1991-05-15
-
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MAY 15TH, 1991
INDEX
Area Variance No. 31-1991
Scott A. Spellburg
Judy L. Spellburg
1.
Area Variance No. 34-1991
Cynthia J. Guardiola
6.
Area Variance No. 35-1991
Judith Perry Provost
8.
Area Variance No. 36-1991
Terry R. Hoffner
17.
Area Variance No. 37-1991
Margaret and Theodore M. Hans
18.
Use Variance No. 38-1991
Frank Brenneisen, Sr.
24.
Area Variance No. 39-1991
Judith and Frank Bartkowski
31.
Area Variance No. 40-1991
John P. Matthews
35.
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.
--
QUEENSIIJRY lOllING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MAY 15TH, 1991
7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN
SUSAN GOETZ. SECRETARY
JOYCE EGGLESTON
MICHAEL SHEA
CHARLES SICARD
JEFFREY KELLEY
BRUCE CARR
DEPUTY TOlIN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT CRAYFORD
PLANNER-JOHN GORALSKI
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD IIJSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-1991 TYPE II lIR-lA SCOTT A. SPELLIIJRG JUDY L. SPELLIIJRG (illER: SAME AS ABOVE
HALL ROAD, GLEN LAKE FOR MODIFICATION OF DECK. DECK WILL BE 2 FEET FROM THE DUELL PROPERTY AND 24
FEET FROM GLEN LAKE. THE RE~IREMENTS ARE; SIDE YARDS - A MINIKlM OF 20 FEET AND SHORELINE SETBACK
75 FEET. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 45-3-24 LOT SIZE: 10,500 SQ. FT. SECTION 7.012-3
I 4.02Q-D
SCOTT SPELLBURG, PRESENT
MRS. GOETZ-This was tabled last month. There was just additional information that we needed to have?
MR. GORALSKI-No. That was tabled so that the Planning Board could do the SEQRA Review.
MRS. GOETZ-Okay. All right. So this is the motion in here. "Motion to send to the Planning Board
Area Variance No. 31-1991 Scott A. Spell burg Judy L. Spellburg and make the Planning Board the Lead
Agency under the SEQRA Regulations".
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 31-1991. Scott A. and Judy L. Spell burg.
May 9. 1991. Meeting Date: May 15. 1991, "The Spell burgs want to construct a deck on their property
at Glen Lake. The 8 foot deck would be 24± feet from Glen Lake. The 4 foot deck on the north side
would be 2 feet from the side property line. The application states that an existing porch and stairs
were removed and that the decks would replace them. The lot is ±J;¡ acre in a designated critical
environmental area. This application was reviewed with the reference to the Area Variance criteria.
1. Are there special conditions applying to this property or building, and not applying generally
to other properties or buildings in the neighborhood? No. This property is similar to others in the
neighborhood. It has been upgraded while some others are still seasonal camps, but the lot and
topography are similar to those residences around it. 2. Would strict application of the provisions
of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings? The applicant
currently 1 ives in the structure. Access to the front of the structure is impossibl e because of the
lack of stairs and a landing. The house is designed with glass doors on the front so deck access was
anticipated. Unless some form of access is provided, the front entrance of the house is unusable.
3. Woul d the stri ct appli cati on of the provi si ons of thi s Ordi nance deprive the appli cant of the
reasonable use of the land or buildings? Yes. The applicant would not have a front entrance to the
house. 4. Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance or to
property in the district? The construction of a deck which has spaced boards would not increase the
impermeable area. Visually it would not be obtrusive from the lake nor would it decrease the neighbors
visibility. 5. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical
difficulty? The applicants practical difficulty is access to the front doors. The Board may want
to consider if an 8 foot front deck is the minimum relief. A smaller deck would alleviate the practical
difficulty. The Board may want to review the necessity for the side deck which is 2 feet from the
property line. A ±268 square foot deck on a house and lot of this size may be greater than minimum
relief."
MR. GORALSKI-The Planning Board did review the SEQRA. gave a negative declaration. and they also approved
the site plan, contingent on the variances being received.
MR. TURNER-Scott, can we diminish the size of that deck in the front a little bit?
1
--
--
MR. SPELLBURG-I would prefer not to. There's no doubt about it. It's not only the fact that it's
the size for minimum relief. I would also like some practicality out of it, you know, a picnic, view
of the lake. put a table out there and have dinners out there.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. SPELLBURG-And as far as encroaching on the lake. like I was saying before, my stairway. which isn't
shown on my map. came even closer to the lake than my deck that's going to be built now.
MR. TURNER-Yes. I drew it in on mine.
MR. SPELLBURG-It probably ran another, 5. 6 feet.
MR. TURNER-Your current setback on the shoreline is 32 and it remains at 32, according to this, okay.
MR. SPELLBURG-Right. The original deck and stairs doesn't show up there, but it ran out probably 16
feet versus the 8.
MR. TURNER-So as far as the side goes, on the side is access to sidewalk. It goes around the side
of the house and that will be your stairway to the ramp?
MR. SPELLBURG-I didn't hear you.
MR. TURNER-On the side, here, is this your access to the ramp and to that sidewalk that's on the side
of the house?
MR. SPELLBURG-Yes.
MR. TURNER-There'd be no stairs?
MR. SPELLBURG-Right. The stairs were below it. instead of going to the deck.
MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. Anyone else, a question?
MR. KELLEY-Scott, what was the width of your property?
MR. SPELLBURG-Fifty feet. All the properties down through there are 50 feet.
MR. KELLEY-Okay. So if that deck across the front is 28 feet and you've got two feet on, I guess it
would be the north side, the right side if you stood in the back, you ought to have 20 feet on your
left side or the south side. I guess I'd call it.
MR. SPELLBURG-Right.
MR. KELLEY-Okay.
MR. SPELLBURG-I know. everything seems to run off to that one side. The next neighbors house does.
All their entrances are on the close side. All the houses were previously built to those tight lines.
MR. TURNER-Yes. Their house is pretty close to your line.
MR. SPELLBURG-Yes, and then the next neighbors house runs over to the other line, because the property
lines themselves don't run straight and the houses don't sit straight with the property line. They
sit straight with the lake versus the property line. I think I mentioned before, there was a set of
stairs that ran down, no wider than what I'm putting in the air. I'm just going to pick them up off
the ground and go to the deck with them.
MR. KELLEY-Okay. In other words, you're saying you just went down along the side of the house to get
you to the front yard.
MR. SPELLBURG-Right.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. SPELLBURG-Where this way I'd like to just come out onto the deck instead of replacing the stairs.
MR. KELLEY-Did you say you were going to have stairs from the deck down in the front or not?
MR. SPELLBURG-No.
MR. TURNER-No.
2
MR. SPELLBURG-Like I said, it wasn't mentioned. but there's also third entrance to the house. It's
not like these are the only two entrances to the house. That was an entrance to stairs that went down
to the lake. a small porch entered to the lake. There's also an entrance below the deck. So it wouldn't
be like I'd be eliminating an entrance completely.
MR. KELLEY-But you're not going to have steps out the front or built into the deck going down?
MR. SPELLBURG-No stairs, no. Just a wrap around back to the door.
MR. KELLEY-Okay. So if you wanted to get in the front yard, you'd either have to go around the side
and go all the way around, or go in the house and then somehow go through the house to come out down
on the ground level.
MR. SPELLBURG-Yes. The object of the deck would not be access to the lake.
MR. KELLEY-Okay.
MR. SPELLBURG-It would be access to the view of the lake and what was there.
MR. KELLEY-What's the square footage of your existing house? It's 24 by something, right?
MR. SPELLBURG-It's 24 and then there's a small extension in one corner.
MR. TURNER-Five hundred and seventy six square feet I think, Jeff.
MR. KELLEY-It's on there some place, right?
MR. TURNER-Yes. It's on the sheet.
MR. KELLEY-Is the basement finished off?
MR. SPELLBURG-Two thirds.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Is that road that goes into your section maintained by the Town?
MR. SPELLBURG-Did you drive up in through there?
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. SPELLBURG-Only to the beginning of the driveway, where it goes up the hill, the knoll. right to
there.
MRS. EGGLESTON-And from there in that's a private, that's your private driveway?
MR. SPELLBURG-Yes. They're private driveways.
MR. KELLEY-Do you plan to put, like, a picnic table out there or some kind of a table, because you
talked about eating out there.
MR. SPELLBURG-Yes. I'd like a full patio set. It's a beautiful view. Plus you're up in the air,
you're elevated on the property. Like I say, just shortening it up to six feet would make it tough
to put something out on there. as far as a picnic table and your gas grill.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-Right.
MR. TURNER-You're going to maintain the same setback, the old versus the new, 32 and 32. That's what
he's got here on his sheet. That's not right. He's going to maintain 24 feet from the deck to the
shoreline.
MR. KELLEY-Yes, because this says the proposed deck could be within 26 feet of the lake.
MR. TURNER-Yes. Right.
MR. SPELLBURG-A coupl e of spots are different through thei r papers. One says 26. The next one will
say 24.
MR. TURNER-You've got to go by the map. here. It's 24. He's got 24.
MR. SPELLBURG-It'll be 24.
3
---
MR. KELLEY-I'll ask you some more questions about the house. Could you just tell me what's on the
main floor of the house, in terms of rooms.
MR. SPELLBURG-Right on the front where my deck is going to come out, you're going to see my living
room and my dining room joined right in the center.
MR. KELLEY-Does it go all the way across?
MR. SPELLBURG-It splits right in the center. Part's living room and part's dining room.
MR. KELLEY-Yes. and what else is on that floor?
MR. SPELLBURG-The kitchen and the bath.
MR. KELLEY-Okay, and bedrooms are downstairs, then?
MR. SPELLBURG-One bedroom is downstairs. Hopefully, this isn't the stop of it either. I also want
to put an addition on, eventually. down the road somewhere.
MR. KELLEY-Off the back?
MR. SPELLBURG-Off the back. I figured we'd cross one bridge at a time, here.
MR. KELLEY-Okay. On this upper level. you've got the patio door's out the lake side?
MR. SPELLBURG-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-All right, and wasn't there an entrance door on the right side, was it?
MR. SPELLBURG-Down below it. kitty corner.
MR. KELLEY-On the same level. though?
MR. SPELLBURG-No. Well, you lost me, here.
MR. KELLEY-All right. Here, if you walk down these stairs. is there a door here?
MR. SPELLBURG-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-All right. and then you've got these here.
MR. SPELLBURG-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-Was there any others up on this upper level?
MR. SPELLBURG-No.
MR. KELLEY-Okay. So, if you didn't have this. you'd only have the one entrance to that whole upstairs.
MR. SPELLBURG-To the upper level.
MR. KELLEY-I would think that's a safety hazard.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-If you had a fire back here, how does he get out?
MR. TURNER-He can't get out.
MR. SPELLBURG-You could always take the stairs and go down stairs and out the front door, but. like
I say, this door is existing. The stairway entrance was existing.
MR. TURNER-Any questions?
MRS. EGGLESTON-I do have, but I don't know what else the guy can do. I mean, that's awfully close
to the line. the two feet. When we walked down through there, it really is.
MR. TURNER-Well, there's a sidewalk right there. and he's just going to bring the deck around and meet
the sidewalk.
MR. SPELLBURG-The stairs were always there, too.
4
"--
-
MR. TURNER-The stairs were there too.
MR. SPELLBURG-It's not like it's getting any closer. It's just moved up in elevation.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I know that, but I'm thinking about if you maybe had a fire. I don't think firemen
could even get down between there if you put the deck part way back through that little alleyway, like.
MR. SPELLBURG-Between that and another house, you mean?
MRS. EGGLESTON-Two feet.
MR. SPELLBURG-No. That's two feet between the property line. That's not between the houses.
MRS. EGGLESTON-How far is the house? They're very close. I was there. You could spit out your door
and in their door.
MR. SPELLBURG-I can do that to both sides.
MRS. EGGLESTON-So they are very. very close.
MR. SPELLBURG-But between my property 1 ine and my deck will be two feet. Between there and the next
house has got to be 10 feet, 12 feet.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I know it was very narrow corridors.
MR. SPELLBURG- They are narrow. all through there are narrow. When they were cut up, granted, there
wasn't a lot of room, but there is more than enough room to get between those two houses. There's
only two feet between there and the end of my property line. There always was. There's, like I said,
another 10 between the next house.
MR. TURNER-Are you concerned about the size of the deck?
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I think maybe he could live with a six foot deck. That's pretty good sized.
That's just my own opinion. I mean, it's really looking for 51 feet of relief on the front from the
shoreline. That's maximum, really, relief.
MR. SHEA-Is Joyce saying a six foot deck on the front? Is that what she's referring to?
MR. TURNER-Towards the lake, this one right here. Instead of being eight, their proposed deck. reduce
it to six.
MR. SHEA-Well, one thing's true. If Scott wants to put any patio furniture out there, a six foot deck
is not going to do it.
MR. SPELLBURG-Right. Practicality is part of this. It's not like I'm going to, I'm not playing any
hazardous part in the lake. It's not goi ng to change what's goi ng to be there. Granted. a si x foot
deck would do for what I'm asking, but practicality wise it's not going to do anything, and if you've
ever been around this lake. you ought to see some of the decks and houses there and they're much closer
to the lake than I am.
