1992-06-24
r-
, "
r
'-
~EENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGUlAR tEETING
JUNE 24lH, 1992
INDEX
Area Variance No. 60-1992 Kevin Dineen 1.
Area Variance No. 61-1992 Wi11iam Fosbrook 5.
Area Variance No. 62-1992 Wi11iam H. Wa1ker, Jr. 7.
Area Variance No. 63-1992 Haro1d T. Raven 14.
Area Variance No. 64-1992 John C. MaHaney 24.
Area Variance No. 65-1992 Bryon B. Rist 26.
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.
MR. CARR-Yes, I don't think we have a probìem with this appìication, but I think we want to just make
sure that we've got the ruìes, for everybody, correct.
MR. TURNER-The same way.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MRS. CRAYFORD-It might be an item to discuss at a work session some time.
MR. TURNER-Weìì, if what's there and existing, and that's attached to the structure. and when that
goes on the assessment roìì and that becomes part of the structure anyway, then that is there, and
that's a setback that's taken, the shoreìine setback is taken from the shoreìine to that point there.
That's aìready there. That doesn't vioìate anything. It's part of the structure, but if it wasn't
there and he wanted to put it there, then that's a different story.
MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. Right. I agree.
MR. TURNER-Are we aìì on the same waveìength now?
MR. CARR-I think we're on the same waveìength. This Section may need a ìittìe work, but maybe tonight's
not the night to do it.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. Just for your own benefit, though, Ted, where is that sentence.
MR. TURNER-B?
MRS. EGGLESTON-This one here about.
MR. TURNER-Yes, that's a Criticaì Environmentaì Area.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. CARR-Yes, but it doesn't appìy to the enìargement of decks and porches.
MR. TURNER-No.
MR. CARR-But does it appìy to the enìargement of decks and porches when you're changing them into ìiving
space?
MRS. EGGLESTON-To make them part of the house.
MR. TURNER-I don't think so.
MR. CARR-See, that's what we've got to work on.
MR. TURNER-I don't think it does, because the deck is part of the structure.
MR. CARR-Right, but I think that's what you've got to work on.
MR. TURNER-He couìd have an open deck. He couìd have an encìosed deck. It's part of the structure,
I wouìd say. A motion's in order on this appìication, then.
flJTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-1992 KEVIN DINEEN, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin:
And aììow the addition of a 12 by 12 foot structure onto the existing house as per the drawing submitted
by the appìicant. The addition is at the rear of the home and it is no cìoser to the ìake than the
existing structure. It wiìì make the home more uniform, visuaììy, wiìì not adverseìy effect the ìake.
It wi1ì not adverseìy effect pubìfc services. It is not detrimentaì to the purposes of the Ordinance,
and due to the ìocation of the home entireìy within the 75 foot setback, this is the minimum reìief
required.
Duìy adopted this 24th day of June, 1992, by the foììowing vote:
AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggìeston, Mrs. Paìing, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE (8:00 p.m.)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-1992 TYPE II WR-lA WILLIAM FOSBROOK OWNER: SAtE AS ABOVE fERNlfOOD DRIVE
TO EXTEND lHE KITCHEN AND ADD A DECK. TO ADD A 12 FT. BY 24 FT. DECK 55 FT. FROM lHE SHORELINE; 9
FT. BY 17 FT. KITCHEN EXTENSION 18 FT. FROM lHE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND WIlHIN 75 FT. OF lHE SHORELINE.
(WARREN COUNTY PlANNING) TAX MAP NO. 43-2-11 & 27 LOT SIZE: 1.395 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60
5
,
DANIEL BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; WIllIAM FOSBROOK, PRESENT (8:00 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Patricia Crayford, Zoning Administrator, Area Variance No. 61-1992, WiHiam Fosbrook, June
24, 1992, Meeting Date: June 24, 1992 "WH1iam Fosbrook is requesting an Area Variance to extend
an existing kitchen, and to add a 12 ft. by 24 ft. deck to the west side of the residence. The structure
in question is 20 ft. from G1en lake and the proposed deck wi11 be 20 feet from G1en lake. The proposed
kitchen expansion wH1 be 18 ft. from the side property Hne requiring a 2 foot variance. The kitchen
extension and the deck are to be 10cated within 75 feet of the shore1ine. The kitchen extension wou1d
be to the rear having Jitt1e impact on the parce1."
MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County P1anning Board returned with the comments, "The project was deemed
incomp1ete and removed from the Agenda. The Board requires further c1arification on the information
provided. Such as - where wH1 the addition be, the Board a1so has concerns re1ating to the water
intake from the 1ake and the increase of non-permeab1e space that is c10sest to the 1ake."
MR. BARBER-My name's Danie1 Barber. We're rea11y asking, basica11y, the same thing as the 1ast app1icant
had, here. The kitchen is very smaH. It's a 40 year 01d buHding that's there now. The deck, we're
not concerned about the deck, because that rea11y doesn't conform to the idea of the app1icant anyway.
He's thinking more to the front, which we'd 1ike to take that out right now, and ask for, possib1y,
because the kitchen is the area that we're rea11y concerned about.
MR. CARR-So, you don't want the deck variance?
MR. BARBER-No, because he does not want the deck in that 10cation, after further consideration.
MR. CARR-So, a11 we're ta1king about is the kitchen?
MR. BARBER-The kitchen, yes.
MR. CARR-And the kitchen is going to be, is that at the rear of the bui1ding?
MR. BARBER-Yes. The County had the same b1ueprints. I sent everything. I don't understand why they
wou1d ask where.
MR. TURNER-You didn't go up there?
MR. BARBER-I didn't get the 1etter. I opened it up that day, and that was it.
MR. CARR-So, the expansion reaHy, I mean, it's a1ready 57 feet back from the 1ake, which is the rear
of the house.
MR. BARBER-Right.
MR. CARR-And then it's just another.
MR. BARBER-It wou1d be a shed roof.
MR. CARR-Another nine feet?
MR. BARBER-Yes. At the present, there rea11y isn't any area for washing and that kind of thing.
MR. TURNER-That's the extension of that 1itt1e a1cove. He's got a 1itt1e a1cove in the back of the
house, and I think the washers and dryers are out there, aren't they, Bi11?
MR. FOSBROOK-Yes.
MR. TURNER-And you enter the house from there anyway. The drive comes right up.
MR. CARVIN-You're current1y drawing 1ake water, are you? I see a pipe here. So, you're not reaHy
going to be expanding the use on that, right. There's water there a1ready.
MR. FOSBROOK-Yes. I have a we11 and 1ake water both.
MR. CARVIN-You have them both?
MR. FOSBROOK-Yes.
MR. TURNER-I don't understand their comments either.
6
MR. BARBER-I don't know, because we had everything with the appHcation, the b1ueprints, etc., and
the 75 feet speaks for itse1f, with the map and everything.
MR. TURNER-Have you ta1ked to, what is it, Brown Hves next to you, right? Is it Brown that Hves
next to you? Does he have a concern with you?
MR. FOSBROOK-Wi11iam Fosbrook. No.
MR. TURNER-You share the same drivew~, in a sense.
MR. FOSBROOK-Yes. Carpenter is to the east. That's where you need a two foot.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. FOSBROOK-Not to the west.
MR. TURNER-Right. Any other questions of the app1icant? None? Ok~. let me open the pub1ic hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COJIENT
PUBLIC HEARING ClOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
MRS. EGGlESTON-A 1etter from C. Roger GHbert and Susan A. GHbert, "My wife and I have no objection
to the Town Board of Zoning Appea1s granting permission for Winiam Fosbrook to extend the kitchen
and add a deck to his house on Fernwood Road, G1en lake." Where are they in re1ation to your premises?
MR. FOSBROOK-They're two p1aces to the west, the second house to the west.
MR. TURNER-Okay. If there's no further questions, a motion's in order.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-1992 WILLIAM FOSBROOK, Introduced by Char1es Sicard who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr:
For a 9 by 17 kitchen extension within the 75 foot setback from the shoreHne. There are no effects
of the variance on pubHc faciHties and services. There hasn't been any objections from the pubHc,
written or otherwise, concerning this variance. The variance seems to be the minimum reHef necessary
to aneviate the specified practica1 difficuUy. The proposed kitchen expansion needs a reHef of
two feet from the twenty foot side requirement.
Du1y adopted this 24th day of June, 1992, by the fo11owing vote:
AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Egg1eston, Mrs. Pa1ing, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE (8:10 p.m.)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-lA WILLIAM H. WALKER, JR. OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE PILOT
KNOB ROAD TO CREATE A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION; EACH LOT LESS THAN 1 ACRE WITH LESS THAN THE 150 FT. RE~IRED
WATER FRONTAGE AND NOT tEETING SIDE YARD SETBACKS. (WARREN COUNTY PlANNING) TAX IMP NO. 18-1-2.1
LOT SIZEIUNIT A: 9.21± ACRES LOT SIZEIUNIT B: 0.36± ACRES SECTION 179-16 C, 179-70, 179-60
MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:10 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Patricia Crayford, Zoning Administrator, Area Variance No. 62-1992, Wi11iam H. Wa1ker, Jr.,
June 24, 1992, Meeting Date: June 24, 1992 "Winiam H. Wa1ker, Jr., PHot Knob Road is requesting
Area Variances to create 2 10ts each under 1 acre. A1so, an area variance is requested for the minimum
water frontage in that the 150 foot frontage is required in this zoning. In creating these 2 1ots,
the 10t Hne between parce1 A and parce1 B is creating 1ess than required side yard setbacks for the
structure on parce1 A."
