Loading...
1992-05-20 ~EENS8URY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR ŒETING MAY 20TH. 1992 INDEX Area Variance No. 38-1992 Aibright Buiiders 1. Area Variance No. 83-1991 The Howard Group 6. Howard Carr Area Variance No. 41-1992 George & aertha Finch 11. Area Variance No. 42-1992 Char1es R. Wood 13. Area Variance No. 45-1992 Robert D. Rowe 15. Area Variance No. 48-1992 Karen Johns 24. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ~EENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR ŒETING MY 20TH, 1992 7:36 P.... Œ_RS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN JOYCE EGGLESTON, SECRETARY BRUCE CARR MARIE PALING CHARLES SICARD FRED CARVIN ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT CRAYFORD STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-1992 TYPE II WR-lA ALBRIGHT IIJILDERS (lߌR: STEPHEN & LINDA KIRSHOI ROCICHURST, CLEVERDALE BLUE HOUSE, WHITE TRIM FOR A DECK AOOITIOrt, 15 FT. BY 50 FT. DECK WILL BE LESS THAll THE RE~IRED 75 FT. SETBACK FROM THE LAKE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 15-1-35 LOT SIZE: 12,000 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-60 STEPHEN KIRSHON, PRESENT (7:36 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Patricia Crayford, Zoning Administrator, Area Variance No. 38-1992, Albright Builders, May 19, 1992, Meeting Date: May 20, 1992 "Tabled at last month's meeting at the request of the applicant to provide the Board with additional information as to an alternate location of the deck on the proposed site. " MR. TURNER-Did you come up with an alternate solution, or not? MR. KIRSHON-No. I wasn't here the last time. I'm Stephen Kirshon, the homeowner. I have some pictures I'd like to show you, of the site. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. KIRSHON-This picture shows the doors that come out of the diningroom in my home, and it's where I'd like to construct a deck. This is a parallel view of this, to my neighbor's house, which shows his house already goes out more than 15 feet that I'm asking for, to build a deck out. This is from his, looking back at mine. MR. TURNER-We went up there. MR. KIRSHON-You did? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KIRSHON-Okay. MR. TURNER-And our question was, to your builder, do you have an alternative solution to putting the deck, maybe, on the side or something. That was the question. MR. KIRSHON-Putting the deck on the side really isn't practical. The doors don't face the side. They face toward the lake. I have small children, and as you can see, the land slopes off. Putting steps there would be hazardous, I feel, for small kids. I've also written a letter describing the condition of my father. He has a bad leg, and unfortunately, over the weekend, had a stroke, and is in a wheelchair. So, it's something that I feel, might be good to have him sit out there. MR. TURNER-Could we have those pictures, while you're talking, and we'll just pass them on down the line, and let them look at them. MR. KIRSHON-As far as visual impact from the lake, I would try to keep that at an absolute minimum. We landscape it, but I don't think it's going to be noticeable at all. I'm much rather do that than build a deck over a dock, boat-house, because that would really prevent access to my father. They have done a lot with this property, in the couple of years that I've owned it, to enhance it's appearance, especially from the lake. 1 MR. TURNER-The other porch, on the other end, I think he said to me the last time, you're going to possibly screen that in. Is that correct? MR. KIRSHON-Yes, I'd like to connect the two and screen that in. MR. CARR-Mr. Kirshon, when did you buy the house? MR. KIRSHON-I got it two and a half years ago. MR. CARR-Back in '89, was it? MR. KIRSHON-Yes, I think in the fall of '89. MR. TURNER-These stairs that you show coming off the front of the deck, I think you're builder indicated he could cut them back into the platform, because that's the setback. The setback starts from the stai rs. MR. KIRSHON-Yes, we can do that. MR. TURNER-Okay, or could you e1iminate them and use the two sets of stairs, one off each end, that you show here? MR. KIRSHON-I think we could work on that. We could put them on an angle so that it's not straight at the lake. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are we getting an alternate? MR. TURNER-We asked for an alternate and he said, no, he can't, because the doors all face the lake. MR. CARR-When were those doors put in? MR. TURNER-Just now. Just recently. It's new construction. They're renovating that, pretty much the whole cottage, aren't you? MR. KIRSHON-Right. We're working at it. MR. TURNER-When you first approached the Town, as to getting a building permit, did you indicate a deck was going to be involved in the construction at the? MR. KIRSHON-No, I didn't. I didn't plan on putting a deck there at that time. It got going and sort of snowballed. MR. TURNER-Because had you known that, you might have been able to provide a different location for the deck, although it might've been on the north side, or whatever. MR. CARR-I would like to see some alternatives. MR. TURNER-Those doors could have maybe gone around on the other side. MR. CARR-I just have trouble with going closer to the lake, because we don't do it. I mean, that was one of the clear things about the Zoning Ordinance when it was changed, back in '88. It was, keep everything away from the lakes. MR. CARVIN-I have to agree with Bruce. I mean, I would have liked to see an alternative plan of some sort. I mean, that was why we tabled this, to see if there was some way that you could make this a little bit more tolerable, I guess, so that it didn't actually infringe upon the lakefront like it is. MR. KIRSHON-Well, to tell you the truth, I didn't think it was that intolerable because it's not any closer than the house to the south is at this very moment. It's a lot more tolerable than if I built a roof out and built a deck over the new dock, which it's in the Zoning Ordinance to do. So, I don't really think it's not tolerable. I think we'll make it 12 feet instead of 15 feet. MR. CARR-You're always going to have the right to the dock. I mean, we can't take that away from you. I mean, you could do that tomorrow. MR. KIRSHON-I understand that, but what I'm saying is that I think it's a whole lot less onerous to build a deck that's going to blend, I think, nicely into what's there now, rather than construct an artificial structure that can't help but stick out, and do the same thing. I think it's a lot more tolerable, what I'm asking for. I live there, and I would certainly want it to be as aesthetically correct as possible. I also built a sliding deck. It's going to be permeable. I think the house is going to look a whole lot better. 2 MR. CARVIN-Okay. Where you have the existing porch, are there any steps coming off that, at this point? MR. KIRSHON-Yes. There's steps going towards north. MR. CARVIN-Okay, towards the fireplace, you mean? MR. KIRSHON-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And that looks like a railed porch. It's not enclosed. at this point? So, it's open at this pOint? MR. KIRSHON-It's open. MR. TURNER-The floor is off it, or it was when I went and looked at it. Have you got the joys covered, on the old porch? Is the floor back on it now? MR. KIRSHON-No. It's not. It's open in front. MR. TURNER-No, but do you have a deck on it, because when I went up there, the deck was off and an that was there was just the joys and the framing. MR. KIRSHON-No, I don't think so. MR. TURNER-The day 1 went there it was. MR. KIRSHON-I've never seen it like that. MR. TURNER-I looked at the right house. MR. KIRSHON-Are you sure it was the right house? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KIRSHON-And the floor was off it? MR. TURNER-I'm pretty sure it was. I know there's a pair of stairs that go right up into it, right there. Am I not correct about that, a pair of stairs right there, that went up onto the old porch? MR. KIRSHON-No, no. The stairs are over here. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. KIRSHON-The stairs are right there, going that way. MR. TURNER-Okay. Maybe I'm mistaken. That was a month, month and a half ago I went up there. I looked at the right house. Just to have a deck is not practical difficulty. The APA's going to look at it, and they might just chuck it right down the drain. The APA's got to look at this. If they want to review it, they'll review it. They might say no. Then you won't have it anyway. MR. KIRSHON-We can make it smaller. MR. TURNER-Yes, but I mean, you have to show practical difficulty. What is your practical difficulty? Just to have a deck is not practical difficulty. MR. KIRSHON-The practical difficulty is that I have to have a way out those back doors. MR. TURNER-Yes, but I'm saying to you, had you not decided to build a deck later on, you might have located the doors in a different spot. MR. KIRSHON-Yes. MR. TURNER-That's all I'm saying, and to locate them there, and violate the shoreline setback by as much as you want to violate it is not practical difficulty. You just can't want to do it up there, just because it is Lake George. MRS. CRAYFORD-Mr. Chairman, I think we had a couple of pieces of new correspondence come in. MR. TURNER-Yes. We'll read them. MRS. CRAYFORD-Okay. 3 MR. TURNER-Any further questions? None, right now? Okay. I don't think I closed the public hearing. So, if there's anyone here who wants to respond to this application. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COIIENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-We have a letter from John and Mary Sheehan, "We are aware that our irmnediate neighbors, Steve and Lynn Kirshon want to construct a deck structure between three and four feet high, 15 feet wide, and as much as 50 feet long. This deck will not obstruct our view in any way. We are in support of this deck, and feel it will enhance the property and the surrounding area." And one from Lillian Nashols, "Please be advised that I strongly support granting a variance to the above named for a sun deck that would be 15 by 50 feet. The sun deck would not be a visual problem to anyone concerned, nor an environmental one. I have a sun deck, and believe me, it is one way of really enjoying the view of the lake. Please reconsider their request." And one from Anthony Koviello, "I, Anthony Koviello, live on the north side, next door to the Kirshons. I have no objection to their building a 15 by 50 foot sun deck onto their present property." MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further discussion? MR. KIRSHON-I did say that I could make this deck smaller. MR. CARR-Well, that's what we asked you to do last time, I mean, come back with plans. We had suggested to your builder, last time, what we were looking for. We'd like to see, on the side, connected to this, somehow, or whatever. MRS. EGGLESTON-Or a smaller deck. MR. KIRSHON-I could build a smaller deck. I'd like to build something in front of those doors that I showed you. MRS. EGGLESTON-But you should have drawn that out with the dimensions and everything. That's what we had asked you to bring back, this time. MR. CARVIN-Would it be possible to put, basically, a walkway in front of those doors or windows, three or four feet wide, have it run, roughly, whatever the length, here. I don't know if you can see it or not, and then come around to the side. I mean, is something like that? MR. KIRSHON-These steps, I'd have to have come down. I've got a four year old kid, and I've got a father who can hardly walk. MR. CARVIN-Well, what I'm saying is, is it feasible to put a walkway, so that you could have access to putting a deck on the north side, because it looks like that that little jut, there, that you've got on your drawing, here, is actually a window that's up off the ground. MR. KIRSHON-There is a window up there. MR. CARVIN-Yes. So, I mean, and, again, I'm not an architect and I'm not a builder. MR. KIRSHON-So, I mean, I could make it smaller, and I've done some research, and there have been such variances granted in my immediate area, since this Ordinance. MR. CARR-Going closer to the lake? MR. KIRSHON-Yes. MR. CARR-Where was that? MR. KIRSHON-About a half a mile from me. So, it's been done before. I'm really not asking for anything that's not been done before. MR. TURNER-That's over on Cleverdale, the other side of the shore, Buckley. MRS. EGGLESTON-What was their practical difficulty? MR. CARR-Preexisting, nonconforming lot, okay, they're asking for 24 feet relief from the shoreline setback. Do you know, did they have their house, was it already 24 feet, or do you know about this application? 