1989-02-15
"
.-'
'-.-
INDEX
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FEBRUARY 15, 1989
APPLICANT
PAGE
Area Variance No. 1428 Richard Mozall I.
Use Variance No. 1349 PSM Auto Lease and Sales 4.
Area Variance No. 11-1989 H.G. Anderson Equipment 6.
Area Variance No. 4-1989 Dunham's Bay Lodge 9.
Sign Variance No. 12-1989 Champlain Oil Co. 10.
Area Variance No. 13-1989 Larry Zemanek 10.
Area Variance No. 14-1989 Anne Lennox II.
Area Variance No. 15-1989 Foothills Apartments 13.
Use Variance No. 16-1989 David A. & Kathleen Martin 14.
Area Variance No. 17-1989 Thomas E. & Susan Sargent 16.
,ENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
--".,--- _JULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY, 15,1989
7:15 P.M.
1
THEODORE TURNER-CHAIRMAN
SUSAN GOETZ-SECRETARY
CHARLES O. SICARD
DANIEL S. GRIFFIN
JEFFREY L. KELLEY
MICHAEL MULLER
JOYCE EGGLESTON
PAUL DUSEK-TOWN ATTORNEY
LEE A. YORK-SENIOR PLANNER
JOHN GORALSKI-PLANNER
DA VID HA TIN-DIRECTOR BUILDING AND CODES
PAT COLLARD-ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NEW BUSINEES NOT ON AGENDA
AREA VARIANCE REQUEST NUMBER 1428
RICHARD MOZALL-FITZGERALD ROAD, GLENS FALLS
MR. TURNER-Reviewing previous minutes noted that there was a question where they extended
the house out and allowed that expansion and previously granted Variance approximately a
year before that for the deck set back noted deck was built without permit, a question has
been raised by Mr. Barber regarding the extension of the deck, on the house.
MIKE O'CONNOR-Attorney representing Chris and Rick Mozall, noted Dan Barber builder
on project was also present. Reviewed the history of the project. A couple years ago we came
in and received permission on an existing deck to encroach upon the lake shore zone, I think
on one end it was 16 feet the other end it might have been 12 feet. Last year they came back
in October to extend the building itself behind the deck, but still encroaching upon the lake
shore set back. A proposal to build a one story addition 36 feet from the lake, a question has
come up that he is not building per sa a one story addition at this point. A stop work order
was issued. I have met with the Town Attorney relating that it was the Mozall's understanding
that they could build something as long as they didn't encroach within 36 feet of the lake.
The Town Attorney has requested that we again approach your Board to see if you have approved
us for exactly what was presented or the concept.
MR. TURNER-Approval consisted of kitchen and dining area.
MIKE O'CONNOR-What they did is that they dug out for the piers to build this thing on slits
6 by 6 pretreated wood. When they dug out the piers it became evident how long the piers
would have to be to get up to the one story level to get proper footings. They felt that it would
be a better building if they put a poured wall to the first floor level. When they reached the
first floor level, they went right to roof level which they had proposed. Basically they are
building the same thing except the bottom floor building in the same thing instead of being
built on piers is being built as a structure fully enclosed.
MR. TURNER-Is that portion of the structure usable?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. (pictures showed to the board)
SUE GOETZ-Question if this was just to be a screened in porch?
MR. O'CONNOR-It will have permanent windows in it with screens.
SUE GOETZ-Is there a technicality when you tax somebody on a porch verses an inside of a
house? How do you judge that when you report what additions people have done?
JOYCE EGGLESTON-Explained the taxing basis of the town.
MR. TURNER-Was this part of their original application as far as the building permit goes?
MIKE O'CONNOR-No, we now have a set of drawings that are stamped by an engineer and
submitted.
MR. TURNER-That's the crux of the matter right there.
'--,
'--
2
MIKE O'CONNOR-No I don't think that was. The question was did your approval say that it
had to be built on stilts, do you have an objection if its enclosed, and do you have an objection
to the roof over the deck on the side which was mentioned only at the very end of the tape
and not very clearly in your minutes when Mr. Barber mentioned of course we want to build
a deck on the side here in addition to what we showed on the drawing.
MR. TURNER-The original application clearly states a one story consisting of a kitchen and
dining quarters and that's what we based our decision on what they presented.
MR. O'CONNOR-I agree, but I don't necessarily think they said that they could or couldn't
enclose the bottom of it.
MR. MULLER-Its a different plan though, right?
MR. TURNER-Yes it is, the only difference is that it changes it from one story to two. The
set back is the same.
MIKE O'CONNOR-Requested that you incorporate the plans that I have submitted tonight
as part of the approval that you granted prior to, prior hereto and that would clarify the record.
TO WN ATTORNEY-There's actually a couple of issues here on this project. The project as
it was approved was a single story on stilts, what is added now in place of the stilts is a room
enclosed with the foundation and over to the right there is an additional deck now being added
as well, over the previous deck there is also a stop work order in place at the moment. This
Board has the power to lift the stop work order if it finds that the new room and deck is not
in violation of your Variance or if you want to amend your Variance at this point. What comes
into play is Article 9 Use of Nonconforming Uses and Structures that is where the whole problem
takes place. We have an nonconforming structure that is to close to the lake and now their
looking to increase that nonconforming structure. Whenever you increase that you cannot
do that without a Variance.
SUE GOETZ-It seems like the stop work order was issued properly, I mean for a good reason.
TOWN ATTORNEY-I think so.
LEE YORK-Should the Mozall's have also gotten a Site Plan approval?
TOWN ATTORNEY-I haven't reviewed it to that extent at this point. I have just been focusing
on the issues that would come before this Board tonight.
MR. MULLER-If I understand what your saying, they came here made a presentation seeking
relief from the shore line set back requirements and got it for a plan that's not on the table
here. Then your suggesting that they would also need relief to expand the preexisting
nonconforming situation?
TOWN ATTORNEY-Well I think that's the question here whether you feel that under the
Ordinance as it is written in Article 9, whether any new increase requires a Variance. If it
does then I think you got to go through the entire Variance procedure, which means filing an
application, having a public hearing etc. If however you feel that an interpretation of that
Section of the Statue does not mean that just because there going to add on a new portion...the
porch is already encroaching so much and if they are going to build underneath that porch
the question is, is that an increase in a nonconforming structure that requires another Variance
or can they simply be allowed to do that without securing any further Variance.
MIKE O'CONNOR-Paul isn't is the possibility of just simply having a interpretation of your
initial approval, and your initial approval I think was not intentionally limiting to that type
of structure within 36 feet, you were saying that we could build a structure within 36 feet
of the lake and we've come up with an alternative manner of construction and you have no
objection to that under even the original application. What were really seeking is the
conformation of the intent of your approval and the concept of your approval.
SUE GOETZ-In the minutes here from that Variance there is a sentence "there will be no outside
expansion the enclosed finished area will be 36 feet from the lake".
MIKE O'CONNOR-We are not going outside of the 36 feet.
SUE GOETZ-I know but what is outside?