MRS. EGGLESTON-And there is a 1etter from the lake George Association, written by Kathy Vi1mar, Director,
land Use Management, "Dear Zoning Board Members: The lake George Association wishes to comment on
the Area Variance appHcation of Mr. Wa1ker to subdivide his property 10cated off PHot Knob Road to
create a nonconforming 10t having a six foot piece of shorefront for 1ake access. We have considered
the facts and wou1d Hke to state our opposition to the proposaL Simp1y, creating a nonconforming
10t that tapers off to a six foot strip of 1akeshore win undoubted1y set a damaging precedent that
cou1d pave the way for an kinds of tiny 10ts being created an a10ng the shore. Current1y, the
app1ication
7
as it stands is incomplete. An Area Variance that deals with density is subject to the State
Environmental Quality Review Act. A long Environmental Assessment Form needs to be completed and
submitted to the Board. In addition, this action is automatically a Type I Action under SEQRA because
it falls within the State designated Critical Environmental Area. Since the variance involves a
subdivision, perhaps the Zoning Board and the Planning Board could conduct a joint coordinated review
of the project. This variance may also require the review and approval of the Adirondack Park Agency.
The Area Variance itself is without merit. Clearly the variance, in relation to the requirement, is
extreme. Creating a 6.45 foot lakeshore lot is not only contrary to the Town's Master Plan for this
Waterfront Residential area, but would set a dangerous precedent. How many other six foot or ten foot
lakeshore lots will now be allowed to be created? In summary, the lake George Association suggests
that this Area Variance application is not the minimum variance that could be granted. Simply, the
lot line does not have to go all the way down to the lake. Thank you for your consideration on this
important matter. II And the Warren County Planning Board returned "No County Impact."
MR. TURNER-lets take the issue of the Type I Action first. I thought what we could do tonight is we
could move the Type I Action to the Planning Board, as we usually do. We'll take the public comment,
and leave the hearing open for further discussion. First we've got to make a motion for lead Agency.
flJTION TO DESIGNATE THE PLANNING BOARD AS THE LEAD AGENT FOR SEQRA REVIEW ON AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-1992
WILLIAM H. WALkER, JR., Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner:
Duly adopted this 24th day of June, 1992, by the following vote:
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Turner, can I maybe address that issue?
MR. TURNER-In what vein?
MR. O'CONNOR-I'm Michael O'Connor, for the record, from the firm of little and O'Connor. I'm here
representing Mr. Walker and with me is Mr. Walker. Just in comment along that line.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-This is, in essence, a two lot subdivision application. We came here first for an area
variance because the two lots that we hope to create do not conform to size requirements that are
required with two lot subdivisions. This.!! going to go to the Planning Board for the two lot
subdivision after this part of the application is complete. We couldn't go to the Planning Board first
until we came to this Board. So, if that's the feeling of the Board, that you want to designate the
Planning Board lead Agency, fine, but what that's going to do is put us back to the Planning Board
for a meeting before the Planning Board, perhaps, to discuss this Area Variance, and then back to this
Board to get the variance, and then back to the Planning Board for the two lot subdivision approval.
MR. TURNER-It's been our policy to do it that way, first.
MR. O'CONNOR-And have you been doing it that way where the application, by itself, will have to go
to the Planning Board automatically? I mean, if we were applying for an Area Variance that was going
to allow us to go out tomorrow and build something if we got a permit, that I could understand, but.
MR. CARR-No, in that situation I think, we didn't send it to the Planning Board as lead Agency, if
didn't have to go to the Planning Board. If the Planning Board wasn't going to be involved we would
be the lead Agency and grant the variance, but, yes, we've always had the policy that if the Planning
Board was going to see it, we would send it to them first for the environmental review.
MR. O'CONNOR-The Planning Board won't take our application for this subdivision until the variance
is granted for the subdivision.
MR. CARR-Right, but that's always the way it's been, that even when people needed variances and had
to go to a subdivision or Planning Board for some other matter, they had to go there for the
environmental review and then come back to us for the variance.
MR. TURNER-Yes. That's the way it's been.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think you're going to have us running around the barn a lot, but.
MR. TURNER-Well, I hope the barn isn't that big.
MR. CARR-Well, I think our concern, Mike, is just because of the environmental and critical nature
of lake George, and the Planning Board's more attune to those issues than we deal with on the every
day basis. We want to make sure that before we give variances out, that those most important issues
are addressed and resolved.
MR. O'CONNOR-Maybe if you listened to my comments as part of the presentation, too, you might reconsider
I understand what you've said, but we're not, basically, and I'll say this begging the question. We're
8
)
)
'-
not proposing any different improvements than are already there. All we're talking about is being
able to change the ownership of existing improvements. I don't think we really have an environmental
concern. I'll even address the issue that lake George Park Commission puts forth, because under zoning
you have the right to have deeded right of access, far in excess of what we're talking about, based
upon the frontage that we have. What we were trying to do is simply life by having somebody actual
own it and maintain it, as opposed to giving them an easement across that frontage. Do you want me
to make my presentation, or do you want to make a motion at this point?
MR. TURNER-No. I think we'll move the motion. We made a motion. Do you want to vote on the motion?
MRS. CRAYFORD-Excuse me. Would you want to see if there's anyone here for the public hearing? Because
if I had realized this was a Type I, I wouldn't have scheduled a public hearing for tonight.
MR. TURNER-How many are here in response to this application? One?
MRS. EGGLESTON-You said we'd take the input anyway.
MR. TURNER-We'll take the input and we'll leave the public hearing open until we get back the SEQRA
Review. We're going to move this motion, and then we'll get started.
AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
MR. TURNER-Okay. It goes to the Planning Board, lead Agency. All right. Now, Mr. O'Connor.
MR. O'CONNOR-Again, I'm Michael O'Connor for the record. I'm here representing Mr. Walker who owns
property from this line to the south, if you will, in his individual name, and basically what he is
trying to do is to structure the ownership so that he can create two lots out of this portion of his
ownership there. It is, in fact, part, or was two lots at one time, bought from two different owners,
and the old deed lines are on the map, as we show them. This smaller triangular piece came from the
owner to the south, and then this larger piece came from one person, Mr. Goldberg. Everything that
we are talking about doing is, in essence, a change of ownership. Mr. and Mrs. Walker have four
children, and they want to have the opportunity where they can leave one building or one right to have
a building to each of their four children, and have that option open to them. They own, or Mr. Walker
owns these two pieces, and just for background, because the other pieces aren't before the Board.
He and his wife own the piece immediately to the north, and his wife owns the piece, or he and his
wife own the piece that's on the opposite side of the road. So, if we get this approved, weill then
have four different structures, or four different building lots that they can leave to their children,
as is their desire. This is not a simple application, although what we're trying to accomplish is
maybe a simple goa1. It's not simple because, in addition to your regulations, we're also dealing
with the regulations of the Town of Fort Ann, and the regulations of the APA. If you look through
this lot, there's a Town line that goes right through the back of the property. One corner of the
building, the second building is in the Town of Fort Ann, the principle part of the building is in
the Town of Queensbury. This whole building is in the Town of Queensbury, and all most all improvements
are. We basically have to approve, go to this Board, for the Area Variance to allow us to create this
configuration of lots. These two structures are in existence. We're not going to change the structures
at all. We have to then go to the Town Planning Board to get their approval of the two lot subdivision.
At the same time, we are creating a two lot subdivision, if you will, in the Town of Fort Ann. They
have a Subdivision Regulation Ordinance that we will have to apply to. We also have made inquiry to
the Adirondack Park Agency, as to whether or not they will exercise jurisdiction, and they have indicated
to us that they will, and we will be applying to them. So, the barn is not going to be a small barn
that we go around. Hopefully, we will be able to get around it, okay. If you will note in the package
that we submitted, I think there's a six page property ownership agreement that we have made part of
the application, and we will be stipulating that we will file this of record in the Washington County
Clerk's Office, and in the Warren County Clerk's Office. Basically. that handles septic, walkway
easements, and the other joint ownerships or interests that the properties will have, but basically
it's septic and walkway easements to the lake. You will note that this owner has, although he has
an existent working septic system on all these buildings, at great expense constructed a leachfield
some distance removed from the lake, with pump station and pumping facilities. This is a pole project
which is an improvement to the lake from an environmental concern. This is something that he was not
required to do. The buildings could have stood as they were. He could have tried this subdivision
without making that type of improvement, without making that type of commitment, but I think it's an
indication of what he is trying to do. We have made this lot small, if you will, as far as ownership.
We could probably, if somebody told us we had to, cut off the ownership, but we certainly would then,
simply give an easement. What we were trying to do is simplify it. Ultimately, this person is going
to get the benefit from some use of the lake. We thought they ought to have some lake frontage.
Maintain their own walkway and do what they want. There's a world of difference whether you have a
right of access across somebody else's property or you have an actual ownership, and that's part of,
even, trying to separate these things out from even a family point of view.
MR. CARR-Mike, right down near the lake, in fine print, right off porch, do you see, on Parcel B, where
it says porch on the front of the house?
