Loading...
1997-06-04 SP /"\ FilE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 4, 1997 INDEX APPEALS Area Variance No. 29-1997 Tax Map No. 40-1-31 Kevin Dineen 1. Area Variance No. 23-1997 Tax Map No. 60-1-7.6 Louis LaRock 3. 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. ." ~,t '- -../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/4/97) QUE ENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 4, 1997 4:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY LEWIS STONE PAUL HAYES ROBERT KARPELES MEMBERS ABSENT BRIAN CUSTER PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-1997 TYPE II WR-1A/CEA KEVIN DINEEN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE THIRD HOUSE FROM END OF BIRDSALL ROAD, OFF OF ROUND POND ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW ROOF AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DECK. THE NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIRED SHORELINE SETBACKS CONTAINED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SHORELINE SETBACKS CONTAINED IN SECTION 179 -16, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE, AND SECTION 179- 60B,l,C. TAX MAP NO. 40-1-31 LOT SIZE: 0.75 ACRES SECTION 179- 16, 179-60B,1,C KEVIN DINEEN, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-I did leave the meeting open, and if the secretary would read the tabling motion into the record. MRS. LAPHAM-"Motion to table Area Variance No. 29-1997 Kevin Dineen, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Until Wednesday, June 4th at 4 pm for continuation of the public hearing and decision. Duly adopted this 28th day of May, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE" MR. THOMAS-All right. Having read that and the public mailings were made, the 500 foot notices? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. THOMAS-All right. The public hearing is still open. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of? Opposed to? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-No new correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No, no correspondence at all. MR. THOMAS-I'll now close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant, Mr. Dineen? All right. I'll start with Bonnie. What do you think? MRS. LAPHAM- I think it'll be a nice addition. It's tastefully - 1 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/4/97) planned and done. It's not going to ruin anybody's view. The whole house is a little close to the lake. There isn't much you can do about that. So I don't really have a problem with it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. KARPELES-I have no objection to it. MR. THOMAS-Lou? MR. STONE-I have no objection also. MR. THOMAS-Jaime? MR. HAYES-No problems. MR. THOMAS-I don't have any objections either because the building is not going toward the water. It's going away from the water. The only thing I would like to see is some kind of stormwater drainage so that the water coming off the roof, off the new roof, does not run directly into the lake. That would be diverted back away from the lake. That's the only problem I can see, and that's usually standard for anything around the lake like this, is stormwater management, you know, just do it with gutters and drain it back into the hill there somewhere, into a drywell or something. Any problems with that, Kevin? MR. DINEEN-No. That's easy. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions? If not, would someone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-1997 KEVIN DINEEN, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: Birdsall Road on Glen Lake. The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing deck. The new construction will consist of a new roof to be built over a portion of the deck, as well as the extension of the deck to the south along the home on the property. The new roof and addition will not meet the required shoreline setback to the WR-1A zone. In granting this variance, we recognize that relief will allow the applicant to build a deck and roof enclosure which could be accessed from the house on the property. There also appears that alternatives are limited because of the location of the home and deck which already exist on this property and are in violation of the existing zoning requirements. The relief being granted is fairly substantial in that the roof will be built 11 feet back from the shoreline, and the new deck construction will be setback approximately 17 feet from the house. At that point, the shoreline setback is supposed to be 50 feet. Therefore, the new roof would require 39 feet of shoreline relief, and the new deck would require 33 feet of relief. This new construction on top of an already built deck would not have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood and, yes, this difficulty is self created, but only because the house and existing deck are already built with a nonconforming shoreline setback in accordance with, it was built on the original footprint, therefore it was a pre-existing, nonconforming use. The granting of this variance would stipulate that adequate stormwater runoff be built into the new construction so that the water drains as far back on the property as it can from the roof line. Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE - 2 - ',,-- -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/4/97) ABSENT: Mr. Custer MR. THOMAS-There you go. You're all set. MR. DINEEN-Thank you. Could I get a copy of the variance? MR. THOMAS-Well, just get, it doesn't have to go before the Planning Board, does it? MR. HILTON-No. We'll send you a resolution, probably, in the mail. MR. DINEEN-Okay. