Loading...
1991-08-21 QUEEIISIIJRY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 21ST, 1991 7:30 P.... MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY JOYCE EGGLESTON MICHAEL SHEA BRUCE CARR JEFFREY KELLEY CHARLES SICARD DEPUTY T(IIt ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS DING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT CRAYFORD SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK STENOGRAPtER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSIIESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-1990 TYPE II SFR-IA CHRISTOPIER I KATHLEEN GRANGER (litER: SAME AS ABOVE 17 MEADOW DRIVE TO ERECT A RETAINING WALL TO STOP EROSION, AND TO BE USED AS A FOOTING FOR A FUTURE GARAGE. REQUESTING RELIEF FROM THE 75 FT. SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. TAX MAP NO. 58-2-1.2 LOT SIZE: 0.68 ACRES SECTION 7.012 A3 THE APPLICANTS ARE REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR APPROVAL. MRS. GOETZ-Read letter, "Dear Mr. Turner: We are writing to request an extension of our Variance 60-1990 that was granted August 22nd, 1990. Due to the recent birth of our daughter, decrease in family income, and lack of time, we have been unable to complete the planned project, the building of a cement retaining wall. We feel with the extension of the variance we will be able to complete this project within the next year when conditions are more favorable. We would be grateful if you would consider us for this extension. Christopher and Kathleen Granger" MR. TURNER-Anyone have any problems with extending it? None? Okay. MOTION TO EXTEND AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-1990 CHRISTOPHER I KATHLEEN GRANGER, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: For a period of one year. Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 103-1989 TYPE: UNLISTED LC-42A PRISCILLA SANDERSPREE NEIl (litER: SUSAN CECCHINI CORNER OF FOX ROAD AND HUNTER LANE TO COIISTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOOSE THAT WOULD NOT MEET THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK RE~IREMENTS. RE~ESTIIG AN EXTENSION OF TIME FRAME FROM APPROVAL OF 9/20/89. TAX MAP NO. 26-5-29 LOT SIZE: 2f3± ACRE SECTION 4.02OA MRS. GOETZ-This letter is from Susan Cecchini. "I am requesting the extension on the above mentioned variance. Please consider this matter on your August agenda." MR. TURNER-It's been extended once. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. How many of those do you normally? MR. TURNER-Well, I was just going to ask the question, is there any other information other than just that one letter that's in the file requesting an extension? MRS. YORK-I called the applicant and suggested that they send a little more information explaining their circumstances or what had prohibited them from starting the construction and I did not receive anything. MR. TURNER-Well, obviously, it's a minor variance, in a sense, because we've always granted them up there, just because of this particular situation, Land Conservation 42 Acre. So, I don't see any problem with extending it for a period of one year, but I think the next time we ought to have some better information than just a request to extend, for some reason or other, so we can have something to fall back on. MRS. EGGLESTON-Should we not, though, make her comply with what the zoning? MR. TURNER-Well. her time period will be up, so I'd just as soon extend it right now, and the next time if she comes for one, she better have some legitimate reasons. MRS. GOETZ-I don't have a problem with extending it, but I have a problem with the fact that she didn't respond to the Planning Department. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Me, too. MR. TURNER-When did you get the letter off? MRS. YORK-I called them. MR. TURNER-You called them? MRS. YORK-Yes. I called them two weeks ago. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. GOETZ-Would it be appropriate, say we act on the motion, but then to send her a letter saying that we were disappointed not to hear from her with more information? MR. TURNER-I think we could extend it and ask her to furnish the information that's requested. MRS. GOETZ-And then put it in the file? MR. TURNER-And put it in the file, and the next time we've got something. MR. CARR-We don't have to extend it for a year. MR. TURNER-No. You can extend it for six months, whatever. MR. CARR-We can extend it just to save it, until they get the information. MR. TURNER-We could extend it one month, two months, three months, whatever you want to do. MR. CARR-I'd say, three months. MRS. EGGLESTON-That would be good. MR. TURNER-All right. MR. CARR-I don't know if we're just cluttering our agenda, though. MR. TURNER-I think we are. MR. CARR-That would be my only hesitation. MR. TURNER-It might be a case of economics right now, with the Country in the situation it's in. MR. CARR-I mean, I really don't have a problem with extending it for one more year, and then asking her again, if they come back, at that point say, well, we aren't going to do it unless you give us some information. MRS. GOETZ-But we might forget that she didn't give the information this time. MR. CARR-Well, we didn't forget this. This is the second one. MRS. GOETZ-Well, when you look at the date, '89. MR. CARR-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-We did it once. We gave them one extension. This is the second one. MR. CARR-I just think it's going to, if it comes back again, I think we're going to remember that something's going on here. MR. SHEA-Did you say that she was going to provide the information that you had requested? 2 ---- MRS. YORK-I spoke to her husband, who is co-owner of the property, and he indicated to me that we would get something. He did mention economic times and things like that and they are still trying to sell their house to be able to afford to build up here, but, I mean, I don't have anything in writing for the Board, but those things were mentioned to me over the phone. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think we could accept that. MR. TURNER-Yes. I can accept that. MR. SHEA-And if we were to get it in writing, it would be the same. MRS. YORK-I would make an assumption that that would be the case. MRS. EGGLESTON-You noted the file of those notations, Lee? MRS. YORK-No. I did not, at the time, because I was anticipating a letter. MR. TURNER-Okay. What's the Board's pleasure? Do you want to extend it with the proviso that they provide us with an affidavit or something in writing, a letter pertaining to the subject matter? MRS. GOETZ-Yes, just even something in writing to put in the file. MR. TURNER-Okay. MOTION TO EXTEND AREA VARIANCE NO. 103-1989 PRISCILLA SANDERSPREE, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jeffrey Kelley: For a period of one year, with the provision that they provide the Planning Department with some clarification as to the request for extension within 45 days. Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr. Mr. Shea, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-1991 TYPE II WR-lA JOAN S. STONE _ER: SAME AS ABOVE lEST SIDE OF ASSEMBLY POINT, PROPERTY LIES UIEDIATELY NORTH OF INTERSECTION OF LAKE PARKIIAY AND FOREST DRIVE TO DEMOLISH AN OLD EXISTING RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW YEAR ROOND RESIDENCE. AREA VARIANCE IS RE~IRED TO ALUIf THE STRUClURE TO BE PLACED 50 FT. FROM THE LAKEFRONT IN LIEU OF THE RE~IRED 75 FT. (WARREN coom PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 8-1-4 LOT SIZE: 100 FT. BY 157 FT. SECTION 7.012 (179-60) BOB STEWART, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 58-1991. July 23, 1991, Meeting Date: July 24, 1991 "The applicant is requesting an Area Variance to allow construction of a residence within 50 ft. of Lake George in lieu of the required 75 ft. The Zoning Administrator has determined this is not an expansion (memo attached). The applicant has indicated that the intention is to construct a new structure which will be 50 ft. by 76 ft. or about 3,800 sq. ft. The lot size is 100 ft. by 157 ft. and is in a Critical Environmental Area. The application states that if the new structure were placed 75 ft. back, then it would be farther back than the neighbors and would impair the view of the lake. Also, the house would not meet the front yard setback of 30 ft. nor would there be room for a septic system. There is no proof of the visual impairment given. The rational for increased setbacks is to, over time, improve the neighborhood and bring development into conformance. Also, most individuals who 1 ive on a lake consider the front of the house to be the lake side. If this is the applicants case. they would only need a 20 ft. rear yard setback. There has been no proof submitted regarding the size or location of a proposed septic system. Since the applicant states that these are the reasons that a shoreline setback variance is requested then proof should be provided to the Board. Alternative locations may be possible to allow for minimum relief. 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? No. The property is very similar 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? There currently exists a structure on the lot which has afforded the applicant a residential unit. A new residence could be constructed in the same footprint. New construction should attempt to meet the minimum standards designed for the zone. 3. Would the strict application of the dimensional requirements result in a specified practical difficulty? The applicant has not shown proof substantiating any practical difficulty. 3 4 Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance, or to property in the district? Lake George has been impacted by increased development and is a Critical Environmental Area. Continued development on substandard lake shore lots has created cumulative impacts. 5. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? The Board may want to request further information so they can make this judgement." MRS. GOETZ-Attached to that was a memo from Pat Crayford regarding a question of 50 percent expansion and when it applies. "After a meeting with Karla Corpus and careful review of our Zoning Ordinance, I offer the following determination: Article XI, 179-79 Continuation, refers to nonconforming structures and uses. The definition of a nonconforming structure is as follows: "any structure which is lawfully .!!!. existence within a give Zoning District on the effective date of this Chapter but which is not in conformance with the dimensional regulations for that Zoning District." The present Stone residence will be demolished removing the nonconforming structure and a new structure will be built in a new location on the parcel. Please contact me if you wish to discuss this." And then the Warren County Planning Board returned citing "No County Impact". MR. TURNER-Mr. Stewart. MR. STEWART-Mr. Chairman, ladies and Gentlemen of the Board, my name is Bob Stewart. I'm an attorney from Glens Falls and I'm here tonight representing the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Stone. Mr. Lewis Stone is here with me tonight. His wife Joan is in New York and was unable to be here. I'm not going to re-hash the entire application in length. I think you probably understand it. Essentially what we have here is a subdivision, if you will, or lots laid out on Lake George on Assembly Point and roads laid out on Assembly Point and that was done many, many years ago, 1910, 1920, somewhere in that area, and of course the size of these lots was locked in at that time. The homes were developed there, over a period of years, and virtually all of the homes are 30 to 40, maybe 50 feet from the shore. The Stone lot. for example, at its maximum depth, is 160 feet. You can't make it any deeper because you've got a lake on one side and you've got the Town road on the other. That's all you have. If you just, and of course then the Adirondack Park came through with a rule of 75 feet setback, which was adopted ultimately by your Queensbury Ordinance. So, if you just apply that as a blanket rule, 75 feet of frontage, and your Ordinance says 30 feet on the roadside, you've got 125 feet that can't be built on, on a lot that, at its maximum, is only 159 feet in depth. So. to suggest, as Staff does, that these people don't have a practical difficulty just doesn't make any sense at all. They obviously do. Now, the camp, now, that's been there for, probably since 1920 or something like that, is 39.5 feet from the water's edge, rounded at 40 feet. We had suggested moving it back an additional 10 feet. if we were to go to new construction. So, it would be 50 feet back. That would get us back as far as the neighbors who are built on both sides of us down along the point. We would not, then, jut out in front of them and impair their view up and down the lake, but the problem is, if we have to go back 75 feet, then we're down in a valley where their house juts out in front of us and our view is blocked, and it's a situation that's come up from time to time on Lake George. It's not that unusual a situation. I've never been before this Board when that particular variance wasn't granted, where all of the houses were already there and built and established and the new house was going to stay well back in the established setback range of the other houses. Obviously, it's a practical difficulty if you have to be back 25 feet more or 30 feet more than your neighbors when obviously the value of this property is the view and the beauty of Lake George. I was not given a copy of the Staff Notes until about five or ten minutes ago. One comment, that the house is about 3800 square feet, that is just totally incorrect. If you look at the floor plan that was submitted, the house is at its maximum depth, 76 feet, because there's a garage attached to the rear corner of it and at it's maximum width, it's 50 feet, because there's a kitchen attached to the front, but the house is an L-Shaped house. You can't measure the maximum width by the maximum length and think you get the footprint, because you don't. Probably 50 percent of the house is the front porch and the garage in the rear. Since these people want to reti re and come up here and 1 ive year round, naturally, they woul d like to have a garage at the rear of the house to keep their cars in out of the weather in the winter time. I'm sure they could live without a garage, but then you have two cars parked outside in the backyard. I don't see where that enhances anything for the neighbors, for the owners, or the character of the neighborhood in any way. As far as the character of the neighborhood, as I say, it's been established, back near the turn of the century, as far as the location of the houses from the road, as far as the location of the houses primarily from the 1 ake, and we propose to go back farther than we are now and farther than most of the houses are on Assembly Point as it is. It is, it seems to me, unreasonable not to consider some relief where you have a lot that is only 140 to 159 feet, depending on which, the lake curves there in the middle of it a little bit, and impose a 125 foot setback. It just kills you. You've got no working room whatsoever. So, I'll see if there's anything else I can respond to. According to the Staff Comments, I think, obviously, we have a practical difficulty which is all an area variance requires. The question then normally shifts to whether or not what we propose to do. if the variance were to be granted by this Board, would create some significant, adverse effect on the neighborhood. and the Staff doesn't suggest anywhere that it would or what that would be, and I can't imagine what it would be. So, I'm here to answer any questions. Mr. Stone is here to answer any questions. MR. TURNER-Do you have an office included? MR. STEWART-Yes. The plans were drawn by Northern Homes and there's an area in there they've labeled an office or you can label it a den or whatever, but there is, on that plan, a small room in the middle of the building that is labeled an office. 4 -- MR. TURNER-Yes. It's 11 by 12 feet 9 inches. MR. STEWART-It's not very big. MR. SICARD-It's a closet. MR. TURNER-It's a big closet. LEWIS STONE MR. STONE-My name is Lewis Stone. I am the husband of the actual owner. The room, office, as Bob said, in Northern Homes' words, it is a catch all room. It's to keep our mail, keep our bills. Just a place to have things so they don't get allover the rest of the house. As I say, their words, not ours, or it might have been ours, in the sense the general, it's our office where we conduct our bill paying and our business. MR. TURNER-Okay. What's your occupation. Mr. Stone? MR. STONE-I am currently a consultant. MR. TURNER-Are you going to do consulting work out of that office? MR. STONE-My consulting work would be on the phone only. That would be the extent. Any consulting I would do would be out of town. I would conduct no business on the site, except using the phone. MR. TURNER-Okay. Let me ask you another question. Did you look at a different layout for the house, for this size of lot, other than this one that's presented to you from Northern Homes? Is there an alternative plan? MR. STONE-Basically, the design is one that we worked together with them. It's been my wife's dream. My wife has been on the 1 ake since 1946. Her father bought the property in 1946. It has been her dream to have a living area with as much view of the lake as possible. As far as our living quarters is concerned. The master bedroom on the south side, the family room 1 iving area in the middle and then a kitchen, so that we could see the lake as much as possible. The rest of the house is because we do have a family. We have two sons and two daughter-in-laws, and hopefully they will give us grandchildren someday and, again, Northern Homes calls that area upstairs a game room. That's really a dormitory for the anticipated grandchildren we fervently hope for. It's really a dormitory. It's one big room that can be divided if there happen to be grandchildren of two sexes. We can put the girls on one side and the boys on the other, this kind of thing. That area is also close-offable in the winter. We would like to keep the heating bill down as much as possible so that we would not even use that area most of the time, but we would be able to entertain guests in the front bedrooms and our sons and daughter-in-laws. MR. KELLEY-It meets all the side yards, I guess, because the plot plan only shows what's existing. It doesn't show anything new. MR. TURNER-No. MR. STEWART-Yes. I apologize for that. I got this back from Mr. McCormack the morning that it had to be filed, so I had to scramble a 1 ittle bit, but we did file the building plan itself, so you can see it has to be in the middle 50 feet of the lot, because there's no flexibility left or right, or north to south I should say, and, again, the depth, if you set back 50 feet from the lake. which as I say is 10 feet more than there is now, that leaves you the 30 feet from the rear that the Ordinance requires on the roadside. So, there isn't much maneuverability, as far as where to place the house on the lot. You can have the L go to the left or the L go to the right, but that's. MR. CARR-Bob. do you want to address the issue of the septic? Can you talk to that at all? MR. STEWART-Well, as you know, any approval granted here by this Board would be subject to the applicant getting any necessary approval s for septi cs he needs. That woul d requi re the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury who sits as a Health Board, and also the Lake George Park Commission, and what that really involves is this, no septic system really on the lake ever is 100 percent conforming because under the rules, the closest portion of any septic system has to be at least 200 feet from the lake, and of course you're familiar with the lots, particularly on the east side of the lake, I know. There's vi rtually none of them that are 200 feet deep, to say nothing about the 250 or 300 feet woul d be required. So, the procedure, in my experience, has been they use the phrase, best available technology. Once they see the type of a house and the size of a house that's being authorized, in this case by this Board, you meet with those other Boards. You have an engineer layout a plan that he represents to the Board is the best technology that he feels would suit that house, that piece of property, given the soil conditions and so on that he finds there, and they review that and then they make that final decision, and it can be a standard septic system. It can be a so called Wisconsin Mound System. On occasion, I've seen them request holding tanks, but that's pretty rare, because they really don't like those. They don't particularly think those work well. 5 -- MRS. GOETZ-Will the existing driveway be changed in any way? MR. STEWART-Yes. The driveway, now, is a semi-circle, and the house will be on that. So, now there'll be a short driveway coming straight in from the street to the garage door and then into the garage. MRS. GOETZ-So, on this new diagram, where would the new house, you said 30 feet from the front, which is the back? MR. TURNER-Yes. The garage would be right over here, right over in this area. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. MR. STEWART-Here's the sketch that the builder we're working for gave Mr. Stone, I think, the last couple of days. There, in red, is the house, 50 feet back, 30 feet from the road, and the driveway would just come right into the garage directly. MR. CARR-The existing garage and house will be gone, right, both? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. STEWART-Yes. See, this is 50 feet back from the lake, at its closest point, but it's 60 feet, probably, from here to the red outlined house. Here is the garage that juts back here. MR. SICARD-Teddy, are they going to use the existing garage? MR. TURNER-No. Everything is going to be torn down. MR. SICARD-Okay. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to make a clarification, for the record and the Board. Subsequent to Mrs. York's notes, and we've just discussed this at the table, the Zoning Ordinance was changed. There are new requirements for area variances, and I believe the Board should have all gotten copies of that. Just to bring to your attention that there are a new set of criteria, and those should be the ones followed by the Board, and they pretty much follow what Mr. Stewart has already said. MR. STEWART-The neighbors have all been noticed. The neighbors have all seen this. They've been shown the application, we've discussed it with them, and we've had no opposition from them. MRS. GOETZ-What is the present square footage of the existing camp? MR. TURNER-About 1560 square feet or something like that. MR. STONE-Fifteen hundred, I believe, and it's in that ballpark. MRS. GOETZ-And then the proposed total, with the second floor? MR. STONE-Total square footage of the house was 25, according to my builder. MRS. GOETZ-Both floors together? MR. STONE-Both floors together. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's the interior walls. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. STEWART-With garage and with porch. MR. STONE-Plus the garage and the porch. MR. TURNER-Yes. So, they don't count. MR. STEWART-Now, when you ask about the existing square footage, remember, there's a freestanding garage in addition to that. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. STONE-And there's a porch on the front which is, I don't think part of that 1500, but that's not, again, it's an open porch. MR. TURNER-Yes. It just shows a pair of stairs going down off the front of the house toward the lake. 6 - MR. STONE-Yes, but that leads onto a screened in porch. MR. TURNER-Yes, there is a porch, right here. It's the layout of the house that really diminishes the size. makes it look humungous, to me. MR. STEWART-You mean, it would look less if you squared it off into a rectangle rather than Lit? MR. TURNER-Yes. You've got a garage set off to one side a little bit and the kitchen off to one side, and like you said, it's an L shape, and then you're going up with it, and that's what makes it look big. That's why I asked you the question, did you look at any other floor plan, or do you have an alternative to what you have here. MR. STONE-Well, again, my wife has been on the lake since 1946 and it's been her dream to have this long stretch, plus, then the master bedroom suite requires a bathroom, at some point, behind it, and a place for our clothes, so that's why there's the master unit along the south side which has the bedroom, a dressing area and the bathroom and then the other parts are 1 iving room and the kitchen where we live and eat. MR. TURNER-I understand your position, but our position is to grant the minimum relief not maximum relief. MR. CARR-But I don't think a design of the house would change the 50 foot setback and that's the relief he's looking for. He's not looking for side yard. MR. TURNER-No. He's not looking for side yard, but you've got 12 feet of porch, all right, added on to the front, and then the back, where the office is, and the entryway and the porch juts out there, I can't read it, six something. MR. KELLEY-Five foot six inches. MR. CARR-Five foot six inches. MR. TURNER-Five foot six inches, yes. MR. CARR-But that's in the rear. MR. TURNER-That's in the rear toward the road. MR. CARR-Ri ght. MR. TURNER-Then the garage even sticks out farther and that's what I'm saying makes it look humungous. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. TURNER-It's the layout of the house, how the layout of the house is going to sit on the property that makes it look enormous. Maybe it isn't, but there, again, you know. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. TURNER-It's going to cover more land area. So, is there any further questions of the applicant? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KELLEY-Well, I guess, I hear what you're saying about the layout and the design of it versus something else that might afford more setbacks either in the front or the back or maybe both. MR. TURNER-Right, or both. MR. KELLEY-I don't know. MR. TURNER-It's nice to have the house that you want, but you've only got so much land to work with, and the rules of the game have changed since they bought the property years ago. MR. CARR-But I think, Ted, aren't we kind of, we're missing the point with its being, its width, okay. as opposed to its distance from the shoreline. They're moving it back to be in conformity with the other houses in that road. I mean, so I think if we force them to square it up or whatever, that's still not going to move it back. 7 -- MR. TURNER-No. They don't have to move it back, but they could well compact the house a little bit more and make it smaller. MR. CARR-But we have no control over that. We have no right to tell them that. MR. TURNER-No, I'm not saying that, but there are some rules for practical difficulty and he just can't come in with a plan that says, here it is. I don't have any other alternative. I haven't even explored an alternative. This is the one I want. MR. CARR-I think what he has explored is that if he has to go back further than 50 feet, is he's going to be in a worse position visa vi his neighbors, because they're up at the 50 foot level, and that's all he's asking for. If we give him the 50 feet, there's nothing that prevents him from changing this design. MR. TURNER-No. There's nothing, no. MR. CARR-I mean, as long as he stays within the side yard setbacks. MR. STEWART-And surely we don't want to come across, here, as being unreasonable or unwilling to meet you half way or to give, but the 50 foot setback, of course, is the minimum required to meet the problem that Mr. Carr says, of the fact that any farther would block our view up and down the lake. either way. MR. TURNER-I understand that. MR. STEWART-Now, we could remove the garage, for example, right off the rear of the house. That would remove some bulk from the building. The problem is, you're going to park two cars there and I don't know whether you gain anything by leaving them out during the winter or having them in out of sight neat and tidy, but you could remove some bulk that way, for example. It's not an awfully big house, when you look at it. The porch across the front, which is pretty traditional. it adds most of the bulk. It's really a relatively modest house. MRS. GOETZ-One point I'd like to make is, the way Mr. Stone says it's been their dream, and to me that's not a valid reason to ask for something because of being in the Critical Environmental Area. MR. STEWART-No. I think what he was saying is the question was, has any thought gone into this house other than the suggestion, did you pick up the first set of plans off the shelf. MR. TURNER-Yes. That was my comment. MR. STEWART-I think what he was trying to say is 45 years of planning and dreaming have gone into this, not that it was just the first plan they saw. It may not be the best plan, depending on somebody's point of view, but, traditionally, in any house I've ever been into on the lake. you try to get the 1 iving areas where you are going to be present most of the time with the view out over the lake and bathrooms, garages, things like that, that you tuck to the rear. MRS. GOETZ-The garage could be a problem, and I can think of one house that's a good example, on Assembly Point, the Goetz house. To me, that was, 1 ike, so over built for that small piece of property. One thing I like about this piece of property is it has more waterfront which would öffset that, but, honestly, if you want to think about something, that comes to mind. MR. STEWART-Which house? MRS. GOETZ-You know, John Goetz's former home, because that had the garage on the back, too, and I always felt it was too big for a piece of property that was 55 feet across. So, to me, that's why I think of it as a little bit bulky for the property. Now, it will cover a lot more space, it seems, looking at the plan, here, than the present camp. MR. STEWART-Yes. It's bigger than the existing house. MRS. GOETZ-Yes, and I think that's what we're visualizing, but I see Bruce's point about the side line setbacks aren't being violated. MR. STEWART-No. We're complying with those and with the rear. MRS. EGGLESTON-And they're improving the shore front by 10 feet. MR. TURNER-Yes. They're moving back from the shore. MRS. EGGLESTON-I really think you need a garage, in the type of weather we have. 8 MR. STEWART-Yes. A summer camp, you can do without it. It's not a problem, but year round living here in the winter. it's pretty hard to go out there in the morning. MR. KELLEY-I suppose if you look at this. the plot plan that shows the new building located on it, I mean, I realize that it doesn't concern us, and that would be the septic system problem of this particular layout, but because of the way the thing is designed, it looks like this is probably going to be the area for the septic, and it's going to probably keep it back as far as they can possibly go. MR. CARR-Jeff, Mr. Stewart indicated to us that's where the septic currently is. MR. KELLEY-Currently is? MR. STEWART-Yes. The house was L'ed to that side so as to leave or to create the maximum lawn area that we can work with. MR. STONE-Right. Actually, the septic system will be further back than it is now. It'll be right in that corner of the lot that you're talking about, Mr. Kelley, and it will be as large as, as Mr. Stewart said, it has to be, because we both love the lake as much as anybody does. MR. KELLEY-Lets say you said, do a different design, and you came up with all kinds of scenarios, I mean, how much are we really going to gain? Probably the only thing would be, you'd try to get more setback from the lake. MR. TURNER-I know. My position is that the proof is upon the applicant to prove that he can't do some other things with the property, not to just hand us a print and say, this is what we want. MR. CARR-Right. no. but the proof isn't the house design. The proof is, can he put it further back. MR. TURNER-Right. The house design, the design of the house has to do with where that house sits on that property. MR. CARR-Right. I mean, he could go straight up 40 feet. MR. TURNER-He could go straight up 35 feet. MR. CARR-But, I mean, we don't want that. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARR-So, I mean, I can't even see that they have to submit alternate designs of the home, because, ultimately. once we grant the variance, even if we grant it on this design, I don't think they can change the design. MR. TURNER-No. We don't grant it on the design. MR. SHEA-We grant it on the setback. MR. CARR-Right. We grant it on the setbacks. So, they could tell us whatever they want to to please us and then as soon as they walk out that door, they can change the designs. MR. STEWART-Well, Mr. Turner is absol utely correct when he says it's my burden to come forward and show that I'm asking the minimum relief necessary to solve this practical problem I have, and I don't mean to say, there's the plan of the house and that's it and that's what you're going to get. What I'm trying to say is that the 50 foot setback is what I'm here asking for and no matter what shape house I have, if I move it back more than 50 feet, I have gone into a valley between the two existing homes of the neighbors and I've lost that view of Lake George and that's my practical difficul ty and that's what I'm trying to salvage and I think I've established that. I think I've, met my burden there. Now, could a different house lay on the house differently? Yes, but I don't think it would effect the setback issue. I could have a house that consisted of only one room, but still if I get back more than 50 feet from the lake, I've lost my visibility. MR. TURNER-But, by the same token, you could have two houses on each side of this proposed new house that are, like, 25 feet from the lake, that are old nonconforming camps, all right, then what do you do with the setback, if they want to come and build between it? MR. CARR-If who wants to come and build between it? MR. TURNER-We'll take this case right here. We've got a house on each side of them that's, like, 25 or 30 feet from the lake, right? MR. CARR-Yes. 9 ---./ MR. TURNER-And it's up in the air. It's up in the air enough so that it does block their view, to some degree. MR. CARR-Ri ght. MR. TURNER-So, then what do we do with the setback? MR. CARR-And they want to move a house up? MR. TURNER-This proposal right here comes before us with that scenario. MR. SHEA-And they also want to be 25 feet from the lake. MR. CARR-In that case, it depends on what they had before. I would not give them anything closer to the lake. I conmend the applicant, here, because they're moving further back from the lake. I think they'd have a real argument for us to come here and just say, why don't we just keep the house right where it is and we won't go any closer. I mean, if somebody wanted to go closer, I don't think they would meet with a lot of success in front of this Board. MRS. GOETZ-I doubt it. It seems like we're wrestling, in our minds, because we've had so many applications about the 50 percent expansion. That's, like, the sense that I'm getting, that we're thinking of, and I know it doesn't come into this. MR. STEWART-Well, of course, here, we didn't follow that route. We didn't argue, we've got an existing house, let us stay there and expand. MRS. GOETZ-I know. Right, but what I'm saying is, I think in our own minds some of us might be wrestling with that type of thing, but it just doesn't apply to this application. We don't want to see more house on the property, but we don't have anything to say about that part of it, as far as I can see. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, I think you're right. MR. SHEA-I would just say that the conformance with the side yard and the rear yard setback, we have no difficulty with any of those, and I'm in favor of the appl icant moving the house back, but staying within proximity of the other houses. MR. TURNER-All right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Did we have people that spoke in favor of this before? MR. CARR-No. It was tabled. MR. TURNER-No. Dr. Hogan. It was tabled because there was some. MR. CARR-Did you hear from Dr. Hogan at all? MR. STEWART-We have not. We gave him plans. Incidentally, all the neighbors have seen, not only the request, but they've seen the house plans and everything, incl uding Dr. Hogan. He hadn't seen them before the last meeting. He was in Ohio. So we mailed them out and we agreed to the adjournment at his request. I believe no one spoke at that meeting. MR. TURNER-No. Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-1991 JOAN S. STONE, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Grant the applicant relief of 25 feet from the required 75 foot shoreline setback. The testimony heard tonight establishes that strict adherence to the Ordinance would place a practical difficulty on the applicant in that the applicant's use of the property would be lessened because of the location of the adjacent homes which would be closer to the lake and block the applicant's view. The granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance or to the other property owners within the area. Public facilities would not be adversely effected by the granting of this variance and. for the first time, the interest of justice would be served. Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE 10 -- AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-1991 TYPE II SFR-lA ANNA M. SARDARO OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE 48 OAKTREE CIRCLE FOR PLACEMENT OF A 24 FT. (4 FT. DEEP) ABOVE GROUND POOL IN SIDE YARD. PROPERTY IS CONSIDERED A CORNER LOT, BOTH SIDES FACING THE STREET ARE CONSIDERED THE FRONT AND THEREFORE IT IfOUIJ) NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE TO PLACE A POOL ON THE SIDE OF THE BACKYARD FACING THE STREET. TAX MP NO. 93-5-133 LOT SIZE: 1/3 ACRE SECTI ON 7.074 (179-67) ANNA SARDARO, PRESENT MR. TURNER-This was tabled the last time to provide the Board with additional information as to where the pool might be located and also to determine where the pit tanks were for the septic system. The applicant has provided that information. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 51-1991, Anna Sardaro, August 16, 1991, Meeting Date: August 21, 1991 "The applicant was requested to bring in information regarding the location of the septic system and alternatives for placement of an above ground pool. The alternative provided which conforms to the property 1 ine setbacks puts the pool a few feet from the attached deck. The ordinance does not allow accessory use structures closer than 10 feet from the principal structure. The applicants preferred alternative appears to be the least intrusive on the setbacks." MR. TURNER-Do we have any questions of the applicant? Everybody's got the submissions they asked for? Any questions of the applicant from the Board? MR. CARR-Mrs. Sardaro, the Alternative Number Three, which places the pool directly behind the house, it looks as if you meet all setbacks on Alternative Number Three. Is that correct? MRS. SARDARO-No. MR. TURNER-No. I think she needs 10 feet of relief from the rear yard. MR. SHEA-Just under 10 feet. MR. CARR-That's just under 10? It looks like nine or so. MR. TURNER-Yes. it could be. It's hard to say. MR. CARR-You need 20? MR. TURNER-Twenty, yes. MR. CARR-Twenty. I'm sorry. MRS. SARDARO-We need 20 there. MR. CARR-I thought you needed 10 there. MR. TURNER-That was my argument the last time. I'd rather give her the relief in the backyard, the 10 feet, than give her the relief in the front yard. In the house behind her, evidently, some children live there. because there's a swing set right up next to your fence. Is that correct? MRS. SARDARO-Yes. MR. TURNER-So, I don't thi nk her kids are goi ng to bother thei r ki ds. unl ess they climb the fence. MR. CARR-Your preferred design is Number One, obviously. What's your rationale for not preferring Number Three? MRS. SARDARO-Well, if I put the pool right behind the house, I've only got a few feet away from my deck throughout the whole stretch of the deck, but if I put it on the other side, it's just that one small little corner that's going to have a few feet. I'm still going to have whole use of the rest of my yard. It just gives me more space. instead of breaking up my yard like that. MR. TURNER-It's 10 feet back from the deck, so that's what you'd have to be anyway, if you didn't have the room to go right or left. If the only place you had to put it was there, you're 10 feet from the house which is what's required. MRS. SARDARO-It has to be 10 feet from the deck, also? MR. TURNER-Yes. The deck is part of the house. MRS. SARDARO-Because they had told me, when I was doing it, that it was only 10 feet from the main structure, that it didn't matter how far from the deck it was. 11 -- MR. TURNER-I don't think so. The deck's attached to the house, correct? MRS. SARDARO-Yes. MR. CARR-What happens in a case, Ted, where you build the deck from the house right up to the pool? MR. TURNER-Pardon me? MR. CARR-I mean, I've seen situations where you build the deck from the sliding glass doors or whatever, right up to the pool. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-I mean, what's that situation? MRS. CRAYFORD-The situation is just like when you connect a garage by a breezeway. There's no setback required between the two. I mean, I don't understand the purpose of the 10 feet. MR. CARR-So, if there's a foot, you need a variance, if you put it right up next to it, you wouldn't? MR. TURNER-If it's separated, without a roof or a structure, then it becomes a setback. MRS. CRAYFORD-If it's structurally attached, then it becomes part of the main structure. MR. TURNER-It's got to be structurally attached to the house. MR. CARR-So, if she puts a two by four from the deck right over to the? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-It's true. MR. CARR-It does seem a little silly. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. KELLEY-You're saying, you, yourself, like Three? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-It gets it in from the road. MR. TURNER-It gets it in from the road and we'd have to grant her 10 feet of relief on the back. It's an above ground pool anyway, you know. MR. KELLEY-Right. MR. CARR-Mrs. Sardaro, how many children do you have? MRS. SARDARO-I don't have any children. MR. SHEA-Do you use the back yard for any other activities? MRS. SARDARO-Not right now. MR. SHEA-Because the alternative plan would, essentially, cut your back yard in half and divide it. MRS. SARDARO-Yes, I know. That's why I don't prefer it. MR. TURNER-Well, by the same token, if you put an in-ground pool in, you'd divide the back yard up, no matter where you put it. MRS. SARDARO-An in-ground pool? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. SARDARO-I'm not putting an in-ground pool in. MR. TURNER-No. I said if you did. No matter what you put back there, you're going to divide the yard up. 12 ---- MR. CARR-Well, I think Mike's point was just that Alternative Number One at least gives them a nice area in the back yard, you know, a nice big area altogether, and since it's got to be a variance either way, that maybe the most practical for the applicant, and I can't say one's more obtrusive to the Ordinance than the other, really. MR. TURNER-Well, except that there is room to put it directly behind the house where it belongs, by granting her 10 feet of relief on the rear yard. MR. CARR-Right, but I guess my thought is that 10 feet off the rear or 10 feet off the side. MRS. GOETZ-But the side is a road, and I think that should come into the picture. MR. CARR-Yes, but it's behind a fence, which we're going to discuss later. MR. TURNER-Okay. No further questions? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further comment? MR. KELLEY-I guess I'd tend to agree with you that the Number Three plan is the one that I would like. MR. TURNER-Yes. I like Number Three. The pool isn't going to be there, it'll probably be there for five or ten years, probably. It could be there longer. Maybe they'll get tired of it and take it down. MRS. SARDARO-Who knows? MR. SICARD-Well, if it was an in-ground pool, there would be a difference, but since it's not an in-ground pool. MR. TURNER-No. You can just cut a circle and lay some sand down and put the walls up and put the liner in. All right. I'll entertain a motion. What's the Board's pleasure? Does everybody like Three or not? MRS. GOETZ-Three. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I have no objection to Three. I think the lady wants the pool. I don't know if she'd have an objection. MR. TURNER-No, I don't think so. MRS. SARDARO-I'll take Three. I'd rather have One, but I'll take Three. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-1991 ANNA M. SARDARQ, Introduced by Jeffrey Kell ey who moved for its adoption. seconded by Charles Sicard: The applicant being Anna Sardaro. This would be an area variance and we're going to grant a variance which allows for a 24 foot diameter above ground swimming pool to be located 10 feet from the rear property line in lieu of the 20 foot requirement. The applicant has brought us a detailed drawing of her property which shows the location of their septic system and a deck, which is located at the rear of the house, and because of the shape of the property, there really is no location possible without some form of variance. It seems to be the Board's consensus that the granting of a rear yard setback is preferred over a front yard setback location. The strict application of the Ordinance would deprive the appl icant of this particular use and this variance appears to be the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. It does not appear to be detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance. Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea. Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-1991 TYPE II SFR-IA ANNA M. SARDARO OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE 48 MKTREE CIRCLE TO KEEP AN EXISTING 6 FT. STOCKADE FENCE ARooND THE BACKYARD INCWDING THE SIDE FACING THE STREET OF OAKTREE CIRCLE ON THE SOOTH SIDE. TAX MP NO. 93-5-133 LOT SIZE: 1/3 ACRE SECTION 179-74 A(3) SECTION 179-74 B(2) ANNA SARDARO, PRESENT 13 ---' STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 52-1991, Anna Sardaro, July 16, 1991, Meeting Date: July 17, 1991 "The Zoning Administrator has determined that section 7.091 (179-74B 2) does not permit a 6 foot fence in a front yard. This is a lot considered to have two front yards as it is situated on a curve on Oak Tree Circle. The applicant has constructed a fence around the rear and side portions of the lot. The Board may wish to also ask whether the applicant requires a variance from section 179-74(3) which states - "No fences over (3) feet in height shall be erected or maintained withi n twenty (20) feet of the front property li ne.. . " The plan i ndi cates that the fence is 10 feet from the property 1 ine." And there is a memo here from Pat Crayford dated July 24th, I I am in agreement with your memo that the applicant does require a variance from Section 179-4-3, as this six foot fence will be within ten feet of the property 1 ine.' "1) Are there special conditions applying to this property or building, and not applying generally to other properties or buildings in the neighborhood? Yes, this is a corner lot which fronts on two rights of way. 2) Would strict appl ication of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings? The location does 1 imit privacy, but the applicant did choose the location. 3) Would the strict appl ication of the dimensional requirements result in a specified practical difficulty? If the fence were moved back to a 20 foot setback then the proposed pool woul d not be abl e to keep setbacks and not be over the septic system. The pool is planned at 24 ft. by 4 feet in height. The 6 ft. fence is requested for privacy and safety reasons. 4) Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance, or to property in the district? No.5) Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? The fence is in existence. The Board will have to decide if removal of it or modification constitutes a practical difficulty and what standard to judge minimum relief by." MR. SICARD-Does the movement we made with the pool have any effect on the Ordinance at all, now, closer to the fence? MR. TURNER-No. The back yard, she can have the fence. She can have the six foot fence in the back, but this is a front yard. She can't have a six foot fence. The Ordinance says three feet on the front property line, twenty feet back. MRS. GOETZ-So, are there two issues? MR. TURNER-The issue is the height of the fence and the other issue is the setback. MRS. GOETZ-The setback, yes. I think the setback could be increased, now that the pool is moved behind the house. that we do have a problem in the Town where people are just putting up the fences and we need to really consider this, that people are putting them up and then coming in and asking for the variance. and we do have to consider that it is on a corner and it's a street, and I really would like to see the setback adhered to. MR. TURNER-You are correct. Your neighbor diagonally across the street on the other corner has a six foot fence, at least, around their property that fronts two streets. You are correct, but I don't recall them ever coming to get a variance. MRS. CRAYFORD-They installed that fence before this Ordinance went into effect. MR. TURNER-Okay. That's the only way it got there, then. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. TURNER-But there's others in there, too. MRS. SARDARO-There's others in that neighborhood, too. MRS. CRAYFORD- They may have installed them before. I don't know. I know this lady did, because she and I talked about it. MRS. GOETZ-When the new Ordinance was written, some of the things were changed to try to improve situations, and you realize that some of the other people might have put them up when the Ordinance was different. MR. CARR-How is the fence anchored in right now? MRS. SARDARO-Cement. MR. CARR-Around the posts? MRS. SARDARO-Yes. When I put it up, first of all, I didn't know I needed a variance because when I read the Ordinances, it didn't specifically say anything about corner lots. So, I didn't realize that I was going to have two fronts. 14 -- MR. CARR-You did look at the variances? MRS. SARDARo-Yes. I looked at the Ordinances, yes. MRS. GOETZ-She looked at it, but you didn't come in and ask any questions? MRS. SARDARO-I didn't. no. MR. CARR-Well, that's a lot more than a lot of people do. MR. TURNER- Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-I was wondering about the letter we got where we're granting variances that weren't originally requested for, the concern about that? MRS. GOETZ-The proper notice of? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. How does that come into play? MRS. GOETZ-This whole application. how it was advertised. MR. CARR-I don't think it would effect this, since the fence is existing, people know what's there. I mean, they Know that they're asking to keep the fence. So, whatever variances are necessary to keep the fence, I don't think would have to be re-advertised. I mean, the fence is there. MS. CORPUS-It seems to be broad enough. It's not variance specific. MRS. GOETZ-If people were really interested, I think they'd be here. MR. CARR-Have you had any complaints from your neighbors? MRS. SARDARO-No. As a matter of fact, they like it. MR. KELLEY-What have we done with other six foot fences? I know we had the one that was the noise situation. That was a unique circumstance. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. Gritch. MRS. EGGLESTON-County Line Road, wasn't it? MRS. GOETZ-Gritch, County Line. MR. KELLEY-Yes, we got the guy up on Peggy Ann Road who did it anyway. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Whatever happened to that? MR. TURNER-Where did that go? MRS. CRAYFORD-It's still in the court system. MRS. GOETZ-How about Provost, in Bedford Close? MRS. CRAYFORD-That's another matter we'll discuss later. MRS. GOETZ-But it seems 1 ike these fences have gotten to be a farce. I mean, if they're just granted, why are we even considering them? MR. TURNER-Well, my comment is that when you come into the Town of Queensbury and you move in here, first off, you've got to get a building permit. You know that automatically. So that automatically sets everything else in motion. You know that there's probably other conditions that apply, and it's up to you to find out if they do apply, and they should find out. They shouldn't go ahead and put the fences up and then come to us and ask us to grant them relief after they've got it all up, because I don't buy that argument. MR. CARR-Well, I think there's a difference, though, in this application, in that she tried to read the Ordinance, and I mean, I was here when the Board gave a guy just said, yes, a friend told me I could put a slab here and put a building here. It was the first meeting I was at. I couldn't believe it, and you said, okay, well, a friend told you, yes. I mean, you gave him the variance. MRS. GOETZ-I know we probably made a big mistake, and I don't think we should keep on compounding the mistakes. 15 MR. CARR-No. I'm not saying that, but I think at least, you know, I'm not sure that this is such a gross injustice to the Ordinance and, to me, at least, there's been some good faith attempts made to comply with the Ordinance. I mean, the corner lot situation is very confusing to a lot of people because they just can't believe, how come I've got two front yards, and anybody who's not at all familiar with zoning just doesn't believe it, and I know that because I was just talking to my wife this weekend about a corner lot and she said, why couldn't we, if we did this and this and this, and I said, no, that would be a corner lot. You'd have two front streets, and she said, what? MRS. GOETZ-Do you think the Ordinance should be changed, then? Do you think, like, this regulation is ridiculous, because it seems like we're granting so many. They're either in place and the people come in and we say, fine, don't take it down. MRS. EGGLESTON-It encourages people to do it first, because they know when they come here they're going to get it, and we don't want to do that. MRS. GOETZ-It almost like, what's the point. Maybe people like them in their front yard. MR. CARR-I'm not so sure whether we should penalize people with two front yards. MRS. CRAYFORD-I think the Ordinance needs to be addressed, as far as the definition of two front yards, at some point in time, and I am getting more and more residences, calling, coming in, asking about our Fence Ordinance. Word is getting around Town. MRS. GOETZ-That's what I mean. Word is getting around that? MRS. CRAYFORD-That there is a Fence Ordinance. MRS. GOETZ-So you think people are more apt to start coming in about it? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. KELLEY-I'll divert from the topic for just a minute. but that might be something to send to all the people who sell fences. Would you post in your place of business, do you know what I mean? MRS. CRAYFORD-I've tried to talk to quite a few of them, yes, and they've called also, different companies have phoned. They're getting there. MR. SHEA-Well, there's more business for them if they install it and then have to go back and reinstall it. MR. CARR-That's a good question, though. Was your fence professionally installed or did you do it yourself? MRS. SARDARO-My builder came back and put it in. MR. KELLEY-A lot of places don't install the fences. We sell truck trailer loads of six foot fence. Nobody asks, where are you putting them? Do you know there's an Ordinance, maybe, in Queensbury. MR. SICARD-I'll tell you where they're putting them. The State is in there putting them all in people's backyards and every place else, six foot fences, and nobody seems to care. Sherman Avenue's got them right up pretty near eight or ten feet from the houses. They just run them through the woods and every other place, millions of dollars of fencing, six foot fencing. We ask these people to go down to three feet outside of their back yard and they've got a six foot fence put up by the State. MR. TURNER-Well. I wouldn't say three feet. The Ordinance should be changed to four feet so it complies with the fence regulation on the pools. MRS. EGGLESTON-But sometimes a six foot fence on a corner can prohibit traffic. MR. SICARD-They've got them for miles between Exit 18 and 17, up to 19. MRS. EGGLESTON-But that's wire mesh. We're not talking a wood fence. There's a big difference in a wire fence that you can see through and a. MR. SICARD-Are you saying that we can put up a six foot wire fence, I mean these people around their pool? MRS. EGGLESTON-It certainly doesn't obstruct traffic and things, which a six foot wood fence could, on a corner lot. It could. You've got to be able to see. Try looking on the corner of Garner Street and Caroline. 16 - MR. TURNER-Yes, it could. That was the reason for instituting the height regulation, was to give more visibility on the corners. MRS. EGGLESTON-You must come out there, Charlie, sometimes. MR. SICARD-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-How do you like that fence? MR. SICARD-I don't like the State putting up six foot fences, when everybody else has to put three foot fences. MRS. CRAYFORD-Well, the State can do what they want to do, Charlie. MR. CARR-Your fence was installed by your builder. Was that pursuant to a contract or something? MRS. SARDARO-Yes. MR. CARR-I mean, was your builder responsible for getting all building permits and all necessary permits? MRS. SARDARO-I assumed so. I didn't know anything about this stuff before. MR. CARR-I assume your going to call your builder and say that you messed up because he didn't know the Ordinance. I mean, the builder should know the Ordinance. MRS. SARDARO-He knows, now, because I made him help me do that diagram. MR. TURNER-Who's the builder? MRS. SARDARO-Bill Herlihy. MR. CARR-Have you talked to him about what's going to happen if we don't give you, I mean, is he going to come back and move it, I would assume so? MRS. SARDARO-I doubt it. not for nothing he won't. MR. TURNER-Who got the building permit for the house, Bill? MRS. SARDARO-Yes. MR. TURNER-He got the building permit for the house? MRS. SARDARO-Yes. MR. TURNER-Was the fence sketched in when you got the building permit for the house? MRS. SARDARO-No. He came back and put that in later. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. SICARD-I think it's his responsibility. You ought to get him to move it. MR. TURNER-It's his responsibility. MR. CARR-I would think so. MR. KELLEY-There's, probably, nine posts, I'm going to guess, you know, a bag of Sakrete's three bucks. There's $27 for concrete and however many hours it takes him to, I mean, he's got two alternatives. The fence can be taken down from the post. It's only nailed on. It's a question of, is it cheaper to just cut the thing off and leave the stuff in the ground, and then just dig a new hole, a new bag of cement and a new post or you can actually dig the cement stuff up and move the post over. MR. SICARD-And by the time you cut the fence down and everything, you've got the price of a new fence. MR. TURNER-Is he a local builder? MR. KELLEY-Yes. He lives up off Aviation Road. It's probably a half a day to a days work or something. It shouldn't take any more than a day, that's for sure. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, it's not something out of the reach of, or being unreasonable to say, maybe, move it back 10 feet. 17 -. MR. KELLEY-We're probably talking, maybe, $100 or something. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SICARD-I really think it's the contractor's responsibility, in this case. He's applied for the building permit and at this point he should have known that, or looked into it. MRS. CRAYFORD-You don't get a building permit for a fence. MR. CARR-No, but he's aware of the rules and ordinances within the Town of Queensbury. MR. TURNER-He's no stranger to the Town of Queensbury. MR. CARR-Yes. He's built a lot in here. MRS. CRAYFORD-Okay. MR. KELLEY-The other thing is, you could cut it and make it four feet, if you wanted to. MR. TURNER-Yes, you could do that. MR. CARR-But still they'd have to move it the 20 feet back, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-I mean, I don't have a problem with the six foot, honestly, because I think with a pool back there, I think the safety issue is an important one. I mean, it's easy to get over a four foot fence. MR. TURNER-Yes, but that's all they require. MR. CARR-That's all we require, but I just think there are two good reasons for a six foot fence. One is privacy for the applicant and two is just a 1 ittle extra protection for the children in the neighborhood, even though it's not required. I mean, a little extra protection never hurts. MR. TURNER-No. MR. SHEA-Even if you move the fence, if you kept it at the six feet height, and were to move it ten feet back, you still have to decide what you're going to do with the fence that fronts on the real front yard. MR. KELLEY-Right. MR. TURNER-Yes. The front's the other way. MR. KELLEY-I guess my feeling is, if there's other people in court because we didn't allow them a six foot fence, how can you tell this person that it's okay, when you're making someone else spend thousands of dollars to defend themselves. I mean, that isn't fair. MR. TURNER-No. The only major problem is, that nobody comes forth to find out if there is a Fence Ordinance. They don't ask. If you don't ask, you don't find out, and they certainly can't say that don't know that there's a Zoning Ordinance in the Town of Queensbury. That's for certain. It's been around since 1967. If you don't know it now, you're in trouble. MRS. GOETZ-So, you're saying we should make them have it four feet, and twenty feet back? MR. TURNER-Twenty feet back and four feet high. MRS. SARDARO-Being as that's considered the front, isn't that 30 feet back that it would have to be? MRS. CRAYFORD-No. That's for principal structures. MR. TURNER-No, principal structures. MRS. CRAYFORD-And accessory structures. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. SARDARO-Can I just make a comment? If I bring that fence in another 10 feet, it is taking away from my back yard some more. Now, putting that pool in the middle is already cutting my yard in half. Now I'm going to be taking from the side. That's giving me impractical use of my yard. 18 '- --- MRS. EGGLESTON-You knew that when you bought your property. You knew the size of your yard when you bought the property. MRS. SARDARO-But I didn't know about the variances and the thing about being on a corner lot and all that. MRS. GOETZ-But, unfortunately, that is the reality. One possibility would be that you didn't have the pool. I mean, that's a hard thing to have to face, but that is one possibility, that you might find that the fence is going to have to be where the requirement is, and you're not going to want the pool because your back yard would be too small then. MRS. SARDARO-But. I mean, is 10 feet really going to hurt anybody? I mean, is it fair for me not to be able to have it if other people in my neighborhood have it just because it was done before the Ordinance was in effect? MR. TURNER-Yes. It was grandfathered. They're grandfathered. MR. CARR-Yes. See, but what's unfair, here, is what Jeff has said and that's that we're taking people to court over this and if we're just going to grant the variances, if that was the rationale and what this Board wants to do, then why are we taking these people to court and wasting Town money and their money? And I know you're saying that you didn't understand or you didn't know the Ordinance, what the rules are, but when we say you knew what the rules were, it means they were public record. MRS. SARDARO-But I read the public record and I didn't interpret that. MR. CARR-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Your builder should have done that. MRS. SARDARO-I mean, maybe it should be clearer, then. MR. CARR-And that's where the real problem lies. I mean. I was kind of hoping you would tell me that you didn't have a builder, but the builder should have known better and, really, if you have a complaint, it's with your builder because he's well aware that there are rules and ordinances within the Town of Queensbury. MRS. SARDARO-Well, he told me that he wasn't aware of them. So, I'm the one suffering now because I'm the owner of the property. MR. CARR-Well, I think, with proper advice, he's the one that's going to be suffering because he should be the one who has to come back and move that fence. MRS. SARDARO-I'm saying in the long run, though, I'm the one who's suffering because I'm on a lot, now, that is not giving me the use of my yard that I intended for it to give me. MR. CARR-Right, but that was your purchase at the time. That's not the Ordinance's fault, okay. Those were in effect at the time you purchased your lot. MRS. SARDARO-I understand that, but you're saying it was my builder's responsibility, that he should have known all this, well, he didn't, so, therefore, he didn't tell me, and now I have to suffer because of it and the fence is already up. I paid a lot of money for it, and I think, for the sake of ten feet, I think it's really unfair that I should have to take it down and move it, make my yard smaller, and the additional costs. I know you're saying that my builder should be responsible, but. MRS. EGGLESTON-He should do it for nothing. If he's a builder and works in the Town of Queensbury, he surely knows the rules, and maybe he says he didn't, but they work with things like that all the time. MR. CARR-But then, if we accept your argument, then everybody that we're in litigation with and everybody can say, well, I didn't know the rules, and it's not fair. I mean, the rules are there. They have been there. MRS. SARDARO-Well, they weren't always there. I think that's the problem we're having is that, you know, people see the fences up and they're assuming that it's okay and then even if you do read the Ordinance, like I did, and it doesn't say anything about corner lots, you go ahead and put it up. MRS. EGGLESTON-How old is that development? MRS. SARDARO-It's only a couple of years old. MR. TURNER-No. It's more than that. It's about four or five years old. 19 MRS. GOETZ-It's been done in sections. MR. TURNER-They started in the very front on the Dixon Road side and came back. MR. SHEA-We're having most of the problems on the properties that have two front yards, clearly. MRS. GOETZ-And there always is the option that if the public feels that it's an unfair regulation, you can try to convince the Town Board to change the regulation. I mean, when I hear, when we get a lot of similar variance requests, I think it does make, alert, you know, maybe the regulation isn't right, but we have to go by what is written, right now, especially since we're involved in law suits with people that didn't comply. So, maybe if you decide not to have your pool, now, that would be another option is to look into getting the law changed so that you could. MRS. SARDARO-How would I go about doing that? MRS. GOETZ-You'd have to petition the Town Board. MR. TURNER-The Town Board, yes. MRS. GOETZ-And I'm not saying that they would do it, but I mean. MR. TURNER-You'd have to have a pretty strong argument, I think, to convince them to change. MRS. GOETZ-But don't you agree that this is a Town wide problem, fences? MR. TURNER-Fences are a Town wide problem because the people don't, they put them up and then they come looking for relief after. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. I guess Pat's giving us good news, then. MR. KELLEY-Well, the other thing would be that you require a permit to put up a fence. MR. TURNER-That's the other thing. MR. KELLEY-Then that way they'd have to come in and get the permit, but at least then you could explain to them what you've got to do. MRS. GOETZ-Yes, that might be a protection for the people. MR. KELLEY-I don't know if you want to get into fence permits, but it might solve a lot of problems. MR. TURNER-It would. It would alert them anyway. It would alert them right away. MRS. GOETZ-What would you think of that, Pat, a fence by permit? MRS. CRAYFORD-Another permit? MRS. GOETZ-Yes, honestly, do you think it would be, like, a protection for the applicant, though. MRS. CRAYFORD-It would be, there's no doubt. MR. TURNER-Protect the applicant. Protect the Town. They wouldn't be here. MRS. CRAYFORD-I agree with you. It's just that we have permits for everything. MRS. EGGLESTON-Maybe it wouldn't have to cost $50. MRS. CRAYFORD-Well, that's, you would have to decide on a fair fee. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, that's what I mean. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-You have to get a permit for a pool. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. KELLEY-If you're coming in for the permit for the pool, why wouldn't you get a permit. you've got to have a fence around every pool. That's a law. MRS. CRAYFORD-How do you differentiate all fences, as opposed to the stockade type, as opposed to the split rail. 20 ~ ----- MR. KELLEY-I'd say all fences. MRS. CRAYFORD-Okay. MR. KELLEY-I mean, if you're here to get one for your pool, and that brings up a lot of problems with fences, because the people want the privacy and those sort of things. I mean, it would seem like a logical time to get the one for your fence that goes around your pool. I mean, you're here, so why not do it. MRS. CRAYFORD-I would hope a lot of publicity is given to the public if we do go this route, someday. MR. KELLEY-It's just a thought. MR. TURNER-If they put just a pool in, Jeff, they're required to put a four foot fence up anyway. but if they want to fence their yard in, then they should have a permit for that by themselves, or if it encompasses the pool, then they get the permit with the pool. MR. KELLEY-I mean, it's something that, we're kind of taking this lady's time up, here, but it sure seems like it might alleviate some problems. MR. TURNER-It's logical, because I think it would stop a lot of this. A minimal fee. to just handle the paperwork. MR. KELLEY-Yes, $10, or $5. MR. TURNER-Whatever. just to handle the paperwork, you know, that would identify it and take care of it. They wouldn't have to come here. MR. KELLEY-I agree. MR. TURNER-Okay. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COtlENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-1991 ANNA M. SARDARO, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: The applicant was requesting a 6 foot fence in a front yard location, and the applicant was also seeking to have a fence 6 feet in height that would be erected 10 feet from the property line, in lieu of the 20 feet required. I feel that this variance, if it were granted, would have been detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance, and by denying this variance, we will be maintaining consistency with other denials which we have made. Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Shea MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, it appears that Mr. Kelley may have been using other criteria other than the new criteria. I believe that Mrs. York's notes, again, were written prior to the change of the adoption, the adopted change. I believe that, most of all, it has to do with the first part of the motion, because special circumstances are no longer a requirement in area variances. MRS. EGGLESTON-But does it hurt if you put it there? MR. CARR-And I thought he had mentioned somewhere in there that it's detrimental to the purpose of the Ordinance? MR. TURNER-Yes, he did. MS. CORPUS-Right, but just for clarification, that it's not necessary that it be included and it's not a requirement in the Ordinance. MRS. GOETZ-But is it bad to do it, because, in my mind, you mean the about the part, detrimental to the? 21 MS. CORPUS-No. Special circumstances, special conditions, the lot. That definitely has been eliminated. I would recommend that not be included in the motion. I believe it was only the first part, the very first part of the motion. MR. KELLEY-Well, you can take the time and I can read all this, unless you want to tell me what I should say, if that's easier. MR. SHEA-Do you want to read back the first part of the motion? MS. CORPUS-The first part, Maria. MS. GAGLIARDI-"The applicant was requesting a 6 foot fence in the front yard location, and the applicant was also seeking to have a fence 6 feet in height that would bè erected 10 feet from the property line, in lieu of the 20 feet required. I feel that there are no special circumstances for this particular lot that would be different from other houses in the neighborhood." MS. CORPUS-That part. MR. KELLEY-That part right there. MS. CORPUS-Delete that part. MR. KELLEY-I think it's one sentence. MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CORPUS-Maria, would you continue just for a little bit more. MS. GAGLIARDI-liThe strict application of the Ordinance does not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land and strict application of the dimensional requirements would not cause the applicant reasonable use of her property. I feel that this variance, if it were granted, would have been detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance, and by denying this variance, we will be maintaining.." MS. CORPUS-I believe that al so the part about strict application of the Ordinance woul d deprive the applicant of reasonable use, I believe that that provision has also been omitted from the amendment. MR. CARR-Why does it harm to have it in there? MS. CORPUS-In a denial, not necessarily a problem, the Board's correct. MR. TURNER-A denial's not a problem. Approval's a problem. MS. CORPUS-Right. MR. TURNER-When you approve it, then you've got to identify the criteria. but a denial, you don't have to identify it. MS. CORPUS-Just for a clarification, that it wasn't just a reiteration of the notes which were given, which were done prior to the adoption of the change. That was it. The rest is. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-1991 TYPE II LC-lOA JOANN HOLMES OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE CLENDON BROOK ROAD TO TEAR DOlIN OLD SHED AND ERECT A 2 CAR GARAGE. TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE LESS THAN THE REQUIRED 100 FT. FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. TAX MP NO. 123-1-24 LOT SIZE: 2.79 ACRES SECTION 179-13-C JOANN HOLMES, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 59-1991, JoAnn Holmes, August 16, 1991, Meeting Date: August 21, 1991 liThe request is to vary the 100 foot setback in the LC-I0 zone to allow construction of a garage 64 feet from the property line. This project was reviewed with regard to the criteria 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? Yes, the development of the property is limited by the topography. There are steep slopes on the lot with a limited amount of level land. The structures currently on the site are preexisting and nnconforming. Would strict appl ication of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings? The lot is between 145 feet and 185 feet in width. A structure could not be placed on the lot which would meet the side yard setbacks. Would the strict application of the dimensional requirements result in a specified practical difficulty? Yes, the strict application of the requirements prohibi ts constructi on 22 --- on the site. Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance, or to property in the district? No. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? The driveway is already in existence. The applicant has positioned the proposed garage in the middle of the lot. The setback on the east side would be 64 feet and on the west side appears to be 65 feet. There is no other location which would minimize the variance further." MR. TURNER-Do you care to add anything to that? MRS. HOLMES-No. That's it. I'm stuck on a hill. MR. TURNER-Yes. You do have a little bit of a problem up there. There's a power line right in back of you, isn't there, down over the bank? Is there a power line in the back? MRS. HOLMES-No. There's no power line. MR. TURNER-Well, there's something cut away, then. I thought it was a right-of way up through there? MRS. HOLMES-The power line doesn't come near that driveway. MR. TURNER-The power line doesn't come near the back of your property? No. It's way over a bit, isn't it? MRS. HOLMES-That isn't even that piece of property. MR. TURNER-I know it isn't that piece of property. MRS. HOLMES-It's below that property. MR. TURNER-Yes. Right. MRS. HOLMES-Okay. Now I know what he's talking about, but it's not on my property. MR. TURNER-No. It's not on your property. Anyone have any questions? MR. CARR-Ted, what does she need a variance from? MR. TURNER-Hundred foot setback. MR. KELLEY-Hundred foot setback. MR. TURNER-Hundred foot setbacks all the way around. MR. CARR-So she needs both sides, then? MR. TURNER-Right. She's only, right where she's got the garage located, if you scale off, it's about 160 feet across the lot. MRS. HOLMES-That's all I've got. MR. CARR-Wait a minute. It's 100 feet. MR. TURNER-Where she's got the garage drawn in. MR. CARR-All right. So, we've got 64 from the west side. What do we have from the east side? MR. TURNER-Sixty five. MR. CARR-Where does it say that? MR. TURNER-You need 36 feet of relief on one side and 37 feet on the other. MRS. HOLMES-Well, I couldn't hang it in mid air on the other side, so I didn't know how I could put it over there. MR. TURNER-She's got it almost centered on the lot. Say, if you scale it right across there where she's got this drawn to scale, it's 160 feet. MRS. HOLMES-That's. approximately, what that is there, yes. MR. TURNER-And the house is in the proximity of the garage. MRS. HOLMES-It's in a 10 acre zone, but I own less than 3 acres. 23 "-" MR. TURNER-Yes. You couldn't meet it no how. MR. KELLEY-Well, it probably was a different zone at one time, too, right? MR. TURNER-It was probably, I think it was RR-3 or something like that. MRS. HOLMES-Yes. MR. TURNER-And we zoned it Land Conservation 10 because. MR. KELLEY-It's got to be the slopes and the mountain. MR. TURNER-Well, yes, and it's right. MRS. GOETZ-APA. MR. TURNER-APA. MR. SICARD-What was the size of the old garage? MRS. HOLMES-There was no old garage. MR. TURNER-There's a shed there she can tear down. MRS. HOLMES-There was a shed, and that was there 50 years ago. It was still standing, but by the skin of its teeth. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions of the applicant? None? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LOIS HOLMES MRS. LOIS HOLMES-I'm Lois Holmes. I own property in Queensbury, but I'm speaking for my father. JoAnn's father-in-law. He has the adjoining property, and the main thing is that she needs the garage. It is her permanent residence and, with the loss of her husband, we feel it's very important that she has this building. So. I'd appreciate you being supportive to her. MR. TURNER-Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further questions of the applicant? MR. CARR-I've got a comment, and I'm not speaking against this application at all. How come the Checklist wasn't followed? Didn't we adopt the Checklist prior to this application being brought to the Department? MR. TURNER-Yes, we did. MR. CARR-And we don't have the east dimensions. MRS. YORK-I'm sorry. I must have missed it. MR. TURNER-Seventy feet. MRS. YORK-It's my fault. MR. CARR-Okay. I mean, did you use the Checklist, or whatever? MRS. YORK-Yes, I did. MR. CARR-Okay. MRS. YORK-Yes. I went through everything. I must just have missed that. MR. CARR-I mean, I'm not speaking against this application. I think it's perfectly fine. I just want to be consistent. MR. TURNER-You're right. Good point. Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-1991 JOANN HOLMES, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption. seconded by Theodore Turner: 24 --" This variance will grant rel ief to build a garage with a side line setback less than the required 100 feet in an LC-I0 zone. This will grant relief of 36 feet on the westerly side and 35 feet on the easterly side. The practical difficulty being the steep slopes that apply to this lot. There is very little amount of level land and, in fact, there really is no other place to put the garage, and to deny this would be denying the appl icant of the privilege of having a garage. This variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance or to other property in the neighborhood. There would be no adverse effect on public facilities and services and it is the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty and there is no neighborhood opposition. Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr. Mr. Shea, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-1991 TYPE II SFR-lA KATHIE I BRIAN DUNCAN OIlIER: SAlE AS ABOVE CORNER OF SUGAR PINE AND WHITE PINE ROADS TO PLACE AN INGROOND POOL PARTIALLY IN THE FDT YARD AND 12.5 FT. FROM THE REAR LOT LINE INSTEAD OF THE RE~IRED 20 FT. ALSO, TO MINTAIN A FENCE OF 6 FT. IN HEIGHT IN A SIDE YARD. TAX MP NO. 90-8-107 LOT SIZE: 0.66 ACRES SECTION 179-67 B(5) SECTION 179-67 B(2) SECTION 179-74 B(2) KATHIE DUNCAN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Seni or Planner. Area Vari ance No. 60-1991, Kathi e & Bri an Duncan, August 15, 1991, Meeting Date: August 21, 1991 "The appl icant is requesting area variances for two different structures on the same lot. The lot in question is on the corner of Sugar Pine Road and White Pine Roads. The applicant has what is considered to be two front yards. The request for the placement of a pool in the front yard and relief from the rear yard setback of 10 feet. It appears the request would be for a variance from 6 feet to allow the pool within 4 feet of the rear property line. The request for the pool was reviewed with regard to the criteria 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 applicant is on a corner with two front yards. The house does appear to be further back than the others in the neighborhood which does 1 imit the back yard area. Would strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings? The applicant is in an SFR zone and is currently using the property for residential purposes. Would the strict application of the dimensional requirements result in a specified practical difficulty? Yes. The appl icant would not be able to have a pool as an accessory use since the Ordinance prohibits pools in the front yard. The pool could be moved closer to the house, however, a safety fence has to be installed around it. If the pool was moved six feet closer to the house 1 ess of a vari ance woul d be necessary and there woul d be 10 feet between the house and pool. Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance. or to property in the district? No. Is this request the minimum rel ief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? Refer to question 3. The applicant is also requesting a variance to maintain a six foot fence in a front yard. The Ordinance requi res that fences in the front yard not exceed three feet. This request was reviewed with regard to the criteria 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? Yes, the property is a corner lot. Six foot fences are not allowed in front yards or side yards. The lot has less privacy and greater visibility because of the corner location. Would strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the appl icant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings? The appl icant uses the property for residential purposes. Would the strict application of the dimensional requirements result in a specified practical difficulty? The applicants want to more fully utilize their property by placing a pool in the back yard and the 6 foot fence is requested for privacy and safety reasons. Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance, or to property in the district? No. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? This is a discussion for the Board and the applicant." MRS. CRAYFORD-May I clarify? I did not talk to them about the fence. MRS. DUNCAN-No. It was not a woman. It was a man, and it was last summer. I'm Kathie Duncan, the co-owner of the property. I did not realize, when I went in to get the buil ding permit for the pool is when I learned about the Fence Ordinance and I was very much surprised and I said, wow, wait until I tell my husband. I did not know at that time, when I spoke to you, that my husband had even called the Town. He just took it upon himself, last summer, before we installed the fence, he's a very law abiding individual being that he is a State Trooper, and so before even contracting for the fence to be installed, he called the Town office building to ask if there was any consideration, anything we had to go through to be able to install a 6 foot cedar fence in our back yard and was told, no, by a man. 25 --- MR. TURNER-There it is right there. You just said it. Back yard. You can have a six foot fence in the back yard. MRS. DUNCAN-Well, being on a corner lot, I mean, would the normal person know? I mean, if you looked at our house, it faces Sugar Pine, there's a wooded area on the side that's on White Pine. Would the average person, is it reasonable to expect us to know, to probe, you know, should we have said to the man, are you sure the answer is, no, there is no problem? Why don't you check because we're on a corner lot. You know, it's not reasonable for us to probe and say, add more to the question. It would seem to me, since he's the expert at the Town answering the question, before he answered it, he would have qualified and said, there's no problem, unless you're on a corner lot. MR. TURNER-Did you tell him you're on a corner lot? MRS. DUNCAN-I don't know whether my husband did. I do not know, but my point is, a lot of people in the Town of Queensbury live on corner lots. If that was a problem, then the person at the Town, it would seem to me, it would be more reasonable for him to say, before answering the question, there's no problem, he should not have said there's no problem because he should realize, as the expert, that there are many corner lots in the Town of Queensbury, and he should have asked, are you on a corner lot, before answering the question. It's not as though he said, there's no problem unless you're on a corner lot. MR. TURNER-Did you tell him where you lived? MRS. DUNCAN-I don't know if he asked our address. I do not know the answer to that question. MR. TURNER-He just asked a general question? MRS. DUNCAN-My husband said, we would 1 ike to put a six foot cedar fence in our yard, in our back yard. I'm sure he said back yard, is there a problem, is there anything we have to go through, and was told no. MR. TURNER-No. You're allowed to put one there. You are, in the back yard, the six foot fence. MRS. DUNCAN-But, I mean, if you had children that lived somewhere, would the normal, average person realize that there is a distinction, for people on a corner lot? Would the average person real ize that there is a distinction in a back yard? I had no idea. The average person, I do not think it's reasonable to expect me to have known that we have two front yards, personally. MR. TURNER-Well, by the same token, he should have asked if there was a Fence Ordinance, maybe. MRS. DUNCAN-He asked, we would like to put a six foot fence in our yard, should we be concerned? calling the Town, should we get a building permit, should we get a variance, and was told, no. was a year ago. We're This MR. KELLEY-That's where a Fence Permit would eliminate that. MR. TURNER-Permits would eliminate that, just like Jeff says. MRS. DUNCAN-Right. Exactly. MR. CARR-Well, unfortunately, no matter what anybody at the Town said, there's no legal recourse against it. I mean, if they've told you wrong, they've told you wrong. I mean, I've got somebody that I'm working with that the State told him that he didn't need something that he needed and the State only says, well, we made a mistake, but, too bad, you're out of business. MRS. DUNCAN-I know. The same with the IRS. I know. I've been through that before. MR. CARR-But, anyway, how far back is this six foot fence? MRS. DUNCAN-It's about 17 feet, and that's the other thing, too. The woman that argued before, if we had been told, it's okay, but put it 20 feet back, that would not have been a problem. We're three feet off. To move our fence three more feet, we woul d have gladly complied if we had been tol d by the Town, you have to have it 20 feet back. He called to find out specifically before putting it up. and we did have it professionally installed. MR. CARR-Who installed it? MRS. DUNCAN-Actually, it was Atlantis Pool and Fence. Atlantis Pool and Fence is no longer in business, but it was Atlantis Pool and Fence at the time. He was the owner of the fence and the installer, the same person. MR. TURNER-And how long ago was it installed? 