Loading...
1989-06-28 ---... ~ QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28th, 1989 '1:35 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY CHARLES O. SICARD DANIEL GRIFFIN JEFFREY KELLEY JOYCE EGGLESTON JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER PAT COLLARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL MULLER CORRECTION OF MINUTES May 24th 1989: Page 1, bottom of page, Mrs. Goetz, shouldn't of been letting this happen is a residential zone sIb shouldn't of have been letting this happen in a residential zone. Page 8, bottom of page Motion to Approve Area Variance 53-1989, 2nd sentence, Their sIb There. Page 10, Motion 54-1989 Tropicana, 1st sentence feasible alternatives to a open patio sIb feasible alternatives for a open patio. Motion 54-1989 Tropicana last sentence of 20 foot relief sIb or 20 foot relief. Page 17 bottom of page, Mrs. Goetz, effect of vacant out sIb vacant lot. Page 17, bottom of page, Mrs. Goetz, Stated that he seems sIb stated that it seems. Page 3 middle of page, Mr. Krantz, middle of para. He is asking for a 20 foot setback instead of a 25 foot setback called for in the Zoning Ordinance, is the way it should read. Page 20, Motion Use Variance No. 57-1989, Vote: Abstain: Mr. Kelley. Page 4, Mr. Russo, last sentence, billard pallor sIb billard parlor. Page 4, 5th para. Mr. Krantz, last sentence, owner of property is entitled to reasonable operated their business sIb reasonable operation of their business. Page 5, 5th para. Mr. Russo, billard pallor sIb billard parlor. Page 7, 1st Mrs. Eggleston, completion sIb contemplation. Page 13, 1st line, wonder off sIb wander off. Page 15, 9th para. Mr. Carroll, 1st sentence, fairly quite, sIb fairly quiet. Page 21, Motion to Approve 58-1989, 2nd line, have been mislead sIb have been misled. MOTION TO APPROVE THE MAY 24th, 1989 MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AS CORRECTED,lntroduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: Duly adopted this 24th day of May, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Muller OLD BUSINESS AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-1989, GARY MCCOY, CORNER OF DIXON ROAD AND COLONIAL COURT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN INGROUND SWIMMING POOL IN BACKYARD WITH A 51 FT. REARYARD SETBACK. TAX MAP NO. 92-1-1.3 SECTION '1.074 4-B LOT SIZE: 80 FT. BY 120 FT. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED EDWARD STANGLE-585 Dixon Road. I was not notified of the last meeting. The only objection I have is I heard from my wife that last Saturday, Mr. McCoy plans on using my fence for his pool, and I think that's very high liability for me if a child climbed the fence and drowned in his pool. MR. TURNER-The back fence is your fence? MR. STANGLE-The side fence. What I would like him to do is put up a stockade fence at least five feet high on that side so he can have his privacy and we can have ours. 1 MR. TURNER-Is your fence on your property line? MR. STANGLE-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is the fence chain link? MR. STANGLE-The fence is chain link. MR. TURNER-Could you corne forward and point out the fence? MR. STANGLE-My fence is a four foot fence. This is what my wife stated to me that he stated. MRS. STANGLE-Also it's chain link. MR. TURNER-This is between the two of them, that is not before us. That's a civil matter. He has to put a fence up irregardless. MRS. GOETZ-You don't object to them having a pool? MR. STANGLE-No, only that he puts up his own fence. MR. TURNER-The property line is a civil matter. MR. GORALSKI-If Mr. McCoy wishes to use Mr. Stangle's fence this is a civil matter. The matter of privacy between the yards would be a matter that this Board has to address. MR. MCCOY-I like to say first, I honor Mr. Stangle's request. At the time I made application for the variance I was unaware that it wasn't my fence in the back. I can see Mr. Stangle's point. In fact, I would be more than happy to put up a fence of my own in the back. I can see where Mr. Stangle might have a problem with this saying it is his fence, which on the other hand I thought it was mine so I think it's more or less a misinterpretation on my part when I first made application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-1989 WIDCH WAS ON JUNE 21st, 1989, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Daniel Griffin: Mr. McCoy will install the required 4 foot high fence which abuts Mr. Stangle's property. Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Muller NEW BUSINESS AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-1989 WR-lA RICHARD AND DOROTHY MELLOR CLEVERDALE, 5 HOUSES PAST THE POST OFFICE, ON THE RIGHT (LAKE SIDE) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN UNATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE 21 FT. BY 24 FT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 13-3-3 SECTION 4.020-1, 7.074 AlC LOT SIZE: 60 FT. BY 200 FT. RICHARD AND DOROTHY MELLOR PRESENT MR. TURNER-Stated that there is a garage up next to the road. MRS. MELLOR-Stated it's like a barn the floor inside is wood and dirt, and is quite a ways from the house. MR. TURNER-Stated that she is asking for substantial relief. You could modify the old barn and make that into a garage. MRS. MELLOR-Stated that the major reason for locating the garage where I would like to is to make it closer to the house for safety reasons. MR. TURNER-Stated he understands that, but that's not practical difficulty. Difficulty has to do with the land. You show 8 feet from the entry it has to be 10 feet. 2 MR. MELLOR-Said she could do this. MR. SICARD-Asked if she knew the approximate distance between the garage and what your calling a holding tank? MRS. MELLOR-Stated what she thought they could do is put the foundation for the garage close to the holding tanks. MR. SICARD-Stated that there is a distance. MRS. MELLOR-Stated it may be a foot. MR. SICARD-Asked if she was planning to. . . the location of the holding tank, you don't have a plan of that exact location? MRS. MELLOR-Stated what they would do is put it as far north as they could. Talked about the fact that we could have one door and make it 20 feet wide which would give us another foot. What we would like to do is get it as far a way from the center boundary as we could. MR. SICARD-Asked what was in the area to the north of the holding tank? MRS. MELLOR-Stated that there are two tanks side by side. MR. SICARD-Wondering what the space was between the tanks and the property, didn't know if one of the tanks could be moved over. MRS. MELLOR-Stated that the opinion of the builder Dick Holland, this was the best most feasible location. MR. SICARD-Asked if the holding tanks and septic system were fairly new? MRS. MELLOR-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Asked if she happened to know the distance between the leach fields and the end of those lines? MR. MELLOR-Very close probably 5 feet. DISCUSSION HELD AMONG BOARD MEMBERS AND MR. MELLOR MR. GRIFFIN-Asked if the existing building was being used as a garage, and if this was approved would that building be torn down? MR. MELLOR-Not being used as a garage, not sure what would happen. Its being used as storage. MR. KELLEY-Asked what was the required setback? MR. GORALSKI-Stated that there is no separation distance between septic system and a garage, between a dwelling and septic the required distance is 10 feet. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning approved. (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. KELLEY-Stated that since there isperhaps no real setback requirement from garages to leach lines or septic tanks, thinks she can actually build a decent size garage. Thinks that there is a better alternative. MRS. MELLOR-Stated that if they look at the site plan drawing there is an existing driveway, this goes down past where we have the proposed garage. At the current time we park down 3 there and will continue to do that. It's 114 feet from the road to the back of the house this is on a slant. In the winter it's extremely difficult to get from the car to the house. The building on the road is essentially useless. MR. TURNER-Stated that she could modify the building. You take the that building down and build a new building instead of building another one and violating the setback. MRS. GOETZ-Asked John, how close can the holding tanks go to the side line; are their rules? MR. GORALSKI-lO feet from the property line, yes their are rules. MRS. GOETZ-Asked if she could move the holding tanks over and have a smaller garage? MRS. MELLOR-Thinks that she could. MR. TURNER-Feels that she is over burdening the property. MRS. MELLOR-Asked if it would make a difference if they tore the building down? MR. TURNER-Stated it would help. Stated that the problem is that in that area the lots are narrow, the buildings are real tight right up against everybody's line. MRS. MELLOR-Stated that between their house and the house to the south, there is a thick line of trees. If its makes a difference to this Board we can take the other building down? MR. TURNER-Asked if she still wants to maintain the garage which is 21 ft. by 24 ft.? MRS. MELLOR-Stated they could make it 20 feet. There may be more room between what the southern wall of the proposed garage would be and our property line. MR. TURNER-Stated if they want to survey the property, would recommend that you do that first and then come back with the setbacks. