Loading...
1989-10-26 '-'-.'--- ---- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 26, 1989 INDEX APPLICANT PAGE Area Variance No. 61-1989 Linda Clark Whitty 1 Area Variance No. 121-1989 Mary D. Scuderi 4 Area Variance No. 122-1989 Roger Lafontaine 6 Area Variance No. 123-1989 Joseph O'Neill 6 Area Variance No. 124-1989 Anne M. Parrott 8 - Area Variance No. 125-1989 Michael and Melody Dutcher 10 Area Variance No. 126-1989 Alfred J. Pelkey 11 Area Variance No. 127-1989 Francis A. Purritano, Sr. 11 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. '--""""""-" QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 26TH, 1989 7:35 P.M. -~.............- MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRET AR Y CHARLES O. SICARD JOYCE EGGLESTON MICHAEL MULLER TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK STUART BAKER, ASSISTANT PLANNER LEE YORK, SENIOR PLANNER PAT COLLARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEMBERS ABSENT JEFFREY KELLEY CORRECTION OF MINUTES September 20th, 1989: Page 2, 9th paragraph down, 2nd sentence sib two different signs. Page 2, bottom of page, 3rd paragraph 1st sentence, sib fifteen. APPROVAL OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEE'I1NG OF OCTOBER 26TH, 1989,Introc1uced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: Duly adopted this 26th day of October, 1989, by the following vote: OLD BUSINESS AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-1989 LINDA CLARK WHITTY MRS. GOETZ-Stated that this was tabled last week for factual issues that we cannot make at this meeting. We in no way want to expede to or encourage any further activity on the building. There is a possibility you are not fully in conformance with the zoning ordinance, this is separate from the issue being sought in Variance No. 61-1989. We are seeking legal opinion by Mr. Dusek by the 10/26/89 ZBA meeting. MR. DUSEK-If the Board will recall, papers were served at the last meeting. At this point, he reported to the Board, papers were filed, it was official. There will not be any further action as far as the previous variance is concerned. After reviewing matter carefully, it's my opinion that since the Board decided the issue of the original zoning variance some time ago, in fact more than 30 days ago at this point, that that whole issue as to whether or not the variance should be granted or if there are any other special conditions of the lot that should have been considered to be considered moved at this point and the Board may treat the application that is before as just an ordinary zoning variance application. MRS. GOETZ-Stated that this is located at Ash Drive, Glen Lake and it's an application for Area Variance the zoning is water front residential 1 acre. Present use-presently this property is on an unused, wooded lot. There is a driveway that runs along the property line giving road access to the property. My intention is to place a single family home on the property. A garage is included in this plan, but will be built at a later date. The drive will be used by both parties and an easement provision will be written into the deed. No adverse effect on neighborhood character. The house that is placed on the property is within the present neighborhood flavor. In addition, the neighborhood is presently family oriented and the intention is to keep it that way. No adverse effect on public facilities. Presently there are no public facilities, water and sewer available. The building of a well and septic tank is necessary. There are no feasible alternatives. At the time in which this land was purchased, it was under the understanding that it could be used as a future building lot. The C1ark- Whitty family is unable to purchase more land in this area. No substantial degree of change relative to the ordinance. Other comments-During the month of August 1989, I was granted approval for an 8 ft. setback off of the northern property line. At the time of the approval, the Board made it clear to me that the 8 ft. setback is from the property line to the move line. In order to insure proper placement, I am putting Raymond Associates to plot the house before digging. Unfortunately, the end result did not comply with the variance. The house has been built in the wrong position. It complies 1 - on the western end which is 9 ft. from the property line for the foundation block, howe~r- it does not comply on the western end which is 7.85 ft. from the property line to the foundation block. In effect, I would like to request a variance modification to allow the house to stand in its present location. MICHAEL O'CONNOR-Law firm of Little-O'Connor-Representing Miss Whitty, as of last Thursday. Stated this was a simple area variance talking about an encroachment or possible encroachment of 1.15 ft. of the portion of the house. In this particular area, you are required to have a twenty foot setback for this particular portion of the house. This Board, under a decision of