1988-10-26
--..
~
QUB_SSURY la_lB. BOAJU) OP APPBALS
Regular Meetingl Wednesday, October 26, 1988 at 7.30 p.m.
Present. Theodore Turner, Chairman
Daniel Griffin
Jeffrey Kelley
Susan Goetz, Secretary
Michael Muller
Charles O. Sicard
Paul Dusek, Town Attorney (in Counsel's office)
Mary Jane P. Moeller, Stenographer
Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 7130 p.m.
REIf SUSIDSS
ARBA VAJUAltCB RO. 1433
New York Telephone, Co.
The application is to place a concrete hut to house (enclose) New York
Telephone Co. terainating equipment, HC-15. The location is the fourth
parcel on the left side of Bay Road, north of Glenwood Avenue. The appli-
cant is requesting a 5 ft. side/rear setback, in lieu of the required 20
ft. (a variance of 15 ft.) (Article 4, Section 4.020-j)
William Gaul and Cliff Nelson, Engineer, of New York Telephone repre-
sented the application. Mr. Kelley was assured that the Telephone Company
does not own the proposed property or property nearby, the property is
leased. The cable is fiberoptic and stems from the main office on Glen
Street, a location from which everyone in the area can be serviced.
Mr. Nelson stated that, with the technology available today, approx-
imately 6000 customers could be serviced. With satellite points, this
could go to the border of Kattskill Bay, east to Ridge Road, and west to
Route 9. There is another satellite spot at the Warren County Building
that would eventually feed to Glen Lake. This will be the first fibre
that is going north, there is one going south. By placing this type of
cable in the area, it will provide state-of-the-art facilities, howev~r,
there has to be a spot in which to terainate the equipment. Eventually,
th~s service will be placed in vaults underground, the reason for this
apdlication being above ground is because of the water table.
Looking at the immediate five to six years, there might be another
hut, perhaps a buried environmental vault on Aviation Road. The problem
with this hut is the applicant had to comform with an approved building
lot, it was necessary to stay out of the driveway. The reason the site is
close to the property line, is because the back of the property is being
1
'-'
---
left for snow storage. This is an opportune time to do this, because of
ongoing construction along Bay Road. There will be a main conduit from
Bay Road to the hut, a conduit out to feed Woodbury's unit and a loop out
to feed the Bay Road expansion. Mr. Nelson stated that this area will
have some of the best communications today. The landsacaping has been
discussed with Woodbury's, who have been given full control.
Public Hearing: no comment
Correspondence: Warren County approved.
Mr. Kelley moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1433, New York Tele-
phone Co.. This will be an approval of a communication hut, which will
be placed five (5) feet off Bay Road at the easterly Woodbury property
line. There will be a difference of fifteen (15) feet1 the requirement is
20 feet. The applicant has shown practical difficultY1 if the building is
placed at the twenty (20) foot requirement, it would interfere with the
parking planned for Woodbury's commercial enterprise. If the location
were to be at the southerly property line, it would interfere with snow
removal plans. It does not appear to be detrimental to the Ordinance or
the surrounding area.
Seconded by Mr. Turner
Passed Unanimously
USE VARIANCE NO. 1434
Randolph E. Bardin
The application is for the construction of a 50 ft. x 28 ft. pole barn
and an attached 50 ft. x 12 ft. shed on Woodchuck Hill Road, LC-IOA.
(Article 4, Section 4.020-a)
Mrs. Susan Bardin represented the application and informed the Board
that the barn would be used for storing a boat, lawn furniture, firewood,
bikes and the repair of the Bardin's own equipment1 the barn measures
approximately 40 ft. x 50 ft. and is located 300 feet from the Town road.
There would be no animals. Mr. Bardin is a logger and has skidders, but
no trucks. Mrs. Bardin explained that no equipment would be stored in the
barn1 however, when the equipment broke down, the barn would be used to
house the equipment while it was being repaired. Eventually, there might
be electrical service, but not now.
Mrs. Bardin verified that there would be siding around the pole barn,
with a door which would be big enough for the skidder and boat. She
explained that the skidders are almost never at the location, maybe once
every four months for repair. The reason for the barn in which to repair
2
',,-,
--,'
the equipment is that the outside area is very cold and uncomfortable. Re-
garding the logging business, Mrs. Bardin stated telephone calls are re-
ceived at the residence. Mr. Turner stated that essentially the Bardin's
are operating a business out of a private home in a residential area. The
storage barn is associated with the business, because the equipment will
be kept in that area for maintenance purposes. Mrs. Bardin explained that
skidders are always kept on the woodlot, except at the time of a break-
down, and that it is preferred to have the skidders in a garage, so they
would not be vandalized, this has happened in the past.
