Loading...
1989-03-22 /" I \ ~~ INDEX QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 22, 1989 Site Plan 4-89 Story town USA / I. The Great Escape Area Variance No. 28-1989 Joseph Ramsey I. Area Variance No. 25-1989 Ethel C. O'Rourke 4. Area Variance No's. 30-31-32 Carole Cacioppi 4. 33-34 Area Variance No. 36-1989 Anthony & Linda Russo 9. Area Variance No. 37-1989 Anthony & Linda Russo II. Use Variance No. 38-1989 Janet Somerville 12. Interpretation No. 189 The Great Escape 13. Use Variance No. 35-1989 The Great Escape 13. y- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 22, 1989 REGULAR MEETING 7:40 P. M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER-CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ-SECRETARY CHARLES O. SICARD DANIEL S. GRIFFIN MICHAEL MULLER JEFFREY L. KELLEY JOYCE EGGLESTON JOHN GORALSKI-PLANNER PAT COLLARD-ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK BUSINESS NOT ON AGENDA SITE PLAN 4-89 STORYTOWN USA, INC., D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE TAffiTIAN TEMPEST WATER PARK MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY GIVES THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY LEAD AGENCY STATUS,Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Griffin: The review belongs with the Planning Board because of their total review of the project and this Board is only going to be looking at one small aspect of it that being the Variance. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley NOES: None ABSTAIN:Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS INSTRUCTS THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO FORWARD COPIES OF ALL CORRESPONDENCES AND APPLICATIONS TO CLOUGH HARBOUR THE ENGINEERING FIRM THAT IS ASSISTING THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD IN THE SEQR REVIEW OF THE TAHITIAN TEMPEST WATER PARK,SITE PLAN REVIEW 4-89,Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley NOES: None ABSTAIN:Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NEW BUSINESS AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-1989 JOSEPH RAMSEY SHERMAN ISLAND ROAD FOR AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING DWELLING. THE ADDITION CONSIST OF 1 BATH 2 CLOSETS, AND 1 BEDROOM. ALSO, A SUNROOM OFF THE BACK OF EXISTING DWELLING. WITH LESS THAN THE REQUIRED SETBACK. LOT SIZE: TAX MAP NO. 149-1-6 SECTION 4.020-G RICHARD RODRIGUEZ AGENT/FOR JOSEPH RAMSEY MAP SHOWN TO BOARD MR. TURNER-Asked about the addition on the house what was the reason for it coming out the end of the house, maybe you could go back to the rear of the house and maybe not necessarily 2 violate that. MR. RODRIGUEZ-That doesn't violate anything. MR. TURNER-Yes it does, it violates the front setback. Asked Mr. Rodriguez to show the Board where the property line was. MR. RODRIGUEZ-It goes all the way across the end of the property, next door also. MRS. GOETZ-That whole lot next door? MR. RODRIGUEZ-Yes. MR. TURNER-My question was that why can't they make an L there (refers to drawing), they would accomplish the same thing. MR. RODRIGUEZ-They want it off of the side of the house and it's setback three feet. MR. TURNER-Where is the septic system? MR. RODRIGUEZ-Pointed out where the septic system was. It will have its own septic system. MR. TURNER-Asked if there would be a separate septic system for the bathroom? MR. RODRIGUEZ-Yes there will. MR. GRIFFIN-It's setback is three feet so its 25.31 feet back from the property line? MR. RODRIGUEZ-Yes, that's from the front, then its setback another three feet. MR. KELLEy-It isn't a nice street or a front yard to work with, it is actually going back farther from the front and the existing building. MR. TURNER-What is the interior layout of that end of the house. MR. RODRIGUEZ-Two bedrooms. There are two closets in between the two bedrooms and we're going to go right through the closets. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE No correspondence. STAFF INPUT Notes on file, from John Goralski DISCUSSION HELD MR. KELLEY-My only question is, did they look at any other possible lower land layouts or alterna ti ves? MR. RODRIGUEZ-There really isn't another alternative to that to that point. There is a bedroom off the back of the house. MR. KELLEY-You mean there going to build a sunroom? MR. RODRIGUEZ-Yes, that goes off the dining area. MR. GRIFFIN-The septic is where? MR. KELLEY-The septic is about in the middle of the back of the house. MR. GRIFFIN-Asked if the property drops off in the back? MR. RODRIGUEZ-Yes it does. -- v MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked if there was a pool in the back? MR. RODRIGUEZ-Yes there is. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is it in back where the new proposed addition is going out? MR. RODRIGUEZ-Much further in the back. MR. TURNER-Asked if Mr. Ramsey's house was a part of the original subdivision? MR. RODRIGUEZ-I don't think so. MR. TURNER-Do you know how long he has owned the house? MR. RODRIGUEZ-Its been there for thirteen years. MR. GRIFFIN-Asked why they couldn't put if off the back of the building? MR. RODRIGUEZ-There is a bedroom there right now, its quit small and there is no way to get around to the back. MR. TURNER-An interior authorization of the bedroom in order to get into that end of the house to turn that the other way to the rear. MR. RODRIGUEZ-If we turned that to the rear it would make that bedroom much smaller and it wouldn't be considered a bedroom. MR. TURNER-What size is that bedroom? MR. RODRIGUEZ-I'm not sure, its the smaller of the two. I say its probably 11 by 13 feet. MR. TURNER-The proposed sunroom looks like its almost in the center of the house, where would that put that addition if it was turned to the rear, in reference to that how much room would you have in front of that bedroom to have access to that