9
~
)
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. CARR-It says easement. What's that?
MR. O'CONNOR-That's a small easement to get from the ownership area over to the dock.
MR. CARR-So, there.i! going to be an easement.
MR. O'CONNOR-There is going to be a small easement there.
MR. CARR-And then there's going to be use of this dock?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-This house on Parcel A will use this dock. This house on Parcel B will use this dock
and boat-house. What is this house up here will use, I believe, the southerly side of that dock, and
the parcel over here will have the right to use the northerly end of that dock.
MR. CARR-I guess my question would be, you're opposed to easements for 49 feet, why would you make
an easement, that little square at the end?
MR. O'CONNOR-Because we thought, when we made this, that we had connected to the dock, and we realized
that we didn't. So, at that point, we had quite a bit of it done, and we said we'll go back and we'll
put an easement in there and run it through the easement agreement. We could make that ownership,
we'd probably prefer to make that ownership, if that's the preference of the Board.
MR. CARR-Well, it would just seem to me that, whichever way the Board decides, that that whole jut
should be the same way. It would just seem to me. I mean, it either is going to be all owned or an
easements.
MR. O'CONNOR-When we drew this configuration, we came out to the lake, and we thought that we were
coming out to the lake to hit the dock, and we didn't hit the dock, so we've got a little jut there,
that we call an easement, and what Mr. Carr has suggested is why do you have half apple and half orange?
Why don't you have it all easement or have it an ownership, and we would probably would prefer to
have it all ownership.
WIllIAM WALKER, JR.
MR. WALKER-For the maintenance of the dock.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. If you look at the agreement, we kind of cover that pretty well. So, that's basically
what we're trying to do. An these structures are in existence. We're not talking about expanding
any structures. We're not talking about changing anything. We even got into a discussion about the
driveway here, should we change the driveway, and we said, no, we will come in and say that we're not
making Æ!.l changes, alterations to what's presently there. All we're talking about is a change of
ownership. Does the Board have any questions of Mr. Walker or myself?
MR. TURNER-What's the travel trailer hook up? There's a travel trailer up there now on site. Does
that just catch overflow, or what?
MR. O'CONNOR-That's been in existence for some time.
MR. TURNER-I know. Unit B.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. There is a travel trailer hook up on Unit B.
MR. TURNER-Yes, and there's a trailer there now.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don't know if there's, is there physically a trailer on Unit B?
MR. WALKER-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Yes. Does that catch overflow, or what? What's the purpose of the trailer?
MR. O'CONNOR-How often is it used, Mr. Walker, and what's it used for?
MR. WALKER-it was used last summer and my daughter's being married in about 10 days and we're going
to be using that.
MR. O'CONNOR-It's mainly for family.
MR. TURNER-That's the question I wanted to raise.
10
MR. O'CONNOR-This is not run as a commercial property.
MR. TURNER-That's what I wanted to know. Okay.
lEON STEVES
MR. STEVES-For the record, my name is leon Steves. I read occasionally, and in one of the items I
read in the paper said that the Town Board was considering making two lots in a subdivision exempt.
If they do that, you know more about it than I do, now, aren't you going around a larger barn?
MR. O'CONNOR-My understanding of the proposed two lot subdivision language, it will require you to
comply with all requirements of the Ordinance. If you need a variance of any nature, you will have
to go through the full review process.
MR. TURNER-Yes. That's.!!!l. understanding, too.
MR. O'CONNOR-It's supposed to be a simplified procedure for lots that comply with the requirements
of the Ordinance.
MRS. CRAYFORD-And for lots not located in a Critical Environmental Area or APA.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. STEVES-That's why I wanted to ask.
MR. O'CONNOR-This is in a Critical Environmental Area. It is in APA. The only thing I can tell you
is it's not in a floodplain.
MR. TURNER-All right. I'll now open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
WALTER GOODWIN
MR. GOODWIN-My name is Walter Goodwin. I own the house on Pilot Knob Road, the second house north
of Mr. Walker's property. This proposed variation is a fair attempt to circumvent restrictions on
the size of lakefront property. It would divide an existing property now only 103 feet wide at the
lake into two pieces, one of which would be only 6.45 feet wide at the lake, which should be rejected.
The zoning restrictions were enacted to prevent the degradation of the lake and the division of lakefront
into smaller pieces. This division sets some kind of a record. Approval of this request would set
a dangerous precedent for the rest of the lake, because there are many other situations around the
lake where there are multiple buildings on lots. I'm sure the owners would be happy to avail themselves
of a solution like this.. The request is presented as relief for existing houses. The house that they're
speaking of, this one designated as Unit A, was built within the last four years. Now, it was entirely
new. It may be claimed that it was a rebuild because there was an old dilapidated structure on that
lot before. However, the rebuilding included excavation for a foundation. In the immediate area it
would work to increase congestion. It's kind of congested there now. Already motorboats Walker's
woods operate in a dangerous fashion, with skiers close to adjacent woods. The proposed variation
also includes the request for an easement allowing lakefront access across the adjacent lot, Unit C
on the left, owned by Walker. This request suggests a solution to the first request, namely, an easement
across Unit B would allow Unit A access to the lake. Now, I believe Walker does not, himself, have
any greedy commercial intention. Rather, he would like to provide an enclave for himself and children.
However, sooner or later this property will come on the open market. Then buyers and owners will be
back to ask for further relief from restrictions that they regard as onerous. As you know, nothing
is forever, and this problem will return. I believe the easement is the solution for his access problem.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Does anybody else wish to be heard in opposition? Okay. No one? We'll leave the
public hearing open.
MR. WALKER-Could I make a comment? In the first place, Mr. Goodwin is the third house, not the second
house from my property. In all of this, it would seem to me that this recognition of a problem which
occurs in many families. I have seen it. I saw it in mY wife's family. I've seen it many times,
where properties are left with joint ownership of children. The children are alienated from each other
the rest of their life, quite often. We are trying to avoid this. As far as what Mr. Goodwin has
said, the use of the dock, that's why the small area, because the dock is there, that that house uses.
It also goes back as far as the buildings that were replaced with this particular structure that Mr.
Goodwin is mentioning, was rented for years with the use of that dock, before we bought it even. I
still have the cabin for rent and dock for rent signs, the old signs from 30, 40 years ago. So, the
use hasn't changed. If it was, say you had a lease, a 99 year lease of the house, or something like
that, it would accomplish the same purpose. None of this has any environmental impact. It results
in absolutely no change, no change in the use of the land, no change in anything. It's a recognition
11
of what is, and for family purposes would help greatly in the future. I don't really understand all
of Mr. Goodwin's opposition, or the lake George Park Agency. It's not going to result in any change,
and as he said, nothing is forever, well, possibly not. Suppose it was leased to somebody, or suppose
it was rented to somebody with 15 people, and they all piled into the house, and they all used the
dock. How is whether it is sold or rented going to make any difference whatsoever?
MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-Just for purpose of the record, Mr. Goodwin spoke about Unit C. That is not before this
Board. I gave it to you simply for background information. That is owned by Mrs. Walker, to the north
of our property, and the easement that he spoke of to the property is in Fort Ann. It's owned by both
Mr. Walker and Mrs. Walker. Those are not before you. The other issue that he raised, with congestion,
we have not, and we do not propose any conditional improvements. All we're, again, talking about is
the ownership of the improvements. We have proposed ownership to the lake, and we probably, if it
were more satisfactory to the Board, could live with an easement, if we had to, for the skinny part
that extends out. I really don't know the significance, from an environmental point of view, to the
Board, or to the Town, I think that's what the Board is safeguarding, whether the people have the right
to use that strip of land to buy an exclusive easement, or whether they actually own it. As potential
owners, I think it would be much more to their interest to actually own it. Then if they want to put
a walkway down or steps down, or whatever, you don't get into an issue. You also don't get into an
issue of liability of people crossing your property all the time. That was part of what we were trying
to simplify, if we could. We didn't do it up here on the north, because we didn't want to get into
another subdivision. We didn't want to create a subdivision of land five feet wide all the way to
the lake. We didn't want to make this too complicated. So, there we did take the lesser of the two
options that we had, and we did provide that the back lot would have access to the lake by easement.
Here we have to have a subdivision because the actual property line runs through the cabin, and in
order to get the property 1 i ne above the cabi n, to the north of the cabi n, we had to come in for a
subdivision. So, we thought we would take advantage of having to come in for the subdivision and extend
the lot all the way to the lake, but if this Board has a strong feeling about that, I'm sure Mr. Walker
would be glad to listen to the Board's comments, but from a Town point of view, I really don't know
the distinction or the difference. As far as setting precedent, I think the Board has well settled
the fact that each application stands on its own merits, and you aren't bound by what you've done in
some other applications, as to future applications. Here, it's a little unique, because you've got
four buildings, on this lot, you've got two separate buildings, freestanding buildings.
MR. TURNER-Any further comment?
CORRESPONDENCE
MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. We have a letter from Michael J. Stevens, Pilot Knob residence, and he lives
in Glens Falls, with a P.O. Box Number, "Mr. Walker applied for a variance a few years ago to replace
a small guest cottage in poor repair with a new one. As a neighbor and year round resident, I voted
yes to this because I was assured that it would remain a guest cottage. However, the cottage not only
grew in size and changed position on the lot, but became a year round rented unit from the day of
completion. To accommodate the new size and year round occupants, Mr. Walker obtained land across
the street. Being in the Adirondack Park, it is illegal to clear cut 200 .feet to the road, but Mr.