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-1997 TYPE II SR-1A LOUIS LAROCK OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CRONIN ROAD, SECOND HOUSE WEST OF INTERSECTION WITH MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WHICH DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK IN THE SR-1A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE FRONT YARD SETBACK LISTED IN SECTION 179-19, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 60-1-7.6 LOT SIZE: 0.57 ACRES SECTION 179-19 JOHN POHL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT, LOUIS LAROCK, PRESENT MRS. LAPHAM-I'll just read the tabling motion. MR. THOMAS-Yes, I need the tabling motion read. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Variance No. 23-1997, tabled on May 21, 1997 Motion to table Area Variance No. 23-1997 Louis LaRock, Introduced By Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Until the first meeting in June, June 18th, for further information and clarification from the applicant and from the Building Department, Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 21st day of May, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE" MR. THOMAS-We also got a letter dated today from John Goralski, regarding this variance. Would you read that in. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. Okay. "To the Zoning Board of Appeals, from John Goralski RE: LaRock Area Variance June 4, 1997 Per our discussion, I have checked into the limit of clearing that is indicated on the plan submitted by the applicant. The line shown on the applicants plan is an accurate depiction of the limit of clearing that was approved both by the Town Board during the rezoning process and by the Planning Board during subdivision review. This line graphically represents the 100' buffer zone required under the Fresh Water Wetlands Act. Over the past week I have had a couple of conversations with the adjacent property owner and she has indicated that she has no objection to the location of the house. As I indicated to you previously, the staff of the Community Development Department makes every effort to make builders and property owners aware of all of the zoning requirements regarding a particular project. However, the responsibility for compliance with the ordinance is the contractors. That being said, I would like to make a couple of observations regarding this project. First, I do not think Mr. LaRock purposely violated the setback requirement. The house was located based on the setback from the road and not the setback from the property line. Second, the pavement of Cronin Road is located on the south side of the right-of-way. Finally, the tree line that exists on the site today, is consistent with the approved limit of clearing. No more trees can be removed in the rear of the house. JG/pw" MR. THOMAS-Okay, and that was from the Executive Director of Community Development, I guess his title is. - 3 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/4/97) MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. He doesn't give his title here. MR. THOMAS-All right. The public hearing is still open. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of? Opposed to? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Any new correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. POHL-Mr. Chairman, I just had a few additional comments. At our last meeting, I think you had requested information from the Building Department regarding what happened from their standpoint, and I understand that, Mr. Hilton advised me that information has been provided. I had a brief chance to review it. He was nice enough to fax me a copy of it, and I would just like to supplement our prior presentation with just a couple of additional remarks if I could. I wanted to preface my remarks by saying that I don't wish to offer any of these as an excuse for what happened, but as additional information for the Board to consider. The first thing would be that the house which adjoins this property, that's owned by Mr. MacDonald, is much closer to the road than this property, and although that piece of property pre-dates any zoning, it would clearly not be in compliance with the setback. Accordingly, the house that's under consideration here, as it sits on that piece of property, doesn't look out of place, because it is further away from the road than the adjoining house, and due to the strange configuration of Cronin Road in that area and the right-of-way, as was pointed out, I believe you could actually construct the house on the property opposite this, and that would be closer to the road and still be in compliance with the setback than the house that's under consideration. In other words, I think that in the notes that I saw, it said the property line went right up to the road line on the other side, because of the way the right-of-way, the road is on the extreme south side of the right-of-way. I believe the property here is 36 feet. My point is that the property here is 36 feet, I believe, from the road, whereas on the opposite side of the road, you could have a house in compliance that could be 30 feet. I wanted to re-emphasize, again, my client's attempt to work with the Building Department throughout this process, again, not using it as an excuse, but it is a unique piece of property. It's in a filed subdivision. It's unique due to the restrictions placed on building by the DEC no build line in the back, which I believe you now have information, I believe that was another question that the Board had the last time. The maximum size footprint, exclusive of the garage on this piece of property, not only by the adoption of the zoning Ordinance, but by the declarations, 900 square feet, with an additional 600 square feet allowed for garage. My client's structure, as the application points out, is approximately 1250 square feet. Again, my point is that he didn't build a house that was way out of proportion to the lot. He made a mistake, and Mr. LaRock has built over 40 homes in various