Loading...
1993-02-17 ----/ QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 17TH. 1993 INDEX Area Variance No. 127-1992 Peter Sahlke 1. Area Variance No. 4-1993 Joseph W. Shay 7. Mary Carolyn Shay Area Variance No. 129-1992 Thomas Dittus 15. Use Variance No. 5-1993 Robert & Carolyn Rudolph 24. Area Variance No. 6-1993 Joseph & Lynette Biss 39. Area Variance No. 7-1993 Daniel & Joan Harris 44. Area Variance No. 8-1993 John L. Polk, Jr. 46. Area Variance No. 9-1993 Douglas Petroski 47. 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 FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 17TH, 1993 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESEN'l' THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN MARIE PALING CHRIS THOMAS ROBERT KARPELES E'RED CARVIN MEMBERS ABSENT JOYCE EGGLESTON THOMAS PHILO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-ARLYNE RUTHSCHILD STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 127-1992 TYPE I RR-5A CEA PETER SAHLKE OWNER: OLGA SAHLKE RIDGE ROAD (ROUTE 9L). NORTH OF CHAPEL OF THE ASSUMPTION APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEMOLISH EXISTING STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK IS FIFTY (50) FEET. PROPOSED FRONT YARD SETBACK IS FORTY- FIVE (45) FEET. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FIVE (5) FEET. REQUIRED FRONTAGE ON A COLLECTOR ROAD IS TWICE (2 X) THE REQUIRED LOT WIDTH (2 X 200 FT. = 400 FT.). THE PROPOSED LOT WIDTH IS THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SEVEN AND FIFTY-EIGHT HUNDREDTHS (327.58) FEET AVERAGE. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF SEVENTY-TWO AND FORTY-TWO HUNDREDTHS (72.42) FEET. REQUIRED SHORELINE SETBACK IS SEVENTY- FIVE (75) FEET. PROPOSED SETBACK IS FIFTY-FIVE (55) FEET. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWENTY (20) FEET. REQUIRED LOT AREA IS FIVE (5) ACRES. PROPOSED LOT AREA IS EIGHT-TENTHS (.8) ACRE. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FOUR AND TWO-TENTHS (4.2) ACRE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP NO. 21- 1-26. 27 LOT SIZE: 0.8 ACRES SECTION 179-15(C). 179-30C, 179- 60(B)(1)(c) JOHN RICHARDS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 127-1992, Peter Sahlke, Meeting Date: February 17, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to demolish existing structure and construct a single family home. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Required front yard setback is fifty (50) feet as per Section 179-15C. Proposed front yard setback is forty-five (45) feet. Applicant is seeking relief of five (5) feet. 2. Required frontage on a collector road is twice the required lot width (2 x 200 ft. = 400 ft.) per Section 179-30 (C) . Proposed lot width is three hundred and twenty-seven and fifty-eight hundredths (327.58) feet average. Applicant is seeking relief of seventy-two and forty-two hundredths (72.42) feet. 3. Required shoreline setback is seventy-five (75) feet as per Section 179-60 (B) (1) (c) . Proposed setback is fifty- five (55) feet. Applicant is seeking relief of twenty (20) feet. 4. Required lot area for proposed project is (5) acres as per Section 179-15C. Existing lot area is eight-tenths (.8) acre. Applicant is seeking four and two-tenths acre relief. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. The practical difficulty that limi ts placement of the proposed structure within zoning regulations is that the lot is preexisting 1 and nonconforming with a brook that bisects the property and reduces the options for placement of the structure without violating the front yard or shoreline setback requirements. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH REQUIRES NO VARIANCE? It would appear that the minimum variance would be necessary for the shoreline and front yard setbacks, for the collector road lot width requirements and for the minimum lot area. No other option for placement of the proposed structure is available because of the nonconforming configuration of the lot and the existence of the brook limiting placement of the proposed structure. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR CONFLICT WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF ANY PLAN OR POLICY OF THE TOWN? It would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to the neighborhood or conflict with the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES OR SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities or services. 5. IS THIS REQUEST THE MINIMUM RELIEF NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? It would appear that the relief requested for the setback and special lot width requirements is the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Attached to this packet is a letter from Olga Sahlke, Peter Sahlke's mother, detailing her intention to deed a strip of the northern boundary of her property (approximately 15 ft. by 160 ft.), to the southern boundary of the applicant's property. This strip of land will place the project's mound distribution system within the boundary of the project's site. In addition, a letter is attached from Mr. John Richards, Peter Sahlke' s attorney, detailing Mr. Richard's conversation with Eleanor Duffis, regarding her determination that the proposed project would appear not to have any impact on possible wetlands on the si te and would not require an Agency permit." MR. TURNER-The County, Jim, did the County approve it or deny it? MR. MARTIN-No Impact. MR. TURNER-No Impact? Because it's not in these. MR. CARVIN-I've got a County here that says No Impact. MR. TURNER-Okay. All right. MRS. PALING-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 9th day of December, 1992, the above application for an Area Variance to remove an existing residence, construction of new residence, and seeking relief from setback and area requirements, No County Impact." MR. TURNER-Maybe you better read John's letter. MRS. PALING-January 11? Okay. This goes to Arlyne Ruthschild, Assistant Planner, Town of Queensbury, Queensbury, New York, Re: The Sahlke Area Variance No. 127-1992 "Dear Arlyne: I'm writing to confirm our recent telephone conversations in which I advised you that I had been in contact with the Adirondack Park Agency regarding the impact of the proposed house reconstruction on any existing wetlands on the variance property. On December 1st and December 29th, I spoke with Eleanor Duffis at the Agency. She advised me that while it was possible that there were designated wetlands along the east line of the variance property, the reconstruction of the house as I described it to her would not appear to have any impact on the wetlands and it would not require an Agency permit. I expect to forward a jurisdictional inquiry form with the Agency shortly to confirm her opinion. Please let me know if you need any further information in connection with our appearance at the Zoning Board meeting on January 20th. Very truly yours, John H. Richards" 2 MR. TURNER-Okay. Is there a letter in there in reference to the deed? MR. RICHARDS-Yes. Right below this, one up. MRS. PALING-December 9th? MR. TURNER-Yes. HRS. PALING-Okay. This is the Planning Department, the Town of Queensbury, Re: Area Variance No. 127-1992 "Dear Sirs: I am writing to confirm that I will be deeding a strip of my property on Ridge Road, Tax Map No. 21-1-27 to my son Peter Sahlke. in addition to the parcel presently improved by a single family residence, Tax Map No. 21-1- 26. The additional strip wi II be approximate 1 y 15 feet by 160 feet and will be used to accommodate the new septic system to be installed on the adjacent parcel. Please feel free to contact me if you need any further information to confirm this conveyance. Very truly yours, Olga Sahlke" MR. TURNER-Okay. John? MR. RICHARDS-Good evening. My name's John Richards. I'm the attorney for Peter Sahlke. Peter Sahlke is si tting on my left. His mother Olga Sahlke is in the front row, and they're certainly available if you have any questions. and I think the application is self-explanatory. I believe you all have a copy of the map. Real briefly stated that what we're doing is replacing the house with an almost identical sized house, slightly larger. facing the road, which means we're pulling back the setback violation in the front, getting a little bit closer to the brook in the back, and they're basically putting a modern structure there, or at least a colonial structure, but a modern structure, and a new septic system in place of an older system that needs repair. So it is a definite improvement to the area. The one thing I should point out, since this application, all these letters were made, on Friday I did get back word from the Adirondack Park Agency. They're taking the posi tion that there are wetlands on the eastern edge of the property, although how they can tell from the maps is beyond both them and me, frankly. Also, they incorrectly stated that we needed an APA Subdivision permit. We don't because it's a gift from the mother to the son. MR. TURNER-None of this is flagged back here, now, is it? They're just taking the position that it's a wetland? It's not flagged. MR. RICHARDS-It's based on the County Wetlands map. What she said in the beginning still holds true. but what I said in the letter, even if they do slightly encroach on this property, that they are replacing an existing house with another house. It's not going to have an impact. MR. TURNER-Yes. Richards? Okay. Does anyone have any questions of Mr. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I see that you're replacing the house. Is there a garage going to go in? PETER SAHLKE MR. SAHLKE-Not at this time. No. MR. THOMAS-You're going to apply for a garage permit later? MR. SAHLKE-Possibly. That would be down the road. MR. THOMAS-That 16 by 160 foot strip, has that been deeded over to you yet? MR. SAHLKE-No. 3 MR. THOMAS-Or does it hinge on the decision of this Board? MR. RICHARDS-All these, until this Board approves it. property is Mrs. Sahlke's. All the MR. CARVIN-You indicate on the application, is this a rental property? MR. SAHLKE-Yes. It always has been. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. TURNER-Is it going to remain a rental property? MR. SAHLKE-Yes. We'd like it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. By the expansion, are you going to be able to fit more people, or how many people are living there now? MR. SAHLKE-Well, it's a small house. The house that we plan to put there is approximately the same size as what's already there, and we'd only have two bedrooms in there. So perhaps two people and one child. MR. CARVIN-Okay. It's currently a two bedroom, is it? MR. SAHLKE-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So you're not expanding the bedrooms, or anything like that? MR. SAHLKE-No. MR. TURNER-Anything else? I have a question of Staff. How come you're making him apply for a road frontage? That's a preexisting nonconforming lot? He's just tearing the house down. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Right, which means he's starting with a new lot, which means he would be starting with a vacant lot, and he would be subject to the collector road. MR. TURNER-Would you make him go for the double the lot width if he tore the house down and built a new house on the same footprint? He wouldn't have to come here, if he built the house on the same footprint. That's the only question I would have, relative to this application. I don't think he has to apply for that. This doesn't have to be considered, I don't think. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-This has been a conventional way. MR. TURNER-I just don't want to set a precedent. If we're going to do it with this, we've got to do it with everybody. MR. MARTIN-You're talking about the double the lot width requirement? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-We ll, just act on, we've been instructed to deal with these things as we have in the past. That's the way they've been dealt with in the past. MR. TURNER-Well, my only comment to that, Jim, don't recall anything that we've dealt with reference to anything like that, but we'll deal have any problem with it. Does anyone have any would be that I in the past in with it. I don't thoughts on that? MR. CARVIN-Well, how big is the overall lot? In other words, I guess I've got a bigger problem with the five acre, and we're granting them, looking for, what, four and a half? 4 MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Or not quite four and a half. MR. TURNER-Eight tenths of an acre. MR. CARVIN-How big is the overall lot? MR. SAHLKE-The, is about three acres. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So that's still a nonconforming. MR. MARTIN-Usually this would be grandfathered. The reason why it's not is it's in the APA, and it's in a Critical Environmental Area. MR. TURNER-Yes. Right. MR. CARVIN-As far as the subdivision, I don't have a problem with that, Ted. MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets open the public hearing and see if anybody wants to make any comment. I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. PALING-This is a letter that I'd like to read into the record from Peter Sahlke, the applicant "Please note that the deed registered in Warren County in 1950 states that the front property 1 ine is 348 feet. I am proposing an addi tional 15 feet to accommodate the septic system leachfield for a total of 363 feet. I am seeking a relief of 37 feet." I don't see any other letters here. MR. TURNER-Okay. That's it. discussion on the application? That's all there is. Any further Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 127-1992 PETER J. SAHLKE, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: That we grant the applicant five feet of relief from Section 179- 15C, which requires a 50 foot front yard setback. I also move that we grant 72.42 feet of relief from Section 179-30C, which requires all residential lots fronting on a collector or arterial road to have two times the required lot width in the zone. I also think we should grant relief of 45 feet from Section 179-60(B)(1)(c), and that we also grant relief of 4.2 acres from Section 179-15(C). The practical difficulty is that the lot is preexisting and nonconforming with a brook that bisects the property and reduces the option of placement of the proposed structure. This is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty. By granting this variance, it does not appear that it will be detrimental to other properties in the neighborhood. There does not appear to be any effect on public facilities or services, and this would be the minimum request, relief necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty. Duly adopted this 17th day of February, 1993, by the fOllowing vote: MR. TURNER-I just have a question, before we have a second. The issue of the wetlands hasn't been dealt with, as far as the APA 5 goes. I don't know whether they're going to flag it or where they're going to say the line is, so I don't know how we can grant the relief without knowing what's going to come about, here, and that was the relief he granted in reference to the 20 feet. MR. RICHARDS-Well, we're trying to get a letter from the APA, the wheels are grinding slowly, determining that we wouldn't need any permit, and I would think it would be sufficient for this Board, rather than having the wetlands flagged. MR. MARTIN-Well, what I might suggest you could do is grant the extra relief of 25 feet, in the event that there's a 100 foot separation distance. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's what I'm saying. MR. CARVIN-So you want to amend it to, what, 25 feet? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-No, 20 feet to 45 feet. MR. CARVIN-Forty-five feet. Okay. AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Karpeles ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Philo AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-1993 TYPE I WR-1A CEA JOSEPH W. SHAY MARY CAROLYN SHAY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE NORTHEASTERLY SHORELINE PARCEL ON ASSEMBLY POINT WITH FRONTAGE ON HARRIS BAY APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A PREEXISTING NONCONFORMING LOT. REQUIRED SHORELINE SETBACK IS SEVENTY-FIVE (75) FEET. PROPOSED SHORELINE SETBACK IS TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FIFTY (50) FEET. REQUIRED LOT WIDTH IS ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY (150) FEET. PROPOSED LOT WIDTH IS NINETY (90) FEET. AVERAGE. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF SIXTY (60) FEET. REQUIRED LOT AREA IS ONE (1) ACRE. PROPOSED LOT AREA IS FIFTY-EIGHT HUNDREDTHS (.58) OF AN ACRE. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FORTY-TWO HUNDREDTHS (.42) OF AN ACRE. REQUIREMENT IS FOR A PRINCIPLE BUILDING TO BE BUILT ON A LOT WITH FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET. PROPOSED LOT FRONTS ON AN UNLISTED TOWN ROAD. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LOT FRONTING ON A PUBLIC STREET. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX HAP NO. 6-3-26 LOT SIZE: 0.58 ACRES SECTION 179-60B(1)(c). 179-16C. 179-70 WALTER REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 4-1993, Joseph W. Shay/Mary Carolyn Shay, Meeting Date: February 17, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to demolish existing structure on a preexisting nonconforming lot and construct a single family home. CONFORMANCE WITH USE / AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Required shore line setback is seventy-five (75) feet as per Section 179-60B(1) (c). Proposed shoreline setback is twenty-five (25) feet. Applicant is seeking relief of fifty (50) feet. 2. Required lot width is one hundred and fifty (150) feet as per Section 179-16C. Proposed lot width is ninety (90) feet. Applicant is seeking relief of sixty (60) feet. 3. Minimum lot area is one (1) acre as per Section 179-16C. Proposed lot area is fifty-eight hundredths (.58) of an acre. Applicant is seeking relief of forty-two hundredths (.42) of an acre. 4. Proposed lot fronts on an unlisted town road. Applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-70 which requires every principle building to be built on a lot with frontage on a public street improved to meet the standards of the Town of 6 Queensbury. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING CODES. The practical difficulty which does not permi t placement of the proposed structure wi thin the zoning requirements is related to the fact that the parcel is preexisting and nonconforming in the width and area size and therefore limits the options for placement of the proposed residence. 