Loading...
1992-02-26 '" "' V / ~EENS8URY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 26TH, 1992 INDEX Area Variance No. 12-1992 Debaron Associates 1. Area Variance No. 13-1992 John E. Si nnott 18. Area Variance No. 14-1992 Richard A. Weaver 24. Area Variance No. 15-1992 John T. Whalen 26. Area Variance No. 16-1992 Anthony and Linda Russo 28. Area Variance No. 17-1992 James Merrigan 30. Michael Homenick 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. " ~EENSBURY ZONING BOARD "EETING SECOrtD REGULAR ŒETING FEBRUARY 26TH, 1992 7:40 P.... Œ..8ERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN JOYCE EGGLESTON, SECRETARY CHARLES SICARD BRUCE CARR MICHAEL SHEA ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT CRAYFORD SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEIl BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-1992 TYPE I WR-JA DEBARON ASSOCIATES (MIER: SAlE AS ABOVE DARK BAY ASSOCIATION DRIVE, OFF ROUTE 9L IN BEHRENS, RIFFE, DURANTE SUBOIYISIOrt PROPOSED: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE (SEASOfIAL USE) ON LOT. LOT IS PREEXISTING, fDtCONFORMING IN THAT IT IS UNDERSIZED IN A 3 ACRE ZONE ArtD IS ALSO TOO SHALUIf TO ŒET SHORELINE SETBACK RESTRICTIONS. (WARREN coum PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 2-1-6.8 LOT SIZE: 0.37 ACRES SECTION 179-16(C), 179-60(B)(I)(C) MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:40 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 12-1992, Debaron Associates, 2-26-92, Meeting Date: February 26, 1992 "The application is for relief from area size and shore setback criteria in the WR-3A zone. The lot is ± 16,000 sq. ft. in size in a subdivision approved in 1967. The property currently has an F-shaped dock which is preexisting and nonconforming (1719 sq. ft.) and has stairs leading to it. The staff believes this application to be a Type I under SEQRA and has requested a long environmental assessment form. If the Board agrees with the staff's determination lead agency status should be decided. The lot was previously reviewed by the Board. At that time the Zoning Board requested a recommendation from the Planning Board. If the Board wishes to review the information it is in the previous file in the box. The plan indicates that the house footprint is ± 1124 sq. ft. The driveway is ± 682 sq. ft. of impermeable area and the shed is 110 sq. ft. This makes a total of 1916 sq. ft. of impermeable area. The application states that the lot is 16.000 sq. ft. This would leave an 88% permeability on the lot. A concern is the area which contains the steep slopes. It would appear that the structure will be built into the bank. The Board should ascertain exactly what the structure will look like so that the aesthetic concerns can be addressed. The size of the lot and the physical limitations have been a long standing issue. This application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for an area variance: 1) Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. The strict application of the 75 foot setback requirement from Lake George would deprive the applicant of use of this property for residential purposes. The property is between ± 83 feet and ± 89 feet from the shoreline to the back property boundary. This was measured where the house would be located. The property currently has a stairway, large dock and existing building, as identified on the plan. This would indicate that there has been use of this property by the owner. There are also a number of other docks that appear to be on the property. These are not shown on the plan. 2) Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty or is there any other option available which would require no variance? The Board needs information on the size o.f the house. 3) Would this variance be detrimental to the other properties in the district or neigh~orhood or conflict with the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town? The ordinance states that thè purpose of the Waterfront Residential Zone is: "To protect the delicate ecological balance of all lakes and the Hudson River while providing adequate opportunities for development that would not be detrimental to the visual character of the shoreline." Structure proposed for this lot will be within 36 feet of the lake shore on a steep slope. The resource maps indicate the following: The Slope Analysis indicates slopes which are unsuitable for development. The Scenic Views and Vistas map indicates the property is in a view shed area. The Intrinsic Suitability map indicates that this property is low - major planning changes needed. The Master Plan for the Town states with regard to Geological and Topographical concerns: (Page 9) Protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the Town of Queensbury by establishing development patterns appropriate to the engineering qualities of the land. Develop land use densities based on soil and slope characteristics whereby areas with soil limitations or steeper slopes receive less development and areas with good soil characteristics and gentle slopes receive more development. The Master Plan states on page 16: The following community goals respond to issues related to water resources in the Town of Queensbury. Restore, protect and enhance water quality and associated aquatic resources in streams and the Hudson River and critical shoreline areas associated with fish and wildlife habitat. Restore, protect, develop and enhance the 1 historic, cultural, recreational and visual amenities of urban and rural stream corridors and shoreline areas of ponds and lakes. Protect those bodies of surface water and underground water sources used as public drinking water supply for the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the Town of Queensbury and Glens Falls. Stated on page 17: Strategies - The following strategies are designed to implement the policies for water resources in the Town of Queensbury. Establish development setback requirements more appropriate to the sensitivity of the water resources in the Town of Queensbury. Establish stricter guidelines for the removal, grading and erosion control adjacent to all water bodies. Reduce the potential development intensities in the vicinity of sensitive water resources especially those used as public drinking water supplies. Stated on page 43: Goals - Encourage grading and storm water runoff design to minimize runoff intensity thereby reducing the potential for flooding, erosion, and siltation of Queensbury's water resources. It would appear that development of this parcel would not be in accordance with policies and objectives of the Town of Queensbury Ordinances and plans. It cannot be determined what the impacts on the neighborhood are until elevations of the structure are presented. If the application is approved strict adherence to the Soil Erosion standards (Section 179-65) should be required. 4) What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services? Lake George is a drinking water source and is a designated AAS body of water by DEC. This is the highest classification they have. Further the Lake and all properties within 500 feet of the mean high water mark have been declared environmentally sensitive. Development of this proposal could potentially contribute to degradation of the lake. The Board can request further information regarding mitigation measures to assure that this does not happen." MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board approved, and this is a letter to the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals, from the Adirondack Park Agency, Barbara A. Rottier, Associate Counsel, RE: Debaron Associates "I write to respond to the appl ication of Debaron Associates for a variance to the shoreline setback and area requirements of the Town of Queensbury, materials received February 11th. Both variances are reviewable by the Agency. I take exception to a statement of Mr. Stewart, in his submission. The Agency most certainly did not withdraw all grounds for its reversal of the previously granted variance, except the argument that the Zoning Board of Appeals had not technically followed the requirements of the Ordinance. The Agency asserted, in the litigation, that the record did not substantively support the Board's finding that the strict application of the setback restriction would deprive petitioner of reasonable use of the property. There are lawful uses of the property which can be undertaken, which are, in themselves, valuable. Moreover. the applicant clearly has other options. Debaron Associates can build a dwelling on other property it owns in the same subdivision. Since the lots were gifts to Debaron Associates, it suffers no actual financial loss if it continues to use this parcel as a shoreline access parcel. Moreover. it is clear that an 1800 square foot house is not a minimum size. Many people have summer homes on Lake George in the 500 to 600 square foot range, and this house could certainly be down scaled. Has the Zoning Board seen the elevation plans for the structure? How many floors will it be? What is the height? Finally. the fact remains that the property contains only steep slopes and that there is no acceptable location for a septic system. We note that holding tanks are not authorized by the Department of Health as alternative systems for new construction, and certainly should not be approved for new construction to be located less than 90 feet from Lake George, a drinking water source. The changes to the Town Zoning Ordinance are not significant with regard to this Area Variance. The case law recited in the March 23rd, 1990 reversal letter. I enclose Page 2 to 5 of that letter, which discuss the law applicable to this case. Thank you for the opportunity to comment." MR. TURNER-Who's representing the application? MR. AUFFREDOU-Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen. My name is Martin Auffredou. I'm from the law firm of Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart, and Rhodes in Glens Falls. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Debaron Associates. I'd like to point out, Mr. Steven Scheibel is here as well, tonight. If there are any questions or comments that you would like to address to him. MR. CARR-Martin, can I just ask you, what's Mr. Scheibel's relationship to Debaron? MR. AUFFREDOU-He is the husband of Debbie Scheibel, who is a principal of Debaron Associates, but he is very familiar with the proposal. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. AUFFREDOU-Preliminary matter is the SEQRA Review. Monday afternoon, I believe it was, we got a call from the Planning Department, indicating that they wanted a full Environmental Assessment Form. I placed a call into the Planning Department. I didn't get through until Tuesday, yesterday, and it was expressed that this was a Type I action and that the Board was required to review this matter under SEQRA, through a full Environmental Assessment Form. \The stated grounds were, again, that this is a Type I action. That we were no longer just seeking a shoreline setback variance. but now we were also seeking a total lot size variance, as well. We're inclined to agree with that, and I think that any arguments in opposition tonight would get into something very esoteric, ,and perhaps more ambiguous than the reason stated to me, as to why it was necessary. We have completed Part I of an Environmental Assessment Form. As all of you know, reviewing and completing Parts II and III is your job. I did say complete. I'd like to strike that. We're about 98 percent of the way there. I could not get all the information that I needed from Mr. Dickinsen today on the phone to complete Part I, and, therefore, what I suggest, if the Board's inclined to find that this is a Type I action, I would suggest that 2 '-- we proceed, if possible, tonight, with the other issues involving this application, specifically the practical difficulties that are involved, and the other issues that you have, perhaps table this for a month to come back and look at it as a Type I action, and I say that for a couple of reasons. One, I'm here. Mr. Scheibel is here. He's driven all the way from Worcester, Massachusetts. He's not opposed to coming here again, in a month. but I would ask, as a courtesy from the Board, that we be allowed to proceed on those grounds. If it's determined that Mr. Scheibel needs to be here next month, for the Environmental Review, which I don't think he will need to be here, I can have him here as well, but on that Environmental Review, just let me say, in as plain, basic terms as possible, the reason why it is now considered a Type I, as opposed to a Type II, which it most assuredly was back in 1990, when this Board unanimously approved our application, is because, again, we are now seeking something else, a lot area variance, size area variance, because the zoning statute has changed. We lost our grandfathering exemption. So, now we're here for something more. Once the Type II action was lost, because now we need two things, it became an Unlisted action, and an Unlisted action, in an established Critically Environmental Area is a Type I action, which requires an EAF, and I hope I'm not confusing anybody. It's not all that easy to understand. I certainly don't understand all that much about it, but that's how I understand it and I guess, as a Preliminary matter, that's a decision that this Board has to make, how it would like to proceed tonight. MR. TURNER-Yes. opposition's here. I would move that we hear the particulars, table it. Everybody's here. Mr. Scheibel's here. I'd rather hear it, and we'll deal with it. The MR. CARR-Yes, but we usually send it to the Planning Board, don't we. for environmental review? MR. TURNER-Right. Lead Agency. Yes. MR. SICARD-Will that have to be advertised again? MRS. YORK-It's up to the Board how you want to proceed. The Planning Board did review this, previously, for recommendation. MR. CARR-When was that, in '90? MRS. YORK-In 1989, I believe, when it came in, and they made a recommendation. previously. MR. CARR-But that was just based on setback, at that point? MRS. YORK-Right. MR. TURNER-What's your pleasure? MR. SHEA-We're going to simply hear it? MR. TURNER-Take the information. MR. SHEA-And not rule. MR. TURNER-And not rule. MR. CARR-Do we have to make a motion establishing Lead Agency? MR. TURNER-I think we ought to make a motion, just to cover it, that we'll entertain the SEQRA after. MR. CARR-Do the motion, afterwards, for SEQRA? MR. TURNER-No. We'll entertain the SEQRA after we take all the information, at the next meeting. MR. CARR-I thought we have to designate Lead Agency? MR. TURNER-We can. Lets do that first. MR. CARR-Isn't that the way you usually do it? MR. TURNER-And then we'll go with the meeting. Yes. MRS. YORK-Yes. Planning Board. in this case. This Board would be the Lead Agent, because it's not a coordinated review with the You can ask them for a recommendation, but this Board would have to be the Lead Agent, MR. TURNER-We would have to be. MR. CARR-Okay. 3 ('1 ~ MR. SHEA-Do we have to establish ourselves, or, since we're not passing it off to? MR. TURNER-No, just establish ourselves as the Lead Agent. Just have a resolution to establish ourselves as the Lead Agency. MRS. YORK-If you choose, you can ask the Planning Board for a recommendation. MR. TURNER-Yes, right. MRS. YORK-You may just want to review their past recommendation and minutes. It's up to this Board. MR. TURNER-Right. MRS. YORK-Prior to the next meeting. Whatever you choose. MR. CARR-Could you have them available for us? MRS. YORK-I certainly could. MR. CARR-So, we would make a motion just to establish the Zoning Board of Appeals as the Lead Agency? MR. TURNER-Lead Agency, right, and a recommendation, along with that, we'll make a recommendation that they look at it. MR. CARR-That who? MR. TURNER-The Planning Board. MR. CARR-You want the Planning Board to look at it, or do you want to just look at their notes? MR. TURNER-We'll look at their notes from before, but it didn't address the lot size. It only addressed the setback. MR. CARR-So, you do want them to address the whole project? MR. TURNER-I'd feel more comfortable if they'd look at it. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. SHEA-It has to go back to them. I mean, the recommendation in Lee's notes is that we see some plans, which we've not seen yet, and the Planning Board's going to see those anyway. MR. TURNER-Right. this application. Well, we're going to see them tonight, because you people are not familiar with You aren't, and Bruce is not. MR. CARR-Well, '90 I would have been. MR. TURNER-'90, would you have been? MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes, Bruce was here. MR. TURNER-Okay, but I know Mike wasn't. MR. SHEA-That's right. MR. AUFFREDOU-I'd just like to make one point, on referring it to the Planning Board. They did hear this in 1990. They made some very specific recommendations, and those are well established and well documented in the record. MR. CARR-Yes, because I think what Martin's saying, and I kind of agree, is I wonder if we have to send it back to the Planning Board. I mean, if nothing much has changed. MR. TURNER-Nothing much has changed, only the lot size. MR. CARR-The lot stayed the same, but now they need a variance on it. MR. AUFFREDOU-Right. It's the exact same application that's here tonight. MRS. EGGLESTON-Should I read it? MR. TURNER-Yes. Lets read it right into the record. 