Loading...
1994-12-14 SP -_.~.___ ~ __ ____n.- ___._ ~ c ORIGINAL r\ \.,-"",,' QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 1994 INDEX Area Variance No. 101-1993 Rita & Robert Whiteman 1. Extension of Approval Area Variance No. 65-1994 Maureen M. Lynch 2. Area Variance No. 68-1994 Kraft Construction 17. Area Variance No. 70-1994 Joseph Rodriguez 23. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. \ .. '-'" .~ QUEENSBURY ZONING SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 14, 1994 7:30 P.M. .' BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY FRED CARVIN ROBERT KARPELES ANTHONY MARESCO THOMAS FORD MEMBERS ABSENT DAVID MENTER PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TURNER-The first order of business, we're going to change the agenda a little bit. We're going to take Area Variance No. 101- 1993 Rita and Robert Whiteman. AREA VARIANCE NO. 101-1993 TYPE I WR-1A CEA RITA & ROBERT WHITEMAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE BEAN ROAD, KATTSKILL BAY APPLICANT REQUESTS EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FROM THE DECEMBER 22, 1993 ZBA APPROVAL TO REMOVE EXISTING ONE AND ONE-HALF (1 1/2) STORY GUEST COTTAGE THEN UTILIZE AND EXPAND THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT TO BUILD A NEW STRUCTURE WITH A GARAGE AND STORAGE ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND GUEST HOUSE ON THE SECOND FLOOR. SECTION 179-79 STATES THAT NO ENLARGEMENT OR REBUILDING OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE SHALL EXCEED AN AGGREGATE OF FIFTY (50) PERCENT OF THE EXISTING GROSS FLOOR AREA. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO (162) PERCENT INCREASE IN GROSS FLOOR AREA, AND IS SEEKING ONE HUNDRED TWELVE (112) PERCENT RELIEF. EXISTING STRUCTURE IS SET BACK TWELVE FEET, SIX INCHES (12 FT. 6 IN.) FROM THE SIDE LOT LINE. EXTENSION OF THE FOOTPRINT WILL BRING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE STRUCTURE WITHIN ELEVEN (11) FEET OF THE SIDE LOT LINE. APPLICANT IS SEEKING AN ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT, SIX INCHES (1 FT. 6 IN.) RELIEF FROM THE TWENTY (20) FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIRED BY SECTION 179-16C. SECTION 179-16C REQUIRES SIXTY-FIVE (65) PERCENT PERMEABILITY. EXISTING PERMEABILITY IS FIFTY-NINE (59) PERCENT. EXPANSION OF THE FOOTPRINT WILL CREATE AN ADDITIONAL ONE (1) PERCENT. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 12/8/93 SEQRA PLANNING BOARD: 12/21/93 TAX MAP NO. 152-1-3 LOT SIZE: 0.39 ACRES SECTION 179-79, 179-16C MR. TURNER-And this is asking for an extension. So I'll have the Secretary read the previous motion. MR. THOMAS-"The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the December 22, 1993 and has resolved the following: Variance File # 101-1993, for an Area Variance, was approved. Motion To Grant Area Variance No. 101-1993 Rita & Robert Whiteman, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Tu,-ner: The applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-79 that states that no enlargement or rebuilding of a nonconforming structure shall exceed an aggregate of 50 percent of the existing gross floor area. That we grant relief of 12 percent relief from this Section. I also would grant relief of 7.5 feet from the 20 foot side setback requirements as outlined in Section 179-16C, and I would also grant relief of one percent permeability as outlined in Section 179-16C, which requires 65 percent permeability. The practical difficulty is that there is no room on this property to construct - 1 - '-' \~ a garage and cottage combination that meets the current Zoning Ordinance and avoids the septic system. This would be the minimum relief necessary to eliminate the practical difficulty and by granting this relief there would be no detrimental impact to other properties in the district or neighborhood, and there should be no effects on the public facilities or services. The inhabit~bility of this portion of the cottage should be maintained for family use only. Duly adopted this 22nd day of December, 1993, by the following vote:" MR. TURNER-Does anyone have a problem with the extension? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. TURNER-All right. Do you want to move it? MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION ON AREA VARIANCE .NO. 101- 1993 RITA & ROBERT WHITEMAN, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: Duly adopted this 14th day of December, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Maresco, Mr. KarÞeles~ Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter OLD BUSINESS: THE APPLICATION FOR LYNCH IS BEING RE-ADVERTISED AND RE-REVIEWED DUE TO AN ERROR IN NOTIFICATION OF A NEIGHBOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-1994 TYPE II SR-1A MAUREEN M. LYNCH OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE RIDGE ROAD, NEXT TO AND BEHIND CRISLIP'S BED 'N BREAKFAST APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A LANDLOCKED PARCEL AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-70, WHICH REQUIRES THAT EVERY PRINCIPAL BUILDING BE BUILT UPON A LOT WITH 40 FEET FRONTAGE UPON A PUBLIC STREET. (APPROVED BY ZBA ON 11/30/94). (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 5/11/94 AS PER PREVIOUS APPLICATION AV 26-1994 FOR ALBANY SAVINGS BANK/C. LYNCH TAX MAP NO. 55-1-7.21, 7.1 LOT SIZES: 1.14 ACRES, 7.21 ACRES SECTION 179-70 MAUREEN AND CHRISTOPHER LYNCH, PRESENT MR. TURNER-And thè result of that is that a neighbor was not notified as to the hearing, and so I would move to declare the approval of Area Variance No. 65-1994 Maureen M. Lynch, to be null and void, since the neighbor was not advertised properly. MOTION TO DECLARE THE APPROVAL OF AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-1994 MAUREEN M. LYNCH TO BE NULL AND VOID, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: Since a neighbor was not advertised properly. Duly adopted this 14th day of December, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Ford, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter - 2 - -.-/ ~ MR. TURNER-Okay. So with that withdrawn, we'll re-hear Area Variance No. 65-1994. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 65-1994, Maureen M. Lynch, Meeting Date: November 30, 1994 "APPLICANT: Ma~reen Lynch PROJECT LOCATION: Ridge Road, next to and behind Crislip's Bed and Breakfast PROPOSED ACTION: Applicant proposes to construct a residence on a landlocked parcel. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: The subject lot meets all Zoning Ordinance criteria except that of road frontage. Section 179-70 requires forty (40) feet of frontage on a public road, to be used as the actual access to the parcel. If this variance is granted, applicant would utilize a 65-foot deeded right of way through the front lot to access the parcel. REASON FOR VARIANCE REQUEST, AND BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: This variance would alldw the applicant to build on the property. FEASIBLE AL TERNATlVES~, There does not appear to be an alternative that would accomplish the applicant's objectives. The applicant claims to have contacted all adjacent landowners who could possibly sell them road frontage, and met with no success. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL?: This appears to be the minimum relief possible for this situation. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY: There would not appear to be any adverse effects on the neighborhood. Since this configuration dictates a common driveway, with the rear parcel utilizing an easement over the front one, there would be no increase in access points from Ridge Road. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED?: This difficulty was created when, for mortgage purposes, two deeds were filed with the Warren County Tax Map office, but no subdivision approval was sought for that division. A subsequent foreclosure action left Albany Savings Bank on the deed for one parcel and Christopher. Lynch on theotherdsed. An aþpl ication for a var iance was' filed joi'ntl y in June 1994. It was tabled, then withdrawn by the bank. The bank sold its interest in the front property to' a Dr. Garner, who has r~fused tø sell the applicant the requi~edfTontage,though thete is a deeded right- of·way. The othe~ portion~f the ptoperty was,transfeYred to MaÜreen Lynch, the ¢l,¡{rrent applicant. P~RCEL HISTORY: The parcel Isdn recordà$ being subdivided in early 1994. No subdivision àpproval was g:rantèdfor 'this,action. This is an attempt: to recti fy that situation. 'A subdi,vision application will beeonsiderèd~if the variance is granted. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONÇERNS~ No further comment. II MR. THOMAS-I also have a letter. liTo Whom It May Concern: I, Maureen Lynch, owner of the property off Upper Ridge Road in the Town of Queensbury do hereby authorize Mr. Christopher Lynch to act as my agent in the proceedings relating to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing for an Area Variance relating to this property. II It's signed Maureen M. Lynch, and the tax map no. is 55-1-7.21, 7.1. MR. THOMAS-Did this go before Warren County? MS. CIPPERLY-The original application did, and Paul Dusek said that it was the same application, so it didn't have to go again. Whatever was the determination in the original folder would still apply. I think it was No County Impact. MR. TURNER-Yes. They had No County Impact. MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 11th day of May, 1994, the above application for an Area Variance for a road frontage variance was reviewed and the following action was taken: Recommendation to approve. Concur with local conditions." Signed by Thomas Haley, Chairperson. MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Lynch, do you have any comment at this time, other than what you stated the last time? Anything new at - 3 - -- .