MIKE O'CONNOR-This is what we're asking you. The tape itself I have listened to and there
is a discussion after the motion and everybody is saying fine go ahead you can do the deck.
3
TOWN ATTORNEY-I have listened to the tape as well, unfortunately a lot of it isn't to clear
as you try to listen to it. To be honest with you I wasn't exactly sure where the Board was
going which is why I asked this meeting take place.
MIKE O'CONNOR-What we have built does it offend your intentions in October?
DANIEL GRIFFIN-Were the plans submitted at that time as to what they were going to do?
MR. TURNER-Yes. Can we see those plans?
MIKE O'CONNOR-The intention of Mr. and Mrs. Mozall at that time was to enclose those
stilts area with the deck that was existing for a screened in porch and to have an open deck
on the west end that was already in existence. So what we have done is in place of the screening
we have made it a more solid structure by putting in windows and made it part of the habitable
house.
JOYCE EGGLESTON-Mike, how much actually living area has been increased over the original
request back in October?
MIKE O'CONNOR-12 by 22 feet. This doesn't show both levels of it this shows just an Area
Variance this is what the problem is.
JOYCE EGGLESTON-So now they have doubled that actually?
MIKE O'CONNOR-Well it says in here that they were going to enclose that for a screened
in porch and rather than enclose it for a screened in porch they have enclosed it for living
space.
MR. TURNER-These are new photographs I think.
MIKE O'CONNOR-(New photographs showed to Board taken on February 15th, 1989 by Dave
Hatin).
DANIEL GRIFFIN-Is this deck right here was that existing and you just enclosed the lower
level?
MIKE O'CONNOR-There was a deck at the lowest level. There was not a deck right below
these windows that are shown that deck below those windows is new. That's what at the very
end of the minutes and on the tape, Mr. Barber said "now were also going to build a deck to
the west of this," someone else said its not going closer than 36 feet fine. It was not on the
plans but it was on the tape.
DAN BARBER-There was already a deck underneath the very bottom in the center line basically
of the stilts.
DANIEL GRIFFIN-Is the top of that higher than this?
DAN BARBER-No, the roofs are the same if you look at the blue prints you can see.
MIKE O'CONNOR-Mr. Griffin apparently you made the Motion before, Mr. Muller has suggested
that I suggest to you, perhaps if you were satisfied that you allow the plans that I have submitted
in 3 sheets tonight be substituted for the plans that were submitted at the earlier time by
the applicant.
DANIEL GRIFFIN-That I agree to that is that what your asking me?
SUE GOETZ-Because you made the Motion before. Will this be an Amendment to that?
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MIKE MULLER-If it is, I think that only the party that made the Motion can propose it.
DANIEL GRIFFIN-I can amend it, is that correct?
MIKE MULLER-If that's your choice.
DANIEL GRIFFIN-What does the rest of the Board think?
MIKE MULLER-My thought's when they first applied for this thing was that they were seeking
relief from the set back from the lake. I looked at it from that stand point and not as a planner
not in the form of a site plan review, although I had some interest in what they were going
'-
4
to do I didn't think it was real important for me to know all about it just as long as they kept
within the appropriate set back from the lake.
DANIEL GRIFFIN-I agree.
SUE GOETZ-Are you going to make an Amendment?
MR. TURNER-Yes. Mr. Griffin is going to amend the motion.
DANIEL GRIFFIN-I am going to make an Amendment to Area Variance 1428 this was in 1988,
to accept this new proposal of Mr. & Mrs. Mozall of Glen Lake, which to substitute for the
original plan. The drawing dated February 15th, 1989, to include an enclosed area that was
not in the original plans which is re-enforce concrete up to the first living level. On the west
side there is an addition whereby they covered a deck and this is an enclosed living area which
this will be a screened in porch.
MR. TURNER- I'll second it.
TOWN ATTORNEY-On that Motion it is my understanding that the Board is saying essentially
that the plans that are submitted to you tonight are essentially in keeping with the intent of
your previous findings and decisions on the Variance.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
AMENDMENT TO AREA VARIANCE NO. 1428, OF OCTOBER 19th, 1988,Introduced by Daniel
Griffin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner:
This will be to accept the new building proposals to substitute for the original plan. The new
proposals and plans are dated February 15th, 1989 and will include an enclose area on the first
floor above grade. This will include an enclose area not in the original plans on the first floor
above grade, this is re-enforced concrete up to the living level. On the west there is an addition
whereby a deck has been covered this is a screened in porch with windows no further change
the structure is no closer to the lake.
Duly adopted this 15th day of February, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
MR. TURNER APPROVED AS AMENDED
TOWN ATTORNEY-Stop work order which only the Town Board or this Board can remove,
in light of your findings would the Board want to entertain a Motion to lift the stop work order?
MOTION TO LIFT STOP WORK ORDER,Introduced by Mr. Muller who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. Sicard:
RESOLVED, that the Stop Work Order for Area Variance No. 1428 is now lifted.
Duly adopted this 15th day of February, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Muller, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
OLD BUSINESS
PREVIOUS VARIANCE GRANTED
USE VARIANCE NO. 1349 & INTERPRETATION NO. 40-1988
PSM AUTO LEASE AND SALES
J. PETER GARVEY AND ROGER G. HEWLETT
REFERENCE TO PARKING VEffiCLES UNDER THE CANOPY
MR. TURNER- It was our understanding in your presentation that all the wrecked vehicles
would be parked under the canopy but towards the rear.
Peter Garvey-That's correct.
--
...........
5
Mr. Turner-The problem is that the wrecked vehicles are being parked out front. In your
presentation you indicated to the Board that the wrecked vehicles would be parked down along
the side, and only the vehicles that were in the front would be there for estimates.
MR. GARVEY-Estimates or completed vehicles.
MR. TURNER-That's not the case. The wrecked ones are parked out in the front where you
can see them right from the road. As you make the turn down the end of the building at the
right angle from the front there has been vehicles parked on both sides of the building totally
wrecked for two to three days at a time.
MR. GARVEY-There are dented vehicles parked on the side of the building. The front of the
building is the front of the building that faces the road. The sides are obviously the sides that
don't face the roads.
MR. TURNER-That corner is the front, that is a front corner right or left. It was our
understanding that wasn't going to be the case. Those vehicles would be parked towards the
rear.
MR. GARVEY-Towards the rear of the building. They are parked as far towards the rear of
the building as they can be parked.
SUE GOETZ-I have seen it the first one in from the road.
MR. GARVEY-The first one on the side of the building.
SUE GOETZ-Right. I don't call that towards the back.
MR. GARVEY-The building is only 100 feet long. Which side are you referring to?
MR. TURNER-Both sides.
SUE GOETZ-Is there a way that you could park the cars, say if its just a partial wreck?
Turn it around so that its not...
MR. GARVEY-The problem is that some of the cars that are damage that come in are
non-movable. When there pulled on to the flat bed that brings them in they are pulled as there
pulled on to the flat bed and then they have to be pushed off accordingly. After receiving
your correspondence I have talked to the Manager of our body shop and he has said there will
be no problem getting as many as them as could be damaged towards the building so you wouldn't
see them as much. Some of the cars can't be moved, some come in totaled, which means there
beyond fixing.
