Loading...
1991-08-28 '- ~EEllSIIIRY DING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR JEETING AUGUST 281H, 1991 7:30 P.M. ÐBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY BRUCE CARR JEFFREY KELLEY CHARLES SICARD MICHAEL SHEA JOYCE EGGLESTON DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS DING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT CRAYFORD SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEIl IIISINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A MOREll AND EILEEN MARISSAL (litER: SAlE AS ABOVE tIJON HILL ROAD TO SUBDIVIDE 2.5 ACRE PARCEL INTO A 1.5 ACRE LOT ON WHICH IIILL REMIN THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AID A 1.0 ACRE LOT ON WHICH WILL REMUI THE EXISTING tÐBILE HOlE. THE RE~IREJENT IS 3 ACRES PER LOT. (WARREN cœm PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 48-3-12 LOT SIZE: 2.5 ACRES SECTION 179-15 A HOWARD KRANTZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 62-1991, Andrew and Eileen Marissal, August 26, 1991, Meeting Date: August 28, 1991 "The request is to be allowed to subdivide a 2.5 acre lot into two parcels which would be nonconforming lots because the zoning is RR-3A. The applicant was previously granted permission to place a second unit on the property with the conditions that the property be subdivided. This was not done due to extenuating circumstances. The applicant is now going back through the process to reestablish the approvals. This application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for an Area Variance: 1. Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. The practical difficulty is that there are two existing separately owned residences on the property. These were placed there by variance prior to a change in the zoning. 2. Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty or is there any other option available which would require no variance? The applicant is prohibited from subdividing unless the variance is granted. This would be the minimum variance necessary since the lot is 2.5 acres and can only be subdivided a specific way since there are accessory structures which have to be taken into consideration. 3. Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance, or to property in the district? No. The majority of lots in this neighborhood have similar lot sizes and road frontage. 4. What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services? None. The homes and driveways are in existence." MRS. GOETZ-And the Warren County Planning Board returned indicating "No County Impact". MR. KRANTZ-Yes. Howard I. Krantz, representing the applicants. The Board is familiar with the situation here. You have an agenda, this evening, that I'm cognizant of. The application speaks for itself, and the conments of the professionals employed, I'd be glad to answer any questions that you might have. MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets see if we have any. Any questions for Mr. Krantz? MR. CARR-This is the one we talked about last month, right? MR. TURNER-This is the one we talked about, yes. MR. KRANTZ-This is to comply with your conditions on granting the Use Variance. MRS. GOETZ-You went to the Planning Board, right, after the Zoning Board? MR. KRANTZ-No County Impact. MRS. GOETZ-Right, but did you go to the Queensbury Planning Board at all? 1 \ MR. KRANTZ-No. That we do for the subdivision approval. That's the final step in the process. MR. TURNER-No. You've got to do that after this. MRS. GOETZ-After this. MRS. YORK-At the subdivision. MRS. GOETZ-We subdivide it, and then you go there. MR. KRANTZ-Well, you grant the Area Variance, and then we go to the subdivision approval by the Planning Board. MRS. GOETZ-Subdivision approval. MR. TURNER-I guess there's no questions. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COtIENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further comment from the Board? MRS. GOETZ-How was it zoned before? MR. TURNER-I think it was zoned Suburban Residential 30. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, it was, Suburban Residential 30, the last time we gave the variance. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. MR. CARR-Maybe, Ted, do you want to just count, for the record, the history for the past three years, of this, just so we have it? MR. TURNER-Yes. It's identified in here that the variance was granted and the zone was changed after the granting of the variance. It was SR-30,OOO and it was changed to RR-3 Acre. MR. CARR-They had already received subdivision approval, hadn't they? MR. TURNER-No. They didn't file. MRS. GOETZ-Right. Yes. MRS. YORK-Excuse me, if I may just interject. At the time, there was no requirement for subdivision approval for anything less than four lots, okay. They were considered minor subdivisions and did not require any Planning Board approval. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's where it happened. Okay. MR. KELLEY-Don't we have side yard setbacks, also? MRS. CRAYFORD-I was going to mention that. In looking at this, you may want to establish what these setbacks are at this lot line. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Because in that zone I believe it's a 30 foot side yard setback. MRS. CRAYFORD-Thirty foot, yes. MR. TURNER-Yes, and they've only got 15. With a mobile home they need 15 feet of relief there. MR. KELLEY-Yes. Right. So, we'd really have two, then, right, lot size and side yard? MR. TURNER-Yes. Lot size and side yard setback. Okay. Everybody's aware? The side yard setback from the mobile home to the line on the garage is 30 feet. MRS. GOETZ-Do you need it on the garage, also? 2 ~' MR. TURNER-Yes. It's an accessory structure. It has to meet the, the garage is 20, it's over 100 square feet, it's got to meet the side yard setback, the same as a principal building. MRS. GOETZ-So, it's 15 over there, too? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-We have to address this under our new rules, also, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. I'll entertain a motion on this application. tÐTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-1991 MOREll AND EILEEN MARISSAL, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: This is an area variance and the applicants are seeking relief from two different criteria. One would be lot size. The zone is an RR-3A zone and they're wishing to divide their two and a half acre parcel into two lots. Lot A, our plot plan shows that to be approximately one and a half acres, and Lot B is shown to be approximately one acre. The practical difficulty of this is that there apparently are two existing separately owned residences on the property and these were originally approved by prior variance, and the problem arises due to the fact that the applicant never filed the proper paperwork which would legally divide this property into two lots and the recording of this was part of the conditions set forth in the prior variance. The second part of this variance also is for side yard setback and by dividing the property into two parcels each existing building is required to have a 30 foot side yard setback. This particular subdivision places the property line, this is a common property line, 15 feet from a mobile home, and also 15 feet from the garage. This does not appear to be detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance and it seems to be creating two lots that are similar to other lots in the neighborhood. There is no adverse effect on public facilities or services and the granting of this variance will allow the applicant reasonable use of his land. The Short EAF doesn't appear to have a negative impact. Since the granting of the prior variance, the zone in this particular area has changed from SR-30 to RR-3A. We will also be granting a variance from Section 179-30 of the Zoning Ordinance. Moon Hill Road is classified as a Collector Street and, therefore, each lot would be required to have 400 feet or more in width. Neither of these lots meet that requirement. However, it appears to be not detrimental to the area and the new lot sizes are still consistent with other lots in the neighborhood. Duly adopted this 28th day of August, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MRS. CRAYFORD-I just realized, this is also on a Collector Street which requires two times the lot width. So, that's going to require a variance, as well. MR. TURNER-Yes. AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-1991 TYPE II SFR-lA ROBERT & ELIZABETH DALABA OIßIER: SAJE AS ABOVE CORNER OF AVIATION ROAD AND CRCIIIfOOD LANE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A 24 FT. ROOND, 4 FT. DEEP ABOVE GROOND SWIIlUNG POOL IN WHAT IS CONSIDERED TO BE A FRONT YARD. THIS IS NOT PERMITTED IN AN SFR ZONE. TAX IMP NO. 82-2-3.1 LOT SIZE: 1.3 ACRES SECTION 179-67 B ROBERT AND ELIZABETH DALABA, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Seni or Planner, Area Vari ance No. 63-1991, Robert & El i zabeth Dal aba, August 27, 1991, Meeting Date: August 28, 1991 "The appl icant is requesting a variance to maintain a pool in the front yard. The property is corner lot with two front yards. The pool should be 30 feet from Crownwood Lane if it is greater than 100 sq. ft. and it is located 24 feet from the road. The pool has already been installed. The application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for an area variance. Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. The pool cannot be placed in a front yard. Two front yards create a practical difficulty. The applicant could have placed the pool in a location further north. It could have been placed so that the 30 foot setback from Crownwood could be met, if necessary. Also, it appears from Section 179-67 that the pool has to be fenced and Board may wish to take that into consideration. Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty or is there any other option available which would require no variance? There do not appear to be any options which would not require variances. If the pool is greater than 100 sq. ft. then a front yard requirement could have been minimized by placement in another location. Would this variance be detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict with the objective of any plan or policy of the Town? The pool is visible from two residential roadways, which is what the pool regulations were instituted to minimize. What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services? It 3 -- --- appears that vi sibil ity would not be obstructed at the intersection by the pool and potential fence. Also, snow removal should not be a problem. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? This is a discussion for the Board and the applicant." MR. DALABA-Do you have any questions you want me to answer? MRS. GOETZ-I do. How did it happen to be up already? MR. DALABA-Well, we installed it in July, ma'am. MRS. GOETZ-And how did that happen? MR. DALABA-Well, we didn't really want to wait all summer. They said I couldn't probably get on for a variance until some time in September, and it's almost September now, ma'am. MRS. GOETZ-But we've had other people, for instance, last week, that were still waiting to put their pool in and they went through the regulations as they should have. So, I really am very sorry to hear that you did that. MR. CARR-Why did you choose the location you did? MR. DALABA-Well, it was a side yard that the grass never grew over there anyway. If I put it behind the house, where I believe the regulations say I have to put it, I'd have to move many trees, and I really didn't want to take all my shade trees away, and I just put it in the easiest way to do it without a lot of other expense. MR. CARR-Do you realize you have to put a four foot fence up? MR. DALABA-Well, the pool is six foot high. It's got a fence. MR. TURNER-It's got a fence on it anyway. It's an above ground pool, and above ground pools don't require a fence because it's over four foot high already. There's a ladder with a gate that locks it. MRS. CRAYFORD-It doesn't require a fence. MR. CARR-It doesn't? MRS. CRAYFORD-No. MR. TURNER-No. MRS. DALABA-I'm Elizabeth Dalaba. It says in here, 30 feet from Crownwood, and it says we're located 24 feet. We're located, from our line, from my line to Crownwood there's another eight feet. MR. TURNER-I know, but that doesn't count. Property line to the pool, that's the measurement. Thirty feet. MRS. DALABA-I was told 20 feet from the line. MR. TURNER-No. It's 30 feet. MRS. DALABA-And we made it 24. MR. CARR-Pat, can I ask you a question? What does this mean that all private swinming pools shall be enclosed by a permanent fence of durable material at least four feet in height. It doesn't make a difference between in-ground or above ground. MR. TURNER-Lets go to the one we had 1 ast week. She had a four foot above ground pool, remember, Sardaro? MR. CARR-Yes. MR. TURNER-There's no fence required around it because it's four feet high already. MR. CARR-That's what I'm saying is, why isn't there a fence required, the Ordinance calls for a fence? MRS. CRAYFORD-The rules on the back of the pool permits are per State requirements, and fences aren't required for above ground pools four feet in height. MR. CARR-Then why are we? MRS. CRAYFORD-I don't know why. 4 '-- .-. MR. SHEA-It says four feet or over requires a fence, and also if it is. MR. TURNER-That's a Department of Health standard, that fence. MR. CARR-Right. I know what the State rules are, but I mean, how come we have more. MRS. CRAYFORD-The Ordinance should be addressed to agree with State rules. MR. CARR-Right. I mean, we were more restrictive than the State. MS. CORPUS-Right. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-We've just never required, I don't know what to say to you, unless you want to grant a variance for it and we address it at some point in time and correct the Ordinance to agree. MS. CORPUS-Well, legally, we should adhere to the Ordinance. MR. TURNER-Yes, but you never have. You're not enforcing it. MS. CORPUS-Except that we do have an enforcement problem, selective enforcement problem. MR. DALABA-Really, my fence is six feet high. MR. TURNER-Yes. He's got a ladder, a walkway up to his pool/deck, and that walkway, when you raise it up, it locks, so a child can't tamper with it and unlock it. MR. DALABA-It's locked at all times when nobody's there. MR. TURNER-If you look on the sketch, there's a short deck around, as far as the perimeter of the pool, right here, that serves as a service area and access to the pool, but all I can tell you is my neighbor put a pool in and when he put a deck on, a pressure treated deck, he had to put a fence around it and he had to put up a gate with a lock on it, but the rest of the pool is exposed and only four feet high, and he was told that by the Town of Queensbury. MR. CARR-But I mean, I know what the State rules are and that's fine, but I'm just saying that our Ordinance does not agree with what we're doing. MR. TURNER-All I can tell you is they're not enforcing the fence on a four foot above ground pool. MR. SICARD-Who's "they"? The State? MR. TURNER-No, Building and Codes. MS. CORPUS-Unless this Board makes the determination it's not applicable. The Zoning Board has the option to either agree with the Zoning Administrator or not agree with the Zoning Administrator as to whether it applies, Number One, and as to whether it applies to this particular structure. MR. CARR-Karla, here's a question for you. Is the Town exposing itself to liability having a rule it's not enforcing? MS. CORPUS-Well, there's two sides to that. There's the selective enforcement question and there is the interpretation of the Ordinance. Now, I don't know, the Board and the Zoning Administrator have to make a determination as to whether the Ordinance as it's written, is applicable to this structure, this particular type of structure. MRS. EGGLESTON-Actually, the writing's very clear. It says, all private swimming pools shall be enclosed by a permanent fence of durable material at least four feet in height. It does not differentiate between in the ground or above the ground. It says, all swimming pools. MS. CORPUS-That's a determination the Board has to make as to whether it's applicable. MRS. CRAYFORD-We've got two sets going on in our office, two sets of rules. MR. CARR-You may want to bring this to the Town Board. Maybe they could clarify this or something. MRS. CRAYFORD-Well, Dave and I will talk about it tomorrow, first. MR. TURNER-I think they should clarify it between the two of them. She's got to be able to tell the applicant where they stand, initially, and Dave's got to tell her where he stands, as far as enforcement goes, you know, what are they going to enforce. 