Loading...
1981-06-17 <[5 MINUTES Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals June 17, 1981 - 7:30 P.M. '--" PRESENT: Kirkham Cornwell, Chairman Theodore Turner, Secretary Susan Goetz Daniel Griffin Charles Sicard Sjoerdje Richardson R. Case Prime Stephen Lynn, Staff Mac~Deen, Staff Lee Tugas, Post Star The minutes of the May 20, 1981 meeting were approved on a motion by Charles Sicard, seconded by Theodore Turner. Motion carried unanimously. INTERPRETATION NO. 5 - James Shovah, Variance No. 549 - Lawton, Montray and Sweet Roads Interpretation as to whether or not violation exists with regard to Variance #549. Mr. James Shovah and Mr. Frank DeSantis, Esq. present. Mrs. George Kouba appeared as complainant. Mrs. Kouba is a neighbor and objects to noise created by chain saw. Mr. Howe, store manager present. Mr. Howe contends chain saw is not run before 10:00 a.m. Letter read from Mr. DeSantis to Mr. George Kouba concentrating on hours of business. Motion by Mr. Sicard, seconded by Mr. Turner, that a violation does not exist. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLVED: It has been determined by the Board that a violation does not exist with regard to Variance No. 549. INTERPRETATION NO. 6 - George Ferris, Jr. - C1everda1e on Lake George Interpretation as to .whether the division and sale of the 10,000 square foot southerly parcel and the retention of the remaining lands to the north would be in compliance with the provisions of the Ordin- ance. '-.-- Mr. Robert Stewart, Esq. present. -.; Jfo June 17, 1981 Page Two Motion by Mrs. Richardson, seconded by Mr. Sicard to deny. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLVED: The Board denied Interpretation No.6, in favor of the Variance reqùest. VARIANCE NO. 710 - Stan Kostek - Stan's Seafood Specialties - 284 Bay Road This application is for expansion of existing commercial establish- ment in order to enlarge waitress work area, dining area and office. Stan Kostek present. This application had been tabled for 30 days in order to give Mr. Kostek time to comply with cònditions of previous variances. Motion"by Mr. Cornwell, seconded by Mr. Sicard approving conditions set forth at meeting of May 20th. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Mr. Sicard, seconded by Mr. Griffin approving Variance No. 710. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLVED: The Board granted this variance application as presented. All restrictions of previous variance will apply with granting of this variance. VARIANCE NO. 712 - Guy Bevins - south off Corinth, 2 miles west of Northway Application is for construction of dwelling that does not front on Town road. Guy Bevins present. Since the Town is discouraging the growth of unplanned mini sub- divisions and the road is not wide enough, Mr. Prime stated he felt it appeared better for the applicant to develop a public road to his property rather than rely upon private ground. Motion by Mr. Prime, seconded by Mrs Richardson, to deny. Motion carried unanimously. The Board agreed unanimously to re-hear Variance if impasse develops. RESOLVED: The Board denied this variance. VARIANCE NO. 716 - Mary Anne Krupsak, Zdenek Zobel and Kooch and Hongja Jung - Route 9L, Lake George Application is for variance to place a dock as an accessory use without a principal structure on lot in R-l Zone on the property situated at Route 9L, Dark Bay on Lake George. -- ~ June 17, 1981 Page Three ð1 Mary Anne Krupsak, Zdenek Zobel, Jongja Jung and John Matthews,Esq. present for this variance. '- Mr. Eisenstadt, Esq. appeared representing Mildred Stone,inquired as to the length of proposed dock. Mr. Dugan, lives east of Mrs. Stone and has lived on the lake since 1943. Mr. Dugan feels there are too many docks already. Mrs. Mildred Stone, Lockhart Loop since 1903. Mrs. Stone is not in favor of this variance because in her opinion there is a danger to the children who would be swimming in the area, lack of privacy and it would be too noisy. Lionel Bartho1, lives next to DeNoyer. Mr. Bartho1 felt a 30' boat would not be able to maneuver well in the proposed area. Letter read from Joseph Brennan, Esq. opoosing variance. Letters introduced from Mr. Dugan and Mrs. Stone. Mr. Charles Adamson, Assembly Point - observer for the Lake George Association appeared in favor of variance. Mrs. Krupsak stated that at the time property was bought, one of the attractions was for boating opportunities. Motion by Mr. Turner, seconded by Mr. Sicard to approve this variance. Those in favor of motion, Goetz, Griffin, Cornwell. Against, Prime and Richardson. Variance granted by a vote of 5-2. RESOLVED: The Board granted this variance as a hardship exists for the following reasons: 1. Restrictions placed on the property by Adirondack Park Agency that no residence can be built on this lot. 2. Variance to limit dock to one dock with 3 slips. 3. Dock to be no longer than existing dock to east. VARIANCE NO. 717 - George S. Ferris, Jr. - C1everdale on Lake George - This variance is to divide property creating one conforming lot and one non-conforming lot in square footage on the property situated at Cleverdale Road on Lake George. Mr. Robert Stewart, Esq. present. ~- ... gå June 17, 1981 Page Four Motion by Mr. Griffin, seconded by Mr. Sicard.to approve. Approved unanimously. RESOLVED: The Board granted this area variance as it meets the requirements for an area variance. VARIANCE NO. 719 - David Aronson - 17 Ashley Place Application made to place swimming pool partially in side yard in lieu of required rear yard placement on the property situated at 17 Ashley Place. Mr. David Aronson was present. Mr. Cornwell stated that a swimming pool is ~þætmi~ted accessory use for any house in this area so that pool or no pool