SUE GOETZ-Then what are they doing there?
MR. GARVEY-I'm going to explain that to you. When there is a wreck or damage on the vehicle
it get's towed in and dropped off. Then you have to go through a process with an Insurance
Adjustor and with the Body Shop Estimator both of them have to agree that the car is a total
loss. Once that's determined and there's a time period between the time that the car gets
there and the estimator gets there to look at the car. By the time they get there and get the
estimate done and determine that the car is totaled then they send it to a salvage yard. That
again, takes sometimes two or three days, sometimes even a week for the salvage yard to
get the truck up to take the car away. We're not talking about a long period of time but you
are talking sometimes two weeks on it.
SUE GOETZ-But you must have some idea when they come in which ones are probably going
to be total wrecks. Why couldn't they go out in back?
MR. GARVEY-Intially you can't because there are other damages, not apparent damages, or
there may not be apparent damages. We are trying to keep the more visually damage cars
towards the back.
SUE GOETZ-Good, and turn around the other ones because it did look pretty bad. In all your
testimony that was one thing that came up on how this would effect the neighborhood. I don't
think its fair to people that are around there that have to look at that.
MR. GARVEY-We are doing the best we can. Understand also, that its a new building and
a whole new procedure. We have just moved in and its going to take us time to smooth out
the way it operates. Our business is larger in the bad season, winter then it is in the summer
because of the ice and snow.
MR. GRIFFIN-Would you make a serious attempt to park the bad ones on the sides, and would
you also make a serious attempt to turn the damage end towards the building?
"---
6
MR. GARVEY-Absolutely.
MR. KELLEY-I have to believe honestly they are trying to comply. My feeling for that is
that they were in here for the ten foot canopy that was to close to the road. They took care
of it they didn't come back, they didn't give us a big run around and solved the problem.
NO VOTE
DISCUSSION ON PRICE CHOPPER AND GRAND UNION SUPERMARKET SIGNS
JOHN GORALSKI-At last month's meeting you asked me to check on the sign permits for Price
Chopper and Grand Union. Price Chopper currently has a sign permit for a sign not to exceed
300 square feet. Grand Union has a sign permit for a sign not to exceed 100 square feet.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
December 28th, 1988: Page 7 , Para.. 3,...4th line down...Dr. Hughes is has...s/b Dr. Hughes
has.
Page 6, Area Variance for Keith Coe second para., extension of Variance was approved 3 years
ago, Mr. Kelley questioned 3 years ago, should be about 1 year ago. Question this, asked that
it be looked up so it can be corrected.
Page 9 & 10 applicant's name sib ...Hurley.
Page 4 under Garfield Raymond starts out Dr. Raymond...s/b Mr. Raymond.
RESOLVED TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 28, 1988 MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS CORRECTED,lntroduced by Mr. Sicard who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Goetz:
Duly adopted this 15th day of February, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Muller, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
January 18th, 1989.
RESOLVED TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 18, 1989 MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AS CORRECTED,lntroduced by Mr. Sicard who
moved for its adoption, seconded Mrs. Goetz:
Duly adopted this 15th day of February, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mr. Muller, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
NEW BUSINESS
AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-1989
H. G. ANDERSON EQUIPMENT
GETTY PETROLEUM
122 A VIA TION ROAD
FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A 24 ft. by 24 ft. SINGLE COLUMN CANOPY
(W ARREN COUNTY PLANNING)
TAX MAP NO. 91-1-1
SECTION 4.020 m
LOT SIZE: .32 acres
GIOVINA S. WALDO representing H.G. ANDERSON EQUIPMENT
MR. TURNER-That's a 40 foot front yard set back and you can see how close they are to the
road. That being an island where it jets out into Aviation Road its back enough sometimes
right now to see the oncoming traffic from the south up Aviation Road. It's kind of a tough
corner. There is no elevation of canopy, I assume it would be 14 feet underneath the canopy.
MS. WALDO-Fourteen six.
._,
7
MR. TURNER-Any signs?
MS. WALDO-There is an I.D. sign located on the island now. What they would probably want
to do is move the sign. They would have to move the sign, I believe its already been moved
twice.
MR. TURNER-Yes it has.
MS. WALDO-I know it was on the point, then they moved it on the island where it is now.
Obviously they would have to move the sign.
MR. TURNER-This is neighborhood commercial too its not highway commercial.
JEFFREY KELLEY-I guess my only question is the structure that supports this is what one
or two columns in the center where the gas island is?
MS. WALDO-One column.
JEFFREY KELLEY-Ted, you were talking about the visibility aspects. There are a lot of posts
that might affect it more than just that one that's there.
MR. TURNER-The only problem is that in the winter time there is a lot of snow in that corner
on the point and its tough to see down Aviation Road and there is a high volume of traffic
on that road.
DANIEL GRIFFIN-Is that self service now? Didn't it change?
MS. W ALDO-N 0, I believe its split. I am not 100 per cent sure of that.
MR. TURNER-Let's here your reasons as to why you would like the canopy other than what's
stated.
MS. WALDO-The reason for the canopy would be purely business sense. 1. Since every station
has a canopy. 2. Usually its practical to have a canopy when there is fire suppression at the
station. It's all protected which I'm sure it is right now but when you have the canopy the
canopy further protects the fire suppression system.
MR. TURNER-In what respect?
MS. W ALDO- Wind, rain, snow, and the customers to.
DANIEL GRIFFIN-Are there different size canopies that can put up?
MS. WALDO- Yes.
DANIEL GRIFFIN-Because 24 feet seems like it would do more than cover the cars on either
side of the pump.
MS. WALDO-If you take the width of a car on each side on the island, the width of the island
on believe on the drawing is 4 feet that's usually typical I'm not really sure what it is on the
drawing now.
MR. TURNER-Five feet is on the drawing. What is the next size down you can purchase?
MS. WALDO-Any canopy can be purchased to any size. Figuring that the 10 foot pad which
already on each side on the island meaning not the blacktop but the white part that the car
goes on is. 10 feet on each side. So you figure 10, 20, and the island is five feet wide. There
is still going to be a portion of each pad that probably will not be covered.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
CHARLES FARRAR, PERSHING ROAD, TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, it is a self service station
and the representative of the station should know that. Secondly, I really feel that with the
traffic pattern there it is very hazardous now and its going to be even worse when you have
the canopy there. It is very difficult to pull out onto Aviation Road from Dixon Road just
trying to see pass the snow bank, trying to see pass the cars and pumps, when you have a canopy
there its going to further obstruct the view.
NO FURTHER COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
--
8
CORRESPONDENCE
SUE GOETZ-Warren County Planning Board Approved. Queensbury Beautification Committee
Approved. Letter from Donald Sokol, Sokol's Market disapproving the Variance.
STAFF INPUT
Notes on file, from John Goralski, Planner.
DISCUSSION HELD
DANIEL GRIFFIN-I think it should be cut down in size. Were talking about maximum relief.