end of the house if it was turned the other way? MR. RODRIGUEZ-You wouldn't be able to put both additions on there if the addition was push into that. MR. TURNER-If the addition was turned to the rear, the right angle, your saying you wouldn't have room enough to enter from the main part of the house to this addition? Your going to have a sunroom here that's 14 by 16 feet, and the over all dimension as it exits now is, what's the length of it? MR. RODRIGUEZ-Its 30 by 86 feet, but that includes the attached garage that's 24 by 24 feet. MR. GRIFFIN-Why couldn't it be setback further south, its setback three feet it could go back another five? MR. RODRIGUEZ-I suggested that but they didn't like that idea they said it would look awkward. MR. TURNER-Would that encompass the jog on that corner of the house? MR. RODRIGUEZ-That would set it back. MR. GRIFFIN-Your back three feet now, how about another four feet it doesn't make that much difference. MR. RODRIGUEZ-The width of the addition isn't as wide as the house itself. MR. TURNER-That's right, its two feet shy of the house. If they come in and realign that road he is going to be within 25 feet of the road. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-1989 JOSEPH RAMSEY,Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: This property has a unique or unusual lot shape less than t way through the middle of the lot the two front property lines come together creating a difference in distance from the house to the front lot line. The request shows an attempt to keep the addition back from the property line as far as they can go. The addition would be 25.31 feet to the closet part of the front property line, this is the minimum relief to solve the problem. The applicant has ample land but because of the septic system and the slope of the land it makes other alternatives prohibited. - 4 The floor plan that ties into the existing house seems to be best as the proposed plan shows. There is no negative effect on the neighborhood character or on public facilities. The degree of change is not substantial as pertaining to the Zoning Ordinance and there is no negative impact shown on the short E.A.F. form. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-1989 ETHEL C. O'ROURKE EAST SIDE OF WEST MT. ROAD PARCEL IS 0.13 MILES SOUTH OF TINA LANE AND 0.7 MILES NORTH OF INTERSECTION OF WEST MT. ROAD AND CORINTH ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE HER PROPERTY OF 2.0 ONE ACRE PARCELS AND CONVEY THE VACANT PARCEL TO HER DAUGHTER, WHO PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SlNGLE-F AMIL Y RESIDENCE ON SAME. LOT SIZE 2 ACRES (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 125-2-3.1 SECTION 4.053 MRS. O'ROURKE'S APPLICATION WAS TABLED FROM LAST WEEK'S MEETING John Goralski read letter from Mrs. O'Rourke stating that she was withdrawing her application for subdivision due to the extreme opposition from her neighbors. (Letter on file) AREA VARIANCE NO.'S 30-31-32-33-34-1989 CAROLE CACIOPPI BAY ROAD, NORTH TO SUNNYSIDE ROAD, LAKE SUNNYSIDE ESTATES IS APPROXIMATELY 600 FT. FROM BAY ROAD ON THE LEFTHAND SIDE. APPLICANT DESIRES TO SELL EACH OF THE FIVE LOTS AS APPROVED IN MARCH OF 1973 FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. SINCE THE AREA HAS BEEN RECLASSIFIED, THE APPLICANT NEEDS AN AREA VARIANCE FOR EACH OF THE LOTS TO ENABLE THEM TO BE SOLD. PROPERTIES ARE PRESENTL Y VACANT LOTS IN AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION. PROPOSED ACTION WILL BE FOR 5 LOTS CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY t ACRE EACH. EXISTING ZONING REQUIRES 1 ACRE FOR EACH LOT. LOTS 4, 5,10,19 AND 20. Susan Goetz read letter pertaining to questions on application containing detail information on Carole Cacioppi lot. See attached Exhibit. SCOTT HA TZ/LA W FIRM OF MCPHILLIPS, MCLENITHAN/REPRESENTING CAROLE CACIOPPI FITZGERALD, MEYER, & SCOTT HATZ-Submitted to Board letter from Attorney Michael O'Connor, who is President of the Corporation of Lake Sunnyside Estates, that he was in support of Mrs. Cacioppi's request for a Variance. JEFFREY KELLEY-Asked if Mr. O'Connor still owned some of the lots? SCOTT HA TZ-From my understanding I believe the Corporation still owns two lots in Lake Sunnyside Section One, which this is. JEFFREY KELLEY-Right on these lots number 11, 12, and 13, did the one lot kind of split in half and the other one became bigger? MR. TURNER-Yes. JEFFREY KELLEY-Was that part of another Ordinance change? MR. TURNER-Its basically the same thing. SCOTT HA TZ-I believe Mr. O'Connor's letter indicates that the Zoning Board of Appeals granted the Corporation a Variance to continue to sell the lots as subdivided, he indicated that he still has two that they are waiting to sell at this time. MR. MULLER-We had made some minor changes in the lot they he had proposed and they we granted him the relief he sought. -- 5 SCOTT HA TZ-They are proposing just to sell the lots that the Cacioppi's purchased in the seventies exactly as they were originally drawn up in the subdivision. MR. TURNER-You never proposed to sell them up until just this time? SCOTT HA TZ-No.. They were originally put on the market back in the Spring of 1988, Mrs. Cacioppi was completely unaware of any changes in the zoning until they were brought to her attention this summer by the realtor, at that point they were withdrawn and she retained this firm in the fall to see what would be required to sell them as is. Mrs. Cacioppi moved out of the area in 1979, to Burlington, and relocated back to where her family was located and just never had any idea that the classifications had changed. JEFFREY KELLEY-I don't think this piece of property is unique in the Town, I think that there is probably a bunch of other lots and subdivision that because of the Ordinance your going to have the same