August 1989, granted relief to allow a setback of 8 ft. After variance, we got involved in this and because of the odd shape of the lot, we suggested that she have a surveyer locate the house so that there wouldn't be any mistakes and so that it would be placed in accordance with your variance of 8 ft. At that time, they pulled out a whole survey of the property, went up and put some corner stakes in for the property, and located a cellar hole. Miss Whitty came home from work, saw what was going on, and found it was totally wrong. At one time, many years ago, there was a different configuration of that lot, before it was actually created. The cellar ended up changing one end of the lot by 10ft. So they changed the actual description that was in the conveyance to the Clark's before the conveyance to Whitty. The first set up of the house was using a completely erroneous set of facts and the house would have been exactly on the line, not where it is even today. So they got that all straightened out and the lot set up properly in accordance to the deed description. Set up lines so that the house would be built 9 ft. from the line for the foundation, which would allow that the 1 ft. overhang your variance relief of 8 ft. Somehow, however, that got mixed up though too, and you will see they went and did an actual survey. Copy of that was submitted to Board. The survey that was performed for the bank financing shows that one end of the house would comply with your variance because it is presently 9 ft. and allowing 1 ft. for the overhang. So that the other end of the house is now 7.85 ft. So, Miss Whitty has come back and asked for additional relief of 1.15 ft. on one end of the house per portion of the house. Talking about just a portion of the house. May need additional relief. The house is enclosed and we had set a bank closing for the financing on it when we found out that we had this particular problem. An error created someplace between the builder and the surveyer. Not intentional by the applicant or something in which the applicant had any knowledge or any part in. I think it's the classic grounds for relief for an area variance. If you have any questions, we would be glad to try and answer them. MRS. GOETZ-Questioned wording in survey. MR. O'CONNOR-It says now or formally, that's a surveyers symbol when it says in or at. This land is now presently owned by Mr. Tyrers. This does not necessarily say that it is owned by Leyford. What he is saying is that the surveyers records show that at one time it was owned by Lefford. In fact, I think Leyford owned it and conveyed it to Tyer. As, I say, if you've gone step by step with the applicant through this thing, wouldn't undertake a project of this nature on your own. MR. MULLER- For the record, the northerly line of the Whitty lot is the one that we're talking about considering setback relief, right? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MULLER-And the property that appears to be Mr. Tyrer's, I was uncertain, so maybe we can get it clarified. MR. O'CONNOR-It is immediately to the north and I think he also owns to the west. I think he owns on two sides. Mr. Tyrer has bought the balance of the Leyford property. MR. MULLER- It is my recollection is that where Mr. Leyford's property is to the north of the Whitty lot, basically had a useab1e strip, that is he had a driveway beyond that, so that it is actually narrow, vacant followed by a driveway. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. As I understand it, that is a gully that is not buildable. It is not something that you're going to encroach upon their privacy or is actually useab1e by allowing the 1.5 ft. variance that we've requested. MR. MULLER-Ok. And in considering the grant of that 1.5 ft, Is that what it is? MR. TURNER-Well in your application you show 7.85 and in the survey it shows 7.8? MR. MULLER-7.8+ or -. 1.2. In granting 1.2 ft. of relief, Wayne Raymond the Surveyer, his measurement is from the base of the foundation to the property line? MR. O'CONNOR-That is my understanding. 2 .' ---'-- --- .,., -~~' MR. MULLER-Do you need more relief than 1.2 feet? MR. O'CONNOR-1.2 ft. plus 1 ft. for the overhang MR. MULLER-So in fact it would be 6.8 ft. from the boundary line with the 1 ft. overhang. MR. O'CONNOR-If it shows a 7.8 ft. distance, we've been allowed, we're going to use up one ft. of that. We will end up being 6.8 from the boundary and you said we could go up to 8 ft. So we need 1.2. MR. MULLER-We're going to have a 1 ft. overhang on this building from the rear of the building on the northerly side. Is that still controversial? MRS. EGGLESTON-Is the garage up? MR. O'CONNOR-No, I don't believe the garage is up. MRS. EGGLESTON-This 7.8 is from the property line to the foundation. MR. O'CONNOR-That's correct. MRS. EGGLESTON-So what we're asking for is 1.2 less than the required 8. MR. O'CONNOR- I think what we're saying is the total building will be 6.8 from the boundary as opposed to the 8 ft. that you granted leave for. MR. MULLER-And so the 6.8 ft. measured from the boundary line back to the house will arrive at a drip line. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MULLER-On the back of your building, that's as close as you're getting to the line, there's no chimney's out there, no awnings out there. MISS WHITTY-No chimney's, no awnings, no nothing. MRS. EGGLESTON-I was wondering, if we grant that, would that apply to the garage? MR. MULLER-How will the garage line up with the mark line? MISS WHITTY-The garage will go on the end of the building that does comply. MR. DUSEK-The building is a little bit kitty corner. The whole building is kitty corner and the garage will be on the end that does comply with your 8 ft. variance on the west end. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED M0'I10N TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO 61-1989 LINDA WmTTY, Introduced by Mr. Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: The applicant has shown practical difficulty. The circumstances requiring a variance are not of her own creation. There has always been difficulty in placing a house on the lot. The difficult shape of the property and there has been confusion of the findings of different surveyers. This will be permission for the north side of the house, 6.8 ft. variance from the northerly boundary line. This will give a 1 ft. overhang on the back of the building. No adverse impact on the property on the north which is owned by Mr. Tyrer because of a narrow strip of land and a gully existing on the north side of the property. A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Jeffrey Kelley NEW BUSINESS 3 " '____ ~~EA VARIANCE NO. 121-1989 WR-IA MARY D. SCUDERI ASSEMBLY POINT, LAt. -GEORGE, CHESTNUT LANE (SHORE COLONY) TO BUILD A DECK ATTACHED T~ THE PORCH WffiCH IS LESS THAN THE REQUIRED 30 FT. FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 8-6-8.2 SECTION 4.020-D LOT SIZE 75 FT. BY 100 FT. MARY SCUDERI PRESENT MISS SCUDERI-Parents enjoy sitting outdoors and this would give them a nice place to sit rather than on the front lawn where they have to sit now. MR. TURNER-In the back you say you have a door, right? MISS SCUDERI-Yes. There's a door going from the kitchen to the porch. MR. TURNER-Door exits out over the garage out the back? MISS SCUDERI-Well, it's unusual. The door faces the front. It's almost like two front doors. MR. TURNER-You don't have a rear door? MISS SCUDERI-No. If we had steps built way in the back, we'd have to go all the way around the back to get on to the deck. In most decks, you see in homes, usually leave from a kitchen or a back door. So that if you want a cookout or bring food from inside your home you can just go out your back door. MR. TURNER-We've looked at the site. MISS SCUDERI-It's a mess if you've looked at it recently. MR. TURNER-Ok. On this plan they show the driveway coming in which would be to the east. MISS SCUDERI-The driveway isn't finished. MR. TURNER-No. I know it isn't. MISS SCUDERI-You see where the existing steps are, that's where the driveway used to be. The house was built that way when we bought it, the two doors like that. We didn't change it at all. We changed where the existing steps were made in cement. They used to be wooden. They were facing the other way, though. MR. TURNER-Towards the east MISS SCUDERI-Toward the east MR. SICARD-You refer to shutting off the water you have. Apparently you have city water there. MISS SCUDERI-Town water. We have to turn it off this weekend. November 1st is the end of the water unless you have a well. So, we wouldn't have anybody that could build until the spring. I don't know if he needs water to mix the cement. He probably brings his own water. It's a hardship to do it until you have water. MR. SICARD-Would they turn it off the 1st of the month. Is that it? MISS SCUDERI-They turn it off November 1st and they turn it back on again May 1st. It's town water. It's called Shore Colony. MRS. EGGLESTON-Didn't I understand her to say there were no rear doors? MISS SCUDERI-That's right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Staff input says there is a rear door to the porch. MISS SCUDERI-Well, that door faces front. In other words, there's no door in the back of the house. MR. BAKER-Explained his notes. My notes were based on her comment in the application that adding a door on to the porch would put a door on each wall. Now, on that statement 4 '- '-- I assumed that there was a door on the back wall there of that porch. I based my comments on that assumption. ~' MISS SCUDERI-We have a door coming from the kitchen or to the porch and you stepped on to the porch and you go out the back door. So that's two doors. We broke another wall to put another door in to get on to the deck and make three doors. MRS. EGGLESTON-I walked out the back, I didn't see any door. MISS SCUDERI-No. We would have to break the wall. MRS. EGGLESTON-I mean