MRS. GOETZ-I would just like to say something. because your comment that you just made about other
things being closer to the lake. You see, the purpose of the new Zoning Ordinance is to improve the
situation because many of the things that have been done in the past haven't been good.
MR. SPELLBURG-Right. I agree.
MRS. GOETZ-And especially, I'd like you to keep it in mind, you mentioned an addition down the road.
MR. SPELLBURG-Yes.
MRS. GOETZ-You know, not to try to max out your property.
MR. SPELLBURG-Believe me, I don't. I just want to get practicality out of it.
MRS. GOETZ-Right, but it is something that you should think about, especially with thinking about adding
on. you know. to think about it long range. not for what you want piecemeal. okay.
MR. SPELLBURG-I do agree. I totally agree with that. I've lived there all my life, not in the
particular house. but on Glen Lake and I've seen it go a long ways, and I've seen things done to the
1 ake that aren't ri ght. I don't feel the deck is part of it. but I do see things that do happen.
MR. TURNER-Okay. No further questions? I'll open the public hearing.
5
--
---
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
Warren County Planning Board returned indicating "No County Impact"
MR. KELLEY-In the meeting prior to this, was there any kind of a letter from the neighbors or anything?
MR. TURNER-No.
MRS. GOETZ-I don't believe there was.
MR. SPELLBURG-They all have decks.
MR. KELLEY-All right. So you didn't have anybody for or against it. Okay.
MRS. GOETZ-Did we get anything back from the Planning Board?
MR. TURNER-No, only the negative declaration.
MRS. GOETZ-So then, that's it?
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MRS. GOETZ-Okay.
MR. TURNER-All he's waiting on is the variance. Okay. No further discussion? Motion's in order.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-1991 SCOTT A. SPELLBURG JUDY L. SPELLBURG. Introduced by Jeffrey
Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard:
I believe there are special circumstances pertaining to this particular application. The first would
be that this is a preexisting nonconforming lot that has approximately 50 feet of frontage on Glen
Lake and it's a little over 200 feet in depth. The narrowness of this lot would be one of the practical
difficulties. It appears from looking at a map of the area that other houses in the neighborhood are
on similar sized lots. The homes on each side of this particular lot have buildings that are not
parallel with the property lines and they. too, also encroach on the side yard setbacks. The property
al so slopes from the rear downhill towards the 1 ake or front of thi s parti cul ar lot and it I S because
of this slope that either stairs or in this case a deck are required. The applicant is seeking relief
from his lakeshore setback. The Ordinance requires 75 feet. This particular deck will be 24 feet.
or a relief of 51 feet required. The applicant is also seeking a side yard setback of two feet instead
of the required twenty foot minimum. This would be a relief of 18 feet. It should be noted that the
Ordinance calls for a sum of the two side yard setbacks to be 50 feet. This is the applicant's total
lot width and therefore this creates a special condition. The strict appl ication of the Ordinance
would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of his land. It should also be noted that if the applicant
di d not have thi s deck on the front of hi s home, he woul d not be abl e to use an exi sti ng pati 0 door
and also without this deck there would only be one entrance on the main floor of this house. With
only one entrance, I feel this would be a possible fire hazard. This appears to be the minimum rel ief
necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty.
Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Carr. Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Shea. Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner
NOES: Mrs. Eggleston
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-1991 TYPE II WR-lA CYNTHIA J. GUARDIOLA OWNER: CURTIS C. I CYNTHIA J. GUARDIOLA
CORNER OF EAST ROAD AND SUNNYSIDE ROAD TO EXPAND THE RESIDENCE BEDROOM (8 FT. BY 10 FT.). THE BEDROOM
WILL BE 20 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE IN LIEU OF THE RE~IRED 30 FEET. TAX MP NO. 50-1-8.4
LOT SIZE: 12,500 SQ. FT. SECTION 4.02D-D, 30 FT. FRONT SETBACK
CURTIS GUARDIOLA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
6
--"
Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner. Area Variance No. 34-1991. Cynthia J. Guardiola. May 7, 1991,
Meeting Date: May 15, 1991 "The request is to add an 8 ft. by 10 ft. addition to a residential
structure. The addition would be 20 ft. from the property 1 ine in lieu of the required 30 ft. The
structure is located on Sunnyside Road and the front of the house is currently 20 ft. from the front
property line. This addition would bring out one corner of the existing structure to be in line with
the existing structure. This application was reviewed with reference to the criteria for an Area
Variance. 1. Are there special conditions applying to this property or building, and not applying
generally to other properties or buildings in the neighborhood? The building is situated 20 ft. from
the road. The applicant cannot add on to the side because of the driveway. 2. Would the strict
application of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the
land or buildings? No. The applicant currently has reasonable use of the property. 3. Would the
strict application of the dimensional requirements result in a specified practical difficulty? The
applicant will have to discuss this question with the Board. There is no proof given on the application.
4. Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance. or to property
in the district? No. The existing structure is 20 ft. from the property line. 5. Is this request
the minimum rel i ef necessary to all evi ate the speci fied practi cal di ffi culty? The Board will have
to discuss this with the applicant."
MR. TURNER-Mr. Guardiola, in reference to the addition you want to put on, that abuts the present
bedroom? Is that correct? This addition, here, does that abut that present bedroom?
MR. GUARDIOLA-This is what is there right now.
MR. TURNER-Yes. Right. I know that.
MR. GUARDIOLA-Right. It will go right on to that.
MR. TURNER-All right. This is the bedroom then, right here? Okay. How big is the present bedroom?
MR. GUARDIOLA-About 8 by 8.
MR. TURNER-Eight by eight?
MRS. GOETZ-I'm just wondering. I don't see that this went to the Warren County Planning Board?
MR. GORALSKI-No. I don't believe it did.
MR. TURNER-It's on East Road.
MRS. GOETZ-It on East. Okay. It's not actually ~ Sunnyside?
MR. TURNER-It's on Sunnyside North. Isn't it? It's on the corner of Sunnyside North and East Road.
MR. GORALSKI-And East Road.
MR. TURNER-Yes. So that's why it didn't go.
MRS. GOETZ-Okay. Because it borders on East?
MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. So. downstairs. then, you've got a kitchen. a dining room?
MR. GUARDIOLA-A kitchen, dining room, living room, and where my son's bedroom is, right off the kitchen.
MR. TURNER-Right off the front, on that corner. right?
MR. GUARDIOLA-Yes.
MR. TURNER-And upstairs you've got. what, a couple of bedrooms?
MR. GUARDIOLA-Two bedrooms and a bathroom.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MR. CARR-And how many people are residing in the house right now?
MR. GUARDIOLA-Four.
MR. CARR-And you looked at alternate designs, right?
MR. GUARDIOLA-Pardon?
MR. CARR-You looked at alternate designs and found this to be the best and most practical?
7
-
MR. GUARDIOLA-There isn't really any other way we can go, not and add on to the bedroom to make it,
you know, so he'd have sufficient room. If we go any place else, it's not going to do anything for
the bedroom.
MR. TURNER-Yes. Right. Anyone else?
MR. KELLEY-I thought it would look better with the addition on it.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. GUARDIOLA-Yes, it will. All you're doing is squaring the whole house right off. So. it's not
going to be boxed up or anything.
MR. TURNER-Any further questions? Okay. I'll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TURNER-Any further Correspondence?
MRS. GOETZ-No.
MR. TURNER-None? Okay. Motion's in order.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-1991 CYNTHIA J. GUARDIOLA, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner:
In granting this. we give the applicant 10 feet relief from the road front. There are special conditions
applying to this property and not applying to other properties in the neighborhood, in that. the existing
house is already 20 feet from the road. the applicant is prohibited from adding on to the side because
of the existing paved driveway. To deny the request would deprive the applicant of enjoying a reasonable
sized bedroom with a closet. This variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the
Ordinance and the new addition will not encroach any further on the front setback than what already
exists. I believe this to be the minimum relief necessary and it is a reasonable request and there
is no neighborhood opposition.
Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz. Mr. Shea. Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-1991 TYPE II SR-lA JUDITH PERRY PROVOST OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE 7 REVERE ROAD,
CORNER OF REVERE AND BRICKOVEN IN BEDFORD CLOSE OFF CORINTH ROAD TO CONSTRUCT AN INGROOND SWIMMING
POOL ON A CORNER LOT THAT WILL EXTEND INTO THE SIDEYARD. POOLS ARE NOT ALLOIfED IN SIDE YARDS. TAX
MP NO. 125-5-62 LOT SIZE: 30,051 SQ. FT. SECTION 7.074-4E
JUDITH PERRY PROVOST, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner, Area Variance No. 35-1991, Judith Perry-Provost. May 7, 1991, Meeting
Date: May 15, 1991 "The applicant requires a variance from Section 7.074 e of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Zoning Administrator has indicated that no variance would be necessary if the pool were located
directly behind the house. There does not appear to be any special conditions applying to this property
nor would the strict application of the Ordinance prohibit the applicant from constructing a pool.
This pool will be significantly set back from the Right-Of-Way. If sufficient screening is provided
there will be no impact on public facilities or services and a variance would not be detrimental to
the purposes of the Ordinance."
MR. TURNER-On your sketch, if you draw the same lines out. you can get that pool directly behind the
house and I guess my question is, why has it got to be out on the side yard?
MRS. PROVOST-Well. if we back it up.
MR. TURNER-No, if you go straight. Let me show you right here. All I did was scale it out like you've
got it scaled out. right, same dimensions. If you draw it straight back, you're right behind the house.
MRS. PROVOST-This is all roofs.
8
--
MR. TURNER-I know, part of it, but there were trees there that were cut down, chopped off, evidently,
in the advent of putting the pool here.
MRS. PROVOST-The pool people got to them before we told them about the meeting.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MRS. PROVOST-There's no sun here.
MR. TURNER-I know there's no sun.
MRS. PROVOST-The shade blocks the pool.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MRS. PROVOST-That's basically why we didn't put it directly behind the house. because it's shaded by
the house.
MR. TURNER-I know, but the sun is not the practical difficulty and the shade is not the practical
difficulty.
MR. SICARD-I was wondering, do you plan on fencing the pool?
MRS. PROVOST-Yes.
MR. SICARD-Do you have any plans for the fencing height and so forth?
MRS. PROVOST-A six foot fence with lattice on the top. We'd be planning to paint it brown, which is
the color of the house, with gray trim.
MR. SICARD-Lattice is counted for height, Mr. Chairman?
MR. TURNER-She's got two fronts and a rear, but she doesn't have a sideyard. She's on the corner.
MR. SICARD-But it's permitted?
MRS. GOETZ-The lattice?
MR. TURNER-I don't know about the six foot fence because she's got the front. I would leave it to
the Zoning Administrator. She'd have to make the decision.
MRS. CRAYFORD-We were just talking about that. What did you say?
MR. TURNER-I said she's got two fronts and a rear. So, the question is, can she have a six foot fence
on the front?
MRS. CRAYFORD-Not until she gets just behind the main residence and then that puts her in a back yard.
MR. TURNER-No. She has two fronts.
MRS. CRAYFORD-Right.
MR. TURNER-She has a rear. So she faces Brick Oven Drive and Revere Road, no matter where she puts
the pool.
MRS. CRAYFORD-Right.
MR. TURNER-If she puts the pool directly behind the house, then she can have the six foot fence. Now
she's coming out in what's called the front yard.
MRS. CRAYFORD-That's right. That's why I said, if she puts the pool directly behind the house and
the fence directly behind the house, then we could call that a backyard. She wouldn't even be here.
MR. TURNER-She can have the six foot fence. Right. Yes. I know, but I think the question is, can
she have the six foot fence if this is approved in the sideyard, and I say no.
MR. SHEA-So. by way of the plot plan. she has two front yards.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MRS. CRAYFORD-That's right.
MR. SHEA-Because the lot, Judy, is on two streets.
9
c_
MRS. PROVOST-Right. Is on a corner.
MR. TURNER-Right.
MR. SHEA-Can she, then. designate one of those as being the front yard?
MRS. CRAYFORD-Unfortunately, the way it's defined in the Ordinance, there are two front yards.
MR. SICARD-Are you saying, then. that she'll have to have a six foot fence?
MR. TURNER-She has to have a four foot fence.
MR. SICARD-A four foot fence?
MRS. CRAYFORD-She would have to have a variance for a six foot fence in that part of the yard.
MR. SHEA-You can only have a four foot height of fence for a front yard and you have front yards.
So, technically, whatever fence you choose to put down this boundary line should, therefore. be four
feet in height. Six feet would be prohibited, but along the back yard, it can be any height up to.
MRS. PROVOST-Okay. What about back in here, right out from the back of the house?
MR. TURNER-No. You're in the front yard. This is not a side yard. This is a front. That's a front.
MRS. PROVOST-So the violation of the pool in the side yard's not really.
MR. TURNER-No. It's not in the side yard. It's in the front yard.
MR. SHEA-Your pool's in the front yard.
MRS. PROVOST-I was a little confused because it said pools in the side yard.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MRS. PROVOST-Okay.