MR. TURNER-Here were talking about a piece of property shaped like a cone, and we want
to utilize every inch of it. The station has been there a considerable length of time its changes
hands maybe a few times but apparently it seems to be holding its own.
CHARLES SICARD-I also think Mr. Chairman, coming from the west you see that station for
a long ways and as much as that road is straight down through there and that would be were
visibility is concerned your coming down a straight road and if that wouldn't deter any cars
coming down there from the west going east. The other way you don't see that canopy until
you get about a quarter of a mile from it. At that point your on the right hand side of the
road, I'm talking about the Aviation Road which probably holds true on the other road you
won't see it until your really pass the building.
MR. TURNER-The only problem that exists coming from Dixon Road is that visibility is real
poor looking back from the east going west. Its a stop sign but its still bad. I think its an over
use of the property. How many enmities can you put on a property?
JEFFREY KELLEy-If you would have to come in and start over with a piece of property like
that it would probably get turned down. It wouldn't just be that it happens to be preexisting....
CHARLES SICARD-What your saying is that they do have a hardship there because they don't
have enough property.
JEFFREY KELLEY-Would it also go into the extreme of where you should have a 40 foot set
back there looking for six feet?
CHARLES SICARD-I really don't think that if you cut down the size of the canopy is going
to add to the visibility in as much as it is so high. The average driver is less than six feet high
and its like an overhang on a roof or something.
MR. TURNER-Well you know, neighborhood commercial I can see a canopy we're your on
a mainstream highway and your dealing with a lot of traffic, but here this is neighborhood
character and I think your going to alter the character of the neighborhood to a certain extent.
Your increasing the commercialization of the property.
JOYCE EGGLESTON-Mr. Chairman, I have noticed that where the canopy is proposed it would
be close to the road sometimes, people will try to squeeze two cars under that canopy so they
could be even closer to Aviation Road especially when its pouring rain, they will pull up and
get under whatever portion of the canopy even though there is one car pumping gas to let the
right side passenger out to go in to get out of the rain. Really there are times when there
could be cars parked even closer to Aviation Road or Dixon Road.
DANIEL GRIFFIN-Was there any consideration to moving the pumps back towards the building?
MS. WALDO-There wasn't that I was aware of. They are pretty close to the building now.
MR. TURNER-You don't do any service work there do you?
MS. WALDO-No.
MR. TURNER-You used to, right?
MS. W ALDO- Yes. They used to do a lot. As far as the snow goes pushed out to the point, which
everybody was talking about. When I met with the Board the Queensbury Beautification that
was one of the things they were questioning me about. What the decision was that there would
be a planter put there and we would not be able to put the snow there any longer if the Variance
was approved.
SUE GOETZ-Where would you be putting the snow?
--
9
MS. WALDO-They would have to remove it. The company would have to come and take the
snow away.
MR. TURNER-I just think its to small of a piece of property even though its 14.6 in the air
and its held by one single post I think it would have a tendency to distract the motorists to
some extent.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-1989, Introduced by Mike Muller who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Griffin:
Motion Area Variance No. 11-1989 H. G. Anderson Equipment is tabled to allow the applicant
to come back with the minimum size canopy that would be feasible.
Duly adopted this 15th day of February, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-1989
DUNHAM'S BAY LODGE
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
ROUTE9L,DUNHAMSBAY
FOR AN ADDITION OF A 12 FT. BY 18 FT. PORCH
ALSO, CHANGING ACCESS TO EXISTING RESTROOM AREA
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
TAX MAP, NO. 4-1-11
SECTION 7.012 A3
LOT SIZE: 150 ACRES
JOHN SALVADOR representing DUNHAM'S BAY LODGE
MR. TURNER-Could you go with a set of steps and a smaller deck to provide the access?
JOHN SALVADOR-The elevation of the building floor is roughly 3 feet above grade in that
area. We would have to get the people up to that level to get them into the building. We also,
envision some sort of courteous panels around the entrance, (the doors will be fairly close
to each other the ladies and the men's room) so we should have a courteous panel of some kind.
We should probably drop the roof to give some kind of weather protection in that area that's
why we think we need 12 feet. The 18 feet goes with the width of the building.
MR. TURNER-Could you reduce that and still provide the coverage?
JOHN SALVADOR-Esthetically, I don't think it would look right.
SUE GOETZ- The tree that is in front of it, is that going to stay there?
JOHN SALVADOR-Yes. Our neighbors might not like that.
JEFFREY KELLEY-I have talked with John, the problem that he has is where the bathrooms
are located within the building he would have to open up this whole building to the public 24
hours, and he has arcades and food vending machines and he doesn't want people in the rest
of the building.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
Warren County Planning Board Approved. Letter from Gilbert Boehm, Dunham's Bay. Supporting
the propose Variance.
STAFF INPUT
Notes to file, from John Goralski, Planner
10
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.4-1989,lntroduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard:
This is an Area Variance for construction within 75 feet of Lake George. The applicant has
demonstrated practical difficulty because of the rules mandated by the Lake George Park
Commission regarding 24 hour access to the bathrooms. This is a preexisting building and
this is the easiest construction alternative. The existing bathrooms are inside the building
and are not available 24 hours. The owner does not want people inside the building 24 hours
a day. This would be a proposal for a 12 foot by 18 foot deck with stairs outside the building,
and would provide the 24 hour access. It isn't detrimental to the Zoning Ordinance or the
neighborhood character. The short E.A.F. form submitted shows no negative impact.
Duly adopted this 15th day of February, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 12-1989
CHAMPLAIN OIL CO.
U.S. ROUTE 9, NEXT TO MONTCALM RESTAURANT
PROPOSAL TO ADD A WALL SIGN 30 FT. FROM THE
PROPERTY LINE. WIDTH: 3 FT., LENGTH 3 FT., HmGHT 3 FT.
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
TAX MAP NO. 35-1-4.2
SECTION 6.103
LOT SIZE: .734± ACRES
TABLED DUE TO INCLEMENT WEATHER BY APPLICANT
AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-1989
LARRY ZEMANEK
ELM DRIVE, GLEN LAKE
TO ENCLOSE AND "SQUARE OFF" EXISTING DECK.
THE DECK HAD BECOME NONCONFORMING AS OF THE NEW
ZONING ORDINANCE EFFECTIVE OCTOBER ], ]988,
REQUIRING A 75 FT. SETBACK FROM THE LAKE.
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
TAX MAP NO. 43-2-3
SECTION 7.012 A3
LOT SIZE: 15,825 SQ. FT.
LARR Y ZEMANEK PRESENT
MR. TURNER-This is where we changed the rules. It used to 50 feet at Glen Lake now its
75 feet.
DANIEL GRIFFIN-What is the square footage on that addition approximately?
LARR Y ZEMANEK-I believe it works out approximately to three 12 by 12 rooms.
DANIEL GRIFFIN-Are you just filling in that corner?
LARRY ZEMANEK-Yes.
JEFFFREY KELLEY-He was in compliance when he built and now they have changed the rules
on him.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
A letter from Roger and Susan Gilbert, in favor of the Variance. Phone call from Betty and
Patrick Spadaro, called on February 15th, 1989, at 3:45 P.M.., to state for the record that they
are not opposed to Larry Zemanek Variance Request. Warren County Planning Board Approved.