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? It would appear that the requested relief is the minimum variance necessary for placement of the structure as ~R8~ß~T~tS :rn Tti\°UHsT't~ 'tltfWftfuB~~H8~8'R6t¡{Ett'fNtL!c¿T TU~TRT~~~ OBJECTIVES OF ANY PLAN OR POLICY OF THE TOWN? Although the variance would not be a detriment to other properties in the district or the neighborhood as the proposed shoreline setback is the same distance as the existing shoreline setback, the replacement of a seasonal dwelling for a year round residence is an intensification of the use of the property and will be addressed in the "Staff Comments" section of these notes. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES OR SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities or services. 5. IS THIS REQUEST THE HINIMUM RELIEF NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? It would appear that the relief requested is the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty as determined by proposed placement of the proposed structure. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: This parcel is located along the shore of Lake George, a designated Critical Environmental Area, and is a narrow lot with an existing seasonal dwelling. The main concern with the replacement of a seasonal dwelling with a year round residence is the impact on the water quality of the lake by the intensified use of the land. Staff is recommending that the project be set back as far as possible from the shoreline (perhaps twenty (20) feet more), taking the requirements for the mound distribution system into consideration. (According to the Building Department the structure can be within twenty-five (25) feet of the mound distribution system. ) " MR. TURNER-Before we go any further, we'll do something we should have done. MOTION TO ACCEPT THE NEGATIVE DEC FROM THE PLANNING BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY ON THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 17th day of February, 1993, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Karpeles ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Philo MR. TURNER-All right. Mr. Rehm. MR. REHM-Thank you, Mr. Turner. Good evening everybody. I represent Mr. and Mrs. Shay who are a couple that have a permanent home in Manlius, out near Syracuse, and who, Mr. Shay is recently retired and wishes to make the shores of Lake George his permanent home. The Shays have owned the property in question for about 15 years, and have used it only during the summer months and a little bi t in late spring and early fall. primarily because of the limitations of the building, which is an old Lake George cottage that was built on the fieldstone stone foundation, and is not insulated and is really not safe or capable for year round occupancy. There's also no year round water supply for the 7 building that currently exists. The building that currently exists is located very close to the shore of the lake, on a lot that has been in existence for many, many years at its current configuration. The lot is generally lightly wooded, except in the lakeshore portion, and slopes up from the lake. Probably the upper part of the lot is something between 2Ø and 25 feet above the lakeshore. In the comments in Mr. Shaunessy's letter, which is part of the application, he indicates, I think, that the slope is about 14 feet and 10Ø feet. The size of the parcel is about six tenths of an acre, .58 of an acre, and this is, I would venture to say probably an average size lot for the Assembly Point area, probably larger than average for most of Cleverdale and Rockhurst. What the Shays propose to do is to remove the existing building which is on the lot and construct a new and modern building pursuant to plans that have been submitted to the Town. The design of the building that they propose to construct will be in such a way that the view will be to the north up the Bay towards the Sagamore. If you look out from this property a little bit to the east, you'll see the existing Harris Bay Yacht Club, which used to be, well, which still is, the Yard Arm. In any event, there is an existing sewage disposal system for the house that currently exists, which is located about 30 feet from the lake, and which is substandard and needs to be replaced. We have submitted to the Planning Department plans and specifications prepared by Jim Hutchins, who is a professional engineer, showing you the location and the plans and specifications for the construction of the new sewage disposal system. a good distance from the lake, and I think you probably have a plot plan showing that, in your package. If you don't, I have one. MR. TURNER-Yes. I've got it right here. MR. REHM-This is one that was submitted to the Town. This is a larger copy. It might be a little easier for you. I guess I could put it up here. Can you see it better here or better over here? MR. TURNER-Put it right up here. MR. REHM-This is the location of the proposed sewage disposal system, which would be a mound system, and is designed for a three bedroom house, with the appropriate back up which is required by the various Codes. This is the approximate location of the existing system which is about 3Ø0 feet from the lake. If you look at these plot plans, you can see that there is the outline of the existing building, which is proposed to be removed, and the new building, which is located at its closest point to the lake, about the same location as the existing building, but is somewhat. it's a little more slender and it's built back away from the lake and as I said, the front of the building is configured so that the view is to the north. Now, you will find in your files a letter from the neighbor to the east who objects to the location of the building as it was presented to the Building Department because it adversely impacts on his view, and the Planning Department has talked with the architect, and I've talked with the architect and talked with the gentleman that objected and talked with Mr. and Mrs. Shay, and I am giving you. tonight, a revised plot plan which moves the building back still further. The purpose of moving the building back to its present location is to provide the same view to the fellow to the east who complained that he had prior to the time that it, so it is exactly the same, and I'll give you a copy of this. I've got a couple of copies, and I know that you haven't seen this. MR. TURNER-No. We haven't seen it. MR. REHM-I've highlighted the yellow line on here which shows the view line from that house as it currently exists and also as it will exist, and if you see right here, this is a deck. The house is way back in here, and this would be the closest point to the lake, and originally this was up in here, and that did interfere, 8 to some degree, with this fellow's view, so it's been moved back, so this is now a solid wall. This is the existing building right here. This is now a solid wall. So, it was moved back so that he would have exactly the same view as he has now. Now this is a two story house here, and the big problem with moving this back any further is that if you do, the best view, or the view, really, which is up through here, this house will have the same problem that this house had, and that is they'll be looking into this house, and they won't have the view, and I'll show you the design of the house. I have elevations. Now, this is the portion of the house that is looking up the lake, but the shoreline is like this, and the idea was to have the view from the lake. somewhat different than most houses along, because this whole thing is built so it is this way, which I think makes it a little bit more interesting, in that it breaks up the existing one house with the flat facade, after the other showing from the lakeshore. One other thing. I had Coulter & McCormack locate the houses along the shoreline, so you could see what the existing setbacks are, and they're all really close to the lake in this area. This is the one in question. This is the next one, Hollander. and I just said it's two story, and I see here that it's one story, and I apologize for that. This is a substantial house down here, but the setback has been maintained for years, really quite close to the lake along here. This now will be moved back an addi tional 10 feet, or a little bit more than 10 feet, from where this is located, so the proposal now would be a 35 foot setback from the shoreline, and the shoreline being under docks and things like that. In fact, I would leave that and ask you to make that part of your record, if you would. The exterior of the house will be done in earth tones, to somewhat blend in with the surroundings, and remember that this is a hill coming up here, so it somewhat blends in with the trees, and landscaping will be accomplished. I've also submitted to the Board a drainage report that deals with stormwater runoff, both during construction and afterwards, and this has been designed in conformance with the Lake George Park Commission Stormwater Runoff Regulations and Recommendations. and there will be no new stormwater added to the lake, by reason of any additional impervious surfaces, and I would also say to you that presently there is no stormwater management plan for this lot. Once it's done, there will be a stormwater management plan for the entire lot. One other thing, there is a garage that is located up near the road that is shown on the map, and the plan is, which is a very sizable building, the plan is to remove that building. So not only is the original house to be removed, but the garage is to be removed, and I would be happy to supply any additional information you might feel appropriate. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'd ask you one question. There's a recommendation here from Planning Staff that you move it back 60 feet. What was your comment in relation to that? MR. REHM-There's no view. MR. TURNER-Forget the view. Sixty feet they're asking. MR. REHM-Well, that just couldn't be done. I think the alternative would be to probably add on to the existing building, because then we would have a situation where we would have one house 60 feet back. You're looking at houses both up and down the lake that are much closer to the shoreline, and really the value of this lot is to, one of the great values of this lot, is to have a good view up the lake. . MR. TURNER-Yes, but one of the great concerns of the Town was to move the units back so that they would have proper shoreline setback and get away from the lakeshore. MR. REHM-Well, Mr. Turner, I don't want to argue with you. MR. TURNER-No, no. We're not arguing. We're just discussing. 9 MR. REHM-I think that really has to do with lots that have been vacant and that they're doing new construction. I don't think the Town really contemplates that if you have an area that is developed in a certain way, that if you remove a building, then that building has to be set back to whatever the setback is, while everyone else, for eternity, will not setback. Once in a while, somebody will do this, but very rarely will that happen, and this is in conformity with the neighborhood as it exists, and this is a weighing that no longer, as I'm sure you know, the standard is no longer practical difficulty. The standard is weighing the benefit to the individual to the detriment to the community. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. REHM-And I don't think that there's any discernable detriment to the community here. because this is an area that's been established, that has existed for scores of years, probably about like this, and anyone that is going to build a house in this area is probably going to seek this type of relief, because they want to be basically, have basically the same view opportunities as their neighbors, and here you have a situation where you can take a lot that has a lot of substandard aspects, particularly the stormwater runoff, and particularly the sewage, and those can be. which probably have demonstrable negative impacts on the lake, and they can be brought up to date. No one in the neighborhood is complaining about the design of the building, or even the location, with the exception of this one gentleman whose complaint has been deal t with. The setback now would be about 35 feet, which is probably greater than the average setback in this area, but I think, otherwise, it's a situation of coming back to the Board with some kind of a, I wouldn't think, well, some kind of a plan that would require addition to the existing building, with a 14 foot setback, which I'm sure the Town doesn't want, and attempting to renovate a building that probably shouldn't be renovated, but if these people, I'm sure would not build this building if it was, setback 60 feet, so their view would be the house next door. MR. CARVIN-How much higher would they be. if they moved back 60 feet? Do you have any idea? MR. REHM-Well, it's about 14 feet and 100 feet, so maybe 7 feet, maybe 8 feet, something like that. MR. CARVIN-A single story, be close? MR. REHM-We do have some contours, and if we went back 60 feet, these are probably two foot contours, yes. If we went back 60 feet, we could be, from where it is, maybe 8 feet. MR. CARVIN-With the foundation. right? Okay. MR. REHM-It depends on how much you could excavate. MR. CARVIN-You indicated on your application there that the foundation and the fireplace have shifted. Do you know, is there a reason? Is it just age, or is there ground movement? MR. REHM-No. I don't think there's any ground movement. I think it's age. It's just fieldstone foundation. It's probably 100 years old. MR. CARVIN-Okay, because I'm noting here that they say that the water table is roughly around, what, 18 inches? MR. REHM-That's up at the upper portion of the property. As you see on the engineering plans, the location of the test hole, and yet the percolation is pretty good. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any comment? 10 MR. REHM-I think this is an opportunity to take a piece of land that really is substandard and really sUbstantially improve it, so that it is a credit to the community, and it's also a substantial environmental improvement, and I think the Planning Board recognized that, when they neg'd it. MR. TURNER-Okay. If there's no further questions of Mr. Rehm, I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. PALING-I have a letter, here, from Edward Doyle, Hyde Park, New York, to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, reference Joseph and Mary Carolyn Shay application for a Variance No. 4-1993, WR-1A, I, "Edward B. Doyle, object to the proposed setback for the following reasons: 1. The proposed setback is 25 feet from the greatest distance of the irregular shoreline. The south corner of the proposed building to the shoreline is 17 feet. 2. The proposed building will be wi thin 20 feet of my property. The existing structure is approximately 37 feet from my property line. With the movement closer to my property line, this will reduce my view of the lake. This will have a serious effect on my property value. Three, in the Clark, Shaunessy Association narrative description of the proposed design of the new site and residence, it refers to a deck that will be attached to the lake side of the building. There are no dimensions included. I assume this will not be at ground level, but will be off the main living area. This deck will interfere with our northward view and will put this proposed extension closer than 25 feet to the shoreline. This will have a negative effect on my property value. Clarence B. Doyle" MR. TURNER-That's it. application? Okay. Any further discussion on the MR. CARVIN-Well, I don't know, Ted, I just have a hard problem with this being that close to the lake again. MR. TURNER-Yes. I can understand their position, wanting to put a nice house on the lot, but I think they have to realize that the lot is just a little over half an acre. It's a narrow lot. MR. CARVIN-Right now that house is the closest to the lake, if you look at that survey map, or whatever. MR. TURNER-Yes, and I think anybody that buys a piece of property up there has to realize that there are going to be some constraints, if they buy a lot, a small lot, and I think somewhere along the line they have to take into consider the size of the house that really fits the lot. MR. CARVIN-Well, we're going from a summer use to a full time. HR. TURNER-Summer to full time. That's my problem with it, the size of the house. the size of the house for the size of the lot. MR. REHM-I have a house on a lot that's about this size, it's wider, but it's about this size. and I find that, actually it's a little bit smaller, but it's something between five tenths and six tenths of an acre, and as I said to the Planning Board earlier, that's a sizeable lot. That's certainly an adequate sized piece of land to build a single family residence on, and if you look at it in terms of the one acre minimum lot size, it seems small, but if you go out and you stand on a lot that's six tenths of an acre, or you look at the hundreds and hundreds, maybe thousands of lots in 11 the Town of Queensbury that are like that, it really doesn't. the size of the land doesn't constitute a problem. This is not crowding or anything like this. Actually, this building's not as wide as the building that's on there, but the problem is that that one acre standard is so difficult for people that have these preexisting lots that were purchased, I agree with you, that were purchased before the one acre minimum lot size. Now if this was any place else in the Town of Queensbury, other than in the Adirondack Park this would be a prior nonconforming lot and nothing would be required. What we've done is we've said, okay, this is in the Adirondack Park, but here is what we're going to do to improve this lot. We're going to put a new house on it, but here's what we're going to do to improve this lot from the status quo. So, in the long run, it seems to me that the Town, and certainly the lake, has benefitted. The house is larger, but the sewer system is now 200 feet from the lake rather than 30 feet from the lake, and instead of the stormwater runoff going into the lake, it's being managed properly, according to regulations, and it's being disposed of in a subsurface manner. So, really from the point of view of the guy that owns the lot, he thinks he's doing the neighborhood and the Town and the environment a great service. He really does. He thinks that, you know, he's will ing to improve thi s lot and spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars, and he's doing it in a way that bene fits hi s community, bene fits hi s ne ighborhood, and benefits the ecology, and what's wrong with that? I know it doesn't meet the regulations, but if you do that balancing act that you're supposed to. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but why can't he still move it back a few more feet from where it is? MR. REHM-Well, he voluntarily moved it back. The deck is back the 35 feet. The house is back to about, well, it now figures 40 feet right now. The application you see, at the time that the application was made, at the time the comments were made, the deck was back 25 feet. Between then and now, we've moved it, because we wanted to be a good neighbor with Mr. Doyle and not interfere with his view, without bargaining with the Board or anything like that, we've moved it back in order to improve his view. So the deck is now 35 feet, and as I scale it, it's a little bit more than 35 feet, and the house is now back 40 feet, which if you compare this to the drawing that I gave you, at that point, that house on the drawing showing the shoreline is about 14 feet or 15 feet back from the lake. Now we're moving back from 14 or 15 back to the deck 35, the house about 40. That's a significant voluntary change, and it's a lot better than putting an addition, which we can do, on this existing house and leaving it 14 feet from the deck. I mean, really, honestly, I think it's a much better plan than the alternative, and if you do the balancing, the benefit to the land owner, as opposed to the detriment to the community, I think it balances in favor of the land owner. Again, I understand the difficulty that you have there. MR. TURNER-Why couldn't you go back farther than 35 feet? What's the reason you can't go back any farther, other than just that change in elevation? MR. REHM-Because that house is in the way. The house to the north is then in the way. That's the only reason. Joe Shay would set it back 75 feet, if that house wasn't in the way, but he loses the benefit of his view if he does that, and I have to sympathize with him. The view is an important, and still I think he's tried to do this so that there really is a substantial improvement on that lot. MR. TURNER-That's fine, but lets get back to the, the main living area of the house is the upper deck. Is that correct? MR. REHM-The deck level which is just above the walk in cellar. MR. TURNER-That's the main living area. So that puts him probably 12 10 feet above the elevation in the front. MR. REHM-Whatever that deck, I don't know if it's 10 feet. probably seven or eight. It's MR. TURNER-Well, we'll say eight anyway. MR. REHM-I've talked to, believe me. I've talked to this guy and I said, look, the Zoning Board of Appeals is going to want to know why this is situated here, and both Shay and the architect have told me that if they move it back any further, then what they see is, deCidf}Ò is ftheir: main view, becaQS.e ,they',ve confiqured this nouse ln ~lnd 0 an lnterestlng way. Tnelr Maln Vlew l~ gOlng to be the side of their, and not over it, but the side of this house to the north. MR. TURNER-Did they look at any other house plan that would fit this lot? MR. REHM-They looked at a lot of house plans, and I think, that's why I attached the architect's discussion of this whole thing to the thing. He thought two things. He thought configuring the house the way he's configured it, it gives it a different and more interesting view from the lake, but it also benefits the main view from the house, which is in the northerly direction. MR. TURNER-Any thoughts, Fred? MR. CARVIN-I still don't think he's met the criteria for practical difficulty. I mean, within the Zoning Code. I mean the view, as far as I'm concerned, is, we'd all like to have a gorgeous view, but what happens is everybody keeps going closer to the lake because the guy next door's got his house out there. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. REHM-The very worst thing a lawyer can do. with a Board like this, is start arguing the law. I mean, that gets you in trouble, but the standard is no longer practical difficulty. Practical difficulty is no more. It is, it's a balancing of the benefit to the indi vidual, the land owner, against the detriment to the community. So, I think the procedure is, and I'm not trying to be smart about this, I think the proceduJ:'e is to give you as much information as we're required to and we can to support this, and then the burden switches to the Town. MR. TURNER-Yes, but I think the other side of the coin is, too, is the requested area variance, is that substantial. MR. REHM-Yes, it is substantial. There's no question. MR. TURNER-Okay. Well, that's part of the new criteria. MR. REHM-It is substantial, yes. MR. TURNER-That is part of the new criteria. MR. REHM-And that's, it says, actually, in making that balance, is it substantial, is it the minimum that could be used to alleviate whatever difficulty there is, and now I'm using difficulties myself. I don't know how else a house can be built on this lot that makes sense. MR. TURNER-What I'm saying to you is, you've brought us one plan, this is it. Here's the elevation of the house. This is it. You haven't shown us anything else that could fit on the lot, maybe a little farther back, something a little smaller, not necessarily that size. Granted, the concerns of the sewage, great, that's going to be taken care of. 13 MR. REHM-I don't know what else I can do, because whatever house you put on this lot is going to have the same problem, unless you build it four stories high, which you can't do, and they don't want to do. What I have said is the al ternati ve is to add on to the existing house, which, as you know, is a possibility, but I think that that's a poor alternative, but that is an alternative. This is a three bedroom house. This is not a huge house or anything like that, and we've got a retired couple that's got a couple of kids and probably a couple of grandkids and they're going to spend some time there during the summer, during school vacations, no doubt about it, but what alternative, I mean, what alternative is there? To leave it the way it is. MR. TURNER-I think that's like Fred said. I think the view shouldn't be considered in the factor of determining how this house fits on the lot. MR. REHM-Well, when you buy a piece of property on the lake, the view is everything. MR. TURNER-I know. I appreciate your comments, but I'm still saying that's substantial. You admitted it yourself it was a substantial variance. Anyone else? Okay. Motion's in order. I feel there could be more done with it. MR. CARVIN-I'd like to see another plan, moved back up. It doesn't necessarily have to be 60 feet. MR. TURNER-Yes. Mr. Rehm, maybe it would be better if we tabled this and maybe you'd like to bring us back something different. Would you consider that? MR. REHM-I'll consider anything, but we're back 40 feet. If it doesn't have to be 60 feet, 50 feet, 10 feet isn't going to make a big difference. It just isn't going to make a big difference. I understand your concerns. I don't think that there's an alternative other than for me to advise my client to go through the charade of adding on to the existing building, which offends me, and I think is a, but is approvable, and I think is a much less desirable alternative than this. and to do that, we're going to have to look at what approvals are required, but we're going to have to do that. I mean, I have twisted arms with this, as far as my clients are concerned, as much as possible and they have convinced me that they can't build further back on that property and maintain their view, which is extremely important to them, as it is to anybody else that's on the lake, then the only other alternative that I can see, if they can't do that, is to add on to the existing building, and that, from my point of view, and I'm not trying to make it difficult for you, but I think that's a terrible alternative. MR. TURNER-I would agree, but I think if you would come back, if you had something to offer us, you know, different, maybe. than this, that's what I'm saying to you. Would you consider tabling it, talk to your client, and bring it back? MR. REHM-See, what I could have done is I could have gone with the original plan and then said, okay, lets see if you can move it back a little bit, which we'd already decided to do, but I didn't think that was the way to do it. If we come back with another plan, I think it's going to probably be a new application anyway. I honestly think that we have made the proper showing for the variance, and I hate to put you to the test, but I guess I would ask you to vote on it. MR. TURNER-Okay. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-1993 JOSEPH W. SHAY MARY CAROLYN SHAY, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: 14 The reasons being under the new changes in the requested area variance is substantial. alternatives as to a buildout on this lot. an adverse effect on the neighborhood. I could be alleviated by a different plan. variance rules the There are other I think it would have think the di f f icul ty Duly adopted this 17th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Paling ABSTAINED: Mr. Karpeles ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Philo MR. TURNER-Two to two, no action. It's denied. MR. REHM-Could I just ask one question, which could be answered or not. The motion said that there are other alternatives for this lot. Could the Board articulate those alternatives? MR. TURNER-Bring us back a different plan. MR. REHM-No. That's, well, is that the only alternative? MR. TURNER-That's one alternative. move it back farther. The other alternative is to MR. CARVIN-You could probably move it back, closer to the zoning. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. REHM-So the only alternative, other alternative, would be to meet the setback? MR. CARVIN-Well, you're asking for maximum relief. minimum relief. That's mY feeling. This is not MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. REHM-Well, thank you for going through all of that tonight. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rehm. AREA VARIANCE NO. 129-1992 TYPE I WR-1A CEA THOMAS DITTUS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A PREEXISTING NONCONFORMING LOT. REQUIRED SHORELINE SETBACK IS SEVENTY-FIVE (75) FEET. PROPOSED SHORELINE SETBACK FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS THIRTY-FIVE FEET AND SIX INCHES (35 FT. 6 IN. ) . APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF THIRTY-NINE FEET AND SIX INCHES (39 FT. 6 IN.). REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK IS THE SUM OF FIFTY (50) FEET WITH A MINIMUM OF TWENTY (20) FEET ON ONE SIDE. PROPOSED SIDE YARD SETBACK IS A TOTAL OF TWENTY-SIX (26) FEET WITH TWENTY-TWO (22) FEET ON THE NORTH SIDE YARD. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) FEET FROM THE REQUIRED SUM. REQUIRED LOT WIDTH IS ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY (150) FEET. PROPOSED LOT WIDTH IS SIXTY (60) FEET. APPLICANT IS SEEKING NINETY (90) FEET RELIEF. MINIMUM LOT AREA IS ONE (1) ACRE. PROPOSED LOT AREA IS APPROXIMATELY TWENTY-EIGHT HUNDREDTHS (.28) OF AN ACRE. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF SEVENTY-TWO HUNDREDTHS (.72) ACRE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP NO. 13-3-26 LOT SIZE: 12.000 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-16c, 179-60B(1)(c) EDWARD CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 15 Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 129-1992, Thomas Dittus, Meeting Date: February 17, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to demolish three (3) existing structures (residence, shed, and unattached garage) on a preexisting nonconforming lot and constructing a single family home which includes an attached garage, deck on east side of proposed residence and walkway along north side of house and garage. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Minimum lot area is one (1) acre as per Section 179-16C. Existing lot area is approximately twenty-eight hundredth (.28) acre. Applicant is seeking relief of seventy-two hundredths (.72) acre. 2. Required lot width is one hundred and fifty (150) feet as per Section 179-16C. Existing lot width is sixty (60) feet. Appl icant is seeking re 1 ie f of ninety ( 90) feet. 3. Required shoreline setback is seventy-five (75) feet as per Section 179-60(B) (3) (c). Proposed shoreline setback is thirty-five feet and six inches (35 ft. 6 in.). Applicant is seeking relief of thirty-nine feet and six inches (39 ft. 6 in.). 4. Required side yard setback is the sum of fifty (50) feet with a minimum of twenty (20) feet on one side as per Section 179-16C. Proposed side yard setback is a total of twenty-six (26) feet with twenty-two (22) feet on the north side yard. Applicant is seeking relief of twenty-four (24) feet from the required sum. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS? The practical difficulty which does not allow placement of the proposed structure within the zoning requirements is that the lot is preexisting and nonconforming and only sixty (60) feet wide. Strict compliance with setback regulations would eliminate the possibility of constructing a building anywhere on the site wi thin the Zoning Regulations. 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? It would appear that the minimum variance is necessary as the configuration of the lot limits the placement of the proposed structure and compliance to the setback requirements. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD OR CONFLICT WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF ANY PLAN OR POLICY OF THE TOWN? It would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the neighborhood as many of the properties do not meet the zoning requirements and the proposed proj ect would be similar in character with the neighborhood it is proposed for. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not have an effect on public facilities and services. 5. IS THIS REQUEST THE MINIMUH RELIEF NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? Because of the narrowness of the lot and the limitation this factor imposes on the placement of the proposed structure, it would appear that the relief requested is the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: The main issue to be addressed regarding the proposed project is the replacement of a small seasonal camp with a year round residence of more than three (3) times the size (existing structure is approximately one thousand on hundred and ninety-five (1,195) square feet and the proposed structure is three thousand six hundred and seventy-five (3,675) square feet). This project is located on Lake George and therefore wi thin a designated Critical Environmental Area. Converting a seasonal to a year-round residence creates added pressures on water quali ty of the Lake because of added residential water uses. According to the findings reported in the Town of Queensbury Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the quality of the Lake's renowned pure waters is deteriorating at an alarming rate", which would be attributed, in part to development pressures, particularly at the lake shore." MR. TURNER-No County Impact? MR. MARTIN-They approved at the January 20th meeting. MR. TURNER-They approved it? 16 MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. PALING-The County approved it at the January 20th, 1993 meeting. MR. TURNER-Okay. The first thing we've got to do is accept the. MOTION TO ACCEPT THE NEGATIVE DEC SEQRA REVIEW ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY FROM THE PLANNING BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marie Paling: Duly adopted this 17th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Karpeles ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Philo MR. TURNER-All right. Mr. Carr. MR. CARR-I'm Edward Carr. I'm representing Mr. and Mrs. Dittus. This is Mr. Dittus sitting by my side. First off, dealing with the nonconforming lot size, of Section 13-3, that this parcel is located in, presently there are 32 lots in there. Twenty-three of those lots are 64 or less, seven lots are 61 to 90 feet, and two lots are 91 to 120 feet. These parcels all date back to, I believe it was 1877, Ripley Subdivision, and we're more or less limited by something that was done better than 100 years ago. We have looked at three different scenarios, as far as the size of the house. We presented this size because it seemed to be a compromise on the needs of the Dittus family, and what we could do with the lots. As you're aware. there's an existing septic system that was put in in 1986 to comply with the Town of Queensbury for a three bedroom house. We took the area that the Dittus' wish to have on their first floor and worked them in. They also wish to have an attached garage, because of weather such as we're having right now. We laid them out and we had to fit the house on the parcel in a way that it would not encroach on that septic system. Presently, the septic system is located on the Cleverdale Road boundary line. It couldn't be moved back any further and still be on the parcel. So the length of the house would be determined by that. We came up with three different widths for the house, one 28 feet width, one 30 feet wide, and one 32 feet wide. If we could have worked it out better with the room sizes, they would have liked to have stayed with a 28 foot width and had something a little bit more conforming. The problem was because of the long narrow lot and the long narrow house, you ended up with something that was like a railroad car, with a corridor down through the middle. We wanted access through a mud room from the garage, so it's pretty much design limitations that have gotten us where we are right now. Because of the close proximity to the southerly boundary, I just did, passed out a comparison just showing the house and the house size to the south, and I believe Mr. Pritz is here this evening to. their only concern is leaving the cedar hedge that divides the property, and I think through trimming and what not, I think we could fit the house in, and not disturb the trees. If you note from the plot plan that I passed around just now, there is a difference between the setback from the lake, I have 50 feet, and I believe the other one has 31 feet. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Thirty-five, six. MR. CARR-Thirty-five, six. This fall the Dittus' were having some repair work done to the sea wall, and they had a permit for it, and that work was not completed, with the sand put in by the beach, 17 until January. Well, that's where it is now. So we're not asking for as much of a variance from the shoreline setback as was previously thought. In fact, from, where Coulter & McCormack have the shoreline set on their plot plan, the existing house right now is 65 feet back from that. It's an irregular shoreline. Unfortunately, we, you take the smallest measurement. One of the other items that seems to skew this application a little bit, also, is that the Dittus' will be removing three buildings and putting back one, yet the square footage of the three buildings is not figured in. It's only the square footage of the camp that's figured in, and the other buildings are just forgotten about, but that does make it a little bit less of a variance, when you figure that we're combining these three buildings into one. Presently, there's no stormwater system on the property. We've met with the Lake George Park Commission, and they came up with 4,578 gallons of retention that were needed for the lot. We're proposing 6,283 gallons, just because we wanted something for footing drains to tie into. It's easier to do it now than it is to try to redo it later. As part of the conversion, from seasonal to year round, back in, I believe it was May of 1992, Mr. Dittus had removed a furnace from the house. He deemed it as being an unsafe installation, and they weren't using it for the winter, so they removed it and had the code changed on it. Does anyone have any questions? MR. TURNER-Yes. I think we do. Do you have any, Fred? MR. CARVIN-What's the overall lot size? MR. CARR-Plus or minus 12,000 sq. ft. MR. CARVIN-No. I'm showing the length, here. Is it 201.8, or is it 204.6? MR. CARR-I believe you also have Coulter & McCormack's survey in there. Is that you're? MR. CARVIN-I don't know. This one here says 204.6. MR. TURNER-One says 201.8. MR. CARVIN-Two oh one eight. It's a minor point. Did the lot grow three feet? MR. CARR-Coulter & McCormack took it 201 to the stake, and then they have the 2.7 feet. I don't know if that was in your packet also. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARR-They did it to the pins. MR. CARVIN-So you've got a little surplus there. MR. CARR-So you've got a little surplus. See, originally, I always like to be cautious. So I'd always try to allow a little bit and play it safe, and since things have gotten down to the wire, here, we tried to make it exactly as what they have. They locate the shoreline under a dock. So it's very difficult to measure from that shoreline. MR. TURNER-Is this the best plan you've got profiled for this lot right here? HR. CARR-Well, the major problem is that we come up with the length. The Dittus' desire to have a bedroom on the first floor. They have a young child and they wanted a bedroom for him on the first floor, and by the time you get the living room, dining room, mud room, kitchen, and bathroom in there, keeping the width down a little bit, you're growing in length. We have, from the front line of the house up to the septic system, there's about an eight foot 18 - differential in height. Presently, if you've been up to the site, you know where the garage is. There's a retaining wall that goes around that. We were trying to come up with something that we could tie into that area, and drive right over that area, and drive into the garage, and that way you aren't disrupting, it's a narrow lot. Anything that we do to change anything on that lot is going to disrupt the neighbors. You don't have room to do substantial grading next to the building. It's a tough site. We wanted to try to hook into that platform that's already existing, and we also didn't want to encroach on the septic system. We had to maintain the distance from the septic system with the house. I was up there last Fridav with Mr. IHatin, band he perceivßs noproble.m with tbe garage encroach~ng a ~ttle lt on tne sept~c sys~em. They aren t concerned with that, because there's no chance of anything leaching in, or leaching up through the slab, and basically what they're trying to do. this, the previous owner of this camp rented it weekly. Mr. and Mrs. Dittus purchased the property a few years ago when they desired to live up here and had their child go to the Lake George school. MR. TURNER-When did they purchase it, Mr. Carr? MR. CARR-I have the deed right here, '89, April 3rd. MR. TURNER-The garage, the proposed garage, 28 by 30. Can you go with a 24 by 24? MR. CARR-Well, one of the problems is that Mr. Dittus has a, what is it, a Triumph? THOMAS DITTUS MR. DITTUS-It's my first car from 20 some years ago. MR. CARR-He's looking for a home for that, too. MR. DITTUS-I guess the feeling was that if all the cars aren't in the garage, then when I come to snow plow down in there, I'd have to put the car out in the road to plow. So I just thought it would be better to have everything in the garage. MR. TURNER-Well, if we went with 24 by 24, we could pick up six feet on the width and four feet on the length. Other than that, forget the car, what would that do to your proposal? That would get you back away from the lake a little bit. No matter what you do, you've got to have a variance. We understand that. MR. CARR-Right. It's going to put the house closer to the septic system now. We've got the minimum separation. MR. TURNER-You've got 10 feet from that corner to the tanks, or to your 0 Box? Where is the 0 Box, do you know where it is? MR. CARR-It's a Wisconsin Mound System. MR. TURNER-Wisconsin Mound? Okay. MR. CARR-And we also have to, if you'll notice, locate the septic tank and the pumping tank up there, and they want 10 feet from the, so we're limited. We really are, because an awful lot of thought's gone into ways that we could try to move the thing back, but you're basically destroying the septic system that was put in to meet the Code. MR. CARVIN-I'm assuming the garage is the three car garage is it? MR. TURNER-It's 840 square feet. It's almost a three car garage. MR. CARR-It's a two car garage, or 18 foot overhead door. but he's going to jockey the car into the side. just to keep it out of the 19 rain. MR. CARVIN-Is that what you're doing, currently, is kind of jockeying it in some place? MR. TURNER-Where are you storing it now? MR. DITTUS-My mother-in-Iaw's house, at the moment. MR. TURNER-My only concern is try to pick up some more distance here. MR. CARR-I mean, we could take the whole house and shift it back another five feet, but it cuts down on the separation of the septic. It gets you closer to the. MR. CARVIN-What's a standard garage, Ted? MR. TURNER-Twenty-four by twenty-four. A two car garage is 24 by 24. MR. CARVIN-I mean, if we lopped off six feet on the, that would take you away from the existing septic, right, because it looks like it's overlapping? I don't know how much the overlap is. MR. TURNER-I don't know either, but it's four foot from the line, so he's got eight foot, and eight foot's about four foot. MR. CARVIN-I was thinking, leaving the four foot on the line, but moving it in this way. In other words, leave it like this, but just lop this off, because this is where you septic is, isn't it? MR. TURNER-Yes. That's what I'm saying, leave it there. Just chop the end off. MR. CARVIN-Just chop, bring it back away from the septic. MR. TURNER-What would that do to your proposition, Mr. Carr? Take it off on this side and leave this over here? MR. CARR-It would be, what, 24 by 28, or? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. TURNER-What's the walkway going to consist of? Is that going to be impermeable. or? MR. CARR-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. DITTUS-Is that something that you think would things work, help things fly? MR. TURNER-Well, the object here is to grant minimum, not maximum. We're not going to, because you have a car that you want to fit in there, doesn't mean that, in this particular circumstance, if you had a bigger lot, you wouldn't have any problem. You could just put it on and let her go. Here you're right down to a minimum size lot. MR. CARR-It's your car, so it's your call. MR. TURNER-Is it the car or the garage? MR. DITTUS-Okay for the four feet, right? MR. TURNER-You'll have 24 by, are you comfortable with 28 on the garage? MR. CARVIN-Well, I mean, if they can't move the house back. I 20 mean, because then it becomes a balloon. We're pushing one side and popping out some place else. I think if we could get the six foot over the septic, I think that's the main concern. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. MR. CARVIN-That would reduce it down by a few square footage. This is obviously a pretty big house on a very small lot. MR. TURNER-Yes, it is. You're going to cut it down 168 square feet, the garage. So, it's 672 square foot. MR. THOMAS-I don't have any problem with that. MR. TURNER-Anything else? MR. CARVIN-We seem to be putting an awful lot of full time folks up on the lake again. Have we opened up the public hearing? MR. TURNER-No, not yet. It's a small seasonal camp, 1195 square feet, and the proposed structure is 3,675 square feet. MR. CARVIN-That's a lot of house on a very small lot. I don't know about the permeability and all that. MR. CARR-If you note, we are smaller, even without the reduction, than the next. HR. CARVIN-Okay. Your proposed driveway, is that going to be paved? Is there going to be crushed stone? MR. CARR-The stormwater plan, we assumed it would be paved, and that, we haven't really determined, paved or not paved, but the 4,578 gallons of retention was assuming a paved driveway. MR. CARVIN-So then the walkway is going to be, again? MR. CARR-That's going to be permeable. MR. CARVIN-Okay. and I don't have a calculator, here, guessing that we've got probably about 30 percent of covered, if that's a covered driveway. but I'm this as MR. TURNER-Did you do the calculations on that, guys? MR. CARR-Twenty percent. MR. CARVIN-Is it twenty, I mean, that's with the paved driveway? MR. CARR-No. That's not with the driveway. That was the bUilding. MR. CARVIN-That's just the building and the garage. Yes. MR. TURNER-Sixty-five percent, I think, is permeable area. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's 65 in waterfront. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-It also should be noted that it's been common practice, the Town considers a gravel driveway also impermeable, because over time it'll pack down and have the same effect. MR. TURNER-As impermeable? MR. MARTIN-Yes, as impermeable. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So, we would need to take that into consideration if we 21 were looking at total? MR. MARTIN-Right. It doesn't matter. gravel or paved, it's considered to be impermeable. MR. TURNER-He's got to have 65 percent permeable area. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes. I calculated they have 72 percent perm. MR. TURNER-Did you count the driveway? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes, with the driveway and the house and garage. and deck. MR. TURNER-And we took six feet off of it right now. We took six feet off the garage right now. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-With six feet off? It would increase it. MR. MARTIN-They were over the permeability, they were at 72 percent with the design as submitted, including the driveway. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. Let me open the public hearing and see what anybody has to say. I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ALBERT PRITZ MR. PRITZ-I'm Albert Pritz, 3 Woodside Drive, Scotia. I speak also for co-owner Mr. and Mrs. Gary Long of 134 Lakewood Avenue, Hawthorne Woods, Illinois. We own the year round home which is to the south, adjacent to this property. I have reviewed the plans that have been submitted, and I think Mrs. Long has also done so, and I speak for both parties in that we have no objection to the plan, as long as there is the provision for the ability to keep the cedar hedge between the properties as now exists. The plan as submitted brings their deck no closer to the water boundary than our property, our building. A further setback certainly would have no adverse effect, as far as we're concerned. It would appear that the intent of trying to reach 75 foot setbacks is impossible with most of the properties on Ripley's Point. Anybody who wants to do any rebuilding there faces the problem. I have no problems with their request for the variances that they have made. I'm satisfied. Incidentally, my year round home is just slightly smaller in square footage. Our home is 26 by 52 with a detached garage of roughly 22 by 20 foot. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you much. Anyone else wish to be heard, in favor? JOAN ROBERTSON MRS. ROBERTSON-I'm Joan Robertson in Cleverdale. I have to pieces of property there in close proximity to this piece of property. I do not object to the construction proposed, but, Ted, you're the only one that's been here a long time. You know what I have always said. I would like a stipulation that there be no living quarters in the garage, over the garage. I understand it's going to be a one story garage. but I always have to come in and say that, because quite often there are living quarters tucked in there, and I would like to see it one family. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. PALING-We have a letter here addressed to Joyce Eggleston, the 22 Zoning Board, Re: The variance application for Thomas Dittus. "Dear Mrs. Eggleston: As owners of the property on the north side yard of the lot seeking variance, there is no doubt in our minds that the new proposed single family home can only be an asset to surrounding neighbors. In these environmentally conscious days, this beautiful new structure could only enhance the existing beauty of Cleverdale. Sincerely, Lorraine and Bill Keyes" MR. TURNER-Is that the only one? MRS. PALING-That's the only one. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions of Mr. Carr? MR. CARVIN-You have no problem with the garage? Great. MR. TURNER-I guess you mentioned that you played with thoughts of a 28 foot wide house, a 30 foot wide house, and a 32 foot wide house. What floor plan, what restricted you, as far as any decision on a 28 foot wide house? MR. CARR-Because we needed a center hallway running the length of the house. MR. TURNER-Have you got a plan of the project? MR. CARR-You weren't really ending up with, these rooms don't have closets yet. MR. TURNER-Do you think the house is too big, or what? MR. CARVIN-Do I think the house is too big? Probably, for the lot, but on the other hand, the guy next door, he's got a house similar on a smaller lot. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Do you know what I'm saying? I don't, this is significantly different than that last one, in that there is no other plan. I mean, certainly we can chop out a little bit of the garage. MR. TURNER-Yes. The difference between this plan and the other plan is the limited lot size. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Do I have a concern about the usage? Yes, but I guess it's not enough to really put a hole in this, I guess. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order, then. MRS. PALING-I don't have any questions. I think since the garage has been reduced, it's fine with me. MR. THOMAS-Yes, everything's fine. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 129-1992 THOMAS DITTUS, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marie Paling: That we grant .72 acres relief from Section 179-16C. We also grant relief of 90 feet from Section 179-16C, which deals with required lot width of 150 feet. I also would like to grant relief of 39 feet 6 inches from Section 179-60(B)(3)(c), which deals with the required shoreline setback of 75 feet, and that we also grant relief of 22 feet on the north side, and grant relief from Section 179-16C of giving him 24 feet relief from the required sum of 50 feet. The practical difficulty of this particular application is the lot. That this is a preexisting and nonconforming lot with 23 only 60 feet width. This does appear to be the minimum variance necessary to eliminate this difficulty, and I would like to add that the garage can be no wider than 24 feet, and is not to be converted at any time into living area. The residence should always be one family. This variance does not appear to be detrimental to other properties in the neighborhood. There does not appear to be any effect on public facilities or services, and because of the narrowness of the lot and the limitations of the lot, this request is the minimum relief necessary to eliminate the specified practical difficulty. Duly adopted this 17th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Karpeles ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Philo NEW BUSINESS; USE VARIANCE NO. 5-1993 TYPE II SR-IA ROBERT & CAROLYN RUDOLPH OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE WEST SIDE OF RIDGE ROAD AT CHESTNUT RIDGE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING RENEWAL AND PERMANENT STATUS FOR A PREVIOUSLY GRANTED USE VARIANCE TO OPERATE A BED AND BREAKFAST SERVICE FROM THEIR HOME. APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING REMOVAL OF A STIPULATION OF THE VARIANCE REGARDING THE GUEST'S USE OF THE POOL BEING RESTRICTED TO DAYLIGHT HOURS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 54-5-11.2 LOT SIZE: 1.7+/- ACRES SECTION 179-19D MICHAEL MULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 5-1993, Robert & Carolyn Rudolph, Meeting Date: February 17,1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant was approved for a Use Variance (20-1992), for the operation of a Bed and Breakfast in their residence, which was subject to a one year review and revocation. Applicant is requesting renewal and permanent status for the Use Variance and removal of a stipulation that limits the use of the pool by guest to the daylight hours. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Permitted uses in the Single Family Residential 1 Acre zone are single family residences as per Section 179-190 and as listed in the Type II, Site Plan Review Uses as per Section and Section 179- 190(3). Applicant is requesting relief from the permitted uses. REVIEW CRITERIA: Staff's response to the review criteria section of the application was based on the narrative attached to the previous application as this section was not fully responded to by the applicant in current application. 1. IS REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? Reasonable return of the land is possible as zoned as residence was. and is currently being used as a single family dwelling. Applicant's argument is that there is evidence that previous owners rented rooms in the residence and that the structure as sited on the property is too close to the road to sell as a single family residence. 2. ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE LOT UNIQUE AND NOT DUE TO THE UNREASONABLENESS OF THE ORDINANCE? The applicant believes that the uniqueness of the lot is related to the placement of the residence close to the road and the history of the nonconforming use of the structure by previous owners. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD? Applicant contends that although this area is zoned for single family residential. that the larger neighborhood has a mix of various uses and believes that the level of intensity of use presented by a Bed and Breakfast would not adversely effect the ne ighborhood. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Although the applicant is requesting the removal of the stipulation of limiting 24 the use of the pool to daylight hours by guests as noted in the resolution for the variance 20-1992, the applicant has not addressed that issue in the current application. Included in the packet to the Board are copies of: A. The part of the record of the meeting that recorded the reading of the staff notes and the part that proceeded the closing of the public hearing. B. A copy of the resolution for variance 20-1992. C. Narrative from past variance application." MR. TURNER-You didn't send this to County. did you? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-No. MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Muller. MR. MULLER-Thank you, Mr. Turner. Members of the Board, my name is Michael Muller, and I represent Mr. and Mrs. Rudolph who are seated at the table with me this evening. We're here seeking a renewal, if you will, a permanent granting of a use variance that was granted a year ago. I believe that the presentation that I made a year ago, at that time, you had a split vote, but I sensed that the intent of the Board was to, if you will, put an expectation upon this applicant, to see if this Bed & Breakfast would really work without the concerns that the neighbors had at that time. Only two of you were members of the Board at that time. There was quite a few neighbors here, and if not in opposition, they certainly voiced concerns. I think some of the concerns were that commercialism was encroaching upon residential zones. I think another concern expressed was that this would be a real noise maker, what if there would be parties there or weddings or maybe one example is launching of a balloon during the Balloon Festival, or something like that. We had made representations to the Board, as well as to the neighbors, that this is really low intensity. The reasons for the Use Variance application that I presented a year ago still remain the same, and I hope that I don't have to. at length, go over it again, as I would have if this were our first presentation, but I'd like to just touch on some of them. It was well represented in terms of the Summary that was tended to the Staff Notes. Basically, our representation a year ago was that this was a house that historically, it's owner in modern times, Mrs. Weaver, had had boarders in the house. That was after she became a widow, that she would have kind of a school superintendent, a teacher, some business people from Kaymr, and things like that, and it was permitted according to the zone, and certainly Mrs. Weaver didn't really have any negative impact on the residential area. The residential area I think we're all concerned about is Butternut Hill, which is actually behind this piece of property. The intervening owner, that is after Mrs. Weaver, but before the Rudolphs, I represented Janice Coronett, and Janice did not continue the use. That is that she basically used it as her home. She and her husband lived there, and it was for a short time. My recollection is that she lived there for two years, but she basically moved in and I guess was generally anxious to move out, and put the house right back on the market. The house has had a history, when up for sale, of having some difficulty in getting an interested purchaser because it's a unique house, that is that it's a special house. and indeed if it were setback properly from the Ridge Road, it would probably be snapped up any time it was placed on the market, but the disability is that it's six feet from the right-of-way. So. assuming that everybody's dOing the speed limit on Ridge Road and we all know that they do, they only go by at 45 mi les per hour, I think they go a little faster, so I think it takes a special owner, a special interested party to undertake both this type of house, and that's the Rudolphs. What they did, when the house was marketed, and I had offered an affidavit, I believe, of Marian Marcy, at the time of the first application, Marian Marcy is a broker. and she had indicated that part of the marketing was to encourage people that this would make a lovely antique shop or Bed & Breakfast, something like that. Of course it never as an antique shop, and probably an antique shop would be a little bit 25 intrusive, in terms of commercialism on Ridge Road there. There are some commercial aspects of Ridge Road. If you're familiar with that area right there, Smith Equipment is there. There was a retail shop that was called Queensbury Glass for a while, and that's unoccupied, and basically it seemed like this was a great house to do what the Rudolphs did. What Mr. and Mrs. Rudolph did was they renovated the place extensively, keeping the attractive historical aspects of the house, but adding to it bathrooms where bathrooms are needed, if you're going to take on boarders and operate a Bed & Breakfast. When the finishing touches were put on it, that's when they soon realized that they could not just go for a business permit and open up a Bed & Breakfast. So that was our representation a year ago, as to hardship, and there were concerns about the self-imposition aspect of this hardship. There were concerns about the quality of proof, with respect to whether or not Mrs. Weaver really had it as a boarding house or not. I think when all things are considered, we tried to be straightforward and honest in the representation, and tried to improve on our application by suggesting to this Board a year ago that what they had proposed was really not going to negatively impact upon the neighborhood. We think after a year, these applicants have proven what they've said was so, that is that they have not had wild parties there. There hasn't been a Balloon Festival there. There has not been a parking problem. That was another concern about where were these cars going to park. This is really a very light use, if you will, of a residence as a Bed & Breakfast facility. We have a nice letter that was sent to Mr. Martin, and I'm sure you'll read into the record. I'm not generally aware, I mean, I have no first hand knowledge of how to operate a Bed & Breakfast, but that seems to really set an interesting tone, that letter, as to how Bed & Breakfast's are operated and how there are some just nicely tucked into residential areas. I guess I would say that that's also part of our presentation, in the sense that what we have here is the least intrusive of Bed & Breakfasts you could possibly ask for. I think it has a very complimentary effect to Queensbury as well, that is that I gave you a photocopy of the October 1st through 7th, 1990 issue of 1992 issue of the Chronicle. I made that part of the application. You can see that that was the feature home, talking all about the restoration, historical aspects of this thing, and you can see that these applicants really love this house and they really do a nice job for Queensbury. They really do, and set forth in that brochure, as well, which I made part of the application, I think that really does a nice job, also, for Queensbury. If there's anything these people need, in addition to the extension of this variance, is to have some compliments from the Town of Queensbury, that they do nice jobs as ambassadors for Queensbury. I'm very pleased to be able to represent them tonight and say that I think they deserve the variance extension. They really are asking for permanency on this thing. When I discussed this with Mr. Rudolph, he indicated to me, quite frankly a year ago, the Board decided that one reasonable restriction would be to limit the swimming to only the daylight hours. After he got out of the room, Bob's question to me was, how would we regulate that, and I said, I don't know. I can't imagine the Building Inspector, Mr. Hatin, being there with a lifeguard sweater on, and saying, are you staying overnight or do you live here. I understand, I think I understand what that was all about, and that was that you wanted to make sure that we weren't having wild drunken parties, late through the night, at the Bed & Breakfast place. If you'll look at what this Bed & Breakfast is all about, it's basically couples that are coming, and assuming that they have the time and energy to get out of the bedroom, maybe they'll swim at night. I don't think so. It's not going to be the wild parties that we were all concerned about, and so we're asking that if you could favor us with an extension of this variance permanently, could you dispense or dispose of that rule which we just think is an unworkable rule. That is that quite frankly. the Rudolphs are so interested in being good neighbors and having a first class Bed & Breakfast that they would never allow wild parties out there, and that's your concern, but that's our concern. That wouldn't happen. We can assure you 26 of that. Are there any questions we can answer? MR. TURNER-Any questions? MR. MULLER-I want to emphasize that if we're missing the boat on the essentials of the hardship aspect, I hope that you will take into account all of what we submitted a year ago. because nothing has changed, except it's gotten better, in terms of our ability to prove to you that we've performed as required and indicated. MR. TURNER-Well, you know, I was just reading the minutes there. MR. MULLER-You were a no. MR. TURNER-You know what I said. I was a no, and my views haven/t changed. I don't think they proved it the first time, and I don/t think it should go this time. MR. MULLER-Okay. Well, I would say to you that I would hope you could agree to it with an open mind. MR. TURNER-I have an open mind. Let me tell you why, and my initial reasons were that when we approved the one for Crislip, there was no provision in the Ordinance for a Bed & Breakfast. MR. MULLER-Right. MR. TURNER-Since that time, there was a change in the Ordinance and we made provisions for a Bed & Breakfast. Now we're going to integrate a neighborhood, single family, with a Bed & Breakfast, another one. I think that's wrong. If we hadn't provided for it, fine. That's a different story, but we did provide for it, and my other observation was that it was sold three times residential. MR. MULLER-It was sold by Mrs. Weaver to Mrs. Coronett, but Mrs. Weaver, I guess I need to know this, Mr. Turner, and that is do you believe that Mrs. Weaver had boarders in there, based on the application? MR. TURNER-Yes. That was a comment that was made here, but nobody could back it up. MR. MULLER-Yes. It was the affidavit of Marian Marcy who was the listing broker at that time, that was what she was told, and she had personal knowledge of it, and that's part of how she sold it. I think that where the legal disability falls, as far as that being grandfathered, notice I didn't say, on account of Mrs. Weaver having it, we're entitled to it. I didn't make that argument, and I think where the legal disability is. is that Mrs. Coronett did not continue with it. MR. TURNER-That's fine, but again, they bought it as residential. That was the comment I made the first time around, and they knew what they bought when they bought it, and they knew it was residential. MR. MULLER-Okay. Well, I guess Mr. and Mrs. Rudolph are here to speak for themselves on that issue. My recollection was that it was presented to them as a possible Bed & Breakfast and antique shop. I was never consul ted on it. In fact, I represented Mrs. Coronett on the matter. I was not part of the selling aspect of this thing. This is what the brokers are saying. CAROLYN RUDOLPH MRS. RUDOLPH-I called the Zoning Board, before we bought it, and the lady said that, yes, that was a problem. MR. MULLER-You know what Ordinance was changing. I that was, that was when the Zoning recall having this discussion a year 27 ago, now, that is that at the time the house was listed. MR. TURNER-You bought it in, when, '88, '89? MRS. RUDOLPH-I bought that in the summer before that. Somebody on at the Zoning Board said, and I'd never been through any of this before, and I never thought that I would have to have proof of something like that, and now I look back and think. maybe I should have, but I didn't. MR. TURNER-I think they just didn't take it upon themselves to check and see what actually could go there. MR. MULLER-Well, Mrs. Coronett was, I don't know when, how long did you deliberate on this house before you actually bought it? You looked at it and you walked away from it? MRS. RUDOLPH-Yes. MR. MULLER-At that initial point, I believe that we were in the same as the Crislip situation, which is that you can put a Bed & Breakfast in any residential area. It's not prohibited, but you ought to get a variance. That seems like a good piece of legal advice. I didn't give it, though. However, at the time of the closing, we had an entirely different Zoning Ordinance, that's for sure, and, again, I didn't give them any advice about that. I was looking out for the seller. If asked, I suppose I would have said to them, I think you probably ought to go for a variance before you close on this house. MRS. PALING-Mrs. RUdolph, I don't have the notes in front of me. Do I remember you saying that you were a realtor at one point? MRS. RUDOLPH-Yes. I was a real estate person. MR. TURNER-Does anyone else have any comment to make? Okay. Lets here what the public has to say. I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JACK CUSHING MR. CUSHING-Jack Cushing, resident of Queensbury. and I'm also going to speak from a little bit different perspective, past Chairman of the Adirondack Regional Chambers of Commerce, and Vice- President of the Queensbury Business Association. The Rudolphs appeared before the Queensbury Business Association last month and explained the whole situation, and we listened to them, and very sympathetic to their cause. The Adirondack Regional Chamber of Commerce is an organization which tries to bring in the best kind of business, the best kind of people, into this Town, which will be a situation where desirable people will come in and use the facilities and shop and spend money, and have economic development for the Town of Queensbury and the City of Glens Falls. We have in Queensbury right now, if you count the Rudolphs, we have three Bed & Breakfasts. There might be a couple in the City of Glens Falls. I know there's one down on Lower Glen Street, but there aren't very many, and the Chamber, through the course of a year, gets hundreds of calls, where can we have lodging, from people that are going through your town or your vicinity, and we're hard pressed, and we have some up country, Friends Lake Inn, or over in Luzerne, but we'd also like to put people in here, because during the Balloon Festival. or people coming up to shop at the Million Dollar Half Mile, they want to be close to this particular area, and for us to shunt them off to Vermont or to some other area that's out of our jurisdiction is onerous to us. So, we would put a strong plea in that a good, clean business, where people are trying to bring in the type of people that we want to come to this town, would certainly have a positive effect on the community. So that's the different perspective that I wanted to bring up, and the other 28 thing that I would say is that some times in our deliberations, in making Ordinances, error in making those Ordinances, and I suspect that if we looked at that Ordinance very closely and some of the things that are permitted, some of them are going to be more onerous than a Bed & Breakfast. I can't think of a thing more desirable, a business to have. I use, my wife, we use Bed & Breakfasts a lot. As a matter 0 f fact, we spent last Thursday night at the Friends Lake Inn. On this kind of business, they have their own rules and regulations, pets aren't allowed, and drinking usually isn't allowed in most of the Bed & Breakfasts that I know of are single family homes. I think this would be an addition to fg~oPai:h.~h,b~~1¿¡O~~Ÿbe so1n~' time wî~l&eai~tJi>J1, ~g c~~o~o ~1ä.ct tas vifi~ ARCC or the Queensbury Business Association, and ask that the Ordinance be amended, but in the meantime, why have this situation hurt the people that are doing something very fine for the Town. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Does anyone else wish to be heard? ROGER RUEL MR. RUEL-My name is Roger Rules. I'm speaking for myself and my wife Eileen. We are neighbors to the east, and as I stated before, I strongly support the use of this property for a Bed and Breakfast by the Rudolphs. We have not experienced any negative experience since they've been running this property in this fashion. If anyone knew these people, you'd know how they run their property. I strongly urge that they be given permanent status. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thanks. RICHARD KLINE MR. KLINE-I'm Richard Kline. I'm a fairly close neighbor of the Rudolphs, one house removed. I would have no objection to a Bed & Breakfast. The only question that I have is, if you grant an extension on the daylight hours of swimming, how long would the extension be, 11 o'clock, 12? MR. CARVIN-I'm going to kind of ask a general question, here of any of the pros, have you noticed the sWimming? I mean, has it been a problem after dark? MR. MULLER-It wasn't a summer last year, if you recall. MR. CARVIN-It wasn't much of a summer, that's for sure. MRS. RUDOLPH-Swimming at night isn't something, our guests won't swim at night. The mosquitos would probably scare them away. MR. TURNER-Probably a lot of them don't go out and swim, do they? MRS. PALING-I was going to say, the mosquitos. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think a reasonable hour, I mean, 10 o'clock. MR. TURNER-Ten o'clock. MR. CUSHING-I just have a quick question. Do any of the neighbors in the neighborhood, it's an upscale neighborhood, do any of the neighbors have swimming pools? MR. KLINE-Yes. MR. TURNER-Do we have any correspondence? MRS. PALING-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else wish to be heard? Okay. Public 29 hearing's closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. PALING-This is a letter to James Martin, Director of Community Development, regarding Variance 5-1993, "Dear Jim: This letter is in reference to an upcoming ZBA hearing on a request by Carolyn and Bob Rudolph for a permanent variance to offer a Sanfords Ridge Bed & Breakfast. As operators of the Berry Farm Bed & Breakfast on Bay Road, since July 1990, we would like to offer our comments and recommendations for consideration by you and the Zoning Board of Appeals. We enthusiastically support a permanent variance for this endeavor. During the tenure of the Rudolphs temporary variance to operate a B & B. their immediate neighborhood has been enhanced by the care and attention that was given to one of Queensbury's historically significant houses. It is certainly a far cry from the structure as it was formally. in terms of road side attractiveness, interior design, structural soundness, and safety and continued maintenance. Owners who have put this kind' of investment into their homes and by extension into their community, do not seek or solicit a clientele that will in any way jeopardize their property, their furnishings, and especially their neighborhood. As you may well know, there are three major classes of B & B' s. One. private home Bed & Breakfast, located in a private residence, with the owner living on the premises. There may be up to four guest rooms with a maximum of nine guests. Breakfast is served to guests only. Two. Bed & Breakfast Inn, which may have from five to twenty-four rooms, accepting more than nine guests. It may be either owner or management occupied and may also serve up to three meals daily to overnight guests. Three, Country Inn, is the same as a B & B Inn, but has a restaurant open to the public. For the purposes of this variance and a residential neighborhood, the B & B is a private owned Bed & Breakfast, and as such, does not carry the commercial impact on a neighborhood that the other two classifications do. The important fact to note is that the owners are in residence and in control. Guests make advanced reservations. and there are few. if any. drive by guests. The owners belong to professional organizations that promote standards of high quality and safety for guests. Guests of B & B's in Queensbury are typical professional people in the 30 to 50 age range who visit this area for shopping, recreation, dining, and special events such as the Balloon Festival, weddings and reunions, business purposes. quiet relaxation and sightseeing. Many visit again and again. It is our belief that recognizing B & B's as a viable tourism concept by permitting owners to preserve and protect historical and significant buildings, preserve and enhance tne tax base of all properties, bring in sales tax revenue both through owner expenditures as well as guest revenues can enhance any community. We strongly urge that the Zoning Board grant a permanent variance to the Rudolphs to operate their B & B. If you have any questions about our comments, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Eleanor and Al Oedekerk, the Berry Farm Bed & Breakfast. " This is to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Re: The Robert and Carolyn Rudolph Bed & Breakfast, "We, the undersigned. of Butternut Hill. object to permanent status being granted to the above applicant. We feel sufficient time has not elapsed in the operation of the establishment for a final determination to be made. We are also in objection to the removal of time restriction on the use of the swimming pool. Daylight hours in the summer time extend well into the evening which allows for ample time of pool use. To remove the restriction allows for pool parties which can cause unruly noise and disturbances. We would have no recourse to prevent this intrusion into our privacy and right to enjoy our outside evening time, if this restriction is removed. Please continue to respect our right as property owners and taxpayers. Thank you. The following undersigned reside in Butternut Hill, and object to the above variance application. Richard C. Bat, M.D., Anne C. Bat, W.P. Loop, Daniel Burke, Mary Pat Burke, the Havilands 30 "-- by phone from Florida, Arthur Lewers, Augusta Lewers, Joe Corpez, and Kay Corpez, by phone. MR. MULLER-Mr. Turner, does your file have the plot plan from the previous submission? So the new Board members are aware that the swimming pool is not covering any property line. It's at least 150 feet from the back property line, and about how far would you say that pool is from the closest house? About 200 feet. ROBERT RUDOLPH MR·1RUDOLPH-A substantial depth. The house doesn't have a sWimming poo . MR. TURNER-The house in the rear doesn't have a swimming pool, is that what you're saying? MR. RUDOLPH-The house that abuts our property has a swimming pool. MR. TURNER-Has a swimming pool? MR. RUDOLPH-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I have some questions, Ted. First of all. are you contemplating any sale of the house? Okay. In other words, this is going to be a permanent residence for you? MRS. RUDOLPH-Yes, it is. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you have any hard numbers as to occupancy? I know we kind of kicked that around last time, percentages, total number of folks that you may have serviced this year? MR. TURNER-How many did you put through there? MR. RUDOLPH-I don't have a hard fast number on that, most of the weekends in the summer, and in the fall. By Columbus day in October, things pretty well died off. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I think we granted this in, what, March of last year, or February, March, and I think at that point you said you were ready to get going. So, what, April, May was quiet? MRS. RUDOLPH-We didn't get started until June. MR. RUDOLPH-Yes. We had things, renovations in the house. think our first room rental was in June. So I MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then it was pretty solid. MRS. RUDOLPH-One or two rooms, most weekends. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So that's about 20 weekends, is that approximate? Okay. So I guess we could say, with a little stretch of the imagination, about 50 percent of the year, or at least 50 percent of the weekends it will be occupied? Has that continued through the winter months has it? MR. RUDOLPH-No. MR. TURNER-Nobody uses it to ski at West Mountain? No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. lines as Crislip? doing? Do you know if that's kind of along the same Have you got a feel for what your competition is MR. RUDOLPH-Crislip is very solid during the summer. I mean, we got a lot of their overflow, but they've been in business longer. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Refresh my memory. How many, maximum, could you 31 service? Is it four couples? Six couples? MR. RUDOLPH-Three couples. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is it just breakfast? In other words, you don't serve a lunch or dinner? MRS. RUDOLPH-Just breakfast. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you sell syrup or anything like that? shop or anything like that? Breakfast. Okay. other products, in other words, maple I mean, you don't have a little gift Okay. So it's just strictly Bed & MRS. RUDOLPH-The pool thing is really not an issue, because most people don't even use the pool. We had two people use the pool last summer. Most people, they get up in the morning, and they go out and see the area, and they come back at night, and that's it. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I don't, the pool thing, I think, first of all, you made a good point. I think it's pretty much unenforceable. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'd like to add to that. As now the acting Zoning Administrator, I have, I just want to point out the practical difficulty with a measure such as that. It's just not enforceable, and plus this happened many times when I was on the Planning Board, where you're starting to enter into a field that's typically handled by the local sheriff or something like that, if there's noise problems. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say. I think if you had a continuing, I mean, you're not going out, I assume, and book a pool party, in other words. as an attraction, and I would also guess that, like you said, it would be a sheriff's matter, if you had a lot of wild parties. Now. I do notice that you have a semi sign on your mailbox, and I'm assuming that there's no plans for any expansion of the signs or signage or anything like that? MRS. RUDOLPH-Part of the variance was we couldn't have a sign. MRS. PALING-Yes. limited to the mailbox. MR. TURNER-Limited to the mailbox. MR. MULLER-We tried to do that in keeping with what Crislips had done. MR. CARVIN-No. I'm not saying that the mailbox was unattractive. I think it was very well done. As I drive up and down that road occasionally, I do check out the parking lot, just to see what's going on, and I haven't noticed anything of an unusual nature. I think that's pretty much, my biggest problem with the, I voted against it the last time, and I know where Ted's coming from, and my problem is, and I think you've alluded to it, was the creeping commercialism, as I think I referred to it. I guess my feeling has changed somewhat on this. I probably am more for it. wi th stipulations. I certainly wouldn't want this to be "a permanent" si tuation, whereas if you sold the house, it becomes a Bed & Breakfast to whoever buys it. So. in other words. if we make a motion, I think I would want to stress the fact that the Bed & Breakfast dies if you decide to either sell it or give it up, I mean then, boom, that's it. MR. MULLER-In the give or take of this discussion, could I propose to you that, certainly, that new applicant could come in, I foresee the Rudolph's being in a position where they would like to sell it, for the maximum investment that they have put in there, and I would like to be able to say to the Rudolphs and to that prospective purchaser, this sale contract is contingent upon, you go to the Zoning Board and have your head handed to you by Mr. Turner. 32 - MR. MARTIN-I've just got a question on that, and maybe Mr. Muller can help me out. Don't variances typically go with the property and not with the owner? I mean, is there a legal basis to restrict it. then. to an owner? MR. MULLER-There shouldn't be. MR. MARTIN-I've seen this done in the past, and we've run across these types of motions before, and it's always been my understanding that it goes with the property, not with the owner, and I don't even no if there's a legal basis to do so. MR. MULLER-I would say to Mr. Martin that I agree with you, and I would propose to the Department, if perhaps your concern is that somebody's going to expand on this, isn't it? MR. CARVIN-Well, I think the Rudolph's, given a year's time, have proved to be very capable managers of a Bed & Breakfast. That's not to say, six months. something comes up, and you get a fabulously wonderful offer to move to Maine or some place. and all of a sudden we're stuck with a Bed & Breakfast in a residential area that all of a sudden expands, or the other, where they become an absentee, in other words, where they decide to move to Florida, and now appoint a manager. MR. MULLER-Well, I think that I have a middle ground for you. because if you go into the house. you'll see that it's set up like a Bed & Breakfast. The bathrooms are not where you expect bathrooms in just a straight-forward residence. They're associated with a bedroom. so to speak. Perhaps I could propose this, and that there could be no expansion, because it's not contemplated here, and I also believe that that's fair to any prospective owner, in that the requirement be that it be this limited type of Bed & Breakfast as was outlined in the letter that was read. that is that it's an owner occupied Bed & Breakfast. It's not from another location. I think that's what serves this applicant well. and I think that protects the interest that you're concerned about. That seems acceptable, doesn't it, because that's what you do, and that's what any other prospective purchaser would do. MR. CARVIN-And I guess maybe my next question is directed more at Ted, or an interpretation of our own Ordinance. here. It seems to be in conflict, at least I guess you could use a broad interpretation. A Bed & Breakfast facility which is not a hotel or motel, but rather is a dwelling in which overnight accommodations for a maximum stay of one week and breakfast only are provided or offered for transient guests for compensation. Such use is secondary to the occupancy of the dwelling by a family, and I'm assuming that we could interpret that they are, obviously, a family occupying the dwelling. However, if you look at the Code, where under allowable situations, and I think one of them was home occupation, in other words, a home occupation is allowed. However, when you look up the definition of Home Occupation. MR. TURNER-A Bed & Breakfast is not a Home Occupation. MR. CARVIN-Well. that's what I'm saying. It seems to be a conflict. So. I guess my question is, where would a. MR. TURNER-There is a ruling on that, in reference to that, where they took that out, that Bed & Breakfast is not a Home Occupation. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but where would a Bed & Breakfast be allowed? MR. TURNER-RR-3 zone. and LC-42. MR. MULLER-That's right. It was created as part of the new Zoning Ordinance. MR. TURNER-Yes, because we recognized the fact that there were 33 -' people that were looking for those kinds of things, and we felt that this was. MR. MULLER-I think, though, and let me test Mr. Martin on this one, because I don't know the answer to it myself. I live in a residence, could I rent out a room to a college student at ACC and not violate my residential zoning, just breakfast and send him off to class? I think I can. I'll tell you what. if I were asked that question at my law office. I'd call him first. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think it's how it's advertised. do it, if you don't run an ad in the paper saying, I mean, again, I'm not a lawyer. but certainly if up to you. I think you can student wanted. a student comes MR. MULLER-That's what Mrs. Weaver was doing, and then she was also. MR. CARVIN-Yes, well, that's what I was going to bring up. I don't know if we can use Mrs. Weaver. I don't know if she ever advertised for boarders. MR. MULLER-No, she did not. MR. MARTIN-I wouldn't see where that would be a problem, I guess. In that instance, I try to apply a practical view of that and say, what is the actual impact of something like that on the neighborhood. It's no different than if you have a college age child living at home and has a car and comes and goes to class. There's no advertising. MR. MULLER-Perhaps, not to belabor this point in this application, because there are other people behind us, we would hope that we could get an affirmative vote on the extension of this thing permanent, with your stipulations, Mr. Carvin, and that perhaps make my clients feel a little better about it. We may seek the advice of the Town Board to try to pursue something so that this is really clarified in the Zoning Ordinance, that we have some clear understanding that Bed & Breakfast will be allowed in conditional zones, but that's for another day. MR. CARVIN-I guess the only question that really comes up into my mind is, as I think Jim has pointed out, do we have a legal leg to stand on by putting a stipulation is? I mean, can we go with owners or not lots? MR. TURNER-It was stipulated before, so let somebody challenge it. MR. MARTIN-I'm just saying, as a general rule, as a matter of practice, I don't think that's a wise ground to be standing on. MR. MULLER-The stipulations that I had in mind would be limited to an owner occupied facility, and there would be absolutely no expansion at this location. MR. MARTIN-Any expansion in that, in that event. would come back before this Board. MR. MULLER-Right. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MULLER-None's contemplated, but as you say, it does run with the land, and it may be contemplated by a future owner at some future date, and you have this record to back it up. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So that's the whole basis that this Board's run into before is a cessation of use for more than 18 months. That's what ends the use, not the fact that the owner just sells or moves away. 34 "~ MR. TURNER-Again, I've got to go back to what I said the first time around. MR. CARVIN-Well, as I said, that's my, if we really can't, I still am careful of opening the door. in a residential area. MR. TURNER-Right. Here's where I'm coming from. They bought it in 1989. The new zoning went into effect in 1988. They assumed that they could put a Bed & Breakfast there because they made a telephone call to the Planning Office, all right. The property was sold three times residential. The proximity to the road, it's been there s.ince dway back wh~ni all right, horse and IbUqqies .and ~p to tlie mOdern ay- age. OJJv ously. t.lie o-tner peop e "l:hat Dougut. J.t weren't concerned because it was too close to the road. They bought it. They knew it was residential, and I don't think they've proved their case. In a Use Variance, you have to prove they can't realize a reasonable return if it's used as zoned, and they are, they're living there. They bought it to live there, and we provided, and the Zoning Ordinance has provided the application of Bed & Breakfasts in other zones, and to allow this into that zone. MR. MULLER-My comment to you, when you said that a year ago, was that if you feel that strongly about it, the type of proof that you would then require of this applicant would be to list that house on the market, offer it for sale. We're confident that we could prove to you it's not going to be sold, for a reasonable return, that is that there's been a substantial investment in the property, consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, that is that building permits were issued and CO's were issued, and we would then be back with the same set of facts. We would be square on the law, and we would hope then, Mr. Turner, that you're satisfied that we have a one year history of attempted sales. which in truth we don't want to sell the place, and to be able to demonstrate to you that it could not be sold exclusively for the use permitted in the zone. Would you then allow the variance? I think the other this is that we have a substantial different complexion on it. and that is that I really thought that the one year was to prove that all that they have said was solvent, and I think, indeed, they did. and I think it's a bit of a disservice to the applicant to then say, we're going to stick to our guns and what I thought a year ago is still solvent, that is that what was a year ago was a substantial amount of neighborhood coming out and being strongly opposed, and we don't have strong opposition. We have legitimate concerns here, and we're trying to be as flexible as possible by saying we'll subject ourselves to those limitations. We'll subject ourselves to as limited a use as possible, and again, I guess I would repeat part of what I said in my initial presentation, which is that it's really the right use for the building, and to deny them this particular use, that is the hardship that is imposed, to put them back into a residential setting. Remember now that this is in the same zone as Butternut Hill, and those houses are really kind of nice houses. We will have all of the amenities of a zone that has a quiet street. This is fronting on a State highway, and in close proximity to a business, and within the context of the four corners of this building, very suitable for the use that has been proven to be a workable use without any negative impact on this neighborhood for a year. I hope