MR. TURNER-But in your particular case, it was because you're on a corner lot. That's a problem.
MRS. PROVOST-So. it can't be in the side yard or in the front yard.
MR. SHEA-Unless you're granted a variance.
MR. TURNER-Unless you're granted a variance.
MRS. PROVOST-All right. So, this would be four and this would be four.
MR. SHEA-Correct.
MRS. PROVOST-And this.
MR. SHEA-Can be six.
MR. TURNER-This could be six back here.
MRS. PROVOST-Okay. Is the lattice considered fencing?
MR. KELLEY-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Any fencing.
MRS. PROVOST-Any fencing.
MR. TURNER-You're required by law to have a four foot fence, anyway.
MRS. PROVOST-Right. So. it has to be four, but it can't be six.
MR. TURNER-Yes. Unless you want to try for a variance.
MR. SICARD-So what you're saying, Mr. Chairman. the lattice is out?
MR. TURNER-The fence has to be secure so the children can't get through it, okay.
10
MR. SICARD-I'm talking about the top of the fence. They plan on putting lattice on the top of the
fence.
MR. TURNER-It can't be over four feet.
MR. SICARD-It can't be over four feet?
MR. TURNER-Yes. if they consider that part of the.
MR. SICARD-Part of the fence.
MR. TURNER-The fence. per se, itself I would say would have to be four foot high, whether it be chain
linked or any other type of fence. It woul d have to be four feet high, that's the 1 aw and she can't
put anything on top of that if she's in the front yard and the two fronts.
MR. SHEA-Unless you're granted a variance.
MR. TURNER-Unless you're granted a variance.
MR. SHEA-And there may be cause to do that, given that it's on a roadway and we want protective screening
both for yourselves for privacy and for safety.
MR. TURNER-But you'd have to re-apply for that. Okay.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Pat, could you help me with this Definition of E, as it pertains to this case?
MRS. CRAYFORD-What page are you on?
MRS. EGGLESTON-7.074 E.
MR. CARR-Page 89.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Page 89.
MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes.
MRS. EGGLESTON-And it specifies where a lot fronts on two or more public rights-of-way. Then it goes
on to say, bear in mind the main entrance to this house as you look at the plot plan between the septic
and that little abutment that comes out. So, if you read this, it says the pool shall be erected only
on that portion of the said lot that is directly adjacent to that side of the principle building which
is directly opposite the architectural main entrance of said building and the neighboring side lot
line. So wouldn't that put it?
MRS. CRAYFORD-She would have to locate the pool directly behind the main entrance of the house.
MRS. EGGLESTON-No. It doesn't say that. It says adjacent to that side of the main. See. I'm struggling
with this. Is this not confusing?
MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. It's confusing. but the intention is to put it in the back yard directly behind
the architectural front entrance of the house.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. I thought that, but I don't think this reads that way, but correct me if I'm wrong.
MRS. CRAYFORD-I know. It's confusing. but that's the way I've determined that that reads.
MR. SHEA-So, as not to encroach on the neighbors? Was that the?
MRS. CRAYFORD-So as not to encroach on that other front yard facing Brick Oven. In other words, stay
directly behind the main residence is what it boils down to.
MR. SHEA-I know, but I'm wondering if the original intent in that was so as not to encroach on the
neighbors. In which case, we don't have a neighbor. here. on the side yard or the second front yard.
MRS. CRAYFORD-I don't know what the original intent was.
MR. SHEA-I mean, most people put their pools behind their home, I think, for privacy, unless they have
a lot that's configured such that it presents some kind of a practical difficulty.
MRS. PROVOST-This seemed to have the best setback from all the property lines.
MR. SHEA-Well, the pool. I would say, is at least in part behind the house. Not in total, but certainly
in part, from the drawing where it's proposed.
11
---/
MRS. EGGLESTON-See, I personally don't have a problem with where she wants to put it. I'm just
struggling with the way this, I'm trying to figure this reading, you know, so that we give the right
variance. really.
MRS. CRAYFORD-Well, all I can say is Dave and I have discussed this and we both agreed that that was
how we were going to, I shouldn't use the word interpret, but we were going to make the determination
that the pool is to be located behind the architectural entrance of the house, the main architectural
entrance.
MR. SHEA-Judy, where the trees were cut down, there's still additional trees in that area, are there
not?
MRS. PROVOST-It's all wooded.
MR. SHEA-Yes. Between where the proposed pool is and the right-of-way for Brick Oven Road?
MRS. PROVOST-Both property lines. Yes.
MRS. CRAYFORD-If it were adjacent to the architectural front, then we'd put it in the front yard.
MR. CARR-That's right. I think that word is misplaced.
MRS. PROVOST-I might add that the only concerns my neighbors had was that there be a six foot privacy
fence and I was not aware of the six foot requirement. So, it seemed to be the standard height in
the area. We just assumed six feet was okay.
MR. SHEA-Yes. you do have a special condition, given the fact that you're on two roadways and as a
suggestion, however this particular variance goes, I think it would probably be in your best interest
and your neighbors if you could come back and apply for a variance so that you could have a six foot
fence, for the privacy of the neighbors and your own.
MRS. CRAYFORD-Would there be any way that you could grant that variance tonight, if there were no
opposition. etc.?
MR. TURNER-No. We have some letters. here. I don't know if they're opposed or not.
MS. CORPUS-It would actually depend on the reaction in those letters and whether anybody.
MR. TURNER-Yes. but you've got to advertise it.
MS. CORPUS-Right.
MRS. CRAYFORD-Okay.
MR. CARR-Well, if we table it.
MR. SICARD-It's going to take just as long.
MR. CARR-Well, not really because she can start building the pool and then come back for the fence
after.
MRS. PROVOST-I can put a four foot fence in temporarily.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. CARR-And you have plenty of time to get it in for the June meeting.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions of the applicant?
MRS. EGGLESTON-No.
MR. TURNER-None? Okay. I'll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
LYNN CALL
MRS. CALL-My name is Lynn Call. I live at 3 Brick Oven Road. My house faces this side yard, on an
off angle. As all of the houses are in Bedford Close, we don't directly face anyone e1ses entrance.
but I bought my house where it is because it does have privacy screeni ng. It I S surrounded by trees,
by forest. I don't want to see or hear my neighbors. whatever goes on in their yard and that's why
12
'--
I bought my house there. So far. there have been a lot of trees cut on thi s corner. I don't know
how many more need to be cut in order to provide a swimming pool. Are there more to be cut?
MRS. PROVOST-No.
MR. TURNER-They're all cut? All the trees are cut that are necessary to put the pool in the ground
at that location?
MRS. PROVOST-Yes.
MRS. CALL-I've noticed a big difference, as far as privacy screening is concerned. I can see your
house where I coul dn' t before, and the corner looks a lot different now than it di d before. I thi nk
with the addition of a pool and a fence, the corner is not going to look any better. There's an example.
farther down Revere Road, at Trip Hammer and Revere, a lot of trees cut on one lot there. A house
has a pool in the back yard and it does have a fence, a stockade fence. It's not parti cul arly
attractive. There are a lot of neighbors, one neighbor that I know of. was not happy with it. the
way it looks, compared to the way it looked when they bought their home. We live very quietly at our
house and pools are not known for being a quiet addition to a neighborhood. So we're not looking forward
to that.
MR. TURNER-But they are of limited use. maybe 10 weeks, 12 weeks.
MRS. CALL-That's true, but that's also the time when people's windows are open and people might be
noisy, 11. 12 o'clock at night and other people, I feel it would be an invasion of privacy. I really
do.
MR. SHEA-Mrs. Call. you live on the corner of Brick Oven and Revere?
MRS. CALL-Not right on the corner. Robinson's house is on the corner and we live behind Robinson,
but we're, like, on an angle to this house.
MR. TURNER-Diagonally across. You're the next one.
MRS. CALL-Yes. It's like half of my front yard faces half of your side yard. That's the way it is.
MR. SHEA-Do you live on the other side of Revere Road?
MRS. CALL-No. On the other side of Brick Oven.
MR. KELLEY-Is that the gray house with the white trim?
MRS. CALL-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-Do you have diamond grills on your house?
MRS. CALL-No.
MR. KELLEY-All right. I'm thinking of a different house then.
MRS. CALL-You must be. I'm also somewhat concerned about whether this would cause any, in a way it
would devalue my home for me. aesthetically. I don't know whether it would have any impact on resale
values or whether it would be a decrease in property value, but I'm certainly concerned about it.
MR. CARR-Mrs. Call, are you against the pool or are you against the location of the pool? You see.
we can't do anything about the pool. She has a right to a pool.
MRS. CALL-Right. I guess it's that I don't want to see anymore trees cut. I don't really want to
see a big fence on the corner of Brick Oven and Revere. I'm really sorry about the loss of the forest
cover so far and it is an infringement on other people's privacy, especially if they bought their house
to be surrounded by trees.
MR. CARR-Well, the trees are on their lot. I mean. everybody has a right to cut their own lot.
MRS. CALL-That's true. but it does change the atmosphere.
MRS. EGGLESTON-It helps as a sound barrier too.
MRS. CALL-Yes. It makes a very big difference. I've noticed that too in the last year or so.
MRS. EGGLESTON-But nothing's going to bring those back, the trees.
MRS. CALL-No, that's true. My own are growing. thank goodness.
MRS. EGGLESTON-And she can have the pool.
13
--
-
MRS. CALL-Right. Well, I just didn't want it to go through without my having a chance to say that
I didn't like the idea.
MR. TURNER-Would you be more satisfied if the pool was moved behind the house? Would that obstruct
your view of the pool?
MRS. CALL-Probably. I haven't seen a map.
MR. TURNER-It's right here.
MR. SICARD-Wouldn't that allow them to put up a six foot fence, at that point?
MR. TURNER-Yes. What I did, I sketched it over now. That's the same dimension as the pool that is
there now, except I didn't put the jog on.
MRS. CALL-Yes. I had a feeling it was going to end up right under my bedroom window.
MR. CARR-The reason that the pool cannot be behind the house is why?
MR. TURNER-The trees. The trees are there.
MRS. PROVOST-If we slide it over, we're closer to, if you look at the map, the boundary line there
and there's about an hour and a half of sun a day because the house casts a shadow.
MR. CARR-The house casts a shadow?
MRS. PROVOST-Yes. The house casts a shadow.
MR. CARR-Okay. So it's not a matter of cutting trees, because then I was wondering if it said, cut
off. do you want more trees cut to allow the sun in the back yard or. but it's not. It's the house
that causes the shadow, not the trees.
MRS. PROVOST-Yes.
MR. SHEA-You have the ability to move the pool directly behind the house. which would then, thanks
to Mr. Sicard by his calculation, moving it 27 feet away from the road, 27 feet in that direction,
behind the house in which case you would be in total compliance and not need any variances and also
be able to have your six foot fence, but you also have the option of moving the pool farther back in
the property to gain more sunlight because the house obviously faces to the south, so the pool's on
the northern part of the property. That, in some respects, would be even closer to Mrs. Call's house.
MRS. PROVOST-There are trees, as it stands now, right up to what is considered a reasonable distance
from your pool. It's all wooded and we wanted to put the pool in a place where we'd have to take down
the minimum amount of trees. If we back it up, we'd have to eliminate much of that corner forest.
MR. TURNER-Yes. She's got trees right in here. Michael.
MR. SHEA-Yes. I know it. That's what I'm saying. I'm saying if you move the pool here, you don't
have to do anything.
MRS. PROVOST-Right.
MR. SHEA-You can do anything that you want.
MRS. PROVOST-Yes.
MR. SHEA-But you also have the option of moving it farther back here to gain more sunlight, also knowing,
well. you have 48 feet. here. You only have to be 25 feet.
MRS. PROVOST-Right, but our lot, when we move this over, we get into this area.
MR. SHEA-Right, but what I'm saying is, if you were to move it back and take down more trees, it would
give you the sunlight. but it also would probably be.
MRS. PROVOST-It would be closer to the neighbors property.
MR. SHEA-That's what I'm saying. So maybe this is not a bad option of having it there, even though
it appears be closer to the road and closer to the neighbors. Your alternative is to move it back
and cut down more trees to gain the sunlight, which is obviously what you want when you have the pool.
MR. CARR-Mrs. Call, were you following what Mr. Shea was saying? I mean. how do you feel about that?
14
-.--'
MRS. CALL-Well, she doesn't require a variance for that. So I really wouldn't have any grounds to
object, I wouldn't think.
MR. SHEA-That's right, but the point is, she is obviously here trying to get as much sun exposure for
the pool area, which is normal. I mean, that's why we have a pool. You don't have a pool and then
have a cover over it to block out the sunlight and they have tried to position it on the lot so as
to be partly behind the main residence and partly take advantage of as much sun exposure as they can
and from what I saw there, even though they have cut down a number of trees which you obviously have
to do. they have left a fair number of trees for privacy and a border for all the reasons and for
whatever reasons. I'm just saying that, in my opinion, and I certainly understand your position. she
has a different set of circumstances in that the lot borders on two roads, so she, technically. really
has to be behind the house to have thi s without a vari ance. Maybe it's not such a bad pl ace to put
it. If she could get a variance for six feet. which would eliminate the noise and if it were a good
looking aesthetically pleasing fence, then it might not be as obtrusive.
