The URL can be used to link to this page

1992-09-16 ",~-' ...- ORIGINAL QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEAIß FIRST REGULAR JIEE 'ING SEPTElIBER 16TH, 992 INDEX Area Variance No. 78-1991 Sandra E gleston 1. Area Variance No. 43-1992 John L. olk, Jr. 11. Use Variance No. 87-1992 Larry Mo 18. Area Variance No. 93-1992 Robert L & Cheryl Evans 23. Area Variance No. 68-1992 Charles . Sicard 23. Area Variance No. 75-1992 Thomas a Longe 38. Area Variance No. 92-1992 Debra and Joseph Gross 43. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZQiING BOlUW œ APPEALS FIRSP REGULAR lIEETING SEPTEMBER 16TH, 1992 7:32 P.II. lIElIBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN JOYCE EGGLESTON, SECRETARY THOMAS PHILO CHARLES SICARD MARIE PALING CHRIS THOMAS FRED CARVIN SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK STENoœAPHBR-MARIA GAGLIARDI OW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-1991 TYPE II LC-10A SANDRA BGGLEsrQi OIlIER: SAllE AS ABCNB FULLER ROAD, VACANT LOT AF7BR LAsr HOUSE CN LEFT TIlE APPLICANT REQUEsrS EXTBNSICN OF APPROVAL FROJI OCTOBER 16, 1992 FOR CONsrRUCTICN œ A SINGLE FAMILY DffELLING WHICH CANNOT IlEET SETBACKS. TAX IIAP NO. 123-1-15.22 LOT SIZE: 0.38 ACRES SECTIat 179-13 SANDRA EGGLESTŒ, PRESENT (7 :32 p.m.) MR. TURNER-okay. Does anyone have any questions of Miss Eggleston, in regards to this extension? MR. PHILO-I'd like to ask you one question on that. How does that come up as a building lot? MR. TURNER-That's a preexisting nonconforming lot of record. meet the 100 foot setbacks which she couldn't meet. So, she had to MR. PHILO-We11, I went up and talked to some neighbors up there, and they've got a 200 foot lot on one side and they can't build on it. How come? O"le' s got 8. something acres, and she can't build on it. So, how come all of a sudden a 100 by 140 can be approved? MR. TURNER-There's one up there that wanted to split a lot or something, at one time, I think if my memory serves me right. MRS. S. EGGLESTŒ-That's the one you're talking about. to split the lot. I know. They wanted MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. PHILO-Which lot are you talking about, young lady. MRS. S. EGGLESTŒ-It came up before. I remember that. I can't remember the name of it. They wanted to split the lot, or something, and they couldn't do tha t . MR. PHILO-To satisfy my curiosity, what do you plan to do with that lot? MRS. S. EGGLESTŒ-What do I plan to do with it? I'm going to build on it. MR. PHILO-Are you going to sell it or are you going to? MRS. S. EGGLESTCll-I have a For Sale sign on it. Hopefully, I'm going to get another job soon, and I've applied for a grant, and if that comes through, I'm definitely going to build on it. I do have a For Sale sign there, in case something comes up where I can't, but yes, I want to build on it. MR. PHILO-If she gets a variance for this. MR. TURNER-She has a variance already. variance. This is just the extension of tha t 1 MR. PHILO-Well, if she gets an extension, could she sell this and then the people assume the variance, too? MR. TURNER-Yes, the variance goes with the land. It's a preexisting lot of record, Tom. MR. PHILO-okay. I don't see it's going to make, with the people that are in the area. I've walked the property, and I don't think it's going to be suitable for a building lot to meet the criteria of the neighbors. MR. TURNER-There's other lots there that are small also, if you look at the Tax Map. MR. PHILO-We11, I looked at the property, and I looked at the property, and I walked the whole neighborhood, and there's quite a few that are not satisfied wi th it. MR. TURNER-They weren't satisfied with it the last preexisting lot of record. You have a right to build the 100 foot setbacks. That's what it was all about. setbacks. She couldn't meet them. time around, but it's a on it. They can't meet They couldn't meet those MR. PHILO-How is it going to meet the septic tank, who looked at that before? Because I just don't see where any criteria meets. MRS. JOYCE EGGLESTCll-I just was going to say, I'm going to abstain on this, but as Secretary, I might tell you that some of my recollection was that it was bought under a Tax Sale as a preexisting lot. Isn't that right? MR. TURNER-That's right. MRS. JOYCE EGGLESTŒ-Yes. For whatever that's worth to you, but as I say, I'm going to abstain. MR. TURNER-The neighbors would be to the south of it. name. I can't think of their MRS. JOYCE EGGLESTCN-St. Andrews. MR. TURNER-St. Andrews. MR. PHILO-Right. MR. TURNER-They were against it because, they were out of town when it went up for Tax Sale. They missed it. She bought it. MRS. S. EGGLESTCN-And it's a good sized lot. MR. PHILO-I say, the percolation of it, it's all rock, and you're causing a hardship for your neighbor. It's all sloped right into the other property. MRS. S. EGGLESTCN-No, it is not sloped. MR. PHILO-I must be blind, because I went up and looked at it. IIOTION TO EXTEND AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-1991 SANDRA EGGLESTON, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: For a period of two years. Duly adopted this 16th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: MRS. JOYCE EGGLESTCN-Do we have to open the public hearing? MR. TURNER-No. MIKE BRANDT MR. BRANDT-Wait a minute. Is this the vote? MR. TURNER-Yes, sir. 2 MR. BRANDT-I thought you said we had a right to come and speak, you said you'd open it to people for or against it? MR. TURNER-I did, but this is just a request for an extension. Would you like to speak? MR. BRANDT-I certainly came here to speak. May I? MR. TURNER-Yes, sir. MR. BRANDT-Let me first make the record straight, I didn't fire this lady, as she said on the record. MRS. S. EGGLESTQN-I never said you fired me. MR. BRANDT-I thought you said Mr. Brandt? MRS. S. EGGLESTQN-I didn't say that. I said I lost my job. MR. BRANDT-I thought you said Mr. Brandt fired me. I thought I heard that. I hope I didn't, because the Town Board hires and fires. I don't. Who put this on your agenda? MR. TURNER-The Staff. MR. BRANDT-Who's the Staff? MR. TURNER-Bob Parisi. MR. BRANDT-Bob Parisi did not. He told me he did not put this on the agenda. He did not review it. It has not been seen. Who reviewed it? Is there a total application? Is there a layout? The point of, is there a proper sewage set up? Is there a set up so this thing will work? MR. TURNER-As I recall, there was no building on the property. I think there might just have been an outline where the building was proposed to go? MR. BRANDT-How about setbacks for sewage? Who designed the sewer system that's going to work, here? MRS. S. EGGLESTON-I have a layout. MRS. YORK-Mrs. Eggleston, I believe everything is in the file. MRS. JOYCE EGGLESTON-Ted's looking, here. MR. TURNER-Would you care to see it? It's right here. MR. BRANDT-I'd love to see it. Let me ask you for the record, were the neighbors notified of this? MR. TURNER-Were they notified? MR. BRANDT-Yes. MR. TURNER-I would assume they would have been. MR. BRANDT-But do you know that they were? MRS. YORK-No, they were not notified. MR. BRANDT-Why not? MRS. YORK-Because the past history of the Town, since I've been here, and previous to that, was extensions of the variance were not a public hearing. The public hearing took place when the variance was granted. The conditions under which a variance is extended is, the primary question is, have there been any major changes around the property which would change the conditions of the variance granted? MR. BRANDT-A change in status. 3 MRS. YORK-Right, a change in status. MR. BRANDT-If the property is for sale, is that a change in status? MRS. YORK-Well, since the variance runs with the land, and not with the ownership, the variance would always run with the land. MR. BRANDT-Fine. I asked Mr. Dusek that, and he seemed to think that it could be seen as a change in status, but he didn't give me a legal op~n~on on it. I think you need to know that. If Parisi didn't have anything to do with putting it on the agenda, then who put it on the agenda? MRS. JOYCE EGGLESTON-We sure don't, Mr. Brandt. I mean, we get a piece of paper in the mail. MRS. S. EGGLESTON-I went into Mr. Parisi's office, into his office. MR. BRANDT-Did he put it on the agenda? MRS. S. EGGLESTON-No. I stood there wi th him and Lee York and asked how I go about extending my variance, and they said, you have to go to the Zoning Board, and I said, fine. MR. BRANDT-Lee, did you put it on the agenda? MRS. YORK-No. I didn't. What happens is, the request came in. Susan Davidsen, who's the Zoning Clerk, prepared a draft agenda. At that point in time, Mr. Parisi was supposed to review it. I'm not sure if he did or not. I reviewed it for compliance with SEQRA, and to make sure that the descriptions were accurate. MR. BRANDT-Well, Mrs. Eggleston came before us and our Board and pointed out that there's an appearance in what we do in Queensbury, where we kind of enforce the law at our discretion, in a differential way, different with different people, and I see the same damn thing here. This government belongs to all of the people of Queensbury. I doesn't belong to a click, and it looks to me like it's run like a click. It looks like there's special privileges for the click. If you're a republican commi tteeman, you're the daughter of a republican commi tteeman, things slide through pretty fast. If you're just Mr. Joe Average, by Christ, you can't get anywhere here. You've got two classes of citizenship, and I'm sick of it, and I'm sick of representing it to the public, and I think you ought to look at it very hard before you go on. I think you've got an obligation to the neighbors, will the sewer system work, has anybody gone out there and checked to see what the soils are like? It's mountainous soils. I have a place a little further down the mountain, and I know what the soils are like. They're not necessarily easy to work with. Someone ought to find that out. When you take three eighths of an acre, 16,000 square feet of land, in a 10 acre zone, and you say, gosh, lets just run this through, it's one of our friends, I think you've got more obligation to the Town than that. I think you ought to stop and look at it, carefully. MRS. S. EGGLESTON-It has nothing to do with friendship. MR. BRANDT-I know it doesn't have anything to do with friendship, but by God you don't see it here. MRS. JOYCE EGGLESTON-Mr. Brandt, I'd just like to tell you, as head of this ship, so to speak, that I called today and asked the question, should it have been advertised, because I thought that myself, that it should have been, again, and I hadn't seen it in the newspaper. So, I called and asked the question, and they told me know, but to be honest, the file was not even in the building. The file was outside of the building. MR. BRANDT-That shouldn't be. MRS. JOYCE EGGLESTON-So, I said then, I would like that file, I requested that that file be brought here tonight, because I knew Tom had questions on it, and I said, I think we might need it, but that's, for your information, I offer that to you, along with what I has said Monday night. MR. BRANDT-I look at it, and you're taking three eighths of an acre lot, that went through taxes, and somebody bought it cheap, and then God bless them, that's 4 good. If they can come through you and get the variances, it becomes worth $25,000 or more, that's wonderful, but by Jesus you've got a responsibility to make sure it works, and I don't think you have to give it away and tell them to look at it. I think you have an obligation to look at it. Thank you. MRS. JOYCE EGGLESTON-You're welcome. MR. PHILO-Ted, can I say something on that? I went over and looked at that property. I talked to the neighbors to the left. I'm responding to you, Mr. Brandt. I went over and looked at that property, and I had a couple of people with me. We talked to the neighbors, and it's going to be a hardship on the neighbors because that does go to their property. The swale runs right to their property, and you, as Mr. Brandt said, that's rock in there. I don't know how they're going to put a septic tank. If they put the property back to the proper setback at the existing house, I don't know how they got this variance to start with, never mind renew it. I don't think, I said no on it, and I really mean, it should not be. If you set standards for other people there, and it's in 9. something acre. MRS. S. EGGLESTON-There's other properties there that are the same size as mine, if not smaller. I went through and checked through all those different properties on that road. st. Andrews is larger, but if they can dig through rock, why can't I, and who says it all right? When that was laid out, I had someone do a septic layout and everything for me. Now, just because it's 10 acre zoning, I went for the variance. We're not going for that. I'm going for an extension. MR. PHILO-Right, and I say, no, from what I've seen up there. it's fair to neighbors. I don't think MR. TURNER-Tom, can I ask you a question? Mike made a comment that the public wasn't notified, but evidently the St. Andrews were well aware of it. Why aren't they here tonight? CHRIS ST. ANDREWS MR. ST. ANDREWS-We're right here. MR. TURNER-Okay. Fine. We're going to hear you. Okay. MR. PHILO-I did notify the neighbor next door, and I asked her, she probably should be here, too. Okay. There she is, and she was strictly against it, and the points that she gave me, I'm trying to be honest with this Town, and I don't want to see any favoritism one way or the other. When I took this job, I said I was going to do it to the best of my ability, and brother it's going to be done that way, as far as I'm concerned. MRS. S. EGGLESTON-When I went for the variance to begin with, that's why I was waiting to purchase the property. I had a certain amount down on it, and buying the rest, upon approval of the variance. I've gone through everything, and I think I should have an extension. MR. ST. ANDREWS-My name is Chris st. Andrews. I live right next door to this property. A couple of points I would make. Every spring we have a problem with runoff, down in our driveway every year, through our yard every year. MR. TURNER-From the roadway or from the property? MR. ST. ANDREWS-Both. Another thing is, you mentioned that it's not the smallest lot there. In!EJi. opinion it's the smallest lot on that street that !... know of that there would be a building on, on that entire block. It would be the smallest parcel of property with a house on it. Ours is like two something acres, but the house was there when we bought it. There isn't a house on this property. MR. TURNER-You bought what you bought. MR. ST. ANDREWS-You bought what you bought, but there's no house on this property. you're talking about putting a house on the piece of property that really is a worthless piece of property, but yet it's been turned into a valuable piece of property, trying to be sold for $25,000, picked up in the Tax Rolls for $2500, which it was my fault I didn't have a shot at it. I wasn't in town. That's my bad fortune, but we're obviously opposed to it going up there. We like the space that's there. There is another neighbor, a gentleman that's a doctor that 5 just came into town and had to buy 10 acres across the street from Mr. Fuller. He had to buy 10 acres to build on this. He is now in the process of trying to go through the APA and figuring it all out, how to put a house on this property, for which he had to buy 10 acres. This is a, I'm not quite sure how much, a quarter of an acre, a third of an acre. MRS. EGGLESTON-Just about, almost a half an acre. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Half an acre. Those are the things I question, and this does go back to when you approved it, and we were here then, and we said what we thought then, and you really didn't even listen to us. To us, your :minds were made up when we got here. MR. TURNER-No. They weren't made up. MR. ST. ANDREWS-I'm just telling you the way it appeared to us. MR. TURNER-Don't tell me my mind was made up. I heard the evidence and I gave my opinion based on the evidence. MR. PHIW-We1l, to verify what he says, Ted, the following day after I went to visit the young lady at the house, I went to every neighbor, then it was raining, and it rained hard, and everything that lady stated to me was true, and I wouldn't want any hardship of somebody putting that in there, and if they put the house in right, I think I've got enough experience in the building business to look back and see that these people are going to be raped. I said no on the vote. MR. TURNER-Does anyone else wish to be heard from the public, on this application? RON STEWART MR. STEWART-I'm Ron Stewart. I live on Fuller Road with my wife Wendy, and we have done some development up there, before we've been involved with the Board. We actually built a house on 1.6 acres and another one on two, and another one on two, even though it's one acre zone at that area, not even a 10. Quite simply, the area is evolving into a very nice area, with good sized lots. you talk about lots smaller than three eighths of an acre, on Fuller Road, I'd like you to find it for me. There's nothing that fronts on that road with that small a piece of property. Why are we creating something like that in this Town, that is try to protect a piece of property to have decent sized lots. I don't know how you answer to the people when you do something like that. It's absolutely ridiculous that you push forward with something that size, and then to talk about giving extensions. That is not what this Town needs. It needs a little courage. It's about time you show it. MR. TURNER-It's a preexisting lot of record. if they can put a house on there. They have a right to build on it, MR. STEWART-And the people who bought it knew the size of the lot. They knew the laws of this Town, and knew that it could not be approved without a variance, and they still went ahead and bought it, and certain people on Boards went ahead and approved the variance, that never should have been approved, you just compounded, you're going ahead and pushing it further. I just have to ask, why? MRS. JOYCE EGGLESTON-Mr. Chairman, for the benefi t of the other new, the new people on our Board, there was qui te a lot of protest. Should we read from the minutes, the other people, to be fair to all our new Board members, so they can see what? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. PHILO-Thank you. MRS. JOYCE EGGLESTON-You're welcome. Well, first, Mr. St. Andrews, and he has said, tonight, he's voiced his opinions here tonight. Mrs. Stewart, "I'm Wendy Stewart. I 1i ve on Fuller Road. I'm also opposed. I live below the Adirondack Park, but we have an acre. We have been trying very hard to keep our street as a rural, quiet street. It cannot really be added and extended. It just goes up over the hill. We all have nice quiet pieces of property. There are several houses that are two acres and more, of property. So, I don't believe this less than an acre holds out as the majority of the houses. I'm just very much against having another house that is sandwiched in, and looking very small, from what it must be to fit on that piece of property, and I would just like to find out 6 if there isn't anything we can do to prevent this from happening again, other than going to tax sales. I'm certainly going to find out who owns the rest of that property on the road. Also, I'd like to know, does the Adirondack Park have to approve of this?" Then next, here's a letter from, well, Wendy and Mr. stewart, again, Ronald Stewart, but you spoke tonight, Mr. Stewart. So, do we read that one again, so they know? MR. TURNER-Go ahead. MRS. JOYCE EGGLESTON-"This is to strongly protest any consideration of a variance for the lot on Fuller Road covered by the notice of variance. This is an LC-10A zone. Other residences on the street had to purchase 10 acres to construct a home in the area. The very small piece of land covered by this variance should be offered to the adjoining owners at the same low cost that has brought it to the point in the hearing. We are not eligible to purchase the property under their cri teria. We live in one of the few remaining rural areas in Queensbury, and we believe that the variance should not be allowed" "This is from Donna Rogers and Phillip Grubbs, two Braeside Circle, first left off of Fuller Road, , This is to register our objection to the above referenced variance. When we moved into the area 15 months ago, we had a large selection of towns and areas to choose from. We chose Queensbury, and more particularly, just off Fuller Road because of the rural quality and beauty this area offers. We chose a spot where our home could be nestled in and remain in harmony with the rustic natural setting of Adirondack Park. Variances such as the one referenced above will significantly change what we sought so hard to find.' Next was Mr. C. Bailey, "P1ease place on record that I am against the approval of a building variance for the lot of DeMars/Eggleston. My reasons for disapproval are as follows: One, allowing a building on that size lot does not conform with the area, nor does it follow the reasons why people have acquired property in that area, which is for space and privacy. The request made several years ago by relatives of Mrs. Morgan to build on her vacant lot was denied, and that, in my opinion, was a much more suitable building site than the one in question. It appears that this property is in the LC-10 area and certainly the parcel size does not come close to conforming wi th those dimensions. Fuller Road is a beautiful, peaceful area of Queensbury and those of us that have property there are most fortunate. We would like to preserve it's quiet characteristic and natural woodland settings." John Schumaker, "Because other commitments prevent my presence at public hearing, I am writing in opposition to the variance application submitted by Sandra Eggleston for the construction of a single family dwelling which cannot meet setbacks on Fuller Road. The reason this property cannot meet setback requirements for zone LC-10A is a result of the fact that the lot is approximately 9 and three quarters acre shy of meeting the minimum 10 acre lot size for the location in question. Approximately two years ago the Planning Board, using the same regulations which direct the decisions of the current Board, rejected a similar application, although it was much more plausibly based on a hardship, by the Fuller family for a parcel of land which lies within 500 feet of the parcel under consideration now. In that case, despite the fact that the land has been continuously owned by the Fullers prior to adoption of the current zoning Regula tions, a hardship variance was not accepted. Since the proposed variance is for a property which has been purchased well after the current regulations were in effect, it would appear, at the least, to be an extreme lack of consistency on the Board's part if this variance is granted. Further, it would open a door to anyone who wishes to circumvent the provisions of the Town zoning Ordinance. Expecting that our Town government be both fair and consistent, I respectfully request that a variance is denied in this case." And that was it. MR. CARVIN-Can I ask, in the minutes, those were the cons. What were the pros? What were the arguments for this, and also, what was the exact motion? MRS. EGGLESTON-The exact motion, I'll read that first "Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: And grant the applicant relief from the front, side, and rear yard setbacks. The property requires 100 foot setbacks on all sides of any proposed structure. The relief granted would be 50 feet relief from the front yard setback, 82 foot relief from the easterly side yard setback, 80 foot relief from the westerly side yard setback, and 15 feet from the rear yard setback. This lot is a preexisting nonconforming building lot, although it is substantially substandard from the current zoning regulations. The applicant has an absolute right to build on this lot and the relief granted would allow the applicant reasonable use of the property while granting the minimum relief necessary from the setbacks. It is not detrimental to the entire purposes of the Town's Ordinance and it would 7 not adversel y effect public services." And it passed, four in favor, Mrs. Goetz said No, and I abstained. And no one spoke in favor of it, if that's what you're asking, Fred. MR. CARVIN-Oka y. lot? I guess the argument was that it was a preexisting building MR. TURNER-It's a preexisting lot of record, yes, and it was bought by Mr. DeMars at a tax sale, and she bought it from Mr. DeMars. MR. PHILO-But we're here tonight to vote on the extension, is that right? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. That's right. MR. PHILO-So, we have a right, as Board members, to say whether we grant this. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. PHILO-Are we in the process of voting now? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Can I say one more thing. Can I just add, for the record, that the soil be checked for a suitable septic system, if it does go any farther, and that you look at the stormwater runoff, also on the project, and add it to the record. MR. PHILO-I'll say one thing. rained, and, visually, when we right? I did look at the stormwater runoff on a day it walked the site, you were with me that day, Joyce, MRS. JOYCE EGGLESTON-No, I didn't go to that one wi th you. MRS. PALING-I didn't go either. MR. PHILO-Okay. When I did walk over that site, the young man back here that said, are we going to stick with the rules, are we going to have favoritism. I don't say there should be any favoritism. MRS. S. EGGLESTON-There was no favoritism. MR. PHIW-we1l, granting you this in a nine acre situation, when you've got 100 by. MRS. S. EGGLESTON-It's a preexisting lot. MR. PHILO-This is true, but every house up there that I looked at is beautiful. They've got some landscape. They've got a nice lot. MRS. S. EGGLESTON-So, what am I going to build? What are you saying? MR. PHIW-I'm saying, I don't believe your property meets the criteria, according to our Code. MRS. S. EGGLESTON-Well, there's going to be no problem on the runoff, because I have a builder that's going to check that out. MR. TURNER-Tom, it doesn't. That's why she's here. MR. PHILO-That's what I'm saying, Ted. MR. CARVIN-I think we're missing the point. The vote is whether we're going to grant a continuance, and if this continuance is turned down, I don't believe that prevents the applicant from coming back and asking for a variance later on. Is that correct? MR. TURNER-No. Tha t ' s correct. MR. CARVIN-I think we're getting way off the field, as far as soil tests and the whole nine yards. I think we should just continue the vote, as to whether we're going to grant the continuance. If it's passed, fine, then she gets the two year extension. If it is denied, then she can re-app1y and we can hash this out later on. 8 MR. PHILO-Fine. MRS. PALING-Okay. So, would you read the motion again? I wasn't on the Board then, and I've not seen the property. MR. TURNER-The motion is to extend the variance for a period of two years. MRS. PALING-So all we're voting on tonight is whether or not to extend her variance? MR. TURNER-The Area Variance that was granted in '91. MRS. PALING-Okay, and that gives us the opportunity for her to come again, and by that time, we can have. MR. TURNER-If it's turned down. MRS. PALING-Okay. She can come back. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. PHILO-Is that right, Ted? MRS. JOYCE EGGLESTON-You do have the option to do one year, though, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. You can grant her one year or whatever you want to grant her. My only reason for granting two years was because of the economic conditions that are out there today. It doesn't like she's going to build a house in time. MR. CARVIN-Again, I guess for clarification, if this is voted down, that does not change the preexisting. In other words, it is a preexisting building lot. MR. TURNER-Absolutely. MR. CARVIN-So that the applicant does have a right to build on it. MR. TURNER-Yes. She has to get the relief from the setbacks. That's all. MR. CARVIN-She has the relief now, unless we deny the extension. MR. TURNER-Unless we deny the extension. MRS. PALING-And if we deny the extension, she can then come back and ask for another variance. MR. TURNER-Forget Mrs. Eggleston. up there? What does anybody do with that lot that's MR. PHIW-I would sell it to one of the neighbors. MR. TURNER-That's fine, but they'd have to pay her the price that she wants for it, or they're not going to buy it. Is that correct? MR. PHIW-We11, if it's reasonable and the person can afford it, I'm just against changing the whole concept. MR. TURNER-Well, you're not changing anything, Tom. It's a preexisting lot of record. Anybody else in the Town has the same rights as she does. If they have a lot that's substandard, that's a preexisting lot of record, they have the right to build on it. You can't deny them the right to build on it. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Can I add something? If I were to buy this property, at fair market value, the piece of property that there should not be a house built on, because it's not big enough. So, it was appraised with those conditions, and added it to ~property, it could not be built on. MR. TURNER-Tha t ' sri ght, if you put it under the one deed. MR. ST. ANDREWS-That's right. Like I have now. I have two parcels of land that I've put under one deed. 9 '- MR. CARVIN-That's correct, but on the other hand, if you buy this particular parcel, and come before us and get a variance, you can build on it, even though it's only a third of an acre, or a little bit more a third of an acre. In other words, the preexisting condition goes with the land. In other words, if you do not merge that with your property, you could technically build on it. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Right, but if I did it, with the conditions that it has to go into my property when it was purchased, bingo, it couldn't be built on. MR. TURNER-I know what he's saying, but I'm just saying, if he joins it with his property, then it becomes part of the total package. Then he can't build on it. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Absolutely, and that's all we were looking for to start with. MR. TURNER-But you had the opportunity to buy it. MR. ST. ANDREWS-I've already stated that, but you could have said the property should not be built on. MR. TURNER-No. We can't sa y tha t . MR. CARVIN-We can't say that. I'm not going to second guess the Board. All I want to do is move ahead on this application. MR. ST. ANDREWS-I'm going back to the last time that we spoke on this. MR. CARVIN-That's correct, and that's a done deal. MR. ST. ANDREWS-It's unfortunate that it has to be, because we're bringing the whole issue up again. MR. CARVIN-Well, it ma y be reso1 ved if it's turned down. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Oka y. MR. BRANDT-Has this Board ever turned down a preexisting lot application, ever in its history, somebody that has had a preexisting lot and wanted to build on it? Have you ever turned one down? MR. TURNER-Yes. I think so. I can't remember which one it was. MIKE MULLER MR. MULLER-Yes. MR. BRANDT-On what basis? MR. MULLER-Beca use it was too small. MR. BRANDT-Well, why is this one large enough and other ones are too small? MR. MULLER-For the record, my name is Mike Muller. In the interest of Mr. Brandt's question, when I served on the Board, my recollection is tha t there was an applicant to build on a lot, it was on Sullivan and Sullivan on Glen Lake. The lot was too small. The attorney was eventually disbarred. I can't remember his name, but you know, you never know when the answer's final, because we told him he couldn't build because he wanted to build a big house on a tiny lot. MR. TURNER-Okay. Continue the vote, Maria. AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Paling ABSTAINED: Mrs. Eggleston MR. TURNER-What's the vote, three three? MRS. JOYCE EGGLESTON-Three yes, three no, and an abstained. 10 MR. TURNER-It's denied. The extension is denied. MR. PHILO-What do you do in that case, Ted? MR. TURNER-It's over. That's her move. MRS. JOYCE EGGLESTON-It's up to her, now, to come back, or whatever. (8: 09 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-1992 TYPE I fiR-I A JOHN L. POLK, JR. aiNER: SAKE AS ABOVE EAST SIDE OF ASSElIBLY POINT FOR A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION IN A CEA, CREATION OF 2 SUBSTANDARD LOTS, AND 2 LOTS WITHOUT REQUIRED ROAD FRONTAGE, EXISTING STRUCTURES CANNOT lIEET 75FT. SHORELINE SETBACKS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX IIAP NO. 6-3-1 LOT SIZE: 2.14 ACRES SECTION 179-16(C), l79-60(B)(l){C), 179-70A MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:09 p.m.) MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board approved, "With the condition that no further building or expansion be put on the present buildings, based on the fact that it is not changing anything, but drawing two lines on the map to divide the property into three pieces. Also approve a second area variance (if needed) for lots that do not front on a public right of way." STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 43-1992, John L. Polk, Jr., "The Planning Board passed a Negative Declaration on the variance/subdivision of this property. The Board is aware of the circumstances of this lot. The applicant wants to create a three lot subdivision with two substandard lots, two lots without the required road frontage and two existing structures which do not meet the setbacks of seventy-five feet. The Zoning Administrator has indicated a total of six variances are necessary. The staff has made a site visit and researched the units on this property, primarily the cottages on proposed lots one and two. These camps are for summer use only. They are built on piers and the construction dates are 1954 and 1958 respectively. They are considered to be in average condition for seasonal rentals of that vintage. The assessment records indicate they are thirty feet and twenty feet from the lake but the survey scales them at plus/minus forty feet. The plan presented to the Board does not show the setbacks or cottage sizes. The units are on an unimproved driveway and a common septic system is located on what will be a third lot. In this particular case, the Board must weigh a number of issues. The proposal request is to create substandard lots and the rationale for that is because there will be no construction and no changes since everything is existing. The reality is that the uni ts on two lots are not year round. There is not enough room on the proposed lots for individual septic systems and any purchaser will want to improve the property. Lakeshore property with a view is usually purchased at a relatively higher price. Anyone purchasing a lot will want more than a 1950's seasonal cabin on piers. The Board has to look at the long term impacts of the variance decision. In allowing the creation of substandard lots, is the Board creating a practical difficulty for any purchaser? The records do not show that significant improvements were made to the cottages over the years so financial loss would not appear to be an issue. The applicant has over two acres. It may be possible for him to create two lots that meet the one acre minimum. The Board is aware of what has happened on Lake George in the past and why it has been designated a Critical Environmental Area. The Board is also aware of the issues regarding lake protection in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and why the 1akeshore setbacks and density standards along waterfront areas were created. The request for variances was reviewed with regard to the criteria for Area Variances. 1. Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. The applicant states that the placement of the summer rental cottages mandates the subdivision layout. The staff does not agree since the alternative plans showing minimum lot requirements have not been submitted. The placement of existing structures does not automatically give credence to the creation of a subdivision with substandard lots, no road frontage and uni ts which cannot meet setbacks. 2. Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty or is there any other option available which would require no variance? No other options have been submitted. 3. Would this variance be detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict with the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town? 'Phe granting of the variances might put the Board in a difficult posi tion when expansions on these lots are sought. 4. What are the effects 11 of the variance on public facilities and services? 'Phe septic system and water is on lot. Emergency vehicle access is over an unimproved driveway. 5. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? 'Phe Board will have to ascertain if practical difficulty has been proven. " MR. TURNER-The first thing we ought to do is do the Full Environmental Assessment Form. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. The negative declaration, is that what you mean? MR. TURNER-Yes. MOTION TO ACCEPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATXOlI FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-1.992 JOHN L. POUC, JR., Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: It's a Type I Action. It's a three lot subdivision in a Critical Environmental Area, Assemb1 y Poin t, Lake George. For the crea tion of two substandard lots and two lots without required road frontage. Duly adopted this 17th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. AUFFREDOU-Mr. Chairman, my name is Martin Auffredou. I'm from Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart, and Rhodes, a law firm in Glens Falls. I'm here on behalf of Mr. Polk. Mr. Polk could not be here tonight. He's out in Colorado and Arizona, his trip that he planned a long time ago to visit his daughter and her family. He had hoped to get this before the Board much sooner, but for a variety of reasons, we haven't been able to get before the Board until now. I guess first and foremost, what concerns me about the Staff's Comments is that I think the Staff is misleading the Board about the standard for an area variance. As of July 1st of this year, there was new State legislation that went into effect, and the Town law was amended, and practical difficulty is no longer the test for an area variance. The test for an area variance, essentially, comes down to this. The Board must weigh the benefit, if any, to the applicant, against the detriment to the Town, the detriment to the environment, the detriment to the physical characteristics of the land, the detriment to the community, the detriment to the neighborhood. Nowhere in the law is there anything about significant economic injury, economic loss, although we could prove that tonight, if we had to, we don't think that that's the standard anymore. Now, your variance ordinance, the Ordinance, yes, it does call for practical difficulties. I think the Ordinance is going to have to be updated. What I'm saying tonight is that I think you have to apply to new State law. I don't think you can apply your Ordinance at the present time. As for the application itself, what Mr. Polk proposes to do is really very simple. He proposes to take that piece of property which has been in his family for a long period of time, and divide it into three lots. The two smaller lots which are proposed to be created contain existing cottages. Those cottages, as the Staff pointed out, have been there for some time. He has rented those cottages out during a summer basis. There has been tenancy that has been in there during the summer. For all practical purpose, the lots are functionally divided today. Really the only thing that we're doing is we are memorializing -boundary lines, which for all practical purposes exist. That's all that we're asking to do. Now, in order to get there, we have to come to you for a number of variances, but to suggest that, as Staff is suggesting, that we're doing something evil here, I think is very misleading. I think, really, what he wants to do is just subdivide the property so he can sell off the lots. That's all he wants to do, and I would suggest that if this isn't approved, I don't know what would be approved. I reall y don't. It comes down to being a very simple application. Warren County Planning Board has recommended approval. The Town Planning Board has issued a negative declaration, given us expedited review on the subdivision for this week and next week, and I really think that your Staff, here, is overemphasizing a couple of issues. Let me get to those. First of all, the septic systems. Each cottage, if you will, has an existing septic system. There is a common easement for each of the septic systems in this area here. A slight correction. The large cottage which Mr. Polk proposes to retain for his own use has a septic tank, 2,000 gallon tank, with its own leaching field, its own drain field, this cottage and this cottage, and this cottage has a 1,000 gallon tank. 12 MR. PHIW-Where? MR. AUFFREDOU-Right in this area here. Yes. I have the map, and also let me point out, these septic systems are fully permitted by the Town of Queensbury as of this last spring, under