problem, if you do it once your going to have to continue to do it. MICHAEL MULLER-I agree with you, I think that we've done it for Mike O'Connor in this subdivision, I believe that you could not do it for this applicant. MR. TURNER-The only thing that you could say is that they could conform. They could take lot 19 and 20 one lot, and the other three lots one lot, and make it 1.43 acres that way. DANIEL GRIFFIN-You have a financial hardship there. Asked if Lot 15 bordered on the lake? SCOTT HATZ-Lot 15 does not border on the lake. JOYCE EGGLESTON-Asked that if it was approved would it mean putting ten houses in that circle section that you can see is on the Sunnyside Road? MR. TURNER-Were only addressing their lots. JOYCE EGGLESTON-But overall. MR.TURNER-Yes, I think that there is one right now on Lot 11 and 11A. JEFFREY KELLEY-Mike O'Connor's lots at 11, 12, and 13, we took the middle lot and divided it in half. What if you took these three lots 4, 5, and 10, and increased them so each of them were 3/4 of an acre, in otherwords if you drew the property line to lot 4 and 5 if you made that the property line, and off the back of that split lot 10 in half, at least you would get two lots out of that. Lot 10 as it exits is hardly usable when you look at the setback line. MR. TURNER-You could gain about 10,000 square feet that way. You use some degree on lot 10 on the corner because of the radius, but that is a feasible alternative. SCOTT HA TZ-I believe each lot as they are designed would accommodate the setback requirements, granted lot 10 is odd shaped, but it would be the purchaser who would have to comply with the setback requirements, I believe that there is ample room to do so. MR. TURNER-You have to have a minimum lot width of 150 feet. DANIEL GRIFFIN-For the water front? MR. TURNER-This is all water front residential. Their talking about lots 4, 5, and 10. MICHAEL MULLER-You don't have that so it needs a Variance. JEFFREY KELLEY-My suggestion would be to split lot 10 in half and add some to lots 4, and 5. If you looked at lot 10 and if you looked at what the Ordinance is trying to do, Lot 10 is totally against anything anything that's going on. MICHAEL MULLER-The maximum buildable area is 90 feet on the most westerly side of the lot down to zero where it comes to a point. JEFFREY KELLEY-Could you get a side setback, you only have a little lot to put a house on it. DANIEL GRIFFIN-How big of a house could you build on the lot and still have a setback? JEFFREY KELLEY-Not much. SCOTT HATZ-So to make three lots out of the one lot we're going to need Variances for them also. -'1:1- JEFFREY KELLEY-Right. They still would be undersize and if it became two lots neither lot would have the 150 foot frontage that is required. MR. TURNER-You would be creating the corner lot to have two fronts. JEFFREY KELLEY-Asked Mr. Hatz, if he was aware of what was done to Mike O'Connor's lots? SCOTT HATZ-I was aware that there was a change in lots 11 and 12, but I do not know why. JEFFREY KELLEY-We have 11, 12, and 13 and then we split this in half (points out on map) and added some to lot 13, and added some to lot 11 to make the two more conforming. SCOTT HATZ-You gave them the Variance of the rest of them? MICHAEL MULLER-Yes. SCOTT HA TZ-If you did the same thing here make the two lots out of these two, you would give us the Variance the two waterfronts? Asked to speak to his client about this. JOHN GORALSKI-By splitting lot 10 and combining it with lots 4, and 5, I believe you would be modifying an existing subdivision, that would require Planning Board approval. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JEAN DOBERT-I live at 13 LakeView Drive, the Sunnyside Estates. I have two statements to read. The first letter is in response to the Notice of Public Hearing we received regarding the application for an Area Variance, for Carole Cacioppi. Letter reads as: We the undersigned are in opposition of granting any Area Variance, because of the Environmental Impact the additional families will have on Lake Sunnyside in addition of the five lots involved in the request three are adjacent and the other two are adjancet, therefore, we feel there is no impediment to her fulfilling the zoning requirements. Signed by: Mr. & Mrs. James Barcus, Mr. Stephen Finks, Barbara Riley, Carl Dreon, Mr. & Mrs. Compite11o. Second letter read as: We feel the five lots in question, in the Carole Cacioppi Variance request, pays. . . for fulfilling the one acre requirement so set forth by the Town Zoning Ordinance, in so far as the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance was adopted by the Town and effected October 1st, 1988. We request you to deny the application for an Area Variance by Carole Cacioppi, regarding lots 19, 20, 4, 5, and lO, located in Sunnyside Estates. Signed by, Mr. & Mrs. Marvin Dobert. If there is adjacent lots of that reading the Ordinance, if there was land to do it they had to conform to the zoning requirements, is that not true? If you have two lots and the zoning is an acre then they could join the two lots? MR. TURNER-They could. JOHN GORALSKI-Read from Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance, Article 8, Page 95, there are two separate sections, Section 8.0lO, which deals with lots that are not in an approved subdivision. Section 8.011, deals with lots that are in a approved subdivision, which these are. The second paragraph of the first section that I mentioned says that "dealing with adjoining of lots, except that this provisions does not apply to subdivision approved and filed prior to the date of the approval of this Ordinance". They are not required to join the lots, I'm not saying they can't, I'm just saying that there not required to by the Ordinance. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board approved. Letter received from Michael O'Connor in approval of Carole Cacioppi Area Variance. (on file) STAFF INPUT Regarding Variances 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34. Notes on file, from John Goralski DISCUSSION HELD MICHAEL MULLER-The first general rule is that we're going to take nonconforming lots and if there is contiguous ownership will join them? JOHN GORALSKI-Only in a non-approved subdivision. MICHAEL MULLER-Now you have lots that are in an approved subdivision, so in trying to -- -¡ - put Section 8.011 into English and recognize that this subdivision probably was joined by the earlier Section, in the earlier Ordinance, and we're aware that the period used to be one year that they had to do something and they hadn't. In spite of what was written above, any nonconforming lot of record as of October 1988, which does not meet the minimum lot area or minimum lot width requirements of this Ordinance in the zoning district in which the lot is situated is exempt from the minimum lot requirements and no Variance shall be required for a period of three years from October of 1988. JOHN GORALSKI-Right. MICHAEL MULLER-What facts should lead us to believe. . . JOHN GORALSKI-That there is a Variance required. The determination by Dave Hatin, and Paul Dusek, has been that if a subdivision was grandfathered under the previous Zoning Ordinance it will not be grandfathered under the new Zoning Ordinance. MICHAEL MULLER-If the effected date in the prior Ordinance had already expired in terms of there opportunity to sell off separate lots, then we can consider them to have already been joined under the prior Ordinance? JOHN GORALSKI-I don't know if that provision was in the prior Ordinance. My understanding is that joining of lots only takes place whether it was not a pre-approved subdivision. If there was an approved subdivision the joining of lots does not apply no matter what the time period is. MICHAEL MULLER-Then if that's true then they don't need a Variance? JOHN GORALSKI-They sill need a Variance form the minimum lot area and lot width requirements, there two separate issues. MR. TURNER-You can only be grandfathered once. JOHN GORASKI-That's correct, but the joining of lots has nothing to do with this application, because the joining lots only applies to lots not in an approved subdivision. MICHAEL MULLER-We're saying that the lots aren't joined there just nonconforming? JOHN GORALSKI-Right. MICHAEL MULLER-Which makes it a more obvious practical difficulty. If they have not been joined by the operation of the Ordinance they set there but there non-buildable building lots. JOHN GORALSKI-That's correct. SCOTT HA TZ-I discussed with Mrs. Cacioppi, the splitting of lots 4, 5, and 10, into two lots it would be acceptable to her if in fact we could then get Variances for those two lots that would arise out of the splitting of those three and also Variances on lots 19 and 20, so we would have a total of four lots out of the five. JEFFREY KELLEY-Could you say that these three lots be made into two at the Planning Board's discretion of how to do it? MR. TURNER-Their going to present it, they will have to decide on how to split it. MICHAEL MULLER-Would it be a fair proposal to suggest that if the Variance is approved here on lot 10 that they take the straight line of 196 feet of frontage and propose to the Planning Board that they be allowed to split that. We're leaving the radius as part of lot 5, because all non-buildable in the radius. DISCUSSION AMONG BOARD MEMBERS MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE'S 31,( LOT 10), 32,(LOT 4), 34, (LOT 5),CAROLE CACIOPPI, Introduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: This approval does have conditions. Lot four has had added to it a portion of lot ten, there will be approximately 98 feet frontage on LakeView Drive, Lot five will have approximately 98 feet frontage plus the radius on the curve on LakeShore Drive, this means that the preexisting Lot ten has been severed resulting in two building lots which are now modified Lot four, and modified Lot 5. The applicant has demonstrated regarding any possible adverse effect on the neighborhood character. Then following this proposal to add two smaller lots and eliminate one lot would be better overall there would be fewer houses than there would of been before. '- 8 There are no adverse effects on the public facilities this is in keeping with the neighborhood character. The practical difficulty is as follows: If the Ordinance was strictly applied we would have pre-approved building lots that could not be built on and none of them have been joined previously by the operation of the Zoning Ordinance, we would have three unbuildable lots and this Variance is the most feasible plan to alleviate the difficulty. We have reviewed the short E.A.F. form and there seems to be no negative impact on the environment. This would have to go before the Queensbury Planning Board for modification of a subdivision. MICHAEL MULLER-Do you require five separate tax bills. MRS. CACIOPPI-I receive three separate tax bills, one for Lot 19, one for Lot 20, and one for Lots 4, 5, and 10. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1989 by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-1989 & 33-1989 LOTS 19 & 20 CAROLE CACIOPPI Previous letter refers to these applications in total as to the conditions of an Area Variance. MRS. GOETZ-Request is for the relief of the square footage for Lot 19 & 20, and relief on the on the size of the lakefront meeting Lot 20. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board approved. STAFF INPUT Notes on file, from John Goralski, Planner MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE'S 30-1989 (LOT 20, & 33-1989 (LOT 19), CAROLE CACIOPPI,Introduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: We believe the applicant is seeking a Area Variance for three different requirements. (1) Lots 19 and 20 don't meet the minimum lot area. (2) Lot 20 doesn't have the minimum shoreline frontage requirement of 150 feet, it has previously approved shoreline frontage of 135 feet. (3) They don't have the minimum Lot width of 150 feet these Lots being 19 and 20 lack the minimum lot width, Lot 19 has 120 feet, Lot 20 has 130 feet. The record is complete as to why these Variances should be granted. There will be no adverse effect on the public facilities or the neighborhood character. This is the minimum relief to protect a substantial property value. Practical difficulty has been demonstrated, we have granted this type of Variance previously and there will be no adverse effect. The short E.A.F. form shows no negative effect on the environment. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Muller, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-1989 AND 37-1989 ANTHONY AND LINDA RUSSO NORTHEAST END OF ASSEMBLY POINT ON LAKE GEORGE, EAST SIDE OF BAY PARKWAY. '-.. -- 9 AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-1989 TO MOVE THE 12 FT. WIDE SLIDING GLASS DOOR TO FRONT OF SCREENED-IN, ENCLOSED SECTION OF PORCH/DECK. ADD WINDOWS ON NORTH WALL, REMOVE DOOR ON SOUTH WALL. A FIVE FOOT EXTENSION TO DECK, AND MOVE STAIRS TO NORTH END OF DECK FROM SOUTH END. LOT SIZE: 462 SQ. FT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 9-1-21.1 SECTION 7.012(3) MACK DEAN/MORSE ENGINEERING REPRESENTING ANTHONY AND LINDA RUSSO/RICK CHASE CONTRACTOR MACK DEAN-I think that the application speaks to the situation. The Russo's recently purchased the house within the past year. There hopes at that time to utilize not only the enclosed deck put the area that had a roof put over it when the house was constructed. This is really not an increase or extension of the building itself, I think primarily because of the existing roof. MR. TURNER-If you took the sliding glass door and put a smaller one in to the south where it shows 10 feet and you walk onto the deck that's there now and put the windows towards the lake then you wouldn't need the proposed deck. It would just be a matter of relocating the stairs. MACK DEAN-The plan is to utilize an existing 12 foot slider. MR. TURNER-That is not practical difficulty enough for the A.P .A. MACK DEAN-The eaves of the roof fall on that short side, on the deck side. MR. TURNER-Even so you might have to do something with the roof. You could eliminate that proposed deck and not violate any more of the shoreline setback. The porch is screened in now and that's basically all that's there, with a little bit of siding and a roof, but you could turn it the other way. MACK DEAN-My client feels very strongly about using an existing door. MR. TURNER-I can tell you right now that your not going to get this pass the A.P.A. MACK DEAN-Have we had response from the Park Agency? MR. TURNER-Not on this specific thing, but on many others. MACK DEAN-I thought that the Park Agency had to response prior to your meeting? MICHAEL MULLER-They have 30 days to do so. MR. TURNER-Ours is 75 feet, and their's is 50 feet. What exists there is appropriate for what they want to do. MACK DEAN-In looking at the existing and proposed use of the room considerations were made for the other three walls and it seemed like a logical re-use of the 12 ft. sliding glass door. MICHAEL MULLER-I think that if this Board voted no because there a feasible alternative were actually saving the client an awful lot headache and grief, because we would of mislead him this evening. We're certain that the A.P.A. would not approve what your proposing here even if you were persuasive and we like it. MACK DEAN-Would this Board consider continuing on with this particular application and consider the stairway at the end of the deck, I think that is part of this particular Variance application? That is a important proposal in that not only are the existing stairs in bad repair they do block to a degree the view from the basement bedroom windows and would be very functionally at the north end of the deck, otherwise, you would be looking at having a door on the south wall and a door on the north wall, one of access the deck, and one to access the stairway. DANIEL GRIFFIN-Is there anyway you can keep the stairway within the present confines of the rear part of building? MACK DEAN-The existing deck runs to the edge of the house. We could reduce the width, but 3 foot is standard for a stairway. It could be reduced a few inches, we have considered placing it parallel with the front of the deck, but given the elevation and the existing retaining walls etc., it really does block any view from the lower bedroom. We didn't feel that it was substantially less than the required side setback MR. TURNER-Your going to push it out three feet more than their deck is only ten feet wide. MACK DEAN-We would have to. I am not absolutely sure as to the height of it, there is a retaining wall that runs directly underneath this corner (refers to drawing), which means that the grade lever is higher, it would not be any longer than this, and it would be probably shorter. MR. TURNER-What Pm saying is that the existing deck is about 10 feet? MACK DEAN-It's even possible we can drop this one step, drop your landing a step so we could eliminate one step at the bottom. I honestly believe that the stairway would be less than 12 risers given the grade. There is about a 3 foot difference in grade where the retaining wall is. MICHAEL MULLER-The proposed stairway that would be put on the north side of the house to replace a stairway to be removed on the south side of the house is not going to further encroach towards the lake? MACK DEAN-It would be at the same point, it would be no greater than the existing stairway. JEFFREY