Loading...
1996-11-21 SP r' Ui\ Û ;·~nl. C_ QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1996 INDEX Area Variance No. 85-1996 Tax Map No. 90-3-1 Arthur Radigan 1. Area Variance No. 100-1996 Tax Map No. 127-6-9 Timothy S. Condon, Sr. 11. Area Variance No. 101-1996 Tax Map No. 138-1-6 Gary & Sandy Austin 16, Area Variance No. 104-1996 Tax Map No. 131-8-5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 22, 26 Vilinis Neilands 24. Area Variance No. 105-1996 Tax Map No. 20-1-21, 22 Jane L. Crannell 31. Area Variance No. 108-1996 Tax Map No. 137-1-4.2 Jorge Constantino 37. Use Variance No. 109-1996 Tax Map No. 93-3-4,5 Robert J. & Mary E. Wood 42. 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 ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY WILLIAM GREEN LOUIS STONE ROBERT KARPELES MEMBERS ABSENT DONALD 0' LEARY CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 85-1996 TYPE II SFR-1A ARTHUR RADIGAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WEST MT. ROAD AND STEWART ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A SWIMMING POOL AND FENCE ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT. THE SWIMMING POOL WOULD NOT CONFORM TO THE LOCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR POOLS, AND THE FENCE IS PROPOSED TO BE TALLER THAN ALLOWED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM SECTION 179-67B REGARDING THE LOCATION OF POOLS; AND SECTION 179 -7 4B REGARDING THE HEIGHT OF FENCES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/9/96 TAX MAP NO. 90-3-1 LOT SIZE: 0.57 ACRES SECTION 179-74B, 179-67B ARTHUR RADIGAN, PRESENT MRS. LAPHAM-Zoning Board of Appeals, record of resolution, Town of Queensbury, Christian G. Thomas, Chairman, Bonnie Lapham, Secretary, Arthur Radigan 784 West Mountain Road, Queensbury, New York 12804, Project for Arthur Radigan, The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following, meeting date October 23, 1996, Variance File No. 85-1996 Tabled "MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 85-1996 ARTHUR RADIGAN, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald O'Leary: For no more than 62 days, so that the applicant can supply the Board with the actual measurements of the fence and the pool off the existing property line. Duly adopted this 23rd day of October, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter, Mr. Green Sincerely, Christian G. Thomas, Chairman Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals" MR. THOMAS-Is Mr. or Mrs. Radigan here? Do you want to come up - 1 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) here? We've got some more questions for you. You submitted this drawing with setbacks and everything, and I see on the Stewart Road side, that the setback'from the side line is 11 feet. MR. RADIGAN-Right. MR. THOMAS-Is that from your property line, or is that from the edge of the road? MR. RADIGAN-That's from the edge of the road. MR. THOMAS-Do you know how far it is from the property line? MR. RADIGAN-No. MR. THOMAS-See, that's what we need to give relief from is the property line, not the edge of the road. MR. GORALSKI - You're right, but in the interest of moving this along, the pool is there now, right, as is the fence? MR. RADIGAN-Right. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. In the interest of moving this along, if the Board was going to act favorably on this, you could put in your motion, as the pool and the fence exist now, or 11 feet from the actual pavement, something like that. The only other way to do it would be to go out and survey the property, which typically you don't require. MR. THOMAS-Yes, well we had one like this last night, but the applicant measured off the edge of the road, and he also had a plot plan there where it showed the property line where we could measure off it, but, you know, if it's all right to give it off the edge of the road. MR. GORALSKI-Well, as long as you specify where the pool and where the fence is going to be, I think you're within your rights. MR. THOMAS-If you say so. MR. GREEN-You don't have any idea where your lot line is relative to, say, the fence, going down that side? MR. KARPELES-The fence must be on your property. MR. RADIGAN-The fence is definitely on my property. It's 11 feet in from the pavement. MR. KARPELES-Is that your property line, the fence? MR. RADIGAN-I didn't have it surveyed, so I wouldn't know. MR. THOMAS-And there's no way you can move that pool to the south, any closer to that end, like the garden, back that way? Is the leach field that close? MR. RADIGAN-YeS, the leach field is close. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and you did measure that pool six feet off the fence? MR. RADIGAN-Right. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and 24 feet off that back fence? MR. RADIGAN-Right. - 2 - -- - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) MR. STONE-It's six feet off the fence at the closest point, you mean? MR. RADIGAN-At the closest point. MR. STONE-The drawing doesn't quite show that. MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-The only question that comes up is that, where is the property line, in terms of, is the fence on Mr. Radigan's property? . MR. KARPELES-I think there's two questions. Where's the septic tank? Where's the leach field? To me, it looks on this diagram that there's no reason that that couldn't be moved south. MR. GORALSKI-As far as the leach field goes, we attempted to go through all of our records to determine where that leach field is, and if those lines showed the general area based on the way the plumbing comes out of the house, the required separation between the house and the septic tank, and the approximate feet of leach field that would be required for that house, but there's no record of specifically where that leach field is. MR. KARPELES-Usually there's an indication on the grass in the summer time of where the leach field is. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. KARPELES-So he must know where it is. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. THOMAS-Well, there's a letter attached to the additional information we got. The pool wasn't the only question on this one. It's also the height of the fence. The required height, maximum height in the SFR-1 Acre zone is six feet, and I believe the applicant's fence is seven feet high. MR. RADIGAN-No, it's six feet. MR. THOMAS-It is six feet? MR. GORALSKI-No, you can only have a four foot high fence along the road there. MR. THOMAS-Along the road you can only have four? MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. THOMAS-Actually, I'm sorry, five on a corner lot. MR. THOMAS-Five on a corner lot, but seeing as how that's on a corner lot that has no side yards. MR. GORALSKI-Well, the way that the fence ordinance was revised, you can have four feet in the front, the architectural front, which would be West Mountain Road, and five feet on the side, which would be Stewart Road, and his is six feet. MR. THOMAS-All right, six feet, five is what's allowed, okay. Is there any questions by the Board members of the applicant about that? Is there any more questions for the applicant? I'll open the public hearing. I think I did leave the public hearing open on this one. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN - 3 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) LYNN POTENZA MRS. POTENZA-I'll speak in favor of it. My name is Lynn Potenza from the Town of Queensbury, and I got a call from Mrs. Radigan after the last meeting because she was upset when she left because, to her knowledge, she had not done anything wrong, and she came here thinking that all she had to do was explain it to the Board and once I met with her, she then realized that, when your home i~ on a corner lot, you have no back yard, and unfortunately prior to the pool being put in and the fence being put up, as most of us would do, we would assume that anything behind the house would be a back yard. So everything that was done, she did to the best intentions. She went around and she talked to the neighbors. She measured the neighbor's height of their fence so she wouldn't be any higher than the neighbor's fence. So she meant to do the right thing, and until John stopped in and notified her, was she aware that she had broken any zoning laws within the Town, and certainly she has all of the neighbor's approval. They support her. Her intention truly was to make her home more attractive and to make it more convenient for her family. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Does anyone have any questions of Mrs. Potenza? MR. GREEN-Could you just clarify who you are again, I'm sorry. MRS. POTENZA-My name is Lynn Potenza. I'm a resident of the Town of Queensbury. I'm a County Supervisor for the Town of Queensbury. MR. GREEN-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Would anyone else like to speak in favor or opposed to this application? All right. I'll close the public hearing now. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. 10/13/96, "We have no objections to this variance application. Donald P. Stockman and Shirley StockmanJl MR. STONE-Did you get an address? MRS. LAPHAM-778 West Mountain Road, Queensbury, New York. So it's probably right. MR. THOMAS-It's probably right across the street, if I'm not mistaken. MRS. LAPHAM- Is it right across the street, or on the other corner, right in front of her? MRS. POTENZA-Next door. It's right next door. MR. THOMAS-Anything else in there? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-Alb right. think? Lets start with you, Bill, what do you MR. GREEN-Well, I kind of came in in the middle of this. I went out the other day and looked over the yard. The first thing that struck me was that, just looking at the map here, it does seem like an awful lot of leach field for the house, and we've looked at pools over the top of leach fields in the past, and then we have the extenuating circumstance of it already being in, and that, I think, bothers me more than anything else. The fence I don't have a problem with, five feet, six feet. It's pretty far off the road. - 4 - '-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) It's no obstruction to the turning around the corner onto West Mountain Road. I don't think the fence is a problem. I do have, you know, this idea of the cart bef~re the horse really bothers me. Especially with a back yard that Slze. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. KARPELES-Yes. I think our mandate is to grant minimum reliehf, and I see no reason why that pool can't be moved farther from t e property line, back into the garden. I hav:en' t h~ar<;i a good explanation as to why the fence has to be as hlgh,as lt lS. When I looked at it, it looked to me like the fence could be a foot lower and still mask the pool. MRS. RADIGAN MRS. RADIGAN-I'd like to say something on that. I tried to say it last time I was here, but you said it was closed and that I'd have to save my comments. Our property is on a slope. So ~here t~e pool is, you could see right by the road, you need a 11ttle blt higher, so that we have a little bit more privacy from the road. Our property is like on a slope. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but I saw the pool. The pool looks like it's a foot below the fence, at least, the top of, the pool. MRS. RADIGAN-Yes, and for our privacy it would have to be a little bit above the pool for us to have any privacy, not to be even with the pool. MR. KARPELES-Well, how does one foot difference give you any privacy? I mean, if you're standing up on the edge of the pool, you're more than a foot above the top of the pool. MRS. RADIGAN-Well, I don't want to have to, you know, be on my knees walking around the pool. I mean, I'd like to be in my bathing suit and have a little privacy. MR. KARPELES-That's my sentiment. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I mean, my biggest thing is the same as Bill's, these applications after the fact. It seems like a cart before the horse kind of thing, but I don't really have a problem with the pool, and it would seem to me that if you don't have a problem with the fence, you can't have a problem with the pool because you can't see the pool, unless you go right up and stand on tiptoes and look over the fence. So, I guess I would have to say that I really don't have as much of a problem with this as some of the other Board members, except for the fact that we're sitting here in November when the pool is installed probably in July. MRS. POTENZA-Can I just make a comment? When new people move into this community, they are completely unaware how restrictive the Zoning Ordinances are in this Town, and I know because I've Town Board, but when they walk in and move in to the community, their motivation is to improve their property and be good citizens of this community. There is nothing, there's nothing in the press. There's no handouts. There's no books. There's nothing that's sent out by the local government saying, these are restrictions to your property, unless you move into a development or you move into some sort of a subdivision. New,people in this community, this home was built in 1965. We did extensive research as to where the septic system was. The reason the pool wasn't put over the septic system was because we only knew where it was through the green of the grass. There's no written document to verify where the septic system is, and there is a philosophy out there that if it works and - 5 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) it works very well, then leave it alone, don't disturb it. Our only other choice was to bring in somebody and have it dug up and verify exactly where the septic system and the leach field was. That is an expense to the homeowner that shouldn't be incurred. So they did the best they can do. As far as the garden goes, these people live off that garden. They grow the vegetables. They can them. They freeze them, and they feed their family with it. So all of these things have to be taken into consideration when a decision is made by any Board in this Town. MR. THOMAS-I think the only thing I'd have to say on that, is there's a lot of signs when you come into the Town of Queensbury that says Zoning Ordinance in effect. MRS. POTENZA-That's true, except that if I were to put in an above ground pool, I would be a little, I would think that that's okay, and it would be okay, if he wasn't on a corner lot. MR. KARPELES-Well, you know, there's no big deal in moving an above ground pool anyway. MRS. POTENZA-Well, it's an inconvenience. MR. KARPELES-Are you saying we shouldn' t have zoning laws, or anybody who's new into the community isn't subject to those zoning laws, or isn't supposed to know about them? MRS. POTENZA-No. I believe we should have zoning laws, but I think new people should be contacted with some sort of a book or written explanation as to what's going on in the Town. MR. STONE-The Town Board has public forums every night they meet. This is certainly something that can be brought to the Town Board's attention. We are a function of the Town Board. We are not the Town Board. We do not make zoning laws. MRS. POTENZA-I understand that. MR. STONE-The one thing I didn't understand is, you kept saying lIourll. What is your involvement in this piece of property? MRS. POTENZA-Little or none. I met the Radigans as the mortgage originator, and they got their mortgage through my bank, through M & T Mortgage Corporation, and then I got involved as a personal friend. MR. STONE-I just heard the personal pronoun and was just trying to determine what, do you want my thoughts? MR. THOMAS-Yes. You're up next. MR. STONE-I share the thoughts of my two Board members to the left. I have been getting more and more outspoken since I've been on this Board for two months. I really don't like to have people come before this Board with a fate accompli. I really don't like to see things up before. It seems to me that there's enough information around. There may not be total information, but there's enough information around that says if you're going to do something to your property, check. We have a Department in the other building that is at anybody's disposal to give you as much information as they possibly can. I believe the pool can be moved. I am also troubled by the fence. I'm troubled by the fact that I don't even know where the property line is, and the fact that a six foot fence. MRS. POTENZA-But a survey wasn't requi red. The bank didn' t require a survey. It didn't come with the deed, and you expect, at the cost of the resident, to go out and get a survey? - 6 - .