in the back of the house. MR. MULLER-Are they planning on improving that creek or something that goes down through there or is that under construction? MISS SCUDERI-That's the natural ditch that goes through the whole point practically, so we're not touching that. Environmentally, we don't want to get involved with that. It has to run through very easily I guess. We had the land cleared, but we had the man stay away from there. MR. MULLER-This is clear in everybody's mind the deck is not within 75 ft. of the stream. That's right? And the parking area, or crushed stone drive, does it have to be 50 ft. back from the stream? Does not have a setback from the stream? MRS. COLLARD-Not that I'm aware of. MISS SCUDERI-If we keep it stones, it's all right the way it is? As long as you don't pave it? MR. MULLER-I believe if you pave it, it has to be 50 ft. back from the stream. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING NO COMMENT CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING. CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Arnold K. Webber, Trustee for Henrietta Beeter. They see no reason to object. Warren County Planning approved. (On File) MRS. COLLARD-In receipt of memo from Lee York. This is a separate issue. MISS SCUDERI-Mr. Chairman, I didn't understand any of that. MRS. EGGLESTON-There's a problem on the property. MISS SCUDERI-When I had this map done by an architect, none of that had been done. I had talked to an excavator. He didn't come to do this property until much later. So this may not show the true picture. He said there were no regulations. We asked him. He is a well known excavator, Mr. Richard Lee, he's doing across the street. LUCY SCUDERI-I thought you inquired about the wetlands. We inquired about everything, to make sure we weren't in violation of anything from anybody. We thought this was going to be finished by the end of July. M0'I10N TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE 121-1989 MARY D. SCUDERI, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: The applicant has requested a variance from the requirement of a 30 ft. front setback. The result will be a relief of 2 i ft. on the southerly boundary line. The proposed building would not increase the density of the neighborhood or change the character of the neighborhood. The practical difficulty is the location of the house on the 10t....the present zoning ordinance, so the present zoning creates the burden. This is minimum relief. The short EAF form shows no negative impact and there's no neighborhood opposition. Duly adopted this 26th day of October, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Muller, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner 5 ~ '- NOES: None --.-..~--' ABSENT: Mr. Jeffrey Kelley AREA VARIANCE NO. 122-1989 HC-IA ROGER LAFONTAINE D/B/A MARTHA'S DANDEE CREME WEST SIDE OF ROUTE 9, APPROX. 50 FT. NORTH OF ROUND POND ROAD FOR A 12 FT. BY 15 FT. ADDITION TO THE ICE CREAM STAND THAT WILL BE LESS THAN 75 FT. FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 74-1-19.2 SEC'I10N 4.033 LOT SIZE: 9.8 ACRES ROGER LAFONTAINE PRESENT MR. LAFONTAINE-We do need the additional space, not only for the window, but the freezer space and another ice cream machine. We considered adding another window to the existing stand, but there would be no room for another machine or for the freezers. MRS. GOETZ-Where it's going, it won't effect your parking? MR. LAFONTAINE-Not at all. It's going to be right in front of the restaurant. MR. SICARD-How deep is that? MR. LAFONTAINE-15 by 12 ft. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board approved. STAFF INPUT Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 122-1989 ROGER LAFONTAINE, Introduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: This applicant is seeking an area variance allowing a 12 ft. by 15 ft. addition. The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty and considering other feasible alternatives there are no other good alternatives to add another service window and a freezer. The infringement is within the 75 foot front setback area. There will be no adverse impact on the neighborhood. There are other buildings on this property that are closer to Rt. 9. Duly adopted this 26th day of October, 1989 by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT: Jeffrey Kelley SIGN VARIANCE NO. 123-1989 PC-IA JOSEPH O'NEILL 632 UPPER GLEN STREET TO KEEP EXISTING "TOYS FOR JOY" SIGN AND RELOCATE 25 FT. TO THE RIGHT;TO ADD "TEMPO FASmONS" WALL SIGN WHERE "TOYS FOR JOY" SIGN WAS AT, AND TO REPLACE "TOYS FOR JOY" PANELS IN PYLON SIGN WITH "TEMPO FASmONS". (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 102-2-4 SEC'I10N: N/A LOT SIZE: 18.86 ACRES ROBERT TATE PRESENT MR. TATE-Rather than request an additional sign for "Tempo Fashions" to be added to the pylon sign out on the road, Toys For Joy will take our existing panels out of that sign and just replace those with the "Tempo