Loading...
1992-01-15 -- --' ~EE"SBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR ŒETING JAJlJARY 15TH, 1992 INDEX Area Variance No. 91-1991 Area Variance No. 94-1991 Area Variance No. 2-1992 Area Variance No. 5-1992 Harry Reith 1. H. Russell Harris/Azure Subdiv. 7. Donald Kruger 21. Rona 1 d Roemer 33. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WIll APPEAR ON THE FOllOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WIll STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. '---- ~ QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS "EETING FIRST REGULAR ŒETING JANUARY 15TH, 199t 7:30 P.... tÐ8ERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN JOYCE EGGLESTON BRUCE CARR MICHAEL SHEA CHARLES SICARD ZOrnNG AD"INISTRATOR-PAT CRAYFORD SENIOR PLANNER~LEE A. YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TURNER-We have some Board business to take care of first. We have nominations for the officers for the Board, that of Vice Chairman and Secretary. Do we have any nominations? We need a motion. II)TIOI THAT TED TURNER BE APPonlTED AS CHAIRMAJC, IIRS. EGGlESTOI AS SECRETARY, AltO "R. CARR AS VICE CHAIRMAN, Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea OLD BUSIIESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 91-1991 TYPE II WR-lA HARRY REITH O..rtER: SArŒ AS ABOVE ROUTE 9L, FOURTH CAMP 01 LEFT FROM DUNHA"·S BAY BOAT CO. FOR EXPANSION OF 6 FEET (TOWARDS THE LAKE) OF THE SITTIIG PORCH. THE PROPOSED EXPMSION WOULD BE 48 FEET FROM THE LAKE MD 6 FEET MD 10 FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE. (WARRErt COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 4-1-18 LOT SIZE: 50 FT. BY 157 FT. SECTIOrt 179-16C, 179-60 HARRY REITH, PRESENT (7:36 p.m.) MR. TURNER-And this was tabled so that we could get a determination on the permeability of the piece of property. STAFF NOTES Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 91-1991, Harry Reith, 1-9-92, Meeting Date: January 15, 1992 "The application was tabled pending submission of information regarding permeability. The requirement in WR-IA is 65% and the Zoning Administrator has indicated that the lot has 67% permeability. One of the issues associated with development along a water body is decreasing permeable area because of increased storm water. Perhaps the applicant would consider mitigating the expansion by removing some impermeable surfacing from another portion of the lot, should the Board consider approval. The Staff CORJrrents addressing the criteria for an area variance are in the file if the Board would like to review them." MRS. EGGLESTON-On the new map, are these the figures, up here, that you used to figure the permeability, Pat? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Would not the macadam come into play there, and I don't see those figures? MRS. CRAYFORD-I figured that, also, in there. After I talked with Mr. Reith and he realized he hadn't included it in there, I did include it. MRS. EGGLESTON-But I came up with about those same figures, without the macadam. MRS. CRAYFORD-With the macadam, I came up with 2,716. MRS. EGGLESTON-2716? 1 - MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-And what did you have for square footage of the lot? MRS. CRAYFORD-Of the lot itself? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-8,173.74. MRS. EGGLESTON-Thank you, Pat. I just was going by what was up on the top, and I couldn't figure the macadam because it doesn't really say what the dimensions are. MRS. CRAYFORD-I came up with 625 square feet for the macadam. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. CARR-Now, Pat, when you're figuring the 67% permeability, is that with the new addition, or before? MRS. CRAYFORD-No, with it. MR. TURNER-Okay. I guess, I have a question for Mr. Reith. Your proposal for the addition, is that, you have a note over here on the side that says, second story proposed addition will level over existing first story by 4 foot 6 to 6 foot 6 and that's that jut out over the porch, is that correct? MR. REITH-Yes, sir. MRS. EGGLESTON-In the interim, here, have you given any thought to, maybe, decreasing the size? mean, we talked about our concerns, last time we were here, about the size and further intrusion on the lake, lake front. MR. REITH-Well, we're only putting on six feet. To bring it down any more would be real hard. MR. CARR-You're only putting on six feet? MR. REITH-Yes, sir, out, coming out, the addition is only six feet. MR. TURNER-The addition's six feet. The deck is. MR. REITH-Yes, sir. That's right. I'm talking about the house itself is only six feet. MR. CARR-Okay, but the deck's coming out 14, right? MR. REITH-Yes, sir. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. REITH-But I thought, as far as the permeability goes, that deck, remember we talked the last time? MR. TURNER-The deck is open, right, pressure treated? MR. REITH-Yes. It will be slated so that the water will run. MR. TURNER-The deck is a structure though, right? MR. CARR-Yes. The concern is, structures have to be 75 feet back from. MR. REITH-Yes. MR. CARR-And that's why you're here for an area variance. MR. REITH-Yes. MR. CARR-And the concern I think that this Board has consistently had is that of anybody moving any closer to the lake, Lake George or Glen Lake. I know we've had a lot of applications come in where people have gone side to side, which is not really practical, in your situation, but I think what Mrs. Eggleston was getting at is it looks like you have a 24 by 32 foot deck planned, and that would encroach approximately another eight feet or further toward the lake. MR. REITH-Yes. MR. CARR-Is there some way you could scale it back a little? 2 -' MR. REITH-It could be brought back, sure. MR. CARR-I mean, if you had a deck, you know, you're asking for 24 feet. I mean, if you brought it out maybe 16 feet or something like that. MR. REITH-That's possible, yes. MR. TURNER-Are you willing to do away with the stone and masonry patio that you have there? MR. REITH-We could do that, yes. We don't use that at all, Mr. Turner. MRS. EGGLESTON~Well, that would be a help. MR. REITH-As a matter of fact, I don't understand this permeability, okay, but when you brought it up the last time, Mr. Carr, with the water running through, that deck in that patio area is just patio blocks just set in there. So, it doesn't hold water. It doesn't run through. I don't know if that means anything to the permeability. MR. CARR-There isn't any type of masonry in between or anything? MR. REITH-No. Those are just patio blocks just laid there. It will not hold water at all, because if it did, when it rained, it would be filled right up. So, I would really think that that would give us approximately another 400 square feet of area there. MR. TURNER-Does that camp sit on a ledge? It does, doesn't it? MR. REITH-Yes, sir. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's all rock up there, and you have a very steep slope from the front of the camp to the lake. MR. REITH-Yes, sir. MR. TURNER-Your neighbor to the left of you, it looks like his porch is right on your property. MR. REITH-It is. MR. TURNER-I went up there again and looked at it, and it's pretty tight. There's a lot of congestion right there. MR. SICARD-The whole section is tight up there. MR. REITH-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes, but, I mean, the guy next to him in the camp towards Dunham's Bay is right up tight. MR. SICARD-There probably hasn't been too much new construction up there in the last 20 years, has there? MR. TURNER-No. MR. REITH-I don't believe so, no, not that I know of, just additions that have been put on. Those things next door there, where you're talking about, Mr. Turner, were put on within the past, I would say, three or four years. MR. TURNER-Yes. Right. It looks like there's a new walkway down to his camp. MR. REITH-Yes. That addition that they put on toward the lake, there, that's been within the last three or four years. MR. SICARD-Bruce, do you think that we could add that stone and masonry patio to the permeability figure? MR. CARR-I don't know. What's the rule on that? MR. TURNER-Well, the wall is a laid up wall. It's a stone wall. MR. SICARD-It's a laid up wall, but the surface of the patio is blocks. MR. TURNER-Yes. It's pretty tight, Charlie. It's pretty tight. Is there a drain out of there? MR. REITH-No. It just drains right through, Mr. Turner. 3 - MRS. CRAYFORD-I don't recall that ever coming up, but if the rain goes through the blocks, I don't know why it would be a nonpermeable surface. MR. SICARD-It's got to go through the blocks. MR. REITH-It has to because it would be filled if it were anything else. I'd have a swimming pool. MR. CARR-I mean, I don't really have trouble with the permeability. He's already met it. MRS. CRAYFORD-He's already met it. MR. CARR-65 is recommended. It's 67. MRS. CRAYFORD-Right. MR. CARR-It's tight, but it's met. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. CARR-My concern is just getting anything closer to the lake, because of the stated purpose of the whole Ordinance. MR. TURNER-I've got to tell you, there's a neighbor up there, I think it's to the right of you, I can't recall the name, but they came here for a deck that approached the lake, that was, like, 37 feet from the lake, if my memory serves me, and we turned it down. Was it, Clark? MRS. EGGLESTON-Does this go in front of the APA? MR. CARR-I would imagine. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. This goes in front of the APA. MR. TURNER-Yes, it will. It's a Critical Environmental Area. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Well, the only thing in his, not in his behalf, really, but I think I did notice that the camps on either side are closer to the water than his place, if memory serves me. MR. REITH-Yes. The one on the right is way down. MRS. EGGLESTON-And that's not an excuse for you going any closer. MR. REITH-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-But I'm just making the comment. MR. REITH-Well, I'm not blocking anyone. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. That was my point, there, was that the. MR. TURNER-No. The guy to your left is blocking you, more than anything. MR. REITH-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. REITH-No. I would not be blocking, I was sure of that before. MRS. EGGLESTON-It really fills the lot up pretty good. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay, any further questions? I think I left the public hearing open. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. TURNER-All right. Any further discussion on the application? MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm just in a quandary whether we let him invade further on the lake, here. MR. REITH-I wasn't sure, when you said that 24 feet. It isn't 24 feet, it's 14 feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-What's 141 MR. REITH-The deck. 4 '---- -- MR. TURNER-It shows it 14 there. MR. CARR-Okay. I thought this was 10 ~ 14. MR. REITH-No. It's only, no, that's the existing, the 10 foot is the existing now. MR. TURNER-The existing porch. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. REITH-Yes. When you said 24 before, it didn't seem right to me. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. REITH-Yes. That's why, when you said that, I didn't have the figure right here with me, but now that I look back, it's only 14 feet of deck. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. TURNER-It's 14 in addition to the 10, though? MR. REITH-No, sir. MR. TURNER-No? MR. REITH-No. It's 14 plus the 6 feet of addition to the porch. MR. TURNER-Additional deck? MR. REITH-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay, because you've got 14 on one side, and then you've got six on the other, and that is kind of confusing. Then you show 10 at the break line on the old porch. So, if you added them, that's where he came up with the 24. MR. REITH-Yes. I can see where he got that, but that, where that line comes across there, if your's is the same as mine, where it says 10 feet, and then there's that line, that's the existing porch that's on there now, and then the new portion of the porch angles out to six feet at the furthest point, but, back in, it's probably only about four feet, three feet. Do you see the way that angles there? MR. CARR-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. So, the old porch is going to come down, you're going to ren:odel the whole front of the camp and go out six feet farther than what you are? MR. REITH-Right. MR. TURNER-Okay, and then six feet more with the deck. Is this going to be a year round residence? MR. REITH-No, sir. MR. TURNER-No? MR. REITH-No. MR. TURNER-That return on the end, there, Bruce, isn't there. There's a pair of steps that goes up to the old porch, right there, and he's wrapping the deck back there, I believe. MRS. EGGLESTON-And this is coming out, and this is just going to be, that's my understanding. MR. TURNER-You're not going to access that anymore? MR. REITH-To the ground? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. REITH-Yes, right where it is now, Mr. Turner. MR. TURNER-Right here? You've got the steps, here, now. You've got the steps that come up to the porch, here. MR. REITH-Yes, and they will still be there. The stairs will just be. 5 -"- MR. TURNER-Are you going to wrap this back? MR. REITH-I was going to, yes, and just let the stairs come down. MR. TURNER-Are you going to terminate right here? MR. REITH-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. That's what he's going to do. Bruce, he's going to terminate at the front of the existing old porch and he's going to have his steps, which are in there now, right there in the same place. MR. REITH-Where they are now. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. CARR-Although I'm normally not in favor of going closer to the lake, there seems to be a little different circumstances, here, in that the camps to either side are already further toward the lake, and, to me, I was thinking, should we shave off four feet, so then he's 50 feet back, but it came do~~ to me that this is either, the deck is all okay, for the sake of four feet, the deck is either all okay, or it's not okay, and I guess, in my opinion, I think, because of the surrounding areas, that it's all okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, it is 14 feet more toward the water. You're saying four, but it's really 14 closer to the water. MR. CARR-Right. Yes. MR. TURNER-But if you went up and looked, thi s carrp here, there's a deck on thi scamp ri ght out here, I believe, that kind of wraps around like that, and then this porch comes out the side, here, and it's over on his property, and it's real tight in there. Even though it's 10 feet. It doesn't look like 10 feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. It doesn't. MR. CARR-No. Ten feet's pretty small. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes, and, right here, six feet, that's about all he's got. That's what he's got. It's tight. It's real tight. The camp sits right in there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, actually, the side setbacks aren't encroaching any different than what they are already. MR. TURNER-They're not any closer than they were. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, really, it's the shoreline that's the concern. MR. TURNER-Yes, the shoreline is the biggest thing. So, I guess, my Question is, what's his practical difficulty? MR. CARR-For? MR. TURNER-For the encroachment to the lake. What is the practical difficulty? MR. CARR-Well, to put a deck to view the lake, the practical difficulty is you can't put it anywhere else. MR. TURNER-No, he can't put it anywhere else. MR. CARR-So, then it's just a matter of, do you need a deck. MR. TURNER-Yes. He's got, this is an open porch, here. He's got a tin roof on it, and it's all screened in. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, that is open. So, he already has that. MR. TURNER-He has that. 6 - MR. CARR-Well then I would look at it as, is it any greater a deck than a lot of people have cn the lake in the vicinity? If it's substantially similar to other decks around the lake, near Dunham's Bay, that area, then it's not, you know, his is not going to be the one that broke the camel's back. MR. TURNER-No, not necessarily. MRS. EGGLESTON-When was this purchased? I know we asked this. MR. TURNER-Seven years ago. MRS. EGGLESTON-Sever. years? MR. TURNER-Yes, '85. In '85 it was 50 feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, actually, we're talking 27 feet relief on the front. Is that what we're talking, here? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR- Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, we've seen worse. MR. SICARD-But it is a very tight situation all in through there. MR. TURNER-It's a tight situation, and the fact, you know, this lot does drop right off. I mean, it goes right down with a heck of a pitch on it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-And the neighbor to the east is the same way. His driveway, that blacktop driveway runs right down around, and it goes down. The guy on this side, like I said, he's right up tight to him. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think because the camps are close on the other side and it's difficult to see up and down, that maybe he would have a justifiable reason to go out. MR. TURNER-Well, he isn't going to have much of a view down, because he's right at the end of the Bay, and he's got to look around Dunham's Bay Boat Company to see out there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-About all he's going to see it straight out and a little bit to the right. Okay. No further discussion? We'll have a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIArtCE NO. 91-1991 HARRY REITH, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: And allow the applicant the follo\\ing relief, from the lakeshore setback, I would allo\\ 27 feet of relief. From the north sideline setback, I would allow 14 feet of relief, and from the south sideline setback, allow 20 feet of relief. The location of the home and the surrounding carr,ps make the site lines for the lake difficult for this applicant. The only means by which the views can be improved is by an expansion toward the lake. The sideline setbacks remain as they always have been and do not represent a further encroachment. The addition of the open deck is minimal to alleviate the practical difficulty and the relief requested and granted would not be detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance. Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea (8:02 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 94-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA H. RUSSELL HARRIS/AZURE SUBDIV. OWrtER: SAllE AS ABOVE JENKINSVILLE, AZURE DRIVE/FROM QUAKER ROAD GO NORTH Ort RIDGE ROAD TO JEltKINSVILLE ROAD, SOUTH TO RAINBOW TRAIL, LEFT TO FAR END OF RAINBOW TRAIL REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 16 LOTS, 15 OF IIfICH WILL NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED LOT SIZE. TAX MAP NO. 52-1-11 LOT SIZE: 18.54 ACRES SECTION 179-19 LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RUSSELL HARRIS, PRESENT (8:02 p.m.) 7 --- - MR. TURNER-This was tabled, the last time, to get a recommendation from the Planning Board. The Planning Board discussed it thoroughly, evidently, from the looks of the paperwork, and having read it. They didn't make a recommendation. It was a tie vote, so there's no recoll1l1iendation coming from the Planning Board. So, we're back to square one. I would ask, Lee, memo from Paul Dusek, in reference to the question of this application going to the County Planning Board. MRS. YORK-Right. I'll be happy to answer that. Basically, as Paul indicated. there are a number of criteria within the Ordinance. One of them is, the boundary of any existing or proposed County or State park or other recreational area, okay. The Ridge/Jenkinsville Park is a recreational area. You can make the point of saying, this refers to only County or State facilities, but what it says is, or other recreational area. Also, the line on our map, if I could just digress for a minute and explain to you how I made this decision. There were really two reasons I made the decision, the park. but another was, when these decisions are made, the applications come in. We do not do 500 feet until after the day that the applications are sent to the County, and I'll be quite frank with you. What I do is usually go right over our zoning map, take a quick look at our zoning map, at the scale it is, and just make an informed judgement. We <!o not measure 500 feet until the week after they go to the County, when we have to do our advertising. So. it's basically an informed judgement that's made at that time. If I believe that there's any reason that it should go to the County, I send it, on behalf of the applicant, basically, because if it turns out they should go to the County, and they are not sent, it holds the applicant up a month. So, I usually try and be as conservative as possible. On your zoning map, the line for the Adirondack Park also goes through Mud Pond. It's quite near the Azure Drive/Rainbow Trail area. So, I also used that as criteria. I'm sure there are court cases regarding. or other recreation areas, and I did discuss this briefly with Paul, and it's his understanding that it refers to a County facility or a State facility, not a local facility. That's his opinion, and I would certainly go with Leon's decision, here, as to whether it was within 500 feet of the Adirondack Park boundary. MR. STEVES-Absolutely not. MRS. YORK-It's not? Okay. I would certainly defer to him, as the Town Surveyor, on that, and as I said, we do not measure it at that point in time. MR. TURNER-Okay. Leon, how far is it? Did you scale it off? MR. STEVES-No, I didn't. I would guess a quarter mile. MR. TURNER-Yes, I'd say. MR. STEVES-This map would show it better. MRS. YORK-I'll be honest about that, I called the Adirondack Park Agency, and they really couldn't tell me either, the exact distance, because they didn't have Rainbow Trail or Azure Drive on their maps. MR. STEVES-I have survey maps of it, back in the office. I didn't bring them with me. It's definitely a quarter mile, at least a quarter mile. MRS. YORK-As I said, you're the expert in this. I would defer to your judgement in this matter, certainly. I just wanted you to be aware of the reasons I made my decision on that and why I do it. It's for the benefit of the applicant. MR. CARR-So, are we thinking that this should not have gone to the County to begin with? MR. TURNER-Well, what it does is the County denied the application, so it's a majority plus one. So, one vote kills the project. MR. CARR-And, isn't it, I mean, we couldn't even vote on it tonight. MRS. YORK-Right. In fairness to the applicant, you wouldn't want to do that. MR. CARR-We wouldn't want to what? MRS. YORK-Want to vote on this without him having enough members here even to override the County. MR. CARR-Well, unless we decide that it shouldn't have gone to the County, right? MRS. YORK-Right. MR. TURNER-Yes. A majori ty plus one, that's fi ve votes. So, if somebody votes aga i nst it, it's dead anyway. MR. STEVES-That was a question I was going to ask, too. Is it a majority of the voting members, or a majority of the Board? 8 '-- .- MR. lURNER-A majority of the Board. It's a seven men:ber Board and, unfortunately, we're down three tonight. MRS. YORK-Do you want to request to be tabled? Would that be an option you would like to consider? MR. CARR-Well, could we address the threshold issues? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes, lets address the threshold issues and then if you want to table it, you can. MR. CARR-I mean, whether it should have gone to the County in the beginning. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. If it shouldn't have, then we're. MR. STEVES-Yes. That's the first thing we want to do is address that. I mean, if Paul wrote a memo, and I'm stating that it's not within 500 feet of the Park. We are within 500 feet of the Town Park, but that's a Town impact, not a County impact. I wouldn't think the County or the State would be interested in anything other than impacts on their facilities, their roads, their traffic. Therefore, it shouldn't have gone to the County. I have no objection to the fact that it did, and if they had voted for it, I would have said, thanks, but since they voted against it, I had to scramble around and start looking for ways to get this thing going. MR. TU~'NER-Now you object. MR. STEVES-Right. Well, am I getting ahead of myself by even addressing you right now? Should we wait? MR. TURNER-Let us decide this one, and then we'll get it. MR. CARR-I think what he said made a lot of sense, that if it's a Town park, I mean, why should he even go to the County to beçin with, and if that's the only criteria. MR. TURNER-The part that's a sticker is it says, or, State park or other recreation area, or. MR. CARR-Well, I think it would have to be cn some level, the same level. Maybe it's not considered a State park or maybe the State boat launching site, or something like that, something else owned by the State or Covnty and used for recreational purposes, but maybe not of the stature of a State park. MR. TURNER-No. It doesn't have that stature at all. MR. CARR-I would think that's what they really mean, because otherwise, if it's strictly to do with Town Zoning and it effects a Town park, the State or the County really wouldn't care that much. MR. SICARD-It's a matter of interpretation, pretty much. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, see, any existing or proposed County or State park or other recreation area. So, really, that would be kind of clear, I think, that it's State or County. MR. CARR-Yes, State or County park or other. MR. TURNER-Just bear with us a little bit, because we just got this tonight ourselves. I don't think it should have gone to the County either. MRS. EGGLESTON-It doesn't look that way. MR. TURNER-No. I don't think it belongs before the County, anyway. It's kind of as plain as the nose on your face. MR. STEVES-Well, it's only under, that would be found under Municipal Law. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. STEVES-And under Town Law, they kind of allude to it by saying that, in changes of Code and things like that property with 500 feet of the boundaries of, and then you've got to go to, in the case of a State park or parkway, to the Regional State Park. Commission having jurisdiction over such State Park, that type of thing. MR. CARR- Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes, I've read that before. 9 ~ - MRS. EGGLESTON-It doesn't look like it ( really belonged ther~- MR. TURNER-Are we agreed, it doesn't belong before the County Planning Board? MR. SICARD-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. All right, Leon. Now, you're up. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, it would be a normal vote, right? MR. TURNER-Yes, normal vote. MRS. EGGLESTON-Majority rule. Okay. MR. TURNER-Yes. The County will be notified? MRS. YORK-Yes, I will notify them. MR. TURNER-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 94-1991, H. Russell Harris/Azure Subdiv., 1-9-92, Meeting Date: January 15, 1992 "The application was tabled pending a recommendation by the Planning Board. The minutes of that meeting were sent to you for review. The Planning Board was unable to make a reconnendation on the subdivision plan, after lengthy discussion. Warren County Planning had reccnnended denial previously. The Staff comments relating to the criteria for an area variance are in the file if the Board wants to review them." MR. STEVES-For the record, I'm Leon Steves. Last month when we rret, you asked me to produce a reap for the Planning Board. Do you want me to go through any of that scenario, tonight, with you? MR. TURNER-Well. you drew some rough lines out on the, is that the sawe map you had? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. TURNER-With the lines showing the acre lots? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes, I think that would be a good idea to take a look at that. MR. STEVES-Do you want me to put them up on the board? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. STEVES-What would happe~ if we laid out the lots in a conventional one acre size subdivision, meeting the requirements of the Code, without further road improvements, just as you see it here, 1.8 acres of land on the south side of Rainbow Trail would only be one lot. The rest of it could be cut up into nine lots. There's several requirements of the Code, not only of area, but also in width, 150 feet per lot, minimum \\idth. We're able to obtain that where we can get some depth to these lots. We can't obtain it when we're running with two roads that are only 300 feet apart. Looking at the neighborhood, if you will, how would this outline configuration look? The green is the existing lots of the neighborhood. The orange is the one acre lot of this developn;ent. The neighborhood consists of houses that, basically, border on the 1,000, 1200 square foot lot, or house. For instance, on the map, in red, I have rrarked one. two, three, four. One is a sale that was created February 28th of 1991, 1184 square feet, three bedroom, one bath. The sale price was $70,000. Number Two was 960 square feet. It was done on June 26th of '91. The price was $60,000, three bedroom, one bath. Number Three is 1,008 square feet, and that was a $63,000 house, three bedroom. one bath. Number Four was a 1604 square foot house, three bedroom and two baths, sold on Jl:ne 26th of '91, and that was sold for $98,000. MR. TURNER-What's the lot sell for on those three houses? What did you sell the lots for? MR. STEVES-That's everything. MR. TURNER-I know. I didn't ask you that. MR. STEVES-I know you didn't, and I didn't get a breakdown. I wer.t over to the Assessor's Office and took their Corrp Book and Sales Book and came up with these figures. I didn't look on the Assessment Roll at all. Now, I do remember, and I didn't write these down, some lots over there that were vacant lands sold, and I just glanced at them, because I wasn't interested in vacant land, and I believe the sale prices on those were $12,000. 10 -- MR. TURNER-Okay. So, let me ask you this one, then. What would be the selling price on a one acre lot over there? MR. STEVES-Probably $12,000. MR. TURNER-You think you'd sell one acre versus, now yo.'re talking half acre lot for $12,000, or are you talking one acre lot for $12,000. MR. STEVES-Well, I don't think what you, whatever size you're selling, you aren't going to get anything more for it, and I'll defer that answer, anyway, to Mr. Harris. He's the one that's selling then:. MR. TURNER-No, but, I mean, you made the argument, the last time, that the one acre lot was going to cost more money than a half acre lot. Now you're saying they're the same. MR. STEVES-No. I didn't say that. I said it's going to cost more to develop it, but I didn't say you're going to get more for it. MR. TUF'NER-All right. By the same token, somebody could buy a one acre lot, put the size home on there that's in the area, and still have a lot of ope~ land, maybe because they want a one acre lot. MR. STEVES-If Mr. Harris wishes to build a road through here, he could do so, and probably gain a few lots. Would the cost of the road equal what his return is going to be? Probably. I'm speaking in a practical sense. It wouldn't make any sense to go out here and build a road, now. MR. TURNER-No. I'm talking about the other ones you've got there. The other ones you've already got broken up into one acre lots. MR. STEVES- Yes, well, here's one here, and as I recall, it's bounded by fi ve lots to the south and two lots to the west. That's not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, when it is so different. MR. TURNER-But practical is not based on the character of the neighborhood. Practical difficulty is based Oft other circumstances. MR. STEVES-I think the most important portion of practical difficulty is character of the neighborhood. MR. TURNER-You're not changing the character. You're just changing the size of the lot. MR. STEVES-That's right, but we are changing character if we change the size of the lots. You're not encouraging continuance of the neighborhood when you change the size of the lots, in either direction. MR. TURNER-You're not talking that much bigger a lot. MR. STEVES-It's substantially bigger. I think that you see it right there in the green map. MR. TURNER-No, I don't. Only right there. MR. STEVES-Russ, would you like to say a few words? MR. HARRIS-Yes, I'd like to say a few words. MR. TURNER-Okay, Russell. MR. HARRIS-It was more than 30 years ago when I bought that property, and I bought it for the purpose of helping pecple just like myself to have a home and a place they could call their own, and it worked out very well. I named it Rainbow Trail because it seemed to me that that was their luck for all the pecple that traveled up and down it, and I had to develo : the roads, put in underground cables and telephone. I spent thousands and thousands of dollars in there. I even had a com~any come up from Schenectady. They were the nearest ones, and they cored that ground down 25 feet, all over the whole acreage, just to find out the soil down that far, and they carr.e up with an absolute okay for building purposes. I had to pay them $400 a day while they were there, and that was back some time ago. I've had all kinds of surveys done, maps made, trying to satisfy the Planning Board and all the rest of the Boards. The very last one that I had, I had that all laid out in 10 foot contours, which are standard for, as far as I know, for the whole Country, and they asked me over there to have it done in two foot contours, for why I don't know, but I thought they knew. So, I had it done, and it just haµpened to cost about $2800 more to get that little bit done to satisfy somebody, but I've tried all the way through to do that. There are 34 homes there now, and with the 16 lots that we have laid out, most of them are all on larger areas than what we started with, or are built on, not acres, but larger than any of the ones that we had at first, and those people that have the ones seem to be very happy. Son:e of them bought a lot and built and also took a contract on the lot next door, so that they actually came up with two lots, but they've kept them clean and nice, and very good. I spent half of my life 11 '-- working \\'ith and for the Town of Queensbury, and I sure wouldn't try to do a thing that would harm the Town or any of the citizens in it. Small lots are taking advantage by price. The highest that I've had for a lot, so far in there, has been $8,000, and that, if there's lots been sold for more than that, then somebody bought two or three lots and couldn't use them and sold one and got more than they paid for it, which is their good luck. My plan, always, was for the low income people. I think the letter that you may have tonight, I remember that fellow very well. He was the first one to build on that area. He came from Nelo¢ Jersey with his wife and two kids. They didn't have a place to stay. They wanted to get a lot. Son:eone told them. So, I sold them a lot. They pitched a tent. They lived in it for six months while they got the cellar dug and covered, and then I loaned them a potbellied stove to keep the basement warm for the winter, and they went ahead and they have a very, very nice house right there today, a very nice home, and there's many others that do too, and I think that if we, because of a technicality of size, have to go to acre lots, it almost ruins the develo¡:ment as planned, and I just heard you talking about the recreation areas. This recreation area didn't come until 25 years after the development was there. It so happened that I sold the Town the land for the recreation area, and I never talked very much about this, but I will now. They had that land appraised, for the Town, and the appraiser came up with $120,000 as a value for it. I had already said that I would take $80,000, and I did that. So, in a sense, I gave them $4C,000 towards the recreation area, and I feel that it doesn't mean very much, as far as maybe you people are concerned, but it meant a lot to me to see a nice recreation area so close by, and I thought it was good for the people who lived in that develo¡:ment. Many of the people that have built there, I helped them by going down and driving the wells for them and all of those kinds of things, to help them get started, and I really think they appreciated it, and I hope that you'll be able to grant this request for the normal sized lots. I know that the surveyor has done an awful lot of work trying to come up with something that should be good for everybody, and I really do not want acre lots and larger houses. I waitt the corrmon people to be able to afford it, and now if there ever was a time to get it going, when people are out of work, jobs are needed, and business has slo\\ed down. I'll bet there'd be four or five new buildings going up there in the next year because I've had, probably, at least eight or ten calls for lots over the last period of a month or two, and I can't do anything for them. I can't sell them anything or give them anything. So, we've sort of reached a point of no return, I guess, unless you folks can come to, really, a decision to help the peo¡:le that need houses out and help the jobless to have jobs, ar.d the businesses to be able to sell the material. I guess that's all I can say. I thank you for listening. MR. TURNER-Lets see if we have any questions. Do you have any questions of Mr. Harris? None yet. We had the public hearing the last time. All right. didn't close the public hearing the last time. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN GORDON OSBORNE MR. OSBORNE-My name's Gordon Osborne. I feel for Mr. Harris' situation, but I really don't like it, what they're doing over there, chopping the lots down real small. I moved up to that area because it was open. There wasn't a lot of places in there. That's, basically, the reason I moved there, and this is, I gct a letter in the mail, awhile back, for a hearing like this right here, and I wasn't able to attend. I was working then, and I stopped at the Town building today and I talked to this lady over here, and she told me to come to the meeting tonight and express my views, which, I'm really not for it, but, also, another thing that I got in the mail here was a certified letter from ENCCN, defining a whole bunch of, this area right in here, as a wetland, and that's another factor in it, right there. We, ourselves, at our house, we have problerrs with water in our cellar. So, I don't know what the area is over there, clay or sand or what, but around our place, it's clay, and the way they built the house, or built the foundation, water comes into it, and I don't know if that's going to be the same thing over there, when they do that, or whatever, but. MR. TURNER-Whereabouts do you live, over there? MR. OSBORNE-I live on Mud Pond Road, 468 Mud Pond Road. MRS. EGGLESTON-What size lot do you have? MR. OSBORNE-An acre and a half. MRS. EGGLESTON-How far from this project are you? MR. OSBORNE-That's just over beyond Art's house, I think. It adjoins part of Art LeMay's place. MRS. EGGLESTON-How far are you from this project? MR. OSBORNE-I don't know. Within 500 feet, I guess. That's why I got the letter. MR. TURNER- Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-A quarter of a reile, a half a mile? MR. OSBORNE-500 feet, I'd say. 12 ~ MR. TURNER-500 feet. MR. STEVES-Maybe you could show us where you live. MR. OSBORNE-All right. We live just shy of the County Line, there. MR. STEVES-That's the south side of the road. MR. OSBORNE-Yes, and that's Art's place, and this is where you're going to do your development, here, or whatever. MR. TURNER-Where does he live? MR. OSBORNE-Right next to, almost to the border, there, the County Line. MR. TURNER-This lot right here? MR. OSBORNE-Yes. Pretty much, that's it, but other things to consider, also, this is for everybody in the whole area. Up in that area, you've got all those dumps up in that area there, and did anybody ever consider the wells up there, the quality of the well water. MR. TURNER-That was a comment I made at the last meeting, which you weren't here, that that was zoned one acre lots due to the proximity of the dump, in lots of respects. MR. OSBORNE-Does that make a difference with the population density in there? I'm just saying, if there's something coming out of the dump, we don't know if there is or not, but, if there is, 20 years down the road, when all those people are in there living there, and they've got kids and they got grandkids, and then there's something in the water and then all of a sudden everybody's getting sick or something, and you've got another, a place that's not good to live. If I had known this, before we bought our house, I wouldn't have bought our house up there, and spent $70,000 for it. MR. TURNER-Did you build your house? MR. OSBORNE-No. It was prebuilt. MR. TURNER-It was prebuilt? MR. OSBORNE-It was prebuilt by an older fellow and his wife. I guess they built it for their son there. I forget their name, Mosher, Mary Mosher, and I can't remember her husband's name, but that was the people that built it, but, anyway, that was my concern, and I don't know what else I can add. MRS. EGGLESTON-You don't think the five acre buffer, so to speak, between your property and that, really is. MR. OSBORNE-Well, not just that as a primary reason, but I'm thinking, if something is in the quality of our water, of our well water right there, most of the people around there that I have talked to, they've got something, I don't know, like Art. He's got a great big system in his rental place next door, and our neighbor next door, he had to have another well driven because his water wasn't good, or whatever, and he also had his house on the market for awhile, and he wasn't able to sell it up there. I suppose that's just attributed to the economy or whatever, but. MR. TURNER-Is your well a shallow well or a deep well? MR. OSBORNE-260 feet. MR. TURNER-Casing, right? Casing rock? Is it in the rock or in the sand? MR. OSBORNE-Yes, six inch. I really don't know. I know a Rosick drilled it. A Rosick drilled a lot of the wells up there. I see him occasionally there, from time to time, running up and down the roads. MR. TURNER-How deep is your well? MR. OSBORNE-260 feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-I guess the only thing I'd say about your comment about the water is that if people were to buy these lots, they couldn't help but notice the landfill nearby, and really they should have concerns of their own and either by their knowing that that's there. I mean, there's a lot of talk about the water quality in that area and, really, it's kind of an obligation on their part to know what they're buying. I mean, it's not like a hidden matter, so to speak. 