Loading...
1992-11-18 -- '''"- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 18TH. 1992 INDEX Area Variance No. 118-1992 Hugh and Karen Sinclair 1. Use Variance No. 120-1992 Steve and Donna Sutton 2. Area Variance No. 119-1992 Steve and Donna Sutton 10. Area Variance No. 121-1992 Harry Ruecker 11. Area Variance No. 122-1992 Barbara & Boyce D. Rawson. Sr. 12. Area Variance No. 123-1992 Gary R. See 16. Area Variance No. 124-1992 William and Dale Smith 19. Area Variance No. 125-1992 Malvern & Carolyn Tippett 24. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. '-- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 18TH. 1992 '1:40 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER. CHAIRMAN JOYCE EGGLESTON. SECRETARY MARIE PALING CHRIS THOMAS THOMAS PHILO FRED CARVIN CHARLES SICARD PLANNER-ARLYNE RUTHSCHILD STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TURNER-We have one item to clear up before we start with the meeting. and that's just to explain to everybody. it's just a motion. MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE TOWN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IN THE CASE OF JOHN POLK VERSUS THE ZBA. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 18th day of November. 1992. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard. Mr. Philo. Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Mrs. Paling. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 118-1992 TYPE II LI-1A HUGH AND KAREN SINCLAIR OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CORNER OF CORINTH AND MERRITT ROADS FOR AN ADDITION TO THE BUILDING. LEAN-TO-GARAGE. PROPOSED 40 FT. SETBACK FROM MERRITT ROAD IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 50 FT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 146-1-10 LOT SIZE: 150 FT. BY 150 FT. SECTION 119-79. 179-26 MR. TURNER-And there's a request for tabling. MRS. EGGLESTON-What is the basis. Ted? MR. TURNER-They've got to apply for another variance. right here. Do you want to read that? I have it MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. A letter to the Queensbury Zoning and Planning Boards. from Heidi Meyers. Office Manager. Service Master. by Hugh Sinclair. "Please withdraw our name from the agenda for tomorrow evening's meeting at 7:30 p.m. where we were to have our area variance request reviewed. We have been informed that we also have to apply for a Use Variance. We will be making that application by November 25th. so we may appear on December's agenda. and we would like to have the review for both variances done at the same time. Thank you for your consideration." MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 118-1992 HUGH AND KAREN SINCLAIR. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: At the request of the applicant. Duly adopted this 18th day of November. 1992. by the following vote: 1 '- AYES: Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Mrs. Paling. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Sicard. Mr. Philo. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (7:42 p.m.) USE VARIANCE NO. 120-1992 TYPE II HC-1A STEVE AND DONNA SUTTON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROUTE 9. 1/4 MILE SOUTH OF THE GREAT ESCAPE FOR EXPANSION OF STORAGE BARN FOR FURNITURE. STORAGE BUILDING WILL ENCROACH UPON THE REQUIRED 50 FT. BUFFER ZONE. APPLICANT SEEKING A 20 FT. RELIEF FROM REQUIREMENT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 68-1-15 LOT SIZE: 7~ ACRES SECTION 179-79A(1) STEVE SUTTON. PRESENT (7:42 P.M.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Use Variance No. 120-1992. Steve and Donna Sutton. Meeting Date: November 18. 1992 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand existing storage structure which is preexisting and nonconforming. from fifteen hundred square feet (1.500 sq. ft.) to three thousand square feet (3.000 sq. ft.). Applicant will be utilizing the expansion for inventory (furniture). CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-79D which states that any nonconforming use may be increased only by a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. Is a reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned? Reasonable return is not possible as zoned because: (1) storage facilities are not permitted as an accessory use in the Highway Commercial zone and business requires storage of furniture inventory. 2. Are the circumstances of this lot unique and not due to the unreasonableness of the Ordinance? Circumstances of the lot are unique. as the existing storage facility is: (1) preexisting and nonconforming and requires a variance for any type of expansion. 3. Is there any adverse effect on the neiqhborhood? There appears to be no adverse effect on the neighborhood as it is mostly a Highway Commercial zone. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff has no further comments regarding this project." MR. SUTTON-Jim and I talked about this at length. I think Jim was surprised that there wasn't anything in there for accessory use for retail. I mean. when you talk storage buildings. I think the intent was that if I was going to rent storage to somebody off our property to bring things. maybe that's why the zoning is written the way it is. We thought that there should have been something in there for accessory use. but apparently there isn't. So. it's an existing barn. We're now in the furniture business. and sofas and tables and stuff take up so much more room. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It just didn't seem to make much sense. Highway Commercial zone. that there's no accessory use permits storage for. in a which MR. TURNER-Well. I think it was done for good reason. because he's got a particular case that's outside of maybe a lot of other people's cases. and with this kind of review. you keep a handle on it. and it doesn't really offend anybody. I don't think the Board's offended by it. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. TURNER-I think that every case is unique in its own instance. So. I think that's why we definitely left it out. MRS. EGGLESTON-Does the little house that sits up in there belong to you. or is that a. the little house to the right of the storage barn? MR. SUTTON-The yellow? 2 MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. SUTTON-Yes. That was formerly the Bluebird Motel. There were 10 cabins across there, and a retired gentleman from Long Island that used to stay in the Bluebird and became a close family friend was very elderly and he actually owns the building and we own the property, and someday we'll probably own the building, too. MR. PHILO-I've looked at the property, Ted, and it's pretty organized. MR. TURNER-He's got a lot of area. He's got a lot to do with it. MR. PHILO-Very much. There's a buffer zone out behind there, as I talked to Steve. MR. SUTTON-That's the other part. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's the Area Variance. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's all so well kept, I can't believe any further use wouldn't be well done. MR. SUTTON-Well, one of the objectives is to keep our stuff inside, too, you know, the overflow is unsightly to anybody else, and also keep it under cover and out of sight. MR. TURNER-Okay. Let me open the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHUCK MCNULTY MR. MCNULTY-I'm Chuck McNulty. We live up in back of Sutton's on Twicwood Lane. It's a little difficult to split my comments between the two requests that they've got, but I think we basically are opposed to what appears to be somewhat wholesale granting of variances all the time. It strikes me that Suttons, or any other business. when they started business there. they knew what the zoning was. They've obviously already gotten exception for putting the furniture business in place, and they knew they were going in getting a special exception to do that much now. Now they want another exception. A little later they'll want another exception. especially when they're pushing back into a buffer zone. It strikes me that we're ending up wasting tax payer money. We're ending up wasting business people's money. If we passed a zoning law. the zoning that says things should be a certain way. and then every time somebody wants to do something different. all they have to do is jump through the hoops, spend the money they have to spend to go in front of the Planning Board, the County Planning Board. the Zoning Board of Appeals. and eventually get their permit. they might better save their money and abolish the zoning. and save all of our trouble coming here. Save the people's trouble redoing the zoning. and save the business people the expense of jumping through the hoop, because it just doesn't make sense to make require them to jump through the hoops all the time. If we're going to give him this. give it to him to begin with. I can see making an exception if the zoning was passed last year. after they put the furniture business in, and it's something new that came up. It's not something new. It's something they knew about when they started. They knew what they were getting into, and I don't think an exception should be made. MR. PHILO-Where do you live. Sir? MR. MCNULTY-Fourteen Twicwood Lane. We're off the southeast corner of Suttons property. MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. McNulty. I'm not clear. here. Are