Loading...
1994-07-20 FILE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING ,JULY 20TH. 1994 H~Dex Area Variance No. 34-1994 Gary DeAngelo 1 . Area Variance No. 35-1994 Paula A. Peyton F.i tz 12. Area Variance No. 36-1994 Robert Jr. & Sandra Orban 24. Area Variance No. 37-1994 Kathleen Griffen 30. Jack Lebowitz Sign Variance No. 38-1994 North Country Imports 32. 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. r ..,~ \) t""',"''<101¡':~f: ',: ~'''''' ~ ~ 1It,~ {' ?,þ.j: " ¡¡",'íI'" ;:1 ".1 ~~ u J QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING .JULY 2ØTH. 1994 7:3Ø P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER. CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS FRED CARVIN ROBERT KARPELES ANTHONY MARESCO MEMBERS ABSENT DAVID MENTER PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-1994 TYPE II SFR-1A GARY DEANGELO OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 1Ø DORSET PLACE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE A ONE HUNDRED TWENTY (12Ø) SQUARE FOOT SHED ON THE MIDDLE OF SOUTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE. SECTION 179-2ØC REQUIRES SIDE SETBACKS OF TWENTY (2Ø) FEET. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SETBACK OF ONE (1) FOOT. SO SEEKS RELIEF OF NINETEEN (19) FEET. TAX MAP NO. 86-6-23 LOT SIZE: Ø.34 ACRES SECTION 179-2ØC GARY DEANGELO. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 34-1994. Gary DeAngelo. Meeting Date: July 20. 1994 "APPLICANT: Gary DeAngelo PRO.JECT LOCATION: 10 Dorset Place PROPOSED ACTION: To place a one hundred and twenty (120) square foot shed one (1) foot from the side (south) property I ine. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Because the property is part of a Planning Board approved subdivision Crownwood. approved in 1971 the requirements of the 1967 Zoning Ordinance R-4 zone apply. They are as fo I lows: Front Rear Side 1967 30 ft. 30 ft. Total 15 ft.. min. 5 ft. on one side Since the side setback on the north is 18.6 feet. the 5 foot setback can apply on the south side. The appl icant is seeking rei ief of 4 feet. REASON FOR VARIANCE REQUEST. AND BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: Appl icant states that the proposed shed would be of benefit by giving him a secure place to store items he has accrued due to the growth in his fami Iy. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: Considering the involvement of the backyard with the septic system. there do not appear to be alternatives which would not require a variance. To minimize the visual impact of this shed on the neighborhood. the appl icant could install a 6 foot high fence between the house and the side property I ine. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL?: Yes. the rei ief is eighty (80) percent of the required setback. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY: Appl ¡cant has talked to the adjoining property owner and has his consent to bui Id one (1) foot away from the property I ine. As of this writing. two letters have been received. concerned primari Iy with the visual effect of this structure. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF CREATED?: The fact that the slab was poured before inquiring about the need for a Bui Iding Permit or required setbacks is a self-created problem. Even a one hundred (100) - 1 - square foot shed (not requiring a permit) must be five (5) feet from the I ine. The logistics of siting a storage shed on this parcel stem from the location of the house and septic system. PARCEL HISTORY: Parcel was purchased by appl icant in 1981. Existing house was bui It in 1982. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: No further comment." MR. TURNER-I'm just going to throw this out for a general observation. What this is saying. in the letter from Sue. is these two particular cases revert back to the time of the 1967 Zoning Ordinance. and anybody else that comes inhere. that doesn't live in an approved subd i vis i on. and doesn't meet the approved setbacks. has to come for a variance. and it's ~ feel ing that these people that I ive in the subdivisions have lots that are adequate at the time they bought them. For instance. this one here is almost 15.ØØØ square feet. and I think that the current setbacks have to be appl ied. and not because they bui It them under the old Ordinance. It's a double standard. MR. KARPELES-I was wondering about that. MR. TURNER-Just because they I ive in a subdivision. they special rights that somebody else doesn't have outside of subdivision. and I don't feel comfortable with that. have the MR. CARVIN-Okay. So what you're saying is that. instead of seeking four feet of rei ief. they're actually seeking ~7 MR. TURNER-Nineteen. yes. Chris. any observations7 MR. THOMAS-We I I. you Zoning Ordinance say7 subdivision prior to 1967 Ordinance7 Does know. what's legal7 I mean. what's the Does it say that anybody that I ives in a 1988 gets to I ive by the standards of the it say that in there anywhere7 MR. TURNER- don't know. Sue does. I don't read it like that. but I guess MR. THOMAS-I'll tell you. I'd love to see it I ike that. because I live in a subdivision before 1988. MS. CIPPERLY-We'l clarify that. That's what interpreted it as. It wasn't ~ interpretation. Zoning Administrator. and he looked at Section. what Jim Martin It was the is it. Ted7 MR. TURNER-179-76. that's got a. lives I don't see how in a subdivision. you can make one person MR. THOMAS-It does seem unfair. MR. TURNER-It Is. It's unfair totally. MR. THOMAS-But what's the Ordinance say7 That's the law. That's what we have to I ive by. MS. CIPPERLY-The paragraph that he was looking at says. development of any nonconforming lots of record which are locat~d within Planning Board approved subdivisions shal I be considered as complying with the setback requirements of this Chapter. if the setback requirements appl icable at the time the subdivision was approved are met. That's Chapter 179-76. So if you want to discuss that and come up with some kind of interpretation that's different from his. MR. TURNER-You know where it stems from. it stems from al I of the subdivisions. I ike on Ridge Knolls. that had to come in for variances to put bui Idings on them. because they weren't three acres and they weren't five acre zones. and most of the time they got the variance. because they were a pre-existing lot. Now al I lots are pre-existing nonconforming if they don't conform. but I - 2 - '~ '-'/ don't th i nk the setba9ks, I th i nk the setbacks have to conform to current standards, because some of those lots are very adequate in size, and certainly can accommodate a setback greater than was granted in '67. I don't see how you can make one person outside of a subdivision, and the person that's in the subdivision not " - comply. MS. CIPPERLY-Part of what you're talking about is the lots that were in the Park, in the Ad i rondack Park. MR. TURNER-APA, right. MS. CIPPERLY-In Planning Board approved subdivisions, were also having to come in for lot size variances. If it was a 42 acre zone, and they happened to have a third of an acre in a subdivision, the law was changed so that they didn't have to come in for a variance, if they were in a Planning Board approved subdivision, but that's been the way of hand I ing it all along. If somebody comes in and asks if they can put. MR. TURNER-If they can put a house. MS. CIPPERLY-What their setbacks are for a lot, in a particular subdivision we look it up and see when it was approved, and see what the setbacks were at the time. Frankly, that's an unwieldy process, or involves a I ittle more work for us, but if that's what the legal, I don't know what the legal interpretation would be. So, if the Zoning Board wants to come up with an interpretation of this Section. MR. TURNER-Yes. I think the Town Board, at the time, changed that, because there was so many variances regarding those lots, I ike, in the APA, but I think their only intent was to make those lots legal, and make them comply, as they were set up when they were initiated at the Planning Board, whenever they were approved, but I don't think the setbacks for accessory bui Idings apply. I think just the house appl ies. MS. C I PPERL Y- I t a I so says, in the next paragraph, deve lopment of any nonconforming lots of record existing outside of subdivisions shal I comply with the setback requirements of this Chapter. MR. TURNER-That's right, and that's wrong. MS. CIPPERLY-Unless the Zoning Board grants a variance. does make a differentiation between those two. So it MR. TURNER-Yes, I know it does, but that's wrong. The guy could have an acre, and could have the subdivision approved way back in '67 and have to bui Id it five feet off the I ine. That's not fair and equitable to the other people that have to comply. MS. CIPPERLY-Wel I, what do you want to do? MR. TURNER-I don't think it's right. He could have an acre. He could have five acres, and he wants to put a shed one foot from his I ine, because he had it in '67. It was, subdivision was divided in '67. Now somebody else comes in and they've got to meet the current standards. There's something wrong with that thing, 1 think. MR. THOMAS-I guess you had to be back around in '88 when they changed the law and they wrote that. MR. TURNER-No. They just changed it, in the APA. MR. THOMAS-Did they change that in 1988 when the re-did the Ordinance, added that Section? MR. TURNER-No. They just changed it last year, '90. - 3 - '-~ MS. CIPPERLY-No. Park. What they just changed was fo~ lots in the MR. TURNER-Lots in the Park. MS. CIPPERLY-Was for lot size. MR. TURNER-Lot size. MS. C I PPERL V-Because peop I e with a very sma I I lot I n a very arge zone were. MR. TURNER-Lot sizes in the Park in Critical Environmental Areas. They changed that. MS. CIPPERLY-Somebody that I ike if you had two acres automatically bui Id on it. Is. any lot now that's pre-existing. in a four-two acre zone. you could MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-But what this was doing was extending even a little more consideration. I guess. to the people in an approved subdivision. because the lots were maybe a quarter of an acre or a third of an acre at the time. and to put today's sètbacks on them would seem unreasonable. MR. TURNER~Yes. but by the same token. the same fel low that's outèide of that subdivision has the same problem. and he has to comply with the current setbacks today. That's the rationale that doesn't mix with me. MS. CIPPERLY-Wel I. you can fight discuss it here. it out with Jim. or ydu can MR. TURNER-It~s not fair to make the guy that's outside of a subdivision comply and the guy that's inside a subdivision. wel I he can have it five foot off the line. MS. CIPPERLY-If you want to tonight. and get Paul Dusek to interpretation. handle it by today's standard. look into it. or you can make an MR. TURNER-Well. I don't know. MR. KARPELES-It might not come into play. MR. TURNER-Wel I. you know. but by the same token. you've got two appl ications for two sheds that are in approved subdivisions. Just because they're there. they get special treatment. I don't feel comfortable with that. The guy outside of it has to comply. MR. THOMAS-We I I. I'm biased. so. MR. TURNER- know. but that's where .L:1n. coming from. What do you think. Fred? MR. CARVIN-Well. I think you're right. Ted. I think that if the shed had been in existence prior to 1988. that they would have an argument there. but I think for new projects that. if they can come into compl iance with today's Ordinance. that they'd have to come into compl iance with todav's Ordinance. and if they can't. it gives credence to their self-created hardship. In other words. that's what this Board is here to determine. MR. TURNER-That's what we're here to determine. MR: CARVIN-Whether standards. and not established back in they have a val id exception to today's a val id exception to standards that were 1967 or 1968. I would have to agree with - 4 - I , I '- ~-' your position on that. Ted. MR. MARESCO-I do. too. MR. TURNER-Sti I I biased? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. TURNER-So how do you want to treat it? Do you want to treat it by today's standards? MR. THOMAS-Because that's how it reads. MR. TURNER-I know. but it's not right. MR. THOMAS-If it's right or wrong. it's what it says in the law. MR. TURNER-I totally disagree with piece of legislation they ever put it. I think it's the worst in there. in respect to that. MR. CARVIN-Well. I think there's an awful lot of as to what deve lopment of. you know. I th i nk that of a ~ impl ication and not necessari Iy an area. interpretations rea I I Y is more MR. TURNER-Well. you know. this is basically to take care of the problems that we've always had with those subdivisions being out of character with the zoning today. but I don't think 'itis out of character. as far as the setbacks. the current setbacks for accessory uses and stuff. because that could mean a lot h~re. MS. CIPPERLY-If you look at it from another point of view. if somebody had their shed bui It in their subdivision before 1988. and it changed. then somebody in that same subdivision is getting treated differently now than their neighbors did. MR. TURNER-I don't know as that's the case. because. know. I don't MS. CIPPERLY-The only place I could find a definition of any. really of development. was under Structure. and. frankly. when we were ass i st i rig peop lei n f i I ling out the i r app I i cat ions and that sort of thing. it didn't even occur to me unti I I was doing the notes that there was this other Section in the law. MR. TURNER-Wel I. you know. we've had cases with those problem cases up around the lake and up off of Ridge Road. just as far as the lot size goes. but never with accessory bui Idings. What's the Board's pleasure? Do you want to move with it per the standards? MR. CARVIN-Wel I. ~ feel ing is that we nave to move with the current standards. and if the appl icant can show significant hardship. MR. KARPELES-I agree. MR. MARESCO-I agree. MR. TURNER-Okay. You don't agree? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. TURNER-Okay. Four to one that we go with the current standards. and we' I I deal with it afterwards. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. That's the way it was advertised. MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. DeAngelo. Any remarks before we start? MR. DEANGELO-No. I haven't really heard a word you said. - 5 - MR. TURNER-You didn't hear it? standards, which means 2Ø feet. We're going with current MR. DEANGELO-What if you can't put it in your backyard, and you have no other choice? MR. TURNER-You can put it in your-- backyard, I bel ieve. I looked at your property, and you've got a leachfield right there. MR. map DEANGELO-Yes. is not accurate. see that map, for the septic system. That MR. TURNER-Who drew it up? MR. DEANGELO-I don't know. All I know is when I saw them put the septic system in, I know exactly where they put the leachfield in that backyard. MR. TURNER-We have to have a map to scale, and you have to show us where things are, because we can't act on it if you don't. MR. DEANGELO-How would you find out, now that mean, I don't have any idea, I know exactly, they, they dug up everything in the backyard. covers about three quarters of that backyard. it's buried? I as far as where I'll tell you, it MR. TURNER-Do you know where the end of the field? MR. DEANGELO-It goes beyond the screen porch. That I do know, and that's on the, I'm not sure which particular form you're looking at. MR. TURNER-Well, come right up here and 1'1 I show you what we've got. This was signed by you. MS. CIPPERLY-This map was one, this was drawn up by Matt, based on the fact that you said your leachfield was. MR. DEANGELO-I think it extends beyond here, and they've dug it almost, I don't think there's more than five or six feet from the end of this guy's property, and it's too shallow. I mean, it's too short. MR. TURNER-You can't put it back here? MR. DEANGELO-Not if I want to put it over aleachfield. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. Our bui Iding permit records don't even show it this extensive,but we were going by Mr. DeAngelo's, I mean, it showed it mostly in this area. MR. DEANGELO-I watched the construction, step by step. exactly where they put it. That's why I went over bere. I know MR. TURNER-How many bedrooms do you have? MR. DEANGELO-I've got three bedrooms. MR. TURNER-Three bedrooms, and 12Ø feet, isn't It? MS. CIPPERLY-It would be 24Ø feet of. MR. TURNER-Two hundred and forty feet of leachfield? MS. CIPPERLY-Six by six feet apart. MR. DEANGELO-The backyard is really not that big. in depth, it's really short. It's not that, MR. CARVIN-You have a lot of trees in here? Are there trees al I - 6 - ..--1 -J along the? MR. DEANGELO-Let me get you some pictures. MR. TURNER-I looked at where you had the slab board. and I looked down that I ine. It's fairly open down through there. except for the trees. MR. DEANGELO-Yes. ~ou're talking about right back in here? MR. TURNER-Yes. back in here. MR. DEANGELO-Right back in there is where they dug for the leachfield. That ground is saturated with water all the time. MR. TURNER-I know. so is mine at home. but I've got mine up. I've got it on blocks. and I've got my shed right in the back yard. five feet from the back I ine. and mine's 1ØØ foot. 96 square feet. MR. DEANGELO-Well. that's about 1ØØ square feet. splitting hairs. MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-He was thinking of reducing the size of the shed to 1ØØ square feet. but he sti I I would have needed a variance in order to put it where he had poured the slab. MR. TURNER-Where is t his. in respect to that? this side of the house? Is that over on MR. DEANGELO-No. It's just beyond. there's the pad. The road is about five feet in front of here. but it's quite a ways back from the road. MR. TURNER-Yes. see it now. MR. DEANGELO-It's not even near where anybody could even see it. coming from the road. and I drove around Queensbury. and al I these streets. and I've seen sheds right on the border line. I've seen bigger sheds than mine right on the. over off of Helen Drive and over that area. I mean. I take care of my property. MR. TURNER-I know you do. I t look s nice. MS. CIPPERLY-The map that Mr. DeAngelo drew is with his appl ication. This is one that we did after. MR. CARVIN-Mr. DeAngelo. this is looking into your lot. Is this an accurate representation of your property I ine. or does it go into the woods some? MR. DEANGELO-The fence area is the property I ine over there. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So you go al I the way back. MR. DEANGELO-And the leachfield extends right over to this area. MR. CARVIN-Wel I. no. I was just wondering if your property went into the woods. I guess that's a fence there. is it? MR. DEANGELO-Right. It goes right along that fence I ine. and at the end of this fence. there's. I ike. woods from here. all the way. al I the way around the other side there. MR. CARVIN-Yes. but is there a fence that runs along the back side. too. or no? MR. DEANGELO-No. - 7 - MS. CIPPERLY-This is the back. This toward the road. is looking from the back MR. MARESCO-What's this here? MS. CIPPERLY-That's just a pad. The shed would end right there, and this was just between the house and the shed. The l~achfield actually comes over here. MR. MARESCO-The leachfield, that's what I was going to ask. MR. DEANGELO-There's more'frontage in the front part of the yard, and the backyard is actually a lot more. MR. TURNER-How far is the tank from the house, do you know? MR. MARESCO-Who drew this? MS. CIPPERLY-Matt Bisigiano, our Student Intern, drew that, based on bui Iding, and it really was supposed to go into the notes. MR. DEANGELO-The tank is, basically. right in here, just about where they say. I "watched th i s guy. and I watched h 1m. he dug trenches al I along. It's pretty close to this guy's property I ine. and it came all the way back over onto this side. I mean. he just about covered every part of that yard. MR. TURNER-How about back in here? MR. DEANGELO-The leachfield comes, is dug right around, comes right around in here. It comes right around in a circle. MR. TURNER-It doesn't turn. MR. DEANGELO-Well. it doesn't really turn, but he's got it dug. I remember him digging right over to here, and I remember another one, another hole. over down in this area, and I remember beyond the porch where he was digging. when he put that in. MR. TURNER-That's awful close to the line. right there, though, a foot. MR. CARVIN-Why here. I guess? This rea.lly doesn't look I ike an accurate representation. It looks I ike it should be coming off this patio. It looks I ike it's actually back here, if one of these pictures is correct. MR. DEANGELO-Wel I, it's probably more further. right, there's a door right In here. the garage. MR. TURNER~lt's right in that niche. MR. DEANGELO-Right. MS. CIPPERLY-And that slab kind of 1 ines up with the bui Iding. MR. DEANGELO-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes, I could see it from a convenience standpoint. yes. You walk out of there and right into the shed. MR. DEANGELO-I figured, being that far back from the road. and being near a wooded area. and not really visible from the road. MR. TURNER-Yes. The problem L have with it is the precedent setting thing. There's a lot of people that come here. There's another one here tonight for a shed. MS. CIPPERLY-The way this happened was. you were told to come in and get a bui Iding permit. - 8 - ,-I --.-/ MR. DEANGELO-Right. I ignorant. but I didn't perm i t. didn't rea I i ze even rea I i ze. I rea I I Y even I know had to I was have a MR. TURNER-Yes. over 1ØØ square feet. MR. MARESCO-So. Gary. the slab that's here. this is actually what you started. then? MR. DEANGELO-Right. Yes. MR. MARESCO-Ok~y. The property I ine is somewhere over here? MR. DEANGELO-It's just about a foot from the slab. MR. MARESCO-So you started this. and you didn't know you needed a permit for it? MR. DEANGELO-I didn't. What I did is I was riding around. talked to some people. see that everybody's got a shed. and went over on the other side of the road. and some are right on the property I ine. I didn't really. I thought. wel,l. as long as I got my neighbor's approval. and he had no problems with it whatsoever. MR. MARESCO-Somebody told you. then. that you needed a permit? MR. DEANGELO-Somebody cal led the Bui Iding Inspector. MR. MARESCO-The leachfield. now. on the map. you say the leachfield covers most of the backyard. MR. DEANGELO-Well. they've got it. I remember him digging. He was digging right over in this area. MR. MARESCO-The septic is here. and then it leaches out. MR. DEANGELO-Right. MR. CARVIN-You might want to open up the publ ic hearing and see. because I think there was. MR. TURNER-AI I right. Has everybody had a look at it? MR. KARPELES-Yes. MR. MARESCO-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. DeAngelo. I'm going to open up the publ ic hearing and see if there's any public comment. in relation to your appl ication. and then we'll carryon from there. I'll now open the publ ic hearing on this appl ication. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MS. CIPPERLY-There was correspondence on this one. MR. TURNER-Okay. CORRESPONDENCE MR. THOMAS-I've got a couple. two letters. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. THOMAS-A letter dated July 15th. 1994. "Dear Board Members: - 9 - Although we wi II be out of town on July 2Ø, we feel the need to voice serious concerns with regard to the appl ication for a variance requested by Gary DeAngelo of 1Ø Dorset Place. This past May. our assessment was raised $13,ØØØ. making our home the most highly assessed "property in the area. We accepted that decision based upon the fact that Dorset Place is a wel I kept neighborhood of houses over 2ØØØ square feet. The shed proposed by Mr. DeAngelo is located beside his house in his front yard. Seven windows across the front of our home directly face the proposed shed. The area between his garage and south property I ine wi I I be completely fi I led by the suggested structure, leaving virtually no space at thé edge of his pr6pe~ty or between the side wal I of his house and the shed. Dorset Place is a quiet, up-scale cul-de-sac with lovely mature pine forest interspersed with well kept lawns and homes. To fi II in the proposed space with a storage shed in the front yard is a travesty. At the bottom of the town's stationary, the phrase 'Home of Natural Beauty' Is mentioned. Clearly, a shed constructed In this spot and under the existing space constraints would do much toward diminishing the natural beauty of Dorset Place. Admittedly, Mr. DeAngelo maintains his home and yard beautifully. We are certain, therefore, that the proposed shed would not be an unattractive .tructure. the fact' remains, however, that no matter what Its exterior looks I ike, there is insufficient space on the south side of his property to construct a shed of any size. Storage sheds belong in the SACK YARD. Mr. DeAngelo has already poured the concrete foundation for this shed. Certainly, his lack of discussion with neighbors concerning its poor location and his fai lure to apply for the proper bui Idlng permit and variancè prior to the onset of construction suggest a lack of responsibi I ity in this matter. We are strongly opposed to the granting of this variance. Once again, storage sheds belong recessed into one's own back yard where they do not affect the character of the neighborhood. Sincerely, Janis S. Ritorto Vincent J. Ritorto" A note from Barbara P. Lemmo "To whom it may concern: I regret that I cannot attend the publ ic hearing on July 2Øth. The area is beginning to look like a trai ler park with campers and boats. I think the time has come for strictér rules concerning this, i nc I ud I ng the bu i I ding of sheds. When I look through my kitchen window towards Dorset Rd. I see a camper with a blue pi ast i c sheet covering the top. Not a pretty sight! Barbara P. Lemmo" One more, "One week prior to pouring the cement for Gary DeAngelo's shed, hè asked me if I would have a problem with it being so close to our property I ine. My answer was 'no problem'. I knew anything he did would be of good taste. Leno Sarti 8 Dorset Place Queensbury. N.Y." MR. TURNER-Okay. I guess before we move further with this app I i cat ion, Mr. DeAnge 10, I' wou I d suggest to you, and I wou I d I ike to table the application untl I you come back with an appl ication in more detai I to determine where your leachfield and your other amenities are in your backyard, in relation to this application. So, I'd make a motion to table the application. MOTION TO TABLE AREA Introduced by Theodore seconded by Fred Carvin: VARIANCE Turner NO. who 34-1994 moved for GARY its DEANGELO, adoption, Unti I the applicant furnishes the information requested by the Board. Duly adopted this 2Øth day of July, 1994, by the fol lowing vote: AYES: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter - 1Ø - ---I -/ MR. TURNER-It's tabled unti I you provide the information that we need. and provide it to the Planning Department. and we' I I put you back on the agenda. MS. CIPPERLY-Since the public hearing is closed. is there any possibi I ity of. if he brings this information in. putting him on next week? MR. TURNER-Mr. DeAngelo. can you get the information this week. maybe? MR. DEANGELO-I'm not really sure how I would determine where the leachfield exactly is. other than my own memory. Once it's buried. how do you really find out where it is? MR. TURNER-Who bui It the house? MR. DEANGELO-Jerry Rubuso. and he took a flight to South Carol ina. I think he's under indictment, or something I ike that. MR. TURNER-Do you have any plans that you kept on fi Ie or? MR. DEANGELO-I don't have any. MR. TURNER-Pertinent to the bui Iding of the house, any location, showing any locatio~? MS. CIPPERLY-As I mentioned, too, our bui Iding permit fi Ie for the septic tank doesn't