Loading...
1998-09-23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/23/98) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 23, 1998 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY LEWIS STONE ROBERT MC NALLY PAUL HAYES BRIAN CUSTER CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER -CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-1998 TYPE II SR-1A DIANE ERCOLINI OWNER: SAME LOCATION: CORNER OF PEGGY ANN RD. & BRAYDON AVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES A STOCKADE FENCE IN FRONT YARD AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE FENCE ORDINANCE TAX MAP NO. 89-3-7 LOT SIZE: 0.47 ACRES SECTION: 179-74 DIANE ERCOLINI, PRESENT MRS. LAPHAM-“The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Meeting Date: July 15, 1998 Variance File No. 37-1998 Area Variance Tabled Motion to Table Area Variance No. 37-1998 Diane Ercolini, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Until a full Board can hear this application and make a rational decision on it because I th don’t see us getting a four vote either way. Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Porter, Mr. McNally” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 37-1998, Diane Ercolini, Meeting Date: September 23, 1998 Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: “ Corner of Braydon and Peggy Ann Applicant proposes a 6 foot stockade fence in the front yard which fronts on Peggy Ann Road. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the Fence Ordinance, Section 179-74, which does not allow for stockade fence in any front yard, nor for any fence over 5 feet in height in the “other” Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town front yard. Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to have a fence in the desired 2. Feasible alternatives: location. Since most of the fence has been constructed, feasible alternatives may include; removal and relocation of the fence, replacement with planting and no 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: construction. The relief may be 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: interpreted as moderate. Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action. However, neighborhood opposition has 5. Is this difficulty self-created? been noted. The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments: None applicable While the fence may be for privacy and safety, impacts on the neighborhood may come in the form of SEQR Status: additional requests for similar relief. Type II” MR. THOMAS-Okay. Miss Ercolini, is there anything else you want to say, add? MISS ERCOLINI-Yes, there is, and I’m really nervous. I wasn’t nervous last time, but there is one thing that I really feel that I need to say, and it kind of, obviously, directly effects this issue, and I think it helps to explain why I feel the need to keep this fence, and why I feel the need to keep this fence where it is and this is very embarrassing for me, but I’m just going to tell you. A few years ago, I was attacked. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/23/98) MR. THOMAS-If you just want to end it right there, that’s fine. You really don’t have to tell us why. MISS ERCOLINI-I mean, I just feel that this is like a security thing for me. I had some other things to say. MR. THOMAS-Well, if you want to say them while we’re talking about your application, you can go ahead and put them in if you want. MISS ERCOLINI-Okay. MR. THOMAS-If you feel comfortable, fine. If you don’t, you don’t have to. Are there any questions for Miss Ercolini? MR. STONE-Well, when we met the last time, we did, obviously the tenor of the Board was against granting the variance, not because of your situation, but because primarily because we have a lot of corner lots in Town, and we have a lot of situations where I think other people would like to be up six foot high and so on and so forth, and I can see the stress under which you’re operating, and I certainly can recognize the situation because of my other volunteer activities. I work with people who have been attacked, but we did talk about some possibility of making some changes, and you apparently don’t want to consider any changes. MISS ERCOLINI-Well, to be honest with you, after the last meeting, I actually spoke for the first time very civilly with my neighbor that was opposed, and I was all for it. I said, I’m just going to go ahead and we talked about taking out every other picket, and cutting it to five feet, and I was going to actually do that, just because I wanted to be a good neighbor, you know, and just forget this, but the thought of that. I mean, I know this fence is not the protector of me. I know that somebody, you know, it’s just a security thing for me, and the thought of just cutting it even, just opening it up, I can’t even, I mean, I don’t really even have an argument for that, other than the fact that it’s not the same, and as I said, I know how I have, and I’ve come a long way, and I would not have bought this house, had I know I couldn’t put a six foot stockade fence up, and I know I sound like a hysterical female. I’m not, but this is very stressful for me, and the other option was to move it. MR. STONE-Don’t ever think of yourself, you were a victim of something, and you’re always going to be a victim. It’s not your fault. You had nothing to do with it, I’m sure, and I certainly can understand your stress. As I say, I work with rape crisis, rape victims all the time, and so I understand that, but I think there were a number of suggestions, as I recall, and people can help me, but one was to move it back toward the house a little bit, and still get the privacy, but without the. MISS ERCOLINI-Right. This is the thing with that, and I thought about, too, and again, this will probably sound very stupid, but the reason I put the fence that way is because my bedroom where I sleep every night is enclosed, and if I move the fence, then there’s no enclosure anymore, and again, it may sound