municipalities and locations, never had a problem of this nature. One of the reasons for setbacks is to permit, one of the reasons, is to permit roads to be widened, perhaps at a later date. I would point out to the Board that Cronin Road, as I've seen on prior maps, and I'm sure the Building Department used to be located well to the south of where it's present location is. So the possibility of it being moved again is remote, albeit not existent, I think, at this point. Additionally, prior to this meeting, I had asked my client to run a print out of his expenses to date for this structure, and I'd like to submit to the Board his expenditures to date, which approximate $61,000. I will also add that even if this variance is granted, we are going to have to make allowances to the buyer due to the bank commitments that had to be postponed and additional - 4 - ,-," '-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/4/97) closing expenses that she is going to incur, that we will have to reimburse her for, if this variance is granted. I saw some additional comments in that report that indicated something about perhaps moving the house, somethin~ like th~t. ~ would add, this house, due to the wet location, th~s house ~s bu~lt on a slab and is not movable in my judgement. I'm not a contractor, but I don't see how this house can be moved. I am advised that it is not something that's movable, lastly, as part of our presentation, I would ask Bruce Jordan, who is an attorney in Glens Falls, who represents the prospective purchaser of this property, and I would ask that he be permitted to address the Board briefly, and just before Bruce, I would also say that I've reviewed the legal requirements for granting of an Area Variance, and I believe, on balance, I believe that we would qualify for, we would meet the legal criteria for the granting of an Area Variance. One condition, admittedly, that is not determined, in and of itself, would be the self-created issue. That's one of the factors, and the fact that something is self-created is, in and of itself, not grounds to deny an Area Variance. That being said, I'd ask if Bruce would like to make a couple of comments on behalf of the prospective purchaser of the property. BRUCE JORDAN MR. JORDAN-Good afternoon, members of the Board. My name is Bruce Jordan, and I'm here, I guess, in a couple of capacities. I represent the lenders providing the mortgage proceeds in connection with this contract of sale, which was scheduled to close on April 28th. We had requested a survey, not only for the title issues, but also for the purposes of compliance with the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy as done in the Town of Queensbury, and the issue became pretty evident that we had a setback problem. Through some efforts with the lender, I have been able to keep the mortgage commitment a little longer, though not preserve the rate lock and what Mr. pohl was talking about was certain financial concessions that his client is going to have to make up if, in fact, we're able to proceed. I think, on behalf of the big picture here, that it's unfortunate that this sort of thing occurred. It's not the kind of application that ZBA's typically like to hear about. No question about that. I've done enough of this zoning work to know what the disposition of a Board is in this kind of a situation. However, I think what's particularly significant in this case is Mr. Goralski's evaluation on a couple of accounts. Number One, that this applicant made a mistake, an unintentional mistake. He didn't try to take advantage of a situation and come in here and have you people bail him out. I think if the assessment were a little different, I think if the assessment by Mr. Goralski's part was, you know, this guy threw caution to the wind and deliberately and knowingly placed this building beyond the permissible setback limitations, that that would be a horse of quite a different color. I don't see that situation here at all. Secondly, his comments about the reaction of the immediate neighbor I think is certainly relevant because if this were, in fact, an issue that created a negative impact upon the neighborhood, certainly this particular neighbor being immediately adjacent is someone who would be the most likely to express some concern about it. I also understand that in the public hearings there were no objections raised, or so I've heard. I, unfortunately, was out of town and was not able to attend the public hearing itself. The only final comment I guess I have is that my understanding of this kind of work that you're all, I think all still volunteering to undertake, the way the Board is set up, is there are situations in the use and development of properties, that trigger problems, under the existing provisions of any applicable Zoning Ordinance, and there are times when you're required to interpret an ordinance and there are times when you are required to entertain an application for relief from the express letter of the variance, as you did with Mr. Dineen's project here a moment ago, and what strikes me as difficult about this - 5 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/4/97) particular situation is if what I said is correct, that Mr. Goralski's evaluation is accurate, that this gentleman did not willfully undertake to violate this, or recklessly undertake to violate this Ordinance. Then I guess the next phase of the inquiry becomes, what, in fact, are we going to do with this property, what is Mr. LaRock going to do with his property, if, in fact, the variance is denied, because we have a house which was permitted, reviewed, inspected several times by the Town of Queensbury, and I'm not saying that it's their fault, but I am saying that this is something that everybody looked at, and everybody misjudged, and now if we tell this gentleman