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-1989, RICHARD AND DOROTHY MELLOR TO REQUEST NEW INFORMATION, At this time the applicant has asked to table their application to secure a survey and further information. AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-1989 RR-5A RICHARD HUGHES WILDWOOD PLACE, GRANT ACRES SUBDIVISION FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN INGROUND SWIMMING POOL. TAX MAP NO. 27-4-18 SECTION 7.074 A-4 LOT SIZE: 2.76 ACRES RICHARD HUGHES PRESENT MR. HUGHES-Stated that this house is relatively new. Speaking with the Building Department asked them that if in the future if we placed a pool in this location if there would be a problem with that, they said no. MR. TURNER-Stated that by definition its considered the side yard even though its in the back of the house. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-89, RICHARD HUGHES,lntroduced by Daniel Griffin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: This approval is because the applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty. The house is placed sideways on the lot and the pool which will now be in the side yard. The side yard is not visible from the road this is a large lot. No negative neighborhood impact and the short EAF form shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner 4 ',--.- ---- NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Muller AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-1989 SR-20 TERRY J. TANNER LEFT HAND SIDE OF PINELLO ROAD, LOCATED ABOUT 1,000 FT. IN ON THE ROAD TO PUT A 20 FT. LONG BY 20 FT. WIDE ADDmON ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TRAILER. ADDmON WILL BE A LIVING ROOM AND SMALL BEDROOM ON REAR OF ADDITION. TAX MAP NO. 147-1-64 SECTION 4.020-G LOT SIZE: 50 FT. BY 200 FT. TERRY TANNER SON OF MR. TANNER PRESENT MR. TURNER-Stated they are looking to grant minimum relief not maximum. Stated that there are alternatives. Could make the addition narrower. MR. TANNER-Could make it 15 feet. MR. TURNER-Asked what this would do to the floor plan? MR. TANNER-Stated it would be better at the 20 ft. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MRS. GOETZ-Asked what is the practical difficulty? MR. TANNER-Stated that the trailer is not big enough to fit all of their furniture in there, trying to get rid of some of it. MR. TURNER-Stated if he drops this back to 15 feet he would have a total of 25 feet. He has to maintain 10 feet minimum. He would have 9 feet on the southerly side and 16 feet on the northern side. He has agreed to come back to 15 feet. MR. KELLEY-Asked how many bedrooms are in the existing mobile home? MR. TANNER-Two little ones that are 8 ft. by 7 feet. MR. KELLEY-Stated with the size of the trailer he feels this is a practical difficulty. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-1989 TERRY J. TANNER,Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: The practical difficulty is the small size of the existing mobile home as it is 10 ft. by 50 ft. long. This is cramped quarters and they would like to add to the northerly side an addition extending north 15 feet and in the east west direction it would be 20 feet. This is the minimum relief for a narrow 50 foot wide lot. There is no adverse effect on the Ordinance or the neighborhood, and no adverse effect on public facilities. The short EAF form shows no negative impact. This is a reasonable request. The sum of the two side yard setbacks is 25 feet instead of 30 feet required. Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Muller AREA VARIANCE NO. 72-1989 SFR-lA, R. ROSS BROWN 179 AVIATION ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SOLID 6 FT. WOOD FENCE TO ENCLOSE THE BACKYARD. TAX MAP NO. 81-7-8 SECTION 7.091 B SECTION 7.090 C LOT SIZE: 125 FT. BY 175 FT. R. ROSS BROWN PRESENT 5 "-..- ~ MR. TURNER-Asked if the sketch is showing the back of the fence or the front of the fence? MR. BROWN-Stated that this would be looking at it from the backyard side. MR. TURNER-Stated that 6 feet of fence is allowed in the backyard. MR. BROWN-Stated that he thought it would be less visual impact if he kept the fence along the line of trees. It also would give me a full yard as opposed to 1/3 yard. The placement of the fence would be more visible driving down Westmore than it would be if it were up closer to the trees. MR. GRIFFIN-Asked if this would connected to the garage in the rear? MR. BROWN-Stated it would start at the corner of the garage. MR. GRIFFIN-Asked if he was going to be cutting down any trees? MR. BROWN-Hopes not to. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Alice Cummings opposing area variance no. 72-1989. (on file) Letter from William J. Cummings and Alice A. Cummings, dated June 14th, 1989 opposing area variance no. 72-1989. (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. BROWN-Stated he believes they're confused. I told them that my understanding of the current zoning was 6 foot was allowed on the back line which would be the other side (Cummings side), and 4 feet was as high as the current zoning allows for a side. Understands its written 3 foot shown to be 4 feet. PAT COLLARD-Stated that it is still 3 feet. MR. GRIFFIN-Asked if he plans to paint the fence? MR. BROWN-Stated that he is going to stain it. MR. TURNER-Asked why he couldn't live with a four foot fence? MR. BROWN-Stated it wouldn't accomplish his purpose. MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated that in order not to create hard feelings he should try to live with the four foot fence. MR. BROWN-Asked if he changes it to 5 feet would that be a sufficient compromised? MR. TURNER-Stated that this is regulated by the Town. We're saying that you've haven't demonstrated practical difficulty the only practical difficulty is a security reason that's not practical difficulty in the eyes of the Ordinance. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 72-1989, R. ROSS BROWN, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: The applicant's request of the 6 foot high solid wood fence to enclose three sides of the back yard this isn't application to request a 6 foot high solid wood fence enclosing three sides of the back yard. The reasons for denial are the following: (1) No real practical difficulty shown, (2) Another reason is that this would be detrimental to the purpose of the Ordinance, (3) It conflicts with the neighborhood views and this would affect the openness of the neighborhood. The lack of the 6 foot fence doesn't deny the applicant the use of the property another alternative would be a fence that meets with the requirements of the Ordinance. Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner 6 NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Muller AREA VARIANCE NO. '13-1989 RC-3A EDWARD J. EPPICH NORTHWEST VILLAGE SUBDMSION NORTHWEST ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENCE; REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS. TAX MAP NO. 124-4-30 SECTION 4.020 1 LOT SIZE: .6'1 ACRES ED EPPICH REPRESENTING MR. & MRS. EDWARD ENRIGHT OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY PRESENTED PICTURES TO BOARD OF THE PROPOSED HOUSE MR. SICARD-Asked how long the Enright's owned the lot? MR. EPPICH-About six years. MR. SICARD-Asked if they were aware that this was a small lot? MR. EPPICH-Yes. MR. SICARD-Stated that if they bought the lot six years ago they were aware of the fact that the lot is not big enough for a building according to the Ordinance so they actually bought the hardship. MR. TURNER-Stated that it was still grandfathered at that time. Also in that subdivision there are other lots of similar size under the old Ordinance, feels this is a practical difficulty. MR. KELLEY-Asked what was going to be in the dome above? MR. EPPICH-Stated that the garage will be buried into the side of the slope aesthetically you won't see the door from the street, above that is a first floor and then the walls slant up and a small walk above. Technically its a one story house. MR. GORALSKI-Suggested that if this is a valid concern when the building permit is applied for the Zoning Administrator will review the plan to make a determination whether this is one dwelling unit or two dwelling units. MR. GRIFFIN-Asked what was the width of the main building? MR. EPPICH-Stated its called a 45 foot dome. Stated between this lot and the lower lot there is a 75 foot buffer. MR. KELLEY-Asked if the cleared ski trail from this building would be 30 feet, concern about someone skiing down the trail into the house. MR. EPPICH-Stated that its very difficult to get through to where the house is. This is a utility trail. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Fred Shank dated 6-21-89, stating that he has no problem with the setback that is requested recommended approval of area variance no. 73-1989. Has a major problem with the proposed plot plan which indicated the septic system suggested that the septic system be out in front of the ski trail in front of Mr. Enright's proposed home. (on file) STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. '13-1989, EDWARD J. EPPICH,Introduced by Daniel Griffin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jeffrey Kelley: This is a variance for an undersized lot and relief of setbacks. They have demonstrated practical difficulty the lot is extremely narrow. Bordering ski trail on the northwest side the lot rises 7 ~ '- --'~ steeply; southeast side of lot it drops off sharply; front side borders on the road. Front setback requirement is 50 feet. They need a 30 foot relief on the front. On the rear setback 30 feet is required, we have 10 feet so we need a 20 foot relief. On the side setback 30 feet is required, we have 14 feet, we need a 16 foot relief. Most of the lots in this subdivision on the upper level have setback problems due to the size of the lots and the steep land. The proposed site allows for the best use of the buildable area. This geodesic design is the only home that would fit on this lot. There are no alternatives, no adverse effect on the neighborhood. The short EAF shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Muller USE VARIANCE NO. 74-1989 HC-IA, DANIEL LOMBARDO D/B/A TROPICANA RESTAURANT ROUTE 9, LAKE GEORGE ROAD APPLICANT WISHES TO HAVE THE OPTION OF SERVING PATRONS OUTSIDE AS WELL AS INSIDE THE ESTABLISHMENT. TABLES, CHAIRS, UMBRELLAS, ETC. WILL BE SET UP UNDER THE EXISTING W ALKW A Y DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING. LUNCH WOULD BE SERVED OUTSIDE FROM II A.M. TO 2:30 A.M., WEATHER PERMITrING. NO CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE NEEDED. THE WALKWAY AND OVERHEAD TRELLIS ARE ALREADY IN PLACE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 35-1-1.1 SECTION 2.020-239 LOT SIZE: 2.44 ACRES DANIEL LOMBARD PRESENT MR. TURNER-Stated this was tabled at a previous meeting. MR. LOMBARD-Doesn't see the need to be held to a certain time table for a food and beverage service outside. Asked to extend the time to 9:00 p.m. or 10:00 p.m. It's adult clientele and there are never any problems. If this takes off, would like to have breakfast out there also. MR. TURNER-Stated that by definition in the Ordinance food and beverages has to be served inside of the restaurant this is why this is a use variance. MR. KELLEY-Stated that in his application he stated other business having similar situations, asked him to name some of them? MR. LOMBARD-Trading Post, Sutton's. Stated that his is an alcoholic establishment and feels it would create a problem if they couldn't serve outside. MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked if he could guarantee that the inside atmosphere won't interfere with the outside? MR. LOMBARD-Stated you can't hear anything outside. Thinks a good cut off point if agreeable to the Board would be 10:00 p.m., Warren County Planning Board said 4:00 p.m., this is too early. MR. TURNER-Asked if their were tables and chairs out there now? MR. LOMBARD-Yes. I wanted to try it first to see if this is going to work, thinks it will work. MR. GRIFFIN-Stated that the patio is screened from the road. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board approved, but with modifications. They said lunch only no patrons allowed outside after 4:00 p.m. (on file) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (on file) 8 -- DISCUSSION HELD MR. SICARD-Stated that he really only has July, and August, weather permitting. MR. GRIFFIN-Agrees somewhat with Mr. Sicard. MRS. GOETZ-Asked how much business he gets from 5:00 p.m. on as far as your dinner hour? MR. LOMBARD-Stated that they have a successful night club business, very successful banquet business, and have a very weak dinner business, that's why I want to try this. MR. TURNER-Stated that this changes the classification. It's a multi-use facility. MRS. GOETZ-Stated that the neighborhood has changed, I can see why you would want this. Asked if he could be satisfied with the 4:00 p.m, there is too much room with overlapping into the night club business. MR. LOMBARD-Stated that it will not overlap. The chairs and tables will be stack and chained before anything goes on. MRS. GOETZ-Stated that he does have multiple uses proposed. Asked what he is going to do for advertising? MR. LOMBARD-They can see it from the road. MR. TURNER-You already stated that you have a reasonable return as a restaurant business and night club business. MR. LOMBARD-Stated its getting tougher with the night club business because of the drinking laws. MRS. GOETZ-Stated that this would be his hardship of why he needs a change. DISCUSSION AMONG BOARD MR. TURNER-Stated he has a problem with serving until 9:00 p.m. MR. LOMBARD-Stated he could quit serving at 8:00 p.m. MR. TURNER-Stated that he has to give himself sometime to clean up before the night club business starts. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 74-1989, DANIEL LOMBARD, D/B/A TROPICANA RESTAURANT,lntroduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: The applicant has demonstrated that he has a hardship with the existing night club restaurant business. The night club patrons don't spend as much money because of the tougher DWI Laws. Along those lines he possibly is having trouble realizing a reasonable return. The present business is allowed in the zone, the proposal is to serve lunches and dinners outside on the patio. Because he would be coming outside from inside serving, he needs the use variance this in itself is the difficulty. This will not be detrimental to the area. This is the minimum variance to help alleviate the hardship which is the reasonable return. There will a stipulation that the hours are to be 11:00 a.m. through the last order taken for food and drink at 8:00 p.m. At 9:00 p.m. all outdoor facilities will be closed and the patrons will be then inside. The short EAF form shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Muller AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-1989 LC-42A JOHN T. WHALEN, JR. HUNTER LANE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENCE. TAX MAP NO. 26-5-31 SECTION 4.020-A LOT SIZE: 160 FT. BY 146 FT. JOHN WHALEN PRESENT MR. TURNER-Stated that this is the same subdivision many others are under the same circumstances. 9 '-- '~ -- PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICHARD SAGE-lives on Hunter Lane. I wonder which of the three lots are involved. There are three of them. MR. TURNER-Lot 31. MR. WHALEN-Its the lot right next to yours. MR. SAGE-We have no objection. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (on file) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA V AffiANCE NO. 75-1989, JOHN T. WHALEN, JR. Introduced by Daniel Griffin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty this is an older building lot in a subdivision approved in the 1970's. We have approved many variance's in this area because of the undersized lots. No adverse neighborhood effect, and no alternatives. The short EAF form shows no negative impact. Variance is for reduction of lots size, width and all setbacks. Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Muller AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-1989 MR-5 PETER SMITH SHEILA SMITH SOUTHWEST CORNER OF omo AND CENTRAL AVE. FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL IN THE SIDE YARD RATHER THAN THE BACKYARD. TAX MAP NO. 127-9-2, 3,4, SECTION 7.074 4B, 7.090, 7.091 LOT SIZE I ± ACRE MICHAEL O'CONNOR FIRM OF LITTLE AND O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING PETER AND SHEILA SMITH MR. O'CONNOR-Stated the question before the Board is the swimming pool in the side yard. The Smith's bought the interior lot in 1986, and then the corner lots in 1989. The house built on the interior lots is located in a manner that you cannot comply with the Ordinance to put a swimming pool with any reasonable. . . because of the existing septic system. We had a survey done. The setback on the back line for a pool is 20 feet, the setback line shown on the map is actually 10 feet that's for a structure. If you moved it back another 10 feet you'd be in the septic area. If you take a look at the neighborhood the lot that is the mirror of this lot is along the back of it has pretty much of the same location as setup that the Smith's would like to put on their property. They own this entire parcel by separate deeds they have one deed to themselves so that they all will be one parcel so the pool will be on the same premises as the residence. The other issue is the placement of the fence. The Ordinance says that you can't have a fence in excess of 3 feet in height on the side of the yard. The Statute requires you to have a four foot fence around the pool. We propose to have a 6 foot high fence along the back property line and along the Central A venue side a 4 foot fence; along the Ohio A venue side a 4 foot fence back to the house. MR. TURNER-Asked if this was going to be a above ground pool? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. SMITH-Stated that its 4 feet high, 3 foot long we will have no deck on this pool. Eventually we will have a deck, but we want to put a fence around it now. MR. TURNER-Asked why he wanted a 6 foot high fence? MR. SMITH-Stated for privacy on the back side between the two pools. The fence would be a stained stockade fence. MRS. GOETZ-Asked if he had Mr. Naylor look at to see if there was a problem with the visibility on the corner? 