Loading...
1993-09-15 ~ ORIGINAL QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 15TH. 1993 INDEX Area Variance No. 76-1993 Gary R. Cardinale 1. Area Variance No. 77-1993 Randy & Mike Rivette 1. Area Variance No. 78-1993 Robert & Helen Carroll 2. Area Variance No. 79-1993 Gertrude A. Young 7. Area Variance No. 55-1993 Leemilt's/Getty Petroleum Corp. 9. Area Variance No. 71-1993 Lucas S. Wilson 15. Area Variance No. 80-1993 Joyce S. Thompson 46. Area Variance No. 81-1993 John Baker 64. Area Variance No. 82-1993 Kelly Carte 71. 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 SEPTEMBER 15. 1993 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN LINDA HAUSER CHRIS THOMAS FRED CARVIN ROBERT KARPELES MEMBERS ABSENT JOYCE EGGLESTON THOMAS PHILO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY MR. TURNER-We'll dispense with the minutes, at this point, and we'll take up New Business. NEW BUSINESS: REFERRAL BY ZBA TO PLANNING BOARD FOR SEQRA REVIEW AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-1993 TYPE I RR-5A GARY R. CARDINALE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING VACANT LOT IN AN RR-5A ZONE. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A LOT WIDTH OF ONE-HUNDRED SEVENTY-FIVE (175) FEET. LOT WIDTH REQUIRED FOR RR-5A ZONE IS TWO HUNDRED (200) FEET. IN ADDITION. SECTION 179-30C REQUIRES LOTS ABUTTING COLLECTOR OR ARTERIAL ROADS TO HAVE TWO (2) TIMES THE LOT WIDTH PERMITTED IN THE ZONE. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWO HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE (225) FROM THE REQUIRED FOUR HUNDRED (400) FEET REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 179-30C. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF ONE AND SEVENTY-NINE HUNDREDTHS (1. 79) ACRES FROM SECTION 179-15C, WHICH REQUIRES 3 ACRES. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: 9/8/93 TAX MAP NUMBER: 27-2-1.1 LOT SIZE: 2.21 ACRES SECTION 179-30C, 179-15C SEQRA REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD: SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 MR. TURNER-I'll make a motion. MOTION TO REFER AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-1993 GARY R. CARDINALE TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND MAKING THE PLANNING BOARD THE LEAD AGENCY IN THE SEQRA REVIEW. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 15th day of September, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Philo REFERRAL BY ZBA TO PLANNING BOARD FOR SEQRA REVIEW AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-1993 TYPE I RR-3A CEA RANDY AND HIKE RIVETTE OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE SULLIVAN PLACE. GLEN LAKE ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO EXPAND AN EXISTING YEAR-ROUND THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY- FOUR (384) SQ. FT. ONE-STORY HOUSE TO A NINE HUNDRED AND TWO (902) SQ. FT. TWO STORY HOUSE. SECTION NUMBER 179-79A(2) STATES THAT NO ENLARGEMENT SHALL EXCEED AN AGGREGATE OF FIFTY PERCENT GROSS FLOOR AREA. SO APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF THREE HUNDRED TWENTY SIX (326) SQ. FT. SECTION 179-15C REQUIRES A FRONT SETBACK OF FIFTY (50) FEET. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWENTY-SEVEN (27) FEET. - 1 - (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: 9/8/93 TAX MAP NUMBER: 38-1-4 LOT SIZE: 0.355 ACRES SECTION 179-15C, 179-79A(2) SEQRA REVIEW BY PLANNING BOARD: SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 MR. TURNER-I talked with the applicant this afternoon and the applicant has agreed to table the application because they have some further information to submit on this application. So, I would move to table the application at the applicant's request. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-1993 RANDY AND MIKE RIVETTE, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Linda Hauser: At the applicant's request. Duly adopted this 15th day of September, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas. Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Philo NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-1993 TYPE II MR-5 MH OVERLAY ROBERT & HELEN CARROLL OWNER: ARTHUR J. RIVERS CORNER OF CENTRAL & OHIO AVENUES APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PLACE A FOURTEEN BY SEVENTY (14 X 70) FOOT MOBILE HOME ON A VACANT PARCEL. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING FIFTEEN (15) FEET FOR THE WEST FRONT YARD SETBACK. AND SEEKING RELIEF OF FIFTEEN (15) FEET FROM SECTION 179-18C. WHICH REQUIRES THIRTY (30) FEET FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IN THE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE. TAX MAP NUMBER: 127-6-9 LOT SIZE: 60 FT. BY 100 FT. SECTION 179-18C ROBERT AND HELEN CARROLL, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 78-1993, Robert and Helen Carroll, Meeting Date: September 15, 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: corner of Central and Ohio Avenues SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to place a fourteen by seventy (14 x 70) foot mobile home on a vacant parcel. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Applicant is proposing fifteen (15) feet for the west front yard setback, seeking relief of fifteen (15) feet from Section 179-18C, which requires thirty (30) feet for the front yard setback in the Multifamily Residential zone. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING CODE. There is no practical way to locate this mobile home on this corner parcel and maintain the required front yard setback. It also appears that unless the northern rear setback. proposed to be thirteen (13) feet, is reduced to the ten (10) feet allowed in the Code, there will not be adequate space for the septic system in the Central Avenue front yard and an additional variance would be necessary. 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 be possible to utilize a twenty (20) foot setback on the western front yard and still meet the ten (10) foot setback for the eastern rear yard, thus reducing the amount of relief needed to ten (10) feet. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It appears that the variance as proposed would not be detrimental to the district or neighborhood, as proposed project is consistent with the character of a Mobile Home Overlay District. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It would appear that the proposed project would not - 2 - '~ effect public facilities and services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: As stated in Item #1 above, a septic system could not be properly installed under the proposed plan. Either the mobile home needs to be moved three (3) feet to the north. or a variance will have to be sought for the septic system." MR. TURNER-Are you putting your own trailer on this lot that Mr. Rivers owns? MR. CARROLL-Yes. MR. TURNER-You are. Okay. obviously you read the notes. feet on the north line? You heard the Staff Comments, and Do you agree to move it back three MR. CARROLL-Yes. MR. TURNER-Is this a two bedroom or a three bedroom trailer? MR. CARROLL-Two bedroom. MR. TURNER-Two bedroom. Okay. So you need 125 feet of leachfield for your system. MR. CARROLL-Right. MR. TURNER-Okay. This'll be on a slab? MR. CARROLL-Yes. MR. TURNER-Does anyone else have any questions? MR. CARVIN-When I was out there, I noticed, there was what appeared to be quite a large stone. Do you know what's in the ground? Is that fill or is that bedrock that's kind of come up through there? MRS. CARROLL-There was an old building there at one time that was demolished years ago. The fire department had burned it down, and that structure was there. That's what was left, I believe. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So there's probably some fill in that ground? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARROLL-There's definitely cement block from the old, part of the foundation. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I noticed there appeared to be a boulder or a very large stone or what have you. I just was wondering if you're going to have anything else popping up out there. Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. public hearing. Any other questions? Okay. Let me open the PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DENISE STAUNCHES MRS. STAUNCHES-My name is Denise Staunches, and I live right next door. and I almost lost my house when the house burnt that was there. MR. TURNER-Okay. Road? Is your house on Ohio, going towards Luzerne MRS. STAUNCHES-Yes, it is. It's right next door. There's a vacant lot. and my house is built right close to the property line, and I own a foot on the other side of my fence. I am opposed to having a trailer park there because the kids get on the school bus there, and with a trailer being proposed for the road, it's going to - 3 - create a hazard and there's going to be a kid killed there, and if they are, they can come back on the Town of Queensbury, if it's permitted to go in there. I mean. I have grand kids there. and all the kids catch the bus right off that corner, and the cars whiz down that road, they go fast down that road. They do down Central. They don't stop for the stop signs. We've asked for signs to be put up to protect our kids, and we cannot get signs put up. The Town of Queensbury will not put up signs because they said if they put up signs. that's only going to look like the kids play in the road, but it's not. My grand kids come across the road. I have a grandson that almost got hit by a car coming around from Central, and I mean, there's nothing there now to block the view. If you put a trailer there, 50 feet off the road. you're going to be blocking the view, and I don't think it's right, and if I lose my house with another fire there, which I almost did before, it scared the hell out of me. I don't want to lose my home because of having a trailer to close to my house. and you're saying put it another 10 feet north. MR. TURNER-No. three four north, to the back line. MRS. STAUNCHES-To the back of the lot? MR. TURNER-Yes. Move the mobile home back this way. 13, it would be 10. Do you want to look at this? Instead of MRS. STAUNCHES-I don't understand it. My house is right on the opposi te side from Central Avenue. I'm on the north side, but you're moving it closer to my house, and then I almost lost my house before. and I don't want to lose my house because of a trailer being put there, if it catches fire. I went through it once, and I don't want to go through it again. MR. TURNER-Okay. Does anyone have any questions? MRS. STAUNCHES-And I also have a well we use for drinking water. MR. TURNER-You're not on Town water? MRS. STAUNCHES-I've got Town water, but we use our well water for drinking sometimes. MR. TURNER-Where is your well, then, in relationship to where this trailer would be? How far away would you be? MRS. STAUNCHES-I don't know. cellar, the well is. I'm not good at this. It's in the MR. TURNER-So how far is the house from the line? MRS. STAUNCHES-About 15 feet from the line. in the summer time for drinking. We use the well water MR. TURNER-It's a shallow well, right, driven point? MRS. STAUNCHES-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Do you know approximately how far your house is from the property line? MR. TURNER-She said about 15 feet. MR. CARVIN-I thought that was where the well was? MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARVIN-So your house is about 15 feet off the property line, approximately? - 4 - MRS. STAUNCHES-Yes. That's where it was built before the zoned the place. I've lived there 23 years. I don't feel like having my house burnt down. if one of the trailers should catch fire or something should catch fire there. MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Martin. I've got a question for you. Her well is going to be less than 100 feet from their leachfield. She uses her well for drinking water, although she has Town water within her residence. MR. MARTIN-I'm not sure, but I think that would have to go for a variance, separation distance. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-It's supposed to be 100 feet. MR. TURNER-Yes. She's 15 feet from her property line to her house. and her house, and her well, of course, is in her cellar. How big is your house? MRS. STAUNCHES-I don't know the size of the house. I know I've got two bedrooms, and a living room, dining room and kitchen, and one bath. MR. TURNER-So then this would be germane to this application, because you couldn't move it without that. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. TURNER-Okay. All right. I guess the move we ought to make, then, is to table this application until the information is provided and the variance is applied for. in respect to the distance from the well from their septic field. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I have a couple of questions. Are you going to leave the public hearing open? MR. TURNER-I'll leave it open. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I just had a couple of questions of Mr. Carroll. The trailer that you're proposing to put on this lot, I think in the specs I saw it was a 14 by 70 foot. Is that a new trailer. an old trailer? MR. CARROLL-It's a 1989. MR. CARVIN-An '89. and it's currently one that you own, is it? MR. CARROLL-We live there now. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is that a standard size for a mobile home? MR. CARROLL-Currently, yes. The older model would be shorter. 12 by 60. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and it's currently located on Ohio Ave., is it? Approximately where? MR. CARROLL-Yes. We live at 229. That's around, this vacant property's at 209. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is it just cheaper rent for you to move the trailer, or. what's the compelling reason? MR. CARROLL-In our case now, Today's Modern. which is the place we bought our home from. owns the lot and the one next to us. So we pay a monthly lease, whatever you want to call it, to stay on the - 5 - , -- camp. MR. TURNER-Lot rent. MR. CARROLL-But we're on a private piece of property, although it's a lot rent, I guess, and it's $225 a month. Based on that fact, that property, at the rate it is. we could get it and own it for that same amount of money. It just makes sense for us. MR. TURNER-So you're taking this with an option to buy then. right? Okay. MR. CARVIN-Thank you. MR. KARPELES-So you don't own that lot now? MR. CARROLL-Not the one that we're on. MR. KARPELES-How about the one you're going to put the trailer on? MR. CARROLL-We are in the process of trying to buy it. MR. KARPELES-But you don't own it? MR. CARROLL-No. Mr. Rivers bought it. He agreed to hold on to it until we got things cleared up here. and the bank financing comes through. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition to this application? SUSAN WILLIAMS MRS. WILLIAMS-My name is Susan Williams. I live on 209 Ohio Avenue. My only concern with this trailer is, seeing that they're parking it on the lot. being 15 feet from the road. if they have people come to their house, where are they going to be parking? Are they going to be parking on the corner? That's an obstruction. My children get on the bus on that corner, and as Denise said earlier. they barrel down through there all the time. Half the time they don't even stop at the stop sign. I'm concerned for the children. There's a store down the street, and not only my children, all the children in the neighborhood are down through there. MR. TURNER-How many children does the bus pick up at that corner. approximately? MRS. WILLIAMS-About 10 children. MR. TURNER-Ten. MRS. WILLIAMS-The problem in the winter time, they have no place else to be but in the street. MR. TURNER-Yes. I know. I've driven up through there lots of times, and you have to watch your step, because there's children allover the place, and you've got to go real slow. MRS. STAUNCHES-That's why we asked for the stop signs, but we can't get them put up. MR. TURNER-Well, that's a four way stop, is it not? MRS. WILLIAMS-Only on Ohio. through. Central Avenue they can go right MR. TURNER-They go down Central Avenue, but it's a two way stop the other way. - 6 - MRS. WILLIAMS-Yes. MR. TURNER-Right. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition to the application? Okay. I'm going to leave the public hearing open on this, and I would move to table the application. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-1993 ROBERT & HELEN CARROLL, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Pending an investigation as to the well of the neighbor, in relation to its distance from the septic field, as proposed in this application. Duly adopted this 15th day of September, 1993, by the following vote: MR. TURNER-So, until that's investigated, you'll have to come back. MR. CARVIN-Ted, will they also take a look at the ground out there? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-If that's rubble and stuff in there, to see what kind of. MR. TURNER-Yes, take a look at the fill that's in that foundation and see what's there, if you can, visually. AYES: Mr. Carvin, Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Philo AREA VARIANCE NO. 79-1993 TYPE WR-IA GERTRUDE A. YOUNG OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE BRAYTON LANE. ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO MODIFY THREE (3) EXISTING LOTS ON BRAYTON ROAD. ASSEMBLY POINT IN ORDER TO CREATE TWO (2) LOTS. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FORTY-THREE (43) FEET FROM SECTION 179-16C. WHICH REQUIRES LOT WIDTH OF ONE HUNDRED FIFTY (150) FEET. APPLICANT IS ALSO SEEKING RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-70A. WHICH REQUIRES FORTY (40) FEET FRONTAGE ON A TOWN ROAD. SINCE THIS PORTION OF BRAYTON ROAD IS NOT TOWN OWNED. SUBDIVISION REVIEW # 22-1993 BY PLANNING BOARD (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: 9/8/93 TAX MAP NUMBER: 6-3-15.1. 32, 33 LOT SIZE: 2.3 ACRES SECTION 179-16C. 179-70A MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 79-1993, Gertrude A. Young, Meeting Date: September 15, 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Brayton Lane, Assembly Point SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is seeking to consolidate three (3) existing lots into two (2) lots. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-70A. which requires forty (40) feet frontage on a town road, since this portion of Brayton is not Town owned. Section 179-16C requires lot width of one hundred fifty (150) feet. For the eastern lot, applicant is seeking relief of forty-three (43) feet average lot width. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING CODE. Creating lots which conform to the one (1) acre minimum for the WR-IA zone resulted in irregular lot shapes and a need for relief regarding average lot width. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY, OR IS THERE ANY OTHER OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH - 7 - WOULD REQUIRE NO VARIANCE? This appears to be the minimum variance necessary, and no other options appear available which would not require a variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It does not appear that there would be any detrimental effect involved with this project. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It appears there would be no impact on public facilities and services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: It appears this action would actually be an improvement over the current situation, where two of the lots are undersized. In addition, one structure currently straddles a lot line, and the proposed modification would achieve setbacks consistent with current zoning for this structure." MISS HAUSER-And Warren County Planning Board, on September 8th, recommended approval of this variance, "Wi th the condi tion that there is no increase in density." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Auffredou. MR. AUFFREDOU-Mr. Chairman, Martin Auffredou, of the law firm of Bartlett, Stewart, Rhodes, on behalf of the John Wallace Trust. To my right is Charles Young, on behalf of Gertrude Young. and also here is this evening is Gertrude Young sitting here in the front row, next to Gertrude is her son Fred. Just a couple of comments, really. Mr. Chairman, and Members, we think that, obviously, this is an improvement of the situation that's up there now. We're taking two undersized lots and creating two very conforming lots, with the exceptions of the variances noted. The lot sizes are greatly enhanced, greatly increased, with regard to the 40 foot requirement. Although Brayton Lane is not Town owned at that area, if any of you have been up there, it's a pretty good road. It's paved in this area. It's certainly very wide. We have wide enough, I should say. We have put a minimum 40 feet on that section. Admittedly it's a little odd configuration down there, but nevertheless. there is 40 feet, and that area is a wide, paved macadam. It's a good road. With regard to the variances requested for the minimum lot width, obviously, due to the configuration of the lots and the need to present to you two conforming lots, the surrounding owners, configuration of those lots, that's really the only thing that we can do. So. again, my pitch here tonight is to simply say we think we're improving the situation. Both lots are accessible by private roads. They've been there for many, many years. That road is in good shape, and we would ask for your approval tonight. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? None? This was created years ago, the piece of property was cut up into many pieces of pie, and now this is going to hopefully rectify some of it, and make it a whole lot better. Okay. I think I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further comment. any further questions? Motion's in order. Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 79-1993 GERTRUDE A. YOUNG, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: That we grant relief from Section 179-70A, which requires 40 feet frontage on a Town road. since this portion of Brayton Road is not Town owned. I would also move that we grant relief of 43 feet average lot width from Section 179-16C, which requires a lot width of 150 feet. The practical difficulty in that in order for the - 8 - applicant to create conforming one acre minimum size lots in the WR-IA zone results in some irregular shaped lots, and creating the need for relief from these particular sections. This does appear to be the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. There does not appear to be any detrimental effects to the other properties in the district or the neighborhood. There appears to be no impact on public facilities or services, and there should be no increase in the density with regard to these particular lots. By granting this variance, I think we actually would improve the current situation out there by creating two conforming lots. There should be no increase in density, as put forth by the Warren County Planning Board. Duly adopted this 15th day of September. 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Philo OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED NC-10 LEEMILT'S/GETTY PETROLEUM CORP. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE INTERSECTION OF DIXON AND AVIATION ROADS APPLICANT HAS AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE WHICH HOUSES THREE (3) EXISTING BUSINESSES AND ONE SECOND FLOOR APARTMENT. SECTION 179-66C. REQUIRES ONE (1) PARKING SPACE FOR EVERY ONE HUNDRED (100) SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE FLOOR SPACE (TWENTY (20) PARKING SPACES REQUIRED). APPLICANT IS PROPOSING EIGHT (8) PARKING SPACES AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWELVE ( 12) PARKING SPACES. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: 7/14/93 TAX MAP NUMBER: 91-1-1 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION 179-66(B) RON FORTUNE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 55-1993, Leemilt's/Getty Petroleum Corp., Meeting Date: September 15, 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: intersection of Dixon and Aviation Road SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant has an existing commercial structure which houses three (3) existing businesses and one second floor apartment. and needs to provide parking. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATION: Section 1 79-66C requires one (1) parking space for everyone hundred (100) square feet of gross leasable floor space. In this case twenty (20) parking spaces are required. Applicant is proposing eight (8) parking spaces and is seeking relief of twelve (12) parking spaces. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING CODE. The size of the parcel is not adequate to provide the number of parking spaces required on the basis of gross leasable floor space being utilized. 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? Applicant has supplied an alternative plan which would require relief of ten (10) parking spaces. There is no option available requiring no variance. except reduction of gross leasable floor space. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It appears that the variance would not be a detriment to other properties in the district or neighborhood. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It appears that the variance would not affect public facilities or services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: EIGHT (8) SPACE PLAN - Provides parallel parking which would be utilized appropriately by traffic from either Aviation or Dixon Road. However, the indication of parallel parking may not ensure that the - 9 - spaces are utilized in this manner, so head-in parking may occur from both directions. This plan would allow for two-way traffic through the parking lot, not necessarily all from customers of the businesses. TEN (10) SPACE PLAN - Provides seven (7) diagonal spaces which could only be properly accessed from Aviation Road. It appears that the space nearest Aviation Road would be difficult to back out of without entering Aviation Road. This plan proposes one-way traffic flow through the parking lot. If most of the customer traffic enters from Aviation Road, this would probably work, but there is the possibility of traffic entering from Dixon Road and not being able to park correctly. Wi th the narrower aisle, plus cars exiting spaces, the one-way aspect appears to be important to this proposal." MR. TURNER-Mr. Fortune. further? Okay. Do you want to add anything MR. FORTUNE-Yes. a few notes as to what this plan shows per the previous meeting. There's a guardrail along the rear property line shown on the plan, and as indicated, it was desired to eliminate the diagonal exi ting of people in the neighboring property out across our property. The snow shelf is represented with an area standard for removal. There is a larger dumpster area, also that there is no stating the type of repair that would be made to the paving area. There were some comments as to the appearance of the yard in the back, and again. our piece is. our property line, there is nothing from our property line to our building. Everything beyond, or in that general area. is not ours. Again, I think that the parking was described, the difficulties we're having as to meeting the concerns that were stressed by this Board. Also something was brought up as to a name on a door, Philadelphia Mannington, then it says, Contract Sales. and then there's. Hours of Operation. What this is. that's a carpet company. The Philadelphia Mannington is a carpet. and they do contract sales with contractors for that carpet specifically. and so it's part of the same carpet business that's there. Do you have any questions or concerns? MR. CARVIN-I like this design a lot better than the previous ones that were submitted. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-This one makes a lot more sense. MR. FORTUNE-Well, again, we were trying to meet the quantity versus. on the previous plans, rather than the. again, that useable spaces. MR. CARVIN-In your shaded areas planter, or is that going to be barrier, like these corners? here, some is that kind of go ing to be construction a or MR. FORTUNE-No. That would be more of a, again. a painted area. We would recommend that. There's going to be no barrier place there. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I wasn't sure. In other words, those would just be yellow lines? MR. FORTUNE-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. KARPELES-Well. which one do you want to get now, the ten car one. or the eight car one? MR. TURNER-Well, he's got two proposals, one or the other. MR. FORTUNE-Again, I think that there's problems with each. One - 10 - allows for a few more spaces. However, there are some, with the one way traffic, there is a problem there. We're very much aware that there's traffic there. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. FORTUNE-I think that for some the diagonal parking is probably the preferred. There were some that were wanting to see that. Again, the parallel lines would be more appropriate, but there's no other real way to do this. MR. TURNER-I think my question the last time to you was, what is the real count of cars that come to that facility during the day time? MR. FORTUNE-Under the worst case scenario. from Jaime, the lessee. he said that as many as 10 cars have been there at one time. MR. TURNER-That park at the facility, that come there and park there? MR. FORTUNE-That are there at one time. The only thing is that there are somewhere around seven, usually, at the worst case scenario. He has had as many as ten there, on a worst case scenario. So it's not the norm. MR. TURNER-Yes. The ten is not the norm. MR. FORTUNE-Right. Seven would be normal. MR. TURNER-Seven or eight would take care of it. wouldn't it? MR. FORTUNE-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-Would these be mostly employees, or what percentage of that would be employee parking? In other words. you've got the gas station and the carpet place, and they must have employees that I'm assuming drive, so that I would suspect that they're utilizing. MR. FORTUNE-At the very minimum, there's three. Jaime runs both the carpet and the print shop, and has the apartment. MR. TURNER-He lives upstairs? MR. FORTUNE-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So it's a safe assumption that between three to four of these parking places will be permanently occupied? MR. FORTUNE-Again. with him having those, control of three, I was saying three on the outside, the most that would be there actually is two, one operating the gas, and one plus the employee for Jaime, would be his car, and then his employee would be the third one. MR. CARVIN-Where would the gas tenants, they would be in these parking areas also? See, I guess what I'm trying to avoid is having a car just piled up by the whiskey barrels, in other words, up in the point section, or just having cars parked in spots other than the spaces there. MR. TURNER-Designated areas, yes. MR. CARVIN-The designated areas. MR. TURNER-You know what's going to happen if you leave them open. They're going to park any place. MR. FORTUNE-Again. there is room in front of the attendant's area, but it's not, or any area around the gas line, you know. it's not prudent for us to be parking there. It disturbs the general gas - 11 - operation. It's not in the best interest of that business. Again, I would say where the three cars are listed, just opposi te the handicapped would be a delineated space. MR. TURNER-Can you do the same plan with the eight car design that you have with the ten car design, diagonal parking instead of parallel, and then close that off, and put the painted lines on the corners. and have one way traffic from Aviation Road across, so you wouldn't get the two way traffic? MR. FORTUNE-I'm not understanding what you're saying. MR. TURNER-Okay. This is the ten car plan. Can you do the five car plan just like this? Close this off and make this one way this way. MR. CARVIN-Just make the spaces a little larger? MR. TURNER-Yes. You could provide this handicap here, and you could put, you've got seven there. MR. FORTUNE-I think we did that, on that plan. exactly like this. It shows that MR. TURNER-You've got three cars here, right, one, two, three, and your handicap, which is the same as that. MR. FORTUNE-Yes. MR. TURNER-And then you've got five cars here that are parallel parked. MR. FORTUNE-Right. MR. TURNER-Why can't you bring them in like this and make this one way this way, put that barrier on the corner there. MR. FORTUNE-But that's the only difference here. difference. That is the MR. CARVIN-See, in other words, this is the same here, Ted. The only thing it does it just slant them. MISS HAUSER-So you can put more in. MR. FORTUNE-That's all the difference is. MR. TURNER-Yes, five cars here. but you've got seven cars there, and you've You're going this way instead of this way. got MR. FORTUNE-Yes. three is eight. I think, seven and three is ten, and five and MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-My concern is that they come in and park, like, when I went down through there the other day, I mean, they were lined up, this way. MR. FORTUNE-Yes. Right now. when I stopped tonight, that's the way they were parked down there. was straight in. MR. CARVIN-And I'm assuming that those were employee parking, that those were probably the gas station and some, because I doubt very much that they were customers, and I don't go by that spot too often, but. MR. FORTUNE-Sure. MR. TURNER-Couldn't you provide a barrier so that you could make - 12 - this handicap, designate a handicap and then provide a barrier, so that they couldn't park here, they'd have to come in here and park and shut that right off? That would indicate where you could park handicapped. That would indicate where you could park your other people. Put a barrier across there and shut that right off. MR. CARVIN-I don't know if that would be wise for snow removal. Ted, because that would make it an awful narrow. MR. TURNER-I know. but you've got to define it some way. If you don't put a barrier there, they're going to come right in. They're going to park just like this. it's handicapped. It doesn't mean anything. MR. CARVIN-Well, I don't know if it's an enforcement problem, but one of those guys gets tagged with a $50 ticket. MISS HAUSER-If the barrier's there, then they have to go back out Aviation to get out of there. MR. TURNER-Would you put the two copies up on the Board, so the people can see them? MR. FORTUNE-Sure. MR. CARVIN-This probably is easier, but somebody coming up Dixon Road wants to go in there, they're going to, it's, there's no barriers. There's just paint on the ground again. This is what I'm saying. The only barrier there is this, which is fine, because that prevents the folks coming out of Sokol's to kind of scooting along the outside edges there. I think this is a wonderful idea, because when I went over there again last Saturday, this whole area was just full of paper and junk. and they had all their carpets out here again. and I'm debating, and I just don't know if that's a Saturday ritual or not. It's just a pie shaped wedge, and we've got 15 things going on in there. That's the problem. MR. TURNER-Well, what is it, there's too much activity for this size of a lot. MR. FORTUNE-Yes. It's an irregular shape and that, again, it destroys the usefulness and arrangement of the parking. I think that, again, any parking lot is allowed to have the painting on the site, and then with the snow removal difficulty, again. any obstruction. even the obstruction of the guardrail, again, I believe is going to define the traffic pattern on the site along the rear of the property. I think that will help, but if I re strict the property too much, I think it'll al so become a bottleneck and create problems. I think that an attempt should be made to try the impact of possibly one of these. and then we'll see what happens from there. MR. TURNER-I think what we ought to do is, if we decide to do whatever we do with it. let them do it for a year, and then come back and lets see what. MR. CARVIN-Well, yes. I don't know if there's any public opposition for or against. Certainly, I think that that's a pretty good. Lets let them have a temporary variance for a year, and see what the impact might be. I'm kind of leaning towards the one way traffic, but this one certainly is. I'm not positive this one would. MR. KARPELES-Yes. You would put a sign on the discharge end saying exit only, or something like that, I presume. MR. FORTUNE-We can do that. Yes. Whatever will help us, as far as on the building, that side. MR. KARPELES-It looks like they've got the best they can do with - 13 - it. I mean, it's an awful situation here. MR. TURNER-Okay. Let me open the public hearing and see if anybody else wants to speak. I'll open the public hearing on this application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-All right. What do you want to do? MR. CARVIN-Well, I think Bob has made a couple of good comments about putting, you've got to identify it, and I think that the one year. Again, my feeling on the thing is I suppose we ought to go with the ten, because I have a feeling that five of those are going to be occupied by employees. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I mean, there's always the employees and their friends, and when I go by there, there always seems to be at least five cars parked in and around the area, but I'm certainly not opposed to the other one either. MR. TURNER-Lets give them the ten and see how it works out, and if they don't need the ten, then we can drop back to the five, or whatever, at least that'll take the curse off for now. MR. CARVIN-Yes, I think the outside improvements, the expansion of the dumpster area, because, boy, that's really getting to be a mess, and certainly that whole thing has to be improved. I think this is going to, there is a fuel tank sitting right there, and I'd be real curious to see how that's going to affect your parking, because that is a build up area. and I believe there's a drain there, too, isn't there? MR. FORTUNE-I know that it's because of. again. the travel and all, that the paving never really went up to the property line, and it has been disturbed, and again this plan does propose to fix that, remedy that. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-1993 LEEMILT'S/GETTY PETROLEUM CORP.. Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Section 179-66C requires one parking space for everyone hundred spaces, square feet of gross leasable floor space. In this case, 20 spaces are required. Applicant is proposing 10 parking spaces, and is seeking relief of 10 parking spaces. The size of the parcel isn't adequate to provide the number of parking spaces required, on the basis of the gross leasable floor space being utilized. There is no option available requiring no variance. except reduction of gross leasable floor space. It appears that the variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood, and it appears the variance would not effect public facilities or services. This will be conditional upon having an entrance sign and exit signs to control the one way traffic through the parking space, and this will only be good for a one year period. This motion is conditional upon the snow shelf area being constructed and snow being trucked away off site when it's more than three feet high. It's conditional upon submitting a new plot plan showing the entrance and exit signs and the striping to be on the blacktop, and the landscaping, and the revised plan submitted to the Zoning Administrator wi thin 10 days. The striping will be completed within 45 days. - 14 - Duly adopted this 15th day of September, 1993, by the following vote: MR. MARTIN-Could I request a couple of things? Number One, that a revised plat be submitted to the Zoning Administrator within an agreed upon time frame, indicating the signage as requested in your conditions, and also that a condition be put on as to a time frame when all the striping, landscaping, and associated improvements on the site plan be undertaken. MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Fortune, would you care to respond to that? What do you think you could do in respect to those? MR. FORTUNE-Could I have 45 days? MR. TURNER-Forty-five days. MR. MARTIN-And be aware that painting on blacktop will not adhere after, we're quickly approaching that date. MR. TURNER-Yes. We're getting into that cold weather. you do first? Can you get the painting down first? What can MR. CARVIN-No. That road is impossible. MR. FORTUNE-No. MR. TURNER-No. You've got to blacktop, strip that. MR. MARTIN-I would say you're looking. probably. about the end of October before the blacktop plants will close, and the painting won't be able to be done, and I also understand that this is conditioned upon snow being removed off site. MR. TURNER-It will be. Do you want to move that? MR. KARPELES-Actually, that shows on the plot plan. MR. MARTIN-Yes. understood. I just want to make sure it's on the record and MR. TURNER-Put it on the record, Bob. Put it in your motion. MR. KARPELES-Okay. AYES: Mr. Carvin, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Philo OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED MR-5 LUCAS S. WILSON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE END OF WALKER LANE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO BUILD A FOUR (4) UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ON A VACANT PARCEL. APPLICANT IS SEEKING ONE HUNDRED (100) PERCENT RELIEF FROM SECTION NO. 179-70B. WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE MINIMUM FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC ROAD FOR SUCH USE SHALL BE THE WIDTH OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A PUBLIC COLLECTOR STREET. WHICH IS FIFTY (50) FEET. APPLICANT IS ALSO SEEKING RELIEF FROM SECTION NO. 179-62B. WHICH REQUIRES THAT ALL NONPUBLIC ROADS USED FOR VEHICULAR CIRCULATION IN ALL MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS SHALL BE DESIGNED IN WIDTH, CURVATURE, ETC.. TO ACCOMMODATE SERVICE AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES AND SHALL MEET ALL TOWN STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC ROADS. TAX MAP NUMBER: 60-7-14.1 LOT SIZE: 1.467 ACRES SECTION 179-70B. 179-62B BRUCE CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT - 15 - STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 71-1993, Lucas S. Wilson, Meeting Date: September 15, 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: end of Walker Lane SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is seeking to build a four (4) unit apartment building on a vacant parcel. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-70B, which requires that the minimum frontage on a public road for such use shall be the width of the right-of-way for a public collector street, which is fifty (50) feet. Applicant is also seeking relief from Section 179-62B, which requires that all nonpublic roads used for vehicular circulation in all multifamily pro j ects shall be designed in width, curvature, etc. . to accommodate service and emergency vehicles and shall meet all town standards for pUblic roads. Applicant has recently provided information indicating that the relief needed from Section 179-70B is fifteen (15) feet, rather than the entire fifty (50) feet. Application was tabled at the August 25, 1993 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. For additional staff notes, refer to notes prepared for that meeting." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Carr. MR. CARR-Good evening. Mr. Turner, Members of the Board. My name is Bruce Carr from the firm of Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker. and Firth, on behalf of the applicant. Also with me tonight is Mr. Wilson, the applicant. as well as Gary Hughes, the architect for this project. If you have any question concerning items, they may be able to address them. The first thing I want to do is clarify a little situation. At the last meeting. there was much confusion about the right-of-way at the end of Walker Lane, tax maps, things of that nature. After much research, it was determined that the property in question was still owned by the DorIon Family. On September 8th, I received a quick claim deed from Mr. DorIon and his sister. Mrs. Mitchell. That deed was recorded in the Warren County Clerk's Office, and I've got the Book and Page Number. At this time. I will submit a copy of the deed, which is contained as Item Number One in the packet, and I will explain the rest of the packet, but at this time. I'd like to make this packet part of the public record. MR. TURNER-All right. MR. CARR-As I explained. on September 8th, a deed was recorded, quick claim deed, from the DorIon Family into the applicant. What was given to the applicant was approximately a 35 foot width property extending to the westerly boundary of his property, as extended, which is the corridor that's shown on the tax maps being what was. to everyone's thinking. was Walker Lane. At this point, we feel that we own that property, and that we now have 35 feet of road frontage along the very cap of Walker Lane, as described in the Town of Queensbury records. The second item in that packet is a letter from Paul Dusek to Attorney Michael O'Connor relative to an application that was before this Board on very similar terms, involving road frontage variances. The letter I'll let you read for your own, but as you can see from the Town Attorney's opinion in this letter, for preexisting nonconforming lots of record, they present a classic case of hardship for an area variance from the road frontage requirement. The third item is a packet, and the packet is a chart of every application that this Board has acted on since 1989, that involved road frontage relief. There are 21 applications. One of them was a duplicate application. Out of the 21, I think there are 20 applications, because one was denied and came back and was approved, 19 were approved out of the 20, including Ms. Young's parcel tonight which was approved, involving a road frontage variance. That brings it up to 20 out of 21 applications before this Board has received the requested relief. The one that was denied was a subdivision of property, and in the minutes you will see that there is very little attention paid to the road frontage requirement. It was denied on the subdivision - 16 - aspect of it, which would have created sub level lots. At this time, Mr. Wilson does have road frontage on Walker Lane, 35 feet. Fifty feet is required. We are asking for a minimum variance of 15 feet. The property to the north is owned by Mr. Pinchuk. The property to the south is owned by Valente Builders. and is subject to a temporary easement. There is no other property available which would allow us to obtain 50 feet of road frontage along Walker Lane, and in fact, at that point, Walker Lane is not even 50 feet in width. It is 35 feet in width. So we match up, completely, with what the Town owns, at the end of Walker Lane. There's a second issue, and that is the relief from Section 179- 62B. I met with Town Attorney Paul Dusek and Jim Martin, and Sue on Monday, to discuss the need for this variance. Jim informed me, and, Jim, please correct me if I make a mistake on something you said, said he was taking the conservative approach. because the definitions needed to determine this issue are not contained in the Zoning Ordinance. There is a definition of Multifamily Dwellings. I'm not arguing that we don't have a multifamily dwelling, but the requirement under that Section for roads wi thin a multifamily project, not a dwelling. It's a multifamily project. That includes single family subdivisions, that includes apartment complexes, but if I could mention that a multifamily dwelling is not necessary to have that circulation pattern, but is anticipated under that Section of the Code. Furthermore. if you determine that our driveway into our property is more than that. and determine it as a road, there is no definitions within the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance of road or driveway. Webster's Dictionary, though. defines driveways as a road. So, if you, if it's your interpretation that this Section applies to multifamily projects and any nonpublic roads, I think you're having a problem with it, then you've got to consider every driveway as a nonpublic road with any multifamily project, and I don't think that's the intention of the Ordinance. We have the width, now, to put a 24 foot width driveway into our project. which I think would satisfy the safety concerns. Our concerns, at this point, though, are the other requirement that may be entailed with a Town standard road. which is going to add prohibitive cost to this project. I also feel, though, that the root of this problem is that if it's interpreted that this Section does apply to our project, there are many other pro j ects wi thin this Town that will now have to come back for variances to clear their title, or to obtain approval for projects that are already in place. If it's the Board's determination. I would even agree to take them two issues at a time, talk about the road frontage at once, and then talk about the driveway issue and whether or not it has to meet Town standards, and which Town standard it's going to be required to meet, but I'll leave that to the Board's discretion. MR. TURNER-Okay. How do you feel? MR. KARPELES-You've got me confused. You said you could build two 12 foot wide lanes, and yet you've got a 20 foot wide driveway, don't you? MR. CARR-Excuse me. No. We have 35 feet of property. We own it. MR. TURNER-They own it. Before they didn't. MR. CARVIN-I think. Mr. Carr, can you just show us what you own on this map now. I think I'm following you here. I just want to make sure. MR. CARR-Do you want me to explain, basically, how I think we own it? Would help the Board? MR. MARTIN-It might be helpful if you post a plat. too. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, if you put it up there and show us exactly what the quick claim was, and where. and exactly where the 35 feet. - 17 - MR. CARR-For that, I do have a revised map. MIKE O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, can I ask you a question? accepting revised maps tonight? Are you MR. TURNER-Yes, I think so. MR. O'CONNOR-I would object, for the record, that we haven't had time to review those in any manner. MR. CARR-Mr. Turner, may I address that? The instructions from the last meeting, to us. were to try to determine this issue and try to obtain more property. which would minimize our variance. I think we've done that. I didn't think there was a requirement that we inform Mr. O'Connor of our actions. The actual project has not changed in the slightest. It's merely an addition of lot lines, which minimizes our variances. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. 0' CONNOR-The comment, Mr. Chairman, was the standard filing requirements, which gives everybody the opportunity to review applications as they are filed, in an orderly and business like manner. MR. TURNER-Do you think that the information supplied is so condensed that you can't analyze it right now? MR. O'CONNOR-I disagree with whether or not Dorlons had a right to quick claim a deed, or what they own, even to the quick claim. I think we had an aspect here the last time which showed the title to another party. For this Board to all of a sudden have documentation presented to them tonight, I'll be glad to respond to it. MR. TURNER-I mean, it's new information, but it's information that was asked for. MR. CARVIN-That's correct. right-of-way. I wanted a clarification as to the MR. TURNER-That's my feeling. It's information that we asked for. MR. 0' CONNOR-Mr. Turner, any time you've asked for information, though, you've always asked for it to be submitted on a regular basis so that it would be appropriate for that next meeting. MR. TURNER-You didn't receive this information? You're not aware of this information that's on Staff Notes, or you didn't contact Staff Office in respect to this application? MR. O'CONNOR-I did not. MR. TURNER-You knew it was coming. MRS. CIPPERLY-Staff Notes were prepared last Friday. MR. 0' CONNOR-Would you accept information on the night of the application? MR. TURNER-Well, I think this is what we asked for, Mike. MR. O'CONNOR-I will be glad to follow that predecent. future, I want the same privilege. In the MR. TURNER-You'll have the same privilege. We asked for this. I think if you're representing a client, it's your duty to find out what's going on. - 18 - MR. O'CONNOR-The application was not submitted 10 days prior. It was not submitted at the time of the last submittal date for the Board. We did check to see what was submitted at that time. MR. CARVIN-Didn't we give him, like, an extension? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And I think that was agreed upon that evening. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I don't know if that's part of the minutes or not, but I'm pretty sure. We gave him an extra day to file. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. KARPELES-It seems as though the deed. there's a question of the validity of the deed. MR. TURNER-That's a legal matter. That's not for us. MR. KARPELES-I know. It's not up to us to determine that. MR. TURNER-It's a legal matter. Okay. Mr. Carr, continue. MR. CARR-Thank you. As the map will show. All I wanted to show was just where the lot in question was, for the members of the audience. Here's the end of Walker Lane. right about here. What we attained, from Mr. Dorlon and Mrs. Mitchell. was a 35 foot width of property that goes to the end of our property. So it's this long rectangular shaped parcel. We obtained that, just ownership. What we tried is just minimize the variance that we needed. Instead of 0 road frontage, we now have 35 feet, and for the Board's own knowledge, and al so just to he lp c lari fy the issue, what lead me to be lieve, and I'm not the only one. The Warren County Tax Map authorities are giving us this parcel as well, that the Dorlons still own the property. The fact that Valente Builders obtained the property in 1985. They filed their deed with the meets and bounds description, and they filed a survey map, with that deed, and I've got a copy of it if the Board would like to look at it. The survey map has a straight line up the southern border of Walker Lane all the way to the end of the property. It does not jut out that 35 feet. So according to their survey map and their meets and bounds description, they did not take that property in that deed, and Jay up at Warren County did the same research I did because a lot of people were asking about Walker Lane, and it's his belief that's the Dorlon's property. As you can see, it's recorded, Warren County, October 29th, 1985. Here's Walker Lane, and here's the property line, straight up. It does not jut out into this parcel. This is our parcel approximately right here. MR. MARTIN-Just for the Board's information. we talked about this at length with Paul Dusek, and he's of the opinion that ownership of this property is really not a concern of this Board, in terms of the review of this application, and he's available if you need to hear from him directly to that effect. That's really a matter between the property owners, or the purchaser and the seller. If he's making the claim on the record that this is under his ownership, then the Board has to go with that as being the case. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-Mr. Turner, that's about all I have at this time. I just wanted to say I think the Town Attorney's letter is pretty clear on matters of this nature. It's a clear case of practical difficulty. The past history of this Board, it's very clear that this has been the relief that is commonly granted, because of these preexisting nonconforming lots of record, and for that reason I believe we are - 19 - entitled to the area variance. Section 179-62B, I disagree determination, as Jim knows, Board on that issue. As to the need for a variance from with the Zoning Administrator's and would await discussion of the MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ESTHER DANSKY MRS. DANSKY-My name is still Esther Dansky. I still live at 6 Dorlon Drive. and I'm still a member of the Board of Directors of the Baybridge Town homes. When we last met in August. we stated our reasons why we were opposed to you granting this variance, and this evening, I think you can tell by the number of our Association that are here, that we are still hoping you will deny this variance. However, in the interest of time, tonight we have it in the form of a written petition with 91 signatures, and at this time, if I may, I would like to present you with a copy. You have the original right there. These are copies for you. and if you have any questions on any of those. I'm sure some of us would be glad to try and answer them. I would just like to reinforce the fact that after having attended several Planning Committee meetings, that it was presented that eventually there may be three buildings on this property, and that reinforces some of those concerns that you have in front of you. MR. TURNER-Okay, but you are aware that this is a multifamily residential zone? MRS. DANSKY-Yes, I know. MR. TURNER-Okay. So that is an allowed use there. If anybody wanted to develop that property, that didn't need any variances, they went through a subdivision approval, they might be well on their way to having what they want. MRS. DANSKY-But in keeping with our Queensbury Town motto, we are urging you to deny this variance. Thank you for your time. MR. TURNER-Thank you. MR. CARR-Mr. Chairman. can I just see the petition? MR. TURNER-Sure. Who wishes to be the next speaker. opposed to the application? LIZ VALENTE MRS. VALENTE-I'm Liz Valente. I live on 60 Sweet Road. I also own Valente Builders with my husband. I don't know. I'm not an attorney. I don't know much about a quick claim deed, but I do have to object to what Jim said about the question of who owns the property, as far as being an important issue in this regard, mainly because I was called by Niagara Mohawk, between this meeting and the last meeting we had, and they had called me because. in many instances, whenever they get a request for utilities, they have to start digging into properties, and boundaries lines, and they had met with Mr. Wilson's representative, I guess. and knowing that I owned adjoining properties, they asked me if I knew anything about it. According to my understanding, this road was to be paved. Was it not? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. VALENTE-Okay. and Niagara Mohawk does assuming require, that we have they would 35 feet of width, require 10 feet, - 20 - preferentially, for utilities. They cannot put utilities onto a paved road. Okay. So now you're not talking about 35 feet of road. You're talking about 25 feet of road. even with the understanding that Mr. Wilson owns the property. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think what he's proposing is a 24 foot wide paved driveway, leaving 11 feet. MRS. VALENTE-Okay. That's right. That's what I'm saying, you have to have at least 10, but you have electricity on one side, and you have gas on the other. My understanding also is, from Niagara Mohawk, they were not aware, when Lucas applied for his house, and his gas, that he didn't call to their attention the fact that Mr. Pinchuk owned 80 feet in front of him, on the electric side of Walker Lane. So that property will have to be traversed, and I believe an apple tree has to be pulled out as well. because I be 1 ieve it's on Mr. P inchuk' s property. So, he would have to address the fact that, Mr. Pinchuk's land, electricity. Also, my main concern has always been that the Town of Queensbury conceptuall y approved Baybridge back in 1985, with the understanding and the approval of DEC, ENCON, all the things we went through. If my leach beds were to be up at the top end of Walker Lane, where they are now. my leach beds are not more than 20 feet off of, lets say, the southerly property line, now they have quick claim deeds here, which, I would have to find out, consult my attorney about, but the point is, we've objected from the beginning about his absorption beds impacting. Right now there are, I believe, 64 units in Baybridge, with another 110 to be built, and I would like to call attention to the Town, that unlike Mr. Wilson, when we had Baybridge approval, we were technically allowed to at least double the density that we're doing now, I mean, that we sought approval for. He is looking to impact this property to maximum density. We chose, and that was no because it was zoned any differently. That was what we were allowed. We're allowed over three hundred units in there if we wanted to build them, 284, excuse me, and it was because of the soils, and the nature of those soils, and the nature of the land that we really felt that it was improper to do that, and I can honestly say most developers don't come in here and go for minimum density. They go for maximum density. We really do not feel this is a hardship. Mr. Lucas paid the equivalent of a single family lot, if that, for 1.4 acres in the Town of Queensbury, with gas and water services. You are hard pressed to find a lot for $30, $31,000. I really can't see that he can claim a hardship in this regard. I mean, the property was purchased at a very, very good price, but like I said, basically, my problem here is the question of who legitimately owns the property, because Niagara Mohawk and the Town are involved, because easements will have to be granted, and Niagara Mohawk absolutely will not get in the middle of anything. You're going to have to prove it to them. MR. TURNER-I know. MRS. VALENTE-And also, like I said, my septics at Baybridge. which represents all the people here as well, because they cannot be negatively impacted with something like this right on top of them. I'm sorry, but I really think you have to take that into consideration. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. Who wishes to be heard next? Mr. O'Connor? MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, I'm Michael O'Connor. from the law firm of Little and O'Connor. I'm here representing Steven Pinchuk who owns property immediately to the east of the property that is the subject of consideration of the Board at this time. Mr. Pinchuk has a single family home on that property, and is concerned with the impact this development will have on that, and his privacy there. I may take a different - 21 - tact, at this point. If you allow the applicant to submit new information to you, on behalf of Mr. Pinchuk, I would like to ask the Board to table this matter for a month to allow me to submit some additional information to this Board at this time. MR. CARR-Of what nature? MR. O'CONNOR-I think can contradict very clearly the ownership of what has been shown, as part of that quick claim deed, by having proper abject title here before you, and I can submit it to your Town Attorney ahead. if it is a legal issue, and let him give you his legal opinion. I think it is a matter that the Town has always taken into consideration. The claim of ownership of property, I've been involved in three or four times. and that's been a direct issue. When property rights are an issue, is that our precedent for a basis for you to make a determination. MR. CARR-Mr. Turner, may I address that? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-That is a legal issue, and as was very clearly stated to me, Jim Martin, and Sue on Monday by the Town Attorney, the issues as to the ownership are legal issues. and not to be considered in the zoning process. If we are granted our application here tonight, and if it turns out, in fact, we do not own the property, which I do not believe is true, but if we do not, then our variance is a nullity, and there's been no harm, no foul. We'll have to file a new application and come back, and if we wait another month, we'd have to come back, and I think it's just wasting this Board's time getting involved with a legal issue that should be decided by a court. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Mr. O'Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm not asking this Board to get involved in a legal issue. It is a legal issue, I would refer that to the Town Attorney. Let him give you his opinion. I think it is a critical part of this application, as to what frontage they have, as to the extent of relief that they're asking. I don't know how you can make a judgement whether or not this is the minimum relief they are entitled to do, given the fact there is a question as to what they own. They have submitted affidavits. They have submitted surveys before. which contradict even some of the language you have there. A quick claim means no more than what it says. A person conveys what right, if any, they have in the property. It doesn't mean that the person conveying the, or signing the quick claim deed owns the property. There's no warranty there, and I can read that language off there, but it's a standard form, quick claim deed, is there a title policy in that packet? MR. TURNER-No. Is there one in there, Bruce? MR. CARR-We've got a person working on it. There was no time to get us that copy, and as the description is very clear, we go from Valente's property across whatever the Town owns of Walker Lane, to Pinchuk's property. That's the only property that's in question. We can't go any further either way. MR. O'CONNOR-If you look at the prior deed from Walker to here, it gives the property to what would be the north of the south line of Walker Lane in a general sense, not by meets and bounds. They've conveyed a parcel, by meets and bounds description, which is 53.53 acres, and then it says, also, all rights, titles, interests to the parties of the first part, in and to the Lane known as Walker's Lane, adjoining the premises above referred to on the north, and subject to the right-of-way, already granted to various persons to be used. It is the intentions of the parties of the first part to convey to the party of the second part all the properties which the parties of the first part now own on the westerly side of Bay Road, - 22 - and southerly of the northerly line of said Walker's Lane, subject to the right-of-way already granted to various persons. That is the deed which is the predecessor deed to the Valente property, and if you look at the Valente deed, you're going to see that it also gives everything that's pertinent to that parcel. I don't think I'm going to have difficulty showing to the Town Attorney that the applicant, in fact. may have a quick claim deed. I don't dispute that, but the quick claim deed is from parties that no longer had title to that parcel. I think that's a cloud that's going to be put before you. You are entitled to have an answer to it before you go forward. You're setting. perhaps, a very poor precedent. You tell me how you want to proceed. I think. in fairness, I would like the opportunity to present adequate information to you which will Mr. Pinchuk and effect the other 90 people who signed that petition. MR. CARR-Mr. Turner, may I address that? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-Any information he presents to you is going to be a legal argument, and that legal argument is meant for the courts of law, and that's where we intend to go. that's where I'm sure Mr. Valente intends to go, depending on how the results are. MR. O'CONNOR-My only comment I might make. MR. TURNER-Wait'll she comes back. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Carr, are any of these 20 applications for anything other than single family homes? MR. CARR-There's some in MR-5 zones. properties, so yes. There are some commercial MR. O'CONNOR-Anything other than single family, though? MR. CARR-I don't know. I looked at zones. MR. O'CONNOR-I did Whitty. That was single family. I did Wiley. That was single family. MR. CARR-Were they granted? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, for single family. Mr. Dusek, I objected to proceeding with this application this evening because new material was be ing submitted to this Board, at the time of hearing, not prior to this time. I also have asked the Board for its consideration to allow me 30 days to respond to the new material, and in particular I wish to respond to this document that's evidence as to the claim of ownership now of a 35 foot strip which would connect the prior parcel to the Town road system. We believe that we have an abstracted title and can produce a contingent title that the grantor of the quick claim deed that has been offered here in fact did not own that parcel or that strip of land at the time of the granting. I don't dispute the fact that a quick claim deed has been presented by Dorlon and Mitchell, but our review of prior title along that area indicates, and indicated that the last time we were here before the Board that the predecessors to those people had already granted that parcel to the owner to the south of the property, and Mr. Carr has objected to my asking for the adjournment, in part. or in great part, I think, because he says that's a legal issue, not to be determined by this Board in any manner. I agree. I said I would probably be submitting the information to you because I think it is important for an applicant to be able to demonstrate that they own parcel that they are speaking of for the variance application before the Board. Particularly when you get into a question as to how much of a variance they're asking for, are they asking for minimum relief or maximum relief, are they asking for relief of 15 feet or a total 50 - 23 - feet. That's an issue that this Board can't avoid. That's part of the application. PAUL DUSEK, TOWN ATTORNEY MR. DUSEK-Mike. the first question I have. you indicated that there was some information that's new. Is that about the road, or is there other information? MR. O'CONNOR-It's about the road. I also noted, quickly, that he was subject to a different configuration and I think a little bit different location. I don't know what's in here. I just looked quickly a Item Number One, the quick claim deed, an index shows there are 24 items and there are various other applications which have been referred to as precedent for the granting of this particular application. MR. CARR-All a matter of public record. That's where I got it. MR. DUSEK-So then we're looking at, in terms of what is new, though, it's the road issue, then, is that it? MR. O'CONNOR-As far as I've seen so far, yes. MR. DUSEK-Okay. Well. first of all, the Board, of course, has discretion, in terms of whether it wants to hold the matter open or decide the case tonight. You don't have. you have the time, under the Ordinance. I believe it's 30 days, it may be slightly longer. in which to decide a case after it's come to a hearing. So there's no question in my mind you have the right to wait. As to the issue of property rights and ownership, I had occasion to do some research on this, back awhile ago. So it's pretty fresh in my mind, at this point. My understanding of the law. based on a court of appeals case that I read, was that when an applicant comes before a Board and makes certain representations. the Board is not liable or responsible for those representations. to make sure they're completely accurate and have to investigate title, because that's not your job, nor could you be expected to do so. If there's contest over property titles, those type of contests belong in a court of law. Thi s Board's job is that of the Zoning Ordinance. and whether a case has been made before you to grant whatever relief is being sought through that zoning variance application. You have a right to presume certain information. If the applicant has made a reasonable case to you to indicate that he is the owner of the property, even though it's been contested by other counsel, I don't think this Board has to get into that issue. I might also say that I don't think even I should get into that issue, as the Town Attorney for the Town, because that's not an issue that the Town has to be concerned with in these proceedings, that we should not be passing on the title. That really, properly. belongs in court. and if a court should rule that the title goes to somebody other than the applicant, well then the applicant will no longer have a basis upon which to proceed in any event. So his variance will fall. As far as the cri teria goes. that the applicant is representing that he owns whatever the number of feet is of property. then the Board basis it's decision on that, and that's the variance he gets. If later the applicant finds, by reason of whatever circumstances he finds them in, two weeks. a month, two months from now. that he doesn't have that. then his variance is not going to help him, and he's going to have to come back before this Board with whatever he has. So the applicant's placing himself at risk by proceeding at this point, I think. MR. O'CONNOR-The burden actually begins with the applicant, and what I'm asking that the Town allow the parties here to try and have a full day before this particular Board, with consideration. rather than putting an automatic burden on this Board or on the onus to go to court to challenge a determination that this Board might not otherwise make. I think this Board would be greatly effected if they thought they were granting 50 foot relief, as - 24 - opposed to maybe 15 feet relief. MR. CARR-They aren't granting 50 foot of relief. We're asking for 15 feet of relief. MR. 0' CONNOR-I think it's discretionary, as to the question of adjournment, and I think that we can show such evidence, documentary type evidence, that it won't be a question of the fact, that the Board will say they are not satisfied with the applicant's application at that point, as to a showing of rights. MR. DUSEK-Well, as I started off with, there's no question that this Board does have discretion, as far as whether or not it wants to adjourn the meeting to a later date. You don't have to make a decision tonight. If it's just a contest over the property. unless the applicant and Mr. O'Connor are going to resolve that in the meantime, between themselves, I don't know if we're going to be in that much different of a position 30 days from now than you are right now. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, even this map that's been submitted shows all the utilities connecting across the lands of Pinchuk. There's no right-of-way for that. There's no easement for that. MR. CARR-That's a site plan issue. It's not. we have now title to the property, we've also been in contact with, that have assured us that they have the right to put that there. So that would have to be an issue at site plan. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I take it that that's an issue that's before this Board because the applicant is asking for relief from this Board, indicating to this Board that he can build this property. Can I come in and build a, tell the Board I'm going to build a 40 foot, 40 story building in the middle of the Aviation Mall, and have the Aviation Mall come in here and say, why are you doing this, and I say, well, I own it, and somebody else come in and say, well, that's a property issue. You can't determine that. You've got to go through the whole process of determining whether or not you want to have that building built and then let them argue about the ownership some place else. MR. DUSEK-Well. that's exactly the case, though, that. in fact, Court of Appeals case that I was referring to. in fact. dealt with somebody who came to Town for a permit, Mike. MR. O'CONNOR-Last month we were here and the applicant at that time did not have adequate information. We did not push the Board for a determination. I asked this as a matter of discretion for the Board. We did not push the Board to make its determination then, which probably would have been contrary to the applicant. I'm asking for the same opportunities to enable me to get together information to present to the Board. Make your decision the way you want to, if you want to go forward or not go forward. MR. CARR-Mr. Chairman, the only information he can supply is the Valente deed, which was presented to this meeting at the last meeting, by Mr. Valente himse 1 f, or Valente Bui lders' deed, I'm sorry, by Mr. Valente. There's no new information he can present. He can show you title opinion, but he can't interpret the title opinion. That's a leqal question. I mean, ownership is a legal question. There's no new information. MR. TURNER-Anything further, on behalf of your applicant, other than what you just stated? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I'm waiting. Has the Board made a decision that they won't grant me any decision? Is that your decision or the Board's decision? MR. TURNER-No. that's not my decision. We'll all decide that. - 25 - MR. O'CONNOR-Well. can I ask you. would you allow me the one month adjournment so that I can gather the information that I wish to submit to you? MR. DUSEK-Before the Board makes a decision, let me just ask a couple of questions. Maybe that might help. Mike, in addition to this property issue, then, what is the other basis for asking for the extension, just to make sure that's clear? MR. O'CONNOR-I'd like to review the applications that are submitted here so that I can make a fair comment on them. MR. CARR-They're all public record. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm sure they're all public record, but you submitted a bulk of 24 applications, and used that as a basis for his suggestion that this is a proper variance. MR. DUSEK-Okay. So one basis that you're asking for an opinion is the fact that this booklet was presented tonight and you haven't had a chance to review it? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. DUSEK-Okay. Is there any other basis? MR. O'CONNOR-I also believe that I can show, by documented evidence, that they do not have title to that 35 foot strip, and that what they're asking is an inactive application. MR. DUSEK-Okay. Is there any other basis for the extension? MR. O'CONNOR-No. I think that's it. MR. DUSEK-Okay. I think, now. the Board has the arguments in front of it as to exactly why he's asking for an extension, and as I indicated at the beginning, you do have discretion. because you don't have to, under the law, make a decision tonight. So, it's up to the Board. MR. TURNER-What's your thoughts? MR. KARPELES-I think we should give him time to review this thing. MR. CARVIN-Well, my feeling is with Mr. Dusek. I think that this is a legal matter. I think we've got two issues before the Board. I think we've got, the applicant has presented. I mean, any time we're presented documents, we have to assume that they're correct documents. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. CARVIN-We get tons and tons of information. We can only go by what is presented to us. I mean. the applicant has indicated that they only require a 15 foot variance, as far as the road frontage is concerned. Anything over and above that, I truly believe, becomes a legal matter, and obviously, if the courts decide that the ownership issue is against the applicant, then if we should grant this variance, it would fall flat. As far as the information in the booklet, it's just a review of, there's 20 or 22 cases of what this Board did in the past. which does not necessarily indicate what we're going to do in the future, because we have to weigh each of these situations on their own merits. So even though we might have approved 22 applications in the past for the road frontage does not necessarily mean that this Board has to grant this one. So, to review and take the time to review history that has gone before, I'm not sure that that's going to present anything more than what we have al ready. I mean, if anybody should be reviewing it. it probably should be us, but I know. looking at the - 2G - review, I sat on many of those cases, so from that aspect, I think that we should just address the issues, and the issues, really, are outlined in what we need to address, as far as granting an area variance, and my feeling is that we should move forward. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I agree with Fred. We should move forward on this, and if push comes to shove. let them take care of it in the courts. If they have to Article 78 it, let them Article 78 it. MR. TURNER-The same? MISS HAUSER-Yes. MR. TURNER-Me. also. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I will address what I think are the question that we have as to the application. as it's been submitted. without admitting, or agreeing to their actual request. You have to go back to last month's, and the applicant here has, in this particular application, submitted an area variance for what he shows as one building, but he has shown before the Planning Board. shown in the past. that there is a potential of three buildings or twelve apartments, on his parcel alone, and I think that was part of the discussion. I think that that has to be part of the consideration of this Board, what is the total buildout potential, or this Board has to limit its variance to a particular buildout, that will not create a safety problem with the driveway or the roadway that is shown. The Staff made a comment that he's not actually asking for the maximum relief. He is asking for maximum relief, in the sense that, regardless of how much frontage he does or doesn't have, he's saying he still wants the maximum density on his parcel. I don't think half the people would be here. I don't think, probably, three quarters of the people would be here, if they were talking about building a duplex back there. if you're talking about building a single family back there, but to come in and still try to preserve the right or the option to build 12 units there, based upon this variance, because once you've set this up as a variance. I'm not sure he has to come back. You have created this as a legal building lot, but without any restrictions on density, and I think he would be very well served to simply go back in and apply for a building permit, maybe go back for site plan, but he would not have to go back for a conditional variance, because you've set the precedent. You've said thi s is a legal building lot, in an MR-5 zone, so that whatever the densities are that he could get, he would be entitled to them. So I don't think you should be looking at this simply as a four unit building. You should be looking at what the total buildout potential is on the parcel, unless you're going to limit your approval. Secondly, I think you also have to look at the precedent that you've set for the parcel that is to the west of this that is still owned by Dorlons. That parcel has the potential of 30 to 40 units. that you have the potential for up to 50 units being served by a private driveway. You have no construction details. that I'm aware of, and this is again, something I'm not, there were no construction details last month submitted. MR. TURNER-No. MR. O'CONNOR-So, you show, you know, the world is flat. This is a flat piece of land. There's no topographical features there, that I'm aware of. There's no drainage. You don't know how that road's going to be maintained, or whatever. That's part of the variance application, because you're supposed to be saying that these parcels have adequate ingress and egress for emergency purposes. I know that that's an issue that also comes up at site plan review. but you can't simply shuffle it to that and presume that they're going to answer that issue, because you're supposed to be able to tell us that this is not going to be detrimental to those four families that are going to live in there, or, more importantly, is not going to be detrimental to the firemen that would respond. or - 27 - the ambulance people that would respond. to an emergency on that site, and I don't think you have adequate information before you from the applicant to make an intelligent determination along that line. If you take a look at the second part of the application, the application says that drives or roadways to multifamilies shall be such that they will provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. It's simply showing a 20 foot roadway, and that's what's still on here, a 20 foot wide driveway. That's not even the 24 foot driveway. I thought we heard talk earlier of 24 foot. So I thought it had been changed. MR. CARR-I think on the new map it shows it can be expanded to 24 foot. MR. O'CONNOR-I see 20 foot on what's been submitted. MR. TURNER-Yes, you're right. MR. O'CONNOR-Again, it has no indication. It does say. option, 24 foot, but it doesn't change the line. MR. CARR-Yes. It's optional 24 foot. MR. O'CONNOR-It shows, if you look at the map, a line of future Town right-of-way. Would this be dedicated to the Town? MR. CARR-That's for the applicant to decide and the Town to determine if they even want it. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, if you're setting up a precedent where you're going to let somebody build a building, and then set up the basis that they can come back and argue that the Town can take over and plow it and maintain it for safety purposes, I'm not sure where you're going. I'm not sure which is the cart and which is the horse. Considering, also that this is a variance, and you are entitled to put reasonable conditions upon it, representing Mr. Pinchuk, we would prefer to have a different layout than what's shown here, which you certainly are entitled to do. We would prefer not to have a building immediately adjacent to his property line. We would rather have it laid out on the other side of the property. So we have three considerations when we get to the meri ts of what they have. One, you must consider the total buildout of this property. Two. you must consider the precedent that you're setting for the adjoining parcel, which is under the very identical circumstances. no different, and you have to consider that, at least for this parcel here, they probably wouldn't be back for anything additional from this Board, if they increase their use from four to twelve, and we have a question as to the layout. We have a question as to what type of driveway we have here? How do you know that you have adequate access for emergency vehicles? The other issue that's not been discussed at all by the applicant, I guess. is waiting for discussion by the Board, and I will wait until you have that discussion before I comment. MR. TURNER-All right, but before you go. the last time around, there was a letter from the Fire Marshal, indicating there was proper access for emergency vehicles to that site, based on the 20 foot wide roadway. MR. O'CONNOR-Not that I'm aware of. MR. TURNER-You don't remember that? MR. O'CONNOR-I do recall that. I do recall you were going to talk to Paul Naylor. also, because Paul Naylor had submitted a letter on the Wiley application. MR. TURNER-Yes. and you wanted reference as to how far the Town goes with that road. - 28 - MR. O'CONNOR-We have that. We have submitted a survey description that says the Town ownership is to the end of the pavement. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-There was a survey that was done for the Town by Van Dusen and Steves. There's a letter that's in the Town file. MR. MARTIN-That's correct. It is to the end of the pavement. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-That says that the actual Town ownership. MR. MARTIN-I think what we had before, Ted, is I talked with Kip Grant about this. the Fire Marshal, and he saw the design as, just looking at it there, he thought it was adequate. I don't know that we ever got a letter to that effect. but he did verbally indicate that it was adequate. MR. TURNER-I might have missed both, but we did talk about it the last time, in reference to that, that he thought it was adequate. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And I thought we were going to submit it to him again, or the Town was going to submit it. I think that's it. There is a specific section that says that, inadequate, that a multifamily dwelling will have access and drive equivalent to what would be a Town road. The minimum width of a Town road is 50 feet, and if you take a look at the driveway along the west side of that property, it's only 20, and you come across the front of the property, it's 20 feet, maybe there's 24 feet. MR. MARTIN-I don't know if you've seen my letter, Mike, but I've since written a letter to that, the Board has my determination that a nonpublic road should meet the specification of a Town road. MR. O'CONNOR-Which is 50 feet. MR. MARTIN-Fifty feet, currently with 28 feet of paving, with two foot swales, all of that. MR. O'CONNOR-Which is not what's shown on this plan. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-So, again, intelligent application, application. I don't know or intelligent how you can determination make an on this MR. TURNER-As to what? As to the width of the road? MR. O'CONNOR-As to whether or not the access is adequate. Are you presuming what he's going to do? Are you presuming that he's? MR. TURNER-I'm not presuming anything. He's indicating what he's going to do. He's indicating he's going to have two 12 foot, and two swales. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't see that as you go into the site. I've only seen this here within the last half hour. but along the west side of the property. MR. TURNER-It's a matter of record. MR. O'CONNOR-Can I see it on the map? It's not on the map here. - 29 - MR. CARR-Mr. Turner. what's shown on the map is the 20 foot driveway with the option to go out to the south four feet, okay. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-Okay. What we're asking for is. if we're held to these standards, is a variance from those requirements. One of the requirements is for the 30 feet at the beginning of our driveway along Mr. Pinchuk's property. We can't have a two foot swale on his property. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. CARR-We can have it on the other side, and we will, and as soon as we get onto our property, which is only 30 feet up the road, we'll have our two foot swale, if that's what's required. MR. O'CONNOR-I see where they've put in by language only option 24 feet to go across the front of the property. MR. TURNER-Yes. right. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't see it along the west. That's considered part of the drive. That's considered part of the access to the apartments. That's where the emergency vehicles would go in. MR. TURNER-Yes. It indicates 20 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, which is not in compliance with the Ordinance. MR. CARR-And that's why we're asking for a variance. MR. O'CONNOR-There they're asking for a 30 foot variance. I think the last time we got into that, we talked about having 28 feet cleared. and the ability to clear this whole 30 feet. We talked about, and that was on the mylar, and that was what Naylor came back with, because it was the equivalent of a private road, and that was for a single family. That wasn't for a multifamily. MR. TURNER-Okay. That's your presentation? MR. O'CONNOR-My presentation for the moment. MR. TURNER-Okay. I guess I'd have one comment. Mr. Pinchuk, I have a comment. Mr. Pinchuk, when you were here the last time. you indicated that you bought that property knowing that that was an MR-5 zone, did you not? STEVEN PINCHUK MR. PINCHUK-My single family residence? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. PINCHUK-Yes, I did. MR. TURNER-So, I guess my point is, knowing that, and knowing that this could happen, I don't know where you're coming from. MR. PINCHUK-Which property are you talking about? MR. TURNER-This property here. the lands of Steve Pinchuk. Is that the one you indicated you bought. that's MR-5? MR. PINCHUK-I own three lots on Walker Lane. MR. TURNER-Okay. All right. So which one were you referring to? MR. PINCHUK-The three lots I knew were in an MR-5 zone, yes. MR. TURNER-Are they shown on this map? - 30 - MR. PINCHUK-They're down the road. MR. TURNER-Okay. How about this. where your house is? MR. PINCHUK-Yes. My home is there, but I also own three lots down the road. MR. TURNER-I know, but is your home MR-5? MR. PINCHUK-I don't know. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, but I think when he bought it though he bought it at the end of a roadway which had a farm lane, which had two good sized posts on it, indicating that there's no public roadway going beyond that. He was shown a survey map that shows that there was only a 20 foot lane right-of-way at most that would go out to those lots. That's not something that he'd reasonably expect would be developed to multifamily. regardless of what the zoning is. You're presuming that simply because it's multifamily, you can build. MR. TURNER-No, no. I'm not presuming anything. My concern is, why would you go and buy a piece of MR-5 property and put the house that he has there, and the land that he has there. MR. PINCHUK-It's a existing house. MR. TURNER-Okay. It's a existing house. MR. O'CONNOR-And the house was probably built as a single family house, prior to the MR-5 classification. MR. TURNER-Yes, it was. You're correct. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't know whether that's an issue. MR. PINCHUK-I never checked the zoning on the single family house I bought. It was a single family house when I bought it. MR. TURNER-Okay. That was my question. Thank you. wish to be heard in opposition to the application? Anyone else ARNOLD DANSKY MR. DANSKY-Arnold Dansky. I live at Baybridge development. On the map it indicates Maple Row Farm. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. DANSKY-The place where it indicates Maple Row Farm is Baybridge housing development. I wonder how much else of the map is inactive. This would be south of Walker Lane. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. DANSKY-South of Walker Lane, and east of Baybridge property. MR. TURNER-Yes, I see it. MR. DANSKY-That's Baybridge Townhomes. MR. TURNER-All right. Is that what that was called before that was purchased? MRS. DANSKY-No. that vicinity. Maple Row Farms is on the other side. It was never Maple Row Farms. It's not in MR. DANSKY-It might be well to point out the date on this map of '93. It probably was not Maple Row Farms in '93. MR. CARR-Maple Row Farms. for the record, is on the northern border - 31 - of our property. MR. DANSKY-That's the southerly border of this property, what you've got indicated on the map. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-I made the directional MR. TURNER-Who LIZ VALENTE a mistake. I think our application is correct, in of who owns the property and the tax map numbers. else wishes to speak. first time around? MRS. VALENTE-This is Mrs. Valente again. for the record. I wanted to ask a couple of questions, please. Mr. Carr something about a swale on the southerly side of Walker Lane. you please tell what he's talking about? just said Will MR. CARR-I'm just trying to comply with what I've been told by the Town, Town road standards, and the paved area with the two foot swales. MRS. VALENTE-You mean the apron? MR. TURNER-Swale, drainage. MR. MARTIN-It's 12 foot paved lanes with two foot paved swales on each side, for a total paved width of 28 feet. MRS. VALENTE-Okay, and I would hope that, since I really don't know what function every Board municipality has. when I'm asking specifically about my concerns about septics at Baybridge. which Boards will have to address that? Would the Board of Health also be involved in this. since this is a commercial endeavor. I consider anything that's a rental property commercial. I don't consider it private. residential. MR. DUSEK-Who's the question directed to? MRS. VALENTE-Just tell me, who would have to address, like I said, I'm thinking of snow being plowed, with my septic beds being 20 feet off of, lets say if Mr. Wilson really owns 35 feet. because I'm not going to get into a legal argument with him now either. I know what my abstract says. So, I'm saying. lets give him the benefit of the doubt. that he now owns 35 feet. and I have beds sitting 20 feet beyond the 35 feet, and I have a real concern about all these septic fields that are up there. Who is going to address that, and at what time? MR. DUSEK-This Board would be one of the Board that would address it initially, because of the fact that this Board has to do SEQRA Review as part of this variance procedure. So, under SEQRA. you're required to take a look at what the impacts to the environment would be, and obviously one of the impacts would be, well, what would happen on septic systems. because that, in turn, would effect the environment. If they have to go for permits from another agency. then. and on septics, Jim, do they come to your Department for a permit, I think? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. TURNER-The Board of Health is the Town Board. MR. MARTIN-And essentially the Board of Health. MR. DUSEK-And if they need a variance of some kind, right? MR. MARTIN-Even for a permit. - 32 - MR. DUSEK-Okay, then those would be the other agencies that would also address that. So there would be, actually. in this situation, a few different agencies that would address it, although like I say, the first time it's addressed is at this Board, and probably most appropriately so. MRS. VALENTE-So, in other words, if a variance were granted this evening, the next process would be. he would have to go for SEQRA Review through the Planning Board? MR. DUSEK-No. They'd have to do this, first, here, tonight. before they could entertain the variance. MRS. VALENTE-They'd have to do SEQRA right now? I guess it would be the Short Form. MR. DUSEK-Well, that's up to them. That's what's been filed. MR. TURNER-Yes, it's unlisted. MRS. VALENTE-Okay. Well, how can, you know, usually when you fill out the forms, you have to say that it will not negatively impact anything. and we've been sitting here, for two meetings, there is a real concern with the field sitting there, and also with the proposal of that map, even if he has 35 feet of road, that that gas line that is going to be dug is virtually almost into the field. I mean, we're not far from that either. So, I'm saying. for the gas lines. So how do you answer an application when you're not answering something that we brought up two weeks ago? MR. DUSEK-They're going to have to make that decision when they review the SEQRA form. and there's a process, in and of itself, if they feel that they don't have enough information. or if they feel there will be an impact, but that's their decision to make when they get to the point in the meeting. MRS. VALENTE-I would just like to make a comment. and I really don't want to make a comment, making it sound really derogatory. because it isn't, because I know that these people spent a lot of time, and this is really getting violent for all of us. I'm sure, but I want to make an observation. and that is that, in my opinion, when an individual comes before a Board. like Mr. Wilson, who is, for all intents and purposes. not considered to be a builder or developer by trade. although I do know he does, It's my understanding he has out of town rental units in Hudson Falls or somewhere. Someone said he did. I have no objection to a lovely home. believe me. but anyway. the point is, I know that a lot of times the Boards are hardpressed to feel that because it is an individual, that they sort of feel that they have to look at it a little more, I feel, this is, like I said, my opinion, gently, than if a developer or a builder walked in, because quite frankly, I have to tell you this. that if I came before this Board with an application like this, I really honestly believe I'd be told I was dreaming, I mean. and I'm just telling you thi s as a, from my experience. I mean, I have to have all my ducks in a row, and I have to have everything drawn and everything engineered and everything engineered, and everything surveyed before I even set foot in here, before I try to make a fool out of myself, and I'm not saying he is. but I'm just saying. I really feel that I don't think anyone should be treated any differently, regardless of whether an individual or professional, I think they should be treated the same. because it is still a rental property. It is commercial. It is, that you will be making money off it. and like I said before, I really don't think there's a hardship there. but as far as the property issue, you're going to have to figure this out, because I have title insurance and I have an abstract that says that that property is part of. MR. TURNER-It's not a question of hardship. It's a question of practical difficulty. It's not hardship. This is an allowed us. - 33 - MRS. VALENTE-Well, I know, but sometimes hardship is a consideration, because after all, if the man had paid $100,000 for the piece. I would honestly say, I would see that he would want to put 4 fourplexes in there. It would make perfect sense to me, but I really think that there are other things that could be done with the property that might be a little more appropriate, considering the lack of 50 feet of frontage. and I really feel that the Town is really always very concerned about safety. That's always been my impression of the way they felt about things like that, and I really feel that when you're starting to pile up snow and it's narrow, there's a lot of things here that we have problems with. MR. TURNER-Let me just say one thing in reference to your comment, that this Board looks at certain applications different than other applications. We do not look at them differently. We look at them as individual applications, whether it's yours or somebody else's. Okay. Anyone else? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MISS HAUSER-Okay. This was a letter written to Lucas Wilson from James Martin. "Dear Mr. Wilson: I reviewed your site plan for development of a four unit multifamily apartment building on a 1.46 acre parcel, Tax Map Number 60-7-14.1, within the Town of Queensbury. The parcel to be developed does not have frontage or public right-of-way. Access to and from the parcel is to be by means of a 20 foot private road for the end of Walker Lane. This access is provided by means of an easement. In order to undertake the project as described above, it is my determination that relief from Section 179-62B, access for multiple family dwellings, and Section 179-70B, frontage on public streets, of the Code of the Town of Queensbury will need to be granted from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Specifically road design for the proposed nonpublic access road must meet Town standards for public road, that is 12 foot lanes. two foot paved swales, etc. Therefore, relief needs to be obtained from this standard. In terms of the frontage requirement as referenced in Section 179-70B, relief needs to be obtained from a frontage of 50 feet. as this is the width of the right-of-way for a public collector street. Should relief from the above referenced Sections be granted. then the project will be subject to site plan review by the Planning Board. Sincerely, James M. Martin" MR. TURNER-What's your pleasure? Should we have a motion, or? MR. CARVIN-I think we ought to throw this out and kick it around for a couple of minutes. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Obviously, there's a lot of public disapproval for this motion. I guess if I was to take a look at all the facts and matters here, I still come back to that this Board is asked to look at, basically, two specific things, in other words, to grant a variance of 15 feet on the roadway, and to, basically, I guess that's part of the motion here, too, that it's not on a publ ic road. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. CARVIN-I've gone over this and gone over this, and I realize in the petition, a number of the issues that were addressed, and Number One. I think. is, they're all valid issues. I don't mean to discredit any of them. The access to this property would prove to be a safety hazard for emergency vehicles. and create a traffic bottleneck. The Town has set up certain criteria for what they feel should be an adequate road, to anticipate these types of situations, and Mr. Martin has outlined that criteria to be - 34 - approximately 28 feet, in width. So, if the applicant can meet, I think, the Town criteria. that a lot of the safety issue, at least as far as emergency vehicles are concerned. should be addressed in that fashion. Their second item is granting of a variance could have an effect on future development of neighborhood properties to the west of the Wilsons. Well, again, I don't have an answer for that. because that's not being proposed to us this evening. I don't have an answer for that, because I don't have an answer. How's that? As far as this lot is concerned. it is in an MR-5 zone. and as far as the Definition of an MR-5 zone is concerned, the applicant would be entitled to. well, if I'm reading this right. one dwelling for every 5.000 square feet. So. as long as he conforms with the Town Ordinances, as far as that situation, and side setbacks and so forth, there isn't much we can do about it. because that is what the guidelines suggest. I can appreciate the neighborhood opposition, as far as the density is concerned. I don't think it would be inappropriate for this Board to condition a motion limiting it to just the four unit apartment building. but I think we have to leave the option open that, if that is allowed, if the applicant is allowed to build more buildings out there, he can do it. and the issues of sewer and public safety and everything could be addressed at that time. As far as the proposed leachfield, and utilizing the maximum density and the character of the multifamily dwelling is not compatible with the type and quality structures at Baybridge. they're good issues. A lot of these would be addressed in the site plan review. I think that they have to conform to certain standards. As far as the character of the multifamily dwelling not being compatible, I'm not sure that any time a person buys a lot. that the lot next to them is vacant, that they can have really a choice of what gets built there. You may want a Colonial and the next guy wants a ranch. So, it's very hard for us to determine what a character of the neighborhood might be. We do take a look at the neighborhood. and then the impacts. as part of our situation for granting an area variance. That. addressing these issues on the petition, I still come back to the two issues of what this Board should look at as the criteria for granting the variance, and in summary it basically states, in making its determination, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant, well, again, that just is, in so many words. addressing the safety features. In other words, by granting this variance, I don't feel that we would be overly affecting the health, welfare, and safety of the neighborhood. In making such determination, the Board should also consider whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. I think this is the hardest Section that I have to get over. I don't have an answer whether an undesirable change. Four buildings, I don't think, is going to be an undesirable change. On the other hand. it is zoned that if the applicant wanted to put more buildings out there, he would be allowed. and again, based upon our rules and regulations, that should not create an undesirable neighborhood as it is currently zoned. Continuing on, whether the benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the area variance. Well. I think the very nature of this lot basically indicates that there are no other feasible ways for the applicant to pursue. It's a landlocked situation that unless they grant over the quick deed, if that issue should ever be resolved. to the Town, it's unlikely that the Town is going to put a road up through there. So, I mean, this is, there's no other access that the applicant can look at. Again continuing, whether the requested area variance is substantial. Based upon this plot plan. in other words, for the four apartment units. and the fact that the applicant does not have any other land, in other words, assuming that the situation is determined in their favor. that they have 35 feet of road frontage, there is no other land, unless Mr. Pinchuk or Mr. Valente should decide to sell him the 15 feet, and I don't think that's going to be a viable - 35 - solution at this point. Okay. Pushing on, whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or the district. Again, I'm looking at this from the standpoint that this is an MR-S District, and as long as they comply with all the other rules and regulations for that District, I don't see that there's going to be an environmental impact there. I might point out that on the application. and I would like a little clarification afterwards, on their Short Form, and last is whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, and again. I think that that can be addressed by the simple fact that this is a landlocked. and this is not necessarily a self-created situation. In order for the applicant to have any utilization of that property. he needs to come before us and seek variances. So, this certainly is not a self-created situation. Based upon all the testimony and all the implications here, my feeling is that I'd have to move that we grant these variances. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, we seem to have moved from the question of road frontage to road design variance. I'd like to address that, if I might. MR. TURNER-I closed the public hearing. MR. O'CONNOR-You've had no discussion yet on road design, and I don't think Mr. Martin's letter is all inclusive. If you take a look at the turn there, one of the criteria of road design is that you not have a centerline radius in excess of 360 degrees. That's a right hand turn there. almost. much in excess, or much less than 360. Are you also going to grant that? They argue that all the time when they go into subdivisions, when we talk about emergency vehicles. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, you just had an argument there. over on the Potvin property, on the curb turns. That's the same thing. MR. 0' CONNOR-Right, and it's no place near that, difference in radius. I don't think you've had even a review of that by the Town Highway Department. I don't think Mr. Martin's letter is intended to be inclusive of what are all the details of road design, and does this applicant meet with them? You, again, don't the material before you to say what variance you're going to give, even if you're giving a variance, unless you simply say. go the 20 foot driveway. MR. CARVIN-Well, again. continuing on our discussion here. my question on the Short Form is that, does action involve the permit approval or funding, now or ultimately, from any other government agency, federal or state, and he's indicated yes, and it says, if yes, list the agencies. I don't know what agencies are. MR. TURNER-Bruce, on your Short Environmental Assessment Form, Item Number Ten, you listed. does the action involve a permit approval or funding, now, or ultimately, from any other governmental agency, federal. state, or local, and you've got. yes, and you didn't list the agency. MR. CARR-Site plan. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Also, DEC is it not, for a SPDES Permit? MR. CARR-No, we've had DEC look at our septic. MR. O'CONNOR-That's a permit that's required. MR. CARR-No. it's not. We've got DEC saying it's not required. We do not need a SPDES Permit. - 36 - MR. O'CONNOR-You're not over 1,000 gallons a day? MR. CARR-No, we are not. MR. O'CONNOR-Your plan says 1200 gallons a day. MR. TURNER-Okay. If we're going to get into that, we're going to have to open the public hearing one more time. MR. CARR-Well, I don't know if you want to address this issue, but we don't need a SPDES Permit. MR. O'CONNOR-Well. that's the issue under SEQRA. whether or not you've got other involved agencies. MR. CARR-And I'm saying, no. MR. O'CONNOR-The application shows. that which is before you. that was submitted tonight, shows 1200 gallons per day. I don't know, now you're going to take more information by oral testimony, contrary to that, that's fine. I think you've got to go. we've gone away from the paper bag application. and you're coming back to that. MR. TURNER-Okay. Wait a minute, let Mr. Valente speak. up to the microphone, please, name for the record. MR. THOMAS-Did you open the public hearing? MR. TURNER-Again. one more time. PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED DAN VALENTE MR. VALENTE-For the record, everybody knows who I am. Dan Valente. My name is Dan Valente, from Valente Builders, and I've got just a few things I want to address. I know it's been a long night. It's long for everybody. First thing, when you look at this map. and you look on the westerly side of, this land of Maple Row Farms. MR. TURNER-We already did that. MR. VALENTE-You already addressed that? Good. The reason we're bringing up a lot of these points is because the applicant hasn't done his job. I just got off the phone with John Dorlon and Martha Mitchell. That quick deed indicates that they released their use of the right-of-way to these individuals. It does not indicate that they own the property. Now, the reason it shows the line. wherever the surveyor drew the line, on the southerly side. is because the septic systems which I keep going over and over with this particular Board, is being encroached upon by this drawing. which is incorrect. because we own that right-of-way, it's in the abstracted title. whether you want to address it or not. I have to bring it up because. as a Zoning Board. you're telling me, in all those descriptions. what impacts this or what impacts that, this impacts a $25 millon project that was approved in 1985. If this flies. he stops me dead in the water on the back end of my project. Now we're talking about a lawsuit. I'm tired of sitting here. You're probably tired of sitting here. Everybody's tired of sitting. The reason is, this property belongs to Valente Builders. I don't care what this attorney says. I read the abstracted title. My lawyer read the abstracted title. The surveyor read the abstracted title. He surveyed the property and dedicated the road to the Town of Queensbury. I don't care what they're telling you, it's a fact of life, and until they prove that I'm wrong, I think we should have the right. before they get granted a variance, that we should have the right to be believed and not the other person, because. again. if we don't know who owns the property, we're making all these approvals and all these okays, and then we've got - 37 - to come back here again. You're all tired of hearing about it. I know it. So am I. Mr. Dorlon said, I asked him, what was the quick claim deed for, Number One, and I said. did you get paid for it? He said. no. I said. what was the quick claim deed for. He said, I never read the abstracted title. He's an attorney. Do you want me to say anymore? All right. I said. you didn't read the abstracted title. I said. I own the northerly portion of that property. with the right-of-way, dedicated to all the people that own it. He said, well, I'm not sure, Dan, I didn't read it. He said, all I was given this information over the phone by this particular attorney, and he believed that his client owned the land, and on that basis alone, he signed the quick deed on this piece of property. I've known this individual since 1985. I've bought 70 acres of land from him, and I know his family. All I'm saying is, if this is what is going to be my neighbor, I don't know what we're going to have here. and I think one individual can tap an entire development, I think should be taken into consideration of the Zoning Board, at least get the right information before you make the thing, grant him the variance. If I'm wrong, I'll sit here and I'll admit it. MR. DUSEK-Dan, on the point that you were making about the septic system, can you explain that a little clearer. in terms of? MR. VALENTE-Okay. The way the septic system was approved and designed by DEC, and we had a SPDES Permit for four leaching beds. Each leaching bed is 50 by 100 feet, two were built, okay. By the line that's drawn on this one here. okay, on the new line on this particular plan, he's 15 feet in. He's almost on my leaching bed. I can't tell you exactly right now, because I don't have it off the top of my head. MR. DUSEK-Are you saying that if the road is placed? MR. VALENTE-If this is correct, okay, the way this is drawn. we don't even meet the setbacks of 10 feet. MR. TURNER-To his property line? MR. VALENTE-Yes. MR. DUSEK-The question is in my mind, for the Board member's purpose, is that part of what your considerations are, obviously, is, the road issue, as far as the actual ownership of the property, is not ours decide. However. what is yours to decide, I think. is whether or not, even if he owned the road. is it going to impact this other septic system area and this other property owner, because I think that does have a bearing in your decision making. MR. VALENTE-It has a lot of bearing, because what nobody really knows is that these septic systems are supposed to be removed, because when we got this project approved. and all the lines are run in the existing buildings right now for sewer. the sewer was proposed up to Bay Road, you remember back when? We were under agreement with the Town, when the sewers came up to Bay Road. we would abandon those leaching beds. excavate the material. remove it from the site. and be allowed to put the rest of our units up. Now, what happens is, we end up not meeting the setback requirements because of this particular new site plan. In other words, I would be not permitted to build the build the buildings that we had agreed upon in our conceptual. because in 1985, when we came before the Boards, we had to give them a full blown view of the entire project. even though we weren't building it out. Not like this particular one, we're only looking at one building. but we may see two more, later on. That's why, if this is approved the way it is, in 1985, they would never have allowed two more buildings there. because they never got the full picture. At Baybridge. they wanted the full picture up front, and I don't see why, in 1993. MR. TURNER-In 1985. it wasn't zoned MR-5. - 38 - MR. VALENTE-Yes. it was. Baybridge was zoned MR-5, 5,000 square feet per unit. just like that piece of property is right now. MR. TURNER-You went there by site plan review, didn't you? Subdivision? MR. VALENTE-I went before the Planning Board. I didn't have to go to zoning. MR. TURNER-Yes. The Ordinance changed in 1988. any MR-5 in 1988. So there wasn't MR. VALENTE-Well, UR-5, excuse me, the same thing. eight units per acre, UR-5, I'm sorry. I mean. it's MR. TURNER-UR-5. MR. DUSEK-Mr. Chairman, the concern, here, and I was just reviewing it with Jim, is whether the road is going to come too close to those leachbeds, regardless of who owns the property. There's a question. here, I think. as to whether there's going to be. whether this road, or your variance is going to cause a problem with the septics, and I don't know the answer, and Jim doesn't. apparently. know the answer either. because of this. you know. we don't have enough information, perhaps, and you may want to consider that, as to whether or not that is something that you need more information on. Out of everything that I see here, that's one of the things, just to give you my opinion. that concerns me, in terms of this application. MR. TURNER-I think if there is a problem, then Mr. Valente should present his plan showing where they are, versus the line that's drawn by them, so we know where they are, exactly, with the new right-of-way, as proposed. MR. DUSEK-See, the concern you have. is that, as part of your review, as I mentioned earlier. you're going to have to do a SEQRA Review. and as part of that SEQRA Review, and as part of that SEQRA Review. the action that you undertake, granting that variance. will that cause some sort of an environmental effect, and obviously if it impacts the septic. you've got to understand that concept of how it's going to impact and whether it's going to cause any problems. MR. TURNER-Okay. Are you done, Mr. Valente? MR. VALENTE-Thanks very much. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-I just want to clear up one misperception about a conversation with Mr. Dorlon. I did not talk to Mr. Dorlon. I just sent him a quick claim deed. and said he would sign it. I sent him the map, the survey map. at the time of transfer of the property, I sent him our plot plan map. I sent him the easement, and I sent him a quick claim deed, and I said, it's our belief you still own the property. You send us that which your comfortable with. He sent us the deed to the property. MR. VALENTE-Why didn't you send him the abstracted title. Mr. Carr? MR. CARR-I don't have an abstracted title. MR. VALENTE-I had one with me at the last meeting. Why didn't you ask me for a copy of it? Because it's the only one that tells the truth. MR. CARR-I've got your deeds. and I've got the description. I've got a filed survey. I've got the Baybridge Phase II filed map, that shows the property line where it's on that map. I mean, I - 39 - don't know what else that abstract is going to show. I mean, it's not going to show anything else. It's going to show what's been before this Board. As to the septic system. We have already been to site plan twice. before the variance issue came up, okay. George Kurosaka designed our system. DEC signed off on it, and our system is appropriate for the parcel and at the site plan discussion. If Mr. Valente has placed his septics too close to the property line. then we should not be penalized for that. MR. TURNER-Let me ask you a question. Was the design of the septic system only for these four apartment units? MR. CARR-Yes. MR. TURNER-It wasn't for anything in addition? MR. CARR-No. The other point to make is that. based on his maps of Baybridge, if he built it 10 feet from the property line, as is shown on this, then he built it wrong. It's not because our road is going to impact too close to his property line. I mean. his property line is shown on his maps. It all shows straight lines. So, I don't see how you can hold us responsible for a potential mistake that was made in '85, if that's the case. and you need a couple of extra feet, don't make us do this swale. Just make us do the 24 foot road, without the shoulders. We'd be will ing to do that. I mean. we're willing to work on what's safe for everybody, but to deny us. based on somebody else's property that mayor may not have caused a mistake, it's just totally unjust and unfair. MR. TURNER-Okay. One more response. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I've raised two issues. I haven't heard them answered. One was, I think a Board member asked the question as to what other involved agencies are involved. My understanding is that you need a SPDES Permit if you have a daily flow in excess of 1,000 gallons. The map that you have as part of your application shows 1200 gallons per day. That would be an involved agency that must be considered for SEQRA. I don't know where you're going to go with that, as far as notice and what not. If DEC has signed off at this point, I would be surprised. because I understand that before you can file your SPDES Permit, you must indicate that you have received all local permits. It gets into the chicken and the egg business, the SPDES Permit is the last one that you will get, but you have nothing in your file that indicates that they have or they haven't. Whether they have or they haven't, they have a permit to issue in connection with this project. They are an involved agency. I think you have to give some notice to them, to comply. The other issue which I've raised. which I didn't think Mr. Martin answered, I don't think his letter is intended to be all inclusive. MR. MARTIN-That letter is intended to be all inclusive of all Town road specs. I merely cited. MR. O'CONNOR-Is or is not? MR. MARTIN-Is. I merely cited road width or pavement width as examples. I said, and etc. Radiuses and all that are supposed to be complied with. MR. O'CONNOR-And I think it's fairly simple to assume that they aren't? MR. MARTIN-Yes, that's right. I would acknowledge that. MR. O'CONNOR-As I understand, and I don't understand all the engineering because we always have an engineer here with us to tell us whether or not we do comply with the road specifications. I don't think this Board has even been requested, variances specific enough to grant them. What are you granting variances for. for the - 40 - road specification design? I think you had initial questions as to whether or not you needed to give a variance as to design. and you haven't answered that. Maybe that's how you're going to answer that. Off the top of my head. I don't think you have the necessary radiuses for emergency vehicle turning on that road. You have much less than what you normally would have, and that's an issue that you haven't even addressed. The applicant hasn't addressed. You get into the size of the swales and whatnot that Mr. Martin talked about, they aren't simply just dimensional type requirements. There's also supposed to be positive drainage on there, so that you don't have a build up of ice and whatnot. You have to be able to provide that. We always come in with engineering plans to show that. Maybe they're asking for a variance from those requirements. and they're going to build a flat driveway with no drainage. We've gone away from the application on the back of a piece of paper. and we've required engineering specifications. I'm not even sure. and I don't have right in front of me, who signed that. That's not a licensed engineer's sign. I don't believe. On the plot plan that was submitted. that's not a licensed engineer. The plot plan that was submitted is a compilation. though, it's not by a licensed engineer stamp. I think that is one of the requirements. as you go along, for road specifications. Are you going to have a road or the equivalent of a road, that is not signed by a licensed engineer? It'll be your first one. Mr. Chairman, maybe for the record, Mr. Hughes could indicate what license that he holds, because I understand it says, plot plan and drafting services, Gary Hughes. Is he a licensed engineer? Is he a licensed surveyor? No? Okay. I just make that for the record. MR. MARTIN-Ted, I think the first thing you have to do is agree, or disagree. with my interpretation of those Sections of the Ordinance, about a project such as this, a nonpublic road having to meet the standards of a public road, and then if you are going to do that. then you need to know what the standards are for a public road, what's being proposed. and then what kind of relief is being requested. MR. TURNER-Do you guys want to do that? MR. KARPELES-I think we ought to table the whole mess. MR. TURNER-I do, too. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. TURNER-I'd rather table it and let them get all their ducks in a row. and come back here with a legitimate application. MR. THOMAS-I don't think we're talking about the road here. They're just asking for the 35 feet. MR. TURNER-I know, it's 35 feet they're talking about, the interior road. MR. THOMAS-We don't care about what's inside. That's the Planning Board's problem. not ours. If the radius isn't there, well then they say, hey. too bad. We don't care about that. We just want to talk about the 35 feet on the road. where it hits Bay Ridge/DorIon Dri Ve there. We don't care about the interior. It's not our problem. The 35 foot on the front is though. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's ours. Yes. What do you think? MR. CARVIN-Well. Chris has got a good point. I mean, the variance is just asking for the relief on the road frontage. MR. TURNER-That's right. MR. THOMAS-That's right, the road frontage. goes on inside. We don't care what - 41 - MR. CARVIN-It's MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-We'd be still got to go to site plan, right? happy to let the Planning Board decide that issue. MR. DUSEK-The only thing. Mr. Chairman. I would point out that, whatever you grant your variance. and the applicant should be aware of this too, I think, that whatever the variance is, that's the only variance you'll get, so that if, for instance, the Board only decides the issue on the 35 foot road frontage, and then the applicant cannot meet the 360 requirement on the, or whatever it is, not 360. Is it 360 degrees? Whatever the number of degrees is on the turn in the road there at that point, if he can't meet that, then he's going to be back before this Board for another variance. MR. TURNER-Exactly. MR. DUSEK-Because you only get the relief that the Board gives you, and then you have to comply in all other respects wi th the Ordinance. MR. MARTIN-That's what I say. I think that. first of all, you have to decide whether you agree or disagree with my interpretation. My interpretation was that this is a nonpublic road. and a nonpublic road has to meet the standards of a Town road. If you don't agree with that interpretation, then that's the first decision that's got to be made. MR. CARR-I agree with Mr. Martin. I mean, it is our interpretation that that Section does not apply to our project, because we are a multifamily dwelling. not a multifamily project. There's a lot of definitional problems with that Section. What's a road? What's a driveway. and I think they have to be addressed, and they may have to be addressed tonight. I mean, we will live with what is determined by this Board, as definitions of the Code. but they have to be. because it's a matter of town wide significance, not just our own pro j ect. There's a lot of other pro j ects, we have to define what a multifamily project is. Is that a subdivision, I mean, and is a road a driveway. as defined in the dictionary? It's not defined in the Code, so I don't know where else you can look for your definitional. this has never been enforced before in the Town. and now you're just trying to hold us up to those standards, which will. basically, add prohibitive costs to this whole project. We're proposing what we think is a reasonable al ternati ve, and that's 24 width of pavement. We've already had testimony from the Zoning Administrator that Kip Grant has looked at the plan as is and said it's okay. We're saying we'll go another four feet of pavement. I would think that would satisfy the Fire Marshal even further. I'm not sure exactly what you're asking us to do, because we don't know what field we're playing on, because we don't have all the definitions before us. MR. TURNER-Okay. You want to move it. Chris, right? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Well. I think if we move it, we're going to have to be very careful, because there are a lot of issues that have to be addressed in the motion. So I don't know if it's the kind of thing that we can just haphazardly put together. as they say, because I know my visual concept of what this road should be is possibly different than what the applicant's vision of the road might be, and we are talking, here. basically, a private road butting up to a public road, and with the public opposition. MR. MARTIN-I just want to explain my rationale for making the determination I did. I think 179-62B exists for this very type, this same type of situation. - 42 - MR. CARVIN-I agree. MR. MARTIN-Because what you have here is this Section of road. albeit private, and maybe even termed a driveway, is it located and positioned in such a fashion that if he does build a second and third building, and if the property further to the west of him does ultimately develop. there may be the desire or the need to take this section of road and offer it for dedication, so, if that does happen, and this is held to a standard of a public or a Town road, then that dedication occurs very easily, and the Town will accept it. if it's built to the standard as called for. but if it's not. then that rationale breaks down. Then changes have to be made or variances have to be granted, or improvements have to be made to bring this up to the standard, and I think that's why that's there, in the event that these private roads should someday become of a magnitude or a use that warrant dedication over to the Town, that can be easily accomplished. The standards are met, and it can be easily done. That's why I went the way I did. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I agree with you. Jim. I think that the road really has to be right to Town specifications, and I think our motion should address that, if we're going to move it. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I also would like to see, if we move this. that it's only really based upon the four apartment units. and that if additional buildings or any further expansions. MR. TURNER-Have to come back for review? MR. CARVIN-Yes. I mean. I don't know if we can do that, but, in other words, because we're granting a variance on a private, essentially, a private road. based on a certain density, and as I said, I just don't want to open up a can of worms. I mean, they are allowed so much out there. MR. TURNER-Yes. If you decide to grant it. based on that. you're saying that the road will meet the road design. MR. CARVIN-I don't know. The issues of public safety, when you've got four apartments out there. you've got maybe four to six cars going in. You put another four or eight out there, now you've multiplied the density on that particular road, and I think I'd like to have the right, as I'm sure the public would, to come back and review that from the safety standpoint. I mean. that's my logic for, basically, just limiting it to this one particular building. and again. like I said. if we move this. I'd like to see that incorporated into the motion. MR. TURNER-Well. make a motion and we'll see where it goes. MR. DUSEK-Before you make any motions, you know, you do have to complete your SEQRA Review. MR. TURNER-I know. MR. CARVIN-I would think, to put this together, it's going to take a little time to write the motion. MR. TURNER-We don't have to do it tonight. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, we don't necessarily have to. MR. TURNER-No. We've got 62 days from the time the application is submitted. MR. CARVIN-And we've heard all the public discussion on it. We can address the SEQRA. - 43 - '- MR. TURNER-Lets do the SEQRA, and then we'll. MR. 0' CONNOR-Mr. Turner, can you do SEQRA. if you have other involved agencies. without notification? MR. DUSEK-In this case they can, because it's an unlisted action. They're not required to have a coordinated review with other agencies. MR. CARVIN-It's a short SEQRA. That was my only question on it. MR. TURNER-Okay. Is everybody satisfied with the SEQRA Review as having no negative impact? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-The only thing I was going to say. as long as the inclusion of site plan on Item Number 10 is the only one. That's the only one is it. Mr. Carr? Okay. MR. TURNER-We can accept the SEQRA when we make the motion. MR. DUSEK-You can hold on your entire decision making, if you'd rather. MR. TURNER-That's right. Exactly. MR. MARTIN-Well, are you agreeing with my determination that this should be held to a standard of a public road. even as a nonpublic road? MR. CARVIN-I think that that would be addressed in the motion. I mean, from a personal standpoint, I would agree with your position, but I don't know what the rest of the Board. MR. MARTIN-Yes. If that is the consensus, what I might suggest is that, if you are looking to take time in developing your motion, we can have Tom Yarmowich look at the site plan and compare it with our Town specs and see where it does deviate. and to what degree. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARVIN-I would also allow them, if they establish in our drafting the motion, if they should find that the section of property is indeed under contention, then they can indeed come back to us before we make a motion. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. So we'll table our action. MR. THOMAS-Table the motion and just accept the SEQRA. MR. TURNER-Yes. We'll accept the SEQRA with the motion when we do it. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It sounds good to me. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARR-Mr. Chairman, can I just clarify that? hearing's closed? The publ ic MR. TURNER-The public hearing's closed. MR. CARVIN-This is just to prepare our motion for the vote, and we have 62 days to present the motion. MR. TURNER-So we'll schedule it within that time frame, and you'll be notified. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, are you going to refer to Mr. Yarmowich - 44 - to determine what areas the submittal does not comply? MR. TURNER-Yes. I know that was a suggestion. We haven't gotten to that yet. Do you want to do that? Do you want to refer it to Tom Yarmowich, and let him look at it. and see what he says? MR. THOMAS-Can we do it without another publication? MR. TURNER-Yes, just let him look at it. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I'd like to have him do that. MR. TURNER-Okay. We'll refer it to him, let him look at it. Okay. It's tabled. You'll be notified when the motion comes before us again, within the time frame that's required. MR. CARR-Does it come before you again, or? MR. DUSEK-Well, I'm sure the Board will want to reconvene. MR. TURNER-We're going to reconvene. and we'll do it right here. MR. DUSEK-And if they do, it will be a public meeting. MR. TURNER-Public meeting. MR. CARR-But it's not a public hearing. MR. DUSEK-No public hearing. No. MR. TURNER-No public hearing. MR. O'CONNOR-! hope we would get a chance to comment, if we disagree with Mr. Yarmowich's report. MR. TURNER-Well, we'll see what he says, when that time comes. MR. 0' CONNOR-That's going to be part of the record upon which you're make your determination. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Because you're not really going to know how this plan varies from the Town road standards until you see his report. ! think you're going to find a substantial variation. MR. TURNER-We'll address it. MR. O'CONNOR-I would like to have an opportunity also then. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-1993 LUCAS S. WILSON, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: That the drawing be reviewed by Tom Yarmowich, and his findings be forwarded to this Board. Duly adopted this 15th day of September, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Philo - 45 - NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 80-1993 TYPE SFR-IA JOYCE S. THOMPSON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 12 GARRISON ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REPLACE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING FENCE ALONG THREE HUNDRED THIRTY (330) FEET OF THEIR SIDE YARD. COMMENCING NINETY-THREE (93) FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THAT THE FIRST EIGHTY (80) FEET OF THE FENCE BE SIX (G) FEET IN HEIGHT. THE NEXT NINETY- SIX (96) FEET BE EIGHT (8) FEET IN HEIGHT. AND THE REMAINING FORTY- EIGHT (48) FEET BE SIX (6) FEET IN HEIGHT. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF THREE (3) TO FIVE (5) FEET IN HEIGHT FROM SECTION 179- 74B (2). WHICH LIMITS SIDE YARD FENCE HEIGHT TO THREE (3) FEET. APPLICANT IS ALSO SEEKING RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-74B{I). WHICH REQUIRES THE DECORATIVE SIDE OF THE FENCE TO FACE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. TAX MAP NUMBER: 106-2-11 SECTION 179-74B{l). 179- 74B(2) LOT SIZE: 1.6 ACRES JOYCE THOMPSON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 80-1993. Joyce S. Thompson, Meeting Date: September 15. 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 12 Garrison Road SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to replace an existing nonconforming fence along three hundred thirty (330) feet of their side yard, commencing ninety-three (93) feet from the front property line. Applicant is proposing that the first eighty (80) feet of the fence be six (6) feet in height, the next ninety- six (96) feet be eight (8) feet in height, and the remaining forty-eight (48) feet be six (6) feet in height. Applicant also proposes to place the decorative side of the fence toward the applicant's property. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Applicant is seeking relief of three (3) to five (5) feet in height from Section 179-74B (2), which limits side yard fence height to three (3) feet. Applicant is also seeking relief from Section 179-74B(1), which requires the decorative side of the fence to face the adjacent property. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING CODE. Applicant states that in order to achieve the desired privacy and visual amenity. the proposed fence heights are necessary. 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 appears that this is the minimum variance necessary to achieve the desired results. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It does not appear that this variance would not detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It does not appear that there would be any effects on public facilities and services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: It appears in tihs situation, where the side yard boundary of the subject property coincides with the rear yard lot lines of the adjacent parcels. relief via the requested variance would be appropriate." MR. TURNER-Okay. All right. MRS. THOMPSON-My name is Joyce Thompson. and I own property at 12 Garrison Road. I've prepared a statement of applicant. Is it okay if I read it? MR. TURNER-Sure. MRS. THOMPSON-Okay. I replaced an existing fence along 330 feet of my side yard because it was in disrepair and the posts were rotted. As soon as the Town told me I needed a variance. I filed the forms and applied. I replaced my previous six foot fence along the property line, exactly where it was before. There is a section in the middle which is over six feet, and I am asking for a variance - 4G - for that section. This higher section matches the height of my neighbor's pool fence, and they are now equal, and we both have a uniform look. This new fence is attractive and will age naturally and will blend in with the trees and never be seen. We put the original stockade type six foot fence up in 1981, and have painted it green. I'm not trying to make any statement with the higher section. It was put up to make my fence equal in height to my neighbor's. The pictures in my file show what my fence looked like before and what it looks like now. There are also pictures of my neighbor's pool fence. I have some extra pictures. I don't know if you have visited the site. MR. TURNER-Yes. we looked at it. MRS. THOMPSON-There's just a couple here that really, that show you the new fence, and this is the old fence. You can see the old green fence with two feet of the pool fence extending above it, and this is the way it was constructed, to gradually go from the six to higher. and then back down to the fifth. I understand that it is my neighbor with the pool who has complained about my fence. but I don't understand why she is complaining about my fence. bec~use the size of my fence now matches hers in height. I want to submit 18 letters from my immediate neighbors on Garrison Road, Fort Amherst Road, North Road, and Glenwood Avenue, who state they have no objections to my replaced fence. Please accept these letters, and possibly read them aloud, so they will be part of my application. Thank you for your consideration of this matter, and after looking into the last case, I wrote a few notes that say. this fence is a benefit to me, and no detriment to the neighborhood. This fence makes basically no change in the neighborhood, and it has no environmental impact. So. I'd like you to consider giving me this variance. MR. TURNER-Okay. We'll take the letters. MRS. THOMPSON-Which you probably don't want to read, but I felt it was important. I mean. these notices were sent all around the neighborhood for four streets, but I felt that my property owners next to me were the important ones, and I have a letter from Mrs. Brown. from Dr. Leech and Dr. Baehm, and from Polly Beeman, who owns a large tract behind me. and they certainly don't have any objections. The rest of them are just neighbors who don't see any objection either. I don't know if you want to read them aloud. I mean, do definitely want them to be part of my record. MR. TURNER-They will be. stopped? How far did you get before you got MRS. THOMPSON-Well, I really didn't realize that I had to have permission. MR. TURNER-Once you got started you put it up, is that correct? MRS. THOMPSON-Well. it was up before anybody complained. I mean, I just replaced my fence which was falling down and rotting. MR. TURNER-But your other fence wasn't? The old fence wasn't as high as the center portion? MRS. THOMPSON-Well, the whole fence was six feet. MR. TURNER-Yes, before. MRS. THOMPSON-And for 10 years I've looked at the two feet of my neighbor's fence. her pool fence. which has been above my existing fence. and so when I put the new fence up, I could see nothing wrong with going up to match her fence. So now our fences are equal. She doesn't see 11I..Y fence. I mean, she's looking at her pool fence from the inside, and. technically, if I stand at my garage. I can still see some of the dog toothed boards of her - 47 - fence. So, I mean, they are practically totally equal. Now there might be a few places where the ground goes down and there's a little piece of her fence or my fence sticking over, but I don't know. I just never intended to cause a problem. I really just was replacing my rotting fence that's been up for 12 years. MR. TURNER-Is this a picture of her fence right here, this lower corner? Let's see, neighbor's fence. Yes. Okay. I see. You've got it on the back. MRS. THOMPSON-Yes. It's not the most attractive fence. I mean, everyone's entitled to have a fence that they want, and I don't see any. MR. TURNER-Ten years ago there wasn't a fence ordinance, but now there is. So you could have put it uP. whatever, then, but you can't now. MRS. THOMPSON-And this is on my side, but as you read in your statement, my fence goes along the back yard. So, it isn't as if I put a higher fence along somebody's side yard. MR. TURNER-It looks like Bob Ruggles put it up for you. Did he? MRS. THOMPSON-Well, he was doing some other work, and I was just taking pictures of the workmen, and I just happened to have that picture of the fence. I mean, technically, this fence is going to weather, and we're not going to paint it. and it's going to be much more attractive, and I think should think all the neighbors would be happier about that. MR. KARPELES-How come you've got the decorative side facing the neighbors? MRS. THOMPSON-Well, I just put it up the way it had been. I really never thought about it. MR. KARPELES-But didn't the person that put up the fence know about the Ordinance? MRS. THOMPSON-I had the biggest fence company, I had Avsco Fence Company from Schenectady. I had several people come and look at the job. It was a big job, and they couldn't fit it into their schedule. MR. TURNER-That's why it went up the way it did, because they didn't probably check and find out anything. MRS. THOMPSON-I guess that's what happened. I mean, I never intended to cause a problem. I've had no unpleasantries with my neighbor that is complaining, and I'm just very surprised with this whole situation. MR. TURNER-How did this come about? telephone. or do you have a letter? Were you informed by MRS. THOMPSON-A man from the Department came over to my house and looked at the fence and said that my neighbor with the pool complained because she could see my fence over the top of her fence. MR. MARTIN-There must have been a complaint filed. She had to file a complaint with the Building Inspector's Office. MR. TURNER-There was or wasn't? MR. MARTIN-Was. MRS. THOMPSON-I mean, that's the first I heard of any problem with the fence. I mean, the fence has been there for 12 years, and this - 48 - is a nicer fence. MR. TURNER-Twelve years at six feet though, right? MRS. THOMPSON-Yes, but you don't understand. Her fence. I don't know how high her fence is, but my higher section meets her fence. MR. TURNER-Yes, but does the other side of her property, does it change elevation there so it's a little bit higher than? MRS. THOMPSON-Well. maybe the land goes like this. and I can still see some of her, maybe 10 feet down she could see one of the knobs of the fence. I mean. I didn't intend to do that. I'm very sorry that it happened that way. MR. KARPELES-There is a right angle. isn't there? Isn't her fence the same height as yours, where they come together? MRS. THOMPSON-Well. now it is. but it wasn't. You can see from that picture that for 10 years I looked at this sawtoothed fence that was two feet above my six foot fence. So I thought it would just be more aesthetically desirable to have the two fences. She also has a slide, a blue slide or something, in the pool that's 15 feet high, and you see that, too. So if you're going to start complaining about what you see. I mean, you can get pretty technical, and also. I've never complained about noise with the pool, and you know what happens with pools, there's lots of noise, and I thought. too, that maybe a little bit of higher fence would block out some of the noise. I mean, I've never complained about it. I don't know whether they are even aware that noise comes out of their pool. I had a lady tell me that lives across Garrison Road that she sometimes can hear noise from the pool, but I think I've been a very good neighbor. I've never made an issue out of it, and this just really surprises me that they are complaining like this. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else have any questions for Mrs. Thompson? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GINGER SPRING MRS. SPRING-Hi. My name is Ginger Spring. and I live on Windsor Drive. and in July, I'm the one that called Mr. Hatin about the fence. and when she first was putting it uP. I didn't have any problem with it. and when I looked out the back of my yard, the second day. I noticed that her fence, I've got pictures of it, I could see the knobs at the right corner. and as it was going along my fence, all of a sudden it went up. Now our fence is six foot high, but our land is higher, and every time I go out there and I've looked at it. I mean. her fence is nice. I have no problem with her fence. It's just that I had asked Mr. Hatin if he would go and ask her if she would lower that section down a little bit. It's just, I didn't like the way it looked, and then he came over and he said to me. well. she's going to go for a variance, and I said, okay, and as for noise in my pool, I go in the pool probably once a year. My kids are 19 and 14. I don't have parties, and most noise, she hears more noise from my leaf shredder and my lawnmower. because I'm out there working on my yard more than I am in the pool. So I don't know what noise she hears. Maybe if someone goes down the slide. We're not out there at night time. We're not out there at 5:30. 6:00 in the morning in the pool. In the afternoon maybe once in a while the kids will go in. They may go down the slide. They may jump in. I mean. you can't stop them, the water from the pool. but I've got some pictures here. and I want to show you. This is one corner of the fence. and then you can see how it gradually goes up. and I just asked Mr. Hatin. He said. well that's definitely higher than six foot. and I said I would like that just lowered down. It didn't bother me that the - 49 - little knob showed, down at the right end of the fence. I didn't like the way it came up. I could see it. The more I looked at it. I just didn't like it. So that's what I was complaining about, and then she decided to go through all this. instead of just lowering those sections. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any questions? There's no reason for a fence to be that high. This is not an institutional. MR. CARVIN-It looks like we've gone from one extreme to the other. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. SPRING-I wouldn't have even have complained to tell her to lower the six foot, if I hadn't seen that one section going up. I wouldn't even care, but as soon as I saw that going up, I asked the men. I said, why is this fence all crooked, and I said, it looks terrible from my side. and he said. because that's the way she wants it, and that's what he told me. MR. CARVIN-What is the contour of the land right there? Is that a very uneven section of the lawn, is it? MRS. THOMPSON-The fence people put it up. I just figured they, I didn't tell them what height to put it or anything. They just put it the way it was supposed to be done. MRS. SPRING-Well. they told me that you wanted it that way. when I asked them. MRS. THOMPSON-I wanted my fence to meet your fence. MRS. SPRING-Well, it doesn't. doesn't. You can see from my pictures it MRS. THOMPSON-Well, I didn't anticipate that the land. MR. TURNER-Wait a minute. Lets not argue back and forth, because that's not going to solve anything. State your case. We'll listen to it. and then we'll decide. MRS. SPRING-I'm done then. Do you have any questions? MR. KARPELES-Well, what part of the fence do you object to, just the part that is up? MRS. SPRING-Yes. that's section that I can see, her to lower that down. all I have objection to. was that one that's above mine. All I wanted was for MR. TURNER-Bob, she's allowed a six foot fence in the back yard. as long as it's back of the back of the building. but not an eight foot fence. MRS. SPRING-I just didn't like the way it looked when I looked, or sat on my back patio, I didn't like the way that looked. MR. TURNER-That's what the Ordinance is all about. That's why there is a Fence Ordinance, just because of this stuff. MR. CARVIN-Do these fences butt each other, do they, or is there a? MRS. THOMPSON-There's two feet between. MR. TURNER-There's two feet between them. MR. CARVIN-In other words, there's a walk space of about two feet? MRS. THOMPSON-Yes. - 50 - MRS. SPRING-I know Mrs. Brown who also put up the same fence, she must have had the same people as Mrs. Thompson did, and I didn't complain about her fence. I don't even know how high it is. It doesn't bother me. So I didn't go and say anything to her because I don't care how high it is. I just wanted that one section lowered. MR. TURNER-Okay. A six foot fence, the Ordinance addresses the fact that people might need a six foot fence in their back yard, and that's what we did, but when you start going, just because you don't like the look of a neighbor's fence and start going up another two feet to hide their fence. That's a self-imposed hardship. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. No further questions? Okay. Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition? WILLIAM ROGERS MR. ROGERS-Yes. My name is William Rogers. I Drive. and I happen to be the neighbor individuals. and to begin with, asking for six what is allowable. reside at 10 Windsor to both of these feet is really twice MR. TURNER-In a side yard. MR. ROGERS-In a side yard. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. ROGERS-And to have the nerve to ask for even two more feet, I mean. are we going to go until we come to the clouds? MR. TURNER-It sounds like it. MR. ROGERS-I mean. really. It's a beautiful fence. Don't get me wrong, but we just can't let people put something up and say, well, I didn't like the looks of my neighbor's. so I'm going to top her, and like I say, I think that by doing this. we're just opening up a can of worms. I'm sure there's going to be other people that are going to be aware of this, and they're going to say. well. if Joe Blow down the street can do it, they better not try and stop me, and also. I do have a fence on the side. I don't, but my neighbor does, and they were decent enough to put the good side, the decorative side. looking towards me. I have to look at the cross pieces. Grant it, I have little children, nephews and nieces come over and play. I don't let them out by that fence. but you know if individuals see places where they can climb. which these cross pieces are very visible. Kids are going to climb, and I would like to see that temptation taken away from these kids. I don't see where friends of mine or relatives should be penalized for something that I'm not responsible for. The height is bad enough, and I believe she has a fence going across in front of that fence, where she can't see what side is in or out anyway. MR. TURNER-There is. There's a fence in the back that goes across and meets that fence. I think. It looks like it anyway. MR. ROGERS-There's a fence behind the house, in the middle of the yard, that blocks the view of property fence. So, she can't, I believe, unless she's got X-ray vision, she can't even see which side is visible. on the back area of the fence, and it is visible from the road. I believe she said it wasn't, but. MR. TURNER-It is. MR. ROGERS-A blind man could see it. That's all I have to say. - 51 - MR. TURNER-Okay. Any questions of Mr. Rogers? No? Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition to the application? MRS. THOMPSON-First of all, the fellow who visited my property never mentioned anything about lowering any sections. He just looked at my fence. and he said. you'll have to get a variance. I was never told I could lower or do anything. He just said. there's been a complaint, and you'll have to get a variance. and I said, fine. I'll go ahead and get that. I wondered, I don't know how long the pool fence has been up. Maybe it's been up longer than my original fence. I don't remember, but I just wonder if there's any consideration about putting up another. a new fence. I mean, fences are supposed to be cared for and if they get in disrepair. there's some boards missing. and my neighbor, Mrs. Brown, when she heard that I was replacing my six foot fence which has been there for twelve years, she said, well. frankly, I wouldn't mind putting up a fence across the back of my property. so that I won't have to look at a fence that's in disrepair and a pool slide, and some other things, and so she said, I think that it would be a nice thing to do to put up the same fence, so it would all look fine, and we just never ever wanted to cause a problem, and I have to be honest. There's been a lot less noise from the pool in the last few years. but I don't know how long the pool's been there. maybe 10 years. MRS. SPRING-Seventeen. MRS. THOMPSON-Okay. Well. there was a lot of noise. We've lived there since 1971, and there was a lot of noise, maybe when the kids were younger. or whatever. but I mean. I've never complained, and I think that I've been a good neighbor in that respect. and I wonder if the members of the committee have visited the property and have looked at the fence and looked at the situation, and maybe if you've done that, you would see that, it doesn't seem like that big a deal to me. I mean, my fence meets this other fence. I don't know how high her fence is, but I see nothing wrong with having two fences back to back that are meeting. I mean, did it ever occur to my neighbor that, I mean. I was looking at her fence for 10 or 15 years, and it's not all that attractive. I mean. you try to take care of your property, and you're trying to enhance it, and I really can't see where this new fence has been such a problem. MISS HAUSER-Have you seen the way your fence looks from her yard? MRS. THOMPSON-I've never been over to her property. been invited over. I'd like to see the pictures. I've never MISS HAUSER-Your fence looks beautiful from your side. From her side, it looks really ugly, because you see two different fences. MRS. THOMPSON-But you don't understand. I mean. I saw two different fences for 12 years. I saw my green stockade fence, and then I saw this stain, sawtoothed board fence. I mean, can't I have any relief from that unsightly look? MR. CARVIN-This is what your fence looks like from her property. MRS. THOMPSON-No. I have never been over there. So I don't know. MR. CARVIN-As you can see, it doesn't look like it's equal. MRS. THOMPSON-Well. if her fence needed replacing in the next few years. I don't know what the ruling is on maintaining your fences. I think that's part of the fence Code. I mean. this is going to weather. This is not going to be brand new wood forever more. This is going to be the same color as tree trunks or something. It's not going to be so noticeable as it is in this picture. I mean, this is probably a few days after it went up. I mean, I just did not intend to do this, and I'm sorry that it happened, and I - 52 - just wonder if you would be ever putting up a new pool fence. MRS. SPRING-No. because I can't afford it. So we take care of that. I'm sorry. We can't afford a new fence. Your fence covers our fence. All I want you to do is lower that section. It's been up for 17 years. MRS. THOMPSON-But what's the ruling on fences? MR. TURNER-Six feet in the back yard. MRS. THOMPSON-No. no, but I meant. about repairs and maintaining them. It's not falling down. There's some missing slats, and there's no missing slats. I think there's a picture that I had. MR. TURNER-Let me read you the Section, what it says about maintenance of fences, Mrs. Thompson. Fences shall be continually maintained, and no fence shall be permitted to become unsightly or in a state of disrepair as determined by the Zoning Administrator, Mr. Martin. but how high can you go with a fence, like you said. MRS. THOMPSON-I just went up to meet her fence. intended to do. That's all I MR. TURNER-You're above her fence. MRS. THOMPSON-No, I know. I didn't realize that. I was never invited over to see the fence from that side. I've never been over there. I had no idea when I put the fence up. MR. TURNER-Well. I think, you know, if you had a concern. you should have asked her if you could come over and look from that side. MRS. THOMPSON-I didn't have a concern. She made a complaint. and I was told to get a variance, and I tried to do the best I could with that situation. MR. TURNER-You've lived in the Town, how long? MRS. THOMPSON-What are you trying to say, Mr. Turner? MR. TURNER-How long have you lived there? MRS. THOMPSON-I've lived in, we moved in that house in 1971. MR. TURNER-Okay. There's been a Zoning Ordinance in the Town of Queensbury since 1967, and they've changed from '67 to '82, and from '82 to '88. and in '88. the Fence Ordinance came into being. So what I'm saying to you is, you should have checked. MRS. THOMPSON-Well. I'm sorry. I'm not that knowledgeable about fences. We had an old fence that was falling down. It was six feet high. I just figured it was time to replace it, and I just didn't anticipate so many problems, and my neighbor said, she's gone through all of this. Well. that's what I was told to do by the person who visited my house. They said. you need a variance, and that's what you need. So that was the course I took. I didn't intend to. MR. TURNER-Your intentions might have been not to do it. but you didn't check with anybody, and neither did the fence company that came to put up the fence. They came from out of town. They could care less. all right. They're doing a job for you. They're getting X number of dollars to do that job. They could care less if there's a Fence Ordinance. Once they're gone from town and they've got their money, it's adios amigos. MRS. THOMPSON-If you look around Glens Falls. I mean, there's a lot of Avsco signs on fences. They're very popular and very well - 53 - ~.,...~ regarded, and they have good records. I tried to find somebody to do a good job. MR. TURNER-I understand that, but I'm saying that if they're going to do the job. they should check with the Town that there's a Fence Ordinance. They know better. They're from Schenectady. They're not from some place out of state. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think the point is, we have a Town Ordinance, here, and there's a problem with a neighbor's fence. and the solution is either we turn the variance down. in which case, you'd have to bring it into compliance. or the neighbor has indicated that she wouldn't have a problem if she just lowered that one section of the fence so that they're equal. I mean. I don't have a tape measure, but if the Town Ordinance. MRS. THOMPSON-Well, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I mean, if she doesn't want to see mY fence, fine. I mean, but I wouldn't see hers either. MR. CARVIN-If she were to lower those sections? MRS. SPRING-That's fine with me. I don't know about what he wants. MR. ROGERS-Well. like I said. Mr. Rogers. Once again, this is Mr. Rogers from 10 Windsor Drive. Once again, like I say. the height of it is doubled. Even if they lower it. it's still doubled, outside of regulation. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. ROGERS-It's also facing the wrong way, which was very inconsiderate of the neighbor. If she was so considerate of us, why did she stick that side looking at us? MRS. THOMPSON-Because that's the way it was originally. I didn't think about the sides or anything. You never complained about the fence that was there for 12 years. That was the way it was. and I just put it up the way I thought it should be. MR. TURNER-All right. MR. ROGERS-And I think Mr. Turner brought up a good point, that the indi vidual that did it was from out of town, and like I say, somebody in town knows the Codes of the Town of Queensbury. They know the side fence cannot be over three feet high. So therefore I think this is where she might have had trouble trying to get somebody to erect it because of the height of it was not in compliance with the Town Ordinance. and this is why she had to build it some place else. MRS. THOMPSON-Come on. You're reading a lot into this. MR. TURNER-Mrs. Thompson, please. MR. ROGERS-Please. I didn't interrupt you, young lady. MR. KARPELES-What do you want her to do? MR. ROGERS-Well. what we're doing is we're opening up a can of worms. MR. TURNER-Do you know what I want her to do? I'll tell you what I want her to do, bring the fence into conformance. MR. ROGERS-The law is geared. If you let this, nothing against this individual. I've never had any problems. I've been a neighbor with her. I've been there since '67, but if you start letting people put up a fence that's not in compliance and then just say, well. it's up there. It's beautiful. We'll leave it - 54 - there. There's other places in Town that people are going to want to do the same thing, and once you start saying it's okay. MR. KARPELES-One of her neighbors has said it would be all right if she just lowered the section that's over six feet high. Is that right? MRS. SPRING-Yes. MR. KARPELES-You don't agree with that. do? What do you want her to MR. ROGERS-Comply with the law. That's why the laws are there. The people that break the laws usually are punished. MR. KARPELES-Well, there are variances granted, too. MR. ROGERS-Yes, there are variances granted, but like I say, in other words. more or less anybody that wants to, can just put it up, outside the law, the rules, the codes. go and get a variance. get the variance granted, everything's cherry pie. That's not right, and as far as noise and stuff goes, I've been a neighbor of the Springs longer than Mrs. Thompson, and believe me, kids will be kids, and she has chi ldren, too, and I don't want to get into personalities and stuff, but my yard makes noise, too, believe me. I'm a human being. I was put on ~arth to live, and enjoy life, and if kids can't go out and play in the pool. I mean, really. and this fence is not going to stop, I don't think there's a limit on how high noise goes. By putting a fence six. eight. it's not going to stop the noise, but like I say, granted she's sorry. I know she is. but we just can't have people putting things up outside the law, and then give them the okay, and like I said, I'm sure this builder must have knownwhat side should be facing in and what side should be facing out. I'm sure that probably the ordinances around are universal, more or less. I would say. Okay. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. Okay. The public hearing's closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any discussion? I say she should comply, just like everybody else has to comply. If they put a new fence up, they have to come into compliance. If she puts a new fence up, she has to come into compliance, and I don't think we should deviate from the Ordinance. There's no practical difficulty. This is a self- imposed hardship. This is her decision to do what she did. Nobody else's. H~. MR. TURNER-How long did you have the other fence there? How long was the other fence up? MRS. THOMPSON-I put the other fence up in 1981. It was six feet. and it ran for 330 feet of the side property line. It was there. MR. CARVIN-And in 1981 she was allowed a six foot fence? MR. TURNER-No. There was no Fence Ordinance. MR. CARVIN-There was no Fence Ordinance in 1981. MR. TURNER-No. So you could have had whatever. MRS. THOMPSON-Mr. Turner, could I just say, like, all right, say I bought the six foot fence and I put it up in 1981, and it starts to need repairing or replacing. I mean, what do you do then? MR. TURNER-But you took the whole fence down, put up a brand new fence. MRS. THOMPSON-Well. I had to. The posts were rotting, and I mean. - 55 - MR. TURNER-So, there's a Fence Ordinance that says that your fence has to be a certain height in the side yard. MRS. THOMPSON-So. you mean, because I had a preexisting nonconforming fence, I could not replace that? MR. TURNER-Yes. You have to come into conformance. MRS. THOMPSON-So, I would have had to put, what. a three foot fence? MR. TURNER-A three foot fence or come for a variance for whatever. MR. CARVIN-I have a hard time with that, Ted. I really do. MRS. THOMPSON-Well. I'll tell you something. In our neighborhood. there's a lot of fences going up. and don't know if they've got variances or not. MR. CARVIN-Because we have camps that are built on footprints up at the lake. So if they had a camp on the lake that was preexisting in the footprint. they could tear it down and build a structure, as long as it stayed in the footprint. So, I don't see the difference between. if she had a six foot fence, at that point. and if that fence became unsightly or unsafe, and all she was doing is replacing it in kind, in other words. putting another six foot fence down there. I don't see the difference between that and one of these cases on a footprint up at the lake. CHRISTINE HERWIG MRS. HERWIG-My name's Christine Herwig. She said that she replaced the fence. and she did it one section at a time, because it was already there. replacing it, maybe the one section that was falling down. and she replaced that one section. is she still. does that need to be three feet. as opposed to the six feet? MR. TURNER-That's maintenance. That's not replacing. the whole thing. She replaced the whole fence. She fence down and replaced it all. That's maintenance. a muffler go on your car, do you take the car to the do you put a muffler on it? You fix the car. Okay. about it all night. She replaced took the old If you have junkyard. or We can talk MRS. THOMPSON-I mean, I would be willing to try to lower the fence to shave it off or something. I mean. if that would be agreeable, I could certainly ask the guy to come back and shave it down to meet her fence, that solution, but I can honestly say that was never presented to me by the fellow who came. He just said, you have to get a variance. So that's why. MR. CARVIN-I think that if the next door neighbor there is not opposed to the. MR. TURNER-That's fine with her. but what do you do to the next guy that comes along? Do you tell him he can have an eight foot fence or he can have a six foot fence? MR. KARPELES-I think that if he's replacing an existing six foot fence that I would go along with that, and he wants a six foot fence. MR. TURNER-I wouldn't, because the Ordinance is very definite. It says you can have a certain height. MR. KARPELES-I think you've got to keep it maintained. MR. TURNER-Yes. but what I'm saying is, if she has a panel that goes, right. and she has to replace it. she can replace it with a - 56 - six foot piece, but she's taking the whole fence down and put up a brand new one. So then. now, that means you have to come into compliance, just as if it wasn't there. MRS. THOMPSON-Mr. Turner. that fence is running along everyone's back yard. So you probably could say that even though it's my fence. it's at the back of their property where I think six foot fences are permitted. MR. TURNER-It's allowed, yes. As long as it's behind the back of the house. the building line of the house. It's six foot. MRS. THOMPSON-Their yards are perpendicular to mine. know. you get into side fences and back fences different maybe than strictly straight lots. I mean. you and they're MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MR. ROGERS-Mr. Turner. we have two integers in this variance, if I'm not mistaken. Now, if you, believe it or not, okay the variance. now does this second part of the decorative side facing her property, this is another integer of the variance. MR. TURNER-I know. That's up to the Board to decide. There's three of them. One is the nonconforming fence. and the other one is the decorative side. and the other one is the height. MR. CARVIN-Could I get somebody to come up here, on one of these maps, to let me know where you folks are all at here? I want to know who's facing what fence where. I mean. I know the neighbor on this side has got the pool. okay. This is Garrison, all right. Now this is the pool side. So this is where the double fence is. MR. ROGERS-Okay. Well, this doesn't. this is Garrison Road. If you get a map. you come down Garrison Road, you come all the way out onto Glen. and come back into Windsor Drive and come all the way around. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, this is her property line here. MR. ROGERS-We're over here. MR. CARVIN-This is where I call the double fence. So. in other words. both fences are back to back. So it really doesn't matter. There's a double fence here. As far as inside or outside, I don't really care. because they're both fences. and. MR. ROGERS-There's a property here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now the question is. now do you own the property here? MR. ROGERS-No. I'm the individual who owns this here. MR. SPRING MR. SPRING-I own both of these, the 50 and the 75. Mr. Rogers owns there. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Okay. Where does the double fence go? MR. SPRING-The double fence goes from here to here. MR. CARVIN-Just this section here? MR. ROGERS-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-So there is a fence that comes out to about here that - 57 - - there is, in other words, you're looking at the back side of this? MR. SPRING-I'm looking at the back side of hers. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now, and there's a section here that you're looking at the back side? MR. ROGERS-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-Now, you're opposed to the back side? MR. ROGERS-I'm opposed to the height of the fence, too. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, lets address one issue at a time. Okay. So, at this point, you don't like looking at the back of that. and I can appreciate that. Is this a problem with you, looking at the back there? MR. SPRING-You'd have to ask her. MR. CARVIN-Well. that's what I'm asking. MR. THOMAS-You can't see the back of that fence. MR. ROGERS-Yes, you can. MR. CARVIN-Well. no, I mean, where the double fence is, the double fence. but the double fence only goes from here to here. So that she's got actually a longer fence. and there's no double fence here. MR. SPRING-Right, 52 foot. That's six foot high there. MR. CARVIN-Okay. This is the six foot section. MR. SPRING-Do you have any objection to a six foot fence there? MRS. SPRING-As long as it's not, well, our. You mean down in the back? MR. CARVIN-Because I noticed there was a hedge in here, and there's a lot of foliage and stuff. MRS. SPRING-No. I don't mind that down there. MR. CARVIN-So, you don't have a problem looking at the post, or the back? MRS. SPRING-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So we're all set up to this point right here. Okay. So in other words. your bone of contention is that you feel that this is unsightly. All right. Is there any reason why she couldn't flip this section around, because obviously the double fence is not a problem at this point. The height is. I agree with the height. The height has to be lowered. I mean, that's my feeling. I mean, and I agree with you. This is not a good situation. MRS. SPRING-No. I looked at it all summer. complain, but I got tired of looking at it. I wasn't going to MR. CARVIN-That's the height. I want to address, as this gentleman has pointed out, the second portion here. MR. TURNER-This you can't see from your house? This is out towards Garrison Road? That there's no fence here. MR. ROGERS-Yes there is. - 58 - MR. TURNER-Not his fence. her fence, right there. MR. CARVIN-Thompson's new fence comes to here. So in other words, from here to here there's no problem, but on your property line, from here to here. is a problem. Does she have a fence that runs this way, too? MR. ROGERS-Yes, it does. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is that facing in or out? MR. ROGERS-That's facing into. and she also has a fence around it this way. which blocks the view of these fences here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm assuming we have letters on file from these folks here? MR. ROGERS-That's the back property lot. This is the back property line. So six foot's within compliance. MR. CARVIN-Okay. people. So in other words. there's no problem with MR. SPRING-Well. you'd have to talk to Polly Beeman. She owns that property. MR. CARVIN-She already gave a letter saying she didn't have a problem with, and I don't know if, there's no fence on this site, if memory serves correct. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So, actually the only bone of contention we have, as far as the facing is, is right here. MISS HAUSER-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and the height along here. MR. TURNER-And the height along here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I just wanted to get that clear in my mind what it was. MR. TURNER-There's no bone of contention from where the fence leaves here to here. MR. CARVIN-No. That's what they said. They're satisfied for this length of fence to leave it as it is. MR. KARPELES-No. This one's got to be lower. MR. CARVIN-Except for the height. I'm just saying the facing. MR. THOMAS-This section right here can be six feet. MR. ROGERS-No, it can't. That's side property line. MR. THOMAS-Yes. it can. because. from behind the house. MR. TURNER-If it's behind the house. it can be six feet. MR. THOMAS-If the back of the house is here, from here back can be six. MR. SPRING-No. This section of fence is to her side yard. MR. TURNER-All right. If her house is right here, we'll say. she can have it six feet from the back of the house around here. - 59 - MR. SPRING-Okay. So then it's not a side yard. MR. TURNER-That's not a side yard. That's a rear yard, once it's behind the house. This is the side yard, from the back of the house to the front. MR. SPRING-Okay. MR. CARVIN-One of the contentions is that this section of fence along this gentleman's property line is facing in, and is about 80 feet. Okay. Is that fence nailed or bolted, or? Okay. I'm sure your contractor would know exactly what it's. MRS. THOMPSON-I mean. my original fence was, he had all these. whatever he called them, cross boards before and there was no trouble with it then. I don't see why it's such a big deal now. MR. ROGERS-Because that time I had a fence of my own up there, which in the meantime I've taken down. I didn't have to look at her fence. MRS. THOMPSON-But this is a more attractive fence. MR. ROGERS-Excuse me, young lady. I'm talking to these gentleman, thank you. MR. CARVIN-All right. Lets address this. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Lets discuss the issues that are in front of us. and then we'll make a motion and get it done with. MR. CARVIN-Well. my feeling on the thing is I disagree that the whole fence has to go to three feet. I think that she had a six foot there. MR. TURNER-I don't have a problem with that. with the three feet, if anything, four feet. MR. CARVIN-I mean, if that last section can be flipped. and I don't suspect that that's a real technical problem, in other words, to flip the fence from. MR. KARPELES-They could probably just put boards on the other side. MR. CARVIN-Yes. In other words, I think that the one neighbor has expressed displeasure at that. and he's within his rights. I think that the fence should be lowered. I mean, that's my personal feeling, I know to at least the height of the neighbor's fence. so that they at least are uniform. because at this point they are not. MRS. THOMPSON-I'm perfectly willing to do that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then I think we could, if you're willing to flip that fence in that one section, facing the one neighbor's. MRS. THOMPSON-Well. I'll take the boards off of it and put the boards on the other side, but I mean. to dig up the whole fence. MR. CARVIN-No. We're not asking you to dig up the fence, but I think if we can just lower the fence down to the. I don't know the names. I'm sorry. MRS. THOMPSON-I mean, my pool neighbor is not complaining about the size of the fence. MR. CARVIN-No. They're complaining about the height. MRS. THOMPSON-So. if you're suggesting that I take half of the fence and have some decorative showing, and then the other half you flip. - 60 - MR. CARVIN-Unless you turn the whole fence. choice. I'm giving you the MRS. THOMPSON-No. I mean, I can't do that. I mean, that fence is. I mean, I wish you guys would all come and look at it. MR. TURNER-We did. MR. KARPELES-We all have. MRS. THOMPSON-I mean, go in her yard. look at it, because I don't even know We have a stone wall in front of the talking, like major. major hardship. Go in my yard. Take a good if you'd get a feel for it. fence. and, I mean. you're MR. CARVIN-Okay. First of all, we didn't build the fence wrong. MRS. THOMPSON-Well, I'm sorry. MR. CARVIN-I realize you're sorry, but we're trying to work our way out of this. We're trying to get everybody on the same page here. Now, if you feel that you can't flip that section to comply with the one neighbor's fence. then I guess we'll have to turn the variance down. We're trying to grant a variance. here, to get everybody at least somewhat satisfied. We're trying to give a little give and take here all the way down the line. MRS. THOMPSON-If you want. I can call the fence guy and ask him what it involves. MR. CARVIN-We can grant a variance. I mean, allowing you a variance for the first 60 or 80 feet along the pool neighbor's side. and not grant the variance for that second section. and that, if you're not in compliance. then that becomes Mr. Martin's matter to make sure that it does come into compliance. As far as lowering the height. again. I think that that's a technical situation where probably 15 minutes with a chainsaw or something. In other words. your fence people are going to have to come back and figure it out. to bring it down the two feet or so. and again. I mean. I don't have a problem. You had a six foot fence there for a number of years, and I think I feel comfortable in saying to you, you should be able to have a six foot fence running along there. MRS. THOMPSON-The thing is. though. if you have a six foot fence. and it's preexisting, you'll never, you won't ever repair it, because you won't be able to put up another one. You'll want the privacy. MR. CARVIN-I'm just saying that the eight foot fence puts it up over your neighbor's fence. MRS. THOMPSON-I agree to lower that part so she doesn't see it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Stop right there. MRS. THOMPSON-I'm happy to do that. but I'm just saying that. for everyone who has a six foot fence. I mean, there's tons of them in my neighborhood, on corners and allover the place. If you can't replace them when they are in disrepair, because you won't be able to have the privacy that that six foot fence affords you, I mean, you'll have a lot of run down fences in the town, because people won't want to give up the six feet to go to the three feet. I don't know if you've run into that. MR. TURNER-Okay. You know the problem with the Fence Ordinance? I'll tell you the problem with the Fence Ordinance, that people put them up, without a permit, and they get them up, and nobody goes around, and never even sees them. I can see them allover the town, and I've lived here all my life. and I'll tell you right now, they're not very sightly. as far as I'm concerned. - 61 - MRS. THOMPSON-Are you going to deal with the fence on a North Road and Garrison, the eight foot concrete wall fence? MR. TURNER-That's a six foot wall fence. MRS. THOMPSON-I measured it with my yard stick the other day. MR. TURNER-Did you measure it outside? It's six foot outside. MRS. THOMPSON-I measured the outside. I parked the car. MR. TURNER-Well, it's my understanding that it's six foot, but if it isn't in compliance. then. MRS. THOMPSON-But the six foot fence is going all the way around his house. MR. ROGERS-People are getting out of order, Mr. Turner. This has nothing to do with this case at all. MR. TURNER-No, you're right. Exactly. MRS. THOMPSON-I'm just saying there has to be flexible fence laws for everybody. MR. TURNER-I agree. MRS. THOMPSON-You talk about examining each case individually, and I think that's what you have to do with fences, as well as other. MR. TURNER-I know fences are needed, but I'll tell you Town of QUéensbury's getting to look like Fort Apache. you, it's terrible. Why do you move into a Town of this and this beauty, and then want a fence yourself in? Why that? what. the I'll tell magnitude do you do MRS. THOMPSON-We are even thinking of putting our own pool in. MR. TURNER-Well. with a pool you've got to have a four foot fence. That's Health Code. That's regulated, but I'm saying. why would anybody, with as nice a yard and as nice a house as you've got, why would you want to close yourself in with a fence? MRS. THOMPSON-Because we have a huge 330 foot. and you have everybody's back yard along your side. I mean. it's not all that attractive. MR. TURNER-I know, but I live next to my neighbors and I don't have any problems. MRS. THOMPSON-It's not an unneighborly thing to do, when people's back yards are butting up to your side fence. I mean, there's no talking over the fence like you would on a side fence. MR. TURNER-I just don't like them. time. I think they're a waste of MRS. THOMPSON-Mr. Turner. all these people have sheds and things, storage sheds, all along their back property. Now. if I didn't have my six foot fence, I mean. that's what I would look at. and I don't think that's a particularly nice view. I mean, these fences, maybe they don't totally conform, but sometimes maybe they serve a purpose. too. MR. TURNER-Some of them do, but many of them don't. Make her make it six feet. the whole. She's got it eight feet. So it's consistent down the side yard, if you want to do that. MRS. THOMPSON-Why don't you come back and measure it all and figure out what you want to do, and what would look best. - G2 - MR. TURNER-You're going to give her 50 percent relief from the side yard? Then what are you going to do with the next guy that comes along and wants 50 percent? That's the problem I have with granting a variance of that nature. is that if you do it for one. you've got to do it for the next guy. She's only allowed three feet in the side yard. MR. KARPELES-I think there's a difference whether you're replacing an existing fence or you're putting a new one up. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's what, she's expanded it. There's no doubt in my mind. She needs a variance. because she built an eight foot when she had a six foot. I agree with that. She needs a variance. MR. TURNER-She needs a variance for that. MR. CARVIN-But I won't give her eight foot. MR. TURNER-No. I wouldn't either. We're still going to come back. We're going to grant her a variance of three feet over the Ordinance right now, which is what she had, the six feet. I'm going to make it three feet, or no higher than the neighbors next door. MR. TURNER-I'd give her four feet. just like the Ordinance says. The Ordinance says. The Ordinance says three feet, but we've always been granting four feet. MRS. THOMPSON-If my neighbor is happy with that decision, and our fences butt up to each other, I mean, it's not going to effect anybody else. MR. TURNER-No, but it sets and awful precedent. MRS. THOMPSON-No, I know, Mr. Turner, but sometimes, how often do you have. like, two fences butting up to each other? Do you have that situation very often? Maybe this is a unique. MR. TURNER-Yes, we do. I think the next one is going to be butting up against the other one. I agree. I think, why do we write a Fence Ordinance if we're not going to uphold it? MR. ROGERS-That's my bone of contention. too. MR. KARPELES-That' s the whole reason why we've got a variance. Zoning Board of Appeals. is to make variances. I think this is a unique situation. She had an existing fence. MR. ROGERS-No, it's not a unique situation. MR. TURNER-No, it's not. MR. KARPELES-She had an existing fence six feet high. You looked at that fence for years. and you never complained about it. Now all of a sudden she replaces it with a new fence. and you don't like it. MR. ROGERS-No, because at that time I had a back fence. which has now been removed. So, I correct you. I have not been looking at that fence for years. MR. KARPELES-How long have you been looking at it? When did you have your fence removed? MR. ROGERS-I just took my fence down last year. People just can't go and put something up and say, God. that's outside the law, well, I'll go get a variance and I'll be inside the law. You just can't do that. MR. THOMAS-We're dragging this out. Ted. - G3 - MR. TURNER-Yes. we are. bang it back and forth. Fred's making a motion, too. Lets not MR. CARVIN-Check my math, here. if somebody would. I'm looking at 80 feet of six foot fence. 96 feet of eight foot fence. and 48 feet of six foot fence? Is that right? I'm adding that up to 224 feet. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that comes out to 224. MR. CARVIN-Two twenty-four. All right. MR. TURNER-Do we have a motion? MR. CARVIN-Yes. we've got a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 80-1993 JOYCE S. THOMPSON, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Robert Karpeles: That we grant relief of three feet from Section 179-74B(2). which allows a maximum fence of three feet in height in a side yard. This would allow the applicant a fence no higher than what was previously in existence, and the applicant is to ensure that her fence is no higher than an adjacent neighboring fence on the west property line. exclusive of the finniels. I also move that we grant relief from Section 179-74B (1). which requires that the decorative side of the fence to face the adjacent property for a distance of 145 feet. beginning on the south end. and that the last 79 feet should be held in compliance with the Town Ordinance. The applicant states the practical difficulty, in order to achieve a desired privacy and visual amenity, a fence of this height is necessary. It would appear that this is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate that particular practical difficulty. and also maintain a standard decorum in the community. It does not appear by granting this variance that it would be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood. and it does not appear that there would be any effect on public services or facilities by granting this variance. That these changes to the fence should be brought into compliance within the next 60 days. Duly adopted this 15th day of September. 1993, by the following vote: MRS. SPRING-I have a question. Does that mean the top of the posts are going to be higher than my fence? MR. TURNER-The only thing that's going to show is the finniel that's on top of the post. That's according to his motion. The fence will be the height of your fence. The fence itself. All you'll see is those finniels above your fence. I thought you objected to looking at the finniels, didn't you? MR. SPRING-Yes, she did. MR. TURNER-I thought she did. AYES: Mr. Carvin. Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles NOES: Mr. Turner ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Philo NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-1993 TYPE II SR-20 JOHN BAKER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE NORTHEAST CORNER OF STEPHANIE LANE AND LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A SIX (G) FOOT HIGH STOCKADE FENCE EIGHTY-SIX AND FOUR TENTHS (86.4) FEET LONG. ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY LINE OF HIS PROPERTY. SECTION 179-74B(2) STATES - 64 - THAT NO FENCE OVER THREE (3) FEET IN HEIGHT SHALL BE ERECTED IN ANY FRONT OR SIDE YARD. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF THREE (3) FEET IN HEIGHT FOR FORTY -ONE ( 41 ) FEET OF THE FENCE WHICH WOULD BE LOCATED IN HIS FRONT YARD. TAX MAP NUMBER: 126-3-23 LOT SIZE: 19.072 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-74B(2) JOHN BAKER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 81-1993. John Baker. Meeting Date: September 15. 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 42 Stephanie Lane SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to construct a six (6) foot high stockade fence eighty-six and four tenths (86.4) feet long. along the southern boundary of his property. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Section 179-74B(2) states that no fence over three (3) feet in height shall be erected in any front or side yard. Applicant is seeking relief of three (3) feet in height for the forty-one (41) feet of the fence which would be located in his front yard. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZORING CODE. Applicant desires the privacy and aesthetic benefit provided by a six (6) foot high fence. Applicant states that a three (3) foot fence is not available for purchase and would offer no privacy. 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? Applicant states that a four (4) foot fence would still require a variance and would not provide the privacy sought. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It does not appear that this variance would be detrimental to the district or neighborhood. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It does not appear that there would be any impact on public facilities or services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: It does not appear that there would be any detrimental effects as a result of this variance." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Baker. MR. BAKER-For the record, my name is John Baker. and I reside at 42 Stephanie Lane. I'm seeking a variance here for. let me clarify, for actually 33 feet of six foot tall stockade fence. The last section, which is eight foot in length, is a tapered section, tapered from six foot to four foot. MR. TURNER-Towards the road. MR. BAKER-Towards the road. MR. TURNER-Have you got it all painted? You were painting it the other night when I went by. MR. BAKER-That was up. It was wi thin compl iance. but not, it wasn't, easier to paint when it's not up. MR. TURNER-Well, you heard the last go around. MR. BAKER-The only thing I can add to that is. show me a place where I can purchase a standard size. MR. TURNER-I'm not saying three foot. We've said to the Town for quite a few years now to change the Ordinance from three feet to four feet. and we've been granting. it's coming, but we've been granting variances based on four feet. We don't have a problem with four feet. because we know you can't get a three foot fence. MR. BAKER-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else? Again. I've got to tell you the - G5 - same thing, I'll grant you four feet, but I won't give you six, myself. That's just the way I feel about it. I don't see any practical difficulty. MR. CARVIN-On this one. Ted. I'm going to side with you. MR. KARPELES-Yes. I'm with you on that. This is a new fence. MR. CARVIN-This is substantially different. As far as I can tell. this is the only stockade fence. at least in the immediate area. Is that correct? MR. TURNER-No. There's one in the back yard. MR. CARVIN-No. no, no, no. I'm saying on the other properties. MR. TURNER-Yes, here, I think. on the other properties. This gentleman right Okay. Let me open the public hearing. then. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAN FIELD MR. FIELD-My name is Dan Field. I live at 40 Stephanie Lane. I am strongly in favor of the fence. and if John was not requesting it, then I would eventually be requesting a variance to put up a six foot fence there, for three reasons. One reason is that my side yard runs the length of John's side yard and Jim's back yard. So if Jim has a six foot fence, and John has a three foot fence. then I'd have a six foot fence. MR. TURNER-Yes. You can have it behind the back of the house, a six foot fence. behind the back, this part of the house. six foot from there back. You can have a six foot fence. but the minute it leaves from there, then it's got to come down to four foot. on the side yard. Do you see what I'm saying? Come right up here and I'll show you. Project that line across there like that. From there back, you can have six feet. from there forward. you can have four feet. MR. FIELD-Okay. I see what you're saying. MR. TURNER-It says three feet in the Ordinance, but we're. MR. FIELD-I still have some other reasons. One, four foot. I don't think. provides the privacy. I mean, four foot adds no privacy whatsoever. It just establishes a dividing line. So I, personally, see no value in a four foot fence. So that's why I would strongly want a six foot fence, and then a six foot fence also cuts down on the noise. because Luzerne Road is a pretty noisy road. So I would prefer the six foot fence for that reason. and then the last reason is that. because it's on the north boundary, the winds cut across there in the winter time, and that's really damaging to my plants, and it also is, it creates a problem with heating the house. A six foot fence. it would cut down the wind, and therefore would help me in that regard. MR. TURNER-You're adjacent to Mr. Baker on this side? You're right here? MR. FIELD-Yes. MR. TURNER-He's right here. this next house. MR. KARPELES-You've got the garden right there, right? MR. FIELD-Yes. I've got a rock garden in the front. MR. KARPELES-Wouldn't that be too shady for your plants? - 66 - MR. FIELD-No, because the fence is on the north side. exactly where I want it. So the fence is great for me. This is MR. TURNER-They need a variance. Okay. CHRISTINE HERWIG MRS. HERWIG-My name's Christine Herwig. and I live on 5 Stephanie Lane. which is way at the other end. The reason I'm here tonight is support a friend. and also to, the fence that was there, it was very nice. It was six foot, and it came down to four foot, and it didn't block anyone's views from driveways that came out, and it didn't block any views toward Luzerne Road, or the Luzerne Road. If there's anything that blocked the view, it would be the woods at the corner. and I don't see a problem with the fence being that tall. MR. TURNER-Yes. John's house is more towards the south, on the property. a little bit, but the driveway is more. MR. BAKER-It's towards the north. MR. TURNER-I know, but this side of the house, the south side of the house. Your driveway is on the south side of your house. MR. BAKER-Yes, it is. MRS. HERWIG-But driving down the road, I can still see the vehicle parked in the driveway, because it tapers down to four feet. So, I guess what I wanted to say was there was no objections. JIM FRIDAY MR. FRIDAY-My name is Jim Friday. I have the house next to John's. I support his fence. because it's aesthetically, and it matches mine real nice. I think that for all the neighbors concerned. it is an improvement in the neighborhood, it doesn't block anybody's view, and it should be given a variance. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else wish to be heard on this application? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-What's your pleasure? I think if we go giving away the candy store, we're in trouble. MR. CARVIN-Well. again. I don't. this fence. I think, is significantly different than the other fence. Aside from the fact that it's a new construction of an existing. or it's not a replacement of a preexisting. I just think if you bring the six foot, now it's going to taper down, how far down is that going to taper? MR. BAKER-Four foot. MR. TURNER-Four foot. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but starting where. approximately? MR. BAKER-It's going to take one section which is. the fence is six foot tall, and taper the six foot down to four foot. MR. CARVIN-So how far off the property line is the fence going to end? In other words, how much open space does this represent, this little jag? MR. BAKER-Eleven point eight feet. MR. CARVIN-I don't know. I just looked at that, and I saw where - 67 - you had the post and I'm assuming that that's where the fence was going to progress. I don't know. I looked around the neighborhood, and I just didn't feel that it was going to be in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. I really didn't. I think I agree with Ted. The four foot fence. I don't have a real problem with that, but I think to put a six foot fence there is going to change, especially that far out towards the road. I think it's going to dramatically change the whole neighborhood. Stephanie Lane is, kind of turns down through there, and looking there, I could just envision. you know. if you put one up, and then the next guy brings it up within 11 feet of the road, and then the next guy brings it out 11 feet to the road. I'd have to agree with Ted. I think we'd be setting a precedent here. in this particular case. MR. TURNER-Anyone else have any observations? MR. THOMAS-No, I agree. MR. TURNER-All right. Motion's in order, then. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-1993 JOHN BAKER. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by The applicant is proposing to construct a six foot high stockade fence, 86.4 feet long. along the southern boundary line of his property. Section 179-74B(2) states that no fence over three feet in height shall be erected in any front or side yard. MR. BAKER-You couldn't grant a four foot tall fence, is what you're telling me. You can only go three foot. MR. TURNER-No, I'm not telling you that, but the way it's worded here is that it refers to that Section. MR. BAKER-I offered. in that statement. an option to go to four foot. MR. CARVIN-If you want to grant him one foot relief. and go to four foot. MR. TURNER-The first thing you've got to do is deny it. and then you've got to grant him the relief on the four foot. MR. CARVIN-So he's going to go to the four. MR. TURNER-Four foot. The Ordinance says three foot, but we've always been going with the four foot. because it. MR. THOMAS-Right. It's coming up next month. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. BAKER-You can't buy. MR. TURNER-Yes, right. We know that. MR. BAKER-Then why is it in the Ordinance? MR. TURNER-Because we can't do anything about it until they amend it. or take it out, change it. MR. BAKER-A 200 year old Ordinance? MR. TURNER-No, it's not. It's 1988. MR. CARVIN-I don't have trouble with the four foot. I just have a problem with the six foot. MR. TURNER-Yes. - G8 - MR. THOMAS-The four foot, I have no problem. MR. TURNER-Yes. I have no problem with a four foot. MR. THOMAS-If he wants to put a four foot in there. fine. MR. FRIDAY-That piece that's tapered from six foot down to four foot, eight foot long. that's tapered from six foot down to four foot. MRS. HERWIG-Would he be breaking Ordinance because some of it is above the four feet, tapering down, if he were to use that to make. MR. FRIDAY-From where it is now. MR. TURNER-In the back, yes, you can use it in the back, where you start with your four foot fence on your side yard line. You're going to have to go with a four foot fence, the whole length of that side yard. MR. BAKER-There's a tapered piece from where the fence starts presently. MR. TURNER-We're not talking about that. We're talking about, at least I'm talking about denying you a variance for a six foot. MR. MARTIN-From an enforcement standpoint, I have no problem with that tapering. MR. TURNER-No. I don't have any problem with that. He can taper that. That's fine. I don't have any problem with that. MR. MARTIN-What do you have. your six foot piece up already, the six foot sections, and you want to start from where you are now? MR. BAKER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-I've got no problem with that. MR. BAKER-Okay. MR. TURNER-Well, how far are you, then. with the fence? MR. BAKER-It ends one foot past the front of my house. So we're talking maybe. I've got get another relief for another one foot in there, in height. MR. TURNER-Yes. but I guess you're not following what I'm saying. is that I'm making a motion not to grant you relief from that point. I'm making a motion to only give you a four foot fence on the side yard, versus the three foot fence, from the back of the building to the front. MR. BAKER-The back of the house? MR. TURNER-That's where the six foot fence can start. MR. MARTIN-He's on a corner lot. He has no side yards. MRS. CIPPERLY-He has two rear yards. MR. TURNER-Yes. but the fence at the rear yard starts at the back of the house. A six foot fence in the rear yard starts at the back of the house. MR. MARTIN-He's got a front yard that runs like this, and a front yard that runs like this. MR. TURNER-Yes. - 69 - MR. MARTIN-He can take it up to that point. The six foot fence can go up to that point. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. MARTIN-This is a rear yard. MR. CARVIN-Yes. He's looking for the 41 feet here, right? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well. fine. if he wants to start his taper here. down to four feet. but I think the bulk of this 41 feet has to be at four feet, is what we're saying. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. TURNER-Your determination is that, then. this is not the rear yard. MR. MARTIN-Yes. This there's two front yards. yard. is the rear yard, but on a corner lot, This is a front yard, and this is a front MR. TURNER-Yes. This is the rear yard, you're saying. from here, not here? MR. MARTIN-Yes. from here, on a corner lot. It specifically says, on corner lots. there are no side yards. MR. TURNER-I know that. Yes. So you're going to give him 45.4 feet of six foot fence, and we're going to give him relief on the 41 feet of fence, and we're going to grant him four feet of height there. MR. CARVIN-That's the way it looks. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. BAKER-What are you saying. four foot from the front of the house out? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. CIPPERLY-But you can use your tapered section. MR. TURNER-To start, for the starter. MR. BAKER-From where that. MR. TURNER-I don't know where it is. MR. BAKER-It's going to actually be one foot back. MR. MARTIN-I think what he's saying. Ted. if you project that front wall line along. he's one foot behind that right now with the post, right? MR. BAKER-Yes. exactly. MR. TURNER-No. he's not saying that. He's saying from where it is. I'm asking him, where is it. I just don't want to get. This 41 feet, is this the front of the house? MR. MARTIN-Right. He's saying he's got a post in the ground here right now, where the six foot ends. about a foot behind this line. He wants to begin a tapering, that would take him about eight feet out here, where this next section. MR. TURNER-All right. How fast does this drop? - 70 - MR. MARTIN-I drops two feet over an eight foot length. So that, what? MR. TURNER-One foot, three inches per foot. MR. THOMAS-So you're down to seven foot nine by the time it reaches the front of the house. MR. MARTIN-Can't you word it in such a fashion where you can say you can have an eight foot tapering section from where the existing post is. MR. TURNER-You say that post is, what. back a foot from the front of the house? MR. BAKER-One foot from the house. foot tall down to four foot. So, tall. So we start tapering from six it's probably like five feet MR. TURNER-All right. Just for the record, on tape. strike what I said before. in reference to the motion. I'll make a new motion. MOTION TO MODIFY AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-1993 JOHN BAKER. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by For a fence on the southern property line on Stephanie Lane. Grant the applicant relief from six foot to four foot, and by the applicant's testimony, the starter post is one foot back from the front line of the building. He can start with the tapered section there and reduce it to four feet, at the end of eight feet from there to the forty-one foot mark, as shown on his plan. The practical difficulty is the fact that a three foot fence is not available on the market. A four foot fence is, and the relief is granted in that respect. Duly adopted this 15th day of September. 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Philo AREA VARIANCE NO. 82-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED LC-10A KELLY CARTE OWNER: FLORENCE FULLER NORTH SIDE OF FULLER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CREATE TWO (2) LOTS FROM AN EXISTING THIRTY-EIGHT AND FIFTY-SEVEN HUNDREDTHS (38.57) ACRE LOT INTO AN LC-10A ZONE. ONE (i) LOT WOULD BE ONE AND SIXTY-FIVE HUNDREDTHS (1.65) ACRES AND WOULD SEPARATE AN EXISTING HOUSE FROM THE REMAINING THIRTY-SIX AND NINETY-TWO HUNDREDTHS (36.92) ACRE LOT. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF EIGHT AND THIRTY-FIVE HUNDREDTHS (8. 35) ACRES FROM SECTION 179-13A. WHICH ALLOWS ONE (I) PRINCIPAL BUILDING FOR EACH TEN (10) ACRES. SECTION 179-13C REQUIRES A FOUR HUNDRED (400) FOOT LOT WIDTH. THE SMALLER LOT HAS AN AVERAGE LOT WIDTH OF THREE HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX AND SIXTY-SIX HUNDREDTHS (366.66) FEET. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF THIRTY-THREE AND THIRTY-FOUR HUNDREDTHS (33. 34) FEET. LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF FULLER ROAD. TAX MAP HUMBER: 123-1-5.1 IN AN LC-10A ZONE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY TAX MAP NUMBER: 123-1-5.1 LOT SIZE: 38+/- ACRES SECTION 179- 13A. 179-13C KELLY CARTE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 82-1993. Kelly Carte. Meeting Date: September 15, 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: north side of - 71 - -~--.; ~-""""" Fuller Road SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant proposes to create two (2) lots from an existing thirty-eight and fifty-seven hundredths (38.57) acre lot in an LC-10A zone. One (1) lot would be one and sixty-five hundredths (1.65) acres and would separate an existing house from the remaining thirty-six and ninety-two hundredths (36.92) acre lot. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Applicant is seeking relief of eight and thirty-five hundredths (8.35) acres from Section 179-13A. which allows one (1) principal building for each ten (10) acres. Section 179-13C requires a four hundred (400) foot lot width. The smaller lot has an average lot width of three hundred sixty-six and sixty-six hundredths feet. Applicant is seeking relief of thirty-three and thirty-four hundredths (33.34) feet. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONING CODE. Applicant that the existing house is of minimal value and cannot be economically or practically subdivided on 10 acres without adversely affecting the value of the remaining land. Adequate bank financing cannot be obtained with present configuration. 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 this proposal is seeking the minimum variance necessary to achieve the applicant's plans for the land. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? It does not appear this variance would be detrimental to the district or neighborhood. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIANCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES? It does not appear that this variance would not have an effect on public facilities and services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: This parcel is situated in an area where there is a mixture of lots less than two (2) acres and lots which conform to the current ten (10) acre zoning. so the proposed lot sizes are not unusual for the area. It appears that the applicant is planning to develop the larger parcel further. and this variance would allow -him to secure necessary financing." MR. TURNER-Mr. Carte. you have on the back of that paper there a statement from Mrs. Eggleston. Would you read that into the record? MR. CARTE-Yes. I do. Mr. Turner. Sandra Eggleston. apparently. one of the neighbors of this property. was not notified of the meeting here tonight. and she came to it, and expressed a concern to me. and I met with her outside and talked to her about it, and after she found out what it was that I was planning on doing. she stated that she had no objections to it. and she gave me a statement here in her own had writing signed that she had no objections. It says, "To Whom It May Concern: I have no objection to Mr. Carte's proposal to subdivide the lot by two on Fuller Road." Signed Sandra Eggleston. MR. TURNER-Okay, but just for the record, so it's on the record, that Staff will write Mrs. Eggleston a letter, requesting her to sign off that she made that statement. so that it's a matter of record, and it's in the file. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. Now we'll get down to the substance of the application. I guess I might have a question as to why you think you can't develop that lot under current zoning? MR. CARTE-Well, there's several reasons. The bank. to get into the finance aspect, and the reason that I want to have it subdivided at all is because the bank looks very unfavorably on the piece of property that would have two houses on it, and my intent on purchasing this property was to build my house on the larger portion. If they will finance it at. it would be at extremely unfavorable rates, because they don't look at it as being a residence anymore. So, I need to subdivide it some way, in order - 72 - -------:;, to satisfy their requirements. I've checked with several of them, and they all. apparently. are of the same opinion. The other problem. it is, because the house is an older house, and is not, at minimal value. they have guidelines stipulate that they'll only loan money where the value of the land is no more than 25 percent of the total purchase price. and when you're talking about something like this, where you've got. obviously. the land is worth a lot more than the house is, they're not willing to go very much in financing this project at all. because it's way over the amount of land that they'll assign to the house. They're talking about a house and two or three acres of land, not thirty-eight acres. So, I've run into that. I'm down to two banks. actually. that are even talking to me about them doing financing on the thing. Subdividing it, the 10 acres, the only practical way that I can see that it could be done that way is to take, you have the map that I drew there. If you look at this one. which shows you the lateral, and it shows roughly where the house is located on here, the only way to get 10 acres of land conforming to the setbacks and whatever, is to go 100 feet to the left of the house, and straight back. all the way back. or maybe a little more than 100 feet. but something like that, and take all the lower portion of the property to go with the house. Well, there's two or three things wrong with that. Number One. you create the same situation with that house. in that the land which you now have is still more valuable than the house itself. So if anybody. you try to sell it to somebody. they will not be able to get financing on it. It will be a case of. the only person that will be able to afford it will be people that could buy the land out right, and bull doze the house and build another house, because they'd be in the same situation I am. You know what the value of the land is up there, and you're talking. for that level. flat treed and everything. it's worth $100. $110. $120.000. So the house is nowhere near that value. The other situation is, I have some pictures here that I'll show you, but stated briefly. if I did that. what I would be left with is about 168. By the way, these dimensions on here are just approximate. I went out and scaled them. They're not surveyed dimensions or anything like this. So they're plus or minus a few feet one way or the other. I would be left with roughly 183 feet on the upper portion of the road frontage, and the land behind that. going up the mountain to where I want to build. is very steep. It's. going around the right hand side of the house. the land is flat, and there's a gradual slope up. but starting from the left hand side here. in this area and going here. when you get to here, it goes up dramatically. Okay. So. it would involve a much more involved driveway, and various things like that. That's why I'm looking to try to divide the land off. First of all. let me say. I'm not really planning on selling this. I mean, I wanted to buy because that's what the bank requirements are. so that I can get the financing and the project through. but I plan on keeping this and renting the house. So that I can keep control over who lives there. and how will the property be treated and everything else. I'm going to have a sizeable investment in the back of it. and this Dr. Sconzo who just bought this one has a sizeable one, and everybody has nice houses. So. it behooves just to make sure that everything is kept up along the road. but I've drawn a lot size that is in keeping with the house. that addresses. as much as I can, the concerns I have. in the layout of what I want to do, and I figured if it's a variance from 10 acres, what difference does if it's three acres left, two acres. an acre and a half. It's still different. As was stated in the reading before, most of the houses on this street. in fact. all the way up to this lot. this house. are on nonconforming lots. The only ones that are conforming. there are two that have narrow dri veways from the road, past the rest of the houses that are actually on the street, and that are built around behind the rest of them. I have this one here. from Mrs. Brayton has maybe a 50 foot right-of-way here in the back, 12 acres. and over here is Mrs. Bailey. it's the same way, has a little 50 foot strip and then, okay. but all the houses on the street, right up to and then past this one. are all one acre. two acre. three acre or four and a half. I think it's in keeping with the character of the street, - 73 - --:---~ .- and it allows me to keep the majority of the property the way that I'm hopefully am going to develop. This is kind of a panoramic. I stood in front of the house, and shot two shots, one from this direction, and one this direction, and then I just kind of stuck them together here, so it shows the house. and a space between the barn, the existing barn, a couple of hundred feet this way. and a couple of hundred feet the other way. and this dividing line is sort of where the proposed property line would be, right where the picture was supposed to be. These two shots, this is one that, if you're coming in the street. coming down from West Mountain Road. and looking at the property as you first approach it. So this is the lower end. where the barn is and where I would be using part of the existing driveway. and around the barn to go up and start up the Mountain. This other shot is shown from the other direction. looking towards the house, from the upper corner on the street, and shows, as well as I could, the steepness of the terrain going up this way. I mean, if it was subdivided with the 10 acres, so that the line was somewhere out in here. then I would be left having to try to go up through the steep part of the hill here, basically. MR. TURNER-Just for the record. you might not be aware of it. but if my memory serves me right, the property that Mrs. Morgan owns. MR. CARTE-Across the street. MR. TURNER-Yes. They came for a variance. and it was denied. MR. CARTE-Right. They told me. Their daughter Brenda Fuller. not Fuller, but it was Mrs. Fuller's daughter. MR. TURNER-Right. Lets see. Her lot is which one. 15.1 acres? MR. CARTE-15.1. yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Is that the one with the red house on it? Is that, or am I thinking of the right house? Is there a red house on that lot, 15.1? MR. TURNER-It used to be yellow. wasn't it? MR. CARTE-I don't think it's red. I think it's yellow. Yes. It's Mrs. Fuller's sister-in-law. Brenda's aunt. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KARPELES-What are you going to do with the barn? MR. CARTE-I don't know yet. I haven't really looked at it that closely. I really think I'm going to keep it there, to keep. for nothing more than lawn mowers. and to have a yard tractor to mow the field. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTE-I've spoken to the neighbors that are all adjacent to the thing, as well as the notification, and any of them that are, even though I put their names down. all the people around the back side here, the big property. Obviously, none of them are affected by it. but the ones that are affected by this all have told me verbally that they have no objections to the proposed subdivision. the people to the east. and across the way. of course. Chris St. Andrews, who's directly across from it, now Mrs. Eggleston, and Dr. - 74 - r--~ -- Sconzo that bought this 10 acre parcel. MR. TURNER-I have a real concern in a sense. because. I'll tell you. Mr. Brayton. Mrs. Fuller. Mrs. Morgan. all came here when Mrs. Eggleston wanted to develop her little preexisting nonconforming lot, and they were very vehement in their opposition to her application. because it wasn't 10 acre. MR. CARTE-I don't really that much about that. They did say that that was there. MR. TURNER-Yes. and Mrs. Fuller was here. and she objected to it. and Mr. Brayton also. and where is the rationale for them wanting you to do this? MR. CARTE-Well. I would hope that you would be able to see that it's not. I mean. the only reason that Mrs. Fuller's name is on this. it has nothing to do with her. I mean. she's not the applicant. MR. TURNER-No. I know she's not. but I mean. MR. CARTE-I mean. I hope I'm not going to be put in the position of what somebody else did at some future. I mean, as far as I'm concerned. if I lived there. I wouldn't have cared. I would not have opposed that type of thing, although I understand from some of the people there. in talking with Chris St. Andrews, his concern was. I mean, as I said. I don't know that much about it, but he said something about the lowness of it. the fact that it was wet and water would runoff there. and they were filling it and they were changing the course of the water. and then Dr. Sconzo said something about the Town came up there and changed the course of the runoff street. Instead of going across the road. and running across that property. it was now running down across his driveway. his entrance to his property, and going across, I mean. there was, as I understand. other concerns besides just the size of the nonconforming lot. MR. TURNER-Well. let me just say this. that the Morgans objected to the subdivision of the. or the granting of the variance for that nonconforming lot because they weren't granted a variance for their lot. okay. So, I mean, how can I sit here and fairly say to you. yes, you've got a good sound project. and you've got a, you have the practical difficulty when the others objected to everybody else. and now. because you want to buy their property. they're not going to object. Do you see where I'm coming from? MR. CARTE-I know what you're saying. sir. I just can't answer that. I guess I would hope that. looking at this project. it's not for them that you are granting or not granting it. It's for me and my project. I mean, I'm in the process of purchasing it. and it's not. it really has no effect on the rest of the people. I'm still going to purchase the property. MR. TURNER-I know, but I think. directly. it has an effect, because this opens a loophole for them to subdivide their property. when they were already denied it. MR. CARTE-Well, I guess so. but I would think that, just off the top of my head, for Brenda and her aunt's property, where is there any practical difficulty in that application? That's a big open flat lot. I mean. I would not think that there was any difficulty whatsoever. any reason for granting something other than the fact that she wanted to build on a nonconforming lot size that her aunt owned. I mean, it's not like there's no financial hardship, the bank wouldn't give them a hard time about it. It's not, as mine is. a situation where there's a preexisting house and you've got to live with that house where it is. You can't move the house. I mean, I don't see the two as being similar. I mean. the ultimate outcome, I guess, of the variance, but I don't see the two of them - 75 - - as being at all similar. MISS HAUSER-Are you going to build just one house on that remaining 36 acres? MR. CARTE-Right. Yes. MISS HAUSER-And you don't foresee wanting to further subdivide that and put more than one home in? MR. CARTE-I don't see that there's any practical way that I can sort of subdivide. with the regulations of a 40 foot minimum road, and 40 foot minimum lot width. there's no way that I can divide this thing up into two lots, shall we say, and end up with anything that's meaningful. I mean, you go down, and you come uP. well, I don't know, something in here, with 40 feet, and then you turn and do 400 foot wide lots. You've got long skinny things going up the side of the Mountain or something. and I've looked a long time. Believe me, I've been looking for six years for property. and I'm just trying to find acreage like this. not lots. not a two or three acre lot. I have no intention of further cutting it up. I'd begrudgingly give up the land that goes with this house there now. but. one of the things, the reason I drew the lines where I did, here, I mean. it ended up with 1.65 acres, but obviously. between the house and barn. I split it halfway, so the setback from the barn and the house is equal. one way or the other. and in the back of the house, there is a stream. a spring. that runs here, and the runoff channeled down past the back of the house and then around here. as I've shown. I put the line where it is because it's still on the top of the hill where I can rechannel the runoff for the spring, to feed on my property still. on the property, on the property that I'm. if, in the future. I ever have to sell it, the runoff from the spring would still be on my property. So I wouldn't have any problems with the people that purchased this. and the runoff going partially through their property and then back out again. If this line goes back any further, it's low in here. and I can't get the water to run into the existing stream bed down here. So, that's the reason why the line was drawn there. where it is. MR. TURNER-On a survey map. it shows a water line goes across the property. Is that correct? Is that the City? MR. CARTE-Yes, the City water main. MR. TURNER-It looks like it comes down and intersects with the main on the road. MR. CARTE-Yes. Well. no. That line. the line that they show. is the water district line. okay. MR. TURNER-Yes. but is this the water district line. or is this the water? MR. CARTE-No, I believe that's the water district line. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARTE-The water main comes out of here. It does go across this property. It comes down here. and it runs across the property on an angle. I don't know where it comes out here. but I do know that it goes at an angle right here. MR. TURNER-So this is water district line. not water line. MR. CARTE-Right. That's what I understand. I do know that the water line is not there, because the water main is not back on that lot. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else? - 76 - MR. CARTE-Years ago. a few years you could go to the bank and you could talk to them and they'd work with you on stuff like this. They're really, they won't give you anything. They won't give an inch now. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARTE-And this is a big step for me. MR. TURNER-Okay. Do you want to move it? That's the problem I have with it, like I explained to you. They wanted to subdivide. and they objected to the other people, Sandy having her lot. She couldn't buy anymore land. She was stuck with the lot. Mrs. Morgan wanted to subdivide hers. Mr. Brayton was against Mrs. Eggleston's subdivision, sUbdividing of her lot. I don't understand her rationale. Where are they coming from? They're not here tonight to even object to yours. MR. CARTE-Yes. As I said, I guess they look at them, as I do, as being a different circumstance. MR. TURNER-No. Their rationale was that we didn't grant a subdivision to Morgans. we shouldn't grant it to anybody else. because they have less than 10 acres. MISS HAUSER-But he's got almost 40 acres. MR. TURNER-I know. but I'm saying, they were right here, boy, armed right to the teeth. MR. CARVIN-They sure were. MR. CARTE-Well. it's also a practicality that beyond this piece of property, there is no other ones. I mean. there are preexisting lots both sides of the LC-10 zoning here, but after this one, on up the Mountain, they're all 10 acres or better all the way up there. So that probably should have established the LC-10 line in the first place. MR. TURNER-Well. what it did. that line has never changed, since 1982, when, the APA came into effect in '76. In '82. when they did the Ordinance over, they took what was in the APA and they drew that line where the APA line was, and that's how that line got established. MR. CARTE-I see. Yes. MR. TURNER-Rather than have to go the APA with the change of zone, and a change of everything, they just drew that line and left it like it was. MR. CARTE-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. What's the Board's pleasure? MR. KARPELES-Well, I wasn't here when you had all the problems, but I don't see any objection to it. MR. CARVIN-Well, I was here with Eggleston. and, man, they were lined up and screaming they wanted 10 acres and it was zoned for this. and they were out for blood that night. I'm really surprised they're not here tonight. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but I think that one there. that was more personal than anything else. That's what I got out of it. MR. CARVIN-I think some of it was personal. MR. THOMAS-I think the whole thing was personal, to tell you the truth. - 77 - ---~,,-,-.- .---._--~- MR. CARVIN-But I know that they did mention the fact that some others had come in and tried to subdivide. and were turned down. MR. TURNER-That's the problem I have with this. MR. CARVIN-But I guess that was a different Board, at a different time. MR. THOMAS-There's no one here tonight objecting to this. MR. TURNER-No, I know. That's what I'm saying. Why aren't they here tonight? They were here with bells on the last time. MR. THOMAS-That's what makes me think the other one was personal. MR. TURNER-Well. it's personal to some extent. but then they did raise the issue of 10 acres. and they were very vehement about that. MR. CARTE-Probably the only leg they had to stand on it was really something. MR. TURNER-Well. Mr. Brayton was very vehement about it. I had to buy it. Why don't they have to buy it. That was his remark. MR. CARVIN-Have you approached the bank on a 10 acre? In other words, could you squeeze out 10 acres. and how much of a detriment would that be, or? MR. CARTE-I don't understand your question. subdivide it with 10 acres on it? You mean. if I MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. CARTE-Well. I haven't really said that to them. because I don't give up the property on the lower end. and I don't see where it solves the problem, because it's the same situation as it is now. You've got a house that's worth $50.000 on land that's worth $150,000, okay. They don't want to go anything more than what the house is worth, and maybe a couple of acres of land with it. We're talking about. we'll give you 70. the house and a couple of acres of land with it. but we won't give you anymore. If you put it on 10 acres, you've still got. you know as well as I do. I mean, there's stuff. I've looked. a lot of it up there, $10.000 an acre or something is not unrealistic. especially for that nice lower flat land that's on the bottom down there. I mean. Dr. Sconzo, for this 10 acres, was paid $90.000. and that's all fill. There's not a flat spot on it. So. if that's worth that, then this other one is worth $100.000 or better. and you've still got this same situation, a $50.000 and $100.000. they won't budge on that. MISS HAUSER-So how are you going to get financing on the vacant land after you subdivide it? MR. CARTE-Well, it's not. it's the subdivision, having it at the two pieces of property would allow them to take it and finance this portion as being something that they could take and sell, if they had to, in that this would be a separate piece, and the other thing is that the financing that they would give me is normal homeowner financing. They'll give you a fixed rate mortgage. They'll give you a normal. if I get it at all. with the existing house on there. not subdivided, they'll do it as investment property, and the rates are variable. starting three percent higher than a regular one with three points and all kinds of restrictions on it. I don't even know if they'll do it. The other situation I run into is what happens if I buy it that way. and I get the house like that, and I build the house up there. and then I have to sell it for whatever reason. How do you sell a piece of property that has two houses on it? - 78 - -,-" MR. TURNER-You don't think that if you subdivided the property. and made three lots out of it, that you couldn't recover any cost, if you had to sell it? MR. CARTE-I don't see how I could subdivide it into three lots. MR. TURNER-You can get, probably, two buildable lots out of it? MR. CARTE-If you take the house. this house? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARTE-Yes. If you took this house down. MR. TURNER-All right, then you're proposing to build your house on part of the rest of it? MR. CARTE-Right. MR. TURNER-All right. Can you get another lot out of that? You didn't approach them with the ten acre thought at all then, right? You didn't tell them it was zoned ten acres? MR. CARTE-They know. I told them it was zoned ten acres. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARTE-I'm trying to figure out where the, it wouldn't have been any different. I mean. I don't believe it's going to be any different. It's the same situation. where the property, the ten acres. is still worth too much more than what the house is for them to loan money on it, and they'll still loan the same amount of money. It doesn't make any difference whether it's ten acres or two acres. MR. TURNER-I understand that part of it. MR. CARTE-So I'd have to come up with the balance. I mean. I got them to stretch ita little bit. We have a valuation, and they have a rough appraisal from somebody that does appraisals, that came up and looked at it, he said the house and a couple of acres of land, maybe $70,000. Well. I'm asking for $90,000. He said. well, maybe we can stretch this thing to $90.000. So it would be a heck of a lot easier if this thing were subdivided so that I could go to the bank and say. here's this two acre parcel with a house. We've got a normal situation here. We've got a house and a couple of acres of land here that we're putting money on. MR. TURNER-Is that the bank's solution to the deal? MR. CARTE-Yes. That's what they propose. That's why I'm here, before I got the financing finished here, because if I can do it, I can go back, and make it measurably easier. MR. TURNER-Again, I have a problem with chopping up 1.65 acres out of 38. MR. CARTE-I don't know. Essentially. I guess, there's no more density or anything. You could really put three houses on there. MR. TURNER-I understand that. MR. CARTE-I'm only proposing two houses on there. MR. TURNER-But you're sitting over there, and we sit here. Those are not rubber darts that they throw, either. MR. CARVIN-Ted, are these little 200 by 200 lots in here. are they preexisting do you remember? - 79 - MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-They all are? Because I can't imagine anybody doing a 50 foot frontage anymore. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARVIN-That's all preexisting. MR. TURNER-Yes. They're all preexisting. MR. CARTE-I understand your concern. but talking about throwing darts. I would think they would be here tonight if anybody was going to complain. MR. TURNER-Mr. Brayton bought the 12.52 acres from Mrs. Fuller. So I can see he might not say anything about this subdivision. and again, Chris said it might have been personal. but it was more than personal. They did make the issue about the 10 acres, and I know, right now. that if we grant it. that Mrs. Morgan's property is going to want to subdivide that. MR. CARVIN-Which one's that one, Ted? MR. TURNER-15.1, right there. 4.43 acres. MR. CARVIN-4.43 acres? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARTE-Well. I will maybe set your mind at rest, partly, on that. I can't say everything, but I'll tell you. it won't be Brenda Fuller that will be back looking for the subdivision, because Mrs. Fuller is taking the money that I'm going to give her for this property. and her and her daughter and son-in-law are building a house over between Luzerne Road and Corinth Road. There's a subdivision over there. I don't remember the name of it. That's why they're selling it right now. They're waiting for my final paper. the bank. MR. TURNER-Over in Herald Square. some place like that? MR. CARTE-Herald Square. That's it. Herald Square. They're waiting for my okay from the bank to get their construction started on the thing. MISS HAUSER-Isn't there a big difference in dividing a 4.4 acre lot. and building two houses on it, as opposed to 38 acres. and putting two houses? MR. TURNER-Well. the division of the 1.65 acres, if you go a little bigger with the 1.65 acres. but I mean, he's not even close to the 10 acre requirement. MR. CARVIN-I don't know if this is relevant. Isn't this sort of similar to what's happening out on 149 there, in other words, don't they have a three acre minimum. or five acre minimum? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And now they're thinking about dropping it down to three? MR. TURNER-Yes. to one and to three some places. MR. CARVIN-I mean. I'm looking at the map here. and I see just a handful of ten acre lots. I guess. and most of those are on the mountain. which are probably almost nonexistent. as far as subdivisions are concerned, but as you get down into the City here. This road is developing into a residential area. I mean. really - 80 - --=------,~- this is. this lot. and again I suppose this lot is probably fairly flat, over in here. I don't know who owns all of this. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's kind of flat in there. Bailey owns that. MR. CARVIN-I can envision the day that somebody comes in and buys that whole lot and wants to put in 50 houses or something. MR. TURNER-Bailey's got his house way back in here. You have to drive in. MR. CARVIN-Is this in the Adirondack Park? MR. TURNER-Yes, it is. MR. CARVIN-Wasn't there a whole, well. I guess that was wetlands. Who was that guy on West Mountain Road there that wanted to subdivide it for his kids there. and he had all sorts of headaches with the Adirondack Park? MR. TURNER-Yes, Rowe. MR. CARVIN-One side of me says it's not a big deal. but then the other hand. MR. TURNER-I don't know. I can understand where he's coming from, but. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I can appreciate the position 100 percent. MR. CARTE-I can appreciate what the problem is, and if the house wasn't there. I mean, if I came in here and said I want to subdivide this thing and build and sell a piece of it to somebody so they can build on. or I want to subdivide it and build on two acres and then sell off the thirty-eight and get all my money back. or something. I wouldn't even be here for that. It's that sort of thing. but this house is there. and it presents a practical difficulty. I can't see bulldozing down a perfectly good house. MR. CARVIN-Is it occupied right now? MR. TURNER-Mrs. Fuller still occupies the house. like you said? MR. CARTE-Yes. She'll stay there until the new one's built. MR. TURNER-Yes. the new one's built. Okay. Yes. this is in the APA, and we've got to come up with practical difficulty, as to why, if we grant the variance. why we grant it. and they're liable to say. no. They get to review this, and if they look at it. and they decide that you didn't establish practical difficulty, it's a self- created hardship. then they'll turn it down. and you don't get your permit. MR. MARTIN-They have up to 30 days after your decision. MR. TURNER-Because they've come down hard on us on some decisions we've made around the lake. by the Board not establishing practical difficulty. MR. CARTE-I think I've outlined as much as I can. It doesn't take much to. understanding the situation with the banks these days. MR. TURNER-No. I can appreciate where you're coming from. MR. CARTE-Like I said, if the house wasn't there. I do want to buy the piece of property. MR. TURNER-Yes. Well, gentlemen, it's getting late. Lets make a decision. - 81 - ------- MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess I've got to stay with the ten acres. I'd like to see this on a ten acre basis. MR. TURNER-All right. Let me ask you this. could we table this, and you approach the bank in a different vein and maybe approach them with the ten acre concept. and come back? MR. CARTE-Well. yes, I can, I guess. I mean, I'm waiting for their answer on financing, here. I have until the end of the month to get financing locked up. according to the contract. I don't see that I can come back next month. I mean, it's all going to be over and done with by then. I've got to try and get it one way or the other, but I don't see where that would help. MR. TURNER-You don't think it will? MR. CARTE-I don't think it will help. no. I don't think it's going to make any difference at all to the bank. What they're telling me is that this house. and anything more than a couple of acres of land, the land is worth too much. MR. TURNER-All right. MR. CARTE-And as I said, the only practical way to divide it is to rule. from my point of view. I think anybody that looks at this land, if you take all the level land and sell it off, and then you're left with the access. as I said. up the side of the steep hill, to get up there in the first place, and all up hill, just like all the rest of them are out here. I'd hate to do that. MR. TURNER-Yes, but I guess. you know, last month we granted the one to Dr. Sconzo, and, you know, I. Do you know what I'm saying? MR. CARTE-Yes. I see what you're saying, but that's kind of like he and the Fuller's were the only one's effected. MR. TURNER-Yes. well. his was only for frontage on a public road. That's all his was about, because he had the acreage. MR. CARTE-I thought you were talking about the setback. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARTE-From what I understood. he had to go from a 100 foot to a 75 foot setback. MR. TURNER-Did he? MISS HAUSER-I think he did, on the rear line. MR. CARVIN-Yes. That was setbacks. He had the ten acres. MR. TURNER-He had the ten acres, way back up on the hill. MR. CARTE-Yes. He just needed his house 25 feet further up. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 82-1993 KELLY CARTE, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Linda Hauser: That we grant relief of 8.35 acres, from Section 179-13A. which allows one principal building for each 10 acres. I also would grant relief of 33.34 feet from Section 179-13C. which requires a 400 foot lot width, with the smaller lot having an average lot width of 366.66 feet. The practical difficulty, as explained by the applicant. is that the existing house is of a minimal value, and cannot be economically or practically subdivided on 10 acres without adversely effecting the value of the remaining land. and - 82 - "~ -- - that adequate bank financing cannot be obtained with the present configuration. It would appear that this proposal is thel minimum variance necessary to alleviate this difficulty. Therle is no neighborhood opposition, and it does not appear to be detf,rimental to the district or the neighborhood, and by granting this v riance, it does not appear to have any effect on public facil ties or services. Duly adopted this 15th day of September. vote: , I 1993, by the fþllowing AYES: Mr. Carvin, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas. Mr. Karpeles NOES: Mr. Turner ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Philo On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Theodore Turner. Chairman - 83 -