Loading...
1991-06-19 ---- Area Variance No. 25-1991 Area Variance No. 42-1991 Area Variance No. 37-1991 Notice of Appeal No. 1-91 Area Variance No. 41-1991 Area Variance No. 43-1991 ~EENSIlURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 19TH, 1991 INDEX Joseph & Rose Guerra 1. Frank W. & Kathleen V. England 1. Margaret F. & Theodore M. Hans 3. BY: John Schriner, Earl Shortsleeves Robert F. Smith 15. 22. Herbert Bunting 24. 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. D ~ QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JEETING FIRST REGULAR JEETING JUNE 19TH, 1991 7:30 P.M. JEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY JOYCE EGGLESTON JEFFREY KELLEY MICHAEL SHEA BRUCE CARR CHARLES SICARD DEPUTY TOlIN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT CRAYFORD SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-1991 TYPE II lIR-lA DR. JOSEPH I ROSE GUERRA OIlIER: J I R GUERRA, A I S CAMPRIELLO SEELYE ROAD, CLEVERDALE TO EXPAND TWO VERY SMLL BEDROOMS WITH AN 18 FT. BY 28 FT. ADDITION. ADDITION WILL NOT JEET SIDE YARD SETBACK. (WARREN cœm PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 16-1-32 LOT SIZE: 26,000 SQ. FT. SECTION 4.020 D MR. TURNER-There's a letter here asking to be tabled. Do you want to read the letter from Mr. Roulier? MRS. GOETZ-The letter's from Mr. Roulier, the contractor and he is respectfully requesting that the variance of Dr. Guerra remain tabled until such time that the previously requested information can be obtained and submitted. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-1991 DR. JOSEPH I ROSE GUERRA, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Tabled with the stipulation that the applicant pay for re-advertising since it's been quite a period of time. This will give those people who might be up at the Lake an opportunity to have some input. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. TURNER-I've changed the agenda a little bit. I'm going to move Area Variance No. 42-1991 Frank W. and Kathleen V. England, as the next order of business. (NEW BUSINESS) AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-1991 TYPE II lIR-lA FRANK W. I KATHLEEN V. ENGLAND OIlIER: SAlE AS ABOVE HILLMII ROAD. SECOND LEFT OFF CLEVERDALE ROAD FROM ROOTE 9L FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DEN 13 FT. FROM THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE. THE RE~IREJENT IS A MINIMUM OF 20 FT. WITH THE SUM OF THE SIDE YARDS ECJ.IALING 50 FT. (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 12-3-34.1 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION 4.02D-D, 7.012 A3 FRANK ENGLAND PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 42-1991. June 18, 1991, Meeting Date: June 19. 1991 "The applicant is applying for a variance to construct a den and garage 13 feet from the northern property line in lieu of the required minimum of 20 feet. The applicant is also seeking relief from Section 7.012 - A 3 which requires 75 foot setbacks from the shoreline. The applicant formerly received a variance on this property (Dec. 20, 1989) which lapsed. The project is substantially the same except that the applicant is now requesting less relief. I have attached the motion of the previous approval. The applicant's lot length (average of 126 ft.) creates a practical difficulty in meeting the shoreline setback for any type of addition to the preexisting residence. Only approximately 70 sq. ft. of the proposed addition would be within the shoreline setback." 1 MR. TURNER- Thi s is basi ca lly the same appl i cati on he had before, except thi s is 1 ess of a setback. MR. KELLEY-I'm just trying to remember from before. Was someone handicapped in this home? MR. ENGLAND-No. MR. TURNER-How long has this been under construction? You started it and then you stopped it? MR. ENGLAND-Well, we started, we did some interior work to the house, but then we had trouble last spring, as you remember, it was a very wet spring and the original proposed septic system we had didn't work. So then we had to hold everything up and go get a professionally engineered septic system and a mound system and then everything was all set again and then, unfortunately, the architect made a three foot mistake in the plans and we staked it out in March and found out that it was too close to the mound so then we had to come back and do it this way. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else. questions? Okay. MR. KELLEY-So, we're dealing with two, then, a lake front and a side yard. Is there a Hillman Road setback now, or not? MR. ENGLAND-Yes. The Hillman Road setback is all right, sir. MR. TURNER-Yes. He's okay. MR. ENGLAND-That's behind the mound on your map, there. MR. TURNER-It's 75 feet. He couldn't meet it. See it, right here, see the line. It's right up in the addition. MRS. GOETZ-I know. but how far back is he, from the lake? MR. TURNER-How far back is he? He's 28 feet on the southeast corner, that's his closest point. That's the existing house. MR. ENGLAND-Which distance are you concerned about? I'm pretty familiar with it. MR. TURNER-From that lake shore to the 75 foot line. It just intersects that inside corner of the proposed addition. MR. ENGLAND-Yes. It does. That 75 feet, there's a 75 foot setback line there in the dots on the sketch. MR. TURNER-Right. It looks like it might be about seven and a half feet. Wouldn't you say, Jeff? It looks like about a half an inch. MR. KELLEY-What is it you're looking at? MR. TURNER-See that corner right there? See where that dotted line goes through the corner? MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. TURNER-He's encroaching on it right there. It looks like about seven and a half feet because the scale is one inch equals 15.2. MRS. GOETZ-What we're trying to figure out is, if this is granted, we have to state what the relief is on the 75 foot setback from the lake and the map doesn't indicate how far back. exactly. MR. ENGLAND-Well, actually, it's just that small corner there. MRS. GOETZ-But. see, you still have to know. I mean, that's a dimension that we need to know. MR. ENGLAND-Well, it's exactly four feet. MRS. GOETZ-Four feet? MR. ENGLAND-It's exactly four feet. because that's the size of the room that's left there. There's a dimension over to the right showing it's four feet. MR. TURNER-Yes. Do you know what it is from the lake to your shoreline setback right here, because it's not on here and we don't have a scale on it. Right here is where you get in trouble. Do you know what it is from there to the lake? MR. ENGLAND-Well, this porch, here, is six feet wide. 2 MR. TURNER-Yes. but what is it from here to there? -~ I r MR. ENGLAND-Well, that point right there is exactly 75 feet from the lake. coming through. See, here's your lake setback MR. TURNER-Okay. So, this is four here. right? This is four feet? MR. EMGLAND-Here's the four here, sir. MR. TURNER-Okay. You're going in there. MR. ENGLAND-You see, previously when I came to you for before. I previously had this approved. I was going to have a two car garage. MR. TURNER-Yes. Right. MR. ENGLAND-And you previously approved the porch and this, but then when we got into the problem with the septic system and I had to put the mound system in and I no longer could fit the two car garage in, we turned it side ways. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE The Warren County Planning Board returned "No County Impact" MR. TURNER-Okay. A motion's in order, then. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-1991 FRANK" I KATHLEEN V. ENGLAND, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: Thi s wou1 d be a 13 foot setback from the northerly boundary for a re1 i ef of 7 feet. Al so necessary is a 1akeshore setback and that would be a relief of 4 feet from the 75 foot requirement. There doesn't seem to be an adverse effect on the neighborhood character. An improved septic system is in place which makes this modification from the original plan necessary. It's actually an improvement, less of a relief requested. There doesn't seem to be any feasible alternatives for a home of this size which they feel they need for year round living. The Short EAF shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea. Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (OLD BUSINESS CONT'D) AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-1991 TYPE I lIR-lA MARGARET F. I 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 STRUCTURE IS 1,964 SQ. FT. THE FOOTPRINT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS 2,824 SQ. FT. A SECOND STORY IS ALSO PROPOSED. (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) TAX IMP NO. 12-3-16 LOT SIZE: ±1 ACRE SECTION 7.012A(3) SHORELINE SETBACK SECTION 9.0118-50 PERCENT EXPANSION (, _ ,q _q \ WALTER REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT; JOHN MASON, PRESENT MR. TURNER-Do we have the negative dec from the Planning Board? It should be in this file. It's the Long Form. MRS. GOETZ-Did they fill it in, or was it a Planning Board thing? MR. TURNER-The Planning Board. MRS. GOETZ-I don't know. Ask Lee. MR. TURNER-Lee. is the negative dec not in the file? 3 MRS. YORK-I thought you all had copies. It should be in the file. MRS. GOETZ-Is it a Long Form? MRS. YORK-It's a Long Form. MRS. GOETZ-Like that? MRS. YORK-No. It's this size, but it's long. MRS. GOETZ-It's lengthy. MS. CORPUS-Of the Hans one? MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CORPUS-I may just have one. MRS. YORK-Thank you. MR. TURNER-We sent it to them. as Lead Agency. For the record, the Planning Board has indicated that there's nothing on here that can't be mitigated. Okay. So, our first order of business is to have a motion to accept this as a negative dec, and then we'll get into the actually application. MOTION TO ACCEPT THIS LONG FORM SEQRA ON THE HAIlS APPLICATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD AS A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: Duly adopted this 28th day of June. 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea. Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner. Area Variance No. 37-1991, Margaret F. and Theodore M. Hans, June 10, 1991, Meeting Date: June 19, 1991 "The appl icant is requesting an area variance for construction of a remodeled home in a designated Critical Environmental Area. The proposed structure is a substantial increase in impermeable area and living space. The agent for the applicant submitted information which is attached regarding the increases. The project will result in a physical change to the land. The square footage of the current structure is 1.444 square feet (living space). The proposed structure will be 2,844 square feet of 1 iving space. A change of 1,400 square feet. The change in impermeable area goes from 1.964 square feet to 2,632 square feet (proposed square footage minus the dock and second floor). This is a change of 668 square feet or 25 percent on a 0.42 acre lot. The Planning Staff requested a permeability review of the project by Mrs. Crayford. Zoning Administrator. On May 14, Mrs. Crayford indicated that the proposed structure will maintain 66 percent permeable area on site. The requirement in the WR-IA zone is 65 percent. The applicant has indicated that 100 percent of the site has slopes between 0-10 percent. The applicant is requesting two variances. one for 50 percent expansion and the other from the 75 foot shorel ine setback. The current zoning on the lot is WR-IA and the applicant has 0.42 acres. At the May 15 Zoning Board meeting, the Board requested 1) Alternative designs which show the house in closer conformity to the current regulations. 2) Heating living space. old and new. 3) Square footages, old and new. 4) Height impacts and impact on views (alternative designs). 5) Alternative site designs which would modify the permeability on site. Other concerns brought up were the size of the house on the lot and why the applicant has a need for an expansion of the magnitude proposed, and the location of the structure in relation to the lake. This project was reviewed with regard to Section 10.040. 1. Are there special conditions applying to this property or building, and not applying generally to other properties or buildings in the neighborhood? The current structure is located within 28 feet of Lake George. The property is in a Critical Environmental Area and was purchased by the applicant on December 27, 1989. The structure on the property is a cottage. The app 1 i cant has made improvements on the property in the form of a new docklboathouseldeck and a new septic system. There do not appear to be any special circumstances applying to this property and not applying to others in the neighborhood. 