Loading...
1994-09-28 '" ''---"' (\ OR l'triN A l QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARDQF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1994 INDEX Area Variance No. 48-1994 Kathleen Griffin; Jack Lebowitz 1. Use Variance No. 28-1994 (Cont'd on Page 20) George M. Mabb 3. Area Variance No. 51-1994 Michael R. Swan 4. Area Variance No. 49-1994 Sam Sarraino 23. Use Variance No. 47-1994 Faith Bible Church 25. Notice of Appeal No. 4-94 Margaret E. Bleibtrey 33. 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. '-- ,---",. QUEENS BURY ZONING eOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1994 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY FRED CARVIN ROBERT KARPELES DAVID MENTER ANTHONY MARESCO PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TURNER-I've take the first Old Business is a little bit. got to skip around a little bit. I'm going to item of New Business, since the applicant under not here right now. We'll wait for him for NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-1994 TYPE II SFR-1A KATHLEEN GRIFFIN JACK LEBOWITZ OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 39 GARRISON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A PORCH ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOUSE, AND SEEKS SEVEN (7) FEET RELIEF FROM THE TWENTY (20) FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIRED BY SECTION 179-20C. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 9/14/94 TAX MAP NO. 106-5-12 LOT SIZE: 0.34 ACRES SECTION 179-20C JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 48-1994, Kathleen Griffin Jack Lebowitz, Meeting Date: September 28, 1994 "APPLICANT: Kathleen Griffin and Jack Lebowitz PROJECT LOCATION: 39 Garrison Road STAFF NOTE: The Board is familiar with this project from a previous variance regarding the garage setbacks, which was granted. As part of a renovation of the existing house, it became desirable to include a screen porch on one corner. This porch would follow the line of the existing house, but would intrude into the 20 foot side setback required by Section 179-20C. Applicant is seeking relief of 7 feet, so that the porch can be constructed at the same setback as the house, or 13 feet from the property line." MR. THOMAS-A letter to Mr. Theodore Turner, Chairman, "Dear Chairman Turner: On behalf of the applicants, Kathleen Gì"iffin and Jack Lebowitz, enclosed please find the required original and nine copies of an application for an area variance for a side yard setback and required check for the applicable fees. The enclosed variance application is requested as part of the applicants' proposed expansion of their existing residence at 39 Garrison Road. At its July 20, 1994 meeting, the Zoning Board approved an area variance, No. 37-1994, as part of this project to allow a proposed garage structure to extend approximately eight feet into the eastern side yard setback. Since the approval of that application, the applicants' architect has refined the proposed design drawings to extend a roof overhang to the southwest corner of the house and add a column to support that overhang. The architect and owners believe that the revised design is an improvement aesthetically and functionally over that originally proposed. Elevations showing the original and revised design as now proposed are included as part of this variance application. The proposed roof overhang and supporting column extend into the required side yard setback on the southwestern - 1 - '- -- side of the lot and thus require an additional area variance from the ZBA. For reasons stated in the attached enclosed application, however, we believe that this variance request is of a relatively minor and insubstantial nature and will have no adverse impacts whatsoever on adjoining neighbors or the community in general. We therefore believe and hope the Board will agree that the enclosed application meets the 'practical difficulties' standards for area variances set forth in the Town Law 267 arid Section 179-91 of the Queensbury Zoning Law and should th~s be granted. RespectfullY' submitted, Jonathan C. Lapper" Ata meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 14th day of September 1994, the above application faY an Area Varianc~ for an additional 7' side yard setback variarice on west side of residence to allow for roof oVêrhang and supporting column in connection with expansion of existing residence and two car garage was reviewed and the following acti¿n was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by Thomas Haley, Chairperson. MR. TURNER-Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-I want to apologize for having to take the time to bring this back again. It was, as the application says, a design refinement that we didn't realize when we were here in July. I do think that it's relatively minor. I can show you what this will look like. The roof in the back, right here, has to be extended over there, to cover the door, so it will be covered on top, and the reason for this is that there's a very, very tiny bathroom, which is shown in the application that's included for last time, and that's being relocated to the back, here, in that space, so that the roof has to move down, so that it can cover the door, which has to do with the fact that the bathroom is so small. It just allows them to expand it and still have covering from the elements, and that's it. MR. TURNER-Okay. Okay. I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-It's pretty straightforward. MR. TURNER-Yes. CORRESPONDENCE MR. THOMAS-I just have one comment from one of the neighbors. It simply states "No Objection", and it's signed Merritt Scoville, 57 Garrison Road, Queensbury. MR. TURNER-Okay. discussion. Motion's in order, then, if there's no MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. JACK LEBOWITZ, Introduced by Fred adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: 48-1994 KATHLEEN GRIFFIN Carvin who moved for its The applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-20C, which requires a 20 foot side yard setback. I move that we grant relief of seven feet from that Section to allow the applicant to construct a porch that will conform with the same setback as the original house. By the granting of this motion, or variance, there would be no adverse effect on the community or neighborhood. This is not a self-created situation. Duly adopted this 28th day of September, 1994, by the following vote: - 2 - '--, -./ AYES: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner t-..JOES: NONE OLD BUSINE$S: USE VARIANCE NO. 28-1994 TYPE: UNLISTED GEORGE M. MABB OWNER: HARRY VANGUILDER SOUTH OF INTERSECTION OF HOWARD STREET AND SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE A MOBILE HOME OUTSIDE A MOBILE HOME OVERLAY ZONE. RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM SECTION 179- 29, WHICH DESIGNATES AREAS WHERE MOBILE HOMES ARE ALLOWED, AND FROM SECTION 179-19D, ALLOWED USES IN A SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 120-2-18 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION 179- 29, 179-19D MR. TURNER-Mr. Mabb is not in the room, and he's asked for the extension. MR. CARVIN-Lets put it to the end. MR. TURNER-You want to put it until the end? MR. CARVIN-Lets give him all the opportunity. MR. TURNER-Okay. bus i ness . All right. So we'll take the next order of MICHAEL RAFFERTY MR. RAFFERTY-Can I ask something in reference to the Old Business? MR. TURNER·-Sure. MR. RAFFERTY-My name is Michael Rafferty, and I reside at Sherman Avenue, two parcels away from this trailer. I'm not familiar with how these appeals work, or what happens, but it's my understanding that Mr. Mabb had permission to keep a trailer on this property for a period of one year, which expired about the first of the year. Now he's trying to get variances. This has been going on since the first of the year. The property being mentioned, that we're speaking about, is rented. There's people living on that property, in a trailer that there's no variance for. I would like to ask who is supposed to regulate what happens once the variance runs out? Who enforces the fact that it ran out the first of the year but it's still being used, and now he's asking for another one? MR. TURNER-That's the Code Enforcement Officer. MR. RAFFERTY-Do you have anything to do with that? MR. TURNER-No, we don't. MR. RAFFERTY-I would suggest, or I'd like to ,enter into the record, then. MR. TURNER-· I have had some Mabb is here, be here. think he's been on the scene, and he and Mr. Mabb discussion about this, and I think that's why Mr. that's why he's here before the Board, supposed to MR. RAFFERTY-Right, but I'd like to enter into the record, I feel that the previous situation should come to an end before he should apply for something else. If he had permission from you people to have the trailer there for a year, and the year ended eight or nine months ago, then he should not still have the trailer there, before he's asking permission to use it again. - 3 - -' MR. TURNER-I don't recall him getting permission from this Board. He might have gotten permission from the Town Board. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. temporary use for guess it's, as you but. He did have permission f)-om the Town Board, a a year, which did run out in January, and I said, as a result, he's here before the Board, MR. MENTER-Mike, the thing to do would probably be to get in touch with Dave Hatin. MR. RAFFERTY-Well, I've been doing that for two years, and nothing's getting done. The situation is growing continuously worse back there. There's more and more traffic over and across private property. At his last meeting here, three months ago, he was told he couldn't use Mr. Katz' property. He's driving over it. He still uses it, almost daily, drives back and forth in there. The people who are living in the trailer are crossing over private property every single day. I've informed the school. They've stopped the school bus from going in there, because they were driving on private property. That's quite a while ago, but it's a constant parade of people in and out of there, daily, due to this trailer that's in there illegally. That's all I have to say. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, this conversation really should be reserved for the application. MR. TURNER-Yes. You should really contain your remarks until we review the application. We're not going to take it right now. We're going to hold off and see if he comes. MR. RAFFERTY-If he doesn't show up, then what happens? I mean, the last time we came here, he was unprepared, or was prepared to make a fool of us. It was tabled. Then he got an extension. That's, at this point, I'm familiar with nine months since it wasn't supposed to get it, and if we table it again, then he's just getting permission to do something. MR. TURNER-I don't think we're going to table it. We're going to )- ev i ew it. MR. RAFFERTY-Okay. Thank you. MR. TURNER-All right. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-1994 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A MICHAEL R. SWAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 55 MANNIS ROAD APPLICANT SEEKS TO CONSTRUCT A SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY (720) SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGE IN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY-SIX (576) SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED GARAGE. RELIEF IS NEEDED FROM SECTION 179- 15, WHICH ALLOWS ONE GARAGE, AND SECTION 179-7, WHICH STATES THAT A PRIVATE GARAGE MAY NOT EXCEED NINE HUNDRED (900) SQUARE FEET. TAX MAP NO. 67-1-2.3 LOT SIZE: 4.5 ACRES SECTION 179-15D2 MICHAEL SWAN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 51-1994, Michael R. Swan, Meeting Date: September 28, 1994 "APPLICANT: Michael Swan PROJECT LOCATION: 55 Mannis Road PROPOSED ACTION: For construction of a detached 24 ft. by 30 ft. garage. This would be in addition to an existing 24 ft. by 24 ft. attached garage. CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Relief is needed from Section 179-15, which the Board interprets to allow one garage, and Section 179-7, which states that a private garage may not exceed 900 square feet. REASON FOR VARIANCE REQUEST, AND BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: Applicant would like to be able to store a camping trailer, antique boat, and an antique car in the building at this - 4 - '--' -<'" time, and use his existing garage for the family cars. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: The'"e do not seem to be any alternatives to accomplish the applicants purpose. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE?: The proposed structure will exceed 900 square feet by 396 square feet. Considering the use the applicant has proposed, it may not be proper to strictly consider the 900 square foot limitation on garages. EFFECTS ON NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY: It does not appear there would be any effect on the neighborhood or com~unity. The applicant's property is a 4.5 acre, mostly wooded parcel in a Rural Residential zone. This structure would seem compatible with the surrounding area and, set back 164 feet from the road, would barely be visible. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED?: No. It seems that strict interpretation of the Ordinance could be considered too restrictive in this rural setting. PARCEL HISTORY: This house was constructed in 1992. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: No fu,"ther comment. SEQR: Unlisted action. Short Form EAF should be addressed." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Swan. MR. SWAN-I've never been here before. So I'm not exactly sure what you're interested in from me. A lot of the things in the application, I think, brought out most of my points. The reason why I bought this property was so that I would be isolated. There is no one of my neighbors that has a view of my property. I have talked to my surrounding landowners, who are the Littles on the north, and on the east, they have no objections to this. The only part ¡ can barely see their barn that they have for their horses from my house. That's the only structure that's visible from my dwelling. Across the street, to the west of me, is the Glens Falls Country Club. I don't know if any of you have seen the property, but there's about a 150 foot buffer between the road and the driving range, which has several out buildings on it. I don't feel that I'm going to effect the church or the neighborhood at all. If you go within about a half a mile radius of my prope,"ty, you encompass several seasonal dwellings along the shore of Glen Lake, several parcels there have seasonal dwellings and year round dwellings that predate the zoning. The Littles, who are my owners to the, adjoining owners to the east, have a barn and a garage. The adjoining owners to them have a garage, detached garage, and a barn. To the south of me there are several single family dwellings. Beyond that is an unoperating farm that has about six outbuildings, and like I said before, on the east across the road is the Country Club. I really don't think that I'm going to have any impact at all, basically,. on the neighborhood~ There is no character to the neighborhood. It's rural, basically. It has not been developed. It isn't a subdivision. I could see if it was a small lot and I couldn't meet the setbacks~ or if it was going to be in somebody else's backyard, I coµld understand the objections to it. As best I can tell, the oqly, thing that's going to be visible from the road is a little bit of the roof line. Because it is up on a hill, and will be at the end of a driveway. The only other alternative that I know of would be to add an addition to the present garage. I don't want to do that. My wife and I designed this house ourselves, and I built it myself. We tried to balance it, to give it (lost word) appeal, to make it look good in a rural location. Adding a garage is going to look nothing better than adding a garage to it. It will look like an addition. In my op1nion, it will have a detrimental effect on my property, and, lastly, I would just, especially on a night like this, as I look out the window and see my antique car sitting out in the rain, I would just like to be able to put it unde~ storage. The structure will match, identically, to the style and the construction quality of the home that I've built. It will not vary at all from that. I want to enhance the value of my property, not be a detriment to it. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any questions of the applicant? Okay. Let me - 5 - '- --- open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-All right. Any discussion? I've got to tell you, we had one last week, and it got turned down. The only thing that prevents this from being a storage shed is garage doors, and what you're going to put in it. MR. SWAN-Well, this is what the Building Inspector's office told me, and I guess I could have just said at that time, at the time of the permit, that it was going to be a shed, but there will be a car in there from time to time, which is an antique show car. That's not the primary use of the building. The primary use of the building will be to store a boat and a camping trailer. The antique car is a '55 Chevy I drive occasionally to work, and it is a show car. I wanted to be honest about it. I didn't want to have to worry about whether the zoning officer was going to drive in my driveway some day and see a car parked in the garage. I really don't, I'm not sure exactly what you want to hear from me, but I don't feel that this is going to be. MR. TURNER-Well, let me say this. The Board has been very strong in dealing with this particular issue, because we've said that the Zoning Ordinance identifies the accessory use as one garage, 900 square feet. So, therefore, this is considered a second garage. That's not allowed. You could have a storage shed, but you couldn't have a garage. MR. SWAN-How big is a storage shed? MR. TURNER-Well, lets see what your zone says. probably build it that size right there, as long as setbacks. You could you meet the MR. MENTER-I don't think it defines that, does it. MR. SWAN-No. I don't have a problem with the setbacks, as far as I can see. At least that's what I was told. MR. TURNER-No, you don't. MS. CIPPERLY-There's no limitation on the size of a storage shed. MR. TURNER-No. It just identifies a storage shed, but you can't store a vehicle in it. That's all. MS. CIPPERLY-I discussed this issue with Mr. Swan when he originally came in, and I said, do you have another place you could put the car, because, by definition, a garage is for the storage of up to three automobiles. We keep getting back to, does it have garage doors on it, which is not part of the definition of a garage. MR. TURNER-I know, but Jim says he considers it a garage. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, there are garages in Town that have sliding barn doors on them, but they're still a garage. You could build a structure that didn't have any doors, it would still be a garage, and we keep seeming to come back to this garage bit, which, actually, is an overhead door, and after last week, I started thinking about this, and I said, well, in this climate, even if you had a storage shed, you might want an overhead door, if you had your tractor with your snowblower on it, and as I've been driving around I've seen barns with overhead doors in them. So, when he came in with this kind of a combined storage of a - 6 - "-- ---" camping trailer and an antique boat and one car, which I guess is registered. MR. SWAN-Yes, it is registered. MS. CIPPERLY-I suggested that maybe that':::; a storage shed, but he said he really would like to call it a garage, I guess, so that he wouldn't have to worry, as he said, about having his car in there, by definition, but the doors. MR. TURNER-Well, he's called it the garage, so it falls in the cate90ry. MS. CIPPERLY-He said he really would prefer to be straightforward about it, because some day down the road if he sold the house, 20 years from now, and somebody wanted to use that as a garage. MR. CARVIN-Or a shop. MR. TURNER-Twenty-four by thirty, he could use it for a shop. MR. CARVIN-Between the two, he's got 576 in the current garage, so you're talking almost 1300 square feet between the two. MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-And the difference i saw between this one and the one last week is partly the lot size, which was less than an acre last week. MR. TURNER-Well, just because a guy's got a big lot. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, that's why people move to the country, too. MR. TURNER-Yes, I know. MR. SWAN-I mean, I hate to interrupt, but that was the basic reason why I purchased this property, and when he did the original layout of development, it was with the plan to build this detached garage at the end of the driveway. That was part of the whole scheme. That was part of the country setting that we were trying to accomplish, and apparently either I didn't convey that properly at the time that I applied for the building permit in 1991, or I misunderstood. MR. TURNER-Did you show it on your plot plan? MR. SWAN-No, I did not. MR. TURNER-Okay. So that's why it didn't get picked up. MR. SWAN-I talked to someone in the Building Inspector's office, that's what I'm trying to say. He indicated, I thought I indicated properly, but apparently I didn't indicate properly, or I didn't understand what was said to me, but it was ~ interpretation that this would be acceptable. I found out, since, that that's not correct. Apparently, this Ordinance went in in 1987 or 1988. MR. TURNER-'88, yes. MR. SWAN-And that's the main reason I picked that site, was because I would not impact anybody. I've lived in subdivisions before, where what people have done on the abounding property, did impact them positively or negatively, but it was an impact. That's the main reason I chose that site, so that I could do something like this, and my neighbors would not be impacted. There's no chance for development on the north of me, on the south of me, or within probably 300 feet of my property line to the east, and as long as the Glens Falls Country Club is there, - 7 - '--' there is going to be no they've been there a long to be there. development across the time, and I assume they street, and will continue MR. KARPELES-Well, I think the lot size does have something to do with it. I think he's got a big lot, and he ought to be able to use that land for something. To get his car and boat under cover is a good use for that land. MR. TURNER-Lets go back to the one with the guy on the Country Club Road that wanted the same deal. MR. KARPELES-Well, I agreed with him. MR. TURNER-Yes, you might have. MR. KARPELES-I did. MR. THOMAS-I think the guy on the Country club Road does have a building there now. MR. TURNER-Yes. He does. MR. THOMAS-For storage of his boat. MR. TURNER-I think I saw it today. MR. CARVIN-I think that we're striking at a very basic weakness in the Ordinance. It's not the fault of the Ordinance that people have extra cars and boats and trailers and things like that. I mean, at 900 square feet, is a fairly large garage. So I think the intent of the Ordinance was to try to be fair about a garage. I mean, if we've got a problem it's with these storage sheds. MR. TURNER-What you can put in them. MR. CARVIN-What people are doing is, I just have a hard time building these very large storage sheds allover Town, because when we build these things, these buildings are there for 50 to 100 years, and I'm not saying that you're not going to do a good job, and that you've got good intentions, but situations change, and we've had a slew of these things where somebody else comes in and takes this and converts it into an apartment or something else, and I'm not saying that that's going to happen here, but we have seen enough of these things that that eventually does happen, and some of these other ones where we've got a lot of these out buildings. So I guess !llL.. point is that I think the Town Board should really address this storage shed building. MR. TURNER-Identify, maybe, what you can put in it. MR. CARVIN-If there was a problem with the Ordinance, as far as garages, are concerned, then I would say, yes, we could grant a variance, but the problem is not with the Ordinance, it's with people accumulating more and more things. Well, obviously, if the Town Board feels that 900 square feet is inadequate, then they can increase it to 1200 or 1400. MS. CIPPERLY-We discussed this after the meeting last week, and we are going to try to come up with some revision to the Ordinance, based on square footage allowed per lot size, or number of buildings. So, the point is well taken. I think there is something that needs to be done with the Ordinance, as far as differentiation between storage sheds and garages and sizes and lot sizes and it needs to be done better than it now exists. MR. CARVIN-And until we have that, I mean, my position is going to have to be, weighing the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the community, is that this will eventually be a - 8 - ',,-- ~ detriment to the community, because we can't say yes to you and no to 500 other people that have come before you, just because you've got, you know, based on the current Ordinance. MR. KARPELES-Well, I think that we are supposed to consider each case as an individual case. MR. SWAN-Yes, but I don't see, I hate to interrupt you, but I don't see, even 50 years down the road, where that structure is going to be a detriment to the society, or to the Town. That's a 3,000 square foot house there. You're not going to have somebody that comes in there and buys that house in 20 years that's going to put in an auto repair shop or a paint shop, or anything other than their own personal hobby. The expense of that house, that's a $300,000 house. Somebody's not going to come in there and by that and put in something. MR. CARVIN-Well, we've had similar situations on Quaker Road, which 20 and 30 and 40 years ago, those were comparable houses, and that's what has developed, is that these shops have developed, and we've gotten into some pretty opinionated arguments over some of this, and, again, I don't mean to say that that's going to happen the1·e, but that's ~ position. I mean, we've tackled this, now, it seems like almost at every meeting that somebody has come in with these garages. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And I hate to keep coming off as the bad guy on this, but until we get a better definition of what sheds and what gar ages ar e . MR. TURNER-Well, a storage shed's an accessory building used to store materials or small equipment, but not including vehicles, and that's the hang up, right there, not including vehicles. MR. SWAN-Well, what's considered a vehicle? MR. TURNER-A registered vehicle, I would assume. MR. SWAN-So if it's not a registered vehicle, acceptable? then it's MR. TURNER-No. Let me see. MR. SWAN-The point I'm trying to make is I've got an old piece of four by four equipment that I use to plow the driveway with, because it's a long, steep driveway. I mean, is that considered a vehicle also? I mean, it's not registered. It has no fenders. It has no lights, other than one in the center, and it's just basically, I mean, am I going to be in trouble if I erect a storage shed and put that in there? Is that equipment, or is that a vehicle? MR. CARVIN-Well, again, we're coming right back to storage shed. I mean, there is really no limitation, as far as ~ can tell, as to the size of the storage shed. I mean, we could nitpick all night long. I mean, is a moped a motor vehicle? I don't have an answer for you. MR. SWAN-And how do I have access to the storage shed? Are you telling me that an overhead door is not acceptable for a storage shed? MR. CARVIN-Well, that has been the Zoning Administrator's position. In other words, I guess that's the criteria up to this point. Now I don't know if that's changing or not. MR. TURNER-He stated that here one night. I know that. He said if it's got garage doors on it, it's a garage. - 9 - ',-- MR. CARVIN-And only if there's motor vehicles, and I use the term in the broadest sense, motor vehicles that are being stored in it, and it could be construed as a garage. So I think with the exception of lawn tractors and things like that, which they do outline, anything over and above that I guess would be considered an automobile, and, therefore, it would be a garage. Unfortunately, I don't have a real good definition, because the Code doesn't give me a real good definition. MR. TURNER-Your camper trailer's, what, Mr. Swan? MR. SWAN-It's a pop up camper, about 10 foot long, and the boat's a 1958 Thompson motor boat. MR. CARVIN-As I said, it's not a flaw in the Ordinance on this, that people have these boats and things, and I really can't use the criteria that four and a half acres is better than the guy that's got a half an acre and the same boat, because we've had those come in. Antique cars are, I never realized how many antique cars are out there, because we had a bunch there. MR. SWAN-It's quite a substantial hobby. MR. KARPELES-Well, what's your alternative? Where else can you store this? MR. SWAN-I don't have any other place to store them. MR. KARPELES-You can leave them out in the open, right? MR. SWAN-I can leave them out in the open. MR. KARPELES-Now does everybody here feel that's better to leave it out in the open than it is to put it under cover? MR. CARVIN-Well, that's what L do. So, I mean, I wrestled with this, Now I don't think it would be very come in here and say, I need a 720 I could put it right back, in back I have an antique car also. and I have a half acre lot. fair to my neighbors, I could square foot storage shed, and of the yard. MR. KARPELES-I think we could turn you down on the basis that you don't have a big enough lot. MR. CARVIN-Then I would say that that's discriminatory, because my use is the same uses as the guy with the four and a half acres. So that's why I'm saying we've kind of set a precedent here, and that's why I. MR. KARPELES-Well, I think that's an awful easy way out, to say we set a precedent. I think that we're supposed to be a Zoning Board, and we're supposed to decide each case on an individual basis, and I think that the size of the lot has got to enter into it. MR. SWAN-It was ~ understanding that one of the criteria, here, is impact. MR. TURNER-Benefit to the applicant versus detriment to the community. MR. SWAN-All right, well, there is no detriment to the community. MR. CARVIN-Well, this is the detriment to the community, that the guy that comes in with the half acre has the same right to that 720 square foot garage as you do, and that becomes a detriment to the community, when you multiply it 15 times a week that we seem to have these things. So that's the proliferation that. MR. SWAN-See, I don't quite see it that way, because I feel that - 10 - ~ '--- -/ I went out and I did the additional expense. I paid the additional taxes to support this property so that I can use it for that. I mean, I lived in subdivisions, and that's what people want. They want to live in a subdivision. They want to have the smaller homes, the smaller lots. I didn't want that. This is one of the reasons that I moved to this location. MR. CARVIN-Well, we'll get off into a philosophical discussion, which is not necessarily appropo at this time. MR. MENTER-Well, I'll tell you, looking at this case, I've got to agree with Bob and the applicant on this one. You can't limit a person's toys with a broad brush, and I think the size of the property does make it a different impact, which is a serious consideration, just as serious as the precedent, and like you said, Fred, it's going to make it a lot tougher on us, down the road, but at some point, you've got to say, we're going to deal with these cases. I think it would be ridiculous not to take into consideration the parcel that this storage is going on, because that is going to minimize the effect on. MR. CARVIN-But what about the one that we turned down last week, where we had the handicapped person? MR. MENTER-The one we turned down last week was on a very small parcel surrounded by other very small parcels. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but we have to treat people equally. I mean, what's the difference? I mean, she has a legitimate handicap, and we turned it down, then you're creating a dual system, here. You're saying that, if you can afford. MR. KARPELES-That's what a Zoning Board of Appeals is for, to consider variances. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but what you're basing your criteria on is the fact that this gentleman can afford four and a half acres. So, therefore, it's okay to put a 720 square foot, but if you have a half acre and can't afford four and a half acres, then you can't have the same thing as this gentleman's having. MR. MENTER-I don't completely disagree with that. MR. CARVIN-And that's ffiZ point, and as I said, I mean, based upon the Ordinance that we have right now, the problem is that I can't justify granting the variance, because of the cumulative effect to other folks in the community. I mean, if we, without a change in the Ordinance, we would have to, quite literally, grant almost everyone that came in here if they have an antique car. MR. MENTER-I think not, because on a smaller parcel the possibility, or probability, of that type of a structure, even if they sell and somebody else comes in, the use of that structure's a lot more likely to effect the neighbors. MR. CARVIN-I'm saying I can afford to build a 720, but I only have a half acre lot. Now it's not fair to my neighbors for me to put that kind of size just because I have a half acre lot, but that doesn't mean that I can't have it, according to you. How can you, you're making a lot determination as a basis for a garage size. Well, I mean, if the Town Ordinance says that, that's fine. I mean, then that's the criteria. MR. MENTER-Well, I think there's a logic to that. In fact, I think Sue said that's the direction that they're looking at, structuring it. MR. TURNER-Well, they're looking at it, but the final direction is taken by the Town Board, not necessarily by the Planning Department. - 11 - ""-,, --- MS. CIPPERLY-The other thing, as a Staff person, I guess if you are planning, because of the fear of precedent, or whatever, to not grant any second garage variances because it would be unfair, or whatever, then you should tell us that, and we will not encourage people to apply for them. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think that I would be more comfortable, and the applicant has indicated that he could expand his current gar age. MS. CIPPERLY-It would still be more than 900 square feet. MR. SWAN-It still would exceed the 900 square feet. MR. CARVIN-Well, it depends on the expansion. MS. CIPPERLY-He already has a two car garage. MR. SWAN-If I expand the garage, I mean, I don't know what you're talking about as expansion of the garage, but it would block the other entrance to the house, which is our main entrance through the screen porch. That is where the driveway ends, is right by that screen porch door. If I expand that, I've got more area to go around, making it less appealing. Also, the curb appeal, which is something that I'm very concerned with this project, and this house, is going to be damaged. No matter what I do, it will look like an addition to that house. It will look like a row of garages sticking on the end of the house, and that's going to be a detrimental effect to the house. MR. MARESCO-I went up to see yOU," property today, and I understand what you're saying. You've got those two garages, and you're just going to, it will look like a row of garages there, too. MR. SWAN-And I don't want to present to anybody who drives by the fact, or the feeling that there are additional garage stalls there. MR. TURNER-Yes, all right, but you could still build a 900 square foot garage, if you so chose, without even coming here, attached to that house. MR. SWAN-An additional 900? MR. TURNER-No, no, you could have built a 900, a three car ga'"age. MR. CARVIN-You have 576 now. MR. SWAN-Yes. MR. TURNER-You could have built a three car garage. MR. SWAN-That's not going to give me much space, though. That's the problem. MR. CARVIN-Then you could have a more reasonable, I say reasonable, in a logical sense, I mean, a storage shed, because now you would have your car in your garage, and you wouldn't need 720 square feet, possibly, and an out building. MR. MARESCO-But it didn't matter how many square feet he had, then, because then it would be a storage shed. So it would be as big as you want it to be. You'd have a third car garage. MR. CARVIN-Yes, that's ~ point. MR. TURNER-That's ~ point. - 12 - ~ ~ MR. SWAN-Then I've got a house that looks like I've had an addition to the garage. MR. TURNER-No, no. I'm saying, when you initially built the house, you could have built a 900. MR. SWAN-I would have if I had realized that this was going to happen, but it was a misunderstanding, apparently, when I applied for the original building permit. MR. TURNER-Were you aware when you applied that you could have a 900 square fQot garage? MR. SWAN-No. MR. TURNER-Did you ask? MR. SWAN-No. garage, and I applied. I asked if I could have an attached and detached thought that the answer was yes, at the time I MR. TURNER-So what you're saying is, you're saying maybe that you could have the attached garage and also a detached garage? Is that what you're saying? MR. SWAN-That was my understanding when I talked to the building inspector about, when I applied for the permit for the building. Now, either I misunderstood, or he misunderstood me. MR. TURNER-I think you misunderstood. MR. SWAN-Apparently. MR. TURNER-I think probably what he felt, when you asked him the question, can I have an attached garage or detached garage, and he probably said yes, you could have either or. MR. SWAN-Well, that's what I said. I may have not properly to him, or I misunderstood his answer. obviously, the case. communicated That was, MR. TURNER-But what I'm saying, if you'd have put the three car garage there, you could store your antique car right in that third garage. Then you could have a storage shed and you wouldn't even have to come here. MR. SWAN-Except I wouldn't be able to get the boat in, because it doesn't have an overhead door. MR. TURNER-You wouldn't be able to, what, get the boat in because it doesn't have an overhead door? MR. SWAN-Because it doesn't have an overhead door, I can't have an overhead door. MR. TURNER-You could have a door. MR. SWAN-How am I going to get an eight foot wide trailer through a door? MR. MARESCO-Two barn doors that open. MR. TURNER-You could have a slider. MS. CIPPERLY-You can have a sliding door on a garage, too, and we have boat storage buildings in Town with overhead doors. This door thing is, frankly, driving me crazy, because doors are nowhere defined, they're no part of the definition. MR. TURNER-No, they're no part of the definition, but Jim has - 13 - '-- -...-' stated that he considers it a garage. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, we've had discussions about that also. MR. CARVIN-One applicant said he would build a tent. I mean, we have no Ordinances against a tent. MR. SWAN-Well, that's my alternative, at this point, to get them out of the weather, is to put up a plastic hoop house. I mean, I don't have any other choice, at this point. Winter's closing in. MR. TURNER-Yes, I know, but I've got a brand new 26 foot trailer, and I have to keep it out doors, because I don't have a lot big enough to build, I can build a garage on my lot, but I don't build it there because it's a detriment to the neighborhood and a detriment to my neighbor and detriment to myself, and I don't complain because I've got to keep mine outdoors. It's a matter of fact I have to keep it outdoors, like it or not, and I have to cover it up. MS. CIPPERLY-But in his case, there wouldn't be any detriment. That is what I saw as the difference between his case and some of the others. MR. TURNER-Well, I feel the Ordinance is strong in saying 900 square foot garage is what you're allowed to have. You can have a storage shed in addition, and that's fine. He could have built a 900 square foot garage when he built the house, to put the car in, and he could have still built a storage shed to put the boat and the other stuff in. I mean, if we start granting variances just because he's got, Fred says, four and a half acres, if somebody else has only got a half an acre, we say no to them and yes to him, I think there's something wrong. MR. MENTER-Well, Ted, would you build a garage for your trailer, if you had 10 acres somewhere? MR. TURNER-I could then, because I'd have room to do it, and I could attach it to the house. MR. MENTER-And it wouldn't be effecting your neighbors, which is your concern now. MR. TURNER-But what I'm saying to you is ahead and put the garage with the house. what I could have built there. I would have thought I would have found out MR. CARVIN-Also, I think it's not the fault of the Ordinance, and, again, I'm not being critical, that people go out and buy boats and cars. I mean, these are personal decisions. MR. TURNER-That's their personal desire. It's ~ desire to go buy a trailer and leave it in my side yard and cover it up in the winter time. MR. CARVIN-It's not a fault of the Ordinance that he's got a boat to store. As I said, I just have a hard time with this one, and I would hope that the Town would address the issue. MR. TURNER-They're going to have to address it, because if these keep popping up, they've got to do something, what's allowed in the storage shed, that's the answer, L think. MS. CIPPERLY-Workload alone, it's a significant issue, as we have a couple of these every month, and it's always been my impression that, rather than a blanket statement about things, they're supposed to treat, as you have been saying, some of you, treat each one of these as an individual case, and look at the benefit versus the detriment, and that's why, if somebody comes in and wants to do one of these things, I say, well, you do have the - 14 - '-- ~ right to ask for a variance, and the Board can. MR. TURNER-But Mr. Swan, when did you build the house? MR. SWAN-I started in 1991 and finished in 1993. It took me two years. MR. TURNER-So, there again, if he thought he was should have checked, because he could have built foot garage, and it might have made a difference in was laid out and everything else was laid out. mistaken, he a 900 square how the house MR. SWAN-Yes. We would have had to change quite a bit of the design, because if you'll notice, there's a screened porch attached to the back of that garage that's all one roof line. I would have had to made some alterations there, which is one of the reasons I'm concerned about putting an addition on there, because it's going to effect that screened porch, which is the main access to the house. MR. MENTER-Let me ask you a question. I'm trying to picture it but I can't. Does the garage roof peak run parallel to the main house peak, in the same direction? MR. SWAN-No. It's opposed. It's perpendicular. MR. MENTER-I see. Okay. So it doesn't run from the garage doors back. It runs across? MR. SWAN-Because the garage doors face to the south, house faces east, and the eaves drop right over the door. gable end faces the road. and the So the MR. MENTER-Okay. MR. SWAN-I did that on purpose, because I don't want to have a garage door facing the road. MR. MENTER-Well, that doesn't sound like it would be a real design problem, I mean, just initially, then, I mean, if you're going, you're just extending the gable end. MR. SWAN-Well, yes, but then that roof structure also covers the screened porch. That's all one roof. That's a 36 foot span on that roof. If I had had a 24 foot peaked addition, on the end of that garage, I'm going to be changing the roof line, because it's not going to extend over that screened in porch, all right. It's going to shorten it up. That gable is going to, that shorter gable is going to be visible from the road, which is going to show that it was an addition, and it's going to effect the curb appeal of the property, because there's no way I can extend that roof without expanding the screened porch, and then I've got a 12 foot wide, 30 something foot long screened porch. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further discussion? MR. MARESCO-I .just have a hard certainly see where he's coming you say yes to him and, when we a hard thing to deal with. time with it, because I could from. It's just that, how could had that lady who was, it's just MR. TURNER-Yes, and she also had a smaller lot. I think it was 15 a garage, even though it was on by 23, or something like that. MR. SWAN-Well, I mean, I look at my neighbors and all my neighbors have garages and out buildings. MR. TURNER-They have a storage shed? MR. SWAN-Well, one of them is a farm. They have all kinds of - 15 - "- machinery and cars and trucks stored in it. Another one has an attached ga1"age with a barn that has horses in it, or had h01"ses in it. Another one is an attached garage, a detached garage that all has vehicles in them, plus a barn that is used for horses. I mean, I've got, to the north of me, I've got properties that have two dwellings on them, along the shore of Glen Lake, that have a seasonal dwelling, and old one sitting in front, and now they've built a year round building in the back. MR. TURNER-It's got to be on a separate lot. MR. SWAN-No. These are not. These pre-dated the zoning. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. SWAN-All of these instances pre-dated any of the zoning, I mean, and I know that they wouldn't be allowed now. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SWAN-But that's the character of the neighborhood, and I go through the woods to the Country Club, and they've got a ton of buildings in there. MR. TURNER-Well, that's !ILl::. position. I'm not going to say yes to you and no to somebody else, even though you've got four and a half acres. Okay. Lets move it. MR. CARVIN-I can't move to approve. So if somebody wants to move to approve. MR. TURNER-If somebody wants to move to approve, they can make it. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Introduced by Robert Karpeles seconded by David Menter: NO. 51-1994 who moved MICHAEL R. SWAN, for its adoption, For construction of a 24 ft. by 30 ft., and this would be in addition to his existing 24 ft. by 24 ft. attached garage, and that we grant relief from Section 179-15, which has in the past been interpreted to allow one garage, and Section 179-7, which states that a private garage may not exceed 900 square feet. The reasons for the variance is to allow the applicant to store a camping trailer, an antique boat, and an antique car, and he will be able to use his existing garage for the family cars. There doesn't seem to be any feasible alternative to accomplish the applicant's purpose. There would not appear to be any adverse effect on the neighborhood or community. The applicant's property is four and a half acres, mostly wooded, in a Rural Residential zone. This structure would be compatible with the surrounding area, and set back 164 feet from the road, and would be almost invisible. The Short Environmental Assessment Form has been filled out, and would appear to have no negative environmental impact. Duly adopted this 28th day of September, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner ABSTAINED: Mr. Maresco MR. TURNER-It's not a majority. We have to have another motion. MR. CARVIN-We either have to have a motion to deny, or continue our argument until we have four positive votes one way or the other. I suspect that if I make a motion to deny, we're going to - 16 - '- '-' end up pretty much in the same area. MR. MARESCO-My feeling is that I see his point, and it seems like it's in the zone, you know, ~he shed, the doors, and he's on four acres and then the other side of the coin is we said, say yes to him and said no to her. MR. KARPELES-She was an entirely different case. She wanted to place to store two cars, a garage, and she had a, she could store the two cars in that house. She could have built an addition on the)"e. MR. MARESCO-But she needed that wheelchair access. She needed the access to go. MR. TURNER-Yes, but he also has registered and he drives on the vehicles, is that correct? an antique car, )"oad. So he's Bob, that's got three MR. SWAN-Yes, three registered vehicles. MR. TURNER-He has three registered vehicles. He wants to store the antique car, which is a registered vehicle, in the storage ~>hed . MR. CARVIN-We had the guy over up the road there, a similar them off Corinth Road there. there on Country Club Road, right situation. We've had a number of MR. MENTER-The guy on Country Club, incidentally, did build his garage. MR. TURNER-Yes, but he built his garage, but he had to take the garage that was in the house and eliminate it. MR. CARVIN-That's been my point, I mean, that we have a flaw with the concept of a shed, but there have been uncounted, I'd hate to think, I've been on the Board for three or four years, and I'd hate think of how many folks have come in with similar requests, quite literally dozens, and we've turned them down with the acreage before. I mean, I think you're going out on thin ice if you start making the criteria that just because this gentleman has got four and a half acres that he has more of a right. MR. KARPELES-Well, you keep saying just because he has four and a half acres. I think the fact that he has four and a half acres is an impo)"ta nt cons ider at ion, but I don't thi nk it's just because of that. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but you're using it as a criteria that he's going to be storing antique cars, boats and trailers. MR. KARPELES-He is in a rural area, and he's going to be masked from the road. It's a detriment to no one. It's not a detriment to the community. MR. CARVIN-I'm still saying, you're going to use the criteria that anybody that's got an antique car can come in and use this as an argument, that they have a legitimate right, that their impact on a half acre lot is going to be no greater or no less than this gentleman. MR. MARESCO-What if he stored everything except the antique car in there? MR. CARVIN-Well, you've got to be careful because you create an enforcement problem. I mean, the Town does not have the capability or the time to go around and police what everybody's putting into their garages, and we've had situations where we've had garages where they have gone out and "peeked in the windows" - 17 - --- -- to see if there were cars there, and this was a result of these buildings being built back in the 20's and 30's, that all of a sudden got converted into some of these other things. As I said, I'm not trying to deny anybody anything here, but I am trying to be consistent, and that's mz point. MR. MENTER-Well, I think there's a point where consistency is no longer the best policy. I just think that there's, it's a tough issue. MR. TURNER-The only thing that makes in a storage shed versus a garage. That's the only problem. it tough is what can be put That's what makes it tough. MR. CARVIN-Yes, and I can only go by what the Ordinance says, and I feel very comfortable that 900 square feet and a single garage is an adequate garage. MR. TURNER-Let me say this. He built the house, he just got done building it in '93. He knew that there's a Zoning Ordinance in the Town of Queensbury. If he had any questions, any doubts, he should have checked as to the size of the garage, and if he had any idea that he was going to consider building an outbuilding to put an antique car in, he should have checked. MR. CARVIN-We've had other applicants come here with their plans, asking for relief in a pre-built stage. I think we granted 1100 square feet to Marshall, somebody. MR. THOMAS-Yes, just down Country Club Road. MR. MARESCO-Mr. Swan, have you had the antique boat and the antique car previous to building the home? i"1R. SWAN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I think we had three of them last week where two of them actually did alter their plans, or make plans to add to their garages, and we had no problem with it. Until I have a better definition from the Town, I guess my hands are tied on this. That still leaves us with a hung jury, as it were. I don't know if we want to table this to get a clear definition, but that's really not fair to the applicant. MR. TURNER-No. MR. SWAN-I would like a decision one way or another. I mean, if