that, get the bulldozers out and knock this house down, that seems to me to be a very almost draconian attitude on the part of a municipality in a situation like this. As Mr. Pohl has indicated, lets assume that Mr. LaRock, instead of being here today, lets back the clock up six, eight months, or whenever he started construction, he got our buddy Lee Steves in. Lee Steves goes out and says, here's your footprint, pal. That's where you can build. I would submit to you, if this map is accurate that I have in front of me, that's been submitted to you, that it would have been extremely difficult in any event to locate a structure of any meaningful size that would comply with the circumscribed limits that you have to work with. So it seems to me that Mr. LaRock's request, under those circumstances, and in light of the location of the paved area of the road within the right-of-way, shifted as it is to the south, is seeking a relatively minor, from an impact point of view, Area Variance, when you look at it in the big picture. That's about all I have to add to the remarks you've already heard. MR. THOMAS-Any questions for Mr. Jordan? MR. STONE-Well, just a general question. If this road were right in the center of the three roads, the dedicated road is 49 and a half feet, that means from the center of the road to the edge of the right-of-way would have been 24 and three quarter's feet. Is this further than the edge of the road that Mr. LaRock used to measure? When he says the edge of the road, I should say, what does he mean? The edge of the paved area or the edge of the actual right-of-way, assuming that the middle of the right-of-way went down the middle of the road? MR. JORDAN-I don't know the answer to that question, personally, because I've not discussed that with him. MR. STONE-Is that a valid question, George? If the road were set in the middle of the three rods, right smack in the middle. You've got 24 and three quarter's feet from the center line to the edge of the right-of-way, which is probably more than the edge of the pavement, and I thought I heard Mr. LaRock say, last week, that he measured from the edge of the pavement. MR. HILTON-My understanding is that he did measure from the edge of existinq pavement to where the house is now. That's mY understanding. MR. STONE-So that would have been, probably, even if it had been in the middle, he would have been in violation. MR. LAROCK-Well, if it had been in the middle, it would have been 10 feet more to my favor. MR. STONE-Ten feet more, but it still would have been in violation of the 30 foot setback. MR. LAROCK-Yes. I'm guessing 10 feet. MR. STONE-And the lane width is probably 12 feet. I don't know what the lane width is there, the paved width, so there's still - 6 - '--- ~/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/4/97) another 10, 12 feet that is part of the roadway, but not paved. So there's a concern that, even, by measuring from the edge of the roadway, we made certain assumptions which ~re not usually true. They don't usually pave to the edge of the r~ght-of-way. MR. JORDAN-Well, I think there's no question that an error was made. MR. STONE-I'm just saying the error would have been made, the error was doubly made, is what I'm trying to, at least in my mind, I'm seeing it. MR. JORDAN-I agree with that statement. I also agree that the Town of Queensbury's people made the same error, or they would have pointed it out to the gentleman at the time. If it was that, wait a minute, you're not even close to placing this house correctly, guys like Goralski and the rest of the boys who do this stuff every day, have a pretty good eye for that kind of thing. If it was that obvious, and if you drive by the property, and, you know, if I'm saying too much here, close me down, but I mean, the reality of it is, when you drive by that property, you don't get the impression, well, I don't know about YOU, personally. I certainly don't get the impression, from a casual observation, my God, that house is too close to the road. It's not the impression one gets, even though an error was clearly made. MR. STONE-I would not argue with that. That's not the issue that we're facing, but I would agree with that statement. I have another question, Chris. It says in the site development data, maximum sized building allowed, 900 square feet, and it says building area 1248. MR. POHL-I tried to explain that. You've got another 600 for the garage. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. POHL-That's one of the points I was trying to make. It's not as if he built the Taj Mahal on a postage stamp here, because, in fact, I met with Leon Steves and he was showing me the map, and I said, Leon, what kind of a house could you have built in here, and we didn't get around to measuring it in any detail, but if you remember the map, the house would have had to have been jutted up on the, toward the easterly side of the property here, and on, you know, he was measuring it out, and he said, gee, that's only 725 square feet. I don't think you could have gotten a house, because he had one like scoped on here, some copy of a map he had, and I don't think that house that he had on his map would meet the minimum footprint requirement for the building. This is really, when you look at that map and then look at the area where you can actually build on it, I mean, it was, I don't want to say it was tailor made for a mistake of this kind, but it had enough with that 100 foot barrier, no build line in the back, and the location of the road, again, these aren't excuses, but these things happen, and anyway. MR. HAYES-I have a question for Mr. LaRock. At the previous meeting, Mr. Goralski indicated that he had spoken at some point before the house was finished that he thought that the house was too close to the property line, and that he didn't speak