The building's design is high, so that furniture and other items can
be stored on the top floor. There is no garage attached to the exis~ing
house.
Public Bearin9i no comment.
Correspondence. none.
Mr. Kelley moved DENIAL of Use Variance No. 1434, Randolph E. Bardin.
This is a Use Variance and the criteria is different from an Area Vari-
ance, the applicant must show that the property cannot be used as zoned.
The zoning is LC-10A Land Conservation zone, which is a residential area.
Testimony given to the Board is that the pole barn is 40 ft. x 50 ft. and
is to be used for the repair of log skidding equipment. The building
would be used as a business operated out of the home rather than for resi-
dential use, such as housing a car. The application is denied because of
the lack of hardship and the fact that a business use is not permitted in
a residential zone.
Seconded by Mr. Sicard.
Passed Unaat.øasly
AJŒA VUIDCR RO. 1435
William J. Wilson
The application is to construct a two-car garage with one bedroom
above it, attached to the existing structure at Lot 26, Michaels Drive,
SR-20. There will be no kitchen facilities or bathroom facilities. The
applicant is requesting a 7 ft. south-side setback, in lieu of the
required 10 ft. (a variance of 3 ft.) (Article 4, Section 4.020-e).
Mr. Muller moved to TABLE Area Variance No. 1435, William J. Wilson,
for the period of one month because of no representation at this meeting.
Seconded by Mr. Sicard.
3
l
~
----
Passed Unanimously
AREA VARIABCE NO. 1436
Fred Alexy
The application is for the expansion of an existing den with a 14 ft.
x 16 ft. Solar Room at the east tip of Cleverdale Road (gray house),
LR-1A. In addition, the request is for the expansion of the Sundeck. The
applicant is aSking for a15 ft. lake setback, in lieu of the required 75
ft. (a variance of 60 ft.) and a 2 ft. east side setback, in lieu of the
required 10 ft. (a variance of 8 ft.). (Article 7, Section 7.011 A3;
Article 4, Section 4.020-c).
Note: Mr. Alexy noted that the Agenda erroneously stated the Solar
Room as 12 ft. x 14 ft.).
Fred Alexy represented the application and reviewed that the Alexy's
were before the Board about two years, for the transaction of the purchase
of the adjoining property. He referred to that portion of the deed, Liber
702 PAGE 208 (Exhibit A), in which the applicant's agreed not to build a
primary structure on the property. Because there will be no construction
on the adjoining land, the Alexy's are requesting to extend their present
residence 12 ft. closer to the property line. The proposed den will be
used for den purposes and to gain solar benefit; the current room is less
than 9 ft. in width.
The reason the Alexy's choose to not join the properties is because,
sometime in the future, they might elect to sell the residential lot and
keep the adjoining lot for access to the lake and be available for docks.
However, Mr. Alexy stated that there are no present plans for a move. Mr.
Turner reviewed that the practical difficulty is gaining the sunlight, Mr.
Alexy said it would be to gain the solar benefit and energy benefit, items
of which they are not presently taking advantage. That is the reason why
the extension is not being placed on the north. The house is basically
functional without the addition; the addition would enhance the value of
the house.
Mr. Alexy explained that the deck extends the length 12 ft. along the
length of the house, with an entrance to the room from the front of the
deck. Square footage of the existing house is approximately 1700 sq. ft.,
the existing den is 9 ft. x 16 ft.. He affirmed to Mrs. Goetz that the
deed restriction goes with the land, even if it is sold, and Mr. Muller
felt it highly unlikely that that type of restriction would be removed.
In review, Mr. Muller stated that it was necessary to satisfy the Adir-
ondack Park Agency (APA) on the following: 1) whether there is a practical
difficulty, 2) whether there are feasible alternatives to the solution,
and 3) is the variance the minimum to relieve the practical difficulty.
4
'-'
-....-'
Regarding the practical difficulty, the existing room is very narrow,
8 ft. 11 in.. One of the reasonable alternatives is to expand and make it
wider, which is what is being requested. The width would be a Solar Room
and be benefitted by the solar system on the correct side of the house.
On the feasible alternative aspect, the room has to be put on the correct
side of the house.