Walker did just that to install his Wisconsin type Mound septic system and tied in the new rental,
as well as two other buildings, and one more to be built on the new section of land. When Mr. Walker
built this new rental unit, he paid no regard to drainage and water runoff and directed them towards
my land by means of culverts and curving the blacktop. It is now heavily eroding sections of my property
before it ends up in the lake. I also contest the claims Mr. Walker has on the amount of lake frontage,
as there has been an ongoing dispute over this since before I purchased my property in 1984. In short,
mY concerns are these. One, Mr. Walker's misuse of a variance to create a subdivision, guest cottage
to rental unit. Two, stormwater runoff onto others property including ours. Three, maintenance of
the septic system, who will be held responsible, financially? Four, who will replace the trees cut
down to make their development occur? Five, the possibility of four building subdivisions as the
foundation hole has already been dug. Sincerely, Michael J. Stevens"
MR. O'CONNOR-Can I comment on those, Mr. Turner, for the record? There are quite a few inaccuracies
in Mr. Stevens' letter I think should be straightened out.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-As far as what Mr. Walker has done on the property, Mr. Walker has applied for permits
that were necessary. He has been inspected by every Board that is possible. Sometimes people have
been sent to inspect him when they didn't know.!'!!:!l. they were sent to inspect him. He has not had a
good relationship with Mr. Stevens in particular. and everything that could be reviewed has been
reviewed, from Day One. Mr. Walker, to my knowledge, is in compliance with the APA Regulations. He's
in compliance with the Town Regulations. The 1988 application that was before the Planning Board was
approved, and what was approved at that time was built. What was built is not in variance to what
was approved. I think that's of record. As I understand it Mr. Stevens, and I think he's even shown
on this map, is to the north of this particular property, and his assertion that Mr. Walker, when he
built this
12
bunding down here, directed the drainage to his property, if that was the case, then I wou1d a1so
have the Board note that what he did is he sent it across one other piece of his own, across the piece
of his wife, and then it got to Mr. Stevens'. I've been up there. I don't rea11y see that happening.
There have been great disputes as to this property 1ine here, which is the north 1ine of Mrs. Wa1ker's
10t. That is not in issue before this Board. It's not part of this app1ication. I wou1d ask the
Board to tota11y disregard Mr. Stevens' comments, as they're not rea11y germane to the app1ication
that's before the Board at this point. If there's anything that I've missed in there, that you want
me to specifica11y address, I'd be g1ad to.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Are there renta1 units?
MR. O'CONNOR-As I understand it, this cabin is present1y rented.
MR. WALKER-Yes.
MRS. EGGLESTON-And the trai1er 10t, is that a renta1 in the summer time?
MR. WALKER-No.
MR. O'CONNOR-No.
MR. WALKER-Never has been.
MR. CARR-What about the house at Unit B? Is that rented?
MR. WALKER-No. Never has been.
MR. CARR-It's occupied?
MR. WALKER-By me.
MR. CARR-You 1ive there? Okay,
and then you're going to bui1d the house over there.
MR. WAlKER-Eventua11y, yes.
MR. CARR-Just to c1ear it up, who's in Unit C?
MR. WALKER-That's being rented right now. My daughter did 1ive there.
MRS. EGGlESTON-Wi11 there be trees cut, Mike?
MR. O'CONNOR-No. There are no improvements proposed. A11 we're ta1king about is changing property
1ines.
MRS. EGGlESTON-We11, he asked this question, that's why I'm asking you. He says you wn1 rep1ace the
trees.
MR. O'CONNOR-That's why I tried to address his comments. The comments are not rea11y germane to what's
being presented to the Board. The question is, we have an existing bunding. We wou1d 1ike to be
ab1e to separate the ownership of them. The practica1 difficu1ty is the bundings have a1ready been
bunt. We don't own additiona1 1and. There isn't additiona1 1and avanab1e. Within the APA, I'm
not trying to c10ud the issue, but there is an exemption from subdivision for famny members, and that
we've got to go through with them and prove what we're going to do, but I can get the APA exempt ion
for the piece that's in the back, that is under the APA jurisdiction, because it's in the Town of Fort
Ann. You have a Zoning Ordinance. They have designated this type project jurisdiction to the Town
for its subdivisions, but they don't have a Zoning Ordinance in the Town of Fort Ann, so they stn1
have jurisdiction there. They have a Subdivision Ordinance over there, but not a Zoning. So, you
have dua1 jurisdiction over there. So, I need this Town's subdivision approva1 to change this property
1ine.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. Do you want to ta1k about it?
MR. CARR-Not rea11y.
MR. O'CONNOR-Shou1d we come prepared?
MR. CARR-For what?
MR. O'CONNOR-We're now going to go to the P1anning Board.
MR. CARR-Right.
13
1,,-
MR. O'CONNOR-Do you want to send any direction to them, by the minutes, so that we don't end up?
MR. CARR-I would like the Planning Board just to have Mr. Stevens' letter.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. CARR-Just to address, because there seem to be some environmental concerns there, although they
aren't germane to this application.
MR. O'CONNOR-They're going to have to amend any approved area variances? Shouldn't we get that on
the table?
MR. CARR-No, because even if we amended and asked to have an easement rather than a lOt line, I don't
think, I mean, that particular decision will not effect their environmental review.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I was just trying to avoid going through it twice.
MR. CARR-Sure. I mean, if we came back and they said, okay, environmental1y, for the lOt line to go
down here, it's fine, and we talk about it with the applicant and it's decided that perhaps easement
is best for the Town's concerns and everyone's concerns, that doesn't mean that since there's an easement
now, not a lOt line, you'd have to go back for the environmental, come back here after that. No.
MR. TURNER-No. Okay. The application is in limbo until the Planning Board reviews the SEQRA
requirements, and we will hear the variance requirement at another date.
MR. O'CONNOR-Do you want me to file a long Form application?
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MRS. CRAYFORD-Please.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. (8:51 p.m.)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-lA HAROLD T. RAVEN OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE flJUNTAIN
VIEW lANE FOR A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION, EACH LOT LESS THAN 1 ACRE, AND LESS lHAN DOUBLE LOT WlOlH ON PARCEL
FRONTING flJUNTAIN VIEW LANE. TAX MP NO. 82-2-14 LOT SIZE: 1.62 ACRES SECTION 179-70, 179-20
lEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:51 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Patricia Crayford, Zoning Administrator, Area Variance No. 63-1992, Harold T. Raven, June
24, 1992, Meeting Date: June 24, 1992 "Harold Raven is requesting an Area Variance to create 3 lOts
located between Mountain View lane and Crownwood lane. The lOt facing Mountain View lane requires
2 times the lot width or 300 feet wide. This is an existing house, existing drive, no new road cuts,
nothing win change on this piece of property. The proposed house is in keeping with the required
setbacks of this single family residential zoning but the lOt width will require a variance."
MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is leon Steves.
MR. TURNER-This center lOt is going to be conveyed to the adjoining property owner, Pelak?
MR. STEVES-Yes. He has voiced a concern that he would 1ike to buy that, for his protection, rather
than to see it be two lOts and create a division line, and then you'd have two neighbors in the back.
So that we come to the Board, tonight, because of that. The history of this lOt is that it stopped
short of Crownwood, and it's created, that was an existing lOt for years. Crownwood, when it came
in, and they placed the road where they did, had a strip of land owned by Finch Pruyn in between.
That strip of land has been conveyed to the Ravens. So that makes this lOt. then, boarder on two roads,
and it is, on the Tax Map, two parcels. What he wants to do is keep it conforming with the neighborhood,
is to create the two building lOtS, and one additional lOt to be conveyed to the neighbors.
MR. CARR-So, technical1y, on the Crownwood lane, because we can't merge, he's got a preexisting lOt
of record that's 32 feet wide?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. CARR-So, he could build on it with absolutelY no setbacks.
MR. STEVES-Well, yes. The way to overcome that would be a boundary line agreement.
MR. CARR-Yes.
MR. STEVES-A boundary line adjustment, if you will?
14
('
'"
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. CARR-But I guess how I'm kind of thinking about this, one house is already existing over here,
and the one on Crownwood lane, there's a right to be built on that lot. It's just a matter of how
deep the lot goes, whether it's 32 feet or 155 feet.
MR. STEVES-That's correct. That's why we tried to show the sizes of the lots in the neighborhood
adjacent to it. In addition to that, I think what Bruce is alluding to is that we aren't changing
the density.
MR. TURNER-No.
MR. CARR-Right.
MR. STEVES-The density that is there now.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Essentially, what they're going to do is enlarge this.
MR. CARR-Yes. They want to enlarge this building lot, give this lot to this guy, which would enlarge
his lot, probably, into the one acre, it would probably give him about an acre.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. CARR-Now, would you, well, it's landlocked anyway. Okay. I just want to make sure that we aren't
creating a third building lot just for him, down the road.
MR. STEVES-No. That can also be conveyed, if you wish, with the stipulation that it is not a building
lot.