to you, but he had spoken to one of your workers. At this time, are you acknowledging that? MR. LAROCK-When my foundation was completed, ready to pour the concrete cap, they had stopped the proj ect for a week and the Building Inspector informed me that I needed a survey for a floodplain elevation. We stopped the job for a week. We got our survey. That was the only mention of survey at that time. After - 7 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/4/97) the project was completed, I applied for a CO, and he came in. He inspected a few things. He said, well, you've got a spot up here on the firewall that needs a little tape, and he said you need another survey, and that was when I was requested to have another survey, and when I went to the Building Department and brought him that, he turned around and said to another guy, I'm not sure who the guy was, you were supposed to go see Mr. LaRock. I didn't. I was never asked about it until then, and another thing I'd like to say, from Day One, when I first got my building permit, I applied for a 970 square foot home with a 400 foot garage. Gave them my $157, went down and staked the property out. They had two weeks to go down and look at the property, come back and tell me you can't build a house that size. Cut it down to 36 foot, move your stakes, come back in two weeks and get your permit. I went down and moved my stakes. MR. HAYES-They told you to move your stakes? MR. LAROCK-Yes, back to a different house size. another set of prints drawn up. I had to get MR. STONE-This was from squeezing it from a longer road, I mean, parallel to the road? MR. LAROCK-No, a smaller house to apply for the 900 foot maximum that they set. MR. STONE-No, but which way did they ask you to move it? MR. LAROCK-They didn't. MR. STONE-They said? MR. LAROCK-Make it smaller. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAROCK-So, I had a new set of blueprints made, went in, re- staked the property, two more weeks, everybody was supposed to go look at that and approve it. They approved it. I got my building permit, and that's where we built the house. It's not that I did it to say, well, to heck with everybody. I did it thinking, when somebody said, build this house 30 feet from the road line. I built it 30 feet from what I call the road line. He was calling a road line a setback line. The bottom line is it was a mistake. We both made a mistake. MR. HAYES-I understand. recollection, George? Is the two week delay, is that to your MR. HILTON-To tell you the truth, I really had no input in review of the building permit or inspections or anything. I don't know if there was a delay. I don't know if that's customary. I can't speak to that. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone else have any questions? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. I'm just curious about the finances. Without going through the entire thing, because there seems to be pages and pages here, $60,448.12 is what you have in the house, your labor, all the expenses you've gotten so far? MR. LAROCK-Yes. Part of that expense is the house is hooked up to City water and City gas, City sewer. MR. THOMAS-Anyone else? Is there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. There wasn't any old correspondence. - 8 - '----' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/4/97) MR. THOMAS-Okay. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant and his agent or agents? If not, we'll start the discussion phase of this. Start with Lou. MR. STONE-I've been on the ZBA for nine months now, I guess, and one of the things that I have brought to this Board, as far as I'm concerned, is a healthy concern for variance granted after the fact. I have been on record on a number of occasions. Nothing as big as this. This is certainly a very different thing, where I have said no, because I feel very strongly that we have procedures in place, and we have zoning laws, we have all of the review processes that are important, and I think that these rules should be followed, particularly by a builder. Any time, one of the ones we've looked at are people who have just made small additions to their property or something along that line. Having said that, there is no doubt that this was an honest mistake. There's not a question in my mind that you did something that you didn't want to, that you were trying to get around with the zoning. I agree with Bruce Jordan in that, if you drive on Cronin Road, if that's, in fact, where the road is going to be for a number of decades, that it certainly does not intrude on line of site. I does not look like it's too close to the road, and certainly I am a very strong defender of wetlands and incursions on them. Nature put them there. I wish we'd leave more of them alone, quite frankly. I think, reluctantly, when we get to a vote, that I would probably vote in favor of granting the variance, and it's very reluctant, because as I said last week, I'm not amused when I see these things, but outside of making you tear down and suffering a $60,000 plus loss, $60,000 out of pocket, plus whatever profits you were going to make. Hopefully there'll be some profit, once you get all done with this thing. In spite of my intentions when I came to this meeting, I'd be willing to vote for the variance. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, Mr. Stone has spoken very eloquently about what we're charged with on the Zoning Board, and I agree with, really, everything he said, and I, too, in my opinion, would focus on the fact that I truly believe that the applicant is coming to us with clean hands. I think it was an honest mistake. I don't think that he at all intended to circumvent the integrity of our zoning laws or this Board, and there's a lot of mitigating circumstances, including Mr. Goralski's letter. I think that there's several things that he points out in that letter that are germain and being that anything other than a, I agree with Mr. Jordan that it would be rather draconian to vote to have Mr. LaRock suffer a complete full setback on the proj ect . So I'm inclined to vote for the variance, under these circumstances, reluctantly. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, they've pretty much said what I think. Yes, after the fact is always annoying, but I am very reluctant to ask someone to tear down a $60,000 investment when particularly if he had come before the Board before he started, I probably would have granted the variance, at that time, because I don't feel you can deprive people of use of their property, and there's such a limited area on which you can put that house, that if we didn't grant a variance before, the project wouldn't have even been started, but since I voted for it before, I really can't say that I wouldn't vote yes for it now. MR. THOMAS-Bob? - 9 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/4/97) MR. KARPELES-Yes. This is one of those things that you hate yourself no matter which way you vote. I feel that the final thing is, you go out there and you look at it, and it really doesn't look out of place. It doesn't look too close to the road, and I agree with the rest of the Board, I hate to get these things, but I think that it is not that objectionable. I think I could vote for it. MR. THOMAS-All right. I have one question that just popped up. On the prints you submitted, you said that the existing house is 15.75 feet back from the front property line, and I measured it. I see it as 12.75 for the corner of the porch, which is part of the structure. So that would be the closest point, and I scaled it off at 12.75, or three feet closer than what you have stated. MR. POHL-I see, the corner is 15.75. You think the porch is. MR. THOMAS-The corner of the porch is the closest, I would say measured 12.75, three feet closer. Would you concede that? MR. POHL-It could be, yes. I'm not qualified to measure it, but it looks about right. MR. STONE-I would agree it's closer, but I'm not sure it's three feet, but it's certainly closer, yes. MR. JORDAN-Mr. Chairman, are you concerned about how you would address that issue in a motion? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. JORDAN-My suggestion would be that you read into your record this particular map by David J. Bolster, dated such and such a date last revised, and the setbacks from the respective southwest and southeast corners of the dwelling as shown, inclusive of the porch, is reflected on the map, and then you've got it locked into your record, and you don't have to be concerned about scaling or not scaling. MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, we have to give a number, okay. MR. JORDAN-Well, you've got numbers for the corners. MR. THOMAS-Yes, for the corners, but we want it from the porch, too. We have to have the closest point to the property line. It's a 30 scale. I come up with 13.5. MR. STONE-I'd go with that. MR. THOMAS -All right. That's not to belabor the point or anything. I agree with the rest of the Board members. I think that Mr. LaRock made an honest mistake, and as Mr. pohl pointed out that a house built on the opposite side of the street would only be 30 feet back from the pavement, since the road does crowd to the south side of the right-of-way. So this house here being 36 feet from the pavement would look even farther away, and I don't see that road being re-aligned, because any re-alignment to the north would put a sharper curve in there than there already is. So I do believe that road will stay right where it is, and as Mr. pohl pointed out, in the balancing test for us, the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment of the health, safety and welfare of communi ty, no one has spoken opposed to this. There seems to be no heal th problems, and the welfare of the community seems to be protected on this. So I would say that to go with the benefit of the applicant is the way to go. We do have the original plot plan as approved by the Town Board in March of 1995, and it does show a house in there, and it does show the setback lines on this print. Why this print wasn't used by the applicant to put the house in, I don't know, but as I've said before, I think it was an honest - 10 - "-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/4/97) mistake, and I think it's a benefit to the- applicant that we approve this variance. Having said that, would anyone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-1997 LOUIS LAROCK, Introduced by Bonnie Lapham who moved for its 'adoption, seconded by Jaime Hayes: Cronin Road. The applicant has constructed a single family home which does not meet the required yard setback. The existing front yard setback in this location is 13.5 feet. The required front yard setback is 30 feet. The benefit to the applicant, it would allow him to obtain a CO for his dwelling and sell it. The feasible alternatives are extremely limited because the building is already constructed and there is a wetlands buffer line, and the applicant is seeking 16.5 feet of front yard relief. There appears to be no negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood, and the need for relief is due to the fact that the home was constructed by the owner of the nonconforming setback due to an honest series of errors. SEQRA is Type II. There's no further action required. Duly adopted this 4th day of June, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Custer MR. THOMAS-We don't want to see you here again for this, Mr. LaRock. Next time we might not have such a kind Board. MR. LAROCK-I guarantee you won't, and I want to thank the Board. MR. THOMAS-You're quite welcome. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman - 11 -