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 has use of the property. The property was purchased about 18 months ago. The applicant has indicated to staff that house is insubstantial for year round use, however, this must have been the situation when the unit was purchased. The structure is currently 1.444 sq. ft. (first floor living area and porch) with a 400 sq. ft. garage and a 120 sq. ft. breezeway. The applicant purchased a seasonal use cottage. They have the ability to bring this up to code. They also could look into building a conforming structure which would require no review. 3. Would the strict application of the dimensional requirements result in a specified practical difficulty? The practical difficulty test has not been addressed. A variance applied for should show that the Ordinance is being unfair to the appl icant or that significant 4 economic injury would take place. It is not sufficient that the land would be worth more if a variance were granted. The applicant can upgrade the existing facility or possibly construct a unit within the setbacks. The applicant has not shown any proof that the Ordinance has created a practical difficulty. 4. Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance. or to property in the district? The variance for the shoreline setbacks were established to protect the lake quality and the aesthetic resources. Most of the other residences in the neighborhood are about as far from the lake as the existing facility. The 50 percent expansion requirement was instituted to assure that overexpansions on substandard lots received review. The expansion proposed is substantial in square footage ( a change of 1,400 sq. ft. - current 1,444 sq. ft., proposed 2,844 sq. ft.). The change impermeable area goes from 1,964 sq. ft. to 2,632 sq. ft. (proposed sq. ft. minus the deck and second floor). This is a change of 688 sq. ft. or 25 percent on a 0.42 acre lot. The Zoning Administrator's determination on the permeability is attached. The current requirement of lot area was increased in 1988 to an acre because of the limitations on the land. The Board requested information on a 1 ternati ve desi gns, for pl acement. vi sua 1 impacts. and permeabil i ty, until the Board can revi ew alternatives it is difficult to answer this question or the one regarding minimum relief. 5. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? The test for practical difficulty should be discussed by the applicant since it is the Board's duty to grant minimum relief. " MR. REHM-Thank you, Mr. Turner. My name is Walter Rehm and I represent the applicants. Mr. and Mrs. Hans. As most of the Board members know, we've taken a relatively long and circuitous route to this point. We came to the Board several months ago with a proposal to build a completely new house on the lot, to completely remove the existing house, and after a fair amount of discussion. it was decided that it would be best to withdraw that application, and we did. New applications were submitted for the renovation and expansion of the existing house. We have been to the County Planning Board and the County Planning Board has recommended approval of the variance and has also recommended approval. I believe. I don't know if there's a disagreement or not, but I'm fairly sure they recommended approval of the variance and also recommended approval of the site plan review that will be required. We had previously gone to the County Planning Board on the first go around. and it also received a recommendation of approval. Last month, we went to the (Queensbury) Planning Board on the question of the SEQRA Review, and after a fairly long and very detailed meeting, the Planning Board rendered a negative declaration as far as this particular project was concerned. The Town of Queensbury Planning Board neg dec'd this application. both the variance and the site plan review application. I know there was some question as to whether or not the Planning Board had the benefit of the comments from the last meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals when the matter was referred to the Planning Board and the Planning Board was asked to be Lead Agency, and I believe that last night they re-reviewed those comments and decided that there was no need for any change in their earlier determination. I've been doing this business for a long time. and one of the things I've learned not to do is complain at the outset of a meeting. because it always sets things off the wrong way and these are difficult problems. from the Board's point of view and from the applicant's point of view. I do have to. for the record, I feel it's my responsibility to my clients. for the record, to complain about the Planning Comments that were just read, and I do that specifically for the record. I have to say to you that these Planning Comments contain conclusions as to the validity of the project. As to the validity of the proof that has been presented, that are, Number One, before the proof has been presented, and Number Two, those conclusions are the responsibility of the Board, not the Planning Department, and I have talked with Paul Dusek about the contents of this. I will not paraphrase or attempt to indicate his position on this, but I will say that, from our point of view, a number of the statements in this, such as, "the applicant has not shown any proof that the Ordinance has created a practical difficulty". is a conclusion that is very premature and solely within the purview of the Board to make and not the Planning Department. and so I would ask, it's almost like addressing the jury. I would ask that you give us the opportunity to start both at the same spot, in that you not rely on these Planning Comments, and I think maybe Karla might have something to say on that issue. MS. CORPUS-Paul spoke with me, regarding this issue. and, with regard to the Planning Comments. there is nothing improper or illegal about making conclusionary statements on the Planning Department's notes. These comments could be viewed and interpreted as conclusionary, but they're not binding upon the Zoning Board. The Board should weigh all of the information that will be presented to it by the applicant and all sources. I guess the Planning Comments can be termed expert information that the Board can either go with or not, depending on what information comes before it. I would just encourage the Board to reach your own conclusions, which I know you normally do, and weigh all of the proof that comes before you, and in doing your resolutions. to come up with your own reasons and your own words, which you normally do. I'm sure, but what Mr. Rehm says, to a point. is that this Board cannot simply rely on conclusionary notes. but they must be supported by the facts, and it must be substantiated. MR. TURNER-I'd just like to say one thing, Mr. Rehm, the Board does not rely on the notes. here is an individual. Everyone here goes up and looks at the site. They have the plans. their own decisions based on their own knowledge. Everyone They ma ke MR. REHM-I understand that fully. MR. TURNER-The notes from the Planning Department are professional notes. They were hired to be professional Planners and I will defend their right to present those notes to the Board. 5 "~ MRS. GOETZ-I'd like to say something on that, too, is that I'm sure that you've been to this Board before, and there are many times we don't do the same thing as what the Planning Staff says, and that's just one resource, and it's been a good resource for all the Boards and we've been happy to have it. It's a much improved situation than what it's been before. So, I don't think that that's anything you have to worry about. I think we're all individuals here. MR. REHM-I understand that and I know that and that's why I prefaced what I said, that I have to say that for the record and I don't want to make a big deal about it and 1'm sure you don't want me to make a big deal about it. So, I won't say anything more about it. I have prepared some written comments that are fairly detailed, that I would hand out to you, and ask to be made part of the record. I don't expect you to read them quickly or anything like that. but they do kind of outline the things that we're going to present to you tonight. MR. CARR-If they're made part of the record, are you asking us not to vote tonight? MR. REHM-I think that would have to be your decision. MR. CARR-Okay, because I was wondering, if we can't have an opportunity to review these. MR. REHM-Well. you can. I mean, if you want the opportunity. We have attached to the board a couple of renderings. The rendering on the lower portion of the board is simply a view of the building that is proposed. As you can see, it's really a one story with a dormer with an extended roof, but it is a two story building and it's. I think, a substantial improvement, at least from our point of view, over that which exists. However. specifically as far as the plan is concerned. I would draw your attention to this drawing. I don't know how well you can see it. The area which I have outlined in yellow is the portion of the existing building which is to be removed. This is the dock. This is the lakeshore. So this entire area is to be removed. The area which is cross hatched and indicated on the print to be Area B is the portion of the existing building which is to be preserved and remodeled and renovated. The two areas which are outlined in red and are shown as Area C are the additions which are proposed to the building. So. the building will. assuming that it is built, will look like this. This portion will be removed. This portion will stay. and this portion will be added. Perhaps you would recall that when we presented this to this Board some time ago, the new building was oriented this way, fairly close to the 30 foot line from the lake. This proposal moves this portion of the building back a considerable distance. Also. by removing this area and redesigning the north side of the building, we have been able to comply with both the side setbacks. both on the north and the south side. which we did not comply with before. So, in terms of setback. the only problem is the setback from the lake. This area is still within, approximately, about 50 feet from the lake and the proposed setback, but this is an existing building. The addition which is on the side, because the lakeshore swings around in this area, is, at its closest point, about 30 feet and then it drops back a bit from there, but this is a considerably different plan than was originally presented. On the back of the information that I gave you. there's a calculation of square feet. MR. CARR-Walter, can I ask, this plan as compared to the plan that was proposed at the first meeting, how does the square footage match up? MR. REHM-I'll have to ask John to answer that question. briefly. MR. MASON-My name is John Mason. The square footage on the original and the square footage? MR. CARR-No, not on the original house. The square footage on the original planned house as opposed to this planned house? MR. MASON-Identical. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. MASON-I would like. though, to say one thing about the square footages. The square footage computations that are on the planning minutes that you have in front of you are incorrect. The actual 1 iving space in the proposed house is 2344 square feet. In Lee's minutes, she refers to it as 2844 square feet and talks about a 1400 square foot increase. The actual increase is 900 square feet. MR. CARR-Well, not according to your calculations. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARR-You had existing heated living space of 1064 and the proposed of 2344 which is an increase of 1300 square feet. MR. MASON-The part that I'm talking about is under gross floor area, 2344 is the total square footage of the new house, not 2844. I would urge you to look at Lee's minutes. MR. CARR-Right, okay, but let's go with your 2344 and then you say the existing is only 1064. Again, it's the same figures. 6 MR. MASON-No. 1064 from 2344, even there, isn't 1400. MR. CARR-It's 1300. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's 1300. MR. KELLEY-It's 1280. MR. MASON-I get 1280, if you do it that way. MR. CARR-Okay, precisely it's 1280. MR. MASON-But I think it's very important that this Board realize, constantly referred to in those original minutes is the figure of 2844. MR. CARR-Right, well, I'm ignoring that. MR. MASON-Well, I don't want you to ignore it. I want you to realize that the living space of this house is 2344. That's a substantial difference. MR. CARR-Right, but it's also an increase of 120 percent over what exists now. MR. MASON-Whatever that figure is. It's not 1300 square feet. It's not 1400 square feet. These figures are accurate, okay? MR. CARR-Okay. Fine. MR. REHM-I think you also have to look at it in terms of the footprint. because that's really what you're looking at, I think is the amount of lot coverage. I did some calculations. If you look at the fifth page of the handout that I gave you, under Item Number One, which is expansion in sizelsquare feet. and I'll tell you, I'm not a mathematician, and if you find a mathematical error in there. I'll admit to it, but in any event, I believe, according to the best of my ability and assuming that my calculator works correctly. the existing footprint of the house represents a coverage of 10.7 percent of the area of the lot, and I just did that on a square foot basis. The proposed footprint of the house is 15.4 percent. So there's about a four and a half percent, something between four and a half and five percent increase in the amount of land that it utilized by the new house as opposed to the amount of land that's utilized by the proposed house. Now. let me tell you, if I can, and I mentioned this in here, the unfairness of this 50 percent expansion. If you have, as we have, a relatively small house on this lot that's 1,000 square feet, we can expand it to 1,499 square feet without a variance. So we can get a 499 square foot expansion and not exceed the 50 percent mark. If we have a 3,000 foot house on this same lot, we can expand it to almost 4500 square feet without a variance or we can expand it by 1500 square feet. That's why that 50 percent expansion is not fair. the way it's expressed in the Ordinance. MR. CARR-Well. it's uniformly enforced. I mean, what would you have. a square footage, though? mean. would you say you can only have a maximum square footage on the lot? MR. REHM-No. I'm just saying, well. I don't know how to write the Ordinance, that if you apply that Ordinance strictly, it has a different effect on different individuals, depending on the size of the house that they start out with. If they have a gigundus house. they can expand it anything up to the 50 percent of the size of the original variance. MR. CARR-But I would also assume they have the land to meet the setbacks. MR. REHM-It may be that they have the land to meet the setbacks. MR. CARR-But then we wouldn't be as concerned, would we? MR. REHM-But that's not the setback question I'm talking about. We'll talk about the setback, but I'm just saying that that provision of the Ordinance has an unequal effect on individuals in this Town, and a person that has a very small house to begin with is penalized, because a person that has a large house on a small lot, assumi ng that he I s got the setbacks, or assumi ng he can get a va ri ance for setbacks. can increase his house by significantly greater square footage than the present home. MR. CARR-Well, I've got to di sagree, because we're tal ki ng about nonconformi ng houses to beg i n wi th. houses that shouldn't be there to begin with. So, we aren't talking, it's not an adverse or an improper, unequal effect on everybody in the Town. It's just on those people who had a nonconforming structure to begin with, for some reason, it shouldn't have been there. MR. REHM-Okay. Lets continue the discussion. This was not a nonconforming structure to begin with. This became a nonconforming structure because the Town Ordinance imposed a Zoning Ordinance on all 7 of this land and as a result of this, the vast majority of houses at Cleverdale are now nonconforming because of the size of the lots. There is nothing inherently wrong with this house and there was nothing inherently wrong with this house until the Town of Queensbury, in a blanket way, just said that these have to be one acre lots and we have to maintain these setbacks, without looking closely, I think, at the effect of that Ordinance on Cleverdale, Rockhurst, you know, most of the lakeshore parcel. Now I'm not complaining about that. I'm just stating the facts. MR. CARR-Well, I think the rationale behind that was environmental concern. MR. REHM-Well, we can also talk about environmental concerns. and we will. MR. KELLEY-Can I ask you a question? When the Hans bought this property, was this Ordinance in effect? MR. REHM-Yes, it was. MR. KELLEY-So, they knew, going in, that there was an Ordinance, and hopefully they looked at it and said, what can we do with our land, as it applies to the Ordinance, and if we should want to expand, we know what the criteria is and we may have to address that. So, it wasn't like they owned it and then it changed when they owned it. I think there's a difference there. MR. REHM-That's true, and I don't think I said that. What we were talking about was the fact that the house was illegal. MR. KELLEY-I know, but I think my point should be stored away there, somewhere. MR. REHM-And I think it should be too. I think it's very fair to say that Mr. and Mrs. Hans purchased this house in 1989, after the Ordinance was in effect, and they looked at the property and after living there for a period of time, after having a change in their plans, Mr. Hans is now substantially retired and has some medical probl ems. They decided that they wanted to make that thei r permanent home and they knew that if they wanted to do something that they would have to get a variance and that's what the variance procedure is for in the Ordinance, and they have to show a practical difficulty, but it's not a case where they just walked into this, not knowing what the Zoning Regulations were. In any event. as I was saying, the amount of increase is less than five percent of lot coverage. and so the total lot coverage is probably substantially less than many of the lots in the area at Cleverdale, in terms of permeability, if there's compliance. I think that's been demonstrated. I think that's in the planning notes and in the prior notes. We have, at the request of the Town's Engineer. have retained an engineer for the purpose of submitting the storIDWater management plan and that's been designed and redesigned and now one of the trenches has to be extended. but in actual terms of permeabil ity, that which woul d result from the construction of the new house will be substantially better than that which exists now, because there will be subsurface recharge through leach trenches along the eaves trenches, and none of that exists now. So there will be less water generated to run off in thi s 1 and, after the new house is constructed, then currently exi sts. and that's one of the environmental issues. The second environmental issue is, and I think it's important. when Mr. and Mrs. Hans purchased this property, there was an old, antiquated sewage disposal system that under no circumstances was adequate. They had a choice. The engineering was done to put a Mound System in this area, and have the traditional subsurface sewage disposal, and they elected not to do that. Instead they put in holding tanks and, frankly, contrary to the advice that they had received because of the cost of pumping out the tanks all the time, and they now have four 1000 gallon holding tanks which are connected together and which serve their purposes. That would continue to exist and would comply with. I believe, the regulations that exist. The new building, some of you probably have seen what's there. and it is an old, very substandard seasonal dwelling that really can't be used on a year round basis. is not sufficient for Mr. and Mrs. Hans to have their children or grandchildren for any period of time to do any kind of entertaining or anything and it is in an area of the Town of Queensbury. both up and down the point, where the houses have been substantially renovated, expanded and upgraded, and it is an unusually old and dilapidated house in an area where there has been substantial improvement. Now, we've prepared a little exhibit for you. and this is the area of Cleverdale adjacent to the house in question. This blank space is the Hans lot. So you can see that in relation to the other lots that are in the area. The Planning Board had raised the issue. well, gee, it's going to be a two story house and we said. well, it's better to make it a two story house because it's easier to comply with setbacks if it's two story. It uses less land. It's probably aesthetically better and so on and so forth, better for the neighbors. So, we looked at the property up and down the point at Cleverdale, and all of those properties that are colored in in yellow are two story houses or are property on which there are two story houses. The only other one story house, this is being viewed from the lake. Some of these. incidentally. are one story from the road. but two stories from the lake. The only other house that is not two story is the Kittredge house which is the one that's colored in pink. here. I don't think there's any question that the upgrading of this property is much more in conformity with that which has happened in that neighborhood and that which, indeed, has happened on the entire east side, than currently exists. MR. CARR-Walter, may I ask, of those two story houses, do you have any feeling for the gross floor areas of those homes? 8 "- MR. REHM-I don't, but maybe John does. I mean, I know some people over there. I don't know if you know Judge Moyni han' shouse. but it's about the si ze of thi s buil ding. It's a very 1 arge house, a larger piece of land. There are many houses that are much larger than this. This is not, in terms of square feet. a particularly large house for lakeshore purposes. I have a house that's about 4400 square feet that's on a half acre lot. which I always considered to be a very sizeable lot, where I am less in conformance with the setbacks, except I am a little bit further back from the lake from this lot. but I happen to be in the Town of Bolton where the rules are a little bit different, but I don't see that that's offensive. I think it's a reasonable use of the property and with the proper landscaping, which we have done and which is planned here. I think that that's kind of the norm these days. Twenty three hundred square feet is not huge, particularly in a two story house. John, briefly. MR. MASON-Briefly. I'd like to address that in two ways. First of all. with the existing house. To my knowledge, the existing house is the smallest house in that entire section that you're looking at, again, with the exception of the Kittredge house. which is identical in size. However, the Kittredges have a second house on their parcel. They have another house behind it. A lot of the parcels along there have two houses. As far as the proposed house is concerned. I would say that falls in an average area. If anything, it might even be smaller. There are many. many larger houses along here that have been remodeled prior to this one. MR. TURNER-Who owns the house directly kitty corner in back of the lot, the big house across the road? MR. MASON-Parisi. His name is Frank Parisi. That's one and a half times as large as the proposed house. The house directly behind it is probably smaller, but that's not on the lake. I'm talking primarily the lake homes. MR. TURNER-Yes, I know, but I just wanted to know who owned that house. MR. MASON-Yes. MR. CARR-In fact, there's a letter. I think. from Mr. Parisi, approving. MRS. GOETZ-I checked to see if they were all within 500 feet. MR. REHM-This Board indicated that you had some concern about views, and so what we did is had some analysis done as to the effect of this house on the neighboring houses, and since we talked about Mr. Parisi, this is the Parisi house in back. The area on all these that's outlined in yellow is the proposed footprint of the house. There is some additional drawing, here, which is the portion to be removed. but the yellow is the proposed footpri nt of the house. The red 1 i nes, and in thi s case on the northerly side. is Mr. Parisi's existing view from the center of this house. The green line is the proposed view, and there is a substantial improvement. On the other side, both the green and the red converge and there's no improvement and no loss. The next one is for the Schl esingers. He has a little bit of an opposite situation. On the north side, there is no substantial difference. and on the south side. there is a little bit of a loss of view. At this point, there's that much of a loss of view, which is probably measured in the matter of a few feet, but there is an effect there. You will find in the file some place, several letters from the Kittredge family. This is the Kittredge lot and there are two houses and we've looked at both of those houses. Looking to the south, there is a very substantial improvement in view, as far as the Kittredge house, and the reason for that is the front of the existing house is going to be torn off and it's all going to be moved back. As far as the rear Kittredge house, which is really not, it's not much of a house. I think it's more of a cabin. MR. MASON-It has bedrooms, I think. It has a kitchen. but I don't know. I haven't been inside. MR. REHM-In any event. looking from this view, there, again, is a substantial improvement. Looking from this view, there is a negative effect. So there are some negative effects, balancing those, I think that the