it comes to that, I can try to do something else, but winter is closing in on me, and I would like to do something to try to make arrangements. I've basically lost a month already from the time I applied for this. MR. TURNER-I guess I'm a little uncomfortable with the fact that you say that you can't add to the garage that you've got and make it 900 square feet and put your antique car in there and build your storage shed. MR. SWAN-Physically, there's no reason, probably, why I couldn't, other than the fact that, in my opinion, that's going to destroy the curb appeal of the house, when you view it as a three car garage stuck on the end. MR. TURNER-All right. If you initially started out as a three car garage, how do you relate to that, versus what you just said? MR. SWAN-I don't know. I hadn't thought about it. I would have tried to design something different. MR. MARESCO-You could have made, would extend the screened in porch, the screened in porch, if you then it would have the same, - 18 - -/ if you had a three car garage, because the porch is here, the three car garage. MR. TURNER-Yes. The porch is behind him. Your porch is in back of your garage. MR. SWAN-That's correct. MR. TURNER-So if you extended that, along with the garage, or just left it where it is. I don't see how you feel it would look like an addition. MR. SWAN-Well, because I don't want to extend the screened porch. MR. TURNER-No, I know you don't. MR. SWAN-The screened porch is adequate. So if I put an addition on the end of the garage, the roof line is going to have two different peaks on it, þecause the higher peak, you've got a 36 foot span now, from the front of the garage to the back edge of the porch, okay, which gives, and a 7, 12 pitch on that roof. If I extend on the end of that garage, going east, and I have a 7, 12 pitch to meet the pitch going up, and I go 24 feet deep with it, the peak on that roof is going to be shorter and further toward the front than the present peak. So there's going to be two roof lines on that structure. I could draw it if I'm not making myself clear. MR. TURNER-No. I understand. MR. SWAN-That also creates a drainage problem for me, which I thought I had already solved, because I wasn't going to, the way my gutters are now appropriate, a portion of the runoff and the grading and the landscaping has already been done back there. I'm going to have to make allowances for that also. MR. TURNER-Okay. What's the Board's pleasure? Do you want to change your vote, Tony, change your position? MR. MARESCO-I guess so. MR. TURNER-Okay. place. We had a motion to approve, that didn't go any MR. CARVIN-Well, I can make a motion to deny, I suppose. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-1994 MICHAEL R. SWAN, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: The applicant is seeking relief from Sections 179-15 and Section 179-7, which states that a private garage may not exceed 900 square feet. The applicant has indicated that there may be feásible alternatives to his proposal. I believe that if we were to grant this variance, that substantial relief would be created in reference to the Ordinance. I believe that if we were to grant this variance, that there would be a detrimental impact upon the neighborhood and community, and I believe that this particular difficulty is self-created, and not a result of a hardship imposed by the Ordinance. Duly adopted this 28th day of September, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas MR. TURNER-Well, a three, three vote is a denial. That's no Board action. - 19 - '- ...-' MS. CIPPERLY-It's either a denial or a no action, which means the same thing, I believe. MR. TURNER-Yes, it's the same thing. It's a denial. MR. SWAN-So it's been denied? MR. TURNER-Right. MR. SWAN-Okay. Fine. Can I just make one more statement? First of all, thank you for your time and consideration. Secondly, if this is the position of the Board, please notify your Staff, okay, so that they can tell people like me who come in that this is not going to be acceptable. MR. TURNER-Let me say this about it~ and she related garage, and I said, did you them down consistently, and not? to you, Mr. Swan, I to me that you were explain to him that I think she told me talked to Sue coming with a we have turned yes. Did you MS. CIPPERLY-I said that you haven't turned down every garage variance, but if that's going to be the Board's position, perhaps they should pass a resolution saying there won't be any relief given from the second garage, or the greater than 900. MR. TURNER-No, because you can't do that, because the applicant has the right to seek a variance. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, that's what's happening. So somebody invests $50 and draws up plans and comes in in a good faith effort to get a variance. MR. SWAN-Well, I'm just trying to alleviatè other people's problems, and your p,-oblern, obviously. MR. TURNER-I know. Well, the obvious weakness is the fact that you can't store a vehicle in that storage shed. That's the weakness, and I'll tell you from designing the Ordinance, when they designed it in 1988, the subject came up, garages, and they felt that most people had two cars and a lot of people had three cars, and so they addressed the Ordinance and said, lets give them a 900 square foot garage. Now because everybody's got, like the guy on the Country Club Road. He had two cars, a pick up truck, two snowmobiles, two motorcycles, and all that stuff, can't get them in the garage. MR. SWAN-Well, you've made your decision. I'll live with that. That's fine, but I'm just trying to, I've lost a month, basically, trying to get this accomplished, and I talked with Mr. Martin about this, and he said, basically I think his words were that it's tough. Okay. He didn't say that you people are turning them down. He just said it's tough to prove. Okay. MR. TURNER-I know, but it's been our position. MR. CARVIN-I think that the Town Board has to be. MR. TURNER-They've got to say what can go in the. MR. SWAN-You've got to tell them, so that they can do it. MR. TURNER-They know it, and they've heard it enough. USE VARIANCE NO. 28-1994 GEORGE M. MABB (Continued) MR. KATZ-Mr. Chairman, could we go back to Old Business. almost nine o'clock. It's MR. TURNER-Yes, I think we should, because obviously Mr. Mabb - 20 - ---- ~ isn't going to be here. MS. CIPPERLY-I don't have a copy of the tabling from last time. I don't recall whether he was given until this month to show up? MR. TURNER-September the 30th. I can tell you that exactly. He was granted an extension until the 30th of the month. MS. CIPPERLY-Originally, he was tabled until August, or he should have been on in August. extension, and I was just not sure of the date. the middle He requested of an MR. TURNER-He wanted the first meeting of September, and we changed it to the end of the month, to give him time. So we'll grant Mr. Katz's request and we'll get on to that. The next order of Business will be Use Variance No. 28-1994, George M. Mabb, and this was tabled, and you'll read the tabling. MR. THOMAS-"The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and resolved that the following Use Variance, a motion to extend the applicant's request to September the 30th, Introduced by Theodore Turner, who moved for its adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 17th day of August, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE" MR. TURNER-Okay. We left the public hearing open. MR. THOMAS-There was a letter dated August 1st, 1994, to George M. Mabb, "Dear Mr. Mabb: At the June 15, 1994 Zoning Board of Appeals, your application was tabled in order for you to furnish the Board with further information. When the application is tabled by the Board, the applicant has a 60 day time frame to submit any new information for the Board's review and be placed on an agenda, This information needs to be submitted to the Department of Community Development, by the deadline date, the last Wednesday of the month preceding the actual month to have the application reviewed by the Board. Since your application was tabled on the June 15th, it is necessary that you be prepared to appear before the Zoning Board at their August meeting, by submitting any new information to this Department by Wednesday, July 27, 1994. Based on the above criteria, your application is no longer in effect, for continued review and processing by the Board or this Department. In order to be placed on the Zoning Board agenda in the future, you'll need to fill out a new application, submit it to the Zoning Office with the required fee of $50 for review and processing. Please contact this office if you have any questions and/or concerns regarding this project file. James M. Martin Executive Director, Zoning Administrator" MR. TURNER-All right. Sue, I guess, relay your comments as to the position of the Town in respect to the so called extension of Howard Street, what you found out. MS. CIPPERLY-Some of that is in the Staff notes, but I also, in addition to that, late this afternoon, spoke with Leon Steves, who does the Town tax maps, and I guess he's the official Town map person, and he looked in his index of roads, and there is no record of any road being adjacent to the parcel, the subject parcel. MR. TURNER-All right. We'll read the Staff notes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 28-1994, George M. Mabb, September 28, 1994 "APPLICANT: George Mabb ADDITIONAL STAFF NOTES: Since the last hearing of this application, I was advised by Mr. Tom Flaherty of the Queensbury Water Department that there - 21 - - - is currently no proper water hook-up servicing this mobile home, though there is a water line shown on Mr. Mabb's drawing. It would not be legal to connect the mobile home water via Mr. Mabb's home. According to Dave Hatin, Building and Codes Inspector, there is an existing septic system on the property, which served the previous structures. Research of Town records yielded no conclusive evidence ,-egarding the existence of a Town road at this location, as Mr. Mabb has claimed there was. Additional comment was received from a neighbor, Mr. Rafferty, regarding the deterioration of the properties owned by Mr. Mabb, and the use of the access drive by heavy trucks carrying trash in, and coming out empty, and the amount of traffic going to the trailer, in general." MR. TURNER-Okay. All application? Mr. Mabb the public. right. Who wants to respond to the is not here, so I'll take comments from PUBLIC HEARING OPEN HAROLD KATZ MR. KATZ-Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, I think I made my position quite clear the last time I was here. Mr. Mabb has violated just about every civil and possibly criminal code through his use of this property. I can't imagine why this is allowed to continue. Certainly it effects Mr. and Mrs. Rafferty even more than it does me because they live right adjacent to this property. Mr. Mabb has had every opportunity, apparently he has taken advantage of it. We've been here since quarter past seven. It's now five minutes of nine. I take it no one's heard from Mr. Mabb. It seems to me the appropriate action would be to deny or dismiss or however you wish to proceed, with respect to his application. I certainly, as I say, have noted my objections on the record. I can't go any further than I have. MR. TURNER-All right. Thank you. Mr. Rafferty, would you care to make any statement? MR. RAFFERTY-Can I say the same thing again? MR. TURNER-No. We'll transcribe it on the tape. Do you want to add anything else? MR. RAFFERTY-No. I don't have anythirig else to add. MR. TURNER-All right. Okay. Anyone else Wish to be heard? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. What's the Board's pleasure? MR. CARVIN-Well, if we dismiss it, then he has to go through the whole thing, right, that's the same as a denial? Essentially, right, I mean, there's no variance. MR. TURNER-The issue is there's that two separate parcels. He owns 17 and where the trailer goes is on 18. He has no frontage on a public highway. If he combines 17 and 18, then he's got to get a variance for two principaldw~llings on one lot. MR. RAFFERTY-If I might interject, here. I think there is a technical difference between 'a dismissal and a denial, and I think it would be more appropriate to deny it. MR. TURNER-Yes. You'd better to deny it than to dismiss it. MR. RAFFERTY-In case he decides that he wants to seek legal recourse to any action you take. - 22 - '--- -./ MS. CIPPERLY-It was mentioned previously also that the Code Enforcement people had been contacted about this, and basically were waiting for a decision from the Board one way or the other, before action is taken. MR. TURNER-Okay. So, got anything to say? any further discussion? Has Okay. A motion's in order. anybody else MOTION TO DENY USE VARIANCE NO. 28-1994 GEORGE M. MABB, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Maresco: The applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-29, which designates areas where mobile homes are allowed, and also relief from Section 179-190, which describes allowed uses in a Suburban Residential One Acre zone. The applicant has failed to demonstrate a reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned. The applicant has not demonstrated that the alleged hardship relating to this property is unique, or that it does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. There is reason to believe that an adverse effect on the essential character of the neighborhood would be created if this variance were granted, and that if we were to grant this variance, it would not be the minimum variance necessary to address any hardship by the applicant, and at the same time protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. It also should be noted that the Board had tabled this particular application for a period in excess of 60 days, and that the applicant has failed to make an appearance to argue his positions or provide information that was requested by the Board, which was instrumental in the tabling of this application. Duly adopted this 28th day of September, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-1994 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A SAM SARRAINO OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE UPPER RIDGE ROAD, TO BOULDERWOOD DRIVE, 1ST HOUSE ON LEFT APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL AN INGROUND SWIMMING POOL IN A SIDE YARD, AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SECTION 179- 67 B(2), WHICH ALLOWS A POOL IN THE REAR YARD ONLY. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 9/14/94 TAX MAP NO. 27-4-48 LOT SIZE: 1.38 ACRES SECTION 179-67 B(2) PAMELA SARRAINO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 49-1994, Sam Sarraino, Meeting Date: September 28, 1994 "APPLICANT: Sam Sarraino PROJECT LOCATION: Boulderwood Drive PROPOSED ACTION: Applicant proposes to install an inground swimming pool in a side yard. CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Section 179-67B allows a pool in the rear yard only. REASON FOR VARIANCE REQUEST, AND BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: The applicant's usable rear yard is only nineteen (19) feet wide, due to the existence of a right-of-way across the back of the property. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: There is no alternative which would allow placement of the pool in the rear yard. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? It is difficult to quantify this as an amount of relief. It does seem to be asking the minimum relief needed. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY: Visibility from the road would be the only effect on the neighborhood. This could be minimized by landscaping. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED?: This difficulty appears to be due to the right-of-way, not to a self-created - 23 - --' situation. PARCEL HISTORY: According to the Town Assessor's records, the original house was built in 1910. In 1987 that house was incorporated into the new construction. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff has no cancer ns ' other than the v isua 1 screening of this pool via landscaping. Since this lot is already nicely landscaped, it seems the owner would be capable of providing this screening. SEQR: Unlisted action. Short Form EAF should be addressed." MR. THOMAS-fiAt a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 14th day of September 1994, the above application for an Area Variance to construct an 18 x 36 inground pool was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impactfl Signed by Thomas Haley, Chairperson. MR. TURNER-Okay. Could I have your name for the record? MRS. SARRAINO-Pamela Sarraino. MR. TURNER-Okay. Would you care to add anything? MRS. SARRAINO-Not really. MR. TURNER-Okay. the side yard, rear lot line. line. Look at Sue, I have one question. Although she's in I think she needs fiVe feet of relief from the She's supposed to be 20 feet from the reaf lot 179-67. MS. CIPPERLY-The rear lot line would include the right-of-way also. MR. TURNER-Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-The property goes to the. MR. CARVIN-See there's another 25 feet. So she's actually 40 feet off the property line. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'm looki ng at the' map upside down. Any questions from the Board? MR. KARPELES-What's that road? Is that road on their property? MR. TURNER-Yes, it is. MRS. SARRAINO-Yes. The road is a right-of-way for somebody to get back there. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any other questions? MS. CIPPERLY-I think even without the issue of the right-of-way, it would be a tough thing to get a pool in between the house and the, given thé setbacks. t-1R. TURNER-Yes. MR. MENTER-It would need a variance of some type. MR. TURNER-Who's house was that before, when the remodeled it? MRS. SARRAINO-Bill Katz. MR. TURNER-Okay. All right. Anyone here wish to be heard in support of the application, opposed to the application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED - 24 - '-- -.../ MR. TURNER-All right. Any discussion? Lets move it. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-1994 SAM . SARRAINO, Introduced by Daviq Menter who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: The applicant proposes to install an in-ground swimming pool in side yard, and Section 179-67B allows a pool in rear yard only. The rear yard is, because of a right-of-way through their rear yard, unusable as a site for an in-ground pool. There appear to be no negative effects on the neighborhood or community, and because of the right-of-way that was in place when they bought the property, it is not a self-created hardship. The Short Environmental showed no negative impact. Duly adopted this 28th day of September, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Menter, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE USE VARIANCE NO. 47-1994 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-1A FAITH BIBLE CHURCH DON KIPER, PASTOR OWNER: FAITH BIBLE CHURCH DIVISION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE A MOBILE HOME ON THEIR 98.44 ACRE PROPERTY FOR SECURITY PURPOSES, AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-19, WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW MOBILE HOMES IN THIS SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 9/14/94 TAX MAP NO. 148-1-1 LOT SIZE: 98.44 ACRES SECTION 179-19D DON KIPER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 47-1994, Faith Bible Church, Meeting Date: September 28, 1994 "APPLICATION: Faith Bible Church ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Division Road SUMMARY OF PROJECT: In 1982, applicant had a mobile home on their 98-acre parcel to control vandalism. That home was removed, and the applicant would like to re-install a mobile home as vandalism has once again become a problem. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Section 179-19D, Suburban Residential zone does not list mobile homes as an allowed use. REVIEW CRITERIA, BASED ON SECTION 267-b OF TOWN LAW: 1. IS A REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? Yes, a reasonable return is possible. The land is already being utilized by the Church. 2. IS THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY UNIQUE, OR DOES IT APPLY TO A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? This is a large parcel, utilized by the Church, in a residential zone, making it unique in its neighborhood. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? There are other mobile homes in the area. No comments have been received regarding this project. 4. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP PROVEN BY THE APPLICANT AND AT THE SAME TIME PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE HEALTH. SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY?: Yes. It also appears that by having the mobile home in the area for the purpose of monitoring an activity on the site, it may be an asset to the neighborhood. PARCEL HISTORY: According to the Town Assessor's records, the land was purchased by the Church in 1978. It contains the Church, camp buildings, and recreational facilities for the camp. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: No further comment." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 14th day of September, 1994, the above application for a variance to locate a mobile home at the end of Ogden Road in order to reduce vandalism was reviewed and the following action was taken, Recommendation to: "No County Impact". Signed by - 25 - ",,---, Thomas Haley, Chairperson MR. TURNER-Okay. Could I have your name for the record? MR. KIPER-Don Kiper. MR. TURNER-Okay. statement? Would you care to add anything to your MR. KIPER-Yes, sir. I just would like to say that I believe in 1982, the original mobile home was placed on the property, and in April of '91 it was removed, because the family that owned the mobile home decided to move out of the area and leave the Church. At that time, we were not in a position to purchase the mobile home from him and keep it on the property. So we moved the mobile home. Ever since that time, there has been increased activity, especially four wheel drives, all terrain vehicles, but also we've had several instances, and they're on record with the Warren County Sheriff's office. We had one instance of vandalism that exceeded $14,000 of damage to vehicles and property. Several instances of breaking in, stealing things out of the Church, and it just so happens I was on the phone today with an investigator, Doug David, with the Warren County Sheriff's office, there's been some grand larceny, larceny (lost word) Native Textiles, and our property's adjacent to them. He informed me that there has been that problem (lost word). We especially have a problem during the services, with motorcycles zooming through the property. They even come on our property and cut across the brook, go from NiMo's property or go from the Town's property on the other side, or they come off of NiMo's property onto our property and we can't catch them. We've made numerous complaints to the Sheriff's office. MR. TURNER-How do you monitor the property, other than just Sunday services? MR. KIPER-Other than just me being there daily working, when we leave at night, there's no one there. Our ultimate goal is to build a house on the property, a permanent structure. At this time, I'm not financially able to, we hope to be in several years and remove the mobile home, and then build a permanent structure, but, obviously, I have no time frame on when that would take place. MR. TURNER-Are you in any position to provide yourself with any kind of security within the structure when you're not there? MR. KIPER-I'm sorry? MR. TURNER-Are you in any position to provide yourself with security in the structure while you're not there? MR. KIPER-Security? MR. TURNER-Yes, a person. MR. KIPER-Such as a security guard? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KIPER-No, sir. I guess it's been a combination of, when we had someone on the property that was constantly there, we didn't have the problem, especially with the motorcycles and the all terrain vehicles. There's hardly not a service that goes by, on a Sunday, that during the service we don't have somebody blast by, and when we had someone there, it was under control, and somebody was there constantly removing them, and telling them this was private property. However, the sole problem is not just necessarily damage to the Church building itself. It is vehicles in and around the building. - 26 - '-- ~' MR. MARESCO-What happened to the school buses that are there and the truck? Is that the vandalism? MR. MARESCO-Those three buses that are parked there? MR. KIPER-The Church buses were vandalized originally. The truck, actually, is an antiquated snowplow the Church bought from Cieba Geigy years ago, and believe it or not it still runs. The building, the snow got it this last winter. We're in the process of cleaning that up and removing, and actually NiMo came out today and is going to cut the service to the pole and the pole is going to be removed, and we're going to clean that particular building up. MR. KARPELES-How does the mobile home create any security? just the fact that somebody is there, living there, discourages people from going in? Is it that MR. KIPER-Yes, sir, and when someone is there, and we see a car come on the property, and it's not a service time or there's not a Church activity, our policy's been to, I have had hunters on the property. I have chased off. We had a continued hunting problem with men on the property shooting guns. However, when someone is there and they see someone coming on their property, park their car just on the south side of the parking lot there, and they leave their car and they walk down to hunt or fish, as long as someone is there, I know I've been pester i ng the Chuì·ch since June of '86. The mobile home was there when I arrived. However, we had no problems as long as someone was on the property. We never had a break-in. We never had anything stolen. We never had problems with the vehicles other than, initially, if someone in the neighborhood came on, and we would (lost word) as long as somebody was there. MR. MARESCO-So somebody will be staying in the mobile home? MR. KIPER-Yes, sir. MR. MARESCO-Will they