you dissatisfied with the zoning process itself. or do you feel this 3 building will have an effect on your property. I mean. is there noise from this? Does it violate your views? Does it effect you in any way? I mean. the complex is there. There's nothing you can do about that. MR. MCNULTY-The complex is there. The complex was installed after we purchased our home. MRS. EGGLESTON-The storage building? MR. MCNULTY-The storage bUilding. the whole business. It's been expanded since we were there. When we first moved in. we could not see Route 9. summer or winter. Now the leaves are off the trees. we see Suttons parking lot. We see the remnants of one of their plastic covered greenhouses down through the woods. with the plastic cabin. They keep their property clear for the normal view. but if you do walk down through the woods on that southeast corner. that's where they've got their rotten pumpkins. their piles of cement blocks. their left over pots from plants that they've sold and just thrown out back there. torn plastic. general debris. It's not real vi sible from our house. but. as I say. we can see the parking lot. We can see some of the buildings. During the summer. when they're running their blowers between the lot or something. usually you can hear those morning. Noise wise. I wouldn't say that they're a big problem. Sight wise. yes. It's become a problem. It's effecting the value of our properties all along that side of the street. because we no longer have an unrestricted area. You've got to deal with Route 9 now. that you did not have before. and every time they come in with an exception. putting an additional parking lot. or an additional bUilding. then we see a little bit more commercial stuff. So. the objection. I think. is more in general just making exceptions to that property or any property. That one in particular is going to effect us. It is going to knock down the value of our property some. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are you right directly in back of one of the houses? Now I can see. like. Which house. are you right directly in back of Mr. Sutton's property? MR. MCNULTY-We're on the south end of their property. MR. TURNER-About how far away? MR. MCNULTY-Our house is probably not directly behind it. They're not directly opposite our house. However. on the north side of our lot. we have an extra vacant lot. and that is behind the south corner of their property. So. if you look out our back door. and look that way. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. I don't like you to think that we just give anything everybody asks. and if they have money. go through the process and get it. because there's a lot of people in Queensbury that would tell you that's not so. We tell a lot of people no. We try to look at the all the circumstances and be very fair. and there are many times that we say no. and people don't get what they want. but I've got to ask you. I mean. you know Route 9 is Highway Commercial. It's going to be built. the whole length. I don't know how it can be stopped. The Town zoned it that. Actually. we have to look at an obligation of the zoning. and whether the applicant is asking for minimum relief or maximum. I mean. a lot of things come into the picture. I myself look at how well he takes care of his property. If he takes good care of it. then I. myself. lean towards maybe letting them do something else. If they make a mess out of it. then I'm inclined to look unfavorably on it. but we do everyone with a whole lot of thought. and we go and we spend our time and we look the whole process over. So. for you to sit there and say that we just do it. just give everything. I'd like you to believe that's not so. MR. MCNULTY-What I'm conveying is the impression of the people 4 that. you always hear about the exceptions. Now. in this case. we're not objecting to the fact that this is a commercial zone there. As you say. it's there. and we knew that it was out there when we bought our property~ yes. but as it begins to creep back more and more. and it opens up more and more. then it is exposing our property. and it is going beyond what the zoning originally said. Our property. the zoning came to a certain point, and there was another strip of land that was classified as residential. There was a buffer area. and then there was our property. and that was considered when we bought. and now we're getting things that are chewing into that buffer. MRS. EGGLESTON-Actually. you'd like to see the buffer zone not violated "? MR. MCNULTY-I would like to see the buffer zone not violated. and I would like t.o see extra exceptions for things that were not intended in the original zoning to not be allowed. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. I think I understand you. MR. PHILO-I would like to have you show me on the map where your house is. please. Here's the garage right here. the existing storage shed. MR. MCNULTY-Okay. Where's Route 9? MR. PHILO-Right here. MR. MCNULTY-The end of their. this is the end of their parking lot here. We're in here. MR. CARVIN-Are there trees? These are all trees? MR. MCNULTY-There are trees. most of them are deciduous. MRS. EGGLESTON-There's a house right to the right with a dog in the back yard. with a fence around it. Are you close to that. in the houses up in the back? MR. MCNULTY-Our house. we have a vacant lot next to it. that side yard. MR. PHILO-So. you're over in here some place? MR. MCNULTY-Our house is about in here. and our second lot that's like a side yard to the house is in here. MR. PHILO-Okay. How close to this property line are you? Are you on the other side of the road? MR. MCNULTY-No. We're on this side of Twicwood Lane. Twicwood Lane comes in here. So. this is the back of our backyard. here. MR. PHILO-How many feet are you from your property line back where your house is. roughly? MR. MCNULTY-Probably 50. 75 feet. MR. PHILO-Seventy-five feet from his line to there. and he's got this buffer zone here. right? That's the buffer zone. MR. MCNULTY-What I'm saying is when we sit here. and we look this way. we can see the parking lot. He's got. okay. now I'm getting oriented. We sit about like this. MR. PHILO-You're over in here. then? MR. MCNULTY-Yes. and proportionately. our house is going to be up in here. if you look at that scale. 5 ------~--~------~,._~~~~--------~._-------~ MR. TURNER-So, how far are you away from here? MR. PHILO-From the line, 75 feet he said. MR. MCNULTY-Probably, yes, 50 to 75 feet, back of the house. MR. PHILO-Okay. MR. TURNER-Are you past this wooded area, over here, or are you behind this wooded area? I thought you said you were behind it, so you were looking down through the woods? MR. MCNULTY-Right. We've got two lots. MR. TURNER-This is the wooded lot. right? MR. MCNULTY-Well. both lots that we've got have got some trees on them. they're somewhat clear. but they're not extreme 1 Y' heavily wooded. MR. PHILO-Is that about where his house is right there. Steve? MR. SUTTON-Across from Walton. you mean? MR. MCNULTY-No. We're roughly across from Peyton's. You've got Walton's and you've got Piesics. You've got our empty lot. and then the house. MR. SUTTON-There's empty lots on this side of the street. or on your side of the street? MR. MCNULTY-No. Both lots are on the west side of Twicwood Lane. MR. PHILO-Bordering this property. MR. SUTTON-Well. there's a street. Twicwood Lane comes between this property and there's other lots on this side. MR. PHILO-So. how wide is this street? MR. SUTTON-Fifty feet. MR. PHILO-Fifty feet. and how far is that street from his property line, from your property line? MR. SUTTON-Those are pretty deep lots in there. MR. MCNULTY-The lots are 150 feet deep, and you've got. MR. SUTTON-There's 150 feet, and then his setback on his property line on the other side of the street. MR. MCNULTY-I'm not on the other side of the street. MR. SUTTON-You're not? I'm sorry, MR. MCNULTY-But proportionately. with the scale of this thing. the street is out here somewhere. MR. PHILO-And you're on this side? MR. MCNULTY-And we're on this side. MR. PHILO-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-Mr. McNulty. does your property border Mr. Sutton's? MR. MCNULTY-Yes. 6 MR. TURNER-Mr. McNulty, kind of describe where your house is located. MR. MCNULTY-We have a house, and we have a vacant lot, and then there's Piesics, then there's Walton's. The north line of our vacant lot is just about in line with your property line there. I walked over our corner stake over the weekend. You're line is right up close, roughly directly between Piesics and us? MR. SUTTON-Yes. MR. MCNULTY-I may have slanted a little bit when I walked, but it's roughly in line. So, we're sitting in here. MR. PHILO-So, in other words, your house is here? MR. MCNULTY-Right, proportionately, it's here. When we come down through here now, we can see the remains of that greenhouse. MR. PHILO-Mr. Sutton, how far is this from your property that wooded area I was looking at, how deep is it? line to used to 9. MR. SUTTON-Well, this is all woods, all the way to where it be, this goes behind all those shops that are above Route MR. PHILO-How many feet of woods there, would you say? MR. SUTTON-That's 28 feet from the property line. Could I make a couple of points in response? First of all, we have never gotten a variance before. We did not need a