26 MRS. DUNCAN-A year ago that we called. It was a year ago. MR. TURNER-He knew there was a Fence Ordinance. I can tell you that. Ordinance. He knows there's a Fence MRS. DUNCAN-Who does? MR. TURNER-The guy from Atlantis, okay. That's no surprise, but he knows there is a Fence Ordinance. MRS. EGGLESTON-Was this house all built when you bought it? MRS. DUNCAN-No, we bought a new home, two years ago. We installed the fence a year after we had the home. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, it was actually by your own decision to place the house so far back on the lot that it left you a little back yard? MRS. DUNCAN-No. It was not. In fact, we were very disappointed. The foundation was in when we bought the lot and had the house built after that, to our specifications, but unfortunately the foundation was al ready in pl ace, and we were disappointed because we knew at some point we probably woul d want a pool. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. You've got a good sized front yard. MRS. DUNCAN-Yes. Too big to maintain. MR. TURNER-Okay. Why don't we take one issue at a time, here. Why don't we take the rear yard setback, first. MRS. GOETZ-I don't have a problem with the rear yard. We looked at the fence, and the fence is solid. I mean, you can't even see through it. because you came out wonderi ng who those people were in your back yard. MRS. DUNCAN-Yes. MR. CARR-But is it a rear yard setback? MRS. GOETZ-I think, yes, isn't it, the setback from the rear yard? MRS. DUNCAN-For the pool, yes. MRS. GOETZ-Yes, for the pool. MR. CARR-That's considered rear yard, directly behind the house? MRS. GOETZ-I would think so. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. The same as the one in Bedford Close. MRS. GOETZ-And it's a solid fence. You couldn't even see anything into the next yard. MRS. DUNCAN-No. There's not spaces through it. I think it's very attractive and the people in the neighborhood do 1 ike it. In fact, the Corbetts. who are right behind us, have asked us not to stain their side because the natural blends with their decor. So, we won't be staining one section of the fence. MRS. GOETZ-Will it have to be all one motion? MR. TURNER-It'll have to be one motion, but lets just take them and digest them and eliminate them one at a time, get them out of the way. get the feeling of the Board. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. So, that's the pool rear setback. MR. SHEA-This is one motion, where as the other was two? MR. CARR-There were two applications. MRS. GOETZ-But they were two applications. MR. TURNER-Two applications. 27 - MR. SHEA-Is there any reason for that? MRS. YORK-Well, I'd like to discuss with the Board how you want that handled in the future, and make a decision on it so that we will know exactly what to tell people, how you want this handled. MRS. GOETZ-But right now we handle it as one motion, because it's one application? MR. TURNER-Yes. We'll have to. It's one application. MRS. GOETZ-You'll just go point by point? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. Does anybody have a problem with the pool rear setback as requested? MR. CARR-I guess the question that we're asking, why is it like that? MRS. EGGLESTON-I mean, if you had a straight pool, you could bring it back further from the rear. MRS. DUNCAN-Well, there's wooded areas on the side, and my husband just wants to leave it as natural as possible and not take down the trees. That's really the reason. and on the other side, if you're looking at the front of the house, the area on the right hand side, the reason that the pool is a little bit to the left is because we've got a swing set and play area for our children that we'd like to maintain. MRS. EGGLESTON-I was saying, if you had a straight pool instead of that little jig in there, you could straighten it out and then move it back towards the house. MR. TURNER-You could move it north, too. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, and then you wouldn't have to violate the rear setback. MR. TURNER-If you moved the pool to the north, what would stop you from? MRS. DUNCAN-To the north? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. DUNCAN-Then it would be even more in the "front yard". MR. SHEA-Right. MRS. GOETZ-That's south, isn't it? MR. CARR-You mean south, Ted, right? MR. TURNER-No, that's north, there, meridian north. That way. MRS. DUNCAN-Well, that's what I was just saying, if we moved the pool to the south. MR. TURNER-South. MRS. DUNCAN-Right, well, then we wouldn't have any, you know, you'd just have a matter of, like, 10 feet groupings of cleared area. We've got a swing set and sandbox for our children on the southern side that we'd like to be able to keep. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. GOETZ-Now, you're going to put a safety fence within the fence? MRS. DUNCAN-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. DUNCAN-Because we've got two children under the age of three. MRS. GOETZ-Maybe you don't need a pool. MRS. DUNCAN-Well, we really don't want one, if you want to know the truth. MRS. GOETZ-Then why are you getting one? 28 MRS. DUNCAN-Well, that's a personal tax situation. We sold a home, as commercial property, and if you don't reinvest all of the money you receive from that investment into a new home within two years, you pay a tax, and we don't want, we'd rather pay interest on a bank loan than tax to the IRS. MRS. GOETZ-I guess, being in banking, you know all these things. MR. CARR-How far from your easterly property line would you say is the next home over? MRS. DUNCAN-Easterly? MR. CARR-That would be further down White Pine Road. Would that be the Corbetts? MRS. DUNCAN-Yes. It's the Corbetts right behind us and, in fact, I have a note here from the Corbetts, totally unsolicited, that they left us in our mailbox, and Mr. and Mrs. Corbett would like to say that they have no objection to our request for a variance. MR. TURNER-If you'll hand that to Mrs. Goetz, we'll read it into the record. MRS. GOETZ-Thank you. MR. TURNER-Could you point out where the kids swing sets are, in relation to where this is going to be? MRS. DUNCAN-There's a sandbox there, and then. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. KELLEY-What's the distance from the pool to the porch? MR. TURNER-It looks like 17 and a half feet. MRS. DUNCAN-Yes. MR. TURNER-There's a pair of stairs there, or something, that's four feet? MRS. DUNCAN-Yes. MR. TURNER-So, it's 13 and a half feet from the pool to the stairs. MR. KELLEY-No. MRS. DUNCAN-No. It's 17 and a half feet from the pool to the stairs. MR. TURNER-That's not the way you've got it drawn. MRS. DUNCAN-The stairs to the porch, excuse me. I thought you were talking about the stairs to the pool. MR. TURNER-No. It's 13 and a half feet from the end of the stairs to the pool, to where the patio, I guess. MRS. DUNCAN-Yes. I doubt that the stairs are four feet, though. So, maybe 15 and a half feet from the stairs to the pool. The stairs are very, very tiny. MR. TURNER-No, but they stick out, maybe, four feet, four feet of run. How many tread have you got? MRS. DUNCAN-Two. MR. TURNER-Two? MR. KELLEY-That's a couple of feet. MR. TURNER-A couple of feet, maybe 30 inches. MR. KELLEY-All right. So, we're working on, what. the rear yard? MR. TURNER-Rear yard, 12 and a half feet. MR. KELLEY-So. we're talking about the pool relief. MR. TURNER-That's supposed to be 20 feet from the rear yard, rear property line. 29 MR. KELLEY-And they're going to be, and it's going to be, what, four feet? MR. TURNER-No. Twenty feet. MRS. DUNCAN-No. The pool from the rear property line will be about 15 feet. It's 12 and a hal f to the fence and then it's, I think, about 15 feet. MRS. GOETZ-But we have to know exactly. MRS. DUNCAN-Well, the way that my husband has drawn it, it looks 1 i ke 12 and a hal f feet, but there is a little bit of space between the fence and the rear property line. MRS. EGGLESTON-But he does show a space between the fence and, he shows a space between the fence and the rear property line. I think he's got that, that it's 12 and a half, including that, is what it would look like. MRS. DUNCAN-Okay. MR. TURNER-Yes, it is. It's only 12 and a half, from the property line to the pool. MRS. DUNCAN-Okay, excuse me. MR. CARR-Mrs. Duncan, I guess Mrs. Eggl eston and I were tal ki ng here, and I think she makes a good point. Why can't it just be a straight pool? I mean, it does seem like there is room to keep the kids playground and just a straight pool and not violate any of the setbacks. MRS. DUNCAN-But you would move the pool to the east, or the south, I mean? MR. CARR-Yes. It would probably be a little to the south. MRS. EGGLESTON-And straighten it out. instead of that. MRS. DUNCAN-We just felt that we just liked the, we just thought that it was a good compromise to enable us to not knock down any trees, keep a third of the yard available for play area, and get a decent sized swimming pool, and actually we were concerned about jutting out too much because when we found out about the pool dimension requirements, the first choice. actually, that we had come up with was a straight pool, but we wanted the southerly area of the back yard available for our children, so if we made a straight pool, it would go more toward our second front yard. So, this really gives us only a very small corner of the pool going into our front yard, and diminishes the variance that we need for that. If we had a straight pool that was. MR. CARR-Well, what size were you looking at for a straight pool? MRS. DUNCAN-Eighteen by thirty six. MR. CARR-Okay, and now you've got from one end of the pool to the tip of the pool, and you've got 45 feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, it wouldn't really be any longer. MR. CARR-I mean, in fact, it would be shorter. MRS. EGGLESTON-See, I don't have a problem with your having the pool. MRS. DUNCAN-Well, I hope you're not goi ng to make me come back, but there must be an error. because the drawing that we got from the pool company, which I did not bring, is 45 feet altogether, not in a straight line. MR. CARR-What do you mean, not in a straight line? MRS. DUNCAN-Not in a straight line. It's 45 feet from the whole, from this, if you take the ruler and go down there, and then add to that to there, it's 45 feet, altogether. It's 29 plus 16. It's 29 feet from there to there, and then 16 from there to there. So, this is misleading, and that's an excellent point. We got the drawing from the pool company after this was submitted, and I probably should have brought it because it would probably be very close to not even protruding in the front, so that we wouldn't even need a variance on that end. MR. CARR-Well, now that there is a drawing, I think I would like to see it, and I'd also like to see, from the pool, just a straight pool, I mean, how you could put it on the property, with the thought that you may not have to violate everything. I think if you're only looking at a 36 by 18 pool, you may find that it does fit and give you the one third yard for the playground for the children. MRS. EGGLESTON-And still meet the back. 30 MR. CARR-And still meet the back so we can. MRS. EGGLESTON-So you wouldn't need a variance. MR. CARR-Yes. MRS. DUNCAN-I still would. I don't understand what you're saying, because if we went straight across with a, we would run into the rear setback, still. MR. CARR-No. Okay, move it back to the 20 feet that it has to be. MRS. DUNCAN-Yes, but then it would be so close to the house. MRS. EGGLESTON-But the jig already is close to the house. MR. CARR-I know, the jig's within 16 feet there anyway. MRS. EGGLESTON-It wouldn't be any closer than your. MRS. DUNCAN-But that's a part of the house that, I mean, that's not an area that we use. I mean, the entrance to and from the house, that we use, is the porch, that's the living area. Where this jut comes out, that's not living area. That does not obstruct our use of the yard at all. MR. CARR-Well, I think I still would like to see it explored to see where, you know, show us on the map, if we had to go with a straight 18 by 36 pool, I mean, show us that it would be within 10 feet of the porch and still 20 feet from the rear setback or something, because it doesn't look that bad to me. You've got a 22 foot expanse, here. You've got a littl e L coming out, at one end. I suppose that's where the stairs are. So, a straight pool, you wouldn't have that. So, there you'd pick up four feet. MRS. DUNCAN-We'd still have the stairs that jut out. MR. CARR-Even in a straight pool? MRS. DUNCAN-Yes, because we, right, those are there by our choice because we wanted to be able to go into the pool from the porch. We'll have a gate right there, and we wanted the stairs right there. That's the shallow end. So the stairs would be there, regardless of straight or not. The stairs being there have nothing to do with the fact that it's a lazy L-shaped pool. MRS. EGGLESTON-But are you talking about stairs on the pool or stairs on the back of the porch? MR. CARR-I'm talking about stairs on the pool. MRS. DUNCAN-Yes. so was I. MR. CARR-Okay. That's what I thought. MRS. EGGLESTON-All right. just wanted to be sure you're both. MR. SHEA-The thing that I might want to point out is that we've just granted a variance that reduced the rear yard setback from a pool to 10 feet. Here we have one that I s in excess of that. It's 12 and a half feet, and the shape of the pool is, by their choice, in accordance with their life-style and what they want to do and how they want to situate their back yard. MR. CARR-But that variance was granted because this lady, Mrs. Sardaro had no other place to put the pool that did not violate setbacks. Her rear yard was situated, and her side yard, and her septic was situated in such a way that she had no where to put that pool without a violation of some setback requirement of the Town. MRS. DUNCAN-What is the requirement from the porch to the pool? MR. CARR-Ten feet. MR. TURNER-Ten feet, and you've got two feet six inches, so you've got 15 feet. If you could move it five feet. MRS. DUNCAN-We can only move it five feet, we'd still be in violation. MR. TURNER-No, you wouldn't. MR. CARR-Is that all you can move it? 31 MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. she said it was 18 by 36, and this one's 22, so there's four feet. MRS. DUNCAN-Well, only because of the stairs. It would still be 22 at the shallow end. MR. TURNER-If you moved it five feet, you'd be 17 and a half feet from the property line. MRS. DUNCAN-From the rear? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. DUNCAN-So, I still don't make, though, the 20 feet. MR. TURNER-And you'd maintain the 10 feet between the porch and the pool. MR. CARR-So, you wouldn't maintain. okay. you could not fit it, then? MRS. DUNCAN-Right. MR. SHEA-Even with a different shaped pool, she'd still require a variance. MR. CARR-All right. Okay. Fine. MR. SHEA-I don't have a problem with the shape of the pool, and we're granting. if we're able to grant this variance, it would be a seven and a half foot variance from the rear setback and that's all that we're looking at. MRS. DUNCAN-And only for part of the pool. The seven and a half feet is really, because of the shape of the pool, the rest of the pool isn't as close to the rear property line. We've only got 16 feet of pool that is that close to the property line. MR. TURNER-If you moved it five feet forward, you'd have 17 and a half feet from the property line. MRS. DUNCAN-Right, which is still a violation. MR. TURNER-Yes, but you'd still maintain the 10 feet between the end of the steps and the pool. So, we'd only have to give you two and a half feet. MRS. DUNCAN-True, the other thing, I don't know if this has anything, you know, it's a personal thing. Our house, the sun, where our house is and where the sun goes and sets, it gets shaded very quickly, so that the further back that we have it, the more sun we can enjoy at the pool. I mean, it might sound stupid and irrelevant, but that's partly why, too, we wanted it back as far as we could. MR. TURNER-Yes, but that's not practical difficulty. Just because the sun doesn't shine on the pool. MRS. DUNCAN-No. MR. TURNER-Let me ask you this. Why did you go with an 18 foot pool versus a 16 foot? MRS. EGGLESTON-Apparently, they had enough money to get rid of. MRS. DUNCAN-Combined with the fact that, yes, we have to spend the money, but also we like to be able to do laps for exercise. I mean, my husband has back problems, and he goes to the chiropractor, and swimming is, he can't run. So, swimming is one thing that has been recommended, and rather than go to the Y or whatever, if we have a pool, we might as well use it for exercise. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, how about that end of the table? Jeff, what do you think? MR. KELLEY-I think there's other alternatives, myself. MR. TURNER-I do, too. I'd like to see them. MR. KELLEY-We're talking about trying to find a minimum variance, but I don't think we've been shown one, yet. MR. TURNER-No. MRS. DUNCAN-Are you suggesting other alternatives. meaning, if we had to take a bulldozer and take trees down? MR. KELLEY-No, probably a different pool design or. 32 MR. TURNER-No. You've got other alternatives right there. without doing anything. MRS. DUNCAN-Taking area away from the play area for our children, then, you're suggesting? MR. CARR-Possibly. MR. TURNER-Possibly. MRS. EGGLESTON-Or just shortening the pool up, making it a little less large pool. MR. KELLEY-If you move the pool toward the play area. you're creating a larger play area on the other end of the pool. MRS. DUNCAN-But that's not practical because, with the swing set and everything, children aren't going to run around here and play in the yard and then run over to the sandbox and play in the sandbox. MRS. GOETZ-Where is the sandbox? MRS. DUNCAN-It's right next to the swing set toward the fence. MRS. GOETZ-Toward the back? MR. TURNER-Right here. MRS. GOETZ-There? Okay. Well, first of all, your not going to have the swing set and the play yard forever. MRS. DUNCAN-No. MRS. GOETZ-They go, and I wonder if you could, the swing set's wooden, isn't it? MRS. DUNCAN-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Is it anchored into the ground? MRS. DUNCAN-I'm not sure. MRS. GOETZ-If you could maybe move that a little bit, you know, over towards the south, well, no, towards the front of your property, maybe move it down a little, and you can move sand boxes. MRS. DUNCAN-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-You know, maybe you could do some shifting, there, in order to bring the pool down. MR. TURNER- Thi s is the same thing as the one we just had that we sent her back, 1 ast week, or 1 ast month, and she came back with a plan and it fit right in, and we just had to grant her minimum relief, and that's what it's all about. MRS. DUNCAN-Then why isn't it suggested to me? I mean. I've lost the whole summer to get to this point. MR. TURNER-You have to present the plan, first. MRS. GOETZ-The burden is not on the Town to design your plan. MR. TURNER-It's not on us, it's on you. You have to present the plan, first. MRS. DUNCAN-And I have one. I mean, if one is not acceptable, I wish that I'd be told that you need to have three alternatives to bring with you when you come. This is another month. The whole summer will be gone. MR. CARR-Well, I mean, how fast could they install it anyway? MRS. DUNCAN-They said it could be in by Labor Day. MR. TURNER-Yes, but then you've only got just a few weeks of swimming. MR. CARR-I think, also, what you've told us tonight. though, is that you have an eight, this is a 45 foot. I mean, I'm looking at 45 feet from one end to the other. MRS. DUNCAN-Yes. MR. CARR-You told me you have an 18 by 36 design that would, if you take nine feet off it, then we aren't near the stairs anymore, even if you move it north. I mean, keep it right at that level, where you have the northern end. 33 -" MRS. DUNCAN-I'm not following you. MR. CARR-Okay. We've got 45 feet. So, we've got a 45 foot block right here. MRS. DUNCAN-Right, which, like I said, it's really not. MR. CARR-Ri ght. MRS. DUNCAN-It's more, it's 16 here and 29 here, at an angle. MR. CARR-Okay. MRS. DUNCAN-So, it's going to be shorter, is my point. MR. CARR-All right, but even if we take, here, we've got a block, okay, a block is seven and a half feet, so there's seven, fifteen, there's thirty, there's thirty five, there's thirty six feet right there. Thirty six feet by eighteen. There's fifteen. There's eighteen. So, there's your pool, right there. It's not violating any of these. It's not violating the 20 foot setback, and you've got a straight pool. In fact. you've got more play area. MRS. DUNCAN-But it's completely in the shade. MR. CARR-No. MRS. DUNCAN-Yes, it is. MR. CARR-No. This is the wooded area. The south comes. MRS. DUNCAN-But, no, this is the house. The house is what gives us the shade. MR. CARR-Ri ght. MRS. DUNCAN-And so that's why. MR. CARR-So, you're saying this whole end of the pool is going to be in the shade anyway. MRS. DUNCAN-Yes. after, like, 4 o'clock in the afternoon. MR. CARR-Well, how long is it going to stay on here? MRS. DUNCAN-Until, probably six or, it's into the evening anyway. MR. CARR-So, this extra 20 feet will give you two to two and a half extra hours of sun? MRS. DUNCAN-Well, this, though, I will need a bigger variance, for this, right here, because I'm more, it was my understanding that because we jutted, was the problem, and so, if anything. we won't jut anymore, now that we've gotten. MR. CARR-Well, the variance is just to allow it in that yard, right, Ted? I mean, it's not a distance? MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. SHEA-Yes, no, you wouldn't need that, Kathie. They're talking about, "you'd need relief from the side. MRS. DUNCAN-Yes, but even having it at all. MR. SHEA-You would need it from out here, and your okay there in any regard. MR. CARR-Yes. This isn't a distance variance. This is just a. it's there, variance. (END OF FIRST DISK) 34 MRS. GOETZ-Because you're not allowed to have a pool in the side yard. MR. CARR-Right. So, regardless of the design, that variance will stay the same, and that's what I'm saying is I would like to see that design because. MRS. DUNCAN-So, we do need a variance for this or we don't? MR. CARR-Right, because the rules are, if you don't need a variance, if you can get reasonable use of your property, and you're telling me you've looked at an 18 by 36 pool, and if you can show me that it fits reasonably on this property without having to cut down trees, giving you more space. MRS. DUNCAN-Well, we looked at it, but we prefer this size. MR. CARR-You prefer, that's not our decision. Our decision is, we've got to protect the integrity of the Ordinance and the integrity of every other property owner, whether the Corbetts own it or not, whether they sell it, there's somebody else who may say, I don't want that pool 12 and a half feet from my property line. I want it what it was supposed to be, 20 feet, and that's what we're looking at. I mean, everybody prefers to have, I mean, there's no doubt about it. Anybody who comes in for a variance says that's their preference, and we understand that, but I think we've also, I mean, got to real ize the rules of the Ordinance were designed to serve a function and that's to protect, not only the present owners, but future owners of the property. MRS. DUNCAN-So, what if we brought the pool forward. So, it's the setback that you have a problem with. We would like this kind of a pool. MR. SHEA-You can have any kind of pool you want, as long as it, you either get a variance, or a variance is not requi red. MR. TURNER-As long as it meets the setbacks. MR. CARR-Right. MR. SHEA-You'd have to be 20 feet from the back yard 1 ine. from the rear yard. So. if you were to move the pool, as is, seven and a half feet closer to the house, you can have that shape pool without any variance here whatsoever. MRS. DUNCAN-Does that mean, I would, if you're telling me to take an 18 by 36 foot pool and move it, I mean, if I'm going to move it, I'm going to keep the same. MR. CARR-Sure. Personally, this is my personal opinion. I'm not speaking for the Board, if you keep the same, if you move the whole thing this way, okay, further out into here, going to be behind a fence, so no one's going to see it anyway. So, I don't care if you next to the fence. Nobody's going to see it. I don't care because it's put it right MRS. EGGLESTON-And it's not going to be blocked by the sun from the house over here, either. be blocked from the sun if you moved it from the house. It wouldn't MR. CARR-Right. Yes. MRS. DUNCAN-That's when I said, ideally, we'd have it, ideally, I would have had the pool exactly what you're saying, right over here, and then we'd have the whole yard. MR. CARR-Right, well, I think you could move it kind of in a, almost a northerly, northwesterly direction a little, still get the 20 feet, and still maintain these, and keep your design, if that's what you want. MRS. DUNCAN-Okay. It would mean taking down trees, but. MR. CARR-Well, I mean, that I s not the end of the worl d, I don't thi nk, for a lot of trees, I mean, you aren't tearing down, you know. MRS. DUNCAN-No. I would rather the trees go, anyway. MR. CARR-Yes. especially if they're pine. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. The pine sap would be in your pool. MRS. DUNCAN-Yes, it's just that, like I said, my husband was concerned about retaining as much of the wooded area as possible. MR. CARR-Sure. 35 MRS. EGGLESTON-There's quite a little bit there, though, wasn't there. Kathie? So, even if you just took a little bit of it. you might be accomplishing more sun, and you wouldn't even have to come before this Board. Just get your permit. MR. CARR-No. She has to be here for the front yard. MRS. EGGLESTON-And the fence. We've got to take care of the fence. Okay. MRS. DUNCAN-So. all we have to worry about. then is? MR. CARR-Twenty feet, because then, also, even if you move it up four feet, okay, that's going to get you maybe even around the corner, here, so you don't have to worry there, and you're going to miss these steps. So, you've got a little extra room here. MRS. GOETZ-Is she still going to have the. no variance request, then, is that it? MR. CARR-No. No variance on the rear setback. MRS. GOETZ-Right. MRS. DUNCAN-But I would have a variance on the house. MR. CARR-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-It would have to be 10 feet the house or the porch. MR. CARR-Because you've got plenty of room to. you've got seven and a half feet there, okay. So you can put it at the ten foot. Move it just seven and a half feet, like. this way. MR. SHEA-Kathie, if you just take this as is and move it this way, okay, and you move it seven and a half feet in this way, you'll be okay on the back line. Even though this is 16, it's going to go 7 and a half feet in. So you'd be nine and a half feet, actually, you'd be into here, but since you're going to be moving it over here, it will actually look like, it will look something like this. Okay. So, you're not encroaching on, you're still going to be 10 feet from here. You don't have to worry about it from here. You're going to be 20 feet on the back line. All you're going to do is shift it this way. I don't know what the exact footage is. Somebody can look at it for you. Brian can probably figure it out, and move it seven and a half feet that way. That's all you have to do. Then you don't have to get a variance for that. MR. TURNER-All right. Where are we? What have you decided to do? Do you want to discuss it with your husband further? All right. Then you wish to table it? MRS. DUNCAN-No. What I'll probably do is, if I decide to move the pool, so that I don't have to seek a variance, I'll just get the building permit, right? MR. CARR-Well, no. You're going to need that front yard variance. MRS. DUNCAN-Well, can I ask for that? MR. TURNER-No. It's advertised differently. MRS. DUNCAN-Why is it advertised differently? I asked for the front yard variance anyway and nobody objected. MR. TURNER-Yes. but you're moving everything, now. MRS. GOETZ-It would be more visible in the yard. It would be. It's a protection for the neighbors, just to give them the opportunity to speak on the issue. because, you see, you'd be able to see it a lot more. MRS. DUNCAN-Who would? MRS. GOETZ-Your neighbors, because it'll be more in your side yard. MR. CARR-But it's going to be behind a fence. MRS. GOETZ-Well, we haven't gotten to the fence, yet. MR. CARR-No, but it's going to be behind ~ fence. MRS. GOETZ-It'll be behind ~ fence. but we'll have to see what the fence is going to be. MRS. DUNCAN-Can I table it until after the fence discussion? 36 MR. TURNER-No, because it's all one package. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. They're not separate motions. MR. CARR-I don't think she wants to table it at this moment, because I think we should discuss the fence with her, before, and then you may want to table it, just decide the whole thing. MRS. GOETZ-Because you need to hear all the discussion, because the other part of the discussion could impact on where you want to keep the pool. MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets move to the next one, then. MRS. GOETZ-So, now we're up to the fence side yard? MR. TURNER-Lets get up to the fence in the side yard six feet high, yes. MRS. DUNCAN-So, can we come back to this? MR. SHEA-Yes. MR. CARR-Yes. Nothing's been tabled yet. MRS. DUNCAN-Okay. MR. TURNER-Lets discuss the request for a six foot fence in the side yard. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. Lets discuss it. I think it should be a four foot fence 20 feet from the property 1 i ne. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Right. That's what we just went through with the other applicant. MR. CARR-Well, I agree with the 20 feet. I don't agree with the six foot. MR. TURNER-That's good. You don't agree with the six foot height? That's good. That's what she just said. We'll make it four. MR. CARR-No. I don't agree with Sue's interpretation of the six foot high fence. MRS. GOETZ-Well, it's not like an interpretation. It's just I don't want a fence higher than six feet on the front yard setback. MR. TURNER-No. I don't, either. MR. KELLEY-Higher than six feet or four feet? MRS. DUNCAN-I would just like to mention Mrs. Eggleston's point about the obstruction of views. It does not apply here. We're on a corner lot, but our fence is way behind the house. MR. CARR-And also I think the other point about it, the privacy issue behind a pool as well as a safety issue. MR. TURNER-She's going to fence the pool anyway. She's got to fence the pool in anyway, whether she's got the six foot fence or not. She's got to put a four foot fence around the pool. MR. CARR-No. MR. TURNER-Yes, she does. MR. CARR-Not the pool itself. MR. TURNER-She just said she was going to. MR. CARR-No. She's ~ to. She doesn't have to. MR. TURNER-All right, but she's going to do it. MR. CARR-I mean, the Town only requires one fencing around a pool, of four feet. MR. TURNER-One fence, but if she's going to put another four footer. 37 ~" MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. One fence. So, she did her yard. She wouldn't need, necessarily, inside. MR. CARR-Right, but my thought is, again, that the extra two feet, in this case, would add safety, and it is not obstructing any traffic views, which is the purpose behind that six foot rule in the first place. It's not just because we don't like six feet fences in the front yard, which we don't, but it's also, it's site lines. MR. TURNER-I don't think they're necessary. If I wanted to hide behind the walls of Fort Apache, I'd be there. MR. CARR-But you don't have to. You aren't living there. You're looking at the other side of it. MR. TURNER-That's the problem, the fences are starting to accumulate. You drive in there and look at that place. Everybody's got a fence up. MR. CARR-But don't you think there's a special circumstance in a corner lot? MR. TURNER-No. I don't think there's any special circumstances. MRS. GOETZ-Bruce, I'd like to call your attention to that Cronin Road above the ground pool, honestly, where we turned down that request for the six foot, and I've been driving by it all the time. I don't even think there's any fence up, but it's so visible. MR. CARR-Cronin? Is that the one coming down the hill? MRS. GOETZ-Yes, and we turned that down. MR. CARR-But that wasn't a corner lot. MRS. GOETZ-I know. It wasn't a corner lot, but I mean, my God. MR. TURNER-No, but the fence was 65 feet from the road. MRS. GOETZ-They don't have anything around it, I don't think, Pat. MR. TURNER-They don't have to. It's an above ground. MR. CARR-It's above ground. MRS. DUNCAN-Mr. Turner, as far as your comment, that the fence that we're going to put around it for the safety of our children, that that would suffice, so we don't need this other one. I mean, that's one that we're putting up at our own option, that we planned on removing when our children turned seven or eight years old and could swim. I mean, that we're not going to leave, we do not want that there permanently. MR. TURNER-What are you going to put up, a chain link, or what? MRS. DUNCAN-A chain link, for now. MR. TURNER-So, that means you've got to install the fence posts and the concrete. MRS. DUNCAN-We are, but we still, when the children can swim, it's going to be unsightly, I think, to have the fence there, and I wouldn't have it there if I didn't have my children, and when they can swim. I will not keep it there. MR. SHEA-I think that there's some issue to the confusion with regard to height of fences and what they're utilized for and the significance of them in a particular situation where you have two front yards, because I think, then you have three colliding issues that simply do not work and you have an awful lot of confusion with the Town residents and the applicants who are effected by it. I personally think that a four foot fence, although it's intended to provide safety around pool areas, doesn't do that. I mean, any kid who's four years or older, who may not be able to swim, can easily climb over a four foot fence. but it is very difficult to climb over a six foot fence, and, therefore, I think that a six foot fence around any pool area, whether it's a yard that has two front yards. or whether it's a conventional yard, is to the Town resident's benefit. So, in this particular situation. given the fact that the six foot fence, although on a front yard, is back from the street, so as not to impede the site lines of traffic, I don't have a problem with it. I really don't, and I can see where it's going to continue to be a problem with more people coming before us for variances with it, until it's clarified, and that was my reason for voting against the last motion, because I think there are special circumstances for corner lots. MR. TURNER-Well, you know, you can put up a 10 foot fence, or anything, but if somebody wants to get over that fence, they're going over it. Maybe a small kid can't get over it. 38 MR. SHEA-That's who, I'm sure, the Ordinance was intended to protect, little kids from going over fences into pooled areas. MR. KELLEY-The problem we've got, though, I hear what you're saying, Mike, but I think that's a problem with the Ordinance, and maybe the fence rules, in general. The thing is, this is no different than the prior applicant. MR. TURNER-No, not at all. MR. CARR-No. I think there is a big difference in the location of this six foot. Hers was on a road frontage. MR. KELLEY-So is this. MR. CARR-No, coming up to the corner. I mean, this was approaching the corner. This, I see, is a lot different. MR. TURNER-No. Hers didn't approach a corner. Hers was in the back yard, just facing the road. MRS. GOETZ-No. It didn't. I would say the difference is, this is somewhat wooded, but the other one didn't come up to the corner. MRS. DUNCAN-Plus, it's 17 and a half, it's back off the road, whereas hers was only 10 feet. Mine is only three feet in violation of the Ordinance. MR. CARR-Right. I hate to say it, but that's why I voted for the removal of the other lady's, is because I wanted, I didn't care about the six foot, so much, that wasn't, you know, I was voting on denial because of the 20 foot, because of what we're doing with other people in Town, but I don't know. I don't think, in this case, and, with a pool back there, it's not just a yard, I mean, with a pool and everything, that six foot is burdensome to the Ordinance. MR. KELLEY-Well, the other thing that this applicant has that the other one doesn't, this one happens to be wooded. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. KELLEY-I mean, it is pretty well shaded in there, when you go by. The other one is right out in the wide open sand, or whatever. So, if you talk about privacy, you've got some natural, somewhat. I don't remember. There was a bunch of trees there. You show it as a wooded area. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. MRS. DUNCAN-I'm real curious as to what the purpose of this Ordinance is and, if we really thought, is this really in violation of what the intention of the Ordinance is, and I can't imagine that it would be. I can't imagine what problem my 6 foot fence has being 17 feet from the road, really. MR. CARR-Wen, I think what you've got to look at, though, I mean, the Ordinance calls for 20 feet. So, whether it's 2 feet from the road, anywhere in that 20 feet is a violation. then I think, Mr. Turner's point. and that is that a 6 foot fence in any front yard, and unfortunately you're on a corner lot, so you've got the two front, is obtrusive to everybody in Town and everybody says the same, well, what does my fence have to do with it? Well, everybody can't just personalize it. because the rules. even though I personally don't agree with the four foot in this case, the rules are the rules. and they've got to be consistently applied, as much as we can throughout the Town. MRS. EGGLESTON-It was like the lady in Bedford Close who didn't want her view to be at a fence all the time. She wanted to be able to look out that. MR. TURNER-Yes. the open space. MRS. GOETZ-Right. How would you like a six foot fence across your front yard, in front of your house? MRS. DUNCAN-I probably woul dn I t, except that anybody that faces my fence. and there are at the most three homes. They received notification tonight and said, good luck. MRS. GOETZ-But you asked. what is the thinking of how the law was written, and that is the thinking. MR. TURNER-It was for aesthetic reasons, also. 39 MRS. GOETZ-Aesthetic reasons, because of front. The corner lot's a special circumstance, to some extent, but, say, the person across from you put a six foot stockade fence across their front yard and that's what you would be looking at and that's the reason for the way it's worded. Well, that's why there's a variance process is to come in and talk about situations like this, but that's why it was written that way. MRS. DUNCAN-Yes, but it is an attractive fence and it's not offensive, inasmuch as it is hidden, somewhat. by the wooded area. I just don't see that it violates that purpose of the Ordinance. If that indeed was the purpose of the Ordinance, then this does not present a problem. MRS. GOETZ-She's on Sugar Pine. MR. TURNER-Sugar Pine and White Pine. MRS. GOETZ-The house across, on. MR. TURNER-On White Pine? MRS. GOETZ-Right. MR. TURNER-Their fence is in the back yard. MRS. GOETZ-I know, but what are they going to look at? I've forgotten. MR. TURNER-They're going to look at her fence. MRS. GOETZ-See, that's my point. MRS. DUNCAN-And they love it. MRS. GOETZ-The people on? MRS. DUNCAN-White Pine. MRS. GOETZ-White Pine. MR. TURNER-They might not live there, though, you know, ten years down the road, or five years. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, the next people might not. MRS. GOETZ-What was their name again? MRS. DUNCAN-Graves. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. There were a couple of letters in here. MR. TURNER-Let me open the public hearing, and then we'll go from there. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. GOETZ-This is handwritten on notices from the Corbetts. "We have no objection to this appl ication for variance." And this is from David and Kathleen Newell, 24 Sugar Pine Road, "As abutters to the above referenced property, we support the Duncans and their variance request. If granted, we do not feel that these variances to the zoning regulations will detract from the present character of the neighborhood. We hope the Board will look favorably upon their request and grant the necessary variances to the Duncans." This is from Richard Mates, 42 Willow Road, "I support the granting of the above vari ance request." MR. TURNER-Okay. All right. The other issue was the 20 foot setback from the road. What's your pleasure on that? Do you want to talk about that, or do you want? MR. CARR-I think. we told one lady she had to be 20 feet back. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. DUNCAN-You also told her that it was her builder's responsibility. I don't have that. 40 MRS. GOETZ-But that isn't our problem. MR. KELLEY-Yes, you do. You said it was the Atlantis Pool guy, wasn't it? MRS. DUNCAN-Yes, who doesn't exist anymore. I don't have any recourse, anymore. MR. TURNER-Yes. He doesn't exist. Okay. What's your pleasure? Do you want to table it and talk to your husband, or? MRS. DUNCAN-As far as the fence issue. no. I'd like it considered. MR. TURNER-They've got to all go together. It's one application. MRS. DUNCAN-I don't know where it's going. MR. CARR-Because I think you would, I mean, you've got the feeling of the Board, here, as to the fence issue, which, as I think everybody can read, is not too favorable. So, I think you would be wise just to maybe table this, because you've got to table it for the pool anyway. So, table the whole thing, and take a look at everything, and maybe talk to the Town. Talk to some advisors or something, just to see if there's a. MRS. DUNCAN-What could I do, tonight, so that the fence? MR. CARR-Well, there's nothing you should do tonight, because nothing's going to be done. MRS. DUNCAN-But, I mean, is there anything I can do, tonight, to comply. I mean, if I tell you, yes. MR. TURNER-No, because if you move the pool, all right, and it violates any conditions of the Ordinance, then we've got to re-advertise. MRS. DUNCAN-Even if I ask for permission, it's got to be in the side yard. We know that, wherever it is. I know. right now, that I need permission to have it in the side yard. That was advertised. If that is the only variance I need, why is that a problem? If I'm will ing to move the pool forward, do you know what I'm saying? It was already advertised to be in the front yard, and if I say to you, that's the only violation that I would be, and I would be willing to move the pool so that it's 20 feet from the rear property line. Do we have a problem there? MR. SHEA-I can't see why we'd have to re-advertise for that? MR. KELLEY-If she consents to do that, then she's in conformance with that part. MR. TURNER-With that part of it, she is. The other part is the side yard. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. So, then she could go ahead with the. MR. SHEA-She's going with minimum relief, at that point, as far as location of the pool. The only rel ief. as far as location of the pool, that she's asking for is that we allow it to be in the side yard. MR. TURNER-All right. So, you're going to negate the 20 foot setback? MRS. DUNCAN-Yes. MR. TURNER-All right. You're going to come back to the 20 feet? MRS. DUNCAN-Yes. MR. TURNER-The pool's still going to be in the side yard, of course. Okay. That's been advertised. MRS. EGGLESTON-But meet all the setbacks, right, Ted? Is that what we're saying here? MR. TURNER-Meet all the setbacks, yes, from the house. MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't have a problem with that, if we can do it, because it's one variance. MRS. GOETZ-If you want the pool, I think you better go with that, and just, honestly, because I think you want the pool by Labor Day. MRS. DUNCAN-I do. MRS. GOETZ-And I think some adjustment will have to be made on the fence, on the front yard. That would be my guess. That seems the way it's going, here. but at least you could get your pool by the time you'd like it, this year. 41 MR. TURNER-All right. Okay. I'll entertain a motion to seek relief for the swimming pool to be in the side yard and relief from the 20 foot front yard setback for the fence which is now 17 and a half feet, and a relief from the 6 foot height in the fence in the side yard. MR. CARR-Ted, are you asking for a motion or are you making a motion? MR. KELLEY-No. He's asking. MR. TURNER-No. I'm just el iminating the things we don't want, here, and putting the things in that we're going to have the motion on, that's all. I'm not making a motion, yet. What we're going to vote on is the location of the fence, which is now 17 and a half feet in lieu of 20 feet, six feet in height in lieu of four feet in height, okay, and the pool in the side yard. MR. SHEA-You've lost me. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. you've lost us. You're not going to do the fence tonight, right? MRS. DUNCAN-That's what I was thinking. MR. CARR-Karla, I think we have to do the whole thing at once, right? I mean. it's one application. MR. TURNER-That's what I just said a minute ago. MR. CARR-Right. So, if you want us to move on the fence tonight, it's an all or nothing situation. MR. TURNER-Yes. It's one or the other. MRS. DUNCAN-I can't ask you to remove the fence requirement tonight and remove the setback, you know, I'm cancelling my application, basically, as we speak, for the setback requirement, and I'm cancelling the appl ication, right now, for the fence. I'm just withdrawing those two portions of the variance. except the only portion of the variance that I'm asking for is. MR. TURNER-You just want the pool in the side yard? MRS. DUNCAN-Right. MS. CORPUS-If she formally withdraws a portion of it, that's okay. MR. TURNER-If you want to withdraw the fence portion, all right? MR. CARR-And then what happens with that portion of it? MR. TURNER-And the height of the fence. MR. SHEA-Then it becomes an enforcement issue. MRS. GOETZ-Well. she would comply. You wouldn't not do it? MS. CORPUS-Right. It becomes an enforcement issue. but if she withdraws it, then the Board. MRS. DUNCAN-I would have to come back, somehow. MRS. GOETZ-But, see, you can't come back more than once. MR. CARR-If she withdraws, she ~ come back. MS. CORPUS-If she withdraws, she can. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, then she could come back on the fence issue. MR. SHEA-So, what you want to do is withdraw the fence portion of it? MRS. DUNCAN-Yes. MR. SHEA-And we'll vote on the variance for the pool. MR. TURNER-No. Wait a minute. That's one package. I don't think you can, if you're going to withdraw, you've got to withdraw the whole thing. MRS. CRAYFORD-I don't understand why, Ted. They're two different variances. They may be one application. MR. TURNER-Three different variances. 42 -" MRS. CRAYFORD-All right, but what you're saying is, it's one application, but it's different variances. MRS. GOETZ-But her request would be for the same thing. MR. TURNER-But it's advertised as one. MRS. DUNCAN-But it was described as all three. MS. CORPUS-As far as the advertisement goes, generally, it's advertised to be more inclusive than the variances that will be granted. Sometimes it happens where this Board has come across appl ications where certain variances were advertised, but found not to be necessary because the drawings were inaccurate or whatnot, and therefore not necessarily given, not needed. Because these are different Sections of the Ordinance, I believe that the Board could choose to give certain variances on things and not on others. If the applicant chooses to strike a portion of the application and the Section of the Ordinance from which she wants the variance, the Board could opt for that, too, or the Board could vote on them all and approve or deny all of it. That's up to the Board. MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CORPUS-But as far as the notice goes, I believe that that wouldn't be an issue. It was more restrictive than the variance granted so that anybody interested should be here because it's been actually advertised. MR. SHEA-I think, given the fact that the prior applicant, here, had, and I don't know whether it was intended to be that way or just happened to be written that way, that there was an issue with respect to the fence and an issue with respect to the pool and its setbacks and they were two separate issues. Here, and I asked earlier, asked Lee why it was all rolled into one, she didn't have a decisive answer, just that it happened to turn out that way. MRS. CRAYFORD-I can tell you why. MR. SHEA-Why? MRS. CRAYFORD-Because, if I recall correctly, you went down to Lee and asked for, if you should use two applications and she said that was my decision. It's never been my decision before, so I said, I don't see why you can't do it on one application, and that's the answer. MR. SHEA-Okay, and given the fact that we know now, based on the earlier applicant's variances and on a pending issue that you're going to speak to us about later and a similar issue, all having to do with two front yards, that it is a confusing issue, and that they are, really. two separate issues, that being the front yard issues and the setbacks on pools. So, why not dispense with, since I think we have a consensus, dispense with the business of getting the variance in place, if that's the way we're going to vote, with respect to the pool setbacks, and then the applicant go about their business, in that regard. and then deal with the other in however she and we have to deal with it. So. I'm suggesting what Karla is saying we can do and split them up and get rid of, take care of the business at hand, with respect to the pool portion of this issue. MS. CORPUS-The Board also has the option to just vote on it all, too. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. DUNCAN-But I do, I think Pat's trying to give me a little relief, here, because she does know that I didn't know if I should put them on separate applications or not, and I hope she's trying to say I shouldn't be penalized for not getting a sense of direction. MRS. CRAYFORD-It was internal, right. MRS. DUNCAN-And even Lee said earlier that this should be something that's discussed so that she knows, for consistency purposes in the future, whether the Board wants to view these things on every separate application or if they can be combined into one. If that would be clarified, that's fine, but I don't think it has been, yet. So, if I can and if Karla, as the attorney, is saying that it's okay for me to strike portions of the application, I would like to do that. MS. CORPUS-The Board would definitely have to make separate votes on the different Sections. also, if you were going to vote different ways on those Sections. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's how the Board did it where I came from. They just addressed each Section, but in one application, and therefore the applicant wasn't paying $150 for different variances. MRS. EGGLESTON-It wouldn't surprise me if we'd done something like that before where we've allowed people to withdraw part of their request and we've acted on the rest. 43 ---- MR. TURNER-I don't have a problem with that. I just want to do it legally right, that's all, so we cover all our bases. MRS. EGGLESTON-See, I don't, either. I don't think that that's unreasonable. MR. CARR-Could I ask her two questions? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-Mrs. Duncan, is it your desire that your prior request for a rear yard setback be withdrawn? MRS. DUNCAN-Yes, it is. MR. CARR-Okay. Secondly, is it your desire that your request for a variance from a six foot fence closer than twenty feet to a front yard be withdrawn? MRS. DUNCAN-Yes, it is. MR. CARR-So, all you're asking this Board to do is to consider a variance for having a pool in a front yard? MRS. DUNCAN-Yes. MR. CARR-Okay. Now it's on the record. MR. TURNER-Okay. Now a motion's in order for the pool in the front yard. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE 10. 60-1991 KATHIE I BRIAN DUNCAN, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: As amended on the record, and grant the applicant a variance from the Section of the Ordinance 179-67 B(5), which would have prohibited the applicant from placement of a pool in her front yard on the northerly portion of the property behind the garage. Due to the fact that this residence is located on a corner lot and technically consists of two front yards, the granting of this variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance. The variance will allow the applicant reasonable use of the land. Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MRS. DUNCAN-So, now I just have to get a building permit with a drawing? I don't know what the process is, now. MRS. CRAYFORD-For the pool. yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-And then we've got to talk about the fence. USE VARIANCE NO. 61-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED SRF-lA JUORMCK INDUSTRIES OWNER: JOHN E. MCCORMCK SECTION III, COORTHOUSE ESTATES, LEFT ON DIRT ROAD, OFF FROM COURTHOOSE DRIVE FOR AN ADDITION OF A 40 FT. BY 40 FT. STRUCTURE ATTACHED TO EXISTING 40 FT. BY 40 FT. STRUCTURE. STORAGE SHEDS OVER 200 SQ. FT. ARE NOT PERMITTED IN SFR ZONES. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MP 10. 36-1-27.1 LOT SIZE: 2,556 ACRES SECTION 179-20 JOHN MCCORMACK, PRESENT MRS. CRAYFORD-We need to discuss this. There's an application on next week, Paul Cushing, Dr. Lockhart's and that is for a variance. MR. TURNER-A Use Variance. It was a Use Variance. It's supposed to be an Area Variance, right? MRS. CRAYFORD-Right. This is the same thing. MR. TURNER-The same thing. MRS. CRAYFORD-But when I talked to you last month, about John McCormack, we agreed it was going to be a Use Variance. This is very confusing. 44 MS. CORPUS-Are you making a determination, Mrs. Crayford, that it should be an Area Variance? MRS. CRAYFORD-I would like to talk with the Board about it, before I make a determination. MR. TURNER-This was zoned Highway Cormrercial when John put the building up. Then we changed it to SFR-l Acre, right? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. TURNER-He's got a preexisting, nonconforming use, now, since you changed the zone, right? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. TURNER-This use is not permitted in an SFR zone. MRS. CRAYFORD-Right. The size isn't permitted. MR. TURNER-The size isn't permitted. MRS. CRAYFORD-The storage shed, right. MR. TURNER-Right. MS. CORPUS-It's still a preexisting, nonconforming structure. MRS. CRAYFORD-It's a structure. MRS. GOETZ-See, one question I have is, why the 50 percent expansion doesn't apply? MRS. CRAYFORD-Because it only applies to residential. MRS. GOETZ-Only to residential. MS. CORPUS-We also have a new Section of the Ordinance on that, an amendment to the Ordinance on this. MRS. GOETZ-One thing, I wish we could get new pages in to put in here. MS. CORPUS-We will. General Code will send them as soon as they are completed. MRS. GOETZ-And so we could just take out this page and put in the new? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. TURNER-Did I say to you it had to be a Use Variance? I did. didn't I? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes, and see this one that's on the agenda for next week, with Dr. Lockhart, is very, very similar. MRS. GOETZ-Pat. I've forgotten where Dr. Lockhart is. MR. TURNER-Homer Avenue. MRS. GOETZ-The Chiropractic Center. MR. TURNER-Right next to Petroski's place. MRS. CRAYFORD-I guess, if it's all right with our attorney, I would like to address John's, tonight, and then address Dr. Lockhart's after we take care of John. MR. CARR-That's fine. MRS. CRAYFORD-Thank you. Do you agree? MS. CORPUS-You should deal with the application in front of the Board. MR. CARR-What do you think. MR. TURNER-First of all, I don't think he's got to prove reasonable return, as far as the Use Variance goes, because he's got vested rights. He's already got that building up there, all right. He's just adding on to it. MRS. CRAYFORD-It's just that it's dimensional. 45 MR. TURNER-It's dimensional. MRS. CRAYFORD-Which is Area. MR. TURNER-Yes, but the size doesn't pertain to the particular zone right now. MRS. CRAYFORD-Right, but it comes under "Permitted Uses". MR. TURNER-A storage shed, yes, but not of that size. MRS. CRAYFORD-Right. MS. CORPUS-A determination needs to be made whether it's an Area Variance or a Use Variance. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's correct. A determination needs to be made. MR. CARR-It's just an Area Variance. In fact, I think I just read a case, Karla, on this, that if it's a nonconforming use, I mean, it's a nonconforming use that the size of the use we can't control. once we grant it as a nonconforming use or whatever. MS. CORPUS-The use is allowed. It's the size that's governed in the Ordinance. MR. CARR-Well, then that's an Area Variance. MR. TURNER-That's an Area Variance. MS. CORPUS-Well, that's Mr. Carr's opinion. MR. TURNER-I thought about that after I looked at the application, the same thing. I said, why did I say Use Variance. MS. CORPUS-I guess we just needed clarification, then. This would have to be re-advertised, and re-submitted. MRS. GOETZ-But when we're considering expansion of nonconforming use, aren't we supposed to consider impact of expansion? MRS. CRAYFORD-I'm sorry, consider what? MRS. GOETZ-I'm just trying to think of why this might not be a Use Variance. If you're talking about a nonconforming use, whether it's grandfathered or not, woul dn' t the size of any expansion have an impact around it, possibly? MS. CORPUS-The criteria for it would be the same as an Area Variance. MRS. GOETZ-So. it's less of a proof, really. MS. CORPUS-The expansion of a nonconforming use and a simple addition of a structure of a certain size would both be Area Variances. MRS. GOETZ-Have we always done it that way? MS. CORPUS-Well, that's what we're here to determine, but if that's so. they would both have the same criteria. MRS. CRAYFORD-Considering everything, I would have to say it has to be an Area Variance, which isn't going to make John very happy. MRS. GOETZ-I just want to be careful that we are considering impact like we should. MRS. CRAYFORD-And it's not his error. It's my error, but I think we could re-advertise, but it seemed to me that when I talked with John, initially, there was a time frame importance, here. MR. CARR-Would a re-advertisement be necessary because a Use Variance is more? MS. CORPUS-It's a totally different type of variance. MRS. GOETZ-Ted, why did you think it was Use, at first? MR. TURNER-I don't know. MRS. GOETZ-Do you see what my concern is? I just want to make sure that we're considering impact as much as we should. 46 MRS. CRAYFORD-I understand your concern, Sue. It's a difficult call, I think. Let me distribute a memo to you that I was going to give you a little later. Maybe it'll help you. MRS. GOETZ-Now, I don't have that application for Lockhart. Was there something on that application about 50 percent expansion? MRS. CRAYFORD-There shouldn't have been. because it just applies, if there was, he didn't need to put it on. MRS. GOETZ-Joyce thought she remembered that it was on there. MRS. EGGLESTON-We were wondering when we were looking at this one, it's McCormack, she brought up, do we need 50 percent expansion, but then we went and looked at the Lockhart, and I thought it was on the papers we did need it. So we thought that answered our question. MRS. CRAYFORD-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-Not commercial. MRS. CRAYFORD-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Where do you find that in the book? MS. CORPUS-It's Section 179-79. MR. TURNER-It refers to single family dwelling, mobile homes, the 50 percent. MRS. CRAYFORD-Right. MR. TURNER-That's all it refers to. No commercial. MR. CARR-Okay, well, what's the meaning of D., except as cited in A, which is single family dwellings, any nonconforming use, isn't that what this is? Is it a nonconforming use in there as well? MR. TURNER-It is now. MR. CARR-What's it used for? MR. TURNER-Storage. MRS. CRAYFORD-Storage. MR. CARR-And that's an allowed use? Okay. MR. TURNER-That's an allowed use. It's just the size. MRS. CRAYFORD-It's just that size isn't allowed. MS. CORPUS-If the Board needs, we coul d do some 1 egal research on it, but if you're comfortabl e with making a decision now. MR. CARR-Well, I guess, yes. It sounds like an Area Variance, but, Mr. McCormack, may I ask what the problem with the re-advertisement is, because there's a time frame involved? MRS. CRAYFORD-John, could you come up and tell them, please. MR. MCCORMACK-I'd first like to make mention that I did speak to Paul Dusek about this, not to step on the attorney's toes, here, but he agreed that it was a Use Variance and not a Land Variance. MS. CORPUS-Did he? MR. MCCORMACK-I spoke to him with Pat Crayford and Steve Borgos about this matter and then got Dave Hatin involved in it and everyone agreed and it was confirmed by Ted that it was a Use Variance. MR. CARR-When was that? MR. MCCORMACK-This was when I first applied for the variance. I'd also like to get clarification on this 50 percent or 100 percent expansion. If it's less than 100 percent? MR. TURNER-It doesn't apply to you. MR. CARR-It doesn't apply to you, anyway. 47 MR. MCCORMACK-Regardless, it doesn't make any difference at this point. MR. CARR-Right. MR. TURNER-Only single family mobile homes. MRS. GOETZ-I'm not convinced of that. I don't know. I mean, this Section D under 179-79. MR. CARR-But it's not a nonconforming use. A storage shed is not a nonconforming use. MRS. GOETZ-But it's a commercial storage shed. MS. CORPUS-Well, unless what he's saying is true. I have no knowledge of his discussion with Paul. I would have to talk to Paul and find out what the substance of the discussion was. MR. CARR-Well, what's it used for, the storage shed? MR. MCCORMACK-It's storage for vehicles of construction equipment. MR. TURNER-There's trucks and his equipment. MR. CARR-Now, is that an allowable use in that zone? MR. TURNER-No. MRS. GOETZ-I mean, it's SFR-l Acre. I honestly, it's a little more than just a storage shed, in my mind. I don't, personally, have a problem with where it is. but I mean, you're doubling the size of the building. MR. MCCORMACK-Well, to back up even further, this parcel of property originally was zoned HC-15, I believe it was, and, unbeknownst to me, when the Town re-zoned, that got slipped in and out of my sight and was shocked when I heard it that was re-zoned SFR-l Acre. because I had already put the building application in and purchased all. MR. TURNER-John, remember when Shalit came for their variance and you were here? MR. MCCORMACK-I wasn't here. I didn't come to her variance. Maybe my father was. MR. TURNER-Maybe your father. Well, he knew, at that time, that that was SFR. MR. MCCORMACK-Whatever, the bottom line is, it did get through, and it got through, but I think if it was looked at in any type of earnest, and I believe all you people on the Board looked at this parcel of property and I think everybody agrees that, for a Single Family Residential Zone, it's wrongly zoned and the mistake that also was made when that was zoned SFR-l was the Warren County Municipal Center property was zoned SFR-l Acre, which seems to me another large mistake. I realize that there's nothing we can do about that in at this point in the game, but it should have been addressed and this was a mistake, which is why I didn't assume there was going to be a problem with the addition on this and had purchased all the material for it and is now sitting down there getting wet. MRS. GOETZ-I honestly think it could be a Use Variance. MR. CARR-Wait a minute. What do you keep in there? MR. MCCORMACK-I keep commercial equipment, dozers, backhoes. MR. CARR-All right. Well, that's not a storage shed. MRS. GOETZ-That's what I'm saying. It's a bit more than a storage shed. MS. CORPUS-That's true. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's a warehouse? MR. CARR-Well, it's got to be something, a storage shed is used to store small equipment, not including vehicles, to support the principal use of the site. MRS. GOETZ-Did you go to the site? MR. CARR-No. I didn't get to this one. MRS. GOETZ-Honestly, it's a commercial use. 48 " MR. CARR-Well, that's fine. I mean, so now we are talking about a nonconforming use. Now we're talking about a Use Variance. MS. CORPUS-We're also talking about a possible question as to the notice that was done, because it's called, I believe, a storage shed in the public notice that was sent out. MR. CARR-Well, I'm just trying to get it so we can hear it tonight. MRS. GOETZ-Well. actually, "For an addition of a 40 ft. by 40 ft. structure attached to an existing 40 ft. by 40 ft. structure. Storage sheds over 200 sq. ft. are not permitted in SFR zones." I mean, that sentence shouldn't even be there, as far as I can see, because that confuses the whole issue. MRS. CRAYFORD-I agree. MRS. GOETZ-And it's, like, extraneous. I don't see why we just can't consider it as a Use Variance, right now, tonight. MR. TURNER-It is a Use Variance because it falls in the Light Industrial. It's a permitted use in Light Industrial, heavy equipment storage. MRS. GOETZ-But it's in SFR-l Acre. MR. TURNER-Yes, but he's already had half of it there. MRS. GOETZ-No, but I mean, why aren't we going ahead with it as a Use Variance, as advertised. MS. CORPUS-If we could have a vote on that, that would be fine. MR. CARR-I think we should move the question along. MR. TURNER-Yes. MOTION THAT THE ADVERTISEMENT AS lIAS PUBLISHED AS A USE VARIANCE lIAS CORRECT, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption. seconded by Susan Goetz: Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley. Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Use Variance No. 61-1991, McCormack Industries, August 14, 1991. Meeting Date: August 21, 1991 "The applicant is requesting to add a 40 ft. by 40 ft. storage structure to an existing storage structure in a single family residential zone. The existing structure is preexisting/nonconforming. The tax maps indicate that the property is 42.69 acres rather than 2.55 acres that is indicated on the application. The application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for a Use Variance. 