effects are generally positive. There is mention in the Planning Comments that this house is located in a Critical Environmental Area. As I'm sure the Board knows. The Lake George Park Commission, in one fell swoop, made all of the property within 500 feet of the water around Lake George a Critical Environmental Area, whether or not it was critical, from an environmental point of view. I don't think that it's possible to identify any actual Critical Environmental Area on this lot. If there was one thing, it would be that this lot probably isn't very conducive to sewage disposal using the traditional leach system, because the seasonal high groundwater in the spring is only a couple of feet down. So if you wanted to put a sewage disposal system on this, you'd have to build it up and it's probably better to have the holding tanks. Aesthetically, there's a great improvement. The house is just. aesthetically. much better to look at. We also had Dick Mead do a landscaping plan, and I'll tell you, those of you that are familiar with Dick's work know that his plans as they appear on paper are not the most beautiful thing in the world, but the effect of what he does is. in many cases, magnificent, almost, and this does not look, perhaps. as flowery as it should, but this represents some substantial new planting on the lot and the Planning Board asked about insecticides and pesticides and herbicides and all those things and a representation was made at the Planning Board meeting that they would not be used on the lot. So there'd be no environmental effect. So, in terms of environmental, I don't think there's any chemical problem. There's certainly no sewage problem. As far as stormwater runoff, we've handled it. As far as aesthetics, the house looks better. In terms of 1 andscapi ng, 9 this is not a beautifully landscaped lot now. Mr. and Mrs. Hans have committed to substantial landscaping on the lot. MR. TURNER-What is the landscaping on that side, Mr. Rehm, on the visual side, on the south side? What is that going to be? MR. REHM-This is the plan. I think the idea is to get a mix of evergreen and deciduous, so that you have some winter landscaping. As I was saying, the increase in permeabi1 ity is very insignificant and we're handling the storIDWater better than it's being handled now. The increase in the utilization of 1 and wi th the footpri nt, it's 1 ess than fi ve percent, and so it's poss i b 1 e to say , well, gee, thi s is a larger house. There's a substantial increase in numbers of square feet, but in terms of utilization of land, since it's going from a one story to a two story house, it is not a substantial increase. It's a really relatively minor increase. MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. Rehm, what is the height of the proposed new building as opposed to the existing building? What is the new one going to be at it's highest point, and what is the existing building? MR. REHM-I'd have to ask John to answer that. MR. MASON-I'm going to make an assumption on the existing one. I didn't measure that, but my assumption is it would be somewhere between 23 and 24 feet. The new house would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 32 or 33 feet. That would depend. to some extent, on the height of the chimney. I don't know what point we measure these from to, depending on where you measure them. It certainly would be well within the Ordinance itself. MR. TURNER-Yes. You're allowed 35 feet. MR. MASON-Yes, it would be substantially less than that, in feet. MR. TURNER-If you take it off the drawing, it's 35 feet. MR. MASON-The chimney? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MASON-Well, yes, again. that's off the drawing and I can assure you it will be under that figure. MR. REHM-Finally, in terms of practical difficulties. is there a practical difficulty and is this the minimum variance required to alleviate the practical difficulty. Well, in terms of minimum variances, I've tried to read the law and argue those issues for years and the fact of the matter is, there really isn't any formula to decide, is this the minimum that will relieve a practical difficulty, assuming that one exists. I think it's the sort of thing that the Board has to take a practical approach to and look at the needs and the desires of the applicant and balance that with the negative effects of the proposal and see if it does make sense. This is not the type of variance that requires a clear showing by dollars and cents proof that Mr. and Mrs. Hans are going to lose a tremendous amount of money if this isn't approved. This is a much more practical thing. They have a lovely piece of land on Lake George which is similar to many other lovely pieces of land in that neighborhood. similar in size and probably better for building because it's flat. They simply want to build a retirement home where they can live on a year round basis in comfort and in safety. They want to be able to have their children there and their grandchildren there and they're looking for a nice home that is not too, they don't want a large home. They're looking for a, this is a three bedroom home that is certainly no larger than probably many of the homes in the area that are on similarly situated lots. They did know what the zoning requirements were on this lot when they purchased it, however, at this point. their plans have changed. Mr. Hans, as I mentioned earlier, and I guess I'm repeating myself, is substantially retired. They have a home in Loudonvi11e. which will likely. as I mentioned in my written presentation. will be sold and it's their intention to utilize this property as their year round home. I would answer any questions or if you would like to speak with Mr. Hans. I would like to have Mr. Owens say a few things, but perhaps the Board might have some questions prior to that. MR. TURNER-Lets get the questions to you, first. MRS. GOETZ-I think it's a question that maybe John can answer. on the plan, the north elevation, what is that door? MR. TURNER-That's a storage room. MRS. GOETZ-It looks like a garage door. MR. MASON-It's for storage. lawn mower. MRS. GOETZ-It's like a separate garage, but with an overhead door? 10 MR. MASON-It's for a place to put either lawn mower, tools. snow blower. things like that, for storage. It's close enough to the property line that it really couldn't be used for anything other than that, at it's distance from the property line. MR. REHM-I would just like to ask John Owens, who as many of you know lives on the east side and is a real estate broker and third or fourth or fifth generation resident to say a few words if he will, please. JOHN OWENS MR. OWENS-John Owens, Assembly Point. Lake George. Like was said, I'm a 40 year resident plus years, unfortunately, of Lake George, 21 years at my present residence. I'm a partner of Owens, Davis, and Associates and we handle approximately 70 percent of all sales that go on on the east side of Lake George. We've been in the area for 15 years. that area, doing business in that area. We also are the ones that sol d Mr. Hans hi s property. I do a lot of apprai sal s on the east side of the Lake. I do probably in 15 years I've probably done over 100. I don't do a two page appraisal. I do a narrative appraisal, which is a very long, involved process. So, I think I've got a pretty good hand in what goes on in the Lake area. Right now, at this point in time. the 0 to 400 category. which Mr. Hans would fit in, $400,000, is a dead market. It has been dead for, probably. five months after he bought his property, nothing has been sold. Business for us has been very good, but it's been very good because it's in the 500, 600, 700,800.900 million dollar range. and part of the reason is that people used to come here and buy the older camps and fix them up and then they could live in them and building costs back then were $65 a square. Now they're up in the vicinity of $125, $130, whatever, a square, plus all your legal fees, plus all of these Boards that you have to go up in front of, not that these shouldn't exist, and I'll be blunt about it. If we were not able to sell the 5, 6, 7, 8. 9 million dollar properties, we would be out of business today. I think, overall, there is a monetary impact on thi s parti cul ar piece of property. If he is not able to fi x it up, there is goi ng to be a very large problem. He's not going to be able to sell it. It's going to sit with the rest of them. I brought documentation with me if you want to see it. I've been a member of MLS for years. I think I was about the third or fourth one to go with it, and there has been very few properties that have sold in that lower category and in fact in the last couple of years. probably, three. the last couple of seasons, and I'd call that a season. That property will sit on the market. I realize, and this is a personal observation, that we all would like to see, maybe, Lake George be like some places in Vermont or New Hampshire. The problem gets to be that some of the construction, and this house is included, some of the construction is extremely poor. I have gone into houses and done appraisals on houses that. frankly, they 1 ay down logs and they buil d the houses on top of them. and that's a large problem, and this is one of those houses. I even have the old appraisal that I did for the original owner, which I basically state that there are some major problems, and those problems have gotten worse. It would not be cost effective for him to just remodel what is there. In no way would it be cost effective. There was a question here about, how big are some of the other houses in the area. Many of those houses are, well, we consider 2300 square feet tOday is a normal size house. Over 4,000 is a large house and under 1600 is small, and I think all of you can apply that to houses that you presently 1 ive in. A 1600 square foot house is not large at all. even for two people. Do you have any questions for me, as far as the area or whatever. that you'd like to ask? I'd be happy to try and answer them if I can. MR. CARR-Well, I believe you started to answer, that was my question, earlier. is the houses in the area. what are their basic square feet? MR. OWENS-The basic square feet, there are several that are around 1600 square, but I would say that a majority of the houses in that area are 2300, and that would be fairly small, on up, and many of the houses, many of the houses, have garages that have been converted over into living areas, which we really don't try to count, but they do exist. There's a lot of those that exist. So if you took the two together, it would be very large. This house, from what I have seen and I have worked with Mr. Hans for quite a while on this particular project, this house in no way, from all the camera angles. of course we have double exposures, but that didn't work out. That house in no way will hurt the area. If anything, it should help the area and of course increase the tax base. Anything else? Any other questions? MR. TURNER-Anyone else? Mr. Rehm? MR. REHM-I just would like to point out to the Board that attached to the materials that were given to you are a number of letters. MR. TURNER-Yes. We'll read those under Correspondence. Do you have anything else, any other presentation? MR. REHM-I have no other presentation at this time. MR. TURNER-Any further questions for Mr. Rehm from the Board, right at this point? None? I'll open the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT 11 é_ PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. GOETZ-The subject came up of the Warren County Planning Board statement and the only thing I have here is a piece of paper that looks like they checked off approved and it was whited out. and then it says, "see attached" and there's nothing attached. MR. REHM-I'll see if I can find something. MRS. GOETZ-That would be good. This letter is from Nancy Geiser, and she's with the Kittredge people. "I understand that you are having a hearing tonight regarding the proposed expansion of the single story home owned by Margaret and Ted Hans. 1) I am glad that it has been moved 10 feet farther from our property line to the recommended setback line. 2) Other than this, I do not see the proposed house as substantially different than the first proposed house. Therefore, my other concerns, as stated in my earlier 1 etter, about size, amount of land covered by house, 1 arge and imposing si ze, nearness of garage to my vegetable garden. continue. Likewise, we would like to be notified if our property is to be usedldamaged in the building. 