is not the question. The question is where a pool and the ordinance clearly states that the pool shall be with certain setbacks in the back yard, that it will have to be landscaped and that it will not adversely affect the neighborhood. Mr. Cornwell asked Mr. Aronson if he had started to build the pool without a permit. Mr. Aronson replied that he did not. Mr. Cornwell asked him how he got started without a variance.Mr. Aronson replied that they built the pool in the back half of the yard but it wasn't until the Building Inspector called it to their attention that there was a question as to what was classified as a backyard. At that time the Building Inspector suggested he apply for a variance to show that he had practical difficulty because he has no back yard. Discussion ensued regarding lot size and shape. Mr. Aronson stated that he had complied with all the setback regulations that it has been surveyed. Phyllis Hathmaker - 10 Pershing Road. "First of all I have letters from people in close proximity to the pool who oppose it. They say they feel that it adversely affects the character of the residential property in this area and they feel it is in violation of the zoning ordinance". Mr. Cornwell asked if they were aware that a swimming pool is a permitted usage in that zone. Mr. Yafa - Phyllis has mentioned the point of appearance and noise. I wish to make this point. I'm very proud of our neighborhood and we feel that this pool will in your terminology, adversely affect the property value of our neighborhood. I'm very proud of our neighbor- hood and we feel that this will be a detriment to it. Beyond that the technicalities are too difficult. But I think that everybody that I've talked to feels as I do. I know of no other way to put our complaint." Mr. Cornwell asked if he felt that his property had been lowered by the other pools in the neighborhood."No, I think I can answer that with what little knowledge I have...the people across the way, I can't see his pool it's in the rear of the house. Now I'm at a loss for any other homes I know of what a pool in our direct neighborhood.. This pool (Aronson) I am directly involved with it ~<,-. ~June 17, 1981 Page Five 31 being directly on my half lot and I'm definitely and firmly against it basically because it will affect our property value because it's a sore thumb by anybody that I have questioned and in my own little way researched out, what the effect of pools in that particular position will be on the property. I think I'm at a loss to put any of vocabulary or wordage to my feelings. Mrs. Berdie Yafa - .....Am I to understand that if a person doesn't have a backyard they are allowed to build a house (meant pool) on the side of the house. Mr. Cornwell stated that is why we have a Zoning Board of Appeals to decide if it's reasonable and can be properly screened if they put it in the other side, and we have to weigh each case which we are now doing and decide if proper screening can be made to make it less objectionable. If it was not possible, we would probably have to deny it. That's what we're trying to find out now. Mr. Cornwell asked Mrs. Yafa _ how she felt about the fences. She was not happy with them. Discussion ensued re: fences. Unknown - Asked if there was sufficient room from the property line to the edge of the pool for landscaping. Mr. Cornwell and Mr. Turner stated 17 feet from the property line to the edge of the pool. Mrs. Yafa - "Have you considered what they call the coving around the pool and the walk?" Mr. Turner again stated that there is 17 feet from the property line to the edge of the pool, that doesn't include the apron. Mrs. Yafa - that doesn't include the walk, by the time you get that in you will not be within the limitations I do not believe. How far is the walk? Mr. Turner - Probably 4 feet or 5 feet. That still leaves them 12 feet. Gladys Hathmaker - 10 Pershing Road -"I have here just some notes - well, first of all I'm opposed to the granting of the variance for the following reasons: The property is not suitable for a swimming pool, according to the zoning ordinance, which is to protect our property I assume. It would be detrimental to the aesthetic character of the neighborhood and it would decrease property values. Few buyers would purchase the property that's close to one with a swimming pool.. I would like to question the procedure that Mr. Aronson took when he decided to build his pool. Mr. Aronson: I applied for the permit and started digging the pool and then the complaints came in. It was at that time that the property was measured and without it being surveyed there was a question where the lines were and everything and at that time the permit was pulled....... Discussion followed as to exactly when Mr. Aronson obtained permit. Mrs. Hathmaker was also concerned about the noise a swimming pool would create. Letter read from Dr. Maddocks - adverse affect on the neighborhood. Letter read from Mrs. Lang - adverse affect on the neighborhood. Letter from Mr. Yafa ôn file. Mr. Meyer former neighbor of Mr. Aronson appeared stating he had never had a problem with Mr. Aronson and they both had swimming pools. '-- 'June 17, 1981 Page Six 90 Motion by Mr. Prime, seconded by Mrs. Richardson to approve. Those in favor of motion, Griffin, Turner, Cornwell, Sicard. Against, Goetz. ''"-- RESOLVED: The Board granted this variance for a pool in side yard. It will comply with zoning ordinance setback and will comply with recommendations of Queensbury Beautification Committee in reference to landscaping. Fencing required per ordinance. Mr. Sicard entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 12:15 a.m., seconded by Mr. Griffin. Motion carried unanimously. ~~ Kirkham Cornwell, Cha1rm;} ('/fll "- .