The applicant is requesting the minimum relief necessary, as he is not
putting an unreasonably large addition onto the house and is staying with-
in the bounds of the current lot. No matter what is done with the south
side of the lot, there will always be setback problems, it is unavoidable.
The length of the lot running from north to south is 107 ft. x 77 1/2 ft.
on the southerly side. The lot is small, as are all lots at that point in
the Town. The house is set into the terrain, which would be retained.
Important to note is that there is another 83.5 feet due south, which is
bound by a deed that it is a nonbuildable lot and owned by the same owner.
Mr. Kelley felt that the applicant has shown his intent in not wanting
to overcrowd the area by putting a restriction on the land. Mrs. Alexy's
mother formerly owned the house, which was part of the property. In the
transaction, that portion (Tax Map Parcel 14-2-3.1) was purchased with the
understanding that it would be nonbuildable.
Mr. Turner asked the Board if it wants to increase the violation by
another addition. Mr. Muller felt that in some respects the violation is
being pushed to the extreme, by adding on. However, the applicants are
the owners of an adjoining undevelopable lot which bounds the land, this
helps alleviate the concern. Mr. Kelley questioned if the overall size of
the room could be decreased. Joseph Roulier, who accompanied Mr./Mrs.
Alexy, questioned if it would make any difference if the setback was 2 ft.
or 5 ft., since the site is already into the questionable area. Answer by
Mr. Kelleya Because the Zoning Ordinance asks if this is a minimum vari-
ance to alleviate the practical difficulty. Mr. Alexy felt he should be
granted recognition, on the fact that he and Mrs. Alexy have already
stated that they would not build on the lot, this has been stated in the
Deed. He also stated his feelings that the liklihood of anyone building
on the adjoining lot 10 years from today would be far less. The Zoning
Laws will become much more stringent, they have not eased but become
worse. Worse from the standpoint of using more available land, but better
from the standpoint of providing more daylight between the structures.
The deck could have been designed larger, but it was unnecessary for the
applicant's use.
Mr.
If the
instead
with no
by the
would be
Kelley discussed the straight up and down wall of the Solar Room.
wall were sloped, there might only be usable floor space of 8 ft.
of 12 ft. Mr. Alexy explained that the reason a vertical wall,
glass in the roof, was selected is because the house would benefit
glass in the winter time. Using other solar designs, the house
benefitted in the winter, but penalized in the summer.
5
'-'
'-
Mr. Muller stated his support of the application. There is a deed re-
striction that the adjoining land is a nonbuildable lot, and all the more
reasonable alternatives that the Board would be considering to alleviate
the necessity for setback have been considered. If the lot line were not
there, the setback would not be discussed. The owners of the undeveloped
lot are the same owners of the de~eloped lot, this is ownership of a con-
tiguous piece of property. In addition, having to ask the applicant to
build a smaller room is outweighed by the fact that there is 83.5 ft. of
distance between the applicants' land and the next property line.
Because this application is under the old Ordinance, they would be con-
sidered two separate lots, because they did not exist on the day of the
Ordinance. However, the lots did exist on the day of the new Ordinance.
Regarding the practical difficulty, Mr. Muller continued that the piece of
property has to be taken into consideration, where an addition could not
be made without a setback relief. Concerning the minimum relief aspect,
he emphasized again that there are 83.5 ft. between the owners and the
legal boundary, with no ability to build on the 83.5 ft.
Public B.aria,. no comment
Correspondence. Warren County Board approved.
Mr. Muller moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1436, Fred Alexy, for
application for an Area Variance to expand an existing den with a 12 ft. x
16 ft. Solar Room and to expand a sundeck, requiring a 15 ft. lake setback
in lieu of the required 75 ft., and a 2 ft. east side setback in lieu of
the required 10 ft..
We have been asked to consider the application to determine whether or
not there is a practical difficulty. The practical difficulty is that the
house is presently situated on the lot, that any reasonable additio~ to
the northerly side of the house would require a setback, because it is
close to Tax Map Parcel 14-2-2. On the southerly side of the applicant's
parcel, he owns Tax Map Parcel 14-2-3.1 which, by Deed, is represented as
part of the application. The Deed, which is recorded in Liber 702 PAGE
208 in the Warren County Clerk's Office, specifically makes reference to
the Parcel 14-2-3.1 and states that that particular parcel has a restrict-
ed Covenant. It runs with the land and that no house, garage or other
primary residential structure shall be constructed on the premises. If
that is the case, there is 85.5 ft. of land owned by the applicant on the
southerly side of the proposed addition.