stupid. MR. STONE-It doesn’t sound stupid. MRS. LAPHAM-No, it doesn’t. MISS ERCOLINI-I’m so embarrassed. MR. STONE-Why are you embarrassed? As I say, I can’t speak for the other Board members, I know exactly what you’re going through because I work with many women who have been attacked. So don’t be embarrassed. You were a victim. You had nothing to do with it. MISS ERCOLINI-Thank you. MRS. LAPHAM-And it doesn’t sound stupid either. MISS ERCOLINI-Thanks, and I obviously didn’t bring this up the last time because, you know, I thought I’d just make all my other arguments and see where it took me, but, you know, I guess that’s all I have to add. One more thing. If you do allow me to keep this, and I have talked to my neighbor, and I will do everything in my power to make this more attractive for him. I will put shrubs. I will put trees. I will put flowers. Anything. I’ll do it just like I did at the front of my 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/23/98) house. I certainly, I take pride in my property and I understand where he’s coming from. So I will do everything in my power to make it as attractive as I can, for whatever it’s worth. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there any other questions for the applicant? I believe I closed the public hearing, but I will open it up, in case, is there anyone in the audience who’d like to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone that would like to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for Miss Ercolini? MR. MC NALLY-I wasn’t here last time, and I did read the minutes. I understood you put this fence up yourself? MISS ERCOLINI-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And that it’s six feet high. MISS ERCOLINI-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And it’s right on the property line, as it is along Peggy Ann Road? MISS ERCOLINI-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And when you left the last meeting, I’d understood that you would consider possibly compromising between the Ordinance and what you’ve done. MISS ERCOLINI-Right. MR. MC NALLLY-And you’ve basically not considered doing that? MISS ERCOLINI-Well, I figured that I would come, since I had the opportunity to present my argument one more time, you know, I figured, you know, like I said, I had thought about that, and I had even talked to my neighbor, and, you know, he was very kind and I tried, I obviously want to be a good neighbor and do the right thing, and every time I thought about doing it, something just stopped me, and I figured, well, I might as well just come here one more time and give it my best argument and see where it takes me, and then. MR. MC NALLY-You’ve had a chance to look at the Town Zoning Ordinance? MISS ERCOLINI-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And you understand you can still have a six foot privacy fence, though not as close to Peggy Ann? MISS ERCOLINI-Right. MR. MC NALLY-Is there any reason, given your personal concerns for privacy or safety, that a fence closer to your home won’t meet your needs? MISS ERCOLINI-Well, as I said, and again, the way my house is, my bedroom where I sleep is, I don’t know how to describe it. My bedroom is here, okay, and this is Peggy Ann Road. My fence comes along here, and the fence actually starting at the edge of my property and my bedroom being just exposed, if you will, to the road, it’s enclosed, my bedroom window. So I feel like my bedroom and my personal space is enclosed. It sounds ridiculous, I know, but that was my, other than the fact that I’d lose a lot of my yard, which, I don’t care, I would move the fence, and that’s just my, just this personal issue that I’m struggling with. MR. MC NALLY-How about reducing the height of the fence and keeping it close to Peggy Ann? Would that still not satisfy your personal needs? Is that what you’re saying? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/23/98) MISS ERCOLINI-Well, if that’s what, I mean, I’ll do whatever I have to do. Obviously, I’ll do whatever you tell me I have to do. If I have to reduce it, I’ll reduce it. I wouldn’t feel safe, but I don’t really have an answer for you. I mean, obviously, I feel that a six foot stockade fence is hard to get over, I don’t know, five foot is not as hard, but it’s probably pretty darn hard, I don’t know. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. I don’t have any other questions. MR. THOMAS-Okay. All right. Everybody on the Board understands that this fence cannot be six foot high where it is, okay. It can only be five foot high, in her whole front yard, okay, and it cannot be a stockade fence. Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-If we grant her the variance, she can have it. MR. THOMAS-Yes, if we grant her the variance, but we haven’t come to that yet. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Okay, if there’s no more questions for the applicant, lets talk about it. Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, I think that, in her last presentation, Miss Ercolini demonstrated to us that there was other type fences like that in Queensbury. As a matter of fact, she had pictures of quite a few, and I know that that struck me, and I think that there’s a legitimate need here, but I can’t escape the feeling that there isn’t some compromise here that gets a lot of what the applicant would like to accomplish done and protects the Code in a way that we can accept other cases, without setting a precedent that’s dangerous or, you know, hard to handle. So I’m going to listen to the rest of the Board members, but I would like to see either a reduction or a move, but I certainly would be very much prepared to compromise in some fashion, too. So, that would be my position. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I’ve read through my minutes of my decision last time, and as I said, I was reluctant to oppose it, but I opposed it because I think the way it’s currently laid out, it’s hard to justify it, on the balancing act, to allow it to stay, according to the Ordinance, but again, as Jamie said, in the spirit of compromise, if something could be done, lowering the fence to five feet on the Peggy Ann side or moving it in or something like that, I’d probably be a little bit more inclined to work with you there, but I have to see some movement there before I can make a final decision, but as it stands now, I’m still opposed. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-If I look at the five factors that we’re to consider in granting one of these things, I find that the benefit to the applicant certainly weighs in her favor. She’s going to have her privacy. She’s going to have the feeling of safety. She’s going to have her personal needs met, but when you look at the other four factors, I don’t see that on this application. We’re being asked to approve a six foot tall fence, right on the line of Peggy Ann, which is clearly contrary to the Code. I think there are other feasible alternatives that will satisfy her, at the same time satisfy this Code. You could lower the fence, move the fence, even if not to the edge of the building, you can change the fence configuration in some fashion. The relief is substantial, as far as I can tell. The effects on the neighborhood, while there may be other property owners that have fences six feet high, this is the only application we have in front of us, and that’s really a problem with enforcement, not so much a problem with your application. So I would say that there’s effects on the neighborhood that are more than insubstantial, and I do see it, unfortunately, as being self created. The applicant did prepare and erect this fence herself. I’d be willing to compromise, but I don’t see any spirit of compromise. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I actually voted to approve this fence the first time she was here, and I don’t think that anything has changed my mind, if not, because I feel very strongly that I would not buy a corner house if I could not have a fence on both sides, because those yards have no privacy or security whatsoever, and the fact that there are so many others in Queensbury is an enforcement issue, but again, it just shows that she’s not the first one. So there isn’t a precedent. There’s a precedent that hasn’t been met of enforcement, not of people not doing it, and the most it would seem to me is we would have a stream of people coming in asking for variances for fences that are already erected, if enforcement were started. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/23/98) MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, I certainly empathize, sympathize with Miss Ercolini. I, too, would like to see some compromise. I’m willing, in my mind, to compromise by leaving the starting point from the house where it is, which would provide the protection, one of the protections that you were seeking, but instead of coming out 32 feet, come out maybe half that distance, lowering it and then going across, somewhat removed from Peggy Ann, so that you’re going to have most of the yard, you’re going to have, if nothing else, the symbolic protection around your bedroom, and yet take it back off the road so that it doesn’t become the visual, have the visual impact that it does now. MR. HAYES-Do you understand what he’s saying by that? MISS ERCOLINI-Yes. The only problem with that is, I don’t know if you see in my plot plan, there’s three huge evergreen trees. MR. STONE-Well, the way you have them drawn, you could come out about eight feet from the house. MISS ERCOLINI-So past, beyond the evergreen trees? MR. STONE-Have the greens on the street side of the fence. MR. HAYES-So you’d be on the inside with the fence, of the trees. MISS ERCOLINI-Yes, I guess there’s room. MR. STONE-I mean, there seems to be a straight line, the way you’ve drawn it. I’m, obviously, didn’t measure it out, just inside those big trees. It would give you, around the room which you’re most uncomfortable in. MISS ERCOLINI-Could I say something? Would it be a possibility to leave it as is and cut it down to five feet, as is? MR. THOMAS-You could do that. That would meet half the requirement. The other half is, it’s a stockade fence. So, and I think we discussed before, if you took out every other Board that would make it a complying fence. Am I right? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and you also said that you would put in plantings and stuff like that. There’s nothing that says you can’t put plantings in front of that, where it would grow, and it would block off, it would actually hide the fence, after a while. It would like a hedgerow. MISS ERCOLINI-It could also hide it if it was solid, too, though. MR. THOMAS-Well, the Ordinance says no stockade fences in the front yard. In a corner lot, you have two front yards. MR. STONE-I think Bonnie put it very well. She would never buy a corner lot. MISS ERCOLINI-No, I wouldn’t have, either, and I spoke to my realtor, and I told her specifically, this is great. I need a fence, stockade fence. Obviously, a realtor should know the Ordinances. I wouldn’t have bought the house. It’s such a difficult issue for me, and I know it sounds ridiculous. MR. THOMAS-No, it’s not ridiculous. MR. CUSTER-If it’s important to you, it’s important to us. MISS ERCOLINI-I wouldn’t have bought the house. It’s as simple as that. MR. THOMAS-Well, like I say, we’re trying to come up with some kind of compromise here with you. We’ve told you that if you lop a foot off the top, and take out every other board, you’d be in compliance, and we couldn’t say a thing. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/23/98) MISS ERCOLINI-Right, and that doesn’t offer any privacy, with a picket fence. MR. THOMAS-Well, it would be a picket fence, but you’d have as much space as it would cover. MR. STONE-Could chicken wire, for example, be placed on the back side? MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-I mean, it doesn’t do anything visually except that it makes a solid wall. MRS. LAPHAM-And you could put the trees on the other side of the fence, instead of the Peggy Ann side, put them in your yard, the shrubs against the chicken wire. So at least visually it would be more pleasant. MISS ERCOLINI-Whatever you tell me, tell me what to do. MR. THOMAS-No. We aren’t going to tell you what to do. MR. STONE-We’d prefer you to tell us. MR. THOMAS-You have to tell us. MISS ERCOLINI-I mean, I’ll do it. I feel like you’re not going to grant me this variance. So I’ll do whatever I have to do. MR. THOMAS-Well, like I say, here again, it doesn’t sound like it’s going to go through, as is, but like I say, every other board and a foot off, I mean. MR. HAYES-You wouldn’t consider moving it in, like Lew said? MISS ERCOLINI-Yes. I can’t afford to have it moved, and I can’t do it myself, at this point, but how long do you have to do it? How long do I have? MR. BROWN-You can put a condition on it, whatever. MR. HAYES-As long as it’s reasonable. MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Since we’re coming in to the winter months, we could make it until spring. Would you consider moving it in 24 feet, move it back 24 feet, so it would be eight foot away from the house, and back along, parallel to Peggy Ann Road? Because that’s what Lew mentioned, and that would give you the privacy you’re looking for in the back of that back corner of the house, and cut it down to five feet. MISS ERCOLINI-I guess if I have to do all that work, I’d just rather keep it where it is and just cut it and take the pickets off, because either way it’s going to be, I’ll just do the other thing, the picket, every other picket and cut it to five feet as it is. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So it’s six foot now, so it’s just a foot that would have to come off there, right? MISS ERCOLINI-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So that’s what you’re willing to do, to bring that fence into compliance? MISS ERCOLINI-I guess so, yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So that means that there’s no request for a variance. So you can withdraw your request for the variance. MISS ERCOLINI-Okay. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/23/98) MR. THOMAS-Just make a statement like that. MISS ERCOLINI-I withdraw my request for a variance. MR. THOMAS-For a variance and bring the fence into compliance. All right. AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-1998 TYPE II SR-1A JOYCE BEARSS OWNER: SAME LOCATION: 47 HERALD DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A DUPLEX ON AN UNDERSIZED LOT. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SR-1A ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: 46-98 TAX MAP NO. 125-9-20 LOT SIZE: 0.52 ACRES SECTION: 179-19 MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-This application here, we had a motion last month, or two months ago, on August th 26, which was last month, and we could not get a majority. I’ve already closed the public hearing. I understand there’s more correspondence that’s come in, but since I’ve closed the public hearing, and we’ve already had a motion, I won’t take any more public hearing or any more correspondence. What I wanted to do was read Lew’s motion again, and then we’ll have another second and a vote on it, but, before that, since the applicant’s agent is here, is there anything you’d like to say? MR. BORGOS-Just for the record, I’d like to mention that my name is Michael Borgos. I’m an attorney with Muller & Muller, and I’m here as the agent for the applicant. I’ve directed her not to appear tonight, because it was our understanding that the public hearing was closed. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it is, but since you’re the applicant’s agent, you still have a right, is there anything you’d like to add? MR. BORGOS-I believe everything was fully voiced at the public hearing held in August. We’ll rely upon all that. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. BROWN-I think at this point, if you want to take that public comment, those additional letters that just came in. MR. THOMAS-No. I’ve already closed the public hearing. I don’t want to take them now. They’ve had two shots at it already. MR. BROWN-Okay. That’s fine. MR. THOMAS-What we’re going to do here, Lew, is the applicant’s agent has stated that he has nothing more to say or add to this. We had a tie vote. We didn’t have a clear majority last time. What I’d like you to do, if you would, is to re-read your motion. We had a motion, but we just couldn’t get a majority vote. ROGER RUEL MR. RUEL-Are you going to have a public hearing on this? MR. THOMAS-Yes, there was. I had two public hearings on this. MR. RUEL-Will there be a public hearing on this? MR. THOMAS-No. I’ve already had two on it. MR. RUEL-Why can’t there be another one? MR. THOMAS-Because we’ve already had a motion. The only reason we didn’t pass the motion or deny the motion is because we didn’t have a clear majority. I’ve already had two public thth hearing’s on it. I had it on the 19 of August and the 26 of August. MR. RUEL-But we’re here and we have some statements. We can’t make them? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/23/98) AUDIENCE MEMBER-We got one notice. Now this gentleman behind me told me there were two meetings. MR. THOMAS-Yes, there was. AUDIENCE MEMBER-We got one notice for the one meeting, I think it was August. There was never another notice for anybody. MR. THOMAS-Well, once it’s noticed in the paper, once the notification has been made, and I have opened the public hearing, all the comment has been made, and I’ve closed the public hearing and a motion has been made, there is no more notification that goes out. MR. RUEL-I can’t understand why you can’t hear from the public. th MR. THOMAS-Like I said, I’ve already had two public hearings on it, on the 19 of August and th on the 26 of August. MR. RUEL-I know. I was in the hospital at the time. I couldn’t make it. I’m here now. MR. STONE-Would it help you to know that the motion that I’m about to read is to deny the Area Variance? MR. RUEL-That saves me a lot of time. MR. STONE-I thought it might. That’s the motion we made the last time. MR. RUEL-All right. MR. THOMAS-Read it again. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-1998 JOYCE BEARSS , Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: 47 Herald Drive. The applicant proposes to maintain an existing duplex on a 0.52 acre lot in an approved subdivision, namely Herald Square, which granted half acre zoning in a one acre, SR-1A, area. The building in question received both a building permit, 92-373, and a Certificate of Occupancy, dated September 24, 1992, for a single family dwelling. Applicant requests 1.4 acres of relief from minimal area requirements of the SR-1A zone, Section 179-19. The SR-1A zone requires one acre of land per dwelling unit. Since this parcel is 0.52 acres, it is 1.48 acres under the density requirement which calls for two acres for a two family home. In denying this application, we recognize that the applicant would be very benefited, if we did grant it, by being permitted to maintain an existing two family home. The feasible alternatives to this, as recognized, might include reconfiguration of the interior to eliminate two complete sets of living facilities and acquisition of additional property. More importantly, the effects on the neighborhood and community have been noted in the wide disparity between those people who oppose the variance, versus the one letter agreeing with the variance, and also the fact that this is a one family development, one family homes, and that the neighbors are very interested in keeping it that way, and therefore, this might create a serious precedent in both this neighborhood and in other one family home areas. In denying this, we recognize the complexity of the creation process, whether or not it was self created or whether the applicant was put upon by parties not privy to this particular determination. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-The application is denied. MR. BORGOS-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-1998 TYPE II MR-5/MHO CURTIS CONDON OWNER: SAME LOCATION: CORNER OF VERMONT AVE. ON LUZERNE ROAD 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/23/98) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2 STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DWELLING. APPLICANT IS REQUESTING RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 48-1996 TAX MAP NO. 128-4-1 LOT SIZE: 0.36 ACRES SECTION: 179-18, 179-79 CURTIS CONDON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 66-1998, Curtis Condon, Meeting Date: September 23, 1998 Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: “ Vermont and Luzerne Applicant Relief proposes construction of a 1056 square foot addition to an existing 650 square foot home. Required: Applicant requests relief for expansion of a non conforming structure, Section 179-79. The current zone, MR-5, Section 179-18, has a front setback requirement of 30 feet. While the proposed addition does meet the setback requirements of the MR-5 zone, it is in excess of 50% of the gross floor area of the existing home. The existing home does not meet this requirement, nor does it meet the minimum square footage requirement of 800 square feet for a single family Criteria for considering an Area Variance according dwelling, therefore it is non conforming. to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to 2. Feasible alternatives: enlarge a currently substandard sized home. Due to the location of the 3. Is this relief existing home, garages and septic system, feasible alternatives are limited. substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The relief may be interpreted as moderate. The proposed expansion is in excess of 50% of the existing gross floor area, however, it does not increase any 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: setback violation. Minimal effects on the 5. Is this difficulty self-created? neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action. The Parcel History (construction/site difficulty may be attributed to the existing conditions. plan/variance, etc.): AV 48-1996 res. 6/26/96 Construction of an attached two story addition. Staff comments: Minimal impacts on the neighborhood or community are anticipated as a result of this action. This type of development may be classified as infill and will not create or increase any setback violations. This variance application is identical to the one previously approved. The SEQR Status: time frame to act has expired. Type II” MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Condon, is there anything else you want to say? MR. CONDON-Yes. Sure. I went to all the neighbors in the neighborhood and I just asked them for their signature and their address on this little, it’s just a little bit of positive input. I mean, they all said, yes, that’s fine, I think it’s a good idea. They know that I have a three year old son and that he needs a bedroom. So, I went to all the neighbors right around the area, and I got four signatures here. The swimming pool, we were told to move the swimming pool the last time, move the swimming pool back two feet, because it would have been eight feet if I had built the addition. The swimming pool has to come down anyway, because I have to put in a bigger septic system, because it’s a larger house, and it has more bedrooms. So the septic system will be new. The swimming pool comes down, gets moved back, and we’re going to vinyl side it and put in a driveway also. MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there any questions for the applicant? Like the Staff Notes said, this application was approved a little over two years ago, and it’s just expired. So more or less this is just going through the motions here. MR. STONE-I certainly think it’s an asset to the area. There’s no question that your willingness to improve your house and therefore in a small way improve the neighborhood is to be commended, as far as I’m concerned. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wish to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-Why don’t you give us that there, and we’ll just read it into the record, you can have it right back. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/23/98) MRS. LAPHAM-Well, shouldn’t it be in the file? MR. THOMAS-We’ll just keep one copy. MRS. LAPHAM-“Curtis and Wendy Condon, living at 143 Luzerne Road, would like to build an addition on this existing property. With this addition, this would give us more living space and bedrooms. As the house stands now, there is only one bedroom. We would like to vinyl side, making the property look nicer. We are asking for your signature and addresses to bring to the Zoning Board for approval. Smith, 23 Vermont Avenue; Pat River, 16 Vermont Avenue; Winston, 24 New Hampshire; Phillip Kent at 170 Luzerne Road” PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Do you want to talk about it? MRS. LAPHAM-Do we have to? If I thought it was good last time, I know it’s good now. MR. THOMAS-Is there anyone that wants to have any discussion on this, that has any questions, has any comments? Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-I think it’ll be a good addition to the neighborhood. MR. THOMAS-I think it will, too. MRS. LAPHAM-And it’s always good to bring up a substandard house, and of course nobody can live in a house that’s only 600 square foot. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-1998 CURTIS CONDON , Introduced by Bonnie Lapham who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: For property located at 143 Luzerne Road. The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing single family home. Because this property is zoned MR-5, this expansion requires relief from the expansion of a nonconforming structure requirements of Section 179-79A2. The benefit to the applicant would be it would allow him to build a new addition to this existing home and give him more living space. There do not appear to be any feasible alternatives. The relief is substantial in that it’s 50 percent relief in the expansion of a home, but it does not decrease any setbacks on the property. There do not appear to be any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, and the only public comment that I have heard was favorable concerning this application. The difficulty was not self created as the home is located in a pre-existing nonconforming use that was in the MR-5 district, and any expansion in this zone would require some sort of relief from the Zoning Ordinance. I would condition the granting of this variance with the stipulation that the pool must be moved back to its proper 10 feet from the structure. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-There you go. Now get your building permit. AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-1998 TYPE II LC-42A RICHARD & JILL LONG OWNER: SAME LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF RT. 9L, APPROX. 4 MILES NORTH OF THE RT. 149, RT. 9L INTERSECTION, AND LOCATED SOUTH OF WILLIAMSON’S STORE. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROMTHE SETBACK AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE LC-42A ZONE AND FOR EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 2- 1996 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 9/9/98 TAX MAP NO. 21-1-4 LOT SIZE: 19,000 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-13, 179-79B RICHARD LONG, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/23/98) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 67-1998, Richard & Jill Long, Meeting Date: September 23, Project Location:Description of Proposed 1998 “ Ridge Road 4 mi. North of Rte. 149 Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 264 square foot addition to an existing home. Relief Required: Applicant requests 77 feet of relief from the 100 foot side setback requirement and 47 feet of relief from the rear setback requirement and 8% relief from the 95% percent permeability requirement of the LC-42A zone, Section 179-13. The applicant’s proposal calls for 13% of the site to be developed, leaving 87% permeable. Additionally, since the current structure does not meet the setback requirements of the LC-42A zone, the applicant is requesting relief for Criteria for considering an Area expansion of a non-conforming structure, Section 179-79. Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant 2. Feasible would be permitted to construct the desired addition in the selected location. alternatives:3. Is this Feasible alternatives appear to be limited due to the setback requirements. relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The requested relief may be interpreted as substantial, however, any type of development on this site would require setback and permeability 4. Effects on the neighborhood or relief due to the size of the lot and the existing LC-42 zoning. community:5. Is Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action. this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the lot size and current zoning. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 2-96 - res. 2/21/96 To construct a Staff comments: 705 sq. ft. addition Minimal impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. This application is similar to the previously approved Area Variance; AV2-96, expect that this SEQR Status: application is for an addition less than half the size previously approved. Type II” Project Name:ID MRS. LAPHAM-“Warren County Planning Board Richard & Jill Long Number:Current Zoning:Community:Project AV 67-1998 LC-42 Acres Queensbury Description: Applicant proposes to add a 12’ by 12’ room and remove and rebuild a 12’ by 10’ room. Applicant had previous approval for a larger addition in 1996. Variance required due to Site Location: pre-existing lot size of 19,100 square feet and side yard setback. four houses Staff Notes: south of Pilot Knob Road on the west side of Ridge Road house is blue gray in color Local Actions to Pre-existing lot size renders lot unbuildable, site drawing included in summary date (if any):County Planning Board Recommendation: None provided No County Impact Terry Ross, Warren County Planning Board” MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anything you’d like to say, Mr. Long? MR. LONG-No. MR. THOMAS-It’s all been said two and a half years ago. MR. LONG-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? Would you like to talk about this one? Does anyone have any comments on this? MR. MC NALLY-I don’t think the conditions have changed any. MR. THOMAS-Well, it’s actually smaller. MR. STONE-Less. MR. MC NALLY-It’s the site conditions. MR. STONE-Yes, haven’t changed a bit. MR. THOMAS-No. Okay. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/23/98) MR. STONE-And in deference, as I understand it, the new Comprehensive Land Use Plan, it does away with LC-42, along the road anyway. MR. THOMAS-Yes. The new Comprehensive Plan, it’s supposed to go back to WR-1A. MR. STONE-It would still be nonconforming, but the setback wouldn’t be anywhere near as restrictive. MR. THOMAS-How wide is that lot? MR. LONG-One hundred feet wide. MR. THOMAS-One hundred feet wide in a WR-1 Acre zone. MR. BROWN-It would be 20 feet side setback. MR. THOMAS-So, right there, is this was in a WR-1 Acre zone, they’d have all the side setbacks, and rear setback, but we don’t know when that Comprehensive Plan is going to be thrown through. MR. STONE-But it’s certainly logical in an LC-42A. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-You can’t do anything with the lot sizes that are there now. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there any other comments or questions from the Board? If not, we have a motion to approve, back in 1996. Would someone like to read that into the record, make that motion, and change anything you need to. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-1998 RICHARD & JILL LONG , Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: Ridge Road, four miles north of Route 149. The applicant proposes the construction of a 264 square foot addition to an existing home. The applicant requests 77 feet of relief from the 100 foot side setback requirement, and 47 feet of relief from the rear setback requirement, and 8% relief from the 95% permeability requirement of an LC-42A zone, Section 179-13. The applicant’s proposal calls for 13% of the site to be developed, leaving 87% permeable. Additionally, since the current structure does not meet the setback requirements of the LC-42A zone, the applicant is requesting relief in order to expand a nonconforming structure in accordance with Section 179-79. The benefit to the applicant is they would be permitted to construct the desired addition at the selected location. The feasible alternatives are limited, due to the setback requirements for any kind of relief for any kind of addition, given the substandard size of the lot, and the placement of the existing structure would require some kind of setback relief. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The requested relief may be interpreted as substantial, however, given the site size and the proposed addition, I think it’s modest. Overall, I don’t think it’s going to have any effect on the neighborhood whatsoever, and I do not see that this is a self created problem. I therefore move the approval of the variance. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. LONG-Thanks a lot. MR. THOMAS-You’ve got a whole year, now, to do this. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-1998 TYPE II SFR-1A DAVID HATIN OWNER: SAME LOCATION: 159 CRONIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/23/98) GARAGE AND BREEZEWAY ADDITION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE SFR-1A ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 46-2-18 LOT SIZE: 0.55 ACRES SECTION: 179-20 DAVID HATIN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 65-1998, David Hatin, Meeting Date: September 23, 1998 Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: “ 159 Cronin Road Applicant proposes Relief Required: construction of a 792 square foot garage and breezeway addition. Applicant requests 8 feet of side setback relief from the 20 foot requirement of the SFR-1A zone, Section Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 179-20. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired addition in the 2. Feasible alternatives: preferred location. Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: addition to a compliant location. 8 feet 4. Effects on the of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of 5. Is this difficulty self-created? this action. The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments: None applicable SEQR Status: Minimal if any impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Type II” MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Hatin, is there anything you’d like to say, add, tell us about? MR. HATIN-Not unless the Board has any questions, no. MR. THOMAS-Are there any questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-The only question I had for you, yesterday, Dave, about the garage or now storage building in the back. Is there anything that we have to do to make that not be a garage? You can’t have two garages. MR. HAYES-That’s an accessory structure, though. MR. STONE-Well, it will be, but it’s got a garage door on it. It is currently a garage. MR. HATIN-That was there when I bought the property three years ago. In fact, I came before this Board to get a variance for the carport. Some of you may remember it or not, I don’t know, and the neighbors came in and objected, and I had to put it on the other side. Right now, over the winter I did use it for my fiancee’s car and the car port I use for my truck. The purpose of building this garage is move everything