MRS. CALL-Well, what I was concerned about was that the fence would be right on the road and that it
would take down all the trees there on the road.
MR. SHEA-Like the other house that you referred to?
MRS. CALL-Yes.
MR. SHEA-I would agree with you.
MRS. PROVOST-The fence, the way it's drawn out, will go between trees. So there will be trees on either
side of the fence.
MR. TURNER-The trees that face Brick Oven Drive?
MRS. PROVOST-Yes.
MR. TURNER-But the ones you've got cut down, the fence will be just in front of the trees that are
on your property. right?
MRS. PROVOST-Right. There are trees on both sides of the fence.
MR. TURNER-Right. So, in other words, your fence is going to go right here. like that. right.
MRS. PROVOST-Right and not point that way.
MR. TURNER-How far back are you going, right across the property line here and then back?
MRS. PROVOST-No. Not that far.
MR. TURNER-And then you're going to come like this, and then you'll want to come maybe like that.
MRS. PROVOST-This will angle this way and then come across and join right in front of my perennial
gardens right there.
MRS. CALL-Yes. I can see what you're saying. The trees that are left here are going to stay?
MRS. PROVOST - Yes. A 11 these trees, everythi ng that's there is goi ng to stay and the fence is goi ng
to run through the trees.
MRS. CALL-So, I can see that if the fence is in the trees, that there are trees between the road and
the fence and then there are trees between you and the fence. right?
MRS. PROVOST-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MRS. CALL-So that we both get some screening from the fence.
MRS. PROVOST-Yes. I want to make the fence as unobtrusive as possible.
MR. CALL-Well, that was my concern. that I was looking at a fence.
MR. SHEA-Well. I think you're right. I think the other fence that you referred to in the neighborhood
is not parti cul arly appeal i ng and there is another former Gi nsburg house where the fence goes ri ght
along side the road which is not pleasing either.
MRS. CALL-Are there any other questions?
15
--
--
MR. TURNER-Do you object to the pool being placed where she wants it, with a fence as it's designated,
she hasn't got the fence yet, but?
MRS. CALL-Well, as long as no more trees are cut and as long as the fence is screened by trees.
hopefully, that will reduce the noise.
MR. TURNER-Okay. If by chance she doesn't get a variance for a six foot fence on Brick Oven Drive,
are you satisfied that four feet is what's required? So she's going to end up with a four foot fence,
if she doesn't get the variance?
MRS. CALL-Well, I don't know what the safety concerns are, but my concerns are not necessarily safety.
MR. TURNER-That's required. That's the minimum requirement.
MRS. CALL-The four feet is minimum?
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MRS. CALL-Okay.
MR. TURNER-All right? Anyone else opposed to the application? Hearing none, the public hearing's
closed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
MRS. GOETZ-Michael Carusone called the Town Office Building because he had received a notice. He wanted
the Board and the applicant to know he was not in opposition to the project. He was, however. concerned
that Northern Homes had not been contacted about the proposed pool. He sent a copy of the Bedford
Close restrictions to the Board. The restrictions indicate that swimming pools are not permitted in
the subdivision without approval of Northern Homes Incorporated.
MR. TURNER-Are you aware of that?
MRS. PROVOST-No.
MRS. GOETZ-Okay. He sent a copy, which is attached, in case you'd like to look at it.
MRS. PROVOST-To me?
MRS. GOETZ-No. It's for the Board, but I mean, just so you know what it is that you need to find out
about.
MRS. PROVOST-All right.
MRS. GOETZ-And then he starred it. okay. It's your subdivision restrictions.
MR. TURNER-I think, probably, at this point, you ought to table the application until you get this
matter cleared up and then come back.
MR. CARR-She doesn't have to come back here, though?
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. CARR-Why? That has nothing to do with the zoning.
MR. SHEA-Nor the variance.
MR. CARR-Right. That's a legal question between the deed, the owners of the property.
MR. TURNER-Well, let me just see something. Lets see what it says. All right. Just a design approval.
MR. SHEA-You can take that matter up with Northern Homes.
MR. TURNER-You can take it up with Northern Homes.
MR. SHEA-It's a separate issue.
MRS. PROVOST-Okay.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Do we have other letters. Sue?
16
.....-'
MRS. GOETZ-No.
MR. TURNER-Is that it?
MRS. GOETZ-That's it.
MR. TURNER-Any further questions of the applicant? Any further comments?
MR. SHEA-I have a further comment. I woul d suggest or recommend to the Call's that if the present
applicant comes back for a variance on a six foot fence, that in your best interest you would come
back in support of that vari ance. It woul d be in your best interest to do so, to have greater sound
screening that a six foot fence would provide.
MR. TURNER-All right. A motion's in order.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-1991 JUDITH PERRY PROVOST, Introduced by Michael Shea who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard:
Due to the fact that the appl i cant's house faces south and the proposed pool woul d then be located
to the north of the applicant's property and that the applicant desires that the pool take advantage
of maximum sun exposure. The special condition applying to this variance is that the lot is a corner
lot that borders on two roadways. Although this request locates the pool in part of the front yard.
this variance approval would not be detrimental to the Ordinance since the pool will be 32 feet from
Brick Oven Road and that it is screened with existing trees and the necessary fencing. The trees and
fencing would be sufficient to eliminate problems arising from the location of this pool.
Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Shea. Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-1991 TYPE II MR-5 TERRY R. HOFFNER OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE 217 OHIO AVENUE,
LOCATED BETWEEN LUZERNE ROAD AND CORINTH ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 24 FT. ABOVE GROUND SWIMMING POOL.
THE POOL WILL BE 3.5 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 20 FEET. TAX MAP NO.
127-9-6.1 LOT SIZE: 100.3 FT. BY 70.6 FT. SECTION 7.074 3B
TERRY HOFFNER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner, Area Variance No. 36-1991. Terry R. Hoffner, May 9, 1991, Meeting
Date: May 15,1991 "The applicant wishes to place a pool on a 7,000 square foot lot. Because of
the small lot size and the location of the èxisting house, a pool could not be placed on this property
without violating the requirements of the Ordinance. The proposed location of the pool will minimize
the impact on the neighbors and appears to be the best available alternative."
MR. TURNER-I guess the only comment I would have, Terry, is if you'd known that you had to come here
anyway, you coul d have moved the pool two feet farther toward the house and gotten a 1 ittl e bi t more
relief on the back.
MR. HOFFNER-Yes. but if I had done that. then I'd be violating another Ordinance. I'd be on the side
yard.
MR. TURNER-No. Just come this way. Where you've got 12 feet, you could have come to 10 feet. It
would have given you a couple of more feet in the back.
MR. HOFFNER-That would have cut down the access to the back, though, from the side. wouldn't it?
MR. TURNER-Well, no. not really. You've only got three and a half feet to your fence now.
MR. HOFFNER-I'm talking about from the front. from the front side of the house going down the side
yard. If for some unknown reason the fire department had to get through that side yard. they'd never
squeeze between the pool and the corner of the porch.
MR. TURNER-No. I'm not saying that. Just bring it forward a little bit. That's all. You could have
come forward a little bit right here. You can have 10 feet from there to there, but it's all right.
I don't have a problem with it. Nobody else does either, I don't think. Does anyone have any questions?
MR. SICARD-He can't move it?
17
.-'
MR. TURNER-The problem is the si ze of hi slot and the 1 ocati on of the house. He just doesn't have
much back yard to play with, the practical difficulty.
MRS. EGGLESTON-How many are there in your family?
MR. HOFFNER-Two sets of twins and three singles. So. I can't get a smaller pool. We'd have to swim
in shifts.
MRS. EGGLESTON-That's what I was thinking about is a smaller pool, the 24 feet.
MR. CARR-Have you talked to your neighbors about this? Do they have any problems?
MR. HOFFNER-They have no problem with it.
MR. TURNER-Any further questions of Mr. Hoffner?
MRS. EGGLESTON-No.
MR. TURNER-None? All right. I'll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TURNER-A motion's in order.
MR. CARR-Did we agree to move it up two feet?
MR. TURNER-No. He's already got the ring dug and the sand in for the pool before he realized he had
to come here and we don't want to make him do any further work.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-1991 TERRY R. HOFFNER, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for
its adoption. seconded by Theodore Turner:
The size of Mr. Hoffner's lot is the special circumstance that applies to this lot which may not
generally apply to lots in the area. Strict application of the dimensional requirements would subject
the applicant to a great practical difficulty in the placement of his pool. The granting of this
variance would not be materially detrimental to the Ordinance because the Ordinance makes provisions
for all lot owners to maintain a pool if desired. The granting of this variance would have no adverse
effect on public facilities or services. The variance granted is a 16.5 foot variance from the required
20 foot setback.
Duly adopted this 15th day of May. 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley. Mr. Carr. Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
"fA \
/,\"J
~
AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-1991 TYPE I WR-lA MARGARET AND THEODORE M. HANS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE GUNN
LANE, CLEVERDALE FOR EXPANSION OF THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE BY OVER 50 PERCENT. THE FRONT WILL
BE 30 FEET FROM THE LAKE IN LIEU OF THE 75 FOOT REQUIREMENT. THE FOOTPRINT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE CURRENT
STRUClURE IS 1,964 SQ. FT. THE FOOTPRINT S~ARE FOOTAGE OF THE PROPOSED STRUClURE IS 2,824 SQ. FT.
A SECOND STORY IS ALSO PROPOSED. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 12-3-16 LOT SIZE: ±1 ACRE
SECTION 7.012A(3) SHORELINE SETBACK SECTION 9.011B - 50S EXPANSION
JOHN MASON, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS. PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner. Area Variance No. 37-1991, Margaret F. and Theodore M. Hans,
May 14, 1991, Meeting Date: May 15, 1991 "The applicant is requesting to remodel a preexisting home
and garage. The property is located in a Critical Environmental Area on Cleverdale. The project cannot
meet the shorel ine setbacks of 75 feet and proposes 30 feet. The project will al so be an expansion
of over 50 percent. The applicant has supplied figures stating that current structure is 1,964 square
feet and the proposed structure will be 2.824 square feet. The applicant purchased the property on
December 27. 1989. This project is a Type I Action under SEQRA. Both the Planning Board and Zoning
Board of Appeals are involved agencies. A decision has to be made which Board will take Lead Agency
Status for the SEQRA Review. If the Board wants the Planning Board to take Lead Agency Status. a motion
to that effect should be made. The Board should also list any concerns relating to the project and
the SEQRA Review for the Planning Board to address."
18
--
-
MR. TURNER-I think what I'd like to do first, how many people are here in reference to this application?
Mr. Mason. you're the only one? Okay. All right. Then I would move that we take up our position as
to SEQRA.
MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD BECOME THE LEAD AGENCY FOR THE SEQRA REVIEW, Introduced by Theodore
Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr:
Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 1991. by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Shea. Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Carr. Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz. Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
MR. TURNER-The Planning Board's the Lead Agency. Okay Now, Mr. Mason. John. I guess I'd ask you
a question. Why has the house got to be so big?
MR. MASON-It's only a three bedroom home.
MR. TURNER-I know, but it's a big house.
MR. MASON-No.
MR. TURNER-They're saying 2800 square feet on the first floor?
MR. MASON-That's the square feet including the garage. That's the footprint.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MR. MASON-Lee is implying in that letter that that is the square footage of the house. That's not.
That's the footprint. That includes the garage. That includes the deck.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. MASON-That includes everything. That includes the eaves.
MR. TURNER-Okay, but from another aspect, you haven't showed us an alternative where you could possibly
reduce the setbacks. Can you answer that?
MR. MASON-I can get into all this, if you want, tonight. I was under the impression, tonight due to
discussions that I had both with Pat and with Lee, that none of these issues would be addressed tonight
and that's why Walt Rehm is not here tonight.
MR. TURNER-Okay. All right.
MR. MASON-But if you want to. I'm more than willing to. I mean, I can show you a map I've prepared
that shows what little bit, the little postage stamp size that is left of this lot if you take your
setbacks off the lot. I f you take 30 feet from one side, 20 feet from the other, 75 feet from the
lake, 30 feet from the road, you end up with about enough room to build a dog house. There's just
no room left.
MR. TURNER-All right, then, you'd rather wait?
MR. MASON-Okay.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MR. MASON-Fine.
MR. TURNER-Okay, John, I guess we won't here anymore from you.
MR. MASON-Thank you.
MR. TURNER-Does anyone here want to speak on the application, in favor or opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COÞl£NT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TURNER- I woul d move that any further comment will be taken up after the SEQRA Revi ew and thi s
application will go to the Planning Board.
19
--
.....-'
MRS. GOETZ-Okay. The Staff indicated we should mention any concerns we have.
MR. TURNER-Well, I guess I've got some, but John didn't want to raise them, but I do have a concern
as to size of the house on the lot.
MRS. GOETZ-Is that something that we should forward?
MR. TURNER-Yes, if that's the Board's concern. There's a plan in the folder. there. Is that plan
in the folder. John?