5 -- .- MRS. CRAYFORD-Right. MR. TURNER-That's where it's got to start, first. MRS. CRAYFORD-It's up to you, what you want to do with it, and then we'll address it after this evening. MR. TURNER-Well, this particular pool is six feet high. It's four feet off the ground. You've got another two feet of fence above that, and it's all the way around the structure. MRS. CRAYFORD-But the Ordinance reads, apparently, that all pools have to have fences. MS. CORPUS-But that is an interpretation to be made, by the Zoning Administrator and the Zoning Board. MR. TURNER-Yes, I know. MR. KELLEY-What did you do this for, anyway? MRS. DALABA-I don't know, but I don't understand what you're saying. The pool is fenced. It's fenced all the way around the top. What has to be fenced, the pool itself again, so you're double fencing it? MR. TURNER-No. I don't agree with that philosophy. MRS. DALABA-No. I don't agree with it, either. MR. KELLEY-We're saying the Ordinance doesn't necessarily go by what they're saying. MRS. DALABA-The Ordinance is not clear. MR. TURNER-Yes, but it says you've got to have a four foot high fence. She has a six foot high fence right now that surrounds the whole pool. MRS. DALABA-Right, I can't see over it. MR. TURNER-She's covered. She's not in violation of the Town Ordinance. MS. CORPUS-If the Board makes that determination that that's applicable to this particular Section, that's fine. MR. TURNER-It is. It's applicable to this particular application, because she's not in violation at all. MS. CORPUS-That should be something that is done for the record, the determination as to that particular Section of the Ordinance. MRS. DALABA-I could see a pool being fenced in if there's no fence already on it, if the pool is four foot high this way, with no fence anywhere's around, yes, then I could see it being fenced, but when it's already fenced, why put another fence around it? MR. TURNER-No. It's not needed. You satisfy the Code just as it is right now, because you're six foot high with your fence. You're all right. MRS. DALABA-Right. MR. TURNER-We're not talking about you. MR. KELLEY-We're talking about the Code in general. MR. CARR-But, wait, Ted, then you can't have a six foot high fence in your front yard. MRS. GOETZ-It's true. MR. SICARD-It's not a fence. It's a pool. It's a deck. MRS. DALABA-All right, it says it's in our front yard. If you're looking on Crownwood, that whole side of Crownwood is nothing but trees. MR. TURNER-Yes, but we argued that tonight. We know that and I told you distinctly that that was considered the front yard and so is Aviation because you're on a corner. MRS. DALABA-Right. 6 -. MR. DALABA-I never realized that before. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's the rule. That's the way it is. MRS. DALABA-And this is why I said, there should be more notification of people and more advertising as to your rules and regulations. MR. TURNER-I kind of agree with you, because there isn't enough information out there for people to deal with as far as a pool and a fence goes. MRS. DALABA-No, there isn't. MR. TURNER-And that's where we're running into all this trouble with pools and fences. MRS. DALABA-Right, because we had a pool in before and you didn't have all this garbage. MR. TURNER-No. The rules have changed. MRS. DALABA-Right. MR. KELLEY-The variance we're trying to do is get it in a front yard, right? MR. TURNER-It is in a front yard. MR. KELLEY-Right. The setback is okay, right? MR. TURNER-They need the setback, there, and they need the relief from the pool on the front yard. MR. KELLEY-That's right, because it's got to be 30 feet or something. MR. TURNER-It's got to be 30 feet, six feet they need. They've got 24, right? MR. KELLEY-Yes. MR. DALABA-Yes, we've got 24 to the property line. MR. TURNER-Yes, six feet of rel ief they need there. They need rel ief on the pool being in the front yard. There's no other place she could put the pool. MR. DALABA-Not without moving five trees, at least. MR. TURNER-Well, you've got to move the trees, and then there's the foundation. MR. DALABA-Well, we did move some trees where it is now, a couple of them. MR. TURNER-Yes, but I mean if you move it back much farther, you're going to violate the so called rear setback, which is 20 feet. MR. DALABA-Right, plus the fence is right here on the side. You've got to be 20 feet from that property 1 ine, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. There's a set of birch trees right near the pool, and there's another tree around to the left of the birch tree, right near the pool. If she moved it, she'd probably have to cut the birch trees down. There's a cluster of three or four of them, there. I went up tonight and 'looked at it again. MR. CARR-I didn't think they were that close. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. I thought it was more. MR. CARR-I thought there was a little more room there. MRS. EGGLESTON-To come back towards the pines, maybe. MR. TURNER-Towards the pines? MRS. EGGLESTON-Isn't that what we were talking about? MRS. GOETZ-Yes. See, if you hadn't put it in ahead of time, we could have talked a lot about this. MR. DALABA-Right. 7 MRS. GOETZ-Which I really feel is a terrible problem. I really do. You know, you talk about not knowing what the regulations are, but if you had gone through the proper steps, we would have been talking about what all the proper regulations are, prior to the pool being put in. MR. DALABA-Well, we talked to some people that were there. MRS. GOETZ-Where? MR. DALABA-At our house. MRS. GOETZ-But you have to talk to the people at the Town level. MR. DALABA-This was the Town level. MRS. GOETZ-Who were they? MR. DALABA- I won't say. MRS. DALABA-I did go ask for a permit and that's when we found out about these variances. To me, my side yard is not my front yard, and I still argue that point. Because it faces Crownwood doesn't make it my front yard. It's my back yard. Did you come up and look? MRS. GOETZ-Yes, I did. MRS. DALABA-And what is it to you? MRS. GOETZ-It's two front yards. MRS. DALABA-Right, it's two front, and where the pool is is the back yard. I come out the back door to go to it. I don't come out my front door. MR. TURNER-Well, let me just say something. The last application that we had here on a pool, we sent them back to pursue another alternative as to where to place the pool in the yard. Now, this was before they bought the pool, okay. MRS. DALABA-Right. MR. TURNER-Okay. They did find that they could move the pool back and not violate the front yard setback. They could put the pool directly behind the house and only violate the rear yard setback, which we gave them a relief of 10 feet. So, what Mrs. Goetz is saying to you is that if you'd have come before you put the pool up, we could have probably solved the problem right now, instead of maybe saying to you, you've got to move it six feet. MRS. DALABA-Six feet which way? I'm still going to violate two Ordinances. MR. CARR-Because what we're saying is move it six feet back from Crownwood. MR. DALABA-Then we're going to be too close to the building. MRS. DALABA-Then we'll be too close to the building. MR. CARR-Well, you can go north, that way. MRS. DALABA-Then I'm too close to the back line and I'm too close to Crownwood. MR. CARR-No. You've got 37 feet to the back line, or 47.7. MRS. DALABA-But that's where the foundation and the nine trees are. MR. DALABA-Yes, that's where are the trees are. MRS. GOETZ-Well, those are the things you have to consider when you put a pool in, is how is the whole piece of property going to be effected by different things that happen. I have to think of it from the viewpoint that we had people here that have not had a pool all summer because they went through the proper steps, and is it fair to tell them that they couldn't have it all summer and then, you know, you came in and said you just put it up because you wanted the pool and you didn't want to wait until September? It doesn't seem like it's consistently fair. MR. SHEA-Can you show me, I viewed the property and I know the lines, but I'd like to know exactly where the foundation is. 8 MR. DALABA-Right along here, there's a whole bunch of trees right here, too. There's a big White Birch right here. MRS. DALABA-And there's a foundation from an old house that runs right here. MR. DALABA-If we got over here closer, we would be too close to our house and too close to the line. MR. SICARD-Well, we allow 10 feet for that, right there, instead of 14. So, that would give you four feet to come this way. The Ordinance says 10 feet from the house. MRS. DALABA-Then if you move it back here, you're looking at this guy's deck. He's got a deck right here. MR. SICARD-What we're trying to do is come in with the minimum amount of setback and so forth. MR. SHEA-Can you tell me, if the pool were to be located in this spot here, as drawn, would that interfere with where the foundation is? MR. DALABA-Yes, you'd have to move the foundation, plus the cluster of White Birch trees. MR. SHEA-Okay, because that's the only spot that would conform with all of the setbacks. MRS. DALABA-Right. There's bi rch trees, here. There's another set of trees, here, and thi s is all trees. MR. SHEA-Well, trees is not as much a practical difficulty as the foundation would be. MRS. DALABA-Yes, right. MR. CARR-How deep does the pool go into the ground? MR. DALABA-It's above ground, maybe four or five inches. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-So, what's the foundation got to do with it? MRS. EGGLESTON-Ted, we didn't see a foundation. MR. TURNER-It's buried under the. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's under the ground? MR. TURNER-It's under the ground, a little bit under the ground. MR. CARR-If it's an above ground pool, what does the foundation have to do with it? MRS. DALABA-Well, I'm going to have to move it if I take those trees out of there. MR. CARR-We're not talking about trees. We're talking about the foundation. How does the foundation effect the pool? MRS. DALABA-There's a clump of trees like this and the foundation runs just like this, with the trees right here, all like this. If you're going to move that back there, then I've got to move that foundation out of there to dig the circle to put the pool in. MR. TURNER-All right. Can I ask you something? Would you consider tabling your application and try to see what you can come up with as far as moving that pool back a bit, and then we'll hear it next month? MRS. DALABA-Where do you want me to move it to? Will somebody come up and show me? MR. TURNER-That's not our job. MRS. DALABA- That's what I said before. Where from where, Ted? You saw the pool tonight. Where do you want me to move it back to? MR. TURNER-Yes, right here. Look, I think if you come back this way a little bit. There's a tree right here, right? MRS. DALABA-Yes. 9 MR. TURNER-All ri ght, and then you've got the bi rch trees ri ght here, and then there's another tree right here. MR. DALABA-Yes. MR. TURNER-I think you could move that whole thing back this way. MRS. DALABA-Where the play fence is? MR. TURNER-Well, the play fence is right here. MRS. DALABA-Right. MR. TURNER-It goes over like that, and then move it this way, back, you'd increase this measurement, all right. You'd get it more towards the back of the back yard. MRS. DALABA-Right. Then I've got to move it this way to stay away from here. MR. TURNER-Well, that fence right there, you could realign that. You've got to be 10 feet from there. MRS. DALABA-Ri ght. MR. TURNER-You could come this way and this way. I think you can work it out. My suggestion is to you, to table it. Go back and see what you can do with it, without cutting the trees down, maybe. Go back and see what you can do with it and then come back and tell us what you come up with. You've still got the pool for the summer, all right. MRS. DALABA-All right, now, how far has it got to be from Crownwood? MR. TURNER-Twenty feet from this. Thirty feet here. Twenty feet from here. You've got to be 10 feet from here. MRS. DALABA-All right, what about this fence over here? MR. TURNER-Twenty feet from there. You've got two fronts and a rear. You don't have any side yard. That's the way it goes. MRS. DALABA-Well, I have a side yard, but it's over there. MR. TURNER-Yes, but, I know. On this side. MRS. DALABA-On this side of the house. MR. TURNER-Yes, but why don't you do that. Why don't you table it. Go back and lay it out in a different spot and see what you can do with it and come back to us and give us an alternative, because that's what we have to grant you relief on is minimum relief, not maximum relief. The other girl did the same thing, like I told you. She came back with three alternatives. MRS. GOETZ-Because we've had so many people come in here. MRS. DALABA-Well, like I said, if there'd been more notice as to what the variances were, then it would have been fine. MR. CARR-But they told you before you installed that that's what the rules were. MRS. DALABA-No, they did not. I didn't even know we had to have a permit, and I went and applied for the permit. MR. CARR-Pat, what happened? MRS. CRAYFORD-When she came in to apply for the permit is when she found out she had to have variances. MR. CARR-Was that before the pool was up? MR. DALABA-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-It was before the pool was up. MR. CARR-Right, but then you went and put the pool up anyway. So, your putting the pool up is not our problem. I mean, there were rules to follow. MR. TURNER-Would you consider tabling, at this point, and then go back and see what you can do. 10 --- MRS. DALABA-Yes. MR. SICARD-I think the pool installers ought to have a little education given to them. MR. KELLEY-That's like the people that sell the fences. They ought to have posted what the Ordinance is. MR. TURNER-She made a suggestion that you should put it in the paper, and that's a fine suggestion. I don't have any problem with that, but if you only run it early spring, you know, they'll read it and maybe they won't read it. I mean, the Town, somehow, has got to get to these guys that are putting up the pools, putting up the fences, and tell them, look it, you know, I don't think that's a big deal, either. I think you can, with a little information. MR. SHEA-Dave Hatin could take one afternoon in the early spring, or someone from Enforcement, and visit each of the pool installers. MR. TURNER-Well, you know, I think Jeff's idea, the last time, that we have a fee for a fence and a pool and everything. That way there, they come in, they've got to apply for it. Building and Codes knows right away that that's out there. They've got to go and inspect it and then they'll catch the violation right off, quick, and it won't cost them a lot of money to do what they've got to do. It won't cost the Town a lot of money to do what we have to do. MR. KELLEY-But they'll have a chance to be told what they've got to do before they just go ahead and do it. MR. TURNER-Right. They'll know right ahead of time what they've got to do. It won't be any guessing game. MRS. DALABA-That's right. You won't be going and getting a permit for something that. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's right. So, it's your wish to table it, at this point? MRS. DALABA- I'll tabl e it. MR. TURNER-Okay. tÐTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-1991 ROBERT & ELIZABETH DALABA, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr: Tabled by the applicant for further information as to the location of the pool. Duly adopted this 28th 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 MR. TURNER-You'll be on in October, if you get the information back. MRS. DALABA-All right. Thank you. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Turner, did you open the public hearing for the last application? MR. TURNER-We're not going to hold it. They tabled it before we got to it and we have some letters in the file. When they come back, we'll entertain all of it. MS. CORPUS-I would just recommend that it be re-noticed, then. MR. TURNER-Yes, I'll leave the public hearing open. AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA DR. RANDALL LOCKHART (litER: SAtE AS ABOVE 19 HOJER AVENUE FOR OFFICE EXPANSION FOR LOCKHART CHIROPRACTIC PRACTICE. THIS ADDITION IS AN EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING USE. THE PROPOSED ADDITION WILL BE AT THE REAR OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. (MARREN coom PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 107-1-4.2 & 36 LOT SIZE: 28,623 SQ. FT./0.65 ACRES SECTION 179-26 SECTION 179-79 0 PAUL CUSHING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 11 Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 64-1991, Dr. Randall Lockhart, August 23, 1991, Meeting Date: August 28, 1991 "The agenda states that this is a Use Variance. The Zoning Administrator has since made a determination that this is an Area Variance. The application was noticed as an Area Variance in the Post Star and through 500 foot mailings. The applicant has prepared an Area Variance appl ication for the Board's review. The appl icant wants to place an office addition to the rear of an existing office building. The current facility is a nonconforming use because it does not meet the area requirements of 10,000 sq. ft. The zone is Light Industrial. The existing structure is 42 ft. by 40 ft. The proposed structure is 45 ft. by 50 ft. The total size of the office building will be 4,160 sq. ft. The variance requested is 5,390 sq. ft. The application was reviewed with regard to the Area Variance criteria: 1. Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. The practical difficulty is that the office is located on a parcel of land which is 0.65 acres and could not accommodate a 10,000 sq. ft. building which is the requirement of the zone. Any addition would also be limited because of the stream corridor on the west side of the property and the maintenance of the 75 foot setbacks. 2. Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? Yes. There is no option which would allow a 10,000 sq. ft. building on this lot without a variance. The addition is placed to meet the other setbacks required in the zone. 3. Would the variance be detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict with the objective of any plan or policy of the Town? The office building has been in the location for a number of years. The expansion would not be detrimental to the other properties and does not conflict with the goals of the Land Use Plan. 4. What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services? The effects on the roadway, sewer and water services will be minimal." MRS. GOETZ-The Warren County Planning Board approved, "since there is no change in use, but the County Board feels that there would be less square footage than allowed by the Zoning Ordinance and an Area Variance would be more appropriate." MR. CUSHING-Paul Cushing, architect. I'd be happy to answer any questions any member of the Board might have, relative to this variance. MR. TURNER-Are you going to adjust the parking so you get your 20 foot drive around here? MR. CUSHING-Yes. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the parking size regulations have been changed. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. CUSHING-And in the site plan submission, that will be addressed. MR. TURNER-Okay. Does anyone have any questions for him? Paul, when Dr. Lockhart went there, was that Light Industrial? It was, wasn't it, or did he just get in under the gun? MR. CUSHING-I think he just got in at the last, my latest book is 1988 and he was there three or four years prior to that, to the best of my knowledge, and that building is on an existing foundation that's been there upmty ump years. MR. TURNER-Didn't he tear the old barn and garage down and build the new office complex? MR. CUSHING-I believe that's correct. MR. TURNER-Yes, because Russell Harris used to keep his equipment in there. MR. CUSHING-Yes. I believe you're absolutely correct. MRS. EGGLESTON-I guess my only question was why they brought it forward from the other building, instead of keeping it all even? MR. CUSHING-A couple of reasons, Number One, you have a 30 foot setback, for openers, and, Two, in order to create a legal parking area behind the proposed addition required extension of the building, east and west. MR. SICARD-Paul, what was the reason why it was set back on this side and not in line with the existing building? MRS. EGGLESTON-I just asked that question, Charlie. He explained it in depth. MR. SICARD-We got the setbacks all changed. MR. KELLEY-Yes, but I thought he was talking about in line a different way. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, ask your question again, then. 12 MR. CUSHING-Well, the rear setback is 30 feet, and to create a legal parking area behind there meant that we had to be more than 40 feet, and in order to accomplish the functions that the doctor wishes, and expansion of his property, meant that the building was expanded beyond the east and west boundaries of the existing building. I think that's. MR. KELLEY-Okay. That's one way. What about the other way. You're talking about, it comes forward, here. We're saying, this come over here. Is there a doorway, here? MR. CUSHING-There's a doorway going out of the addition toward the west, which would be that way, and the wrap around on the other end is just because I'm an architect, I guess. MR. SHEA-It was done for aesthetics more than anything else? MR. CUSHING-Yes. MR. SHEA-To break up the line. MR. CUSHING-Exactly. MR. TURNER-Any other questions? All right. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO CO_NT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. tÐTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-1991 DR. RANDALL LOCKHART, I ntroduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: To grant a variance that would allow the addition of a one story office building which would bring the total square footage of buildings on the property to 4,610 square feet. The Ordinance calls for 10,000 square feet. So, this would be a rel ief of 5,390 square feet. The reasons for granting the variance are that this particular lot is .65 acres in area and a 10,000 square foot building would be too large for a parcel of that size. This does not appear to be detrimental to the other properties in the district or the Ordinance. The variance is the minimum variance that would alleviate the practical difficulty of having such a small lot. There appears to be no adverse effect on public facilities. The Short EAF shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 28th 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. GOETZ-Do we need to address the expansion? MR. TURNER-Expansion of a nonconforming deck. MRS. GOETZ-That part that's on the application about expansion of a nonconforming use? MRS. YORK-No. That just means that the Planning Board will also have to review it. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-ZO GEORGE & SHERRY BROlIN (litER: SAtE AS ABOVE 338 RIDGE ROAD TO SUBDIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO 1110 LOTS WITHOOT THE RE~IRED LOT WIDTH. (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 59-5-19.1 LOT SIZE: 72,000 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-30 GEORGE BROWN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 65-1991, George and Sherry Brown, August 27, 1991, Meeting Date: August 28, 1991 "The request is to vary the requirement of double the lot width on arterial roads. Ridge Road is designated arterial and in this location the zoning is SR-20. The lot size width is 100 feet so each lot would be required to have 200 feet of lot width. The applicant has a total of ±180 feet of road frontage and proposes to divide the lot in half. The second lot created would require a substantial amount of fill to be developed since the Ordinance requires that buildings erected within the travel corridor overlay district be set back 75 feet. The back of the lot appears 13 -- to have some wetland vegetation. This appl ication was reviewed with regard to the criteria for an Area Variance: 1. Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. The lot width required is 200 feet per lot. This is impossible to meet since the total frontage is ±180 feet and the request is to subdivide two equal pieces. 2. Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty or is there any other option available which would require no variance? The double the lot requirement is to help alleviate traffic problems in the Town. If both lots could utilize a common entrance it would meet the intent of the Ordinance which was to limit road cuts. 3. Would this variance be detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict with the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town? Most of the other properties are developed with this amount of road frontage. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance speak specifically to the issue of traffic since it was viewed as the greatest community issue when these documents were developed. The documents refer to discouraging strip development along major arterials by requiring larger lot sizes and widths. 4. What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services? Assuming that this will be a single family home, the effects on publ ic facil ities will be minimal. 5. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? The applicant has not provided alternative proposals." MR. TURNER-Mr. Brown, you indicate that the lot is 180.32 feet? MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. TURNER-According to the Tax Map, it's 159 feet. MR. BROWN-They're incorrect. MR. TURNER-They're incorrect? Why so? MRS. CRAYFORD-The Tax Maps aren't always right, Ted. MR. TURNER-That's what's on there. MRS. CRAYFORD-I mean, it doesn't mean it's right. MR. TURNER-All right. You bought the property, what, three years ago? MR. BROWN-Yes, a little over three years ago. It was the Turner Estate, George Turner. MR. TURNER-Do you have a survey? MR. BROWN-No. There was a survey done prior to that, where the land was divided. It had gone all the way back to Meadowbrook. MR. TURNER-I know. MR. BROWN-And it was divided, at that time. There was a survey done at that time, and the dimensions that you have on the map are correct, and the bordering properties have been surveyed and those stakes still line up. MR. TURNER-How could the Tax Map be off 30 feet? MS. CORPUS-It's not unusual. His deed could also show the correct dimensions. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. BROWN-Yes, it does. MR. TURNER-Where did you come up with that measurement, then, off your deed? MR. BROWN-Yes. That was, they corrected that, made that verification at that time, that there was a discrepancy, and they said that the last survey was correct.. MR. TURNER-That's what's recorded on the deed? Okay. MR. CARR-In your neighborhood, there's a lot of other lots of less than 90? MR. BROWN-Yes, that would be typical or greater than average. MR. CARR-Okay. Are there many lots in the neighborhood with your width of road frontage? MR. BROWN-No. As a matter of fact, my house sits all the way over on one side. I wasn't exactly looking to divide it exactly, because I was looking to go, like, 88 and 92, or 86 and 94, because my house 14 --- woul d sit in there, the way the 1 ay of the 1 and looks, is it looks 1 i ke there's more property to the left of mine than there is, and as far as the driveway goes, I've already applied and received a permit to put in an additional driveway. There's a garage, well it looks like a garage, but it's not. It's never been used to house a car before. It needs a concrete slab poured in it, but I had intended to put the drive, filed for a permit with the State and got a permit to move the driveway, because it was being used, the lot was being used for parking and I moved that driveway and brought in considerable fill and Item Four and gravel to establish a driveway there to the left of the house instead of the one that's on the right, and now it's basically being used for turn around. It's amazing the amount of traffic that goes in and out there, turns around. Why and who they are, I don't know. I've seen, at a minimum, generally two cars a day, minimum, sometimes several cars a day there. Who knows why they go down the road and turn around for. MRS. EGGLESTON-What are your plans, or reasoning, for wanting it divided into two lots, and also, do you have any plans for improving the conditions of the property. MR. BROWN-Yes. One, with the size of the lot and the tax base, it makes it very difficult to see putting in any improvements on the house. I have a permit, now, and the foundation in, for an addition, a garage, and I'd like to run that into a master bedroom. MR. TURNER-Have you renewed your permit for the garage? MR. BROWN-I think it might be expired, yes. I'm not sure where I'm at on the grace period of that. I'm kind of on a stand still. MR. TURNER-Weren't you going to put a garage and then a bedroom over the garage and attach it to the existing house? MR. BROWN-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Sir, you didn't answer my question what your plans were for the other lot. MR. BROWN-For the other lot? It would be a building lot. anticipated probably filing for another variance for that. place to place a building 75 feet back because that side of than 35. As far as the 75 foot setback goes, I Aesthetically, it would be very out of the road, none of the buildings sit more MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, I guess you've given me reasons why you wouldn't want to put something there. What I'm asking you is, why do you want this put into a separate lot? What do you intend to do with that lot? MR. BROWN-Use it to build, put another house in there. MR. KELLEY-Are you going to sell it or are you going to build the house and sell it? MR. BROWN-I haven't made up my mind on that. That's depending on some financial conditions I'm presently i nvo 1 ved with. MR. KELLEY-Do you have a Queensbury sewer in front of your house? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. KELLEY-I believe your property is, what, approximately one and three quarter acres? MR. BROWN-One and two thirds. MR. KELLEY-One and one and a third, something like that. MR. BROWN-Two thirds. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. SICARD-How can they tax a piece of property if it's off that much, 30 feet? Which figures do you go by? MR. TURNER-The Town's losing money. MR. SICARD-It depends on which side it's on. If it's 30 over, he's paying for taxes that he shouldn't be payi ng for. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. Let me open the public hearing, Mr. Brown. 