agree with Mr DeAngelo's recollection of how it was built, and we have no reason to not bel ieve him. Nowadays, if something's put in differently, we have them also draw ,an. as built, plan for the fi Ie, but that wasn't done, apparently, at the time. MR. DEANGELO-It wouldnJt have mattered. If I knew there was no leachfield there, I would have put it further back. I mean, the problem from 1Ø feet one way or the other isn't a big deal, but my best recollection is I real ize, is where these holes were, where they dug it, and that's why I decid~d to put it there, and I asked my neighbors. I talked to a couple of neighbors, and they said, what's the big deal? What's the problem? I've looked in other neighborhoods, and I can show you. 1'1 I take pictures and 1'1 I cite other examples in neighborhoods where there are sheds on property I ines, and there's one off of, on the other side of the road, in a nice development, and I've seen that, and I just felt that there wasn't really a problem. I'll come back. MR. TURNER-Usually something I ike that. when they go out to re- assess a property and stuff, they pick that up, because they take photographs of the property. and certainly. If they don't have a bui Iding permit for the shed, and the shed is oversized, it's going to show up. MR. DEANGELO-This is a 1ØØ square feet of shed. and the shed that I'm c i t i ng an examp I e of is we I lover 1 øø square feet, and it's right next to the other guy's property. and there's a couple of o't her examp I es, a I so, in a newer deve I opment, on the . ot her side of the road from Aviation. I think Mr. Ritorto is a wel I educated teacher, and he's a person that is very meticulous. He'll watch his lawn all day and all night, and with this particular person. I feel, I really don't understand where he's coming from. He's never had any objection to anything I've done in the neighborhood. I've always taken excel lent care of my property. and I think he's really ticked off by the fact that he's had his taxes raised. and I think this is his way of getting back at the situation and so forth. I think he thinks someone turned him in, concerning his taxes and so forth. and the other person, I don't know who that is. I really don't know. MR. THOMAS-Which one? - 11 - MS. CIPPERLY-Lemmo. MR. DEANGELO~Lem~O.Where do they live? MR. THOMAS-Barbara P.Lem~o. owner. 16 Crownwood Lane. MR. DEANGELO-Sixteen Crownwood Lane. MR. THOMAS-It's got to be within 5ØØ fe&t of your property. MS. CIPPERLY-Wlthln 5ØØ feet of your property. everybody gets notified. MR. TURNER-That's on the other road back. over. across the road. MR. DEANGELO-Crownwood. you can't even. can see my property from Crownwood. dOn't eVen think you MR. THOMAS-We I I. they got a notice. MR. DEANGELO-I know who that is. That's the neighbor right be h n d Mr. R I tor to. Mr. R ¡to r to' s h 0 use Ish ere. the I rho use i s back. facing Crownwood. and that's the mos{ ridiculous statement from thoSe people I've ever heard. I don't even see how they could even see my property. and 1'1 I take a picture of that and 'I ' I Ish ow yo u t h'a t. MR. TURNER-Okay. need. Wel I. do your be~t to get the information we MR. DEANGELO-Okay. We' I I do that. MR. THOMAS-And I think. also. we should get an interpretation from the Town Attorney. concerning Sue's letter. MR. TURNER-Yes. we wi I I. MR. THOMAS-Before Mr. DeAngelo gets back. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-1994 TYPE I I WR-1A PAULA A. PEYTON FITZ OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT ·SEEKS TO UTILIZE A PRE-EXISTING. NONCONFORMING LOT AS A BUILDING SITE. SECTION 179-70 REQUIRES FRONTAGE ON A TOWN ROAD. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THIS SECTION. SECTION 179-60 REQUIRES A SEVENTY-FIVE (75) FOOT SHORELINE SETBACK. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SETBACK OF TWENTY (20) FEET. SECTION 179-16C REQUIRES A SIDE SETBACK OF FIFTY (50) FEET TOTAL WITH A MINIMUM OF TWENTY (20) FEET ON ONE SIDE. APPLICANT PROPOSES SIDE SETBACKS OF TEN (10) FEET ON EACH SIDE. FOR A TOTAL OF TWENTY (20). SECTION 179-16C ALSO REQUIRES AN AVERAGE LOT WIDTH OF ONE HUNDRED FIFTY (150) FEET. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF OF AN AVERAGE OF FIFTY (50) FEET FROM THIS SECTION. (WARREN COUNTY PLANN I NG) 7/13/94 TAX MAP NO., 40-1-19.4 LOT SIZE: 0.66 ACRES SECTION 179-70 ; DAN DOHERTY. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 35-1994. Paula A. Peyton Fitz. Meeting Date: July 2Ø. 1994 "APPLICANT: Paula A. Peyton Fltz PROJECT LOCATION: Blrdsal I Road PROPOSED ACTION: Appl icant seeks to uti I ize a pre-existing. nonconforming. lot as a bui Iding' site. CONFORMANCE WITH ORDINANCE: Section 179-7Ø requ ires frontage on a Town road. app I i cant seek s re I I ef from this section. Section 179-16C requires a side setback of fifty (5Ø) feet total. with a minimum of twenty (2Ø) feet on one side. Applicant proposes side setbacks of ten (1Ø) feet on each side. for a total of twenty (2Ø). Section 179-16C also requires an - 12 - __I ~ average lot width of one hundred fifty (15Ø) feet. Appl icant seeks rei ief of an average of fifty (5Ø) feet from this section. REASON FOR VARIANCE REQUEST. AND BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: Without these variances, the appl icant would not be able to bui Id a house on this parcel. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: A smaller house, or a two-story house with a smaller footprint, would be alternatives to the amount of rei ief sought. There is no way to place any dwell ing on this lot, with the required septic system, without a variance. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL? Shorel ine setback rei ief of fifty-five (55) feet out of the required seventy-five (75) feet is substantial. Side setback relief of thirty (3Ø) feet out of fifty (5Ø) feet could also be considered substantial. The lot width rei ief of fifty (5Ø) feet average may seem substantial, but the lot is typical of lot sizes in the area. None of the properties in this area are on a Town road. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY: JUdging by the interest shown by neighboring property owners in reviewing this appl ication, there may be concerns about the view of the lake, the septic system, the size of the house, amount of rei ief, etc. expr~ssed at the publ ic hearing. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED?: This lot was pre-existing. The size of the house may be considered self- creàted. PARCEL HISTORY: This lot was granted a variance as a bu i I ding lot í n 1988. The var i ance addressed lot size, and shorel ine frontage, which are no longer an issue due to changes in the Ordinance, and frontage on a Town road. No specific setback rei ief was granted. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Fitting an appropriate septic system on this property may present a challenge, since there are additional setbacks, separation distances, and it cannot be underneath driveway, roads, or bui Idings. The sloping nature of this lot could present stormwater runoff problems for the lake, both during construction and afterwards. It is suggested that this project be required to undergo Site Plan Review by the Planning Board, if the variances are granted. SEQR: Type II. No further action required." MR. THOMAS-Warren County Planning Board. "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 13th day of July 1994, the above appl ication for an Area Variance to construct a single fami Iy dwel I ing was reviewed, and the fol lowing action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: Concur with local conditions." Signed by Thomas Haley, Chairperson MR. DOHERTY...Good eve.n i ng. B'r. i ef I y, t he shore line set back be i ng requested, under the current Ordinance, you have 75 feet, which is muóh greater than any of the surrou~din~ homes presently has. A majority of the homes up on Glen Lake are approximately six to eighteen feet fro'm the 'shorel ine. The appl icant prQPoses a t wen t y f 6'0 t set b a c k, i n t his cas e, w h i. c h bas i C a I I Y , w 0 u I d . a I low the home to iesiheticaflyfit' it with what is afready there. There s~ould be no undesirable change, as a result of fitting in with thi . cónformity. No adverse impact ~pon the erivitonment, and, bas i ca II y , it' s jus t fit tin gin wit h w h at's' the r e . Regardingfhe side I.ine setbacks, the current Ordinance provides 5Ø feet, with a ~inimum of 2Ø feet on one side, ~hichw9~ld make .... , - '......"t 3Ø on the other. The way this lot is shapèd, it's pie ,shaped in nature, and as you come in with your side setbacks, it drastically reduces the bui Idable area of the lot. If the house were to be pushed back, then it's no longer in conformity with the existing homes. Rather, it's further away. It's going to draw attention, and it's not in line with the existing homes along that shorel ine. Proposing a ten foot setback, as it sits here today, this would result in no undesirable change on the, as you're facing the water, of the property, on the left side is a shore beach lot, which is being taxed as to the rear home owners. This would also permit acceptable distance to meet the New York State Health Departme"nt requirements for the distance between the well to the septic, and also allow the septic to be placed on the side of the home closest to the road, and once again, even with the side I ine setbacks, the homes up on the lake are ranging from three to fifteen feet with the side I ines. So the appl icant's - 13 - '- proposed ten feet is within the existing range. The lot width requirement requires 15Ø feet of an average lot width. I don't bel ieve there's a parcel ~p there which is at 15Ø feet. This parcel that Mrs. Fitz owns is one of the larger ones up there. The way it is shaped, with the pie shaped, it may meet the 15Ø foot requirement, but it's difficult toful ty ascertain, because a section of the property is on the other side of the roadway. Therefore, the appl icant's requested relief is 1ØØ foot for an average width, and once, again, no undesirable change. It's going to blend in with what's already there. Regarding the public street frontage, none of the homes up on Glen Lake are on a Town road. The roadway is a sufficient means of access. There's no Increased burden by al lowing this appl icant to bui Id. The roadway Is wet I maintained, and there's ample access for emergency vehicles. I've also had an opportunity to review the Staff Notes ~ and, I s the Re lief Substànt i al? I n order to rev i ew what's substantiat, I bel ieve the appl ication must be viewed in the entire context, of not only what's requested, but also, what are the existing conditions at that community? The home, as proposed, is consistent with the community, and would blend in aestheticslly. I argue that the mathematics alone may paint one picture, but a visual examination of the lake and the surrounding properties shows that this proposed home wi I I blend in with what's out there. The effects on the community. There's some initial concerns over a view of the lake, the septic system and size of the home. Regarding the view of the lake, under a view shed analysis, no matter where the home is located, how high, how wide, how long, there is going to be some obstruction of view. It boi Is down to, where do you want the view obstructed? Do you want it from the front? You could bui Id it longer that way. If you want the obstruction on the side, you would build a narrower home, but as you move to one side or the other, the obstruction is sti I I there. You're not going to get around the obstruction, but I would also contend that the view, even with the home, is going to be better than what the view is right now. As it exists, it's brush, and it's trees, and you can't even see there. As a matter of fact, I stopped off at the parce I before I came here, and by standing in front, you can't even seethe water. So I don't think the view is going to be a substantial question here. Regarding the septic system, to meet today's stringent requirements of the New York State Health Department, the home must be placed in such a manner to al low necessary setbacks from the shore, the water, from your wel I, and also from your home. The further you push the home back toward th~ gravel roadway, the more difficult it becomes to meet those standards, as the home as proposed wi I I meet and exceed al I the acceptable New York State Health Department requirements. The size of the home. As proposed, it's a 19ØØ square foot house. It's going to be a full time residence. I bel leve 19ØØ fe~t for a full time residence is of a modest size. It's not a question of this appl icant over- b u i I din g 0 nth e lot . It's' , a que s t ion 0 f the lot its elf preventing certain buildings, but it's also in conformity with some of the homes that are up there. There's some very large homes existing, and I bel ieve 19ØØ square feet is within the realm that's already up there. Is the difficulty self-created? The parcel in question is a pre-existing lot, and the home that's proposed Is not overly large for a one fami Iy residence. Once again, I don't feel it's a question of over-bui Iding. I think it's the lot which is posing a lot of this hardship. As you come in with your side I ine requirements, your house is being pushed back with a pie shaped lot. That's j~st the nature of the beast. If we take It under today's standard, that the bui Iding area is nominal, and, in fact, you cannot meet the septic requirements, if you had to place your home in those areas. The Staff Comments and Concerns. Regarding the appropriate septic system, it can be appl ied for and it can be situated as it sits, in accordance with the New York State Health Department. It's got to be 1ØØ feet from the well. It's got to be on the other side of the home, in this case, on the side facing the gravel driveway, which al I the requirements are going to be sufficiently met. However, as you - 14 - ,-I J start pul I ing that home away from the shorefront and pushing it back toward the gravel road, it be~omes more difficult to meet those Health Department requirements. The Board also focused on the sloping nature of the lot, and indicated that there is some stormwater runoff which may be present. bel ieve it's an excel lent point~ and if the variances are granted, I have authority to stipulate that we wi I I submit it to the Site Plan Review. In summary, the appl ication is before the Board due to the fact that the subject property is, unde.r the recently revised and current bui Iding Ordinances, not an ,approved lot. and the appl icant requests that the proposed variances be granted in order to ma~e productive use of the property by constructing a one fami Iy year round home. The requested rei i.f wi II not have an adverse impact upon the surrounding community or act as a detriment to nearby properties. It's just merely going to fit in with what's already existing. There remains no other feasible a I ternat i ve for the app I i cant to ut i I i ze the property as a bui Iding lot without the approval of the proposed variances. Lastly, these con~itions were not self-created. The home itself is a modest size. The lot is making the detriment here. and also the app I i cant purchased th i s property in 1991, based upon represent at ions that it was indeed a bu i I dab I e lot. MR. TUANER-Okay. AI I right. Lets see if we have any questions. MS. CIPPERLY-I have one comment on what was just said, before we get into the public hearing. The only thing I would like to point out is that, by law, this Board has to consider whether the amount of rei ief is substantial relative to the Ordinance, rather than to what's existing in the neighborhood. That's why, in my comments, I said it appeared substantial relative to the Ordinance. MR. TURNER-Okay. The Board has no questions of you, Mr. Doherty, so I'm going to open the public hearing. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TOM VALENTI MR. VALENTI-Good evening. My name is Tom Valenti. I ive on the adjacent property, and use it as a weekend residence. We're actually from New Jersey, and we've been uti I izing this home for approximately 12, 13 years. My question, I have many questions about this. First of al I, the house that we purchased is only three feet from the side lot. That's the way it was.b~i It, and that's the way it was purchased. Now, if the 1Ø foot side setback is approved, that leaves you with 13 feet between the home. Now, I come a II the way up here from New Jersey not to I ive in Brooklyn, if you know what I mean. There's really nothing personal about this, but I really can't see, after living on this property so long, I really can't see how you would be able to fit a house into this odd, pie shaped lot. I mean, the front setback, you're looking for a 75 percent reduction, the side lot approximately 4Ø percent, and I don't know how it's going to fit. First of al I, even if you do approve al I these setbacks, I can't see how you can fit a 19ØØ square foot home in that area. There's also a deeded turn around in that area for emergency vehicles, and we have to see exactly how that's going to work out. There's also an environmental concern of mine. There's some trees in that area that would have to be probably destroyed in order to put the home In there, and that's also a concern. Also, as far as the sept Ic and the well, I don't know, are there any plans of where they're going to lay? MR. DOHERTY-I can show you right here. MR. CARVIN-You're on the right hand side? - 15 - '- MR. TURNER-Yes, he's on the right hand side. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and your house1 MR. VALENTI-That's the edge of our bui Iding. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and it looks I ike there's a deck that goes out1 MR. VALENTI-Yes. MR. CARVIN-How far off the lake are you, in the front1 MR. VALENTI-In the front1 Approximately 1Ø to 12 feet. MR. CARVIN-Ten to twelve feet1 1Ø, 12 years ag01 Okay, and you bought thè house MR. VALENTI-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and when was the deck put on1 MR. VALENTI-That was on when we bought the home. MR. CARVIN-Okay. the right lot. All right. I just wanted to make sure I had MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. VALENTI-So, if I could get a copy of that. MR. TURNER-Wel I, you' I I have to get it from Planning. MR. VALENTI-Okay. MR. TURNER-Okay. Who wishes ~o be heard next1 JOHN MOOSBRUGGER MR. MOOSßRUGGER-My name is John Moosbrugger. of land adjoining the appl icant's land. I also have a piece MR. TURNER-You're on the other side of the road. up1 MR. MOOSBRUGGER-Yes. MR. TURNER-Would you show me where you are here1 yours1 Right here1 This on~. Okay. Thank you. Which lot is MR. MOOSBRUGGER-What my concerns are deals mostly with Glen Lake and the reason why peop I e like Tôm are, the ne i ghbors that I have up there, why they I ive there, okay. When Tom's house was bui It, he bought It 12 years ago. That house was about 4Ø years old, as are most of the neighbors. The majority of them are summer camps. People come up for three months of the year to enjoy, Tom made his so that h~ could come up occasionally In the winter. I've seen him maybe three or four times in the winter, but the idea is most of these houses were bui It before the zoning laws. The reason zoning laws are put into place is so a beautiful resource I ike Glen Lake isn't ruined. Time and time again, each year that I I ive around here, three or four camps a year get converted to year round homes. The lake can handle these camps for a summer time, for three months of the year. and they're getting changed to year round, and the septic and the ferti I izers and everything else that keeps getting put into this lake. It's not going to be able to handle it in time. The reason for that, the Town makes zoning laws to help prevent this, to help the lake withstand that. There are a few other houses in the area that, camps within the last few years were transformed into year round residences, brand new houses. nice houses. Zip was done was their septic systems. They sti I I have old, antiquated septic - 16 - .__..1 .J systems from the 4Ø's put in there. Nothing was done with them. This doesn't do the lake any good. The houses that are around the appl icant's house are small camps. There's no 19ØØ square foot year round. They're al I. 8. 9ØØ square foot camps. They asked for a I ittle rei ief on one side or the other. I'd really I ike to I ive there. I'd I ike to put a house there. If anything. I'd put a holding tank in. I'd do anything. but this is pushing it pretty far to ask you to bui Id. for small. they want to bui Id 2Ø feet from the lake. that's really the only way.a septic system can go in there. and that's pushing it at that. If for some freak reason it should pass this Board. definitely. I would ask it to be reviewed by the Planning Board. because I don't think there's any way it can fit. but that's why the rei ief is being asked. One of your other zoning laws. Page 18Ø2Ø. and 18Ø21. says that in the case of a I I shore lines of a I I lakes . ponds . streams. bogs. wetlands. nothing within 35 feet of the existing watermark. no vegetation may be removed at al I. So that would be asking for a zoning law from 75 to 2Ø. plus it would be asking to. lets omit this one. too. How many rules can you bend. in order to fit this appl ication in there? The person that's purchased this parcel is far from an ignorant person.' It would seem to me before 1 bought somet hi ng like t his I'd check it out. so I could see that I could bui Id. If you're QoinQ to bui Id something. lets bui Id something that's in the realm of real ity. This is twice the size of anything in the area. There are larger houses. but you can't see them from here. There are other houses a lot closer together on Glen Lake. but that was before zoning. The zoning's there to protect that water and all the people that I ive around there. They pay pretty darn exorbitant taxes. The last couple of years. they've gone up astronomically. and the reason why is because they I ive on that body of water. It's not going to be such a great place to I ive if that lake dies. because more and more and more houses get devalued. and the lake cannot accept the sewage and the phosphate runoff. and al I the other runoffs that are incurred by more and more houses getting crammed into an area that. frankly. there's too many on it right now. We're also. on this piece of land and al I the neighboring parcels around it. there's an eight foot right-of-way walking access that's deeded to everyone in the area. The gal that first owned it. before she spl it it up into the parcels that exist today. used this so that all the people that I ived there and all the people that (lost word) there and have been friends for a good long time. They use that eight foot strip to walk from one residence to another. They al I get along great. and that's another thing to take into consideration here. but my main concern is how many sticks can you pi Ie on Glen Lake's back? How many houses can cont i nua Ily be put here before the qua Ii ty of the water goes down so much that you're going to have a couple of weed eaters out there. I ike Saratoga Lake. or whatever. It's going to get to be an unreasonable lake for recreation and enjoyment. It's a beautiful body of water. It's one of the nicest things the Town of Queensbury has. I'd just I ike to see it stay that way. I bui It my house there about three years ago. I'm quite far away from any other bodies of water. but I do. I have a deeded right to use that beach lot adjacent to Ms. Fitz. so I have a concern abqut the qua Ii ty of it. as do most of the people here. as to the qual ity of I ife. as far as the people that use that. they have a right to use that. Just because we want to use that. doesn't give her a right not to be able to use her piece of property. That's kind of selfish reason. T~e reason of wanting the qual ity of water to stay at a standard where it is. I wish it were cleaner yet. but I certainly don't want to see it go down hi II anymore. and I feel this. the positive effects of this. it can only be negative. for the lake and the surrounding area. especially a house of this size. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else? JANE SCULLEN-BARTIS - 17 - MRS. SCULLEN-BARTIS-My name is Jane Scul len-Bart is. and I have deeded rights to the beach lot next door. and. Mr. Doherty. please don't leave unti I you show me the road that you take in that's wet I maintained. MR. DOHERTY-Right here. think of that as wel I maintained. MRS. SCULLEN-BARTIS-Wel I. my uncle was· a road bui Ider. and I don't think he should consider that well maintained. I was going to say exactly what John Moosbrugger has already said. and I know you don't want to hear things twice. so I wi II now say that have been watching my federal government fl ip flop on al I sorts of Issues for quite a whl Ie. I've watched my State government. with all the king's men and all. cannot get a budget together. for years and years and years. I'm hoping that maybe my local government. who put forth rules and regulations. wi II look at them carefully and please guard my beach lot. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MR. THOMAS-One letter. A letter dated 7/18/94. "Dear Sirs: strong I y oppose any bu i I ding proposa I wit h a 20' lake front set back. The goal of both residents and Board members should be to use the zoning laws to bring problem areas Into conformance and resolve the environmental and publ ic health concerns of crowded seasonal cottages and outdated septic systems. Variances should not be granted where it would exacerbate these problems. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely. Linda Whittle Russ Pittenger. Landscape Architect Birdsal I Road" MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Doherty. do you have any plans for the house. so you can show the Board? MR. DOHERTY-No. I do not. other than what's set forth (lost word) to submit. in the MR. TURNER-Do you have any proposed plans drawn up yet? MR. DOHERTY-The appl icant does have a prel imlnary set. based on what was submitted with the application. into this drawing. It's a one fami Iy ranch. as it sits. one story. MR. TURNER-A one story ranch? MR. DOHERTY-As it sits. yes. MR. TURNER-How many bedrooms? MR. DOHERTY-Three. MR. TURNER-Three bedroom. Thirty-five feet high Is the I imit on height of the bui Iding. He's going to need 240 feet of septic leachfield. right here. and it's about 60 feet from the back of the house. MR. CARVIN-Well. looking at this plan. it looks like the house is going to be sitting over part of the leachfield. and there's a garage and a aravel driveway. which should have an effect. but there's a garage that's going to be sitting over it. and we were worried about putting a 10 by 10 shed over a septic system. MR. TURNER-No. The septic system's not going to be there. It's going to be in back in this area. MS. CIPPERLY-No. or a structure It's not legal to put anything like a driveway or anything else I ike that over a leachfield. - 18 - · I "--" ," ---' which is why I brought up the concern about the septic system. I talked to one of the Bui Iding Inspectors about it. and he said. you know. if a system could be engineered to fit in the avai lable space. it would be acceptable. but it looked I ike that cross hatched area is under the garage and under the driveway. and under the access road. So that's why I brought it up. MR. KARPELES-That is supposed to be the septic system? MR. DOHERTY-No. area. The cross hatched represents the (lost word) MR. TURNER-Yes. the buildable area under today's Ordinance. MR. CARVIN-I see. Okay. system. I'm assuming that that was the septic MR. TURNER-That's the proposed septic system location for the house as proposed. Is that correct? MR. DOHERTY-Yes. it is. in that general area. MR. TURNER-What's the distance from the back of the house. to the? MR. CARVIN-I'm assuming that this is the 20 yard? MR. TURNER-Twenty foot setback. MR. CARVIN-Okay. but the house looks I ike it's back a few more feet. MR. TURNER-No. twenty feet. MR. CARVIN-Here's the twenty foot line. MR. TURNER-Yes. but he's saying he's only going to be 20 feet from the lake. right here. MR. CARVIN-Yes. but if this is the footprint of the house. it looks like there's another five or ten feet here. MR. TURNER-The appl icant proposes a setback of twenty feet. shore line. MR. CARVIN-What's the rest of it going to be. decking maybe? MR. TURNER-Well. it doesn't indicate it. MR. CARVIN-It doesn't indicate it. MS. CIPPERLY-I interpreted it the same way Fred did. that the hatched area was showing septic area. MR. CARVIN-Septic area. MR. TURNER-But that's where the proposed septic. where the house is going to be. up in there. MS. CIPPERLY-Xes. but this whole. MR. TURNER-They've got to have 240 I inear feet for a septic system. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. or they can use the seepage pit. MR. TURNER-Right. or a pit tank. MS. CIPPERLY-Is a I ittle more compact. - 19 - -- MR. TURNER-A pit tank. They'd probably have to put two of them in there. three bedrooms. MS. CIPPERLY-But if they come in for a 'bui Idlng permit to put a septic system on there. then that's. MR. TURNER-Yes. 1900 square feet. what do you think? I can refer you to one that we had on the other side of the lake and we made the come with their house plans. I'd I ike to see the house plans. I think that's. that really determines a lot of factors. the house plans. You say you have a pre I imlnary house plan. MR. DOHERTY-It's just a prel iminary schematic. yes. just basically showing you the facade. but as to the actual dimensions. a lot of it is going to be dictated on if a variance is granted at al I. MR. CARVIN-Wel I. I just have a question. here. You've got a line for a 20 foot shore line setback. but the house appears to be back even further. MR. DOHERTY-Correct. MR. CARVIN-So. I'd I ike to know what the exact setback of the house is going to be. MR. DOHERTY-As it sits thère. it is 30 feet. drawing. it's 30 feet. As it sits on the MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. DOHERTY-The appl ication was Originally. we were told that word) . prepared before this it was going to be a drawing. 20 (lost MR. TURNER-Yes. So you'd need 45 feet of rei ief. MR. CARVIN-Wel I. place? mean. do we have accurate figures here some MR. TURNER-No. not with that one. MR. CARVIN-See. I mean. they're just aSking for a 20 foot. right? MR. TURNER-It says 20 here on the. MR. CARVIN-Twenty. and that could mean that they could move the house actually forward to the 20 foot line. MR. TURNER-They could. unless we specify it can't. MR. DOHERTY-Correct. MR. CARVIN-Well. that's why I'd I ike to know exactlv what al I of these measurements. in other words. what the footpr i nt rea I I Y is. MR. TURNER-That's what plans. I'm saying. I'd like to seethe house MR. CARVIN-I think this is another classic situation. is that she has an absolute right to bui Id on the property here. but also we have to take into consideration the neighborhood concerns. MR. TURNER-The neighborhood concerns and the size of the property. as it dictates where you can place a bui Iding on a lot. MR. DOHERTY-W it h t hose set back s. the bu i I ding can be set as shown. MR. TURNER-I know. but if you brought the plans in. we could see - 2Ø - --I J the plans. We'd have a better idea looking at the plans. I just don't I ike deal ing with figures because a lot of them are hypothetical. You might come in farther. You might want to go out farther. Then you've got to come back for another variance. MR. DOHERTY-This would be the maximum requested. MR. TURNER-That's fine. but lets see the house plans. MR. CARVIN-See. I mean. I see where the 1Ø foot side I ine setback is. but. again. it looks I ike there might be an additional two or three feet. so that you may be 12 or 13 feet off the side line. MR. DOHERTY-Correct. MR. CARVIN-Do you have those figures7 Are those figures here7 MR. DOHERTY-Based on that. would say it's 12 feet. both sides. MR. TURNER-Yes. but if we're going to grant you rei ief. we're going to grant you rei ief on the exact figures. nothing else. MR. CARVIN-See. we have to get specific. MR. DOHERTY-Right. I understand that. but based upon what the appl icant's here for. and what type of home she can bui Id. you could run through one set of drawings at a substantial cost to show this footprint. only to find out that the variances are going to be different. If the variances were establ ished first. and the home was made to fit within that. then the drawings. and take it the next step. MR. TURNER-I'd have to tel I you. sir. that on the other side of the lake. we made an appl icant do the very same thing. bring the house plans in so we could see them. because the lot was almost simi lar to what you've got here. MR. CARVIN-Yes. and that one had a hi II that was quite steep and substantial. and the other thing. too. is that this Board is required to grant minimum relief. and if you're just showing us. you know. you're asking for 2Ø feet. but you only need 18 feet. then we've not granted minimum rei ief. So. I mean. it's very important that we have an exact knowledge of what rei ief you are asking for. and not just a blanket 1Ø foot or 2Ø foot off the lake. I mean. you could put the house 2Ø foot or you could put it 35 feet off the front of the lake. and I think that's significant. We have to know. and I think the neighbors have a right to know exactly where the house is going to be situated. and if you draw these plans up. I would like to see it back as far as you can from the lake. I think that that's. one of the things that L look for is to try to get it back off the lake as far as you can. Now I real ize that you're going to need some kind of re lief here. I mean. in order to ut i I i ze it. you're going to need. but I think that we're really going to have to adhere to the minimum rei ief standard here to try to. MR. TURNER-Without addressing. you know. what you're going to h~ve for a house. as compared to what the lot size is. we've got. we're deal ing with a hypothetical question. okay. MR. KARPELES-Well. is there some reason why it can't be bui It in the cross hatched ~rea7 MR. DOHERTY-Yes. the septic. MR. TURNER-He's got to have 24Ø feet of leachfield. MR. KARPELES-So you'd need a holding tank or something like that7 MR. DOHERTY-Yes. There's no (lost word) meet the Health - 21 - Department standards. MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-Holding tanks are~'t currently a~ acceptable year round solution. MR. TURNER-Not for a year round residence. MR. CIPPERLY-They'd have to get a variance from the Town Board. MR. TURNER-Mr. Beadleston. you have to come to the microphone if you want to ask a question. MR. CARVIN-Are you going to open up the publ ic hearing again? MR. TURNER-I' I I open the publ ic hearing one more time. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED DON BEADLESTON MR. BEADLESTON-Mine is I I iVè right next door I bui It 22 years ago. the lake. no closer. one. very simple. My name is Don Beadleston. to Tom Valenti. have a year round home. The Town told me I had to be 5Ø foot from My lot's as big. if not bigger than this MR. TURNER-We understand that. but he's only got about 59 and a ha I f feet of shore line frontage across the front of that lot. So that does restrict the lot in some respects. and it tapers back. So you've got to have some rei ief. some place. but without seeing what the house is. again. what they propose to put on there and where they propose to locate It exactly. 1 don't feel comfortable going any further with the application until that information is submitted. MR. BEADLESTON-I agree. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. MR. MOOSBRUGGER-I thought the idea was. if a fellow should come up and he wants to bui Id a house. okay. if he wants to play with the Board to try to work a reasonable solution. okay. obviously the bui Ider is. the architect that's working with the land and trying to work with the Board. you're not going to layout a sprawled out ranch on a piece of land that has these setback requirements. You're going to bui Id something a I ittle narrow. a I ittle shorter. and go up. with what you could. but the idea of. I ike. yes or no. can we have these variances. I mean. this isn't ask i ng for re lief. These are rid i cu lous percentages that the applicant is asking for. I mean. yes. no. you're job. okay. they need a I ittle rei ief. We're going to come over the side. we're going to come over the side six inches. or something I ike that. that's one thing. but this tsn'teven close. This isn't even in the ball park. MR. TURNER-Wel I. we're not going to deal with it. We're going to. they're going to have to submit the information that I think the Board wants to know. and then we' I I deal with it from there. MRS. SCULLEN-BARTIS-I came up to a number of hearings when Mr. Coe had the property and wIth the variance that was granted to him. he was told that he could bui Id a home. but it had to be a particular size. It sèems to me there was some regulations about the size of the property and where he had to put it. If this is. is th i s graded part. is that what was in the var i ance of Mr. Coe's? MR. DOHERTY-That's what's in today's Ordinance. - 22 - ~l ~ MRS. SCULLEN-BARTIS-That's today's Ordinance. and you have. al I right. Do you people understand? MR. TURNER-I understand. We understand. That's why we're asking for the information we're asking for. MRS. SCULLEN-BARTIS-Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. DOHERTY-Regarding the additional information that you want. is the foundation location sufficient? MR. TURNER-No. Bring the sketch of the house. MR. DOHERTY-Okay. MR. TURNER- want to see the whole house. MR. CARVIN-There has to be a roof I ine anyway. MR. TURNER-We have to have the roof line and everyth i ng. because the foundation. if you have an overhang on the roof. the setback goes from the overhang. not from the foundation. MR. DOHERTY-Okay. MR. KARPELES-Are al I these other lots bui It on? Is there any poss i b i I i ty of buy i ng more I and to put a sept i c system on? MR. DOHERTY-No. There is additional on the other side of the roadway. I.and to this lot. but it's MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Why couldn't that be used for the septic system? MR. DOHERTY-I don't bel ieve you can go underneath the roadway. MR. KARPELES-Well. this isn't a legal something yoù ought to investigate. road. think that's MR. TURNER-Yes. know Mr. Coe had another lot across the road. and there was a lot of discussion about that lot across the road. pertinent to his application. and I'm not sure. not having the minutes in front of me. I can't really address that. but. MR. THOMAS-I've got a copy of the resolution. MR. TURNER-Yes. I've something we' I I check got that. but into ourselves. the minutes. but that's MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. Idid ask~ again. the Building Inspector. when we were talking about the septic system. and he said it just didn't look I ike that would really be large enough to do any good. but I can look up in the minutes what the discussion was at that point. MR. TURNER-Sue. I think we ought to get the minutes out on what we did with Keith Coe. what the conversations were and the points that were raised on this particular piece of property when he wanted to uti I ize it. because there was some discussion about that lot across the road. I know that. Okay. I'm in favor of tabling the application for further information. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-1994 PAULA A. PEYTON FITZ. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: - 23 - For bui Iding plans, exact location of the house on the property, with the proper setbacks indicated, location of the septic system, and the minimum rei ief requested. Duly adopted this 2Øth day of July, 1994 by the fol lowing vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-1994 TYPE II SFR-1A ROBERT, JR. & SANDRA ORBAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 9 HEINRICK STREET APPLICANTS PROPOSE TO PLACE A TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY (240) SQUARE FOOT SHED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THEIR BACKYARD. SECTION 179-20C REQUIRES REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS OF TWENTY (20) FEET. APPLICANTS PROPOSE A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF TEN (10) FEET, AND A REAR YARD SETBACK OF ZERO (0) FEET, SO SEEKS RELIEF OF TEN (10) AND TWENTY (20) FEET RESPECTIVELY. SECTION 179-20D STIPULATES A MAXIMUM OF TWO HUNDRED (200) SQUARE FEET FOR A SHED, SO APPLICANTS SEEK FORTY (40) SQÙARE fEET RELIEF. TAX MAP NO. 90-4- 112 LOT SIZE: 0.34 ACRES SECTION 179-20C, D SANDRA ORBAN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 36-1994, Robert, Jr. & Sandra Orban, Meeting Date: July 2Ø, 1994 "APPLICANT: ROBERT JR. AND SANDRA ORBAN PROJECT LOCATION: 9 HErNRICK STREET PROPOSED ACTION: Appl icants propose to place a two hundred and forty (24Ø) square foot shed in the Northwest corner of their backyard. Section 179-2ØC requires rear and side yard setbacks of twenty (2Ø) feet. Appl icants propose a side yard setback of ten (1Ø) feet, and a rear yard setback of zero (Ø) feet, so seeks rei ief of ten (1Ø) and twenty (2Ø) feet respectively. Section 179-2ØD stipulates a maximum of two hundred (2ØØ) square feet for a shed, so appl icants seek forty (4Ø) square feet rei ief. REASON FOR VARIANCE REQUEST, AND BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: The appl icants bel ieve the proposed location of the shed is beneficial because it places the shed the farthest away from the house and maximizes their unusable rear yard space. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: Whi Ie meeting the required setbacks would probably create an obstruction in the appl icant's backyard, It would be possible to decrease the amount of rei ief required by either downsizing, or moving it further into the property than proposed. A setback of at least five (5) feet would seem appropriate on the rear. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL?: Yes. Appl ¡cants are requesting one hundred (1ØØ) percent rei ief from rear yard setback and twenty (2Ø) percent from I imit on size of shed. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY: No comment has been received as of this writing. Without showing a greater degree of logistical problems, it does not seem the adjacent property should be subjected to a zero foot setback. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF- CREATED?: It could be argued that some portion of this request is self-created, particularly the desired size of the shed. The amount of rei ief from setbacks is based on the appl icant's perception of the importance of keeping the backyard area as large as possible. PARCEL HISTORY: The house was constructed in 1979. The property was purchased by the appl icant in 199Ø. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: No furth'er comment. SEQR: Type II, no further action is required." MR. TURNER-Okay. Just for the record, I'd I ike to correct the sheet here. On the front of it they've got 24 by 1Ø, and then on the Short Form SEQRA, they've got 2Ø by 24, and on the print they've got 24 by 12, the size of the shed. We're going for the 24 by 1Ø, right? - 24 - ,,-I J MRS. ORBAN-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. Short Form SEQRA isn't even needed. MR. TURNER-I know. but it's on there. 20 by 24. and the sketch that they submitted is 24 by 12. Okay. Do you have any comment to make? MRS. ORBAN-One thing. when he fi I led this out. he did make an error. He shouldn't have put down the zero setback. We've been. in talking with other people. we thought that that real ty was not pract i ca I . MR. TURNER-Would you just please identify yours~lf for the record. MRS. O~BAN-I'm Sandra Orban. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. ORBAN-The zero setback i sn't pract i ca I to us or to our neighbóri. It would be a probre~. It's too close to the pr'operty I ine. The idea'was. as you said.. to keep as much of our backyard as posiible. We ~ant "to put it bac~ in the corner as far as possible. but sti I I kee~ it out of e~erybody's ~ision. We would have asked for a bigger variance to the side. but because of the trees. we didn't want to have to destroy any trees. So. really. t would think. probably ask for 15 feet instead of the 20. It would be fair. in our minds. We just felt that. we wanted to put a finished shed that we could put our wood into. rather than just st~cking wood in carts. We just thought that it would be moreaesthetical Iy pleasing to everybody in the neighborhood. MR. TURNER-What if you turned it around this way in the backyard? MRS. ORBAN-Then you're going to. we would be obstructing QQL view out. MR. TURNER-No. no. put it over here. but just turn it sideways. MRS. ORBAN-Then 'the backyard is go i ng to have more fac i ng them. In other words. there's an empty lot there now. but if that owner would ever sel I off that lot or that piece of property. or anot~er bui Iding ever went in there. that would just obstruct more of their yard. and whereas this corner there's trees and there's already another shed. There's another fence in the èorner. So that's why it's kind of decided. since that corner of the three properties. MR. TURNER-You had some stakes in the yard when I looked at it. MRS. O~BAN-We did have. he left them at what because that was what he requested. and he put that. we had asked neighbors to come over so that exactly what we were talking about. That's al I he he ,requí~sted. them there so they could see had out there. MR. TURNER-Any questions? MR. CARVtN-1 guess. what are we looking for for rei ief. then? Are we going to bring in? MR. TURNER-We're going to go with t~e curr.nt standards. 20. 20. and 20. It's the same application as ttie first one. MR. CARVIN-Well. she'll need 30 feet from the back. right? MR. TURNER-No. she' I I need 20 and 20. She has to conform to the setbacks in the zone. all right. - 25 - -- MR. CARVIN-So it's 20 from the side, 20 from the back7 MR. TURNER-It's SFR-1 Acre, so. MR. KARPELES-This says 30 and 10. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-That's what I was going to say, according to the. MR. TURNER-Twenty from the side and twenty from the rear, in an SFR-1 Acre. MS. CIPPERLY-It's the same situation as we discussed earl ier. MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-This was another one that was in a Planning Board approved subdivision and you decided, for tonight, to go with the current. MR. TURNER-We're going with the current. That's what we decided. MR. CARVIN-Yes. So why did they put here, proposed appl icant, says she' I I need 30 feet with a zero? MR. TURNER-That's the old, that's the one fOr '67. MS. CIPPERLY-The old ones would have been. MR. CARVIN-So they would have been bigger then, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So here's a case where they've actually reduced it. MR. TURNER-They've closer to the rear reduced line. it, yes. They let them go 10 feet MR. KARPELES-So what he needs is 20 by, 20 and 20. MR. CARVIN-Twenty and twenty, right? MR. TURNER-Twenty and twenty, twenty from the side, and twenty from the rear. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now, are you proposing to bring it in off your back I ine how far? MRS. ORBAN-We cøuld bring It In five feet. Wel I, we probably could bring it in whatever is determined, but we would like to be able to place it as far back as the Board deems appropriate. MR. CARVIN-Wel I, the Board deems 20 feet. MRS. ORBAN-We would ~ the Board to say we could go back in there 15. MR. CARVIN-I mean, we're not here to develop your plan. MRS. ORBAN-No. Ideally, we would I ike to have just a five foot. MR. TURNER-Five foot from the rear line? No, that's too close. If you had a 100 square foot sh.d, you could put it five foot from the rear I ine and five foot from the side line. MRS. ORBAN-We could? MR. TURNER-Yes. You don't even need .~ permit to bui Id it. MR. CARVIN-That's a 10 by 10, though. - 26 - ~I ~ MR. TURNER-We cou I d get you off easy. if you want. MRS. ORBAN-One hundred foot shed. so he could go five feet and five feet? MR. TURNER-We can get you off easy. if you want. MRS. ORBAN-And I can sti I I stack my wood? MR~ TURNER-And you can sti I I stack your wood. Do you want to do that? MRS. ORBAN-The boss isn't here. hospital. Unfortunately. he's at the MR. THOMAS-How much wood do you plan on stacking in there? MRS. ORBAN-A cord. possible two. MR. THOMAS-And that you could fit. four. by four by cou I d fit two f u I I cord in there. and st i I I have two in a 10 by 10 shed. eight. you feet left. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. ORBAN-See. I feel I ike. we have small chi Idren. too. So. ideally. the idea was to try and get the dangerous equipment out of the garage. into the shed. and have the wood there. So. a lot of the other neighborhood kids are over at my house. and alternate toys. winter toys would be in there in the summer. and vice versa. and we wanted to get the tools in there. the gardening things. al I the things. out of the garage. and that was why the size of the shed. MR. TURNER-Wel I. you know. you've got a fair sized lot. as far as depth goes. 150 feet. You could come 20 from the rear. and come in 20 from the side. and st i II have adequate room. MRS. ORBAN-See. part of it is. on the plans. at least what I trees aren't in there. too. I don't have. that know if he has them he drew for me. the MR. TURNER-Yes. I know. but we all looked at it. where the trees are. and we saw the stakes. So we know MRS. ORBAN-Okay. MR. TURNER-She could put two and a half cords of wood in there. MR. THOMAS-That's stacking it four foot high. foot high. If you went six MR. TURNER-Yes. and if it's higher. MR. THOMAS-You could sti II put another full cord in there. MRS. ORBAN-So he can do 100 foot? MR. THOMAS-One hundred square foot. and he could stuff three ful I cord of wood in there. nothing else. MR. TURNEÀ-That's al I you're going to put in there. MS. CIPPERLY-If you're uncomfortable making that decision. you could ask to have it tabled and come back. MRS. ORBAN-Yes. better do that. MR. TURNER-Okay. Let me open the publ ic hearing first. I'll now open the publ ic hearing on this appl ication. Okay. - 27 - - PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CLYDE HESS MR. HESS-Hi. My name's Clyde Hess. I ive on 9 Helen Drive. which is just down the street from the Orbans. My own personal reason. I wouldn't want to see the Orbans change. I I ive by them. (have a shed in ~ backyard. I have a swimming pool. I have plenty of room. I'm really here for my mother who has trouble hearing. She owns the lot right behind the Orbans. that they want to put on their I ine. I talked to my Counci Iman. and he said the only reason to grant a variance of this type is if it creates economic hardship. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. HESS-The Orbans want to do it to save tneir backyard. My mother's planning on sel I ing that lot. and If she puts. if the Orbans put their shed on the property I ine. I think it's going to create her the economic hardship. It wi I I possible lower the value of the property. or deter people from buying that lot because of that shed. So. with that said. I would just I ike the Board to deny that variance. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you for' your comments. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Do you want to table it. and suggest to your husband that he go with the 1ØØ by 1ØØ? Then you won't have to come back? AI I right. Okay. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do the neighbors understand what proposed here? In other words. she would be al lowed shed. five feet from her line. is' being a 1 ø by 1 ø MR. HESS-From my mother's line? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. TURNER-From the rear and the side. MR. HESS-But that sti I I goes into the. MR. CARVIN-No. In other words. they would be al lowed. she's asking for. at this point. a 1Ø by 24. The Ordinance states that she would be allowed. without variance. not even a bui (ding permit I guess. right? MS. CIPPERLY-No. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARVIN-She wOUld be al lowed to build a shed 1Ø by 10. and the minimum would be five feet from the back I ine and five feet from the side I ine. So that's why it's being tabled. so that. if this doesn't show up again. then she's wfthdrawfi that. and if the shed shows up. it didn't mean that we passed it or didn't pass it. MR. HESS-Then if the Orbans decide they don't want to do that. wi I I there be another hearing? MR. CARVIN-Then it would have to come back. and then it would be up to the Board to determine whether the variance is val id or not. MS. CIPPERLY-Another point of are here. the Criteria for changed. So you no longer have the benefit to the applicant clarification for the people who gFántfng an area variancè have to prove a hardship. I~'s now versus the detriment to the - 28 - ,-.J community. and that does include the effects on neigh~ors. So. it's not a hardship. the way it used to be. MR. TURNER-It used to be practical difficulty. Now a hardship is a Use Variance. goes with a Use Variance. MR. HESS-I just cal led my Ward Counci Iman. That's what he told me. MR. TURNER-Yes. I know. MS. CIPPERLY-We'l I have to send out some information. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. ORBAN-To make sure that I have a tota I understand i ng of this. if we want to go with the 1ØØ square foot. we can do that. We don't have to come back. That's it? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. ORBAN-If my husband wants to proceed with the shed. MR. TURNER-The only thing you withdrawing your appl ication. Department. have to Send do it is submit to the a letter Planning MRS. ORBAN-If he wants to proceed. then he'd have to come back again? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. HESS-And it has to be five feet from the back line? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Minimum. MR. TURNER-Minimum. MR. HESS-Minimum. MR. TURNER-Right. That counts the overhang. overhang on the shed. you've got to be five feet to that overhang. both ways. If you put an in from the line MR. HESS-The bigger shed. you're just talking about the 1Ø by 1Ø shed. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. HESS-The 1ØØ square foot shed. Anything bigger would sti I I have to come back? MR. CARVIN-Anything bigger would require coming back. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Actually. she could have a bigger shed. but it has to be more than five feet. It has to be at least 2Ø feet. MR. TURNER-Okay. So let the record show the appl icant has requested to tab I e the app I i cat ion. and wi I I noti fy the P I ann i ng Department as to their decision. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-1994 ROBERT JR. & SANDRA ORBAN. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: - 29 - The applicant has requested to appl icant decides to go with a appl icant submit a letter to t~e the appl ¡cation for the variance. table the appl ¡cation. If the 1ØØ square foot shed. that the Planning Department withdrawing Duly adopted this 2Øth day of July. 1994. by the fol lowing vote: AYES: Mr. Maresco. Mr. Katpeles. Mr. Carvin. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter' AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-1994 TYPE II SFR-1A KATHLEEN GRIFFEN ~ACK LEBOWITZ OWNER. SAME AS ABOVE 39 GARRISON ROAD APPLICANTS PROPOSE TO PLACE A SIX HUNDRED FORTY EIGHT (648) SQUARE TWO CAR GARAGE IN THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THEIR LOT. SECTION 179.;.28C REQUIRES A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF TWENTY (28) FEET. APPLICANTS PROPOSE A SETBACK OF THIRTEEN (13) FEET. SO SEEKS RELIEF OF SEVEN (7) FEET. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 7/13/94 TAX MAP NO. 186-5-12 LOT SIZE. 8.34 ACRES SECTION 179~28C JON LAPPER. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 37-1994. Kathleen Griffen. Meeting Date: July 2Ø. 1994 "APPLICANT. Kathleen Griffen and Jack Lebowitz PRO~ECT LOCATION. 39 Garrison Road PROPOSED ACTION. Appl icantproposes to expand existing residence and construction of a two car garage. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS. The ~roposed project conforms to Section 179-2ØC's front. rear and one side yard setback. The proposed action does not meet one side yard setback. Seeks 8 feet of rei ief. REASON FOR VARIANCE REQUEST. AND BENEFIT TO APPLICANT. Proposed two car garage will need eight (8) feet rei ief from side yard setback. Benefit to appl ièant will be a garage that is capable of being used In conjunction with today's cars. Existing garage Is too old to handle newer sized cars. FEASfBLE ALTERNATIVES: There does not seem to be a reasonable alternative that would fit with the ex I st i ng house. a I I ow access to the rear yard. and not require setback rei lef. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL?: The appl icant seeks 4Ø% rei lef from the required side yard setback. It appears to be the minimum rei ief needed to site a useable garage on this property. EFFECTS ON NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY: No comment has been received as of this writing. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF CREATED? The difficulty appea~s to be related to the lot size. which dates to 1936. compared to today's requirements. The existing garage is inadequate In terms of the size of today's vehicles. Deed covenants governing the setback of the house originally also affected the options for the homeowner today. PARCEL HISTORY: As stated by the applicant. the house was bu i It in 1936. and was purchaSed by the app I i cant in 1989. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS. No further comment. SEQR: Type I I. no further action required." MR. THOMAS-Warren County Planning Board. "At a meeting of the Warren County PlannirigBoard. held on the 13th day of July 1994. the above appl ication for an Area Variance to expand existing residence an~ construction of a two car garage was reviewed and the fol lowing action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by Thomas Haley. Chairperson. MR. TURNER-Okay. Jon. MR. LAPPER-Very simply. we believe that the request for this variance is based on the existing structure that's there. which Is very ~mal I. and th~gal ley kitchen. which is eight feet wide. which is inadequate. They retained an architect in order to make - 38 - ,,-,.1 J this fit as well as possible, and I'd I ike to point your attention to Drawing Number,Three on the packet, which is the footprint of the first floor, proposed first floor, of the expanded house, and what you can see there, the dott~d I ine is about two thirds of the way back in the fami Iy room. That dotted line represents the back line of the ex i st I ng house, and that's the garage, and the next room over is, where it says, "island", that double I ine is the rear I ine of the existing kitchen. So what they have now is just this very narrow gal ley kitchen. What they're doing is pushing the back wal lout six feet, to make a real kitchen, and they're pushing the back wal lout, of the fami Iy room, six feet, of the garage, to make a fami Iy room, in order to let them keep the present garage structure, without having to take that down or replace that with a large garage, wh i ch wou I d change ,the character of the hous~ froW th,e fro,nt, and then impact the neig~borhood. By placing ~he ga~age where jt is, although It is on.the'-·side, a.nd requires 't~e eight {<;IÖ't variance, there's existing, mature vegetation t,o· screen it . from the nei,ghbqrs.,. The neighbors have seen th,is, and havell't had a problem with this, 'but also, it's stepped,; if you wi,ll, so that yoó've got the front facade 9f the main part of the house, then the frplJt facade of' t he sma 1'1 er, ex ist i ng garage, .and t hen back even fárther it would 'be the new garage. So it's really, from the road, the character is still what you see now. Their architect put together a very simple model that I'd I ike to show you, which really shows exactly what's going on. This is existing. The white board is the lot, and the penci I I ine is the permitted setback, and that's what's there now, and that's 1500 square feet, which is really minimum, especially in this n e i g h b 0 rho 0 d . T his i s the ad di t ion, so. t hat t his i s n o'w the kitchen, right there. This is the famil'y room, and there's a dormer up here, ,to expand the master bedroom, to just put a I ittle dressin~ ~re~~in, but from the front, that's what we have now, from the front, and that's what we have, ultimately. So the addition is really hidden in, just nicely layered, six feet back. Then the proposed garage is ri,ght there, and what I was talking about before is just how it's stepped in. $0 if's, so from the road ~he character doesn't change much, and to do anything else, to put the garage here, would require taking this down and bui Iding a much more massive garage to fit two cars, and to do anything else here·~' to make it, it wouldn't work. It would either have to be a I I the way back, in order to get the turn i ng r a diu s . I two u I d n ' two r k . The y fee I t hat t his has be e n rea I I Y ¡ntel I igently designed to be as tasteful and to fit with the architecture. MR. TURNER-Th~ slope in the ~ront going to stay, and then you're go i ng to come up and then go f I at and back in the garage,.r )ght? MR. LAPPER-Yes, exactly. Right now it drops off in the back. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-So this wi I I be at the driveway. - same elevation as the existing MR. TURNER-That's a small, small lot in that big neighborhood. MR. LAPPER-Yes, it is, and a small, small house. MR. TURNER-Yes! Is that Marry Taylor's old house? JACK LEBOWITZ MR. LEBOWITZ-Not, it was Comisky, before we bought it. MR. TURNER-You're too young to remember him. MR. CARVIN-Okay. loft/office? Is this going to be an qffice up in here - 31 - MR. LAPPER-No loft/office. Nothing is propOsed above the garage. That's existing. So it's the same. They're not changing the roof line. MR. TURNER-They're just going to convert the old garage. and put t he new garage in t he back. Ok ay. Fine. Thank you. Does anyone have a problem with it? Is that your presentation. Jon? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. 1'1 I open the publ ic heari~g. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. order. Any discussion? None. Okay. Mot ion's in MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-1994 KATHLEEN GRIFFIN '-'ACK LEBOWITZ. Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Chris T~~mas: The app I i cant is seek i ng eight feet of re lief from the east side yard setback. as outl ined in Section 179-20C. which deals with front. rear. and one side yard setback. The app I i cant is proposing to expand an existing residence and the construction of a two car garage. which wi I I be more in tune with today's car sizes. aè the existirig garage was bui It in 1936. Ther. does not seem to be any reasonable and feasible alternative that would fit with the existing house. that does not require some sort of setback rei ief. This appears to be the minimum rei ief needed to el iminate this practical difficulty. and sti I I create a usable garage on this property. By granting this variðnce. there wi II be no effect on the neighborhood or community. This difficulty is not self created. as the needs of a 1936 garage are inadequate in 1990's terms. Duly adopted this 20th day of July. 1994. by the fol lowing vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Maresco. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter SIGN VARIANCE NO. 38-1994 TYPE. UNLISTED HC-1A NORTH COUNTRY IMPORTS KEN LENDRUM OWNER. SAME AS ABOVE QUAKER ROAD SECTION 14Ø-6B ALLOWS ONE FREESTANDI'NG AND ONE WALL SIGN. APPLICANT CURRENTLY HAS ONE FREESTANDING SIGN AND TWO WALL SIGNS. ALLOWED BY VARIANCE. APPLICANT SEEKS AN ADDITIONAL FREESTANDING SIGN. AN ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN. AND REPLACEMENT OF ONE EXISTING WALL SIGN WITH A LARGER ONE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 7/13/94 TAX MAP NO. 1Ø9-3-6.1 LOT SIZE. 5.51 ACRES SECTION 14Ø-6B MiKE BAIRD. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MR. BAIRD-Mike Baird. Of Mike Baird Signs. hired by the Hallen Sign Company to represent the aþpl I~ati~n for a variance. for. the original request for a possible four. possible three to four variances. and. quite frankly. I told this company that they probably weren't going to get al I they were seeking. So they have since I istened to me. I withdrew at the Warren County meeting. hopefully you have the information. on the 13th of July. I did the same thing before the presentation. withdrew. and they approved us for just one variance that we're seeking. only a wal I sign. - 32 - , ~ J MR. TURNER-The wal I sign. MR. BAIRD-Whi~h i~ a preexisting. we're just goinQ for (lost word) square footage. MR. TURNER-The SAAB sign? MR. BAIRD-Yes. just so that you're not going to start out granting us al I these other variances. MR. TURNER-No. We wouldn't do that. You know that. MR. BAIRD-What I'd I ike to do. it would be v,er,y. very helpful. I'll give you these pictures. This right here is an actual picture of the bui Iding with the proposed SAAB sign. Here ,is an actual picture of the existing sign. a beforé and áfter. Bas i ca I I y. as I exp I a i ned it. it is 1st i I I a SAAB sign. but they're basically adding the square foo~age and a banding. It's their new national emblem. MR. TURNER-Is Subaru going to be the next to jump on board and want .to ~hange their sign? MR. BAIRD-I bel ieve that's a separate entity. KEN LENDRUM MR. LENDRUM-Let me explain. I'm Ken Lendrum from North Country Imp 0 r t s . Sub a r u a Ire a d y c am e tom e and sa i d. wen e e.d a par t san d service sign. I said. forget it. They said. because they're being more reasonable about this. al I we would need was a letter from Sue saying that there was no change. to put up an additional parts and service sign. The (lost word) sign that you see on the side of the bui Iding. with big letters? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. LENDRUM-That's their current national logo. To give you a I ittle background. This was not Mike's idea. This was not my idea. This company came to Mike and said could' we do this. I'm glad they wen~ to Mike. I agree with the Zoning Ordinance. We've been pushing for. a month. I guess. to get these people to listen to,reason. and finally when they read the application. I read it to them. and said. do you really think this is going to pass. and t hey sa i d. no. I guess not (lost word) and that's when they came back to Mike and said. okay. wet I. what has changed. MR. BAIRD-To be quite frank with you. after a whole muscle came in. had to do with the SAAB Corporation themselves. I was quite surprised the day of the night of the meeting at Warren County. they g.ve me approval to withdraw t~~ freestan~ing. .through pressure. . I cal Îed them and said. if wedcìn't have sómething to . .. ".:.... -, :.. . i ",' .. _, '''''''' ~ '" f " ',,,," , give bàck here. you; re not. .even go i ngto get' t hOe wa I I ..s i gn. most .. . '. .... .1·. ,.'..1', . W. " . ," .... I ikely. So basically ,they. stepped right ~\own. made so~e. phone calls. and they got a little nervous. th"ey wouldn't even get anythirigout of the deal. as far as their riewlook. So basically we're 'Iooking to uti I izethesPace we're using'. rncreasesquare .. " .. _, f' ,,- ..'_.. .,' ,_, .A ,'_ .. ."".... " , footagè a small amount wit.h· ..the bandi,ng that you see pn the new picture. and drop Jail 'other variances. which included the freestanding. and I think it was two other smal I service signs on the bui Iding. besides t~e one that we're looking for. and just for the record. with the total square footage. of the Subaru existing sign and the new proposed SAAB. the two together would s t i I I be we I I u n d e r the po' s sib I e 3 ø ø m a x s qua ref 00 t a I lowed for a wa I I s i g n . MR. TURNER-How far is the bui Iding back. Mike? MS. CIPPERLY-The nearest point is 1ØØ feet from the road. MR. CARVIN-Yes. it's quite a ways back. - 33 - MS. CIPPERLY-By the survey map. I had Ken bring in a survey map. So he's really. technically. allowed 1ØØ square feet. but he was given that Subaru ~ign by previous approval. MR. LENDRUM-That corner oftl1e bui Iding. is. what. almost 2ØØ feet off? The bui Idlng Is at such an angle there. MR. BAIRD-What do you mean by It's technically al lowed 1ØØ square feet? Your al Idwed 1ØØ square feet on any bui Idtng. regardless of the setback. You're al lowed a max of 3ØØ. after your so many feet back. not to exceed 3ØØ. MR. TURNER-Yes. right. MS. CIPPERLY-RI~ht.but hé's 1ØØ feet from ~he road at the nearest point. the nearest corner of the bui Iding. MR. BAIRD-The bui Iding angles back. MS. CIPPERLY~I 've been told on other occasions to use the nearest point. Like on a shopping center. if there's a bui Iding even in that facade. to use the nearest corner of that part of the. nearest corner to the property line. MR. TURNER-Right here. Page 14Ø111. It says. located within or at a distance of 1ØØ linear property I tne are perm i tted to have a wa II roof sign of up to 100 square f~et. period. start going up. bui Idings which are feet from the front sign or a permitted After that. then you MR. BAIRD-After 1ØØ foot. it's 1Ø square foot. MR. TURNER-Yes. then you get 1Ø additional. 