10 -- '""-- ~ MR. SMITH-Stated that Paul suggested putting a stockade fence all the way across. MR. SMITH-Has a problem with people running the stop sign on that corner because he cleared off the land. MRS. GOETZ-Asked if he thought by putting up the fence does he think this will slow the traffic down? MR. SMITH-He hopes so. MR. O'CONNOR-Stated the fence on the corner will be 4 feet in height and it will be a fence that you can see through we're not blocking visibility. He was trying to have part of it 6 feet high and then go to the four feet. The back line along the line parallel to Central A venue we're talking 48 feet and 6 feet in height. DISCUSSION AMONG BOARD MEMBERS MR. TURNER-Asked if he was talking about blocking off half of the lot on Central A venue with a 6 foot high fence? MR. O'CONNOR-Stated that the only part of that line that is involved in the variance is the part that is 20 feet within boundary of Central Avenue. The only variance along the back line is for the last 10 feet of this (refers to map) we're going to create a 6 foot fence instead of a 4 foot fence the privacy. Everything else complies except for the back. You have two provisions in the Ordinance, one under Article 7, and the other section (that) says the front side yards you can't have more a fence more than 3 feet in height. MR. TURNER-Stated if the pool is going to be 4 feet above the ground then you don't need a fence around it. MR. O'CONNOR-Unless you want a deck. The intention is to build a deck and to get all he needs at this particular point rather than build it now on the side with a variance and then come back and ask for a variance to increase part of the fence by 2 feet later. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. TURNER-Stated he doesn't have a problem with the pool, but has a problem with the fence because its 6 foot high on Central A venue. MR. O'CONNOR-Asked if it would make their determination easier if they changed the application to have a 4 foot full length fence along Central A venue as opposed to part of it being 6 foot and part being 4 foot? MR. TURNER-Thinks this would help it. MR. O'CONNOR-Stated that the applicant will be willing to amend his application. If you amend the application with the fence along Central A venue being four feet in height the only thing your talking about is 10 feet of that back section actually being the variance because we're permitted by the Ordinance to have the balance of that. MR. TURNER-Stated he needs a variance for the height as he is asking for a 4 foot high fence verses 3 foot. Doesn't have a problem with either foot, this is going to be changed. Asked John Goralski if this is going to be changed definitely? MR. GORALSKI-Stated the Town Board would have to change it, but this is one of the recommendation we are going to make to the Board. MR. TURNER-Stated that he needs relief from the front setback on Central Avenue of 10 feet because he is suppose to be back 20 feet with the fence. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Smith has asked if you change the fence along Central Avenue to the 11 '~ ----- -/ 4 foot level would you have a problem with him going to the boundary line of Central A venue as opposed. . .of 10 foot on the outside of his yard. Has spoke with Paul Naylor, and he saw no problem with this? MR. TURNER-Stated he still needs relief of 10 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-You still need relief, this would just allow him to fence in the yard. Will we accept this as an amendment to the application that the fencing along Central A venue be placed on the boundary line which will be 4 feet in height as opposed to different heights as shown. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. '16-1989, PETER AND SHEILA SMITH,lntroduced by Daniel Griffin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Approval for the applicant to put a pool in the side yard. The practical difficulty is the pool has to be in the side yard there is no room behind the house and the septic is there. On the west side north to south the first 10 feet of fence will be 4 feet high the next 10 feet will have a 2 foot relief for a 6 foot fence. On the northerly boundary next to Central Avenue there will be a 4 foot fence on the boundary, on Ohio Avenue they're asking for a I foot relief from the 3 feet or a 4 foot fence on the easterly boundary. The fence across the south side is 4 feet high and abuts the house; no relief is required. This variance will not cause a change in the neighborhood character, no feasible alternatives. The short EAF shows no negative impact. We have granted other similar variances for this area. Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Muller AREA VARIANCE NO. '1'1-1989 SFR-lA, LC-lOA, W. ERIC WILEY CARRIE M. WILEY WEST SIDE OF WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD FOR THE CREATION OF A 3 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 8'1-1-22 SECTION 4.053, '1.0'1'1 LOT SIZE: 58 ± ACRES MICHAEL O'CONNOR, LAW FIRM OF LITTLE AND O'CONNOR REPRESENTING THE MR. & MRS. WILEY/LEON STEVES V ANDUSHEN AND STEVES MAP SHOWN TO BOARD MR. O'CONNOR-Stated they've been to the County Planning Board and received recommendation of approval. Asking for two specific variance's from the Zoning Ordinance. The two requirements says that in this particular zone on West Mountain Road you need 300 feet of frontage in order to have a single family lot. The normal lot width requirement in this particular zone is 150 feet, but because West Mountain Road is an arterial road we need double the lot width. Our average width of the road is proposed to be 232 feet as opposed to the required 300 feet. I have asked the Board to consider the two separate requests separately. If you take a look at it from that point of view we presently have 282.15 feet of frontage approximately that of width. This lot (refers to map) which would have the long driveway through it would be in compliance, the other lot because of the average width and its depth has in excess of 300 feet. This lot, as we propose, is 53 acres. Mr. Wiley owns approximately 58 or 59 acres of land and under our current Ordinance if you were to apply the terms of it he can't build two single family residences. Believes you would have hardship just on this principle alone. There is no other access that is available to a town road from the back by either side of the property. This is something that was not created by the applicant, this is something that was created by our new provisions which went into effect after he owned the property in October of 1988. When Mr. Wiley bought the property in 1984 he could have subdivided this without coming for a variance, at that point you were talking about having a 30 foot road frontage this was the only thing that was required. We are now talking about creating a substandard lot by the first application. This lower lot will have only 232 feet of frontage maybe 225 to 230 of lot width as opposed to the 300 feet required this is variance number one. On this parcel through here (refers to map) there is a single family residence that is presently occupied by the Wiley's. What they want to do is to build a single family residence for their own use on the back parcel. They're trying to avoid a commercial development if they can, they're trying to preserve the aesthetics of the neighborhood as much as possible; they are also trying to avoid squeezing in as much as possible on the parcel. If they went in by the subdivision route they could create a town road and put one acre lots on one side and 10 acre lots on the other side. We presented our question to Mr. Naylor, and received a letter from him dated June 12, 1989. (on file) I asked him if we went for the commercial type of development and created a town road with a cuI da sac would he have a problem with that being a town road the 50 foot strip that I propose 12 "- '-- .....- ---./' as being a private driveway, he said no. We would like to comply with the intent of the Ordinance, I have discussed this with Paul Dusek, and he told me by letter of May 10, 1989, (submitted to Board) that the purpose of this particular provision in the Ordinance was to reduced traffic conjestion by reducing road cuts in internalized developments, to prevent flag lots and to preserve scenic vistas, and prevent land-locking of back properties. What we have suggested and are willing to provide, is a deed restriction that would provide that, if we are allowed to make this configuration by our first variance of having a 53 acre lot in the back and a lot in the bottom part of this which would then be substandard as to width, that this lot in the front would not have direct access by a separate driveway on West Mountain Road. This lot would forever have access to a private driveway by deeded right-of-way across the 50 foot parcel. We would not be creating extra road cuts we would have one curb cut to serve both lots. We have a proposed restriction on access we will file in the County Clerk's Office as part of our submittal and part of our approval. We are trying to avoid creating this as a town road. You're talking about 982 feet of length, I'm told if you've built that according to town specifications and put a cuI da sac on the back of it which has a minimum radius of 75 feet, then you would be talking $75,000 of a road which is about 1,000 to 1,100 feet. If your going to do that, then you become a commercial developer. Thinks that the comments from staff indicate that in their opinion it will not have an effect upon adjoining properties. This is what we're talking about with the first variance request. Can we make this parcel here a lot with less lot width than is required and preserve the strip 50 feet in width that would go back and service the 53 acres. The second proposal is that we be able to subdivide this lower parcel and create two lots out of that. The reason that we need a variance to do that is that Lot #2 where the existing house is situated would not have frontage upon the town road. There is a separate section of the Ordinance that says, in order to have a lot you must have at least 40 feet of frontage on a town road. By the offer