the Lake George Park Commission Regulations, as implemented by the Town of Queensbury. There are three systems on the property, fully permitted, five year permit for this system, five year permit for this system, three year permi t for this system. You can't get an y better than tha t. You have a septic tank, here, which pumps to here. We have two l,OOO gallon tanks here, with a pump chamber, an alarm system that pumps the effluent to this easement up here. I'm not sure what more the applicant could do to create adequate septic systems, especiall y in Ii ght of the fact tha t these are onl y used on a seasonal base. The fact of the matter is he's met all the laws required for the development of the septic systems. Again, I want to stress, fully permitted by the Town of Queensbury. MR. PHILcrExcuse me, you said, by law he has this covered. He may have it covered for the present time, but if he sells this piece of property right here, and divides it off the way you say, from this finished elevation to this lake is 18 inches. How are you going to put a septic tank in there when this guy owns it. You're not going to sell this piece of property and then go down the line and say, I want to ship it to my neighbors. MR. AUFFREDOU-Each tank meets the 100 foot setback, again, fully permitted. What's happened here is that the way the system is proposed is that these are, in fact, shipping the effluent to this lot. Mr. Polk is aware of that, and when he sells the property, that's what's going to happen. There's going to be an easement reflected in the deed to these lots, which is going to say, yes, indeed, there is an easement for septic effluent, wastewater, to Lot Number Three. MR. PHILcrIn other words, they can dig up the neighbor's lawn anytime they want to? MR. AUFFREDOU-It doesn't have to be, it's already there, sir. MR. PHILcr I know it's there, but we have problems, and they call them filled up septic tanks. When that happens, and lined plugs, am I going over to that neighbor and start digging his lawn up? MR. TURNER-There's an easement, Tom. The easement will describe what maintenance can be done on the site. MR. AUFFREDOU-Plus, under the regulations, you have to have pump outs on a regular basis. MR. TURNER-Those aren't a septic tank. They're reall y a holding tank. pump from one tank to the next tank, the second tank pumps to the field. They MR. PHILO-So, you really don't have a septic system there. tank there. You have a holding MR. AUFFREDOU-We have, again, we have fully permitted septic systems. MR. TURNER-Permitted septic systems. MR. AUFFREDOU-Permitted septic systems. MR. PHILcrPermi tted E£!!. MR. AUFFREDOU-Signed by Dave Hatin, just a matter of a few months ago. MR. PHILcrThat' s if the guy owns the whole piece of property, one piece of property. I can meet the criteria, but it can't meet it if you split it up. MR. AUFFREDOU-I respectfully disagree. MR. TURNER-The easement's going to be passed on, Tom. MR. AUFFREDOU-The lot is about 19,000 square again, less than half size, as proposed, of course is substandard. This lot feet, a little bit less than a half acre, this lot 18,400, an acre. This lot is 1.29 acres in size. We do need, 13 in order to do this, a variance from the lot size, m~n~mum lot size requirements. We need a variance from the shoreline, a restriction, here, not from this lot, but from this lot. We've only got 110 feet, and we need 150. As far as the variance from the 40 feet of frontage on a public road, we've been back and forth on that, and back in March, when we were originally putting this application together, I contacted the then Zoning Administrator, and asked her about this particular problem. We both looked at the Zoning Ordinance. We both read it to each other over the phone, and we concluded that since no building permits were going to be issued, that that provision didn't need to be complied with, and the reason why is that the Ordinance says, every principal building shall be built upon a lot. However, I think it was early July of this year, the zoning Administrator apparently changed her mind and submitted a statement to the Zoning Board, perhaps, the Planning Board, that in fact we would need a variance from that provision. If that's what we need, that's fine. Again, we think we have what we need to get that. This is a drive which goes entirely through the property. We've got our 40 feet here. We don't have our 40 feet, or 40 feet here, but I can tell you, I don't think it's all that unusual, especially in a lake front area, to have lots which certainly don't front on a public roadway. I can cite the Durante and Riffe subdivision on Dark Bay. There you've got a private road which connects 15 or 20 lots. None of those front on a public roadway. MR. PHILO-That's past tense though, right? MR. AUFFREDOU-That's correct, but what I'm saying is that it's not unusual for this kind of a situation in the Lake George area. Again, what I'm getting at here is that we're not altering the essential character of the neighborhood. We're not bringing any detriment to the neighborhood by suggesting that we need a variance or need a variance from that provision. There is access to the property through the driveway, and, again, the property is really only used during the summer season, it has been, that's the way it's always ~ used for years. AS far as I know, that's the only way it' s ~ been used. MR. PHILO-You want to winterize them and have them for year round homes. That's what you said, right? MR. AUFFREDOU-No, I'm not suggesting that. We had Mr. Burke, from Levack Realty, go up to the property to take a look at it, and give us an appraisal on on what these lots would be if they were subdivided. Mr. Burke thought that they could in fact be sold for summer residences. There are fireplaces there. MR. PHILO-Ready to fall down. They've got them banded on the wall now. They're reall y not safe. MR. AUFFREDOU-I can't speak to that. I haven't been right up to the fireplaces. I can't speak to that, but of course, if someone were to buy this, they could, in fact, attempt to winterize it and use it on, and I think what Mr. Polk has done to address that concern is I think what he said, look, I've got to come forward and I've got to get adequate septic systems for these properties. Again, he's done, maybe not exactly what each of you would have wanted him to do, but he's done it and he has the permi ts to do tha t, and I think reall y tha t ' s the key, that's the step in the right direction, if someone were to buy the property, and to come forward and say, I want to winterize this, I want to renovate it, I want to use this on a full time, year round basis. I'm trying to think what other variances we need. Lee, you said there was six identified variances? MRS. YORK-I believe the ones that Mrs. Crayford identified were for two substandard lots, two lots without the required road frontage, and structures which cannot meet 75 foot shoreline setbacks. MR. AUFFREDOU-Again, this is what we've proposed. The only thing we're changing is we're establishing some boundary lines. We're going to change ownership, ultimately. There is the possibility that Mr. Polk would convey one or two of these parcels to some relatives. That's been talked about. Ultimately, the only change that's going to occur is ownership and a change in the registery of the deeds. Really, that's it. MR. TURNER-Mr. Auffredou, he indicated when he was here the first time, Mr. Polk, that the lots were going to be conveyed to the children. MR. AUFFREDOU-That's been talked about, but I think he. MR. TURNER-That was his statement. 14 MR. AUFFREDOU-Okay. That has been talked about. He may have changed his mind on that. That's still a possibility. He may, in fact, be doing that. Was that earlier in the summer, when Bob stewart was here? MR. TURNER-Yes. It was the first time he was here, the first time around, when we sent him to the Planning Board for SEQRA. MR. AUFFREDOU-I know that he's considering doing some estate planning and whatnot. I think that may be part of it. However, I can't say for sure that he's going to convey these to his children. He has talked about it. If that was the statement he made. MR. TURNER-That is the statement. I think it's on the record. MR. AUFFREDOU-Oka y. MRS. EGGLESTON-You must admit, though, that if he doesn't, there's a high risk here of a lot of construction, wanting of variances. Nobody's going to take those old camps and pay a lot of money for them and leave them the way they are. By his own admission, he hasn't put any money into them, and they're not fit, reall y, for. MR. AUFFREDOU-It's a beautiful piece of property. MRS. EGGLESTON-It is. MR. AUFFREDOU-He does rent them out on a seasonal basis. year apparently, the same tenants come back. He's had, year after MRS. EGGLESTON-But that would change if they were sold. I mean, about, you have to talk about what would happen if they were sold. set of circumstances. you're talking That's another MR. AUFFREDOU-It is another set of circumstances. I suppose you could pull a positive out of anything, and maybe this is exactly what's needed up there, for someone new to come in and to update and to give the place a new look. MR. PHILO-If you start changing those setbacks, the people that have put a lot of money into that, the property around there, the square foot they have to pay for that. I don't want to see any trash places come up, and when I said to you, Mister, I went up and looked at that, I did, and I know what the elevation is, and the finished elevation is 18 inches. There's no way that they can put a septic tank in. They've got water coming off the main road, when it was raining, and I had people standing there with me, and it was running right down to the lake. So, if there's any type of construction, new construction there, they're going to need more room, and they don't have room to put a proper building in there, from the offset. They've got 38 feet from the lake to the front porch. I measured it, exactly 38 feet. Other people up there are trying to put one in, and they have to go through this, and they're saying, how, they have to go through the criteria, what the Town has set. The Town has a bunch of rules they put in the book, and they want us to go by it, and then the people, the guy has a nice piece of property. I, myself, with that set on stilts the way it is, my own feeling, in the future, if he sells it to the son, and the son all of a sudden wants to change that, that's going to be a sore eye turning in that corner, and to develop that road going in there, the water's coming off the main road, where the blacktop is, and it's coming right down there, on his property, and it's running right into the lake. If we want to keep things beautiful, and we want to go by the standards of what we've set, I suggest, I said I was going to do the job on this Board, what I thought was right, and in my eyes, please don't split that up. If he's going to exist the way it is, let it stay, but when that building goes down, if I was the Building Inspector, I'd never give him another shot to change that lake view any more than it is. That's a beautiful lake. MR. AUFFREDOU-I can't agree with you more, and as the attorney for the Lake George Park Commission, I spend a good portion of the day working on matters to make sure that the lake is kept beautiful, but here, in this instance, I see cottages which have existed for some time, they're preexisting. Arguable, they, in fact,. preexisted the setbacks from the lake. They've been there, and I think, I say that to suggest that somebody's going to come in and do something harmful to the property, I don't see how you can conclude that. Why would somebody make 15 an investment on one of these pieces of property, which is probably going to be a substantial sum of money to purchase, and do anything but improve it? MR. PHILcr If you've got the percola tion of the soil, and it won't take a septic tank, and they're going into a common system, already, what are you going to do when you go over there? You say you're going to get an easement to go out of there. I think the Town is causing a hardship on somebody that's going to buy that property in the future. MR. TURNER-Tom, if they're granted an easement from the tanks to the mound system, or whatever they have there, the septic field, that easement goes with the property, and everybody that purchases those lots will have that in their deed. They won't be able to put a separate tank and separate field on it, either Lot One or Lot Two. That would be on Lot Three. MR. AUFFREDOU-They'll never need to. MR. TURNER-Right. They won't have to. MRS. EGGLESTON-Why would you say that? What if the existing holding tank or whatever is there will not hold or support a year round residence with a family of six, opposed to a seasonal being used three months in the summer? How can you say they would never need better sewage or septic systems? MR. TURNER-All right. If we go with what the County says, all right, with the condition that no further building or expansion, key word "expansion", be put on the present buildings based on the fact that it is not changing anything, but drawing two lines on the map to divide the property into three pieces. Nothing's going to change. If we go with that condition, nothing changes. MR. CARVIN-But I think something will change over time, Ted. will fall down. Those buildings MR. TURNER-They're going to have to rebuild them. Right, but they have to build them in the footprint. MR. CARVIN-And they would rebuild them in the same footprint, but when they rebuild them, and again, we don't know what kind of technological improvements might come along, and I think Joyce's point is well taken. It is conceivable that these are only summer use now, and I think we're just looking for trouble by creating three lots here. I have no problem with two lots of an acre size, which would be in conformance with the Ordinance, but I think by creating all of these small lots, we have a situation like we just got done sort of resolving. We keep creating these little smaller and smaller lots. MR. AUFFREDOU-But I think think, here you've already You've got septic systems. are permitted by the Town. this situation is different from that situation. I got cottages which are built. You've got footprints. Again, I can't stress enough that these septic systems MRS. EGGLESTON-For the existing use. MR. PHILO-For the existing use, right. MR. AUFFREDOU-No, again, under the Lake George Park Commission Regulations, and as implemented by the Town of Queensbury seasonal use is not a factor, seasonal use is not a factor. Wha t ' s a factor? The amoun t of bedrooms is a factor, bedrooms and bathrooms are taken into consideration, whether they're used year round, or whether they're used a day out of the year, and what's happened here is that we have permits for these systems, and under the regulations, it has been determined that what is in the ground is sufficient for two bedroom cottages, two bedroom one bathroom cottages, for year round use, for one day out of the year use. Now, if what you're saying is that these, if you're going along with the Warren County Planning Board, that no other alteration or expansion can occur, I think that's fine. I think, realistically, I'm not sure that any could occur anyway, because in order for someone to come in and say, I'd like to expand, I'd like to do this, and I'd like to do that, we're talking about a host of new variances. You're talking about problems wi th the Park Commission, problems, perhaps, with the APA, all kinds of consents. What we're saying to you is that the proposal will create three lots with three septic systems which are fully permi tted by the Town. 16 MR. TURNER-Any other questions of Mr. Auffredou? Okay. hearing. I'll open the public PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COlfllENT PUBLIC HEARING CWSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. We have a letter from Frederick and Barbara Hart, Assembly Point, Lake George, "Being that we are unable to attend tonight's meeting, we are sending to you our thoughts and comments on the proposed variance request for the John L. Polk, three lot subdivision. In regard to the above referenced variance request, we wish to recommend against the requested change to the Town of Queensbury's existing WR-lA zoning for this property. This change will, in our view, lead to continued pressures on the whole of Assembly Point for further development activities with eventual overall significant environmental impacts on Assembly Point and the surrounding lake waters. We also seriously question what future development of the three lot subdivision may occur, being that a precedent will be set by the Town's granting this variance. As has already occurred on Assembly Point, properties are purchased and existing structures demolished, to be replaced by generally larger residences. The ability of the existing communal on-site wastewater treatment system that now serves the two Polk cottages and main house would, in our view, be questionable. In another context, however, we can't understand the request for this subdivision by the Polk family. The current Town's assessment of Assembly Point is gradually forcing many of the long time residents to sell their property because of the ever increasing real property taxes and the inflation of property values which the residents have no control over. The Town, therefore, will have to consider this effect in the environmental review process, and which will without doubt lead to further requests for zoning variances from property owners who can no longer bear the propert y tax burden. In summary, a gain, we do not favor the requested change and variance for this three lot subdivision. However, in reviewing some of the information provided by the Planning Department, it would seem that a two lot subdivision could be granted for this property which would be in accord with the current WR-lA zoning regulation, except for the 75 foot shoreline setbacks. We would favor this alternative." MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. AUFFREDOU-If I could, Mr. Chairman, I would just suggest that consider that the Warren County Planning Board recommended approval as long as what is on the property remains on the property. the Board of this, MR. PHILcrNo year round residents, right? MR. AUFFREDOU-I suppose that's correct. It's been seasonal use. MR. TURNER-Seasonal use. MR. THOMAS-The three lots, you can't do that around the lot. Like we just did with Ms. Eggleston, she had a small nonconforming lot. You're creating the same problem here. If this is divided into two lots, you're conforming closer to what the requirement calls for. Three lots, no. I'd go along with two lots. MR. AUFFREDOU-I can appreciate your concern. Again, our proposal is to, basically, create boundary lines which, for what we believe for all practical purposes already exist, and that's what we're doing. I suppose to create two separate lots we'd have to put two of the cottages on one lot, and the other, we may have to keep one cottage on the large lot that Mr. Polk, I think that presents some problems for Mr. Polk, and obviously, I think it would be much more favorable to do what he proposes to do. MRS. EGGLESTON-What could happen though is, if you did a two lot subdivision, whoever bought the two cottages, if they wanted a large home like they're putting around the lake today, they could build the larger home and have room for the septic on the two lots. MR. AUFFREDOU-Or they could come back and sa y I'd like to build two, just wha t I'm doing. I have two cottages. I suppose under the APA regulations they could 17 come in and argue, I've got existing structures, and I'm permitted to build existing structures, again, I have two, I can build two. MR. TURNER-Yes, they can build on the footprint. MRS. EGGLESTON-For my own personal viewpoint, I really think the two lot subdivision would be the best, in that there are a lot of places up there, with the main cottage and three or four little ones, and to divide all of those up into little pieces of property, you're going to have allover Lake George these little nonconforming lots that have troubles with septics and whatnot. So why not now, when we have the chance, try to keep it to a minimum, ask for minimum relief, not maximum, is what you're doing. MR. AUFFREDOU-I understand what you're saying, but, again, if you're suggesting that we're going to create septic system problems, I think you're creating, what you're saying is that every single septic system on Lake George is a problem, because what Mr. Polk has done, again, is he's complied with the best available technology for this property. I was up there today, and I think there's an awful lot of lots this size and smaller up there. MRS. EGGLESTON-There are, but that's no reason to create more. MR. AUFFREDOU-I'm not suggesting that. What I'm suggesting is that the creation is not offensive to the character of the neighborhood, and that's the test for the variance. MR. TURNER-Any further discussion? Okay. Motion's in order. Either make a motion to deny it, or make a motion to approve it with the relief that's requested, shoreline, the length on the shoreline, density on the lot, and the 40 wide right of wa y. MR. PHILO-That standards. If you built it up end cottage, no matter what happens, that would they could move that, as you said, with the two on to two parcels, you've got a can of worms both ways. never meet one lot, if MR. AUFFREDOU-I appreciate what you're saying, but I of view, we're okay, because that cottage is there. we're not suggesting that we're going to do anything tha t ' s where we're comin g down. think from a legal point Tha t ' sour posi tion, and different with this, and IIOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-1992 JOHN L. POLK, JR., Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: In that it is not felt that the minimum variance necessary to alleviate practical difficulty has been shown. That there are other options available that would require either a limited or no variance, and that if we passed this variance, it would be detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood, and would be in conflict with the objectives and plans and policies of the Town. It also could have an effect on the public facilities and services. Duly adopted this 16th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston NOES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner MR. AUFFREDOU-I'm not happy with the results, but that happens sometimes. I'd just like to point out, I do think we've complied with all the standards this evening. I just want to note that for the record. MRS. YORK-Thank you. I'll contact Mr. Dusek tomorrow as soon as possible. Thank you for bringing that up. MR. TURNER-And I think, for the record, that the Board ought to have the correct standards in front of them. MRS. YORK-Yes. I will contact Mr. Dusek. I was unaware of any changes myself. (8:53 p.m.) USE VARIANCE NO. 87-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED UR-10 LARRY IIOAK OIiNER: SAKE AS ABOVE 42 BOULEVARD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 22 FT. BY 20 FT. ADDITION ONTO THE BEAUTY SALON. BEAUTIFICATION COlIlIITTEE (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 111-3-14 LOT SIZE: 100 FT. BY 1.50 FT. SECTION 1.79-17(2) 18 LARRY MOAK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-And this was tabled from our August 26th meeting, and the public hearing was left open, and it was for additional information as required. Actually, we asked for the owner to be here so he could answer our questions, since his builder didn't know anything. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 87-1992, Larry Moak, "The Board requested that the applicant locate and identify on a plan the size, capacity and location of the septic system. The Board also requested' that the Staff research prior occupancy of the structure under review. The staff found that the property was formerly owned by Robert Edwards of Cleverdale. There is no current listing for this individual, so the staff was unable to contact him. The City Directory for the year 1988 indicates that this location was the office of Senator Lawrence Corbette at that time. The assessment records indicate the property was a lawyers office in 1986. The staff contacted the County Clerk's Office to ascertain when Ultimate Image as a business. The County Clerk's Office could not find an individual or corporation filed under the above referenced name." MR. MOAK-Mr. Chairman, Board members, my name is Larry Moak. Unfortuna tel y, I wasn't here at the last meeting, but I was out of town on business. I do have some handouts, and I fel t this would ma ybe help clear up some of this. MRS. EGGLESTON-While you're doing that, I'll read the Staff Notes. MR. TURNER-Just give us a minute to read these. What size is the old building, the existing building, it's not on here. MR. MOAK-Twenty six by twenty, twenty six wide, and twenty deep. MR. PHIW-The dimension of the new building, you don't have it on there. What is that? MR. MOAK-Twenty two by twenty. MR. TURNER-Do you have a DBA for the Beauty? MR. MOAK-Yes. We had to get that before they'd let us go to Bob Edwards, and he said that the same thing happened first person went in there, that they had to issue a license. in there. back when, We talked when the MR. TURNER-Do you have one? MR. MOAK-Jennifer has one. MR. TURNER-Do you have a DBA? JENNIFER FRENCH MRS. FRENCH-Yes. I do have one. MRS. EGGLESTON-Was it filed in the Clerk's Office? MRS. FRENCH-It should be, because I had to also file for my tax number and my license to do business there. MR. TURNER-The carport's going to stay, as I remember. Is that correct? MR. MOAK-Yes. MR. TURNER-What are you classifying them under, for parking, office? MRS. YORK-I'm not sure what the Zoning Administrator's determination was on that. I think it would probably have to be an office. Let me just look up the definition. Mr. Turner, I believe it probably would be an office, although I'm not the zoning Administrator. So, that would be an assumption on !!!.!L part. MR. TURNER-It's listed under Professional, isn't it, beauty shop? Is that listed under Professional? 19 MRS. YORK-Yes, it is. A beauty parlor is listed under a professional use. MR. THOMAS-You say you have a thousand gallon septic tank. Can you tell us how much water you use a year? MR. MOAK-We just had the water put in last fall. the minimum charge. The bills indicate that it's MR. THOMAS-What's the minimum charge, 12,000 gallons, or? MR. MOAK-Very minimum, I would say less than the normal house, because there's no tubs or washers or anything like that. MR. THOMAS-So, I think the minimum bill in Queensbury is $17.00. You never go over the $17. You never go over the minimum for every three months? MR. MOAK-No. MR. PHILO-They've only got two sinks in there. I went in and looked. MR. THOMAS-There's on1 y two sinks, so the 1,000 gallon tank should hold an ything they can use. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-But with your expansion, they're probably going to have more. MR. THOMAS-All right. On your expansion, are you putting any more water? MRS. FRENCH-I'm adding an office, so I can do my managerial work, paperwork in private, and I'm also adding a room to do waxing, because the way it's set up now, it's open, it's not the most pleasant to have your eyebrows waxed in front of everybody. MR. PHILO-There's no water out there at all, young lady? MR. THOMAS-You don't use water at all out back? MRS. FRENCH-No. MR. THOMAS-There won't be any faucets? How about a bathroom? Are you putting a bathroom back there? MRS. FRENCH-We have a bathroom. MR. THOMAS-You have an existing bathroom? MRS. FRENCH-Yes, and that's sufficient. MR. THOMAS-And that stays? MRS. FRENCH-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, there'll be no increase in the number of sinks? MR. MOAK-There is going to be another sink. MR. THOMAS-You have two now, and you're going to add one? MR. MOAK-Yes. MR. THOMAS-That 1,000 gallon tank has still got to hold everything you use, before you even hit the minimum. The parking, do you have any kind of layout for parking? How many vehicles can you park in there? MR. MOAK-We can park, a sketch of 10 foot sets across the front, we've got seven across the front, and then from the back, we could have the hairdressers park in the back. MR. THOMAS-So, you'd have how many spaces for employees? MR. MOAK-Three. 20 MR. THOMAS-Three spaces for employees? MR. PHILO-In the back? MR. MOAK-Yes. MR. PHILO-Tha t ' s behind tha t new addi tion? MR. MOAK-Yes, on the side. MR. THOMAS-Beca use you can't park over the septic tank or the leachfie1d. MR. MOAK-No. MR. THOMAS-So, it would be on the side of the building, and you'd have seven across the front for customers. MR. MOAK-Yes. MR. THOMAS-How many chairs do you have? MR. MOAK-We plan to have five chairs eventually. MR. THOMAS-Five chairs and seven parking spaces? MR. MOAK-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Does that meet the, for office? MR. TURNER-It's one and a half per square. MR. THOMAS-One and a half per? MR. TURNER-Per 150 square feet. MR. MOAK-Excuse me. We'd have eight across the front. MR. TURNER-You've only got 34 feet on one side, and you've got almost 40 feet on the west side. MRS. EGGLESTON-Do you plan on doing some landscaping? MR. MOAK-Yes. As a matter of fact, I think we're a rose among thorns right now. I've put in sidewalks, new sidewalks. We've put in flower pots in the front, and I have some crushed stone that we've brought in, and I plan to have it paved, but it's not going to be this year. MR. THOMAS-What's the parking lot call for? It calls for permeable surface, rather than a blacktop? MR. TURNER-Permeabi1ity's on the whole lot. MR. THOMAS-And you say the outside of the building, they're going to match the old part to the new part, so it will look just like one continuous building? MR. MOAK-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Is there going to be a full basement under this? MR. MOAK-Yes. MR. THOMAS-What's going to be down in that basement, storage? MR. MOAK-We're going to have storage, and we're going to put central air conditioning. Right now, we have gas fired wall units, and that's going to come out. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So, the chimney that's over on the Glens Falls side of the building will be coming out? MR. MOAK-Yes. 21 MR. THOMAS-Oka y. MR. CARVIN-There is a basement to this? MR. MOAK-There will be. Now, there's a crawl space. MR. CARVIN-Just a crawl space. Okay. If you put the addition on, I know the building is not suitable for residential. I mean, there's nothing anybody really can do. If you put the addi tion on, it probabl y still wouldn't reall y be sui table for residential, would it, in your opinion? It's awful small. MR. TURNER-No. together. You've onl y got 1118 square feet, when you put the who1 e thin g MR. CARVIN-My biggest bugaboo is always having commercial and residential. This really is, there isn't much that you can say as far as residential is concerned, here. MR. PHILO-On that right hand side, I went down there. What we've done is try to do everything right here in the Town so far. So, I'm not going to have any hardship with the neighbors. The only thing I see, I don't care what you put up there, so you don't, this Mr. Edwards owns to the right of you? MR. MOAK-Toward Hudson Falls, right. MR. PHILO-Hudson Falls. You do have a lawn there, okay, and when you put these cars up there, just so they don't encroach, and we don't cause problems for the neighbors. In other words, if we give you this, we're not going to start any problems by saying, I wished I'd put a fence up there. Could you put, split rail fence, anything, just to divide that man's property? MR. MOAK-I think Mr. Edwards has agreed upon a fence there. MR. PHILO-So, we're not going to encroach on that man's property. That was brought to my attention, I might add, and I talked to the young lady, and I said just think about it. I didn't say she had to or anything like that. I would like that in the minutes that we do put a fence up there. MR. TURNER-Oka y. MR. THOMAS-I don't know if you can do that or not. MR. TURNER-No. MR. THOMAS-I don't think you can stipulate a fence in there if it's not part of the Ordinance. MR. TURNER-No. MR. THOMAS-Because I don't think there's any part of the Ordinance that requires a fence to be put up. MR. PHILO-Well, we're going to a house from a commercial piece, and I wanted it divided. MR. THOMAS-Well, if Mr. Edwards had anything to say about it, he'd be here, or have written a letter saying that he'd like to see a fence there. Did Mr. Edwards ever saying anything to you, Mr. Moak, about putting a fence up or anything? MR. MOAK-No. He hasn't, but I will talk with Mr. Edwards, and if he agrees, then I will put some kind of a fence up. MR. PHILO-Beautiful. You're stopping any future problems. MR. MOAK-Right. I will contact Mr. Edwards. MR. THOMAS-But I don't think you could make that as part of the variance, to put a fence in there. MR. PHILO-Fine. I'm just happy the man is being honest with me. 22 '- MR. THOMAS-I would like to say, if you do put that fence there, don't put it up so it blocks people exiting your parking lot from seeing down the Boulevard toward Hudson Falls. It could create a traffic problem on that. So, keep that in mind, too. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COJIlIENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. YORK-The Board would want to do the Short Environmental Assessment Form. MRS. EGGLESTON-Do we have to do that separate? MRS. YORK-Yes, do it before you make your motion, please. IIOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 87-1992 LARRY IIOAK, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Philo: And grant him the right to expand the beauty salon in accordance with the plot plan submitted. This is a nonconforming piece of property and the existing building is very small for a shop of this nature. It's only 20 by 26 feet, and in order to get a reasonable return from the property, the applicant needs more space. The structure is not usable as a residence, due to the layout and the size of the structure. I don't believe this would have an adverse effect on the neighborhood character as the addi tion will not be visible, and there is no neighborhood opposition. I believe this to be a reasonable and minimal request. The history behind this small building shows that it was used as a lawyers office and a real estate office, so it is staying consistent with the use, now, by a beauty salon. Duly adopted this 16th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE NEfi BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 93-1992 TYPE II IIODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING APPROVAL fiR-1A ROBERT L. & CHERYL EVANS OIiNER: SAKE AS ABOVE MASON ROAD, CLEVERDALE TO TURN THE GARAGE, WHICH FACES T(MARD IIASON ROAD, THE ENTRANCE OF THE GARAGE, fiHICH FACES lIASON ROAD, TO FACE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY. SEE AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-1992 APPROVED ON JULY 22, 1992. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX IIAP NO. 1.3-1-1.8 LOT SIZE: 20,505 SO. FT. SECTION 179-60, 179-16 MR. TURNER-Variance No. 93-1992 is not on the agenda as of this evening. We will discuss it at the end of the meeting, among ourselves. AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-1.992 TYPE I WR-lA CHARLES O. SICARD OIiNER: SAKE AS ABOVE GLEN LAKE ROAD, EAST TO LAKE SHORE ACRES SUBDIVISION OF 15 EXISTING UNITS INTO SEPARATE PARCELS IN A CEA. SETBACK AND SIDE YARD VARIANCES REQUIRED, AS fiELL AS, CREATION OF SUBSTANDARD LOTS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX IIAP NO. 43-1-24.1 roT SIZE: 9+ ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-30, 179-60 MICHAEL MULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-The warren County Planning Board returned, approved, contingent upon complying with the recommendations of the Town Planning Board. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 68-1992, Charles o. Sicard, September 11, 1992, Meeting Date: September 16, 1992 "Project Description: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 9+ acre parcel into 15 individual lots. Each of the lots will have a winterized cabin located on it. All of the lots need variances regarding setbacks, frontage, etc. Eleven of the lots are also undersi zed. The property fronts Glen Lake and Glen Lake Road. Six of the lots 23 have 1akeshore frontage. The applicant has met with the Planning Staff and Mr. Parisi to discuss certain issues including water service, septic systems, a homeowners association and future expansions. The project underwent an environmental review on August 25, 1992. Review of Variance Requirements: 1. There are special conditions that apply to this property and not generally to other properties in the neighborhood. According to the applicant over the past 50 years the current seasonal cabins have been winteri zed. However, the applicant has provided no evidence to support this assertion. Since this is the core of the applicants' argument for special conditions, it should be documented that the existing cabins have been winteri zed. This could be documented by inspections conducted by a building inspector. If the cabins have been winterized and are no longer seasonal cabins, the applicant could have evidence supporting his agreement for special conditions. 2. The applicant has not documented that a strict application of the provisions would deprive him of a reasonable use of the land. The applicant could remove some of the cabins, maybe every other one, subdivide and sell the remaining larger parcels and still maintain a reasonable use of the property. 3. The applicant states that the practical difficulty lies in his inability to transfer ownership of the individual cabins without receiving subdivision approval and, the subdivision approval, as proposed, cannot be approved without area variances. A strict application of the dimensional requirements would result in a practical difficulty. 4. The granting of these variances could be detrimental to the neighborhood and the lake. Each of the 15 lots will need an upgraded septic system. The ability of each individual lot to support an upgraded septic system has to be determined prior to the granting of any variances. 5. This is not the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. The applicant could subdivide the nine acre parcel into fewer and larger lots, thereby eliminating the need for many of the variances. " MR. TURNER-There's a letter in there from Dave Hatin. I think we ought to read it right now. MRS. YORK-Right. I was just going to suggest that. I believe it was submitted yesterday to Susan Davidsen. If it isn't in the file, I could briefly tell you what it said, and attest to the fact that Mr. Hatin, the Director of Building and Codes, did go to the site, did inspect all of the cottages, and has attested to the fact, in writing, that they are year round cottages. Do you have a copy? Thank you, Mr. Muller. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. "Mr. Robert Parisi, from David Hatin, Director of Building and Code Enforcement, RE: Charles Sicard, Lakeshore Acres Subdivision. In reference to your letter dated September 10th, 1992, on September 11th, 1992, at 10 o'clock in the morning, and subsequently on September 14th, 1992, at 10 o'clock in the morning, I inspected all of the dwellings located on the proposed subdivision map. The inspection revealed that all units from appearances are used year round and are not seasonal uni ts, as belongings seem to be permanentl y in place, and the residents that I talked to do rent for periods of longer than just a seasonal dwelling unit. Also, there were no obvious Code violations found with any properties. In fact, most of the units appear to be well kept on the inside, and the outside showed no visual problems related to building code or septic, and two of the dwellings have current active building permits for addition and alteration. Therefore, it would be my conclusion that the units are used year round and are fairly well maintained, as was obvious from my inspection. Should you have any further questions regarding this, please do not hesitate to contact me." MR. MULLER-On behalf of did not get addressed. level. Would you address Mr. Sicard, there's one other aspect of business that This was on for a SEQRA Review at the Planning Board that first? MR. TURNER-Yes. We're going to address that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. This is a State Environmental Quality Review Negative Declaration. Notice of Determination of Non-significance. The Town of Queensbury, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment, and a draft environmental impact statement will not be prepared. It's the Charles o. Sicard subdivision. SEQRA Status Type I, Condition, Negative Declaration, No. Description of Action: Subdivision of 15 existing units into separate parcels in a Critical Environmental Area, setback and side yard variances required, as well as creation of substandard lots, location Lakeshore Acres, Glen Lake Road, Queensbury. 