1Ø square feet of sign surface. for 1Ø feet of setback. MS. CIPPERLY-But you're right at the 1ØØ feet. MR. KARPELES-Addltional ten square feet for each foot of setback? MR. TURNER-Yes. So they're only al lowed 1ØØ square feet. because they're only 1ØØ feet back. MR. CARVIN-How big is the Subaru? MR. BAIRD-The Subaru existing or the new proposed? in the smal I picture we have Is an existing. already been granted. See. the one That's what's MR. TURNER-Yes. know. but his question was. how big is it? MR. BAIRD-The one that is there Is three feet high by. thirty six square foot. The Subaru? It's 96 square feet. MR. CARVIN-That one's 96. MR. TURNER-So you' I I have two wal I signs at almost 1ØØ square feet. and one freestanding sign. MR. BAIRD-Right. MR. TURNER-And you're only al lowed ~ freestanding sign and one wal I sign. but you already have permission to have the Subaru sign by Special Permit. was it? MS. CIPPERLY-He as a Speciål Pérmit. It's in my notes. here. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. TURNER-When was that. 19. what? - 34 - --/. ',-.' MS. CIPPERLY-1981. MR. BAIRD-Right. We realized that going in. That's why I encouraged them to drop all other variances. We real ize that we're only al lowed the one wal I sign. and. .gain they've been given a Special Permit for the two. and here we're trying to increase one of them on an already. you know. kind of pressing the I imit there. where we've got two and we're supposed to have one. Basically what we're trying to do is add a color band around the sides. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Now let me folks to come down to size as the Subaru? ask you this. Is it possible for the SAAB the 96 square feet so that it's the same MR. BAIRD-Well. actually. it's ~ than that. MR. CARVIN-Well. no. you're saying. here. the new sign is going to be 104 square feet. That's what they're saying here. MS. CIPPERLY-I think there between the sign company. footage. versus. was also a difference as to what would count in opinion. as square MR. BAIRD-I calculated 18 square feet. Twenty-five nine. which I'm call ing twenty-six. by the three foot. with the thirty-seven I'm call ing three foot. MR. CARVIN-Okay. They're saying four. here. MR. BAIRD-Okay. MR. TURNER-Three by twenty-six. seventy-eight square feet. MR. BAIRD-See. that's what I'm. 78. where I had 96 on my Subaru. That's why. when you asked me if we could equal the 96. MR. TURNER-So you come with a total of 174 square feet for both signs. MR. BAIRD-Right. we're already over. I don't know if that might be irrelevant. we're talking about. if MR. TURNER-Yes. you are 74 square feet over. MR. BAIRD-Right. exactly. mean. it's already over already. MR. TURNER-Yes. but this is not ~n issue. because it's already been granted by Special Permit. So you can forget this one. MR. BAIRD-I see. MR. TURNER-This is the issue here. MR. BAIRD-Okay. You mean you're not looking at this as if? MR. TURNER-Wel I. Permit for this. I don't know. You know. they got a Special MR. THOMAS-Yes. So that one. you could really ignore that Subaru sign. I ike it wasn't even there. MR. BAIRD-That's what I'm wondering how you're looking at it. MR. CARVIN-Well. .L.:.m. looking at your appl ication. You're sh.owing four by twenty-five. is one hundred and four. off the app I i cat ion. - 35 - MR. TURNER-How did you guys come up with that determination. Sue? MS. CIPPERLY-I thought. at this point. we were just withdrawing. we haven't even started looking at the appl ication. I thought we were just having a· prel iminary thing of what they were withdrawing. because we haven't read the appl ication in or done the notes. Some of that is in my notes. MR. BAIRD-And this here. would have picked up. it might be important. where it came out with 1Ø4 square foot. MR. CARV IN-That's what L:m.assumi ng. before we get it. I'm assuming that this is. MR. TURNER-No. thirty-six. That's 78 square feet there. twenty-six by MR. BAIRD-It's because of this I ittle protrusion there. this I ittle protrusion on the square? You see MR. TURNER-Yes. okay. That comes out. MR. BAIRD-When they first calculated it. they cal led it four feet. MR. TURNER-Okay. 78. AI I right. So that would be four more to the MR. BAIRD-Hopefully. somebody picked It up. Hopefully. it could be taken from the band. and not that one I ittle protrusion right there. MR. CARVIN-We I I. I just want to get the exact. so. makes a big difference. mean. that MR. BAIRD-That's why that 1Ø4 got. MR. TURNER-So then they figured this here? right? They figured this. MR. BAIRD-Yes. that's where it came. this I ittle protrusion on the top. MR. TURNER-That's where we get the 1Ø4 square feet? MR. BAIRD-Right. because they're going with an invisible space around the top and the bottom of that whole (lost word). MS. C I PPERL Y-We wou I d measure around. spec i fica I I Y. the out line. MR. TURNER-Yes. but he's saying this projects out. MR. BAIRD-I mean. I've got to be honest with you. when Jim issued the sign permitst~ us. I Ike You~re talking Individual letters. It's hard. depending on your copý. how big you get. I mean. oal ibrating al I the space in between. MR. TURNER-That's cra2y. Just go around the outside of It. and that's it. MR. BAIRD-Okay. MR. CARVIN-So what's the total square footage. 79? MR. TURNER-No. it's 78 with this. and then this projection. he's saying. equals 1Ø4 square feet. That's where they pick up the additional square footage. MS. CIPPERLY-But they're not couritingthe band. - 36 - J '---' MR. KARPELES-That can't be that much. MR. TURNER-No. it can't be. not if that's only four square feet. MR. BAIRD-Right here'. Ted. what somebody did. in the first place. all right. this is three feet from here to here. Three times the twenty-six is seventy-eight. but somebody. at first. ha4 to put down. they were using a four feet worth. from here to here. and they were counting al I this I ittle space going al I along the top and bottom. MR. CARVIN-Yes. so you've got dead space. but that's really not the sign. That's the building. MR. BAIRD-I know. That's where that came from. MR. CARVIN-AI I right. but you're erring on the side of. you're under. MR. THOMAS-They went the twenty-six feet. but they added another foot. because it's six inches above. six inches below. So they went with another twenty-six square feet. which they shouldn't have. They should have just gone with the one foot times the width of that sign. which is four foot. So it's actually eight- two square feet. where the sign is. MR. TURNER-Eight-two square feet. . MR. KARPELES-That's what we're trying to get. what it really is. M~. BAIRD-Whatever you're comfortable with is what I'm saying. was just showing you where they probably got that from. Okay. MR. CARVIN-Have we opened this uP. now? MR. THOMAS-No. I haven't even read it yet. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say. MR. TURNER-There really isn't much to read. because the notes don't really pertain much to. MR. THOMAS-We I I. the Notes to Fi Ie reflect what we just talked about. but the appl ication is nowhere near what they want. MR. CARVIN-Wel I. just modify it down to the one. MR. BAIRD-See. the way they did it at Warren County is. when they approved it. they worded it differently. just I ike yo~'re saying. MR. TURNER-Yes. they granted you the wal I sign for the SAAB. but they didn't grant you anything else. MR. BAIRD-Right. and they worded it a pa~ticular way so they d i dn' t have to go a I I back through. MR. TURNER-Yes. If the Board decides to approve ft. based on the information we've got tonight. I would suggest to you that you f i I lout a new app I i cat ion. that represents what the var i ance is al I about. and we can condition it on this proposal right here. MR. BAIRD-Right. just direct it on the one sign. MR. TURNER-But you've got to f i I lout a new app I i cat ion. because that appl ication doesn't even address that. MR. THOMAS-Can he amend the original on~? MR. BAIRD-Right~ We real ize that. but since they went in with everything. - 37 - - MR. TURNER-I know, but I'm look it, we'll give it to you Is we oonditlon it. Department, fi I lout a brand gave you, and that would be Board d~ol~es to do it. saying, if the Board oouldsay'to you, you, all right, but all I'm saying to You oould ~o In'to the Planning new appl ioation representing what we a oondition of the varianoe, if the MS. CIPPËRLY-And you're saying substitute it for7 MR. TURNER-Subst Itute I t 'for what you subm i tted before. MR. BAIRD-Right. MS. CIPPERLY-Or maybe we oan put them both in the fi Ie, put them bot h In. MR. TURNER-Warren County's already denied them the rest of it. MS. CIPPERlY-Warren County denied part of It, and it really should, the aame appl loation ~hat Warren County looked at should be in our fi Ie, so we oanatways haVe them fi I lout another one and just say this was a modifidatldn. MR. TURNER-AI I right. We oan do the same thing. this one and aooept the modifioation. We oan deny MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. BAIRD-Ted, it would be something that we'd be able to (lost wo r d ) . MR. TURNER-Just so all the duoks are in a row, that's what she's saying. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I think you did something slmi lar with 01 ive Garden, where they were requesting four or five signs, and you approved part of It and denied paft of it. MR. TURNER-Yes, we oan do the same thing. MR. BAIRD-Yes, you gave us two out of four. MR. TURNER-Yes. We can do the same. Okay. questions~ You better read the apØI ioation." Any further MR. THOMAS-AI I right. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Varianoe No. 38-1994, North Country Imports, Meeting Date: JUly 20, 1994 "APPLICANT: North Country Imports Ken Lendrum PROJECT LOCATION: Quaker Road PROPOSED ACTION: Replaoement of one existing wal I sign with a larger one, add i t i on of cine wa II sign and 'one freestand i ng sign. Subsequent to appl ioation submittal, appl icant withdrew request for the freestanding sign and the additlònal wal I sign at the Warren County Board meeting. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: The Sign Ordinanoe would al low one freestanding sign and one wal I sign. Previous approvals have al lowed the appl ioant the Subaru and SAAB wal I signs, and one freestanding Subaru sign. Sinoe the withdrawal of the request for two of the signs, the remaining issue is the increase in the size of the SAAB sign from three feet by twelve feet (3 x 12), or thirty-six (36) square feet, to four feet by twenty five feet, nine inches (4 x 25.9), or one hundred four (104) square feet. REASON FOR VARIANCE REQUEST, AND BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: The primary reason for this sign request is the ohange of logo by the SAAB oompany, wh i oh is requ i ring dealers to ohange their slgnage in order to keep their franohise. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: A smal fer sign inoorporating the SAAB logo would appear to be an alte~natlve. IS THIS RELIEF - 38 - J '-- SUBSTANTIAL1: The total square footage of the SAAB sign would be approximately three times that of the existing sign. EFFECTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY: No comment has been received. Since the freestanding sign has been withdrawn. there would not appear to be any p~rticularlY distracting' aspects to this proposal. in terms of passing traffic. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF CREATED1: As stated above. this signage is a change required by the SAAB corporation. not the local d~alership. PARCEL HI~TORY: This project. including signage. was approved under Special Permit No. 95. March 18. 1981. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: No further comment. SEQR: Un listed" MR. THOMAS-Warren County Planning Board. "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 13th day of July 1994. the above appl ication for a Sign Variance to identify SAAB dealership at the entrance was reviewed. and the fol lowing action was taken. Recommendation to: Modify with Conditions Comments: The Warren County Planning Board approves the variance for the SAAB sign with emblem on the bui Iding. but the B.oard denies the add i t i ona I wa I I and f reestand i ng signs. The Board fee I s that both businesses need to be distinguished at this one location." Signed by Thomas Haley. Chairperson MR. TURNER-Okay. publ ic hearing. You've said your peace. I ' I I just open the PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER- I n the interest of time. thing. Okay. So then your proposal the wall sign. and that's it. we can get on with this is just as you said. just MS. CIPPERLY-Ted. could you. or someone. repeat t.he figures that we came up with? MR. TURNER-It's eighty-two square feet. Seventy-eight on the thirty-six by twenty-six. We're call ing it twenty-six feet instead of twenty-five nine. al I right. and then four feet for that little sign there. the additional sign that projects out. Okay. Everybody understands where we're going? Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE NO. 38-1994 'NORTH KEN LENDRUM. I ntroduced by Theodore Turner who adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: COUNTRY IMPORTS moved for its To approve the variance for the SAAB sign. with the emblem on the bui Iding. and deny the additional wall and freestanding signs. the den i a lis based on the fact that the app I i cant is a II owed one freestanding sign and one wal I sign. The additi~nal s(~~age is not nece~sary. The appl icant has not demonstrated a difficulty as it pertains to the additional signage. The sign that's proposed on the wal.1 sign ~ith the emblem comes t~ a total of 82 square feet. instead of 104 square feet. Duly adopted this 2Øth day of July. 1994. by the fol lowing vote: AYES: Mr. Maresco. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOE.S: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter .> MR. TURNER-I think it's a good point in tiffle to vote a new Secretary in. at this point. Don't you? - 39 - '--- --" MR. CARVIN- do. MOTION TO MAKE CHRIS THOMAS SECRETARY OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 20th day of July, 1994, by the fol lowing vote: AYES: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Thomas ABSENT: Mr. Menter On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman -vo-