variance for the furniture store. That was highway commercial. We had to go through site plan review. There was no variance necessary. We've never asked for a variance to build any of our bUildings. The barn that was there was built when my father was still involved, we're talking eight years ago, and we built that according to the zoning at that time, which was a 25 feet setback. We're 28 feet from our line. Since that time, we have the buffer regulations in there, I be I ieve, which, in my mind, makes it hard for me. now, to say, okay, I'm going to build a different barn on the other side of the parking. I mean, if I had it to do over again, I would move that barn to the other side of the employees parking. I don't think it would effect you, as far as sight, because it would be the same thing, and then I could build all along there and I wouldn't have to be here right now, but the barn is where it is, and when I built it, I didn't ask for a variance to put that barn there. That was totally legal. So. I bought that property thinking I could develop when my dad did, within those regulations. At the time, then, we proceeded to do that. So, just to rebut that, we haven't been gi ven more and more and more. We've done everything wi thin the regulations, and I think we've tried to be a good neighbor. I've talked, and I'm sorry I didn't talk to you before thi s, but I talked to Joanne Walton who is, in my mind, the only one who is wi thin real eye shot of the barn i tse If. I walked her out on Sunday and said. this is what we want, and she said, I've got no problem with that. I hardly ever look out the back anyway. The land we own, up where these folks live, it's kind of fortunate, because it's a slim piece of land that goes all the way out. It adds to our site plan for square footage and everything, but I don't see it ever being used. So, basically, that's a wooded area that's kind of there, and it's going to stay a green space, and a wood space. Unfortunately, when all the leaves are down, for a few months a year, until the snow covers things, yes, they can see right to the back of our greenhouse, which is way down on that level of the road, which it is a commercial property, and we do the best we can to cover up our waste and whatever, and get rid of it, but I'm sure there are pumpkins and different things you can see, at one time or another, but I think anybody that lives around this realizes that we do try very hard to keep a neat place. So. as far as the neighbors right behind me, I don't see where we have a major problem with that. Another point I'd like to make is that we're 7 '- planning on pulling the existing laundry room, which is for the Bluebird Motel, which is right where that addition is going. There's a little building drawn in on the site plan, within that. That will be taken out of there. So, actually, we'll be continuing on with the building, painting it all one color, and getting rid of what I would consider an eye sore. So, those are some of the things on the other side. That's probably it. MRS. PALING-I was wondering about the size of the building. If you only made is 30 feet, then you wouldn't need this 20 foot buffer, right? You wouldn't be cutting into the buffer zone. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-No. It's the 30 foot dePth. MR. MARTIN-The existing building right now, even, sits in the buffer area. MRS. PALING-I see. You'd have to cut it this way. Okay. MR. SUTTON-The options are to build on a totally separate area of the property, and we have the operation going there, and I consider it a hardship to build the barn in another location. MR. TURNER-Access to the addition will be from the employee parking area? MR. SUTTON-Yes, right, just like it's built now. garage doors in the front. There'll be three more. like identically as it does now. There's three It should look MR. CARVIN-Just a couple of questions. What type of increased traffic would you anticipate up in there? In other words, from trucks and so forth? MR. SUTTON-It should be exactly the same. I mean, we get a delivery, and it's during the day when most people are working, whereas, we don't accept deliveries after 4:30 at night. There's always the same employees coming and going. So, the real problem is, it was hard to anticipate, when you build a furniture store onto our gift shop, what we would need, and all of a sudden, everything else we used to store in that barn got kicked out, and now we have big, large sofas and sectionals and things that need space, but as far as the deliveries, they will be basically the same, the same day of the week. Hopefully more things on the truck when they arrive, but it enables us just to, like right now, we just came from the show. We ordered all the stuff for next spring. When it hits, if we don't have room in the store, we're out of luck, but I don't real see traffic as being an issue. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So, you don't anticipate any large increase, if any? MR. SUTTON-No. MR. CARVIN-Obviously, I would assume that there's no plans to make that into a showroom of any sort at this point? MR. SUTTON-No. I wouldn't. We need it strictly for incoming and outgoing things, and things have to be checked, when you get stuff off the truck, and it's got to be perfect to go to the person's house. So, you have to have a little space to check it over, touch it up, whatever has to be done in that whole operation. There's one man that works up there by himself quietly. MR. PHILO-Mr. Sutton, can I say one thing on that, then? That line is on an angle, right? MR. SUTTON-Right. 8 '- MR. PHILO-So, it's property line now. feet, won't it? 30 foot at the end of that building to the If that angle goes across, it'll be about 34 MR. SUTTON-I did it with a ruler quickly, and I didn't have a real accurate, to break it down. It's got to be pretty close. MR. TURNER-It's close to the same. MR. SUTTON-Yes. I don't think it changes a lot. MR. TURNER-In fact, it's a hair less. MR. CARVIN-I just have one question for Mr. McNulty. Have you talked to any of the other neighbors? Have you heard of any negative comments? MR. MCNULTY-I haven't· had a chance to talk with any of the neighbors. So, I have no idea, positive or negative. MR. CARVIN-Okay. There's no other neighbors here this evening, are there? TOM MCDONOUGH MR. MCDONOUGH-My name's Tom McDonough, and we live on Twicwood Lane also. I guess a little further north than McNulty's, and we also have the Grey Court Motel next to Suttons, and I also have my law office also within the notice provisions of this statute, and I thought this area of discussion was going to be on the area variance and the use, but I guess we're both in the same area. Sutton's have been good neighbors. They've been good business people. They've done very nicely with the business they've done. We can see the problem they have with respect to the growth of their business, which has been part due to their effort, if they didn't put the effort into it. it wouldn't grow. They did go into the furniture business, and we agree with the concept that they ought to be able to expand the use with respect to the storage. We can see their property when the leaves come down, yes. Years have gone by, there was nothing between what we could see, where we lived on Twicwood Lane and Route 9. Due to the growth of the area, the place has developed. We can't do very much about that, and we're not only for the use variance, but to ask that they be permitted to get the area variance also. We're right abutting the property. MR. PHILO-So, you're in the shallow part of the wooded area? MR. MCDONOUGH-Well, there's no wooded area here at all. The wooded area would be, what you would consider the wooded area between their property and Twicwood Lane, that goes like that. MR. CARVIN-Mr. McDonough, neighbors regarding this? have you talked to any of the Do you have any input? other MR. MCDONOUGH-No. I have not spoken to any of the neighbors about it, but there doesn't seem to be that much controversy. MR. PHILO-But you're satisfied with it? MR. MCDONOUGH-I'm content. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Discussion? MR. PHILO-I went up and looked at it myself. As a member of the Board, I wish everybody that owned commercial property was as neat as this man. I walked the whole site, and it was one of the best one's that I've been on, as far as the Zoning Board. 9 MR. CARVIN-I can appreciate Mr. McNulty's comments and concerns. However. it is a commercial zone. It's been a commercial zone for quite a while. I think Mr. Sutton has done a real good job keeping the premises and everything in shape. It's probably more of an aggravation. I guess. to Mr. McNulty. but I really don't feel that it's enough to say no to this particular application. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 120-1992 STEVE AND DONNA SUTTON. Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption. seconded by Thomas Philo: And grant them relief from Section 179-79D of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. This will allow them to expand an existing storage structure which is preexisting and nonconforming. The practical difficul ty being that the existing storage structure was built several years ago under different zoning regulations and now the only way to expand the structure. at this point in time under the new zoning regulations. would be by variance. I believe it to be a reasonable request and a minimum request. I don't believe it would be detrimental to the neighborhood. nor would it have an adverse effect on services or facilities. Duly adopted this 18th day of November. 