-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) MR. GREEN-I'll tell you, if I'm going to spend however many thousands of dollars for a piece of property, I want to know where it starts and ends. MRS. POTENZA-Well, some people can't afford it. Some people can't afford a survey when they apply for a mortgage. Some people are first time home buyers and they have to be gauged by what their pocketbook has. MR. STONE-But somebody puts a fence up on something that may not even be their property. It's possible. I don't kpow though. MRS. POTENZA- It is possible. It's possible if you match the neighbor's fence and go with their fence line. MR. STONE - I'm be ing asked to variance that may be illegal. give a variance, to vote for a I don't believe I can do it. MR. GREEN-If I knew, you know, definitively where that property line was down through there, in relation to that pool and the edge of the road, you know, I might have a different feeling about it. MRS. POTENZA-But do you know that a survey isn't required by the banks anymore? MR. KARPELES-There are no stakes, there's no nothing? MRS. POTENZA-According to the deed, there is. If you look at the deed, the deed will give a description of the property, but as far as a plot plan, as far as the survey goes. MR. KARPELES-You can string a string between stakes, and you can measure from the string. MRS. POTENZA-This house was built in 1965. There are no stakes. MR. KARPELES-And he bought a house without knowing where the property line was? MRS. POTENZA-He went with the deed description, as probably a good percentage of first time home buyers do. MRS. LAPHAM-Especially if they get title insurance. MRS. POTENZA-Which is required by the lending institution. MRS. LAPHAM-When they get title insurance, that's taken care of. MR. THOMAS-Anything else, Lou? MR. STONE-Well, I'm concerned by the height of the fence. I mean, we have a zoning that says five. I don't see any need for six, particularly when I look at the front gate coming off, which is four feet high. So there is an opening that's four feet high, and yet the applicant says she needs privacy to have six feet, when there is an opening of four feet. MRS. POTENZA-Well, she has four foot high kids. little kids. I mean, she has MR. STONE-There is a gap in the fence where it is four feet high. MR. RADIGAN-And it's only three feet wide, and the way it' s positioned, you would have to be standing directly in the middle of the road to be looking in. MRS. RADIGAN-Is that where the door is going to go in, they're talking about? That's where the door is going to go in. - 7 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) MR. STONE-There is a door there. It's four feet high. MRS. RADIGAN-Yes. You'd have to be standing directly in, you know, to be looking in. That's if someone was going to be that obvious to stop and stand there to look in. MR. RADIGAN-The bulk of the fence is just to shield us from Stewart Road. MR. STONE-But you have a six foot fence parallel to West Mountain Road also, with the exception of that four foot gate? MR. RADIGAN-Right. MR. STONE-So it's not just to shield you from Stewart Road, six foot high all the way around. MRS. RADIGAN-Stewart and West Mountain. MRS. POTENZA-How long is it on West Mountain Road? MR. RADIGAN-It's only about, I guess, 30 feet long. MR. THOMAS-Twenty-eight feet, twenty-eight, probably maybe 30 feet according to the drawing. Okay. I'll say it again that I don't like coming in for variances after the fact. I do live in that neighborhood. I have seen that fence. I've never stopped to measure it, but I really can't in my position. Mrs. Radigan did say, and I have seen it, that the lot does elevate a little from the road surface. So I really don't have a problem with the fence, but it's the pool setback that I have a problem with, and I think that can be moved to the south, you know, to get it farther away from that fence. MRS. RADIGAN- I'd like to say one other thing. The vegetable garden that you keep on talking about is directly under a pine tree that is not on our property. So if we were to put it there, it would be covered in pine needles all summer long. I get pine needles all summer in my vegetable garden, but that can be raked up without a problem at my convenience. It would be a real mess if the pool were under that. MR. THOMAS-That's something that the Radigans can' t control is what falls off that pine tree. MRS. RADIGAN-And it's not our pine tree. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I would like to make one comment, is I really think that people that have a corner lot, and that's why we've had several people before this Board with the same kind of thing, because people on a corner lot really have a problem providing any kind of privacy in their yard for themselves, because they don't have a back yard, and this isn't the first one we've heard. MR. THOMAS-Any other Board members have any comments they want to make? If not, does somebody want to make a motion one way or the other? MR. GREEN-Can you split this in half, fence and pool? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. GORALSKI-Actually, they are two separate sections. So you can make two separate motions if you want. MR. THOMAS-For one application? MR. GORALSKI - Yes, because they're two separate sections of the - 8 - - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) Ordinance. MR. GREEN-So you can give relief from one, but not the other. MR. THOMAS-Well, how would you split them up like that? MR. GORALSKI-If they're asking for a variance from Section 179-74B, which is the height of the fence, and also a variance from Section 179-67B. MR. THOMAS-Which is the pool. MR. GORALSKI-Which is the pool. So you can make a motion approving the height of the fence and disapproving the location of the pool, or vice versa, or disapproving both or approving both. MR. GREEN-What is the setback supposed to be, from the line, for a pool? MR. GORALSKI-Well, for that pool, actually it would have to be behind the north line of the house, to be a conforming pool. MR. GREEN-Okay. So it's supposed to be how many feet? MR. GORALSKI-The footage, in this case, doesn't really matter. The pool can't be any closer to the road than the house is. MR. GREEN-I see. MR. THOMAS-You'd have to go about 32 feet to the south to get behind the house. MR. GORALSKI-Plus the width of the pool. MR. THOMAS-Yes, I counted right from the width of the pool, also. MR. GREEN-It's got to go back about one pool flip, if you're going to go 32 feet and 32 feet. MR. GORALSKI-At least. It looks like the pool's diameter is 21 feet, so, a little more than that. MR. GREEN-I just went, you know, the house is 10 boxes off the road up here, and it comes. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but see, that comes at an angle. MR. GREEN-Well, that's what I did. I came down here and I went 10 boxes off the road line down here. MR. KARPELES-No, but he's saying it's got to be the same distance back as the house. MR. GORALSKI-Right. You've got to take that. MR. GREEN-Straight down, or at the angle? MR. GORALSKI-Straight down, in line with the wall of the house. MR. GREEN-From the house. MR. THOMAS-From the north wall. MR. GORALSKI-So actually it would be behind the garden. MR. GREEN-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-In order to be a conforming pool. - 9 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) MR. THOMAS-Yes, it would be almost in front of the woodshed, right over the top of the leach field. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. THOMAS-And I don't think. MR. GORALSKI-You can't put a pool over a leach field. MR. THOMAS-No, you can't. There's really no other place for that pool. You can't put it over the top of the leach field. MR. STONE-And you can't put it down behind the patio? MR. GREEN-Yes. Why can't you go down behind the patio? MR. RADIGAN-It's all shade. MR. GREEN-Well, that's not necessarily the problem. MRS. RADIGAN-Well, there's all trees there, too. MR. GREEN-See, the problem is to meet the setbacks and not be over the leach field. The shade is kind of irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned. MRS. RADIGAN-That's where our play area is. The play area is right there. He didn't draw in the swings and all that's there, the fort set up. MR. THOMAS-That would fit in there. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, but if that's all shady, we just agreed before that they can't be held responsible for the weather. MR. GREEN-I didn't agree to that. MR. KARPELES-No, I didn't, either. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, they can't be responsible for the weather ~ don't think. MR. KARPELES-I had a pool under a willow tree once. great. It worked MR. THOMAS-Well, lets get this thing rolling. Does somebody want to make a motion? We could sit here and talk about this all night. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 85-1996 ARTHUR RADIGAN, Robert Karpeles who moved for its adoption, seconded by Louis Stone: The applicant is proposing to construct a swimming pool and fence on a residential lot. The swimming pool would not conform to the locational requirements for pools, which allows for swimming pools to be constructed behind a principal structure. The fence is proposed to be taller than allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Feasible alternatives. I am not convinced that this is the minimum variance that can be granted. It appears that this pool could be moved further away from the property line, and the property line is pretty nebulous. We don't know where that is. The difficulty appears to be self created because the pool is already erected. The fence is six feet tall, and the Ordinance calls for a five foot tall fence, and we haven't heard any good reason, in my opinion, as to why the fence has to be taller than the Ordinance allows. Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 1996, by the following vote: - 10 - -- -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mrs. Lapham ABSENT: Mr. O'Leary MR. THOMAS-That's a four to one, so the application is denied. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 100-1996 TYPE II MR-5 MHO TIMOTHY S. CONDON, SR. OWNER: ARTHUR J. RIVERS NORTHEAST CORNER OF ðHIO AND CENTRAL AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE PLACEMENT OF A MOBILE HOME ON A LOT LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF OHIO AND CENTRAL AVENUES. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE FRONT YARD SETBACKS OF THE MR- 5 ZONING DISTRICT LISTED IN SECTION 179-18. TAX MAP NO. 127-6-9 LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES SECTION 179-18 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 100-1996, Timothy S. Condon, Sr., Meeting Date: November 21, 1996 "APPLICANT: Timothy Condon PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast corner of Ohio and Central Ave. Proposed proj ect and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to place a mobile home on a piece of property located at Ohio and Central Ave. The home would have a 14 foot setback from Ohio Avenue. This setback does not conform to the front yard requirements of the MR-5 zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to place a mobile home on his property. 2. Feasible alternatives: The length of this lot limits the ability of this mobile home to meet the front yard setback along Ohio Avenue. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking 16 feet of front yard setback relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? No negative effects are anticipated with this relief request. 5. Is this difficulty self created? A difficulty exists because the size of the proposed mobile home will not be able to meet the front yard setback on Ohio Avenue. 6. Staff Comments & Concerns: The applicant has not indicated where he plans to locate the septic system on this property. If this application is approved, septic facilities will need to be shown and approved by the Building Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-Okay, and there's nothing from Warren County. MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-Is Mr. Condon or Mr. Rivers here? No? Nobody here to represent the application? I guess we'll go on to the next one. JENNY DUPELL MR. DUPELL-Sir, I'm here regarding the corner lot there, because I live right next door. MR. THOMAS-Okay, but nobody has shown up for the application. MRS. DUPELL-Then what happens in a case like that? MR. THOMAS-All right. nobody showed up and we We'll do it anyway. application, I'll open I think last meeting or two meetings ago went through and did it anyway. All right. If no one's here to talk about the the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED - 11 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) JENNY DUPELL MRS. DUPELL-My name is Jenny Dupell and I own the lot next door, and when Mrs. Crumb's house burnt there I almost lost my house due to a fire that was, when the house burnt, it was nothing but a shack. MR. STONE-Are you on Ohio? MRS. DUPELL-Yes, I am. I'm right next door. MRS. LAPHAM-The white house? MRS. DUPELL-Yes, and I just had new windows, new storm windows and new siding. I've tried to improve my home, and I just don't feel that I should have to have a trailer put on that corner to bring the valuation of my house down, unless the Town of Queensbury wants to drop my taxes, because I'm paying enough taxes. So I don't feel that I should have to have a trailer that close to my home. MR. GREEN-Just right here, as a point of reference, this is in a mobile home overlay zone, isn't it? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, it is. MR. KARPELES-There are no other mobile homes in that area, though. MRS. DUPELL-Not on that end, except one Joe Maille has, down the road from us. MR. KARPELES-It is a mobile home area? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Mobile homes are allowable there. The reason they're here is for the front yard setback on Ohio Avenue. MR. STONE-That foundat~on that's there was a house, something that burned down? MRS. DUPELL-That was a house previous, yes. MR. GREEN-A regular stick built house? MRS. DUPELL-It was a shack, tar paper shack and they wrapped it in black plastic in the winter time, and I threatened to go on over and put a bow on it. I mean, I've done everything I could to improve mY property, and, I mean, I don't want to get another dump next to me, and that's what I had when Crumb's place was there. MR. THOMAS-I have a question for you. Rivers. The property is Arthur J. MRS. DUPELL-Right. MR. THOMAS-Of Vermont Avenue. Do you think that Mr. Rivers is going to live there or Mr. Condon's going to live there? MRS. DUPELL-Mr. Condon plans on living there. I don't know how many children they have. I know they have kids. He's a young kid. I mean, he's not that old, and I know they do have young kids, but I don't know exactly how many, and it's going to have to be a pretty good sized trailer with a family. MR. THOMAS-It looks like it's going to be 20 wide and, it's not a double wide at 20 foot. MR. GREEN-14 by 80. MR. THOMAS-Yes, 14 by 80. - 12 - '--' ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) MRS. DUPELL-60 by 100 the lot is. MR. THOMAS-Yes, and the lot's 60 by 100. Do any Board members have any questions for the? MR. STONE-Do you know, since we don't have the applicant here, there's a pipe sticking up in the middle of the? MRS. DUPELL-Yes, that used to be the old gas pipe. That was a gas pipe, it's been there for years. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. DUPELL-As a matter of fact, I cleaned those lots off after the fire was over. I took all her garbage away when she moved out and left the garbage laying in the yard. I cleaned that yard up to have it look half way decent so my place wouldn't look so bad, and I just don't feel that I want to have somebody come in and make a dump out of it again. MR. STONE-Just out of curiosity, what would you consider, since it is a buildable lot, what would you consider acceptable? MRS. DUPELL-Well, I don't know. A trailer is going to bring the valuation of my house down. Would you like a trailer on your? MR. STONE-Well, I wasn't, I was just curious if there was anything that would go there, that you would find acceptable. MRS. DUPELL-Well, if it wasn't as close to my house as this one was. They had to put a water barrier up to keep my house from burning when that house burnt. Pete Smith ran a fire barrier up, because my shingles were smoking and my siding was smoking, from the heat from the fire when they had that fire there. MR. THOMAS-This is the only lot that Mr. Rivers owns? He doesn't have a lot like next door to it or something? MRS. DUPELL-No. That's the only lot, is 60 by 100. MRS. LAPHAM-Is Mr. Condon buying the lot from Mr. Rivers? MRS. DUPELL-He wants to buy it. He hasn't bought it yet. MRS. LAPHAM-He hasn't purchased it yet? MRS. DUPELL-No. MRS. LAPHAM-And he hasn't purchased his mobile home yet? MRS. DUPELL-Not that I know of. MR. THOMAS-Any more questions? Do you have anything else you want to add? MRS. DUPELL-No. Well, if they put a trailer that close to the road, the kids do get on the school bus out there, too, and when the snow is piled up out there, you cannot see the kids when you're standing on the corner. I mean, I had grandkids that were getting on the bus out there. My grandkids are moved away now, but there are still other kids that use that corner, and when the snow banks get real high, there's no place for the kids to stand except in the road. If they can push the snow banks back a little, it would give them more room for the kids to stand, but if they've got a trailer that close to the road, they're not going to be able to, and I applied to put a roof on my house, and I went and applied for a permit to put a roof on my porch, on the foundation of my porch, and, well, they said I wasn't far enough off the road to put a roof - 13 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) over the existing foundation that was already there. I had a cement thing that was there when I bought my house. All I wanted to do was put a roof over it to keep the people from falling when they came in on account of the ice and snow. The Town of Queensbury gave me a hard time just putting a roof over my porch. When I went to the Building Inspectors and I said, look, I'm doing it to protect the people that come to my house. I don't want to get sued. If they slip and fall on your property, you're going to get sued, right? MR. THOMAS-That's right. MRS. DUPELL-So you want to put a roof over it to protect it, but the Town of Queensbury told me I couldn't put a roof over it, and I said either give me a permit or I'm doing it anyway, because I'm protecting the people that come on my property. I said, I'm sorry, that's the way it is. They did end up giving me a permit, but they didn't want to. That's why I say, you know, they wouldn't give me any leeway. Why give somebody else that hasn't even been in the area that long, I've been there almost 30 years now, at my place where I'm living, and you know, I plan on staying there, but I mean, if I'm going to have a trailer right on top of me and I'm going to take a chance of losing my house, because my house is built too close to the fence as it was, but that was built there when I bought the house. MR. THOMAS-According to the Ordinance, all he needs is a 10 foot setback. Well, there's no rear lot on this, is there? There's just, both fronts and sides, fronts and rears. Well, the rear on that is 10 feet. So, the drawing does show 10 feet off the rear. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. THOMAS-So the only thing they're looking at is that 14 foot off Ohio Avenue, which should be 30 feet. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. THOMAS-But, if this was a lot sitting between two other lots, all he would need is 10 feet, and he wouldn't have to be here. MR. STONE-Is this sewered, John? MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. STONE-So he needs a septic system. MRS. DUPELL-There is no sewer system there. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I'm not even sure how you would fit a septic system on that lot, given the size of that mobile home. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Anything else? MRS. DUPELL-That's it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. correspondence? \ , Anyone else like to speak opposed? Any MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-What do you think, Bob? MR. KARPELES-Well, it doesn't look like the kind of neighborhood - 14 - '- - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) that ought to have a mobile home in there, to me, but it's in a Mobile Home Overlay Zone, which, it's hard for me to understand, but since the applicant isn't even he:e, and the~e are a ,lot of unanswered questions as to how he's g01ng to put 1n a sept1c tank and so forth, I really don't see how we could grant this. That's my opinion. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I agree with Bob, and I just would like t~ add that since, according to this lady, the applicant hasn't e1ther purchased the lot or purchased his mobile home, he still has plenty of latitude to make changes that would fit into the Zoning Ordinance. So I would be against this. MR. GREEN-In the application it does say, to move our 14 by 80 mobile home on to, I would read that to say that they've got a home some place else and they want to move it here. MRS. LAPHAM-Maybe White Burch Estates, it's just not here. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-But he hasn't purchased the lot yet. MR. THOMAS-Yes. He doesn't own the lot yet. MR. THOMAS-Lou? MR. STONE-I see no reason to grant this variance, for some of the reasons that have been mentioned before. I also have a, it's a small thing, but I was annoyed that there was no pink sign, unless some of you saw the pink sign. MR. THOMAS-I didn't see it. MR. STONE-I didn't see a pink sign, and the applicant isn't even here to answer that question. So I'm inclined to turn it down. MR. THOMAS-Bill? MR. GREEN-I don' t want to turn this down yet. I have some questions. I would be more apt to want to table this. In general, I don't, personally, think it's a bad idea. A lot that size, it's a Mobile Home Overlay. We can't contest whether he wants to put a mobile home there or not. He's meeting his two rear setbacks. Sure, I have a question about the septic. Sure it would be nice if he were here to answer some questions, but I, personally, don't feel like denying this simply on the basis of a few unanswered questions. MR. THOMAS-Well, I'll have to agree with the other Board members, that, Number One, the applicant, nor his agent, nor the owner showed up to answer the questions, and they were notified that the meeting was here tonight. My biggest question is, is the septic system, where is that going to go? If this was a smaller structure, such as a 14 by 70, instead of an 18 by 80, that might be more feasible to put that on there, but I think this lot is way too small for a structure that size, and it is on a corner lot, and with the snow piling up and everything like that, that 14 feet off that property line, I can see problems. I can also see problems that the applicant at some point may want to build a garage, and would have to come back for a variance for a garage. Also, parking on there may be difficult with a structure that size. So I'd be inclined to turn this down. Having said that, would anyone like to make a motion? MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 100-1996 TIMOTHY S. CONDON, SR., - 15 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) Introduced by Bonnie Lapham who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: The applicant is proposing to place a mobile home on a piece of property located at Ohio and Central Avenue. The home would have a 14 foot setback from Ohio Avenue. This setback does not conform to the front yard requirements of the MR-5 zone. The benefit to the applicant, the relief would allow the applicant to place a mobile home at his property. I think some of the feasible alternatives, there are no feasible alternatives for this particular lot, but there are alternative choices that the applicant could make in looking into property. The applicant is seeking 16 feet of front yard setback relief. We've heard some public comment that the surrounding neighborhood feels that there is a negativity connected with this project. Difficulty does exist because of the size of the proposed mobile home will not be able to meet the front yard setback on Ohio Avenue. I feel it's somewhat self created because the mobile home is not there yet and the lot is not purchased, and the applicant further has not indicated where he plans to locate his septic system on this property, and that would certainly have to be reviewed by the Building Department. Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. Green ABSENT: Mr. O'Leary MR. THOMAS-The application is denied. AREA VARIANCE NO. 101-1996 TYPE II WR-1A GARY & SANDY AUSTIN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SECOND TO LAST HOUSE ON LEFT ON TWIN CHANNELS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME LOCATED ON TWIN CHANNELS ROAD. RELIEF IS BEING SOUGHT FROM SECTION 179-79A2, WHICH LIMITS THE EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/13/96 TAX MAP NO. 138-1-6 LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES SECTION 179-79A2 GARY AUSTIN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT I Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 101-1996, Gary & Sandy Austin, Meeting Date: November 21, 1996 "APPLICANT: Gary & Sandy Austin PROJECT LOCATION: Twin Channels Road Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to construct a second floor addition to an existing home. This expansion would be more than 50% of the area of the original structure built on this property. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build a second floor addition to an existing home. 2. Feasible alternatives: It appears there are no feasible alternatives which could provide a lesser amount of relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinanqe? Although no floor plans have been submitted, the maximum amount of floor area that could be added would be 500 sq. ft. This would bring the total square footage of the home up to 1000 sq. ft. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? No negative effects are anticipated with this relief request. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The current square footage of this home, 500 square feet, is below the minimum house size of 800 sq. ft. that is listed in the Zoning Ordinance. 6. Staff Comments & Concerns: The total square footage, permeability and floor area ratio at this location will comply with the standards of the WR-1A zone. Staff anticipates no negative impacts with this application - 16 - '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) for relief. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-And nothing from Warren County. MRS. LAPHAM-And nothing from Warren County. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is the applicant here? MR. AUSTIN-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Warren County said No County Impact. , MR. STONE-No County Impact, yes. MR. GORALSKI-You said nothing from Warren County. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I haven't got the statement. MRS. LAPHAM-There's no statement. MR. GORALSKI-Is it in that file? MRS. LAPHAM-Not that I'm aware of. It wasn't attached. MR. GORALSKI -Actually, they said No County Impact, the septic system has to conform, something about the septic system has to conform. There is a functioning septic system there. MRS. LAPHAM-Usually it's attached to the Notes to File. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-I don't know why it's not there, but at any rate, the only comment Warren County had was about the septic system, and there is a functioning septic system on the site. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any questions for the applicant from the Board? MR. GREEN-You've got the same name and two different addressed. Is this your primary residence? MR. AUSTIN-No. My primary residence is primary residence is 1602 St. James Road. MR. GREEN-So what do you use this residence for? MR. AUSTIN-It's a camp. MR. GREEN-Essentially summer residence, seasonal? MR. AUSTIN-Yes. MR. GREEN-Would you be staying there during the winter? MR. AUSTIN-Myself, not right now, no. MR. GREEN-Did you have plans to rent it in the future? MR. AUSTIN-Possibility, yes. I do have it rented right now. So there is somebody in the camp right now. MR. GREEN-Are they year round tenants? MR. AUSTIN-Yes, right now they are. MR. GREEN-So that is a year round residence at this point? MR. AUSTIN-Yes. - 17 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) MR. GREEN-And did they plan on staying after this construction? MR. AUSTIN-I don't know that. That I don't know. MR. GREEN-So when you say that you need additional living space, some place here, a second bedroom, that's really not for your use, it's to generate a better rentability aspect? MR. AUSTIN-Yes, or as I'm looking at the place, we have a family. I mean, down the road, is I want to use that for a camp or whatever, there's a small bedroom, which is, if you have the print out, there's a little block on there that shows the bedroom. It's barely big enough to stick a bed in. The ceiling height in that is only like, at the outside wall, five and a half feet. I mean, there's a sloped roof on the camp itself, which to be shoveled during the winter. It's an old structure. It needs some renovation, and the bedroom itself is extremely small that' s existing there. MR. GREEN-So the rest of the area, essentially , living room, kitchen. MR. AUSTIN-Yes, it's basically, that's all small. I mean, it's all within 500 square feet there. It's a pretty small structure. It's also below grade, basically. Hillside is, the top of the roof is, as you walk out on that, it's basically a basement more. I was thinking with putting a second story on that, that would actually bring it up to ground level, actually, for access on the top. MR. STONE-Except that this is on a deck, isn't it, John? The front part, toward the river, is on a deck? MR. GORALSKI-There's a deck in front of it. MR. STONE-Yes, but where is the ground? Is it in front of it? Where is the ground actually to the front of the house, under the new law where we're talking? MR. GORALSKI-You measure from whatever point on the roof you're measuring from to the vertical distance to that point on grade. MR. STONE-Is this going to be higher than 28? MR. GORALSKI-No. Definitely not. MR. STONE-From grade in front of it? MR. GORALSKI -Right. Well, you've got to remember now, at the front, it may be, as long as the roof comes down, he's okay. He's not asking for relief from the height restriction. MR. STONE-Well, I'm just curious. Is it going to exceed the height restriction? MR. GORALSKI-The plan that I've discussed with the applicant, it's not going to exceed the height restriction. MR. THOMAS-Any, other questions for the applicant? The only question I have is this eight by fifteen, is that on the river side that's going to be filled in? MR. AUSTIN-Yes, it is. MR. THOMAS-Is that the notch that's going to be filled in there? MR. AUSTIN-Correct. MR. THOMAS-And then build up right on top of that? - 18 - -- '-" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) MR. AUSTIN-Right. So that would make it a square structure, and then build on top of that. MR. THOMAS-Yes. So that would bring the second floor addition to 616 square feet. MR. AUSTIN-Correct. MR. THOMAS-Okay. No more questions? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GARY MARKWELL MR. MARKWELL-My name is Gary Markwell. I'm the next door neighbor. I'd have to say I'm opposed at the moment, because there are too many things, I'm very unf ami 1 iar wi th laws and so forth, and there's things that, right now, I don't really know enough about, other than Gary and myself talking some about this. What concerns me is the property line running so close to it, within, I think, a matter of six feet or so, and there's so, the property is so limited around the structure now as it is, as far as septic, a well or what have you, that I think it would overtax the area right there, or open up a can of worms or something like that. I'm not saying maybe down the road I'd be for it, but right now there's too many things that, with this close proximity of the property line to it, that I'm kind of, right like I say at the moment I feel opposition to it. MR. KARPELES-Which side are you on? MR. MARKWELL-I'm to the south. MR. KARPELES-You're the south side? MR. MARKWELL-Right. MR. STONE-You're at the end of the road? MR. MARKWELL-Right. I'm the last house. He is to the north of me. MR. STONE-Where is the septic system, John, do we know? Mr. Austin, where is the septic system? MR. AUSTIN-It's close to, as far as I know, it's right on or close to the border that he's talking about along his house right there. MR. STONE-In the back yard? MR. AUSTIN-It would be on the right side of the structure, close to his boundary. MR. STONE-As you're looking at the river on the right side? MR. AUSTIN-Correct. MR. STONE-Between there and the garage? MR. AUSTIN-No. It's right next to the camp somewhere down there on the right side. It's very close to his boundary line. MR. THOMAS-But you did say, is that a working septic system? MR. GORALSKI-A functioning system. MR. THOMAS-A functioning system, so there's nothing we can do about that, nothing the Town can do about it. Does anyone have any questions for the person speaking opposed, Mr. Markwell? I have - 19 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) two more questions for Mr. Austin. Number One, with this addition, are you going to put another bathroom upstairs, in that? MR. AUSTIN-I haven't really drawn the plans up, as far as what was going on. Basically, I'm trying to see what's going on with the variance, whether it's going to fly or not. That was a possibility, if things were going to work out for it. Does that have something to do with the variance as far as what's going on? MR. THOMAS-Yes, it does. MR. AUSTIN-Okay. MR. THOMAS-John, if he adds a bathroom on to that, and it overtaxes the system, what happens then? MR. GORALSKI -Well, if the system fails, he's got to put in a conforming system, but to go back to adding a bathroom, adding a bathroom does not change the requirements for the septic system one way or another, whether you put a conforming system or whether you have an existing system. You have an existing system and it's functioning, in this case, which is when the application was received and everything, if he's got a functioning septic system, he can put the addition on and maintain the septic system. If he decides to put a new septic system, or if he is forced to because the existing septic system fails, he would have to design a septic system based on the number of bedrooms, not the number of baths. MR. THO~S-Okay, and the other question I have is, what's the shape of the roof going to be? Is it going to be a pitched roof, a peaked roof? MR. AUSTIN-Right, a peaked roof rather than the sloped roof that's on there now. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and the ridge of that roof running parallel with that property line with Mr. Markwell? MR. AUSTIN-Correct. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So the runoff would go toward the property lines on both sides? MR. AUSTIN-Right. If that's a problem, that could be changed also. That's not in stone either. MR. THOMAS-Runoff in the Waterfront Residential, see, passed new laws, or a new Zoning Ordinance for the Residential, and we're not quite up to speed on this. keep going back to John. MR. GORALSKI-Well, technically, this application is under the old Waterfront Residential. they just Waterfront We have to MR. THOMAS-It's under the old one? MR. GORALSKI-Because it was received prior to the enactment of the Waterfront, th~ new ordinance. MR. THOMAS-You're kidding? 6th. That was back in September, October MR. GORALSKI-This was received before that. MR. THOMAS-Yes, because there's no date stamped on here. All right. So we don't have any say about the runoff then either. MR. GORALSKI-If that's a concern, you can either put conditions on - 20 - -..' - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) it that would direct the runoff in a different direction, or, you know, in the past, the Board has put a condition that site plan review be, that he gets a site plan review. MR. AUSTIN-To me, it's a square structure and it basically doesn't matter. That was illY intent for the roof. It doesn't matter if it goes the other way. It's not a big issue to me, if it's a problem with the Board. MR. THOMAS - Yes. My concern is the runof f going on to Mr. Markwell's property, and also, if you say that s~ptic system is right there next to the building, between, it's 8.3 feet between the building and the property line, you know, if that runoff goes into there, I don' t know what it's going to do to that septic system. Because now it slopes from front to back, you know, it comes off the back of the building, and if you put a peaked roof on there, then it's going to, start going toward that side. MR. AUSTIN-There's a couple of options with that. I mean, there's gutters that could be put up to take care of the runoff. The soil there is very sandy. I mean, the soil there is very sandy. I mean, drainage is good, but if that's a problem, I could change the roof the other way. MR. THOMAS-All right. MR. MARKWELL-Again, something like that, that really is not a concern, more so as just the close proximity of the septic. There is or was a well there, and again, so close to the property line, where if anything is done, how can they upgrade anything else? I'd say there's an impossibility to upgrade anything else, to meet. MR. AUSTIN-Okay. I would say, Gary, there's a couple of options I have there. Town water is available, as far as the structure itself, and as far as the septic problem down the road, the septic system could be put back toward the road side there. Am I right in that, John, is there area for that? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, it looks like you have enough room to put a conforming system in there. MR. AUSTIN-If that was a problem down the road, that that could take care of that problem. MR. GORALSKI-I mean, I'm just looking at it very quickly. I haven't scaled it out, but there appears, the lot's 49 feet wide, you have 30 feet in which to put a septic system in. You could put at least three, probably four fingers for a leach field, or you could put seepage pits. You'd probably have to put a pump in to pump up to it. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but right now it's a moot point, the septic system, because it is an existing system that works. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. THOMAS-So, we can't do anything about the septic system. MR. STONE-I am confused, Mr. Austin. The roof right now, here's the river, the roof is this way, correct, going back toward the garage? MR. AUSTIN-No, it slopes towards the river. MR. STONE-The other way? Okay. I knew it was one way or the other, and you're proposing it to continue that pitch? MR. AUSTIN-No. - 21 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) MR. STONE-Okay. You're going to turn it. MR. AUSTIN-Right. MR. STONE-That's what I heard. I just wanted to confirm it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any more questions, Mr. Markwell? MR. MARKWELL-No, I guess not. My concern just really fell upon that, the septic in close proximity to everything. MR. THOMAS-Did you get your questions answered? Maybe or maybe not to your satisfaction, but that's the way it is. Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak opposed? Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-No correspondence. All right. hearing. I'll close the public PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Bob, what do you think? MR. KARPELES-Well, I was waiting to see if the neighbors from the north would be here, because the first thing that struck me when I went out there was that if you build another story on top of that, it would appear to me that it would block off their view, and it's a pretty view out in that area. It doesn't bother Mr. Markwell. He's out far enough so I don't think it's going to bother his view, but the people on the north. MR. AUSTIN-I spoke to the woman before I applied for the variance. She said she didn't have a problem with that. MR. STONE-The person across the street either? MR. AUSTIN-That's who he's talking about. MR. KARPELES-No. I'm talking about the white, the one on the north of you. MR. GREEN-VanDusen. MR. AUSTIN-Okay. The one, Mr. McCully also is to the north of me. He said he had no problem whatsoever with it. MR. THOMAS-We didn't get any correspondence from anybody. had his chance to talk. Anything else? So he MR. KARPELES-That's all I have. MR. THOMAS-Bill? MR. GREEN-I don't have a big concern. I would like to see site plan take a look at this, just because of the skinny nature of this lot, and the slope of the land and some other things going on, but I generally don't have a problem with the variance. MR. THOMAS-Before I go on to Lou, what do you think about site plan, Bob? Do you think we should send it to site plan? MR. KARPELES-Yes, I think we should. MR. THOMAS-Lou, what do you think? MR. STONE-Well, I had my note, after I looked at the property, was I needed to listen and convince me, and I guess I'm convinced. The - 22 - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) only other thing that I would say, since I've said it before, is I didn't see a pink sign on the property. MR. AUSTIN-I apologize for that. The thing was mailed to the wrong address. They delivered it a couple of days ago to me here. So I apologize for that. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-And what about site plan review? MR. STONE-Yes, I think it would be a good idea, because it is a very congested area, and it should be looked at that way. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I think it should be granted because the house is way undersized for anyone to really live in comfortably, and I think since it's in a Waterfront Residential district it should definitely go to site plan. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I'd agree with the other Board members. This is an existing dwelling that is way under the minimum for a building in a Waterfront Residential area. It's only 500 feet, and it should be 800 feet. The building does sit down low, so putting a second story addition on there, I don't think, would really block anyone's view because even the garage at the top of the hill is blocking the view from across the road. The septic system is working, in working order now, and we all know what happens if it fails. Really, Mr. Markwell did speak in opposition to this, but I don' t think there's a, there isn' t any other neighborhood opposition to it, and I think Mr. Markwell's questions were answered, hopefully, to his satisfaction, as to what will happen and what will happen in the future in case something goes wrong, and I also think this should go to site plan. So having said that, I'm looking for a motion. MR. GORALSKI-If you want to send it to site plan, that's fine with me, but are there specific things that, I assume, stormwater is the main issue? MR. THOMAS-Yes, stormwater runoff, because of the proximity of the septic system to the house. That's my concern. MR. GORALSKI-Is that something you can address here, or do you feel that's better with the Planning Board? MR. THOMAS-Well, that's the Planning Board's, really, not ours. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. THOMAS-But I really would, because it is in a Waterfront Residential, it is close to the property line. The septic system is within the, very close to the house. If the septic system was somewhere else, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but I'd rather let the Planning Board take a look at this. They're the experts on that. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 101-1996 GARY & SANDY AUSTIN, Introduced by Louis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: Applicant is proposing to construct a second floor addition to an existing home. This expansion would be more than 50% of the area of the original structure built on this property. Benefit to the applicant, relief would allow the applicant to build a second floor - 23 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) addition to an existing home, and it appears there are no feasible alternatives that could provide a lesser amount of relief. No floor plans have been submitted, however, the maximum amount of floor ar~a that would be added would be 616 square feet, which would brlng the total square footage of the house up to 1232 square feet. No negative effects are anticipated on this relief request. Is this difficulty self created? The current square footage of the home, 500 square feet, is below the minimum house size of 800 square feet listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Because of the change of the nature of the roof as proposed by the applicant, that is the roof would slope to either side property lines, we believe that this should be looked at by site plan, also because the septic system lies directly under one of the sides of the roof between the house and the property line, which is quite close. This grants relief from 179~79A2. Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 1996, by the following vote: MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there any question on the motion by any of the Board members? MR. AUSTIN-I've got a question on the square footage. Okay. I propose to put an extra 100 square feet on the 500, on the basement, there's that little block area. So, and then you put a second story on that, there would actually be another 100 square. MR. STONE-It would be 1232. So then the total square footage of the house would be 1232 square feet. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Forgot about that. second floor, forgot all about the motion by any of the Board members? what we're granting? Everybody's worried about the first. Any questions on the Does the applicant understand MR. AUSTIN-Yes, I do. MR. THOMAS-Does Staff understand what we're granting here? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone, Mr. Green, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. O'Leary MR. THOMAS-You have the blessing of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Now you have to go apply to the Planning Board. MR. AUSTIN-Okay. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 104-1996 TYPE II SR-1A VILINIS NEILANDS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE MAIN STREET TO CAROLINE STREET, LOTS ARE LOCATED AT THE END OF THE STREET WHERE KNIGHT STREET BEGINS APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO MODIFY THE PROPERTY LINES OF SEVEN EXISTING LOTS. THE LOTS WILL BE MODIFIED SO THAT SOME OF THEM WILL NOT MEET THE AREA REQUIREMENTS OF THE SR-1A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE AREA REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN SECTION 179-19. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/13/96 TAX MAP NO. 131-8-5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 22, 26 LOT SIZE: 7.18 ACRES TOTAL SECTION 179-19 ELIZABETH PERRY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-Read that letter in. MR. GORALSKI-You probably don't have to read that entire letter. Basically it says that the culvert work that's proposed to mitigate - 24 - '-- --- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) the drainage problem and erosion problem that comes under the Nationwide General Permit for Freshwater Wetlands. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-It's long and it's boring. MR. THOMAS-Thanks, John. It's not like all of us haven't read it anyway, but just to let you know that it is, you know, put it in the minutes that it is in the file. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 104-1996, Vilinis Neilands, Meeting Date: November 21, 1996 "APPLICANT: Vilinis Neilands PROJECT LOCATION: Knight & Caroline Street Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to modify the property lines of seven existing lots. The lots will be modified so that some of them will not meet the area and/or width requirements of the SR-1A district. The lots identified as A, C, D, E and F will not meet the one acre minimum lot area for the district. Lots C, and D will not conform to the width requirements of the zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to modify the lot lines of seven existing lots, resulting in seven reconfigured lots. 2. Feasible alternatives: The applicant may have the ability to merge and redesign some of the lots so that all lots meet the area requirements. However, if this were done, the result would be less than seven lots which currently exist. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The applicant seeks to modify seven existing lots. The result will be seven lots, five of which will be nonconforming. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? No negative effects are anticipated with this relief request. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The applicant seeks to modify seven lots, five will be nonconforming, where seven lots exist (three of which appear to be nonconforming). 6. Staff Comments & Concerns: The nonconforming lots which will be created all appear to be in character with development in the surrounding neighborhood. The new nonconforming lots will have more acreage than existing lots immediately surrounding this site. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MRS. LAPHAM-IIAt a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 13th day of November 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to modify the property lines of seven existinq lots. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by Linda Bassarab, Vice Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is the applicant or his agent here tonight? MS. PERRY-I'm Elizabeth Perry, and I'm going to represent Mr. Perry in this matter. This is a parcel of property that ViI has purchased various parcels over the last 20 years at tax sales, in different ways, to put together the land out behind his house. He's used this land as a wood lot for firewood over the years, and now he's approaching retirement and looking for a way to market the property, and I've taken it on to try to figure out the best way to use the land, and in talking to the neighbors and to people putting out a sign to see who would be interested in purchasing land, find that the way we've broken it up is of interest, both someone wanting the large parcel and people expressing interest in purchasing some of the smaller parcels around Caroline and Knight Streets. Lot A is an area, is a parcel that would be very difficult to build on, and the Town of Queensbury has expressed interest from the Highway Department in straightening out Fifth Avenue extension, and that would be a good use of that piece of land there. We've offered to donate that parcel, eliminating that - 25 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) problem, and at the same time, the Highway Department would deal with some of the issues of runoff coming down Caroline and Knight Street, and the general intention here is to make good use of this land and incorporate it into the neighborhood, in a positive manner, being that right now it, there's all kinds of problems with the kids and other things in this wooded parcel. MR. THOMAS-Have you got any questions for the applicant? MR. GREEN-I've got just kind of a curiosity question. That one green strip that runs along the back, what was that, aNiMo purchase or something? MS. PERRY-Well, no. It's an old railroad bed. MR. GREEN-Okay. That answers the question. MR. STONE-Are there any wetlands on this parcel? MS. PERRY -The railroaÇi bed goes down to a Federally regulated wetland. That's why we've dealt with DEC and the Army Corps of Engineers already. The actual property line does, the wetland does stray over onto our line, too, but it basically, that whole curve is the railroad bed. So it's just a matter of what the railroad bed does and what DEC's interests are is that that railroad bed not be disturbed. They want that to act as a filtration medium to protect the wetland and suggested permitting with filtration and also that the water not surge into the swamp, and they are overlooking that aspect with their 100 foot buffer, that basically is the railroad bed and in some places is more than the railroad bed, but above that they have expressed that it's not wetland to be concerned about. There's little pockets that are wet, mainly an old sand pit that was mined out, and also an area where the stormwater has been dumping off the road. So they don't feel that, technically, those are areas that need to be protected, but that below the bank is a sensitive area. MR. STONE-You mean down at the, where it says "properties of", that area? MS. PERRY-Yes. MR. THOMAS-I have a question on the proposed lot lines, on Lot B. In the lower drawing it shows that green strip of land coming up to Fifth Street, is that part of Lot B? MS. PERRY-Yes, it. That will be the access to it. MR. THOMAS-And that's frontage on Town road. Okay, and how wide is that? MS. PERRY-49.5 feet, I think. MR. THOMAS-On your chart here it shows proposed for Lot B, it says incorporated. MS. PERRY-Incorporated? MR. STONE-49.56 or something. MR. GORALSKI-The survey shows 49.55 feet. MR. THOMAS-For Lot C, on this one I've got, it shows 49.55, for Lot C. MR. GORALSKI-No. Lot C has 85. MR. THOMAS-That's for Lot F on the one I've got. Did I get a - 26 - '-- -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) different one, again? MR. STONE-Do you have this one? MR. GREEN-He's got a nice one over here. MR. THOMAS-I'm reading it off this. MR. STONE-I've got this one. MR. THOMAS-Yes, see that's where I'm getting the difference here. Do I have that one, yes, I do. ' MR. STONE-Lot B it says 54.8. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and this map here is the one that's proposed? MS. PERRY-Yes. It is. I may have goofed up the letters on the lots. It was unintentional. MR. THOMAS-Yes, because like I say, I'm reading this chart here, and the first one across the top, it says "Proposed size of lot is 2.4 acres", and the frontage map shows 54.8 feet on a tax map, and proposed survey says incorporated, and what's the incorporated mean? MS. PERRY-I was trying to make it clear. I guess I confused it, just that, the whole project is a little peculiar. I think it just meant that the Fifth Street lot, that small narrow one, is being incorporated into the bigger lot. MR. THOMAS-All right. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. The difference in the number for the frontage on the chart, the difference between the number on the chart and the number on the map is that the map is an actual survey. The frontage on the chart was taken from the tax map. So that the survey map would be more accurate. MR. STONE-Okay. What does it read? MR. GORALSKI-49.55. MR. STONE-That's what I read. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-None. MR. THOMAS-What do you think, Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, actually I don't know at this point. Come back to me later. I'm not against it, so to speak, even though there's a large number of lots that are going to be created that aren't going to be meeting, you know, zoning, and I'm not absolutely positive that something more couldn't be rearranged, but it might prove an economic hardship if we had to list the number of lots. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I'll come back to you. - 27 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) MRS. LAPHAM-All right. MR. THOMAS-Lou? MR. STONE-I'm kind of at the same place that Bonnie is. My first inclination is we have zoning, and here is an opportunity to stick with the zoning. I recognize what the applicant's agent has said. Certainly, if you combine C and D and made six lots, you would at least be up to, the smallest would be .64 rather than .38, which would be more to my liking if I went along with it at all. I recognize the willingness of the applicant to give up some of the land for a Town road, which is commendable, but I guess I still want to hear some more as we talk among ourselves. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bill? MR. GREEN-How many lots now conform with the one acre? MR. STONE-Two. MR. GREEN-Just two? MR. KARPELES-Three, B, G, and A. MR. THOMAS-B, G, and A, right now. MR. STONE-That's the current size. MR. GREE~-That's what I meant, how many conform now. MR. THOMAS-Yes, conforming. MR. STONE-Three. MR. GREEN-Okay. I think this is a wonderful idea. I can't say it any easier than I think an awful lot of thought has gone into this. I think that they're trying to do this 100% the right way. I wish a lot of other plans that came before us had this much forethought put into them before they get here. You look at Lot C there, that we spoke about being a .38 acres. That's still, judging from the area of other lots on this map, larger than any of them in the area. I think this would be a nice sort of transition from one area to another. I think it's a nice idea. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and Bob? MR. KARPELES-Well, my initial reaction was pretty much along the first two that spoke, but after looking in the area and seeing the size of the lots and seeing it's a nice neighborhood and these would be bigger than the average lot in the neighborhood, the existing lots, I guess I really can't see any big objection to it. MR. STONE-I do have one question of the applicant. The lands, the wetlands that we're talking about, that's not buildable? MS. PERRY-The Federally regulated wetlands? MR. STONE-Yes, ,the swamp, you called it a swamp. MS. PERRY-Definitely not. MR. STONE-So there would be no further transition to one acre property? MS. PERRY-That's correct. I mean, the Army Corps of Engineers they protect, they're very strict. MR. GREEN-And you said you can't build on that railroad bed anyway, - 28 - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) -- essentially? MS. PERRY-Well, it's within the 100 foot buffer. permits, and the way we've designed it, that necessary. It requires DEC shouldn't be MR. THOMAS-That was going to be mY question there. The Lots E, F and G seem to drop off as you go away from the road. Do you propose to bring fill into there to bring those up? MS. PERRY-Yes. There's some mounds of dirt back in \ that have been there probably since the construction of the railroad bed, the DEC has given us permission to move, and then people have been putting fill in there, too, over the years, but to be buildable, they do need to be brought up to grade. MR. THOMAS-Will you have to get any permits from DEC or Army Corps of Engineers, because you will be, will some of that fill come within the 100 feet of the DEC? MS. PERRY-No. That area around the corner, assuming people were going to build on the front along the street, they would not be subject to the DEC or Army Corps of Engineers. MR. THOMAS-Okay. A question for John. Is there any stipulation in the Town law about how much fill you can bring in without a mining permit? MR. GORALSKI-No. There's stipulations as to how much you can take out. MR. THOMAS-But not how much you can bring in, how much you can fill? Okay. I just want to make that clear. MR. GORALSKI-There are requirements as far as finished grades and slopes. Slopes can' t be any greater than three on one. Any slopes that are resulting from bringing the fill in need to be stabilized by vegetation or some other means, but as far as the amount of fill, there's no regulation. MR. THOMAS-I just wanted to make sure. MR. GREEN-I would just like to say that, judging from preliminary information, most anything that goes on there, almost certain, is going to be done up to par. this I'm MR. GORALSKI-Something else I just want to mention is that this is not a subdivision, because the resulting number of lots is no more than what was there before. So this will not get any subdivision. It will not require any subdivision approval. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So this doesn't have to go before the Planning Board for any reason? MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lot A that you're planning on deeding over to the Town of Queensbury, are they going to accept it as the lot sits right now, or is there anything you have to do to that lot before they'll take it? MS. PERRY-I'm not of the impression that there's anything we need to do. They haven't specifically said that they want it, but they've indicated, verbally, that they do. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-I can give you a little more information on that also. - 29 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) I did speak to Rick Missita, Deputy Highway Superintendent. He said they were very interested. They did think it was a great idea to be able to straighten out Richardson Street, and if the land is donated, is offered for donation, I do believe that the Highway Department is anxious to do that proj ect and straighten out Richardson Street, Fifth Street Extension. MR. THOMAS-Is Lot A a buildable lot as it's proposed? MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. THOMAS-Without variances? MR. GORALSKI-I don't think it could meet the setbacks. MS. PERRY-Actually, I know that it does have the setbacks. just very steep. It's MR. GORALSKI-Yes. You might be able to, but the topography there is really going to be tough, and they're definitely going to be within the 100 foot boundary, to do anything on that lot. MR. THOMAS-Does that fit into the three on one slope? I mean, I know it doesn't, because there's a steep drop off, but if you brought fill in there. MR. GORALSKI-That's what I'm saying. If you brought fill in there, first of all, you'd definitely need a DEC permit, and it would be tricky. , You could probably meet the setbacks, but it would be a tricky lot to be develop. It would not be an easy lot to develop. MR. THOMAS-All right. I think it's a great idea. It conforms to the lots in the neighborhood. In fact, there's another list on here gi ving properties in the area, and only one lot in this proposed realignment of property lines is larger than the smallest lot that they're proposing. So, I have no problem whatsoever with this. The only thing I'm going to have a problem with is doing a resolution on this one~ because we have to give relief for each and every lot, by lot size. MR. GORALSKI-Would you like me to read them off, when you make the resolution and get to the lots, I can read them off the survey map. I'll give the date, I'll describe the survey map and I'll give the lot letter and lot sizes on this map. MR. THOMAS-Can I talk you into doing the resolution? No? Is there any other questions of the applicant? MR. STONE-No, I'm satisfied. MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-Does somebody want to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 104-1996 VILINIS NEILANDS, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Louis Stone: The applicant is proposing to modify the lot lines of seven existing lots. The lots will be modified so that five of them will not meet the zoning requirements of the SR-1A district. These lots are identified as Lots A, C, D, E, and F. Lot C and D will not conform to the width requirements of the zone. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be able to modify the lot lines of seven existing lots, resulting in seven reconfigured lots. Feasible alternatives. The applicant may have the ability to merge and redesign some lots so that all the lots meet the area requirements. However, if this was done, the result would be less - 30 - ~, -" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) than seven lots, which currently exist. It would also make the lots bigger than the areas of the lots in the neighborhood now: Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The appllcant is seeking to modify seven existing lots. The result will be seven lots five of which will not be conforming. Effects on the neighborhood or community? There doesn't seem to be any negative effects anticipated with this relief request, and there has been no public comment on this. ~s the difficulty: self cr~ated? The applicant is seeking to modlfy seven lots, flve of WhlCh wlll be nonconforming where seven lots exist, three of which appear to be nonconforming. I would grant relief from thE\ Single Family Residential One Acre zone of 0.19 acres for Lot A. Lot B conforms. Lot C, proposed is 0.38, so I would grant 0.62 acres of relief on Lot C. On Lot D I would grant relief of 0.54 acres, and Lot E, I would grant relief of 0.36 acres, and Lot F, I would grant relief of 0.25 acres, and Lot G is a conforming lot. As far as the width of Lot C, it's about 100 foot average and 150 foot is required. I would grant 50 feet of relief from the lot width requirement of the Ordinance for Lot C, and Lot D I would grant relief of 58 feet from the lot width of Lot D. Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone, Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. O'Leary MR. THOMAS-You have the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. MS. PERRY-Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-You're quite welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 105-1996 TYPE II WR-1A/CEA JANE L. CRANNELL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE EAST SIDE OF HANNEFORD ROAD, OPPOSITE NUMBER 5 HANNEFORD ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO MODIFY THE PROPERTY LINES OF TWO EXISTING LOTS. THE MODIFICATION WOULD RESULT IN LOTS WHICH DO NOT CONFORM TO THE AREA REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN SECTION 179-16. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/13/96 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY TAX MAP NO. 20-1-21, 22 LOT SIZE: 0.82, 0.45 ACRES SECTION 179- 16 JANE CRANNELL, PRESENT MRS. LAPHAM-Do I need to read this letter from the Adirondack Park Agency? MR. THOMAS-No. It just states that the Adirondack Park Agency is not jurisdictional in this action. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 105-1996, Jane L. Crannell, Meeting Date: November 21, 1996 "APPLICANT: Jane Crannell PROJECT LOCATION: Hanneford Road Proposed Project and Conformance wi th the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to modify the property lines of two existing lots. The modification would result in two lots which do not conform to the area requirements for the WR-1A zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the modification of two lots into two nonconforming lots. 2. Feasible alternatives: It appears there are no alternatives which could provide a lesser amount of relief and - 31 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) still provide minimum frontage on a town road for each lot. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Both lots within the town of Queensbury are presently nonconforming. The applicant seeks a minor modification in order to provide one of the lots with frontage on a town road. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? No negative effects are anticipated with this relief request. 5. Is this difficulty self created? A difficulty exists due to the fact that one of these existing lots currently does not have frontage on a public street. 6. Staff Comments '& Concerns: The applicant seeks a lot line modification in order to provide public street access to an existing lot. It should be noted that if the applicant wishes to eventually develop or subdivide her property existing in the Town of Fort Ann, and provide access from Hanneford Rd., a minimum of 50 feet will be needed to construct a new street. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MRS. LAPHAM-IIAt a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 13th day of November, 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to modify the property lines of two existinq lots. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact." Signed by Linda Bassarab, Vice Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-All right. applicant? Miss Crannell. Okay. Questions for the MR. GREEN-I guess I'm a little confused as to what you want to do, according to, maybe on this map. MS. CRANNELL-You see a slanted, large rectangle? That's my five acres in Fort Ann. MR. GREEN-Okay. MS. CRANNELL-It was horse pasture, but I no longer have animals, so I propose to sell it, and APA says it's within the Blue Line and they would allow one residence on it, and that there are no registered wetlands upon it. MR. GREEN-Okay, and where are you coming up with the access? This is this little 40 foot strip you're to subdivide off your bottom lot down here? MS. CRANNELL-Yes, just off, at the bottom of this drawing, where you see Hanneford Road come in, that lot is my garage and back lot. My residence is on the other side of Hanneford Road. So I propose to cut 40, allow 40 feet off the north end of that lot, of lot 22, and to add about 2/3rds of the long Queensbury lot that you see that is 21 to sort of square off what I propose to sell to add to that. MR. GREEN-So you want to add this bottom section into the big one? MS. CRANNELL-Yes. MR. GREEN-And what are you going to do with this little tail over here? MS. CRANNELL-Keep it. MR. GREEN-Just keep that as a separate lot also and merge it into? MS. CRANNELL-Well, it isn't really a separate lot. That's the way it was sold, and it looks like it's separate, but it's just. MR. GREEN-But it would stay part of the big lot, you're saying? MS. CRANNELL-Yes. - 32 - "-" --- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) MR. GREEN-That little tail would continue to be part of the? MRS. LAPHAM-Your residence lot, it would be part of that, right? MS. CRANNELL-The little tail on the right side of the map would be part of my residence lot. MR. GREEN-Okay. Is it now? MS. CRANNELL-Yes, it is. \ MR. GREEN-Okay, but you've got a line through it there. MR. GORALSKI-Well, I believe that's correct. The little tail there, according to the tax map, I believe is actually part of this long piece. MR. GREEN-Long piece. MR. GORALSKI-That's going to be taken and added to the portion that has the garage on it now. MR. GREEN-Okay. So you're going to take and merge the tail into your garage lot. MS. CRANNELL-Yes, correct. MR. GREEN-Wonderful. I understand. MR. STONE-So where it says, I think I do, too, NA, from that line, NA15E, all the way over to the road, is going to be the one lot? MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MRS. LAPHAM-Now you've lost me. there? This would be her house right MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. That's what she's going to retain. MRS. LAPHAM-That's what she's going to retain as a residence, and this is what we're selling, and that's the right-of-way. Okay. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. She's going to retain this right here. MR. GREEN-So she ends up with access on a relatively square lot, and this is going to go into this one. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MS. CRANNELL-With these crazy shaped lots, I think you all are amazing to figure out so quickly. MR. STONE-Mrs. Crannell, on that 40 foot section that you're talking about putting onto the big lot? MS. CRANNELL-Yes. MR. STONE-Between Washington County and the little (lost word), there is a pond on there, is there not? MS. CRANNELL-Yes. I call it a frog pond. It was originally a ditch, and we deepened it to about five feet. It was a little frog pond, and it also is part of the total drainage system from that whole mountain basin. MR. STONE-So if we granted this variance, we would have to put a condition on that the new owner would maintain this pond, which would be to the right of his access road, his or her? - 33 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) MS. CRANNELL-You would because it's natural drainage. You can't shut that off. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? Do the Board members understand how the lot lines are going to lay, if this is granted as proposed? MR. STONE-You're going to have the square box. MRS. LAPHAM-At the end. MR. STONE-And then a big square box with a little tail, no a rectangular box with a little tail. MS. CRANNELL-That's what we're going to have. MR. STONE-You're going to have like Lot B on that previous one. MR. THOMAS-Yes. All right. Anymore questions for the applicant before I open up the public hearing? MR. GREEN-Do you have someone interested in the lot at this point? MS. CRANNELL-No. I haven't even offered it for sale yet. I'm just going through the preliminary steps to be legal. MR. GREE~-That's always nice. MR. GORALSKI-We appreciate that. MR. THOMAS-If there's no other questions for the applicant, I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lets talk about this one. Bob, we'll start with you. MR. KARPELES-I don't see any objection to it. It looks okay to me. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I agree with Bob. She's not really increasing the density in Warren County, and what she's retaining for her residence is a nice buffer. So, I don't have a problem with this either. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lou? MR. STONE-No, I have no problem at all, except mentioned that we should put in any motion that maintained by the new owner. what I just thi s pond be MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bill? MR. GREEN-I was just trying to decide exactly, I guess, what the variances here for our motion. It's because of the smaller lot being created, is essentially the problem, not the big one? - 34 - ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) MR. THOMAS-No. It's for road frontage. MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. THOMAS-It's not for road frontage? That's part of it. MR. GORALSKI-It's because two lots are being created by lot line adjustment, and actually both of those lots, the portions that are in Warren County, will be under one acre. MR. THOMAS-Do we know how much under one acre? MR. GORALSKI-I don't know specifically. What I would recommend you do is. MR. GREEN-Well, you've got some other figures here on the side. The Washington County lot would essentially stay the same. MR. THOMAS-Yes, we don't worry about that one. MR. GORALSKI-What you could say is the northern lot would. MR. GREEN-See, the long skinny one there is .75, and we're adding some onto it and taking off. MS. CRANNELL-You're taking off about, I'm sorry, 2/3rds of the .75. MR. GORALSKI -What I would recommend you do is say the lot that fronts on Hanneford Road. MR. GREEN-The 196-59? MR. STONE-So it would be 146-59? number? Is that feet, or what is that MS. CRANNELL-22. MR. GORALSKI-That's Lot 22, the one that fronts on Hanneford Road there. MR. GREEN-That you have your garage on? MS. CRANNELL-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. Why don't you grant them a variance to create two lots from lots 20-1-21 and 20-1-22, with the northern portion, the northern 40 feet of Lot 22 being combined with the northern portion of Lot 21, and the southern 166 feet of Lot 21 to be combined with Lot 22. MR. STONE-That sounds good to me. MR. KARPELES-They're not on the map. MR. THOMAS-No, they're not on the map. MR. STONE-The lot numbers, no. MR. THOMAS-All right. Anymore questions for the applicant? MR. GREEN-No. MR. THOMAS-All right. Does somebody want to try a motion? Somebody can just repeat what John said. MR. STONE-I'll try. MR. GREEN-There's something in here that might help you. - 35 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) MR. STONE-Yes, I was going to say, I just noticed that. Yes. MR. GREEN-I was just reading through here, too. MR. GORALSKI-George's Staff Notes might explain it. MR. STONE-No, look in the Adirondack Park Agency, John, on Page 2. Does that? MR. GREEN-Page 2, Section 5 has got some numbers there. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. They're usually pretty good at this stuff. MR. GREEN-That gives it in square footage. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Yes, that looks good. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it does, doesn't it. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-Where are you looking? MR. THOMAS-On the APA letter, Page Two. MR. STONE-I'll read that in, that's what I'm going to do. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 105-1996 JANE L. CRANNELL, Introduced by Louis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: Applicant is proposing to modify the property lines of two existing lots. The modification would result in two lots which do not conform to the area requirements for the WR-1A zone. The subject property is improved by one single family dwelling, located on Tax Parcel 22, and the aDolicant would convey all of Tax Parcel 24 in Washington Coun ~~ 1~~1~~ . square foot portion of Tax Parcel 2 ~ant would retain Tax Parcel 22 in j ~(,Gv'(~(,¡U ((yO ( 3,624+/ - square foot remainder of Ta: -, '. 'nd the 40 foot access to the approxim of which is in Warren County and the ~ 1'l-1/~1 C{e, 1 County, and that 40 foot access con 22. The benefit to the applicant, ification of two lots into two noncon I^^ d\J~t--S -b>ý ernatives, it appears there are no a: v Y' le a lesser amount of relief and sti] \ \ ~ a Town road for each lot. Is this:r (t.AJ~~(1 (t..). \J~ the Ordinance? Both lots within thi lently nonconforming. The applicant s ~der to provide one of the lots with negative effects are anticipated on lity. The difficulty is self created ~ of the existing lots currently does ~oad. The variance is conditioned on the fact that the new parcei w1th the 40 foot access on Hanneford Road incorporates a pond which is an integral part of the drainage system coming off the Mountain going down to Lake George, and this should be continued to be maintained by the current owner and any new owner of this property. Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 1996, by the following vote: MR. THOMAS-One more question for you, John. Is this going to go to site plan review because it's in a CEA? - 36 - -- "-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. THOMAS-It's not going to? MR. GORALSKI-I believe that it will go for subdivision, but not site plan approval. MR. THOMAS-Even in a CEA like that? MR. GORALSKI-Because it's not a site plan review use. subdivision because they're changing property lin~s. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It's not a site they're doing. It's a subdivision they're doing, but the Planning Board's going to see it? It's a MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. GREEN- I've got one question here. The Staff alluded to, if you ever wanted to subdivide that parcel in the back you'd need an access road rather than merely a driveway? You'd need 50 feet rather than 40. MS. CRANNELL-The 40 foot specification was made by Jim Martin. MR. GREEN-That's for just access to one lot. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, but something that I heard Mrs. Crannell say is that the Adirondack Park Agency has already informed her that they would allow the construction of one single family dwelling on that lot. So there would never be a need for (lost word) . MR. GREEN-Wonderful. MS. CRANNELL-I'm not sure I understand what my next step is. You're talking about more to a site plan? MR. GORALSKI-Subdivision. You have to get a survey map drawn up. MS. CRANNELL-Survey is next. MR. THOMAS-Yes, and then go to the Planning Board, okay. MS. CRANNELL-All right. Thanks. AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone, Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. O'Leary MR. THOMAS-There you go. You're all set. MS. CRANNELL-Thanks so much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 108-1996 TYPE II WR-1A JORGE CONSTANTINO OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE BIG BAY ROAD TO EAGAN ROAD, PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAGAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A HOME ON AN EXISTING LOT ZONED WR-1A. THE LOT DOES NOT CURRENTLY HAVE FRONTAGE ON A TOWN ROAD. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM SECTION 179-70 WHICH REQUIRES ALL LOTS HAVE FRONTAGE ON A TOWN ROAD. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/13/96 TAX MAP NO. 137-1-4.2 LOT SIZE: 0.76 ACRES LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT - 37 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) Note~ from Staff, Area Variance No. 108-1996, Jorge Constantino, Meetlng Date: November 21, 1996 "APPLICANT: Jorge Constantino PROJECT LOCATION: Eagan Road Proposed Project and Conformance wi th the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to construct a home on an existing lot zoned WR-1A. The lot does not currently have frontage on a town road. The applicant is seeking relief from the requirement that all lots have frontage on a town road. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefi t to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to construct a home on an existing lot. 2. Feasible alternative: It appears there are no alternatives which could provide relief from the requirement that this lot front on a public street. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? This existing lot, which currently contains a home, does not have frontage on a town road. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? No negative effects are anticipated with this relief request. 5. Is this difficulty self created? This existing lot has been used as a residential property without access on a public street. 