3) In this new plan there is a map of stormwater management. We are very concerned that no water come onto our property as a result of this new building. We have sustained heavy damage from water flow onto our property from a hose laid across Gunn Lane draining basement water from our neighbors to our east and also from the change in ground level from the Wells home. A foot of soil was added to bul1 d up the 1 and and thi s has caused probl ems for our fl oori ng, septic system, and house foundation. We hope you will consider these things." And there's a form letter that a lot of people signed saying, "I have had the opportunity to review the Hans' house plans and plot plans for the work they hope to undertake at Gunn Lane in Cleverdale. I have no objection to the house plans or the house location." A Mr. Parisi, Mr. Eletto, Cornelia Eletto, Ethel Hewlett, Rosemary Faulkner, Harry Ruecker. Dr. David Schlesinger, and I checked on the list of people that were noticed and all those people live within 500 feet of the proposed project. MR. TURNER-Have you got the County? Has anyone got the County? MR. MASON-We have the County from the May 8th meeting, but it doesn't say anything about the variance. It only addresses the site plan review, but I'm assuming they took both at the same meeting. MRS. GOETZ-Was there just the one meeting in May? It hasn't come before them in June? It wasn't required to? Were they required to go to the Warren County Planning Board in June, also? MRS. YORK-They went in May for both the variance and the site plan because it was on both of your Boards at that time. MRS. GOETZ-Okay, but were they looking at the other plan? MR. REHM-No. They were looking at the new plan. MRS. YORK-They were looking at this particular plan. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. Discussion, any discussion? MRS. GOETZ-Well. I'd like to say one thing. It's about the fact that I just do not believe that they bought this property not knowing that they were going to build a new home. That doesn't mean that I won't vote for the variance, but I just don't believe it. It's simple in my mind, especially when the realtor gets up and says how bad the construction was at the existing home. That really convinced me. MR. CARR-Well. I don't think they said that. I didn't hear him say that. Did he say that? MRS. GOETZ-It was like all of a sudden they decided they needed this new home. Their circumstances changed. and I just can't believe that that was, you just don't buy a piece of property like that with a run down camp not knowing that you're going to want to make some changes later. MR. OWENS-Mr. Hans lives in the Albany area. He also lives in Florida during the winter time. When he came to me to look for the property, he was looking for a summer resident, basically, that's it. a summer residence. He was going to spend winters in Florida, which he did. He spent this last winter in Flori da. He also, because of the bus i ness that he has, a H. L. Gage in Albany. he has commitments down there and he was going to be down there. So, he needed the house down there as well, and then circumstances changed and he decided that he wanted to have a year round house up there, but from the onset, now. it was strictly a summer camp. 12 MR. MASON-I looked at the original house, originally, in terms of repalrlng it. The original intent was to use what was there. I think the more we looked. the worse it got. His plans did change. in terms of a base of operations, whether it would be Albany and Florida, or Lake George and Florida. MRS. EGGLESTON-Did you look at it before he purchased it, with him? Did you give him an idea. before he purchased it, of whether it could be renovated or? MR. MASON-I don't think I gave him an idea on that, I must admit. I spoke to him at great length about the dock, the boathouse, and that type of thing, but to tell you the truth, the house almost went on a back burner because there two primary considerations, dock/boathouse. which has already been in front of these Boards, and septic system. Those were far more critical than the house. MR. TURNER-Before you sit down, we asked you for some alternative plans. Did you investigate any alternative plans other than this plan that you're showing us tonight? MR. MASON-I must admit, I have no alternative plans, and the first I was aware of you having asked me that was the Planning minutes, and I went back through the minutes from the last meeting and I never saw anywhere in there, I tri ed to refresh my memory because I thought I'd mi ss somethi ng, but I went back through the minutes very carefully, what each one of you said, and what I said, and I can't find anything in there where I was asked. MR. TURNER-It's in the minutes. MR. MASON-Well, I went through them. I really did. I went through them, tonight. I spent about a half an hour with them, trying to find it. because I thought my memory had. MRS. GOETZ-What date was it? MR. TURNER-It's right at the very end of. MRS. GOETZ-I don't think we have it. Do you have the May? MR. TURNER-I've got mine. MRS. GOETZ-Here it is. MR. TURNER-But. in other words, what you presented here tonight is your one and only plan. You think it's your best plan for the lot? MR. MASON-Walter, why don't you go over and help him locate it by bringing him back to avoid all this. MR. TURNER-I know how you did that, okay. I know you went from the one plan back to this plan. What I'm saying is, did you come up with the design for a smaller house. square footage on that lot? Did you try to meet any of the setbacks? MR. REHM-Can I answer that? This is a planning process that's been going on for a long time with Mr. and Mrs. Hans and the direct answer to your question is no. They have agonized over this, because we know that. I know that it I S much easier to get the small est thing possibl e approved and I want to be successful for my client. I want to see them have their house, but I think from their point of view. and they've looked at room sizes. They've looked at numbers of rooms. They've looked at the sizes of existing rooms in the house and I think from their point of view this is reasonable, and it's minimum. We do not have another plan. This is a significant improvement, in terms of compliance with setbacks. We no longer have any side setback problems. The entire property. practically, is moved back, the shoreline makes it a little difficult, but is moved back to a substantial degree, and if you just look at the house, it's probably situated well on the lot. I think if we moved the house back further it would have more of an adverse impact on some of the properties than it does where it is now. It's not exactly in the center of the lot, but it is situated pretty well and we have the problem of the location of the existing facil ities which have been there for 50 or 60 years. There has been no request to buil d out in front or anything 1 i ke that. We've tried to be consci ous of the Board's concerns by knocking off a substantial portion of the front of that house and by solving two of the setback problems, but we can't solve the other one and, in terms of square feet. we think this is reasonable for that particular lot. MR. KELLEY-I think where your cOllDllents are coming from and my concern about your thought is that if the existing house was 1,064 square feet of floor area and the new one is 2344, that's an increase of 120 percent, and anything over 50 percent, you have to come in to get the variance for. I guess in light of the 120 percent figure, I would ask the same question you have, and that is. is there some other plan that has less of an impact? MR. REHM-If we had had a larger house to begin with and came in to increase it to the size that we have, I don't think you'd have that concern. I think it's a numbers game. The question is not, I think, the number of square feet or the percentage of increase. I think the question is. is this reasonable 13 for this particular lot? Zoning is based in reasonableness and I'm sure you know that until relatively recently in history, people had a right to do anything they wanted with their property as long as they didn't adversely effect their neighbors. Now we have zoning and the zoning takes away that very precious right. That's a very important right and it needs to be taken away, to some degree, so we can all live reasonably among ourselves, but zoning is only a guideline. and the real question and the important question is, is this an unreasonable plan for this lot? Does it adversely effect the Town of Queensbury? Does it adversely effect the neighbors? Does it adversely effect the environment? And I don't believe it does and I have heard nothing that would indicate that it does, and if that's the case, under the general scheme of zoning, it should be approved, because if somebody is doing something that is not hurting anybody with their own property and it's reasonable, they should have a right to do it. So that's what I was getting at before, that numbers business, with that 50 percent increase. Boy, that can go against us because it's 120 percent, but that's not a fair way to look at it. MRS. EGGLESTON-But in your mind, Mr. Rehm, it might be reasonable. In someone else's mind it might not be reasonable. MR. REHM-That's exactly right, and we're willing to listen. I mean, if there's some standard, if there's some evidence. if there's something wrong with this plan, tell us. If the house is too high, tell us, but tell us why. I mean, it's in a nei ghborhood where these exi st. It's not a change in the neighborhood. I've, frankly, sat through lots of variance hearings and. boy, they've been granted and granted and granted and granted. This is a difficult one for some reason, and I think it's difficult because of the way the Ordinance is written. This is not difficult in terms of good planning. It's not difficult in terms of the environment. It's not difficult in terms of a reasonable sized house. It's not difficult in terms of what these people really want. That's where they want to live and that's the kind of house they want, and there is no down side to this. MR. CARR-Ted, I'd just like to say I agree with Mr. Rehm's assessment. I think the purpose of the Ordinance is to be reasonable. When I saw 120 percent increase, my first reaction was, too much, that's why I asked a lot of those questi ons about what are the houses in the area li ke in gross floor area and is this an average house? Is it an unaverage house or more than average house, the one they're proposing? And I'm fairly confident, after seeing it and all, that the 2300 is probably fairly average for the area. I do also agree with everything he said about them mitigating the impact of this house on the property as much as possible. So, I would just say that I don't think we can look strictly at a numbers game. You do have to say, they were stuck with 1,000 foot home which I think everybody would agree is abnormally small and that that's why any increase has such an impact and I guess my feeling is that a 2300 square foot home, right now, is not unreasonable for this piece of property, given it's location. I feel that they've done everything they could to reduce it's impact on the neighbors. They've moved it back a little from the lake. Squared it up. They've helped some site lines. Maybe hurt, minimally, some other ones. I think all the neighbors are basically in favor of an improvement on the property. So, I guess my final point would be, I don't think we can get caught up strictly in the numbers. I think you've got to look at the numbers on a case by case basis and say, basically, is it reasonable or is it not, and I don't think a three bedroom home is that unreasonable. MR. KELLEY-I'll ask another question of Mr. Rehm, I guess, and that is, we're talking about a retirement home for two people. Could you give me some testimony as to size of their family. and who might be there? MR. REHM-Mr. and Mrs. Hans have five children and, presently, six and a half grandchildren, and their family, it's a close family. One of Mr. Hans' sons is married to Dick Mead's daughter. I really don't know the others, but I guess they're generally in this area. Is that correct? TED HANS MR. HANS-Ted Hans. I have four boys, all good, fine gentlemen. They are running H.L. Gage sales. They just took an order for two very expensive dump trucks for your Town of Queensbury, snow plows, tandem dumps. They run that and they 1 ive down in Niscayuna, Delmar, and Malta. My daughter Jackie lives on Ridge Road, and they visit us from time to time. MR. KELLEY-So it would be reasonable to say, then, from the design of the plan, it appears that, obviously, your master bedroom would be downstairs and the two upstairs bedrooms would be if the son and his wife or grandchildren would be in one room or whatever? MR. HANS-Yes. on the occasion that they visited. MR. KELLEY-Okay. So a three bedroom home would be reasonable for the size of your family. MR. HANS-Yes. We built one here some years ago that was a four bedroom, up on Mason Road. I've been coming to Lake George since 1927. out in Ripley Point, and we've always had four bedrooms, large family. and then we sold it during the war and came back and this is my third home on Lake George. on Cleverdale. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. TURNER-Any other questions? 14 MR. SHEA-Just a comment. I think Mr. Rehm probably put it aptly enough, and also Mr. Carr, we really shouldn't look at the numbers from a 50 percent increase, here. It really is what is reasonable and I think probably, for me, the most overriding factor is that it is probably very much in context with what else is in that neighborhood and, in my opinion, that 2300 square foot house for the utilization of a family that size is not out of the ordinary. MR. HANS-Thank you. and. while I'm up here, thank you all for your time here tonight, and before. I think it's a lovely house. I think we're going to enjoy being back in Cleverdale with maybe a month or two out in Florida. but basically Cleverdale, and I hope. as I say, if we do have an affirmative decision here tonight, affirming our application. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. Any further comment? Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-1991 MARGARET F. I THEODORE M. HANS, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption. seconded by Michael Shea: I grant the appl ication a 45 foot variance from the shorel ine setback and a variance for a total gross floor area of 2344 square feet. There are special circumstances which apply to this parcel in that the existing home is of a substantially substandard size in its current condition. Any increase in the size which would comply with the nonconforming structure rules would not be reasonable for the applicant to use the property. The increase to the total gross floor square footage which is being granted by thi s vari ance is reasonable in li ght of all the facts presented thi s evening and is the minimum relief necessary. Strict application of the requirements of the Ordinance would impose a practical difficulty on the applicant in that they would not be able to utilize their parcel of property in a normal fashion. The granting of these variances would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of our Ordinance, nor to the property in the district. Evidence has been presented that in fact these variances would lead to an improvement in the area. No public facilities or services would be adversely effected. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr. Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea. Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE NEW BUSINESS: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-91 APPEAL FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR"S DECISION BY: JOHN SCHRINER, EARL SHORTSLEEVES 68 NORTHVIEW AVENUE WYNANTSKILL, NY 12198 RE: DUNHAM" S BAY BOAT COfFANY BOAT STORAGE FACILITY. THE BOARD DETERMINED THAT BOAT SALES IS NOT ALLOWED IN THE LC-42A ZONE. IS THE PROMOTION OF A SALE ALLOWED IN AN LC-42A lONE ACCORDING TO THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING ORDINANCE. DAVE HATIN MADE A DETERMINATION THAT SALES TOOK PlACE AT THE MARINA FACILITY ITSELF AS THAT WAS WHERE MONEY CHANGED HANDS, OR THE CONTRACT lIAS SIGNED. JOHN SCHRINER, PRESENT; WALTER REHM, PRESENT MR. CARR- I guess I'd just 1 i ke to start off by saying, I thought we, thi s Board, al though I di dn' t quite agree with it, made a decision that the contract was consummated and the sale occurred. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARR-We did not? What did we decide? MR. TURNER-I got into Paul over it and he didn't agree with our comments, that we didn't address it. I thought we had, and I've got the minutes right here. MRS. GOETZ-I didn't think we had on that particular point. MR. TURNER-It comes right to the end, Mr. Schriner asked the question, "Now that this is over, I'm not sure what actually took place. but is it allowable for the salesman to go up there now with a customer?" and I answered, "That wasn't the question.", and Mr. Schriner said, "I understand that. I'm asking you", and then Mr. Carr said, "We can't answer that on the record." Mr. Schriner said, "You can't answer that? Where do we go from here? Can you tell me that?" Mrs. Goetz said. "To the Zoning Administrator." Mr. Turner said. "The Zoning Administrator.". and Mr. Schriner said. "The Zoning Administrator?", and I said. "Yes.". So, here we are. MR. CARR-So we just interpreted that sales could not occur in an LC-42 Acre Zone. MRS. EGGLESTON-But what did we vote on? MR. TURNER-We voted on three issues. and the issues were. 15 MR. CARR-Okay. So we did not address whether a sale occurred in this particular instance. MRS. GOETZ-That's the way I remembered it. MR. TURNER-The fi rst one we voted on was as to the question, is a boat storage facil ity the same or part of a marina, and the second one was, as to is a quick launch facility the same or part of a boat storage facility, and the third question was is a quick launch facility or marina for boat sales allowable in a 42 Acre Zone. That's what we voted on. We did discuss it. We discussed it back here a little bit farther and we kind of took a vote on it. but we didn't get it into the actual motion part of it, the part of the agenda. MS. CORPUS-I bel ieve it was because the woman bringing the appeal did not want that to be made part of her appeal. MR. CARR-So now the question is, is a salesman showing a boat on a lot in an LC-42 Acre Zone a sale that is prohibited within that zone? MR. KELLEY-I think the salesman has the right to take the customer to look at whatever it is he's looking at. MR. TURNER-That's right. MR. CARR-Well, that's the questi on, I guess. Do you think that's part of the sal e, or is that not the sale? MR. TURNER-The sale of anything. of a car, of a boat, whatever, takes place in the office when you sign your name on the dotted line on the contract and say, I accept the terms of the contract. Here's your money. and that's it. That's where the sale takes place. when money passes from one hand to the other. I think a guy has a right to go up there and look at a boat. just like he does in a used car lot, and this is not a used car lot, but it's a boat storage facility. Maybe the fellow wants to go up there and look at the color of the boat. Maybe he wants to go up there and look at the line of the boat because there might not be one in the showroom. It might be a customers boat up there. MR. CARR-So you're saying a used car lot can be maintained in an LC-42 Acre Zone as long as they go across the street and sign the contract? MR. TURNER-No. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the sale takes place down in the office. when the contract's signed. MRS. EGGLESTON-That is what he's saying. That's what you're saying. Ted. MR. CARR-Answer the question, Ted. Are you saying that a used car lot can be maintained in an LC-42 Acre Zone? MR. TURNER-No, I'm not saying that. MR. SICARD-Mr. Carr, Whiteman Chevrolet is a typical example. They have a used car lot across the street. Now. I don't know what zone that is. I probably should have taken the trouble to find out. MR. CARR-Is that Dix Avenue? I think it's all commercial. MR. SICARD-But I bought a car there, on occasion. I bought two cars there. I went over and saw the car and I said, well, lets get the contract. We've got to go across the street. So, it's typically the same situation. They brought me over and showed me the car and took me across the street and sold me the car. MR. CARR-No. Where did he sell you the car? I mean, did he tell you about the car when you were across the street? Did he tell you it's got V-8 engine with a 354 in it and it's got four radials? MR. SICARD-He answered a few questions normally, yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-And you said you'd take it? MR. SICARD-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, you did. MR. CARR-Yes, you did. MR. SICARD-So, I say that the transaction was made across the street, not up in the car lot. It's the same as reading an ad in the paper. You're not supposed to look at the paper to determine whether you want to buy the car or not? 16 MR. CARR-That's not the same. MR. TURNER-Lets have Mr. Schriner's comments. Do you have any further comments, Mr. Schriner? MR. SCHRINER-My name is John Schriner. I still feel that this is part of the sale. Our big thing, 1 et me take a for instance. I can't say that thi s ever happened, just 1 i ke thi s gentl eman sai d about the car. Supposing the guy told you, on that particular car, that you buy it right now. if he's told you that. You would have signed that paper across the street. It didn't matter to you where you signed that paper. If you got a good deal, you don't care where you bought that. I know I wouldn't. Maybe you would, but for an example, if I went up to buy a boat, the salesman took me up there, and I had the money right here. Do you think that salesman is going to say, wait a minute, I can't make this sale here. I've got to go back down to the marina. This isn't legal. No way. No way. This is selling. Our big concern is the dust and the traffic on the road. We've addressed this continuously, all through. everything since last year, just last week, the same thing. The dust is still there. You can't open the windows. The cars are going up and down, everything. It's all the same as it has been. The road was supposed to be fixed, according to the other plan. nothing to do with this one. The road was graded. Stone was put down and the dust just flies tremendously. I got in a big battle last Thursday. I went to Roger about it. He told me he has the sealer, but he just hasn't gotten around to putting it on yet. So, it's no help to us, eating this dust, and the more traffic we've got, the less valuable the land gets. It's just a continuous operation. The bigger it gets, down goes the property, as far as I'm concerned. That's all I've got to say. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Turner, could I, just for the record, ask Mr. Schriner a few things, because according to what is now Article XIV on Page 18060 of the new Ordinance, an appeal can be brought by an aggrieved person and I'd just like to clarify for the record. Mr. Schriner, do you own any property in the area. MR. SCHRINER-No. I'm here representing Mr. Shortsleeves who is recuperating from a heart operation. MS. CORPUS-And he's a property owner in that area? MR. SCHRINER-He is the owner. MS. CORPUS-And you have his consent? Do you have anything in writing, perhaps, of an agent? MR. SCHRINER-No, but I could get it if it had to be. MS. CORPUS-Okay, and he's not here tonight? MR. SCHRINER-No. He's in bad health, and the other lady that owned the other part of the road, she passed away about a month ago so that property is all up in the air. She owned part of that right-of-way road. MS. CORPUS-Thank you. MRS. GOETZ-Well. I just feel that both parcels are part of the sale. We're just splitting hairs and we should look at what the real problem is, and maybe one solution, if it were to be determined that both parcel s were part of the whol e sal e effort, that one possibility woul d be that they apply for a variance. MR. CARR-Well, how long has this been going on? MRS. GOETZ-It sounds like a long time. MR. TURNER-Ever since the storage facility was put there. MR. CARR-It's a nonconforming use. MRS. GOETZ-I think there's already, is there one variance on that property, for the boat storage? MRS. CRAYFORD-I think it was originally a special permit. It was that long ago that it was a special permit, wasn't it? MR. TURNER-Right. Yes. MRS. GOETZ-For just boat storage special permit? MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CORPUS-It's irrelevant, at this point. It's permitted now. MR. CARR-Karla, wouldn't this be a nonconforming use anyway? I mean. if it's a sales lot? 17 MS. CORPUS-Well, boat storage is a permitted use. MR. CARR-Right, but if it's a sales lot and it's always been a sales lot, wouldn't it be a nonconforming use prior to the? MRS. CRAYFORD-Has it always been a sales lot? I don't know that it's always been a sales lot. MR. CARR-Unless they've started taking the salesman and the customers up in the past. since October of '88. MR. SICARD-It's been a sales lot for at least 25 years. MS. CORPUS-That would have to be a determination to be made by the Zoning Administrator. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. SCHRINER-That statement cannot be true, that statement that it's been a sales lot for 25 years. MR. SICARD-I've been up and down that road for a lot of years. As I say, I'm not acquainted with what the owners do or don't do. MR. SCHRINER-I've been there since 1963 on that road, on Shortsleeves property. Let me do some quick figuring. He didn't even own this property 25 years ago. MR. SICARD-That's right. MR. KELLEY-What was it, though? MR. SICARD-It was a boat yard. MR. CARR-No, but. okay, could you answer the question, though, is when was the first time that you saw a salesman go up there? MR. SCHRINER-I can't answer that because in my mind I don't know. MR. CARR-Was it more than three years ago, would you say? MR. SCHRINER-Probably. MR. CARR-Okay. So, it's prior to the Ordinance that we have in place right now. That's all I wanted to know. MR. SCHRINER-It probably was. I can't say when the first salesman started up there. I have no idea. Ask Roger, he knows. MRS. GOETZ-Is it possible that the sales effort is grandfathered? MR. CARR-It would have to be. MR. SICARD-Certainly. It goes back that far. It would be before Don Pensel owned it. MRS. GOETZ-So, but you're agreeing it is a sales effort? MR. SCHRINER-Wait a minute. There was never any boat storage up in that area when Don Pensel owned that, when he bought it from Ed Allen. I think there was another party in between Ed Allen and Don Pensel. There was never anything up in that back. Nothing absolutely. MR. SICARD-I think there was. MR. CARR-Well, Mr. Schriner. is it more than three years? That's all we're concerned with, is three years ago the boat storage, that's all we can be concerned with. MR. SCHRINER-I can't answer that because I don't know when he started. MR. CARR-More than three years ago, though? MR. SCHRINER-I can't say that. I don't know exactly. Ask him. I mean, he'll tell you. MR. CARR-Roger, would you address that? MR. TURNER-Mr. Rehm, are you going to speak? 18 '- MR. REHM-Again, my name's Walter Rehm and I represent Dunham's Bay Boat Company. We have recently finished going through the Planning Board for Site Plan Review on this facility. This is primarily a storage facility. It's not equated to used car lot because that's not what it is. It's a place to store boats. It's used for the winter storage of boats and then for the storage of overflow boats that the Howards can't get in their showroom and can't park outside of their showroom, but primarily this is not a sales lot. MR. CARR-But are there boats for sale up there? MR. REHM-There are boats up there that are for sale, but not advertised for sale and not prepared for sale or anything like that. There are boats that are owned by the Howards up there. MR. CARR-Okay. I've just got two questions. Has a salesman ever taken a customer up to that lot to sell? MR. REHM-Yes. MR. CARR-Was it more than three years ago? Have they done this for more than three years? MR. REHM-Yes, they've done this for many years, but this is not something that's done constantly, because the selling takes place down at the marina where the boats are polished and primped and prepared and so on. If somebody wants to look at a color or something like that. they can go up there. I just wanted to say one other thing. We've been over this issue ad nauseum with the Planning Board and the position of the Planning Board was that they would much rather have a customer go up to the lot to look at a boat than have Roger bring the boat down and across the road down there, in terms of dust, in terms of interference with the neighbors, in terms of safety of crossing the road and so on and that was clearly the position of the Planning Board. Now, Roger can answer any questions that you might have. MR. SICARD-Roger, is there some reason. I know you're busy and the busy season is off now, it has been for a little while, is there some reason why the dust control can't be taken care of, like today? ROGER HOWARD MR. HOWARD-There's no reason. I wasn't aware it was that severe. We had crushed stone put down, which we hadn't originally planned to do. Originally we were going to just grade the road and put down this dust control agent, but there's bedrock in there and they couldn't really grade it down satisfactorily, so they brought in the crushed stone, and I hadn't noti ced a severe dust probl em. I thought it was much better than it had been in the past, but I've got the stuff. There's no reason why we can't put it down. if that's a problem. MR. SICARD-You ought to take a ride up there once and a while and take a look. MR. HOWARD-I have. and I haven't noticed the dust. MR. KELLEY-Well, I drove up. I thought the road was excellent. I mean, it was beautiful. No potholes, there wasn't anything. MR. TURNER-Any further questions? MR. SHEA-I think this is a preexisting, nonconforming use. MR. CARR-Right, but the question is, where the sales take place. Now, whether or not this is nonconforming is another issue, but I think it is a nonconforming, preexisting use, so it's not going to really effect this, in my opinion. MR. KELLEY-Right. Are you going to tell him he can't do it? MR. CARR-I'm going to say in an LC-42 Zone you can't have a sales lot, and a sales lot, to me, is part of the sale. MRS. CRAYFORD-I would doubt that even the zoning prior to '88 allowed sales. I don't know the zoning was before then, but I would doubt if it allowed sales in that area. MR. KELLEY-Roger, how long has the building been there, the storage facility? MR. HOWARD-The building was built in '72. MR. KELLEY-And what was there before that? MR. HOWARD-Just a field. 19 MR. KELLEY-Were there boats stored up there then? MR. HOWARD-I bought the business in 1970. There were a bunch of old boat cradles up there. I'm not sure I ever remember seeing boats up there before. MR. KELLEY-You bought it in '72? MR. HOWARD-We bought the marina in 1970. We bought that parcel in '72. MR. KELLEY-Okay, and in '72 did you have boats up there, when you bought it? Did you start to put boats up there then? MR. HOWARD-Yes. in '72. MR. KELLEY-So it could have been in 1972 you might have had a sales person take a customer up and look at a used boat. MR. HOWARD-It's possible. MR. KELLEY-Okay, so that's been going on for almost 20 years. Are you going to tell him now he can't? MR. CARR-I never said I would. MR. KELLEY-I know, but we're sitting here arguing over nothing. MR. CARR-No. We're arguing over a definition that's going to effect a lot of other areas. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Even though it's not this one particular case. whatever we decide would effect other, the question is, is it all sales or where does the sale take place? MR. KELLEY-Yes. but the fact is, you've got a preexisting nonconforming use, it doesn't apply. lets say you had a new business. MRS. CRAYFORD-Not necessarily. It's not necessarily a preexisting, nonconforming use. I can't imagine that sales was ever permitted in that location. MR. KELLEY-I'm not saying that it's sales. MS. CORPUS-If this Board determines that this is part of the sale effort, okay, and if sales then, of whi ch thi s is a part of, were never allowed back to the 1967 Ordi nance, than thi s woul d be a preexisting illegal use. and illegal uses do not become preexisting nonconforming uses with time. MRS. GOETZ-So you feel a variance request could possibly be in order? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-You do? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes, if you determine sales are going on. MRS. GOETZ-That it's part of the sales effort. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's right. MR. TURNER-Then it comes back to the issue of where the sale takes place. Mr. Schriner? MR. SCHRINER-Back to this original, I was present when Roger. Phil Austin. Jimmy, I don't know all their names, four people were involved. Roger's dad, from the Boat Company. They came to the people up there, and I happened to be there, Mr. Shortsleeves. Mrs. Woodin who owned the property, and another fellow, Harold Goodemote. They specifically asked, do you people have any objection to us building a building, this is even before they bought the property now, build a building to store boats in the winter time. There was to be no boat traffic in the summer. This was one of the words. There was going to be especially no boat traffic on the weekend, so these people figured, we don't care. We're only up here on the weekend. what do we care what happens through the week. and this is how this thing got spiraled all the way up. and as far as him selling boats in 1972, I'll say no. Whether he says he did or he doesn't know, because he didn't have any boats up there until he started with that building. That's my recollection of this thing. MRS. GOETZ-It seems like now we're getting into repeating everything again. as we do have a bad habit of doing sometimes. So. I would like to, don't we need to address the fact. do we feel that the parcel across the road is part of the sales effort, that we have to make a decision on then? 20 MR. TURNER-I think the first thing we've got to do is determine if the boat sales are allowed in an LC42 Acre Zone. MR. CARR-Well, we've already determined that. MR. TURNER-No. We haven't voted on it. MR. CARR-Didn't we do that back at the last meeting? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, we voted in the last meeting. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes, you've already done that one. MR. TURNER-All right. Now, the question is. Dave Hatin made a determination that the sales took place at the marina facility itself as that was where the money changed hands. or the contract was signed. MR. CARR-That's the question. MR. SHEA-It's obviously a very narrow definition. but it's at least a clear one, and that's what we apparently did not do, is vote on that part. correct? MR. TURNER-We didn't. MRS. GOETZ-Right. MR. TURNER-Okay. Do you want to discuss it any further? MRS. EGGLESTON-I just want to be clear. are we talking about this one particular case? MR. TURNER-Right. We're talking one question. MR. CARR-No. We are. We are interpreting that a sale occurs at the place where the contract is signed or the money changes hands, no matter where that is. You're giving an awful broad brush to a sale. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's what I think. too. You can have a different set of circumstances come in here and you're giving that same option to somebody else. MR. TURNER-The question is, do you agree with Dave Hatin's determination that the sale takes place at the marina? MRS. GOETZ-No. I don't. MR. TURNER-Since that's where the money changed hand's or the contract is signed. MR. SHEA-That's all that we have to do is vote on that this evening? MR. CARR-Ri ght. MR. TURNER-That's all. MR. REHM-I just want to say, it just seems to me that you have to pick a point, because selling can go on and they could take somebody out in a boat and that could be construed as part of the sale. MR. TURNER-That's right. MR. REHM-They could take them up to the Top of the World or some place like that and buy them a drink or take them out for dinner and that's part of the sale. MR. KELLEY-When you sell real estate. MR. REHM-Yes. The total sales effort is allover the place. but the place where the deal is consummated seems. from my point of view. has to be clearly defined. MR. KELLEY-I agree with Dave's interpretation. MR. TURNER-I do, too. MRS. GOETZ-Lets just have a vote on it. MR. TURNER-All right. 21 '--' MOTION TO AGREE WITH DAVE HATIN'S INTERPRETATION THAT SALES TAKE PlACE AT THE MARINA FACILITY ITSELF AS THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY CHANGED HANDS, OR THE CONTRACT lIAS SIGNED, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Shea: Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1991, by the following vote AYES: Mr. Shea. Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr MR. SCHRINER-How did you end up? They can do it? MR. TURNER-Yes. We made the determination that we agree with Mr. Hatin's determination. We agreed with his interpretation that the sales take place at the marina. MR. SCHRINER-You still don't have that in writing, that it is all right for them to do this. In other words. this is no part of the sale up there? They can send people? MR. CARR-That's our determination. MR. TURNER-That's our determination. MR. SCHRINER-Okay. MR. CARR-You have a right to appeal. MR. SCHRINER-No. I just wanted to know what it was. I mean, if that's what you people decide. then that's fine. That will be up to Mr. Shortsleeves, if he wants to appeal. MR. CARR-You might want to tell him he's only got a certain time frame in which to do it. MR. TURNER-Yes. 30 days. MR. SCHRINER-Fine. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-1991 TYPE II LC-42A ROBERT F. SMITH OWNER: ROBERT F. I PATRICIA A. SMITH 23 HUNTER LANE, AT JUNCTION OF FOX ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK 23 FT. BY 16 FT. THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT IS 100 FT. IN ALL DIRECTIONS. THE DECK WILL BE 81 FT. FROM THE NORTHERN LINE, 44 FT. FROM THE WESTERN LINE, 60 FT. TO THE SOUTHERN LINE, AND 83 FT. FROM HUNTER LANE. TAX MP NO. 26-5-32 LOT SIZE: 23,200 SQ. FT. SECTION 4.020 A ROBERT SMITH. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 41-1992. Robert Smith, June 17. 