1992. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Paling. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Sicard. Mr. Philo. Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (8:20 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 119-1992 TYPE II HC-1A STEVE AND DONNA SUTTON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROUTE 9. 1/4 MILE SOUTH OF THE GREAT ESCAPE FOR EXPANSION OF STORAGE BARN FOR FURNITURE. STORAGE BUILDING WILL ENCROACH UPON THE REQUIRED 50 FT. BUFFER ZONE. APPLICANT SEEKING A 20 FT. RELIEF FROM REQUIREMENT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 68-1-15 LOT SIZE: 7± ACRES SECTION 179-72A. 179-79A(2) STEVE SUTTON. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT (8:20 p.m.) MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board is meeting tonight. So. anything we do would be subject to their approval. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 119-1992. Steve and Donna Sutton. Meeting Date: November 18. 1992 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing storage structure which is preexisting and nonconforming. Also. expansion will double the existing storage space from 1.500 sq. ft. to 3.000 sq. ft. Applicant will be utilizing the expansion for inventory storage (furniture). CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Applicant is seeking twenty feet (20') relief from Section 179-72A. Buffer Zones. which states that where any commercial use abuts any residential use. said commercial shall provide fifty-feet (50') as a buffer zone from the adjoining lot of the residential zone. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. Describe the practical difficulty that does not allow placement of a structure that meets the zoninq requirements. The applicant requires more storage space for the inventory of his furniture business. and is proposing to expand a preexisting nonconforming (use and area). storage structure to meet his needs. The practical difficulty is that the only place to expand the existing structure. without interfering with existing employee parking spaces. results in the further reduction of a required fifty foot (50') buffer zone to thirty feet (30'). along the fifty foot (50') length of the proposed expansion. 2. The minimum variance is necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficul ty as there is no other practical way to expand the existing storage structure without requiring a variance. 3. The 10 variance would only cause a detriment to other properties to the extent that the fifty foot buffer requirement, which is currently not in compliance by the existing structure would further intrude on the required buffer zone by twenty feet deep and fifty feet wide (20' x 50'). 4. The proposed pro j ect would have no effects on public facilities and services and the minimum relief would be necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Although the proposed project intrudes on the required buffer of fifty feet (50') which adds to the already reduced buffer space of the existing structure, the actual buffer zone is the entire rear boundary of the proposed project's parcel and is approximately eight hundred and eighty-nine feet (889') wide. This means that with the proposed expansion, a one-hundred foot (100') long swath of the buffer will be reduced to thirty feet (30') along the eight hundred and eighty-nine foot (889') rear lot line of the property." MR. TURNER-Steve, do you want to make any further comment about that? None? Mr. McNulty, would you care to make any comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHUCK MCNULTY MR. MCNULTY-I think I've made it. MR. TURNER-You've made your comment. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-If there's no questions, a motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 119-1992 STEVE AND DONNA SUTTON, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: And this would grant relief of 20 feet under Section 179-72A, buffer zones, from the rear property line, and allow the applicant to expand an existing storage building. The existing storage building has been there for a period of time, and the only way the applicant could expand it would be through variance due to a change of zoning. I don't believe this would have an adverse effect on the neighborhood, nor would it change the character of the neighborhood. It's already a well maintained, commercial piece of property, and by allowing the existing structure, it would enable the applicant to keep a larger stock of merchandise on hand. There would be no adverse effect on services or facilities, and the request is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (8:28 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 121-1992 TYPE I WR-1A HARRY RUECKER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LAKESHORE PARCEL AT CLEVERDALE SOUTHERLY OF GUNN LANE AND WESTERLY OF TOWN ROAD LEADING SOUTHERLY FROM GUNN LANE PROPOSED 3 LOT SUBDIVISION OF 3.289~ ACRE PARCEL CURRENTLY IMPROVED BY FOUR SEASONAL COTTAGES. CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ö FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM SHORELINE IS NONCONFORMING. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 12-3-18 LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES SECTION 7.012(A)(3) WALTER REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:28 p.m.) MR. TURNER-Mr. Rehm, this requires a SEQRA Review, and we're going 11 to make a motion to hand it over to the Planning Board as Lead Agency. and we will not hear the application until the declaration comes back. MOTION TO MAKE THE PLANNING BOARD THE LEAD AGENCY IN THE SEQRA REVIEW FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 121-1992 HARRY RUECKER. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Since this is a Type I action in a Critical Environmental Area. Duly adopted this 18th day of November. 1992. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Philo. Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Mrs. Paling. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Sicard. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. TURNER-Okay. It will go to the Planning Board. then it will come back here. (8:31 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 122-1992 TYPE II SFR-1A BARBARA & BOYCE D. RAWSON. SR. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SOUTH SIDE OF SWEET ROAD BETWEEN LANDS OF PAUL TIMMS AND FLOYD HILL. ABOUT HALFWAY BETWEEN ROUTE 9 AND COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ON SOUTH SIDE OF SWEET ROAD ADJACENT TO DIRT DRIVE. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 30 FT. FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 40 FT. TAX MAP NO. 64-1-5.5 LOT SIZE: 1.03 ACRES SECTION 119-10 LEON STEVES. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT (8:31 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 122-1992. Barbara & Boyce D. Rawson. Sr.. Meeting Date: November 18. 1992 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to construct a single family dwelling on a vacant parcel that is preexisting and nonconforming with the frontage on a town road being thirty feet (30') instead of the required forty feet (40'). CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Applicant is seeking ten feet (10') relief from Section 179-70A which states that every principal building shall be built upon a lot with frontage on a pUblic street and that frontage shall be forty feet (40'). REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. Are there special conditions applyinq to this property or buildinq and not applyinq qenerally to other properties or buildinqs in the neighborhood? It appears that the long narrow strip at the front of the property was deeded to the back part of the parcel as an entrance to the property from the road. and was done so without consideration of the road frontage requirement. 2. Would the strict application of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or the buildinqs? It would appear that the strict application of the Ordinance would deprive the applicant the ability to construct a principal building on the parcel in question. 3. Would strict application of the dimensional requirements result in a specified practical difficulty? Strict application of the dimensions of the town road frontage would result in the inability of the applicant to construct a principal building on said lot. 4. Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance? The purposes of the Ordinance is to provide ingress and egress to the lot to be built upon. by emergency vehicles (fire and ambulance vehicles). Proposed project's road frontage is thirty feet (30') and would appear not to be materially detrimental to the Ordinance's purposes. 5. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? It appears that the minimum variance would be necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff has no further comments on this project." MRS. EGGLESTON-Ted. I've got a question for you. How does this 12 differ from Rourke's? Is there a difference? MR. TURNER-It's a separate deeded lot of record. Hers was one lot. a flag lot. MRS. EGGLESTON-This is different in that you consider this a separately deeded? MR. TURNER-Yes. piece of property. Mr. Steves. MR. STEVES-This is different. in that I don't want you or anyone else to be mislead. This parcel of land was created. and the deed didn't change. It would show. in 1990. that was substantially not conforming with the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Queensbury. which said any division of land in the Town of Queensbury is a subdivision. What we're here tonight to do is try to create a lot that is conforming to the zoning regulations of the Town. or get the relief necessary to grant that. and also. after. if this Board approves this 40 foot. or 30 foot. from the lot. then we will go back to the Planning Board this is not exempt from any review by the Planning Board. because this is a continuation. if you will. of the nine lot subdivision that Mr. Timms has already done. MR. TURNER-Okay. I was just going to get to that. MR. PHILO-For the benefit of the rest of the Board. would you introduce yourself? MR. STEVES-My name is Leon Steves. from the firm of VanDusen and Steves. representing the applicant tonight. Mr. Rawson. MR. TURNER-Okay. So. the nine lot subdivision is going to exit this road? Has this got another driveway. because it doesn't show it on here. HR. STEVES-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well then my question's going to be. why couldn't this use the same driveway and exit as the rest of the nine lot subdivision. and avoid another cut? MR. PHILO-That's just going to be a driveway. the way I look at it. MR. TURNER-That's all it's going to be. a driveway. MR. PHILO-It's not going to go into any other properties. So. this is the first house I've ever seen with a 30 foot driveway. MR. STEVES-This is the nine lot subdivision. The parcel that you're looking at now is right here. and coming up to Sweet Road. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. PHILO-That property is all hers. everything that's blacked out there. on this new lot? MR. STEVES-That's right. That's under the deed right now. we're talking about now is this lot coming in right here. What MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Is this a road? MR. STEVES-No. it is not. That is the strip used to get into the rest of this parcel. MR. PHILO-That's a right-of-way that's already been established. a road. 13 MR. STEVES-No. It's not a road. It's a 50 foot wide driveway leading to the rest of this gentleman's property. It's not a road. MR. PHILO-Well. I mean. they could use that as a road. MR. STEVES-Yes. they could. once they bring it up to Town standards. MR. TURNER-Yes. So. is there going to be an association. or who is going to take care of it? MR. STEVES-No. This is going to be a Town road in here. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. STEVES-On that subdivision. This is not. MR. TURNER-Okay. That's just an easement? MR. STEVES-That's just a way of getting into his own property. MR. TURNER-Okay. He isn't going to retain that? MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. PHILO-Just like your property with a 30 foot driveway. MR. MARTIN-Just because it's 30 feet wide. doesn't mean all 30 feet is going to be all driveway. The actual driveway may be only 12 feet wide. or something like that. That's just an easement. or a width of land to provide the area for a driveway. MR. PHILO-So. you could make it 16 feet wide? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. PHILO-I don't understand why they've got a 30 foot driveway. MR. MARTIN-The Town requirement is 40 feet. and Leon can correct me if I'm wrong. it was to account for turning radius' and things like that. for vehicles. and trucks and fire trucks. that type of thing. MR. STEVES-Yes. Ted's right. I mean. in the present circumstances. I don't think there'd be a problem there. because as I said. this is the brother on the front. but if they sell the property. if you grant this and they sell the property. you don't know. You can't control that. MR. MARTIN-Before we wrote the comment about the emergency vehicles. Arlyne did check with the Fire Marshal and he had no trouble with that type of road width for emergency vehicle access. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say. when I went over to visit the site on a Sunday morning. a Warren County truck was coming up out of there. So. I don't think there's a problem. MR. PHILO-I think that's just like a private driveway. Am I right? MR. MARTIN-That's exactly what it would be. MR. STEVES-That's what it would be. MR. CARVIN-That's quite a hill. almost like into a basin type of an area. Is that being used for anything at this point? I mean. it just looked like there was a lot of rubbish and stuff that's just been kind of thrown in there. MR. STEVES-I haven't been back there. I really haven't. The 14 · "--- contours of the land indicate that there's a large flat area on top there. in back of the hill property. where the client wishes to construct this home. but there is a pond back there. MR. CARVIN-I looked where the house was going to be. and I just kind of thought they're going to be overlooking a big pit. MR. STEVES-Is that right? Of course there is construction going on back there. because of the subdivision. There is a quarry retention pond over on the back side. it's part of the subdivision plan. There is a retention pond back there. Maybe that's what you saw. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Do you know if they have any intentions of paving that up through there? MR. STEVES-No. not to my knowledge. MR. PHILO-It's just a driveway. MR. TURNER-They'll manicure it. MR. STEVES-Personally. I would pave it. MR. TURNER-Okay. No further questions of Mr. Steves? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JERRY WELCH MR. WELCH-I'm Jerry Welch. I live right next door to the Hills. This property is adjacent to the proposed property. On the map here. there's a. this 25 foot section down here. how close is that to the pond down there? MR. STEVES-Off hand. I would say a couple hundred feet. MR. WELCH-Okay. I wanted to walk down and see the ducks. and I didn't want to walk on their property. MR. TURNER-Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any discussion on this at all? None? Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 122-1992 BARBARA & BOYCE D. RAWSON. SR.. Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Theodore Turner: The practical difficulty is that there is no other land available for purchase. other than the 30 foot access onto Sweet Road. and it would appear that strict application of the Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the ability to construct a principal building on the parcel of land. It would appear that the 30 feet frontage would be enough to provide ingress and egress to the lot by emergency vehicles. fire and ambulance. and it does not appear that this 30 foot frontage would be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Ordinance. This does appear to be the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. and I would also move that we grant 10 feet of relief from Section 179- 70A. with regards to frontage on a public street. and there appears to be no neighborhood opposition. Duly adopted this 18th day of November. 1992. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas. Mr. Sicard. Mr. Philo. Mr. Carvin. 15 Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (8:50 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 123-1992 TYPE II SFR-1A GARY R. SEE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE I7 WINCREST DRIVE TO ADD A 2 CAR GARAGE TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE. PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL NOT MEET SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 20 FT. REQUEST IS FOR 5 FT. RELIEF. EXISTING HOUSE DOES NOT MEET NEW GUIDELINES. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 69-4-8 LOT SIZE: 21,600 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-20 0 GARY SEE, PRESENT (8:50 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 123-1992. Gary R. See. Meeting Date: November 18. 1992 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to expand an existing garage which will be subsequently used as a work space and storage area (see attached) (letter from applicant regarding use of existing garage). by constructing a twenty-two foot by twenty-two foot (22' x 22') enclosed two (2) car garage. on the left side of the front of the property. The property is preexisting and nonconforming with the dimensional requirements for the area. lot. width. and side yard setbacks. CONFORMANCE WITH THE USE / AREA REQUIREMENT: 1. Applicant is requesting five feet (5') relief from Section 179-20C which requires twenty feet for the side yard setback. Proposed side yard setback on the new construction will be fifteen feet (15'). 2. Applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-79A(1) which states that a nonconforming structure may not be enlarged or extended except in the case of a single family dwelling, if all setback provisions of the chapter are met. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow the placement of a structure which meets the zoninq requirements. Existing structure does not comply with side yard setback requirements, and expansion of said structure prohibits the new structure from complying with the side yard setback requirements. 2. Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. or is there any other oPtion available that would require no variance? As there is no other practical place to construct the garage, (driveway already exists). and comply with the setback requirements, it would appear that the minimum variance is necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. 3. Would the variance be detrimental to other properties in the district or neiqhborhood or conflict with the obiectives of any plan or policy of the Town? It would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to other properties or the neighborhood as the proposed proj ect is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. 4. What are the effects of the variance on public facilities or services? It would appear that the variance would not have an effect on the public facilities or services. 5. Is the request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? It appears that the minimum relief is necessary as the expansion of the existing nonconforming structure will cause a side yard setback requirement deficit. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff has no further comments regarding this project." MR. TURNER-How long have you owned the house? MR. SEE-Three years in February. Gary See. MR. PHILO-Gary, the way I see that plan, you want to go out five foot more beyond the existing garage, towards the neighbor's property, if I read that correctly. MR. SEE-No. Actually I want to go out two more feet, past the existing garage by two feet. MR. PHILO-Why can't you keep it the same line? 16 MR. SEE-Well. it wouldn't be quite big enough to make it a two car garage. Generally. a two car garage is 24' by 24'. and I just want enough room to get both cars in there comfortably and have a little space on the sides to get in and out of the cars. MR. PHILO-Because you're going to be right up close to the neighbor's property. , MR. TURNER-Well. he is now. MR. CARVIN-Is the front of the garage going to be any further than the front of the house right now. towards Wincrest? MR. SEE-We're planning it to be exactly the same as that side. kind of square off the house. MR. CARVIN-In the front? Okay. MR. SEE-Right. Yes. I don't think there's any setbacks in the front. I think we have close to the existing. and we have a lot in the back. neighborhood doesn't have a lot on the side. problems with the 50 feet there. on It's just that MR. TURNER-Those are small lots anyway. MR. CARVIN-How many cars are there. because there was two of them the other day when I drove by. Is it just two vehicles in the house? MR. SEE-No. I have a sports car we use only in the summer time. MR. CARVIN-All right. Will that be sitting in the existing garage. and then the other two? MR. SEE-No. That will be sitting in the driveway in the summer. for the most part. MR. TURNER-Where are you going to store it after that? MR. SEE-I store it at my business in the winter time. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So. if the proposed garage is added. then the existing garage is going to be closed off? It will not be utilized at this point? MR. SEE-As a garage. no. In fact. I think I'll have to have some kind of a wall there. a fire wall between there. MR. TURNER-You'll have to have a bearing wall there. MR. SEE-So. the door will have to come out. a bearing wall. Right. MR. TURNER-So. you're going to shut that off? MR. SEE-Right. MR. TURNER-Okay. because otherwise. you've got 1084 square feet of garage. but you're only allowed 900. MR. SEE-Right. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-Have you talked to any of your neighbors? I know it's going to effect the view of the sight of the house to your left? MR. SEE-I think I included letters from all of my neighbors. They're all 100 percent behind it. 17 MR. TURNER-Any further questions of the applicant? Okay. Mr. See. r guess I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-Letter from Bob Ruggles. "Please be advised that I wholeheartedly am in favor of your proposed garage addition to your residence as discussed and wish you well in this project.". and he's at 5 Wincrest Drive. From Bea Corinky. "I am happy to hear that the Sees are adding a garage to the front of their house. We're definitely not opposed to this improvement to their property. We reside across the street at 6 Wincrest Drive.". and from Steven Collins. 9 Wincrest Drive. "I am glad to support your new expansion program as you explained it to me. I see no problem now or in the future to my property at 9 Wincrest Drive. I am pleased to be of whatever help I can in your building program and home improvement aspirations.". and from Anna Abrahms at 8 Wincrest Drive. two car garage on 7 Wincrest Drive. "I approve addition of a two car garage on 7 Wincrest Drive. I live directly across the street from the Sees." MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further discussion? MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. the only thing I was going to say is that whole street is one car garage. and I'm wondering what it's going to do. and there's a lot of cars. as you drive up. and I'm on that street. I used to be on that street a lot. MR. TURNER-There'll probably be variances for more two car garages. MRS. EGGLESTON-What is that going to do to the character of the neighborhood? MR. TURNER-The lots are only 100 feet. It's going to be dependent on how their house is situated. what the house is. and everything else. MR. SEE-I don't know if all the garages are one car. The Ruggles. r know. have a two car garage. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. lets say the majority of them. and I think everybody's got. like. two cars parked in their front yard. MR. TURNER-But Bob's property is bigger than yours. about 150 I think he's got. He's got a larger lot. because his house is a ranch. MR. SEE-Mine may be even bigger than Bob's. to be honest with you. MR. TURNER-You think so? MR. SEE-If you go back 216 feet. the frontage. I don't think he has more than I have in the front. to be honest with you. I've got 100. and he's got. well. knowing his property. it's about the same. MR. TURNER-It could be. because that's kind of an older development. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. that was my only apprehension was. were we opening a can of worms. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I shared the some of the same sympathies with Joyce. Driving up and down that street. there appears to be an awful lot of cars being kept outside. but he's got letters from the 18 neighbors. There doesn't seem to be any neighborhood opposition. He does not appear to be making this into a three or four car garage for the storage of classic cars or what have you, like we've had recently. As long as we can get assurance that that's going to be closed off and not have more garage space than what is being proposed. MR. TURNER-You can condition the variance with the fact that the proposed garage is the proposed garage. The existing garage is gone, it becomes living area. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 123-1992 GARY R. SEE, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: And grant him five foot relief from the easterly side yard setback, to enable the applicant to construct a two car garage. I don't believe there would be an adverse effect on facilities or services. There's no neighborhood opposition and it is the minimum relief necessary to enable the applicant to construct a two car garage. There actually is no other place on the property to construct it. This variance is given with the provision that the existing garage that's attached to the house will become living area or storage area, but will no longer be utilized as a garage. This will also grant relief of 10 feet from the total requirement of 40 foot on the side yard setbacks, and there is no neighborhood opposition. Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Philo, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (9:07 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 124-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-1A WILLIAM AND DALE SMITH OWNER: ROBERT D. ROWE 313 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE WITH LESS THAN THE 75 FT. REQUIRED FROM THE WETLAND. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 123-1-34 LOT SIZE: 90,125 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-60 ROBERT ROWE, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT (9:07 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 124-1992, William and Dale Smith (Owner: Robert D. Rowe), Meeting Date: November 18, 1992 II SUMMARY OF PROJECT: The applicant is proposing to construct a fifty-six foot by twenty-eight foot (56' x 28') single family residence on a conforming lot. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: The applicant is seeking a thirty-five foot (35') relief from the required 75 foot (75') rear yard setback as stated in Section 179-60 Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations, B (1) (c) , Shoreline setbacks, which states that the minimum setback from all principal buildings shall be seventy-five feet (75'). REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Describe the practical difficul tv which does not allow placement of structure which meets the zoninq requirements. The practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements is that two-thirds (2/3) of the property is wetlands and the front area is sloped towards the road. Applicant wants to be as far from the road as possible which places the structure within the seventy-five foot (75') required setback from the wetlands. 2. Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty or is there any other option available which would require no variance? The minimum variance is necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty which the presence of the wetlands, the configuration of the slope and the placement of the septic and drain field present to the placement of the structure where no variance would be required. 3. Would the variance be detrimental 19 to the other properties in the district or the neiqhborhood or conflict with any objectives or plans of the Town? It appears that the variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood as project is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. 4. What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services? There appears to be no effect of the variance on public facilities and services. 5. Is this the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficul tv? It appears that the minimum relief is necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulties presented by wetlands setback requirements. septic requirements and the slope of the property. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff has no other comments regarding this project." MR. ROWE-Hi. My name's Robert Rowe. We'd like to amend that. we were asking for a 35 foot relief. We'd like 25. My son would like to put his house closer to the road now. So. instead of putting his house 40 feet. he's going to put his house 60. and that will leave 10 feet. Actually. the house will be 60. but it will leave 10 for a porch. MRS. EGGLESTON-So. you're seeking 25 feet of relief instead of 35 feet? MR. ROWE-Right. and actually. there's only one corner of that house that's going to be. the south side is about 105 feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. it took quite a while for the Town to act. but they finally did the subdivision thing so you could separate the lots. though. MR. CARVIN-Mr. Rowe. I know the last time you were here. when we went through this. is the plan still to have a common driveway? MR. ROWE-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So. you're not going to have any new road cuts or anything? MR. ROWE-No. and the Warren County already approved the project tonight. I saw them. I was at that meeting. MR. SICARD-Are you close to the Park. Mr. Rowe? MR. ROWE-The Adirondack Park? MR. SICARD-Yes. MR. ROWE-My whole land is in the Park. MR. SICARD-It's in the Park? MR. ROWE-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. It's in there. MR. ROWE-We have an application that the Adirondack Park won't move until we get the okay from the Town of Queensbury. MR. TURNER-Until they get the variance. Yes. MR. ROWE-As soon as this is approved. then we just. MR. SICARD-Then what you're saying is. you're subj ect to the approval of the Park? MR. ROWE-Everything has been approved by the Adirondack Park. We had to draw a plan for the septic system and everything. and they approved it. 20 MR. SICARD-They've approved it? MR. ROWE-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Contingent upon our approving it. if I understand him right. We have to do it first. Charlie. MR. ROWE-They came down and flagged it. and did their perc test and everything down there. I hired an engineer to do it. too. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. PHILO-How many feet drop is that property? You don't have any topo on here. MR. ROWE-Fourteen feet. Where the cellar floor. it's 84. and the road is 98. So. there's 14 feet. MR. PHILO-That's quite a drop going down in there. How do you plan on getting a swale in there? MR. ROWE-Well. we're going to put an eight foot cellar in there. MR. PHILO-You've still got some more to go. MR. ROWE-We've got plenty of fill up there. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I was going to ask you. How much more fill do you anticipate bringing in? MR. ROWE-I think there's enough fill in there. Once you get that cellar. MR. TURNER-Yes. move it around. MR. ROWE-We've got about 300 yards of fill right now. MR. PHILO-If you're looking at that site. you're putting on an eight foot basement. from finished elevation of existing. you're still going to have from the top of that foundation off seven foot in the hole. MR. ROWE-Six. There's a fourteen foot difference. MR. PHILO-All right. six foot. That's quite a swale running back everything from the road. MR. ROWE-That's like 65 feet. That's not a very big. There's a house on the corner. You probably don't even know there's a house there. on the corner of West Mountain Road and the Clendon Brook Road. There's a house there. you drive by. and you can see the roof. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. It sits down in. MR. ROWE-Maille's. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Maille's. There's two new houses. Ridge. they're putting double apartments down there. Smoke MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. ROWE-And they slope down more than mine is going to. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. ROWE-It's not like it's unreal to put a house down there and have a six foot slope from the road to my house. 21 MR. TURNER-Okay. Everybody knows what he wants. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICK FALKOUSKI MR. FALKOUSKI-My name's Rick Falkouski and I live at 314 West Mountain Road. and I just want to know where the house is going to sit. MR. TURNER-Right here. MRS. EGGLESTON-Where are you. in relation to this property? MR. FALKOUSKI-I'm south. MR. ROWE-He's south of me. MR. TURNER-Do you know where that fill is. right up by the road? Right there. right in there. and this is the flagged wetlands. right here. the APA. MR. FALKOUSKI-Okay. I've got no problem. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PHILO-How many feet setback is he putting that back from the road? MR. TURNER-The house? Sixty feet. I think he said. MR. THOMAS-Well. it's 50 feet now. isn't it? MR. TURNER-Fifty feet. MR. ROWE-Well. it was 70 feet. and we're going to move it 10 feet. So. it's about 62 feet from the. MR. TURNER-It was 70. You've got 60 feet on the map. Mr. Rowe. Do you want to take a look? You've got 60 there. MR. CARVIN-That's quite a drop. but he's got a lot of fill there. MR. TURNER-That was 40. MR. PHILO-Where's the fill? MR. CARVIN-Sitting right in the hole. MR. ROWE-The house is going to be 26. MR. TURNER-Yes. One inch is 50 feet? MR. ROWE-Yes. MR. PHILO-That's a 50 percent drop. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. it's no different than a lot of other elevations along there. though. MR. ROWE-I've got wetlands on three sides of my house. and I couldn't put my house where it is today. with the APA rules. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. PHILO-I'm just thinking about. whoever buys that cellar. that they're going to have a water chute there. That is eight foot difference in that elevation. because you've got two foot from the plank down to a finished grade. anyway. two foot. right? 22 0_ MR. ROWE-The cellar floor is going to be right on the 84. MR. PHILO-Eighty-four. So. you're going to have two or three blocks showing on your foundation. That's eight feet. to me. MR. ROWE-He's going to have poured concrete for the cellar. MR. TURNER-Tommy. they don't lay blocks anymore for cellars. MR. PHILO-So. you are going to bring it up above that finished. WILLIAM SMITH MR. SMITH-Yes. we are. MR. PHILO-That makes me feel better. because as Joyce said. you could do anything. The way he was telling me. I took my transent and shot it. There's eight foot difference. and it looked like the cellar was going to be eight foot down. and you've got I don't know how many thousand feet. water coming down there. coming off that hill. coming down through. I looked at it. and it's a problem. MR. SMITH-The walls inside are going to be. like. 12 feet high. MR. PHILO-As long as they bring it up above that finished elevation. he was telling me. existing. MR. SMITH-I've already discussed it with the contractor. and he's getting me a price on the basement right now. and that's what he figured. 12 feet. and fill inside. MR. TURNER-Charlie. have you got a motion? MR. SICARD-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 124-1992 WILLIAM AND DALE SMITH. Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption. seconded by Joyce Eggleston: The applicant is proposing to construct a 50 foot by 28 foot single family residence on a conforming lot. He is seeking a 25 foot relief from the required 75 foot rear yard setback as stated in Section 179-60. Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations. which states that the minimum setback for all principal buildings shall be 75 feet. There has been no objections to this application. and there appears to be no effect of the variance on public facilities and services. This is the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. The house is 60 feet from the property line now. as shown on the revised map by VanDusen and Steves of October 29th. 1992. The Short EAF shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 18th day of November. 