The practical difficulty would be that the applicant is building right
up against the lot line. When that is weighed against the feasible altern-
atives, the usual feasible alternative would be to buy more land on the
southerly side of the proposed addition, which in fact he has. It is not
important to the Board to determine now whether or not that is all part of
one building lot that is clearly part of one ownership. We are not going
6
'--
--../
to have the problem that would be a consideration, that is whether another
owner or whether Mr. Alexy himself chooses to build on the adjoining lot,
he cannot do it and the Deed says he will not do it.
Still considering feasible alternatives, one of the considerations
would be to build a smaller room. But, if you take that into account in
terms of reasoning, the rule of reasoning here is all of that 85.5 ft. in
order to build a 21 ft. room, which is not an unreasonably large room, in
consideration of the needs for a Solar Room on a 1700 square foot house
more or less. He has indicated that it is low profile, so that it will
blend in with the rest of the house, and certainly will be low profile as
the rest of the house is in the lot. So the feasible alternatives being
considered, this seems to be the most reasonable alternative.
The last consideration is that the Variance sought the minimum neces-
sary to alleviate a practical difficulty. It is a reasonable minimum in
my opinion, because we have considered his available lands next door. I
think there has to be some consideration as to the setback he receives
from the lake, and yet there is certainly a practical difficulty that he
chooses to add on to a house that presently exists and is too close to the
shoreline. So that practical difficulty is self-evident. There would not
seem to me to be any feasible alternatives because he chooses to add on to
his house. If he were to comply with the setback requirements, this addi-
tion could not be attached to the house. This is the minimum necessary to
alleviate any practical difficulty. I think it is a reasonable minimum
necessary to alleviate the hard, practical difficulty of the right to add
on to his house, and not just a Solar Room attached to his home.
To review, there are two reliefs asked for. 15 ft. from the lake and a
two (2) foot east-side setback attached to the southerly side of the
house.
The record reflects that the applicant has completed the Short EAF and
answered all of the questions in the negative.
Also included is that the Zoning Board of Appeals make a finding in
fact that there are no substantial injurious impacts upon the environment
in granting this Variance that has been requested.
Seconded by Mr. Sicard.
Passed VaaataG..ly
AREA VAltIAJlCB 110. 1437
McDonald's Corporation
This proposal is for the elimination of a four (4) foot wide mountable
7
~
~
barrier, between the entrance and exit of the proposed curb cut at Exit
18, 1-87 corinth Road, HC-lS. (Article 7, Section 7.017 (d).
Francis Essien represented the applicant and presented two plans:
SP-1, dated 7/19/88, which depicted a divider island at the proposed truck
accessJ and Revised SP-1, dated 9/28/88, with the divider island removed
at the proposed truck access. Mr. Essien stated that divider islands as
requested by the Planning Board ordinarily are not successful, because
they become cracked, get run over, and present a problem with snow. Exper-
ience has proven that truck drivers are not the ordinary good drivers, be-
cause a driver will run over the divider or stall on it. If there was no
divider, the trucks would have a tendency to wait until one truck has made
its ingress/egress.
Speed bumps are considered unsatisfactory in that they are not only
annoying, but are a problem for modular-type vehicles.
Parking spaces for the trucks are 14 feet wide. An alternative pro-
posed by McDonald's is to be allowed to paint stripes. By doing this it
would give the opportunity to improve safety, reduce the opportunity to
not being able to clear the snow and afford a clean sweep. The most prac-
tical solution would have been to have two access points, but there was
not enough property. Mr. Essien said he has never seen a barrier in good
condition.
Mr. Essien confirmed to Mr. Griffen that trucks would not be able to
enter the eastern parking 10tsJ however, RV's and busses will be permitted
to exit through the truck area. There will be -Truck Only- sign at the
entrance and -No Exit- at the rear. The dimension of the access point
will be 40+ feetJ there will be 150 feet from center line to center line.
Public Hearing: no comment.
Correspondence: Warren County approved. The Enironmental Assessment
Form was submitted, showing no negative impact.
Mr. Turner moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1437, McDonald's Corpor-
ation. The application is to eliminate the four (4) foot wide mountable
barrier. As indicated on the Revised Plan SP-1, dated 9/28/88, there will
be arrows pointing to the ingress and egress. Truck and trailer entrances
will be designated. The sign language will be according to the Queens bury
Sign Ordinance.