4 '" r MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. This is the motion that was made by the Planning Board, 19th day of December, 1989, "Motion that the ZBA, in considering this application, Debbie and Steven Scheibel, for a variance, reject the application, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: The slope analysis map shows the area is unsuitable for development. The proposal places a house that may impede the view of neighbors. The lot in question cannot support a septic system. A holding tank has been offered, which is a poor substitute for a septic system. I would reference Rist-Frost's comments of December 14th, 1989. The map submitted shows, as part of soil stabilization, use of fertilizers would be applied to the lawns. They are up slope up to the lake and probably migrate down slope. There is a reduction permeabil ity of the soil that they're building the house in what is already a very sensitive area. There is a well in the proposal, placed apparently downhill from existing septic systems, while the horizontal distance may be appropriate in an area of shallow soils. As has been pointed out by other Board members, this application does not appear to be in keeping with the Master Plan. I would recommend the Zoning Board also review the Water Resources portion of the Master Plan and some of the strategies involved there. I would also recommend that Mrs. York's minutes of December 15th, 1989 be attached to this recommendation, and any other correspondence addressed to the Planning Board. The Zoning Board recognized that the Scheibels do have reasonable use of the property in the form of the dock." ÞlJTIOf( TO MAICE THE ZBA THE LEAD AGENCY IN AREA VARIANCE rtO. 12-1992 DEBAROJI ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr: Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. TURNER-Now, we will go on with the hearing part of it, since everybody's here. Do you have a map of the preexisting subdivision you could put up? MR. AUFFREDOU-I do. This is the Debaron lot. MR. TURNER-All right. There's how many total lots? MR. AUFFREDOU-In the subdivision? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. AUFFREDOU-Fifteen. MR. CARR-Martin, going back to that map, the APA just brought up a point about Debaron having other properties in the subdivision. Is that true? MR. AUFFREDOU- That's not true. There are no other properties that Debaron has, in the subdivision, to build upon.. STEVE SCHEIBEL MR. SCHEIBEL-Hi. I'm Steve Scheibel. My wife is Debbie Durante, who is a one third partner in the Debaron Associates, who are the owners of two lots in the subdivision, one of them being located along 9L, and having a tennis court on the lot. The other being the lot on the lake. My wife and I have an agreement with my brother-in-law and sister-in-law, that should the action ultimately be approved, we would buy the lot from them, and it would be put into our names, and it would be our home. MR. CARR-This lot? MR. SCHEIBEL-This lot, yes. MR. CARR-Okay. Debaron is a partnership between your wife, her brother and sister-in-law, or her sister? MR. SCHEIBEL-Her sister. MR. CARR-Okay. How many lots do those three people, they control two as partners, as a partnership. How many lots do they control as individuals? MR. SCHEIBEL-One other. Her brother owns a lot. MR. CARR-One other? Her brother owns one? MR. SCHEIBEL-Yes. MR. CARR-So, the sister and your wife own no other lots within this subdivision? 5 MR. SCHEIBEL-No. That's right. MR. AUFFREDOU-I'd just like to make another point of clarification, with regard to the APA letter. Obviously, the APA, or at least a particular individual in the APA, is opposed to this application, has been for a long time, but, just a point of clarification on the lawsuit. The APA did, in fact, retract all of its arguments, with the exception that the Board did not follow its then existing ordinance. As a matter of fact, during the oral argument, before Judge Viscardi, the Judge asked their attorney, you cannot state here today that this lot does not have practical difficulties. Immediately, that argument was withdrawn. So, just a point of clarification, and I know Miss Rottier is not here to defend herself, tonight, but that is a misstatement, and that needs to be clarified. MR. CARR-Okay. Well, to help clarify, do you have the transcript? MR. AUFFREDOU-I don't have a transcript of the Article 78 proceed? I don't. MR. CARR-Is there one in existence? MR. AUFFREDOU-I haven't seen one. The proposal calls for the construction of a single family residence on the lot. It is the exact same proposal that was before this Board two years ago. The footprint of the structure is somewhat less than the 1126, as stated in the Planning Board letter, and that's actually my fault. The footprint is closer to 900 feet. MR. TURNER-Nine hundred square feet? MR. AUFFREDOU-Right. How the 1100 feet was calculated was through a planimeter, on the map of the lot that you have. If you look at the actual plans of the house, the footprint is 900, plus or minus, not 1126, or 1124, whichever has been stated here. MR. TURNER-1124 has been stated. MR. AUFFREDOU- The structure itself will consist of a first floor, which is essentially a basement, a second floor and a third floor. It is a four bedroom, two and a half bath structure for seasonal use only. The basement will contain two bedrooms and a bath. There will be living space on the second floor, with a kitchen and a bathroom and bedrooms and living space on the third floor with a bathroom. It is not a very large house, when one considers the fact that a lot of the living space that the applicants will be using is in the basement, or what's considered to be the first floor. The structure is proposed to be 36 feet from the shore of Lake George. As you all know, the Ordinance calls for Ii feet. The lot itself is only 90 feet deep. In order to meet the 20 foot setback, we can, and with our current proposal, we can be no further than 36 feet from the lake. The lot is undersized, but as you can see from the map, it's really not all that different from many of the lots in the existing subdivision. It's about 1600 square feet. There are other lots in that subdivision that are 1600 square feet. We have a problem. We cannot build a structure on this lot unless we receive an area variance. I don't think that it would be appropriate to even suggest that the applicants should be denied building a structure on this house. This lot has existed for a long time. Taxed at a very high rate. The applicants have done all that they can, I think, through the years, to set forth a proposal that is certainly a minimum proposal. There is nothing eccentric or exotic about this proposal. It is a very modest proposal. We've done everything we can. As far as stornwater, a holding tank for a septic system is proposed. That was all hashed out before the Planning Board, back when it was before them. That issue was before you, in 1990, and that hasn't changed. The applicant still proposes to do that, and still proposes to conform to all stormwater requirements, any topographical issues, any fertilization that's suggested. I think that the applicant would certainly be willing to refrain from any type of use, as far as that goes. A point about the existing docks on the property, there is only the F shaped dock. There are other docks that are nearby, but they are on a different lot. They're not on this lot. There is a structure on the property. It's a very, very small shed. There is an existing stairway which leads down to the dock. The lot size variance that we need is obvious. Under the old Ordinance, we could not prove that we had no use of the property. There was a dock on the property and that was, apparently, a use, but what happened was, the variance procedure, the variance Ordinance, called for an unnecessary hardship, or a use standard, when it should have called for a practical difficulties standard. It now calls for that. We think we have practical difficulties, in light of the unique size of the lot, and it's short depth, and the problem is that we have lost our exemption under the three year provision. The Ordinance was recently amended, and we could not submit an application until the Ordinance was amended. At the same time the Ordinance was amended, the three year exemption for us expired, or thereabouts. We had very little time to submit an application. So, here we are, and now we need a variance from the shoreline setback, and a variance from the minimum lot size requirements. MR. TURNER-Do you have a floor plan of the house? MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes, I do. MRS. EGGLESTON-Could I ask Mr. Scheibel, where do, you spend time at Lake George? What do you do, now? You share quarters with a sister, or how does that work, at this time? 6 MR. SCHEIBEL-Whenever we have the opportunity to come up, we stay with my in-laws, my father and mother- in-law, in their home on Lake George, which is abutting the property. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, you have no other place, not necessarily. in this subdivision, but any surrounding area in Lake George or? MR. SCHEIBEL-No, we don't. MR. CARR-May I ask, is there a boat house on that dock, or is it just a dock? MR. SCHEIBEL-Just a dock. MR. SHEA-When were the neighboring homes, about when were they constructed? MR. SCHEIBEL-I think we may have others in the audience who know the real dates of all that. if you could help us out with that. ROBERT FOLK MR. FOLK-Robert Folk. We're the closest home to this, right above it, and it was built in December 1972. Now, prior to that, the home behind us, belonging to the Whinnerys, had been remodeled, from an old carriage house. So, I'm not sure the date of that remodeling. Do you know, John? JOHN MATTHEWS MR. MATTHEWS-I think it was right around '73 or '74. MR. FOLK-And the three homes on the lakeshore, belonging to the original owners of the seven acre tract were in existence at that time. So, when we came in 1972, there were five homes, altogether. MR. AUFFREDOU-One other point. My calculations indicate that the height of the house, anywhere from 22 to 25 feet. That does not include the chimney which is proposed. I presume that will add another five or six feet, where the chimney is. MR. TURNER-Your permitted height, I think, is 35 feet. Is this the only alternative to the size of the house you can put on the lot? MR. AUFFREDOU- The original proposal, as I understand it, was for a larger house. I suppose that a smaller house could be proposed. I'm not sure that it's necessary, and on that, I would just state that, again, in 1990, this Board approved this very, exact proposal, okay, and it was before. the house, the structure, the plans were before the Planning Board and before this Board as well. We've pushed it back as far as we can from the lake. We meet all other setbacks, except for the shoreline. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think, though, as Ted explained, Mr. Shea wasn't on the Board then. So. really, we have to do this again. MR. TURNER-We have to do it allover again, just like it's brand new. MR. AUFFREDOU-I understand, but as a point of clarification. the Zoning Board, as comprised at that time, approved this proposal. MR. TURNER-Setback, right. MR. AUFFREDOU-And what was proposed at that time. MR. TURNER-Yes, right. MRS. EGGLESTON-How many members of your family are there? MR. SCHEIBEL-We've got four children. MRS. EGGLESTON-School age? MR. SCHEIBEL-Nine. seven. five, and two. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay, and there's no plans for rental, here? MR. SCHEIBEL-There are no plans for rental. MR. AUFFREDOU-One other point, as stated at the 1990 hearing, and it hasn't changed, we are willing to file any type of document with the County Clerk, which would restrict us to a seasonal use, and, for that matter, if there's a concern about rental. that language could be added as well. 7 MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOANNE WHINNERY MRS. WHINNERY-My name is Joanne Whinnery, and I'm speaking on behalf of myself, and my mother, Beverly Whinnery, who is unable to be here tonight. We own what used to be the carriage house that was renovated, and it's on Lot 9 of the Dark Bay Association. I had sent a letter, today, which I'm sure is in your packets, and I would like to just cover a couple of odds and ends on it, if I could. I'm writing in response to the application, in opposition of it. Quite a few things have already been discussed tonight. One of the areas that I bring up is that it's my understanding, and, again, I realize I'm not a lawyer or anything, and it's my layman's understanding that in order for a variance to be granted, it must be proved that this lot is not going to provide an economic value for the people that own it. We have been there 11 and a half years, at this point, and as long as we've resided in the Association, there are two docks on that property. I am unsure why the lawyer says that there's only one. I was there this morning, before I left for work today. There are two docks on the property. One is the dock on the north most end, which is the one that's on the map. This dock has been used by Mr. Durante and members of the Debaron Association over the 11 years that we've been there. There's always been at least one, if not two boats docked at that dock. Also, they've used it for their water access, swimming, fishing, etc. MR. CARR-Do you know, have they paid for that? MRS. WHINNERY-I'm unsure. MR. CARR-Did they pay for the dock space? Did they pay for water access? I mean, you're talking about economic benefit, well, if they aren't getting money for this, then there's no economic benefit. I'm just wondering, do you know if they're charging? MRS. WHINNERY-I'm not sure if they did. I think my point in saying that is that this lot could be sold as a water access lot. As in my letter, I stated that there are other lots on Lake George that are not built on, but people come up to them, park there car on it, put a hammock on it, use their dock, use it as an access to the water for the amenities of Lake George. Therefore, the Debaron, or Mr. Scheibel, if it's going to be his lot eventually, would be able to sell that and have an economic return from that lot, as my understanding would be. Also, the second dock that's on that property has been used for the same purpose. There has not always been a boat at that dock, but there has been, at different times during the years. MR. CARR-Is that at the south end? MRS. WHINNERY-That's at the south end. MR. CARR-Okay. That looks like there's a little jut. Is it just a short? MRS. WHINNERY-It's a U. MR. CARR-It is a U. MRS. WHINNERY-Yes. I don't know if I'm allowed to ask him questions at this, but I'm unsure as to why you're saying that that dock is not on the property. MR. AUFFREDOU-If I may, I had asked Mr. Scheibel if there was a second dock on the property, and he said that there was none. He may be mistaken. I went up and looked at the property. I didn't necessarily make a determination as to whether there was a second dock or not. It looked like it was close to the other property line, but perhaps Mr. Scheibel is mistaken. MR. CARR-I'm just trying to clarify, is this the dock you're talking about, down here? I mean, see, this is what we've got. We've got a U shaped dock here. MRS. WHINNERY-Yes. MR. CARR-So, that's the big one with the two boats, right? MRS. WHINNERY-Yes. MR. CARR-Then, is this the other one you're talking about? MRS. WHINNERY-Yes. MR. CARR-Okay. That's not on their property. 8 MRS. WHINNERY-We have a map with the ~gistration number and the sticker that's on it. I I I MRS. WHINNERY-This is the dock. Th+ is what is the beginning of the Beach Association dock, and it does extend over. I ¡ MR. CARR-Okay. Well, I think this gen~leman said he can clarify this matter. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. That's not on ou~ map. I MR. CARR-There is a dock there. MR. CARR-That's not on our map. MRS. WHINNERY-I have given Mr. Carr I a map that shows the second dock on the southern part of the property, and we have the registrationl number from the dock on it. ¡ MR. CARR-Sir, do you know the eXist~nce of that dock, or could you give us a little history on this dock? I ¡ I ROBERT FOLK I MR. FOLK-No. I can't give you all ~he history, but I can give it to you from 1972 on, if that will do. Robert Folk, again, Lot 7 in t~e Dark Bay Association. That dock was originally a boat house, and the boat house had been removedifrom the dock, by the time I had arrived. It was then just two slips, as has been indicated here, a d the dock that is being referred to as the F dock has actually been used by Mr. and Mrs. Durante, ho own the adjoining lot. So, in effect, although the lot shows two docks on it, one dock has been s rving another house, and the boat house dock is attached to the lot you're considering. Now, that's lnot the way it looks on the map. They're both on that lot, but that's not the use that's been in pracìice. That's all. ! MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Okay. ! MRS. WHINNERY-The F shaped lot that Ir. Folk is referring to is, indeed, used by Mr. Durante, but it has also been used by many members f his family, including, I have seen the Scheibels on the dock, and other members of the Debaron Ass ciation. So, my point, I think I'd like to make is that there are many other of these types of lots, water access lots, that do not necessarily have building on them, and I would believe that the pe ple that own those lots would feel that they have a fair economic value and that those lots are worth Isomething to them, and can be worth something to them without a building on it. My letter also talk1d about the characteristics of the lot, which we've talked about the steepness. I do not know if the members of the Board have been at it, but it does empty out into a shallow cove. It does not empty ut onto the main lake. This cove is somewhat sandy. It does, gradually, get deeper as you go out ¡to the main section of the lake and this has always, since I've been there, has had spawning beds on~the sand part of the bottom of the Bay. As noted in my letter, last year the RPI Freshwater Institu e Research group was trying to plot out beds of milfoil in the lake, and they did confirm to me, ve bally, on the dock that day that, indeed, we do have some in the Bay already, and my point to all of his is, if there's building done, because there is not the proper setback that has been determined by law, and due to the steepness of the lot, I do believe that there is a strong potential that all the uilding materials that are used could easily seep into the lake. There's not enough setback to take ca e of those types of things, as normally happens with the building of a house. Also, the holding tank t at I believe is being proposed. Once again, you're an undersized lot. There's not enough setback inc uded with this. There is, I do not believe, the reliability of a holding tank is always in question. It is as good as your own, and you have to have it pumped out on a regular basis, and even when i is pumped out, there's been many studies that have shown that holding tanks leak. I'm not sayin this one will, in particular, but there's always a strong possibility. This is why I think D H Codes, Department of Health Codes, do not allow them on new construction, with new construction n lake side lots without a variance. There's got to be a good reason for that rule, for that stan ard that's been set by Department of Health. I have concluded by asking, on the letter, although I ave one other point that I would like to request that each member of the Board go up and look at this lot before the next meeting happens. The reason for my request is, in 1990, when the Zoning Board looked at it, it was my understanding that one of the members of the Zoning Board was considering the rong lot, until they saw it. They did not realize what the lot looked like. I also proposed that ebaron Associates stake out the lot, including staking out the holding tank, so that you can have clear understanding of what this is going to mean on this lot, on this steep lot, emptying into a hallow cove. One other suggestion that I had, although I have to say I was taken a little bit offl base tonight, is the suggestion to build on another lot and use the lot that they're proposing on thpir application for their water access lot. It's a proven water access lot. The family and members ff Debaron Associates have been using it as a water access lot. There's no reason why they can't bu ld on another lot and continue to use it that way. It was my understanding, until I got here toniiht, that Lot 8 and Lot 11 on the map were part of the Debaron Associates holdings. This lot is dia onally across a small Association road, and it's my understanding now that Debbie's brother Ron owns . hat lot, correct? Okay. Well, my suggestion to be considered is that, if these 9 families are discussing this as a summer home only, that it's very reasonable to look at a duplex on that lot, for Ron's family and for the Scheibel family, and it is a lake view lot and you can continue to use the existing lot on the water as their water access, and I really wish that that would be considered in this place, in the place of this proposal. I'd like to thank you for your time and assistance, in advance, and I look forward to hearing your decision on this. MRS. EGGLESTON-Can I ask you where your lot is, in association to this, this house? MRS. WHINNERY-I can show you on this one. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. WHINNERY-Here's this. We're here. We go up a roadway. However, we use the beach dock and beach lot, which is. MR. TURNER-Isn't there a right-of-way through there some place? MRS. EGGLESTON-Right here is a right-of-way. MRS. WHINNERY-Well, no, this is the Association road that takes us up to our house. It's a macadam road, okay. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-And this is your house, you said, here. MRS. WHINNERY-This is our house. I'm trying to find the beach lot on this. This is the beach lot, okay. Off of right here is our dock. So, we walk through here. There's two stairways. It's all grassy. We walk down here to the water. Any of the runoff from anything that happens will come directly into our area that we have for water access, that we pay a lot of money for. MRS. EGGLESTON-What would this do to your view? MRS. WHINNERY-To be quite honest, it would obstruct it in the winter time. When the leaves are off the trees, we are able to see right into the cove. The height of this proposed building would obstruct our view. This is us, here. This is the carriage house. We are able to see right down here, and this would obstruct the view. MR. CARR-When did you buy this lot? MRS. WHINNERY-We bought this in November of '80. MR. CARR-Okay. It was a subdivision at that time? MRS. WHINNERY-Yes. MR. CARR-Okay. Were any representations made about the building lots, the others in the subdivision? MRS. WHINNERY-In what respect? MR. CARR-Well, I mean, they told you this would be, this was considered a building lot, at the time. Is that correct? I mean, the people didn't tell you, well, these lots would never be built on or anything like that? Did they? Do you recall? MRS. WHINNERY-Yes. Well, I recall believing that there would be no further building in here. In fact, this lot was built on after we came in, and we were told at the time we bought this that this would not be built on, and it's right next to us, and my understanding was, when we bought it, that there would be no further building, that people owned lots, but the reason they retained their lots is that they wanted access to the beach through either the Beach Association. MR. TURNER-Let me ask you a question. You understood, when you bought Lot 9, that all these lots were included in the rest of the subdivision? MRS. WHINNERY-Yes, but it was our understanding there wouldn't be any further building. MR. CARR-Okay. Can I ask you, who did you buy from? MRS. WHINNERY-We bought from a family called the Gravinas, who had done the conversion from a carriage house to the house that we have now. MR. CARR-And they were the ones who said they don't think, I mean, the Debaron Associates, who's subdivision is this? 10 \ -- ~ MR. SHEA-They weren't the developers of the subdivision. MRS. WHINNERY-No. They were not. Well, no. Debaron Associates were not the developers. MR. SHEA-No. The people that you bought your home from, your property from, were not the developers of the subdivision? MRS. WHINNERY-That's right. That's correct. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, the Debarons own what lots down here, the Association, Debaron? MRS. WHINNERY-This one. MR. CARR-No. This is the brother, right. He owns two? MRS. WHINNERY-Right. MR. CARR-Mr. Scheibel, your brother owns 8 and II? MR. SCHEIBEL-That's right. MR. CARR-Okay, and it's just one lot, right? MR. SCHEIBEL-That's right. MRS. WHINNERY-Yes. MR. SCHEIBEL-This was an original map. He combined these two lots. He doesn't have a house on his. MR. CARR-He doesn't have a house? MRS. WHINNERY-No. That's why I'm saying, this is the lot that, up until today, I was under the assumption that Debaron owned also. My proposal was that one could be built here and use this as a proven water access lot. MR. CARR-I think you've also got to realize, I mean, family may be family, but this is the brother's lot. It's not Debaron's lot and it's not Scheibel's lot. MRS. WHINNERY-Right, but I will say though that there's, when we sit as an Association and we meet at least once a year regarding things in here, such as upkeep of the road and things like that. I can't say that it's absolutely been said to me, but it's always been an assumption that this was all the same family holdings, and I guess it was a surprise to me, today, to find out that it's not, that these were not part of the Debaron Associates holdings. I would be interested to know exactly when they were changed, if at any time, or has the deed always been in Ron's name, or? MR. SCHEIBEL-Back into the '70's. MRS. WHINNERY-Okay. Then that's my error, I have to say, but, again, a duplex could be easily built, if we're talking summer home. MR. SCHEIBEL-I would only point out that we are separate families and that's his lot and not mine, and we did, also, bring this to the attention of the entire Association, back in 1989, but there was a vote of the Association that was in support of, and I think those letters may be in the file. MRS. WHINNERY-No. I'm sorry. That's not right. There was not a vote that was in agreement or support. It was not. MR. SCHEIBEL-I would certainly be willing to make that a condition of this, that we have a supportive motion by the Association of homeowners. MRS. WHINNERY-That would be wonderful. MR. AUFFREDOU-You're here, ma'am? MRS. WHINNERY-Yes. MR. AUFFREDOU-You stated that this was going to block your view? MRS. WHINNERY-No. I said, in the winter time, when the leaves are off the trees, we are able to see from our house into the cove, and I said in the winter time. MR. AUFFREDOU-I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. 11 ~ -) MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. Thank you. MRS. WHINNERY-Thank you. MR. CARR-I do have a question for Mr. Scheibel. Mr. Durante, using your dock, does he pay for that use? MR. SCHEIBEL-No. There's a deed restriction that allows their lot access to that dock. MR. CARR-Are you saying he has an easement to your dock? MR. SCHEIBEL-Yes. He does. MR. CARR-Okay. MRS. WHINNERY-Could you repeat that? There's an easement to your dock? The southern dock or the northern dock? MR. CARR-The F shaped dock. MR. SCHEIBEL-The F shaped dock, the large dock. MRS. WHINNERY-Is that deeded? MR. CARR-His deed allows it? MR. SCHEIBEL-Actually, I'm not positive that it's deeded. MR. CARR-Okay. What right does he have to use the dock? MR. SCHEIBEL-It's always been a family property. MR. CARR-Okay. So, right now, it's just a license. He's just allowed to use it. MR. SCHEIBEL-Right. MR. CARR-It's revocable at will. Okay, but you don't charge him for it? You do not get an economic benefit for right now? MR. SCHEIBEL-That's right. No, there is no economic benefit. MR. CARR-Okay. Do you get an economic benefit from anything on this lot? MR. SCHEIBEL-No. MR. CARR-I mean, access to the lake or anything, at this time? MR. SCHEIBEL-Well, it provides an access to the dock. MR. CARR-Right, but nobody ~you for that access? MR. SCHEIBEL-No. There's no money associated, there's no economic benefit associated with our owning that lot. MRS. EGGLESTON-You don't rent the docks? You don't rent boat space or that type of thing? MR. SCHEIBEL-No, we don't. MRS. WHINNERY-But that's not my point. MR. CARR-No. I know what your point is. I'm just asking, right now, if there's anything. MRS. WHINNERY-After I sat down, I realized there was one more point. Mr. Scheibel had said that there was a support of this application for a house to be built at an Association meeting, and that is not true. What we did, when Mr. Durante proposed it to us, was asked him quite a few questions. At the time, he asked us if he would give us a right-of-way to use the beach grassy lot as a leachfield to a septic system, and we said no to that, that we felt it would be difficult to walk through a leachfield to our dock, and the effects of that. There was not any further discussion. He told us he was going to be bringing this to the Zoning Board for a variance, but there was not a consent. There was not a dissent either, but there was not a consent to it. We felt that we did not have all of the information at the time, to give an Association consent to it. At the next year's meeting, the only thing we talked 12 about was the fact that the decision had been reversed by the APA. Mr. Durante told us that he believed that he was going to take further legal action, and there has been no more discussion about it since that time. There was not a consent by the Association. MR. CARR-Who's Mr. Durante in this whole scenario? MR. TURNER-Mr. Durante is Mr. Scheibel's father-in-law who owns the lot. MRS. WHINNERY-He's the one that uses the F shaped dock that's on this lot. MR. CARR-Okay. MRS. YORK-He owns the adjacent parcel. MR. CARR-Okay. MRS. WHINNERY-That's why you need to come up and look at it, so you can get an idea of what everything is. MRS. EGGLESTON-We've all been up there. MR. TURNER-We've been up there. MR. CARR-I have not been there this year. MRS. WHINNERY-Have you been there when this new proposal has been staked out, with the holding tank on it? I request that to happen. MR. TURNER-Well, let me say this, in respect to that remark. Mr. Stewart had some pictures, in '90, showing the location of the holding tank that was staked out, and where the house was going to be located, and I was looking in the file to see if they were there, but they're not there. MRS. WHINNERY-Did the proposal in 1990 include a septic system pumped up onto Lot 8, or a holding tank? MR. TURNER-A holding tank. MRS. WHINNERY-Okay. Thanks again. MR. TURNER-Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition to the application? SUSAN WEBBER MRS. WEBBER-Hello, Ladies and Gentlemen. My name is Susan Webber. I'm here on my own behalf, as a neighbor, and also on behalf of my family. We own a residence around the corner from Dark Bay, and we have lived there seasonally, and used it in the winter time, too, since about 1962, when it was built. I'm very familiar with Dark Bay, and I'm real concerned with degradation of Dark Bay, especially since the milfoil was found there last year, and since the gigantic big house was built up on the hill. What you have here is a neighborhood of basically quite large houses set back from the water, mostly hidden by trees, a lot of them, and I would like to take exception, too, with the statement that the lot sizes are pretty much in character with this lot size. That's not the case. Let me borrow the map. In this subdivision, I have a subdivision map, here, that was filed in the County Clerk's Office. It's dated May 1st, 1969, and on the right hand side of the map is a listing of the lot numbers with their square feet, and this is Lot Number Four, and it is listed at 15,500 square feet, and it is the smallest lot in the subdivision. The largest lot in the subdivision is Number 14, which is 25,083 square feet, and I'm not going to bore you with reading them all, but most of them are 18 to 19,000 square feet. MR. SHEA-What's the next largest size, other than 15,500 square feet? MRS. WEBBER-16,400. Then it jumps up to 18,300, 18,400, 18,500, 18,500, like that. You're welcome to take a peek, if you'd like. The first thing, I did send a letter to the Board, and I hope it came in decent form, and I'm not going to reiterate everything that's in there, you'll be glad to know, but I would like to say one thing about the economic argument, the hardship, practical difficulty argument. The test is not whether they are, at present, receiving money for the lot. If Mr. Scheibel buys the property or gets the property, in some fashion, from the family corporation, Mr. Scheibel builds his house there. Mr. Scheibel will not be getting money for it. He will not be getting an economic return from using the house. Right now, he gets the same sort of economic return from the property. He gets use of it. He could be getting actual money, if he charged, if Debaron Associates charged for the lake access that this lot provides to all the members of the family, and that is worth a lot of money. Anybody who has lake property knows what access to the lake is worth, and that is the test. It's really, could they be using this for money if they wanted to, whether it be by a house on it, or by renting dock space where they've got space for approximately four boats, or whatever. That's the test, I think. 