of the restricted conveyance he would have the right to use this 50 foot driveway for his access. He would have practical frontage upon the road; it would have a deeded right to frontage upon the road, but it would not own road frontage. We are willing to stipulate less density than what is required or less houses than what would be permitted. We are going to stipulate that if this is approved we will keep these as 2 acre lots we've doubled the size that the Ordinance says you need. The back parcel, we're are happy to build on the 53 acre parcel of land a single family residence, but we don't know if somebody down the road wants to pay taxes on a 53 acre parcel of land. We would say that according to this, 4 additional lots could someday be applied for and could be built. It will be our understanding in our situation if that ever took place this would have to become a town road as an addition to that subdivision. This is permitted today if we go the commercial route. If we go to the Planning Board we are probably going to ask for a written waiver for everything outside within 5 acres where we are going to set the house. We understand that we are going to have to show that we don't create anymore run off from our site with our subdivision that what's presently there. There is a comment in the Staff comments about me of a dirt driveway for more than 3 units, we don't propose use of the 50 foot private roadway for more than 3 units. If there are going to be more than 3 units we understand that there would have to be a town road dedication. We've talked to some of the neighbors and we have a statement signed by some. The neighbors that are on Lots 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, have indicated that they have no objection to our proposal, the people to the north I've only talked to their Attorney Dennis Phillips. (submitted this to the Board) We would be willing to agree to whatever conditions the Board might seem reasonable to impose. We are trying not to create a commercial development. We would like to have a mama and papa subdivision, and Mr. & Mrs. Wiley would like to build their own residence on a 53 acre parcel of land. To do that and build a driveway, they have to create a sale here to make it reasonable. One other issue is whether or not there is a restricted conveyance that prohibited this restriction of this parcel of land, there are none I have a titled policy here showing the restrictions that are applicable to the Wiley parcel. The only restricted conveyance or easements that this is applicable to in the title policy are two old reasons, one was back in 1874 the Village of Glens Falls Trustee for the water line that is shown on the map, then a 1957 easement that was granted to the City of Glens Falls, for a water line. The cemetery is a reservation in our deed it is a McKeron family cemetery we recognize it, McKeron be deed reference has the right to maintain the cemetery and access to the cemetery. TAPED TURNED MR. WILEY -Stated that their intent is to come off our dirt road and drive back up on our hill to the house. The length of that road is about 1,400 feet to that back parcel. The stakes that you saw there were the stakes we put out to get an estimate of what the road would cost us and the driveway. Stated that on the southeast corner of the Allston property, the stakes actually went across there. We have an agreement with an. . .firm that we would have an easement across that northern location. MR. TURNER-Asked if he will. . .driveway to the cemetery? MR. O'CONNOR-Stated that by law as long as we provide them an access road we supply that. Thinks that if they came in with a commercial subdivision we probably can create more lots than what we propose. Your talking about building a road presently to town road specs your talking about building at least a road and clearing a strip 50 feet wide and then clearing the 13 '-, -.-/ next 10 feet for Niagara Mohawk right-of-way. I would guess that the Planning Board wouldn't allow us to move it in from our property line they would make us put it on the adjoining property line and then the people to the north of us would also be creating one acre lots off of that, this would not be an arterial road this would be a local road. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN HAYES-Lot 3 Applehouse Lane. I won't take up a lot of your time this has been thrown as a spur of the moment procedure after talking about it outside. I'm in opposition with a 3 lot subdivision because the way its been explained now I still don't totally understand it. I have no objection to selling the Applehouse property as one lot and then build his house up in back, but as far as subdividing it I would disagree. We were told as was everybody on the block, that this does not exist that the existing Bronk Estate could not be developed at any time in the future, this was told to me by. . .Realty when I bought the property and told to me that it was written in the deed. MR. TURNER-Anything in your deed? MR. HAYES-No. Mr. Raymond was told the same thing when he purchased his property, and Mr. Sheldon was told the same thing when he purchased his house 26 days ago, so apparently we we're sold a bill of goods that didn't exist. As far as dividing it into a 3 lot subdivision. . .if they want to sell as is the way it stands right now and build his house up in back I will agree to it. MRS. EGGLESTON-I guess I'm trying to understand your objection since your living in a section of much smaller lots plus with the 2 acres plots in back of you how would you feel that would be detrimental to you? MR. HA YES-#(l), In the spring time that area floods and my yard gets the water coming from the back. If you dig it up and put a house in there where is the water going to go from there, especially if you build it higher up, it's just going to force it onto my property. MR. O'CONNOR-Can I address the issues that have been brought up? MR. TURNER-Alright. MR. O'CONNOR-As I understand the speaker, he has indicated that he would have no objection to the request for the first variance, and he would have no objection in creating one lot on a lower side of the property and allow us to have a second lot. . .is that correct? MR. HAYES-That's correct. MR. O'CONNOR-Just so your record is clear to that point. As to the point of the representation that we made to these folks it was made and I have no reason to know that it wasn't made, but that's not something that Mr. Wiley was any part of. Its kind of like people and I'll use the example, along Helen Drive, if you bought on Helen Drive and you thought that the reservoir was going to be forever wild and everbody in the Town told them it was going to be forever wild, and then in the last five or six years the people have discovered that City of Glens Falls may sell off a chunks of it. There is nothing in the Bronk Deed that says that this land can't be subdivided, Mr. Wiley, in fact, bought it with some intention of subdividing when he got financially in a position that he could. He relied upon that fact when he bought it in 1984, with those restrictions in 1984 he could have subdivided it a lot easier then he is doing today. MR. TURNER-But the future for the property is to subdivide it further than the request tonight is that right? MR. O'CONNOR-No. We are keeping the option open only I want to be open with the Board to that point. We're not asking for any further relief we understand that if we we're going to subdivide the 53 acre parcel any further than what we propose that it would have to be a town road, and it would have to go through a second subdivision approval by the Planning Board. As to the issue of run off, I asked Leon Steves to make a percolation test even though its not in the providence of this Board to really get into actual site subdivision, that I think is the jurisdiction of the Plannning Board. We can demonstrate to you, and will demonstrate to the Planning Board, I think its going to be more pertinent at that time that question will come up as far as our environmental impact statement that we will not create any run off in addition to whatever run off nature may have put on that site right now. We probably and my experience is and I went through this with Lake George Plaza, Planning Board operates under the premises that you cannot create additional run off by creating hard surfaces, your house, your driveways, your walks. When you go to handle that by retention or detention you end up actually handling a larger watershed than actually what you created yourself. We may end up with some product that on a 2 acre lot that probably will assist some of the present run off that might be there by spring. That's something the Planning Board will have to get 14 '...