser to the existing standards. The app11cant shouid provide hard information regarding why the new structure shouid receive variances. Practicai difficuity has to be proven. 4. Is the degree of change substantiai reiative to the Ordinance. The app11cant states that the Ordinance provides for continuation of nonconforming setbacks. The Zoning Administrator has determined that this is not an expansion of a nonconforming use. This is new construction. As such. the new construction shouid be as dose to the current standards as possibie. A 28 foot shore11ne setback is substantiai in reiation to the required 75 foot. A 10 foot setback is 50 percent iess than the requirement. The app11cant shouid provide information to the Board as to why a conforming unit cannot be piaced on the iot." MR. GORALSKI-I'd just li ke to dear one point up. Under the SEQRA review. the Lake George Park Commission and the Adirondack Park Agency have no permits to issue regarding the project as it's proposed and therefore they are not invoived agencies. So actuany the oniy invoived agency is the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeais. MR. CARR-Wen. I've got a reai probiem with Pat Conard's memo. I don't think she interpreted that right. MRS. GOETZ-Wen, first of an, shouid I read that into the record. Okay. Her memo was dated March 19th. 1991. to the Zoning Board of Appeais "The above referenced app11cation wiii be reviewed at the March 27 Zoning Board Meeting. Lee York raised the question this morning as to why this app11cation is not being referred to the Pianning Board for review. I have pointed out to her that Section 9.010 Continuation. refers to nonconforming structures and the Hans appiication does not invoive a nonconforming structure as they are tearing down the existing structure and rebuiiding in a new iocation on the site. Hopefuny. this memorandum win put to rest any question of Pianning Board review in this appiication." MR. CARR-The first comment, it's not a compieteiy new site. I mean, they're buiiding over haÏf the oid structure. MR. TURNER-Right. That's my question. and I have another question. It says nonconforming structure in the Definitions and it says. "Any structure which is iawfuny in existence within a given zoning district on the effective date of this Ordinance. but which is not in conformance with the dimensionai reguiations for that zoning district". So I think it fans under Site Pian Review. MR. CARR-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. MR. TURNER-How do you feei? That's the way I feei. MR. CARR-I feei Pat was wrong with this particuiar appiication. 14 MS. CORPUS-If I might address the Board for a moment. Our office has analyzed this particular application and the case law involved and, basically, the way our Ordinance is written. it does not anticipate a nonconforming structure if there is nothing left standing. This structure. if I'm correct. will no longer be in existence. The whole thing is going to be torn down. A new structure will be built. It is not a nonconforming structure being expanded, altered, or rebuilt, at this point. The case law states that. and once this obtains a variance it's no longer a nonconforming structure and therefore it does not fall under that nonconforming area of our Ordinance. Therefore, this applicant doesn't get any special preference because of that. He has to prove every aspect of a variance now as if it were a new structure. MR. CARR-As if it was vacant land. MS. CORPUS-Yes. He doesn't get any easier a time of it. He'll have to prove every aspect necessary under an Area Variance. MR. CARR-But I disagree, because the house is still there. If we don't grant the variances. the house is going to remain there. It's a bargaining chip. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. MR. CARR-If you give me your variances, the other house will come down and I'll build this one. If you don't give me the variances, I'm going to leave it there. So for one part of it they're asking us to ignore that house and the other part they're saying. well. it's going to stay. MS. CORPUS-Yes. the applicant is also asking you to believe that that house will no longer be in existence and there will be a totally cleared lot. MR. CARR-So, if we deny everything. he's still going to tear down that house. MS. CORPUS-He has the option of tearing down the house now and coming back before the Board and saying. okay. I have a clear lot. there is no. MR. CARR-That's what he's asking us to do. MS. CORPUS-Right. MR. CARR-But I think the applicant would be foolish to do that and I don't think the applicant would want to do that. MS. CORPUS-That is the factual position. at this point, is that that is what will be happening. that that structure will not be in existence, enlarged. altered. or rebuilt as it stands now and this applicant does not have any of the privileges under Article IX regarding a nonconforming structure. He'll have to prove every aspect under Article X for a variance and I do have some case law on that point if you'd like to see that. MR. CARR-It just seems to me that we're playing two things here. We're saying. well. ignore the house like it's not there. but