1992. by the following vote: MR. MARTIN-I might suggest that you also cite in there the distance that the house would be from the road. so we can follow this through at building permit time. MR. ROWE-Let me look at the map you're looking at. The map you're looking at. this land here did belong to Warren County. They're going to abandon it back to me. That's why you're getting the difference. VanDusen has drawn up. Warren County already approved it. I didn't know. MR. TURNER-They're going to deed it back to you? MR. ROWE-They're going to abandon it back. MR. TURNER-Okay. 23 MR. ROWE-So, this is going to be my property boundary right there. MR. TURNER-Okay. Yes, but it's not now. So, we'll go with the measurements that show on the map, until that becomes pertinent. That'll just give you further. MRS. EGGLESTON-To cover you. MR. ROWE-No problem. MR. MARTIN-That's why I want to make sure that we get it in the resolution. So we know. MR. ROWE-There's about 22 feet more on the front of the house, Warren County's going to abandon it back to me. MR. TURNER-Okay. Then what you better do, Charlie, is address this map right here, the date of the map, VanDusen and Steves, Land Surveyors. That's the map that we're using. MR. ROWE-I knew there was something wrong with the figures there. MR. TURNER-Yes. right. I was thinking about that. It didn't come up MR. SICARD-Mr. Rowe, were you around when they surveyed this line here? What were they doing, going around boulders or trees, or what happened? MR. ROWE-That's a brook. I didn't see them when they did it. MR. MARTIN-So, then that is a 60 foot distance, then, from the property line? MR. TURNER-We are now, according to this map. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. TURNER-It'll be greater when they give him that strip of land back. AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Philo, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (9:28 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 125-1992 TYPE I WR-1A MALVERN & CAROLYN TIPPETT OWNER: MALVERN AND CAROLYN TIPPETT BEAN ROAD, KATTSKILL BAY FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 152-1- 12.1 LOT SIZE: 0.34 ACRES SECTION 179-79F MR. TURNER-This is a Type I action, so it requires a SEQRA Review. So, we're going to appoint the Planning Board as Lead Agency. When the review is over, that application will come back here, and we'll address the variance. MOTION TO APPOINT THE PLANNING BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY IN THE MATTER OF AREA VARIANCE NO. 125-1992 MALVERN & CAROLYN TIPPETT, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE 24 MR. TURNER-It'll go to them. and then it will come back here. Anything that's in a Critical Environmental Area. that's a Type I action. has to go for a SEQRA Revie\v. That's automatic. Glen Lake. Lake George. MR. CARVIN-My suggestion would be. where we have cases where we think there's going to be SEQRA Review, why can't we move those up the agenda and clear those out. instead of having these folks sit here two hours or two and a half hours. MR. MARTIN-Good point. MR. TURNER-That's a good point. MR. MARTIN-When we. at the Staff level. arrange the agenda. we can try and look for that. MR. TURNER-Well. what we can do is. if it does require SEQRA Review. we'll do it right up front. list the applicatiön number. and appoint the Planning Board as lead agency. and then list the applications that go to them, and then they can get out of here. I think you're going to have to tell them downstairs. up front. if it's a Type I action. MR. MARTIN-We have been. and we're sort of messed uP. here. with these two months. with the holiday. late in the month. What we're trying to time up is these applications come here this Wednesday. then normally they would go to the Planning Board. and then they could be heard right back in the same month. without a full 30 day loss here. but with. this month you had your meetings two days in a row. We missed the Planning Board meeting. but in a normal month. that sequence can happen. Next meeting will probably be tight. too. because I don't think you're going to want to have your meeting on December 23rd. MR. THOMAS-Some of these things. you can't read them. Is there anything you can do about it. to the applicant? Tell them they have to be typed. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-I emphasize that. MR. MARTIN-I talked to Dave about the Mallaney situation. there. with the vehicles. and he's going to write a letter. and that'll institute any enforcement action on that. He went by today. He saw the vehicles. and that'll be taken care of. The other small issue on that was the Mallaney application was. in fact. signed correctly last time that he was in. She signed the agent form, and then he signed the application as the agent. and that's what he was thinking of. The other issue is. Mr. Rossi. This was what Mr. Parisi called the Remedial Action Agreement. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's what I was talking about last night. He did the job of the Zoning Board. MR. MARTIN-And this puts the Town in an extremely poor situation. MR. PHILO-Explain it to us. MR. MARTIN-What that says is. and the way that's worded. is that during construction, none of these issues have to be addressed. After the garage is built. and then. Number Five. after construction. Number Six. after construction. and according to the building permit time. which may be extended for a period of two years. that's how long construction can proceed. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's completed. MR. MARTIN-I know it is. I was there today. but he hasn't asked for a final inspection. So. we haven't issued a CO on it. So. technically. it's under construction. 25 MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. I follow you. MRS. EGGLESTON-Go do a CO. MR. MARTIN-You can't without his request. MR. TURNER-How long do you allow him to put off the CO. after it's completed? MR. MARTIN-He can extend his bUilding permit for a period of two years. MR. TURNER-One year. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's for one year. but then he can pay and extend it another year. MRS. EGGLESTON-Wait a minute. use it. If he doesn't have a CO. he can't MR. TURNER-He can't use it without a CO. MR. MARTIN-All right. Then you go by there. and the garage door is shut with a window in the front of it that's painted black. and you can't see in it. so how do you know it's being used? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. and it's lit up at night. something in there at night. They're doing MR. TURNER-It's your position to inspect the garage. You're the Zoning Administrator. You have the enforcement power. MR. MARTIN-You need a search warrant. MR. TURNER-So get one. MR. MARTIN-Well. what I'm going to do is I've got a meeting with Paul the Monday after Thanksgiving. and I'm going to look at what I can do to rescind this. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. That would be the thing. MR. MARTIN-Because I personally question the authority of the Zoning Administrator to institute something like this. MR. TURNER-He doesn't have the authority to do this. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. I know. That's what I went to the Town Board and screamed and hollered about. MR. MARTIN-Well. I'm going to look into seeing what we can do to have this thing voided or just simply. it's meaningless. MRS. EGGLESTON-I live just below there. There is something going on in the garage at night. I couldn't tell you what it is. but something. MR. MARTIN-But right now the Town is in an extremely poor position due to this. So. the first step is to get this thing voided out. So. I'll report back to you in December. after I have that meeting with Paul. MRS. EGGLESTON-I guess you can't ask for more than that. MR. PHILO-There's one thing I'd like to say to Mr. Martin and all the Zoning Board here. This morning I got a call from the people on that two story house. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-The McGoverns. 26 MRS. EGGLESTON-From the one we did yesterday. that we denied. They called you up? MR. PHILO-No. The opposition called up. MRS. EGGLESTON-Mrs. Mooney? MR. PHILO-Mrs. Mooney called up and said she was very happy this Town was looking after the people in West Glens Falls, and this is the first time she's been treated right and she wanted to thank everyone of us. So. I thought that was very nice. She thought Mr. Martin went out of his way to go get the map and help us with the meeting. and she said she was going to put an article in the paper how the Zoning and Planning Board was going along. and they were very happy. all the people from West Glens Falls. You ought to hear them. They were really pleased. They were ecstatic that somebody was looking after them. They thought if they came to this meeting, they wouldn't be recognized. MR. TURNER-Tommy. she got a variance for a pool in her back yard. with a 10 foot setback when it was supposed to be 20 feet. So. we take every application as an independent application. unique in its own respect. MR. PHILO-She was very pleased. She told me to tell you all. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Theodore Turner. Chairman 27