STAFF INPUT
11
Notes to file, from John Goralski, Planner
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.13-1989,lntroduced by Daniel Griffin who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner:
This is a request to enclose and square off an existing deck. The particle difficulty is that
the Zoning Rules have changed since the house was built. The relief will be 5 feet on the west
side and 25 feet from the Glen Lake. This is a reasonable request no negative neighborhood
impact. The house will be no closer to the lake or to the west side, the side set backs are
still the same. The short E.A.F. form has been submitted with no negative impact.
Duly adopted this 15th day of February, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-1989
ANNE LENNOX
NORTH SHORE OF DUNHAM'S BAY ON LAKE GEORGE
FOR THE EXPANSION OF A DECK
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
TAX MAP NO. 5-1-9
SECTION 1.012 A3
LOT SIZE: 21,350 SQ. FT.
RICHARD LENNOX-AGENT FOR ANNE LENNOX
RICHARD LENNOX-One thing I might add is that this deck is still further back to the two
buildings on either side. Both buildings on either side have a screened in porch on the front
end. The front of my deck would still be behind there porch view.
MR. TURNER-Here's another case of the deck, the applicant wishes to build in front of the
house for a use to get a better view of the lake and maybe add some safety features. As far
as having access to the lake. I guess if you can remember Freihofer's that didn't go thru at
all the Adirondack Park Agency turned it down. They kind of frown on the structure showing
itself above the ground level, they don't necessarily have a problem with a patio its a ground
level, but they do have a problem with a deck that violates the shore line set back.
CHARLES SICARD-Is the building back 37 feet behind the buildings on either side of this
building?
MR. TURNER-It doesn't make any difference. Its 37 feet from the lake to the front of there
building now, that's including the 10 foot deck that he proposes on the front of it.
JEFFREY KELLEY-The shore line curves a little bit but I would say the present building is
back at least 18 feet behind the buildings on either side. The thing I thought was that the
primary purpose it sounded like was to get a better view of the lake. Another statement got
into the fact that older relatives visiting the camp and being able to get down to that flat
part of land and down to the dock level. The incline of that property is not such that it should
be fairly easy to construct some form of steps so you could have safe access for older people.
It shows on the map that there is approximately a 4 foot change of elevation.
SUE GOETZ-You have been there a long time how come you didn't do this before?
RICHARD LENNOX-A few things have happened. The property was originally purchased and
owned by Horace Squires back in the 1920's. The three kids who currently own the property
have been there all of there lives. Horace died in 1968 leaving the property to his second wife,
and in that time the kids have had some use of the property and maintained it, but haven't
had the capability to do anything to the property, they didn't own it. In December of 1987,
the property transferred to the three children of Horace Squires. We are in a position now
where we would like to make the camp a little more presentable, a little nicer, a little safer.
The older relatives the gentlemen indicated going down the path, and to younger people its
not bad. There are tree roots that stick up and hide down through the path. The doors on
either side of the camp if you saw, there is no door out in front on the camp or on either side
where the two small decks are now, and going down through those paths I was under the opinion
you need a Variance no matter what you did there.
JEFFREY KELLEY-We're talking about a 27 foot distance from the deck to the shore line
---
12
and then you show us that the stairs on there another 8 feet now were 19 feet from the water
line.
JOHN GORALSKI-To follow up on a statement Mr. Kelley made, a set of steps which is a
railroad tie steps would not require a Variance.
DANIEL GRIFFIN-If you did construct this deck would there be a entry way towards the lake?
RICHARD LENNOX-No, that's why it goes down both sides of the camp coming out the current
doors. We do not plan to put a door out in front of the camp.
PUBLIC HEARING
NANCY CLARK-Anne Lennox's sister/part owner of the camp. The front of our camp is the
same place as the back as Lapham's camp, they are that much in front of us. Kings's I believe
is a little bit closer, but even if we put on the deck and stairs down we would still be back
further would we not, the Lapham's building is from the lake. I don't understand...
MR. TURNER-The deck becomes part of the structure.
NANCY CLARK-But it still will be further back...
MR. TURNER-It doesn't make any difference they don't like the idea of a structure being that
close...
NANCY CLARK-Who is "they"?
MR. TURNER-Adirondack Park Agency. You can't say to the A.P.A. that you want to put
a deck on the house just because you want a better view of the lake, that's not practical
difficulty you have to have better reasons than that.
NANCY CLARK-Here is our second reason. I plan on being elderly one day myself.
MR. TURNER-Its not us. I think even if we approved it they would shot it down.
MR. KELLEY-Just for clarification for this lady. I think what happens you kind of got caught
because you own a building that's preexisting and is 30 or 40 feet and there's next door happens
to be 20 feet or whatever, and as time change and the lake gets built up more and more, and
the regulations come about, Queensbury now says you have to be 75 feet from the water line.
In theory probably none of these camps should even be there. You can't go change that it is
an existing thing, but where it creates the problem in your case is that you have something
there that you want to improve on it, in theory what your saying really kind of makes sense
you put a deck out and let's have a nice view of the lake and you can sit there and do all these
things that you think you should be entitled to do, but because they have imposed these rules
it really makes it very difficult. We don't like to sit here and say we don't want you to have
a deck its not like we don't have sympathy for you, but the rules that are made are really pretty
tough, and in this case don't seem to make sense when you look at your neighbors on each side,
but the facts are that their there and that's what we have to live with.
MR. TURNER-Their not only there but they don't show a deck.
SUE GOETZ-One has a screened in porch on the front, but I can't remember about Lapham's
but King's does, so in effect they have a view by being in...its just to bad you couldn't have
done this a long time ago.
MR. TURNER-It is just to bad the house is where it is.
RICHARD LENNOX-The steps could be changed if you think that would help or make the
difference, they could come down off the side instead of going closer to the lake.
MR. TURNER-If you turn the steps to the side your going to violate the side set back. You
could build it within the deck.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE-Warren County Planning Board Approved.
STAFF DlPUT
Notes on file, from John Goralski, Planner
----
13
MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO.14-1989,lntroduced by Mr. Turner who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Goetz:
There is no practical difficulty shown. A request to have the deck for a better view of the
lake does not preclude violating the shore line set back requirements of 75 feet.
Duly adopted this 15th day of February, 1989, by the following vote:
A YES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Muller, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-1989
FOOTIDLLS APARTMENTS
RICHARD ROZELL
CORINTH ROAD, APPROX. 1,700 FT.
NORTHEASTERL Y OF WEST MT. ROAD
INTERSECTION ON THE LEFT HAND
SIDE (EASTERLY OF ROAD) JUST
NORTH OF ADIRONDACK GRINDING
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 22 FT. BY 48 FT.
(1,056 SQ. FT.) FOUR CAR GARAGE. THE
NEW ZONING REGULATIONS (EFFECTIVE OCT. 1,1988)
ALLOW ONLY 900 SQ. FT.