if you don't give me what I want. the house h going to be there. MS. CORPUS-He has that option. He doesn't have to do anything to the house. MR. GOETZ-When it comes to case law. we should consider it, but it's my understanding that we don't have to just go right down the road and say because this particular case law said that. MS. CORPUS-Right. The problem is. is if we're challenged. if this Board is challenged. my job is to tell you whether we can defend this or not. and we also have to cite to the Ordinance. a specific Section that would cover this issue and it's unfortunate. but I think in this case Article IX does not cover this particular circumstance. It's one of those things not covered by the nonconforming. MR. CARR-So if he tore down the house and buil t on the same footpri nt, but added a li ttl e thi ng off to the side, he'd go to site plan, but because he's only building on part of the footprint? MS. CORPUS-Well. according to the applicant. none of that. the foundation. none of that. will be there any longer. That's a question the Board can ask him and it's a factual question. MR. CARR-I think it's weak. MS. CORPUS-I would like to bring up one point to this Board. though. and in fairness to the applicant and the Board. it's also my job to let you know that although this. technically, does not go to Site Plan Review. this Board does have the option to refer it to the Planning Board under Section 10.050 which is not a Site Plan Review, just a referral. 15 -- MR. CARR-It just seems to me, I mean. they do the septic. They do the SEQRA. I mean. we'd be getting into areas that we are not that familiar with. nor have we taken the time to become that familiar with because we've never really had to address those issues. MS. CORPUS-Well. that's where that 10.050 referral comes in. in cases such as this. MR. CARR-Maybe that's the way. MS. CORPUS-The Board definitely has an option. What would happen is you would refer it for a review as to planning issues. It's not a Site Plan review. It's a recommendation as to planning issues that would come back to this Board and then you would deal with the variances. MR. TURNER-What's your pleasure, Bruce? Do you want to move it to let them look at it or what. before it comes back to us? MR. CARR-Well. I would like to hear. MR. TURNER-Do you want to hear from Mr. Rehm? MR. CARR-Yes. I would. MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Rehm. MR. REHM-Thank you very much. I'm Walter Rehm and I represent the applicants. Since I've been accused, already. of a being a Mickey Mouse tonight I thought I'd tell you what's happened here. We originally filed a Site Plan review application with the Town of Queensbury and that application was returned and said. no. this is not a Site Plan, in other words. this is not a Planning Board matter. This is something that should go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, so we filed for a variance. We filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals. We're not trying to pull any fast deal on the Town or the Boards. We're trying to fit this circumstance into the plain language of the Ordinance and as you know, the Ordinance is construed in favor of the applicant and against the Town and this particular circumstance doesn't seem to fit into the Ordinance and I think it's something that the various Boards might want to take a look at in the future, but this is not something that is new. There are a number of places along the Lake. particularly Cleverdale and Assembly Point. where houses have been torn down and replaced. Since we're using the phrase, the Mickey Mouse way to do this is not to completely tear the building down. you know, to leave a wall or leave a little corner of the building and then we can play games with the Boards and with the Ordinances. but that's not the plan here. Some of you, I'm sure. are familiar with the site. There's an old. very dilapidated building on the site and this is a project to replace that. completely, with a brand new modern safe building that meets current standards. It is a little larger than the existing building. particularly in terms of height. but the footprint isn't much different or isn't a great deal different and we have all of that data here for you and I. frankly. don't know what serious planning consideration there are here. I can tell you, as far as sewer is concerned. I can tell you that there are. as you can see on the plans. four 1.000 gallon holding tanks. So there really isn't any greater sewer issue there. MR. TURNER-That's new, right? That was done last year? MR. REHM- That was done after Mr. and Mrs. Hans purchased the property. Yes. And they had the opportunity to put in a mound system and they felt that that would not be as safe as a holding tank system and so. frankly. contrary to the advice they received. they put the holding tanks in anyway because they thought it would be safer. I don't think that the provision of the Ordinance that indicates that a 50 percent expansion is applicable here to and that's Section 9.011. MR. CARR-All of Section 9 wouldn't be applicable. MR. REHM-None of it is applicable. MR. CARR-It's a brand new, vacant lot. MR. REHM-And