15 --- PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BARBARA PALLOZZI MRS. PALLOZZI-My name is Barbara Pallozzi, and I live directly across the street from the Brown's property. MR. TURNER-Which house, ma'am? MRS. PALLOZZI-The one direct, the beige. MR. TURNER-Billy Moire's house? The old Billy Moire house? MRS. PALLOZZI-Yes. Although I'm generally against the subdivision of any land, I prefer the larger the better, the greener the better, what George proposes to do with that property, as far as two building lots is really, what he's going to end up with, on the second lot, is a lot that is much larger and will have more road frontage than most of the surrounding properties, okay. Now, I believe he's got about 180, 184, and if he goes 90/90 or 80 or whatever. I have 94 feet of road frontage, and it's one of the largest lots in the area. Harold's got 112 feet. The other properties are 61, 55, 58, and one of the reasons why he wants to do it, he thinks it's going to help him tax wise. I don't really think, in the long run, that it's going to do anything for his general taxes or his school taxes, but we live in the Queensbury/Quaker Road sewer district. The larger your lot, the more you pay, and a person who has a large lot is being penal ized, right now, by the Town of Queensbury. As an example, George is paying approximately $400 of his total assessment just based on the size of his lot. There are other properties in the immediate area that are only paying $62. It is a consideration for a lot of people. Some people are paying a total of $200 sewer assessment. It's not a tax. You can't even take it off your tax return. There are others who are paying $800 to $1,000 for the same service, and there's a lot of people who have thought about subdividing, but the properties are not conducive to subdividing, even though subdivisions have taken place. That's all I have to say. MR. KELLEY-I have a question for George. I was asking about the size of your lot, because I was curious of what your total sewer tax is, in other words, the assessment for the land, the usage, and, there's three criteria, whatever it is. MR. BROWN-Yes. It's approximately $600 and then there's the quarterly use on top of that. MR. TURNER-Your sewer tax is $600? MR. BROWN-Approximately, yes. MR. KELLEY-Plus a quarterly use tax? MR. BROWN-Plus a quarterly usage tax. That's just the assessment. MR. TURNER-Water tax. MR. KELLEY-Based on water consumption, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CORPUS-It's not a water bill. It's part of the sewer bill. It's based on water consumption. MR. TURNER-Yes, I know, but you get a water bill. You don't get a sewer bill. You get a water bill for the use of the water that you use every quarter. MS. CORPUS-Right. MR. TURNER-So, your sewer tax is $600? MR. BROWN-Approximately, at this moment. MRS. GOETZ-Do you get a regular water bill, too? MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. Thank you, George. Does anyone else wish to be heard in favor of the application? Opposed to the application? HAROLD LUFKIN MR. LUFKIN-My name's Harold Lufkin. I live on the south. The property borders on the south side of George's, and what I'm concerned about is, he said he wants to build a house on the lot, how far back off the road can you go? Is there a limit how far you can go? Because I'm concerned, way down, there's a lot of private lawns there and areas, most of my neighbors, especially on the south side, have pools and stuff. Is he going to build a house there where we lose our? 16 -- --- MR. TURNER-Seventy five feet he has to be back. MR. LUFKIN-But, I mean, how deep can you go? MR. TURNER-He can go any place, as long as he meets that front. MR. SICARD-Back 75 feet. MR. SHEA-He can go all the way to the back. MR. LUFKIN-He can go all the way back? MR. TURNER-He can build it in the middle of the lot. MRS. CRAYFORD-But he'd have to stay 20 feet from the rear property line. MR. TURNER-Right. MRS. GOETZ-You're concerned that it would infringe on your privacy in the back yard? MR. LUFKIN-Well, yes, more or less privacy, because it's all kind of private down there. In fact, all of my neighbors on the south, a couple, three of us have pools and so I think of the value, say we want to sell, would that hinder, you know, our property value. MR. BROWN-I wouldn't intend for a house to be set down in there. There's one that sits back there, now, and it's not so bad because it's off Meadowbrook, and it's further back there, but it woul dn' t be aesthetically conducive. The value would be, for us to divide the land, you know, I've divided it in half, ran one back there, if that was the intentions or even a possibility. I can't see that as a, I would have incorporated the 75 foot as an included variance, but it was one variance to separate the land. I expect another variance to place it within 75 feet, as is every other house on that side of the street. MR. TURNER-Inside the 75 feet? On this side of the 75 foot marker? MR. BROWN-Less than 75 feet from the street, yes, and keep the property lay lines as they are. MR. TURNER-How much fill do you figure you've got to bring in there to fill that lot, to bring it to road grade, to put a house on it? MR. BROWN-It is at road grade. MR. TURNER-I know that is, but you've got to fill behind what you've got there now in order to place a house on that lot. MR. BROWN-I wouldn't place a house 75 feet back. MR. TURNER-You might not get the variance. MR. BROWN-Aesthetically, I don't see any reason why a variance wouldn't be granted for a house being placed within 75 feet of the road, seeing every other house on that side of the road is within 75 feet of it. If they're going to come through and widen the road, they're going to move every other house first. I don't see the practicality in it. MR. TURNER-Well, the rules change, you know. Just because, you know, that you're there and the rule happened to hit you, that's no reason, sometimes, to grant a variance. MR. SHEA-We're not being asked for that variance tonight, anyway. MR. TURNER-We're not being asked for it, but I mean, as long as he's talking about it, I just thought I'd explain it. MR. SHEA-That would be something for the potential buyer of that property to make conditional. MR. TURNER-Right, well, he says he's going to build it. MR. BROWN-No. I made no distinction of that either, but I said that if the land was intended to be divided to put a house on the lower portion of the land, it wouldn't have been divided with the frontage like that, being divided in half. MRS. GOETZ-It's something that you should think about, though, before it gets to be a problem for you. 17 '---- MR. BROWN-I don't see the advantage to it, because there are, one would be isolated from the rest, the rest of the houses wouldn't have sufficient lands to build in the back. It's not a feasible consideration. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else that wishes to be heard in opposition? MARILYN GORMAN MRS. GORMAN-Hi. I'm Marilyn Gorman, and I live to the north of the proposed property, and I've created a letter because I'm not very good standing and talking ad lib. "I would like to recommend that the petition for a variance by George and Sherry Brown to subdivide the parcel located at 338 Ridge Road into two lots without the required lot width be denied for the following reasons:" Now some of these points have al ready been brought up, I realize. "Division would lessen the assessment and the resulting resale value of his own house located at the above address. Perhaps it would be more prudent to sell the parcel as a whole. Division of a nearly conforming lot into two nonconforming parcels is contrary to the Master Plan adopted by the Town of Queensbury. Division of the property would create the potential of three houses with the same address. My home has also had the designation of 338 Ridge Road for the 30 years that we've been in residence." And this has been brought up before. "There seems to be a discrepancy in the width of the Brown property. On the Map in the Zoning Office, 159 feet is crossed out to show 180, and in the Planning Office, it reads 159. The proposed lot would be inappropriate as a building lot because if its grade at the required 75 foot setback. It's quite a drop off, and the fact that there is no provision for sewer hook up. The sewer ends in my front yard and begins again in Mr. Brown's front yard." There is nothing in that part. There is no connecting point between those two manholes. "And finally, I have great concern over the type of structure that would be erected next to the properties that would adjoin it as illustrated by the enclosed photographs." And I've brought some pictures to show. This is the house in the back that would but the back yard. It's been under construction for five years, has never been completed. MRS. GOETZ-Is it on the property? MRS. GORMAN-It's on the property that would adjoin. MRS. GOETZ-Behind? MRS. GORMAN-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-What road is this? MRS. GORMAN-It's on Meadowbrook. MRS. GOETZ-Do they get to it from Meadowbrook? MRS. GORMAN-Yes, they do. MRS. GOETZ-Where on Meadowbrook, though? MR. TURNER-Right behind Bob Brown's house. MRS. GORMAN-Yes. The back yard is unseemly. There are two unlicensed vehicles on this property that would be in the back yard of the proposed lot. His present addition has been underway for two years. There's nothing more than a cement slab and a bunch of, and here is the view to the south of the proposed lot and I feel that these factors would not be conducive for the construction of a house that would be similar to the other dwellings in the neighborhood, and I can leave these with you, also my letter. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Anyone else wish to be heard, that's opposed to the application? BRYAN HARRISON MR. HARRISON-Hi. My name is Bryan Harrison. I 1 ive at 329 Ridge Road. I wanted to ask a couple of questions, one of which, I don't know that I can ask. The Planning Staff has exited the room. I heard the recommendation, but I having, for six years of my life, to write those recommendations, I couldn't figure out whether there was any real recommendation that came out of it, whether it was for it or against it, and I was wondering if she could sort of explain what her recommendation was, whether she was reconmending that you? MR. SHEA-They're not making recommendations. They are just illustrating the points that we will have to consider. MR. CARR-Yes. The Planning Department does not recommend approval or denial. They just point out issues. 18 MR. HARRISON-Things have changed. If it was my Staff, I woul d want them to address the issues and tell me how they came down, whether they were coming down on the side of the law for or whether they were coming down on the side of the law against. MR. CARR-Right, but the courts don't like to see the Staff tell the Board what their decision should be. That's the problem. MR. HARRISON-The courts like to see the law administrated, okay. MR. CARR-Right. MR. HARRISON-Believe me. The courts like to see the law administered, which means if you're going to administer a law, somebody has to give you some criteria to administer it. MR. CARR-And that's what they're doing is, they're giving us the criteria, and we're the bOdy that has to make the decision. MR. HARRISON-Well, anybody can stand there and read to you, sir, practical difficulty is as follows, okay. What I'm interested in is someone saying, in my experience as a Planner, it appears to me the following. One of the key issues that I would want to see addressed, for instance, is when was the Zoning Ordinance adopted and when was the property purchased. Are we having a self created hardship, or, you know, circumstances, timing, things change. The gentleman, you know, obviously had good intentions when he applied for a building permit and got as far as the foundation, and a year later, you know, it looks like hell, but, so something's happened that's changed that situation. As unfortunate as that may be, it creates a real problem. So, maybe the solution to the problem is something other than aggravating it by dividing the place in two and saying, okay, now we're going to come in and do this, make the same mistake twice, or attempt to make the same mistake twice, but the real issue for me woul d be, when was the property purchased, and when was the Ordi nance adopted? I woul d want to know that if I was sitting where you are, because, you know, how many people are going to come in, during the year, and waste your time, you know, I mean, you've only got so much time that you can spend addressing these issues and if a guy's, a self created hardship, that's something that should be pointed out by Staff, and in my opinion, if you've got someone who's coming in after the adoption of the Ordinance, after they have purchased the property, they've been forewarned. They know, okay. The other issue, other than traffi c, that you have to deal with, and we're all concerned with traffi c, but there was traffic on Ridge Road when we brought the property in, and bel ieve me, nobody's paying the tax bill that I'm paying, because I'm trying to maintain open space. It's something that I've decided I wanted to do, and, boy, every year I ask myself the question, why am I doing it. MR. TURNER-How big is your lot, Bryan, road frontage? MR. HARRISON-Well, I've got 300+ feet of frontage. MR. TURNER-Okay, so that's one of the biggest lots there. MR. HARRISON-So, my tax bill, this year, has cl imbed through $1,000, okay, and I use about, my water consumption is extremely low. So, I have a tough time wondering why, but without dealing with that issue, well, if you're going to deal with the issue of sewer and say, well, gee, one more lot would help us, one more lot isn't going to do squat, you know. What really is needed with a system, when they came down Ridge Road, when you formed the district, there was one good reason for coming down Ridge Road, and that was to connect the new system with the old system. Once you found out that you couldn't connect to the old system, well, gee, then it was too late. Then you had to go back and have a referendum to change it and knock that piece of Ridge Road out. So, instead what you have is a line that comes down one line, crosses under and then goes back to the other side. You've got two sewer lines on Ridge Road. That's what created the problem, and if you have ten new lots, it isn't going to have any real effect on what's going on, as far as the bill s we're paying on sewer. If you had a bunch of high density apartments go in, yes, it would have an impact. One unit isn't going to mean a thi ng, but the key issue for me really is, and the thi ng that I was always aggravated by was there was always loads of people, it was generally up in Lake George, people coming in with self created hardships. Something happened in their life and now, suddenly, they want your laws to adjust to their circumstance, and that's unfortunate, and I'm sorry things change, but the fact of the matter is, I believe that the laws existed when the gentleman purchased his property, and I don't think there's any real reason, at this point, to suggest that when someone goes and buys a piece of property and they have to get all these opinions and they have to be filed, but they don't know what's going on. I think further evidence of this is the attempt to expand a unit. When you go to expand a unit, you're not doing it because you have a great idea, you're going to subdivide off your yard. You're probably doing it to enhance your own living environment, okay, and for some reason that can't be completed, and I'll agree with him, it doesn't look real great and you've got people who are coming in and probably turning around in that little thing that he's got there next to his house, but there's a neighborhood issue, I think, that's at stake as well, here, and I think when you've got the neighbors that come forth and say, look, you know, this is the way it is. When you know that someone is coming to you with a request, and the request post dates the adoption of the law, that the purchase of the property post dates that adoption, I think you're dealing with an issue that the hardship preexisted the situation. It's a self created practical difficulty, and the buyer, at that point, should have understood that before they entered into the transaction. 