MR. MASON-It should be.
MR. TURNER-Seventy five feet is back at this point.
MR. CARR-Right.
MR. TURNER-If the house is directed back this way, he could almost meet every setback there. I think
I figured out the other day, he's got about. 50 by 15.
MRS. GOETZ-Where would it be if it was 75 back?
MR. TURNER-It would be back right in here. Do you see where it's penciled in?
MRS. GOETZ-I see.
MR. TURNER-It would cut down his driveway. There's about 10 parking spaces there, in this whole area.
I don't know if it's feasible, but I mean the house could. theoretically, come back here. John, do
you want to have a look?
MR. MASON-Sure. I'd like any input I can get.
MR. TURNER-Right here is an area where you could put the house.
MR. MASON-Okay. Here's your setbacks. right there. This is the house.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MR. MASON-What we ended up doing right here is we placed the house here and we kept moving the house
back. We kept backing it up until we complied with this setback.
MR. TURNER-Twenty there?
MR. MASON-Well. 30.
MR. TURNER-Thirty there and twenty here.
MR. MASON-Yes. I have to be 30 and 20. So I kept moving it back, square, and it means the whole front
of this house gets ripped off there and it comes to here. I want to address the driveway. so you can
understand that, that's existing.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Yes, I know.
MR. MASON-I mean. I don't care what. and I don't think the Hans care. one way or another what ends
up happening to the driveway, that's already existing. I can also. I don't have it here tonight because
we're in the process of preparing it, but we're showing a map of the house, here. There are three
houses that are view impacted, here. One is directly behind. One is here and one is here. Every
step we move this house back cuts this view off for this house because what it does. it's that effect.
It keeps bringing the house back against it and it cuts down what he can see here and what he can see
here. By stepping it back to here, we improve this persons view this way. We very definitely improve
this and this view right down through here. They both have a larger view and I think you'll have letters
from these two next month. In fact, you should have letters from just about every neighbor next month.
with one except. the next door nei ghbor, who doesn't want a two story house on the pa rce 1. but they
are also the only one story house. We've done a survey in both directions. I've gone 10 houses south.
10 houses north. They're the only one story there.
MR. TURNER-The only one story there.
MR. MASON-Yes. and in fact I did all of Cleverdale and I could only find. I think, five on Cleverdale
that are one story. There's something 1 i ke 90 two stori es. I think the mi sconcepti on is also that
2824 square feet. What ended up happening with that is that they asked me for the footprint, so I
gave the footprint. When I included this 1924. the living area in this house is probably 900 square
feet.
20
--
MR. TURNER-The 2800 you're talking about includes all their.
MR. MASON-Well, 1964 includes the carport with the breezeway, the screened porch all the way across.
All you have in living space is this dotted line right there, that area right there.
MR. TURNER-This right here, yes.
MR. MASON-This house. the 2824. includes the garage, the deck on the front with the screened porch.
If you start talking living area. first floor. you're probably down to 1300. We just, we don't know
what to talk about when you ask square feet. We don't know which figure you're referring to. the
footprint, the living area upstairs and downstairs, the living area downstairs alone, and then we get
into roofed over screened porch. is that included.
MRS. GOETZ-What is the answer to that question?
MR. TURNER-The porch is not included.
MRS. GOETZ-It's not?
MR. TURNER-No.
MRS. GOETZ-But then the garage.
MR. MASON-I said, Lee, what do you want me to include and what do you not want me to include. So I
have a sheet, now, that shows the square footage of every different type of area in the existing and
in the new. It shows living space. according to one definition. It shows screened porches. It shows
decks, on both old and new. Bedroom wise, this house is much the same as the old one. There isn't
much difference there at all. What happens with this is they get, for instance, a separate dining
room, but I would urge you to look at the floor plans themselves.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. MASON-This house is not a huge house. It's two bedrooms and a bath upstairs and it's one bedroom,
a bath and a half downstairs. It is also. probably. smaller than the average house in that section
of Cleverdale.
MRS. GOETZ-Is the reason that we talk about the garage because of the runoff?
MR. TURNER-They're going to consider runoff, the Planning Board.
MRS. GOETZ-Right, but I mean. is that why we include it in the square footage, when you give your total?
MR. MASON-What happened was, Lee, at one point. asked me for a footprint, so I gave her a footprint,
but she's taken that and used it, later on in other memos, as if it's the living space. It's not the
living space. I mean, the garage isn't the living space. in either the old or the new.
MRS. GOETZ-But there must be a reason why she included the garage in the roofed over porch, and that's
my question. Is it because of the runoff situation?
MR. MASON-No, because I gave her the figures and they were bigger and it made it look worse.
MRS. GOETZ-What I don't understand, though, is why it isn't consistent. you know. the request for the
square footage, no matter what project you're on.
MR. MASON-I have a memo that I sent to Lee that gives the square footage proposed and existing of the
screened porch. of bedroom roofed over area, of carports, of decks, of garages. but I don't know how
to total it to give them what they want, and I should ask John.
MRS. GOETZ-That's what I mean. What is the answer to that? John probably could answer that.
MR. GORALSKI-Square footage, usually, does not include decks, okay. As far as garages are concerned.
if the garage is an attached garage, usually that's i ncl uded as far as the si ze of the structure is
concerned.
MRS. GOETZ-Okay.
MR. MASON-There might even be a definition of living space.
MR. GORALSKI-Not for a Residential.
MR. MASON-No? That would be too easy.
21
---
MR. GORALSKI-That's why I say. usually. that's the way it's been done.
MR. MASON-We will have all of that information laid right out, if you want. at the next meeting, as
to square footage of each one of these areas.
MR. TURNER-Bring everything that you're going to have available because we're going to need some
ammunition.
MR. KELLEY-I'll request two square footages. I want to know living space old and living space new.
and new meaning both floors.
MR. MASON-Okay. Question Number One, screened porch, is that included as living space, unheated screened
porch?
MR. TURNER-No.
MR. MASON-Not either old or new?
MR. KELLEY-Heated living space is what I want to know.
MR. MASON-Okay. Well, that was where we got into this discussion originally, that was the confusing
area, whether a roofed in screened porch was included.
MR. TURNER-It might be. John. I'm not sure. We'll let them decide that.
MR. MASON-Well, they both have it, the old and the new screened porch.
MR. KELLEY-I want to know heated part.
MR. MASON-Heated part.
MR. KELLEY-Not garages. not porches.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Do you want to send anything to the Planning Board, in reference to the review?
MRS. GOETZ-Will they have all these figures. the Planning Board?
MR. MASON-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. MASON-I have them, tonight. if you really want them.
MRS. GOETZ-Well, I don't think we need to go into it tonight.
MR. TURNER-No, there's no sense in going into it.
MRS. GOETZ-But if we were going to mention the size of the house as a concern to the Planning Board.
you know, I think that we should mention that there was a question on that square footage.
MR. MASON-If you're going to mention the size, are you sure you don't want the square footage?
MRS. GOETZ-Pardon me?
MR. MASON-If you're going to mention the size as a concern, are you sure you don't want them?
MR. TURNER-Well, predicated on the information we've got now, I think the square footage is a concern.
MR. MASON-Okay.
MRS. GOETZ-But as far as going over it ourselves, I think we should do it all at one time, especially
when their attorney is here. because I mean, wouldn't that be a fair way to do it?
MR. MASON-We would prefer to have Walter Rehm here. We were under the impression it wouldn't be
necessary tonight.
MR. TURNER-Yes, you're correct.
MR. MASON-Okay.
MR. KELLEY-So, you've got permeability?
22
MR. TURNER-That's the other one.
MR. MASON-We also have those figures.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-Okay.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MRS. CRAYFORD-I checked the permeability and it's 66 percent.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MR. MASON-But, again, that's dealing with an existing driveway.
MRS. CRAYFORD-That's true.
MRS. GOETZ-But should we say something about the driveway. that maybe they can eliminate some?
MR. TURNER-If they're going to tear the whole thing down, they can do anything.
MRS. GOETZ-It doesn't sound like it.
MR. MASON-No. We are not tearing the whole thing down. We're not tearing the whole thing down. We're
remodeling. Believe me. Ask Mr. Carr. We are remodeling the existing residence.
MRS. GOETZ-He made a decision. You made a decision.
MR. MASON-We had no choice.
MRS. GOETZ-You had to.
MR. MASON-I was backed right into a corner. We are remodeling the existing residence.
MR. TURNER-Okay. It just didn't look like it. Does anybody have any concern as to the size of the
house on the lot? Jeff. do you?
MR. KELLEY-Well. I guess we've got two things. I mean, one, we'd want to know the permeability and
Pat seems to feel confident with that. I guess the other thing would be the variance for an increase
of over 50 percent expansion and that's what he's here for, right?
MR. TURNER-Yes. Shoreline setback, 50 percent expansion.
MR. GORALSKI-I could just mention to the Board that the Planning Board will get a copy of this discussion
prior to reviewing the SEQRA.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. MASON-If you would like the square footages, I have them. Unfortunately, it includes the screened
porch. It won't answer Jeff's question. Before the screened porch, though, the proposed is 2344.
If we take out the screened porch. I'm sure it will be under 2.000, the proposed house.
MR. KELLEY-Is that both floors?
MR. MASON-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Both floors together?
MR. MASON-Yes. 1484. first floor living. second floor living is 860.
MR. TURNER-Well. that's my concern. I don't know about anybody else. I'm just goi ng to go on the
information that I've got here. If you want to bring something back that's different after the SEQRA
Review, that's fine. then we'll elaborate on it then.
MR. CARR-Ted, you're concern is?
MR. TURNER-Size of the structure on the small lot.
MR. CARR-Okay. I'm also concerned about location next to the lake. I don't know if there's any way
you can put it back farther or not.
23
"-
--
MR. TURNER-Yes, I think that's one of the concerns I have and I think, you know, the Planning Board
ought to look at.
MRS. EGGLESTON-And the height of the building for the people in back for whom it's going to completely
block the.
MR. TURNER-Those are my concerns. I don't know if anybody else has any. So. size of the structure
on the lot, possible height for vision of residents in the back.
MR. SHEA-All of those issues are going to come back when it comes back for a variance and public hearing
anyway, right?
MR. TURNER-Yes. What was your other comment, Bruce?
MR. CARR-Just location on the lot.
MR. TURNER-Location on the lot and it's proximity to the Lake. Okay. All right. We'll move on to
the next application.
USE VARIANCE NO. 38-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-lA FRANK BRENNEISEN, SR. OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE GLEN
LAKE ROAD (OR LAKE), EAST SIDE BETlfEEN SULLIVAN ROAD AND SULLIVAN PLACE FOR IIISTALLATION OF A BOAT
RAMP. PRIVATE BOAT RAMPS ARE NOT ALLOWED. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP 110. 38-4-19 LOT SIZE:
0.30 ACRES SECTION 1.063-W
FRANK BRENNEISEN. SR. PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Use Variance No. 38-1991, Frank Brenneisen. Sr., May 8. 1991,
Meeting Date: May 15, 1991 "The request is for a variance to maintain a private boat ramp on Glen
Lake. The appl icant has stated that he previously had a boat ramp on the property. He filled it in
and created another ramp for hi s boats whi ch woul d be more appropri ate for a 1 arger watercraft. The
ramp is constructed out of crushed stone with larger stones on the bank area. Burms appear to be
directing the drainage from the driveway so as to infiltrate prior to going into the lake. This
application was reviewed with regard to the Use Variance criteria. 1. Is a reasonable return possible
if the land is used as zoned? Yes. The applicant has a year round home on the lake. 2. Are the
circumstances of this lot unique and not due to the unreasonableness of the Ordinance? The lot is
similar to others in the neighborhood. 3. Is there an adverse effect on the neighborhood character?
This ramp in and of itself does not effect the neighborhood character. If this were to become a popular
launching site on to Glen Lake then there would be a change in the residential neighborhood. Also.
if the existence of this lake access were to encourage the development of other ramps in the area.
the lake character could be affected."
MR. TURNER-Mr. Brenneisen, we talked last night there for a little bit.
MR. BRENNEISEN-Right.
MR. TURNER-The other ramp will go if this one is approved?
MR. BRENNEISEN-Definitely. That's what I intend to do, yes.
MR. TURNER-That's what you said last time. yes.
MR. BRENNEISEN-Right.
MR. TURNER-Okay. I guess I don't have any further comments right now.
MR. CARR-Why is this back here?
MR. TURNER-Why is it back here? Because the Zoning Administrator made a decision that he didn't need
a variance.
MS. CORPUS-And you made a determination that he did.
MR. TURNER-And we said that he needed a variance.
MR. TURNER-I guess I'd like to hear from the public, if there's anyone here, but maybe somebody else
has some questions for Mr. Brenneisen. Does anyone else have any questions? Did everybody look at
it? Do you have any more questions? None? Okay. I'll open the public hearing.
24
"-
-
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
SUE ROURKE
MRS. ROURKE-Sue Rourke. Jay Road. At your last meeting, when you asked Mr. Brenneisen. when was the
last time he used his original boat ramp. it had been longer than 18 months and you said that
disqualified him and your rules state that a boat launch can only be issued for commercial purposes.