on that point. why are Mr. and Mrs. Hans any different than the guy next door that owns a vacant lot and needs to get a variance to place a house on that lot and would come to this Board and the Board would consider it? They do happen to have a camp on the lot that they want to tear down and they want to create a vacant lot, but it seems that in fairness. they should be treated. under the Ordinance. the same way that a person that already has a vacant lot would be treated and I would think that this Board would look at the issues that you traditionally look at. in terms of the elements of an area variance, but some of the planning comments are obviously incorrect, in terms of the permitting that we have to do. and we'll comply with the stormwater regulations that the LGA has put in and I'll go as far with this as you want me to. but I don't know that this is any different than the fellow down the street that wants to build a house on the vacant lot. MRS. EGGLESTON-Backing up a little bit to Mrs. Genthner. is it? MRS. GOETZ-Glen Lake, yes. 16 MRS. EGGLESTON-Would she be better off then to totally take everything off the land and deal with one Board. Is that what we're encouraging, here? MR. KELLEY-No. She was proposing that. to tear down the old building completely. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. So what is different. except she was going to build in the same footprint, but are we encouraging that and once people hear that. they're going to deal with one Board instead of two because they won't have to go Site Plan review? Is that a logical thought. or am I off base here or what is the? MR. CARR-Well. maybe we've misinterpreted Mrs. Genthner's application. Maybe if she does tear down the house. MS. CORPUS-According to thi s agenda. it's comi ng under Secti on 4.020 d and 7.077. It's not comi ng under the nonconforming area of the Ordinance. MR. CARR-Okay. So she doesn't have to go to Site Plan? MR. GORALSKI-She does. MRS. EGGLESTON-We referred her to Site Plan. MR. GORALSKI-Her variances are for different reasons. MR. TURNER-For different reasons. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. REHM-I think that the only variances that are required here would be setback variances and since they're setback variances. it's a Type II action and it's not subject to SEQRA. MR. TURNER-Yes, it's a Type II. right. MR. GORALSKI-If the 50 percent expansion is not required. that's correct. Then the setback variances would be Type II actions. MR. CARR-Well. we can if we're taking it out of Article IX because it's not. if we're. for one thing. saying the structure is not there. then we've got to do it for all of Article IX. MS. CORPUS-That would be correct. It would come under the Area Variance. MR. CARR-That's right. That structure is not there. is what Pat is telling us. under 9.010. MR. KELLEY-And that same things falls true with Dick Rourke. MR. SICARD-I was just going to say that. MR. TURNER-The same thing falls true with Hogan's. They demolished the camp and built on the footprint. MR. GORALSKI-Didn't Hogan's use the same foundation. though? MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Well. they were then altering an existing structure. MRS. EGGLESTON-So that's what I'm saying. MS. CORPUS-It appears to be an inconsistency. yes. but it exists, yes. MR. CARR-So what we're saying to Mr. Hans is you better not leave one cinder block underneath that house. because then you're building on a. MR. TURNER-Under the building. Then you're building on the foundation, right. MR. SICARD-I think the difference in the Rourke property is that they were going to leave a part of the structure. like the front porch or something. in order to retain that setback. instead of going back to the 75 foot setback which they would have to if they completely tore it out. They're going to leave a part of that structure and build out of that structure. MR. TURNER-That's what they were going to do. You're right. 17 - MR. SICARD-So they would stay in the same footprint. except whatever they wanted on the side setbacks. That's a little different. They are going to leave part of the structure. MRS. EGGLESTON-See. I didn't understand that either. because the whole new proposal. because we talked about the. but the footprint was. it was just going to go up two stories. but it was all going to come off the footprint. MR. SICARD-Well. if they took it all off. I think that we could ask them to go back to the 75 foot setback. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. KELLEY-That's right. Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CORPUS-And they would have to prove every aspect of the area variance. then. They would not be able to fall under Article IX. which is not as strict as the area variance requirements. MR. SICARD-In this case. they're not concerned with that 75 foot setback, as I see it. if they tear it all down. MR. CARR-Right. They can meet that setback. MRS. EGGLESTON-They can meet the setback. MR. SICARD-I think that's a little different. MR. KELLEY-Your comment sounded logical. I mean. if you tear it down and you have a bare lot, why don't you just come in and propose and get your area variance, get a permit and you go about it. right? I mean. that's really what you're doing. You're going to have bare lot. MR. REHM-Yes. well. there are a lot of things like that in zoning, too. Sometimes you have to imagine things that don't exist. You imagine that a building's going to be built on the lot. MR. SICARD-Also, if you did that. some other agency could turn it down and then you don't have any camp. MR. REHM-We wouldn't do that. MR. SICARD-I mean. that could happen. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. how do you even get by the application? I mean, you have to put on your application it's a vacant lot when it isn't? MR. REHM-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-Why not? If you're going to treat it as vacant lot. when they come in for a building permit or whatever to get started. are they going to say. when they fill out that very first paper. this is a vacant lot? MR. GORALSKI-The first thing they're going to do is get a demolition permit. MR. TURNER-Get a demolition permit. that would be the first thing. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. SICARD-If it was torn down, I would say so. MRS. EGGLESTON-So just because they have a demolition permit. then they can say it's a vacant lot? MS. CORPUS-I don't believe the issue is to say it's a vacant lot. I just think it has to be clarified that this is not coming under Article IX. This is not a nonconforming use or structure or an alteration. enlargement or rebuilding of one. They do not intend to propose that. MR. REHM-We are trying to come to the Board with the most practical. direct, honest. non Mickey Mouse proposal that we can. We're not going to leave a half a wall. MR. GORALSKI-Maybe I can say something. here. that might move this along. I think everybody is dancing around the term "loop hole". There is a loop hole in the Ordinance, in that, if you don't want to go for Site Plan review, you tear down your building completely and start from scratch. It's a loop hole in the Ordinance. I think that's what everyone's saying. here, but it's a fact. 18 ---- - MR. CARR-But I think then the applicant's have to realize that if they want to go that way. especially with lakefront. their going to have a tough time with that 75 foot setback and they cannot say. but the house is there now, because we're just going to say. no it's not. MR. GORALSKI-You're right. and also if. although the Ordinance does not require them to go to Site Plan review. if the Zoning Board is concerned about environmental issues or other planning issues. then you have the right to refer to the Planning Board for their recommendation. MR. CARR-Well. I think Mr. Rehm has made a good point about the environmental issue. It's a holding tank. It's not a septic system. MR. GORALSKI-Well, I'm not talking about this specific application. MR. CARR-Yes. right. MR. GORALSKI-I'm tal king about in general. when this case comes up, if the Board feels there are concerns. then maybe they should refer it. but I think what Karla's saying is that there's a loop hole in the Ordinance that allows people to go about a specific project in the way that's being proposed for this application. MRS. EGGLESTON-But another concern of mine. and maybe it shouldn't be, I've of the Planning Board and I know how deep they dig and all of the different yes. we address it a little bit. but they are so much more adept at that. burden onto this Board. read some of the minutes areas they get into and. That's going to put that MR. GORALSKI-No. it's not. because you can refer it to the Planning Board. MR. TURNER-No. we can refer it to them. We can refer this application. right now. to the Planning Boa rd . MRS. EGGLESTON-We'd have to refer every, that we felt was. and then they would just give their recommendations? MR. GORALSKI-Right. Similar to when the Scheibel Variance was in front of you. MRS. EGGLESTON-If we refer it. do they have to take it? If we refer it, they have to do it. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I mean. they could look at it and say, we don't feel that there's any impact. but that's up to them. MR. TURNER-Do you feel more comfortable referring it to the Planning Board and letting them take a look at it before we decide on it. MR. CARR-Honestly, I don't because I don't think they're going to prove to my satisfaction that they should build within the 75 feet then and so then we're going to be sending an application to the Planning Board that. in my opinion, is going to have to be changed. I don't want to waste their time by having the Planning Board review this plan when, and this is just my opinion at this point not having heard all the testimony and all that. that this is an unacceptable plan. I mean. I don't need the Planning Board to tell me that. gee. they shouldn't build within 75 feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-You're taking it as a brand new lot. so why not meet the 75 foot setback. MR. CARR-Right, but the Planning Board is going to get this plan. MR. TURNER-I know. MR. CARR-And if they're going to base their comments on this plan. then if this Board denies this plan, they come back again, then do we send them back to the Planning Board again to review the revised plan? I'd rather. I mean. if I know how I feel about this project at this point, I don't know if it's really necessary to send it to the Planning Board. MR. REHM-I'll tell you. that concerns me when you say that how you feel about the project now and we can't prove to your satisfaction that we build within the 75 foot setback. That's an area of severe concern to an applicant at this point. MR. CARR-Well. I did mention. though. without ever hearing the testimony. MR. REHM-I know that. but do you realize what that does to? MR. CARR-Everybody gets an opinion. once they look at an application. I mean. I can't say. I've looked at an application and I have no opinion on this application. 