-/ into, we will have to do engineering. We haven't done all the engineering because we can't go to the Planning Board until we talk to you about the variance. JOE BRAYTON-I'm more concerned with the 53 acres in the back, I own a 12i acres adjoining that. Its a 12 i acre parcel on the stone wall. MRS. GOETZ-What's your question. MR. BRAYTON-Well first I'd like to make a comment about the water situation up there, I spoke to Mr. Wiley about that the other day. My house is seven months old and I have 7 inches of water in the cellar right now, I have an indoor swimming pool its full of water without a liner, this is speaking on the percolation on the ground up there, there are a lot of water problems. I have no opposition with his plan other than the concern with the 53 acres in the back being developed in the future, I think my only question is will it come up again before the Board if you develop more than one lot up there? MR. TURNER-The Planning Board. MRS. GOETZ-You signed this paper that said that you did find this acceptable. MR. BRAYTON-Yes, with the one house on the 53 acres. My concern is that if he is going to put a town road in there, and go through that expense he's not going to put one house on a $75,000 driveway. I want to make sure my option is opened to voice my opinion again he if develops further. MR. TURNER-He said that is an option. MR. O'CONNOR-The whole intention is to leave it that way so you do have that option and come forward at that time. We are trying to avoid building a town road at this point so we don't have to either sell it to someone else to develop it from a commercial point of view or become a commercial developer ourselves. MR. BRAYTON-We are not opposed to this 3 lot division. MR. TURNER-It's more than likely that at some point in time that they will be developed. MR. BRA YTON-I understand that. It will come before the Board and I will be notified again to voice an opinion. Thank you. MARK SHELDON-I live on the lot which is adjancet to both West Mountain Road, and Applehouse Lane, the corner lot. MR. TURNER-Which one, # lor # 2? MR. SHELDON-Number one. My concern with the proposal has to do with the initial remarks made by Mrs. Goetz, concerning the character. I believe there was a question as to character of the area? MRS. GOETZ-On the application? MR. SHELDON-Yes. MRS. GOETZ- The first question that you have to answer when you have a variance request of this nature: (1) Is there an adverse effect on neighborhood character, they answered no, same use and density as is allowed planned. MR. SHELDON-First of all, I want to alert you that I was not notified of this hearing, but I showed up anyways. Mr. Wiley was kind enough to visit me at my home and explain as best he could on short notice what was happening here. I'm trying to do the best I can in trying tc understand what is going on with this development stuff. In any event, let me talk to that specific issue of the character of the neighborhood. If you look at West Mountain, let me see if we're doing this right your going north starting down here (refers to map) on Lester where the original owner was probably more than 100 years ago when he sought to put pine trees. He extended them all the way up and he brought them up the road to the Applehouse, this is on the south side. On the north side of this dirt road he essentially did the same thing although frankly it's gone. A second row hasn't been properly pruned in years so some of the character of that portion of property has been lost. However, if you take a look at my property you can see that I'm obviously on West Mountain Road. I'm also a corner lot coming out onto the Applehouse, and I spend a lot of time staring into my next door neighbor's back window. Obviously, its very close. As I mentioned to you I bought this on the 22nd of May, and I've actually occupied the house for 26 days. I bought this house. I'm like any other individual. I have a certain amount of funds. I do the best I can, I bought. . .home next to an obvious arterial highway, but I did 15 "- ''"-- ~ -.-/ it because 1 had these lovely trees in the front of my house and 1 noticed that they did extend all the way down the road, and all the way up the Applehouse. 1 noticed that this was obviously an older home down sized with almost the nature of an estate. 1 noticed that there was obviously a 19th century cemetery and the character of the neighborhood impressed me. 1 have to mention that 1 looked at three separate homes on this road over a one year period, 1 obviously looked at the house that 1 bought, 1 looked at a house over here (refers to map) 1 cannot frankly remember who owned the home at the time when 1 looked at the Castonguay residence its owned by Pierre and Ruth Castonguay, so 1 looked at three separate houses on this road strictly. . .all individually instances one of the reasons, one of the scenario that was painted to me as a prospective buyer was the nature of the Applehouse, of the orchard, of the house itself, of the road, and the character of this neighborhood, and the history of this neighborhood. 1 recognize that 1 wasn't buying that much house. Sometimes people don't do that. They buy the character of the neighborhood and my concern is that if in fact the variance is granted, and you have what is in reality remember its 250 feet, its not 280, this inevitably when its sold off is going to be built up and this is obviously going to have to be torn down. . .so the entire character of this area is going to be changed. 1 have to tell you that 1 just spent 13 years living in the state of Connecticut and this is what they did to the entire state, and 1 don't live in Connecticut anymore, 1 live in New York, and 1 would think that I've got more than 26 days before 1 come up here and have to ask you to try and do something about this. There is no reason someone has to garrote a plan in order to raise capital. . .destruction of this estate. 1 think something should be done about it. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-I would persume that the reason Mr. Sheldon, didn't receive first hand notice is that the tax rolls are only changed each March 1st, and he just purchased his property within the last 26 days. MR. SHELDON-I mentioned that Mr. Wiley, was kind enough to let me know about this. MR. O'CONNOR-I suggested to Mr. Wiley, to tell people what he's doing. When you talk about the character of this neighborhood, the character of this neighborhood is single family residential we're not talking about the changes we're talking about upgrading. We're not talking about putting two one acre lots,. . .1 don't see how we affect the change. If they're able to sell this lot, everybody else and anyone else who buys the lot tries to preserve as much as possible the trees that are on the lot they aren't going to come in and clear cut it they are going to clear the area that's necessary for the footprint of their house. They aren't going to take trees out if they add value to it, your talking about one house that's going to go in there. This is a 16,000, 17,000 square foot lot, that lot right there (refers to map) is 88,000 square feet, that's five times as large as that lot. This lot that we are talking about has its own driveway directly on to West Mountain Road on 160 foot frontage, we're talking about one roadway on 282 feet of frontage, one driveway. Apples to apples we're talking about an upgrading and I'm sure something that is going to be closing reviewed by the Planning Board, they don't simply allow you to come in and put it in a paper bag they make you go through the whole thing the whole impact. What we're talking about is getting into that form, 1 don't really understand how you can talk about change of character if character of that neighborhood is single family residential, its one acre single family residential we're talking about creating a two acre lot as it adjoins the last. . . we are talking about a two acre lot with an existing house on the back actually 2t acre lot 2.63, then we are talking about a 53 acre lot. We're trying to diminish what we're doing. The alternative is to go with to a commercial developer, pay us X dollars per acre and we would probably get a good return except Mr. & Mrs. Wiley wouldn't be able to live on this part of West Mountain in the area that were to maintain this is another point. This driveway that is going to service the house that they are going to live in is going to by this residence. We are going to put a restricted conveyance on here and we would offer to the Board a restricted conveyance that this two acre lot may not be subdivided even in the future if this ever became a town road that this lot 2.63 acres may not be subdivide. We're going to talk about a minimum size lot or minimum size house probably in excess of the actual houses that are built we want to preserve the value of the interest to our own home. We're going to talk about noncommercial use those are restricted conveyances that we have to submit as part of the site plan review to the Planning Board. If you have some specific references or questions or specific suggestions that you want in restricted conveyance other than what I've already said that we would not subdivide those two particular lots if you approve this variance. MRS. GOETZ-About the road as your proposing to keep it, is there going to be enough land to make a proper road if it goes to a bigger subdivision later on? MR. O'CONNOR-All we're required to have is 50 feet. We may have to change this entrance way, and we may have to create a minor change. . .configuration of the road. 1 don't think the way its drawn we can have it go at a direct line to the Town. MRS. GOETZ-Question for Mr. Sheldon, did you really think that property would never be developed? MR. SHELDON-At the time that 1 bought the home 1 inquired with the realtor to look into the Zoning Ordinance to find out exactly what would be the likely scenario on that side of 16 -'~ the road. She told me, we talked extensively about the cement plant, which is not relevant to this hearing, but she simply mentioned that this piece of and I would like to correct one statement, I was not told that it was undevelopable, I was told that it is undeveloped under the present situation. Yes, I