24 MR. TURNER-Now, we've got to have a motion to accept the negative dec'. IIOTION TO ACCEPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN REFERENCE TO THE CHARLES SICARD SUBDIVISION, PROJECT NO. AV 68-1992 DATED AUGUST 25TH, 1992 AND SIGNED BY JAKES II. IIARTIN, CHAIRJlAN OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD, Introduced Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: Duly adopted this 16th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sicard MR. TURNER-Now, Mr. Muller. MR. MULLER-Thank you. It's been a tough evening for undersized lots, and I'm concerned about it, and as Mr. Auffredou said, there is a new standard. I have photocopied that and I have provided it, and I'd like to hand that out to the Board as my Preliminary presentation and discuss it, because I think it's extremely important to pass this application on those merits. MR. TURNER-Oka y. MR. MULLER-I know you're reading it, and I won't say anything until you're done. Well, my fear is tha t I've now rea1l y confused the Board and in some respects I'm confused myself. Our application in our Zoning Ordinance in the Town talks about practical difficulty, when in truth, since July 1, that's out the window. I'm prepared to discuss a lot about practical difficulty because, in truth, this application, as far as I'm concerned, has been pending for three years. That's how long Mr. Sicard and his family and I have been working on it, and perhaps the original thoughts occurred in 1982, but also as was indicated on the Polk application, it is a weighing and balancing test, and just to read that aspect into the record, in making the determination, you, as Zoning Board members, shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such granting, and then they give you considerations on what you have to consider for that weighing test. I'm prepared to, as well, address those issues, and in addition, I am prepared to show and demonstrate the substantial economic harm that is caused to the Sicard family if wholist area variances are not granted, and what concerns me is that it's probably the most complex application I've ever done and ever seen, but I would have to honestly say to you, that's because of the Zoning Ordinance. That is that, in 1945, when Mr. Sicard started to construct these units, there was no Zoning Ordinance, and it would seem reasonable to do what he did. Why do I say that, because I turned to the Tax Map, which I know does not tell all, and un fort una tel y it's not as bi g as I would like it to be, but tha t ' s the area where Mr. Sicard's propert y is, and that large thing up at the top is a singular large lot, and you can see that everything that's down below it is small, and the average frontages on those lots, there's 75 feet, there's 63 feet, there's 96 feet, there's 60 feet, there's 50 feet. If I turn to the next page, which would be the land that just beyond Mr. Sicard; again, if you look at the lakeshore, it's the same condition, that is that these are small lots, and actually so small that I can't read some of the some, the ones that I can pick up, 55 feet, 53 feet, and admittedly there are some, as they start to expand out, 123 feet, 690 feet, maybe a little bit bigger. What Mr. Sicard did is he invented his own problem, in some respects, but the practical difficulty that's imposed upon this property is a difficulty imposed by the Zoning Ordinance. In 1982, when I first met Charlie, this was zoned for lots that were 20,000 square feet, and I believe that the zone was called, it was recreational commercial or something like that, but what it had in mind was group camps, waterslide theme park. The Zoning Ordinance changed and the densities increased, and actually, and I think, Mr. Turner, you might have been on that Board that was reviewing what the Zoning Ordinance ought to look like. I asked Joe Carusone, who I think was the Chairman of the Board, I know he was on the Board, why was Mr. Sicard's property re-zoned from 20,000 square foot lots to three acre lots, and actually, it was because the review board was taking birds eye views of large parcels of lake frontage, and they wanted to maintain those, but they didn't realize, in looking at the drawing square, that within the parameter of the square there are actually a lot of buildings. Now, we were able to get the Town Board to reconsider and bring it back to where all the other zoning is along Glen Lake, and that's Waterfront 25 Residential One Acre. We can't comply, but I emphasize one acre because I have several lots there that we had strived to achieve to one acre, and the reason that we did that was because we'd have to ask for the minimum relief necessary, and not in total detriment of the Ordinance. So, what do we have? Why can't I make one acre lots? I would hope that the Board is satisfied that these are year round residential, just by Mr. Hatin's letter, but if you're not, I do have leases that will support it, going back as early as the 1960's. MR. PHILO-What constitutes a year round home? It's got to be weatherproofed, and it's got to meet certain criteria of the foundation. MR. MULLER-I don't think so. MR. PHILO-It's got to be protected from the weather, right? MR. MULLER-Absolutely. round. The water runs year round. The sewer system runs year MR. PHILO-Charlie, how come there was three or four of them that were frozen up over there last year? Were they winterized? CHARLIE SICARD MR. SICARD-They were winterized when they were built, and they were used in the winter since they were built. MR. PHILO-What was the reason they froze up? MR. SICARD-They didn't have any, there was a slight freezing up in basements where people used fireplaces in lieu of using their heaters, and that was why they froze up. There's fireplaces in most of those cottages, and people resorted to using wood, of course, instead of using gas. MR. PHILO-I went to several homes. I visited the site as I'm supposed to. I visited several homes, and they said their pipes froze up because they had to use the fireplace plus this, because it cost them too much to heat the unit. Is there validation there? MR. SICARD-Nothing has changed. MR. PHILO-It is, our Building Inspector didn't do the proper job. MR. SICARD-Well, nothing has changed. Yes, he looked at it. MR. PHILO-;r just want to know why so many of them froze up if they were year round cabins. MR. SICARD-They froze up for the reason I told you. They were using wood instead of using gas because wood was cheaper, and they picked it up probably somewhere, but that was one of our problems. Later on, what we did in the basement areas, we cut the basements in half with a small cloth or permeable cloth or whatever, to cut them in half so the heat from the lines, the chimney lines, the exhaust from the gas and so forth that goes up from the chimney to keep the cabin warm, but if you don't use the gas, and we're still having it occasionally. I looked forward to having it a little bit this year. I see a lot of wood piled up, and I made that comment the other day to Dai1eys. We've got a lot of wood around here. It looks like we're probabl y going to be in trouble. We just have to notify the residents, now, that they're in charge of that heat, and if it freezes, I have this all the time. If it freezes, it's their responsibility and they'll have to pay for whatever breaks, and then they go away. People go away for a couple of weeks at a time, vacation, in the winter time, fires go out and go down, whatever. You know tenants. I know tenants. MR. PHILO-I went over and saw one, Charlie. out this winter. That was, I helped a guy thaw one MR. SICARD-That's all I can say. MR. MULLER-Well, I would hope the Board would accept Mr. Hatin' s letter and we have leases if that is still an issue as to year round residency. I wanted to point out that what we have called Lot Number 10, just to show you that we have strived to get the minimum lot sizes here, is one acre, and it is indeed an odd 26 configuration, but it satisfies density. Lot 11, the same thing, Lot 12, the same thing. Actually, Lot 15, which has the principal Sicard residence, again, is the same thing, and those are away from the shoreline, and those are, basically, intended to surround the existing buildings, and I don't think that there's a problem there, in terms of the density aspect, but there are problems in terms of the setbacks. Now, you can sit there and say that there is a feasible alternative, which is to move the building. I think that a feasible alternative to move the building has to be put to the economic test. That's what I'm talking about when I suggest to you that practical difficulty doesn't enter into the picture anymore, and indeed if it does, practical difficulty is addressed by the economic aspects. That is that it's not reasonable to impose upon the applicant to move your building to conform to the setback, unless you, as a municipality, can produce the proof, that is that it is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. I'm at a loss as to what that issue is. I have more important aspects that I wish to address with respect to these five units. These five units, if you look at a current tax map, you will find that they exist as they are configured on this subdivision, and that occurred approximately three years ago, when Mr. Sicard's attorney, John Fi tzgera1d, a t the time, as part of an esta te plan, conveyed those lots, one house to each of the adult children. From a standpoint of an estate planner, and Mr. Fitzgerald's an excellent attorney estate planner, that made perfect sense. That is that, get these valuable principal dwellings out of Mr. Sicard's possession and ownership. It made absolutely no sense in terms of zoning, and the reason is because you need prior subdivision approval for it. Actually, again, it made a tremendous amount of sense, that is that the adult children of the Sicards essentially own those. The only thing that is an impediment to their ownership is this Town. That is that this Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board is being asked to allow that, and I brought some of them here this evening to testify and indicate to you that they have made substantial improvements to those properties, at considerable expense, and all of that was permitted by the Town, and all of that is satisfactory. They've violated no laws. They've gotten permits for that, and as we speak here this evening, I think if you can appreciate what setbacks are all about, setbacks are measured from side lot lines, front, if that's the front, and Glen Lake Road back, if that's the back, or flip them around, but in either case, that's where the setbacks are measured from. So, what we have, what we're trying to do to get it into compliance, it that if you will allow the lines, the artificial lines to be imposed upon this piece of property, then they will be closer to conformity, that is that you can't add to it, and I noticed that a couple of you are sitting there and saying, sure, but along comes an owner who's interested in Lot Number Three, because Mr. Sicard has gotten permission to have separate ownership, and he sold it to Mr. and Mrs. Jones, and they're going to add to it. Mr. and Mrs. Jones have to come before this Board, okay. Mr. and Mrs. Jones have to also go, I think, before the Planning Board. It's in a Critical Environmental zone. I haven't thoroughly researched that. Do they? MRS. YORK-Not necessarily. Well, if it's an expansion of a nonconforming use, if they're going to take the structure entirely down, and rebuild from scratch. Okay. What would probably be a conforming use, a residential to residential, but I know that they would have to come back before this Board. So, in fact, we're getting it into compliance. Now, Lee York, myself, Mr. Sicard, and Mr. Parisi sat down, there were other issues to be addressed, and the important issues were, what happens to septic, what happens to water. I can tell you that, with respect to water, the ultimate plan is that the Town of Queensbury would run the water right down Glen Lake Road. Mr. Sicard's been waiting for that for 12 years. So, that's our last contingency. He presently serves everyone of those houses with a well. It passes a test from the Department of Health every year, in terms of potability as well as quantity. MR. PHILO-You mean there's one well for the whole site? MR. MULLER-Let me finish, and I will tell you. There is also a water source out of the lake. There is also an auxiliary well. Neither the lake nor the auxiliary well are utilized because the principal well passes the test and is more than adequate. Mr. Parisi said, drill me another well. It sounds unreasonable, we've agreed to do it. So, I'm hard pressed to believe that that's an issue. MR. PHILO-Charlie, what does the water on that? What is the output? MR. SICARD-That well? Van Vraken drilled that well. It was a very good well. At the time he drilled it, he called my attention to it, he said, we won't have 27 any problem with this. We were drawing water, when I first started, we had a line into the lake, and this was so much better. MR. PHILO-How many gallons per minute, is what I'm asking, will that well supply? MR. SICARD-I can't find his stake, but I remember when we went down and put the 200 feet, it's 15, 20 gallons a day, but there's not a lot of people there. I think the other day, when Dave Hatin was there, we counted them, and there was 15 or 18 people in the whole complex. So, we're not using a lot of water, and we're not allowing washing machines, except the few that got away from us, including our own. Bringing up five kids, we needed a washing machine, but we do have a line into the lake, now. Glen Lake itself is not bad drinking water. I think there's over 150 around the lake, we're one of the few maybe out of eight or nine that have wells on that lake. There's a lot of doctors, I think the last that I knew there was 10 or 12 doctors up there, but they're using it probably chlorinated. Well, this is probably the way to go. MR. MULLER-Mr. Philo, I think we'll be put to a tougher test than the Board, and that is that if I were representing a buyer, I needed insurance that there's going to be a source of potable water for financing purposes, and that passes the Department of Health. If I did not represent Mr. Sicard, and I represented the potential purchasers of that lot, they'd have to give it to me. So, they really have a non-salable lot, and that was part of the conditions that we set up with Mr. Parisi. He wanted to see more water, and that always passes the test, and that's our representation, that there will be more water and it will pass the test, or else we're not selling lots. Now, that's part of the planning as well as what I think is the subdivision approval process. They want to see those details from us. MR. PHILO-So, in other words, you're setting up a water treatment plant? MR. MULLER-Well, Mr. Sicard says that he's going to put a chlorinator on there, but Mr. Parisi indicated. MR. PHILO-Well, that's a water treatment plant, is that right? MR. MULLER-That's if he draws it from Glen Lake, but that's not what we promised Mr. Parisi. We promised Mr. Parisi an additional wèll. MR. SICARD-At the present time, the water is part way down Glen Lake Road to Route 9, very few people know tha t. In John Webster's regime, they were going all the way, but when John went, it stopped, but it is part way down the Glen Lake Road now, and it's just a matter of picking it up and completing it. They were going to do it in the last administra tion here, and the one before tha t, but we still haven't seen it. All the residents signed up for it and it never went through, but someday, they're thinking, now, of crossing over the large line to Kingsbury, from the water plant on West Mountain Road, and they've got to cross over two or three ways, Quaker, Round Pond, or Glen Lake, or 149, and I think the plan now, the last I heard from Mrs. Monahan, is that they were going through Glen Lake Road. It could happen, but we're ready, if our well goes or anything, we're ready for it. There's like 100 and so many people on Glen Lake. MR. MULLER-Well, the well that presently exists is adequate, and the auxiliary well that's not being used, and the additional well that Mr. Parisi would like to see, that we've agreed to place in there, MOuld be all managed by homeowners association. You're scratching your head trying to figure out, well, what if Mr. Sicard just picks up and leaves town and goes to Florida, who cares about this place and who's going to make payments? There will be a homeowners association that does it. The homeowners associations are not weird birds, that is that they are well recognized in the town, and I think that's the best way to govern the common accesses, if you will, who maintains the water system, who pays the common utility bill for the facility for running the well, and if there indeed is a chlorinator, the same thing. You're probably sitting there saying, what about the septic system? Well, all of these have separate septic systems, and none of them have failed, then you're saying, but someday they will fail. We made a representation to Mr. Parisi that when we sell a lot, we will be in compliance on septic, that is that we don't want to put in 15 septic systems, come before you and say, we're now totally in compliance, with 15 brand new septic systems, and you say no. That is that if there is an expense that I am willing to put Mr. Sicard through, to just get him ready on an application, I'm willing to do it before he's allowed to sell lots, that is, put him in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. If you don't like it and you say, no way, understand that 28 Queensbury's still living with 15 units that people living all year round, that have the present circumstances, that is that they're just not owner occupied. Lets talk a little bit about owner occupancy. My observation when I go to the site, and if each and everyone of you went to the site, you'll see the best houses are over here, they're owner occupied, that is that the adult children of Mr. and Mrs. Sicard have put a lot of money, and a lot of time and energy into really sprucing it up, and these that are over here are in dire need of some sprucin g up. Wha t ' s goin g to happen if somebody wan ts to put a 4,000 square foot house on that parcel over there? You know in your heart that that's never going to happen. It's going to have to be here for a variance, but we have also given a guarantee to the Town that would limit the footprint to 1,000 square feet. Now, there's a couple of these houses that have received that already. I propose that, well, they're grandfathered in, that's on account of the fact that if this owner, Lot Number Eight, goes for a building permit today, he can get one, and although these are our boundaries, he can head out into the road if he wants. He can go over onto the lot. He can connect the two of them. Whatever he dares to choose. Mr. Hatin is obliged to give him a building permit, because we're going to measure from the side. We're going to measure from the lake, and he's in conformity, and he gets his permit. That's not going to happen anymore. That is that we're going to lay that out so that it's within those bounds, and restricted. We've got a road. It's Mr. Sicard's preference to keep that road a private road, and he's maintained that as a private road since 1945, maybe earlier. We have given you, on the map, a 50 foot wide right-of-way. I personally think it's unnecessary. However, it's a precaution. That is that, lets say that it's needed, and I think that under the uniform building code, fire apparatus and emergency vehicles would like to see it. What that does, however, is that that kind of takes away from the paper lots. If you go there and look at the lots on site, they go out to the pavement. That is that they're bigger than we're allowed to draw them so that we can give you 50 feet. He paves it. He plows it. He thatches it. He does it all. The homeowners association will continue that. There's a recommendation from Staff Notes that really concerns me and that it's suggested that, well, perhaps one of the ways to address this problem is to make larger lots by pulling individual units out. Which one would you like to pullout? Would you like to pullout Linda Dai1eys? That's Mr. and Mrs. Sicard's daughter. It's a two story, two bedroom house. I brought Mr. Galloway, who's a licensed real estate broker, to tell you how much that's worth. It's a very valuable piece of property. Is that reasonable and is that feasible to say to the owner/occupant, I can't really give her a deed because I don't have your say so. We have to tell her, sorry, even though you've lived there for the last 10 plus years, you're going to have to move out. That is that you shouldn't have done that. The truth of the matter is, is that they were allowed to do it. They're permitted to do it. They're not in violation. Perhaps you're going to say, well, that's not wise. Indeed it isn't, that is if everything that they did was, I think, sound judgement. Would you like to tell Mr. George Sicard to throw his out, because he's going to make bigger lots. What you're basically saying is, take a $150,000 house, tear it down, and that'll be nice so we can have some more green space in there. Green space at what expense? That is, again, looking at the Tax Map, and I brought some pictures. Those are the pictures of the units, but on the very bottom, that's the picture of the shoreline, and we don't propose to change it. Tha t shoreline is probabl y the most natural looking shoreline in all of Glen Lake, and what you can see when you look at this, on the left is the next house that's not owned by Mr. Sicard, and I have pictures of the two houses that I was proposing, are close together, and they might be the closest. Those two that I just pointed left of Mr. Turner are 13 and 14. We're not talking about summer cabins. We're talking about year round homes of substantial value. MR. TURNER-Mr. Muller, Mr. Dailey did receive a variance to do the very thing that he's got here. He did, 10 or 12 years ago. MR. MULLER-Because of being close to the lake? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MULLER-Yes, but not side setback to the north. MR. TURNER-He wan ted to put a deck on, I think, a t the time. MR. MULLER-Yes. I would think that he would need a variance to build anything. He can't build an y more. It's all buil tout, but you would need a variance if you were going to do anything on the south side, today, you would not need a variance, well, the side lot on this house is over here. That's where it is, and that's fairly absurd. I'd like to call upon Mr. Galloway at this time. 29 Mr. Galloway is a licensed real estate broker, and I asked him to address the issues that pertain to the substantial economic aspects for your consideration, that is, how simple is it to say to Mr. Sicard, well, take out a unit. Take out Number Three, take out Number Seven, that'll make it better. DENNIS GALLOWAY MR. GALLOWAY-My name's Dennis Galloway and I've been in real estate in the area about 17 years, Lake George, Queensbury, and so forth. MR. PHILO-Excuse me. Who do you represent? Are you an individual real estate man, or do you represent some real estate agency? MR. GALLOWAY-I'm associated do with my testimony, sir. and I do appraising. with a real estate firm, but they have nothing to I'm an indi vidual Sta te licensed real tor myself, MR. PHILO-Who do you work for now? MR. GALLOWAY-Is that necessary? MR. PHILO-I'd just like to know. MR. GALLOWAY-I'm with a leading firm, but they have nothing to do with my testimony, okay. I'm here as an independent real estate broker. I wouldn't want to flavor anybody's idea or anybody's thinking as to who I'm with, because they're not representing him, okay. I have no secrets. I'd be glad to chat with you off the record. Mr. Muller has asked me to evaluate the various values of the properties, from a monetary standpoint, that's what we're talking about, right? MR. MULLER-Ri ght. MR. GALLOWAY-These figures were put together several months ago, and I do not believe there's been any change as far as the values of the property and as far as market value. There may be, as far as rental income is concerned, because there are a lot of vacancies in the area, and that consideration, the numbers I'm hearing with regard do reflect the minimum rent that these properties would bring in, should they be rented, and I'm not addressing Mr. and Mrs. Sicard's personal home, because that's not for rent, and they're not in that type of business, as far as the home, but if the other properties were rented, and I have a sheet I'd pass around to everyone here, of the total gross rent income, including, I believe there's some dock rental available, is there not, Charlie? I believe you gave me about $6100 a year for gross rent, less vacancy factors and so forth, would bring a total income of around $94,000, wi th a vacancy factor of about nine percent, for these properties. Now, in the real estate business, we usually call it a GRM, that's a gross rent multiplier, as to what a buyer would pay for a piece of property based upon it's gross rent income. with the market in our area, the gross rent multiplier is anywhere's from seven and a half to nine percent. I've used various values. I give three values of seven and half, eight, eight and a half, and the value of that property from a standpoint of an investor, from an income approach, values from $708,000 to $804,000. I've got specific numbers that I'll submit at a later time. If the property was subdivided, as per the proposed plan, with consideration given to the water, and I have to bring this in, with regard to water/sewer system, sir, you on the end, I was under the impression that you're in the building business? MR. PHILO-Yes, I am. MR. GALLOWAY-I'd like you to hear my evaluation of how I come up with these numbers. MR. PHILO-Past tense, retired. MR. GALWWAY-Okay. The individual lots, 1 through 15, based upon the value of the property on Glen Lake, I've done some comparable sales, and there are very few, now, as far as shoreline properties are concerned, particularly with regard to raw land. Using that, the replacement cost of the buildings, less depreciation, I added those three things together, and I put an individual value on each piece of property. Using a 10 percent degrading factor, with the fact that if a lending institution, at some future time, wanted the individual water supply/septic system, I applied a 10 percent example. If the building was worth $100,000, I deducted 30 $10,000 in value for the installation of a septic and water system, like a well perhaps. Not thinking that might be enough, I took an additional 10 percent. So, we have an allocation in here anywhere from $12 to $20,000 for individual on-si te systems if we're able to put them in, and these values are reflected, the total value on the entire piece of property, using that plan, if it was to be sold, at toda y' s market val ue, would be a $1,352,000. The difference between that and the income approach is about $5 to $600,000, the difference in the two values of the property. So, there is a definite economic difference between the two ways of figuring the value of the land. Now, in the million three, Mr. and Mrs. Sicard's house ~ included. It is included in that figure. In the rental income, it's not included. So, we're not comparing apples to apples completely, here, because their house is not for rent. MR. MULLER-I would just like you to address the issue, using your numbers here, with respect to the proposal that it's a feasible alternative to consider, perhaps, removing every other cottage. MR. GALLOWAY-Well, I've numbered each property on my figure, if somebody wants to ask me the number. Who's familiar with the site? MRS. EGGLESTON-We've all been there. MR. CARVIN-At least on my copy, I have a typographical error, or possibly an error. You have two Lot Number la's for 57.6. You're missing Lot 13. MR. GALLOWAY-If I typed it, that's entirely possible. MR. CARVIN-Well, is Lot 13 and Lot 10 the same price, because you have two la's at the same price on the sheet. I didn't add it up, I'm assuming that the math is based on this figure. MR. GALLOWAY-It could be in there twice, is what you're saying? MR. CARVIN-That's what I'm saying. the same as Lot 10. Yes. I don't know, I mean, if Lot 13 is MR. GALLOWAY-At worse, then, I'm $189,000 less in that total figure. MR. CARVIN-Or too little, which way. MR. GALLOWAY-Okay. Thanks for calling my attention to this. I didn't know this was a problem, but any given building, George Sicard's house is probably one of the highest values on their property because of it's lake frontage and the improvements made on it, but we could take a typical one here, where the family wants to, as to what the values are, what it would sell for, in my opinion. MR. CARVIN-Lot 13. MR. GALLOWAY- I don't have a Lot 13. Well, in establishing val ues, you'll notice that these three pieces of property here do not have their own deeded lake frontage, according to the map. They will have the right to use this lake front, here. Therefore, in a buyer's eyes, one of those pieces of property is not worth as much as one of these are. However, there is value in the use of lake frontage, particularly if there's no fence up. It's just like the fellow that has his own lake front anyhow, and as I've seen over the years, water is level. People use it in front of their own yard. It isn't likely that someone else comes over and camps up. There is a value to having a deeded lake front, with the use of a piece of property, considerable value, too, of many times. I have put an estimated value in there, like, Lot Number Three, the projected net value of that would be about $78,000 with the existing structure on it, at today's market value. So, if you want to pull that out of there, you'd be taking $78,000. I was prepared for a calculation if we took a building out, Mike. It's going to take at least that much out of the value of the property, if not more. Any other questions? MR. TURNER-Has anyone got any questions of Mr. Galloway? MR. GALLOWAY-I'm here to help you if I can. Thank you very much. MR. MULLER-I would like to offer to the Board, as long as I get the promise from Mrs. York that I can have the originals back tomorrow, just photo copy and make them part of your record, because these are important documents, Mrs. Sicard 31 has provided me with sample leases that go back into the 1960's, actually 1960, year round leases, but Mary, I'm not sure if the numbering system is the same. Is Cottage Six always Cottage Six? MARY SICARD MRS. SICARD-Yes. The only ones that were different, at one time, were changed were Three and Four, I think. MR. MULLER-I want to make that representation to the Board, if there's any question that these were year round, we have sample leases, and she likes to save all of those original documents, and I'm under threat of life and limb if I don't get those originals back. So, I would like to pick those up. MR. PHILO-Could I ask you one question on that road? MR. MULLER-Yes. MR. PHILO-Charlie said that, you know, I know he's kept the road usable and everything, but if he gives that 50 foot right-of-way, is that given to the Town? MR. MULLER-I'd like to answer the question for him, because I'd like to give you what his lawyer would answer, and what his lawyer would answer is that if he prefers to keep this road and maintain it, and for reasons that are important to Mr. Sicard, he wants to keep it, in truth, he's not keeping it in his name. It will be deeded to a homeowners association. All of these owners will have rights in it, and the homeowners association will assess dues for the maintenance of that road. Mr. Sicard may very well be the contractor who does it, but he'll be paid for it, and when he leaves the scene, it's still going to be paid for and still going to be maintained. Now, lets assume worst case scenario, which is that I managed to create the worst homeowners association under the sun, and the Town of Queensbury's real unhappy about it, and they want this road. We've given a 50 foot access, so that we have not created an undersized road. MR. PHILO-Say, like, Charlie does give that road. The water comes in for the Town of Queensbury. It does go up there. I've got it 1500 feet from my house, and I won't see it for the next 20 years, I don't think. What responsibility would the Town have, as far as an easement to get in there with water? MR. SICARD-We would have a survey to give the ingress and egress rights. We would probably be responsible for putting piping into these houses. We'd be prepared to do tha t . MR. PHILO-What about the main trunk line, that's what I'm saying? MR. SICARD-That's right. We do have a pump out that's about 10, 12 by 12 and it's down about ei ght feet, and we would probabl y, they would meter it and then we would go into our present system, and it would feed all the cottages, which it does now. MR. PHILO-Maybe you're missing my point, Charlie. with a water main. What if they come up there MR. SICARD-I think they're only going along Glen Lake. MR. TURNER-They're going along Glen Lake. MR. SICARD-That's it. MR. TURNER-And you've got to pick it up at the property line, just like anybody else. MR. MULLER-We'd have to pick it up at the property line. MR. SICARD-We'd have to pick it up at the property line. MR. MULLER-In my homeowners association we'll allow that, that is that there's going to be an easement given to the Town of Queensbury in advance. That is, should there be a public utility, the easement's already granted. MR. SICARD-We would have to put in a meter house at the road, and they'd come into it with a meter, and then we would pick it up there. Of course, it's our 32 -- responsibility to go down six feet, because that's what we're doing on the, all our piping is down. It was put down, a lot of that piping was put down by myself in the early 40' s, off the main lines, and it has a pump, so I put it down then to go year round. MR. PHILO-I just thought maybe if they did put that in, you might put a trunk line in there, along your road, for fire hydrants. MR. SICARD-Well, of course we're close to the Fire Department. You know about that, the Bay Ridge Fire Department. I saw to that. I gave them the land so they would be close to us. MR. PHILO-I understand that, but I just thought you were going to have, if you had trunk lines, maybe you would have fire hydrants. MR. SICARD-They're planning on hydrant on the Glen Lake Road. a quarter of a mile, a little there is a fire hydrant there. that, fire hydrants. In fact, there's a fire If you come in some time, from Route 9, about bi t farther, and get ready to go down the hill, MR. PHILO-Yes, but that's a dry hydrant, right? MR. SICARD-I suppose that they'll put them in progressively as they get down the road, but it would be to their advantage, because there's a lot of houses down there, and a lot of 50 foot lots. There's a lot of water and septic tanks that are going from one to the other down in that section. MR. MULLER-I was told that that hydrant was the end of the water system. MR. SICARD-The end of the line. MR. MULLER-I seriously doubt that the Town would have done anything crazy like putting in a dry hydrant. They're asking for a problem there. MR. PHILO-What I say as a dry hydrant, it comes off the lake, though, doesn't it? MR. SICARD-No, Route 9. MR. MULLER-I was told it was on the municipal water system. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SICARD-John Webster built that. MR. MULLER-Mrs. Sicard, did you want to say anything to support the application, because you are really an applicant? MR. TURNER-Well, are you done, Mike? Let me open the public hearing, if you're all set. MR. MULLER-Well, she's actual1 y part of the app1ica tion. MR. TURNER-Okay. Fine. MR. MULLER-I want to give equal time. MR. SICARD-We have made no plans to sell this property at this time. We're basically mostly interested in transferring the five to the kids. I only brought four. The other one's in Atlanta, and after that, they'll probably end up with the rest of it. Right now, we haven't even talked about that, but there's a possibility. They'll take the whole thing over and we'll probably never sell it. MR. PHILO-Can you answer what this homeowners association is going to consist of? Is it going to be like Inter1iken down in Saratoga? What is it going to be like? MR. SICARD-I really haven't had any experience with this. Right now, of course, it's been quite a while since I've done any plowing, and we have three plows in the family, and they come in and out and plow. It's plowed early in the morning to get out, and then from then on it's plowed. Maintenance wise, they're taking 33 this over slowly themselves. If they're living there, certainly, they're going to have water, and if they're living there, they're going to have the roads plowed. So, at this point, if we get other tenants in there, owners, we certainly are going to incorporate them in this thing. MR. PHILO-I understand that, but legally? MR. MULLER-Yes. I wanted to answer your question. In fairness, Mr. Sicard, doesn't know, I was the one that made the recommendation for a homeowners association. I've dealt with them before. Basically, they would have to pass the test of the Town Planning Board. In other words, I'll propose it, they've got to be happy wi th it. MR. PHILO-The offering and everything will have to be there? MR. MULLER-They're going to have to be happy with it, okay. I don't have any problem sa tisfying them on my homeowners associa tion. I will tell you how it works. Dues will be assessed. It's, if you will, an extra task, but it's a private task. If somebody fails to pay it, it can actually be assessed against their unit. If they continue to fail to pay, they can actually be sued in small claims court and the association will take a judgement against them. Collecting the judgement is as difficult for that as it is for any debt or credit of a situation, but it'll be enforceable, and I'm satisfied that I can satisfy the Town Planning Board. I really feel that we can give them exactly what they're looking for, because I plan to give them one or two that they've already approved in Queensbury. Essentially, we'll boilerplate this, already up in the Clerk's Office, something similar to the Lakeview subdivision. Are you familiar with tha t? MR. PHILO-I was superintendent for Mrs. Whitney when we built the Inter1iken project and Ulknot Farm, and brother, for the offering, it took a long time to put that into action with the State. It had to go with the State, Federal, and everything. MR. MULLER-Right. We don't have to go to the State, but we have to pass the test for the Town. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MULLER-We do have to pass their test. MRS. SICARD-I just wanted to explain. My name is Mary Sicard, and I wanted to further answer your question about the frozen pipes. On occasion, the tenants have not paid their gas bills, and the pipes have froze. A couple of times we had t;;;nts that were moving, and didn't want their gas refilled. So, they just let it run out wi thout notifying us, and our pipes were frozen then also, and our children have quickly taken care of it. It's never been any big deal, but I just wanted to explain the other reasons for occasional frozen pipes. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. 13. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Galloway just wanted to clarify Lot MR. GALLOWAY-Qn the one piece of property you addressed, sir, there's two number 10' s. One of them should be a 13, and that's one of the Sicard one's on the plan already. There's no duplication in number in the addition. MRS. EGGLESTON-Mike, did you say you're going to limit the cabins to a maximum size of 2,000? MR. MULLER-l,OOO. MRS. EGGLESTON-You said, two, though, and I was reading here, 1,000, so I wanted to clarify that. MR. MULLER-I meant 1,000. I'd like to turn it back to you, just reserving some time to conclude, again. MR. TURNER-I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LINDA DAILEY 34 MRS. DAILEY-My name is Linda Dailey, and I currently reside on Lot 14. The only thing I'd like to put on record is I've been there for over 17 years, and I've done considerable improvements there, and the reason was I thought, at some point in time I would own that house because that hadn't always been the indication that was made to me. MR. TURNER-Thank you. Anyone else, in support of the application? MATT SICARD MR. MATT SICARD-My name is Matt Sicard. I also live back there. MR. TURNER-which lot? which one is yours? MR. MATT SICARD-Currently on Number Eight. If you've been over there, you notice the addition that I'm putting on. I've gone to the bank and borrowed a considerable sum of money, on the pretense that I'm hoping to own this, took out a personal loan, I can tell you what the rate is on that, hoping to get it down to a mortgage rate, and I can't do that on something I don't own. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MATT SICARD-So, that's where my position is at this point. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. Anyone else? GEORGE SICARD MR. GEORGE SICARD-I'm George Sicard. I'm in the same position. I'm 13. I've done some considerable improvements, permitted by the Town of Queensbury, and again, if my brothers and sisters like the idea eventually, that I'm going to have a deed for something on paper. Right now, because of the zoning, I have a deed, but apparently, it's not worth anything until we get this final matter settled. So, I'm here in support. MARY LYNN SICARD MS. SICARD-My name is Mary Lynn Sicard. Like my brothers and sister, I hope to be someday deep in debt like they are, including the house that was designated to be one of mine, which is Number Nine. I think my parents have a unique opportunity here to do something good for their family and keep them together, and I would like to see that carried out. MR. CHARLIE SICARD-This wasn't planned. It makes me feel like we're not developers. It makes feel like we're makin g a home for them. Tha t ' s wha tit makes me feel like, and they're going to stay. None of them have gone away, just one, and he's in Atlanta. He worked for Nels, and it was an opportunity he just couldn't turn down. He left wi th his wife and three kids, but he's coming back. So, it's a little different than somebody coming in, buying a piece of property, cutting it all up, selling a lot of houses, and then leaving. They were here, some of them, before the houses, and they're still here, and I don't think they're going to leave. So, things are a little bit different. They take care of it a little bit better. MR. TURNER-Yes. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any discussion? MR. MULLER-Can I make my concluding remarks? MR. TURNER-Yes, sir. MR. MULLER-Members of this Board, I would hope that you can favorably read this application. I think that it's worthy of a yes vote, but I'll explain to you how it got so far, and I'll try to wrap it up very quickly. As Mr. Charlie Sicard said, he doesn't consider himself a developer, and he considers he's doing this for his family. I tried very hard to get the Town to make some exceptions. I've been trying since 1980, the so called family exception, and it's not received any favorable attention, but I keep bringing it up. So, this is the one and 35 only vehicle that we can utilize. I am the culprit with respect to the additional lots. I think that it's a poor plan. If you come before the Board and say we'd like these five and don't worry about the others, we'll just keep them in one block, I really think that we ought to give this piece of property an opportunity to spruce itself up, that is allowing the additional lots. That was my idea. I think it's an honest plan, and then, if in the future there are individual occupants in there that are owner occupants, they can spruce it up, and when they have this extremely large plan to put a real nice 3, 4,000 square foot house, you can tell them no, and obviously, it can be sent back to this particular record. I think it finally puts the piece of property under control. I honestly, as a professional, as a friend to Charlie, have been really concerned about it since 1982, and I just thought that it had to be addressed, and I hope that you would favorably consider it, and I can make a distinction between this application to other two other ones that did not get favorable treatment, that is that on Miss Eggleston's, it's a preexisting nonconforming lot, but it doesn't have the structural aspect to it. That is that we're built, and that's over and done. With respect to the Polk application, they argued that they were built, but they were seasonal, okay. We're squarely year round, and I hope you believe that, because I'll work until beyond midnight to help prove that, if there's any doubt in your mind. MR. TURNER-No. I don't ha ve a doubt. MR. MULLER-Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any discussion? MRS. EGGLESTON-I just feel that no matter what we do, it isn't going to change the circumstances. MR. TURNER-Nothing's going to change. MRS. EGGLESTON- I mean, it's there. opinion. It's not going to go away. That's my only MR. TURNER-This scenario went from seasonal to rental units to basically homes for the children and homes for anybody else, and the atmosphere has changed. So, I think this is a unique situation, in a sense, that nothing's going to change. Nothing's going to go away. We're still going to be there, everything. I think it's a reasonable request, myself. MR. CARVIN- I application, denial, and I would just like to poin tout, too, tha t there was, I believe, some letters or have heard no public opposi tion. wi th regard to the Polk correspondence requesting MR. TURNER-No. There's been no public outcry whatsoever as to this application. MR. PHILO-Are you going to set up the homeowners? MR. MULLER-Yes, but not, sir, until I present it to the Town Planning Board. MR. TURNER-That's the body that will review it. MR. THOMAS-You stipulated that the buildings will not exceed 1,000 square feet on that? MR. MULLER-Yes, but the proviso is that I have some buildings that, as of this date, september 16th. MR. THOMAS-Do have building permits for expansions. MR. MULLER-Yes, they do. MR. THOMAS-But as of when those permits expire, that from this day forward, no building will be expanded beyond it's size now. MR. MULLER-Tha t ' s going to be in our restrictive covenan t s . MR. THOMAS-Tha t ' s going to be in your restrictive covenants? MRS. EGGLESTON-Right in the deed. 36 MR. MULLER-Yes, but don't say that size now. I think it's 1,000 square feet, which would seem to be a safe factor, as far as I was concerned, and what I had proposed to Mr. Parisi. MR. THOMAS-Okay, but it will be in the restrictive covenant? MR. MULLER-Restrictive Covenant, absolutely. MR. THOMAS-Oka y. MR. THOMAS-What is the average square foot of those, right there? MR. MULLER-Of a building? MR. TURNER-The ones along the lake, Tom? MR. PHILO-Yes. MR. TURNER-Right there. That's it, right where you're pointing. MR. PHILO-It doesn't say the size of the cabins, is what I was going to ask you is how many square feet? MR. MULLER-Okay, 24.6 times 31. MR. PHILO-If they're 900 feet, stay with the 900 feet. of stipulation that they can stay exactly what they are. something, they could put on something else, right? If there was some kind If you say 1,000 or MR. MULLER-Well, I'll give you an easier restriction than that is that, once you allow those lines, they have to come for a variance if they wish to add on to it, and then you can review it. MR. TURNER-Tom, a single family dwelling is 800 square feet. That's the required, under the Code of Queensbury. All right. MR. PHILO-Yes. MR. TURNER-A two family dwelling, residence, each uni t, 600 square reasonable request. each feet. unit So, is 750 1,000 is square feet. a good si ze. Multiple It's a MR. MULLER-I would like you to stick to 1,000, but I would like to assure you that when we say it's restricted to 1,000, you say that it's got to be within the setbacks or come for a variance, and that's okay. I don't plan on coming. MR. TURNER-Any further questions? we ought to do is, we can list the make that part of the record, as every single one. We'll use that that this would apply. Oka y. use of, to wha t as part Motion's in order, and I guess what will use the sheet in there, and we'll is needed, rather than going through of the record, as part of our motion, MRS. EGGLESTON-Will we be legal? MR. MULLER-I would accept that. I would be willing to stipulate to what I proposed in my application. Well, how I arrived at that, so you feel more comfortable about it, is that I thought about it, patricia Crayford thought about it, I think Lee York thought about it, and when we put it all together, we decided there was still things missing, and then we also reviewed it with Mr. Parisi. Four heads have been on it. I think that we've exhausted it, in terms of what we need. I wouldn't ask tha t you read all of it. Wha t I would ask you to do is make it part of the record, if your vote is to approve it. MR. PHILO-I'd like to ask Lee York, I'm not really an honest person on this. I went over and looked at everything myself, but you've followed this record from Day One, right? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. PHILO-What is your honest opinion? Do you have anything on this that doesn't meet your criteria or anything like this, Lee? 37 MRS. YORK-Well, there are many areas that are in nonconformance. Are you asking me if I was on the Board, would I approve it or deny it? MR. PHILO-No. I'm just trying to say, do you see anything other than what the Board has seen tonight? MRS. YORK-To be qui te honest, I think wi th the new septic systems, and the limitations placed upon expansion, you're going to have a better situation with these lots being subdivided then you currently do now, because it's basically a free for all. Excuse me, but there are absolutely no limitations on what can go on on tha t lot now, wi th an y of those uni ts. MR. PHILO-Thank you, Lee. MRS. YORK-No. It isn't the best of all worlds, certainly. If there were other alternatives, which I discussed with Mr. Muller and Mr. Sicard originally, such as taking out some of the uni ts, and trying to reconfi gure some of the lot, but they, in their testimony, have presented a case that that's not feasible. So, it's really a decision on the part of the Board, but from an environmental standpoint, you are going to have more safeguards. MR. PHILO-As far as I'm concerned, you can go ahead, Ted. IIOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-1992 CHARLES O. SICARD, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: For the subdivision of 15 existing units into separate parcels in a Critical Environmental Area, and for the record, we're going to take the sheets that identify Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 3, and Lot 4, side yard setback and densi ty; Lot Number 5, density; Lot 6 & 7, side yard, density, and shoreline; Lot 8 & 9, side yard, rear yard, density, frontage on a public street, and lot width; Lot 10, 11 & 12, side yard and average lot width, Lot 13 & 14, side yard, density, shoreline; Lot 15, average lot width. We'll adopt the schedule of area variance requests for all the lots in the subdivision to be included as part of the record. In making the determination, the Zoning Board of Appeals has weighed the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood and the applicant has identified considerable access to the existing properties by dedicating a 50 foot wide roadway to service the units in the subdivision. There will not be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or to the nearby properties. The applicant cannot achieve any other method feasible to divide this property without an economic hardship to the applicant. The variance is not substantial since many of these units have existed from 1940 until the present day. The alleged difficulty was not self created by the applicant, since at the time that many of these units were constructed, no zoning regulations existed in the Town of Queensbury. This is the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the conditions that exist in the subdivision as proposed. Also, the applicant has stipulated that if any of the lots are sold, that any new structure would not exceed 1,000 square feet and would have to compl y wi th setbacks on the lot. There is no neighborhood opposition to this application for the subdivision of these lots. Duly adopted this 16th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Philo, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Carvin ABSENT: Mr. Sicard (10:54 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-1992 TYPE II fiR-1A THOlIAS AND BARBARA LONGE aiNER: SAllE AS ABOVE CORNER OF lIASON AND CLEVERDALE ROAD REQUESTING AREA VARIANCE FOR EXISTING FENCE 6 FT. HIGH LOCATED IN SIDE YARD AND IN EXCESS OF 100 SQ. FT. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX IIAP NO. 12-1-1. LOT SIZE: 71 FT. BY 205 FT. SECTION l79-74(B)(2), 1.79-60(5) THOMAS LONGE, PRESENT (10: 54 p. m. ) MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board returned, "No County Impact". STAFF INPUT 38 Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 75-1992, Thomas and Barbara Longe, August 18, 1992, Meeting Date: August 19, 1992 "The applicant is requesting two variances. The first is for a fence over 1 00 sq. ft. wi thin a shoreline setback. The other is for a fence over 6 feet in height in a side yard. The map submitted indicates that the fence is 94 feet from the shoreline. A site inspection indicated that the fence is most probably not within the shoreline setback. The Board should get verification on the footage of the fence from the lake, as a variance may be unnecessary. The Board should be aware that this property was transferred to the applicant on December 7, 1990. So the applicant was aware of the circumstances of the property. This is an unlisted action. The Board should pass on the short form SEQRA prior to passing a final resolution. This application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for an area variance: 1. Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. The only location for a fence whose function is to provide privacy in the side yard is in its present location. The issue, however, is that the applicant purchased the property knowing the limitations. The ordinance did not create the practical difficulty. 2. Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty or is there any other option available which would require no variance? The standard allows for 4 foot fences in side yards. The Board will have to consider if a fence of 4 or 5 feet would be more appropriate. 3. Would this variance be detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict with the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town? No.4. What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services? None. 5. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? Practical difficulty has not been proven." MRS. YORK-I just want to clarify for the Board, this is a Type II action, under SEQRA. MR. TURNER-Yes. When did you put the fence up, Mr. Longe? MR. LONGE-Early this spring. Unbeknownst to me, it was out of Code, and we did not realize that when we put it up. MR. PHILO-Who put it up? MR. LONGE-Some people that work for me. MR. TURNER-What's your occupation? MR. LONGE-My name is Tom Longe, and my occupation, I'm President of D.A. Collins Construction Company, a heavy highway contractor. MR. TURNER-Yes. What's the reason for such a high fence? MR. LONGE-The reason for the height of the fence is privacy from the neighbors next door. The reason that we did not realize this when we bought the property, the property was subdivided about three years ago, by John Mason. It was originally one parcel of property, owned by Leonard Friedman, which had two homes on it that he built that were, one was used for entertain and one was used for housing guests. The two homes are in the narrow end of the piece of pie, and the pie widens out down toward the lake. Having nobody really living there, and having no experience of the two parcels being subdivided, what the actual impact would be, the people who bought the other house have quite a bit of company, and our house has the three bedrooms and a porch and living area on the same side as their patio and entertaining area. This was our reason for the fence. MR. TURNER-The bedroom downstairs or upstairs? MR. WNGE-Downstairs. There's basicall y one floor in that section. There's an upstairs and a small apartment, but that's back toward the road. The other reason for the fence versus landscape vegetation, trees, things of that nature is due to the narrowness between the two homes at that point. The fence is basically a six inch to ten inch wide structure versus trees which are going to encroach another six to eight foot, take away that much more yard space between the two properties. MR. TURNER-How about a four foot fence instead of a six foot fence? MR. LONGE-The four foot height will not accomplish the privacy. 39 MR. PHILO-I went up there and looked at fence, north or south, for qui te a wa ys. you get a building permit for this? that, Mr. Longe, and that's the only I haven't seen one that high. Did MR. WNGE-No. AS I say, I did not realize it until after I was told that it was not up to Code, it did not meet the Code. MR. TURNER-:What is the type of fence you put up? MR. LONGE-It's a wood frame fence. MR. TURNER-Okay. I guess I have a problem with the height of the fence in the side yard. I think the Ordinance addresses the issue that four feet is more than adequate, and I don't see this as anything out of the ordinary, that a four foot fence will more than divide the property. MR. LONGE-The four foot fence divides the property, but it provides no privacy. MR. TURNER-I don't think you can have privacy, when they're that close up there. How can you? You've got 56 feet on the road for the one house to the north, and 50 feet on yours. MR. WNGE-I think the fence does accomplish the privacy that we're looking for. MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. Longe, can you imagine what that area would look like if everybody had a fence between their two properties? I mean, you have to think of just, other than your own property, really. It would change that whole character, right now, and I personally went to the site. In fact, I've been there twice, and as you walk down in front, and you look up and down, you can see green space the whole length of, as far as you can see, either way, other than shrubs, beautiful flowers, and then you have this one fence that just obliterates everybody's view up and down. Now, if we were to say to you, you can have that, guaranteed you everybody's going to want one. It just cannot, and other places are just as close as yours through there. It would be setting a precedent that just would take foot hold and it would just change the whole character of the neighborhood. You really could accomplish the same with a , which is much more aesthetically pleasing and fits in with the rest of the neighborhood. Furthermore, that fence blocks your neighbor to the left, facing the lake, because I personally looked at that, from their front picture windows. MR. LONGE-First of all, that fence only goes down to the corner of our house. MRS. EGGLESTON-It still blocks their view. MR. LONGE-Okay. Second of all, my conversation would much rather have a fence than a hedgerow rather have that fence than any shrubbery. with my neighbor was that he of trees. He would very much MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, I have a letter here from him. So, we'll see what he has to sa y. MR. LONGE-Oka y. MR. TURNER-I think we'd be setting an awful precedent. MRS. EGGLESTON-We would be, in my opinion. I'm only one person here. MR. PHILO-I do, too. That's a beautiful area. MR. TURNER-I looked at it twice. MRS. PALING-I went up twice and looked at it, I agree. MR. TURNER-It just stands right out like a sore thumb. MR. SICARD-It's a lot of fence. MR. TURNER-It's a lot of fence. MR. SICARD-Especially in all that amount of blacktop. 40 MR. TURNER-If he had more expanse there and he had more road frontage, the more distance between the houses, and everybody had the same thing equal up there, or close to equal. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think you knew when you bought it that it was close. You have to consider that when you buy a piece of property, is, can I live with this the way it is, and either decide you can or you can It, and you either don't buy it or you do, but don't buy it and then think you can just change the whole character of the neighborhood. It isn't fair to the other people who've lived there a long time, and I know Mr. Galvin told me that, I forget how many people stopped and accused him of putting it there and were really irate about it. MR. LONGE-We've had no complaints about the fence to us and many compliments on the fence and the place, both the Gal vins and ours. MR. PHILO-Well, I went up and I went to both sides, and I talked to some neighbors, and they weren't happy with it. I, personally, visited the site. What was the reason for putting that, how high is that fence? MR. TURNER-Six foot. MR. LONGE-The fence is, basically, six foot. It ranges in height from six two, six three in one spot, but it steps down at six foct and it goes down to about five foot six, five foot seven. MR. PHILO-Well, I'm six one and three quarters, and I couldn't see anywhere near the top of it. MR. WNGE-It's all six foot fence. MR. THOMAS-Does it still measure 94 feet from the lake? MR. LONGE-I have to measure that. I believe it is. MR. THOMAS-So, if you whacked six feet of the end of it, you'd be in compliance with the setback from the lake, so that would alleviate one half of the requested variance. Does it have to be? If you whacked that six feet off, would that chan ge? MR. LONGE-No. I could take the six feet off, with the fence. MR. THOMAS-And it wouldn't diminish from what. you're trying to accomplish, the separation of the property? MR. LONGE-No. MR. THOMAS-So, you could do that to alleviate half of the request for a variance. MR. SICARD-Is there any restrictions on the type of trees or shrubs that you could grow, that was in the deed, say? MR. LONGE-No. MR. CARVIN-When you say, privacy, are you more concerned with noise or site privacy? MR. LONGE-Both, but more so site privacy. MR. PHILO-Those people seem like older people. I can't see where they'd be making a lot of noise. Maybe it's something I don't see. MR. TURNER-I don't think noise has anything to do with it. Privacy, maybe yes, but I mean, you knew when you bought the place that the distance between the two houses was very narrow, and I mean, you should have investigated the circumstances regarding the building of that fence before you went ahead and built it, put it in place. MR. SICARD-Mr. Chairman, can he build a four foot fence without a permit, with just a fence permit? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SICARD-But he doesn't need the variance for a four foot fence. 41 MR. PHILO-If he cut the fence down to four foot, it would be all set. MR. SICARD-Take the six foot off the end. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, it's got to meet shoreline. MR. SICARD-For the setback. MR. PHIW-Plus, it's four foot high. MR. THOMAS-If you put that four foot fence in, is there anything to stop him from putting planters on top, to grow two feet worth of? MR. PHILO-The height is four feet. MR. TURNER-The height of the fence is four feet. MR. THOMAS-The height of the fence is four feet, but the growth on top, is that considered a fence or not? MR. TURNER-Yes, I would say. MR. THOMAS-You think that would be considered part of the fence, any plants on top? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. PHILO-Exactly. MR. TURNER-I think he'd just be circumventing the Ordinance. MR. THOMAS-Yes. That's true, but it's a fine line. MRS. EGGLESTON-Did you go look at this? MR. THOMAS-Yes, I did. MRS. EGGLESTON-What did you think of the neighbors? MR. THOMAS-I didn't see any other fences. MR. PHIW-Neighbors yards all go together. It's a beautiful spot. MR. TURNER-Again, I'd say the same thing over and over again. the property, you knew what you were buying. When you bought MRS. EGGLESTON-And if somebody else came back and wanted one, we'd be hard pressed to say no. MR. SICARD-That's why I think a four foot fence would be. MR. PHILO-Appropriate. MR. TURNER-More than adequate. MR. SICARD-Knock off the six foot, he wouldn't need a variance. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. PHILO-The poor guy, you sit in his yard or the living room, you can't even see the lake, the next door neighbor. MR. TURNER-Okay. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COlI1ŒNT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 42 '- CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-A letter from Neil Galvin, "I, Neil N. Gal vin, am the propert y owner to the immediate north of the Longe property. Although I would have preferred plantings in lieu of the fence recently installed, I respect the right of the Longes to treat their property in any way they wish. I do, however, object to the height of the fence, which is eight foot, not six foot, as stipulated in the notice of public hearing. The present area encompassed by the fence is in excess of 400 square feet." And a letter from Mary Sochia, Cleverdale, "This is in objection to the requested area variance for an existing si x foot high fence located in side yard of property owned by Thomas and Barbara Longe on the C1everdale Road, C1everda1e. I am a property owner with two residences on the C1everdale Road. One house separates the Longe property with mine. Cleverdale is a grassy green area. All properties have extensive lawns and landscaping with natural trees shrubbery and hedges. Many properties are divided by the use of natural hedges, which enhances the beauty of the lake and surrounding areas. The Longe's fence is unattractive and although it is well constructed, looks as though it should be a fence for an industrial or corrections type setting, not a lake house. It is certainly the only fence of its type in Cleverdale or any other near points. It would appear that the desired effect of the fence could be accomplished by using hedges or small trees which would be in keeping with the natural beauty of the lake. I certainly object to any area variance being issued." MR. TURNER-An Y further discussion? Oka y. Motion's in order. MR. SICARD-If he cuts the fence down to four feet, and he takes six foot off. MR. TURNER-Well, he might better do the thing and then it's done with. the variance and it's done with. Then he gets a notice to comply. You do IIOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-1992 THOJIAS & BARBARA LONGE, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: I believe that by granting the relief sought by the applicant, we would be setting a precedent in an area where there are no other fences. There are other alternatives that the applicant could seek. There is neighborhood opposition, and the property was bought in 1990, and the applicant was aware of the circumstances of the property when it was purchased. The applicant has the right for a four foot fence which he could have constructed without a variance. So, really, there are other areas to explore, to reach his objectives. I think it would be detrimental to the other properties in the neighborhood, and conflict with the objectives of the policy of the Town. Duly adopted this 16th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (11:18 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 92-1992 TYPE II fiR-1A DEBRA AND JOSEPH GROSS aiNER: SAllE AS ABOVE 560 PALlIER DRIVE RESIDENTIAL EXPANSION. THE NORTH ADDITION CREATES A SETBACK OF THE SUJI OF THE 'lW0 SIDES TO BE LESS THAN THE REQUIRED SUJI OF 50 FT. THE UTILITY STORAGE AREA IS A CONTINUATION OF THE NONCONFORJIING SETBACK ON THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX IIAP NO. 144-1.-26 LOT SIZE: 0.58 ACRES SECTION 179-16 JOSEPH GROSS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (11:18 p.m.) MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board, "No County Impact". STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 92-1992, Debra and Joseph Gross, September 11, 1992, Meeting Date: September 16, 1992 "Description of Project: The applicant is proposing to construct a two-story 42' x 22' addition on the south side of their existing single family house. The applicant is also proposing to construct a 20' x 16' screened porch and a 22' x 10' utility room on the rear of the house. The addi tion on the north side consists of 3 bedrooms, 2 ba ths, and a den along with an 8' porch facing Palmer Drive. The applicant is seeking 43 a variance to Section 179-16 of the Zoning Code pertaining to side yard setbacks. The section requires that the sum of the side yards equal 50' with a maximum side yard of 20' on one side. The applicant needs relief to allow a side yard of 8' on one side and a sum of 39'. Requirements for granting a variance: 1. The applicant's practical difficulty is a result of Niagara Mohawk power lines bisecting the back of the property. The lines effectively prevent the applicant from placing the two story addition on the rear of the house. 2. This is the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. Because of the existing structure's close proximity to the south property line (8') and the location of the power lines, the applicant's options are limited to placing the major addition on the north side of the house. 3. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the other properties in the neighborhood. The two story addi tion on the north side still allows for a 31' side yard. The concern should be for the construction of the existing 8' side yard on the south side, the continuation is minor (10') and should not be detrimental to the neighborhood. 4. There should not be any adverse effects on public utilities. In fact, the necessity for the variance is a result of the need to avoid the existing utility lines. " MR. TURNER-You've got to be 100 feet away from those lines. Are they high tension? MR. GROSS-They're not. MR. TURNER-What are they? Are they just the normal service lines around the back of the property, and service the property? MR. GROSS-Yes. I believe so. MR. TURNER-According to the scale, it looks like it might be 30 feet from the proposed addition on the north, to where that utility line goes across. MR. PHILO-We went over and looked at it. MR. TURNER-I did, too. MR. PHILO-I don't think those are high tension lines. MR. TURNER-No, they're not. MR. GROSS-No. I'm an electrician. MR. THOMAS-It's a 4800 volt distribution line. got a 122 forty well secondary line under it. to move their lines? It goes through there. It's Did you approach Niagara Mohawk MR. GROSS-No. MR. THOMAS-Let me take it one step further. across that property? Did they have an easement to go MR. GROSS-Yes, they do. MR. THOMAS-They do have a written easement? MR. TURNER-Did you grant it? MR. GROSS-I have been told by the neighbors. MR. TURNER-Do you have one, from them? MR. GROSS-No, I don't. MR. THOMAS- It ma y not be in your' deed, but it ma y be in the records. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-In Niagara Mohawks records in their law office in Albany. MR. GROSS-It wasn't in my deed. MR. THOMAS-Sometimes it isn't. It depends on when it was put in. MR. GROSS-Oka y. 44 MR. TURNER-How long have you owned the property? MR. THOMAS-April of ' 90. MR. TURNER- Yes, you probabl y woul dn ' t ha ve it. MR. GROSS-I'm not going to be any closer to the lines, if you looked at people that are down there. The white house next to me is going to be just as far pack. I'm not going to be any further back than that already is. I think if you went down the line and looked at some of the other homes, it's a dead end road. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. GROSS-Some of those are even closer. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. GROSS-I'm not saying it's right, but I didn't really take it as a considera tion. MR. THOMAS-If that line wasn't there, could you have built out the back anyway? MR. GROSS-Probably if the line wasn't there, I would have built a brand new house right where the lines are, but I can't do that, and if I put it in the way back of the yard, I'd have to use the front yard and privacy for a back yard. So, the wa y the lot, you can see it was two lots a t one time, but it's landlocked and nothing you really can do with it. I put the septic system in. It failed then. I checked wi th the Town. From wha t I understand, I am up to a four bedroom home tank, and the leachfie1d that's way oversized. MR. TURNER-You're way oversized, aren't you? MR. GROSS-Yes. They told me I needed 135 feet, and I said, well, I'm going to put 250 feet in. That's a lot of money, and I said, well, I'm not going to do this again in my lifetime, hopefully. As far as the well, I had to meet all the requirements. The well is up near the house. The septic passed inspection. I'm 100 feet away. MR. PHILO-How does your neighbor feel about this? MR. GROSS-I talked to Kerry Blair, and she's all for it because she knows I'm going to make the place look nice, and her comment was, I don't worry about you because I know you're going to make the place look like one of the nicest houses on the street. I've done some improvements already. The whole house has been totally renovated on the inside, cosmetically, and it's just not enough for a child, and if we want anymore. The neighbors, the Willetts, they're all aware. Dick Willett next door, I talked to Dick, he doesn't have a problem. I talked to Sadie, of course, they've been used to 17 years of a huge yard right next to them. There was an elderly woman that lived there for years and never used it, but they understand it's our property, 30 feet from the lines still, and they're all for us building on and expanding our family. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions for the applicant? MRS. PALING-I looked at it. I thought it was. MR. GROSS-We're going to reside the whole place. It's going to bring the value up of everybody else's house. You can see the young lady on the end of the corner is redoing her home, and everybody is all happy about it. There's people building across the river. MR. TURNER-Is she the one that had the camp? Her name was. MR. GROSS-Laurie Gates. She's done a beautiful job, resided it. MR. TURNER-Oka y. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COIUIENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 45 MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further discussion? None? Motion's in order. IIOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 92-1992 DEBRA AND JOSEPH GRœS, In troduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Because of existing power lines, it was impossible to move the house back, as he previously talked about, and they have a setback on the north side of 31 feet, and 8 feet existing setback on the south side, that's the practical difficulty, it bisects the back of the property, and lines will prevent the applicant from placing a two story which he wants to build to the rear of the house. This is the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty, and because of the existing structures close to the south line, the location of the power lines, the applicant's options are limi ted, placing the major addi tion on the north side of the house. There should not be any adverse effects on public utilities and there has been no objections from anyone in the audience. Duly adopted this 16th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Philo, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (11:32 p.m.) MR. TURNER-Vosburgh has got to go for a Type I SEQRA Review, right? MRS. YORK-Right. He has to go for a Type I SEQRA Review, and so if you want to pass a resolution stating such, however, Warren County heard the variance and their comments are, "The application is deemed incomplete and was removed from the agenda. The Warren County Planning Board requires further information regarding the height of the completed structure, clarifying the building of the garage and identifying how many living units will be on this particular piece of property". So, given the fact that they have to go back to Warren County, because they were not a complete application, according to the County, how do you want to proceed? MR. TURNER-I think they ought to go to the County first because that will make a difference on how we proceed, maybe, with the application. If they deny it, then we're going to need a majority plus one to over turn it. MR. PHILO-Ted, on that there, did they set, I went up and looked that over good, Vosburgh, and what I read in the minutes, he was to take those old buildings down, and demolish them. MR. TURNER-Just move one across the road. MR. PHILO-He did, and it's four or five feet from the right-of-way, and here the Building Inspector has got a tag hanging on the building, it's a 20 foot easement in there, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. PHILO-And he's close, right to the 20 foot easement, very close. It looks like Sandford and Son, I mean, this is !EJi. assessment. MR. TURNER-The other thing, he had to identify the north property line, and I don't know if he's done that. That was one of our determinations. MRS. YORK-I believe he did get a surveyor out there and identify the line. MR. TURNER-Oka y. MR. PHILO-As far as, I see with the property, I'd say no to the operation because the height, Number One, is going to encroach on the neighbors. He put a deck out there, already, and the neighbor can't see the lake. Number Two, it looks like he's got a bunking system in there for anybody that wants to come in there. He's using every bit of space. MR. TURNER-That's why I think what we ought to do is make him go back to Warren County and update that application before we even look at it, and then we'll determine, at that point in time. 46 MRS. EGGLESTON-Lee, I called your office today, or somebody there, I think I talked to Pam Whi ting, and I said to her, you know, we had passed a resolution that we would not entertain anymore applications that were not complete with measurements. There is no measurement on that particular application that tells how high that structure is, as you know. Why are they even being presented? We passed a motion, unanimously, that we would not entertain anymore unless their information was absolutely complete. MRS. YORK-Well, I'm not the Executi ve Director. I do my best, but I guess the best way to say it is we're going through a transition period, but I think you'll have to make your desires very clearly known to Mr. Parisi. MR. PHIW-I suggest you clean the property up. It looks like Sandford and Son. For a nice neighborhood, he's got boats cut in half, and mattresses, and there's a little bit of everything hanging out there. MRS. YORK-Yes. Mrs. Eggleston, I would say one thing. height is mentioned on your Checklist. I don't believe that MR. TURNER-No. They can build to the height that's prescribed in the District, and we can't stop them from doing that. MRS. YORK-Right, but I don't think the height measurement is prescribed in your Checklist. We can certainly put that on, but. MRS. EGGLESTON-But all of the dimensions are supposed to be of the proposed, whatever they're going to build, all of the dimensions are supposed to be there. That was our requirement. MRS. YORK-Yes. You're correct. MR. TURNER-Okay. If we're over that one, we've got one more item. In reference to the Robert and Cheryl Evans application, I took them off the agenda because I felt that they were coming back and they wanted to modify their variance, and I didn't think that we had the right, for them to appeal the variance. Paul says he looked in Anderson Laws on Zoning and says that if they modify their variance, that we have to hear it again. As you remember, the driveway went like this and then like that, well then it had an apron that went like this. On the other plan, they had the garage turned to the north, remember, and the motion read that they had. MR. PHILO-Okay. Where's the right-of-way? MR. TURNER-Mason Road's right here. MR. PHIW-Okay. MR. TURNER-And we told them they had to turn the garage and head the driveway towards Mason Road. They want to modify the variance and put it back the way it was, all right. Here it goes right here, but before they had an apron that ran in here, if I remember right, and I think I do. MR. PHILO-You can't move that garage anyway. MR. TURNER-No, I know. MRS. EGGLESTON-No, the ~ garage they're talking about. MR. TURNER-The new garage. They want to take the new garage and put it to the north, like they wanted the first time around, but remember we discussed that wi th their builder and we mi ti ga ted the issue wi th the builder, and I told them that he was their representative, and if they had any qualms about it, they had to talk to him, but Paul tells me if they modify the application, that we have to hear it again. MR. SICARD-Are they going to leave it where it is, the garage? MR. TURNER-No. They want to put it to the north like they had it originally. Remember we mitigated and asked them to turn it towards Mason Road and we approved the variance with that stipulation. MR. SICARD-I understand, but it hasn't been moved, has it? 47 MRS. EGGLESTON-It isn't built yet. This is the ~ one, Charlie. MR. SICARD-Okay. They're going to build a new one. the house across the street. They were going to move MRS. YORK-No, Charlie, you're on the wrong one. MR. TURNER-We're talking about Evans. MR. SICARD-Dr. Evans. MR. TURNER-No, he's got the septic field across the street. MR. SICARD-Yes, but he's got two lots over there, and the reason I know is because I think I bought the house, the old house, they're going to tear it down. MRS. PALING-You bought the house they're going to tear down, Charlie? MR. SICARD-Yes. MR. TURNER-So, anyway, I'm going to further discuss this with Paul. So, if we decide that that's where it's got to go, it'll be back on the agenda next month, but if you guys feel that you don't agree with that, we can leave it like it is, I guess. I'd like to discuss it with Paul first and we'll vote on it at the next meeting. MRS. YORK-Mr. Chairman, did you table the Evans application? MR. TURNER-We didn't, but I told them it wasn't going to be on the agenda tonight, and they went away. I told them we would notify them as soon as we made a decision. I want to talk to Paul further on what he told me. MRS. YORK-Okay. Let me know what's going on, because I think we should make a decision whether we refund their advertising money or not. MR. TURNER-They won't get on this next meeting, but they'll probably get on the next meeting after that. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 48