be paying you rent or anything? MR. KIPER-Actually it's going to be our Assistant Pastor of the Church, who is a Church member. That they want to take his mobile home and put it on the property. MR. CARVIN-I just am curious, in relation to this map, of how your lot map, in other words, where is the trailer going to be? MR. KIPER-First of all, the tax map, don't be deceived by that. That was the original master plan of the former Pastor. Many of the buildings you see are not there. The only building that is there is the building that's labeled "school". Originally, the master plan was to build the building where it now was one day going to be the permanent school building. They were going to build an additional Church building. However, where Ogden and Division Road cuts our property, the road that goes on our property between Division and Ogden is technically a private road. MR. TURNER-That dirt road? MR. KIPER-Yes, sir. Even when the County, they plow, they plow it on the circle there. They don't plow the Church parking lot out, but they do just make the loop there, but once the pavement runs out at Ogden Road, technically, you're on Church property, where the (lost word) driveway is, and the place where we want to put the mobile home is just to the right (lost word) the Niagara Mohawk pole there. MR. MARESCO-It's a very interesting master plan they had. MR. KIPER-Yes. I wish I had the money to finance it. - 27 - - -- MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I still am confused. In other words, I'm looking at this map, and is this 98 acres what this project is? MR. KIPER-Yes, sir. MR. CARVIN-Okay. some p)"operty on if I look at, I into here? So if I interpret this, then, you actually own the west side? I guess what I'm saying is that guess what I'm saying is, does this piece fit MR. KIPER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-In other words, this corner, actually, is here, so that your trailer actually is going to be off? MR. KIPER-Right. Actually, this corner is right here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. property here. right here. Well, Okay. I wasn't sure whether you So we're looking in this owned outside general area MR. KIPER-Actually, this property line is this here, and between Ogden and Division is a dirt road which belongs on the Church property. That's this road here, but, technically, it's a private road, but the County, I guess, in essence, maintains it, does the plowing, keeps them from having to turn around on both ends of the street. So Ogden Road touches our property, which is here, and we want to just set the mobile home. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So it actually will be right in this area here. MR. KIPER-And this building is not existing, but. MR. CARVIN-Yes, I was going to say, the school is. MR. KIPER-This is, which we use that for Church. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and then is this still all wooded? MR. KIPER-Well, yes, all this is, however, there is a track and a football field and a softball field, but it's just orientated different. MR. CARVIN-Well, these roads are in existence here, right? MR. KIPER-Right, and the only thing misleading about this, also, there is a parcel of ground, Stevens Road does not actually touch our property. Originally, the Church, I think the Pastor had planned to divide that property, and make an entrance into the cemetery. The trailer that's existing, just above our property. MR. CARVIN-Sets up in here some place. Okay. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions of the Pastor at this point? I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PLINEY TUCKER MR. TUCKER-Pliney Tucker, Division Road. had another application before this Board wanted to put a mobile home on Division that? A little history. You in June, Sam Chatterton Road. Do you remember MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. TUCKER-And you folks turned it down. I'm here to announce that they're putting an addition on their house. - 28 - >,,--- '--'" MR. TURNER-Yes, I saw it. MR. TUCKER-I sympathize with the gentleman from the Church, here. His problem of motorcycles. I just purchased a piece of property next door to t:!J.Z house, that was part of this trail system, and I put up fences and posted signs, and that eliminated the problem with the motorcycles. I went out there and told them if I caught them there again, that I'd take their motorcycles and they could get them from the Sheriff's Department. Now, we were here in June over Mr. Chatterton's application. We had information at that time that there were two or three people in the wings waiting for a mobile home to land either on Division Road or Ogden Road, because they had wanted to locate mobile homes in that area. To make it short, I think if you allow this mobile home to be placed, that you're going to have other applications, well, I believe you're going to have a tough time turning other people down if you allow this one here. Thank you for your time. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else wish to be heard? ROLAND AKINS MR. AKINS-I'm Roland Akins. I live on the Corinth Road. I've been before your Board before, and I've asked for you to reject other mobile homes, which you have, close neighbors of mine. I think you had lots of alternatives than these people have got. I do sympathize ¡"Ji tho thei r problem. I own 30, 40 acres wi thi n 2 or 300 feet of their property. I don't seem to have that problem. I've talked to people. I haven't got my property posted. I have caught people on there and I've talked to them and I don't seem to have a big problem. I would just like to ask you people to be consistent when you consider this application, and you have turned other ones down that have lots of alternatives than these people have now. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else wish to be heard? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. Would you care to make one more comment? MR. KIPER-Yes, sir. I would like to say that we have posted the property with signs. They tear them down. I do not recall the year, maybe two, maybe three years ago we had our property select cut by a logger up in Warrensburg who told me if I ever ask him to log our property again, he didn't threaten to shoot me, but he did. The people around the neighborhood slashed his tires. They put sugar in his tank, because they were "disrupting" their hunting grounds and fishing area. He said he's never in his life had a problem. For whatever reason, we constantly hav~ a problem. I can take you to the trail where the four wheelers have made (lost word). We've felled trees over them. They cut the trees out of the way. They move them. That's all I have to say. MR. TURNER-Okay. Let me ask you just one question. There's no way that you can incorporate anything within the building that's there to provide security for the? MR. KIPER-I don't see where the "building" itself is the problem. MR. TURNER-No, but I mean, do you have room in the building that you could incorporate? MR. KIPER-A night watchman of some kind? MR. TURNER-A night watchman. MR. KIPER-Possibly, but I don't see where I could financially afford a night watchman, to provide an on site person Just to - 29 - --.. --- walk the property, and pay someone on a year round basis. MR. TURNER-All right. wee k? You're there how many days during the MR. KIPER-I'm usually there six days a week. ~ot there is Tuesdays, but there's usually Tuesday. The only day I'm someone there on MR. TURNER-You're there six days a week, and you're there how for many hours? MR. KIPER-It varies, depending on what my schedule is. MR. TURNER-Yes, I know, but, average, four or five hours a day? MR. KIPER-No more than five hours a day, and some days I may be out of town. I may not be there for two or three days. During the summer time, the secretary does not work a full week, and she's not there every day. Some times I'm not there. So there are times where there's no one on the property for days at a time. MR. TURNER-None of the members of the Church are there during the l.Jeek? MR. KIPER-Nothing on a regular schedule. I mean, yes. In fact, several families clean the Church building. They may be there at different times. We have one person who comes and brings flowers for the Church vestibule. They may deliver the flowers Friday afternoon, and may come Saturday morning. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Approximately how many people are in the congregation? MR. KIPER-Close to 120. MR. CARVIN-Have you something like that? alternative? looked into Habitat In other words, would for Humanity, or that be a possible MR. KIPER-I guess I don't understand. MR. CARVIN-Okay. By allocating land, and, again, I'm not an expert on Habitat for Humanity, but my understanding of that particular program is that if you donate the land, say, half an acre or an acre, whatever it might be, that they will actually build a house for a low income person, and that becomes their residence, and they have to just supply labor in kind. I know, I think, Annunciation, that they did that, and I think there's two or three of them that have gone up. MR. THOMAS-Yes, there's three that have gone up. MR. CARVIN-Yes, and I'm just, I didn't know if you'd looked that type of a program as a possibility for one of congregation. into your MR. KIPER-Actually our goal is, yes, to build property. As I say, I'm financially unable to time, and how long I can endure. a house at the on the present MR. CARVIN-And, again, I'm not trying to sell you the program, because I'm not. ,MR. KIPER-I guess my understanding of the Habitat, what (lost word) build houses for low income people. Would they do that for one of my Church members? - 30 - '- --.-/ MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I can't say that, but I'm just saying that you might want to look into that possibility, if yoU had looked into it, and apparently you have not, and, again, I'm not saying that they will do that, but I know that apparently the cost of that is pretty low, because what they look for is labor. A lot of the material and what not is donated, I guess, and, really, it's labor. In other words, church organizations, or organizations in town, basically, donate their time, and these houses get built, and then, of course, a low income person. It's the pride of ownership type of thing, and that may fit in with what you're looking to do here, and you'd obviously have a permanent structure, and I'm not offering that as an alternative, because I don't know if it is or not, but you might want to look at it. MS. CIPPERLY-Is it renewed, like could years, and it either permanent structure, again by the Board? possible to give a Use Variance that gets you grant a Use Variance for two or three gives them time to come up with some other or they come back and have that reviewed MR. KARPELES-Well, what is your long range plan? You said that this would be a temporary solution, and you would like to build a house, but would it be in that location? MR. KIPER-Yes, sir. MR. KARPELES-I mean, it doesn't show on your long range plan here. MR. KIPER-Actually, that long range plan was the former Pastor's, not mine. MR. KARPELES-Okay. MR. KIPER-And I just, basically, used that because that was the only scaled map that we had of the property. and that's why I went (lost word) a bunch of the buildings. MR. KARPELES-But it would be in the location where you wish to loc8.te it? MR. KIPER-Yes. think, setbacks to home would be. So we would have enough space and enough, I .build a home right behind where the mobile MR. KARPELES-You would rent that, then, to whoever? MR. KIPER-No, sir. I would not rent it. It would become, assuming that a Staff member of the Church, the Pastor or the Assistant Pastor, would live on the property that (lost word). MR. MARESCO-Would it be possible for this, it's an Assistant Pastor that's going to be in the mobile home? MR. KIPER-That's correct. MR. MARESCO-Would it be possible for him to stay in the existing Church that's there now, instead of the mobile home? MR. KIPER-The existing Church building classroom, offices. is the auditorium, MR. MARESCO-There's office space. MR. KIPER-You mean within the Church structure? MR. MARESCO-Sure, if it's going to be on a temporary basis, sure. MR. TURNER-That was my question before. Could you add to the - 31 - --~.