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP NO. 150-1-20
SECTION 2.020 (105) LOT SIZE: 7.69 ACRES
RICHARD ROZELL PRESENT
RICHARD ROZELL-This is the last four car garage that I am in the position to put on the
property right now. It would be nice to match existing, but I don't know what alternative I
have at this point if I want to build a four car garage, because you need the area that I have
there. If you try to get down to 900 square feet you either have to make it so narrow that
the tenants are going to knock the building apart trying to get into it or they are going to destroy
each others cars.
DANIEL GRIFFIN-You wouldn't have room for two units?
RICHARD ROZELL-There is not room there for two units.
MR. TURNER-One practical difficulty is that it was designed predicated on the old Ordinance.
He is asking for a 156 square feet of relief which is pretty minimal on a four car garage. He
already has one and there already designed the whole layout is there and it probably would
spoil the appearance to knock it down to a smaller size garage.
SUE GOETZ-When we were working on writing the Ordinance one reason why we were careful
about the size of garages was people putting up a garage and then running a business out of
it. I don't think you fall into this category. I think the reason for writing the Ordinance that
way was one thing, but I think you have a valid request.
RICHARD ROZELL-I find no place where the Town of Queensbury says you can't build a four
car garage.
SUE GOETZ-Well its the size.
RICHARD ROZELL-Yet, now there saying if your going to build a four car garage you got
to almost build it to small to be able to use standard or full size vehicles.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
Warren County Planning Board Approved.
STAFF INPUT
----
14
Notes on file, from John Goralski, Planner
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.15-1989,lttrOduced by Daniel Griffin who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner:
The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty. he project was pJanned just after the
changes in the Zoning Ordinances were adopted. This wo Id be a minimum relief.
Duly adopted this 15th day of February, 1989, by the folIo ing vote:
A YES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Muller, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Egglesto , Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Turner
NOES: None
ABSENT:None
USE VARIANCE NO. 16-1989
DAVID A. AND KATHLEEN MARTIN
EASTERL Y CORNER OF DIXON AND NORTHUP ROAD
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A OWNER OCCUPIHD DUPLE HOUSE
TAX MAP NO. 101-2-18
SECTION 4.020 h, 7.030 LOT SIZE: ll,396 SQ. 99.
APPLICANT NOT PRESENT
MR. TURNER-Paul we have a question. We have an a plicant that's not in the room and the
people are here that wish to be heard on the application. an we hold a Public Hearing?
TOWN ATTORNEY-Basically a Public Hearing in this typ of proceeding is held for two purposes.
1. To hear out the applicant. 2. To hear out the me bers of the public who are interested
in the application. Since it has its dual purpose I think it would be appropriate, and the applicant
I persume got notice.
JOHN GORALSKI-Yes.
TOWN ATTORNEY-If that's the case I think that you an certainly go ahead with the Public
Hearing.
SUE GOETZ-I have another questioned. It has been s ggested by someone in the audience
that were sending out the notices to late. Is there any wa that can be speed up?
TOWN ATTORNEY-Certainly I don't think there is a r striction that you have to send them
out so many days, I mean there is a minimum time 5 d ys. I don't think there is a maximum
time, I think the maximum time would have to be somet ing within reason. The Planning Office
could voluntarily make that change in conjunction wit the wishes of the Zoning Board. It
would be my recommendation to put that change into t e Zoning Ordinance itself, but I don't
see anything that would prohibit them, say if its nece sary for minimal of five if they want
to start doing them eight or nine days, I don't think there problem doing that or ten days.
JOHN GORALSKI-We try to send out those notices as
many applications we get into our office every month.
deadline submission day is to early, then its up to myself
and decide which applications get placed on the agenda
as early as possible but a lot of times we don't get t
we legally have to get to it.
SUE GOETZ-But you know that its going to be on the Ageida at a certain point.
JOHN GORALSKI-Not till that day usually, that's what 'm saying. We have forty applications
to the Zoning Board this month. You only have proba ly 25 in front of you. We have to go
over all forty of those and decide which ones shouldn't be n the Agenda.
I
SUE GOETZ-What if the load gets to where you could do il?
JOHN GORALSKI-Believe me we try to. If we do get he Agenda set up before five days we
send the notices out right away, we don't wait till that final day. While were on the subject
of notifying people, if this gets tabled will we have to ladvertise in the paper once again, and
if we do will the applicant have to give us an application f~e again to pay for that advertising?
I
I
TOWN ATTORNEY-I don't think its necessary to re-adverj!se this. If you hold the Public Hearing
tonight, I think maybe you could if you wanted to terli~inate it as of tonight. The applicant
certainly had a right to be here, the applicant has not offered any explanation as to why he
early as possible. You all know how
People are now complaining that our
nd Lee to go through every application
We do try to send those notices out
the stuff until that specific day that
~,
-'
15
is not here. You could proceed tonight, I think you h ve a couple of options at the end of
the Public Hearing you could close the Public Hearing or you could adjourn the matter until
the next time and leave the Public Hearing open, in eit er event I don't think you would have
to re-advertise.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
IRVING ESNER-5 Northup Drive, My property connect with the lot in question. I believe
the applicant should be denied a Variance to build a du lex. This area have been zoned single
family residence there was a reason for this every thin in the area corresponds with this in
lieu of going through everything I have a petition with several letters I would like to submit
tonight with 80 property owners who are opposed to this ariance. The other statement I would
like to make, the four houses property owners who face this empty lot have signed the petition
requesting that this Variance be denied.
JAMES DA VIDSON-I am a Lawyer, 76 Bay Street, Glens alls, NY, first I represent Mrs. Joseph
Draxl, 79 Dixon Road. She is two lots to the east of the subject premises. I also am here
representing myself, and I reside at 16 Northup Drive, where I have lived for 27 years. We
have heard the application read and using words that I'v heard tonight, no practical difficulty
shown, preclude reasonable use, not once in that petiti n is there anything that suggest that
this property can't be used for a one family residence. ollowing that reasoning, a two family
residence is better than a one family residence, I wo Id like to file an application to build
a hotel in that corner of ten stories. That's following he same reasoning that this applicant
has. Also, any application he refers to the fact, that here are several duplex houses in the
area that an outright lie. You go to the city line out to the northway there are only single
dwellings there is one duplex there, which is adjacent 0 the business on the corner of Dixon
Court and Dixon Road which this Board granted years ago a Variance Use to that particular
business. I don't recall there every being a Variance t at is one duplex I think that it exist
there illegally. There are a number of other people her present whether they choose to speak
or not I don't know. But everyone in the area is oppose to this duplex. We also question size
here it states 11,000 feet I would like to take a tape to it I think that's cutting it pretty short
its a very small lot. If you build a duplex there I think our going to build very cramp quarters
also, if you want to put a couple of garages there wh ch way are the garages going to face
are they going to face, are they going to face on Nort up Drive or Dixon Road. If you have
been out on Dixon Road lately its like the Indianapolis peedway. I come out of Northup Drive
sometimes I have to wait for 10 or 20 cars to go by befo e I can come out. The use of a duplex
rather than a one family residence I believe would be detrimental to the safety and traffic
in that particular area. Their is nothing wrong with w at the founding fathers decided to do
on Dixon and Northup one family residence that's the ay it was planned, that's the way its
been used, and the residences in the area and for this Bard to continue that. In fact, we also
beg this Board not to table this matter, but to bite the ullet tonight and take action and deny
this application because there is absolutely no merit to th s application. Thank you.