- this point? Do you want to wait and hear from the public, and make your comments after? MR. LYNCH~I believe so. We did make some changes that are on the record, but they're basically minor ones. MR. TURNER-Okay. All right. I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ANDREW GARNER DR. GARNER-Andrew Garner. I'm the adjacent landowner for which the right-of-way exists over. First of all, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I apologize for not being at last meeting, 'but, obviously, I was not notified. Three points that I would like to make tonight are, basically, clarification of the factual happenings. In reading through the minutes of the meeting from the June meeting and from the last meeting, the subdivision as read by M1". Thomas was read as started in 1994, and that is incorrect. The subdivision was initially done by Mr. Lynch in 1986, and this is a matter of deeded records. I have maps from Coulter & McCormack that show the subdivision at that point in time, and it was he that chose to subdivide it in this fashion, with the right-of-way being over the front lot, and then actually was two adjacent parcels. So, therefore, the situation was created in 1986 by Mr. Lynch, and not by the Bank. The purpose of this subdivision, yes, was for the mortgage with the Bank. Mr. Lynch, at that time, for whatever reason, chose not to file that with the Town. It was filed with the County. It was, subsequently, changed on all the tax maps. He claims that due to advice of counsel he didn't do this, from the previous minutes. I'm not sure that I can understand why an engineer or a surveyor or a lawyer would recommend to him that he not submit it to the Town for approval. Obviously, had he submitted it to the Town for approval, they would have told him it was incorrect, and then he would not even be in this situation. The second point is that there was some misrepresentation on the application of the factual happenings. About seven or eight weeks ~go, Mr. Lynçh came to me and asked me if I would De a co-slgner on thlS appl'ication. He told me that I had to be on this application for the Board to hear it. On the application, which at that time actually had already been filed, it stated that he had contacted all the landowners surrounding it and was unable to purchase satisfactory land to rectify his problem, and after that meeting I had with him, I spoke to the landowners and I spoke to six out of the seven landowners and they had not been contacted at that point that he spoke to me. They, some of them have been contacted at this point in time, now, but that was, technically, after the application was filed, and some of them he asked to purchase land and some of them he didn't. So I've spoken with, you know, the landowners. So he really hasn't tried to explore all the alternatives in ~ mind. The th.ird point is that the tabling and the withdrawl of the previous application was basically because of Mr. Lynch's inability to negotiate with the Bank or myself. On several occasions I contacted Mr. Lynch, tried to purchase the property, tried to negotiate a land swap, tried to negotiate a way out of this problem, because we did not want to purchase this property as it was an unsatisfactory subdivision. We were left with no alternative. The Bank was left with no alternative, because of the unwillingness of Mr. Lynch to negotiate with us. He was given several options, and, at that point in time, he had been told by the Town that he had a building permit. He talked to Mr. Martin and was told that he would be given a building permit, and it sure appears to me that, at the point in time when he thought that he had the building permit, he had no interest in fulfilling the law, making it a legal subdivision, and did not negotiate with us to the point of resolving the problem. Therefore, we chose to purchase the property the way it was because we had a letter from Mr. Martin - 4 - '-- '-' that had been run by Mr. Dusek that there would be no negative consequences for us purchasing this property, in the sense of being able tore-sell it or to obtain a build~ng permit. So, therefore, I don't feel that the variance should be granted based on these things, that it was self created, that there were misrepresentations of the facts, and the