6. Staff Comments & Concerns: The proposed construction would meet the setback, permeability and floor area ratio requirements of the WR-1A district. Staff anticipates no negative impacts associated with this relief request. SEQR: Type II, no further action required. MRS. LAPHAM-IIAt a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 13th day of November 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a home on an existinq lot. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve II Signed L~nda Bassarab, Vice Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-All right. You're up. MR. STEVES-My name is Leon Steves, from VanDusen and Steves. I'm here representing the owners, who are also here in the audience. I would be glad to answer any questions that have not been answered in the application. MR. THOMAS-All right. The first question I have is, how far is this property from a Town road? It doesn't show on the map that came with the application. MR. STEVES-320 feet. MR. THOMAS-It's 320 feet from the nearest intersection of a Town road? MR. STEVES-The nearest Town road. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-How far does Eagan Road go, because I have to admit, the first time I drove down the road, I gave up and went back, and then I went back again and I decided, well, maybe it's out here. This is a case where I would have liked to have seen two pink signs, because I finally found this road winding, and I walked it. I didn't drive it, because I was afraid. I was just curious. MR. STEVES-Well, I said 320 feet. 320 is up to the upper level. Eagan Road its~lf has a distinct distance from Big Bay Road, and I don't have the information here tonight to answer that question for you. MRS. LAPHAM-Eagan Road where it's (lost word) doesn't go very far. It becomes private. MR. STEVES-It goes about 1,000 feet in. MRS. LAPHAM-That log house that used to be Richardson's, I think - 38 - -- -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) that's private there. MR. STEVES-Yes. That's almost all the way in, though. MR. STONE-There was a house on the right, as you're going out, there was a house on the right, the last house on the right. Was that on private road already? MR. STEVES-As you're going in or going out? MR. STONE-As you're going out, going down toward, this property, before you, still up on Eagan Road? MR. STEVES-Okay. Up on Eagan Road there's a house right on the corner, as you enter off of Big Bay. MR. STONE-Right. MR. STEVES-And then you go on in, I think there's two more new houses in there, three? JORGE CONSTANTINO MR. CONSTANTINO-At the present time, there are about five houses. MR. STONE-Well, there's one There's a house to the right. time. where the road becomes a trail. That's where I stopped the first MR. GREEN-How accurate are these, John? MRS. CONSTANTINO MRS. CONSTANTINO-No, that house is on Eagan. MR. STONE-It is on Eagan? MRS. CONSTANTINO-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-I mean, that map is to scale. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it looks like it may have been reduced or something. MR. GREEN-It says one inch to fifty. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I'd like to have the land that goes one inch to fifty on that one. I'd be a land baron. MR. STONE-I can say, I found it. MR. THOMAS-You're saying that the land, this lot, is not within, is considerable distance from an existing Town road? MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. THOMAS-Okay. That's all I want to establish. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. STONE-Is their own private road driveable? driveable? I assume it' s MR. STEVES-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, it's driveable. MR. STONE-I didn't try it. - 39 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) MR. GREEN-How long has it been this way? MRS. CONSTANTINO-There have been houses down there for 50 years. There are six houses that were built there, camps. MR. GREEN-And they're all just summer residences? MRS. CONSTANTINO-Yes. There is a family that lives all year long there, next to the property. MR. GREEN-And they go up and down that road, up and down that steep? MRS. CONSTANTINO-They don't go by car. leave their car up there. They walk up, and they MR. STONE-That's what I did. Okay. MR. KARPELES-Are you going to make an all year round house there? MRS. CONSTANTINO-We're not planning to live all year round, but the house is going to be built as an all year house, yes. At the present time, there is a house there. MR. STONE-Right. MR. KARPELES-You're going to rip it down? MRS. CONSTANTINO-That's right. MR. STONE-Have you ever had an emergency down there when the rescue squad had to come? MRS. CONSTANTINO-We have had that, yes. MR. STONE-And they come down the road? MRS. CONSTANTINO-There's no problem coming down. I'm talking about summer with no snow. With snow, you cannot come down. MRS. LAPHAM-There isn't really much problem even coming up, in good weather. MR. STONE-And if nobody's coming the other way. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, you honk first. MRS. CONSTANTINO-There's no problem coming down in good weather. You have been there. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. My husband's aunt owned two houses away from you. That's why I know that that road really. MR. STONE-I should have talked to you before looking at this place. MRS. LAPHAM-I know it's not a problem, except I wouldn't want to do it in the bad weather. MR. STONE-The private road is paved, or down. MRS. CONSTANTINO-Or down, the road is paved. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Anymore questions for the applicant before I open the public hearing? MR. STONE-No. MR. THOMAS-All right. I'll open the public hearing. - 40 - -- -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-What do you think, Bob? MR. KARPELES-Well, I think we're replacing one house with another house, and I don't see any objection to that. There are five other houses down there, and I don't see where it's creating any problem that doesn't exist right now. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bill? MR. GREEN-No, I don't have a real problem with this, since basically they're all residential, and it's been existing this way for so long, I don't think we can penalize this gentleman because of something that's been in existence for so long. MR. THOMAS-Lou? MR. STONE-I agree. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I agree also. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I agree also. There's really nothing we can do about it, unless we want to have the Town extend the road down to them. I don't think the Town wants to go through that expense at this point in time. So, having said that, does anyone care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 108-1996 JORGE CONSTANTINO, Introduced by William Green who moved for its adoption, seconded by Louis Stone: The applicant is proposing to construct a home on an existing lot zoned WR-1A. The lot does not currently have frontage on a Town road. The applicant is seeking relief from the requirement that all lots have frontage on a Town road. The benefit to the applicant would be he would be able to construct a new home on an existing lot, replacing a previous dwelling already on the lot. It does not appear that there would be any feasible alternatives to provide less relief, being that this lot is so far from a public street. It does appear that this relief may be substantial, due to the distance from a road, but extenuating circumstances, such as the pre-existence of a home and right-of-way, in my opinion, would override the appearance of substantial relief. There does not appear to be any negative effects on the neighborhood or community. No public comment in opposition was heard. It does not appear to be self created, again, to the pre-existing condition of this lot. We're granting relief from Section 179-70 of the Zoning Ordinance. Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 1996, by the following vote: MR. THOMAS-I see a hand in the back there. I'm not supposed to. EDWIN BOGUE MR. BOGUE-Well, I tried, when you asked for opposition, you didn't ask for in favor. - 41 - \ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) MR. THOMAS-Yes, I did. I always ask in favor first, and opposition second. MR. BOGUE-I drove up from Ballston Spa. My name is Edwin Bogue. MR. THOMAS-Just to make it legal, I'll open the public hearing back up. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED EDWIN BOGUE MR. BOGUE- I drove up from Ballston Spa to support these people. My name is Edwin Bogue. My wife's name is Mary. We have two parcels on that same river front. There's no objection on our part whatsoever. Some years back, the Zoning Board also allowed the Atkinson's to tear one down and put up another one. So there's no opposition whatsoever, but I feel someone should speak in their support. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So noted in the record. I have one question for you. On your parcels, do you have buildings on there now? MR. BOGUE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. You do have? MR. BOGUE-One on each parcel. MR. THOMAS-One on each parcel. Okay. That's all I want to know. MR. BOGUE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-All right. I'll close the public hearing back down. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. O'Leary MR. STEVES-Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-Granted relief. USE VARIANCE NO. 109-1996 TYPE II LI-1A ROBERT J. & MARY E. WOOD OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE 174 EAST DRIVE APPLICANTS ARE SEEKING A USE VARIANCE TO ALLOW A MOBILE HOME IN A LI -lA ZONE. THE APPLICANTS ARE ALSO SEEKING A USE VARIANCE TO ALLOW A MOBILE HOME ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY NOT WITHIN A MOBILE HOME OVERLAY ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 93-3-4, 5 LOT SIZE: 0.15 AND 0.15 ACRES SECTION 179-76, 179-29 ROBERT & MARY WOOD, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 109-1996, Robert J. & Mary E. Wood, Meeting Date: November 21, 1996 "APPLICANTS: Robert & Mary Wood PROJECT LOCATION: 174 East Drive PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant is proposing the placement of a mobile home in a Light Industrial Zone (LI-1A). Mobile homes are not a permitted use within the LI-1A zone. In addition, the applicant is seeking relief to place a mobile home on a piece of property that is not within a Mobile Home Overlay Zone. Relief is being requested from the allowed uses in the LI-1A zone, - 42 - - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) Section 179-26, and Section 179-29 which outlines which areas of Queensbury are Mobile Home Overlay Zones. REVIEW CRITERIA, BASED ON SECTION 267-b OF TOWN LAW: 1. IS A REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? The Board should consider whether or not the applicant has provided adequate information to prove that this land cannot be used as zoned. 2. IS THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY UNIQUE, OR DOES IT ALSO APPLY TO A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It appears that these two lots have the same development potential and restrictions as other lots along East Drive. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? Comment on possible effects on the surrounding neighborhood will be provided at the public hearing. 4. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP PROVEN BY THE APPLICANT AND AT THE SAME TIME PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY? The ZBA should determine if this property can be used for one or more of the allowed uses in the LI -lA district. If relief is necessary, the board should determine what land use would be considered minimum relief. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: The applicant plans to place a 48 foot by 14 foot mobile home on two lots. If approved, the applicant will be required to merge the two lots so that all setbacks will be met. Construction of a septic system will need to conform to building code requirements. SEQR: Type Unlisted, short EAF attached" MR. THOMAS-All right. Is the applicant here? Okay. state your name for the record? Would you MR. WOOD-My name is Robert J. Wood. MRS. WOOD-Mary E. Wood. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any questions for the applicant? All right. I'll start it out. Do you have any financial proof that this lot cannot be used as zoned? One of the criteria of a Use Variance is "The applicant cannot realize a reasonable return provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence." That means dollars and cents in black and white. Do you have dollars and cents figures for us tonight, in regard to why this can't be used for any of the uses listed in the Light Industrial zone, for example, a freight terminal, extraction of sand, stone and gravel; a restaurant; a building, lumber supply yard, a warehouse, laboratory, truck repair facility, heavy machinery repair facility, television and radio station, construction company, logging company, heavy equipment storage, heavy equipment sales, agricultural service use, passenger limousine and/or bus storage and terminal facility? MR. WOOD-No. MR. THOMAS-There's four questions here we have to answer that being the first. The second one, is this unique number three . " w1ll not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and, four, alleged hardship has not been self created. If we answer no to anyone of those, we have to deny the variance. MR. GORALSKI-All right. Well, in order to keep things moving here, everyone's gone out to see the site. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. GORALSKI-It's a residential neighborhood. I'm not sure that you could put any of these uses there. I'm not trying to be an advocate for anyone. I'm not sure how you would provide financial. MR. THOMAS-If somebody wanted to come in there and put a freight terminal in there, we couldn't stop them. - 43 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) MR. GORALSKI-Well, I don't know how you could put a freight terminal on a lot that's that big. MR. THOMAS-If somebody wanted to put a radio or t.V. station there, we couldn't stop them. MR. GORALSKI-It would require site plan review. MR. THOMAS-Yes. By site plan review, if somebody wanted to put heavy equipment sales in there, they could do it. If they wanted to bring in bulldozers and sell them off that lot, as long as they went through the Planning Board, they could do it. MR. GORALSKI-That's true. I'm not sure that they would get a site plan review. MR. THOMAS-May not get a site plan review, but they could do it if they wanted to, but the State law, and we're real sensitive to this now due to other Use Variances in the past, if you don't have the dollars and cents, you know, there's nothing we can do about that. We've go to have that, in dollars in cents, in black and white, and that's been handed down, court decision after court decision. MR. GORALSKI-How long has this property been listed, do you know? How long has the real estate agent had it for? MR. WOOD-I really don't know 100%. I had only put down a binder on the property, only because when we asked the Town, on an old map, it was in the Overlay Zone, and then once I had already put down money on the property, we found out that it wasn't in the Overlay Zone, and so that's why we're here tonight. MR. STONE-As long as it's LI-1A, our hands are kind of tied. MR. THOMAS-Yes. We went through this same thing last night, and they provided competent. MR. GREEN-I think, I don't know, maybe we're getting ahead of ourselves. Are we into the discussion aspect here, or do we want to? MR. THOMAS-Yes, right. Well, questions for the applicant. We can talk about it. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, at this point, you don't own the property, or do you own the property? MR. WOOD-Well, everything's all signed with our name on it. MRS. LAPHAM-So you're pending, in contract? MR. WOOD-Pending your approval. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but you're not out any money if we don't approve it, right? MR. WOOD-Well, in a way, no, in a way, yes. I've already had appraisals don~ on the property. I have a home that's essentially bought. MR. STONE-Okay, but you have a contingency to get out of the sale? MR. WOOD-Out of the property, yes. MRS. WOOD-But again, we won't get our appraisal back or anything. MR. STONE-I understand that. - 44 - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) MRS. WOOD-And we were not told that we needed the dollars. and cents and we weren't told about this at all, what you're saYlng. , . If we had known, we wouldn't have even done It. MR. GORALSKI-Let me give you a little bit of history here. When the Woods originally called and the tax map was checked, there was a mistake on the tax map that was checked. The tax map that was looked at when they originally called showed East and West Drive as a Mobile Home Overlay Zone. It was then confirmed that, in fact, the Mobile Home Overlay Zone ends at Homestead Village. So originally they were under the impression that they,didn't need the variance. MR. THOMAS-So they went on the word from somebody from the Town, and whoever it was was reading the wrong map. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. THOMAS-Does that obligate us to give the variance? MR. GORALSKI-I don't think it obliqates you, no. I wouldn't say it obligates you. MR. THOMAS-I was going to go through the public hearing and all the other stuff, but in the end here I think we may want to table it for the stuff we've done before, give them a chance to come in with the. MR. GORALSKI-Just to get back to that. MR. GREEN-I don't think you could. The lot was probably never marketed as a, I mean, sand and gravel pit. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I don't know what you're going to get, or what you're looking for, as far as financial information. I think the only way you're going to determine whether or not this can be used for one of these Light Industrial uses, to be perfectly honest with you, is just your best judgement as to whether or not it can be used for one of those uses or not. MR. THOMAS-Well, how big is the lot? MR. GORALSKI-The two lots combined are. MR. KARPELES-120 by 110. MR. GORALSKI-I think that's what they are. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Well, 110 by 120, right. MR. THOMAS-Well, you could put a radio or t.v. station in there, a building with an antenna. You might be able to squeeze a small restaurant in there. MR. GORALSKI-Well, you couldn' t put a restaurant in there with parking and septic system and everything else. MR. THOMAS-Everything goes back to the Mooring Post variance, and all the competent financial information they had to provide, and I think that's where I'm coming from, that ever since that one, we're running scared on that. MR. GORALSKI-That's up to you. If you don't feel comfortable, that's fine, but what I'm telling you is, you know, it's up to you. It your discretion as to how much evidence you need, that the allowable uses aren't appropriate, or there isn't an allowable use - 45 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) that's appropriate for that site. It's up to you to determine how much evidence you need. Okay. MR. THOMAS-Okay. We'll get on with this. Anymore questions for the applicant? If not, I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MELISSA & JASON CLAPPER MRS. CLAPPER-Our names are Melissa and Jason Clapper, and we live at 13 East Drive, and the reason we're here is we don't mind if someone wants to put a modular home or something on this property, but we took on a mortgage payment, and we do have a trailer, under the Grandfather Clause to the right of our home, and we have Homestead Trailer Park across the street, and we feel that if we have anymore trailers put on our street, that it's going to look and feel like living in the middle of a trailer park, and we wouldn't have taken on the mortgage payment to do that. We feel that this would really decrease our property value if we ever tried to sell our home, because if anybody came to look at our home on that street with another trailer, and there are also, there's another lot by the side of my house, and if somebody gets a variance for a mobile home, and then someone new comes in and tries to do that also, it's going to be like being in the middle of a mobile home park, and I am sure we would have a tough time trying to sell our home if we ever decided to do so, and I also feel that we would feel like we were in the middle of a mobile home park, because that's what it would look and feel like to us, and we have no problem with someone wanting to put a modular home or something on this property. It's a nice lot. We don't think that it would be appropriate for a business, because it is very small, but we just don't want to see our property value go down and stuff, because otherwise we wouldn't have taken on a mortgage payment. MR. STONE-Where are you relationship to these two pieces of property? MRS. CLAPPER-We live on 13 East Drive, and then there's an empty lot, the two empty lots that these people are talking about that are for sale, and then there's our neighbor's house, between our two homes, and I have a mobile home to the right of me. Then there's an empty lot. There's a shack on that. It's supposed to be coming to the Town Board meeting to be torn down because it's been closed. MR. STONE-Could you show us on this map? MR. KARPELES-Where you are. These are the two lots in question. MRS. CLAPPER-This is Luzerne Road. This is the big one there. Okay. This must be the other abandoned lot, and then this one is mine. MR. KARPELES-Okay. So you're right in here? MRS. CLAPPER-Yes, and then this is our neighbor Mr. Barry, who's back here. MR. KARPELES-Okay. MRS. CLAPPER-And like I had mentioned, the Town Board is supposed to be talking about closing down the building next to us because it's no longer an actual home. It's a shack with an old washed out foundation and stuff. MR. STONE-On your side of the street? - 46 - - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) MRS. CLAPPER-There's only houses on one side, across the street we have the trailer park, and I was scratched by a stray cat and had to go through rabies shots, and was ill for a month and stuff, but my thing is, if these people get approved for a variance, if someone else wants to come in, and there is a problem going on with this property next door to me right now, those people wanted to get a mobile home put on that property, and they were told automatically, no, off the bat. That was what we had heard. I have no written proof of that. MR. GREEN-I mean, the answer is no, but then you come and ask for a variance. I mean, maybe the other people just didn't decide to do that. MRS. CLAPPER-My only opinion is that I really feel that it would, it'll be like living in the middle of a trailer park, and that if we ever did decide to, you know, we've come in and this was a handyman special, and we've tried to do a lot of work. It's far from finished, by any stretch of the imagination, but we've put a lot of blood, sweat and tears and money into our home not to live in the middle of a trailer park. There's an empty trailer park lot right across the street from us. There's an empty trailer park lot in the trailer park across the street. I don' t want to cause anybody any problems. It's a beautiful lot to put a modular home on or something to that, but otherwise, I really feel it's going to decrease our property value. MR. THOMAS-Any questions for Mrs. Clapper? Thank you. MRS. CLAPPER-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Anyone else wishing to speak opposed? RICK BARRY MR. BARRY-My name's Rick Barry. I live next door to that lot, and I feel pretty much the same as my other neighbors, as opposed. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-Now, you live between Mrs. Clapper and these two others? MR. BARRY-I live right next door, the next lot. MR. THOMAS-3.1. MR. STONE-You're 3.1. MR. BARRY-Right. MR. THOMAS-Yes. You're on the other side. MR. BARRY-I don't know if the real estate agent talked to other people over there, and he's leading them to believe they could put a trailer in there. I own three other lots in that area. I don't think that trailer would be appropriate there. MR. THOMAS-Are these other lots that you own, are they on this map? Do they border on West Drive? MR. BARRY-One's on West and another one's on East. MR. THOMAS-Do you know which one's they are? Is it the one right to the north of you, one of the lots? MR. BARRY-That's mine, this one, and then this one back here. MR. THOMAS-That one there, and this one here, 3.2 and 2, the one - 47 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) any financial information showing that it can't be used for permitted uses, I have no other choice. MR. THOMAS-Before we go on, I'd like to add that this also requires approval from the Town Board for a mobile home outside the Mobile Home Overlay Zone. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. THOMAS-Town Board approval is required. MR. STONE-That's another thing I am concerned by. We do have the Overlay Zone. If you go outside it, then the next person says, will you go outside it, and eventually people can argue it's right next to a mobile home. So it becomes a cr~eping situation. MR. THOMAS-Bill? MR. GREEN-Is a modular still considered a mobile? MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. THOMAS-No, if it sits on a foundation. MR. GREEN-Is a double wide considered a mobile? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. GREEN-Okay. I don't have a problem with putting a house on this lot. I think it's, I know Chris is trying to protect ourself here with the competent financial data, but I think that the second one, you know, the uniqueness of this piece of property, relative to the area, I don't think I have a problem getting around the idea of a home versus Light Industrial. I do have a problem with a trailer on that lot. I'd just like to keep the trailers in the Mobile Home Overlay Zone, and that's what they're set up and designed for, and I'm conscious of the neighbors not wanting more trailers on their street, but a home I don't have a problem with. I just don't like the idea of the trailer. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. KARPELES-I agree with Bill 100%. He expressed it very well. That's just the way I feel. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, that's the way Å feel, except with reservations, and the reservations are that I just am sympathetic to the neighbor's complaints, but I just cannot believe that anyone in that residential area would rather, if they have a choice, of having a radio tower or a restaurant or heavy equipment sales, as opposed to a home, or even a mobile home, but I do think that it will be harder the next time someone comes with a mobile home that isn't going to be in the Overlay Zone, if we start granting these. MR. THOMAS-I agree with the other Board members. Even though the Woods were misquoted by the Town that this was in the Overlay Zone, ahead of time, that doesn't preclude the fact that it still isn't in the Mobile Home Overlay Zone. There's been court cases on this that building permits have been given and then building permits revoked and buildings taken down. We have one right here right in the Town right now going on. I feel sorry that the Woods were mislead, but I still can't see putting a mobile home on this lot when something else such as a modular home or a stick built home could be put here and fit on this lot. I do concede the fact that there are a lot of these uses that are in the Light Industrial One Acre zones that can't go in there because of the size of the lot, - 49 - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) directly to the north and the one directly to the west. MR. STONE-Okay. So that whole square he owns, from east to west. MR. BARRY-Three separate lots. MR. STONE-Right. MR. BARRY-Right. MR. THOMAS-3.2, 2, and 3.1. Barry from the Board? Okay. All right. Any questions for Mr. Anyone else wishing to speak opposed? MRS. CLAPPER-I just wanted to say one last thing. I just wanted to apologize to you. We aren't doing this to be, you know, mean in any sort of way. MRS. WOOD-Well, that's a lie, because you're talking about your property. Well, how about somebody that can't afford to get a modular, that's discrimination. MRS. CLAPPER-It's not discrimination, though, because it was zoned so that trailers couldn't be put there. MR. THOMAS-I can't have this going on, because of the record. If you want to talk about it outside, that's fine. MRS. CLAPPER-I was just trying to be polite. MR. THOMAS-I understand that, but it's not going that way. So, I'm going to cut it off right there. Anymore questions for Mr. Barry? Anyone else wishing to speak opposed? Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-I don't think so. A letter from Lorraine Troy. Use Variance 109-1996, Zoning Board of Appeals, November 18, 1996 "Upon review of Application No. 109-1996 for Variance in the name of Mary and Robert Wood for lots on East Drive. I, Lorraine D. Troy, have no objection to the plan. I feel it would improve the area of East Drive. As far as a trailer the large numbers in the Park across the street from East Drive would blend in nicely. Very truly yours, Lorraine D. Troy" MR. THOMAS-Does it have a tax map number on there or anything, to define where she lives, a house number? MRS. LAPHAM-No, and her address is 471 Big Bay. MR. BARRY-They just rent the home on the end of the street. They don't even live there. MRS. LAPHAM-So they own a home on the street they use for rental. MR. BARRY-For rental. MR. THOMAS-Okay, by the turn around there. Okay. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED \ MR. THOMAS-Lou, what do you think? MR. STONE-Well, I am also, even though I didn't go through what most of the Board went through with the Mooring Post, I am sensitized to the fact that, if this requires a Use Variance, then we need some kind of reasonable return information. I recognize the difficulty. This is obviously a small lot. I'm not sure if the zoning is correct for this area, but that is the zoning, and it is has been determine? that it requires a Use Variance. Without - 48 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/21/96) but the fact is that anyone of those could go in there, for example the passenger limousine service could fit on there. I don't know what kind of building they would have to put up there or could put up there for a passenger limousine service, but I imagine they could put a garage up there if they wanted to, to house these limousines, but then again, too, it wouldn' t have a principal residence, but then again a principal residence isn't required in a Light Industrial One Acre zone. So I would have to say no to this variance. Having said that, would anyone care to make a motion? , MOTION TO DENY USE VARIANCE NO. 109-1996 ROBERT J. & MARY E. WOOD, Introduced by Louis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: The applicant is proposing the placement of a mobile home in a Light Industrial zone, LI-1A. Mobile homes are not a permitted use within the LI-1A zone. In addition, the applicant is seeking relief to place a mobile home on a piece of property that is not within a Mobile Home Overlay Zone. Relief is being requested from the allowed uses in the LI-1A zone, Section 179-26, and Section 179-29, which outlines which areas in Queensbury are in Mobile Home Overlay Zones. This being a Use Variance, a no answer to anyone of the review criteria makes it mandatory to deny the Use Variance, and no information was given, visa vee a reasonable return if the land is used as zoned. Is the alleged hardship relating to this property unique or does it apply to a substantial portion of the district? It appears that these two lots have the same development potential and restrictions as other lots along East Drive. Is there an adverse effect on the essential character of the neighborhood? In what we heard tonight from the public, the public believes it would have an adverse effect on the surrounding neighborhood. Is this the minimum variance necessary to address the unnecessary hardship proven by the applicant? The applicant did not show unnecessary hardship. Duly adopted this 21st day of November, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mrs. Lapham ABSENT: Mr. O'Leary MR. THOMAS-Four to one, the variance is denied. You do have recourse through an Article 78 provision of the law to go take us to court to overturn our decision. Okay. If you have any questions like that, you can call John and he can give you the particulars on it. MR. WOOD-Thank you all very much for your time. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Sorry about that. All right. Does anybody else have any business for the good of the Board? If not, I'll make a motion to close. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christian Thomas, Chairman - 50 -