MR. CARR-Yes. think we'd want to do something like that.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. CARR-That it was to stay with the lands, or with some other adjoining property.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Yes. Any other questions of Mr. Steves? Okay. I'll open up the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
lUCIEN POTVIN
MR. POTVIN-I'm a neighbor of Mr. Raven. My name is lucien Potvin. He has a lot there that doesn't
even conform with the Ordinance of today, for an acre, and he wants to cut it into three lots. Why
three? It's only six hundred and a few feet by one hundred feet. Why the third lot? He wants a house
at one end on Crownwood. He wants a deed for the house on the other end. That landlocked property
has no entrance and no exits. He's going to sell it to Mr. Pelak?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. POTVIN-Can they get a building permit for this piece of property?
MR. TURNER-No.
MR. POTVIN-Of any kind?
MRS. CRAYFORD-Not at all.
MR. POTVIN-Can they put any kind of building on it at all?
MRS. CRAYFORD-They can put a garage.
MR. TURNER-A garage.
MR. POTVIN-Well, that's what I'm getting at. A garage?
MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes.
MR. POTVIN-A cabana?
MR. TURNER-Anything that's accessory to the principal use.
15
MR. CARR-He could put the same thing on that the people on Mountain View could.
MR. POTVIN-Well, I object to three lots. I don't mind him having two.
MR. CARR-Well, he's got two now.
MR. POTVIN-He hasn't got two now. He hasn't got an ordinance yet.
MR. CARR-No. He does have two there now. There's two Tax Map Numbers here. There's a 30 foot 2 foot
strip that's a separate tax parcel.
MR. POTVIN-That's right. That's Finch Pruyn's land. You couldn't build a hot dog stand on that.
MR. CARR-Right, but according to the Town Codes, that is a building lot.
MR. TURNER-That's a lot of record.
MR. POTVIN-I've got one on my end, and also, I can't have a, I own 216 feet, but I can't have two lots,
because I've got to go through this and hire mYself engineers for a lot that's 200 foot square, that
you see in the middle of it, and you see all four posts.
MR. CARR-But I think you've got an argument, under the current Ordinance, the same as they had the
argument to split the land into more of a building lot.
MR. POTVIN-Yes, but I've got to go through a Planning Board and it costs me hundreds of dol1ars for
an engineer.
MR. CARR-Well, that's what they're doing, too.
MR. POTVIN-Why? My lot's already been surveyed.
MRS. CRAYFORD-If you're just going to make two lots, you may not have to go through the Planning Board
in about two more months.
MR. POTVIN-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. TURNER-Does anyone else wish to be heard in opposition to the apPlication?
GEORGE STEWART
MR. STEWART-My name is George Stewart. I live directlY across from the lot on Crownwood lane, and
I don't know if it's a legal stand that I'll take, but I'll take a selfish stand in that, when I moved
in 15 years ago, I'd hoped that those properties that would be built, houses that were at least close
to the sizes that were around them, which were larger. I happen to have a house that IS 100 square
feet, directlY across from this house, which is rather smal1, and I object to a zoning variance that
would allow them to build that small a house. It will ultimatelY impact the price of ~ house.
MR. TURNER-He has the right to build a house a certain square footage, under the Ordinance, and I think
it's 900 square feet. So, that's a bigger house than what's required. So, he can build it, and I
can understand you.
MR. CARR-Do you know if the proposed house is one story or two story?
MR. STEWART-I don't know.
MR. CARR-I'm just looking at, the footprint of it is 1200 feet.
MR. STEVES-I have no idea.
MR. CARR-You take out the garage, so, you've got about 1,000. I'm just trying to figure out, if it's
a two story, it's about a 2,000 square foot house.
MR. STEWART-I would doubt you could put a 2,000 square foot house on that size of a lot. No one would
buy it.
MR. STEVES-Why not? I 1 ive in one, and I wouldn't want a larger lot. I can contest to that. You're
talking about.!!!l. size lot, and I feel a slave, half the time, to the lawn. I don't like it. I never
have. I had a three acre lawn, and I gave it up. So, I live in a house that I think is probablY 2,000
square feet in size, and the lot is probablY the smal1est one in mY subdivision, and it's no larger
than this one here. So, when you're talking about that, now you're talking my language, and I can
tell you that I don't care about a larger lot.
16
MR. STEWART-I guess if he was putting a 2,000 square foot house on that lot, I'd probably have less
objection to it.
MR. CARR-Well, there's a lot of steps to be taken, here. Could you find out?
MR. STEVES-Sure. Maybe you've talked to Mr. Raven. I haven't, but maybe he has a house size plan.
I'm not sure if he's going to build it on specs or what. In any subdivision plan that's laid out,
we have to show a typical arrangement, that the house will fit on it, and the septic will fit on it
as well. So that this isn't necessarily the footprint of the house that we propose to develop. I'm
not saying that at all.
MR. TURNER-I don't think it will, certainly, be anything that small. Obviously, he's going to protect
his own interests. He's not going to build something he's not going to sell or use, whatever.
JAC K ttJRPHY
MR. MURPHY-ladies and Gentlemen, my name is Jack Murphy and I reside at 32 Crownwood lane, and I have
a petition which I would like to read into the record. The compass points that are effected by this
construction site are represented in this petition. Those effected compass positions being north,
south, and east. liThe under-signed parties wish to enter the following objection regarding the matter
in the Town of Queensbury Area Variance No. 63-1992. The under-signed parties acknowledge receipt
of the variance notice, and assert that section notice demonstrates a personal economic interest in
the decision. The under-signed believe that the variance from the existing development requirements
to permit more congested construction would result in a direct adverse impact in the value of existing
residences. Any loss or inhibition of residents investment or the potential for such should override
any support for the variance. The under-signed also believe the acquisition of the property subject
to variance request or any other parcel which would become part of the proposed three lot subdivision
would occur with the knowledge and understanding of existing development regulation. We respectfully
ask the Zoning Board to consider the concerns of the multiple interests represented below, and reject
the request. On a personal note, I would like to add a couple of comments, specifically, one, that
there is additional contiguous undeveloped property, being Mr. Potvin's, that is available, and we
do have the additional concerns that we are establishing precedent here. We would also like to point
out that the additional undeveloped property does represent an opportunity to Mr. Potvin to conform
the lot to the existing Code, and we believe the issue here is the width of the property. It's not
the depth of the property, or it's not the situation of the having a landlocked parcel. The real issue
here is the width of the property. That represents the concern.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. Murphy, what are the Crownwood lane lots width, the majority of them? Would you
know?
MR. MURPHY-I would not know.
MRS. EGGLESTON-What is your own?
MR. ttJRPHY-My own is 100 feet in width.
MRS. CRAYFORD-The majority of the lots are 100 by 150.
MR. CARR-150 in width?
MRS. CRAYFORD-No, 100 by 150.
MR. CARR-Yes, 150 in width. 150 in depth.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. CARR-In depth, and 150.
MR. STEVES-I have a copy of the subdivision map.
MR. TURNER-Yes. That's a Finch Pruyn development. They're all 100's. What's the date on that? 1971,
'72.
MR. CARR-Well, are these homes owned by different people?
MR. STEVES-Yes, they are.
MR. MURPHY-Our home was one of the later constructed. That was built in 1977.
MR. TURNER-Which one do you live on?
MR. MURPHY-Our address is 33, which is just north of this particular parcel.
17
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MRS. EGGLESTON-So, is your prime objection, I want to understand this, because it's the same size 10t
as yours. Is your objection more activity on the street? The woods wi11 be gone, is that your
objection?
MR. MURPHY-We11, obvious1y, the opportunity wou1d arise to create three units, which wou1d create
additiona1 traffic congestion on the street. There are a number of sma11 chi1dren in the neighborhood.
I, personany, have a 10 year 01d. We a1so be1ieve that existing regu1ations require a 150 foot
frontage. Obvious1y, that was enacted with a great dea1 of forethought, and we wou1d 1ike to see the
existing regu1ation enforced.
MRS. EGGLESTON-There's on1y going to be one 10t on Crownwood.
MR. MURPHY-This extends further. This is undeve10ped property.
MR. CARR-Right.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. So, there cou1d be, conceivab1y, three 10ts on it.
MR. MURPHY-I think it's pretty much a given. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Steves, but has
not Mr. Raven advertised 10ts for sa1e in Crownwood Estates? be1ieve the Post Star of either Apri1
23rd or Apri1 25th wi11 confirm this.
MR. CARR-Wen, I went through Crownwood. I Saw a sign somewhere. I saw a sign somewhere e1se in
Crownwood.
MR. MURPHY-So, you know that there is an extended undeve10ped parce1.
MR. CARR-No, no. I mean, it was down, I don't think it was contiguous to the 1and he has now.
MR. STEWART-The sign is on that 10t.
MR. CARR-Yes. It's on the corner, isn't it?
MR. MURPHY-And there is a continuous undeve10ped 1and.
MR. STEVES-I don't understand your question, sir.
MR. MURPHY-It's not a question. It's a statement, and a1so I guess I need to take exception to a
statement that you made, as far as conveying properties. It's our understanding that this particu1ar
parce1 was purchased in Apri1 of this year. It was not conveyed for this purpose. Is that correct?
MR. STEVES-That's the same thing.
MRS. EGGlESTON-We11, there is a 1itt1e difference because you have a se1f-imposed hardship if you just
bought it. Even though it's preexisting nonconforming, it's sti11, you know it when you buy it, that
you can on1y bui1d a 1itt1e house, or whatnot, on it.