KELLEY-For the stairs you would need a Variance on the sideline setback, the minimum is 20 feet and you want 15 feet. MACK DEAN-It would be 15 feet. DISCUSSION AMONG BOARD MEMBERS PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board approved. STAFF INPUT Notes on file, from John Goralski MR. TURNER-Asked John Goralski, if in the Staff Input, was he only addressing the issue of the shoreline setback? JOHN GORALSKI-No. MR. TURNER-What do you feel that they could do with the stairway to conform? JOHN GORALSKI-Short of using the existing stairway, I think that they have a reasonable request if they want to access the stairway from the deck the only way you could do that is by encroaching on that side yard. MOTION TO DENY IN PART AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-1989, ANTHONY AND LINDA RUSSO,lntroduced by Daniel Griffin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: There are other feasible alternatives. The request if for maximum relief of 47.7 feet the required lake side setback is 75 feet. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. The second part of the request will be approved. This is to remove the stairway on the south side of the property and rebuild it on the north side of the existing deck. This will require a 4.5 foot relief from the side setback, this is a reasonable request. The practical difficulty is there is no other place to put the stairway. The short E.A.F. has been submitted and we find no negative impact. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:None SHORE LINE SETBACK IS DENIED THE STAIRWA Y IS APPROVED AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-1989 ANTHONY AND LINDA RUSSO TO ADD 15 FT. TO EXISTING U-SHAPED DOCK. FINISHED LENGTH WILL BE 2.5 FT. BEYOND 40 FT. MAXIMUM FROM LOW WATER MARK LOT SIZE: 462 SQ. FT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 9-1-21.1 SECTION 7.012 PRINT SHOWN TO BOARD MACK DEAN-I wouldn't want you to feel mislead in that a 40 foot slip is not adequate for a 32 foot long boat. The actual problem is that given the depth of the water at the bottom of the U nearest shore is such that with a 36 inch draft on his boat that we have a concern the bottoming. In addition given the beam of the boat it just barely fits into the slip as it exists. What's shown on the site plan is a typically architectural engineering rendering which is two parallel docks. The actual dock widens very slightly as it goes out towards the two fingers. Virtually the only way you can park boating there is to tie the boat back further away from shore which leaves about 8 to ten feet of boat sticking out at the end of the dock and still have enough depth of water. It would probably get by most of the year without much problem but should there be a typical Lake George storm, there is some concern that it would bottom given the direction of the winds from the northeast would bear directly on the port side and it would create a problem. The relief we're seeking is approximately 2 t feet of deck. I recently notice in the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance I believe the mean high water mark is given at 320 feet. The figures I've used is shown here at 317.74 being the mean low water mark, and I believe mean high water mark for many years is at 319.84. What this means is that the mean low water mark may be further from shore given the average between those two figures. I feel the mean low water mark shown of our print is reasonable. I would like to add that the owner already owns the boat its not something that he is looking to purchased. DANIEL GRIFFIN-The boat draws 36 inches? We measured the depth of the water at the end of the dock it was roughly 3 feet, but one of the neighbors said that the water was down a foot lower at this time of year than normal. MACK DEAN -That's correct. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN B. J. COSTELLO-Represents the land owner immediately to the right, John and Barbara Lynch. Partner in the Law Firm of Hinman, Straub, Pigors, and Manning, a new firm in the Town, from Albany. We're opposed to this particular application. I was a Naval Officer back about 20 years ago in DaNang, I had a boat myself, not quite as big as this one, this must be the biggest boat on the lake. In any event, this is located in a little cove on Assembly Point, if you probably have gone up to take a look at it you know exactly where it is. The property is formally owned by Larry Corbett, who was associated with us, he used that for many years and used his boat there. I think what the current owner is asking for is for an Area Variance based upon a self imposed hardship, he went out and purchased this particular boat. I'm not sure what the level is off the dock, I've been there and used that dock but I don't remember exactly what it is. This particular extension I believe would be contrary to the earlier statement somewhat of a hazard in navigation because of the depth of the water and it is a very protective cove, more importantly it will block our clients views down that way out of that particular cove. So I think they say the practical difficulty is self imposed by this particular owner its a pretty major extension on the existing dock that's there, and we would asked that the Board deny this. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board approved. STAFF INPUT Notes on file, from John Goralski DISCUSSION HELD JEFFREY KELLEY-What this whole thing about is the 2~ feet on one leg. MACK DEAN-That's correct. JEFFERY KELLEY-Questioned the size of the boat? T~- MACK DEAN-The boat is 32 feet long. We're not absolutely sure of the depth, the ice has been in the lake almost as long as they have owned the property. We have gone by the known length of the boat, and the draft, and what we have been able to measure at the dock. This not a cruiser or a cabin cruiser type boat, nor is it an off shore racer type, its what is known as a sport cruiser, it does not have the height that a cabin cruiser would have. I'm not saying it wouldn't block a view depending on where your standing on a given time. JEFFREY KELLEY-How critical is the 2! feet? MACK DEAN-Its partially aesthetic. MR. TURNER-How far to the end of the dock are you going to have to tie up? MACK DEAN-The tie off will be right at the corner. MR. TURNER-Its not a steak dock? MACK DEAN-Partially. We have one section of crib at the end. MICHAEL MULLER-Don't you have to get the O.K. from the Army Core of Engineer's? MACK DEAN-There will be applications made to the Army Core of Engineer's, Adirondack Park Agency, and the Town of Queensbury. MICHAEL MULLER-And Lake George Park Commission? MACK DEAN-Correct. MRS. GOETZ-What is 2.5 feet going to add? MACK DEAN-When you look down at from the deck it looks strange. DANIEL GRIFFIN-This is because of the shore line? MACK DEAN-Yes, this is the way the base sweeps at that point. JEFFREY KELLEY-What are the soil condition in the front? MACK DEAN-Its relatively sandy. JEFFREY KELLEY-What about digging it out? MACK DEAN-Technically you cannot do that. MR. TURNER-If its a point of aesthetics to have 2! feet more out there more than is anything else, I would move to deny it. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-1989 ANTHONY AND LINDA RUSSO,lntroduced by Mr. Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Goetz: No practical difficulty established. The reason for the application appears to be that this would be that this would be atheistically pleasing to extend the dock 2.5 feet on the south leg beyond the 40 foot maximum from the low water mark. This variation is substantial in that is is over the 40 feet. No public services affected. The Variance might cause substantial change in the character of the neighborhood. The short E.A.F. form shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Muller, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin ABSENT:N one USE VARIANCE NO. 38-1989 JANET SOMERVILLE AVIATION ROAD, SECOND HOUSE ON RIGHT AFTER MT. VIEW LANE WILL CONTINUE TO BE A HOME AND RESIDENCE OF SOMERVILLE F AMIL Y WITH AN OFFICE FOR REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE, GENERAL OFFICE 105 SQ. FT. NO EMPLOYEES. NEED A SIGN 12 IN. BY 24 IN. WITH NAME AND OCCUPATION ON IT. LOT SIZE: .516 ACRES GENERAL OFFICE: 105 SQ. FT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 82-5-21 SECTION 4. 02D-h I'3- APPLICANT NOT PRESENT JOHN GORALSKI-Was a slight mix up on this application. The applicant brought in a site plan application and it was determined only a few days ago that what she really needed was a Variance application. MR. TURNER-I would move to table this. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 38-1989 JANET SOMERVILLE, FOR THE REASON THAT THE APPLICANT MIGHT HAVE NOT BEEN A WARE THAT THEY WERE SUPPOSE TO BE HERE BECAUSE OF THE FILING OF THE APPLICATION ONLY BEING TWO DAYS AGO FROM A SIGHT PLAN TO A VARIANCE,Introduced by Mr. Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jeffrey Kelley: Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSTAIN:Mr. Muller INTERPRETATION NO. 189 STORYTOWN U.S.A., INC., D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE EAST OF ROUTE 9, BETWEEN ROUND POND ROAD AND GLEN LAKE ROAD SPECIFIC INTERPRETATION: THAT A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LYING IN THE LC-42 ZONE HAS mSTORICALL Y BEEN USED FOR OVERFLOW PARKING. THE REQUEST IS TO CONTINUE TmS USE EXPAND IT WITH THE ADDITION OF THE WATER PARK FACILITY TAX MAP NO. 36-2-3 SECTION 9.010 USE VARIANCE NO. 35-1989 STORYTOWN U.S.A., INC., D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE EAST OF ROUTE 9, BETWEEN ROUND POND ROAD AND GLEN LAKE ROAD TO ALLOW A PARKING LOT IN A LC-42 ZONE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 36-2-3 SECTION 4.020-A MOTION TO TABLE WmCH IS AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST USE VARIANCE NO. 35-1989, AND INTERPRETATION NO. 189, STORYTOWN U.S.A. INC., D/B/A THE GREAT ESCAPE,Introduced by Mrs. Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: The applicant would like this tabled until the April 2nd, 1989, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Eggleston NOES: None ABSTAIN:Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner Chairman Turner adjourned the meeting at 10:00 P. M. Respectfully Submitted Theodore Turner, Chairman I !'. lake Sunnyside Estates was approved as a subdivision by the Queensbury Town Planning Board on March 7, 1973, with the appropriate map of the subdivision being filed in the office of the clerk of the County of Warren on March 22, 1973. At the time of the approval of this subdivision, all of the lots contained therein conformed in all respects with the requirements of the Town of Queensbury for such subdivisions. Joseph Cacioppi and Carole A. Cacioppi purchases lot No.s 4, 5, 10, 19 & 20 of lake Sunnyside Estates between April 30, 1973 and October 25, 1976. Joseph Cacioppi subsequently passed away and Carole Cacioppi has retained ownership of these five (5) lots to the present. Subsequent to her husbands' death, Carole Cacioppi relocated to Burlington, Vermont, retaining ownership of these five (5) lots in the Town of Queensbury. Carole Cacioppi now desires to sell each of these five (5) lots, but due to the reclassification of this area in 1982 and 1988, Mrs. Cacioppi must now seek a variance for each of the five (5) lots from the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER? Lake Sunnyside Estates is an approved subdivision for single family residences, consisting of 22 lots ranging in size from 20,000 square feet as . , the smallest to 40,152 square feet as the largest, with an average of 23,317 square feet per lot. Only two of the 22 lots exceed 30,000 square feet, with the remaining 20 lots ranging in size from 20,000 square feet to slightly more than 29,000 square feet. Several of the lots have already been built upon and the area variance request for each of Mrs. Cacioppi's five lots would simply enable them to be in keeping with the original subdivision plan and the character of the neighborhood. The lots are of sufficient size to meet the existing town set back requirements and are believed to meet all other town I . Ç.JV"'''''' "'....