- MOTION TO DENY USE VARIANCE NO. 47-1994 Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved seconded by Anthony Maresco: FAITH for BIBLE CHURCH, its adoption, Again, the intent of the Ordinance in a Suburbðn Residential zone is as described in the list of uses, and, again, the purpose of this application is for security reasons, and to locate a Mobile Home in an SR zone would be detrimental to the residential area. The alleged hardship relating to the property is not unique in the sense of the Ordinance, although vandalism may well occur there, and there has been testimony to that effect, and, furthermore, the applicant owning 98 acres certainly has reasonable use of the property as zoned. He has a feasible alternative in the fact that he can utilize space or add to the existing building to provide the security necessary for the ope)-ation. Duly adopted this 28th day of September, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. TURNER-NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 4-94 MARGARET E. BLEIBTREY, that has been tabled. Did you sit here for that? JANE PELTIER MRS. PELTIER-I was wondering what it was all about. I got it in the mail, and I haven't seen any of my neighbors. So I said I'll run up here and see what this was about, and they tabled it. MR. TURNER-For now, yes. You'll be notified again, notified. It'll I would probably believe. be on next month. No, you won't be MS. CIPPERLY-Give me your name, and I'll. MRS. PELTIER-Jane Peltier. MS. CIPPERLY-Let me get your phone number. MR. TURNER-We've got to correct the resolution for Fitz, and what we've got to do is, I made the motion. I overlooked the fact that we've got to grant them relief from the 50 foot. So we've got to grant them 20 feet of relief. Okay. We've got a correction to make in the Paula P. Fitz Area Variance, 35-1994, and the correction will be, they have to have relief from the maximum of 50 and the minimum of 20. So they need relief of 20 additional feet from the maximum of 50. So we'll amend that so that that is corrected, and we'll forward the information to the attorney, Mr. Doherty. I made a mistake. I didn't pick it up. All right. We have an application for an appeal that was received from the Martindales, to be heard in October. "Jim Martin made the subject determination on March 11, 1994, in reference to the commercial use of the Martindale property. The appeal application was received August 19, 1994. Section 179-98 states that 'An appeal from an action, omission, decision... .regarding a requirement of this chapter may be made only to the Zoning Board of Appeals within sixty (60) days of such decision or action.' So we need a resolution from this Board in reference to that 60 days, and the Ordinance is clear cut, as to Section 179-98, and they missed the appeal date. MR. CARVIN-By how much? MR. TURNER-Sixty days that follow March 11th, and they submitted the appeal August 19, 1994. - 33 - .........,..~ '_.-./ building and incorporate into the Church building a residence? MR. MARESCO-An apartment for him, or something like that. MR. TURNER-An apartment, like a rectory. MR. KIPER-I guess I could. I guess I don't have any figures. The Assistant Pastor is married. He's trying to raise a family. I don't know that, to use the term "rector", obviously (lost word) Catholic Church. I just can't give you a time frame on how long that I think temporary is, maybe two, maybe three. I don't know. I guess if I was understanding that I had 18 months, and once I was told, later, that I only' had 18 months, and as I searched the file, I didn't see any documentation of that. I know ignorance is no excuse, but I didn't really realize that once the mobile home was moved, and I guess I was hoping that we wouldn't have these continued problems that we have. MS. CIPPERLY-Did you mention when the trailer was moved? MR. KIPER-I believe it was April of '91. I'm not 100 percent sure. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. MR. Okay. TURNER-Okay. Any other questions of the Pastor, Lets move the application. Any discussion? anyone? MR. MARESCO-My feeling is he can use the structure that's already there. MR. TURNER-I think so. That's ffiZ feeling. I think they can add to what's there and incorporate living quarters for the Assistant Pastor or whoever they direct, that's ffiZ position. The purpose of the Ordinance is not to provide that kind of relief. The purpose of the Ordinance is the use of the land, to maintain the proper use of the land, and, again, mobile homes are not an allowed use in that zone, and I understand their position, but I think they can do it internally within the structure that they have. MR. KARPELES-Well, I think they ought to investigate this Habitat for Humanity, too. That's a possibility. MR. TURNER-Yes. penoanent house. They could investigate that and build a MR. MARESCO-Yes, but they would order to do it. I don't know if they'd want to do that. have to donate their land in they'd be in a position where MR. TURNER-Yes. Well, I think that's a feasible alternative. They can look into it, and investigate the availability of it. MR. MENTER-Well, I agree, Ted. I think that a mobile home is just too big a deviation, for the need. MR. TURNER-Yes. Anyone else? MR. MENTER-I'd sure like to discuss some alternatives. MR. TURNER-No, but if everybody came in and said, we've got a security problem. MR. MENTER-Yes, there's no doubt. MR. TURNER-That's not the intent of the Ordinance. is, the intent is the use of the land. Okay. motion. The Ordinance I would make a - 32 - '- ~ MR. CARVIN-I guess it's pretty well in excess of the 60 days. MR. TURNER-Yes. Well in excess of the 60 days. a motion. Everybody's got a copy of the letter? everybody read it? So I would make All right. Has MR. TH0I'1AS-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. You have the letter that Jim sent to the Martindales in reference to their discussion as to the uses allowed on their property, and then you have the receipt of the letter from their attorney, Cooper, Irving, Savage, Nolan, and Heller, dated 8/29/94. So it's well in excess of the 60 days. MR. MENTER-Absolutely. MR. TURNER-Okay. So I would make a motion. MOTION THAT SECTION 179-98 STATES WHAT I READ IN REFERENCE TO THE APPEAL TO BE MADE TO THE ZONING BOARD WITHIN 60 DAYS OF SUCH DECISION OR ACTION. ACCEPT THE LETTER OF MR. MARTIN IN REFERENCE TO HIS COMMENTS TO THE MARTINDALES DATED MARCH 11. 1994. AND ALSO THE LETTER OF THE APPEAL DATED 8/29/94. RECEIVED FROM THE ATTORNEY'S. COOPER. IRVING. SAVAGE. NOLAN. AND HELLER. WHO ARE ATTORNEY'S FOR THE MARTINDALES. THE FILING DATE FOR THE DECISION IS IN EXCESS OF THE 60 DAYS. CONSIDERABLY. AND. TH~REFORE MR. TURNER-Does he want an interpretation or does he want just an opinion, or what? MS. CIPPERLY-He was appealing Administrator. the decision of the Zoning MR. TURNER-Yes, but his appeal has to occur within the 60 days. So he missed the 60 day time table. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. MENTER-He Administì-ator. IrJas appea ling the decision of the Zoning MR. KARPELES-That's the letter l got. MR. CARVIN-Do we have a copy of the signature of Martindales, in other words, the form, the authorization form. Maybe that would be a little bit more clear. MR. TURNER-They've hired the attorney to act as their counsel. So the counsel is their representative. MR. CARVIN-I see. MS. CIPPERLY-This is the application. MR. CARVIN-Well, what is he arguing. MS. CIPPERLY-The attachment to that letter is this, which says, application for appeal from Zoning Administrator's decision, and this is filled out and signed. MR. KARPELES-We don't have that, do we? MR. TURNER-No. MS. CIPPERLY-I gave you the letter. MR. MENTER-Sue, is that our form or his form? MS. CIPPËRLY-That's our Departmént form they filled òut, and that letter was attached to it, whioh I thought was explanatory. - 34 - ',-- "-'" MR. CARVIN-Except this was just an opinion, but I think we had the hearing on this almost two years ago, right? This was the Martindale, March of '92. MR. MENTER-Martindales is not new business. MR. CARVIN-No. That's been around for quite a while. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but Jim made the determination back in March of this year. MR. TURNER-Yes, and they've submitted the appeal in excess of the 60 days. MR. MENTER-I guess that's the basic facts. Whatever the appeal is for, it's not something that can be. MR. TURNER~Theappeal is denied because they missed the date. They can't 'ðppeal, it now. They have to appeal it 60 days. cut off within MR. MENTER-Regarding the interpretation? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MENTER-Even a request for an interpretation, although, is that the same as an appeal, a request for interpretation? Does that have the same guidelines? MR. TURNER-That's not an interpretation. They're questioning their right of appeal as stated in Section 179-98, and they missed the 60 day cut off. Jim rendered his opinion. They never submitted anything until August. So they missed the 60 day cut off. They have to appeal within 60 days. MR. MENTER-After his determination? MR. TURNER-Right. MR. MENTER-Okay. MR. TURNER-So their appeal is null and void. They missed the cut off. They have to file in the proper time frame. MR. KARPELES-Do we have to do anything? MR. MENTER-No, just move not to hear an appeal, right? MR. KARPELES-It's automatically rejected, isn't it? get it in in time. He didn't MS. CIPPERLY-Mr. Dusek asked. MR. TURNER-Yes. He's asking for a resolution. MS. CIPPERLY-I said who would handle that, and he said the Board would have to do a resolution. MR. TURNER-And again, I would move that if that Section applies, then they missed the cut off date. So their appeal is null and void. That's what he wants. That's what he's got. MS. CIPPERLY-His comment was, the Board should do a resolution and issue the decision. It's up to the Board to determine whether the 60 day time period has passed. MOTION THAT SECTION 179-98 STATES IN REFERENCE TO THE APPEAL OF THE MARTINDALES THE APPLICANT HAS 60 DAYS TO APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OR ACTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. AND THE APPLICANT HAS MISSED THE 60 DAY TIME TABLE. AND THE APPEAL IS NULL AND VOID - 35 - ~ ~ FOR THAT REASON, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 28th day of September, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. TURNER-Okay. We have one other item of discussion, that's the referral dates have now gone back to the last Wednesday. MS. CIPPERLY-The Planning Board, at their first meeting this month, there were some consultants, and one attorney, present who thought that the revised deadlines created a problem, specifically with tabling applications, and they made some predictions that it might take as much as six months, especially with Planning Board issues, where there's sort of repetitive approvals involved, that it could greatly extend the approval period by not being able to get on to the next month's meeting. They also had wanted to have their notes quite a bit earlier when they went out. They go out, as a group, and do site visits, and they had wanted to have their Staff notes done when they went out. During the course of discussion, there was some compromise on their side, I guess, as far as accepting it two or three days later. It's virtually impossible for us to get the notes out in the time frame that they wanted, and our other Staff person, Scott Harlicker, said, if that's when you want your notes, then we're going to have to have more time to do it. So they changed the date, and I went to the Planning Board meeting and I said, wel.l I really kind of appreciated the extra time, because I have a tough time getting them done also, especially when things have to go to Warren County for approvals. It would be easier, all around I think, if I were able to get more done and sent to the County, because sometimes they're not clear on what exactly is, so the date was changed back to the last Wednesday of the month, for the Planning Board. It's probably easier to make them match. This Board doesn't seem to, you don't go out all together and discuss the projects. I think you do things a little differently, and sort of mull things over in your own mind, absent my notes. So today was quite late on the notes, but, like, the meeting before they were out to you by that Friday, and that's what I'm trying to do, so that you would have the weekend, but as I mentioned to some of you, currently, we're short staffed, because we're trying to cover the building permit department, and we do have a new person in there who's being trained. So September was kind of a bad month for trying to get anything done, plus some vacations people took. MR. TURNER-Okay. So you want a motion, then, to change our date? MS. CIPPERLY-If that's, I guess my personal preference would probably be superseded by the general benefit and good, so you probably ought to change it. MR. TURNER-Okay. MOTION TO CHANGE THE SUBMITTAL DATE BACK TO THE ~AST WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH. SO IT COINCIDES WITH THE PLANNING BOARD'S SUBMITTAL DATE. THEREBY MAKING A MORE COHESIVE SUBMITTAL DATE FOR BOTH BOARDS. AND SOLIDIFYING THE WORK PRESENTED BY BOTH BOARDS IN A FORMIDABLE TIME TABLE, Introduced by Theodore Turner ~Jho moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Maresco: Duly adopted this 28th day of September, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, - 36 - -- J Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. TURNER-Just for the record, I said to Sue today, since all you guys are new. Fred knows about it, but the Bleibtrey and DiPalma controversy is a long running one, and you guys have got to get the paperwork on it and read up on it, so that you know what it's all about. So I don't know if you want to supply them with all the information, if you can get it out? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I can send them all the minutes. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman - 37 -