WALT REYNOLDS-17 Northup Drive, this coming April '11 be living 30 years on Northup Drive.
In that length of time I've seen houses built they were all single dwelling house like my own.
I don't see any reason that should be a duplex house 0 put in this neighborhood right now.
As Mr. Davidson said, there is a traffic problem on Di on Road right now, if this is built and
there are no garages to this it means the cars are going 0 be park in the streets which is going
to be a blockage of the view to come out on to Dixon oad. Again as I say we have children
walking up and down this road with no sidewalks and it is getting to be a speed zone. I would
suggest that you do not approve this duplex house.
MAEOLEA P A TTISON-6 Northup Drive, would be acro s from the house in question. I have
lived at this address for 25 years and actually built ther partial because of the fact that these
are one family houses. Rather than listing all the re sons, I would just endorse everything
Mr. Davidson had said, and ask you to please not appr ve this Variance or any other future
Variances in that area. There is only the one duplex wi hin site of our house and we were not
informed when that Variance came up. I would request that you not approve this Variance.
CLARE PATTISON-daughter of Maeolea Pattison, I ha e lived at my parents home for over
15 years and I asked you too not to let a duplex be bu lt there. I reside at 17 Bullard, which
is the next street over from Northup. I have an inter st in the area and I want to continue
living in the area, and I don't preclude the possibility f wanting to move onto Northup Drive
myself at some future date. I asked you not to build a uplex there for a multitude of reasons
that other people have said.
CHARLES FARRAR-27 Pershing Road, I have lived th re for approximately four years now,
a lot of money and a lot of effort went into finding th particular house thatre moved into.
We have three school age children and we were very articular to move outta area in Glens
Falls that was being chewed up by Zoning Variances t at were granting two family dwellings
which were sooner or later becoming absentee landlor s situations an owner occupied duplex
can indeed become un-owner occupied in a short time the variance goes to the land not to
I
~
16
the house or the owner. I feel that in fairness to th se people that have purchased houses
in a residential single family area you owe it to us no to grant this Variance. Just because
someone comes up to you and says I want to build here, I want to live in this area, but I want
somebody else to pay my mortgage, so I want a two f mily house its not right to the people
that area there in a one family house its not right to ecrease our property values. I would
also ask that if twelve people could make it here, if ighty people could sign a petition, if
we all saw the notice in the paper, if we all got our let ers in the mail, I don't feel that their
is any reason not to vote on this matter tonight. I act ally beg you to deal with the problem
tonight and get it over with. Thank you.
BARBARA BENNETT-83 Dixon Road, I have a lot adjac nt to the one in question. I have been
there for 36 years. Is it correct that the minimum size is 0,000 square feet there?
MR. TURNER-No 20,000 for a duplex.
BARBARA BENNETT-What is it for...
MR. TURNER-SR 10.
BARBARA BENNETT-Their isn't a lot size there anyways ~or a duplex.
MR, TURNER-That's correct, that's why their seeking the Variance.
BARBARA BENNETT-I am also against it. I am not gainst the single family dwelling but
I am against the building.
MR. TURNER-SFR Zone doesn't allow a duplex to start wi h.
BARBARA BENNETT-Right.
KATHERYN CORNWELL-IS Northup Drive, I have liv d there for almost 25 years the 1st
of April. I believe its zoned single family homes. Every ody has a great deal of pride in there
homes around there, they are very well kept. We have 11 paid for single family homes I just
wonder with the size of that lot where the septic syste s is going to go. There are so many
practical things that don't seem to be any spaces for. I echo everything that has been said
plus. Thank you.
CORRESPONDENCE
Letter from Dora Bradley, 20 Northup Drive, Opposed to rea Variance No. 16-1989, on file.
Letter from Antoinette Avadikian, 85 Dixon Road, Op osed to Area Variance No. 16-1989,
on file. Letter from Elizabeth M. Swan, 7 Northup Drive, pposed to Area Variance No. 16-1989,
on file.
MOTION TO DISAPPROVE APPLICATION NO.
for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner:
I
I
I
16-1989,I~troduced by
I
Mike Muller who moved
STAFF INPUT
Notes on File, from John Goralski, Planner
It has failed on all counts for us to even consider this application. There are four test that
have not been met at all.
Duly adopted this 15th day of February, 1989, by the follow ng vote:
A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley Mr. Griffin, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
AREA VARIANCE NO. 1'1-1989
THOMAS E. AND SUSAN SARGENT
ROCKHURST ROAD, CLEVERDALE
FOR EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING FENCE ALONG
THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE 21 FT.
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP NO. 15-1-5
SECTION 7.012 E LOT SIZE: 2,485 SQ. FT.
THOMAS E. AND SUSAN SARGENT PRESENT
~--
---
17
THOMAS SARGENT-We wrote a letter with the applic tion. Basically this involves a fence
that already exists there. The fence was put up, at Ie st what we thought was the approval
of the Town.
MR. TURNER-When you put it up their wasn't any Ordina ces on fences.
THOMAS SARGENT-Right.
MR. TURNER-Now their is. Your asking to extend it?
THOMAS SARGENT-Were asking for what's there to be Ie s.
THOMAS SARGENT-This goes back to 1985, in 1985 ack Dean came on our property and
he was inspecting the dock work that we were doing. e had problems with our neighbor to
the south piling junk along the side of the property and e asked would it be permissible from
the Town's point of view to put up a fence. He said w could do anything we want as far as
the fence was concerned their was no Ordinance. We c me back in 1987, in September, when
I was doing a site plan review for construction we were aving done there, and I asked someone
in Zoning or Building Department if there was any Ordi ances on fences, they said no. Based
upon that I moved the fence which was in the front 0 the property (stockade fence) to the
side of the property.
MR. TURNER-The front being which the road side?
THOMAS SARGENT-The road side. There was a sectio of fence along side of the house that
came to the front, to the lake side of the house I adde to that towards the lake. In May of
1988, I replaced that with the fencing at that point y neighbor started to complain. The
reasons that I want the fence there first is the junk t at I mentioned, there are plies of old
chairs, and stands, and garbage pails, and gas cans etc., which makes a fence along side of
the property. The other reason is every time I walk ou in my yard there are dogs that start
barking, strain there leases, and just menacing. The other reason is to provide privacy.
MR. TURNER-How high is that fence? I
THOMAS SARGENT-Six feet. The last section tapers dOWr'
DANIEL GRIFFIN-Towards the lake it tapers down to the frOUnd?
THOMAS SARGENT-Well it tapers down to a four foot he*ht.