4 MR. TURNER-The house was already there. MR. KIRSHON-The house was there. MR. CARR-At 24 foot, though. What I'm saying is, did they go closer to the lake? This doesn't indicate it did. GENE ALBRIGHT MR. ALBRIGHT-It did go closer to the lake. It's a new projection there. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. TURNER-I remember. It seems to me there was a set of doors there already, and when he built the house, he built it with the intention of putting a deck there, at the time, because I remember going up and looking at it, and there's a set of doors, french doors, I think, right there, and I don't think he ever built the deck. He built the house, and never went ahead with the deck, and I think he got caught up in the change, from 50 to 75 feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think, too Ted, didn't you tell us, last meeting, that you had notification from the APA that we have to be extremely careful with further intrusion on the lake, that they are really clamping down, and that we've got to have, really a specified practical difficulty established. MR. TURNER-We've got to establish practical difficulty, or they're not going to approve it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Or they're just going to shoot it out of the water, anyway. MR. KIRSHON-Well, I'd appreciate it if you'd let me get to that point. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, since he didn't come back with an alternative plan, even if we were to do anything, I think it should be cut down somewhat. I mean, you're willing to do that, you said? MR. KIRSHON-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-You're willing to compromise. MR. TURNER-What do you want to compromise? What's the width of the deck you want to come up with? You've got 15 here. Do you want to go 12, or what? MR. KIRSHON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Twelve? How about the length? ME. KIRSHON-About 30. MR. TURNER-That porch on the south end looks like it scales off at about 15 feet, is that correct? MR. KIRSHON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. What if you cut that return right back there, and took 15 feet off the length of that deck? Do you see what I'm saying? You've got this porch right here. You said you're going to screen it in? MR. KIRSHON-I'm going to screen it in. MR. TURNER-Yes. So, end it right there. That would give you 35 feet, 12 by 35. I've got a deck and it's 12 foot wide, and that's a big deck. Well, like I said, if the APA wants to look at it, and they want to be hardboiled, they'll just throw it right back in your lap. You won't have a deck. That's the way they are. That's their rules. I don't mind giving you a deck of some nature, but I think when you're saying 50 feet. MR. CARR-Mr. Kirshon, how do you get onto the porch? MR. KIRSHON-Right here. MR. CARR-Down here? MR. CARVIN-There's some steps, he says. MR. CARR-From inside. Is there an interior? MR. CARVIN-Yes, there's also an exterior. 5 -' MR. CARR-Right, here, on this porch? MR. KIRSHON-The porch that I have on my bedroom? MR. CARR-Yes. MR. KIRSHON-Well, there's french doors coming out of my bedroom onto it, and then there's steps going toward the. MR. CARR-Okay. There's no entrance from here? What's here, on this side of the house? MR. KIRSHON-No, no. This is the window, here. MR. CARR-Just the window? MR. KIRSHON-Yes. There's no entrance. MR. TURNER-If he stays on the other side of the chimney, on the north side of the chimney, he'd end up with about 26 and a half feet, 12 by 26 and a half feet, and if you're going to screen in the porch on the other end, on the south end, so, by doing that, and then he'd have a cellar way right here, into that crawl space under the camp. That's his alternative. He really doesn't have an alternative the other way, the way he's got the french doors that are already in there. He'd have to rip everything out and move it. MR. CARR-So, does that mean everybody should put in french doors and then come in for a variance? MR. TURNER-No, 11m not saying that, but I'm just saying, the situation is, is what he's got. If you want to vote it down, that's up to you guys. It's up to us. MRS. EGGLESTON-And what would the practical difficulty be? Could you say it was a safety feature? MR. TURNER-It would have to be. It would be just like the other one that we did. I'll make the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIAICE NO. 38-1992 ALBRIGHT BUILDERS, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: With a change in the plans as presented. The practical difficulty, I think, in this case, is access from the building is a safety factor, and the size of the deck would be reduced from 15 feet to 12 feet wide, to a point that abuts the north side of the chimney, which comes to about 26 and a half feet. This is the minimum variance to alleviate the specific practical difficulty. The variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or conflict with the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town. There are no effects on public facilities or services. It will be 43 feet from the lakeshore to the front of the deck. The relief is 32 feet. Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Paling ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. TURNER-It's three to three. It's denied. (8:11 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 83-1991 TYPE I PC-lA THE H(JIARI) GROOP HCIIARD CARR CIØER: ~EEJlSBURY FACTORY OOTLET CENTER SOUTHEAST CORJŒR OF INTERSECTION OF ROOTE 9 ArtO ~IŒR ROAD FOR Art ADDITION OF 55,446 SQ. FT. OF BUILDING TO BE LOCATED LESS THAN 75 FT. fR(JI THE EDGE OF THE ROt\D RIGHT-OF-WAY AND FR(JI PARKING AREA RE~IREŒm. (WARREN coom PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 103-1-1 lOT SIZE: ±15 ACRES SECTION 179-28, 179-66 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:11 p.m.) MR. TURNER-Okay. We sent this application to the Planning Board, referred the application to the Planning Board so that they could be Lead Agency in the SEQRA Review, Type I Action, and they returned the review with a negative declaration. STAFF INPUT Notes from Patricia Crayford, Zoning Administrator, Area Variance No. 83-1991, The Howard Group, May 19, 1992, Meeting Date: May 20, 1992 "Attached is a copy of the Record of Resolution from the April 28, 1992 Planning Board meeting stating determination of no significance. Proposal was first presented 6 in early 1988 and at that time a setback of 50 feet was required. In October of 1988 Section 179-28 Travel Corridor Overlay Zone was adopted that requires a 75 foot setback from the edge of the road right-of-way on certain designated arterial streets. This is also an area variance request from Section 179-66(3) (a) (b) in that all parking areas are to have a planted buffer area at least 5 feet deep surrounding the parking lot or area and a parking area that will contain more than 150 cars shall be effectively divided by plant or divider strips planted with trees fixed in place so as to effectively divide each parking area of 150 cars from another driveway and parking area for the purpose of ensuring safety of vehicles moving within the entire parking area and to control speed. Also, there shall be a planted traffic island at both ends of each isle of parking." MR. LAPPER-Good evening. My name's Jon Lapper, I'm an attorney from Glens Falls, with the law firm of Lemery and Reid. This project, obviously, has been on the table for a long time, and there's quite a history to this, and as everybody knows, the plaza is sitting mostly vacant, not looking very good at one of the entrances to the Town. I represent the court appointed receiver, and part of this problem with this whole plaza, not to go through years of nonsense, but it was in the family, it was tied up in the estate. Two sides of the family were warring, and while that was going on, nothing was happening. Both patriarchies of this family, if you will, have now passed away. My client, Howard Carr, is a commercial real estate broker with a real estate firm in Albany, was appointed by the Surrogate in Monroe County to manage the property and to pursue the application to expand the site, get an approval for the expanded site plan, and as part of that, we're here asking for two variances. The variances that we're asking for will enable the plaza to be expanded in two ways. One is the large L-shaped addition of two buildings along the south side of the project, and the other is at the corner of Boardmans, near where the empty Kentucky Fried Chicken and the liquor store are right now. They would be torn down, and a 6,000 square foot addition, which would be constructed just at the corner, to cap off the Boardmans, if you will. Originally, in 1988, there was a 6,000 square foot same size freestanding building that was approved by the Planning Board, site plan approval, and the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance for the nine foot setback from Glen Street. We've now proposed to move that 6,000 square feet right up next to Boardmans, which would reduce the variance that we're asking for. Under the Zoning Ordinance, as it's been modified, Quaker Road is considered one of the arterials in the Town. You have to have a 75 foot setback. What we're asking for is a 35 foot setback for the corner of that building, which I'll show you on the map. Thirty five feet is the distance to the existing corner of the Boardmans right now. That's not from the pavement, but from the edge of the right-of-way, the State right-of-way, along with the intersection. Part of the practical difficulty here is caused by the fact that when they redid the geometry of that intersection, a couple of years ago, there was appropriation of additional lands. So, there's a lot of grass that's still remaining as part of the right-of-way. Ultimately, of course, it could be expanded to more lanes, but it's unlikely, for a long, long time, that there would be more lanes at that intersection. MR. CARR-Jon, do you know how far it is from the building to the pavement? JIM CONNERS MR. CONNERS-Jim Conners, project engineer for C.1. Male. From the pavement to the building will be approximately 76 feet from Quaker Road intersection. MRS. EGGLESTON-At the nearest point? MR. CONNERS-At the nearest point, yes. MR. LAPPER-The other reason for moving the building there, and constructing the building there, is just, obviously from the standpoint of the project, it doesn't look good to have the side of this old Boardmans, which was originally an A & P, two generations ago, that brick wall, when you come into the intersection, it's also one of the entrances to the Town of Queensbury, obviously, when you get off the Northway at Exit 19, there. We're trying to build something that will be finished along that side, as well as in front, so as to create a much nicer appearance and much more visibly appealing than what's there now. Part of the mitigation of this is to take down those freestanding buildings that are dilapidated. Thirty five feet, in terms of practical difficulty as well, because that's what's there now, to the corner of Boardmans, we're just looking to add a space so that will be in conformance with what's there now. So, it'll start at the existing corner, attach to the corner, and come forward. We think that that'll look more appropriate, rather than having jogs and such, or moving the building forward, so it would be in toward the parking lot. The second variance is for parking lot configuration. MR. CARR-Jon, what's the setback off of Route 9? MR. LAPPER-Sixty five feet. MR. CARR-What do you need there? MR. LAPPER-Fifty feet. MRS. CRAYFORD-No. From Route 9, you need 75, also. MR. TURNER-Yes. 7 MR. CARR-I was going to say, why is Quaker an arterial, and Route 9 is not? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. CARR-He's got it marked at 60. MR. CONNORS-Yes. It scales 65. There's an error. MR. CARR-What Section is Arterials? MR. TURNER-179-29(b) (1). Route 9 from Glens Falls City line north to Lake George Town line. MR. LAPPER-So, that would be 75 feet, also. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-We would propose that we move that back 10 feet, so that, we have not been asking for a variance. We're so far along in the SEQRA process, we don't want to ask for a variance. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-As one of the changes, and there will be extensive site plan review on this thing. We've already gone through a lot of the detail in the SEQRA Review, with the Planning Board. That building will be moved back 10 feet. So, it will conform. MR. TURNER-You'll meet the setback, right? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TURNER-That's all we need. MR. LAPPER-With respect to the parking lot configuration, under the new Ordinance, handicaps are required at the edge of each parking row, which would have to be, which would be a small grassy area with a curb, and each 150 spaces has to be segregated as a pod with a grassy median as well. It's a preexisting parking lot, and we're here asking for an expansion. So, it's not increasing a nonconforming use, but we're changing plan, but because it's preexisting, it's a practical difficulty for us to have to go in and to jackhammer out at the end of each row, to change the parking lot, to put in these little grassy medians, but more important than that, in terms of the judicial impact, we're proposing to take the vast majority of the green space that's being added to this, and put that on both sides of the entrance road, which is across from Grand Union, where the new traffic light was put in. For the marketing, for the owners standpoint, it's going to be much more visible impact to see grass, then there'll be a nice, attractive, neat sign. It'll look a lot better than seeing pavement that you see now. If, instead, we were made to dig up the parking lot in all these little places and put a little strip of grass, we don't feel that that would be as quality green space, and the Planning Board has indicated that they are in agreement with that, that they'd like to see the grass all in that one area. It would be much larger a grassy area. So, the practical difficulty there is it's preexisting, and that's really it, in terms of those two variances. We did have to submit a very detailed traffic study to DOT and the plans were reviewed at the last meeting, when they issued the negative declaration under SEQRA, which was not something they took lightly. They looked at an awful lot of issues. They made clear that they're going to expect that there's going to be an awful lot of landscaping to really spruce this up. That's something that we've offered all along, and we realize that, that this plaza needs a lot of help. We're here to try and fix it. MR. CARR-Do you have tenants? MR. LAPPER-There've been, and there's a whole story to that. Howard can talk about that better than I, but a number of the stores that are now various places in the Town, such as Auto Palace and Blockbuster Video, we had leases for the plaza, a year and a half ago, the last time we got the variance extended, and what happened was, because these two warring factions of the family were still alive, one part of the family actually took the position that the plaza was more valuable vacant, because they could knock the whole thing down and get somebody to come in and buy the land, which is pretty ridiculous that you'd want to have a vacant plaza, and the court just decided to do nothing, at that point. We couldn't get the leases approved by the Surrogate, and the tenants went elsewhere. Howard's been negotiating, and he's got a number of tenants that we feel are ready to sign leases, but it's all pending fixing up the plaza and getting this cleaned up, and getting this expansion. MR. CARR-Who's going to pay for it? MR. LAPPER-Pay for? MR. CARR-These improvements? 8 MR. LAPPER-The owners of the plaza. MR. CARR-They've come together, or, didn't one of them die? HOWARD CARR MR. HOWARD CARR-The two original owners are now deceased. My name is Howard Carr. I am the court appointed receiver of the property. No relation to Mr. Carr, as far as I know. Both sides have passed away, and, as a matter of fact, as recently as tOday, I received a copy of the Court of Appeals decision, relative, there are a number of properties involved in these estates, which now total, somewhere in the neighborhood, in excess of $60 million worth of real estate, this being one of them. This property has the status of being free and clear. There is no debt on the property whatsoever, and probably what will happen, as the result of that court of appeals decision, now, is that one side of the two warring factions will end up with this property and there will, typically, be a trade off of the multiple properties that they own, all across the northeast. MR. TURNER-The proposed expansion in the Boardmans building, that's still a go? MR. HOWARD CARR-Very much so. MR. TURNER-And the other proposed building is down the line? MR. HOWARD CARR-The other proposed building is down the line, but we have, I mean, as recently as last week, I attended the shopping center, the National Shopping Center Convention, specifically for the marketing purposes of this property, along with others, and it may be sooner than we envision. I mean, we've been having some very positive meetings relative to the former super market, and also to the new building that will be on the south end of the property. MR. TURNER-Okay. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COtIENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BRUCE CARR-It seems to me, really, that the setback is increasing, because they've got the building there now. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. BRUCE CARR-It just seems that they're increasing the existing setback that they have now, and hopefully this will enhance the premises, which will lead to more tenants, and all the other good things that come along with commerce. MRS. EGGLESTON-I know it's going to be a lot of discussion around Town on this, where you're letting an expansion of a vacant plaza, so to speak. should have asked Mr. Carr, when were you appointed? MR. HOWARD CARR-March 30, 1989. MRS. EGGLESTON-And have you, since that time, been actively trying to get tenants in this? MR. HOWARD CARR-Mrs. Eggleston, we presented seven leases to the court, signed leases, six out of seven were national companies. I mean, no less net worth than $100 million each, and the surviving Mr. Birnbaum, at that time, made application to the courts to deny them. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay, but since that ended. MR. HOWARD CARR-Well, he passed away a year ago April. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. HOWARD CARR-And the two sides have been in protractive litigation through the appellate division. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, let me ask. How long have you been free to really offer space to tenants. MR. HOWARD CARR-Not since he died. I'll update the Board through five o'clock. Mr. Birnbaum's death resulted in his wife being appointed as Executrix. She was as uncooperative, if not maybe even more, than he, relative to this property and others. She has now been removed as Executrix, about 40 days ago, but really, technically, only 10 days ago, because we had to wait a 30 day period, there's a 30 day appeal period for her file, regarding the removal as Executrix. There has been a new Executor appointed who is an attorney from New York City, and a meeting with him, I guess it was about two weeks ago, is lets move forward. 9 "--' MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. So, if you had a new presentation for a lease today, you feel confident that it would go through without a hitch? MR. HOWARD CARR-I really do. He has approved two proposals of leases already. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Jon, if this goes through, if you get this variance tonight, and you go to the Planning Board. then you're going to start right in with the proposed expansion, and the greening up of the plaza. and do the site up? MR. LAPPER-Yes, that'll all be a condition of the Planning Board. They're not going to let us build anything until that's decided. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. SICARD-Along Route 9, does the zoning call for a buffer, there, between the line and Route 9, along Route 9, from north to south, or south to north, whatever? MR. TURNER-No. They've only got to be 75 feet back. MR. SICARD-Are they 75 feet back? MR. TURNER-Yes. They're going to move this one building back, the proposed new building back to meet the setback. MRS. EGGLESTON-And make it green. MR. TURNER-Green it up. MR. SICARD-How about the entrance to that egress that's in the rear of that building, now, is that going to be blocked off, now, on Quaker? MR. LAPPER-Bank Street? What's proposed is that there be no left turn from the one closest to the intersection. That's where our traffic report indicated DOT is looking for, but that's something, also, traffic ingress and egress, that the Planning Board is going to look at in detail. Someone suggested along the way that the one near the bank be closed. but that's used by the bank. MR. SICARD-Is that on the west side of the bank? MR. LAPPER-It's on the west side of the bank, yes. MR. SICARD-That will not be closed? MR. LAPPER-Will not be closed. MR. SICARD-Do you proposed to hook up the sewage and so forth immediately? MR. LAPPER-Yes. That's another positive mitigative factor, that there's an on-site treatment plant, now, which will reduce costs to other members of the sewer district right there in front. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions? Any further discussion? Okay. Motion's in order. fl)TION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 83-1991 THE HmlARD GROOP HCIIARD CARR, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: And grant the applicant relief of 35 feet from the front setback requirement along Quaker Road, and also grant the applicant relief from the requirement of separations and green space required with parking lots of 150 or more cars, and make that section inapplicable to this applicant. The applicant has demonstrated a practical difficulty in that to revamp this vacant plaza alterations to the building will be necessary to make it more attractive. The setback variance will allow the applicant to make these alterations. In addition, the applicant will remove two existing buildings from the property which are closer to the setback at this time than the proposed expansion will be. These variances will not adversely effect public services or utilities, nor will they have an adverse impact on the neighborhood characteristics. Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE 10 '-' --' ABSENT: Mr. Shea (8:34 p.m.) NEIl BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-1992 TYPE II CR-15 GEORGE & BERTHA FINCH ClߌR: SAtE AS ABOVE CORJŒR OF NEWCOMB STREET ArtD WZERIE ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 24 FT. BY 30 FT. GARAGE LESS THAN RE~IRED DISTArtCE FROM HOUSE ArtD REAR PROPERTY LINE. TAX MP NO. 130-2-1 LOT SIZE: 66 FT. BY 136 FT. SECTION 179-24, 179-67 GEORGE FINCH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:34 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Patricia Crayford, Zoning Administrator, Area Variance No. 41-1992, George & Bertha Finch, May 19, 1992, Meeting Date: May 20, 1992 "The applicants are requesting a variance of 22 feet from the front property line in lieu of the required 50 foot setback, and a 12 foot setback from the rear property line to the east and a 10 foot variance from the rear property line to the south in lieu of the required 20 feet. Also requested is a 5 foot variance between the principle structure and proposed garage." MR. TURNER-George, I might ask you 30 foot garage, the length of it, why? MR. FINCH-That'd be 24 foot. MR. TURNER-MY drawing shows 24 feet across the width and 30 feet long. What am I looking at? MR. CARR-You access it from Newcomb? MR. TURNER-Newcomb Street. MR. FINCH-Right. MR. TURNER-Right there. Thirty feet, there's Newcomb Street right there. Is that correct? MR. FINCH-No, they changed it. They turned it around, so it would be 30 this way. MR. TURNER-Okay. Everybody note that. The front of the garage is 30 feet across the width. MR. CARR-Now, does that change all the setbacks? MR. TURNER-That changes everything, yes, and it's 24 feet deep. MR. CARR-On the Newcomb side? It says, 24 feet. In reality, it's 30 feet wide. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-When did that happen, the 30 feet? MR. CARR-Twenty four foot width is the standard two car. MR. TURNER-It's the standard two car garage. MR. CARVIN-I think 30 feet is awful wide for a garage. MR. TURNER-It is. MR. FINCH-If we had a 24 by 24, we wouldn't have any place to put a lawn-mower, snowblower. MRS. CRAYFORD-Are we now requesting a 30 by 30? MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARR-No. It would be 30 by 24, with the numbers reversed. MR. TURNER-The plan is right. MR. CARR-The plan i!. right? MR. TURNER-That's what he just said. MR. CARR-Except it's 24 by 30? 11 -- .- MR. TURNER-Yes. That's what he's got on his plan. MR. CARR-Okay. So, the way it stands. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is what we're working with. MR. TURNER-The neighbor to the south is the one that's got the two car garage downstairs and the living quarters upstairs? MR. FINCH-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-That was yours, at one time, wasn't that, that building? MR. FINCH-Yes, it was. MR. CARR-It's pretty crowded down there. I mean, there's not really much he can do. MR. TURNER-There's nothing he can do. The only thing he can do is make a smaller garage. MR. CARVIN-You don't have an existing garage now? MR. FINCH-No, we don't. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. TURNER-See. he owned the building next door that had the two car garage underneath, and the apartments upstairs. MRS. EGGLESTON-I mean, do you not own that building anymore, Mr. Finch? MR. FINCH-No, we don't. MR. CARVIN-I do have one question. The five foot between the house and the garage, are those from roof lines? MR. TURNER-Yes, they've got to be from roof lines. MR. CARVIN-They've got to be from roof lines. Okay. So, it's not going to be kind of a sheltered area type of thing. Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO CotIENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-This is from Sandra Wood. "I'm writing on behalf of George and Bertha Finch of 40 Luzerne Road who have requested a variance for a two car garage. We own the adjacent property at 36 Luzerne Road and have no complaint with them doing so." And one from Catherine and Denise Cartier, 42 Luzerne Road, "We have absolutely no objection to George and Bertha Finch building a two car garage on their property." And one from Mr. and Mrs. Richard P. Harding, and it doesn't say their location, "Let it be known that we have no objection to George and Bertha Finch building a two car garage on their property at 40 Luzerne Road, Queensbury, New York." And do you know which house is the Hardings? MR. FINCH-They are south of us. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. CARR-Are they the ones directly south. that bought the? MR. FINCH-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-And one from Alfred Vigor, "Let it be known that we have no objection to Bertha and George Finch building a two car garage on their property at 40 Luzerne Road. Queensbury", and they're south on Newcomb. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. 12 -' JlJTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIAJlCE NO. 41-1992 GEORGE AND BERTHA FINCH, Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: For construction of a 24 ft. by 30 ft. garage less than the required distance from house and rear property line, as Newcomb Street is a very narrow road. Difficulty of hooking this garage in any other place is just impossible, and this request is the minimum reHef necessary to aHeviate the practical difficulty. Also, that this variance would not be detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood or confHct with the objectives of any plan or poHcy of the Town. From the front property line, the relief is 22 feet. It's five foot from the existing house to the proposed garage, and eight foot from the rear property Hne. It's 12 foot from the rear property line, and 10 feet from the south. There was no neighborhood opposition. Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling. Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea (8:47 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-lA CHARLES R. WOOD ClØŒR: SAlE AS ABOVE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GARRISON ArtD NORTH TO BUILD A NEIl HOUSE WITH ATTACHED GARAGE LARGER THAll 900 SQ. FT. TAX MAP NO. 106-3-23 LOT SIZE: 1.5 ACRES SECTION 179-7 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:47 p.m.) MR. TURNER-I have a conflict with this one. so Mr. Carr will Chair this. STAFF INPUT Notes from Patricia Crayford, Zoning Administrator, Area Variance No. 42-1992. Charles R. Wood, May 19, 1992, Meeting Date: May 20, 1992 "This is an appeal from the definition of garage, private parking: 'An accessory building or structure, attached or detached, used primarily to shelter no more than three (3) automobiles, provided that such garage may be used to shelter only one (1) commercial vehicle, but in no event shall such commercial vehicle exceed one and one-half (1~) tons' capacity. No business. occupations or services for profit shaH be conducted therein, and such garage shall not exceed nine hundred (900) square feet in area. (See "parking area, private.") Parking area private: 'An open area for all the same uses as a private parking garage and subject to the same conditions.' This will require a SEQRA determination." MR. CARR-Will you submit an agent application later? MR. LAPPER-Yes. What we're asking for is a garage that is, approximately, an additional 10 feet by an additional 7 feet. If these jogs weren't here, and it were finished off all the way to the corner. there would be an additional 10 feet by 7 feet 6. It would be 40 feet by 37 feet 6 inches. For a 900 foot garage, that would be 30 feet by 30 feet. So. we're looking for 40 feet by 37 feet 6 inches. In comparison to a 5300 square foot home, the garage is certainly in conformance, certainly of the same scale. The lot that this is on was originally two lots when the subdivision was created. Now it wouldn't quite be big enough for two lots, without variance for two houses, but it's an acre and a half, and you'd need two acres, but part of the issue and the practical difficulty, here, is that this is a lot that was designed to have two houses on it. It's very valuable because of where it is, on the corner of North and Garrison. and it would be appropriate, with this Board's approval, to ask for variance for two lots, to build two, obviously, smaHer single family residences, which would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. That's what most of the lots are, although there are a few lots in the area that are larger. Instead, what the appHcant, Mr. Wood, proposes is to build a grand home for himself and have a garage, which is in conformance with the size of the house, a 5300 square foot house, and a 1471 square foot garage. As the appHcation states, because of the design of the garage, it's made to blend in with the house itself, and that's part of the reason why there's additional square footage is these little jogs, so that it conforms with and matches up nicely with the house and the circular drive. In terms of mitigation for the neighborhood, so that the extra 571 square foot, which, in all honesty. you can't really tell that it's a garage rather than just part of the house, because it's connected directly to the house. It's the same size as the house, and a have a front elevation that I'll show you in a few minutes, but except for where those doors are, which obviously, look like garage doors. the doors are on the front and the back, and there's no doors along North Road. So, people driving by won't see the doors from North Road. In addition, there's going to be a buffer, a berm, that's at least four feet high, along the whole property, along all of North and all of Garrison. It's going to be a four foot berm for privacy as well as to visually buffer this from people driving and for the neighbors, and that's going to be planted with the shrubs, and trees, and grass on top, at very spots. So, it's going to be well hidden, and of course it meets all the setbacks. Essentially. the real practical difficulty. here, is Mr. Wood's car collection, which are expensive antique cars that he drives, and they really can't be stored, like in my garage where they're 13 right next to each other, because they could get dented or banged, and they just require more room to be properly stored. This garage allows them to be maneuvered, to come in one side and drive through. So, they're not going to be backing in and out. Some of these cars are also a lot larger than cars of today, because that's how they were built, and that also accounts for part of the practical difficulty that the cars have to move, they just need more room than a standard 900 square foot garage. MR. CARR-How many vehicles are we talking about? MR. LAPPER-Well, he's got a collection of over six, but he's not going to use this to warehouse them. It's whatever he'd bring from other properties, whatever he uses at the time. So, it'll change, but I mean, the garage would probably accommodate, comfortably. four, five, or six vehicles. I mean, six would be pretty crowded, but that's not what's envisioned. Just to have room to park them in there, to protect them. In terms of the neighborhood, I mean, the house is going to be beautiful. It will be well constructed and the garage is going to be very much in keeping with the character. You're talking about a 5300 square foot house plus a garage. No one is possibly going to notice the difference, an extra 10 feet one way and an extra 7 feet, and that would be, if we didn't have this jog. So, it's actually less than that. Let me show you, turn the map, and show you what the elevation's going to be. MR. CARR-Jon, we have a photo of a house. Is this the prototype for this house? MR. LAPPER-Yes. That's the house a house that this was modeled under the same architect. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. LAPPER-If you look at the application, at the site plan that was submitted, this is looking at the house from North Road, the corner of Garrison and North would be over here to the right. So, when you look at the house, there's going to be a circular driveway, here, the front entrance, and this is the garage, with the different, with the jog, the three jogs that break it up, and make it seem visually smaller. The garage doors will be over there and over there. So, that the car can drive around and drive through to protect the vehicles, and this is without a berm. This is just looking from street elevation. There's also going to be at least a four foot berm. with plantings on top of that. MR. CARR-Anything else? MR. LAPPER-I think that's it. MR. CARR-Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Lapper? Well. we'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ROBERT LARSON MR. LARSON-I'm Robert Larson of 22 Fort Amherst Road, one house removed from this parcel of property. For whatever it's worth, I spent 16 years on the Warren County Planning Board, so I understand the necessity for this meeting, and I wish to submit my strong recommendation that it be approved. MR. CARR-Thank you, Mr. Larson. Anybody else in support of the application? Opposed to the application? Okay. The public hearing's closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONŒNCE MRS. EGGLESTON-A letter from Freida and Gerald Solomon, "We're in Washington and unable to attend tonight's public hearing. Please submit and have read the attached letter. Mr. Wood's garage meets with our approval. If it is agreed that he will screen the garage from our view with a hedge of nine to ten feet, American arborvitae White Cedar. Since existing buildings on the east side of North Road, north of Garrison Road, do not extend in front of the adjacent houses, a screen of arborvitaes would be appropriate. Other properties on North Road, north of Garrison Road, are well screened with woods and mature trees along side property lines. Freida and Gerald Solomon" And we have. from Robert Hughes, "I strongly support the variance as requested by Mr. Wood. I think a larger garage is fine. Thank you. II And a telephone call in from Jim McMaster, lets see, we've got James McKiernan, Robert Bruno, and states, they have no objections to the proposal. They're in favor of the project. and that's it. MR. CARR-Do you want to respond to Congressman Solomon's request? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Mr. Wood has indicated that that would be fine. The Congressman's home is the adjacent property next to the garage. MR. CARR-Any further comments? A motion? 14 '-.'/ tlITIOJI TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-1992 CHARLES P. l1OOO, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: And grant relief for the building of an oversized garage. The amount of relief wiH be 571 square foot. I don't believe this request to be unreasonable. The garage wi11 have no impact on the neighborhood because it wiH fit into the character of the house, which is a large home, and there are many other large homes in the area. There is no neighborhood opposition, in fact, there is neighborhood support. There win be no negative impact on facilities. Because of the values of the vehicles that wi11 be kept on the premises, it could be construed as a safety feature, and providing property protection for the vehicles. A review of the Short EAF shows no significant environmental impact. Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Paling, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner (9:03 p.m.) AREA VARIAJlCE NO. 45-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA ROBERT D. R(IŒ (lØŒR: SAlE AS ABOVE 313 WEST ....NTAI.. DO 3RD HOUSE SOOTH OF SlERIWI AVEflJE Ort WEST ....NTAI.. R(W) 0fI WEST SIDE OF TfE RMD. TO COrtSTRIICT A HOUSE 0fI A PARCEL LESS THAN THE RE~IRED 75 FT. FROM THE SHORELINE SETBACK. (WARREN COUNTY PLAN" ING) TAX MP "0. 123-1-34 LOT SIZE: 4.63 ACRES SECTION 179-30, 179-60 ROBERT D. ROWE, PRESENT (9:03 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Patricia Crayford, Zoning Administrator, Area Variance No. 45-1992, Robert D. Rowe, May 19, 1992, Meeting Date: May 20, 1992 "Mr. Rowe's parcel of 4.63 acres wiH not a110w him to subdivide property and conform to Section 179-30 lots abutting co11ector or arterial roads and states a11 residential lots fronting on a co11ector or arterial road shaH have two times the lot width permitted in the zone in which the lot is located. Mr. Rowe's zoning is Suburban Residential I-A, (not Rural Residential 3 Acres as stated on the agenda and on his applications.) Therefore, each parcel of Mr. Rowe's property would be required 300 foot average lot width. Mr. Rowe's proposed structure requires a shoreline setback as it is less than 75 feet from designated wetlands. This application will require a SEQRA determination." MRS. EGGLESTON-We don't have any planning, that it went before Warren County. MRS. CRAYFORD-Warren County is reviewing it this evening. Their meeting date was changed. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-So, we'll have to condition it on their approval. MRS. EGGLESTON-All right. WI LUAM SMITH MR. SMITH-I'm William Smith. I was at that meeting tonight, for my father-in-law, and they didn't get a quorum. Therefore, they said a11 the projects that were submitted were approved by default. MR. TURNER-They've done that a couple of times. Are you going to represent your father-in-law? MR. SMITH-No. MR. ROWE-I'm Robert Rowe. MR. CARR-Are you going to be building down in the? MR. TURNER-Where you're filling in. MR. CARR-There's going to be a deep pocket there. MR. ROWE-Yes. We're going to fill it in and put a ce11ar there. This ce11ar is going to be about two feet lower than mine. MR. CARR-How much fill will have to go then? MR. ROWE-Quite a bit. MR. CARR-Is there a problem with wetlands and filling? Is that a problem? 15 MR. ROWE-You need an act of Congress to fill the wetland. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. ROWE-If you look at that map, there's a little fragment in there that's probably 15 feet, and we tried to get a permit to fill that, but we couldn't. MRS. EGGLESTON-The house you live in is the one that sits way back? MR. ROWE-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, this house, in proximity to that, is not down in on the flat. It's much closer to the road, according to this drawing. MR. ROWE-Yes, it is. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, is it going to be up on the hill, where the hill goes? MR. ROWE-No. It won't be up that far. We're going to put a lot of fill in there to raise it up. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, but it won't be way down in back where you've cleared all the trees? MR. ROWE-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. Okay. MR. ROWE-We have to be 75 feet from the wetland and 30 feet from the road. We'd have to put a real skinny house in there. MR. CARR-Are you going to subdivide the property? Is that your intention, or do you want two houses on one property? MR. ROWE-I was going to give my daughter half of my land. She's going to put a house on it. MR. CARR-Okay. So, you are subdividing. I mean, it's going to be a transfer of the property? MR. ROWE-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-And one common driveway. So, there'll be no other driveway out in the middle of that hill? MR. ROWE-No. I'm going to move the driveway over to my daughter's property. So, she'll have to shovel it. MRS. EGGLESTON-That'll make it closer to, coming over Sherman Avenue. That was one of my concerns, that it wouldn't be just as you go around that bend and down the hill, it wouldn't be a blind, it won't go over that far. MR. ROWE-It's all straight all the way from Harveys down to my house. It's pretty well straight there. MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't know. There's a bend in there, a curve, because we talked about that when we were out to the site, where is the new driveway going? MR. ROWE-It'll be 15 feet north of mine. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MRS. PALING-So, the driveway now leads right to your house, right? MR. ROWE-Yes. MRS. PALING-And you're going to move it, when we're looking at the house, you're going to move it to the right? MR. ROWE-Yes. MRS. PALING-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-And then where will the division of the land go? Will the driveway be on your daughter's land or yours? MR. ROWE-It will be on my daughter's. 16 MR. ROWE-Right there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay, and you're going to have an easement? MR. ROWE-Yes. We've had the wetland all flagged by the APA and the guy was supposed to come last Friday to look it over, and he called and said he cancelled. They don't have any problem with putting the house 25, 30 feet from the wetland, as long as your septic system is 100 feet from the wetland. They don't care. MR. SICARD-They were more concerned with the septic system, were they? MR. ROWE-Right. It's got to be 100 feet. MR. SICARD-One hundred feet from the flagging? MR. ROWE-One hundred feet from the, yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is any part of this in the Adirondack Park? MR. ROWE-Yes. The whole land is on that Adirondack Park. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right to the Mountain Road? MR. ROWE-It comes right down to the middle of West Mountain Road and it goes straight. The road curves to the right. Adirondack Park goes straight. It's behind all those houses down farther. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. ROWE-Even the cemetery, I think, is in the Adirondack Park. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is it? I wasn't sure where the line went through there. MR. ROWE-We measured today, and if we could put the house 60 feet from the wetland, it would give us enough room to put the house. All the septic systems are going to go toward the road. MR. TURNER-You've got the house scaled off, here, at 50 feet from the road, is that correct? MR. ROWE-Well, that's probably not a true estimate. There's the 75 foot setback from the wetlands. MR. TURNER-This line represents, what? MR. ROWE-That's 100 feet from my neighbor's well. MR. TURNER-Okay. So, the wetland is 75 feet from here over, is that what you're saying? MR. ROWE-This is wetland here. In fact, this is all wetland here. MR. TURNER-That's 75 feet right there. This goes right down, you've got a garden right in here, don't you? MR. ROWE-Well, the garden's way up in here. MR. SICARD-Did you have to make an application to the Park Agency? MR. ROWE-Yes. We've got the application in. MR. TURNER-Yes, but you don't have it approved? MR. ROWE-No. Well, the guy was supposed to come last week, to look it over, and see it we could get into the wetland. We've even got to get a permit to put from them to put fill within 100 feet of the wetland. MR. TURNER-Yes, right. MR. CARVIN-Do you know what your daughter's, the size of the proposed house is going to be? MR. ROWE-I think it's going to be 28 by 56. MR. CARR-So, if he's right on the boarder of the 75 foot, we're looking at 27, 28 feet of relief, right? MR. CARVIN-Will that be a three story in the back, because that does drop off quite a bit. 17 MR. ROWE-The back of that cellar is going to be in the ground. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but you're only planning a normal size cellar in that, then? MR. ROWE-Right, 28 by 56. MRS. EGGLESTON-You're going to fill it in, you said, to bring it up. MR. ROWE-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Yes. My only, and it's not enough to really turn it down, but my only question, I guess, is on the driveway, because I travel West Mountain Road quite frequently, and I'm very familiar with that Clendon Brook Road. Does your property but up on Clendon Road, or Clendon Brook Road, here? MR. ROWE-No. MR. CARVIN-I see you've got it kind of jiggled in, but. MR. ROWE-No. MR. CARVIN-Somebody else owns this in here, do they? MR. ROWE-Yes. Maille and Harvey do. Harvey's on the corner. and there's a new house over here. MR. CARVIN-Okay, because I know the way this road kind of turns in there. Boy, I'll tell you, they come up out of that Clendon Brook, and I'm just afraid that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Let me ask you this. If we approve this, there's nothing to say they couldn't make another driveway in this other lot, though. I mean, if you sold your premises. MR. ROWE-You could put the driveway on my land. See, I'm giving my daughter 175, property here. I could put the driveway on my property. MRS. EGGLESTON-It wasn't my concern of whose property it was on, because if you put it over here, then she doesn't have one, but if you sold your property, then I'm going to say, those people are going to just make a driveway in here, because they don't like easement driveways, the normal person doesn't. MR. ROWE-Well. they told me, when we had the deed drawn up, they put it right in the deed that that's a deed right-of-way driveway for both houses. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, but they still could just make one on the other lot, couldn't they? MR. CARR-Sure, later. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, that's what you have to look at, I think, is, so you could conceivably wind up with two driveways, where they tried to. MR. CARR-Not now, but when the houses are sold, eventually, there's going to be two driveways there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but can we stipulate just one driveway, at this point? MR. ROWE-Sure. MR. CARVIN-I'm just afraid, the way they fly down West Mountain Road. there. MR. CARR-Pat, does this application go to site plan? MRS. CRAYFORD-It's going to subdivision, before the Planning Board, and it'll also have to go to the Planning Board for wetlands. So, it's going to be scrutinized by every agency that you can imagine. MR. CARR-Okay. I mean, it's wetlands fill. right? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. ROWE-I have a meeting tomorrow night. MRS. CRAYFORD-You're going tomorrow night also, Planning Board? MR. ROWE-I think that's wetlands. 18 MRS. CRAYFORD-Okay. I have the Planning Board agenda here. The 21st, Freshwater Wetlands Permit. So, that'll be the Planning Board. MRS. EGGLESTON-We've had a few of these, Ted. MR. TURNER-Yes, and there's 125 feet of relief on one lot, and 121.05 feet on the other lot that you've got to grant. MRS. EGGLESTON-And we've turned others down. MR. TURNER-We've turned them down. MRS. EGGLESTON-What would be the practical difficulty? MR. TURNER-There isn't any. MR. SICARD-The wetlands. MR. TURNER-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-No, not really. MR. TURNER-There again, I understand what he's trying to do, but by the same token. MRS. EGGLESTON-We had Dunfey. over on Luzerne Road. we turned down, right on West Mountain Road. MR. TURNER-Yes, the same thing, flag lot. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I had one up on Bay Road, just before you get to Sunnyside, or Ridge, on Ridge, right on the bend, there. We had a lot of them that came out, right after they enacted this, and it was like. MR. TURNER-I think this is something, if the Town Board wants to deal with it, they should deal with it. It's there. It's there for a reason. They're talking about a two lot subdivision, but, still, they're not addressing the issue on an arterial road. Even though they put a two lot subdivision, they've still got to have double the lot width. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, but they wanted to cut down on the road cuts. Unfortunately, this is near to two we've turned down, on the other end of West Mountain Road, right around the corner, on Luzerne Road. Back then it was a hot issue, though. MR. TURNER-It's still a hot issue. MRS. EGGLESTON-It seemed to be, there's a lot of quandary about it. Well, Ted, let me ask you this. What is the new thing where you can give a lot, like, to your kid or, no? MRS. CRAYFORD-Nothing yet. MRS. EGGLESTON-They are working on something like that, though, aren't they, to give the relief, here? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. TURNER-I think you're going to see some relief granted. MRS. EGGLESTON-By the Town Board. MR. TURNER-By the Town Board. MRS. EGGLESTON-Because we did have a lot of requests. MR. TURNER-That's their function to alleviate that condition, if they think it is a condition. The idea of establishing West Mountain Road, Luzerne Road, Sherman Avenue, and all those, was because of the development that was supposed to go on West Mountain. There was a great concern over traffic, and that's why they doubled the lot width and all those roads, whether that's going to go, we don't know. MR. ROWE-If they turned us down, 1 can build a house, can't I? MR. TURNER-You could build it. but you've got to have the acres. MR. ROWE-If I built a house, I don't have to subdivide. 19 '-- MR. TURNER-No, but you'd have to have the acre of land. MRS. CRAYFORD-He has the acreage to build two principle structures. MR. TURNER-I know he's got 4.63 acres, but he'd have to divide it up so that he comes up with the land to build on. MR. CARR-Are you saying, because he can't have two principle buildings on the same property? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-He would not have to subdivide. He could just put another principle structure on that property. MR. ROWE-What bothers me is the law that says you've got to have one acre, and where I am you've got to have two acres. I'm giving mY daughter over two acres of land. To me, that's double the lot width. MR. CARR-He could build the house right now? MRS. EGGLESTON-But he'd have to leave it in his name. He couldn't subdivide the property. MR. TURNER-We told Mrs. Rourke the same thing. She could build a house back there and rent it to her daughter. Hers was the same deal, but she couldn't do that. MRS. EGGLESTON-And we've had a lot of them. MR. ROWE-Could I show you one more thing? MR. TURNER-Sure. MR. ROWE-You've got to take the measurements, and when you get all done. it's got to measure 300 feet, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. ROWE-I was told you could take a real narrow thing. here. I've got 833 feet along that Brook. You take the 833 feet and the measurements up here, you can come up with the 300, but it's a crazy way of cutting the land up, just to get a house in there. There's 833 feet along there. So, this back on here is 833, and then 175 up here. You can get the lot width, but it's crazy. MR. TURNER-Yes, I know. MR. CARR-Is that a practical difficulty? I mean, is that something different? With the other people, they couldn't even get the lot widths. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's right. He could configure his lot, but it wouldn't work well, and I feel he has a practical difficulty. but that's up to you. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is that like the Applehouse Lane one we had, Ted? Remember that long narrow road they were going to put way back in? MR. SICARD-That was out by West Mountain Road wasn't it? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SICARD-Up by Dave Hatin's there, some place? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. They had so much difficulty. MR. ROWE-I've drawn this thing to scale, and I've cut it all up, 800 and some odd feet, and I can come up with, so mY daughter ends up with 300 feet, right on the nose. over 300, but it's a crazy way to cut the land up. MR. TURNER-Well. what does it do to you? If you've cut it up, how did you cut it up? How did you get, what did you come up with up here? MR. ROWE-Well, if mY daughter, if she has, that's 833. I'll come way over to here. Now, I've got the same amount on mY land, right. MR. TURNER-Yes. 20 '--- MR. ROWE-You add up all these, and it's got to come 300 feet, the same with hers. So, you've got 830 down here. If you want me to, I'll draw these things up, and I'll show you where I'm getting this. MR. TURNER-Do you want to table it and bring it back? MR. ROWE-It's a crazy way to cut my land up. If I could show you how I get, average lot is 300 on both of these lots, by cutting my land up real crazy. or else I'd tell you I wanted to divide my land in half. It just seems crazy to me. MR. TURNER-I understand your position. but if you can do that, you do have an alternative, regardless. MRS. EGGLESTON-That would be an awful thing to make him cut his land that way, though. MR. CARR-Because the surveyors don't want it, title abstractors don't want land like that. MR. TURNER-I know. MR. CARR-It just makes a nightmare. MR. ROWE-WeIll give you all the figures you want. You take these figures here. Get the widest part, here, for you, so you can get over 300, get the widest part for your daughter, 300, easy. but it's crazy. MRS. CRAYFORD-We don't even have a definition in our Ordinance, of average lot width. MR. TURNER-No. MRS. CRAYFORD-How to use, what average. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, do you know, are they working on changing that? Where is that? MRS. CRAYFORD-Not so much that Section of the Ordinance, no. MR. TURNER-The other night they talked about the two lot subdivision, but they didn't come to any conclusion, yet. MRS. CRAYFORD-They don't feel this is a hot issue. MR. ROWE-They're building a house down the road from me, on 100 by 150. It's a preexisting lot, I know. but still. right on the corner. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I sympathize with you. I think you ought to be able to give land to your kids. I'm sorry. but it's the only way they're going to have anything today. They can't afford what's out there, but on the other hand, I look at these other people that we've said no to. MR. ROWE-If you want my surveyor to come up with the figures on the 300 by 300, I will. It's crazy. MR. TURNER-I'd like to see it, if you can do it. MR. ROWE-I can do it myself. It seems to me it's crazy to cut my land up like this. MRS. CRAYFORD-$ee, this Ordinance is forcing people to create flag lots. MR. ROWE-See, my daughter only needs 175 up here. We have 175 by 175. To me, the law says one acre, and on mine you've got to have two acres. To me, that's two acres. In fact, it's more than two acres, but it's not the lot width, but it's still two acres. MR. TURNER-Mrs. Rourke had the same problem you've got. She had the acreage, but she wanted to do the same thing, and like I say, you can build a house, as long as you own it. MR. ROWE-Right. MR. TURNER-Two times the lot width in the zone. That's just what it says. It's always two times the lot width. MRS. EGGLESTON-We turned her down, twice. MR. TURNER-Twice. MR. ROWE-For every measurement, if you've got four measurements, you've got to divide by four, and it's got to be 300. They told me all I've got to have is 40 feet on the road. MR. TURNER-Yes, if you've got the lot width, if you've got the 300 feet. 21 '- MR. ROWE-But if you take 800 and some odd feet, here, and say 500 there and the 175 and 175. MR. TURNER-If he can do it, I'd like to see it. It still doesn't change this in the front, here. Like he said, it still maintains 175 here. Is that correct? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. It still leaves the same footage on the. MR. SMITH- The way that Ordinance reads is it says it has to average 300 feet wide. It doesn't say it has to be 300 feet wide. It says it has to average. MR. TURNER-It says it has to be two times the lot width. period. MR. SMITH-It has to average two times the lot width. MR. TURNER-It doesn't say. average. MRS. CRAYFORD-Then you go to Lot Width. MR. TURNER-Definition, yes. MR. CARR-The average distance between the side lot lines of the lot. MRS. CRAYFORD-See, Lot Width is defined as the average distance between the side lot lines of the lot. So, that's where you come into your average. MR. CARR-It's an impossible definition. MR. TURNER-It is. MRS. CRAYFORD-It is. It's been very difficult for me to work with. MR. TURNER-It says over here in the regulations you've got to have two times the lot width, period. It doesn't say average or anything. MR. CARR-No, but Lot Width is a defined term. It's a defined term. You go to the definition of what Lot Width is, and Lot Width is the average. MR. TURNER-Yes, but, again, he's saying, I can come up with again. I don't need to do it, but I've got to cut my lot up, but lets see what he's got to do to cut the lot up. MR. CARR-Yes, and that will be the practical difficulty? MR. TURNER-If there is a practical difficulty, then you've got one, but if there isn't, and he can get the two houses on there, and still come up with it, then he doesn't have a practical difficulty. He can go ahead and do it. MR. CARR-So, you're suggesting tabling? MR. TURNER-Yes. I'd like to see you table it and bring back the information and show us. MR. ROWE- I'll have the surveyor draw the map up. I'll get you all the figures you want. It'll be 300 by 300. I guarantee you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Then you'll table it? MR. CARR-I think you'd be better served by that. MR. ROWE-If I table it, then I have to wait until when? MR. TURNER-Next month. MR. ROWE-Next month. MR. TURNER-It's going to take you some time, probably, to get it together, and then you've got to get it in to her, and she's got to. Is June the 3rd still on? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. TURNER-Is the only one the one up? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. 22 MR. TURNER-Maybe if it doesn't last too long, we could do his that night. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. TURNER-June the 3rd. Can you get the information in? MR. ROWE-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. Give it to her. See you June the 3rd. ÞlJTIOJI TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-1992 ROBERT D. R(IÆ, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: Tabled with the consent of the applicant, until June 3rd, to bring further information for the Board. Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Paling, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MRS. EGGLESTON-I just want to say one thing, here. I don't agree with your consensus of that lot width, because you're not reading the whole sentence. It says, the lot width permitted in the zone, and the lot width in the zone is 150 feet, no matter how you construe it. You're saying you can go back and, an average lot width. MR. CARR-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, but if you read the whole sentence, it says, the lot width permitted in the zone. So you go to the zone, and the lot width is definitely 150 feet. What that says, they want double what is permitted in the zone. It is specifically spelled, 150 feet. MR. CARR-But where do you measure it? MRS. EGGLESTON-It says on the road, on the street. MR. CARR-Does it say on the road? MRS. CRAYFORD-No, it doesn't. MR. TURNER-No, it doesn't. MRS. EGGLESTON-But don't you think their intent is, it says, lot width 150 feet is required in that zone, since they refer to the zone, and they need double that. MR. CARR-I think you've got to look at lot width, now what is the definition of lot width, and then go. That's the definition, and then the number you're trying to reach is what's ever in the zone. MRS. EGGLESTON-See, and I disagree, when it specifically says, the zone, refer to the zone. MR. TURNER-I think, specifically, when that was drawn up, when they went to that double the lot width, all right. If you had a lot width of 150 feet, you had to have 300 feet. You were on the arterial. So, the lot width had to be 150 feet in that zone. There was no average. They didn't consider any average, even though the definition says average. There was no average considered. I can tell you that. MR. CARR-I mean, really, that whole Section could be thrown out, because it's. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's right. When John Goralski and Lee and I and David had a discussion about this, probably in late 1989, middle of 1989, and hat was the conclusion we all reached. We had to all agree on what it said, and we dissected it and turned it upside down, inside out, and that's the way it reads, two times the average lot width. MRS. EGGLESTON-But it doesn't say, average. MR. CARR-It does say average. MRS. EGGLESTON-It does in the definition. MR. CRAYFORD-Well, that's what we have to use, Joyce. 23 MR. CARR-You've got to go by the definition. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, you do, except that it specifically refers to double of what is designated in the zone. MR. CARR-Right, the lot width in the zone. zone doesn't say 150 feet a long the road. to define it. So, then, what is the lot width? The lot width in the It says, lot width, and what is lot width, then, you have MRS. EGGLESTON-I see your point, though. (9:38 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A rAREN JOHNS (M1ER: SHEILA HYERS UPPER BAY ROAD, NORTH PAST ROUTE 149 ~ MILE ON RIGHT (EAST) ACROSS FROM FRENCH ....NTAI.. WMBER MlU FOR A 2 lOT SUBDIVISION ABUTTING A REGIONAL ARTERIAL ROt\D; lWO TIŒS RE~IRED THE lOT WIDTH (400 FT.) "EEDED FOR EACH LOT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNI"G) TAX MP "0. 28-2-6 lOT SIZE: 3 ACRES SECTION 179-30 JEFF YORK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (9:38 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Patricia Crayford, Zoning Administrator, Area Variance No. 48-1992, Karen Johns, May 19, 1992, Meeting Date: May 20, 1992 "This parcel is requesting a variance from Section 179-30, lots abutting collector or arterial roads and requiring an average width of 400 feet for each lot. This application will require a SEQRA determination. II MR. YORK-My name is Jeff York, and I represent Karen Johns and Mrs. Hyers in this situation. The hardship, in this situation, I think there are a couple of points that need to be considered as terms of a hardship in this particular situation. Mrs. Hyers is in a financial hardship with the property. She's had, the letter from Fitzgerald Realty indicates that she's had it on the market for two years. They're trying to sell it as the assessed valuation of the property, and it's been, she's been unable to sell it over that period of time, as a result of, their property is not, it's an 11 acre piece, but it's divided, on the diagonal, by a stream, and they have had no takers on the property. A variance for the lot which now has the house on it, which is the home that Mrs. Hyers received in an inheritance from Mrs. Denton, who is a friend of hers, is on the northerly border of this property, and has a circular driveway, here for a turnaround. This lot has 280 feet of road frontage. From a practical point of view, again, this lot, any danger that exists from the size of this lot, in terms of coming on to this road is mitigated by the fact that if you were not to grant a variance this, it is going to change the impact on the roadway, access onto this roadway. Because this property is on the northern border and has a turn around for ingress and egress, it's not going to make a big difference, as far as impact on this arterial. The building which is on this parcel, which Mrs. Johns would like to buy, which has 400 feet, and well over the average lot width, or however that definition is supposed to work, or road frontage, has 400 feet. This existing building is a falling down building. It will probably be a danger, at this point, in terms of children getting into it, or whatever. Mrs. Johns wants to raise this building and build a house here. Mrs. Hyers is an elderly woman who lives in an apartment. She received this in an inheritance, and this has become an albatross. This has become a real problem for her maintaining the property, simply keeping the building from deteriorating further in this position. She can't sell it and she can't maintain it, so I think it's a real hardship for her to be deprived of the ability to sell the property. This is under contract for a fair market value. She has now had activity house. The price went down from, the assessed value for this whole piece is like $155,000. The price was dropped to $135, $125,000. I think it was, again, reduced to $125,000 for three acres with the house that's in a perpetually deteriorating condition. This lot that we're proposing to cut off does have the 400 of road frontage, or average width. The piece that we're asking the variance for has 280 feet of road frontage. The adjacent properties have significantly less. I don't know if that comes into play, but it's a severe hardship for Mrs. Hyers to have to carry this property. MR. CARR-How do you dance around this one? MRS. EGGLESTON-After we just let the other guy go. MR. TURNER-Again, you can't dance around any of them. How can you? MR. YORK-The variance will have a significant beneficial impact on the neighbors. Everyone who's been contacted by certified mail and had no adverse input. I know the Zoning Board has to take every case as an individual hardship. You don't want to set a precedent by granting a reduction in the minimum double the road frontage, or lot width, but I think it is still incumbent upon you to make a decision in terms of the individual hardship. This person can't support the house and can't sell the property. It's just now, two years she's had it on the market. Elaine McGowan is a highly regarded Realtor in Town, and does a lot of business, and the property can't be sold for what it's assessed for. MR. CARR-But the problem with an area variance, it has to do with the property, not the hardship it imposes on the owner from the sales price, because it would sell at some price. The hardship has to 24 do with the configuration of the property, in that it cannot meet the zoning requirements, and al1 those types of hardships, but here there real1y is, you can't meet the zone, okay, but there's no practical difficulty with the land itself. I mean, Mrs. Hyers situation. we may have sympathy for her, but that real1y can't play into the discussion of the area variance. If it was a use variance. saying that we're tried to sel1 it as a single family residence for three years and no one wants to buy it as a single family residence, okay, so then it can only be changed to a horse farm or something. that's where the economics comes into play, more so, but I mean, you've heard the discussion before, and there's probably five or six applications that want to do this exact thing, and, real1y. everyone of them can say we have economic hardship, in that, my family member can't afford to purchase a house and land, so I'm going to help them out. I mean, there are the financial considerations that make people want