fact that it: could have been resolved previous. " MR. TURNER-Any questions anybody? GIOVANNA GARNER MRS. GARNER-Hi. My name is Giovanna Garner. I'm co-owner with Andrew Garner. I just want to make a note that I, personally, am very uncomfortable with the situation that has been discussed in the last meeting, since we have four small children who walk down the driveway to the end of the driveway to catch the school bus and to get off the school bus. As Mr.. Carv i n mentioned in the minutes of the last meeting, there could potentially be seven to ei9ht homes built in the back property, with that many families traveling along the narrow driveway. It is a one car driveway, and my concern is for my children getti,ng on and off the bus and walk up and down the 600 foot driveway. I'd rather not have a busy driveway, and I think this is a big conceTn and should be a big concern for anyone with children. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. Is that your statement? MRS. GARNER-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. the application? Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition to JOYCE CRISLIP MRS. CRISLIP.,.The property is directly behind us. My name is Joyce Crislip, and we have the property in front of both places. Our road is busy, and the house sits rather close to the road. We now have the road along side of ,this, which takes them to th~i r property, and if this new road is built, it will go directly through our backyard. So we'll have three roads hemming us in. This back property has been like an open meadow and then woods. Now the new Toad, which would be, go right straight through the mead6w. We álso understand that there is to be no buffer zone. So that road could go right up next to our line, which makes it even more so in our backyard. It goes before the trees, before the woods start. It's not our land, but we've mowed it for 16 years, and it's a nice peaceful place to be in the summer time. So there's one more road going in behind us. So that's ~ opposition to it. MR. TURNER-All right. Does anyone have any questiøns? MS. CIPPERLY-Would:you consider that to have an adverse effect on your bed and breakfast business for any reason? MRS. CRISLIP-Well, technically probably not, but it certainly would in looks, and as I say, you have property surrounded by three roads. MR. CARVIN-These roads. Do they come out onto what is commonly refeTred to as "Dead Man's Curve"? MRS. CRISLIP-It's above "Dead Man's Curve". MR. TURNER-Yes, just beyond it. house. Right? It's just beyond Shultz's old MRS. CRISLIP-No, it's on the other side of us, towards Kazazeans. - 5 - -- -/" MS. CIPPERLY-It's to the north of Crislip's. MRS. CRISLIP-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-To the north of the Crislip property, on the west side of the road. MR. TURNER-Yes, you're right. other side, but you're right. wish to be heard in opposition? I had it in my mind it was on the Okay. Thank you. Anyone else Do yOU have a further comment? DR. GARNER-Could I? MR. TURNER-Yes. DR. GARNER-Andrew Garner again. The other thing, as commented on in the previous meeting, that if the zoning were to change, then this could potentially have, their house could be turned into a bed and breakfast. It could be zoned multiple family. Apartments could go back there, and multiple single family houses could be put up. I don't see what could, technically, stop them from doing that. Once they have the variance, they have, it's as if they have the road frontage. Therefore, it's SR-1A. It could be subdivided into seven lots. MR. TURNER-I guess if they subdivided, they'd have to build the road to Town standards. So that means a 50 foot wide road. If they came in for a subdivision, seven lots, lets say, whatever, they'd have to provide a roadway into that site, up to Town standards. DR. GARNER-Okay. That may preclude that, yes. The other thing I understood is that on a single driveway you could have three houses, three dwellings. MR. TURNER-Four. DR. GARNER-Four? MR. TURNER-Four before you come to a Town road. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. DR. GARNER-So, technically, he could subdivide it and have four places back there without. MR. TURNER-But if he went beyond that, he'd have to go with. DR. GARNER-Right, without any further approval from the Town, he could do that, and that would be very unpalatable to us, too. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else in opposition? Mr. Lynch, do you have a comment, a rebuttal now, at this point? MR. LYNCH-I'll tell you, to the three people, there are two easy rebuttals. One will take a little bit longer. On Mrs. Crislip's, when I first moved in there, and actually I owned the land a heck of a long time before that. Ned Crislip came up, asked if he could use my land to extend his grass, etc., and I said, yes, sure. Tried to be a good neighbor, and, yes, if you wanted to extend your lawn a little bit, that's fine, but the fact is, it is not their land. I feel a little odd having let them use it. Now that's sort of coming back to haunt me, but we have discussed wi th M,". Cr islip the idea of putti ng some trees in betwix his yard and whatever we do as far as a driveway, and in fact we've planted trees along there, and kept things looking rather nice. The last thing we want to do is have a driveway coming up to the side of his land. Second, I think rather easy comment, is from Mrs. Garner. I don't think I'm going to run - 6 - '-- -' over any of her children, but there is more than adequate frontage. In the previous request for a variance, the Bank's attorney made a couple of major errors. There's plenty of frontage on that street. There's plenty of frontage for a second driveway. I would think at some point in time we'd probably work something out where that's going to happen. There's also a rather massive improved trench, where we put a geothermal that runs, basically, from the house to the road. So it would be extremely easy to put some sort of a path for the children, but as I say, I don't really intend to run over any children. I don't really think there's any legitimate worry about safety. In fact, I'd be quite the opposite. I really don't want to run over any children. So, like I say, there are numerous other ways to put a second driveway in, and there's more than adequate, if we ever negotiated between us, there's more than adequate frontage there to build two driveways, and it would be very easy to put them in, very easy. As far as Mr. Garner's questions, again, two or three sets of answers to this. I've controlled this land for over 20 years, owned it, excuse me, you know, back in the early 80's. If I ever had any dream of subdividing it or getting rid of it or what have you, I would have done it back then. I could have made a nice tidy little profit. The idea I could put a Bed and Breakfast, again, if the law allows me to put in a super high rise, some day I might put in a super high rise. It obviously doesn't. Any type of variances, you know, Town law has to be respected on this whole thing. I don't intend to put anything other than a single family dwelling. That's what I want to do. Like I say, I've had 20 years to do this, and my father owned this before me for a long time before that. I've walked that land. I've been on that land way before I built on it, and it means a heck of a lot more to me than slapping in some development. So that's just not a va,lid worry, and it's not going to happen, and as we discussed in the last meeting, I would have to come in here and go through the hoops to get any sort of subdivision in there, which I don't, again, want to do nor do I intend to do in any way, shape or form. That's a unique piece of land. It's a beautiful piece of land, and I would like to live on it. As far as this whole thing being self-created, absolutely not. There were just a couple of factual errors in this whole thing. Again, the papers that were put in back in 1986, you know, they're a part of the record. They're on the deed, etc., etc. So there's no, where it came, '94 versus '86, this was tassily made back in '86. I've never seen anything differently. The Bank created all papers. The advice of the attorney was the Bank Attorney's, who are more erudite in doing this stuff, doing it every single day, than I am, and I probably made the mistake, which I've made before, of trusting a professional. I had the best advice, or in ~ mind I had the best advice, but the idea that I did this myself is not factually true in any way, shape or form. Again, I don't write subdivisions and mortgages. Every piece of paper was made by the Bank's Attorney. Every piece of paper was filed by the Bank's Attorney. I did use their attorneys as my attorney also, and again, the idea that I self created this is just, people don't do this sort of thing to themselves. So I very much resent the idea that I've made any type of misrepresentation. I have not. Again, one of the questions we made last time is we have contacted some landowners. One of the major reasons that we can't get a major chunk of land going in here is just the value and the cost of the land, and we made those corrections on the record last time. Again, I didn't misrepresent anything, and when there was an inaccuracy in the things that were read, I tried to correct it. Since then we've contacted some other landowners. There are numerous things. We've recontacted a couple, and contacted some for the