MR. CARR-No, that's not the way that works.
MRS. EGGLESTON-No? You can sti11 do preexisting, you cou1d do, but sti11. on that size 10t, you'd
be hard-pressed to put anything on it without a variance.
MR. CARR-Right.
MR. MURPHY-Obvious1y, we know that Mr. Raven's principa1 business is construction. So, again, we're
100king for enforcement of Code. Mu1tip1y interests are represented here, and we be1ieve it's
appropriate to honor those interests.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Does anyone e1se wish to be heard in opposition to the app1ication?
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STEVES-I'm wondering, if we en1arge the 10t here, if that wou1d encourage a 1arger bui1ding 10t.
MR. TURNER-Which 10t do you want to en1arge? The proposed, this one?
MR. STEVES-The end 10t there.
MR. CARR-You can't make it wider.
MR. STEVES-No. I can on1y make it 10nger. I can either come back further or diagona11y cut across
1 i ke that.
1R
\
)
MR. CARR-The issue with that, though, is, quite frank1y, the 10t that you're creating on Crownwood
is no bigger and no 1ess in size than the existing 10ts.
MR. STEVES-No. That's true, but in regards to that, their restrictions probab1y weren't as severe
as ours are today. Our side 1ine setback is for 20 feet. They probab1y weren't at the time of
construction of these houses.
MR. MURPHY-We11, I think they were guide1ines then, not restrictions.
MR. CARR-We11, there were restrictions in the Town of Queensbury back then. I mean, regard1ess of
the guide1ines of the subdivision, there were restrictions as to how dose houses cou1d be to side
1ines, and you can be pretty assured that the subdivision took those guide1ines into account when they
made their guide1ines. So, I think what you may find, and maybe I'm wrong, but if the side 1ine setback
was 15 feet, back when the subdivision was approved, that is probab1y what the setback was, under the
Town of Queensbury Ordinance at the time. I think what Mr. Steves is saying right now is that now
the setback requirement is 20 feet, okay. So the houses now have to be further from each side 1ine
and further back, probab1y, from the road. I don't know if that's changed recent1y.
MR. TURNER-Yes, that's changed.
MR. STEVES-The side wou1d be 10 feet shorter. So that's rea11y a 100 foot 10t. We cou1d have had
a 70 foot house before, now we can on1y have a 60 foot house, without a variance.
MR. CARR-Right. I guess my question to a 10t of the neighbors is, I mean, this 10t is the same size
as everybody e1se's. It's 32 p1us 117, 149.
MR. TURNER-One hundred and fifty point e1even, and one hundred and fifty three point seven three.
MR. CARR-Yes. It's 150 feet deep.
MR. MURPHY-A1though that may be true on, I can't speak to specifics. The one thing that I can speak
to is what the restrictions, regu1ations, guide1ines, whatever confirms right now, as far as what the
width of the property is, and the width is 150 feet. We are concerned that if 100 foot frontage is
permitted tonight, and there is going to be a precedent which wi11 estab1ish the possibi1ity of
additiona1 100 foot frontages on that remaining undeve10ped property.
MR. CARR-But that can't happen because the Raven property, there's two 10ts there, for one thing.
So, there's two bui1ding 10ts that he owns. He owns one extreme1y 10ng one and one extreme1y narrow
one, okay, but by 1aw, those are bui1ding 10ts. Now, he doesn't have access to get more property.
I mean, he doesn I t own more property. I mean, he doesn't own property next to him. The peop 1 e, the
Potvins next to Mr. Potvin, I think, who spoke here tonight, I mean, they own that property. They
can't come in and say, I've on1y got 100 feet in width here, because that's not true. They have, it
100ked 1ike 300 feet on the map here, maybe it was 200 feet.
MR. POTVIN-Sir. That's two Potvins. One is at 100 foot and one is at 216 foot.
MR. CARR-Right, and I think the concern is the one at the 216 feet might come in and say, they want
two 10ts. Is that?
MR. MURPHY-We11, it's not the depth, again. It's not the depth, it's the width.
MR. CARR-They can't ask for that. They can ask for it, but they have no grounds, there's no basis
to give that, because Mr. Raven's request is unique, in that the same as your request wou1d be unique
in that you on1y have 100 feet.
MR. POTVIN-No. I've got 216 feet.
MR. CARR-Are you?
MR. POTVIN-I'm lucien.
MR. CARR-Okay.
MR. POTVIN-When I buy the frontage from Finch Pruyn, I'll have.
MR. CARR-The 200 feet, right?
MR. POTVIN-No. I've got the 200 feet wide.
MR. CARR-But not on Crownwood?
MR. POTVIN-No.
19
r')
r
MR. CARR-Right, but you would not be entitled to a reduction in the lot width.
MR. POTVIN-No. I'd have to get, what I call the right-of-way from Finch Pruyn first.
MR. CARR-Right. I mean, you could probably take your property and divide it in two without a variance
anyway because you'd have two acres.
MR. KJRPHY-It's not the width of the property. Is it just one acre, regardless of how it's divided,
if it's one inch by five hundred miles, does that constitute a building lot?
MR. CARR-No, but you've got to deal with what's there, in property lines. I mean, you can't tell one
person that just because he can't make hi s property wi der, he can't buy the property. He doesn't own
it, but he's got a building lot prior to our Ordinance. You can't tell him he can't build now.
MR. STEVES-Is there any vacant lots within Crownwood lane?
MR. MURPHY-Just to the north of that property.
MR. STEVES-No, to the south I mean.
MR. CARR-There's one being built on the south, way down.
MR. KJRPHY-There may be one available.
MR. STEVES-Okay, then that party would have a lot 100 by 150 feet.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. CARR-Right.
MR. TURNER-And that's a preexisting nonconforming use by by definition. That party that owns that
lot would have to come to this Board seeking variance to construct a house there, because of the Code
of one acre size lots. You can beat that because your restrictions of ownership are onerous.
MR. KJRPHY-We acknowledge that there are limitations, obviously. However, Mr. Raven was aware of this
and he chose to pursue to fo11ow up on it. Our position is there are regulations in place right now
and we are following up on those. Mr. Raven is not obligated to acquire that property in Apri1. We
feel obligated to seek enforcement of the existing regulation.
MR. CARR-Okay. I guess my only thought, though, is that we used to have a rule in the Town that when
the same people owned lots next to one another you could merge them into one lot for zoning purposes.
They took that away from us. So, now we are dealing with two lots. We're dealing with a very sma11
bui1ding lot on Crownwood, okay, by 32 feet, and we've got to try to make the best situation we can
out of that. The other option is for the Town to go and buy the property from Mr. Raven, which I don't
think, in these economic times, you're going to get the Town to do.
MR. KJRPHY-We11, I think that may not be the only a1ternative that is avai1able. Theoretica11y, there
could be other personal interest in a lot that would be avai1able. So, Mr. Raven's most recent
acquisition, perhaps, could be marketed. Perhaps Mr. Stewart, living right across the street, might
have an interest in acquiring that lot. So, I don't think, necessari1y, that we're only looking at
one solution, here.
MR. CARR-Right.
MR. KJRPHY-I think if Mr. Raven chose to negotiate, with, perhaps, Mr. Potvin, they could satisfy the
existing regulation in division of property that is avai1able right now. So, we're not saying that
there's only one answer here, and, basica11y, we're swimming up stream, because I don't think that
we are, and again, obviously, it's inferred, if we do have a 100 foot lot rather than a 150 foot lot,
the construction as Mr. Stewart observed, probably is going to contribute much less to the neighborhood,
contribute much less to the economic viabi1ity of the residences, than by enforcing the 150 foot
requirement, and that's what we're saying, is that the residents wi1l suffer economic harm if our
regulations current regulation is not enforced.
MR. CARR-But, see, I don't agree with that, because a11 the lots are that size now and there's a lot
of very nice homes down there.
MR. KJRPHY-Yes, but we're talking about past tense.
MR. CARR-Well, no we're talking about what's existing there, too.
MR. MURPHY-We're talking about what will either add or add more to the neighborhood. We're not talking
about what is established right now. We're talking about, wi1l there be a contribution, wi1l there
20
be a detraction from this action tonight. If it's 150 feet by whatever, to constitute an acre, then
obvious1y that has more va1ue to the neighborhood, the individua1s who signed the app1ication, than
100 foot frontage.
MR. CARR-Wen, more va1ue, but I don't see it as being a detriment to have a 10t the same size as
everybody e1se is.
MR. MURPHY-Wen, the detriment wou1d be, obvious1y, the va1ue to the neighborhood is enhanced by a
150 foot 10t with whatever structure is constructed there.
MRS. EGGLESTON-How can you say that when an of the residents in there are on 100 foot 10t? How do
you rationa1ize that?
MR. MURPHY-Now, we're ta1king about, what is that going to do, and what impact is that going to have
on the neighborhood. So, can you ten me that a 100 foot frontage is going to have as positive an
impact on the neighborhood as a 150 foot frontage, and can you a1so ten me that if this 100 foot
frontage is authorized, when Mr. Potvin comes and asks that his be divided into two 100 foot frontages,
that that is not going to have an adverse effect on the properties?
MR. CARR-I wou1d bet you that if Mr. Potvin asked for two 100 foot parce1s, he wou1d be denied, because
of the current configuration of his 10t.