Fashions". MRS. GEOTZ-There are certain regulations for a shopping center that don't apply to stores that don't come under that definition. Are you familiar with those? MR. TATE-Three or more stores, and it's supposed to be only one sign out by the road 6 "- '--with the name of the plaza only. ------- MR. TURNER-The wall signs can be up to 100 square feet. It meets this. MR. TATE-We feel with the new business going in, we need to have a way of seeing that by the road. Heading north or south on Glen Street you don't see the building itself until you're right on top of the entrance. MRS. GOETZ-Will all the wall signs coordinate as to material shape, lettering, and color? MR. TATE-As it exists right now, the Price Chopper and Toys For Joy don't match. MRS. COLLARD-I don't consider the bank as a separate business because it's in the one building. MRS. GOETZ-Tempo will have a separate entrance? MR. TATE-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-With wall totally separate from Toys For Joy? MR. TATE-Yes. MR. GOETZ-Because there is that space in between. MR. TATE-The space in between is our entrance into the toys and what we're going to do is ....our normal entrance into the store will be going over 50 ft. and carving out a 50 by 99 area within our existing store and petition it off. MRS. COLLARD-I do consider that a plaza now. MR. MULLER-Price Chopper sign will have to conform to sign variance. Anything that we do here impacts upon Price Chopper. MR. TURNER-Who owns the complex? MR. TATE-Price Chopper. MR. TURNER-You have to sit down with Price Chopper and work out an agreement. MR. MULLER-When do you plan to open the store? MR. TATE-We've got plans being drawn up, but we're really running out of time before Christmas to make the move. In the sense of the pylon signs out front, are we saying that there isn't any way of keeping individual signs out there. MRS. GOETZ-There is by a variance. MR. MULLER-Wouldn't be fair to say that there's no hope to get signs out on the road, but you'd have to show that you're entitled to that. MR. TURNER-Your request puts a burden on Price Chopper by making their sign not conforming. They have to come down 100 sq. ft. MR. SICARD-Toys For Joy should will have to be consulted. MR. MULLER-Size of Price Chopper sign is 200 sq. ft. not taking into account the re1ective fascade. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 123-1989, JOSEPH O'NEILL, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: Table so that the applicant can meet with Price Chopper and resolve the questions regarding the proposed sign for shopping center. Duly adopted this 26th day of October, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Muller, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT: Jeffrey Kelley 7 '-.,-- - -- --~ AREA VARIANCE NO. 124-1989 WR-IA ANNE M. PARROT OFF BIG BAY ROAD TO REMOVE THE PRESENT BUILDING AND CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE F AMIL Y DWELLING ACCORDING TO THE PRESENT BUILDING CODES; IN BASICALLY THE SAME LOCATION. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 144-1-36 &: 37 SECTION 9.010 LOT SIZE: .22 ACRES ANNE PARROT PRESENT MR. SICARD-Is that variance a year old? Miss Parrot-Yes. I didn't realize it ran out September 28th. I called Pat Collard and unfortunately it was a day or two after the filing for a month ago's meeting. So I missed filing and in checking with her it needs to be put in as a new application. It was too late to ask for an extension. MR. SICARD-What is the statute of limitations applying to an extension of a variance- 1 yr. How long does she need to extend that variance? STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. MULLER-In discussing feasible alternatives..... MISS PARROTT-The camp is directly to my south if you're counting the river as west. It is a year round residence. MR. MULLER- Is it that you're going to build something brand new there, but you're going to put on the existing footings? MISS PARROT- No. What I want to do is take the camp that is presently there and I have been told economically that it is illogical to renovate what exists.....economically feasible to build a new structure and have it built to code and sounder building for me and also for the town. MR. MULLER-What's there would be removed? MISS PARROTT-Yes. MR. MULLER-Why do we have to put it 20 ft. from the river? MISS PARROTT-That's where it presently exists and it's where the rest of the other surrounding camps, that's the way it is. MR. MULLER- You're in line with the camps. MISS P ARROTT- Yes. MR. MULLER-When you build brand new, you have to go with a brand new septic system? MISS PARROTT-This is one of the problems I came to as to why I didn't have this done and needed to reapply was through a missunderstanding. My contract I thought it was going to be a new septic system. I came in and filed this because I was going to need a septic variance according to what he thought. I went into the building department and said