1. Is a reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned? The area of the property which contains the storage facil ity abuts a concrete wall which is part of a commercial use on one side. There is a drop in elevation at this location. This portion of the site would be difficult to use as zoned without major changes. 2. Are the circumstances of this lot unique and not due to the unreasonableness of the Ordinance? This particular portion of the lot is unique to the topography and surrounding uses. 3. Is there an adverse effect on the neighborhood character? There would not be an adverse effect on neighborhood character because the addition would be in an area which cannot be seen from the subdivision. An existing storage facility has been there since 1988." MRS. GOETZ-And the Warren County Planning Board returned citing "No County Impact". MR. TURNER-Okay. John, do you have any further comments? Okay. Lets see if we've got any questions? Anyone? How do you feel about the use of reasonable return on the use of property as zoned? MRS. GOETZ-As zoned? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-I don't think he could use that particular part of the property for single family residential. MR. TURNER-I think the biggest detriment to using that as single family is the existence of the mall right next to it. 49 MRS. GOETZ-Right, and that mall wasn't always there. Wasn't it a motel? MR. TURNER-Yes, Brown's Motel. MRS. GOETZ-And now it's been made worse by that. MR. MCCORMACK-Well, that wall wasn't there either. MRS. GOETZ-Right. I didn't think it was. MR. TURNER-They put that up, too. MR. MCCORMACK-That's what's destroyed the property totally. MRS. GOETZ-Well, we went out and did the site inspections at the time that the motel was changed, so, yes, we saw it before and after. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is there a reason for the discrepancy in the lot size, from the application to 42.? MR. MCCORMACK-I heard you read that, but I don't understand that. MRS. GOETZ-Maybe they were looking at all the property that you own in that development? MR. MCCORMACK-Who's comments were they? MRS. GOETZ-That was from Staff, going from the Tax Maps. MR. MCCORMACK-I have to assume that it was a combination of all the properties not yet approved. MRS. GOETZ-Right. It says, the Tax Maps indicate that the property is. MR. MCCORMACK-Right. that would be approximately correct, then, but that parcel is roughly 400 feet deep by 2 to 300 feet wide at some points. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is it a separate deed just for this parcel? MR. MCCORMACK-Actually, there's no deed to this parcel. It's never been deeded in anybody's name. It's just part of the original sale. MR. TURNER-Is it a lot of the subdivision? MR. MCCORMACK-No. If you've looked at the subdivision map, it says right on it, to be retained by the owner. I mean, it's not shown as a building lot. MR. TURNER-I don't have it. Yes, I know that. It's not shown as part of the subdivision? Okay. MR. KELLEY-John, just out of curiosity, everything around that is in a subdivision as a lot or something and there's just this one portion that's kind of held out? Okay. So, this is a lot. MR. MCCORMACK-Well, not anymore. This is shown, the old lots. This was sold. This is now become one lot. MR. KELLEY-Okay, and, what, is there a lot over here? MR. MCCORMACK-This is Warren County Municipal Center property. MR. KELLEY-Ted, what it looks like is, the portion that they retained out, if it were to try to conform to the rest of the development or whatever, it would have to be a one acre lot. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-And that's. what, 2 something? MRS. EGGLESTON-2.5. MR. TURNER-Two and a half. MR. KELLEY-So, it would be a two and a half acre lot that's in a hole. MR. TURNER-Right. 50 MR. MCCORMACK-The only value of it, really, is for me to keep my construction equipment off of the road, and I'd prefer a neater job site, so I keep everything down there. MR. TURNER-Yes, it's well hidden. MR. MCCORMACK-And I know that's one of the Town's recommendations for a builder is to keep it out of sight. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. MCCORMACK-So, this was great because that 40 foot knoll in front of it visibly cut the view from it. MR. TURNER-Yes, it cuts it right off. You can't see it. Do you have any problem with vandalism? MR. MCCORMACK-Not yet. I'm worried about the back of the building, the parking lot right to the rear, but I keep it well lit there. MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets get on with it. Does anyone have any further questions of Mr. McCormack? If not, I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. What's the Board's pleasure? MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 61-1991 Þl:COJUW:K INDUSTRIES, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: I don't believe a reasonable return is possible if the land was used as Single Family Residential One Acre, this portion of the property. The lot is in a hole and adjacent to a shopping center abounded by a concrete wall. The circumstances of the lot are unique and not due to the unreasonableness of the Ordinance. A zoning change took place, changing it from Highway Commercial 15 to SFR-l, and that resulted in an unnecessary hardship. There's no adverse effect on the neighborhood character and there's a Short EAF which shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE CORRECTION OF MINUTES July 17, 1991: Page 8, halfway down the page, Mrs. Goetz is speaking. about the Trustco signs, the sentence that says, I think that the visit, to say that it's visible is, like, a super understatement, sib the word in there "not" visible, to say that it's "not" visible is, like, a super understatement; Page 13, at the top of the page, where we were taking the vote, sib Mr. Shea was absent, it just was omi tted there MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES OF JULY 17, 1991 AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Char1 es Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Shea July 24, 1991: Page 15, under the part, motion to approve use variance 56, third line down. where it says. which was Variance 11 12, what should that have been; Page 26, where Mrs. Goetz is speak, could I ask a question, having to with the McNairy application, and then the question about what to do with the site plan agreement, and it sib when the site plan agreement isn't kept tlJTION TO APPROVE MINUTES OF JULY 24, 1991 AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: 51 Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Shea MR. TURNER-Okay. We've got just a couple of other items, here. We've got a note, here, from Pat, and this is in reference to Mr. Senese and she's got on here that we should pass a resolution requesting Senese submit stamped survey plan by August 28th deadline or automatic denial. Motion 7/24 lacks specific direction. MRS. GOETZ-Was he on the agenda? MR. TURNER-No, and the reason he wasn't on the agenda, I had a conversation with him over the telephone. in reference to this particular application and we talked about it, and he asked me what, I told him I felt, he asked me the question how he thought he stood, and I told him with 17 foot setback from Glen Lake, I said, it didn't look to me as if he could show practical difficulty. He said, what do you think I ought to do. I said, well. I don't think it'll pass. I said, if I were you, I would withdraw the application. He said to me over the phone, well, maybe that's what I should do, and then he said in the next voice. well, I think I'll withdraw the application. So, that's where it stands. He withdrew the application and I indicated to Staff that he had withdrawn the application and I suggested to him that he send a letter indicating that, but he didn't. Then when he got a notice of violation, he denied that he withdrew the application. MRS. GOETZ-So, this is to get on the agenda for September? MR. TURNER-So, he was told, when he left here the last time, that he was to have a survey showing his boundary 1 ines with the correct measurements. He submitted a sketch just correcting the measurements that he had, and he indicated to me that it would cost him $1200 to have it surveyed, and my comment to him was that I thought that was kind of steep and that's how we got talking about the other thing, the rest of it. MRS. CRAYFORD-Excuse me. In the meantime, he's sitting on his deck enjoying it very much. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-He's built it? MRS. CRAYFORD-He's laid boards across it. He hasn't nailed them, but they're sitting there. The flower pots are all decorating it. It's lovely. MRS. GOETZ-It's just, like, wasting our time to go through this unless he hands in what you're requesting. MRS. CRAYFORD-But, see, he wasn't given a deadline. MS. CORPUS-A time frame. MRS. CRAYFORD-He wasn't given a time frame as to when he had to hand it in. MR. TURNER-So, that's a request. MRS. GOETZ-We didn't do that right when we made the motion? MR. TURNER-No. "Tabl ed for further information. A survey map showing correct dimensions." And that 's the only thing that we said. We didn't give him a deadline. MRS. CRAYFORD-Do you want a stamped survey? MR. TURNER-That's what we asked for. MRS. CRAYFORD-See, the motion doesn't say that. It just says, survey. MR. TURNER-Survey map. MRS. CRAYFORD-Survey map, but it doesn't say stamped. MR. TURNER-The minutes indicate. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes, but, see, he only gets the motion in the mail. MR. TURNER-I know. 52 --" MRS. GOETZ-But he's also trying to get around this, too. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes, he is. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, what is Code Enforcement doing? MRS. CRAYFORD-I sent him an Order to Remedy on the basis that he had withdrawn his appl ication and he phoned me and said, I have not withdrawn my application. Did you get a letter from me, and I said, no, I was taking the word of Ted Turner, the conversation you had with him, and he said, I'm not withdrawing my application. I said, but in the meantime, you're going to sit there and enjoy your deck in violation of the Ordinance. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. So, we just need to send a letter. MR. TURNER-I think we need a motion, first, to establish the deadline. MRS. GOETZ-Is that sensible, that date, though, since today is? MRS. CRAYFORD-It may not be. I just would love for him to have to do it immediately. MR. CARR-So, what did you want as a date, the 28th, did you say? MR. TURNER-August the 28th's the deadline. MR. CARR-But what's, like, September 15th? What's middle of September? MRS. CRAYFORD-If you could extend his deadline date and still get him on the September agenda, that woul d be ideaL MRS. GOETZ-Because he's got to have the plan in order to get on the agenda. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. Suppose he doesn't want to come up with the survey, then we'll just hear the application and deny it. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's right. MR. TURNER-That's all. MR. KELLEY-How long are we giving him to come up with a survey? MRS. CRAYFORD-But, see, you don't give him any time. He can come in with a survey two months from now. MS. CORPUS-The Board also has the option of requesting a time deadline and then stating that the application would be denied if not brought in. That's another option. MRS. CRAYFORD-I'd just hate to see this go on until the snow flies. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. I mean, every time you talk to him he's got a different story, even when he's standing right here. MR. CARR-So. would you like us to amend this? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. I would like that. MR. TURNER-Yes. You could amend that. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-1991 RICHARD oR. SENESE, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Until the first September meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals and require that the applicant supply the Planning Board with a stamped survey map no later than September 10th, and by this motion, I would be extending the date by which the applicant, Richard R. Senese, must have his application completed. Duly adopted this 21st day of August, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE 53 MR. TURNER-Are you going to notify him or call him or what? MS. CORPUS-I would recommend he be personally served with an Affidavit of Service. MR. TURNER-He better, yes, because he'll deny he ever got it. MRS. CRAYFORD-How about Certified Mail? MS. CORPUS-I think the Building and Codes Department, what we normally do with things that are very time of the essence is have one of them personally serve the person and then come back and fill out an Affidavit of Service. to be legally binding. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-Okay. MR. CARR-Pat, were you going to tell us about Judy Provost? MRS. CRAYFORD-Mrs. Provost received an Order to Remedy. I haven't received a reply. If I don't receive an application for a variance by the 28th, then she will receive court papers on the 29th. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. What about McNairy and Kana, Dr. Kana, and Hughes Site Plan? MRS. CRAYFORD-In the Site Plan? MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-I talked with Paul about how to follow up if a site plan approval is violated and he said that I would have to take each Section of the Ordinance that applies to that site plan and write it up and take it to court. MRS. GOETZ-So. are you going to do anything on that one? MRS. CRAYFORD-On McNairy's? MRS. GOETZ-Hughes. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. Hughes/McNairy. No, I'm not. MRS. GOETZ-Because I thought part of the problem was it looked like Hughes had not done what he agreed to in the site plan. MRS. CRAYFORD-He had not, but the drainage has not been effected one way or the other. What he did has not effected anything. MRS. GOETZ-It's visual that he didn't do, right, something to do with shrubbery? MRS. CRAYFORD-He removed the scrub brush. MR. TURNER-He removed the scrub brush and left the other stuff that was there. MRS. GOETZ-So, you feel he did comply with the Site Plan? MRS. CRAYFORD-He didn't comply with the Site Plan. MR. SHEA-It's probably a matter of degree. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes, it is. It's a matter of degree. Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. So, if we ever have questions again, we could ask you to take it apart in Sections, applying it to the Zoning Ordinance? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. I have to, he said I have to be very careful to cite each Section of the Ordinance they're in violation of. MRS. GOETZ-We received this. Lee brought it in. It's citing a portion of the Ordinance from City of Saratoga Springs, with the idea that maybe we would want to incorporate this type of thing here. "An applicant may not seek relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City for an existing violation of the Zoning Ordinance unless the applicant is able to demonstrate that he had no knowledge of the violation and no basis for discovering the existence of the violation through the exercise of reasonable good faith efforts to investigate the existence of a violation. Prosecution will be stayed pending a determination by the ZBA which shall include the staying." 54 MRS. CRAYFORD-I didn't get a copy of that. What is that? MR. TURNER-It pertains to, like, the fences and stuff that go up before, violations that occur before they even come and get a variance of any kind, Area or Use. MR. CARR-I don't like it. myself. MRS. GOETZ-You don't? MR. CARR-No. We do it now. I don't see why we should put it in writing, because then we're bound by it. MRS. GOETZ-But we don't do it now. MR. CARR-Everybody who's come here we've asked, how come you didn't ask the Board and everybody gives us their song and dance. MRS. GOETZ-But it seems to me that this means they wouldn't even be able to have an application before us if they had a violation, in effect. MR. TURNER-They wouldn't come here. They couldn't seek relief. MR. CARR-No. That doesn't say that. MR. KELLEY-That's what it says. MR. TURNER-"May not seek relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals". MR. CARR-Who does he demonstrate it to? Who makes the determination whether he made it in good faith? MS. CORPUS-Apparently the Zoning Board. Is that how that reads? MR. CARR-So, what do they do? They come before us to say to say, I didn't do it and I did it in good faith? Then we say, yes you did. Then we say, come back next month with your application? MRS. GOETZ-It would probably be like that house up by the landfill on Azure Drive that was placed too close to the road and, I mean, it really did seem like that was not done deliberately. MR. CARR-Okay, but who makes that determination? MRS. GOETZ-It sounds like we would, and then we'd say, okay, we believe you, come back? MR. TURNER-No. She'd have to make it, right there. MRS. GOETZ-Pat? MR. TURNER-Because she's got to send them to us. MR. CARR-But I thought that's what we were trying to get away from. That's what everybody's screaming about is we don't want Pat making the decision. I mean, now you're asking her to make the most important decision. MR. TURNER-No, but it's like a guy coming in and saying, I put up a fence all the way around my property and it's eight feet high and he says, I didn't know. MR. CARR-Shouldn't that be before this Board and not put it on Pat's shoulders? MRS. GOETZ-You could probably write it anyway you wanted to, couldn't you, or is it State Law? MS. CORPUS-You could make it an original jurisdiction of the Zoning Board. I don't know. I'd have to investigate that legally. I haven't seen that provision, myself. I don't have a copy. MRS. CRAYFORD-What is the point of it? I guess I'd like to know what the point is. MRS. GOETZ-I guess the point is to keep people from just doing whatever they want and still coming in for the variance. MRS. CRAYFORD-I don't think that that's that big of a problem. I think, as I said, word is getting around. MR. TURNER-Well, I've got to tell you something. There's a real fence problem in the Town of Queensbury. If there's one problem at all, that's one. 55 MRS. CRAYFORD-Word is getting around, though, that there is a Fence Ordinance. MR. TURNER-Pat, when I drove around the other night looking at these, there's violations all over the place with fences. MRS. CRAYFORD-Well, how do you know they didn't get. MR. TURNER-They're brand new fences. MRS. CRAYFORD-Well, then, I need to know about them so I can look at them. I don't have a vehicle to go riding around in Town, and I don't want one. MR. TURNER-No, but where they are is in the subdivision, most of them. MRS. CRAYFORD-Right. Well, what I'm saying is, let me know. MR. TURNER-Victoria's Grant, all right, Hidden Hills, all the subdivisions. They just put them up. They don't even ask why. MRS. CRAYFORD-Let me know about them. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. A couple of other things, did you want to talk to us about Lockhart? Is it going to stay the Use Variance? You brought that up. MRS. CRAYFORD-I know I did. Lockhart's is going to be an Area Variance. MR. TURNER-An Area Variance. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. About the Trustco temporary signs. The permit was up on the 17th. Did they renew it? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-They did renew it? So, that's another reason why we need the Sign Ordinance revision adopted. And, also, is there still a question about grouping different variances on one application? Have we resolved that? MRS. CRAYFORD-Well, I have to tell you, I was really kind of torn that day, because Lee's always made that decision. MRS. GOETZ-Well, is it still a problem? Do we know which way we want to go? MRS. CRAYFORD-Well, how do you feel about it? MRS. GOETZ-You want to save the people money. I mean, you don't want to make them pay something unnecessarily. MRS. CRAYFORD-As I said, I came from a Zoning Board that had one application with a different, as long as it was Area Variances, and you saved the, I mean, $50. MRS. GOETZ-Yes, but then it may get very confusing, like this one did tonight. Does it come up that often? MRS. CRAYFORD-It shouldn't. MRS. GOETZ-Is this, like, a one time thing, problem? MS. CORPUS-I think the Board does it all the time. I just don't know if it's done, normally, intentionally by an applicant, but sometimes the Board discovers that certain variances are or are not needed. and some may be needed more and then they are added on. Sometimes you re-advertise because additional variances were found to be needed and that was all in the same application. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. So, we're okay the way we're doing it? MRS. CRAYFORD-You do, quite often, have one appl ication that will have this Section of the Ordinance and that Section of the Ordinance and that Section of the Ordinance that's all handled on one application, and it costs the applicant $50 for the application and usually about $25 to have all the copies made. It's a $75 dollar fee, and for a fence and a pool that are going, somewhat, together. MS. CORPUS-I guess the idea is to have related variances, also. If they were totally unrelated and possibly different, either different properties or totally unrelated items. I could see where that may necessitate a separation. 56 --- MR. TURNER-I don't have a problem with it, if you want to stick them on like that. there are cases that they should be separate. MS. CORPUS-It would depend on the relationship. MRS. GOETZ-Karla. how's the Sign Ordinance coming along? MS. CORPUS-I don't know. '-" That's fine, but MRS. CRAYFORD-The Sign Ordinance has been typed and Paul's reviewing it. I've got a copy to review. MRS. GOETZ-So, you feel progress is being made? MRS. CRAYFORD-Progress is being made. MRS. GOETZ-Good. MR. TURNER-Okay. No further comments? The meeting is adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 57