19 ,-- - MR. KELLEY-I think. Bruce. the thing that we have to remember is that the applicant does own the lot and he is entitled to reasonable use of it. MR. CARR-Exactly. and that's why I want to hear their rationale. MR. KELLEY-So somewhere there's a compromise that everybody's going to be happy with, I hope. MRS. GOETZ-Well. the applicant can't have their cake and eat it. too. is the way I look at it. MR. REHM-I would like to withdraw the application, please. JOHN MASON MR. MASON-The applicant can't have their cake and eat it. too? came down with an application. Have your cake and eat it too? They told us not to. I applied for Site Plan review. I We tried to go to all your Boards. MR. REHM-What we would like to do. at this point. is withdraw the application. We will re-file an application that will include a modification of the existing structure that will require Site Plan review and we'll go about it that way. I think that's the only thing we can do at this point. With all due respect, I think I understand at least the very clear attitude of a portion of the Board. which I understand can change. I make no accusations at all. but this is a very difficult area from the applicant's point of view, too, because it's hard to figure out what we're supposed to do to comply and I frankly think that you're concerned with the removal of the building and say. well. if we remove the building. then you're going to disregard the fact that the building is there and that's fine and you're entitled to do that. which is a real problem as far as we're concerned. So I think that, from the applicant's point of view. it's better to change the application to propose a major re-construction of the existing building. go through Site Plan review. and come back and seek the variances that are necessary for the building that currently exists and that may be easier for you and it's not easier for us. It's not as straightforward. but it may fit into the Ordinance better than the approach that we I ve taken. MRS. GOETZ-Could I just ask you a question? Could you come up here. because the question is on the plan? Is this the existing? MR. REHM-The part that is in white is the proposed building. The part that's in yellow is that portion of the existing building that hangs over. MRS. GOETZ-Right. MR. REHM-It's pretty close to the same footprint and the question is. one of the major questions is. would it be better for all concerned to have a nice, new, modern, I think. well designed aesthetically pleasing building there that is safe to live in, or the ramshackled old camp that's there, but that's an element of proof that I suppose you'll have to make. MRS. GOETZ-And about the foundation. What kind of foundation is it now? MR. MASON-Pillars. MRS. GOETZ-It doesn't have a basement? I went there, but I don't remember. MR. TURNER-It's sitting on pilings. MR. MASON-It's sitting on pilings and they're not even really cement blocks. Some places it's sitting on stumped. MRS. GOETZ-So it would be hard to know what the real footprint was? MR. MASON-No. The footprint is very, very clear. I think John has accurate measurements. now. of the house. Lee's original, she apparently got them from the Assessor's Office and they were incorrect and your notes now reflect that. The actual footprint is 1964 square feet. and that's within a square foot or two. MR. REHM-We have a print of the footprint. of the existing footprint. which is this. and the other one was just the new building pasted on top of this. This is the existing building and this is the proposed building. There's not a great difference. There is a difference, but not a great difference. MR. MASON-I understand your problems with the clarity on the small prints. I tried to shrink them down. The problem is making 14 copies of this for everyone and I think the one area where Lee had a problem. this building is 8 ft. 8 in. MR. TURNER-Yes. 20 -- -' MR. MASON-The placement that we put of the house on that. superimposed on there. is 10 feet from this property line. It's impossible. with your current setbacks. to place that house .Q!. this house. The setbacks overlap. You're 50 feet off the side. You're 75 feet from the Lakefront. You're 30 feet from the back. You get an overlap. You get double hatched out areas and you just can't, there's no way. You couldn't jockey this house on that. in the area that's left over. MRS. GOETZ-What if you tried to come back further from the Lake than what's