1991, Meeting Date: June 19,1991 "The application requests relief from the 100 foot setbacks required in the LC-42 acre zone. The applicant proposes to construct a 22' by 16' deck at the rear of the house on Hunter Lane. The deck will be 81 feet from the northern property line, 83 feet from Hunter Lane on the east, 60 feet from the southern property 1 ine and 44 feet from the western property line. Thi s property received a variance previously. The variance was to construct the residence which is on the lot. The subdivision was approved in 1970 and the zoning changed which created a practical difficulty. The previous variance was granted on March 28, 1990. under the name of John Whalen. This application was reviewed with regard to the criteria required for an area variance. Are there special conditions applying to this property or building, and not applying generally to other properties or buildings in the neighborhood? The special conditions are that this lot was undeveloped when the zoning changed. It has. however, had a structure placed on it in the last year. It would appear that this deck was an omission when the original variances were applied for. Would strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings? No. The applicant has use of the property as a residence. The placement of the deck is not necessary for his use of the land or building. Would the strict application of the dimensional requirements result in a speci fi ed practi cal difficulty? No. The appli cant woul d sti 11 have full use of the fac1l iti es. Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance. or to property in the district? No. This lot is in a developed subdivision. Is the request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? No. There is not a practical difficulty which prohibits the use of the lot or buildings." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Smith. Just for everybody's information, I don't know. but my drawing. I talked with Mr. Smith, and there's a pair of stairs on the west end on the side, and there's another pair of stairs on the east side of that deck. Is it on your drawing? It wasn't on mine. Do you have any further comments in relation to your deck? 22 MR. SMITH-No. I guess not. For the record, I'm Robert Smith at 23 Hunter Lane. MR. TURNER-I asked him about the size of the deck and he indicated to me that by the time he gets all the amenities out there, the patio furniture. there's not much room left. MR. CARR-Mr. Smith, if I recall, all you have is trees in the back, right? MR. SMITH-Yes. I'm up against the forever wild area there. MR. CARR-Okay, and your neighbors are looking at the house. There was nobody to your. MR. SMITH-There's nobody looking at me from either side. It's empty lots at this point in time and the rest are to the front, to the east. MR. CARR-So, basically, no one's going to see this deck at this time? MR. SMITH-At this time, right. MR. CARR-Okay, but there are building lots next to you? MR. SMITH-There's one on each side. yes. MR. CARR-Of course, they aren't 42 Acres, right? MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARR-So they've lost their status. So they are not building lots. MR. SMITH-Well, they're grandfathered. MS. CORPUS-They're approved subdivision lots. MR. SMITH-All that property is grandfathered. MR. TURNER-I think we granted Mr. Whalen, lets see, your lot is number 32. I think we granted him a variance on 31. and the lot on the, does he own the lot to the south? MR. SMITH-He owns the lots. right, to the north and to the south. MR. TURNER-I think he's got a variance. MR. CARR-I don't really have a problem with this. MR. TURNER-Any questions of Mr. Smith? Does anyone have a problem with his proposed deck? MRS. EGGLESTON-No. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Sean Garvey and Marcia Garvey, "As neighbors to the Smiths, we will have a good view of their proposed deck and can see no reason why they should not be granted the variance for construction. We believe that it would compliment their already beautiful home and neighborhood. Therefore, we stand beside them in their application." MR. TURNER-Which neighbor are they, Mr. Smith? MR. SMITH-They're to the south. There's a buil ding lot between us and then it's the road that goes into their driveway. MR. TURNER-They're the ones to the south. Right, and then that house on the corner. Okay. Motion's in order, then. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-1991 ROBERT F. SMITH, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr: 23 The applicant is requesting relief from the 100 foot setbacks required in the LC42 Acre Zone. The practical difficulty being that there was a change in zoning from when the subdivision was approved in 1970. Thi s grants re li ef of 19 feet from the northern property 1 i ne, 17 feet from Hunter Lane on the east, 40 feet from the southern property line, and 56 feet from the western property line. This variance will not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Ordinance. There is no neighborhood opposition. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard. Mr. Shea. Mrs. Goetz. Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-1991 TYPE II RR-SA HERBERT BUNTING OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE BAY ROAD, 1,000 FT. SOUTH OF ROUTE 9L TO REBUILD THE DECK. THE DECK WILL BE 7 FT. FROM THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE IN LIEU OF THE RE~IRED 30 FT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 23-1-23 LOT SIZE: 9,375 SQ. FT. SECTION 4.02D-C HERBERT BUNTING, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 43-1991, Herbert Bunting, June 13, 1991. Meeting Date: June 19, 1991 "The request is to keep a deck which was constructed without a variance. The deck is seven feet from the northern property 1 ine in 1 i eu of the requi red 30 feet. The appl i cant states that the deck was rebuilt. It is not clear whether this is a replacement or a new encroachment. This application was reviewed with regard 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 lot contains a steep slope and is adjacent to a regional arterial road. The additions over the years have been to the north until it is not possible to construct anything in that direction without a variance. The lot is only 75 feet wide. 2) Would the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings? The applicant can utilize the property as a residence. However, the deck does provide access to the upper floor entrance to the house. 3) Woul d the stri ct appli cati on of the dimensi onal requi rements result in a specified practical difficulty? Yes, the lot width creates a situation which creates a practical difficulty. 4) Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance, or to property in the district? No. The deck does not create any impermeable surface. The adjacent home is 300 feet away and a marina is across the street. 5) Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? Yes. Since the deck is in existence." MRS. GOETZ-The Warren County Planning Board returned saying "No County Impact". MR. BUNTING-Good evening. I'm Herbert Bunting. MR. TURNER-Okay. You say you rebuilt the deck. MR. BUNTING-Yes, that's right. MR. TURNER-That's correct? Okay. Now. access to the house and out the rear? MR. BUNTING-No. MR. TURNER-No access out the rear? MR. BUNTING-No. MR. TURNER-You access out of the house, onto the deck and that's it? MR. BUNTING-Yes. MR. TURNER-You access into the house from the walkway up the front? MR. BUNTING-Yes. MR. TURNER-And how long have you owned the house. Mr. Bunting? MR. BUNTING-Since 19 years. MR. TURNER-Nineteen years. MRS. GOETZ-Did the zoning requirements change in '88, here, as far as yard setback? 24 ~ MR. TURNER-It might have went from RR-3 to RR-5. MRS. GOETZ-So the side yard setbacks would have been. MR. TURNER-Pretty close. MRS. GOETZ-Greater. MR. TURNER-The side yard setback is 30 feet. MRS. GOETZ-Now? MR. TURNER-Now. MRS. GOETZ-But it was less before? MR. TURNER-It could have been. MRS. GOETZ-So that makes it even more, but he owned it prior to that. MR. TURNER-The problem with his house is that it's on a ledge, all right. It's 75 feet wide. You can't do much of anything without a variance. MRS. GOETZ-Right. MR. KELLEY-Well, this is a new deck that you rebuilt? MR. BUNTING-Yes. MR. KELLEY-What was the deck like that was there before? MR. BUNTING-A wooden deck, smaller. MR. KELLEY-Smaller. Okay. MR. TURNER-How much smaller was it. Mr. Bunting? MR. BUNTING-Somewhere in the neighborhood of, it would probably be under the requirements of 100 square feet. It was about 10 by 10, 10 by 12. MR. KELLEY-Basically, would you say that the deck is your yard? MR. BUNTING-What? MR. KELLEY-Would you say that this deck, for the most part. takes the place of what most people would have as a yard? MR. BUNTING-Yes. MR. KELLEY-I mean, looking at it, there is no yard. MR. BUNTING-There's no yard. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. MR. KELLEY-Okay. So any outdoor activity that you would do would either be on that little concrete patio or the deck or you're down an abode or something? MR. BUNTING-Either one. Right. MR. TURNER-Any further questions? MRS. EGGLESTON-No. I don't have a problem with it. MR. TURNER-No. I don't either. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 25 CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board returned saying, "No County Impact" MR. TURNER-All right. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE 110. 43-1991 HERBERT IIJNTING, I ntroduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: The applicant is seeking relief from the side yard setback. The Ordinance calls for 30 feet and this particular deck will be 7 feet from the northerly property line for a relief of 23 feet. There are a few special conditions which apply to this piece of property. The first being that the lot width is 75 feet and the depth of the lot would be 125 feet. So this is a relatively small lot. One of the other special conditions that applies is the fact that this property is low where the property intersects the road and as you head west it goes up a steep incline. So basically the lot has no flat spot which could be considered to be a yard. This wooden deck also provides access to the upper living level of the home. It is not an unreasonable request and it allows the applicant reasonable use of his property. Strict application of the Ordinance would create a practical difficulty and this variance is not detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance. There is no neighborhood opposition and this appears to be the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz. Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE CORRECTION OF MINUTES April 24. 1991: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE APRIL 24, 1991 MINUTES. Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Shea May 15, 1991: Page 18, top of the page, Mrs. Eggleston is speaking. second sentence down towards the end, "much back yard to play with, that's the practical difficulty" MOTION TO APPROVE MY 15, 1991 MINUTES AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Joyce Eggl eston who moved for its adoption. seconded by Susan Goetz: Duly adopted this 19th day of June. 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea. Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MRS. GOETZ-I just had one thing as a point of information. If we remember the Huntz application at Lake Sunnyside for the garage. I was absent when we actually voted, but they have a bathroom in the room up over the garage and I wondered, was that ever part of the application? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-It was, for the bathroom? MR. TURNER-I believe it was. MR. KELLEY-But I think there was no kitchen facility. MR. TURNER-There was no kitchen facility. MRS. GOETZ-Was that the difference? Okay, because we always seemed so concerned about that. 26 ~ ~" MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-And the other thing is, remember when we spent all that time going over proposed changes in the Zoning Ordinance. the Definitions, etc.. etc.? I don't know if you were here that night? guess you were absent, Joyce. MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't think I was here. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. Well, apparently they've set a public hearing for it, July 30th, isn't it? MS. CORPUS-6:30. MRS. GOETZ-At 6:30 and the Definitions turned out, I guess, I haven't even looked at it. but it's somewhat different than what we had talked about. not that that's a bad thing, but I just thought you all might be interested in what is being proposed. MR. CARR-Are they being sent to us or do we have them? MRS. GOETZ-I don't think so. I asked for this. MS. CORPUS-No. The Zoning Board doesn't get them. The Planning Board gets them, but the Planning Board doesn't. MR. CARR-Could you send them to us anyway? MS. CORPUS-I'm sure we could get you copies, no problem. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 27