Mr. Brenneisen has stated this is not for commercial purposes. I guess the thing that bothers me the
most is it was in and then applied for. He did not enlarge his old one. He dug out a piece of bank
and put in a new one and then, months later, applied, and that's when I got interested because I knew
it had already been there. If you deemed fit to have him have it. so be it. but I just want to go
on record stating my objection.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
Letter from Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company. "I am writing this letter on behalf of the Bay Ridge
Fire Company concerning the boat launch at Frank Brenneisen's property on Glen Lake. We have used
this property on previous occasions to drill with the portable pumps. This new launch would benefit
the Fire Company and the people in the immediate area by allowing our trucks better access to the lake.
By pumping directly from the lake, we could provide a greater volume of water to the fire scene. Gary
West, Chief"
MR. CARR-What would that have to do with the boat launch?
MRS. GOETZ-I don't know. unless they drive down on it.
MR. GORALSKI-Would you like that explained to you?
MR. CARR-Yes. Could you please?
MR. GORALSKI-In that area of Town. there are no fire hydrants, okay. So what you have to do is draft
water from the lake. load it into tankers, and bring that water to the fire scene in a tanker. I think
what the Chief is saying is that being able to drive down the driveway and into the ramp makes it easier
for them to draft water out of the lake and then get to the fire scene. Easier access to the lake
is really what it is.
MR. TURNER-Don't they have access at the Docksider?
MR. GORALSKI-Yes. they do.
MR. CARR-And how far is this from the Docksider?
MR. TURNER-About 500 feet, maybe. at the most, if it's that far.
MR. GORALSKI-It's close.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Very close.
MR. SICARD-There's times when they can't get into the Docksider, too. because of parking.
MR. TURNER-That's what I was just going to say. This gives them double access.
MR. CARR-But you're going to have party boats there. Aren't you? So where's the access there?
MR. BRENNEISEN-The reason they wrote the letter is because they had to put a small pump into the lake.
They used this driveway, by the way, for about 10 years now and they come down there and practice on
it and during the summer months I keep my truck across the street in the parking lot, Glenmore Parking
Lot, so that they can get down there any time they want to and at night my truck is over there. My
wi fe's car is in the garage and they can get down there any time they want to. Now on the 1 eft hand
side of me, if I was facing the lake, there's five houses that have no access to get in there to draw
water out. So what they used to do is put the small pump in. Now they'll be able to draw their tanker
right straight down to the lake and drop a six foot 1 ine in instead of just a four foot 1 ine before.
Now they can go directly to the pumper and then hose lines off of that going to the existing houses
ri ght along the bay. ri ght along the whole shore. and also, on the other side of me. you can I t get
in for about four houses down, including the Glenmore. the Glenmore Lodge which is in business all
summer long. So thi s is the reason they asked me if they coul d use it, li ke I say. about 10 years
ago and I said, sure. why not and they've been using it every year since, and the other thing I would
just 1 i ke to say at thi s time in reference to Mrs. Rourke, that boat ramp that I have there, that's
25
'-
-
existing and that's why I came here for the grandfather law, to practical use, that was there for 19
years since live had my property and for 25 years on the previous owner, Mr. and Mrs. Shannon, and
when they dug out my basement. when I got the variance to dig out my basement to put this house up
in the air, they wanted to fill that in. I said. no way. You leave that boat ramp right there because
I'm going to use it and I have used it. every year with my small boats. and this is where, Mr. Turner,
I didn't understand what he was saying the last time I was here and that's why I stood up after that
and tried to correct it. He said, how many years has it been since you've used your boat ramp and
I've had a big boat for about 10 years. So I said 10 years. but not realizing what he meant, any boat.
Well, no. every year we put our small boats in right there and we put our docks in over there also
so, I think I've answered all your questions that I know of.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I have one. I know Mrs. Rourke was concerned, too, about if this was going to be used
for business use, and when you were here last time, you did use the phrase, my clients boats.
MR. BRENNEISEN-Yes. I'm a caretaker on Glen Lake.
MRS. EGGLESTON-So, does that mean you do use?
MR. BRENNEISEN-No. That means no.
MRS. EGGLESTON-But when you say clients, that indicates business.
MR. BRENNEISEN-I have never put anybody's boat in on my property, with the exception of my own, not
even my son's. They have gone down to the Docksider also, and they live out of state, but when they
come up to visit me, they have to put them in some place, so they've been putting them in through the
Docksider and that's why I said, now, if I should get this boat ramp, can I use it for my offspring.
for my own family? I have three sons. I don't mean my cousins, uncles, and neighbors, because I don't
have any, but I'm just talking about my sons, that's all. If they can use it, that's fine, and they're
only there a short period, weekends and maybe two times out of the whole season.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, what do you do for your clients and how do you service their boats?
MR. BRENNEISEN-I'm a caretaker on the lake, for about 15 maybe 16 years and I open up the camps, close
the camps, turn on the water, put the docks in the water. If they have a boat, I put them in the water.
Now, I have four clients who have boats and I'm slowly weeding the boat section out because I no longer
want to do that. not because I'm putting the boat ramp in. I just want to get away from it because
I don't want to use the Docksider facility because, like I had stated before, they get very crowded.
He only has a small area down there to put the boats in. I know how big the area is supposed to be,
but once they start putting the cars in there. there's no way you can get down there wi th big boat
trailers, especially with the contour on that road. So. I want to stay out of there because the last
time I tried to put a boat in there, a big one, I backed into one of his trucks, because he puts it
right up on the corner and that makes it tough. So. this is one of my main reasons, but I only want
to pull my boat up on there and leave it all winter so I don't have to store it across the street and
that puts an additional hardship on me because my homeowners insurance covers the boat as long as it's
on my property. but when I have to store it across the street, I have to take out additional property
insurance because it's not on home property. So I have to take an addi ti onal insurance poli cy out,
which I do. to insure the boat and trailer.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else? Any questions? None? Okay. I have one for Mrs. Rourke. Do you have
any objection to boat ramps being on Glen Lake as a private. residential use?
MRS. ROURKE-How can you assure anyone that they will remain private?
MR. TURNER-It's a matter of policing, but I couldn't answer that.
MRS. ROURKE-I don't like policing, that's a whole different thing. The more boat ramps you allow,
the more boats you're going to put on this three mile lake.
MR. TURNER-Okay. The last time you were here, you alluded to some other ramps that were put in.
MRS. ROURKE-They have been there, as his original one was. for years.
MR. TURNER-For years?
MRS. ROURKE-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Not new ones, but old ones?
MRS. ROURKE-They might have been improved, but they've been there, those didn't walk right in there.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MRS. ROURKE-There aren't that many. I think there's three.
26
--
MR. TURNER-So your answer is you are against a boat ramp as a use in a private residence?
MRS. ROURKE-No, not if it doesn't set a precedent. I think what annoyed me most is that the ramp went
in and then he applied.
MR. TURNER-That was an error here.
MRS. ROURKE-Well. before that it was an error. because I called the Zoning Board and asked to have
an inspector go out and nobody went.
MR. TURNER-Planning Department.
MRS. ROURKE-I called the Town Hall and asked to have an inspector go out last fall and nobody did.
So that goes way back. If you grant it, fine. I'm not going to stamp my feet or whatever. but I just
hope you're not setting a precedent for predigging.
MR. TURNER-No, but isn't it a fact that there's probably a great deal of use of party boats on Glen
Lake ri ght now?
MRS. ROURKE-Sure. I think we have 63.
MR. TURNER-How many?
MRS. ROURKE-Sixty three, that's before summer gets into full swing and people buy.
MR. TURNER-Those are boats that are on the lake permanently, as the people who own the residences there
own those boats? 63?
MRS. ROURKE-Yes, 63. at last count.
MRS. EGGLESTON-But they don't all have ramps. How do they put in them in the lake?
MRS. ROURKE-No. they don't. They put in at the Docksider. The only ones who put in on their own are
people who have party boats, the two or three that have ramps. Everything else comes in through the
Docksider.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I guess I could say, with these 63 party boats, what if these people come back and say.
well. Mr. Brenneisen has a boat ramp for his party boat, we want one for our party boat. Then where
are we going to be?
MR. KELLEY-I think the difference that you have is he had a preexisting ramp that did not go out of
discontinuance.
MR. CARR-But there's a difference between this ramp. This is a ramp that went into a house. right?
It didn't go to the road. Now, we're granting a ramp from the roadway to the lake.
MRS. EGGLESTON-That's paved.
MR. CARR-I have a problem with that.
MR. BRENNEISEN-It's not paved all the way.
MRS. EGGLESTON-It isn't?
MR. TURNER-No. It's stone.
MR. BRENNEISEN-No. You ought to get over there and see it, like some of the other Board members did.
MRS. EGGLESTON-We were over there.
MRS. GOETZ-We saw it.
MR. BRENNEISEN-Well. it's not paved all the way down.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Will it be?
MR. BRENNEISEN-No. I'd like to just say, at this time, I'm on the Glen Lake Board of Directors and
I'm strictly against polluting the lake and putting in cement or blacktop and I haven't put a thing
in the lake. I only went down to the lake with crushed stone.
MRS. EGGLESTON-See, I'm not questioning that. What I am saying is, Mrs. Rourke says. and I know there
are. There are a lot of party boats on the lake.
27
---
MR. BRENNEISEN-Yes. There are.
MRS. EGGLESTON-What if these people come and say, I want a ramp, Mr. Brenneisen has one. Do you think
everybody who has a party boat should have a ramp?
MR. BRENNEISEN-No. My bone of contention here is that I came here with a practical use. I've had
an exi sti ng boat ramp on that 1 ake for 19 years si nce I've had the house and 25 years before that.
The only thing I don't want to do is take down any trees to get my existing boat into the lake, which
I could do. to re-modify that boat ramp I have right now, okay. I don't want to take down the trees
if I don't have to. I would have to take down a pine and an oak that have been there for many years.
I would say 50 at least, from the size of them. So, that's the reason I just relocated it. That's
what I thought I was doing. That's why I thought I wasn't doing anything illegal. I thought I was
relocating from here to here and the onJy reason that that's partially filled in now is because I took
the dirt out of here. wheelbarreled it out of there and put it in that one. and it's in there loose.
It's not even completely filled in yet.
MRS. EGGLESTON-But in reality, it is a new boat ramp.
MR. BRENNEISEN-No. It's a relocation of an old one that's been there for 40 years. Well. that's how
I see it. I live there. It's always been there. and I wouldn't let the people who dug out the basement
even fill it in.
MR. CARR-But can't you see a difference with a boat ramp that just goes right to the house, that has
no access to the road, and now a boat ramp that's going to have direct access to the road.
MR. BRENNEISEN-To my driveway.
MR. CARR-To your driveway which goes to the road.
MR. BRENNEISEN-Which is offset from the road.
MR. CARR-Right, but I mean. what do we say to the next person that comes down and says. I want a boat
ramp right to my driveway, right down to the lake?
MR. BRENNEISEN-Well, did you have one existing before?
MR. KELLEY-Right.
MRS. EGGLESTON-But you didn't either. not in the same circumstance?
MR. BRENNEISEN-I didn't have one? Sure I had one.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Not in the same circumstance.
MR. BRENNEISEN-It's been there for 40 years.
MRS. EGGLESTON-But not at the end of your driveway.
MR. BRENNEISEN-Not at the end of my driveway? No.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. BRENNEISEN-At the end of this driveway. The driveway used to go that way, before I moved in there.
When the house was raised up and the basement was dug out, they put all the dirt on my front lawn now.
which built the lawn up. which we had to build the driveway back up a little more too so we wouldn't
have so much of a slope and then I no longer used that because before it was all dirt down there, just
di rt, no 1 awn. Now I have a 1 awn down there. So I no longer have a road over there. but if I had
to, I would put a road over there, or a pathway to get my boat down there.
MRS. GOETZ-Okay. The only difference that I see in your application is that, as opposed to somebody
new coming in here with the same proposal. is that you did have a boat ramp.
MR. BRENNEISEN-Exactly.
MRS. GOETZ-But I'd have to have the removal of the first boat ramp. if I were to grant that.
MR. BRENNEISEN-My wife's been after me for years to do that and that's the reason I wouldn't fill it
in. until I got this one in.
MRS. GOETZ-Okay. I just want to make sure.
MR. BRENNEISEN-Definitely.
28
MR. GORALSKI-Mrs. Goetz. that was part of the site plan approval of the Planning Board, that the old
ramp be filled in.
MR. BRENNEISEN-Yes.
MRS. GOETZ-Okay.
MR. BRENNEISEN-I would just like to say, at this time. too. the other answer to Mrs. Rourke's question
about, she said that she called the Town and the Town did not have anybody come down there. The
inspector came down there immediately and as soon as he told me. Frank, you can't do this. boom, I
stopped, and that was it. I came right over to the office to get anything I needed to have me legal.
MRS. GOETZ-Maybe she meant that she had called several months earlier then when they actually went.
MR. BRENNEISEN-No. When she called, they came right over, maybe a day or two later, but they came
right over. That was last fall, and I stopped. I didn't do a thing after that.
MRS. GOETZ-That's good.