proposed? Would that be possible? You'd have to switch everything. Is that what you're saying. MR. MASON-Yes. The problem is, if you take 75 feet. you're 75 foot mark from the Lake is back here. Your 30 feet from Gunn Lane brings you out into here. If you were to assume. you can't assume the side setbacks because it's 20 foot minimum. but just for a moment, if you assume 20 on this side and 30 on this side. you end up with a very irregular piece right there that is even. I tried. at one point, to superimpose that in the area that's left over. You can't even do that. There just isn't enough room on the lot. Your setbacks. it's not unusual for Lake George. The setbacks overlap and I've seen lots where the setbacks X out the whole lot. This one's got a little parcel left over in the middle of it. MRS. GOETZ-Now. lets see, they bought this after the new Ordinance went into effect. Okay. MR. MASON-The existing house is a four bedroom home. The new house is a three bedroom home. The septic system was designed for a four bedroom home. MR. SICARD-Is that a typical holding tank that has to be pumped out periodically. MR. MASON-Yes. MR. SICARD-By holding tank. that's what that means, that it is a sealed. MR. MASON-Absolutely. Yes, it's a sealed unit and. while they used to be rather difficult to monitor. at this point the combination of the alarm systems. everything else. they are a very clean system and that's why he chose this alternative. It was in all last summer. We even have the pump records for last summer. MR. SICARD-Is that right? MR. MASON-Yes. I never thought I would say this, he hasn't made Walter eat his words yet. but he's made me. The holding tank system works very well. MR. SICARD-And that's 1.000 gallons. is it? MR. MASON-He's got 4.000. MR. TURNER-4.000 gallons. MR. REHM-I think the flows are calculated at 450 a day maximum. well. not maximum. but the design flows are 450 a day. So you've got 4.000 gallons. MR. MASON-One of the other things we found out is that the design flows that the Board of Health uses are way out of line. way too much. It's nowhere near 450 gallons a day. MR. TURNER-All right. before we go on any farther. Mr. Rehm. are you going to withdraw the application? MR. REHM-That's a tough question. I have to say that I think prudence dictates that we do withdraw. yes, and I'm sorry to do that. but I really think so. MR. TURNER-Okay. That's your wish. Okay. Let the record show that Mr. Rehm has withdraw of 22-1991. Margaret F. and Theodore M. Hans and will re-submit a new application to this Board. MR. REHM-Thank you for your time. AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-lA DAVID AND CATHLEEN GALLAGHER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE DREAM LAKE ROAD, HOUSE ON RIGHT AT TOP OF HILL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. PROPERTY DOES NOT FRONT ON A TOWN ROAD (UNDEDICATED ROAD). (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 51-3-6 LOT SIZE: 1.2 ACRES SECTION 7.077 DAVID GALLAGHER, PRESENT 21 -- STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner, Area Variance No. 24-1991. David and Cathleen Gallagher. dated March 25. 1991. Meeting Date: March 27. 1991 "The applicant requires a variance from Section 7.077 which requires all lots to have frontage on a Town road. The applicant also requires a variance from Section 280-A of Town Law. The strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the property. This is a residential zoned lot and could not be used for any allowable use without a variance. This proposal would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance. There is a road to this property that would provide emergency vehicle access if necessary. This is an allowable use in the zone and is in keeping with the character of the area. There will be no adverse impact on public facilities or services." MRS. GOETZ-The Warren County Planning Board approved. MR. TURNER-Who's representing? Mr. Gallagher. MR. GALLAGHER-Good evening. David Gallagher. MRS. GOETZ-Is the house blue? MR. TURNER-No. Cream colored. MR. GALLAGHER-The house is beige. MR. TURNER-Beige. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right at the top of the hill. The only house after you went up over the hill. MR. GALLAGHER-Correct. MR. GOETZ-Okay. MR. TURNER-Do you want to elaborate on your problem a little bit? MR. GALLAGHER-Yes sir. We applied to the Town for a building permit. It was issued as it should have been because everything's in order. according to all the research we could do and apparently all the research that those in charge of such things at the Town could do. Having the building permit issued. we got the mortgage, built the house. and after the house is built suddenly there's some difficulty. at least as far as whoever is in charge for the Town is concerned, but frankly it's too late. We're already there and there's a hardship involved here in that all that I'm aSking. as I stand here. is for the Certificate of Occupancy for a house which meets every Code and Ordinance placed upon it by the Town of Queensbury. Without that Certificate of Occupancy. my bank has refused to issue me the final draw on my mortgage, therefore. I can't