MR. TURNER-How close are you to the lake? I
THOMAS SARGENT-From the fence between 20 and 25 eet. After this got into a controversy
I looked at the Zoning Ordinance and there is a section in there about landscaping it specifically
mentions fences. The only restriction of places is tha it cannot exceed the height of the
structure, it doesn't say set backs or any other restriction.
MR. TURNER-The new Ordinance says that the fence on s de yard can only be 3 feet high.
It can't violate the front yard by more than 20 feet. You ave to be 20 feet back.
THOMAS SARGENT-I guess the question was the front ya d or back yard.
MR. TURNER-If your going to call the front the road ay, your right up to the road with it
now.
THOMAS SARGENT-The Town has paved over our propertr to a large degree.
MR. TURNER-How far is your fence from the property linb?
I
THOMAS SARGENT-It is right on the property line. T~ere was an existing fence there they
went where the present fence is on the roadside down tlo the lake side of the house along the
property line. i
I
MR. TURNER-(photograph attached to application hard '~o see), points to fence ending at the
house. I
THOMAS SARGENT-In the front, I mean the lake side.i That is absolutely true. That's why
were saying 21 foot extension.
I
MR. MULLER-Need some help, because were also det~rmined that a fence was a structure
and a structure has to meet the set back.
",
---
18
DA VE HA TIN-Neighbor complained to me, I did an in estigation on its orIgm not realizing
there had been existing fence there which basically cov rs the width of there house from the
road side to the lake side, that was preexisting we hav confirmed that there is no doubt on
that and they are allowed to replace that section of it. What there asking relief from is where
that ends (picture shown to board) down to the lake sid , down where it slopes down four feet
that's the part there asking the Variance for the rest 0 it they would be allowed to put back
anyway because of the preexisting fence. I
CHARLES SICARD-Is that all three feet or just the piece ¡your talking about?
¡
DA VE HA TIN-I believe it goes all the way six feet exc,pt for the last section where it slopes
down to four feet. I
MR. MULLER-We have an applicant here who is se king a Variance from the set back
requirement from shore line for the purpose of building a tructure.
DA VE HA TIN-Right. A fence is considered a structur
new one says 75 feet. I think there house sets 34 feet fro
the old Ordinance said 50 feet the
the lake where the house begins.
SUE GOETZ-What is the distance back from the lake? I
DAVE HATIN-Thirty four feet from what I recall from the site plan and plot plan we looked
at. I
MR. TURNER-Its thirty four feet from the front of the ~ouse to the lake. How far is the fence
from the end of the house to the lake?
I
i
i
DA VE HA TIN-Twenty one feet is what there asking the vtriance from.
MR. MULLER-We need to know what the distance is frdm the high mean water mark to where
the fence is proposed to end to be able to grant the relief~
THOMAS SARGENT-Where the property marker is, WhJh is where the line is measured where
the thirty four feet comes from is approximately twe[ve feet away from the water at that
point. i
DA VE HA TIN-The high water mark add to the lake SidelOf the structure is 34 feet within that
they want to put 21 feet of fence if you add and subtract hat you have 13 feet left.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
I
EDWARD BUNKE-I live two doors to the north of thþ Sargent's. With regard to one point
on dimensions of the lots up there to have sides of unequa length. This leads to some remarkable
figures on the tax records (example) a lot they we h d originally at one time is mentioned
on the tax records as being 38 feet. If you measure he perpendicular distance between the
sides its 35 feet. This is because the lots were meas red along the original contour of the
lake which in most cases its been distorted. I can vel' well see why Tommy may have more
on one side of his house then he does on the other distance from the lake. In general I would
like to support the application. I think its a good fe ce it looks good and it improves the
appearance. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Letter from Richard Uhl, Sargent's next door neighbor.~1 In support of the Variance. In addition
Affidavit on file. Letter from Albie S. Ferrucci, Atto ney in Schenectady, owner of the land
to the immediate south of the Sargent land on Rock urst Road. Objection to Variance, on
file. Letter Dave Hatin, Director of Building and Cod s, In reference to Mr. & Mrs. Thomas
Sargent/Fence Installation at Rockhurst property, on file. Warren County Planning Board
Approved.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
STAFF INPUT
Notes on file, from John Goralski, Planner
DISCUSSION HELD
THOMAS SARGENT-For purposes of this why don't w¡e agree with the Town's measurement
from the high water mark just for the record the land ac~ually goes furthm' ih&1A 'fuat.
I
I
IJJA:\Œ ItIA TIN-From what I can recall from the higþ wa~er mark to the lake shore side of their
house is 34 feet.
'-..
--
~
19
JOYCE EGGLESTON-Who said that the fence might havt to come down? Who gave the order?
DA VE HA TIN-This has been going on approximately sinl~e June. What has transpired is that
originally I met with Mr. Ferrucci got his side of it, then I contacted the Sargent's one Saturday
afternoon got there side of it and there position, brou ht it back to the Town Attorney this
is when we started discussing the fence as a structure bef re we knew there was a interpretation,
we did not know that at the time. At the time I told th m the only way I saw that they would
be able to maintain there fence is to either get a Vari nce or it was going to have to come
down. Eventually we went through all the process an found that their was one, told the
Sargent's that they in turn applied for the Variance and ar here now.
JOYCE EGGLESTON-No time and order was given?
DA VE HA TIN-I would have to go back through the corre~pondence. I believe at one time their
was a letter sent by Bert Martin to them saying the fence ~ould have to come down.
!
SUE GOETZ-There is a letter dated June 27th, 1988, horn Bert Martin, Code Enforcement
Officer, told them it did have to come down. !
I
I
MR. TURNER-Read paragraph from Bert Martin's lette~,"the fence lies within 75 feet of the
lake shore". I
DAVE HATIN-Where the 75 feet came from at the ti~e we were first looking into this, the
A.P.A. does have a 75 foot rule in there Ordinance an that's what we were going by at the
time, further investigation showed that I could not use their's I have to use the Town's and
found out that was fifty feet. It is 75 feet today. I
I
MOTION TO GRANT AREA VARIANCE NO.17-1989, I~troduced by Mike Muller who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Jeffrey Kelley: I
To maintain a six foot high stockade fence starting at th$' shore front wall of the existing house
going twenty one feet towards the shore of Lake Geor e, the last eight foot section towards
the lake would be tapered down to four feet. For t e Variance sought the applicant has
demonstrated the fence proposed can't meet the shore lline setback requirements of seventy
five feet. There are unique findings of fact: 1. pr01de visual screening from the piles of
things piled on the property to the south. 2. Provide protection from the relief of barking
and menacing dogs on the property to the south. The ranting of this Variance would provide
the applicant with reasonable use of the property. Th~ Ferrucci's didn't controvert the two
reasons given as reasons for needing this fence on the iPPlication. There will be no negative
impact on public facilities. We would not be willing to rant a Variance just for privacy sake,
we do feel there are unique circumstances here. The hort E.A.F. form showed no negative
impact. ¡
i
I
Duly adopted this 15th day of February, 1989, by the follo\\fing vote:
A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. sicarþ, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner
NOES: None
ABSENT:N one
Chairman Turner adjourned the meeting at 10:33 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted
Lee A. York, Senior Planner