<....L,J...,a........~".._..... "1\-. J.Q..__ - - .. - ... - - -. - --. - / specifications with the exception of Lot No. 20, which is also seeking a variance from §7.012(4} of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, as it contains only 135 feet more or less of frontage on Lake Sunnyside, instead of the now required 150 feet for lots specified as WR-IA. Additionally, the entire lake Sunnyside area consists of residential lots which in the vast majority are significantly smaller than the five (5) lots for which Mrs. Cacioppi seeks variances. Most of the lots front on lake Sunnyside, outside of Lake Sunnyside Estates, consist of between 40 and 45 feet of lake frontage, with a few owners having purchased two lots thereby doubling the size of their frontage. Additionally the square footage for each of the lots for which Mrs. Cacioppi seeks variances is greater than all but a few of the lots on Lake Sunnyside, other than those in lake Sunnyside Estates themselves. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON PUBLIC FACILITIES? The variances sought by Mrs. Cacioppi will not have an adverse effect on the public facilities as it is simply an attempt to allow the sale of the five (5) lots in lake Sunnyside Estates, as they originally drawn and conceived and finally approved by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. Approval for the subdivision was also granted by the New York Department of Health on February 7, 1973, and with such authorization, no adverse effect on public facilities would likely be encountered. The approvals granted by the above mentioned boards and agencies were granted with full understanding that these five (5) lots would contain five (5) single family residences and the adequacy of public facilities was considered in making these approvals. ARE THERE ANY FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES? , It is our opinion that there are no feasible alternatives to the request for the area variances as complying with the existing zoning regulations would require the sale of these lots as only two lots, one I. rJulI~ \....1i:1:S:SU1Ci:1UOn; ._ WK-. 18--_ LOt "lze: ¿u.uuu square teet /.'.: . ......'" . - -- -. fronting on lake Sunnyside and the other between lakeview Drive and Sunnyside Road. The lot fronting on lake Sunnyside would contain approximately 41,600 square feet and 285 feet of water frontage. The remaining lot would be approximately 1.43 acres and both would be out of character with the existing neighborhood. The only lot in lake Sunnyside which approaches either of these two lots inside is Lot 15 which contains slightly over 40,000 square feet, however this lot contains no frontage on lake Sunnyside. lots 4, 5 and 10 would be listed for slightly over $20,000 each. If sold separately, each of these lots could be expected to bring somewhere in the vicinity of the asking price which would total approximately $60,000 for income. If forced to sell as a 1.43 acre lot to be in conformity with the existing zoning regulations, it is anticipated that the lot would probably not sell for very much more than the low 20's itself, which would be the approximate price for one of the small lots. As recently as last fall, a 30,000 square foot lot (lot l1A) in lake Sunnyside, which was all of lot 11 and a portion of Lot 12 of the subdivision, sold for only $21,000 which would indicate that the size of the lot in this subdivision does not greatly increase the market price for such a lot. lots 19 and 20 which are fronting on la~e Sunnyside itself, would probably be listed for over $30,000 each, but again it is anticipated that the sale of one individual lot consisting of approximately 1 acre on Lake Sunnyside with the additional lake frontage would generate only slightly more than each lot would generate by themselves. Therefore there would be an extreme financial hardship imposed on Mrs. Cacioppi if she was forced to comply with existing zoning regulations. ,. £.VU.C ,-.10.,00::)1".___""'.1"",""'. "1\-. .Ln / ¡;",. '- IS THE DEGREE OF CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? The degree of change which is necessary to effect the variances requested, is slight when viewed in light of the fact that it is in keeping with the entire surrounding subdivision and in effect serves the purpose of the zoning ordinance in that the lots would still be substantially larger than the vast majority of lots now fronting on or near to lake Sunnyside. Most of the lots fronting on Lake Sunnyside have between 40 and 50 feet of frontage and are essentially quarter acre lots. Mrs. Cacioppi's lots will still consist of approximately one half acre each and would be substantially greater than the average lot in the entire lake Sunnyside area. rn view of the fact that the original subdivision was approved by the Department of Health and the Queensbury Planning Board, the lots as approved are in keeping in the character of the neighborhood, there will be no adverse effect on public facilities and services, and the applicant will suffer a substantial economic hardship if forced to comply with the existing zoning ordinance, it is submitted that the area variances are appropriate and should be granted. I. ~v,vvv J~~~'~ t_~W ¿one ~la:S:Sl1IL(HIUI1; WK-.lM -...... -----