pay the contractors, people who live in this community. who worked hard for me, did a good job. and deserve their money. That's the major difficulty and the reason why I require a Certificate of Occupancy. It's not just me. There's a lot of people who deserve recompense involved here. MRS. GOETZ-How did that happen? MR. TURNER-When he was issued the permit. they thought it was a dedicated Town road. all right. So they went and put the building up. Now they find out it's not and that's where it is. I don't have a bit of problem with it. MRS. GOETZ-No. MR. TURNER-It's just an unfortunate thing. MR. SICARD-Did you get a Certificate of Occupancy? MR. TURNER-No. He can't get it without approval of. MR. GALLAGHER-The house was inspected twice by the appropriate department and passed inspection. MR. SICARD-But you did get a building permit? MR. GALLAGHER-Yes. we did. MR. SICARD-Was it inspected during construction. periodically? MR. GALLAGHER-Yes. all inspections were completed, to the best of my knowledge. I could defer the question to my attorney. He might have more accurate information than I do, but to the best of my knowledge. every specification was met and every inspection was taken care of. It had to be or else 22 we couldn't have gotten our money. The mortgage was done, I don't know if you're familiar with. probably you are. the draw system of the mortgage when you build a house. You get so much when the foundation is present, so much when the house is built. so much when this is done and that is done. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. GALLAGHER-And they wouldn't give me the money unless everything was inspected and satisfied the required requirements. MR. SICARD-You didn't get any money at all? MR. GALLAGHER-Yes, sir. We did. We got three quarters. MR. TURNER-He can't get his final thing. MR. GALLAGHER-We can't get our final payment to pay the people who deserve to be paid for their work. MR. TURNER-Okay. I don't think any of us have a problem with your application. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GENE NICHOLSON MR. NICHOLSON-I'm Gene Nicholson. I live on the south side of Dream Lake and I'm assuming this is on the north side? MR. GALLAGHER-Yes. sir. It is. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. NICHOLSON-Okay. MR. GALLAGHER-On the north side, just opposite Mr. Ellsworth's gravel pit. MR. NICHOLSON-Okay. We received notice of this tonight and we have no objection. MR. TURNER-Okay. Fine. Does anyone else wish to be heard in support of the application? Opposed to the application? Hearing none, the public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further Correspondence? None. Okay. Motion's in order. tllTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-1991 DAVID AND CATHLEEN GAU..A6HER. Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption. seconded by Charles Sicard: This would grant the applicant relief from Section 7.077 of the Ordinance requiring an building lots to have frontage on a Town road and also a variance from the requirements of Section 280-A for the Town Law requiring the same. Without this variance, the applicant would have no use of the property which is totally unreasonable and the Short EAF indicates there was no significant environmental impact. Duly adopted this 27th day of March. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard. Mrs. Goetz. Mr. Carr. Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. TURNER-We have one other item of business to take care of. Lee has made the suggestion that under coordinated review. under SEQRA, that the Zoning Board has allowed the Planning Board to be lead agency in a coordinated review. so by doing that we could expedite. maybe, the applicant's application by 30 days. MR. CARR-I think that's fine. I mean. it makes sense. MRS. GOETZ-It just sets it in motion. MR. TURNER-I would propose a motion that we do that. 23 -- MOTION THAT THE COORDINATED REVIEW UNDER SEQRA WILL BE HANDLED, THE LEAD AGENCY WILL BE THE PLANNING BOARD AND BY DOING THIS ALLOWS THE APPLICATION TO POSSIBLY BE ENTERTAINED 30 DAYS EARLIER IN THE PROCESS. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: Duly adopted this 27th day of March, 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. GORALSKI-Let me just make sure that we're clear on what's going to happen, okay. When we get an application that is to be treated as a Type I Action under SEQRA. okay. and there's going to be a coordinated review between the Planning Board and Zoning Board. the Zoning Board wishes us to place that application on the agenda of the Planning Board as soon as possible. with the understanding that at the next possible meeting. the Zoning Board wiii vote to recommend that the Planning Board take lead agency status. Is that correct? MR. TURNER-Every meeting will do it. Every time there's Type I. Right. MR. GORALSKI-We will place it on the agenda beforehand. However. you are going to have to make a formal vote on each application. MR. TURNER-A formal motion on each application. Right. No problem. MR. CARR-Motion to adjourn? MR. TURNER-Motion to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Theodore Turner, Chairman 24