The practical difficulty is the size of the truck rigs, and eliminat-
ing the barrier will provide an easier way to enter and exit. Studies
have proven that there is a very heavy traffic flow in the area.
Seconded by Mr. Muller.
Passed Unani~u.ly.
8
',--,
Chairman Turner adjourned the meeting at 9130
Theodore Turner, ~~
#-~
9
p.m.
Date
II' 7, V(
Date
-.../
....
,¡;
,...
~IO
~
o
tV
~
.:-t
""
~~
I
~
'--/
ALL THAT PIECE OR PARCEL OF LAND located at 'the north end of Ripley's
Point in the Town of Queensbury. Warren County. New York and described as
fall ows:
BEGINNING at a point on the shore of Lake George on the easterly side
of Ripley's Point at the northeast corner of Lot 1 as shown on a survey of
said ~oint ~ade by Job Mattison in 1877 and filed in the Warren County
Clerk s Off1ce in Book 1 of Maps at Page 28; proceeding from Siiid point
northerly along the shore of Lake George 83.5'+ to a point marking the
southeast corner of lands n?w or formerly of ATexy (471/187) (1966); thence
west~rly 5.5'! to an iron p'pe; thence S 89° 57' W 34.16' to an iron pipe
set 1n a stone pier; thence N 87° 59' W 42.96' passing over an iron pipe to
a point in the center line of a 10' right-of-way; thence N 02° 27' 30" E
114.69' along the center line of said right-of-way to the south line of
lands now or formerly of Coe (469/35) and (470/409); thence N 88° 27' W
along the south line of said Coe lands 5' to a point; thence along the west
line of said right-of-way S 02° 27' 30" W 114.38' to an iron pipe; thence $
7° 55' W 70.09' to a point for a corner; thence N 88° 27' W 5'; thence S 7°
55' W 5'; thence S 88° 27' E 103.36' moré or less to the point of beginning
on the shore of, Lake George.
SUBJECr TO AND TOGETHER WITH a 'ri ght-of-way to be used in common with
others ov~f a 10 foot wide right-of-way extending northerly from the north
end of the public road on Ripley's Point to the northerly end of the
premises described above, which right-of-way is bounded as follows:
BEGINNING in the southerly boundary of the lands which were deeded
from Hilliard to AShley (233/566) (1945) and being a point in the north end
of the 'public right-of-way on Ripley's point. distance 9.63 feet easterly
from a copper pin set in concrete. marking the northwest corner of said
public right-of-way and running from said place of beginning N-7-55-E a
distance of 75.09 feet to an iron pipe; thence N-2-27-30-E a distance of
114.38 feet to an iron 'pipe at the northwest corner of the right-of-way;
thence 5-88-27-E a distance of 10.00 f~et to an iron pipe; thence
S-2-27-30-W a distance of 115.01 feet to an angle point thence S-7-55-W a
distance of 74.44 feet to a point in the southerly boundary of the Ashley
property as aforementioned; thence N-88-27-W along said boundary and along
the public right-of-way for a distance of 10.06 feet to the place of
beginning.
THE ABOVE PREMISES ARE EXPRESSLY CONVEYED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WHICH SHALL RUN WITH THE LAND AND BE BINDING UPON THE
HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS OF THE GRANTEE:
No house, garage or other primary residential structure shall be
constructed on the premises.
THE above premises and right-of-way are shown on a "Map of Lands held
in trust for Isabel Ashley" by Coulter & McCormack dated'June 1,1966 and
intended to be filed in the Warren-County Clerk's Office simultaneously
with this instrument.
BEING a portion of the premises described in a deed from Glens Falls
National Bank and Trust Company. as Trustee to Irma A. MYers, Jane AShley
Alexy and Holly A. Patrick dated September 13, 1984 and recorded November
5, 1984 in the Warren County Cl erk 's Offi ce in Book 665, of Deeds at Page
1094.
BEING the same premises conveyed by deed from Irma A. MYers. Jane
Ashley Alexy and Holly A. Patrick to Fred H. Alexy and Jane Ashley Alexy
dated December 24, 1986 and recorded in the Warren County Clerk's Office
on December 31, 1986 in Book 689 of Deeds at Page 174.
!\ F·:: .,!!",', F;~
JAH 1.8 4 35 PM 'nn
v''· ;:~¡t' , ¡'r";"o,'"
.,·,.,It."1 1I1,I'{"t. J
I: !,'t,' )'GiO;
CARYL H. ~: LAfU:
CLO~!\
¡Ç'ý/I-/¡)Ir ~