to do these types of subdivisions, which are not bad. It's just the way the law is written. I don't know a way around it. MR. YORK-So, the only alternative, here, is to either go for a use variance, or, again, to create an odd shaped lot to try to? MR. CARR-Wel1. I'm just saying that the evidence that you've presented to us about it being unable to be sold at that price, the whole parcel, might be used in a use variance argument, but then you get into, is that a reasonable price, in light of today's market, and al1 that. That's the whole argument on use variances, which are a little more difficult than area variances. However, I think this problem can't be solved on a one person basis, I guess, because there are so many in the Town who want to do this. I think it might be incumbent upon the Town Board, at this point, to take a look at the situation and do something about it, because that's their job. basically. Our job is to enforce the laws that they promulgate, and if there is a practical consideration to do with the property, that the property is triangular shaped or whatever, and it can't, it could never meet the Zoning Ordinance. then that's when we come into play, but I think the law is clear. Is an argument that this lot was existing as of, preexisting prior to '88, and? MRS. EGGLESTON-So were all the others. MR. CARR-So were all the others. MR. YORK-So, in the present conditions, in listening to the last discussion, there is no regulation relative to, or there is no consensus as to an opinion as to whether this is a decision about road frontage. We're just dealing with average lot width. So, if I went like this, and got an average lot width of 400 feet, and this one had 400 feet of road frontage. This one had 280 feet, then it wouldn't require a variance, because it has nothing to do with road frontage? MR. CARR-Right. MR. TURNER-Let me ask you a question. I think you indicated that the three acres, with the house, the proposed sale price is around $125,000? MR. YORK-Yes. MR. TURNER-What's the proposed sale price of the 8.605 acres? MR. YOR~Thirty five. MR. TURNER-Thirty five thousand? MR. YORK-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't know as that's all usable either, is it? Isn't there a ravine in there? MR. YORK-Yes, there's a brook that goes through it. Probably if she had 11 acres that was al1 one contiguous property without a brook in the middle, and it was, you know, somebody would like it as an 11 acre piece of property with the house, but they're two distinct pieces of property, and they built their first house on the other side, so he could build his home. So, it's not a, it doesn't lend itself to one piece. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's unfortunate, but I hope people understand where we're coming from. We've had so many who've come with al1 these stories. They al1 ask the same thing, and how can you tel1 one they can do that, when others, where there's no practical difficulty, we have said, no, and we encouraged them al1. We said, go to the Town Board. You have to go to the Town Board and get it resolved. If everybody would do that, and I know some of them went. We know the Dunfeys went. MRS. CRAYFORD-All of them have gone to them. MRS. EGGLESTON-Al1 of them. It's just been, and they're supposed to be working on something, now, but they really need to get a boost to do it, because there's so many people who do want to give, who've got one lot and they would like, especial1y where your family's concerned. You can't even give it to your kid. It's just a difficult situation. 25 --' MR. CARR-Maybe some competent realtor in Town should get the names of people who've tried to do this and organize a movement to the Town, all at once, instead of one person going at once. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, get organized. MR. CARR-I mean, you've got Ward I. You've got Ward III. MRS. EGGLESTON-I know when we were at the Workshop, they did say they knew this was a problem area, and their intentions were to do something to correct this situation. MR. TURNER-Well, yes. and again, when it was invented, and when it was thought up, there was a hell of a boom going on in Town, everybody was busy, West Mountain was going to go, this \'!as going to go over here. This was in the process of going, you know, and nobody saw the light at the end of the tunnel, because the light went out, and that's where we are. MR. YORK-Am I correct in saying. you're assuming, then, that the 400 feet double the lot width for an arterial of this type, really then doesn't have anything to do with ingress and egress? It doesn't have anything to do with how many road cuts you have. MR. TURNER-Yes. it does. That was the idea. MRS. EGGLESTON-That was the idea behind it. MR. TURNER-That was the idea, because when they talked about developing West Mountain, there was a tremendous amount of traffic that was going to hit Corinth Road, Luzerne Road, and Sherman Avenue. They thought, since the State owned the hub at Sherman Avenue, that they might put an entrance and exit ramp, to alleviate the traffic, and also make access to West Mountain. MRS. EGGLESTON-And they're 50 mile speed zones, most of them, and they were concerned about so many driveways being cut on these collector arterial highways. MR. YORK-But then it's written so that it doesn't support that, because what it was saying is we can jerryrig this thing around so we can have a 40 foot road frontage. MR. TURNER-You can rig it, yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. We had one on West Mountain. There's a lot of acreage involved. That one Charlie was referring to, and they did get around that, I believe, didn't they. with that thing about the average instead of the road. Wasn't that what happened. MR. TURNER-They had enough acreage. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, they had a large, like 100 acre parcel or something. MR. TURNER-No, but the thing that they were here before us was frontage on a public highway. That's what they were here for, and the driveway was something like 5,000 feet long or something. MR. CARR-But there would certainly be enough room. here. if you angled that a little more, to get an average lot width. MRS. EGGLESTON-And, again, you'd have to mess up the way it's cut up. MR. CARR-Well, more of just an angled straight line back. It'd be a deep lot. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. CARR-The 280 would be wider at the rear. MRS. EGGLESTON-Then they wouldn't even have to come to us. MR. TURNER-No. MRS. CRAYFORD-If each lot averages 400 feet in width. MR. TURNER-Right. Then they're home free. Then they go get their building permit. MR. YORK-If each lot averages 400 feet in width. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes, each lot. MR. TURNER-Each lot. 26 MR. YORK-Okay. MR. CARR-Why don't you table it and play with it, and if you don't, you can come back. but I would suggest you talk to Supervisor Brandt, or Mrs. Monahan. MRS. CRAYFORD-Mrs. Monahan would be an excellent source to talk with about this. MR. CARR-Because this is a problem. MR. YORK-Yes. MR. TURNER-It maybe wasn't the best idea, but I think it was well thought out, based on what we were looking at coming down the road, all right. MRS. CRAYFORD-Wasn't your intent to say road frontage, though? MR. CARR-Probably. MR. TURNER-It was curb cuts. road frontage, yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-I think the intent was for road frontage. It just didn't turn out that way. MR. TURNER-A lot of curb cuts, because they had a real problem with minor subdivisions. They used to have minor subdivisions of four lots. A guy could buy four lots, and have four curb cuts. MRS. EGGLESTON-And for awhile, we had a rash of those, didn't we? MR. TURNER-We had a rash of them. MRS. EGGLESTON-And we turned them down, because out of fairness, we turned them all down so they'd stop coming. Now we get two back tonight. MRS. CRAYFORD- These will be good minutes for the Town Board to review and I wi 11 send a memo to them asking for their attention to this. MRS. EGGLESTON-That would be good, and if you people would get after them. MR. YORK-Yes. Okay. MR. TURNER-All right. I'll open the public hearing. Are you going to table? MR. YORK-Yes, I'll table. MR. TURNER-All right. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO CCllENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-We do have letter from Fitzgerald Realty, by Elaine McGowan. I am a realtor and have represented Miss Sheila Hyers, the current owner of the property identified as lands of heirs of Denton, on Upper Bay Road, since May of 1990. Miss Hyers received this property by will from her friend Mrs. Denton and needed to sell it as soon as possible because the home was far too large for her needs and maintaining the property was problematic. After trying to sell the home and 11 acres of land for a year and a half, unsuccessfully. at approximately the assessed value of $156,000, I introduced the idea of trying to subdivide the land into two lots to Miss Hyers. The property being divided by a stream did not lend itself well to one large parcel and we had no serious buying prospects, despite price reductions and extensive promotion. Since Miss Hyers acceptance of this suggestion, we have a pending contract on the land and considerably increase activity on the sale of the home. Even though the lot on which the home is located is only 286 feet of road frontage. that is considerably more than most adjoining residential lots. The roadway both north and south of these lots provides extensive visibility and the home has a large turn around at the garage which would not require exiting vehicles to back out of the driveway. I sincerely hope that you'll consider this Area Variance as a continual maintaining and upkeep of the property is indeed a hardship to Miss Hyers." tlITION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-1992 KAREN JOIItS. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: 27 ""--' At the applicant's request. Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea (9:58 p.m.) MR. TURNER-This is from the APA. This is for everybody's information. This is about Kenny's Variance. This is about the one I told you about. "Thank you for sending your record relating to the above variance which you received March 24th, 1992. While we do not reverse the Board's action, pursuant to Section 8083 of the Adirondack Park Agency Act, we do respectfully point out that the reversal would be justified for the reasons noted below. The Ordinance and Decisional Law require that the Board find that the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty. The record contains no such finding and there is no discussion of the issue. It appears that a dwelling of reasonable size could be built which would adhere to all of the applicable setbacks and separation distances. The necessity for finding that the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate practical difficulty is reflected in a newly adopted Town Law Section 266-B3 and C, effective July the 1st, 1992, which specifically provides that a Zoning Board of Appeals shall granted only the minimum variance necessary. Be so kind as to accept this advice in the spirit in which it is offered. It is an effort to be helpful, to avoid legal challenge and as a part of our duty under the law." Do you want to do the minutes now? CORRECTION OF MIIIJTES March 30, 1992: NONE April 15, 1992: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE ABOVE SETS OF MINUTES, Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr: Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Paling ABSENT: Mr. Shea On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 28