realize that there are way of building roads. . .eventually we are going to get plowed under no matter how you look at it and its going to be built up sooner or later and their is no way I can stop it. My problem is exactly as I stated, do we have to do it this way, do we have to get rid of 150 year old trees, do we have to get rid of the country land, do we have to get rid of the Applehouse, do we have to do away with the character of this neighborhood in order to get the house up on that mountain. The man deserves his house on the mountain his land, his property, I'm just saying I think there are better way of doing it. I think the issue and the plan should be reconsidered. MRS. GOETZ-What's the better way of doing it? MR. SHELDON-There should be some way of preserving the character of the Applehouse, and at the same time being able to build a road some kind of a road up the side in order to get to the property. MR. GRIFFIN-You seem to be very concerned about the trees. MR. SHELDON-I can explain why. As I mentioned before I have a road here, and a road here, and I have a relatively close house here (refers to map) in reality the nature of the privacy which I have as a homeowner is because I have these very large trees in front of my home, and then I have them curving around on Mr. .. we all have all three of us. We all have this relatively secluded sense or character to our neighborhood. What we're concerned about if a house goes in here that this is going to be destroyed. This is essentially the objection as I understand it in terms of the other two gentleman that are abutting the property. TAPED TURNED MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think people will pay the medium price for a lot someplace of around $25,000 to $30,000 are honestly going to go in and clear cut the lot people don't do that. To say the propose plan in fact that we're talking about we're not going to put a new driveway in here (refers to map) as I understand it Mr. Sheldon's house is quite close to the road so actually we're talking about out his side yard we're probably not going to have anything directly in his side yard its going to be back in here where the people are going to place the residence. Probably if the Board were inclined to talk about saying that you want some stipulation within the restricted conveyance that there be no clear cutting that trees outside of the footprint of the house necessary areas where septic and immediate areas surrounding the house be left in tack except for dead diseased trees Mr. Wiley, would be willing to stipulate something to that effect. It doesn't help us when he goes up this driveway to go to his residence he wants this also to be secluded. He wants to maintain if he can, the estate effect of having a long driveway going back to his property. It would be counter productive for him to allow somebody, I don't know how to word it. MRS. EGGLESTON-If you were to sell the lots. . . MR. O'CONNOR-I have three lots on Lake Sunnyside Estates, the reason I have that is because their isn't a tree on it. If I had been smart in 1970's and subdivided it. . . MR. WILEY-Mr. Griffin, you said you were out there and saw the stakes so really just the trees that we're talking about is a single row of trees right along this existing driveway. This is wooded through here and obviously if I have to put a driveway in basically I was working with a 20 to 24 foot width verses any other alternative than having to go ahead with the 50 feet it would certainly be a better situation if I didn't have to go with a town road cut through the pines here. (refers to map) ROBERT RA YMOND-2 Applehouse Lane, which is in the middle of the red lot that is proposed there, two acre lot I live right in the middle of that. Mr. Sheldon, brought up the situation of the character of the property. When I purchased my house I was told by the person that I bought the house from no realtor involved that this property was not developable as it was. If there is a house to be built back there looking out of my dining area or out of my kitchen area, I'm going to watch a house being built absolutely no where else unless they build it right out close to the road or they build it up on top of the cemetery the logical point its going to be right there. I would like to see the character of the Applehouse Estate enhanced, but keeping it as single parcel as its border there in red and yellow have that all one parcel. Where Mr. Wiley has proposed to have a access way to his property in the back I think that's a great idea. The enhancement of the Applehouse Estate itself would be a benefit not only to myself, and neighbors, but to the Town of Queensbury as something that has been around for a long time. If this is done properly I think it would look nice for the rest of the Town also. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 17 -/ CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board approved. (On file) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. O'CONNOR-Doesn't understand Lee York's comments as to the first variance because what she simply is saying that it has no effect upon the neighborhood, no effect upon public facilities, that the required requested variances that we have 220 feet of frontage as opposed to 300 feet which is not a great deal. The reason that we're asking for that variance is that's the minimum that would be required if we were going to develop that as a town road. The answer that Mrs. York gives you is that we build a town road you don't change the size of the lot at all its the same practical result the difference is that along the top of the property is a town road as opposed to a private driveway. That's the whole sum and substance of her comments. If you take a look at the area variance which she acknowledges that we're talking about those three things don't talk about that. They are saying that there are grounds where you have special circumstances that apply to a lot we have 58 acres of land. How many other 58 acre parcel of lands in the Town of Queensbury are deprived by this Ordinance from having two residences on it. On an area variance we don't have to show strict hardship, on an area variance there are cases that say financial hardship is grounds and basis for granting an area variance. Her comment that financial difficulty alone is not grounds for an area variance I think is not according to the Zoning Laws in the State of New York. As to the second comments, I'm not sure if she understood we we're talking about building the access along a 50 foot strip. Feels that there are special circumstances, thinks that there is a practical difficulty. I don't see an effect between the applicant and the Town. The letter to me May 10th, 1989 said that the requirements were to prevents curb cuts to keep vistas opened that's what we're talking about to prevent creation of flag lots. MRS. GOETZ-Stated that Mr. O'Connor mentioned special circumstances and practical difficulty, asked him to repeat them? MR. O'CONNOR-Feels the special circumstances is that the Town Zoning Law has said that, a 58 acre parcel of land that is strictly applied can only support one single family residence. That's not true throughout the Town, its not true that I'm aware of in any place. Wondered if the Town Planner is telling him that he doesn't need a variance if they build a town road, because we still have the lots that only has the mean width of X feet? The intent of the Ordinance is to keep the area rural, isn't our proposal in keeping with the intent of the Ordinance, aren't we making it less commercial by only having three lots in there? This is the only pitch that I'm making. MR. TURNER-Asked if the other question was the ingress and egress of those two lots? MR. O'CONNOR-Stated that on the second question if you consider them separately, if we are allowed and we make a separate request we would like the Board to consider it, can we create one lot which would be mainly of the 53 acre parcel with the 50 foot connect, and a second substandard lot which would be mostly yellow and red as shown on the map? When you get past that point the separate request is can we subdivide the lower portion as shown in yellow and red and not abide by the 40 foot frontage on the town road. By not subdividing that we've created two acres of dead man's land out in front of that lot. There is a cemetery that's a practical separation between the front parcel and where the actual house is. MRS. GOETZ-Wondering if there may be another place that they could put those two building lots and then the 58 acres? MR. O'CONNOR-Stated that the idea is to create only one new building lot we intent to sell this with the building on it. These people along here (refers to map) will not see anything different than what they already see. MRS. GOETZ-Stated that the bottom line is that they are trying to avoid paying for an expensive line plus raise some money by selling off the front lot. MR. O'CONNOR-If we're left with the position that we have to create a town road to develop this then we will put the property on the market for one piece and you would end up with a greater number of homes than what is proposed. As to the comments also by Mrs. York, as to whether or not the owners of Lots 1 and 2 will object to the town road, that parcel that would become the town road isn't on their lots they will have no say. 18 ,..