13 MR. CARR-We're talking a lot about economics, and we are considering that, because economics comes to reasonable use, it comes into play. Economics really isn't, an area variance is what they're asking for. That's use variance. That's when the real economic return plays into it, in a major role. That's in the Ordinance. Just to clarify, I mean, it is an argument to make, that it may be an argument for reasonable return, or reasonable use of the property, that it can be used as a dock rental space, or whatever, and that may be enough to say, but to say, economics, that's really a use variance, just to clarify. MRS. WEBBER-Okay. What 11m speaking to is the issue of a variance at all. I think, in the APA decision, and I believe that that was not taken away by the court, it's clearly stated, the case law there is clearly stated that, if a variance is to be granted, first the applicant must prove that there is no economic benefit, no existing use to which the property can be put, under the existing zoning. MR. CARR-Okay. Just to disagree, it's not economic use. It's reasonable use. MR. WEBBER-Okay, reasonable use. Well, they've been reasonably using it for 20 years. The second point I'd like to make is the holding tank. This lot, as you all know, since you've all visited it, is steep. It's very steep. It's not quite as steep as it was before they put the fill in it, two years ago, but it's very steep. If something should happen to that holding tank, if the holding tank should freeze in the winter, and rupture, all that effluent will go directly into this little Bay, okay. There's no real good reason to let them build a house on this lot, that's going to risk the quality of the lake, which is our drinking water. My drinking water, the other residents of the neighborhood drink the water from there. I'd like to make an argument about the view shed. Could I see the plan of the house? That has not been available, as far as I know, until today. It looks like a lovely house, except for, the east elevation is three stories high, and it's the same, each of the stories is the same depth, and this lot is vertical, practically. They're going to have to blast away the side of this lot in order to build this house. Now, what is that going to do? I mean, there's no depth of soil there now. It's rock. They're going to have to blast away the rock to stick this thing on this tiny little narrow lot. I really do object to that. When Rockhurst was built, and when Cleverdale was developed, there were not Zoning Ordinances, and look what happened. Look at the problems that we have there because of the density, because of the over-development. Look at the problems in water quality. Look at the problems in people's lives there. The noise. Where we live, where Dark Bay is now, there's a completely different character. It's quieter. Houses are spread apart. They're set back from the water. This is a lovely house. I'll grant you that. It would look great on Lot Number 12. It would look great on Lot Number 8, but on Lot Number 4, it'll be right up there on the water. Right there in front of everybody when they come in and out of the Bay. It'll block people's views. It blocks people's views of the hill side, and I would respectfully request that you please deny this variance. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition? CATHY VILMAR MRS. VILMAR-My name is Cathy Vilmar from the Lake George Association. I'm in charge of moderate land use around the basin. I took a couple of minutes, I'm here on behalf of many property owners who have contacted me on the project. So, I took a couple of minutes this afternoon, and I reviewed the project, as of 1988, when the LGA first became involved, and I went through some of the minutes, and just briefly I want to go over that, just a couple of seconds. On October 10th, 1988, the Warren County Planning Board disapproved the variance, which is moot now because they have approved it. On November 16th, 1988, the Queensbury Zoning Board decides that the application needs to have a review by the Planning Board because of site restrictions. On May 2nd, 1989, the Planning Board discussed the problems with lot size, and the Town Attorney determined, at that time, that the lot had lost it's grandfathered status. Now, I heard Mr. Auffredou say that the lot was, that the reason they have to do SEQRA is because it's a Type II action, but now it's a density variance because it's lost it's grandfathered status. So, it's now a Type I action, but actually, in 1989, if you go back in the Planning Board minutes of May, the Town Attorney decided, at that time, and the Assistant Planning Director decided, at that time, that had lost it's grandfathering status. So, I wanted to get that on the record. So, the density variance was needed back then. On October 17th, 1989, the Planning Board, Town Staff, and the Lake George Park Commission Engineer recommended against the use of a holding tank, because of the poor soil conditions. In fact, the Lake George Park Commission Engineer said there wasn't enough soil on the site to actually cover a holding tank. The Town Attorney, at that time, explained to the Board the procedures for a SEQRA Review. On December 19th, 1989, the Planning Board discussed whether site plan review is required, and it's my opinion that it is going to be required, because if a variance is needed 36 feet from the shore, site plan review is required within 50 feet of the shore, placing fill, and I'm assuming a house within 50 feet is going to require site plan review. I don't know your procedure for that. I assume that if the Zoning Board grants approval, the applicant would then go to the Building Department, and the Building Department might say, you need a site plan review to place the house within 50 feet of a shore. What I'm getting at is the coordinated review under SEQRA. When it goes back to the Planning Board, you will have already made your SEQRA determination. They're the planning experts and they're going to be looking at the soil conditions, and everything else that the neighbors have mentioned. You people deal more with the law. So, if there is a site plan review that's 14 going to be required for building within 50 feet of the shore, maybe now is the time to determine that, and if there is, bring the Planning Board in and get their expert opinion, and maybe perhaps the Planning Board should be the Lead Agency on the environmental part of the project. MR. CARR-Lee, can you address if the variances are granted and they do build their, is it back fill there? MR. TURNER-If they bring fill in. MRS. YORK-This was discussed at length during the previous application, and I was just discussing this with Pat. First of all, as you know, the lot was in an approved subdivision, that's Number One. This Board looked at the possibility of whether fill would be brought in. The applicant stated that there would be no fill brought in. That's what they stated. If, in fact, there is fill, the Board may want some kind of documentation from someone, as to whether fill will be needed. If it has to be brought in, if there will have to be blasting or excavation done on the site to place the house, because that will definitely be a concern, with the proximity to the lake, if there is excavation and large equipment in there. These things the Board may want substantiated information on. MRS. CRAYFORD-It would have to be determined at the time of application for the Building Permit. MRS. EGGLESTON-But they must know, now, if they're going to have to use blasting and the stone. MRS. CRAYFORD-But we don't know that they are going to blast. MRS. EGGLESTON-No, but someone here must know. MRS. YORK-The Board can request that the appl icant get that information. I'm sure an engineer can te 11. MR. TURNER-They're going to have to come back, so they can bring it back the next time, rather than address it tonight. MRS. VILMAR-Okay. Well, that was my basic point. I totally agree with the Planning Staff that, and the applicant's attorney. It's a Type I action, and I commend the Board in going that way. I know it's difficult. I do want to say that, given the history of this property, and I know it goes back long before I was involved in it. I talked a little bit with Frank DeSantis about it, and he was on the Planning Board a long time ago, and he told me a lot about it. I think this might just be one of those properties that's nonbuildable. The Town put that three year time limit in their Zoning Ordinance quite a few years ago for this purpose, to catch those lots along the lake shore and in sensitive areas that just were approved without the help of a Zoning Board of Appeals and a Planning Board and a SEQRA Review, and that just might not be buildable. Well, if the ZBA decides to maintain Lead Agency Status, the Lake George Association, on behalf of the property owners in the area, and there are quite a few, based on the site constraints and the Planning Board's previous recommendation to this Board, and the APA's position on the area variance, we'd ask that the area variance be denied. We would also ask that, after tonight's hearing, considering that the application is incomplete, that the public hearing be left open until everybody's had a chance to review the Type I. Thank you. MR. TURNER-I will. Thank you. MR. SHEA-You say you're here representing other owners, in addition to those who have already spoken in the public hearing tonight? Do you have a list of those people that asked you to come forth? MRS. VILMAR-No. I don't have a list. MR. SHEA-Do you know any of those that contacted you to ask that the Lake George Association represent them, here, tonight? MRS. VILMAR-I could get you that list. I could certainly get you that list. MR. TURNER-You'll be here next time, right? MRS. VILMAR-I'll be here. MR. TURNER-Okay. Bring the list with you. MRS. VILMAR-Thank you. MR. TURNER-Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition to the application? JOHN MATTHEWS 15 MR. MATTHEWS-~ name is John Matthews. I'm a neighbor. I was asked by another resident in the property here, Mrs. Nancy Highman, to come and speak on her behalf. Basically everything that I wanted to say has been said. The only thing I'd like to do is make sure that if and when they do come back, that their map is correct. As far as the docks, there are two docks. They're registered Number 1137 and Number 1136. The registration fee has been paid by Debaron Associates. The second discrepancy that I find in the lot is on the application they're saying that the lot is 16,000 feet. The original lot was 15,500 square feet. Somewhere along the line, the southern lot line was moved inward, which decreased the size of the lot. Now, I don't see any compensation for that at all. They've actually increased the size of the lot, as far as their numbers go. and if you look at any of these old maps, you can see that there was a crooked line going down through there, and then they changed it to the line that's on your map today, which ends up right about on the edge of the second dock. Having lived in this area, basically, all my life, and enjoyed a lot of activities in the Bay, and built a couple of the houses in this particular subdivision, I just think it's a little too close and too tight to the lake, and in lieu of the fact that the bedrock is very close. There's very little soil in there. As a matter of fact, I replaced, or fixed the wall for Mr. Durante, down along the shore, I think it's shown on the plan, there, there's a retaining wall, and we dug down about two feet and it's all ledge in there. So, in order to find any kind of a basement, they're going to have to notch out, somehow, or have rocks in the cellar, like the rest of the places have. The ability to use a basement along that line would mean either filling in or blasting, and if you fill in, it's going to raise the house way up in the air, and if you blast it's going to loosen up the soils, and what not, in the area. So, I'd kind of like to protect the lake, and I do feel that there is ample room in the subdivision for a house to be built. There are three or four lots vacant that can't be sold, basically, because of the lot size. I mean, they've tried, for a number of years, to sell lots, and with the new zoning and new restrictions, those lots are basically stuck in the hands of the people that have their names on the deeds right now, as I see it. If they were sold, they would be, the people that bought those lots would be restricted to the use of the existing beach lot, which is there, which has very limited boat access. Now, they're stuck with three or four boat slips, which really isn't enough to accommodate the lots, because there's not enough room there for them. So, in theory, that whole lot should be part of the Association property, or used as such. This is 1992, not 1968, or '70, when the development was put through. So, I think we ought to kind of stick with today's rules, and protect the lake. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else to be heard in opposition to the application? All right. The public hearing's closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. YORK-Mr. Chairman, did you plan to leave the public hearing open? MR. TURNER-I'm going to leave it. I'm just saying it's closed for now. MRS. YORK-Okay. Thank you. MR. AUFFREDOU-If I may, I'll be very brief, I promise. We will, at the next meeting, have a report from our engineer as to whether blasting or fill will be necessary. I'll stipulate to that, no problem. I think it needs to be stated that the opposition we're hearing tonight is the same opposition that was in the record a number of years ago. It's not to this particular house. It's not necessarily to this particular proposal. It's to the building of any kind, on this property. It's the same opposition that we've heard, and if the Board were to deny this variance application, on those grounds, I think what the Board is doing is denying the applicant the reasonable use of that property, which is what it's zoned for, a Single Family Residential home. That's our position on that. That position hasn't changed through the years, and, again, we are a subdivision that's been around for a long time, admittedly, but we feel that we've done everything we possibly can, through the years, to accommodate what's necessary. and to put a reasonable structure on that house. One final point, on the three year exemption. I think the intent of that is something quite different than what was stated here. A three year exemption puts current land owners on notice that your lot size may no longer conform to our variance regulations or our zoning regulations. What happens at the end of the three years, if the owner hasn't done anything with the property. either built on it or sold it. the exemption is lost, but that's where the variance protection kicks in. There's always that variance that's permissible, if practical difficulties is proven, and that's what we think we've done. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. MRS. EGGLESTON-I have one question for Mr. Scheibel. How big is the house of your in-laws, where you stay when you're? MR. SCHEIBEL-I think they're house is, I don't know. Mr. Matthews, do you have a? MR. MATTHEWS-It's about 4500 square feet, total, first floor, second floor. MRS. EGGLESTON-And how many bedrooms? MR. SCHEIBEL-Four bedrooms. 16 MRS. EGGLESTON-This might not be an appropriate question, but I'll ask it anyway. Will that someday be your wife's property? MR. SCHEIBEL-We don't anticipate that it will and, in fact, this past year, and for the past two years, we've been limited, my family has been limited to visiting twice during the summer, for a long weekend period, because it is uncomfortable for them to have all the kids running around the house and the hectic atmosphere, and my brother-in-law and his family up at the same time. So, it is not a feasible situation to just plan on having the use of their home. MRS. EGGLESTON-All right. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Correspondence. CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-Do I read all these letters again, since these people were here and went over them. We had Joanne Winnery who gave her short synopsis of her letter, and we had Susan Webber who was here, and we had, speaking on behalf of Highman, we had John. MR. TURNER-Are those the only letters you've got? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, those three. MRS. YORK-If the Board would want, I can make copies of those and send them out with the Planning Board minutes to you all, if you want to expedite things. MR. TURNER-Yes. I'd like that. I think the other thing we ought to have is the total layout of the subdivision, indicating the lots, the size, and so forth. MRS. EGGLESTON-And what are their plans. MR. TURNER-And about the docks. You're going to address the docks? MR. AUFFREDOU-The existing docks? MR. TURNER-The two docks that are not shown on this map. MR. AUFFREDOU-We can amend the existing map, send that in, as well as the subdivision map. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-And what are their plans for getting into the rock? MR. TURNER-They're going to address that. MR. AUFFREDOU-We agreed. That's necessary. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. FOLK-If I could just make one comment, the map you're using over here is badly out of date, in terms of lots combined, lots added to. MR. TURNER-Yes, that's why we want the new map. MR. FOLK-There are two additions to my lot, Number 7, which are not recorded on that map. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-Thank you for that information. MR. CARR-Mark, would it be possible, I guess, because of that, just to have one of your people check the County Clerk and put in the name of the owners who owned the various lots, so we can just see where everything is? MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes. MR. TURNER-Show what's combined and whatever. MRS. YORK-And, would you bring in a Long Environmental Assessment Form, please. 17 "-" -' MR. AUFFREDOU-I stated earlier, Lee, I've got it 98 percent completed. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. AUFFREDOU-I suspect I'll have it done, I'll have it to you by Friday. MRS. YORK-Okay. Thank you. MR. AUFFREDOU-Part One. MRS. YORK-Right. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-1992 DEBARON ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: For the further information that is requested by the Board. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. TURNER-And I would assume that you'll have the information ready for next month? MR. AUFFREDOU-That's correct. (9:19 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-lA JOHN E. SINNOTT (lifER: SAlE AS ABOVE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF lVICIIOOD LAND ArtD CEDARIIOQO DRIVE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. LOT IS PREEXISTING, NOfICONFORMING IN THAT IT IS UNDERSIZED IN A 1 ACRE ZONE. TAX MP NO. 68-4-10.6 LOT SIZE: 17,865 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-76 MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (9:19 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 13-1992, John Sinnott, 2-12-92, Meeting Date: February 26, 1992 "The applicant requests a variance for a lot in an existing subdivision which has become nonconforming by virtue of the area size. The project is consistent with the neighborhood. 1) Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. The lot is existing and cannot be made to conform to the current standard. 2) Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty or is there any other option available which would require no variance? Yes. 3) Would this variance be detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict with the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town? No.4) What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services? None 5) Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? Yes." MR. AUFFREDOU-Martin Auffredou, from Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart, and Rhodes, in Glens Falls, attorney for Mr. Sinnott. This variance is a request from the minimum lot size, similar to what was before you. The difference, here, of course, is that this is certainly a Type II SEQRA Review, and I believe it's right for the Board's review tonight. The applicant, Mr. Sinnott, owns a number of lots in the Twicwood Subdivision, specifically, Lots 90 and 89, and also 88, which is the lot which he intends to get a variance from. He has a contract for sale which is contingent upon the Board's approval. The zone is Single Family Residential One Acre. The lot is shy of a half acre, approximately 17,865 square feet. It's present use is vacant. Any proposal that would, for a building or what not, would obviously have to meet setback requirements. There's enough room on the property for a home which would be consistent with the size and quality of the homes in the Twicwood Subdivision, to be built there and to meet the setbacks. The size of the lot is certainly consistent with the size of the lots in the Twicwood Subdivision. They're all relatively undersized for that zone. There may be a couple of in there that meet the one acre. From my perspective, there are none in the immediate vicinity that meet the zone requirements. So, Mr. Sinnott is looking for an area variance, lot size variance. He does wish to sell the property. Again, he has a contract to sell the property. This is a situation where the three year exemption has come and gone. It came and went on October 1st. The contract for sale was signed on October 27th. He was attempting to sell the property, and the first offer that he got, and it's a very modest sale for a lot in Queensbury, was taken. He has the contract for sale, but, again, he needs the relief that we've requested. MR. TURNER-Are there any restrictions in the Twicwood Association as to the size of the house or value of the house? 18 ) " MR. AUFFREDOU-I believe that there are. I'm not familiar with those, but as I understand it, any house, as it's been relayed to me, the lot is certainly large enough to build upon, for any house that would be built there. Even assuming a 2500 square foot house is built, it's still going to meet the permeability requirements. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. AUFFREDOU-And I don't think the houses there are that large. MR. TURNER-Any questions? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GERY HUDOCK MR. HUDOCK-My name is Gery Hudock, and I live at One Cedarwood Drive, which will be directly opposite the proposed site, on the corner. Now, this proposed site, when I first moved up here from Florida, four and a half years ago, the realtor told me that this site could not be built upon, because of not having one acre, okay. When you look at a place to build you home and buy a home, you look at all the existing houses around, and what they look like. Now, Mr. Sinnott owns the other two lots. He owns a beautiful home. It's well landscaped, adjoining that lot, and he has enjoyed the total use, while he was living in that home, the total use of all the lots he owns as one, and it's beautiful. Now, he has his own home for sale. I do not know where he wants to move, or when he is planning to move, or whether or not he has already moved, but, right now what he wants to do, instead of applying that lot to his land use, what he was using, the whole time he was living there, and sell it as that basis, now he wants to split it up so that a realtor told him he can get more money for it, split that lot away from his other lots, without any care for the other home developments in the area, and when you move into the area, knowing that that lot was undersized, you say, that is a nice wooded lot. His house is beautiful. He's got statutes all around. It's really gorgeous. My house would never match that. It's really nice. So, then you come into the point where he wants to move. He doesn't care about the neighborhood anymore. So, sell off the lots. Put the density higher. What do I care? I want the money in .!!!l. pocket. It's my land. I can use it for whatever I want to. It's good business for me, and that's where it comes down to, of what he wants to do with it, right now, to get a couple of extra dollars, versus selling it with his total house, which his house is on the market. Then you get to the other part of the septic tank. When I bought my house from the Manigolds, I questioned the septic tank part and the lot size, and they told me that they had just re-done their septic tank, no problems. Well, I will be glad when the sewerage system, if it ever comes through, comes through that area. There are definitely problems with septic tanks on those lot sizes, and that's one reason why the Board, I would imagine, went to one acre lot sizes, because of the septic systems, and, yes, I have problems with my septic tank. Neighbors have problems with the septic tank. You don't know when they're there, when you hear the truck. You don't hear the truck, but you can sure smell it. So, as far as meeting the septic system, it will last for a while, but there are definitely problems with the septic tank system in that area. No question about that. So, to recap, I want to say I am opposed to it, based on that he enjoyed, while he lived there, and was planning to live there his whole life, enjoyed the whole acreage, and everybody around it enjoyed it also, and he let the time period lapse, and now he wants out. He wants to sell all his property. So, I'm saying, sell all the property in one. Thank you. MR. TURNER-What size is your lot? MR. HUDOCK-My lot is, what, half an acre, .48. MR. CARR-Yes. It looks about the same. MR. HUDOCK-Yes. MR. CARR-I'd just like to explain something, that we're, prior to this summer, Mr. Sinnott would not have been able to do this at this time, because those lots would have merged. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-This summer, the Town Board took away the merger doctorate from the Zoning Ordinance. So, we have no recourse or right to require that 88 be merged with 89, to make a conforming lot, even though they're owned by the same people. So, I know what you're saying, but absent a strong public policy, public safety, welfare, and all that, which is a lot higher than just economic gains and aesthetics, we can't merge lots. MR. HUDOCK-Okay. I believe, on your statements, on the papers there it says, can land be added to the lot? Yes, it can. He can merge his other lots. MR. CARR-No, but we can't require him to do that. MR. HUDOCK-But he owns it. 19 MR. CARR-The form hasn't been updated, I don't think, since this summer, because we can't do that anymore. We can't even discuss merging lots anymore. Is that correct, Lee? MR. HUDOCK-Then why is that on the form? MR. CARR-It's because the form hasn't been updated since this summer. We used to be able to do that, say, well, you have enough acreage among your lots to put them altogether, and that was a real tool, but that's been taken away from us. MR. TURNER-See, the Ordinance said that if you had contiguous lots that you had to join them to up size them. to make them the size conforming in the zone. That's not true any longer. MR. HUDOCK-Okay. All right. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, our hands are tied, there. MR. HUDOCK-Well, your hands are tied, but economically, for his benefit, he wants to do it. Morally, it's wrong. He's lived there all his life and he's enjoyed the lot sizes with nobody around, and everybody else enjoyed it also, and now he's selling everything. So, down with the neighborhood. Thank you. MR. CARR-I would urge you, though, because you are aggrieved by that being taken away, to contact your Town Board member and ask them the rationale for taking away the merger doctorate, because, in my opinion, I think it has handcuffed this Board in a lot of applying the Master Plan. I would just urge you to contact, I believe, Ward 2? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-Sue Goetz. MR. TURNER-Sue Goetz. MR. TURNER-Who was a member of this Zoning Board at one point. MR. HUDOCK-Right. Okay. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition to this application? STEWART HIGRAM MR. HIGRAM-My name is Stewart Higram, 2 Cedarwood Drive. Being a foreigner, I'm not quite familiar with the rules and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, and I don't know if I'm in favor or opposed to it, the application, for that reason. In order to be able for me to make up my mind, I would like to hear, I understand that the minimum requirement for a lot to be built upon is one acre, today, it's been changed, and I would like to hear a reason why it has been set at one acre instead of the previous half acre or smaller. Could anybody give me a reason for why it's been set at one acre? MRS. YORK-Why it changed? I can't tell you, specifically, about this particular lot. What I can give you is a general idea of what occurred in the Town. There was a total re-zoning that happened in 1988, and at that point in time there was new mapping by the Soil Conservation Service that was taken into account. We had slope maps projected. We had depth to high water table maps, soil percolation rates, soil porosity rates were identified, view sheds, aesthetics. We had 15 maps, and from those, the group that did this project looked at what were the important qualities they wanted to see, and basically they tried to meld those down into the carrying capacity of the land. If you were looking at a piece of land that was undeveloped, and this piece of land, could it sustain a house, a septic system, etc., okay. In some areas, there were problems already. and the zoning was changed to accommodate different factors. If you want to know, particularly, in that area over there, you are free to come into my office and look at those maps at any time and I will be happy to discuss them with you. MR. HIGRAM-Okay, but I understand, from this, that you really analyzed the situation very closely. MRS. YORK-Yes, it was an analyzation. MR. HIGRAM-And came to the conclusion that one acre would be a good minimum for a building site. So, I think we should perhaps, or in my opinion, stick to that. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition? TOM MCDONOUGH MR. MCDONOUGH-Good evening. My name's Tom McDonough. I live on Twicwood Lane. I have one question, to start with. There was representation made that this is not within 500 feet of a State facility, 20 --- or something of this nature, but within 300 feet of this structure is the State storm sewer there, on the corner of Route 9 and Montray Road, which comes in almost 400 feet. So, if that's an issue, with respect to whether or not certain things should be complied with, there's no question about the fact that that's within 500 feet of the particular property that's involved, which isn't demonstrated on any of the maps, here. MR. TURNER-No. You're correct. MR. MCDONOUGH-Number Two, I have a question, with respect to whether this is a Twicwood Lane property or a Cedarwood Drive property, and the reason for that is this, this map that's up here, that was submitted in the 1972 application for a subdivision does not, in fact, demonstrate the location of the house on Lot Number 89, which is the principal residence of Mr. Sinnott. His front setback is almost 70 feet, and that was submitted in the plan of the construction of that house, back in 1974, I believe it was. So that, if you're going to have this as a structure on that corner, and I'm talking about aesthetics, as well as compliance with the neighborhood, it's an entrance lot to a 90 unit subdivision. If he's going to comply with the setback that's been established by the original owner, on Twicwood Lane, of 70 feet, and it's going to also comply with the setback, to maintain the proper setback with those on Cedarwood Lane, and yet have a septic system on here, without having that material addressed in this application, this may not be a buildable lot, period, and I add to that point, the fact that the map somewhat demonstrates, and I assume you all have copies, demonstrates that right there is the steepest incline in the whole neighborhood, that comes into a V type, shape area, which the State Health Department, or the Engineering Department, somewhere, and I think that material probably should be in your application, if they use that map, has a concern with respect to soil and water in that area, especially on Lots 87, 88, and 89, which are the lots which are retained in the ownership of Mr. Sinnott, and if you take a look at the way they've laid out the leaching fields, or septic and/or leaching in the map that's up there already, there's real difficulties. I don't know as they've been addressed, with respect to this application, and I think they ought to be, because that's, I think, what some of the neighbors have a concern about. I don't want to go in there and see a house sticking right on the corner, when you have a big setback on a huge acre parcel of land, where the original owner has his house, and I don't think any of the other neighbors like to have that, either, and I think that's what we're trying to address, here, without trying to deprive the man of the property, but the truth of the matter is, that this piece was what made all the piece of property that John Sinnott had used during his lifetime, and it was one parcel at that time. You have it on the maps as being three separate parcels at this point in time, but none the less, this is what the whole community saw as appearances, to bring them into the community to buy property in there, because of the appearance that was made there. That's 20 years of sitting there like that, and now they're going to take an undersized parcel, and quite frankly, the attorney for the applicant said that they're all small parcels