13 MR. OSBORNE-Well, for a lot of people that are out there, going up, you know, they're first time home buyers. They're just looking to get into a place, and a lot of times you lose sight of all the rest of this stuff, and you're just looking to get into a home, and that's, you know, I just say that that could be the way it is for a lot of people, I think, but, another thing, for the lot size there, how are they going to spread out the septic deal, there, you know, with ENCON and stuff. I know there's a lot of special regulations in there, and is there enough ground area right there, in the areas around the houses, to 1 each all the stuff out. That's another concern also, because you'd have to be going by their guidelines for it, and I don't know how that's going to turn out either, because I was looking at the maps today, and all that stuff is preliminary or whatever. I don't know if it is or not, but she said she, the Town Clerk said she'd gotten three or four different drafts of the map and that's about all I've really got to say. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think the bottom line is the project is there. Isn't that right, Bruce? The question is the size of the lots. I mean, you can't really stop the project. That's been an improved. MR. OSBORNE-Well, I'm just saying for Mr. Harris to look down the road, here. He's going to help out the people who need places, but what if something was the matter with the water there, you know, because I don't believe anybody's had any real quality water testing done up there. I don't know anybody that has. I went to the Town of Queensbury up here, to the Water Department, and got ours tested. They said, it's perfectly fine, but they checked for whatever, bacteria, coliform, whatever. They don't check for any metal or any kind of pollution that's in the water. I don't know, you said it was already, if it's closed for that, it's closed for that, but I'm just trying to bring everyone here aware of what that is right there. If they're going to have their project in, they're going to have it in there, whatever. I'll just live with it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. It's just the matter of the size of the lots, really. MR. OSBORNE-Yes. I think they'd be better off going with the bigger lots, myself. That's my Opln10n, but bear in mind all these other things I've told you, because I'm really concerned with it or I wouldn't be here. I've never been to a meeting like this before, and this is a little unusual for me, but that's all I've got to say. MRS. EGGLESTON-Thank you for your input. MR. OSBORNE-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Betty and John Francett, "We wish to state we are in favor of the Russell Harris Subdivision proposal adjacent to Rainbow Trail. It seems, to us, to be an opportunity for much needed reasonable housing for the area. As being the first residents of Rainbow Trail, 1963, we cannot find any objections to the proposal. This is being written in lieu of not being able to appear personally." MR. TURNER-Where do they live? MRS. EGGLESTON-They live at RDl Box 435 Rainbow Trail. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions of Leon? MR. CARR-Yes. Leon, would you address the septic issue on the smaller lots. MR. STEVES-We will have to demonstrate to the Town, and to the Department of Health, that the size lots are adequate to handle the sewage disposal and water supply. The water supply will have to be tested for bacteriological and chemical analysis. They'll go down to Bender Lab for chemical analysis, and probably to the Town of Queensbury for the bacteriological analysis. MR. CARR-Okay. That's the water supply, though. On the septic system, would you be needing a variance, or do you have enough land to meet the current Code? MR. STEVES-We do. MR. TURNER-He's got enough land. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. STEVES-We have tested each and everyone of these lots, as you can see by the symbols there, for areas for disposal of sewage, and that's adequate distance apart from a proposed well on the same or adjacent lot. 14 -- MR. CP,RR-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-You're talking on the 16 lot subdivision, now. MR. STEVES-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-That everything has, there is enough room for the. MR. STEVES-Yes. We can make it easily on the 16. I mean, we can meet it on 16, but we could easily meet it on the 10. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Okay. MR. CARR-Leon, H. Russell and Isabelle Harris own Lot 11.1. Is that Mr. Harris here, or is it his son? MR. STEVES- Yes. MR. CARR-Okay. So, he owns this lot? I mean, is that where you live, Mr. Harris? MR. STEVES-No. MR. TURNER-No. He lives up on Ridge Road. MR. STEVES-He lives up on Ridge Road. MR. CARR-Is this a rental unit? I mean, is there a house on that lot, on the corner? MR. STEVES-Right in here, Russ. You have a big lot right here? MR. HARRIS-That's on the first development? MR. CARR- Yes. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. HARRIS-There's no house there. MR. TURNER-That's vacant. MR. CARR-It's vacant land? MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. CARR-But don't we have to add that to this subdivision? MR. STEVES-No, that was part of an approved subdivision. MR. CARR-Right, but how old is that subdivision? MR. STEVES-1967. '68. MR. CARR-I guess my concern is, Pat, could you help me out on this one. This lot, right about here, okay, is vacant land owned by the applicant, under a prior subdivision, like 1967. Is there any merger going on here? MRS. CRAYFORD-The only mergers are in Critical Environmental Areas and APA. MR. CARR-Okay. What about that one section of the Code, that you have three years to sell it after a zone change? MRS. CRAYFORD-I don't recall a Section saying that there are three years to sell. MR. CARR-Don't you remember that, the preexisting lot exception, on a nonconforming lot. Do you know what I'm talking about? MR. STEVES-Yes, but I think that was all changed. MRS. CRAYFORD-That was changed in the latter part of last year. MR. CARR-To what? I remember it was discussed. I can't remen:ber what the final outcome was. 15 --- MRS. CRAYFORD-The way that ended was, well, Section 179-77, Exemption for Lots in Approved Subdivision. and basically it states that, "any provisions in this Chapter which establish or increase lot areas and dimensions or requirements including but not limited to setback lines, frontage requirements, new lot width restrictions, density regulations, and yard requirements, which are greater than or in excess of the lot areas or lot dimensions required for any lots lawfully existing on September 30, 1988, shall not be applicable or in any way effect said lots for a period of three years from October 1, '88. The lot area and dimensional requirements set forth in an Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, adopted in 1982, shall be applicable until the expiration of the aforementioned three year time period whereupon the provisions of this Chapter shall then be applicable or controlling." MR. CARR-Okay. So, we're by three years. MRS. CRAYFORD-We're by the three years. So, as of October 1st, 1991, those lots had to adhere to current regulations. MR. CARR-If he had land adjacent to it. MR. TURNER- Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-The land adjacent to it doesn't come into this. MR. CARR-Don't you have to, if he had two lots of a third of an acre, and three years passes, those three lots merge, don't they, if he can? MR. STEVES-I'm missing something, here, because, lets go back over all the subdivisions in the Town of Queensbury. Do you mean to tell me, right now, they're all merged? MR. CARR-If the owner, if they didn't checkerboard them, there's a possibility they could lose them, right? MR. STEVES-No. Each of the owners got a letter from the Town saying that wasn't necessary. MRS. CRAYFORD-The lots now have to adhere to area and dimensions. MR. CARR-Okay, but the lot itself stays. MRS. CRAYFORD-The lot itself. MR. CARR-Okay. All right, and the lot itself will stay. Is there any time, when you own two lots next to one another, by the same person, and they don't conform to the area dimensions? MRS. CRAYFORD-Right now, if you have two half acre lots. MR. CARR-Yes, and all of a sudden, it's a one acre parcel. MRS. CRAYFORD-And all at once a one acre zoning. MR. CARR-Zoning. MRS. CRAYFORD-Right now, those lots are. they're no longer nonconforming, and they don't exist. The two one half acre lots, owned by the same person, are now one acre lot. MR. CARR-Well, now we've got a third of an acre next to, in an approved subdivision that the three years has passed on next to vacant land that could make up an acre. What happens to that lot? MR. STEVES-Pat, I have to ask you a question, here. Next week I'm coming to this Board, facing them with Leland Park. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. STEVES-Now, why isn't that being, if what Bruce Carr is saying, why isn't that being treated as one lot? MRS. CRAYFORD-All right. This just came to my desk yesterday, from Paul Dusek, and Paul Dusek is saying, this is something I was going to discuss with you after the meeting, Paul Dusek is saying that there are no nonconforming lots in subdivisions. MR. CARR-Okay. MRS. CRAYFORD-This is a whole new light on everything, Leon. MR. TURNER-Where'd he get that one from? 16 "-..- -./ MRS. CRAYFORD-Just what it says right here in the Zoning Ordinance. It said it all along. MR. CARR-Well, also, I think Joyce brought up a good point. Who owns the property that's under discussion right now? Is it both Mr. ard Mrs. Harris, or just Mr. Harris? MR. HARRIS-Are you asking about this right here? MR. CARR-No, that onE lot is owned by you and Mrs. Harris. What about everything that's in the orange? Is that owned by yo~ only, or is it you and Mrs. Harris? MR.. HARRIS-Mrs. Harris and I. MR. CARR-Okay. You're on the deed as well? MR. HARRIS-Yes. This is already built u~ here, and this lot was left, because sometimes when heavy rains come, water \l¡ould run, and I put a nice culvert under the road right here, and without having to fill, I had never really offered that lot for sale, if you put it that way. It's 125 by 150, and abounds on the road. Someone asked about it the other day, but it's just one of those things that the rest of these \\ere all sold and built up on. MRS. CRAYFORD-This is not yet an approved subdivision, though. MR. CARR-Right. MRS. CRAYFORD-So, this doesn't apply to that. MR. TURNER-No, not yet. MR. CARR-I still don't have, I'm not clear on what my answer, though, would be, to that other question. MRS. CRAYFORD-I'm not sure what you're asking. MR. CAR~-That one lot, there's one vacant piece of property in the very first, or one of the first subdivision approvals from '67, owned by the same applicant as this lot, and they're right next to each other. MRS. CF'AYFORD-What lot, though? We don't have a lot yet. Do we? MR. TURNER-Yes, we do. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's ~hy I don't, I'm confused, without looking at it. M~. CARR-This lot is vacant and owned by the applicant. MRS. CRAYFORD-Wait a minute. What have we got approved, right now, as a subdivision? MR. CARR-I guess just this, the first section, here, where all these houses are. MRS. CRAYFORD-These are all houses, no~. This is an approved subdivision. MR. CARR-Except this, this is vacant land. MRS. CRAYFORD-And this is vacant land. Okay. So, this lot, right now, is undersized, so it would become part of this. MR. CARR-Right, that's my Question. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes, that's the ans~er to your question. MR. CARR-Okay. MRS. CRAYFORD-It's easier when I look at it. MR. CARR-Okay. So, we have to include this now in our discussion? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. Thank you. MR. STEVES-Wait a minute, that was part of an approved subdivision. MR. CARR-Right, but approved subdivisions lose a lot of their rights after three years of a new zoning change. 17 - MR. STEVES-I understand that perfectly, but I'm not sure I understand, then, what this letter from the Town said, that approved subdivisions don't have to come in, don't have to checkerboard, okay. Now, if that's the case then Mr. Harris could have checkerboarded not that long ago. He could easily have put it in his own name, but the Town has made everyone believe that it wasn't necessary to do that. MRS. CRA YFORD- You're ri ght, Leon, that's ri ght, and now, all at once, there's a reversal on that. Now, listen. When Leland Park comes in for their Area Variance, they are also going to have to ask, then, for the variance for the lot ~ as well as dimension. MR. STEVES-So, then the application I have for next week can't be reviewed, then? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes, it can, because it's an Area Variance application. MR. STEVES-Yes, that's true. but only for the dimensional. MRS. CRAYFORD-Well, but an area variance is an area variance. MR. STEVES-Well, all right, that's everything, yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-Believe me, this just came across my desk yesterday, and I had to take time to. MR. CARR-Has the thing for next week been noticed yet, in the paper? Are we going to have a problem because? MRS. YORK-I'll have to check it and see. MR. CARR-I mean, dimensional requirements area lot different than lot size requirements, when you come to area variances. MR. TURNER- Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-I thought that area variances were area variances, and we've dealt with that before, at this meeting. MR. CARR-Yes, well, I think you better look into that and let Leon know what he should do. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes, I agree. MR. TURNER-Let me ask you a question. The last house you built in there, you just said that the last was $98,000, that's the lot and everything. MR. STEVES-That was everything. That was the sale price. Yes. MR. TURNER-And you feel that if this lot is only $12,000, you can't build a house on there of the same quality, that people are going to want to build a bigger house? I don't buy that argument. MR. STEVES-The 98 was the biggest house, okay. MR. TURNER-Yes, and what was that? MR. STEVES-That was the biggest house. MR. TURNER-All right. What's the square footage? MR. EGGLESTON-I've got that right here, 1604 square feet with three bedrooms and three baths. MR. STEVES-That's correct, and the rest were three bedrooms, one bath, and 1184, 960, and 1,008 square feet. Let me go one step further, and I'll try to do this without confusing you or myself any more than I am. This plan that we have presented to you, if you deny it, can be sent right back to the Planning Board with the further investigation of soils to show that the Lot 16, as we have on there, can be developed with a cluster provision request which would allow this, okay. So, it isn't that we're asking you to do something that couldn't be done, but rather to prevent a common open area, necessary to fulfill that requirement of clustering. MR. TURNER-Yes, but you're asking us to diminish the lots by 50 percent, almost. MR. STEVES-The area, but not the width. MR. TURNER-Right, the area. MR. STEVES-Yes, but not the width, no other dimensional. 18 -- MR. TUliNER-That's not minimum relief. Their end of it, the clustering end of it is theirs. That's nct ours. You're asking us a different question. You can't associate one with the other. MR. STEVES-Well, I think we can. I think that the character of the neighborhood has to be looked at. I think the Town Board, or this Board, has to look at the intent here, and they have to loOk at the cost that they're incurring upon the individual by insisting upon having recreational fees, engineering fees, surveying fees, etc., etc., etc., to do a development, and an additional fee of a homeowners association which has a constant burden upon the land owner of maintenance and taxes and expenses forever and ever, and insurances. MR. TURNER-I would agree with that argument, your argument as far as that goes, but I don't agree with your argument that you can't. MR. STEVES-That's the argument I'm using. That's the argument I'm using, that it's required if we go into cluster provision. MR. TURNER-No. I don't agree with that argument that you can't make those lots one acre and not sell them and somebody put a house on there, the same price as what's right here. MR. STEVES-We have, right here in front of you, over 20 acres of land. Going with the scer:ario of the one acres, we've got ten lots, unless we build a road. You know and I know the cost of roads. You aren't going to make any profit by building a road, and it doesn't necessarily mean that the Town is going to accept it, if you build a cul-de-sac out here. So, then the argument that you're using, you're going to get as much for an acre, how can you when you only can get 10 lots? That's not a good valid argument either. MR. TUPNER-Yol1 can't use 8. some odd acres as a wedge to make the other lots smaller. MR. STEVES-I don't understand that. You mean for the 16? MR. TURNER-Yes, for the rest of them. You can still develop the rest of them as full acre lots, nc problem. There's many people that would like an acre lot, rather than 100 by 100 or 150 by whatever, and they would still build a small house on it. They would build a house adequate for themselves. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think, as a point to go with that, a lot of pecple bought two lots to give them, just for the reason to give them more space. They bought two lots. MR. STEVES-Two lots, on this subdivision, would not exceed, or equal one lot on the 16 that we tave proposed. MR. CARR-According to the information you've supplied us, these people own two lots, all right, which is that right there. These people own two lots. So, it's not four houses here. This is vacant, okay. The person who wrote in, the very first person, now owns two lots. In fact, I would say he owns an acre there, at this point. So, it doesn't, I mean, if there's one house on these two lots, it's more in keeping Kith one acre lots, in character, than if each of these had a house on them. This has to become, part, as far as our information right now, this has to become part of this whole thing, all right. You're saying this 1.8 acres here is impractical as one sale, which I agree with. I don't think these are impractical, these 10 lots, and I haven't run this by the Board, but my thought is, what about if you just go for' an area variance, here, make the cap one lot, this one, three quarter acre lot, one, three quarter acre lot, and keep the rest. That would give you 13 lots. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's not a bad compromise. MR. CARR-You'd be losing three lots, but at least we could keep the integrity of the Ordinance. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. STEVES-He's only making 12 lots there. Well, that would be a merger. It's a lot now. MR. CARR-Right. It's merging. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, it would be a merger. So, there'd be 12. MR. CARR-According to the information, now, he's got to rr.erge them. MR. STEVES-Okay. He was thinking it was a lot already. So, if he merges it, he's losing one lot. MR. CARR-Yes, it's one lot. MR. STEVES-So, he's really gaining 12, then, in a subdivision. MR. CARR-Right. 19 .- MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. STEVES-So, it would be 13 lots, counting that. MRS. EGGLESTON-You're both in the same mind that you'd have 13, is that right, 13 lots, doing what Bruce had proposed? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. CARR-Yes. We'd have the 10, one through ten, and then that would be divided, with that L shape, we'd get into three. MRS. EGGLESTON-Ckay. We're all in agreement then. MR. STEVES-That's on 125, isn't it? MR. CARR-Yes, that's 125. So, you'd take out the 175 there. I kind of drew it off h~:re. MR. STEVES-Well, I was just thinking of the setback on that, for building now. MR. CARR-Well, I think, yes, we'd probably have to. MR. STEVES-Move this over to h~re somewhere? MR. CARR-Well, no, you've got, okay, say, 125 here, then this is 50, or maybe Ke could even get 135. MR. STEVES-Yes, something, because he's going to have a bigger setback here, because of roads. MR. CP.RR- Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. MR. STEVES-And then you've got a rear. Then you've got very little, limited spot for building. Okay. That sounds fair to me. Russ, can you live Kith that? MR. HARRIS-Well, if that's the way it has to be. I want to get this cleaned up while I'm still on earth. MR. TURNER-Are you satisfied with that approach? MR. STEVES-Yes, we can live with that. MR. TURNER-All right. Are you satisfied? MR. SICARD-Well, I'd like to see it on paper. MR. TURNER-That lot's vacant, on the ccrner. MR. STEVES-Now, this is going to be. MR. CARR-Rough. MR. STEVES-In some fashion, this lot will be one lot, then this will be split in some fashion, like that, so it wo~ld have A. B, and C. MR. SICARD-Right. MR. STEVES-Which would be 10, 11, 12, 13. So, actually, what we're looking for in the variance, then, is only for these three lots. MR. TURNER-For those lots, yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Does that look good? MR.. SICARD-That's better. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, that is better. MR. CARR-What's 125 times 150? What's that in acreage, about a third? Yes. You're pretty close, because 33 on 1.8 is 2.13 acres, almost three quarters of an acre per one. 20 -/ MR. STEVES-Okay. That would work out fine. If you I\ent in some fashion like this. If }ou were to address it that way. MR. CARR-If we say, like, .7th of an acre, that wo~ld give you 2.1, you've got at least 2.1 acres there. MR. ST~VES-Yes, but I'd just like a corner lot to have a little bit more room, because you have such a large setback om both front. Front setbacks are 30 and the rear is 20. MR. CARR-So there's 50 out of 125. MR. STEVES-Well, that's not so bad. MR. CARR-Yes. Yo~'ve ~ot, well, 75 foot of depth. MRS. EGGLESTON-For building. MR. STEVES-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. STEVES-An4 then, if they had to, they could run the garage from the back side. Oka}. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TUF.NER-Okay. No further di SCIISS i on? MR. CARR-Leon, do you have anything else you want to add, before we do a motion, or Mr. Harris? M~. TUFNER-Does that satisfy you, Russell? MR. HARRIS-If y~'re happy, I can be. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'm glad yo~'re happy. MR. STEVES-Well, because of that 150 foot requirement, I've got 400, here, 300 on two lots leaves 150. I'd just make it. These were roughly done. I don't have it here. MR. TURNER-You don't have it on that corner one, do ,}OII? MR. STEVES-No, I don't. I don't have it here. Would it be ~ossible to address this mal', if you will, in that we're making 10 lots to the north east of the road, for Rainbow Trail? MR. TURNER-I've got a question. Maybe, lets do it this way. We're going to have another meeting this month. Why don't you go do your homework, get it done, bring it back, we'll do it all then and we'll be all set. We'll table it. MR. STEVES-Yes. Excellent. Thank you very much. MF.S. EGGLESTON- Yes. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIMCE 10. 94-1991 H. RUSSELL HARRIS/AZURE SUBDIV., Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoptior., seconded by Jo.yce Eggleston: Tabled for one week, until the next meeting, for further information. Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NC ES : NOtíE ABSENT: Mr. Shea (9:16 p.m.) NEil BUSIfESS: AREA YAlUMCE NO. 2-1992 TYPE II SFR-IA DOIALD KRUGER O....ER: SME AS ABOYE SHALLO., CREEK SUBDIVISION IM.S APPROVm II THE YEAR 1987 IIITH SETBACKS APPLICABlE AT THAT TIME. REQUESTIJ16 VARIANCE FOR PHASE I AIID II TO ALLOII FOR SETBACKS 011 APPROVED SUBDIYISIOI. VARIANCE TO BUILD SIIIGLE FAMILY HOMES. TAX MAP NO. 75-1-23.1, 23.5, 23.7, 23.2, 23.6, 23.10 LOT SIZE: 10,000 SQ. FT. SECTIOI ]79.77 DONALD KRUGER, PRESENT (9:16 p.m.) 21 STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 2-1992, Donald Kruger, 1-13-92, Meeting Date: January 15, 1992 "The Shallow Creek subdivision was approved in 1987 as a phased development. It appears from the minutes (attached) that the Planning Board had concerns regarding the brook at the southwest portion of lot 2 and the topography. The project was ultimately phased because of a Dept. of Health suggestion, since there was substantial fill needed. In the interim the standards for development changed. Mr. Kruger is requesting that he be allowed to develop with the setbacks which were applicable in 1987. There is a request from the Zoning Administrator that the Board grant variances to both phases of development. There is a letter from NYS DOH regarding lots 2 and 10 (Phase II). These, however, are not approved since the Planning Board did not give final approval. The applicant does have a final subdivision application for this on an agenda. There are questions regarding the stream on the property and whether the applicant can maintain the required setbacks. In Section 179-60 (pg. 18026) it states: (c) Shoreline setbacks. The minimum setback from the mean high-water mark of all principal buildings and accessory structures, other than docks or boathouses, shall be seventy-five (75) feet in the LI-IA, LI-3A, WR, SR, SFR, UR, MR, CR, and RR Zones and all Commercial Zones, one hundred (100) feet in LC and PR Zones and two hundred feet (200) feet in HI-3A Zones. In the definitions it states that: SHORELINE BUILDING SETBACK - The shortest distance, measured horizontally, between any point of a building and the shoreline of any lake, pond or the shorelines of any brook or stream within the town. (Amend 7-29-91 by L.L. No. 14-1991) Because of the shoreline involvement, the Board should determine, if a setback of 100 ft. is required from classified streams and 75 feet from all streams, or the change in the definition changes the entire standard. The applicant may need other variances depending on the determination. There is also concern as to whether the applicant has the ability to meet the septic ordinance standards on lot 2. Staff has requested that a plot plan for lots 2 and 10 be available at the meeting for the Board." MR. TURNER-Don, do you have those articles she just mentioned, plot plan for lots 2 and 10? MR. KRUGER-They were hand drawn and they should be in your papers. MR. TURNER-You've got them? Okay. MR. CARR-Mr. Kruger, what do you mean utilities are already in, are in place? MR. KRUGER-The underground electric, water, cable t.v. and that. The septic systems are not in, but everything else is in, Town water, gas, electric, cable, telephone. MR. CARR-Just the main lines down through, you mean? MR. KRUGER- Yes. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. KRUGER-The crossovers are in, for the gas mains, to go on the other side of the street. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. TURNER-Is this stream a Classified Stream, Lee? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. That's in there. I saw that here somewhere. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. CRAYFORD-I called the DEC. MRS. YORK-What I wanted to bring up to the Board was, we seem to have two different standards in the Ordinance that I'd like clarification on. One is stated on 18026, on Shoreline Setbacks, when it indicates the minimum setback from the Mean Highwater Mark in each zone, and then in the Definitions it states, from a Classified Stream, okay, and I think it would be beneficial if we knew whether a 100 foot setback is required from Classified Streams and a 75 foot setback is required from just nonclassified streams. Do you see what I'm saying? I'd ask the Board for an interpretation, basically, as part of this. Mr. Kruger, I didn't mean to budge in on your submission, here, but in reviewing this I found this inconsistency between the Definition and this other Section in the Ordinance. MR. SICARD-That's a Classified Stream, isn't it? MR. TURNER- Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-Well, I don't find that inconsistent, because it says Shoreline Setbacks, and then tells you 75 feet, and then you go to Shoreline Setback, in the Definitions, and it states Classified Stream. A Shoreline Setback includes the setback for Classified Stream, and this states Shoreline Setback shall be 75 feet. 22 M~. TU~NER-What page are you on? MRS. CRAYFORD-I'm on the Definitions, o~ Page 17942. I don't think you have that new Cefinitio~ in your book, either, Ted. I don't think you have this in your books, guys. There's been new since that book. This is the way mine reads. MR. TURNER-Okay. M~S. CRAYFORD-All right. Shoreline Building Setback, and then it goes do\\n to include Classified Streams, and then you go to Shoreline Setback and it states 75 feet. MR. CARR-But where does the 100 feet come in? MRS. CRA YFOf'D- I dor' t know. MRS. YORK-fo!y Definition reads, "Shoreline Building Setback, the shortest distance measured horizontally between any pOint of a principle building or accessory structure in excess of 100 square feet." I 1m sorry. MR. CAR~-Ye~. The building is. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, the building. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes, the building's 100 square feet.' MRS. YORK-I misread the whole thing. I must apologize to the Board profusely. Sorry, Mr. Kruger. MR. TURNER-Okay, 75 feet. M~.S. EGGLESTON-Okay. So, 75 feet. MR. TURNER- Ye~ . MRS. CRAYFOPD-You may want to request updated books, by the way. MR. CARR-Lee, could we have updated books? khat are we being asked to do, here, tonight? MR. TURNER-Approve the side yard setbacks for Phase I. The subdivision was approved in Decerr,ber of '87. MR. CARR-Right. M~S. CFAYFORD-Dimensional requirements. MR. CARR-Dimensional requirements. Do we have a problem \\ith area requirements. I'm talking about lot size, not setbacks. Do we have a problem with size of the lots? M~.S. CPAYFORD-There's a problem with the size of the lots, and Mr. Kruger feels he can not put houses on his lots with the setbacks of 20 feet on either side, as required in Single Family Residential. MR. CARR-As the lots are now? MRS. CRAYFORD-That's correct. MR. CPRR-Okay, but we've got this three year probl~ that's not a problem? MRS. CRAYFORD-That's a problem that came to light yesterday, that nOK there are no nonccnforming lots in subdivisions. So, therefore, his lots are undersized. MR. CARR-And he needs a variance. MR~. CRAYFOPD-A"d he needs a variance. MR. TUR~ER-Anð he needs a variance. Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-So, a lot size is a dimension. MR. CP.RR-Okay. MR. TURNER-A variance for lot size. ML CARR-Right, but it's not a setback variance. 23 -- -~ MR~. CRAYFORD-£o, you're basically granting a variance for all dimensional requirements, to blanket it. So, that wolild be the lot size and the setbacks, all dimensions. MR. CARR-Okay. So, yo~ think we're covered under the putlic notice? MRS. CF'AYFORD-Well, I do, but I'm not an attorney. You're an attorney. dimension is a dimension, isn't it? Well, a diMEnsion is a M~. CARR-All I can say, is it dimension as to setbacks, or is it dimension as to lot size? I mean. how was it advertised? M~,S. CFAYFOFD-I don't know. I don't have the legal notice in front of me. MR~. YORK-The legal notice is in the file. It basically states what's on the agenda. Mrs. Eggleston, if you wouldn't mind pulling it out. MF~. TUPNER-All right. It ~as atlvertised that, the Shallo,," Creek Subdivision was ap~roved in the year 1987 with setbacks applicable at that time. Requesting variance for Phase I and II to allow for setbacks on approved subdivisior.. Variance to tuild single farrily homes. Location, Shallow Creek Roaè, South Bonner Drive in an SFR-IA zone. MR. CARR-Now we're talking aholt something different. M~. TUF'NER- Yes. ML CARR-We aren't talking about setbacks only. MR. TURNER- Yes. LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-I'm Leon Steves again. I think the Town's got the tiger by 'the tail, because there's been an awful lot of building permits issued since October 1st on nonconforming lots, and now they're saying that there are none. MR. CARR-Yes, but we've got to correct it sometime. We can't go on being wrong forever. MR. STEVE~-No. I agree, but you can't keep ccming this way to the public, and have the public stand by and say, that's okay. I mean, there's going to be a lot of people upset tomorrow when they hEar this nEWS. MRS. CRA YFORD- Yes. MR. CAPR-Ard I don't disagree. and I think they should be upset if misinformation has gotten out there, but all I'm saying is we caq't live with the misinformation forever. It's a factor. MR. STEVES-Al:'solutely, but, this time, and I'm not saying ,rou're to blame for it, to begin with. This time I think the TOKn should take the time to review it properly before they say it's okay. MR. CARR-Sure. MR. STEVES-Because then a lot of people \\ere prepared to go to an attorney and have all their lots checkerboarded, and we were told, dor.'t do it. MR. CP,RR-That's right, because I remeJrber this came up almost a year and a half ago, about this checkerboard, and we were afraid it's, you know, and then we made the change. Then we made an interpretation. MRS. CRAYFORD-I cannot ~et in to see Mr. Dusek. MR. TURNER-All right. Let me ask you, where does this put you, as far as any further construction? YOl've got a cellar hole dug between lot 6 is it, is that 67 M~. KRUGER-Yes. It's lot 6, it's between 4 and 8, yes. MR. TUFNER-The house you're building now is lot 8. There's nothing else in progress right new, right? MR. KRUGER-No, sir. M~. CARR-Have you got contracts going or anyth,1ng? MR. TURNER-No. I dor.'t think so. Do you have a contract to build a house on lot 6? 24 - MR. KRUGER-No. We have a tentative buyer there, but we do not have a contract, sir. MR. TURNER-But you have a permit to build a house? MR. KRUGH- Ye~ . MR. CARR-Other lots, you've got people interested? MR. KRUGER-Yes. No, I have onE on lot 2 that wants to go, but I can't do anything \\ith it because I have~'t got my approvals on it. MR. CARR-Olc.ay. MR. TURNER-Yes. Well. I dor:'t want to be a bearer of bad tidings. but I don't think we can act on it until we get the proper advertising, since this has corre up. I'd rather table it and re-atlvertise it. MRS. CRAYFORD-Excuse me. Could you just maybe oper the hearing to see if there are any neighbor's here tonight interested in this? M~,. TURNER-Yes, we can do that. Al"d then we'll. MR. KRUGER- I'll acqui esce to m>, nei ghbors. MR. TU~NER-Olc.ay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPErtED MRS. PATRENIKO MRS. PATRENIKO-I'm Mrs. Patreniko. I live at 13 Bonner Drive. which is bordering on Shallo\\ Creek Subdivision, ar.d what we are all confused about is that I bought 13 Bonner Drive. my husband and I, three years ago, and at the time that I bought it, I was advised that the development that wo~ld happer after we moved in, on Shallo\O.' Creek Road, would he ~imilar to that development on Bonner Drive, in that the lots would be of similar size and that there wOlild be a level of greenery that would be rr.aintained between the properties, because at the time we moved in, the lots on our side, bordering ShalloK Creek were all around 100 to 20C, at least visually I know n'y neighbors are about that size and I believe it gces all the way do~'Ì'I. MR. CARR-Is that your lot size? MRS. PATRENIKO-My lot size is 100 by 200, and I know that my neighbors are, because we just had an agreement to change a lot size, to re-survey the lots between our propertiès. So, when Mr. Kruger started building across the street, the first house that he built, it appeared to be in conformity with what we thought was going to be developed there, in that the lot appeë.red, with my going out and measuring it. I'm r.ot a surveyor, to be of similar size, and trees "''Ere maintained on the property, but then he, all of a sudden, developed a house across the street from his house, which is bordering my land, and this piece of property did not, I'm Sl.ore it cculdr:'t even be 100 by 150. It has to be less than that. There's no hackyard and the house almost seems, visually, to be in my backyard. That's how I fee 1 about it, and a 11 the trees were ri pped out, and then he di d re-p 1 ant a few 1 itt 1 e pi ne trees there, to, I guess, in a sense, ap~ear to be conforming to this level of greenery, but, visually. it's con:pletely changed the whole nature of what that used to look like, and it's very distasteful, as far as I'm concerned. I feel like some,body violated my land when I look at it. So, what surprises me is that we never, if there is an acre lot necessity, I never received a notice, in the three years that I've lived there, for a variance, that there would be an Appeë.ls Board hearing on a variance to get a property lot of that size, nor, and this is the first notice that I ever heard, for tonight. MR. TURNER-Yes. You bought a house that was already constructed on that lot, right? MRS. PATRENIKO-Ye~. MR. TURNER-Right. That's a preexisting lot. M~.S. PPTRENIKO-Yes. So, when they built the house that's bardering on our ho"se. we never were notified. MR. TURNER-Would that be lot 7, the map fight here? You're right here, ar"en't you? Yes, there's Bor:ner right there. MRS. PATRENIKO-Bor.ner. Okay. The second house that he built. He must know which lot it is. I don't know. MR. KRUGER-That permit was issued before the change went through anyway. 25 --./ -- MR. TURNER-Is Mr. Pratt building on lot I? MR. KRUE,E~-Lot 3. M~. TURNER-He's building on 3. MR. CARR-Mrs. Patreniko, I think the reason you may not have received notice of these is these were lots of an appreved subdivisior.. So, they ~ building lots in '87, and probably all the way through, according to the rules now, through October of '91. So there would not have been a need for a variance prior to this time. MR~. PATRE~IKO·I see. No\l.<, are all the lots like that? I mean, becau~e this has really made it look like a railroad now, what this property loc·ks like, in the sense that you squish all these houses rigt:t on these Sß1éll bits of property. MR. C.tRR-NÐt anyJllC)re. All those lots are subject to review, again. MR~.. PPTRENIKO-Cn a one by one basis? MR. CARR-No, the project as a wtiole, because of the expiration of the three years after the Ordinance changed. MRS. PATRENIKO-Ckay, which she was referring to before? MR. CAP.R-Rigt:t. M~S. PATRE~IKO·Okay. MR. CARF-And that's why, at first, it was noticed that it would only be the setbacks, but, through discussions tonigt:t, it also ha~ to be a discussion on the lot sizes. M~S. P,t,TRE~IKO·Al'd we wo~ld be notified, would we not, for each? MR. TURNER- Yes. MR~. CRA YFOF-D· Yes. MF.S. PATRENIKO-eecause I really hate to see what's hap~e"ing, and I understand he has a problerr: becau~e he call't really develop it to the degree that he WOUld wish to, ard I'm sure he has I!:o<mey invested, and I know he does have t:is lines in, but, aesthetically, it's really, it's very disagruable to look at houses that have no tack yard. that are squished, and you \l.onder how they could have a septic system that conforms to yotir ruling and it seem~ to n:e that the TO\l.'n of Queensbury, I mean, I came from Maine, and where I lived in Maine, they didn't have, I initially helpect start the beçinnings of a Planning Board because it's so necessary, and it seems to me that yo\:'re going to destroy the aesthetics of this TOKn, which can be very beautiful, if yol.t don't stop giving variances all the time, ard try to look at the quality of your developrrent, ar.d the quality of your TO\l.n, ard try to keep a lot size big enough to give everybody some space and not squish everybo~y in. I mean, that's why I, we loc·ked at probably 80 houses before we 1I'0ved to Borner Drive and all the houses were, in Glens Falls for' exan:ple, dcn't have any backyard and the beauty of Queensbury is that it has the potential to be very aesthetic, and I feel if you give out too many variances, you're çoing to destroy that. That's all I have to say. MR. TURNER-Thank you. CHERR HOFFMA~ M~S. HCFFMAN-I'm Cher.)'l Hoffman. I live at 14 Bor.ner Drive whict! is directly across from the Patrerikos. I cane here for clarification also, because I thou!;ht the project that Mr. Kruger has had already been agr'eed on, ertirely, and there was m. MR. TURNER-It has. MR~. HOFFMAN-It has. M~,. TUF'NER-What happer.ed is the zoned changed. It went to bigger lots. So, nOK he's in violation of the setbacks. M~,S. HCFFMPN-M,) concern was that, he's been very graciolIs and allowed us to walk and continue ~oing the activities on the proper·ty that WE did