MR. TURNER-Are you aware of how many party boats come out at the Docksider at the end of the season?
MR. BRENNEISEN-Quite a few.
MR. TURNER-How many would you say?
MR. BRENNEISEN-Well, as of last year, there was only 50 on the lake. and I notice some new ones on
the lake now, but I really don't know what the count is because I haven't gone around counting them,
but we usually do. but there was only 50 as of last year. I would say, that live on the lake, there
has to be around, maybe 40, okay. Where the rest of them come from or who owns them, I don't know.
MRS. ROURKE-If I sat down with a map. I only know of one person who does not live on the lake who has
a party boat there. Every party boat. with the one exception that I know of, lives on the lake.
MR. TURNER-Do they go in the lake at the Docksider?
MRS. ROURKE-They go in at the Docksider.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MRS. ROURKE-Some of them pull them out and pull them behind their own properties. you know, down around
the road.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MRS. ROURKE-Others store them if they don't have room. Not everybody has room to store a boat. but
they're all owned by lake owners.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion? No more comment?
MR. KELLEY-We talk about the fire company situation and I was there this morning, or yesterday morning,
whatever morning it was, yesterday morning. I mean, I guess it's nice that he allows them to use his
driveway, but whether the ramp were there or not, they could still draft water. So. I don't think
that that should influence any of our thinking.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Right.
MR. KELLEY-In fact. I don't know that they'd want to drive the truck in the crushed stone because I
think it would get stuck, to tell you the truth.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay.
MRS. EGGLESTON-It would be difficult to tell somebody else they couldn't have it. Even though he did
have one, this is a new boat ramp.
MR. TURNER-All right. What would be the Board's reaction now, since the concept of party boats has
come about and there's 63 on the lake, what would you say to somebody that lived on the lake that wanted
a ramp to access the lake, in or out? What would be your opinion on that?
MR. CARR-If they wanted to build a ramp? No. Just because the boat's a little bigger than any other
boat. I don't think that's a justification for giving everybody a ramp.
29
<-
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MR. CARR-I think there's something in the Ordinance that says a boat ramp is only for commercial use.
MR. TURNER-Right, and I told Mr. Brenneisen that was exactly where we were coming from.
MR. EGGLESTON-Right.
MR. CARR-There must have been some rationale behind it.
MR. TURNER-That was it, because of that. Okay. A motion's in order.
MR. KELLEY-I'm trying to make a relationship to his, he had a preexisting, nonconforming use.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-Which was a boat ramp.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Which he still could have.
MR. KELLEY-Right. and I think, lets say that he hadn't put it in, okay, and now he came here and said,
listen, I have an existing boat ramp. all right, but I can't get the boat that I own up it. which he
can't. There's two big trees there that are too close together, and he said, would you allow me to
move it and we said, no, you've got to keep it where it is, and he said, okay, then I'm going to cut
down some trees. To me. if I had that decision to make, I would say, I'd rather have him move it 20
feet than cut down two beautiful trees on the lake.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-I mean, I would throw that into the mixture.
MRS. EGGLESTON-But he's not saying he can't use it because of the trees.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-Yes, he is.
MRS. EGGLESTON-He still could put his boat up.
MR. TURNER-Joyce. he did say that.
MR. KELLEY-The boat that he has will not go between that two trees. That's why he moved it.
MR. BRENNEISEN-The trees are six feet apart. The boat's eight feet wide.
MR. KELLEY-And that would be my criteria why his application would be different than everybody except
maybe two or three other people on the lake.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-He had a preexisting ramp.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-If he didn't have it, now I'd say you're talking something different.
MR. BRENNEISEN-I wouldn't be here.
MR. TURNER-Right.
MR. KELLEY-Because we would say no, because we're going to set a precedent and we're going to open
up a can of worms, but he had a preexisting one. Now. to me. whether you can back into it or. I mean.
he had rails running into the building. I suppose he could take the building down and put a driveway
over on that side. Nothing says he can't do that. I mean, I don't see where we're going to gain
anything.
MR. TURNER-You're not going to lose or gain. You're not going to lose a thing.
MR. KELLEY-You know, in terms of what he ultimately could do if he'd have left it where he was. He
could cut down trees. tear part of the house down and put a driveway in and he could do all that and
not even be here.
MR. CARR-You can't expand a nonconforming use, can you, without a variance?
30
-
MR. KELLEY-I don't think he'd be expanding it.
MR. CARR-He'd have to be here to expand it.
MR. KELLEY-Why would he be expanding it? It's for personal use.
MR. CARR-I mean, if it's a six foot thing and he wants to make it eight foot, that's an expansion.
He'd have to be here anyway.
MR. TURNER-Yes, he'd have to be here, but by the same rationale, as Jeff says. he had a ramp that was
already there, right. Now he bought a boat that won't fit between the two trees that are there. The
rationale is, why the heck cut down two beautiful trees to gain access to the lake when he's got another
spot that he coul d move the ramp over to, make the ramp, then get hi s boat out of the 1 ake, fill hi s
other one in. and that one's out of the picture. He hasn't changed anything. He's just moved it from
this side of the property to this side of the property.
MR. KELLEY-And he has filled it in.
MR. TURNER-He has filled it in.
MR. KELLEY-I mean, with whatever dirt he took out. he's put over here. I mean. he needs that much
more topsoil to grow grass or something. I mean, he quit because he said he didn't want to do any
more once he was told to stop.
MRS. GOETZ-Okay. I agree with you. but then when you read the criteria for granting a use variance,
the way it emphasizes that all of these points, being Number Four, have to be.
MR. TURNER-Yes. but I think he's got vested rights, to a certain extent. He already had a ramp there.
MRS. GOETZ-Okay, well then lets make a motion because I think we're hashing over and over the same
things, but Jeff, your points were good.
MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 38-1991 FRANK BRENNEISEN, SR., Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved
for its adoption. seconded by Theodore Turner:
To allow a boat ramp on Mr. Brenneisen's property and this is a relief from Section 7.063W of the Zoning
Ordinance. The strict application of the use provisions of this Ordinance would result in a specified
unnecessary hardship to the applicant arising from an exceptional circumstance applying to the property.
in that, there was a preexisting boat ramp there. The granting of this variance is necessary for the
preservation of the property right of the applicant and the variance would not be materially detrimental
to the purposes of this Ordinance. Allowing Mr. Brenneisen to construct the new boat ramp would be
better, environmentally. because if he couldn't have the new ramp and wanted the use of the old ramp.
he would have to remove trees from the shoreline. We have reviewed the Short EAF and find no negative
impact. As part of my"motion, I would like to incorporate the Queensbury Planning Board's recommendation
that the old boat ramp be removed.
Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Shea. Mr. Sicard. Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner
NOES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston
AREA VARIANCE 39-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA JUDITH AND FRANK BARTKOWSKI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE BIG
BAY ROAD, CORINTH ROAD, PAST tEDONALD'S REST., TAKE FIRST LEFT, 2 MILES DOWN THE ROAD, HOOSE IS ON
THE RIGHT FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LAND INTO 3 LOTS. THE NORTHERN TWO LOTS WILL BE 0.75 OF AN ACRE RATHER
THAN THE REQUIRED ONE ACRE. TAX MP NO. 143-1-1.7 LOT SIZE: 2.51 ACRES SECTION 4.02D-G
JUDITH BARTKOWSKI, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John S. Goralski. Planner, Area Variance No. 39-1991. Judith and Frank Bartkowski. May 9,
1991, Meeting Date: May 15. 1991 "There are three existing houses on this 2.507 acre site. The owner
must subdivide if these houses are to be sold separately. Although no evidence has been provided.
it would appear that a significant economic hardship would be incurred by the owner if these homes
could not be sold separately. Since no new construction is proposed. there will be no impact on public
facilities or services."
MR. TURNER-Could you identify yourself for the record.
MRS. BARTKOWSKI-Yes. Judy Bartkowski.
31
"-
MR. TURNER-Those are those three little white houses that are in a row there?
MRS. BARTKOWSKI-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Maille, it's on the mailbox. One is Maille.
MRS. BARTKOWSKI-Ryan, Maille and Thomas, yes.
MR. TURNER-This was 20.000 square feet before, I think. wasn't it? SR-20?
MRS. BARTKOWSKI-I believe so, yes.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MRS. BARTKOWSKI-Minimum lot size was three quarters of an acre.
MR. TURNER-Right.
MRS. BARTKOWSKI-When I first had the survey done, it was .75. .85, and .89. Those were the surveyed
lots.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MRS. EGGLESTON-These are rental properties I take it?
MRS. BARTKOWSKI-They are now. I have a buyer for the third one over and when I showed them the survey,
the existing survey. they asked me if they had room for a two car garage and so they called the Town
and we found out that they didn't have room. So they asked me if I could move the lot line, since
I owned the lot next door and since they're all positioned in the same way. moving that lot line wouldn't
hurt me because those are bedrooms on that side and nothing would ever go there. So I first called
the Town to find out what I would have to do to be able to move that lot line and that's when I found
out that the subdivision map. or the map that I had done originally was never filed and that three
individual deeds were not filed by the attorney who represented me.
MR. TURNER-So they became one lot.
MRS. BARTKOWSKI-Right.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MRS. EGGLESTON-And when were these houses built?
MRS. BARTKOWSKI-I had them surveyed in April of '87. The closing on the land was in June. I had them
surveyed before the closing so that I could find out. make sure that I had the right size for the
properti es at the time and the constructi on started December of '87. They were done April and May
of '88 and I did receive three individual building permits and three individual COso
MRS. GOETZ-Isn't this unusual?
MR. TURNER-They didn't file a subdivision map.
MRS. GOETZ-Her attorney?
MR. TURNER-Yes. So. what happened, when it changed, it just combined everything. It became one lot.
MRS. GOETZ-Did it go to the Planning Board at one point, he just didn't file it? It seems unusual.
MR. TURNER-No, because this was 20,000 square feet.
MR. KELLEY-She says three quarters.
MR. TURNER-It just never was recorded.
MR. KELLEY-No, but she said that it was three quarters of an acre.
MR. TURNER-Yes. it was 20,000 square feet. I think it was SR-20, down on Big Boom Road.
MR. KELLEY-I was going to say, we didn't have a three quarter acre zone anyway. did we?
MR. TURNER-No. not that I remember.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Big Bay Road, Ted.
32
MR. TURNER-Big Bay Road. yes. I thought that was all SR-20.
MRS. CRAYFORD-I'm sure the former zoning was SR-20.
MR. TURNER-Yes, it was.
MRS. BARTKOWSKI-I have this bill here in which he (the attorney) states. request changes to abstract
and proposed deed, discussion with client regarding Town of Queensbury Zoning and Subdivision
Regulations. He said that he was going to file one deed in my name, one in my husband's and then a
third one in both our names and for some reason he just didn't do it. As I said, he had the survey.
The survey was done.
MRS. GOETZ-Do you usually get the deeds back after they do it?
MRS. BARTKOWSKI-Well, I got one deed back and, again, my builder applied for building permits and was
given three building permits. I do have pictures of the way the houses exist right now. I did put
them back quite a ways.
MR. TURNER-We went down and looked at them.
MRS. BARTKOWSKI-Okay. As I said, I do have a buyer for one of them. I plan on selling all three of
them. The people who live in the first and second houses have expressed an interest in buying them
and I just 1 earned that I can't sell one at a time, I woul d have to sell all three to one person and
that's not too practical.
MR. TURNER-Yes. that's pretty tough.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Is that all of the property that you have in that area?
MRS. BARTKOWSKI-Yes.
MRS. EGGLESTON-That's the extent of your?
MRS. BARTKOWSKI-Yes.
MRS. GOETZ-I'm just curious, for the whole subject of affordable housing, is that a good way to go.
where you do put up the homes and people rent them and then as they gain more money they really can
buy them? Have you found that successful?
MRS. BARTKOWSKI-Sure. I work for Statewide Funding and I'm a loan counselor and I find that sometimes
people don't have the money and it is a way to save, yes.
MR. KELLEY-Did you do these with rental with the option to buy. where some of their rent is applied
toward the purchase price?
MRS. BARTKOWSKI-No. A rental with an option to buy only to the extent that the purchase price is
protected. so that if they buy this house a year from now, I have to sell it to them at the agreed
upon price.
MR. TURNER-Yes. right.
MR. SHEA-So what is the actual variance that we are to give, here.
MR. TURNER-It is one acre.
MR. KELLEY-One acre.
MR. TURNER-Very minimum.
MRS. BARTKOWSKI-What happens is. when I move that one li ne, the thi rd lot, the lot in questi on that
wants to be sold. becomes an acre.
MR. TURNER-Which one is it, the 32.000?
MRS. BARTKOWSKI-Number Three.
MR. CARR-The triangle.
MRS. BARTKOWSKI-The triangle shaped.
MR. KELLEY-The acre lot.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
33
---
MRS. BARTKOWSKI-Yes, it becomes an acre now because it was necessary to move that line to give them
enough room for a two car garage.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MR. GORALSKI-So it's only two lots that need a variance.
MRS. BARTKOWSKI-Right.