19 MR. TURNER-Okay. Any questions of Mr. Harrison? None? Okay. MR. BROWN-May I reply? Yes. I may be a common person, but this did not come about, and I'm not talking about personal hardships. This was a concept that I had when I first bought the property. Your house sits, approximately, in the center of yours, and mine does not. Yours, in the lay of the land, it looks fine. I'm glad that you can afford that extra bill and you have all that green property. I'm not saying take the green away. I'm saying put the house, I know the house would be aesthetically acceptable in that position. It's not on the hardships that I have encountered in the last year that are conducive to this variance. This variance was intended before that. It was slated before that. I got the applications before I ran into my personal hardships, as you've repeated several times. I don't connect the two, whereas you seem to connect it several times. MRS. GOETZ-Mr. Brown, when did you purchase the property? MR. BROWN-Three years ago. A little over three years ago. MRS. GOETZ-The day, do you remember? MR. BROWN-Yes. It was on October, approximately almost three years ago, the closing. MR. TURNER-Was it '88 or '89? MR. BROWN-'88, and variances are passed out every day. It's not like, you know, because something is existing that nothing is done about it. I don't follow your train of thought there, either. I'm a bit lost on that. MRS. GOETZ-Well, see, the new Zoning Ordinance went into effect in October of 1988. So, you see, you were in that transitional period. MR. BROWN-I was right on that transition period, yes. When I realized, I was the one who realized that there was a mistake on the property. It wasn't 159, and I said, you know, the way the house sits, there's a vacant lot there. Aesthetically, everything else, there's a garage down behind it. There should be a garage, here, on this side, because I've been held up on it. I don't think that, if it was a matter, and you could bring it before a court and say that the one draws a 1 ine to the other one. I'm claiming this, personally, on a property hardship, not a personal hardship. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions? Does that conclude your statement, for now? Okay. Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition? BOB KELLY MR. KELLY-My name is Bob Kelly. I live at 340 Ridge, next to Mrs. Gorman. I pretty much agree with everything she had to say. The only other thing I can think about is the residence that it is and the traffic on Ridge Road. The traffic is unbelievable and we just don't need another residence. That's at the peak of the hill. Traffic comes up from Quaker and comes up from the City and that's a very bad place to get in and out of with cars and I'd just hate to see another family in there with young kids or whatever, trying to get out onto Ridge Road, and the traffic is unbelievable now, and one more house is just going to make it that much worse. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition to the application? ELIZABETH HURLEY MRS. HURLEY-I am Elizabeth Hurley, 342 Ridge Road, and I question this man asking for a variance when he hasn't had a survey done on the land, yet, and there is question about the measurements of his land. I also agree with what Mrs. Gorman has said, and that's all I have to say. MR. TURNER-How big is your lot, Mrs. Hurley? MRS. HURLEY-75 by 277. MR. TURNER-Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition to the application? All right. Mr. Brown, do you have any further statement? MR. BROWN-Other than the things that I've stated and, anything that's been stated against it, obviously, I can't see the weight in it. MR. TURNER-Let me ask you a question. When you bought the house in '88, did you know that the zone was changed? MR. BROWN-No. I wasn't aware of that. 20 MR. TURNER-Did you complete the transaction, you said in October? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. TURNER-Are you sure you completed it in October? MR. BROWN-The closing was in October. MR. TURNER-The end of October, the middle of October, when? MR. BROWN-I believe it was in the beginning of October. I think the 11th is, as I said, it's right around a three month period from the time we arrived back in the State. MR. TURNER-You poured the garage in December, right? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. TURNER-The coldest day of the year. MR. BROWN-Yes, but that's a personal hardship. MR. TURNER-And that was in December of '88, or of '89? MR. BROWN-No, actually, I think it was in November. It might have been December. Yes, it was quite an extensive encounter. MR. TURNER-My question is, again, did you know the zone changed when you bought the property? MR. BROWN-No. It wasn't an issue at that point. I didn't realize, because I know that when I recognized that it was 180 wide instead of 159, I thought, I said, this house sits over here, and at that time the real estate agent had said, she looked into it and said there was a mistake on the 1 isting, and I'd already made a commitment on the property and several other people had voiced interest after they re-listed it, but I wasn't aware when the zoning had changed on it, no. MR. TURNER-And you claim your initial intent was to buy the property and subdivide it? That was your initial intent, or did you just buy the property and then think about subdividing it afterwards? MR. BROWN-My initial, well, I bought it because I needed the house, but I also saw the way it set. It set over on one side, that there was another lot there, yes. MR. CARR-When you bought the property, what was it zoned, or what did you think it was zoned? MR. BROWN-Single family residential. MR. CARR-What about lot width and stuff? I mean, you had looked into that before or? MR. BROWN-Well, no, I hadn't paid a whole lot of attention because I figured a variance would be applied for anyhow. I fi gured withi n reasonable cons i derati ons, and the nei ghborhood and so forth, that I didn't project to see any problem in it. MRS. GOETZ-Many times people will come in and seek the variance before the final purchase of the property, just to make sure that things are going to go the way they hoped. MR. BROWN-Yes, sometimes, yes. MRS. GOETZ-So, you just can't assume that you're going to be getting a variance. MR. BROWN-No. You can't assume that you can and you can't assume that you can't. You look at things from a practical standpoint, from a realistic viewpoint. I can fit myself in anyone else's shoes and look at it and still say, hey. MR. TURNER-Anyone else wish to be heard? Okay. Public hearing's closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. GOETZ-I'm not sure if I mentioned the Warren County Planning Board returned just saying, "No County Impact". MR. TURNER-Any discussion? MR. KELLEY-Can anybody tell me what the practical difficulty is? 21 MR. TURNER-There isn't any. He bought himself a hardship. I guess I'd have to say to you that if there was any practical difficulty, he should have checked and found out if there was a zone change, and if it was in his mind to subdivide that property, down the road, he should have appl ied for the variance either before he bought the property with the option to buy it if the variance was approved, and not wait until everything is in order and then come in and ask us to chop it up. MR. KELLEY-He's not saying that it's a financial hardship. It's just something that he wants to do. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-And we're saying it doesn't meet any of the criteria. MR. TURNER-The real problem with that property is that lot that's in the front drops right off just like, that's probably about a 12 foot drop and he's got to bring fill in there to build anything there anyway. So, I mean, there's a financial consideration right away. If he gets the subdivision, he's got to start filling before he can do anything. So, that increases the price of the house right away, and you've got a lot that's 400 feet, I guess on the map here, deep. MRS. GOETZ-Yes, I mean, you'd be hard pressed to grant a front variance with that deep a piece of property, wouldn't we, if it came down the line in the future? MR. TURNER-Yes, I would say so. I don't know. What do you think? MRS. EGGLESTON-I just, you know, if what was there was well kept. Maybe I shouldn't look at it from that point of view, but I can't see creating another mess. I think I look at this as not, I mean, if I was across the street from it, I wouldn't be in favor of putting another section that looked just like it. I really, I can't think of a good reason for dividing the lot, really, just because you want to. That's just my own. MR. TURNER-Michael, do you have any comments? MR. SHEA-I don't think the applicant has thoroughly explained to us the reason, or the eminent reason why this would benefit him or why he is in a position where it has to be done, i.e. economic hardship. That hasn't been evidenced, as yet, and even if it were, I think it would probably be the consensus of this Board that it may not be to his benefit, given the fact that the land would require substantial economic improvement to make it marketable in any case. I get a sense of why he may want to do it, although it hasn't been voiced overtly, but I'm not sure it's really the answer to his problem. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. MR. TURNER-I think the other consideration you have to take into account is the back of the property, as it slopes down, it's very wet down in there. In the spring, it's awful wet. It's clay. The water lays on top of the ground. That whole field from Ridge Road to the back is all clay. There's one sandy loam on the left hand side, or on the right hand side, on the little knoll in the back, way to the back, but that's the only part that's got any loam on it. MRS. EGGLESTON-I guess I just struggle with a good reason to do it. I don't see, really, a good reason for. MRS. GOETZ-Well, you have to prove it by the criteria. MR. TURNER-Okay. Do we have some letters to read? MRS. GOETZ-There's one. There's a letter from James and Alma Whitney, "Thank you for the notice of public hearing. We will be unable to attend this hearing, but would like to make the following comments: We are assuming that the parcel of land that is 179 feet wide on the Ridge Road side will be divided in half equall ing two lots 89.5 feet wide each. The 179 feet is what is shown on the Tax Maps. If this is correct, this width is wider than our lot and many more of the adjacent lots. We feel that if a new home was planned and constructed on this proposed new lot, it would add to the value of our neighborhood. It is our concern that the reason for this appl ication is to allow the sale of the lot for some reason other than the construction of a new home, and also if a new home is constructed, we are concerned that it would be under the control of the present owners. Our concern is that if this project was under the control of the present owners, that it would possibly turn into one more uncompleted project. Since the home existing upon the premises has been occupied by the owners, the upkeep and appearance have steadily gone downhill from unsightly, uncompleted construction projects, to storage of construction materials, trailers, and old travel buses. We, as owners and occupants of 334 Ridge Road, must voice our thoughts in opposition to this appl ication for a zoning variance due to our concerns that another uncompleted, unsightly project may occur and thus devaluate our property. Thank you for this opportunity to respond." MR. TURNER-Mr. Brown, how many vehicles do you have in the back, there? Two, right? Two down in back of the barn? 22 MR. BROWN-I have a trailer and a motor home. They sit directly behind the garage. I haven't had that back mowed this year, and, as I say, my construction projects were halted, and that's a personal hardship and I don't see that that has any bearing on the relevancy. I have undergone a separation, and, needless to say, I've been feeling a little bit under the weather for the last year. However, depending upon how much more unreasonable encounters that I seem to, you know, I'm a reasonable person. I think that on the basis of real ity, and not someone's personal impressions. I'm not running a park, you know, for other people. My house sits in there, as I explained in the beginning. It's been a little difficult to assess the idea of putting more money into my house when I have a 1 iabil ity of a large piece of property that I'm sitting right on the edge of. I have a turn around area. I have a lot there which, for all intents and purposes, would be considered, and I feel, aesthetically, would increase the value of my house. I have a lot of plans, but if I get stonewalled, why should I put in $100,000, so to speak, for improvements into my land, when everyone else can just cry about all the problems. One hand has to look at the other. You have to look at it from both sides, and I intended on, my house sits lower than the road. I intended on terracing it, putting stone wall in there, but it wouldn't go all the way across. That other lot doesn't look like it's even part of mine. What is it, you know, just parking for the neighborhood that I pay for? A turn around for everyone coming down the street, which creates more traffic? It's on the peak of the hill which would be the safest place for an entrance. MR. TURNER-But that was a very viable house when you bought it. There wasn't too much wrong with that house when you bought it. MR. BROWN-There wasn't too much wrong with that house when I bought it? MR. TURNER-No. It was well kept. MR. BROWN-I've pulled the carpets up and I've done extensive wood work in there. I've put in Town sewer and Town water. MR. TURNER-But that would have had to have been done anyway. MR. BROWN-60 Amp service in there. The house has no insulation. MR. TURNER-That's right. It was built in 1920. MR. BROWN-Yes. It was built well, but there is need of. MR. TURNER-There was insulation in the attic. MR. BROWN-Yes. There's extensive work that could be done on that house. MR. TURNER-Yes, you can do extensive work on it, but that isn't the case, here. MR. BROWN-What is the case? MR. TURNER-Well, you've let the property run down. MR. BROWN-I don't see the bearing. I don't see the relativity. MR. TURNER-Well, it has. That was a nice house at one time. MR. CARR-But I think we've got to also look at the purposes of the Ordinance and what this variance is all about and it's about a subdivision of a piece of property that, three years ago, the Town has said, this is being a real problem, and we have to address that problem, and you may say, well, it's only one lot, but that's how problems get solved, one thing at a time. MR. BROWN-Okay. The problem you're saying is traffic, right? MR. CARR-The problem I'm saying is the Town has made a determination that on certain streets within the Town, that a certain amount of road frontage is required so that not so many road cuts are made on those streets which would increase. MR. BROWN-The road cuts are already there. MRS. GOETZ-But not on that piece of property. MR. CARR-But not on that piece of property. MR. BROWN-Yes, they are. That is one continuous road cut. MR. CARR-Well, it's not supposed to be. What the Town has said. MR. BROWN-It was, and it's been that way. 23 MR. CARR-All I'm saying is that the Town has said they don't want to put too many driveways to homes and residences on these streets. They've set some standards by which the lot width has to be, and, really, there hasn't been a showing as to why, in this case, that is unreasonable. MR. BROWN-I don't see that there hasn't been a showing. As I said, there's already a road cut there. The property is being used, excessively, for turning around. Do you deny that? Do you want to do a traffic count on it? You're saying that it's not and I'm saying it is. I live there. I know. MR. CARR-So, putting a house there is just going to make it a driveway. MR. BROWN-It's not going to make it any more traffic than it already is there, even less. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. BROWN-I'm sorry, that is a fact. MR. TURNER-All right. Any further questions of Mr. Brown? MRS. GOETZ-I'd just like to say that, when we say that the Town required larger frontage on the roads, what it was was the people in the Town, when they came to all the meetings, the neighborhood meetings, before the new Master Plan was written, the people said that they saw traffic problems and they wanted the Town to draw up these regulations. So, just as background. tÐTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-1991 GEORGE & SHERRY BROlIN, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: There are no special conditions applying to this property and not applying generally to other properties in the neighborhood. Strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings. I don't believe that a practical difficulty has been demonstrated. Variance would be materially detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance, and the request is not the minimum relief. Duly adopted this 28th day of August, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. BROWN-I do have a right of appeal, correct? MR. TURNER-Yes, you do. You have to file within 30 days. MR. BROWN-Thirty days? MR. TURNER-Yes, before 30 days are up. AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-1991 TYPE II lIR-lA DR. AL KRISTENSEN OIlIER: SAtE AS ABOVE FITZGERALD ROAD FOR AN ADDITION OF A 28 FT. BY 28 FT. STRUCTURE WHICH DOES NOT tEET THE 75 FT. SHORELINE SETBACKS, THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS, AND IS AN EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING USE. (WARREN coom PLANNING) TAX IMP NO. 41-1-25 LOT SIZE: 0.31 ACRES SECTION 179-16 SECTION 179-79 SECTION 179-60 DANIEL BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 66-1991, Dr. Al Kristensen, August 22, 1991, Meeting Date: August 28, 1991 "The request is for an addition of 751 sq. ft. of living area. The plan indicates that a piece of property to the west of the property will be added to it. To the east is what is designated as a vacant lot in Mrs. Kristensen's name. The lot contains a portion of the accessway to the Kristensen home and a wooden deck and dock which extend from Lot A. The terrain is extremely steep. The appl icant has terraced down to the water and much of the 1 and has buil ding constraints due to the slope. Lot A is intensely developed from the driveway to the lake front and out into the lake. The appl icant is requesting a variance from the shorel ine setback and the side yard setbacks. The proposed structure appears to be 29 feet from the lake at its closest point. Glen Lake is a Critical Environmental Area. The Warren County Planning Board approved with the condition that the property to the west be purchased and the property to the east be combined with the existing property owned by the applicant. The applicant indicates that the lot size is about a third of an acre. The combination of Lots C, A, and B required by Warren County would bring the lot size to ±22,178 sq. ft. which would still be below the requirement of one acre. If Lot B were added to the parcel, it would eliminate the need for a side yard setback. This appl ication was reviewed with regard to the criteria for an Area Variance: 24 1. Are there special conditions applying to this property or building, and not applying generally to other properties or buildings in the neighborhood? The property is on a steep incline and has limited areas which can be developed. This is the same situation which exists in the neighborhood, however, the small lots were meant to have summer camps and not designed for year round residences. The soil conditions, slopes, and proximity to the lakeshore would most likely prohibit development of this area if today's standards had to be strictly adhered to. Glen Lake is a resource which has generated a lot of concern by the residents. 2. Would the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings? The applicant currently has the full use of the property for residential purposes. 3. Would the strict appl ication of the dimensional requirements result in a specified practical difficulty? The topography does create limitations on the property. The applicant already has substantially developed the lot which is undersized to begin with. 4. Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance, or to property in the district? The variance request is to reduce the permeable area in an area which has been designated as needing protection. The shorel ine setback provisions of the Ordinance were prepared to help prevent erosion, siltation, and pollution from impacting water bodies. The reduction of those setbacks in an area with steep slopes does create a situation which would be materially detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance. 5. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? The appl icant would not need a side yard variance if Lot B was joined to A and C. It does not appear that an addition could be made at the back of the house because of the slopes. At the east, a retaining wall would prohibit construction. Seven hundred and fifty one square feet of additional living area on this particular lot may be excessive given the constraints. The Board may want to further discuss what the practical difficulty is and what "minimal relief" would be." MRS. GOETZ-And the Warren County Planning Board approved, but "with the condition that property to the west be purchased and the property to the east be combined with the existing property owned by the applicant." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Barber. MR. BARBER-My name is Daniel Barber, for Dr. Kristensen. MR. CARR-Is Dr. Kristensen here? MR. BARBER-No, he's not. MR. CARR-Do you know, I mean, what are his intentions with Lots A, B, and C? MR. BARBER-Yes. I can represent him on everything. We are going to combine Lot B, which is in his wife's name, okay, and we're purchasing 25 feet to the west and we would combine, to make it a viable project, the 50 feet to the east, also. MR. CARR-Okay. Is that Lot C? MR. BARBER-That would be Lot B. Lot B would be the 50 feet to the east. MR. CARR-Okay, and he's purchasing that, did you say? MR. BARBER-No. He owns that. His wife owns that, but we would combine that for the project. MR. CARR-Okay. Now, what's this Lot C? That's the one to the west? MR. BARBER-Okay. The one to the west, we are purchasing 25 feet to the west to make it meet the requirements of the 20 foot. MR. CARR-Okay. Now, that, so, you don't need a side yard setback? MR. BARBER-No. We don't. That's why we're asking for the variance, contingent, this is in litigation. It's all agreed upon, the sale of this property, but we're just waiting for the attorneys to transfer the property. MR. CARR-Did you say it's in litigation or is it just under contract? MR. BARBER-Under contract, yes. MR. CARR-Okay. Litigation takes a lot longer. MR. BARBER-Yes, of course. The only problem we have is the setback from the lake, okay, which there's no way that you could, obviously, build up on the slope, and we're not adding bedrooms. We're adding one bath. We're taking a bedroom out of the basement, which is an open basement, okay. MR. TURNER-Toward the lake side? 25 MR. BARBER-Yes, facing the lake, a sl iding glass door and windows. This was built way back in '75. I did the project in '75, and we've added everything since those years. That would come out, he's going to make a larger, like a rec room down there, and then we're just putting the three bedrooms to the west and adding a bathroom, but no bedrooms. We would like to add the properties, like I discussed. MR. TURNER-This is going to be a year round home, then, right? MR. BARBER-It's going to remain like it is, actually, in his life. I can't answer that question in the future. Not now it's not. MR. TURNER-All right. You say the existing building is a two story frame house, all right. What's upstairs? MR. BARBER-Upstairs, the upstairs is a 24 by 28, the building, okay, so it's a very small structure. So, it's very difficult to use the property and that's why we feel it's a hardship, because you can't use the building, per se, what it should be used for, for living. So, we're moving that into a kitchen, like it shows on the print, okay, a kitchen and living area. Where it shows dining, that's like, that's a full year round porch which was built in late '82, but it's totally insulated and everything, but right now, in the living area to the west, in the front corner towards the lake, there's the kitchen and there's a small dining area and there's two bedrooms back where it says kitchen now, with a small bath in there, and that would be taken out, moved to the west, and just increasing the 1 iving area, per see MR. TURNER-All right. There's one complete bathroom in the existing building? MR. BARBER-There's a complete bath up and a half bath down. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. GOETZ-But you're adding another bath upstairs? MR. BARBER-We're adding a bath, but not, just for the Master Bedroom. MRS. GOETZ-But it is adding a complete bath? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. TURNER-Two. MR. BARBER-We're taking out one bath. MR. TURNER-Yes, but you're adding a full one versus a half one? MR. BARBER-No. We I re taking out a full bath upstai rs, and adding, yes, a full bath. There wi 11 be two baths in there. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. BARBER-The bedrooms remain the same. MR. KELLEY-Dan, you said downstairs, there was, what, bedrooms downstairs now? MR. BARBER-There was one bedroom down, yes, now, downstairs. MR. KELLEY-All right, and you're going to pretty much eliminate that? MR. BARBER-That will be totally el iminated and made into a recreation room that you can wal k right off the patio, the downstairs patio, to the docks. MR. KELLEY-Al and Mary Ellen, how many kids do they have? MRS. GOETZ-Four. MR. BARBER-Four children. Two are in college, and they have two young children, in high school basically. MR. KELLEY-What, do they just go over and, mainly, stay for the summer? MR. BARBER-Yes. They stay there, like, two months. MR. KELLEY-Because their house is not that far away, right? 26 MR. BARBER-No. Their house is, like, Sherwood Acres is a mile away. MRS. GOETZ-But I think we have to think about it as, you know, they may not own this forever, so we can't think about this particular family, it doesn't seem. MR. SICARD-What's the variance for? MR. KELLEY-Well, the only variance he's after is the shoreline setback. MR. TURNER-So, what you're saying, Dan, is that the two bedrooms that are in the existing camp are about 12 by 12? MR. BARBER-They're even smaller than that. MR. TURNER-Are they? MR. BARBER-With the partitions, yes. Wait a minute. In the new area, you mean? MR. TURNER-No. In the old area. I'm just taking off where the, you said the bedrooms are where the kitchen is. MR. BARBER-Yes, but there was a bathroom there. So, they're smaller than that. There's a bathroom that sits right between. MR. TURNER-All right. So, they're probably 12 by 10? MR. BARBER-Yes, no more than that. No, 11 by 10. MR. TURNER-11 by 10? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-I'm just looking at the square footage of the thing. If you looked at it without the addition, okay, you've got the 24 by 28 is, what, 672 square feet, MR. TURNER-And then you've got a downstairs. MR. KELLEY-All right. Let me ask Dan a question. Dan, you know the enclosed porch? Is that over an enclosed foundation below, or is that out over, open? MR. BARBER-Yes, it's totally open, yes. MR. KELLEY-Okay. So, there's no basement underneath that porch? MR. BARBER-No. There's posts down there, yes. MR. KELLEY-Okay. So, you've got 672, 672, and then you've got 322. MR. BARBER-Well, that's 12 by 28, that structure, and the other one's 24 by 28. MR. KELLEY-Without the new addition, it would be 666 square feet, util izing the whole basement and everything. MR. CARR-Per floor? MR. KELLEY-That would be the basement level and, well, this upstairs, what they're calling existing building living area and that dining area. MRS. EGGLESTON-And then the second floor, including that as well, living area, and up? MR. KELLEY-Well, the living area and the dining area is the second floor. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. CARR-Okay, and that's how many square feet? MR. KELLEY-So, they're calling the basement the first floor, and then the upper level, the second floor, is, this part of the plan it says living area. This shows kitchen and dining room, and then they've got this dining room out front which is really and enclosed porch. You add all of those things together, you've got 1666 square feet, roughly. MR. TURNER-Yes. 27 MR. KELLEY-And then to that he wants to add 751 more. MR. CARR-So, that's not a 50 percent expansion. MR. KELLEY-No. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARR-So, really the only variance we're talking about is the shoreline setback. MR. TURNER-Shoreline setback. MR. KELLEY-Shoreline setback. So, it becomes a 2,417 square foot house. MR. CARR-Mr. Barber, you said you had done all the additions. This enclosed frame porch and the two story frame house, that was what was originally built back in '75? MR. BARBER-'75, and then the porch was done in '82. MR. CARR-So, now we've got something else, though. The porch, you've got to take the porch off of that and add it to an expansion. Our interpretation of the rule was that we take the original house and then add all the additions to it over the years to come up with whether or not it has meet the 50 percent criteria. In which case, the original house was built, the 24 by 28, the porch was added in '82. So, that's one expansion, and now this is the second expansion. MRS. CRAYFORD-Does a porch count as an expansion? I think it's an interior. MR. CARR-Well, we're counting it as the gross floor area. So, if we don't count it as an expansion, I mean, you can't have it, you've got to have it one way or the other. It's either part of the gross floor area, and you count it as the expansion, or it's not part of the gross floor area, and you don't count it as part of the expansion. MRS. CRAYFORD-I don't think it includes porches in gross floor area. MR. KELLEY-Yes, but this is an enclosed porch that's now a living area. MR. SHEA-This is living space. MRS. EGGLESTON-This is an enclosed porch. MR. CARR-All right. So, that was Number One Expansion. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. MR. TURNER-If it's living space, it counts as living space. MR. SHEA-And he counted it. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, Jeff, take that off. MR. KELLEY-All right. So, if you took the original building, it was 1344 square feet, counting the basement level and the upper level. Now, you're saying it's 50 percent expansion. That would 672 more? MR. CARR-Yes. So, you've got to add the. MR. KELLEY-So, you've got to add the porch and this other thing. So, he's over 50 percent. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-So, he'd just need a variance from that Section of the Ordinance, right, Lee? MRS. YORK-Well, you're correct. It just wasn't advertised. MS. CORPUS-Here it is. It's fine. MRS. CRAYFORD-It was advertised for an expansion of a nonconforming use. MRS. YORK-Right. MRS. CRAYFORD-So, it's all set, then. 28 MR. CARR-I just wanted to make sure we got them all. MR. TURNER-Was it advertised? MRS. CRAYFORD-It was advertised for expansion of a nonconforming use. MR. KELLEY-Dan, what year did you say you did the original remodeling? MR. BARBER- '75. MR. CARR-Yes. I mean, even with the expansions on the property, as long as they're agreeing to increase the square footage, I don't think it's an over use of the property. If it was just this little lot, then I think we've got a problem, but, I mean, if they've already agreed that they're going to combine B and A and buy C and, that's going to make it a decent sized lot, at that point. MR. BARBER-Because the living quarters are very small in this place, very small. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. KELLEY-We're talking about a lake front lot with 150 feet. MR. CARR-You don't get that too often on Glen Lake. MR. BARBER-He ought to be entitled to more than 24 by 28. MR. CARR-I agree. MR. KELLEY-That's not much more than a garage. We've built garages bigger than that, a lot of them. MR. TURNER-Dan, one question. Is that frame shed that you've got there, is that existing? I looked at it, but I didn't recall seeing it? MR. BARBER-No. MR. TURNER-That's proposed, right? MR. BARBER-That's something that's been added in. I'm not responsible for that. It's just for tools and, that's one of those things they buy from, like, Garden Time, I think it came from, the frame shed in the back. MR. TURNER-Is it 10 by 12? MR. BARBER-Whatever it scales out to. MR. TURNER-It scales off 10 by, that's 120 square feet. MR. BARBER-That's a movable structure. MR. TURNER-Yes. You're all right there, because you're far enough away from the side line. MR. KELLEY-Dan, do you know anything about either of the properties on either side of it, as to what their lot sizes are? MR. BARBER-You're talking Newton, to the east, you mean? MR. KELLEY-Right. MR. BARBER-As far as I know, now, the lot to the west, I do. That was, the 25 feet that he's buying is, actually, of the original land that the people that Kristensen bought this from, okay, LaVoy, and that was sold, right around the early 70's, to Price and he's going to sell it back, but there's a 50 foot lot there, to the west. MR. KELLEY-In other words, the Price's lot is, even if they sell the 25 feet, they've got 50 feet left? MR. CARR-Jeff, Mr. Price is in the audience. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. CARR-You may want to ask him. MR. KELLEY-Okay. 29 MR. TURNER-Mr. Price, can you, as long as the question's alive, do you want to address that, the issue of your lot, to the west? BARRETT PRICE MR. PRICE-I'm Barrett Price, Fitzgerald Road, Glen Lake. MR. TURNER-How much property are you going to have left when you sell off the 25 feet? MR. PRICE-256 feet. MR. TURNER-Okay. When I open the public hearing, we can address the other issue. MR. PRICE-Okay. MR. KELLEY-Dan, okay, we'll go back to Newton. Do you have any idea what lot size the Newton property is? MR. BARBER-Well, he's got right here, on the back, here, he's got 49.57 on the back side. Do you see it, here? MR. KELLEY-Okay. And then where it says, 124. 76 to Bathy marker? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Is that? MR. BARBER-No. That's not Newton, no. MR. KELLEY-That's somebody else. MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-I'm sure you're familiar with other properties in that area. Do they tend to be large lots of this 150-200, or are there a lot of 50 footers? MR. BARBER-No. They're 50 foot, generally, yes. MR. KELLEY-So, this lot and Mr. Price's lot tend to be extremely large by comparison to everybody else? MR. BARBER-Yes, correct. Everything to the east, pretty much, is 50 foot, except for, like, O'Connor's is not, but near here, yes. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. TURNER-Any other questions? Okay. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BARRETT PRICE MR. PRICE-As I said a few minutes ago, I am in support of the application. I know Dr. Al. I know Dan, and I see no reason why, I've seen the plans and so forth, I see no reason why, after we set our contract up, we're negotiating, now, on the price, that the application. MR. TURNER-How far away from the proposed sale of the 25 feet is your camp from that line? MR. PRICE-I'm at the very other end. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. PRICE-So, it's over 200 feet. My original camp was 50, then I bought 80, and then I bought 150. MR. TURNER-Okay. All right. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further discussion? I think he satisfied the practical difficulty. MR. KELLEY-Are you talking about from shoreline setback? 30 MR. TURNER-Yes. I don't have a problem with that. The size of the structure on the small lot, do you have a problem with that? MR. KELLEY-I think I'd agree with Bruce. I don't think it's over sized for the lot. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. GOETZ-I think we should have an affidavit brought in that all the properties have been combined into one, at some point. MR. CARR-Well, we don't have to do, because we aren't glvlng him a side yard setback, for one, so he can't build without having that property, and he won't have his Warren County Planning approval because they made it expressly contingent, didn't they? MS. CORPUS-No. That's, no. I would recommend, if the Board is concerned with that, to make this approval conditional upon the combination of the three lots. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MR. CARR-Yes. I would say, I just don't think we need an affidavit. I mean, it's going to be done or it's not. MRS. GOETZ-Right, because if it's not done, then we have a side line problem. MR. TURNER-All the Building Department would need would be the Proof of Transfer. MR. CARR-Right. MR. TURNER-When they come for a permit, bring the Proof of Transfer. That's all. Okay. Motion's in order, if there's no further discussion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-1991 DR. AL KRISTENSEN, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: And grant the applicant a variance of 46 feet from the required 75 foot shoreline setback, conditioned on the happening of two events. The first event would be the transfer of the property located to the east, owned by Mary Ellen Kristensen, to the applicant, and the second condition would be the transfer of the 25 foot strip currently owned by Mr. Price, immediately to the west of the property, to the appl i cant. The granti ng of thi s vari ance is not detrimental to the purposes of the Ordi nance, nor will it create a structure that is substantially different than those in the area. That's also granting the appl icant rel ief for a more than 50 percent expansion of a nonconforming residential structure. This variance will have no detrimental effect on public facilities or services and it is a minimum relief necessary to alleviate the difficulty indicated by the applicant's agent. Duly adopted this 28th day of August, 1991, by the following vote: MS. CORPUS-Mr. Carr, I noticed that there's an error in the 1 isting of the SEQRA type. Because of the 50 percent expansion, it's an Unlisted, rather than a Type II, and SEQRA should be done. MRS. YORK-It should be, also, a Long Form, because it now becomes a Type I Action. MR. TURNER-In the Critical Environmental Area. MS. CORPUS-Right. MRS. YORK-So, you don't have a Long Form. MS. CORPUS-Do we have a Long Form somewhere? MRS. YORK-I don't have one with me. MR. TURNER-They've got to fill it out. MRS. YORK-Yes, they haven't filled out anything. MR. TURNER-The applicant has to fill out the Long Form. So, I would suggest that we, maybe since the property's in transition and you can't do anything anyway, that we table the motion until we get the Long Form filled out and we can act on the motion at the next meeting. MR. CARR-We'll hear it then. 31 MRS. GOETZ-We'll hear it then. MR. TURNER-Okay. Do you want to move to table? MRS. CRAYFORD-Do you understand what happened? MR. BARBER-Basically, yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-Okay. MR. BARBER-We come in and get a Long Form and fill it out and submit it, for next month, you mean? MR. TURNER-Yes, and then we'll just entertain the motion. MRS. YORK-Since today was the application deadline, would this Board like to extend the deadline for this particular application? MR. CARR-One week? MR. TURNER-One week. Can you get it in in a week, Dan? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. tÐTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-1991 DR. AL KRISTENSEN, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: And extend application deadline for a period of one week, for the submittal of the Long Form EAF. Duly adopted this 28th day of August, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MRS. YORK-It seems to have been the policy of this Board, in the past, that the Planning Board look over the Long Forms. MS. CORPUS-Is this is a coordinated review? There is no longer a necessity to go before the Planning Board. MRS. YORK-It is a coordinated review, because it's an expansion of a nonconforming use. MS. CORPUS-That no longer goes to the Planning Board. MRS. CRAYFORD-In the Critical Environmental Area it does. MRS. YORK-It's in a Critical Environmental Area, so it does require the coordinated review. MS. CORPUS-Well, that's the option of this Board. MR. CARR-Well, could we just make ourselves Lead Agency for this application? MRS. YORK-Well, we still have to ask the Planning Board if they have a problem with that. MS. CORPUS-It still could be done. MR. TURNER-Lets let them take care of it because they took care of all the rest of them. MR. CARR-Now, will they review this without all the variances being in place? MRS. YORK-Yes, they would because you've had this agreement before, in Type I Actions. What you can do, if you've extended the applicant the courtesy of the time frame for submission, I would talk to the Chairman of the Planning Board, tomorrow, and see if Dr. Kristensen could also be placed on their agenda, and then come to them the first meeting of next month, and come back to you the second meeting, potentially, if there was no problem. MR. CARR-They meet on Tuesday nights, right, and we meet Wednesdays? MRS. YORK-They meet on Tuesday nights and you meet on Wednesday night. We could work this out. 32 MS. CORPUS-And it would just be a SEQRA Review. MRS. YORK-If there would be no problems with the SEQRA application. MR. TURNER-Okay. Let me ask Dan something. Dan, where does the transfer of the property stand? know you said it was just a matter of getting it from the lawyers. Is that correct? MR. BARBER-Yes, basically. MR. TURNER-Yes, but how long has it been in process? MR. BARBER-Just about a week and it might be concluded this weekend. MR. CARR-But if it's only going to contract this weekend, I mean, it's not going to be transferred, probably, for at least two or three weeks. MR. BARBER-It will be transferred this weekend. MR. CARR-Transferred this weekend. MR. BARBER-Yes, this coming week, yes. (END OF FIRST DISK) 33 MR. TURNER-No, 1'm just wondering, if the Pl anning Board has an agenda that's fill ed up for the next month, and they might not want to put this on and handle it, unless they have two meetings. MS. CORPUS-There will be a special meeting for the roller coaster. MR. KELLEY-Dan, when are you going to start construction of this? MR. BARBER-Well, it's predicated on all the approvals and everything. We're hoping October, that time. MR. KELLEY-Okay, so you were going to start it this fall? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. CARR-But you weren't planning to start before October? MR. BARBER-No. Basically the time we get through next month would be October, so. Basically, October, the 1st of October, that time. MR. CARR-Well, that solves the problem, doesn't it? I mean, both the meetings will be held in September. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. YORK-Whatever is your pleasure. tÐTION TO MICE THE PLANNING BOARD THE LEAD AGENT FOR THE SEQRA REVIEW FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-1991 DR. AL KRISTENSEN, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: Duly adopted this 28th day of August, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. TURNER-Okay, and then they can place it on the agenda where they feel comfortable. MR. KELLEY-Because we gave them the time to get it filed. MR. TURNER-You've got a week to get the Long EAF in. AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-1991 TYPE II SR-lA ARTllJR J. PERSONS (litER: SAlE AS ABOVE LEO STREET, THIRD HOOSE ON LEFT FROM SHERMAN AVENUE MO LEO STREET INTERSECTION FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN ABOVE GROOND POOL WITHIN 6 FT. OF THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. TAX IMP NO. 120-1-55 LOT SIZE: 15,000 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-67 B ARTHUR PERSONS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 67-1991, Arthur J. Persons, August 27, 1991, Meeting Date: August 28, 1991 "The request is to maintain a pool within 6 feet of the side yard rather than the required 10 feet. The pool has been installed. The application states that the pool as located in this spot to avoid the septic tank and be close enough to build a deck from the house to the pool for access. It woul d appear that the Board has two questions to be concerned with. Those are: Is it necessary for a pool to have a deck from the house to be accessible and is relocation of an existing structure a practical difficulty? This application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for an Area Variance: 1. Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. The applicant did not apply for a building permit and therefore was not advised that they had to stay 10 feet from the side property line. Movement of this accessory structure would be difficult. 2. Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty or is there any other option available which would require no variance? The pool could have been placed behind the septic tank and there would have been no need for a variance. 3. Would this variance be materially detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict with the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town? The yard is fenced and therefore the placement of the pool is not a major concern to the neighbors, unless there is a leak. 4. What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services? There are no effects on public services. 5. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? This is a discussion for the applicant and the Board." MR. TURNER-Mr. Persons, it seems like you have room to move that pool, even though the septic tank is 12 feet from the house, as indicated here on the map. You could put it behind the septic tank. It's an above ground pool, right? MR. PERSONS-Yes. 34 MR. TURNER-Do you have a deck on it now? MR. PERSONS-No. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. PERSONS-No, that's proposed. MR. TURNER-You've got it behind the septic tank, like they say, you wouldn't need a variance for anything. You'd comply, and then you could put your deck at the pool, wherever you'd like, after you've moved the pool where it really belongs. MR. PERSONS-Right, and then some of the deck would cover the septic tank. That was our reasoning for. MR. TURNER-Well, if you move the pool behind the septic tank, and you put the deck on this side, it wouldn't cover it. You could move it back here. MR. PERSONS-Just on the end, right, to connect to the end. MR. TURNER-Okay. How did this get caught up in the? MR. PERSONS-The pool was still being filled with water when the Zoning Enforcement Officer stopped at my house. That was the first we knew about the permit or, we never checked or anything. MR. SHEA-When was that? MR. PERSONS-This was the Fourth of July, just after the Fourth of July weekend, when the Zoning Enforcement man came by. MR. CARR-Is the pool movable? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. PERSONS-I suppose, yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. It's panelized, right, outside panels? MR. PERSONS-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes, liner, yes. MR. PERSONS-It's huge, but it's movable. MRS. GOETZ-There wasn't a fence, exactly, was there? MR. PERSONS-My neighbor has a small fence, fencing in his yard, yes. That's not mine. MR. TURNER-Yes, wire fence. MRS. GOETZ-Right. Was there, like, a little picket fence or something? MR. PERSONS-All there is is, it's like a privacy. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. It didn't look like a safety fence. MR. PERSONS-No. It's more for privacy than safety. MR. CARR-Who installed your pool? MR. PERSONS-I did. MR. TURNER-You did it yourself? MR. PERSONS-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. SICARD-How many gallons in that pool? MR. PERSONS-All the brochures say 16,000. I think our, I read the meter and checked it when we filled it, at about 15,000, that was my guess. 35 MR. SICARD-They probably could pump it out, couldn't they, and save the water? MR. PERSONS-It wouldn't be worth the trouble. The water's only about $20. MR. TURNER-Does anyone have any further questions of the applicant? None? Okay. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COtlENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-He wouldn't need a variance if he moved it, but right now he's in violation, so that, where the rule is either to tell him to move it, move it so it doesn't violate the side setback and the rear setback. MRS. GOETZ-Do we just deny this? MR. TURNER-Just deny it, but you've got to condition it with something, so you give Code Enforcement some power to enforce the condition of the variance. MRS. GOETZ-Like, if you just deny it, won't he have to put it where it should go. MR. TURNER-Not necessarily. MRS. GOETZ-Why? MR. TURNER-Because we did a similar one with another lady, put it in her front yard, and we gave her. MR. KELLEY-And she had to move it, right? MR. TURNER-Yes, she moved it. MR. KELLEY-That was over off Western Avenue. MR. TURNER-Yes. Mr. Persons, I don't think you'd object to this, if we let you keep it for the rest of the season and get it out of there, so next spring when you open up, that you're in complete compliance with the Ordinance? MR. PERSONS-Yes, I can do that. MR. TURNER-I mean, let you have the use of the pool right now until the rest of the year is out. MR. PERSONS-Yes, that would be. MR. TURNER-I don't see any problem right now, except that you are in violation. Come spring time, you'll have to move it. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, if we deny it, how long does he have to get it out of there, to move it? MR. TURNER-We can condition it. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Turner, was the Board discussing denying the variance or granting it with the condition, a time frame? MR. TURNER-No. Denying it, and telling him it's got to go at a certain time. That's all. MS. CORPUS-No. The correct legal position would be to approve of the variance, with the condition that it expire on a certain date or within a certain time frame, because once the variance is denied, there cannot be any conditions attached to the denial. MR. TURNER-All right, then, we'll deny it. MR. CARR-I mean, how quickly would the Town move on this, anyway? MRS. EGGLESTON-Once it's denied, how long do you give him to move it? MRS. CRAYFORD- There is no set time.. I mean, I can give him until the end of the summer, but he is in violation. That's something Dave and I would have to work out. 36 MR. KELLEY-Do you think that's doable? I mean, you can come up with something? MRS. CRAYFORD-Legally, he should move it tomorrow, if you deny this. MR. TURNER-Yes, right. MR. PERSONS-I can't pump the water out that fast. MR. SHEA-Has there been any experience with enforcement, in follow up to denials for variances, as far as the time frame is concerned? MRS. CRAYFORD-Not that I can recall, no. MR. TURNER-Yes. The one that we requested moved, she didn't move it, and she had, there was quite a time, from the time that we denied it, from the time that she moved it, a long time. MR. SICARD-He'll have it shut down in four or five weeks. MR. TURNER-I know. That's what I'm saying. MR. SHEA-We should just deny it, then. MR. TURNER-Just deny it and then come spring, you've got to move it. MR. SHEA-And Enforcement knows about it now, so they're going to watch out for it and. MR. PERSONS-They've known about it since about two days after it was installed. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. A motion's in order, then. tÐTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-1991 ARTHUR J. PERSONS, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: There are no special conditions applying to this property and not applying generally to other properties in the neighborhood. Strict application of the provisions of the Ordinance would not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land. Strict application of the dimensional requirements would not result in a specified practical difficulty. The request is not the minimum rel ief. There are other areas on the property to place the pool that would not require variances. Duly adopted this 28th 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. 68-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A DANIEL O. LEWIS (IftIER: SAtE AS ABOVE DREAM LAKE, OFF SUNNYSIDE ROAD RE~ESTING VARIANCE FOR FRONTAGE ON A TCIIt ROAD. IF VARIANCE IS GRANTED, THE APPLICANT WISHES TO SUBDIVIDE PARCEL. ZERO FRONTAGE RE~ESTED IN LIEU OF THE RE~IRED 40 FT. ON A T(IfN ROAD. TAX IMP NO. 50-1-1 LOT SIZE: 8.5 ACRES SECTION 179-70 RUSS SCUDDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 68-1991, Daniel D. Lewis, August 23, 1991, Meeting Date: August 28, 1991 "The request is to be allowed to subdivide 2 lots for residential purposes which are not on a town road. The lots front on a right-of-way which comes off of Sunnyside North. This application was reviewed with regard to the requirements for an Area Variance: 1. Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. This acreage is in a residentially zoned area and cannot be used for residential purposes since it is not on a town road. 2. Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty or is there any other option available which would require no variance? Yes. 3. Would this variance be materially detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict with the objectives of any plan or pol icy of the Town? All the lots in this area were developed off of the right-of-way and utilize this as their access. 4. What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services? There will be no effects on public facilities or services because of this variance." Memo to the Zoning Board, from Lee A. York, dated August 27, 1991 "This property was before the Board on October 26, 1989. The appl icant at that time was Dutcher and the intent was to subdivide the property to facil itate a Farmers Home loan. The file has been provided should you want to review it." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Scudder. 37 MR. SCUDDER-Well, I think the appl ication and the documentation you have before you is pretty self explanatory. Just to summarize, the road leading into this area, now, it's a shared right-of-way amongst a II the owners, both on Dream Lake, and Mrs. Lewi s, who 1 i ves in the house on the 1 eft hand side of the road as you're driving in there now, the existing home. The intent is to subdivide the lot into two lots for both the girls, here, the Lewis' children. MR. TURNER-Okay. So, that's a common easement for everybody that's in there? MR. SCUDDER-That's right. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any questions? MR. SICARD-We've had a number of these. MR. TURNER-Yes. Well, this, what they had to do, when they wanted to split that up the last time, they came in, it was only an acre, and it had to go to three acres and at the time I think they said that a Farmers Home loan or something wouldn't allow them anything more than an acre. Is that correct? MR. SCUDDER-Right. MR. TURNER-Okay. No questions? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GEORGE SAVALE MR. SAVALE-I'm George Savale and I own the property at the end of this private road and I'd like to offer my conditional support. I think that the subdivision of this and, I hope, subsequent building of residences in there would help alleviate a problem with the area children, some of whom are riding trail bikes and ATV's through there and they don't restrict their riding to just the back woods. They've come down into my private area, torn up my driveway, and I personally have put in several thousands of dollars worth of time and materials into trying to improve this road. The UPS and the United States mail refuse to come down and make any del iveries and 1'm just about a third of a mile away from the Sunnyside Road, so it means I have a walk back and forth, or else I have to drive into town to the post office to pick up packages, what have you, or have them left with friends. I think it's probablY been a matter of procrastination, just not getting together, but I've tried to grade the road, and I do have access to heavy equipment and so on, and I've been brought short by Dan Lewis a couple of times, saying he didn't want the road improved any. Well, I also happen to be a member of the Bay Ridge Fire Department, and I have to get out on emergency calls, well understood. Plus, we've had two fires in there, in two of the lake front residences within the past three years, and the one occurred in the winter time, and although they got in there and saved the building, which was sort of a minor mirac1 e, it took them more than four hours to get the fire engine back out of the road. It's that bad, during which time the rest of the town had no protection from that engine or those crew members. I think that the Farmers Home Administration, as well as the Fire Department and everyone else concerned feels that with the number of year round residences and summer residents that are in there, that that road should be enabled to be improved to at least minimum town standards. I know there is a difference that Dan has said doesn't exist, but I happen to have my deed, the maps, and a full search that shows there are extreme differences, in some case. My deed, and it goes back to Dan's mother, who issued it before the property was issued to Dan, shows a 33 foot right-of-way in back of all of the lake front properties. There is another one, the deed that was filed by Ed Lewis to Dan, that's the applicant's father, and Bertha Lewis in 1952, shows the right-of-way at 16 feet. Now, the one that Dan Lewis chooses to use is a map that was filed, made by Garner Trip in 1969 that does show a 15 foot right-of-way. Even a 15 foot right-of-way, if it is 15 foot of clear road bed, would be adequate, although barely. I might mention there have also been two automobile accidents resulting in property damage on this because of one blind right angle turn and any number of near misses. The last time when I was attempting to move some trees and change some grading, some of it with the aid of Dan's daughters, he called a real sharp halt and reprimanded everyone in sight and said we shouldn't do it. Well, I think that he really wants to carry through and if his variance is given, it should be conditional on the fact that he permit a legal road in there. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else wish to be heard? MS. LEWIS MS. LEWIS-I think that he objected to doing that because there wasn't permission given first, because he would never say that road couldn't be fixed, and I don't know anything about any accidents, but we've been there for 25 years and everybody has shared in plowing the road. It's not a town road. It's our road. Everybody's shared in taking care of it. We've never had a problem yet, other than, I don't know anything about a fire truck being down there, either. TANYA LEWIS 38 MRS. LEWIS-My name is Tanya Lewis. I rent a place almost down as far as Mr. Savale. I've also lived, I have lived in that residence area for 22 years. I have never had a problem getting in and out with no trouble whatsoever. We have several neighbors, like my sister said, that do plow down there. My father is more than willing to make improvements on the road, but he does not want to take down living trees that are there. I don't see any problems with getting in and out. We were also told that, if there was a problem in the winter, to let the fire company know. They would take care of it so that there was access to be able to get in and out. That's what we were told. If we felt that there was a problem, that they were going to be able to get in and out, that they would take care of it. So, I don't really feel we have a problem with that, and by legalizing it to the town, we lose some property, and I'd rather not do that. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Any questions for any of them, in reference to that road way? MRS. EGGLESTON-Ted, How does this differ from the one we had here, with the same type request that we turned down before, when they wanted to subdivide? MR. TURNER-No. It was RR-3, before. They could only util ize, to get a loan from Farmers Home, one acre, and that's where it came into a problem. They want to take one acre out of there to build a house on that piece of property. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MRS. GOETZ-This is, like, a different application. MR. TURNER-This is a different application. They're going to subdivide it so it's larger than the three acres. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MRS. GOETZ-So, it's just because it's not on a Town road, right? MR. TURNER-Just because it's not on a Town road. MR. SCUDDER-It meets all the rest of the. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I've got you. MR. TURNER-All right. The public hearing's closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MR. SCUDDER-Mr. Chairman, there is a letter, here, apparently, from one of the neighbors. MRS. GOETZ-This is from Lee Barton, Elizabeth Barton, and they just say, "No objections on the part of both parties." I'll put it in the record. MR. TURNER-Yes. No further discussion? Motion's in order. tÐTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-1991 DANIEL O. LEWIS, I ntroduced by Jeffrey Ke 11 ey who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: This is a variance to allow subdivision of a piece of property into two conforming lots in an RR-3A zone, and this is to allow them to be classified as lots which do not have frontage on a public street. By not granting this variance, we would be denying the applicant the reasonable use of his land, because without this variance, he could not obtain a building permit. The granting of this variance does not appear to be detrimental to the purpose of the Ordinance or to property in the district. It does not conflict with the Town Master Plan. Through testimony of the applicant's daughters, who have lived in this area of their lives, it does not appear that public facilities would be hindered in any way, and the granting of this variance is reasonable and alleviates the practical difficulty. The Short EAF shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 28th day of August, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. TURNER-Okay. Before we go, this is Jeff's last meeting. MRS. GOETZ-Jeff, we're going to miss you. 39 ~ ---- MR. TURNER-I'd just like to say, Jeff, thanks. You've been a great member of this Board. You've put a lot of time and effort into your position on this Board and we're surely going to miss you, and we wish you the best of luck in the future. MR. KELLEY-I enjoyed it. Thank you. It's been a pleasure to be here. MR. TURNER-I'd just like to say, you can see where we're going with these pools and these fences, and I think it's incumbent that we do something about it to make the public aware that there are rules and regulations, and they're not getting the message, because they distinctly told me they don't know anything about it. Of course, they don't ask, sometimes. MRS. CRAYFORD-Well, it's hard to get the message out there without doing publicity. MR. TURNER-I know, but I think Jeff's suggestion, that we deal with a permit and that they have to apply. MRS. CRAYFORD-Are you going to put a memo to the Town Board? MR. TURNER-I think, yes. MRS. GOETZ-We should. MR. TURNER-We will, because it's getting to be a real problem. MRS. GOETZ-Can't we just say that we want the memo tonight, because if we don't, we'll never do it, and, I mean, they should start thinking about it. MR. TURNER-Yes, we could rule on that. Sure. MRS. GOETZ-Jeff, why don't you make a motion, because you had that whole idea. tl)TION THAT A JEtI) BE WRITTEN TO THE TOlIN BOARD AID THE JEtI) SHOOLD IIFLY THAT THE DING BOARD FEELS THAT A REQUIREJENT BE MOE THAT PEOPLE WISHING TO INSTALL FENCES FOR ANY REASON ON THEIR PROPERTY IIOOLD HAVE TO OBTAIN SOJE FORM OF FENCE PERMIT. THERE IIOOLD PROBABLY BE SOlE SORT OF FEE INVOLVED, lilT I BELIEVE nls OOR INTENT THAT IT NOT BE EXCESSIVE, lilT THE PERMIT REALLY IS JI)RE THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE TO COlE IN TO OBTAIN THE PERMIT All) THEN WHILE THEYIRE HERE THIS IS tDI THEY LEARN ABOOT THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF FENCING IN THE TOlIN OF ~EENSIIIRY, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: Duly adopted this 28th day of August, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MS. CORPUS-Before you all leave, I have an announcement to make. I wanted to thank everybody because I don't think I'll be seeing you again, either. 1"m going to England for a year to get a Master of Laws Degree at the London School of Economics and I'm due to 1 eave on the 23rd of September, and I believe I won't be working until then. So, I wanted to say thanks. It was really nice knowing everybody. It's been fun. MR. TURNER-Thank you for all your help. MRS. EGGLESTON-Will you be back? MS. CORPUS-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-You won't be back? MS. CORPUS-Not to this job. I'm quitting this job. I don't know if I'll be back in Town. MRS. GOETZ-Good luck. MR. TURNER-Good luck to you. That's great. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 40