-/~ MR. GORALSKI-Stated what Mrs. York was attempting to do is use the criteria that is listed on your application to described what is going on and compare it to the Ordinance. I think the point she was trying to make is that she does not see a specified practical difficulty in this application. LEON STEVES-Stated that the practical difficulty is that in any subdivision this particular parcel short of building a town road a variance has to be granted. There choice is either for a variance or a subdivision. DISCUSSION HELD AMONG BOARD MEMBERS MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked what about the ones that we've turned downed? MR. O'CONNOR-Thinks the Board hasn't had any where they've talked about surplus of density like you have in this particular sense. What you would be allowing here is three houses on 59 acres of land. MR. TURNER-Stated that this is they're choice. MR. O'CONNOR-Stated that the effect upon the Town's system with this proposal is nonexistent, the only question is whether you will allow us to have a private driveway or you make us have a town road. MR. TURNER-Stated that if this is approved, it's nonexistent for now, but it could be 5 years from now, 2 years from now, this could change. MR. O'CONNOR-We are willing to stipulate as part of this approval when you get to the second application that these two parcels will never be subdivided. MR. TURNER-Said he was talking about the ones in the back. MR. O'CONNOR-Stated that the variance doesn't effect that one way or the other. DISCUSSION AMONG BOARD MEMBERS MR. O'CONNOR-Asked if the difference here was that they have demonstrated by Mr. Naylor's letter that we could in fact subdivide with the town road, what we're asking is, practically speaking, we prefer not to build a town road because of the expense that's there. We are not talking about any additional burden upon the town or the neighborhood by what we propose. MR. TURNER-Stated that they're not going to create any burden because you don't wish to create a burden because you don't want to go to the expense of building a road. MR. O'CONNOR-We are talking about practical difficulty as defined in the Ordinance we're not talking about hardship. We're creating the same product, but using a different tool. MR. TURNER-Stated that the only feasible alternative that they give the Board you said, you won't subdivide the two front lots will increase the size of it. MR. O'CONNOR-On the first variance we're talking about a 53 acre lot and a 4.7 acre lot. MR. TURNER-Stated that the relief is from getting away from building the town road. The objection is that to develop the land in the back, the objection now is to sell the property and get some. . .that's not practical difficulty. MR. KELLEY-Stated if he wants to build a single family residential on a piece of property you put the driveway in you can go up and do it we aren't depriving you the use of the land. MR. O'CONNOR-We can't subdivide into two parcel right now without getting a variance. MR. GORALSKI-If you read the description of the zoning requirements you could build a house and have two dwelling units on that parcel legally without subdividing. MR. O'CONNOR-Asked two units owned by the same person? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Stated you have two principal dwelling on the same premises we have run into difficulty before doing that, but that's the same thing as prohibiting us to subdivide. Read definition from the Ordinance. We're saying that we're one of the few land owners in this neighborhood that has this size parcel, but we are prohibited from building a second residence 19 -~ on that. You've put a density requirement on us that's unbelievable compared to the other people simply because we lack 68 feet of frontage along the highway. This is something that was created along time before the Ordinance went into effect as far as the frontage that was left on the highway. You're also saying that it has to be single ownership that is not a circumstances also unique throughout that neighborhood that you would require the person to own two homes in order to build two homes on a parcel this size. MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked if any part of this is in the Adirondack Park? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. The major portion of the 53 acre parcel of land so that if we do go to subdivide that we would perhaps come under their jurisdiction. I think not because the AP A has delegated jurisdiction to the Town of Queensbury because it approved the local land use plan. Our zoning is more strict. MR. O"CONNOR-Stated that the practical difficulty is are you going to require us to build the town road as opposed to a private driveway, and what is the practical reason for making us to that. MOTION TO DENY VARIANCE NO. 77-1989, W. ERIC WILEY AND CARRIE M. WILEY,lntroduced by Mr. Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: Deny variance for the required lot width no practical difficulty shown. There is 68 feet of relief requested on the lot width. Their offer is to not to divide the two lots into one acre lots, but instead keep them as Lot #1 of 2.04 acres, Lot #2, 2.63 acres. There are feasible alternatives to this proposal, one feasible alternative is to build a town road. Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Kelley ABSENT:Mr. Muller DISCUSSION HELD LEON STEVES-Stated that the applicant has made a request tonight for a three lot subdivision. The Ordinance calls for a 40 foot minimum road frontage certainly he has more than enough for three lots. Coming back through here he also has. . . the practical difficulty is for the variance this is. . .it would be better to grant the variance based upon the practical difficulty. MR. O'CONNOR-Thinks the point that Leon is making, is that John keeps correcting us on saying that we're not talking about a variance for minimum road frontage we're talking about minimum lot width so you could get some odd configurations and get three lots that would probably be very unmanageable as far as shape and size. You have your minimum 40 foot frontage on the road as required, you have your minimum lot width. That's the practical difficulty. MR. GORALSKI-What your saying, I believe, that its possible to create three lots, but there are feasible alternatives in creating the new lots this way you can create new lots on that 59 acres and meet the Zoning Ordinance as it stands today. MR. O'CONNOR-Are we talking about the only thing being the configurations of the lot? MR. GORALSKI-That's what is necessitating the variance the way you propose to subdivide it. MR. KELLEY-Stated what Leon is proposed is that each lot theoretically has to have 40 feet on the town road. Even if we were going to squeeze it down to its narrowest point you still would have over 120 feet so you would have in essence three long driveways once you get back to the 53 acre piece. . . MR. O'CONNOR-Stated except the practical part is that we already have a house built on one of those we would have to abandoned the house without any real purpose of abandoning the house except to get the configuration required, that would be the practical difficulty. MR. TURNER-That's a good point, I don't think that's here now. MR. O'CONNOR-Asked that isn't the practical difficulty? MR. TURNER-Your going to tear the house down and then your going to destroy two lots that you want to subdivide now to get access to the back property. 20 ~~' MR. O'CONNOR-Isn't that the unnecessary hardship and unnecessary practical difficulty that your imposing on the applicant? MR. TURNER-No. MR. O'CONNOR-Doesn't understand how you would say that a applicant would meet the difficulty and test the practical difficulty, are you saying that this is a provision of the Ordinance that you not carry. MRS. GOETZ-That's possible. MR. O'CONNOR-Asked what are the circumstances that you would consider the practical difficulty that would justify a variance of that particular provision? I think you have to distinguish between hardship cases and practical difficulty and understand the difference. Doesn't understand the reason with our intent of the Ordinance. We're not creating extra driveways out on the roadway which is the whole purpose of this saying, that you have to have double the frontage on the arterial roads, we're not creating flag lots, your telling us to go and create flag lots. MR. TURNER-Stated that you have one piece of property that has better than four acres on it and you want to divide it into two. MR. O'CONNOR-The first variance is for a 53 acre parcel of land, and a 4.7 acre parcel of land. DISCUSSION AMONG BOARD MEMBERS AND MR. O'CONNOR MRS. GOETZ-Feels that the Board should table this. MR. GORALSKI-Stated that Article 10, it says that the Board has 30 days from the closing of the public hearing to make a decision. MR. O'CONNOR-On the record will stipulate that the applicant will waive the 30 days. The applicant is willing to abide by a decision reached at your next meeting. MOTION TO WITHDRAW MOTION FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-1989, W. ERIC AND CARRIE M. WILEY,lntroduced by Mr. Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Mr. Turner withdraws his previous motion and tables motion. The applicant will waive the 30 days. Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Muller MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-1989, W. ERIC AND CARRIE M. WILEY,lntroduced by Mr. Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Goetz: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one On motion the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 21