closer to the house and turn that so called garage into a storage shed for my motorcycle, my snowmobile, my daughter’s bikes, lawn mower, all the miscellaneous things that go with being a family. So that’s my proposal. If you want to condition it, that’s fine. I don’t know exactly when I’m going to build the garage, but when I do, that’s what will happen. I have no intention of putting a car out in the back. MR. THOMAS-So would you be willing to take that garage door off and put in something else, some other kind of door, just so that it doesn’t look like a garage? So somebody couldn’t come by and say, well, he’s got two garages. MR. HATIN-I don’t know what I could do to make it look different. It looks like a garage, and it is what it is. I don’t know if it would make any difference or not. I would be willing to condition the variance that no vehicles would be parked in it. I don’t have a problem with that at all. It’s an odd ball shaped garage. MR. STONE-Chris is saying, you, yourself, don’t want to be in the position of having somebody drive by and say, Dave Hatin has two garages. MR. HATIN-All they have to do is ask me to open it and they’ll see. The problem is, that’s a small garage door. That’s an exceptionally small garage door that’s on there now. It’s only a six foot door, six foot wide door by six foot in height, or six and a half by seven, I think. It’s an odd ball sized garage door, and I have a motorcycle which I would need at least a four foot door for anyway, and the snowmobile the same way 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/23/98) MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-It sounds like a decent enough project to me, and it certainly will add to the value of your home. MR. HATIN-If I can convince the bank of that, I hope. MRS. LAPHAM-And I can see the For Sale sign in front of it, it’ll do you good in selling. MR. HATIN-I hope to be able to build it this year. MRS. LAPHAM-I don’t think I really have a problem with it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-No. I have no problems at all. I was just curious, did his neighbors to the west say anything? There’s no letter. MR. HATIN-I talked to Tom, when I originally got the application, told him what I was going to be doing. He said he had no problem with it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-Yes, I have no problem with it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-I don’t have any problem with it. It’s minimal relief and it’s going to improve the neighborhood. So I have no problem at all. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-No problems. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I agree. MR. THOMAS-I agree. There’s no problems with this. The only thing I’m jealous of, he has Town sewer. MR. HATIN-You can have it, because my taxes, and when I do this project, if I do the full extent of this project, my taxes will go up like $50 a month because of the Town sewer, probably. MR. CUSTER-You get a separate sewer tax on your bill? MR. HATIN-Yes, plus usage tax, but right now the Assessor’s estimate my taxes will go up almost $50 a month. MR. STONE-Because of the garage? MR. HATIN-Because of the garage, the breezeway, and then I eventually intend to turn the back porch into a family room. MR. STONE-I thought it had to do with the water usage, though? 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/23/98) MR. HATIN-It does, but that’s above and beyond the taxes. MR. THOMAS-All right. Since we’ve all talked about it and there’s no more questions for the applicant, would someone like to make a motion? MR. HATIN-Can I ask one thing of the Board? Chris, I mentioned this to you the other day when you were in the Office. I don’t know if this project will be built this year or not, or if I will have it built by next year. The banks are giving me a hard time about financing, because they won’t give me the money until after it’s built, which is difficult for me to do. Is there any chance I could get beyond a one year deadline on it, because I know in a year it will expire, two to three years? MR. THOMAS-Does anybody have any objections to making this for two years? Is two years fine? MR. HATIN-That should let me know where I’m going to be. I’ll either sell the house with the variance or build one, one or the other. MR. THOMAS-This is right along the same lines as the Applebee’s, you know, with the financing and all the other new fancy stuff they come out with. So if there’s no problem with that, would you add that in? MR. CUSTER-I’ll address that. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-1998 DAVID HATIN , Introduced by Brian Custer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Said variance is to run for two years, effective today’s date. 159 Cronin Road. The construction of a 792 square foot garage and breezeway addition. In order to grant this variance, we will have to provide relief to the applicant of eight feet side setback from the twenty foot requirement of the SFR-1A zone, under Section 179-20. In granting this variance, we recognize the following criteria. The benefit to the applicant, it would allow him to construct his desired addition in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives include relocating it to other areas of the property, however, the one that is currently recommended or sited on the plot plan is probably the most desired. Relief could be considered moderate, due to the Ordinance, but I do not believe that that prohibits granting this variance. Effects on the neighborhood or community are minimal, and no negative comments have been noted this evening. The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, but again, I don’t believe that impacts the overall balancing for this variance. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. HATIN-Thank you. I apologize for being late. MR. STONE-I move that the meeting be adjourned. MR. THOMAS-I’ll second the motion. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 15