MR. MURPHY-Wen, that being the case, I think that you kind of have app1es and app1es, here, because
if he's going to be denied because of width.
MR. CARR-No. No, he's denied, because he's got the property to meet the setback. He's got the property
to comp1y with the Ordinance.
MR. POTVIN-Wi11 I get punished for that, then?
MR. CARR-Yes.
MR. POTVIN-I get punished for that?
MR. CARR-Yes.
MR. POTVIN-If I've got an acre, I can't subdivide it?
MR. CARR-No, no. I'm saying that you wou1d not be entit1ed to the 150 foot reduction down to two 100
10ts because you have the 150 feet there.
MR. POTVIN-Finch Pruyn changed the road in 1971, because mY brother and the other two peop1e wou1d
not sen at $3 a foot, that wou1d have been $600 for my 1and, and I t01d them I cou1dn't even buy a
ride on mower for that, and this guy, Michae1 O'Connor here has been doing the bidding. For 21 years
we've been trying to buy this frontage, because at the time there was no one acre restriction. Finch
Pruyn said, we can't sen, we can't sen. So, Mrs. Crayford, how 10ng has it been since Finch Pruyn
has a deed to this property?
MRS. CRAYFORD-I haven't the foggiest idea.
MR. POTVIN-Wen, it can't be very 10ng, because it was just surveyed 1ast month, and you can't get
a deed on something that isn't surveyed, can you?
MR. CARR-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. POTVIN-You can? We11, I don't think that property was ever deeded, because I think they own 67
acres of swamp 1and down in back, and I think a11 this 1and was incorporated. I wish you wou1d check
on that, Mrs. Crayford, and see how 10ng this piece of property has been deeded, because I don't think
it has been.
MR. CARR-We11, I thought somebody brought out he on1y got it this year.
MR. MURPHY-The transfer is in Apri1.
MR. POTVIN-Wen, that's when it was deeded. Now, you say that this is a bui1ding 10t because it's
been existing an these years. You cou1dn't bui1d a hot dog stand on it, 1egany. How can it be a
bui1ding 10t?
MR. CARR-Because we have no right to deny it as a bui1ding 10t.
MR. TURNER-It's a 10t of record.
21
MR. CARR-We cannot deny it.
MR. POTVIN-It's a piece of land.
MR. CARR-Any piece of land of record in the Town of Queensbury is a building lot.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Do you know, did Finch Pruyn retain any easement across it or right-of-way?
MR. POTVIN-No. I just kept using it.
MRS. EGGLESTON-No. You're not answering my question. Do you know, leon?
MR. POTVIN-No, they didn't give us anything.
MR. STEVES-I don't know.
MR. MURPHY-let me just make a couple of additional comments. We have made efforts to try to acquire
the property. We have made efforts to try to acquire the property. We have been repeatedly denied
by Finch Pruyn, perhaps Mr. Stewart has. Additiona11y, when we acquired the property in 1980, we were
presented with a map and we were assured by the existing land owner that this property could never
be developed and, obviously we were taking someone's word for it as you're taking mine now, that the
property would not be developed and that had a direct impact on our decision to acquire the property.
Again, I think what our concern is, is precedent, violation of existing regulation, and a detraction
from the potential value of the neighborhood. So, I think that there are a number of factors to
consider, here.
JAN MURPHY
MRS. MURPHY-My name's Jan Murphy and I live at 33 Crownwood lane. Something that struck me while you
were discussing this was your comment that the homes on our street are 100 feet wide by 150 feet, which
is the case, and that you felt that the homes that were on our street were very presentable, and
therefore why would something on the same size lot be detrimental. I think that you do have to consider
the past with the present, in regard to the fact of housing costs, and I think that our homes bui1t
in the early 70's and that some of those larger homes would cost much more to bui1d now, and I'm not
sure that on this size lot, that someone would be wi11ing to put a very substantial home, and with
the cost of housing now, I would see that as a possible problem. I would think that someone who could
afford a larger home would, therefore, desire the acreage, and someone who could afford a smaller lot,
such as this would, therefore, bui1d a smal1er home, and we feel that that may be a problem in the
future.
MR. CARR-We11, I think a lot of valid points are brought up. I know, leon, you don't want to hear
this, but I think I'd like to know what the plans are for the house to be built there.
MRS. EGGLESTON-And are there any restrictions on the land, I'd like to know, that was bought by Finch
Pruyn, who lots of times keeps easements or right-of-ways across, and did they do that in this case,
and can you not build, I mean, you could buy it, but maybe by their easement, part of their land would
be restricted.
MR. STEVES-I like representing clients when it comes to property lines, not when it comes to buildings.
I can't tell you what his plans are, but listening to the neighbors.
MR. CARR-Well, can you get it for us?
MR. TURNER-Can you get them?
MRS. EGGLESTON-Can we table to tell him we need that information?
MR. TURNER-Can we table it until we find out?
MR. STEVES-let me make one more comment. listening to the neighbors, and putting myself in their shoes,
one of the problems could be alleviated by having a variance on the side line setback. We didn't ask
for that, but certainly that should be a consideration, because it's 10 foot shorter on that house's
sides, and that's very difficult to put a house in there then, on 60 feet, of the magnitude that they're
talking about, unless you go two stories or l shaped.
MRS. EGGlESTON-I was thinking that myself, if they want a bigger house.
MR. STEVES-So that if you go to the 70 foot, that's the conventional range with a two car garage
attached, and you could sti1l have the l. You could have a two story. You could have a11 these, the
Colonial, and then it would be in keeping, so that perhaps it should be tabled, then, for the
consideration of the variance on the side line setback.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
22
MR. STEVES-And a footprint of the plan could be brought back to you.
MR. CARR-I think it's a very nice neighborhood, and I think they have a concern that if a substandard
house goes in there.
MR. STEVES-Again, putting mYse1f in their shoes, I can't dispute that. That's not what I'm here for
tonight. I hear what you're saying.
MR. TURNER-Then you request to table.
MR. STEVES-No. I said I would agree to table.
MR. TURNER-I think there's some genuine concerns here, and I think we want to know, and I think the
neighbors want to know, and I think in fairness to a11, I think that should come out. So, I would
respectfu11y request that you table your applicant's application, until you provide us with that
information.
MR. CARR-Because otherwise, without the information, you probably won't like our motion.
MRS. EGGLESTON-So, you're going to get us three things.
MR. STEVES-What's the three things?
MRS. EGGLESTON-The size of the house, the house proposed, is there any restrictions on the deed from
Finch Pruyn, are there any easements or rights-of-way, or whatever you want to ca11 them, across the
property that would restrict its use, and would we talk to him about the side line setbacks?
MR. TURNER-Yes, if it comes into conflict.
MRS. EGGLESTON-To build a bigger house to conform to the rest of the neighborhood.
MR. STEVES-Do I have to make a new application for that?
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MRS. CRAYFORD-He couldn't add it to this application, and be advertised? We could advertise it.
MR. TURNER-He could, but he'd have to advertise it.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, he could add it to this.
MR. STEVES-If I agree to table, then we'd advertise it just to do it, because I think it's important
that we have that. It's giving him a better selection of homes.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. STEVES-Thank you very much, then I will agree to table. I'll request to be tabled.
MR. MURPHY-Just a question. If we are talking about a setback variance, a side variance, if I understand
you correctly. will not that have a potential adverse effect on construction that would be contiguous
to this property?
MR. TURNER-Not necessarily.
MR. MURPHY-But could it, could it influence it?
MR. CARR-Possibly.
MR. MURPHY-Additiona11y, I think the issue here is not the size of the existing house. In fact, I
have never contested size of house. What I have contested is size of lot. I think that's the issue
and I think that's what the neighbors, and that's what the residents are asking the Zoning Board to
act on.
MR. CARR-Okay. We11, I mean, we'11 do what we can. We cannot control the size of this lot. It's
there. I mean, unless Mr. John Paul Potvin wants to sell some property and go in as a joint venture
or something, but even then Mr. Raven is not bound to do that. I mean, this is where our problem is.
We're bound by the existing lot width that's there, and we're just trying to get as many answers as
possible.
MR. MURPHY-Okay. I guess I don't understand the request for variance as I understood it for width.
23
MR. STEVES-Only to comply, if you will, mY purpose of that request was on y to put it back into
compliance as it was at the time that this gentleman's house was built, so hat if ~ enjoyed a 30
foot total setback, this home would enjoy the same thing. So, it puts him on ev n footing.
MR. CARR-No. I think Mr. Murphy is speaking of the 150 foot request down to 100.
MR. STEVES-I'm only trying to get the house size up. I
MR. CARR-Yes. Even with preexisting lots, you have to get variances for eVerythi~9 that you need.
MR. TURNER-If you violate the setback. I
I
MR. CARR-Because when you go to the banks to get financing, they're going to want to see that even
though, they don't care it's a preexisting lot. They just want to see that t e Town says it's okay.
MRS. CRAYFORD-May I just say to the residents, this won't, you won't be noticed a ain.
MR. CARR-I thought if it's re-advertised they will.
MRS. CRAYFORD-It may not need the side yard setbacks, though. We don't know ¡hat it's going to need
it. Anyway, would you phone my office about the first week in July and see when t's going to be on?
MR. TURNER-I closed the public hearing, but I'm going to leave the public h~aring open for further
input from the neighbors at the next hearing. !