before he bought it, ar.d I wo\:ld like this to be fair all the way around, but I know that other neighbors did not con:e and speek out tonigt:t because they felt that this had already been a packaçe deal ånd had already been approved. M,) concern is that there 26 ',-- are people downstream, or upstream from us, and the development of one of the lots you were talking about today, Shallow Creek is dry a good portion of the time. We've walked the creek bed with the children, but at certain times of year it takes the runoff from West Mountain and can get very deep, and it has, because of the development on Stonecroft, one of our children's playmates who is on Mountain View Lane had her home flooded and lost virtually everything because this was not taken into consideration when the development was done at Stonecroft, and they've had considerable work done on the road to try to alleviate the water running across the road, however, it is still running across the road on Mountain View Lane, despite this, and that's a potential hazard for the gentleman who is on our side, Bonner Drive side of Mountain View Lane, and, again, we also looked at many houses in Queensbury before we bought. My husband came from a large city. There was a need for his services here. We also looked at a lot of houses. What he wanted was a dead end street with nothing behind him, and there were very few houses to choose from. Because of the right-of-way behind my property, we have access to the Rush Pond area. We felt that Rush Pond area would not be developed, that Leland wouldn't go in, because of the fact that it is a wetland area, and we wanted this for recreational use. There are people who have left Bonner Drive for other parts of Queensbury because the land they use, where Leland now is, for cross country skiing, and they also use part of Finch Pruyn land to ski. There are roads that follow the right-of-way for the power company that are skiiable in the winter. So, this is a form of recreation. I think that the Queensbury School is sort of saturated for how much it can take, as far as children, and we do need other community recreation areas and neighborhoods, and that's everything. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Anyone else wish to be heard? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Mrs. Patricia Daly, 33 Bonner Drive, "Since I did not officially receive an invitation to attend tonight's meeting because I'm beyond the 500 foot notification area, I wish to express my concerns. Since I do not feel this is a hardship case, I do not think a variance should be allowed for the Phase II request. Environmentally, I believe that the Creek will be endangered by the septic systems, and also by the possible runoff of fertilizer and other pollutants. These planned lots are very small and ecology of this area is very fragile." Letter from Barbara Calvert, 37 Bonner Drive, "Since I did not receive an officially invitation to attend this meeting because I live beyond 500 feet notification area, I wish to express my concerns. Because Phase II was not approved in the original application hearing, I feel that my legal rights are being violated because I was not notified. Tonight I am unable to attend, due to a previous commitment. I wish to express my apprehensions. I do not feel that this is a hardship case that should be granted a variance, since he should have been able to recoup his investments with the sale of the other eight lots. Environmentally, I believe that the Creek will be endangered by the septic systems, and also by the possible runoff of fertilizers and other pollutants. These planned lots are very small and the ecology of this area is very fragile. I am opposed to the granting of variances and Shallow Creek Phase II. Since I only became aware of the situation on Tuesday, January 14th, I am also concerned that my legal rights as a property owner are being violated." MR. TURNER-Okay. I guess the next order of business would be, I would move to table the application until it's properly advertised. JlJTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE 110. 2-1992 OONALD KRUGER, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr: Tabled until it is properly notified. Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. TURNER-Don, the next time, can you bring your mylar. MRS. YORK-There is a map of the entire subdivision in your file. MR. TURNER-Yes, because this one. MR. CARR-Just one, though, right? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, this, but he wants it back. MR. TURNER-But you want it back. 27 ^- -- MR. KRUGER-Right. MR. CARR-I mean, I'd like a copy. MR. TURNER- Yes. MRS. YORK-We'll get the copies to you this week. MRS. CRAYFORD-Have you seen that map? MR. CARR-No. MRS. CRAYFORD-It doesn't have much information on it. You may want to look at it before you request a copy of it. MR. CARR-Well, it has what the proposed lots are. I mean, now we're talking about area variances for lot sizes. So, I would imagine. MRS. CRAYFORD-I just wondered if you were also discussing the stream in relation to the lot too? MR. CARR-I think we have to discuss that. MR. TURNER-Yes, that's going to have to come up. MR. CARR-And also, if you could just mark on it, like, lot 3 is already built on or something? If you could mark which lots are already built on. MR. KRUGER-I think that your concern is that I'm looking to build something different. What we're asking to do is to build what we were originally approved in 1987 for. It's not that anybody wants to build something bigger or change or put multifamilies in or anything such as that. It's basically single families on a single family lot and, as Mrs. Calvert's letter said that I should recoup it on 8, it's a phenomenal cost to put that land in, the road and that in. If you have to take and divide that by eight instead of ten, then it's a disportionate number. I'm just saying that I'm not asking for something different. I'm asking for what I was originally approved for. MR. CARR-All I can say is, Mr. Kruger, because of a lot of arguments that we had with Mr. Harris, I would just suggest that you bring in those figures and let us know what the road cost you, as opposed to divided by 10, divided by 8, so we can see the differences and take that into consideration. I would also, just to say about what you were approved in '87 was correct, but that was when the zone was 20,000 square feet, in '88, and now they're looking, because of the Master Plan and what they looked at what was happening in Queensbury, they decided that that land would be best at one acre. So, in '87, the plan looked fine, and there was a three year window in which to complete that plan, but in '88, the Planners for the Town decided that 20,000 square foot lots were not good for that area, for whatever reasons, and so I think we've got to take into consideration that as well. I'm not saying one out-weighs the other. I'm just saying. MR. KRUGER-In my particular case, I'm a commercial concrete contractor. We were pouring floors for IBM, Pyramid Malls and stuff like that. In '87, '88, '89, we were out of town. We were in Kingston, Oneonta, you name it, pouri ng concrete floors. I di dn 't even know the zon i ng change went through. In my mind, I had a little bit of security back there because I had an approved subdivision, said when we're done wi th thi s , thi s wi 11 phase out and it'll di e because I BM won't keep expandi ng, and they didn't. They've totally ground to a total halt. Now I come back here and I try and build and I find out that I can't do it, and it's just a little bit of a short sheet to me. MR. CARR-Right. MR. KRUGER-So, do you understand? I'm just telling you my side of it, okay? MR. CARR-Yes. That's true, and it's very personal to you. I do understand your particular situation, but the rules have been the same for everybody. MR. KRUGER-I agree. MR. CARR-And the notices went out to everybody and the zone changes were in the paper a lot, and I'm not saying that, because your business kept you out of town, I mean, that's your business, but I'm sure everything was complied with in '88, to alert the people that changes were going on. So, it doesn't hold a lot of water. I mean, I understand what you're saying, and in your particular case, I mean, obviously, you were hurt because you weren't here to protect your interests, but I don't know if we can change the rules because of that. MR. TURNER-When did you build the first house in there? 28 -' MR. KRUGER-April of '91. MRS. EGGLESTON-Were you satisfied with the map? Did you want him to make? MR. CARR-Yes. No, I'd like to see a copy of it for us. MRS. EGGLESTON-For each one of us? MR. CARR-Yes. I'd like to draw on it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Did you renew your site plan at all, since you got it? MRS. CRAYFORD-You don't renew them. MR. TURNER-You don't renew them? MRS. CRAYFORD-No. MR. TURNER-I thought you did? MRS. CRAYFORD-Site plans? MR. TURNER- Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-No. MRS. YORK-He had a subdivision. MRS. CRAYFORD-He's a subdivision. MR. TURNER-Subdivision. Okay. All right. You got it approved in '87. You didn't build a house on it for four years later. MR. KRUGER-That's correct. MR. TURNER-And in four years you didn't realize that anything had changed? MR. KRUGER-I had no idea it was changed until just the fall of this year, September of '91 I was talking to Leon and he told me that there was going to be a big change there. I didn't know it. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. STEVES-If I may, just one comment. That is a Town road now. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. STEVES-So that Mr. Kruger has developed the project. He's putting the Town water and the paving, and as he said. the power and telephone. MR. TURNER-Let me ask you one other question. When did you start putting the roads in, and the water and stuff? MR. KRUGER-I don't know. It was, like, '88, '89. MRS. EGGLESTON-It wasn't when you built the first house? MR. KRUGER-I'm kind of a cash and carry guy. When I've got the money, I paid Bill Threw for the water line, and when I got the money, I paid him for the item four on that thing. MR. STEVES- You've got to remember, too, he does, as a 1 and owner, he has the ri ght to bui 1 d one house in there. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. STEVES-But that's all. He had to have a Town road before he could get a permit to build another house. MR. TURNER- Yes. 29 MR. STEVES-Okay. So then he di d that, and no\'.' he has, how ma ny ho uses in there, twc, three? MR. KRu(;ER-I think it's three. MR. STEVES-ThreE hOl.:ses in there. MR. CARR-Well, I would alsc: like those houses located, because if they're out of yon name, then the land ¿oesn't mE'rge, you knc.w, I mean, that méiY play into this ~hole discussion about area. MR~. CRA YFOPD-No, because thi s is an approvec' s¡;bcivi sion. MR. CARR-Right, but if Nurrber 7, which is in the middle of it, belongs to JOE Smith. MRS. CRAYFORD-But it's an ap~'roved sUbdivisior" and what that's saying is that there are no nonccnforming lots in a subdivisiofl, period. That's how I'm reading it. I could be \'.,rong. MR. CARR-So, his lots are okay right now, e\er. after three years? They are not okay? MR~. CRAYFOPD-No. MR. CARR-Right. MR~. CRAYFOPD-BlJt even if Mr. JcnEs Cwr,S one of those lots in the subdivision, and Mr. Kruger owr,s that lot anf Mr. Kruger owns this lot, Mr. Jor.es lot is not nonconforming too, though, because it's part of the subdivision. MR. CARR-Right, but at leest it doesn't connect those other two lots. MRS. CRAYFOPD-I think we have a lesal protlem. If I own that lot, and I was told that, well, Mrs. Crayford, this is a part of a subdivision, you no lon!ler have a nonconforming lot. in a subdivisior.. MR. CARR-No. I'm fIOt saying that, because yours would be conforming. Your's would be a nonconforming lot of record. MR.S. Cr:AYFOIiD-\t!h)? It's a half acre lot in an acre zor'ing. MR,. CARR-No. Yo~rs would be a noncor.forming lot of reccrd, once you owned it. MR.S. Cr:AYFORD-Even though it's in a subdivision? MR. CARR-Even thour,h it's in a subdivision. As long as it's individually o\l!ned. MRS. CF:AYFORD-It doesn't say it that way in here. MR. STEVES-May I ask a questior., Mr. Chairman? I'm very confused, here, with this. Can that statement that the memc be read to us? MRS. CRA YFOPD- I didn't bring it with me, unfortunately. I thought I ha d it with me, and I di dn' t. MRS. YORK-Wh) doo't WE ask the attorney to come next wEek? MR. TURNE R- Yes. We 11'111. MR,S. YORK-That's a good idea. MR. SH.VE.S-Is 't\e saying that if you're in a subdivision, you don't have to worry about it because it isn't nonconforming? MR. TURNER-I didn't realize this was coming up, or he wOl¡ld have been here tonight, becal'se he called me. MR. CARR-I think the only problem COlT.es, in a subdivision with unc~ersi2ec' lots, after three yeërs, is \\;hen the developer still owns those lots. MRL CRAYFOPD-BlJt it doesn't say that here. MR. CARR:-It do€·sn't say that, but I think that's the only practical way to look at it. MRS. Cr:AYFORD-I couldn't agree more with you. MR. CARF:-I mean, becal'se if you've cI:eckerboarded it because you've sold it to everybody and their son, you can't te 11 them they don't have a nonconformi ng lot of recc,rd. 30 '--' -' MRS. CRAYFORD-Right. This is poorly written. I'll say it. It's poorly written. MR. STEVES-Well, normally when you say that, you say, preexisting nonconforming. MR. CARR-Right. MR. STEVES-Right? MR. CARR-Right. Mr. Kruger, when you make us the map, would you just mark on it, if you've sold some of those lots to somebody else, who owns them and when you sold them, please. MR. KRUGER-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-And, what did you want, another copy? Is there just one copy there? MR. CARR-I'd just like one. MR. TURNER-We've got to have one for everybody. MRS. EGGLESTON-We could share one. MR. TURNER-Or, we'll get copies. You've got to mark them up. Are you going to mark them up now? MR. KRUGER-This is Pratt. MR. CARR-And they own it, right? MR. KRUGER-Right. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. KRUGER-And this, as of yesterday, the woman's name is Blanche, that's her last name. She bought it yesterday. This is where my new house is. This is where I'll be living. MR. CARR-Okay, and lot 2 and 10 are the only things under Phase II, right? MR. KRUGER-Right, and we were down there today, and where this creek is, there's a 50 foot right-of-way, plus the 150 lot, and the creek is like 10 feet from that point, there. It's in the right-of-way. It's not on the lots. MR. CARR-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-Where is Mrs. Patreniko's house, on here? MR. CARR-She was 13 Bonner Drive. MRS. EGGLESTON-And thi s is the one where there's, who 1 i ves here, Pratt, that she says the house is right in her backyard. MR. KRUGER-The woman buying the house is Robbie Pratt's sister, Lisa Fedelli, is a school teacher in Queensbury, and she's buying that. MR. TURNER-She's buying that house that he's building there now. MRS. EGGLESTON-Because I was trying to understand what she said, they put a house right in her backyard. So, it looks like, is it this one here? MR. CARR-It's probably just close. MR. KRUGER-They built a 70 foot house on a 120 foot lot, and that's what Mrs. Patreniko's concern is, but there's 120 foot house with a 70 foot house. MR. CARR-Okay. So, this is a lot, but you own it, but this has to be a lot, because it's checkerboarded. MR. KRUGER-It doesn't matter. I asked about checkerboarding, and Pat Crayford said it had absolutely no effect, because we went through that, because we were going to do that, and it was determined that we did not need to do that. The reason for Phase I and Phase II was that Phase II needed fill on both lots, and Mr. Scudder's concern was that he wanted to see it after it was built. Brian Fear went down there and checked it. He said, Brian has no problem with it at all. 31 ~ MR~,. EG£.lESTON-There's a letter in here from the Department of Health, that says the filling is, that the fill is proper. MR. KRUGH-He wa~ the gl.:Y that it wa~, contingent on. MR. CARR-And yo~'re asking for variances on Phase II as well as Pha~e I, right? MR. KRU~¡ER- Ye~. MR. CARR-Ckay. Ye!" because I was going to say, you're çoin9 to have to get area var'iances there. MR,S. E~,GLE5TON-But these c:'on'thave Planning Hoard approval yet, 2 nd 10, rigt:t? MR. CARR-Right. MF.S. EEGLESTOfí-Ckay. MF;. KRLGER-I thouçht it wa~, just subject to Brian Fear's let.ter. MF,S. EGGLESTOfí-Ckay. MR. KRLGER-Yes, but that was the im~lression I was under. MR. CARR-Anc: they can't give ,)01.', until you get your area variance!. MR~.. EGGtE5TON-Final approval. MR. CP,RR,-Cr they cao give you final approval, subject to the area variance. MR~. EGGLESTON-Subject to the area variance. . , MR. TURNER-Ye!. Are you going to go to them for' 2 and 10? MR. KRU~,ER-I g\:ess. Now, what am I on for next weEk? I'm on for' somet.hing else for next weE'k? MF,S. EGGLESTON-That's probal'ly it, then, because they were here, said he was on the agenda for the Planning Board. So, it's got to be that. MRS. YORK-Col.'1d I just make an anr.ouncerr:ent for the individuals ~.ere, and Mr. Kruger, because of this tabling, yo\: will not be before the Planning ?,oHd. ThE:y ~'ill have to hold back yon applicatior:, too, until next month, for the subdivision, for your final a~pro\al for your two lots, okay. MR. KRUGER-Okay. and whEn dOES that meeting take place? MRS. YORK-That will take place rext mor,th. MR. KRUGER-In February? MR5. YORK-Right, the end of Februar'y. MF,S. CRAYFOFD-Yo\:'ll be r:otified agafn. MF,. KRUGER-February ~hat? MFS. YORK-ThE fourth Tuesday in February. MR. KRUGER-ThE fourth Tuesday in February. MF.S. YORK-Probably. MF,. TUF'NE R-Di d YOli want to spea k? MR~,. HOFFMA~¡-No\t¡, at onE point you said you're gc-ing to speak about this issue next week, al'\d at another point you said next month. MR. TURNER-No, nExt ßI(,nth. It has to be re-advertised. MF,. CAP.R-Well, no. His particular onE, next mor:th. The issue of the lot. sizes is coming up on another a~plication, nExt week. MRS. H(:FFMAN-But it won't have any bearing? 32 MR. CARR-On his? MR.S. HOFFMI!,N- Yes. MF.. CARR-Other than precedents, if we c'ecide to take action next week, no. MR~,. HOFFMA~;-Ckay. MF.S. EGGLESTOf\'-But he did say it gees to the Planning Board r.ext week. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARR-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's not? Okay. MF.S. YORK-What happened here \\as Mr. Kruger was anticipating !;etting ap~'roval by this Board for the entire subdivision, anc~ then he wanted to go to the Plarning Boërd for Final ap~'roval on the last twc. lots in Phase II. That was what I was alluding to. MRS. H;GlESTON-Okay. MR. CPRF:-So, it's all tablec' until next month. MRS. EG£LESTOK-Okay. MRS. YORK-However, these people need not concern themselves. We'll see yo!.: next mcnth. Call the Planning Office to find out what agenda it's on. MRS. H(:FFMP.N-All right. Thark you. MRS. PATRENIKO-We're not familiar, either, with the Phase I, Phase II of the building. MR. TUF'NER-There's two lots in Phase II, which are lot 2 and lot 10. Lot 2 is t.he end lot, driving in Shallow Creek. MF.S. CnAYFORD-Lot. 2 is the pit. MR. TUFNE.R-Is the pit. The: lot on each end or. the right hand side going in. MR~·. PA TREN I KO- Ar.d Pha se I? MR~·. CRAYFOPD-Is the rest of the lots. MR.. TUPNER-Is the rest of the lots. MRS. CRAYFOPD-In '87, he got approval for 8 lots. MF.S. Pt,TRENIKO-Thank YGU. (10:0~; p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA RONALD ROEMER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE RIDGE ROAD TO CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD ONE BLOCK NORTH OF HICKS ROAD TO BE ALLOWED TO SUBDIVIDE WITHOUT THE REQUIRED LOT SIZE. ALL FACILITIES ARE EXISTING. (IIARREK COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP fIO. 55-2-13.1 LOT SIZE: 2.50 ACRES SECTION 179-17 RONALD ROEMER, PRESENT (10:03 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Ser,ior- Plarner, Area Var-iance No. 5-1992, Ronald Roe·mer, 1-13-92, Meeting rat.e: January 15, 1992 "The ap~licant wants to subc:ivide twc. du~'lexes on Chestnut Ridge ROêd without the requirec' acre of land. The ap~,licant built the duplexes prior to 1988 anc~ believe(: that thE!Y ""ere in fact divided. Prior to 1988 no review ",as ,necessary for minor- subdivisior.s. Mr. Roemer hirec' a professional to subdivide the property, however~ a lI'ap "as never filed with the County. There fs no development anticipated since everything is exist.ing. There will be r!o changes exce¡:t pot.entially in ownership. 1. Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placen:ent of a structure \tíhich meets the zor.ing requirements. Describec' abo\e. 2. Is this t.he minimuRI var-iance reeessar,)' to alleviate the specific practical difficl.'lty or is there any other optior. avaflable Khich would rec¡uire no variance? Yes. 3. Would this variance be c'etrimental to the other proper-ties in the district or neighborhood cr conflict with the ot:jectives of any plar or policy of the TO\l.'nÎ No.4. What. are the effects of the variance cn put:lic facilities and service? None. 5. Is the reql.'est minimuR relief 33 -- ~ necessary to alleviate the specifiec practical difficulty? Yes, the property wol!ld be Equally dfvided." MR~,. EGGLESTON-Anc~ the War-ren County Planning Board returned "No COl!nty Impact". MR. TUF~NER-Do you care to add anything to what you said, Mr. Roemer? MR. ROEMER-No. It's ön oversight. That's öll it was. I believe they expected rr.e to file it, and they thought I had dCnE it. I didn't realize urtil just last month when I deciciec.:' to sell one of them. I had a little mecical problem. So, I decided to try to sell one, and, 10 and behold, I can't. ML CARR-Can I aÜ a question? In this zone, what would he need, two acres, because it's a du~lex? MR~;. YOPK- Yes. MR. TUPNER-Yes. Let me ope" the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPErtED BERNETTA ~TOKE~ MF;S. STOKE~;-My name is Bernetta Stokes a""d I 1 i ve across the Chestnut Ri cige Road from thi s. MR. TURNER-In the red house there on the ccrner? MR~,. STOKES-No. yellow. MR. TURNER-Yellow? M~,S . STOKES-The second one from the coyner. MR. TUF'NER-Okay. MRS. STOKES-Anc: I just want to say that these duplexes are very tastefully, they're very tasteful in the neighbor-hood, and they're well ker:t, a""d the lar.dscaping is y.ice and they really look nice there. My only concern is that if, say if they're divided, they're large duplexes, and it wOl:ld seem like it wOlild be a ver'y small sized lot individually, and if one or two of them "'~re sold to individuals, this open space. it wol!ldn't look like that, possibly, if they were such small lots, with pecple hemming in their own little property. M~,. CARR-Mrs. Stokes, have you seen the map? It's nct four lots. It's just the two bouses separ-ating. MRS. STOKE~-I know it's the two bouses, but they're large. I dcn't kncw \\'hë,t the size would be. when they were individually. MR. CARR-Ar. acre and a quarter each. MRS. STOKES-Each one would be an acy-e and a quarter? MR. CJI.RR- Yes. He's got two and a half acres, tota 1, there. MF,S. STOKE~-Well, there are three houses there. MR. RCEMER- The third apartment has nothing to do with this subdivision. That was approved a long time age. It's only the first two. MRS. STOKES-The first two. MF,. ROEMER-That's it. MR~. STOKES-And they are actually tWG. MR. ROEI'ER-It's on two and a half acres, and it was split down the middle. MR~,. STOKES-So, each one? MR. TURNER-So, it would be an acre and a ~uarter. MRS. STOKES-So, to cor. form, actually. they'd have to be twice that big, because they're duplexes? MR. CARR-Io!ell, he'd need three quarters of an acre rror'e on each cne. 34 - -- MR~. EGGLESTON-On Each onE. MR. TURNER- Ye~ . MRS. STOKES-Well, that wa~ really my only ct'ncern. I thought it wolíld be less. MR. ROEMER-Well, what you've !jot is what you've !jot. What's there is there. It's not going to be subdivided. What you see is what it is. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are you thinking, Mrs. Stokes. that somebody might buy one half of the duplex, and sOJT.Iel:o~y the other half of the duplex? MR.S. STOKE~-No. What I WëS thinking was that the size of the lot wa~, like. not half this. but a quarter of this. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TUPNER-A quarter of that? MR~;. STOKES-I thouçht the wt,ole three house~. were included in this acreage. MR~. EGGLESTON-Okay. See, ar.d they're not. MF;. TUF~NE R-No. MR. R(:E~:ER-Thr'ee houses are cver' five acres. MR~. EGGLEHON-Okay. MRS. STOKE~-Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyo~e else wist- to be heard? ROBERT RICE MR.. RICH-My namE~ is Robert Rich. I have no op~'osition to this. I'm new in the area. We bo~ght a lot on the Hicks Rozd. My wife and I ha.ve r,o cppositio~ to this. We're not op~osed to it. MR. TURNER-WhEre do yo~ live, Mr. Rict.? MR.. RICH-In Fort Edward, but I bought and acre and a q1:arter on the Hicks Rozd, and I intend to build. MRS. EE,GLEHON-Yol:,'d be rigt.t in back of him, then? MR. RICE-Yes. I'm or, the 10~,ier part. MR. ROE~:ER-ThE houses on Hicks Rozd were a part of the original subdivision. MR. TURNER-Ye~. Okay. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TUHNE.R-Okay. Motion's in order. ,g)TION TO APPROVE AREA VARIAlCE 10. 5-1992 ROMLD ROEMER, Introduced by Jayce Eggleston whc moved for' its aIJoptior!, seconded by ThEodor'e Tur'nEr: Allo~fing the ap~llicant to subdivide two and half acres equally in half, creating two ~,eparate lots. ThE practical difficulty being there are already two ~uplexes built on the proper·ties. I don't believe this WGuld be ~etrimental to the ct.aracter of the neigt.borhood since there will be actual1y no change in the u~e cf the property. I believe it's the minimum \ariance r.ecessary to alleviate the practical diffic~lty. a~d it doesn't seem feasible that there Kould be any other option. There Kould I:e r.o adverse effect on pul:lic facilities and sErvices. ThE' Short EAF shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr's. Egçlestan. Mr'. Carr, Mr'. Sicard, Mr. Turner NŒS: NONE ABSEH: Mr. ShEa (10:16 p.m.) 35 '- MR. TURNER-We've got one other thing to do, abcut the n:eetings for Februar)·. The meeting in February falls on a school week \lacation and Lee's not going to be here. If the agenda's short enough, would you care to put it off until the 26th, which would I:e the last Wednesday? Do you have ê. problem with that? MR~. EG£USTOK-No. I dor,'t. MR. CARR-I don't care if we have it or don't. I'm not going an~'here. MR. TUI!NER-Okay. The meeting in February will be the 26th of FebrIJuy, I think. That's the last Wednesday of the month. MR~. YOPK-You choose not to schedule ar;other meeting, just in case. MR. CARF:-Jl:st in Cê.se what? MR~:. YORK-Just in case yo!.: have 4CO ap~lications? MR. CARF',-Well, I think we're leaving it up to Tec"s discretior!, as to. ML TUI!NE.R-We'll have to see how the agenda con:es in. MR. CARF.-Yes. The original meeting will be the 26th. MRS. YORK- Tha t 's ME'et i ng Number Ont:. MR. CP.RR-An(1 Meeting Nurr1ber Two, if nece!"·sary, will be the week before. MF.S. YOPK-A 11 ri ght. MRS. EGGLEHON-When you're not here. MR~:. YOPK-That's okay with me. MR. CP,RF.-I lÆ~an, if Ted thinks we can do it all in one night, that's fine. If he thinks it wOlild be better to de it in two, I think we're all. I don't think anybody here has planned vacations. MF.. TUF~NER-No. CORRECTION OF MINUTES Decerr:ber 4th, 1991: NCNE MOTION TO APPROYE DECEMBER 4TH, 1991 MINUTES AS IIUTTEN, Introduc.ed by Jcyce Eggleston whc moved for its adoption, secor:ded by Bruce Carr: Duly adopted this 15th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eg~leston, Mr'. Carr, Mr. Tur'ner NC,ES : NONE ABSE~jT: Mr. She:a On rrotion meeting was adjourne:d. RESPECTFULL Y SUB~:nTED, Theodore Turner, Cha irmé.n 36