that it's worthy of the extension of a permanent variance. As for the people that were opposed to it, it didn't seem like they were opposed to it as much as they were opposed to it being permanent, and I really think that the Board should take this in hand and say, yes, it is permanent, but with limitations, restricted to the owner living in the residence while they operated the Bed & Breakfast, and no expansion. There's not much more I can say, other than ask you vote permanently for that. MR. TURNER-Okay. Enough said. Motion's in order. Fred, I'd like to see them come back in a couple of years. Do you know why? They say reasonable return, all right, it's going to raise the price of the property. So they've made more than a reasonable return. That's the problem I have, saying they can't realize a reasonable 35 return. MR. CARVIN-Well, I see where you're coming from, but what do we do, put them on a yo-yo every five years, or two years? Because we're going to be looking at the same issues. Now they're going to have a Bed & Breakfast for three years. MR. MULLER-I hope you all know that they're not here to set this up, make a quick sale, and leave town. MR. TURNER-Nobody knows that. They could very we 11 say that tonight, and then something happens, and, boom, it's gone. MR. MULLER-I can assure you that it is not characteristic of Carolyn Rudolph. MR. TURNER-I'm not saying it is. MR. MULLER-No, but I want to tell you a little bit about what she did, and that is that basically, well, the story is right there in the Chronicle, and it was not done in anticipation of this meeting. They searched high and low for the right house. MR. TURNER-Yes, but the search was for a Bed & Breakfast, right? MR. MULLER-Absolutely. MR. TURNER-Okay. So she's a real estate agent. up here and getting it from the horse's mouth, said, they told her, yes, it's allowed. You that, Michael. You sat right here where I am. Instead of coming she called up and know you don't do MR. MULLER-I know you don't do that. okay. MRS. RUDOLPH-I wasn't in real estate that long, and I didn't make any money at it. MR. TURNER-I know. You had a license. right? MRS. RUDOLPH-Yes. I had a license, and I never dealt with anything that had to have a variance, before, in the Town of Queensbury. So, it never occurred to me that I'd have to have proof. MR. RUDOLPH-The barn next door is for storage of boats and. MR. TURNER-It's preexisting, right, and that's why it's there. When that goes. it's gone. MR. RUDOLPH-We have a business run out of the house, next door to it. when we bought the house. MR. MULLER-And the business next door, wasn't that permitted by a variance? MR. TURNER-Which one is that? MR. MULLER-It's the lady that runs a business out of her home. MRS. RUDOLPH-Callahan. She has a map business. MR. TURNER-No. I don't think she's ever been here. How long ago, Michael? MR. MULLER-My best recollection is she proceeded us before we came here a year ago. She was making presentations. I can't tell you that I knew anything about it. I was told this by my clients a year ago. MR. TURNER-I don't recall it. 36 -- MR. MULLER-Something called Front Porch Productions. MR. TURNER-No. We never had it. MR. MULLER-Okay. Well then I didn't wish to report her. MR. TURNER-That's the problem I have. It's not that they don't do a good job or anything like that. It's just that, to me, they haven't proven anything. MR. MULLER-Okay, then, presentation, then. MR. TURNER-Yes. there was something lacking in my MR. MULLER-Perhaps because I stuck to the facts. MR. TURNER-Good point. MR. KARPELES-Well, it would appear that everyone feels that they are running a class act. MR. MULLER-I believe so. MR. KARPELES-But the thing that concerns everyone. and concerns me, is what happens when they sell the place? Are the people that buy it. are they going to run a class act? How can we be guaranteed of that? MR. MULLER-You know that I can't give you that guarantee. Characteristically, and I don't run Bed & Breakfasts, but here I am as their advocate, and I would say to you that, my experience with the Bed & Breakfasts is that all that I've seen and all that I've stayed in, they invite quality people and they run quality operations. This whole house, if you took a tour through it, it speaks to the historical aspects of the best of Bed & Breakfasts. That is, that's why it was featured in the Chronicle. You go in there, and it's historically correct with antiques. It's just so very tastefully done in an antique and colonial manner that the fact that some couple comes up from the Bronx and they're going to run it. and put the neon sign up by saying Sanford Ridge, you know that's not possible. That is that we're setting a limitation here that there can be no expansion. We already know that there can be no signage. I suppose if they're parking cars allover the highways, this prospective owner that we're all concerned about, that's in violation of State law. I wish I could give you a guarantee. I won't tonight. I can't. MRS. RUDOLPH-If it's junky, nobody's going to come. MR. TURNER-I'm not questioning that at all. The only thing I said that you haven't proven your case, as far as reasonable return. That's where I'm coming from. MR. MULLER-That particular point, we were at it a year ago. I would say that Mr. Rudolph made substantial improvements to the premises. a substantial monetary contribution to enhance the premises, to advance this Bed & Breakfast, which you and I both know is not .permitted there, however, it was upon the representations that it had been a boarding house, and it could continue to be, and it's just not there in the record. We know that, but I have to comment about it, because to me, that's the truth. MR. KARPELES-What's the objection with continuing on a temporary basis. on a temporary permit? MR. MULLER-Well, I better let Mrs. Rudolph speak for herself after I say to you that she's a nervous nit about the whole thing, that is that I told her, when she first called me, when this year was coming up, and said to her, Carolyn, it's a renewal, you've done a 37 fine job. I can't imagine why the Board would want to turn you down, and she said, well, I feel very insecure about it, and I really would appreciate it if you would please represent us. because we've got our heart and soul in this, and I said I will. I said, I just don't want to be part of the problem. I don't want to run up a big legal bill for nothing. I really think it's a walk, you go in, you show them that you did a fine job, and you get it, and then she's been pestering me, I would say, every day. She would say, what happens next, could they do this, and tried to get some other support, letters. so she is very insecure about the operation. That is that if you extended it for another year, I suspect that we'd be back, and she'd be real insecure about that. Next year I might be insecure about it, too, and I don't know, I guess what I would do in that year is that my legal advice to them would be, lets scramble and get support of the Town Board, and see if we can get the Queensbury Business Association, and ARCC, to get behind us on this, because this is the thing that I think could be good for Queensbury, and that's the best I could make out of the year extension, but I think in all fairness, they're entitled to permanency, and they're entitled to, and you folks are entitled, or the Town of Queensbury's entitled to stipulations and restrictions on it. That's the way I feel about it. MR. RUDOLPH-I guess, what do we do, if we are denied? We have reservations, people that are planning weddings and expecting to put relatives up in our home? Are we going to have to call them, now, and say, sorry, but we can no longer operate? We have made commitments, now, to people, under the assumption that we would be here tonight, and prove to you that we are not a negative impact on our ne ighbors. I don't think we're a negative impact. I mean, there's a concern about the pool, and we don't mind having restrictions. I think we were just saying that sundown sometimes is just maybe a little bit too early, and it really isn't enforceable anyway. MR. TURNER-Well, it says daylight hours. Daylight goes, in the summer time, until almost 10 o'clock, lots of times. MR. RUDOLPH-Well, by August, and August is usually warm, guests tend to arrive usually after dinner and they may just want to take a dip and come back in. Carolyn and I very much believe in improving the quality the value of our home and the neighborhood, and we're trying to do the best we can. We wouldn't permit loud noises. MR. MULLER-The other thing I wanted to say, to their credit Mr. Chairman. is there's nothing sneaky or devious about them. That is that they did not go into this operation before getting approvals, and you remember while our application was pending, it was not an up and running business where we were asked to come in here and show why we hadn't complied and that type of stuff, and it would be the same thing if you said, no, you can't have an extension, that is that they would shut down at that moment. That is that they're really trying to comply. MR. TURNER-Let me just say this. The one gentleman that did sign their letter there, Mr. Haviland, evidently he's in Florida. He called me today and very concerned about it, and didn't like it, didn't want us to renew it, just for the record. MR. MULLER-I don't know where he lives in relation to you. MR. TURNER-He's on the mailing list. Fratus house, the yellow one? Does he live in the old MRS. RUDOLPH-The yellow one, yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. That's the old Fratus house. MR. RUDOLPH-There's more activity probably goes on at the barn, 38 which is directly next to us, than at our house. MRS. RUDOLPH-I don't think we've offended anybody, and I think we've tried to really make a nice house nicer, and I just love it and I just wanted to share it with everybody else, and I think people, that's just what we get from people. People just love it. They just want to tour it. They just love it. They tell their friends about it, and friends come back, and that's what Bed & Breakfasts are. I mean. it's not a motel, it's not a hotel. It's not an operation that's offensive to anybody, and I can't imagine why Mr. Haviland would be offended by it. He can't even see this house fromh his hQl1Se'thhundx:eds 9f fet:et awav~ but dthat' s neither nere nor t ere. Tne 1ng 1S 1t s no a yea~ roun operat10n. MR. TURNER-I don't have anything against Bed & Breakfasts, but like I said, you just haven't proven your case to me, and that's it. I don't have anything against Bed & Breakfasts. Friends of mine own a Bed & Breakfast, not here, and it's nice, they're nice. They're well done. MRS. RUDOLPH-And that's what Bed & Breakfasts are selling, is the fact that it's a cozy, home away from home atmosphere. MR. KLINE-Could I ask you a question? letter about this? Did Mr. Haviland get a MR. TURNER-Evidently he must have, or he wouldn't have called me. MR. KLINE-Who gets these letters? MR. TURNER-Five hundred feet. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 5-1993 ROBERT RUDOLPH, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its seconded by Robert Karpeles: & CAROLYN adoption, To operate a Bed & Breakfast in a Single Family Residential area, as outlined in Section 179-190, with the following stipulations: Number One, that this variance be conditional and subject to review in three years. Number Two, that this Bed & Breakfast must be owner occupied by the Rudolphs with no expansion ever. It is felt that by granting this variance which is limited to the Rudolphs that there would not be an adverse effect on the neighborhood, but it is also felt that because there is both pUblic opinion for and against this Bed & Breakfast. that it be reviewed in three years. As for the operation of the pool, it is felt that that should be limited to 10 p.m. by guests. Duly adopted this 17th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Karpeles NOES: Mr. Turner ABSENT: Mr. Philo, Mrs. Eggleston AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-1993 TYPE II LC-10A JOSEPH & LYNETTE BISS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE NORTH SIDE OF ROUTE 149. 1/4 MILE WEST OF BAY ROAD CROSSING APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK IS ONE HUNDRED (100) FEET. PROPOSED EAST SIDE YARD SETBACK IS FIFTY-FIVE (55) FEET. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FORTY-FIVE (45) FEET. REQUIRED LOT WIDTH IS FOUR HUNDRED (400) FEET. PROPOSED LOT WIDTH IS THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY ( 370) FEET. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF THIRTY (30) FEET. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP NO. 28-1-39.1. 39.2 LOT SIZE: 14.51 ACRES SECTION 179-13(C). 179-30(C) JOSEPH BISS, PRESENT 39 -' STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 6-1993. Joseph & Lynette Biss, Meeting Date: February 17, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to construct a single family home on a vacant lot. CONFORMANCE WITH USE / AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Required s ide yard setback in the Land Conservation Zone is one hundred (100) feet as per Section 179-13C. Applicant is proposing fifty-five (55) feet for the right and east side yard setback. Applicant is seeking relief of forty-five (45) feet. 2. Required lot width is four hundred (400) feet for the Land Conservation Zone where adjoining lots front on a collector or arterial road and are provided with a single common driveway as per Section 179-30C [Added 11-23-92 by L.L. 11-92]. Applicant is proposing a lot width of three hundred and seventy (370) feet average for the fourteen and fifty-one hundredths (14.51) acre parcel and is seeking thirty (30) feet relief. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. The practical difficulty that does not permit placement of the proposed structure to meet the setback requirements is that the slope of the western side of the property limits the siting of the proposed structure to the eastern side of the property and into the required east side yard setback. 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? It would appear that the minimum variance would be necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty as determined by the slope of the land and the configuration of the parcel and no other option appears to be available for the siting of the proposed project that would require no variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD OR CONFLICT WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF ANY PLAN OR POLICY OF THE TOWN? It would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict with the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town as the proposed project is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities and services. 5. IS THIS REQUEST THE MINIMUM RELIEF NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? It would appear that the relief requested for both the eastern side yard setback and the lot width requirement is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty determined by the topography and configuration of the parcel. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: The site of the proposed project is located in two zones, Land Conservation 10 Acres and Rural Residential 5 Acres, and is the result of a two lot subdivision that has a common driveway. Recently adopted legislation that amended Section 179-30C [L.L. 11- 92) "Lots abutting collector or arterial roads". allows for each lot to meet the lot width requirement for the zone. It was determined by staff that the lot width requirement for each parcel would re flect the lot's dominant zone. The five (5) acre lot fulfills the lot width requirement for the Rural Residential Zone of two hundred (200) feet and the fourteen plus (14+) acre parcel is lacking approximately thirty (30) feet of the required lot width of four hundred (400) feet for the Land Conservation Zone. A letter from the applicant is included and explains the history of the parcel, the concerns regarding possible wetlands on the property, the lot line adjustment to comply with the required forty (40) foot road frontage and the refiling of the deed reflecting this lot line adjustment." MR. TURNER-The County, what did they do? Did they approve it, No County Impact? MR. BISS-When I called them today, they said their meeting dates had been pushed around, but they already went through it. and they said they had no objection to it. 40 MR. TURNER-No County Impact, is that what they told you? MR. MARTIN-Yes. They didn't have a quorum at their last meeting, and their next meeting is Monday. MR. BISS-LaMothe said that it was already marked, and he didn't foresee any problems with it. MR. TURNER-How about the issue with the wetlands? I read the letter in the back, there. Did you get any feedback from them? MR. . BIBS-II c.alledt MrSt' Pa.rker tDdaY'hCollren"'d and she s.aid that ~he1r Lega Depar men and everyDody ad a rea y approved 1t. le was just a matter of physically getting the Park to come down here. She was going to call somebody here. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes. she did, and I put a notation, there's a notation regarding that call. MRS. PALING-In here? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes. MR. BISS-It's just a matter of physically getting it all approved by their Legal Department and all their other Departments. MR. TURNER-What happens to the house in the front, Mr. Biss? MR. BISS-To make a long story short, I lost my father about two months ago in a car accident, and I think my mother's going to be moving in. MR. TURNER-How long have you owned that property? MR. BISS-Two and a half. three years. I bought it myself. and just me is one thing. I've since gotten married and I have two teenage step sons, and twins that are a year old today, and our house isn't as big as this room. MR. CARVIN-Is that a residential area? MR. TURNER-No. It's Land Conservation and RR-5. He's in the RR-5. MR. CARVIN-Okay, well, the fence in the front. MR. BISS-The people that lived there before. I don't know what the heck they used to do, but that whole place was trashed. and I heard stories from the neighbors about people getting chased naked up the road with trucks. I don't know what they used to do there. I do know that part of the fence was down, and every time those darn tractor trailers whip through there, breaking the speed limit, the whole house shakes and lit up, so I put a piece of it back up. It was the only way to keep the house from being lit up every time somebody went by. MR. CARVIN-How long has that fence been there? I don't know, is that fence in compliance, Ted? MR. TURNER-No, not really. It got put up and nobody ever, it never got addressed. You live up there. You bought it. when did you buy it, two and a half years ago? MR. BISS-Two and a half years ago. something like that. MR. TURNER-It went right up after the guy that bought it, I believe. MR. MARTIN-It's been there ever since I've been there. MR. TURNER-Yes. 41 MR. CARVIN-Well. it seems to me that it's expanded. I can remember the fence being there, but it seems to me that in the last few years it's actually expanded. I may be all wet on that, but. MR. TURNER-There never used to be a fence there. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I can remember years ago there never used to be a fence, and then I know when I looked at it here the other day, I thought, gee. it seems like a. that's like a fort. MR. MARTIN-Well, it is a good point about the trucks. The trucks are just amazing. MR. BISS-I mean, I've had two dogs killed right in front of my house so far. This road is ridiculous. MR. TURNER-Yes. No doubt about it. It's a high speed highway. MR. CARVIN-That fence has got to be, what, eight or nine feet high, right? MR. BISS-In places. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Yes, because it's well over the Ordinance. That's why I was wondering if it was a commercial situation there, but it was a residential. MR. BISS-Back, years before. the guy used to run a welding business out of there. MR. TURNER-Yes. That was Joseln's property. MR. CARVIN-What's the story on the car between the fence? I mean, there's a double fence there. and there was a car that's parked between it. MR. BISS-Yes, my jeep is parked there. garbage to be dumped. That's where I take the MR. CARVIN-Have you grown accustomed to that fence? MR. BISS-Well, if I take it down. I know that house is going to be ridiculous to try and live in. That's a major problem, if we can deal with that. MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets get to the of relief on the right, the east. needed that dimension to get a Didn't I read that correct? issues, here. He needs 55 feet Now I think you said that you decent yard around the house? MR. BISS-Yes. Half of my property is on a slope, going up French Mountain. It comes down, and then where it is level, where you put the house. it's close to my own internal property line. I had to section off part of it to pay for my wedding. I have a mortgage on part of it. So the variance is from my own property line, and the way the land comes down, and comes across, that's the only place you could set it. You go this side, you've got to dig in to the side of the Mountain. If you go that side, and then it's on the other parcel. MR. TURNER-Okay. Does anyone else have any questions? MR. CARVIN-Is there going to be an access driveway? MR. TURNER-Yes, a common driveway. He's got, enough to meet the requirement. There wasn't before, I guess. MR. BISS-The piece of property is almost like a diamond shape. 42 MR. CARVIN-The only problem I have is just the fence. MR. BISS-Believe me, my wife does. too. MR. TURNER-Okay. hearing. No other questions? I'll open the public PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any Correspondence? MRS. PALING-No. I don't see any. MR. TURNER-Any further discussion about it? None? All right. Lets move it. Have you got any thoughts on it at all? MR. CARVIN-Well, not on this, but with the fence, but we'll address that later. MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets move the issues, here. He needs 45 feet of relief on the east side. Do you think he's met the test for the setback because of the slope? MR. CARVIN-Yes. That's quite a ridge in there. MR. TURNER-It is. I don't know what else he'd do with it, unless he put it on stilts. MR. CARVIN-The nearest houses are down the road, and there's really no infringement there. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order, then. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-1993 JOSEPH & LYNETTE BISS, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Grant the applicant relief of 45 feet on the east property line, which is relief from Section 179-13(C). I would grant him 30 feet of relief from the required 400 feet. The practical difficulty is the slope of the land which prevents the applicant from meeting the proper setbacks. Duly adopted this 17th day of February, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Paling. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Karpeles ABSENT: Mr. Philo, Mrs. Eggleston MR. BISS-What is supposed to be the fence? MR. TURNER-No fence~ The fence in the front yard has got to be no more than three feet high. MR. CARVIN-It has to be half way decent, too. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-The thing I might suggest, at some point. if you wanted to get into compliance, and you're concerned about the noise in the site is some sort of vegetative screening, plantings. 43 MR. BISS-Put more trees along there. MR. MARTIN-Scotch Pine or Arborvitae, something like that. MR. BISS-I put in one row, and my step son promptly mowed them down. I will get back on that. Thank you very much. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-1993 TYPE II HC-1A DANIEL & JOAN HARRIS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CROSS REF. SITE PLAN NO. 7-93 LOCATION: 120 LAKE GEORGE ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO RELOCATE A THIRD (3RD) PRINCIPLE BUILDING FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY ONTO THE SITE OF AN EXISTING MOTEL BUSINESS. MAXIMUM DENSITY IN THE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONE IS ONE (1) PRINCIPAL BUILDING PER ONE (1) ACRE OF LAND. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A TWO AND SEVENTY-NINE HUNDREDTHS (2.79) ACRE PARCEL. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWENTY-ONE HUNDREDTHS ( .21) ACRE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 70-1-8 LOT SIZE: 2.79 ACRES SECTION 179-23A MR. HARRIS, SR., REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 7-1993, Daniel & Joan Harris, Meeting Date: February 17, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to relocate a third principal building onto the site of his existing motel business and use it as a four (4) unit motel structure. CONFORMANCE WITH USE / AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Maximum density in the Highway/Commercial Zone is one (1) principal building at up to twelve thousand (12,000) square feet of gross floor area for one story buildings for each one (1) acre of land area as per Section 179-23A. Applicant is proposing a third principal building on a two and seventy-nine hundredths (2.79) acre parcel. Applicant is seeking relief of twenty-one hundredths (.21) acre. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. Lot is undersized for the placement of a third principal building as proposed. Conforming with the zoning regulations would require expansion of existing structure which applicant states would be less economical than relocating an existing structure. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OPTION WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? It would appear that the relief requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty and other than expanding the existing structures, no other option is available that would require no variance. 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? It would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict with the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town as the proposed project is consistent with the permitted and existing uses of the zone. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities or services. 5. IS THIS THE MINIMUM RELIEF NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? It would appear that the minimum relief requested is necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty as determined by the si ting of the proposed project. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Although the proposed site is undersized for the proposed project within which it is zoned, the total square footage of the three principal buildings will be seven thousand seven hundred and four (7,704) square feet, which is four thousand two hundred and ninety- six (4,296) square feet less than the permitted twelve thousand (12,000) square feet for one principal building. Additionally, the permeability requirement is met and parking requirements are adequate for the project." 44 MR. TURNER-What did the County do? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-There's no County determination. MR. MARTIN-It's the same thing there. MR. TURNER-The same thing? All right. MR. MARTIN-I would recommend that if you do decide to approve, you contingent it upon the County approval. MR. TURNER-Contingent upon County approval, yes. Anything to add to tfiat'7 MR. HARRIS. SR.-Not really. I'm here as Dan's father. He's out at sea right now. MR. TURNER-The spot that's cleared out. is that where you're going with it? MR. HARRIS. SR.-Well. we had to because, in fact, the reason I've got down, when Dan first called. somebody told him there was something wrong with the Ordinance, and the word that he got was somebody was trying to change the Ordinance, so we wouldn't have to come back each time, because it's very likely. in the future, that some other building might go on the property, also, because it's very underutilized. right now. by any kind of standard, and that's why we started building the hole. and then when I finally showed up, I found out that, no, the Ordinance wasn't going to be changed, and we had to go through this formality. MR. TURNER-Has everybody looked at it? I don't have a problem with it. MR. CARVIN-No. MR. TURNER-I don't have any questions on it. What you plan to do there is fine. I think you've got a proven case here. You're undersized for the square footage. and that's fine. MR. HARRIS. SR.-We're way under. MR. TURNER-Way under. yes. Okay. I'll open the pUblic hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any Correspondence? MRS. PALING-No. MR. TURNER-All right. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-1993 DANIEL & JOAN HARRIS. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Grant the applicant relief from the density requirement in a Highway Commercial zone which requires one principal building up to 12,000 square feet of gross floor area for each one acre of land as per Section 179-23A. The applicant is proposing a third principal building on a 2.79 acre parcel. The relief granted is .21 of an acre. The practical difficulty is that the requirement is for 12,000 square feet. and when the applicant utilizes the buildings as proposed, the three principal buildings as proposed will be 7,704 square feet. which is 4.296 square feet less than is required. It would not be detrimental to other properties in the 45 -- -- district or the neighborhood and would not conflict with the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town. There would be no effect on public facilities and services. This is the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty. Duly adopted this 17th day of February, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Philo AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-1993 TYPE I WR-1A CEA JOHN L. POLK. JR. CROSS REF. SUB. NO. 5-1993 SKETCH PLAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE EAST SIDE OF ASSEMBLY POINT. PROPERTY LIES JUST EAST OF ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD. ON THE EAST SIDE ON CANAL BAY AND HARRIS BAY APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A TWO (2) LOT SUBDIVISION WHICH WILL RESULT IN TWO PRINCIPLE BUILDINGS ON THE WESTERLY LOT AND UNDERSIZED ROAD FRONTAGE ON THE EASTERLY LOT. PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES REQUIRE NO MORE THAN ONE (1) PRINCIPAL BUILDING ON ANY SINGLE LOT LESS THAN TWO (2) ACRES. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM ONE ( 1) PRINCIPAL BUILDING REQUIREMENT. REQUIRED TOWN ROAD FRONTAGE IS FORTY (40) FEET. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ROAD FRONTAGE OF SEVENTEEN AND ONE-ONE HUNDREDTHS (17.01) FEET FOR THE EASTERLY LOT. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWENTY-TWO AND NINETY-NINE HUNDREDTHS (22.99) FEET. REQUIRED SHORELINE SETBACK IS SEVENTY-FIVE (75) FEET. EXISTING SHORELINE SETBACK FOR STRUCTURE ON PARCEL ONE ( 1 ) IS THIRTY-THREE AND SEVENTY-FIVE HUNDREDTHS (33.75) FEET ON THE WESTERLY SIDE AND FIFTEEN (15) FEET ON THE EASTERLY SIDE. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FORTY-ONE AND TWENTY FIVE HUNDREDTHS (41.25) FEET AND SIXTY (60) FEET RESPECTIVELY. EXISTING SHORELINE SETBACK ON PARCEL TWO (2) IS FIFTY-ONE (51) FEET FOR THE WESTERLY STRUCTURE AND FORTY-SEVEN (47) FEET FOR THE EASTERLY STRUCTURE. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) FEET AND TWENTY- EIGHT (28) FEET RESPECTIVELY. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) TAX MAP NO. 6-3-1 LOT SIZE: 2.14 ACRES SECTION 179-70(A). 179-12(C)(5) SECTION 179-60(B)(15)(C) MR. TURNER-That's a Type I Action. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'd recommend you open the public hearing. though, so we don't have to re-advertise. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Right. MR. MARTIN-And leave it open. MR. TURNER-Okay. Well, first of all. lets make the Planning Board the Lead Agency in the SEQRA Review. MOTION TO MAKE THE PLANNING BOARD THE LEAD AGENCY IN THE SEORA REVIEW FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-1993 JOHN L. POLK. JR., Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Marie Paling: Duly adopted this 17th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin. Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Paling. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo, Mrs. Eggleston MR. TURNER-And I would propose that we leave the pUblic hearing open so that we don't have to re-advertise the application at a 46 '--- future date. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-1993 TYPE II WR-1A CEA DOUGLAS PETROSKI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CROSS REF. SITE PLAN NO. 8-93 FITZGERALD ROAD. GLEN LAKE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING SEASONAL STRUCTURE BY THE ADDITION OF A SCREENED-IN PORCH to THE EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. REQUIRED SHORELINE SETBACK IS SEVENTY- FIVE (75) FEET. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THIRTY-ONE (31) FEET FOR THE SHORELINE SETBACK. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FORTY-FOUR (44) FEET. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 41-1-17 LOT SIZE: 0.434 ACRES SECTION 119-60B(1)(c) MR. TURNER-Is there anyone here, nobody's here representing Petroski? MRS. RUTHSCHILD-No. MR. TURNER-Then we don't hear it. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-That's right. MR. TURNER-We don't hear it. MR. CARVIN-Polk has been tabled, has it? MR. TURNER-Polk goes to the Planning Board for SEQRA Review. Then it comes back to us. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. TURNER-Petroski, no one's here to represent the application. so we won't hear it. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-1993 DOUGLAS PETROSKI, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: And notify the applicant that a representative has to appear at the meeting. Duly adopted this 17th day of February. 1993, by the following vote: MR. MARTIN-Again. I'd open the public hearing on that, if you're going to table it. MR. TURNER-And I'll open the public hearing on the application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AYES: Mr. Carvin. Mr. Karpeles. Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Philo MR. TURNER-Before you go, I've just got one thought I want to go over with you. You know. when we table these applications, they get stuffed away and we don't hear from them for six months, some times, a year. I would propose that when we table an application. that they have 90 days to come back with the application, and if they don't come back within 90 days, they have to re-advertise. because a lot of this gets stuffed in a file, and people come with their application. the pUblic forgets all about it. and then they don't come. MR. THOMAS-Why make it 90? Why not make it 60 or 30? 47 ~..; MR. TURNER-Sometimes the lawyers need a couple of months. That's all. I was thinking the same thing, even 60 days. MR. THOMAS-I was going to say 90 days, you could really pile them up. MR. TURNER-All right, 60 days. I'll change my motion, 60 days. MOTION THAT WHEN THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TABLES AN APPLICATION. THAT THE APPLICANT HAS 60 DAYS TO COKE BACK WITH THE APPLICATION. IF THE APPLICANT DOES NOT COKE BACK WITH THE APPLICATION WITHIN 60 DAYS. THEY HAVE TO RE-ADVERTISE, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 17th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Paling. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Philo MR. MARTIN-I've got a couple of items to report to the Board on. I looked into Mr. Barber's situation. That is in compliance. He's got a wetlands permit, and a building permit and all that, and it's going along as would be required. There was some problem, I guess, over the wetland flagging and that type of thing, but he went out and tore down the flags or something like that. but they did re- flag it, and he is properly distanced from the wetlands, and that is in compliance. In terms of Mr. Rossi, Dave is going to write a letter to him saying that it appears to us that the garage is substantially completed, and even though he hasn't asked for a final, we'd like him to schedule one, okay, so we can close the permit on that, and also it's our understanding that the sides of the carport are supposed to be taken down, and they're still there, per his remedial action agreement. and we'll have him do that as well. So, hopefully we can get that buttoned up, here, in the spring. MR. TURNER-Okay. How about the other one she asked about? MR. MARTIN-That one there, I looked through the file. I'll make copies of the file. It's the one with the pole barn, that was all part of the building permit. I was going to make a copy of the file and show it to you. I can copy the site plan he submitted and the building permit, and you can see that he's doing what he said he was going to do. MR. TURNER-I've got a question. I noticed on the bUilding permits, you had one for Seelye on Glenwood Avenue. the storage shed. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think I recall it. MR. TURNER-How did he get that without a variance? MR. MARTIN-Let me look into it. I'll tell you. I'll have an answer for you Wednesday. MR. TURNER-The question was asked to me downstairs one day, by one of the Building Inspectors. and it was for an expansion of what he had there, and he has a nonconforming use. MR. MARTIN-Yes. All right. I'll have an answer for you Wednesday. MR. TURNER-All right. Meeting's adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. 48 '------ RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Theodore Turner, Chairman 49