I
i
.
MR. STEVES-When's the next planned meeting?
MRS. CRAYFORD-July 15.
I
I
I
MR. TURNER-We better have a motion to table this application at the applicant's rtuest.
JlJTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-1992 HAROLD T. RAVEN, Introduced by Ch rles Sicard who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner:
Tabled at the applicant's request for further information on proposed house Plan,l the setback if they're
needed, and any restrictions of the deed. !
I
I
I
I
AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner I
i
,
MR. STEVES-July 15. Thanks a lot.
Duly adopted this 24th day of June, 1992, by the following vote:
JOHN MAlLANEY, PRESENT (9:40 p.m.)
i
BARBARA ",~y 11 INDIANA AVENUE
LINE IN LIEU \OF lHE RE~IRED 20 FT.
II
I
Notes from Patricia Crayford, Zoning Administrator, Area Variance No. 64-1992, ~ohn C. Mallaney, June
24, 1992, Meeting Date: June 24, 1992 "No comment." i
II
MR. TURNER-The lot size is 170 by 88, is that correct?
NOES: NONE (9:40 p.m.)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-1992 TYPE II JR-5 JOHN C. MLlANEY MER:
TO PlACE AN INGROUND SIIIJIIING POOL 12 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY
TAX MP NO. 127-8-14 LOT SIZE: 10,560 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-67B
STAFF INPUT
MR. MAlLANEY-My lot size is 120 by 88.
MR. TURNER-One twenty? It looks like a seven here. One twenty by eighty. Okay.
MRS. EGGLESTON-What is your relationship to the owner? Is that your wife?
MR. MAlLANEY-Mother.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Your mother?
MR. MAlLANEY-Yes.
MR. TURNER-That's a brand new trailer that sits right across the lot? Is that the one?
MR. MAlLANEY-That is the one. It's not brand new trailer.
24
MR. CARVIN-I was 100king at the wrong house. Is that the one that's got the graded front. It 100ks
1ike it's a new 1awn going in?
MR. MAlLANEY-Yes.
MR. CARVIN-Okay.
MR. MAlLANEY-The trai1er is actua11y a '74. I just put it in.
MR. CARVIN-Did anybody e1se add up the math on this?
It on1y shou1d be 10.
I don't think it addsl.
I
I
I
He's got a 14 foot.
MR. TURNER-What's that?
I
I
I
MR. CARVIN-I add up 38 in the front, 14 for the trai1er, 10 from the trai1er to the po01, 16 for the
po01, and then, that shou1d be, he's got 12, but I think 12 makes it 90.
MR. CARR-Yes, so it shou1d be 10.
MR. CARVIN-So, it shou1d be 10 from the back 1ine.
MR. CARR-Yes.
MR. MAlLANEY-Yes. When I origina11y made the drawing, I thought the po01 was 14 rather than 16.
I
MR. CARR-An right. So, it's a.!Q. foot you need.
MR. MAlLANEY-Right.
MR. CARVIN-I have a question, just kind of an interpretationa1, does the po01 ~ave to be in the back,
or can it be on the side?
MR. TURNER-The back.
MRS. CRAYFORD-In the back.
MR. CARVIN-Because if he puts it on the side, I think it comes into c10ser confor~nce.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. CARR-Yes, but they usua11y 1ike it behind the structure.
MR. CARVIN-Behind the structure.
MR. MAlLANEY-I, myse1f, persona11y, wou1d 1ike to put it behind the structure, because there is a 10t
of chi1dren in the area, and by putting it behind the structure it wou1d be ~re concea1ed, with the
intention of the fence being put up it wou1d practicany barricade it. The 0~1Y way they can get to
it is go through the trai1er. Even if they do that, they sti11 have to go t~rough a fence. I have
a 16 month 01d daughter right now. So, I don't want to 1eave it open for her. !
MR. CARVIN-Who's the property behind? Is there a 10t behind there?
MR. MAlLANEY-There's property behind it that's been vacant for years.
MR. CARVIN-I guess my question is, I don't know if there's any structures. How c10se wou1d any
structures be?
MR. MAlLANEY-The nearest structure behind me is, I wou1d guess, further than ,000 feet. That's how
much room there is behind me. About a year ago, loggers Equipment wanted to put a garage out back.
They came in front of the Board. I know that it was denied, but there is a 10t of 1and behind me.
MR. CARVIN-Okay. I just didn't want it sitting in somebody e1se's back yard.
MR. MAlLANEY-No.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions of the app1icant? None?
MR. SICARD-What's that setback required?
MR. TURNER-Twenty feet.
MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll open the pub1ic hearing.
25
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COJIENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. TURNER-Any discussion? Okay. Motion's in order.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-1992 JOHN C. MftLIANEY, Introduced by Jqyce Eggleston who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner:
Granting the app1icant relief of 10 feet on the rear setback, in order to pl~ce an inground pool in
an area that wi11 be best protected from many neighborhood chiJdren. By placing the pool in back of
the house and a110wing this variance the fence on the rear lot 1ine and th~ house form sort of a
barricade so that neighborhood chiJdren wiJl not be able to access the poo1.¡ I don't beiieve this
variance wouid be detrimental to the neighborhood and I believe it to be a re~sonabie request. There
is no neighborhood opposition and there wouid be no adverse effect on services an~ facilities.
Duly adopted this 24th day of June, 1992, by the foiiowing vote:
AYES: Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggieston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE (9:50 p.m.)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-1992 TYPE II SFR-lA BYRON B. RIST OWNER: ROBERT fMSER 7 PINEWOOD AVENUE
TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE REAR OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE LESS THAN THE RE~JlRED 20 FT. SIDE YARD
SETBACK. TAX MftP NO. 81-6-21 LOT SIZE: ±16,500 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-20
BYRON RIST, PRESENT (9:50 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Patricia Crayford, Zoning Administrator, Area Variance No. 65-1992:, Byron B. Rist, June
24, 1992, Meeting Date: June 24, 1992 "No comment."
MR. RIST-Byron Rist, for the record, representing Mr. and Mrs. Fraser. I think i~'s pretty weil speiied
out in the information that you just read back. The only thing I could add is! that we do have three
ietters from adjoining property owners that I'd iike to submit into the record.
MR. TURNER-That would be fine.
MR. RIST-We aiso have, initia11y, intended to eniarge the bedroom in the direction of the lot lines,
and I have an initial plot pian for that, if you'd iike to see that.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. RIST-We changed that to be more in compiiance with the existing house. So that we wouldn't encroach
on this side iot line. The master bedroom is narrow as it is.
MR. TURNER-This is a Finch Pruyn development, too, isn't it?
MR. RIST-Eilsworth.
MR. TURNER-Eiisworth.
ROBERT FRASER
MR. FRASER-1956.
MR. TURNER-Okay.
MR. CARR-That's part of the West line deveiopment?
MR. RIST-Yes.
MR. CARR-That was Ellsworth?
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. CARR-See, I live over on lynnfield, and 1'm trying to think. Our deed went from Finch Pruyn into
the peopie we bought the house from and then into us.
26
~"
MR. TURNER-Finch Pruyn is behind that.
MR. RIST-Finch Pruyn, I think, owns what wou1d be northeast of lynnfie1d.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. FRASER-That was before I moved into this home. Pinewood Avenue, there'~ two tracks with a big
birch tree in the midd1e, and you either went one side of the Birch tree or the other, depending on
which way you were going.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions of the app1icant? Okay. I'll open the p~b1ic hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COJIENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. EGGLESTON-What's the practica1 difficu1ty here?
MR. TURNER-The practica1 difficuHy is the 10cation of the house on the 10t. In order to extend on
that side, you're ~ to come in conf1ict with.
CORRESPONDENCE
MRS. EGGLESTON-From Da1e and Dennis Havern, 9 Pinewood Avenue, "We have been. neighbors to Betty and
Bob Fraser for 14 years. We have no objections regarding the p1anned addit~ons to their home, as
out1ined in b1ueprints prepared by Byron Rist, genera1 contractor", and one frqm Vera Rist, 5 Pinewood
Avenue, "Betty and Bob Fraser have been mode1 neighbors since I moved next door1 to them in 1958. They
have a1ways kept their house and yard in exce11ent condition. I have seen the !p1ans for the additions
they wish to add to their home and have no objection to either." loue11en Pasco, Medin Pasco, "We
have seen the p1ans that Robert and Betty Fraser have for an addition to their home, and we have no
objections. We have owned the property at the rear of the Frasers since they have 1ived there, and
have had on1y good re1ations with them." That's it.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order.
tlJTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-1992 BRYON B. RIST, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Joyce Egg1eston:
And grant the appHcant re1ief of 12.1 feet from the side yard 10t 1ine setQack on the north side.
The existing home is current1y eight feet from the northern 10t 1ine. This ad~ition on1y extends the
site Hne of the home. There is no neighborhood opposition. This wiJ1 not, be detrimenta1 to the
purposes of our Ordinance. It wiJ1 have no adverse effect on pub1ic services, and faciJities, and it
is the minimum re1ief necessary to a11eviate the difficu1ty.
Du1y adopted this 24th day of June, 1992. by the f0110wing vote:
AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Egg1eston, Mrs. Pa1ing, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE (9:58 p.m.)
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFUllY SUBMITTED,
Theodore Turner, Chairman
27