I don't know what I need to do for a septic variance. In talking with them, they told me I do not need a septic variance for that. And I didn't find that out until the day before the variance ran out. MR. BAKER-In writing my notes, I did talk with the building department, in fact I talked with the Director of Buildings and Codes Enforcement and he told me she would need a septic variance. MISS PARROTT-There were two gentlemen that day that I spoke and they said is the system as it exists functioning and I said yes because I've been staying there myself summers from Mayor June as soon as it warms up because it's not insulated so you can't stay there during the winter. The reason to move the tank is twofold. One, in that, where the existing tank is would be where the structure is going to be existing, but also more realistically, when you're building something new you want to take the tank and replace it so that you're not effecting the water. 8 .... MRS. COLLARD-I don't think Dave was aware of her conversation with Whitney Russell. ,- -.-' ~ MRS. GOETZ-Are you going to put in a basement? MISS P ARROTT-A crawl space. MRS. GOETZ-And what's there now- a slab- it's built on a slab or piers? MISS PARROTT-Yes. Cement blocks. MR. MULLER-Are there any site limitations on the northerly area of your property? MISS PARROTT-There are trees MR. MULLER-So you don't want to cut down the trees? MISS PARROTT-No. MR. MULLER-So your preference would be to limit the clear cutting in there and leave your house on the preexisting site. That's one of your considerations? MISS P ARROTT- Yes. The other consideration is that the property to the south is 100 by 100 and that house is placed basically in the middle of that lot. The property to the north is a 50 by 100 lot, going 50 feet wide and the house is placed very close to that line that's close to me. So it's more to balance it in line with three houses. MR. SICARD-Were you aware of the ordinance change? MISS PARROTT-No. I didn't know until I went to apply. MRS. GOETZ-Read the motion of September 28th, 1989 meeting. MR. MULLER-30 foot relief. What hardship do we impose upon you if we ask you to move back a little bit more than 20 feet? MISS PARROTT-Have to move point. MR. SICARD-Would the septic system have to be moved? MISS PARROTT-No. The leach fields don't have to be moved. The tank would have to be moved and logically we would replace it. MR. SICARD-Did you ever make an application to get town water? MISS PARROTT-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is that even a town road you're on? MISS PARROTT-No. It's a right-of-way. MR. TURNER-Why couldn't you put the well in front of the addition? MRS. EGGLESTON-I was wondering if you could do something about the water, and you're going to rebuild anyways. Your building bigger than what you had before. Why couldn't you go over to the middle of the lot and not violate that one side setback quite as much. MR. MULLER-Read Staff notes. Staff notes suggest year round use of the lot could have an adverse effect on public facilities. It is zoned in an area where year round use is permitted. MR. MULLER-The only thing that has changed is that there is now a 75 foot setback from the river. The applicant does not need a variance to build on this lot because it is a preexisting building lot with deeded right-of-way. It's not on a town road. It's a deeded right-of-way to a town road. MRS. COLLARD-Read Section 7.077 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 9 '- .-- --' CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board Approved M0'I10N TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 124-1989, ANNE M. PARROTT, Introduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: The applicant seeks setback relief from the Hudson River of 55 feet and the house would be 6 feet back from the river. The sideline setback request is 14 feet from the proposed property line. The facts on this application are identical to the previous situation when the variance was granted September 28, 1988. The only thing that has changed is the 75 foot shoreline requirement. The home could not be placed further back on the property than where the request is now. This will be in line with the other existing buildings. No adverse impact shown in the EAF. This variance will also included relief from the zoning ordinance section. 7 .077. The two points that limit our feasible alternatives are the well point is fixed and satisfactory in its flow and the septic system is located in an area where its best situated. Duly adopted this 26th day of October, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: 4- Mr. Muller, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner NOES: Mrs. Eggleston ABSENT: Jeffrey Kelley AREA VARIANCE NO. 125-1989 RR-3A MICHAEL AND MELODY DUTCHER SUNNYSIDE ROAD TO CREATE A LOT WITH LESS THAN THE ALLOWABLE MINIMUM AREA AND WITHOUT FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC ROAD. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 50-1-1 SEC'I10N 7.077, 4.020-C LOT SIZE: 14 ACRES MR. TURNER-You're looking for a lot of relief as opposed to what you want to do with it. This is not really minimum relief. MR. TURNER-Zoning is rural residential - one house - three acre lot. That was rezoned for a basic reason. The reason was - Dream Lake - highly sensitive area. DAN LEWIS- Originally intended to split that 7 acre parcel between our two daughters. They applied for an FHA loan. MRS. DUTCHER-In the future, we can have more property, but to start out with, to build on, we are not allowed to own more than an acre. In the future, he can give us as much as he wants and they can't do anything about it and that's what we intend to do. MRS. GOETZ-I think one thing we have to be concerned with is affordable housing in the Town of Queensbury. Is FHA the only place you can get money at the rate you can afford? MRS. DUTCHER-Yes. In the future, we might not need them and we can go to a bank and drop the Farmer's Home Loan and get a bank loan, but right now, I just had a baby a few months ago and I'm not working right now. MRS. GOETZ-What would the access to this property be? MR. LEWIS-It's a private right-of-way. One parcel is about 5 acres. MR. TURNER-Do you have an easement in the deed? MR. LEWIS-Yes. I have a right-of-way. We're going to have a new survey done this fall to re-establish the lines. Is that something that could be done - have a stipulation in there that later on the 7 acres would be split so they would end up with 3t acres? MR. MULLER-We can't approve your application because you have to show some practical difficulty. Some reason why the zoning ordinance that we have here is posing difficulty for you. In honestly dealing with these facts, it's not the ordinance that's posing the difficulty, it's the federal government, it's the FHA. APPIJCA'I10N WITHDRAWN BY APPIJCANT, OCTOBER, 26, 1989 AREA VARIANCE NO. 126-1989 LI-IA ALFRED J. PELKEY 8 WEST DRIVE FOR ADDITION THT WILL BE LESS THAN THE REQUIRED DISTANCE TO THE SIDE LINE, AND EXPANSION OF A PRE-EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX 10 - MAP NO. 93-3-16 SECTION 4.020 LOT SIZE: 6,600 SQ. FT. EDWARD KARPE PRESENT --- MR. KARPE-The base problem is that presently with 30 foot side yard requirements on 60 foot lot, it doesn't give Mr. Pelkey much leeway. This is an existing foundation that's been in there since 1982. The project was never finished so he's just trying to finish it up. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING NO COMMENT CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board Approved STAFF INPUT Notes by Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (On File) M0'I10N TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 126-1989, ALBERT J. PELKEY, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: The practical difficulty demonstrated is that the foundation was put in in 1982. This is a 60 foot wide lot and zoning ordinance has created the hardship by making the size of the requirement 30 feet. This is a relief of 18 feet. The relief will be on the south side. Short EAF form shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 26th day of October, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT: Jeffrey Kelley AREA VARIANCE NO. 127-1989 SR-IA FRANCIS A. PURRITANO, SR. LOT 58, TYNESWOOD ESTATES CORNER OF MOHAWK AND TOMMOHAWK ROADS FOR AN ADDITION OF AN 8 FT. BY 10 FT. DECK THAT WILL BE 18 FT. FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. SECTION 4.020-G TAX MAP NO. 121-8-58 LOT SIZE: 23,462 SQ. FT. ALBERT BEAUREGARD, AGENT PRESENT MRS. GOETZ- Are you the builder? MR. BEA UREGARD- Yes. MRS. GOETZ-It's not sold? MRS. EGGLESTON-Why could it not be a 6 foot by 10 foot and meet the setback requirements instead of the 8 foot by 10 foot? MR. BEAUREGARD-It would be hard to sell with a 6 foot deck. MRS. GOETZ-The lot behind you is for sale, right? MR. BEAUREGARD-The lot behind me is owned by his son. MRS. GOETZ-Now, but he could sell it. MR. BEAUREGARD-Right. MRS. GOETZ-You don't want to come to close to somebody that might build there. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 11 ( " \.. --- .;/ ---.-/ CORRESPONDENCE None STAFF INPUT Notes from Stuart Baker, Assistant Planner (On File) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 127-1989, FRANCIS A. PURRITANO, SR., Introduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston This is an application for an 8 ft. by 10 ft. deck. The size is not an extraordinary size deck. There are other alternatives such as requiring the shifting of the deck. This request is reasonable and is not going to change the neighborhood character. The minimum relief of 2 ft. and its well buffered. Duly adopted this 26th day of October, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Muller, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT: Jeffrey Kelley On motion the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 12