MR. TURNER-Right. Okay. Any further questions? None? I'll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
RAY STORMS
MR. STORMS-My name is Ray Storms and I find myself in a similar situation. I had a piece of property
on which I built two houses and under the law at the time, I got building permits and certificates
of occupancy and had separate surveys, but did not deed them out separately. and with one sweep of
the pen, the law made those nonconforming and I was not able to sell them as separate houses and I
have been before the Town Board three or four times because I was told that they were considering passing
a law that would offer some relief in this matter. especially in the case of deeding them to offspring.
I don't know if that has been done. I kind of lost interest after awhile, it took so long.
MR. TURNER-I don't believe it has.
MR. STORMS-So I'm still renting my houses out and have buyers and even tenants now that want to buy
them and can't do that because the law changed what I had done was legal and proper, now isn't.
MR. TURNER-Are your houses the houses that are adjacent to her houses?
MR. STORMS-Yes.
MR. TURNER-They're on the road?
MR. STORMS-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Yours is out way out by the river, right?
MR. STORMS-Mine would be north of the Bartkowski's properties.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. STORMS-So, personally, I don't think it's fair that somebody can change my use of something that
once conformed and was legal and now isn't legal just by a sweep of the pen and I'd like to see some
relief for this in both of these circumstances.
MR. CARR-Have you applied for a variance?
MR. STORMS-No.
haven't applied for a variance.
MR. CARR-Because I don't think. I mean, I can't speak out of turn, but I mean, this has come up before
the Board before, about two houses built on conforming lots at the time that are nonconforming and
I believe, in the past, there has not been much opposition to a simple subdivision of those lots.
MR. STORMS-At the time that I brought this up before the Town Board. they thought that the quickest
way was that they would pass a law and that was a two years ago, and I really lost interest in it because
of the bureaucracy involved and whatever and I still have the potential of selling them and I think
that in both of these cases, there's no harm done to the law and to the neighborhood to allow it to
be what is already, to say it's legal to have what is there. The houses are there. They're occupied.
They have COso Now all that remains is to be able to deed them out separately, which was all right
before and now it isn't.
MR. CARR-Pat. what does the subdivision and Planning Board. I mean, do they review all subdivisions
or is it just of a certain number?
MRS. CRAYFORD-All subdivisions.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. CARR-Okay.
34
-
,--,'
MR. STORMS-So, before it was a minor subdivision which all you had to do was just get a building permit
for those two lots.
MR. TURNER-Right. Now there's no more minors.
MR. STORMS-Now. no more minor subdivisions.
MR. TURNER-Right.
MR. STORMS-Which was what I was trying to avoid, go through the whole big subdivision, major subdivision
thing.
MR. TURNER-I think maybe I could tell you why that rationale surfaced for taking the minor subdivisions
out because there was a great concern as to curb cuts. A guy coul d come in and want to buil d four
houses ri ght in a row. You've got four curb cuts. So, the idea was to i nterna li ze as much as you
could and make one curb cut versus four. So, the biggest problem seemed to come at the time from the
minor subdivisions, not the bigger subdivisions, because the bigger subdivisions gained the scrutiny
of the Planning Board and the minor divisions didn't gain any scrutiny. So that's where the rationale
came from. It doesn't help your problem, but I just thought I'd answer your question. Anyone else
wish to be heard?
JOHN WEBB
MR. WEBB-My name is John Webb. I live at 554B Big Bay Road. I guess I'm the only, other than Ray.
1 andowner that is associ ated wi th thi s property. at 1 east according to the 500 foot requi rement here.
I came as a result of receiving this letter. I didn't know whether I was coming to oppose or not oppose
or anything else. but I felt maybe it would be a good time to speak. being I'm the only neighbor that
could have any objections to what might be happening for these folks and I just thought I would throw
in my two cents that I would have no objections. I would be in favor of any changes that would enable
these people to get what they need to do.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard? No? Public hearing's closed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TURNER-Any further Correspondence? None? Okay. Motion's in order.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-1991 JUDITH AND FRANK BARTKOWSKI, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston:
I feel there are special conditions that apply to this property and the first is that the applicant
was under the impression that. through a previous legal attempt to divide this property, that it was
divided and met the 30,000 square foot requirement of the zone at the time of the subdivision. IT
appears that the actual recording of this subdivision never took place and as a result of that, the
three existing single family residences came to be situated on one 2~ acre site. Because of this
situation, a practical difficulty exists, that being that the three homes cannot be sold individually.
This variance does not appear to be detrimental to the Ordinance. In fact, it may be an improvement
over what the original subdivision called for. The improvement being that one of the lots would now
become a conforming lot of one acre. This appears to be the minimum relief necessary to alleviate
the practical difficulty. It does not appear to be detrimental to the neighborhood. There is no
neighborhood opposition and this does not have any adverse effects on public facil ities. The Short
EAF shows no negative impact.
Duly adopted this 15th day of May. 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sicard. Mr. Kelley, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz. Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA JOHN P. MATTHEWS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 300 BAY
ROAD, CORNER OF BAY ROAD AND GLENllOOD AVENUE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN OFFICE IIJILDING OF 5,600 SQ. FT.
THERE IS CURRENTLY AN OFFICE IIJILDING ON THIS PROPERTY. THE STANDARD IS ONE PRINCIPAL IIJILDING PER
ACRE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 61-1-34 LOT SIZE: 1.76 ACRES SECTION 4.02D-K
JOHN MATTHEWS. PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John S. Goralski. Planner, Area Variance No. 40-1991, John P. Matthews, May 9. 1991. Meeting
Date: May 15, 1991 "The applicant wishes to construct a second building on a 1.76 acre lot. The
Zoning Ordinance allows only one principle building per lot in the HC-IA zone. Since the Ordinance
allows 12,000 sq. ft. of building per acre. the proposal is for substantially less square footage than
is allowed. However, no evidence is provided to indicate that the applicant does not have reasonable
use of the property. This proposal would have no impact on publ ic facilities or services. In many
ways. this site design is more in keeping with the purposes of the Ordinance and the goals of the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan than one large building would be."
35
-
---
MR. TURNER-Okay. John, the sketch here showing the old DeLongs dairy building includes the two new
additions, right?
MR. MATTHEWS-Correct, yes. John Matthews. Lake George.
MR. TURNER-The proposed office building is going to be what. in height?
MR. MATTHEWS-Pardon me?
MR. TURNER-The proposed office building. one story, two?
MR. MATTHEWS-Single story.
MR. TURNER-Single story?
MR. MATTHEWS-Right.
MR. CARR-Do you know what kind of use is going in there? I mean, do you have tenants lined up?
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. I have a tenant for 90 percent of the building right now and it's a hospital related
new facility.
MRS. GOETZ-Is it a whirlpool bath thing?
MR. MATTHEWS-No.
MRS. GOETZ-Okay.
MR. SICARD-That building that you're building there, is that going to be completed?
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, very soon. We're very close to a tenant for that building and I've got windows there
and we're ready to start the siding any day now.
MR. TURNER-Just like the notes say. and you can look in the Ordinance, but they're allowed 12,000 square
feet of building on a one acre lot and he's got 4900 in the one building and 56 in the other.
MR. CARR-I mean. it looks kind of nice. I mean, it's set back that far. I know I read where Warren
County says it's going to increase traffic, but I mean if he added the 5600 onto the existing building
it would seem that's going to increase traffic the same amount.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. CARR-It's just a matter of design, now.
MR. TURNER-I think the increase in traffic is from the Queensbury Racquet Club.
MRS. GOETZ-Well. it's also, people take a short cut down Glenwood to avoid Quaker and Bay.
MR. TURNER-Yes. they do.
MRS. GOETZ-It's a combination of a lot of different things, I think. I did have a call from somebody
that said they were noticed and they said they hoped that you finish this faster than you've been
finishing the additions on the other. Just to let you know.
MR. MATTHEWS-Well. I do have somebody for this and the economy hasn't helped things with my other
venture.
MR. TURNER-So. what's the rationale, the rationale for development is the proposed 5600 square foot
building and this one stays until you get a tenant?
MR. MATTHEWS-This completes.
MR. TURNER-No, but I'm saying. the front building, the old DeLongs dairy building. is that going to
stay?
MR. MATTHEWS-That's going to stay just exactly the way it is.
MR. TURNER-Yes. I know, but you don't have a tenant for that?
MR. MATTHEWS-I have a tentative tenant for the balance of the additions.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MR. MATTHEWS-And the other tenant that I have is for.
MR. TURNER-I know, is going in there. Okay.
.:S6
"-
-"
MR. MATTHEWS-But they preferred a separate building. My first idea was to just add on to the other
building and swing it out and around in an L shape fashion, but it kind of blocked the corner off and
I didn't feel that it would be as pleasing, as far as the neighbors were concerned.
MR. TURNER-Yes, and this is in the back corner anyway.
MRS. GOETZ-One thing that seems nice about the building that you've been working on is when you're
in the back and you're looking at part of it, you don't have the sense that you're overpowered by a
large building, and I really think that was done nicely.
MR. MATTHEWS-That's what I tried to do. I tried to get rid of that idea. Plus, I'm faced with working
with an existing building that's kitty corner on a square lot and I tried to square things up to regulate
the parking a little better.
MR. SHEA-Is the proposed use retail. wholesale, or service oriented?
MR. MATTHEWS-Professional Office.
MRS. GOETZ-Pat, the parking schedule, how do you figure that when, you mean you know exactly what the
use is and you're satisfied as far as the parking?
MRS. CRAYFORD-It's office use.
MRS. GOETZ-It's office?
MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes.
MRS. GOETZ-Okay. So, 1 i ke, if that were to change, then the parking schedul e woul d change at that
time that it might happen?
MRS. CRAYFORD-If it went to retail. then you would have to adjust for parking. Maybe you'd need a
variance if he went to retail.
MRS. GOETZ-Right. I'm just concerned that there's adequate parking.
MRS. CRAYFORD-For this office use there is.
MRS. GOETZ-Right. Do you know what I'm saying, though? I don't have a problem with it as it is, but
I think we need to think of it long range.
MR. TURNER-Right. but maybe the long range question is, are these long range tenants?
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else? Any concerns anybody?
MR. KELLEY-It's kind of like the Kaidas Kitchens.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-He was just under two acres by about the same amount.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MRS. GOETZ-I'd just 1 ike to go back to Kaidas Kitchens, since you brought it up, because I try to be
consistent, as I voted against Kaidas Kitchens, but one of the reasons was they're so close together.
They're practically touching each other.
MR. KELLEY-That's what somebody's comment was here.
MRS. GOETZ-You really feel that these are too close?
MR. KELLEY-I don't know that it's great looking.
MRS. GOETZ-Really?
MR. KELLEY-No. I'm not talking about this. I'm talking about the Kaidas one. When you actually see
it with that canopy thing sticking out there.
MRS. GOETZ-Right, and that's what my concern was at that time, where this doesn't strike me as bad
a situation because of the placement of the buildings.
MR. KELLEY-Right.
37
~,
--./
MRS. GOETZ-Plus, Kaidas Kitchens, that was three buildings, because he has that back building which
was by variance.
MR. KELLEY-That's true. He had the big warehouse.
MR. TURNER-Right. Okay. Any further comments? Public hearing is opened and closed.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
Letter from Bob Eddy, Chairman, Queensbury Committee For Community Beautification. to Zoning Board,
"QCCB does not ordinarily review Variances until Site Plan, which generally comes up the following
month. In this instance the Site Plan is on the agenda in the same month and was overlooked. The
applicant has done a fine job of landscaping on both roads that front his property, and it looks
attractive. in the opinion of the chairman. He has agreed to meet with our Committee at our June 10
meeting, so if approval is given it can be with the stipulation that he meet with QCCB at our June
meeting."
Warren County Planning Board disapproved this application due to increased density and increased traffic.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order if there's nothing else.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-1991 JOHN P. MATTHEWS, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard:
The applicant wishes to construct a second building on a 1.76 acre lot. Highway Commercial zone allows
one principle building at 12.000 square feet. The applicant is proposing an existing building of 4900
square feet and a proposed additional building of 5600 square feet. which comes to a total of 10.500
square feet which is less than the square footage that is allowed in the zone of 12,000 square feet.
The proposal woul d have no impact on publ ic facilities or services. I think the design is in keeping
with the purpose of the Ordinance and goals of the Land Use Plan than one larger building. The Short
EAF shows no negative impact.
Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kelley. Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard. Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
April 17th. 1991: Page 2, Mr. Ball is speaking, down towards the bottom, I don't want my insurance
to go up and if he builds it that close and he sib builds it; Page 9, in the middle, Mr. Kelley is
speaking about the people in his back yard, last sentence. they all sit there and gape out my back
window, sib they don't or we don't all sit there and gape out my back window
MOTION TO APPROVE THE APRIL InH, 1991 MINUTES AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Charl es Sicard who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz:
Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sicard. Mr. Kelley. Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston. Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Shea
MR. TURNER-John. I'd like to say thank you for all your past work. You've done a hell of a job, and
I wish you well on your new job.
MRS. GOETZ-We've learned a lot and it's going to help us in the future to do the right thing.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Thanks for your patience with the dumb questions.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Theodore Turner, Chairman
Jij