there. There are small parcels going up Cedarwood Drive. When you come in on that area, all the lots of John Sinnott, if you'll take a look, are almost three quarters of an acre, that's the end unit, the end lot, the runt of the development, if you will, that they're dealing with at this particular time. So, there's also caveat, I don't know, did somebody submit the letter that was sent to Mr. Cushman, who was the Chairman of the Planning Board back in 1972? I only have one. They're concerned about wash and soil, and not taking out, or taking as little of the foliage and growth, to protect the water from the runoff, and requiring additional work after that's to be done, if there's anything to be done there what so ever, and, to that extent, I think perhaps those issues ought to be addressed, and to that extent, I don't want to cause any difficulties to John Sinnott. John doesn't need any, but by the same token, I think these are valid objections to be addressed, with respect to the variance, at this particular time. MR. SICARD-Wasn't that house modified, some time ago, and practically rebuilt, turned around? The front was changed from the side, and the drive going in there was all changed? MR. MCDONOUGH-The whole, I guess, northern, because it runs north to south, the whole northern end of the property, which is a complete separate lot there, at 30,000 feet, is like a large park area. It was all cleaned out, a statute placed in it, a huge circular portion of a driveway, with the garage added to it. It's quite a chateau. MR. SHEA-On this map, it appears that, from planning purposes I suppose, that this was to be designated as a Cedarwood Drive parcel. MR. MCDONOUGH-That's an assumption. Just as the designation is to where the house is located, so far as where the Sinnott house is up on Twicwood Lane, it shows it out about 25 feet. It's three times that back in depth. So, I assume it only suggests that it's Cedarwood. It really doesn't say where it's going to be. MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. McDonough, what would the effects of another driveway coming into that intersection, is that hill that comes down, is that slippery? Is there a traffic problem? MR. MCDONOUGH-Those two hills are terrible. The Twicwood Lane hill is completely obscured from sunlight by a large growth. That's a small ski slope every winter, and there's nothing you can do about it, except the trucks come in and sand and salt. Cedarwood has a similar problem, but it's not as totally obscured. Again, these are two rather steep grades. I think the engineer from the State, indicates 21 in that letter, there, about 15 percent grade. I think they're a lot more than 15 percent, at least on the Twicwood side, and the Cedarwood side. In addition, you have two roads that this particular lot's facing. If you take the setbacks which pertain, as they exist, on Cedarwood, which is about 25 or 30 feet it looks like, and 11m not too sure. I haven't measured it, and you take the side setback as established by the owner on Twicwood, of about 70 feet, and if you want to keep the place appearing to be consistent, as neighborhood, which everybody tries to. MR. TURNER-That would have two fronts, Mr. McDonough. MR. MCDONOUGH-That's correct. MR. TURNER-So, he'd have to have the front setback on both corners. MR. MCDONOUGH-That's correct, but to have the property appear to be similar, the way Mr. Sinnott's predecessor, Mr. Wise, established the use of the lot, you would have to come in about 70 feet on the Twicwood side to have it maintained in the same fashion, and if you do that, it's impossible to build and put septic on it. MR. TURNER-Absolutely, because you don't have the area in the lot. MR. MCDONOUGH-Correct, and I think these issues are real issues, and I think this is what we're here just to look at. I certainly enjoy living in Queensbury. I moved up here for that purpose, some years ago, and I think that this ought to be maintained, at least with respect to this development. This was one of the first, at the time. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, the driveway would have to come out on a hill, either way, or else right into the middle of the four lane, four road intersection, right off the point. MR. MCDONOUGH-Either way, it comes out on a hill. MR. TURNER-You'd have to come out on Cedarwood or Twicwood, here or there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. MCDONOUGH-And you can see in that drawing the indications of the gradation of the property, that's the extreme in the whole development. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition? SHARON GETMAN MRS. GETMAN-My name is Sharon Getman. I live at 40 Twicwood. I would just like to confirm everything that Mr. McDonough said. I would also like to state, for the record, that when I moved here in January of '77, a neighbor came before the Board, and at that time, we did not have our Zoning Ordinance, with a similar request, had a lot that they wanted to subdivide, which was denied then. So, now if we have an Ordinance that says we have one acre building lots, I think we should stick with that. If you have not come into the neighborhood to view this lot, I suggest you do so. I really don't think, I mean. I'm one of the fortunate ones in Twicwood. My lot is 1.3 acres. I have a home that's approximately 2400 square feet. I don't think my house could go on that corner lot, and with the grade, I'm not sure how you would get a septic in there as well. So, I would recommend that you deny this variance. Thank you. MRS. EGGLESTON-Would you know, Mrs. Getman, are there restrictions in your deed, as to the size of the house you can build? MRS. GETMAN-We do have a deeded covenant, and I don't know if you have a. MR. TURNER-I asked the question, but Martin didn't know it. MR. MCDONOUGH-There are Twicwood deed restrictions, but I don't know the size, and I don't know as whether the restrictions apply, with respect to this parcel, because this parcel was originally reserved out of the Twicwood subdivision and became a subdivision subsequent to that, and I don't know whether there are any deed restrictions in that subdivision. MR. TURNER-This lot, according to the map, is a lot of record, since 1973. MR. MCDONOUGH-That's correct. MR. TURNER-So, why do you say it's out of the Twicwood? MR. MCDONOUGH-Well, the original Twicwood subdivision is a 1960 something subdivision. MRS. YORK-Yes. This is Section 2. 22 MR. MCDONOUGH-This particular area that's located, here, was the original Twichell house, and the whole parcel was reserved because the Twichell house was a huge, frame, three story, I think Dutch Colonial type with surrounding wrap-around porches, which accommodated a substantial amount of that area. MR. TURNER-But that was in 1963, is that correct? MR. MCDONOUGH-I don't know the date on that, but it was back in the 60's. MR. TURNER-Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition? None? Okay. MR. AUFFREDOU-Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out that it is our understanding that this would be a Cedarwood Drive residence. As you go in this direction on Cedarwood Drive, which would be to the east, this lot is, in fact, larger than those lots by over some 1,000 square feet. I just wanted to point that out, and I also wanted to say that, again, I think that what the Board is hearing tonight is not necessarily opposition to practical difficulties. That's the standard for the variance. What you're hearing are other concerns, and I just wanted to add that I think that if the Board finds the practical difficulties exist, the Board can certainly add any conditions that it chooses onto the granting of that variance, such as the site plan, perhaps, review, or subject to whatever stOrnMater requirements or a driveway entering on Cedarwood, or whatever the case may be, but this is a preexisting lot. It's undersized, and there are certainly other homes in the neighborhood, as you drive through the neighborhood, there are other vacant lots for sale, and I would suspect that this issue, in this subdivision, will be before this very Board again, on development in the Twicwood subdivision, as it will be in many other subdivisions, because of the expiration of the three year exemption, and I think it's something the Board is going to have to deal with on a recurring basis, and perhaps more frequent than you are right now. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. MR. MCDONOUGH-I just want to state, he indicated there are other lots for sale in the neighborhood that are undersized, but this is the only lot that's got a For Sale sign. Now, maybe there's some others for sale that we don't know about, but this is the only one that's got the For Sale sign on it. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. AUFFREDOU-As I drove through, I saw other For Sale signs. don't think I was hallucinating. MR. MCDONOUGH-They're lots that have homes constructed on them. MR. AUFFREDOU-I didn't see any houses on the lots, but I could be mistaken. MR. TURNER-Okay. No one else? Okay. The public hearing's closed. PUBLIC HEARIrtG CLOSED MR. TURNER-Discussion? MR. CARR-I don't know how we can deny it. MR. TURNER-I don't think we can. MR. CARR-Unless there's a pressing, pressing public need. MR. TURNER-The lot is a preexisting, nonconforming lot. MR. CARR-I think the only issue, and I think it's just a delay issue, not that, at the time you said it, as a delay issue, but I think it's something we've got to look into is, whether or not this should have gone to Warren County. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, because of the proximity to the. MR. TURNER-The storm drain. MRS. YORK-Yes. I believe there may be cause there for it to go to Warren County. MR. TURNER-I think I would move to table the application until we find out, and if it has to go to Warren County, lets let it go, first. MR. CARR-Why can't we make our resolution pending. MR. TURNER-We could, pending the outcome. 23 _0 MR. CARR-And if it doesn't have to go, then they don't have to come back, but if they do go, then they'd probably have to come back and re-address the issue. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. AUFFREDOU-In the Board's procedure, could the resolution read that it is approved pending Warren County, and then once it comes back, your order would be issued. MR. TURNER-Yes. If it comes back and it's not approved, then it's a majority plus one, the vote, all right. If it comes back with "No County Impact", it's home free. MR. AUFFREDOU-Okay. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any discussion on it? None. Okay. Motion's in order. MOTIOrt TO APPROVE AREA VARIAICE 10. 1~1992 JOHI E. SINNOTT, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: And grant the applicant an exemption from the one acre requirement for a building lot within this section of Town. This lot is a preexisting lot, although it is undersized. The applicant does own adjoining lots, but our Ordinance will not allow those lots to be merged. There is no overwhelming public policy issue which would require a denial of this variance. Therefore, this variance would not be detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance and is the minimum and only variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty. Furthermore, this variance would not adversely effect public facilities or services. A stipulation to this variance would be that it would be a Cedarwood address with a Cedarwood driveway, as was consented to by the applicant's representative. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. CARR-Could I urge everyone who spoke against this to, really, contact the Town Board member who represents you, because without that merger doctrine, I mean, our hands are tied. We cannot consider other lots owned by the same people, and it was a very powerful tool that we had, and now it's been taken away, and it's almost, sometimes we feel like it's a real waste of time when these come before us because of what we can and cannot do. We have brought this up to the Town Board, but I would also just ask that you talk to your representatives, also, to have them take another look at this issue. MR. TURNER-Maria, on the previous application, just make sure that you've got noted in there that the public hearing will remain open. I indicated that, but I didn't indicate it in the tabling. (9:59 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-1992 TYPE: UNUSTED SR-lA RICHARD A. WEAVER ClIMER: SAŒ AS ABOVE SUNNYSIDE ROAD EAST CLARIFICATION OF VARIANCE 10. 86-1991, PREYIœS DECISION ON NOVEMBER 20, 1991. CONTRACT PURCHASER TO COrtSTRUCT SINGLE FAMILY IIŒLUNG ON PREMISES. (WARREN CœNTY PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 52-1-14.31 LOT SIZE: 2.679 ACRES SECTION 179-92 BRUCE JORDAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (9:59 p.m.) MRS. EGGLESTON-There's a memorandum from Bruce M. Jordan, as authorized agent for Richard A. Weaver, applicant, RE: Paragraph 8 of Variance Application dated 1/28/92, to Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury, "Acting in reliance upon the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals on November 20, 1991, the Applicant, Richard A. Weaver, and his wife, thereafter conveyed property contiguous to the site, and identified on the Town of Queensbury Tax Map as Parcel No. 14-3-2, to Phyllis Conklin. The net effect of that conveyance, of course, was to leave the subject parcel (52-1-14.31) as a separate, distinct parcel, conforming by virtue of the variance granted on November 20, 1991. In preparing for the closing on the subject parcel, with the contract purchaser, the under-signed was advised by the purchaser's counsel that the purchaser did not intend to build on the subject parcel for three or more years. Since the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals on the variance included the standard language that ".... a variance shall expi re if the Appl i cant fails to undertake the proposed action or project...", counsel for the purchaser has advised his client not to proceed with the transaction until a clarification is obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals that the variance, in this case, will not, in fact, expire in one year. Thereafter, the under-signed conferred with the Town Attorney, Paul Dusek, Esq., in an effort to seek an opinion resolving this issue. Mr. Dusek has advised that he is in agreement that there is no basis upon which the variance, in this particular case, should expire from a legal point of view after the lapse of one year, but nonetheless recommended to the Applicant that a further clarification be obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals itself. As the Board is certainly aware, Section 179-92 specifically provides that the variance shall expire within one year, "unless otherwise specified or extended by the Zoning Board of Appeals". It seems clear that the statute specifically authorizes 24 '--' the Zoning Board of Appeals to specify that the variance shall not lapse within one year, and it is submitted that had the Zoning Board of Appeals and counsel been aware of the purchaser's intentions at the time of the last hearing, there would have been no objection to such a specification. In addition, it is respectfully submitted that the Applicant essentially undertook the proposed action, with regard to the subject lot, when he conveyed, along with his wife, the contiguous lands to the project site. In effect, if the variance were to expire within the course of a calendar year, the Applicant would be denied any meaningful value in and to the subject parcel, as it would have no utility as a marketable lot, with such utility being limited to the possible interest of any contiguous landholders." MRS. YORK-I wish the Board to be aware, I didn't write any staff comments on this because I viewed it more as an extension, a request for an extension. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. CARR-Bruce, can I ask you, I'm trying to recall, I remember, the property. The initial variance was given because he wanted to sell it, right? MR. JORDAN-He wanted to sell it and, basically, the problem was that the driveway access was 25 feet in width, as opposed to the required 40 feet under the current Ordinance. MR. CARR-So, the variance was necessary because the proposed action was a sale of the property. MR. JORDAN-Essentially, that's correct. MR. CARR-Okay. So, the sale of the property will take place within the year. MR. JORDAN-Well, it will if the purchaser's counsel is satisfied. Basically, we all remember the last go around. We had quite a session, and the Board ultimately approved the variance, and that was on the 20th. Thereafter, I sent the usual title package to Rick Meath and the McPhillips firm, who was representing the buyer. I didn't hear from her for a while. My client was getting kind of anxious and he finally told me of this concern. I spoke to Pat, who has stepped out, and she was also saying, well, maybe we've got a problem with this one year expiration issue. Then Rick Meath sent me a letter on December 20th saying, To confirm our recent conversation regarding the above transaction, please be advised that the Browns are definitely still interested in acquiring title to the property. However, they can only proceed with the closing if you can obtain an amended decision from the Zoning Board of Appeals specifically providing that the variance will run in perpetuity with the land, and will not expire in one year, even if no construction or improvements are constructed on the premises. If you can obtain such an amended decision from the Zoning Board of Appeals, we should be able to proceed to closing immediately thereafter. To which I responded, why didn't you tell me that before, because when I came here, I thought I had a buyer who wanted to buy this place, build a house on it, and the normal course of events, or I would have addressed that issue with the Board when I was here, rather than waste everybody's time and file another application, and original in 12 and the whole nine yards, but be that as it may, it's often what people don't tell you that's more important than what they do, I guess. So, here I am again. That's it in a nutshell. From my point of view, essentially, Weaver undertook what he was about. He sold the other property. We had some discussion about that at the time, wants to close on this one. I think it's more of a non-issue that probably could have been handled administratively. I spoke to Paul Dusek, he said, as I've indicated in my application, I agree with you, but it's not really for me to say. It's for the Board to say, and that was after two conversations with him, one on the telephone, and one in his office, and he said I had to come back here. So, here I am. MR. CARR-I mean, the variance does run with the land. I mean, I don't see a problem with your request, because I don't understand Rick Meath's contention, because a variance applies to the land. MR. TURNER-Yes, but the variance expires in one year. MR. CARR-No, but the proposed action is a transfer. As soon as that transfer occurs, the action has happened. We didn't say, it has to be built on in a year. MR. TURNER-No. MR. JORDAN-Mr. Chairman, I could have understood if this was a typical, lets take a Lake George deck variance. Someone wants to put a deck closer than the usual setback. For whatever the reasons are that exist at the time, this Board says, yes, we'll give you a variance from the 75 foot setback, to 73. Well, if I want my deck, I've got to pop it up in a year, or I've got to come back and tell you why I didn't do it, or why it should be extended, or what have you. I can see that, but nobody came in here and asked for a variance to build a house. They asked for a variance relative to the configuration of a lot as it entered a public highway. You don't have to really undertake anything, or do anything in order to make that variance effective, and that's, you know, the more I listen to my own discussion, I feel like, I'm not talking about anything, but in order to satisfy another attorney, who's advising his client not to close. 25 '--" ~ MR. TURNER-Well, let me just say this. We've had other people do the same thing. Take Sunnyside Estates, the same thing, the same scenario, had to come back because the one year ran out. So, I don't see any problem with, the Ordinance doesn't directly address the conveyance of property, and so on and so forth. It says, the variance will expire in one year, period. MR. CARR-Well, no, doesn't it says, unless the proposed action is undertaken. MRS. YORK-Is undertaken. MRS. CRAYFORD-Unless the proposed action or project. MR. CARR-And the proposed action is that the land is only 25 feet wide. It's there. It's done. MR. TURNER-It's there. It's done. Yes. MR. CARR-I mean, you can't do anything more to it. MR. TURNER-All right. MR. JORDAN-Mr. Turner, what Paul's reaction to me, Paul Dusek's reaction, when I discussed this with him was, well, I guess you could keep coming back, theoretically, and I think that's what you're suggesting, and he said, but I can't conceive of a set of circumstances under which the Zoning Board of Appeals could deny it. MR. TURNER-No. They wouldn't want you to come back, either, I don't think, but by the same. MR. JORDAN-And I agree with that, and that's what Bruce said about the thing in Twicwood. I can't see how we can deny this thing, because the Board took away our power on the merger of the. MR. TURNER-But I just go back to your other argument. If the other attorney would have said to you, look it, here's the case, we would have dealt with it right that night, and then you wouldn't have had to come back. So, here you are, and here we are and lets do it and get it done with. MR. JORDAN-I agree with you. Well said. I'm done talking. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMlENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTIOrt FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-1992 RICHARD A. WEAVER, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: To clarify Area Variance No. 86-1991. I would say, a variance of the nature granted under 86-1991, which exempts a parcel of property from the requirement of a minimum road frontage runs with the land and is not subject to the automatic expiration contained in Section 179-92 of the Zoning Ordinance. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (10:15 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED LC-42A JOHN T. WHAlEN OߌR: SAlE AS ABOVE FOX ROAD AT JENNIFER LANE LOT NO. 17 IS A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOT IN Art APPROVED OLDER SUBDIVISION NOW IN LC-42A ZOrtING. AN AREA VARIANCE FOR LOT 17 IS NEEDED TO BUILD A SINGlE FAMILY HOME. THIS IS A PREEXISTING, NONCONFORMING LOT. TAX MP NO. 26-5-17 LOT SIZE: 0.69 ACRES SECTION 179-3 JOHN WHALEN, PRESENT (10:15 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 15-1992, John Whalen, 2-13-92, Meeting Date: February 26, 1992 "The applicant requests relief from the setback and permeability requirements required in the LC-42A zone. Since this lot is in a subdivision and there are no alternatives which would feasibly require less of a variance. The Staff believes that the strict application of the ordinance has created 26 -- a practical difficulty in development of the lot. 1) Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. The lot preexists the ordinance change and cannot be developed under the current criteria. 2) Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty or is there any other option available which would require no variance? Yes. 3) Would this variance be detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict with the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town? No.4) What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services? None. 5) Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? Yes." MR. WHALEN-I'm John Whalen on Farm To Market Road in Queensbury. I don't know as I have anything to add, but I'll answer any questions. MR. CARR-Mr. Whalen, you make a note, here, about the absorption field on this parcel being 100 feet minimum from the wells of the Lloyds, and the Browns, and the Labors. What about the well proposed on this lot. Is that 100 feet from their septic fields, do you know? MR. WHALEN-Yes. It's 100 feet from theirs, too. MR. CARR-Okay. So, their septics aren't near this well? MR. WHALEN-No. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any other questions? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO co..n PUBLIC HEARING ClOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-1992 JOHN T. WHALErt, Introduced by Michael Shea who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: The applicant's preexisting undersized lot, of dimensions 71.4 feet on the west, 65 feet on the east, and 47 feet on the south, does not meet the current zoning LC-42A, and is in a developed subdivision. Therefore, has demonstrated the practical difficulty in conforming to the Ordinance. This is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty, and this variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the district nor the Ordinance. It also would not have an effect on public facilities and services, and is the minimum relief necessary. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (10:26 p.m.) (END OF FIRST DISK) 27 ~ AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-1992 TYPE: U"LISTED WR-lA MTHOffY AND LINDA RUSSO (liNER: SAllE AS ABOVE 1274 BAY PARICIIAY, ASSEMBLY POINT MIN STORY BEDROOM TO BE CONVERTED TO A DI"ING ROOM. SECOffD FLOOR WILL HAVE A MASTER BEDROOM, FULL BATH, ArtD WALK Irt CLOSET. (WARRE" coum PLA....ING) TAX""P "0. 9-1-21.1 LOT SIZE: 0.27 ACRES SECTION 179-60, 179-16 HOWARD KRANTZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (10:26 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 16-1992, Anthony and Linda Russo, February 26, 1992, Meeting Date: February 26, 1992 "The applicant will be adding a second story to their residence. The plans are to have the addition with a 12 ft. by 8 ft. deck off of the bedroom which will not meet the shoreline setback. The addition will, therefore, be within ±34 ft. of Lake George. This application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for an Area Variance: 1. Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow plac~nt of a structure .hich .eets the zoning requi~nts. The house is existing. The extension of the upper deck is the issue. The applicant has currently an enclosed 10 ft. by 14 ft. porch and a 10 ft. by 15 ft. deck. The desire to have another deck at the second story would not appear to be a practical difficulty. 2. Is this the .ini_ variance necessar.v to alleviate the specific practical difficulty or is there any other option available which .auld require no variance? Practical difficulty has not been proven. 3. Would this variance be _terial detrillental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict .ith the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town? Ex~nsions along the lake shore is an identified concern in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Since the only issue in this project is the deck, it would not appear to be detrimental to the neighborhood. 4. What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services? The deck will not affect public facilities and services. 5. Is this request the .ini~ relief necessar.v to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? The practical difficulty requiring the upper deck has not been proven." MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board returned, "No County Impact". MR. KRANTZ-Good evening. Howard Krantz, representing Anthony and Linda Russo. You may remember Mr. Russo. Last year he came before you, in the process of getting his applications approved for the Lake George Cue Club, which is going to be built on Route 9N, just north of 149. That has received all approvals. Construction is scheduled to start next month, and Mr. Russo, his wife, and his two children are moving permanently to their existing home in Lake George, which they will need to expand. Lee raises, as the only issue, the question of the upper deck, and basically what Lee has said, correct me if I'm wrong, is, well, you already have a deck downstairs. Why do you need a deck up? They like the deck. It's part of the addition. They're on Lake George. I would point out to you, if you look at the Sketch Plan, the site plan that is attached to the application, the deck, which is a small deck. It's only 8 by 12, will be setback further from the Lake than the existing downstairs portion of the house, and, by the way, the downstairs portion just has the downstairs deck to that. What used to be a porch is now a permanent part of the house. It's not just a glassed in porch. It's a permanent part of the house. It's heated. It's insulated. MR. TURNER-It's been converted, right? MR. KRANTZ-Yes, that's correct, and I would also point out to you that, if you, again, look at the sketch plan map, to the south is the lynch property. Mr. Lynch, last year, got approval for his addition and deck, which is only 27 feet from the lake. This small 8 by 12 deck that Mr. and Mrs. Russo would like is over 34 feet setback from the lake. To the north, Bodner also has two decks, same setback from the lake. He's got one down and he's got one up as well. So, as far as his 8 by 12 ft. deck, it's something that is important to them. It provides a nice view of the lake. It's totally consistent with not only their immediate neighbors, but the entire neighborhood. Warren County has no impact. Nobody has any impact. I don't believe there's any opposition to it. There's no aesthetic problem They'd like the deck. I'd be glad to answer any questions, and they've kept it small, 8 by 12. MR. TURNER-Lynch's house is forward of that house, isn't that correct? MR. KRANTZ-The lynch, John and Barbara Lynch are to the south. MR. TURNER-It's forward of that addition, isn't it? MR. KRANTZ-They're closer to the lake. MR. TURNER-They're closer to the lake. MR. KRANTZ-Yes. That's correct. I spoke to Lee, briefly, this afternoon. We pulled out the, actually, it was her assistant, who pulled out the Lynch map, and they're only 27 feet back from the lake. MR. TURNER-Yes, right. MR. KRANTZ-This is going to be over 7 feet further setback than the Lynch, that was approved last year. MR. TURNER-Yes, right. Okay. Any questions of Mr. Krantz? 28 -' MR. KRANTZ-The 8 by 12 foot deck off the master bedroom is located, here. MR. TURNER-That's it on the south. MR. KRANTZ-And you can see the difference, how it's setback further from the lake than what is existing downstairs. MR. TURNER-Yes. Any questions, now? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLICHEARIJlGOPENED NO COIIENT PUBLIC HEARIrtG CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further questions of the applicant? MR. CARR-What's the side line setback? Is it 20 feet back? MR. KRANTZ-What does the Zoning Ordinance call for, or what is existing? MR. CARR-Well, what's the Zoning Ordinance call for? MR. KRANTZ-Lee, side line setbacks should be? MRS. CRAYFORD-A minimum of 20. MR. KRANTZ-20 on the sides. They're not changing, of course. MR. TURNER-That's the existing setback. MR. KRANTZ-They're just going straight up. Right now, they have 19.4 feet on one side, and 17.5 on the other. MR. CARR-Right. Okay. Well, I guess do you need a side yard setback of the half foot. MRS. CRAYFORD-It's up in the air, isn't it? MR. CARR-I mean, I don't see a problem with doing it tonight, because it's not something, I don't think, that needs to be re-advertised. MRS. CRAYFORD-I think it probably was, that Section of the Ordinance, was advertised anyway. MR. CARR-I would just want to make sure that we get it all, so you don't have a problem. MR. KRANTZ-I appreciate that. If you, theoretically, say that the second story addition needs a front setback, then I would follow that logic that the side, we should throw that in as well. MRS. CRAYFORD-You could throw it in. It's a tough call. MR. EGGLESTON-What'll it be, six tenths of a foot? MR. CARR-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes, six tenths of a foot. MRS. EGGLESTON-Six tenths of a foot on the, which side of the building is that? MR. TURNER-The south. MRS. EGGLESTON-The south side. Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-1992 AJlTHOIIY AND LINDII RUSSO, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr: And grant a relief of 40.7 feet on the shoreline setback and 6/10th of a foot relief on the south side setback. There will be no further intrusion on the shoreline because the existing dock on the first level is closer to the lake than the proposed one on the second story of the building. This appears to be minimum relief and the variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the district 29 ~" ~" or neighborhood. There would be no adverse effect on public facilities and services and there is no neighborhood opposition to this request. The practical difficulty would be that this would provide an emergency exit. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (10:42 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-1992 TYPE II MR-5 JAMES ŒRRIGM MICHAEL HOIENICK OIIfER: SAME AS ABOVE PSYCHOLO&ICAL ASSOCIATES 386 BAY ROAD FOR AN ADDITION OF 1,092 SQ. FT. OF OFFICE SPACE WHICH IS 63 FEET FROM BAY ROAD RATHER THAN THE RE~IRED 75 FEET. (IIARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP 110. 60-7-10.2 LOT SIZE: 0.60 ± ACRES SECTION 179-28 JACK HUNTINGTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT (10:42 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 17-1992, James Merrigan & Michael Homenick, 2-13-92, Meeting Date: February 26. 1992 "The variance is for the setbacks of 75 feet along the Bay Road corridor. The facility is in a professional office complex and a 1.092 square foot addition is anticipated. The design places this structure 63 feet from the right of way. Relief of 12 feet is sought. This application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for an area variance. 1) Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. The practical difficulty is that the lot has an existing structure on it that was constructed prior to 1988 and is nonconforming. The lot is ± 132 feet on the north side and ± 184 feet on the southern side. The addition will be to the north and developable area is limited because of the other requirements of the ordinance. Specifically, if the addition were moved back then parking areas might have to be considered at the side or front of the building. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan is focused at maintaining the open space and rural character of the Town. Also, it appears that the addition has been designed to replicate the office area to the south located 63 feet from the roadway. Since the corridor was designed to develop into a "main street" aesthetic considerations have to be a factor. 2) Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty or is there any other option available which would require no variance? Yes. 3) Would this variance be materially detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict with the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town? No.4) What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services? None. 5) Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? Yes." MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board returned "No County Impact". MR. HUNTINGTON-My name is Jack Huntington. I'm with Morse Engineering here in Queensbury. I think that pretty much everything's been said, unless you have questions. MR. CARR-This is to be used in the practice? MR. HUNTINGTON-Professional offices, additional professional offices. MR. CARR-Rental offices, or in the practice? MR. HUNTINGTON-In the practice. MR. TURNER-Are they going to be leased out for additional staff? Are they going to be used for additional staff, other than the two members of the firm? MR. HUNTINGTON-The staff that's existing now. MR. SHEA-Is the floor plan in the proposed addition, in fact, a mirror image of the something that already exists on the other side? MR. HUNTINGTON-Very close. The one on the south end is going to have an entrance off the parking lot, a small entrance off the parking lot. The proposed building will not. It will enter through the main building. where it comes in now. That's the only difference. MR. SHEA-Okay, and I've not been in the building. What is the center area used for? Can you give us an idea of the layout of the interior? MR. HUNTINGTON-This is now an entrance. You go in here into a foyer, and then there's a waiting room, here, and there's a waiting room here, and this is offices and this will be offices. MR. SHEA-Okay. 30 -- MR. CARR-So, there's no entrance into the proposed addition? There's no outside entrance into the proposed addition? MR. HUNTINGTON-It'll be an inside entrance, that's all. I appreciate the Board's willingness to hear us tonight. MR. TURNER-Thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions for Mr. Huntington? None? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN MCNAIRY MR. MCNAIRY-I'm John McNairy, with property on Walker Lane, and adjacent to this development back here, and I am opposed, if I understand the design of how this building is going to be, and extending out from the line where the present building exists, 12 feet. MR. TURNER-Have you seen it Mr. McNairy? MR. MCNAIRY-No. I haven't, but I'd like to see it. MR. TURNER-This is the existing building, and they're going north with the addition. proposed addition right here. This is Bay Road. They're 63 feet, now, from Bay Road. extending the line of the building north, with a proposed addition. This is the They're just MR. MCNAIRY-Well, aren't these buildings, other buildings along here, 75 feet back from Bay Road? MR. TURNER-No. don't believe they are. Mr. Hughes is here. Maybe he could answer it. RICHARD HUGHES MR. HUGHES-I looked at the buildings. They're more than 63 feet, the adjoining buildings. Richard Hughes, a representative of John Hughes Construction, the original developer of Baywood Drive. MR. HUNTINGTON-I'm looking from this building north. This is within inches of lining up, here. and the other buildings down here are between 60 and 65 feet. MR. SHEA-They're all about the same. MR. MCNAIRY-This does not protrude out? MR. HUNTINGTON-It will protrude the same as this right here. MR. HUGHES-Yes. What they're proposing will match what he's got down on this end, now, and it's what he wants to, just flip it to the other end so they'll both line up. MR. HUNTINGTON-What it's going to do, this end will be a mirror image of this end. MR. MCNAIRY-And how far north of the? MR. HUNTINGTON-Twenty six feet. MR. MCNAIRY-Twenty six feet. MR. HUNTINGTON-It's exactly the same as this one. MR. MCNAIRY-Now, how close does that bring you to the other property? MR. HUNTINGTON-Forty four feet. MR. MCNAIRY-Forty four feet. Now, what are you going to have between this building and you? MR. HUGHES-That's, Mundy Leombruno is on the line next to him. There's a buffer in there now. MR. HUNTINGTON-There'll be trees left there, and it'll all be seeded to lawn. MR. MCNAIRY-Well, I want to be sure that that is done, because I was left, as Dick knows, holding the bag, at my place. It was built almost right into my house. MR. TURNER-He has to go to site plan review anyway. It goes before the Planning Board, Mr. McNairy, and they'll address all those concerns that you just raised. 31 -- MR. SHEA-I'm sure that, after the last time you were here, and brought it to our attention, that the Planning Board will spend more time on it, and it will, in all likelihood, be done in a satisfactory way. MR. MCNAIRY-Well, just want to be sure that it is, nobody else gets stuck like I got stuck. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MRS. YORK-I want the Board to know, Mr. Leombruno, the property owner to the north, did call me this afternoon to indicate to the Board that he had no concerns with this. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUGHES-Our main concern, as Baywood Drive developers, we're sort of concerned that we revised our subdivision three times to the Town 1 ikings, making the lots larger due to drainage and everything else. Now he's proposing a building larger than what the site can really handle, due to drainage and stuff, down there, and, at this point, we sort of feel that he shouldn't be granted his variance, due to what we had to do to satisfy the Town, according to requirements, with the remainder of our development. The other thing was, when they originally went in there, with the first draft of the development, there was a pie shaped piece of property between them and what is Jeff Foss now. They had the option that that pie shape could be theirs someday, if they chose. We ended up redesigning the development because they declined in buying that pie shape, because they didn't think they were going to expand. Now, they're going to expand. Now, they want a variance for something they turned down, when they needed it. MR. CARR-Well, the variance is for the front, not for area. MR. HUGHES-You ought to drive down there. They're tight, because their parking situation, the way they're going to be, it is going to be a tight circumstance down there, and it's not fair to the other doctors and other professional people that are down there, that were lead to believe that they need so much space, due to the size of their building and everything else, and now this one's going to go in, and it's going to be squeezed in like a sandwich. We're in the middle because we're the developer. We're going to be the first one to be scream at by the rest of those people there, because we went by Town Codes, and now the Town's going to say, well, we'll give you a variance. So, we don't want to be in the middle of it. MR. SHEA-Jack, in the addition of this office space, in the greater utilization of it, are you going to require additional parking? MR. HUNTINGTON-The site with the additional building on it requires 22 parking spaces. We've provided 28. MR. SHEA-So, the ones that are indicated on this map are in addition to what's there now? MR. HUNTINGTON-We prepared this for site plan review, okay, and that's, what you see is what's going before the site plan, before the Planning Board. They required 22 parking spaces. We provided 28, because the doctors felt they needed it, and it meets all the requirements of the site plan review. MICHAEL HOMENICK MR. HOMENICK-My name is Michael Homenick. I'm one of the owners. I'd just like to address a statement that was made, because it's the first time I've heard this. When we originally approached John Hughes about the building, you'll notice that it's off center on the lot, and that's because we anticipated this expansion, and so something had been planned when we, initially, had gone into this. We had asked for a first refusal on the lot in back, and this is the first I've heard that they had to re-draw the subdivision because we declined to take the lot at the time, that was primarily for financial reasons. So, that's the first I've heard this, that is was our fault that it had to be re-drawn, and if it was going to be a problem for the other doctors, why, I would imagine, would Mr. Hughes situate the building and give us advice. He was the sole person that we worked with, at the time. So, this is something that we had been considering for quite some time. MR. HUNTINGTON-I believe, when Pat and I went over this in October, we looked through the history of this subdivision, and these two lots down front were spun off of that subdivision first. The lot that Dr. Jeff Foss has now was Lot 10, I be 1 i eve, or 10.2, and these two lots down front were s pun off, and in all the records that I have seen, I've never any pie shaped piece of land in there that would have been offered to anybody. It's been one piece of land, where Jeff Foss is now. MR. HUGHES-I've got copies of the map, right here, that show the pie in it, the original draft and all the updates. From Day One, the pie was there. This was the first draft, and then we went to this draft, and this one here is the final draft, as it is today. Their entrance is off Baywood Drive Development. They do not have Bay Road exposure for an entrance. 32 -- MR. TURNER-This is this piece, right here, that you're talking about? MR. HUGHES-Yes. MR. TURNER-This is June the 19th, 1989, then? MR. HUGHES-Yes, and here's the latest revision. This was the first draft, and this wasn't acceptable, according to Town Codes. Then we had to go to the second draft, and then this was the final acceptable draft. MR. TURNER-Is that 300.44, right there? MR. HUGHES-Yes. MR. TURNER-And 104 in the front, plus the radius, right? Plus 48 feet more for the radius? MR. HUGHES-And Mr. Foss also had to take and put in catch basins and everything else to take care of the water retention here. MR. TURNER-That's this building right here? MR. HUGHES-That's this building here, adjoining Psychological Associates. So, Mr. Foss is picking up three quarters of the water problem situation there, and now they're going to add on and create more water problems that need to be corrected, due to them dumping back on to him. MR. CARR-That will be addressed, I think, with site plan. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-I mean, maybe, if that's a real concern. MR. TURNER-This is Mr. Foss's, this piece right here? MR. HUGHES-Yes. He was also approached to purchase a portion of that pie just a short time ago also. He was approached by Psychological Associates to buy that pie back again. I don't know how much of the pie, but they were approached to buy some of that. MR. TURNER-Yes, but now they have nothing to buy, right? MR. HUGHES-He can't sell at this time. Mr. Foss stated in his letter that he gave to us that he can't sell at this time due to his mortgage, and the way he's tied into the bank. He has to clear his mortgage before he can sell anything. MR. HOMENICK-I'm really kind of puzzled by this whole thing, especially the objections that I'm hearing. As I said before, this was something that we had planned when we approached the developer. We don't know much about the regulations, so we kind of put in Mr. Hughes' hands, as you can see how the building is located, and from the design, it was something that was planned. We simply asked for a first refusal on the additional lot behind us, because we thought maybe it was a good economic move at the time, and we had had plans for another kind of counseling service that would have been located there. Those plans fell through. We didn't have the finances to go ahead and purchase that lot, so when Mr. Hughes approached me, I simply said, no, we're no longer interested. I know that he was having some difficulty, and that everything was re-drawn by them, but I'm kind of puzzled how our asking for first refusal on a lot could cause him to have to re-draw a subdivision. We did look at, talked to Mr. Foss, recently, about purchasing that triangle. We had talked to the people at the Zoning Department, because we felt that that would give us more room and, in a sense, square off the edge of the property. When we talked, he simply stated that at this time he thought he might be expanding at some time, and, therefore, did not want to, would need that additional piece to provide enough drainage, or I guess open land on his property, and, again, I don't know much about the zoning requirements and things, and that's the way it was left, and we had told him we were going ahead with our addition as planned. So, I'm kind of mYstified, because we kind of started in 1988 with one set of assumptions, and with what we felt was a reasonable plan, and it seemed to be okay at the time, and now we're finding that all kinds of things have happened since then, and that whole developments have been re-drawn somehow, because of something we did. So, I found mYself kind of puzzled and confused by the whole thing that's going on now. Thank you. MR. SHEA-Well, his pie option isn't relevant to what he's asking for in the variance on the front setback anyway, is it? MR. CARR-The only relevancy would be that he would be, it really isn't relevant because the only relevancy would be that he had an option to buy the property, to move the parking back and move the whole building. 33 MR. SHEA-Well, he doesn't have it, and he's asking for something that he does have. MR. CARR-Yes, that', t available to him, at this point. '-- "-' MR. TURNER-The fact of the matter is he can't sell it anyway. MR. SHEA-Right. MR. HUNTINGTON-If we move the building, the proposed addition back the 12 feet, actually the front of the proposed building would be back about six feet farther than the existing building, and it would be almost impossible to tie those roofs together, and have it look like it belongs there. MR. HUGHES-Just to clarify, so Mr. Homenick isn't upset, it isn't that we're picking on him or what he is doing. What we want clarified by the Town is what the new zoning and everything that is in effect. with us being the developer of Baywood Drive, we want it clear that we are not going to be pinned to other building problems that may occur due to this going through, is what we're trying to clarify. It's nothing against Mr. Homenick personally. It's just against the theory of what is happening. MR. TURNER-But your whole project is laid out now, right? MR. HUGHES-The whole project is laid out now according to what the Town would like, yes. MR. TURNER-How many lots do you have left to develop, two? MR. HUGHES-It's either three or four that is left. MR. TURNER-You've got four lots left to develop? MR. HUGHES-Yes. MR. TURNER-And they're all sized out? MR. HUGHES-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. So, there's no changes. MR. HUGHES-No. not at this time. MR. TURNER-Jack, you told me, when did they build that building? It says prior to 1988. MR. HOMENICK-We moved in December of 1988. MR. TURNER-So, it would be '87, about a year. MR. HOMENICK- Yes. MR. TURNER-By the time you got everything done? MR. HOMENICK-You mean the entire process? MR. TURNER-I mean, from when you started. You started in '87. probably. When did you buy the property? MR. HOMENICK-It was in the fall of 1987 that we started. MR. TURNER-Okay. No one else is opposed? The public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-1992 JAMES ŒRRIGAJI AND MICHAEL HOMErtIeK, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: And allow the applicant 12 feet of relief from the required 75 foot front setback. The practical difficulty is one more of aesthetics, in that this variance will allow a building of an addition which will compliment the existing structure, which was built prior to this Ordinance taking effect. The variance will not be detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance, nor have an adverse effect on public properties and facilities. Duly adopted this 26th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (11:11 p.m.) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 34