first time, and again, between costs and just the way the various parcels are laid out, it just does not seem there's anything feasible there. We're going to have to get a big long thing, chop a multi acre parcel dead in half with a 40, 50, or 65 foot right-of-way. We've gotten flat turned down by a number, and it just, honestly, between any costs or values in this whole thing, - 7 - ---- -' I don't see any viable alternative to the relief that we're asking for, and again, since the last time, we tried. We did try, honestly, and again, if somebody else has a parcel there affordable or terms that we can afford, I'd be more than happy to listen to it. So I don't really see any valid reasons for opposing this subdivision. Mr. Garner bought this land. He knew what the right-of-way was. He had the children then. He has the children now. Nothing whatsoever has changed. The laws of this Township haven't changed, and the negotiating up to that point in time was, I tried to respect his rights as a perspective landowner. I tried to respect the rights of the Bank's as the landowner. I tried to work with them as much as I could, and I would expect, as a gentleman, he'd do the same, honestly. I believe that's all, unless you have specific questions for us. MAUREEN LYNCH MRS. LYNCH-Just an observation to put in. At the time that the Garners were interested in purchasing the house, this problem had come up earlier with the Bank, which was when the original application went in. Since then, actually I guess ever since then, it has been understood that it was our desire to stay in our neighborhood, to build upon the property, and I think we have been up front that this was our intent from that point to now, that it was our desire to stay there. It was our desire to get the building permit, which, I guess, was in progress really since last August, when I had put in for the construction mortgage as well, but at any rate, we have always been up front, that this was our intent, was to stay there and to build, and this was well known and recognized by all parties all the way through, even to when the Bank went ahead and sold the property, and it was understood that it was our plan to go ahead and utilize the right-of-way. This is before we ran into the snag where the surveyors, operating in good faith, in their profession, they could not draw a map conforming to a single lot, because to them they had filed the deeds at the County level showing two lots. It was because of this we were unable to secure a permit for a second homestead on one lot. The Town would recognize that, but the surveyors will not draw such a map, and I have to respect that. That's honoring the tenants of their profession. It was because of that that the only route left to us was to go ahead and complete the subdivision, but it was understood from the beginning that it was our intent to do that and to utilize the right-of-way, and this was understood before the house was ever purchased, that the right-of-way was there and that it was our desire and intent to go ahead and use it at that point, and no objection was raised before the house was purchased, and we were given to understand by the Bank and the other parties involved that nobody was going to impede our application or that there would be any intereference with it. MR. LYNCH-Very quickly, I just want to clear up one misconception. There's something Mr. Garner said, where I had told him, I misrepresented because I had told him that he had to sign the variance application. I did, and that's after Mr. Martin told me that that's what had to happen. Since that point, the Town Attorney told Mr. Martin that, actually, he didn't. If that's me misrepresenting, if I did misrepresent, I obviously, have no intention to misrepresent what was going on. Again, I'm talking professionals in the Town trying, even this variance procedure is done with the advice of the professionals in town. They told me this is the right way to go. This is, you know, this is what we should do, and I'm acting on that advice. As Mr. Garner said, we do have two unsatisfactory subdivision. He is living on an illegally divided parcel. He does not have the right to build. Legally, I don't believe he has the right to buy or sell. Now we have an opportunity to take two unsatisfactory subdivisions and make them two satisfactory subdivisions, not denegrating the area in any way, shape or form, which is what we're asking for. - 8 - .-/ .- MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. FORD-Are there, in fact, seven landowners for adjoining property? MR. LYNCH-I don't know the exact number, six, to the best of my knowledge. MR. FORD-And how many of those six have you contacted about purchasing? MR. LYNCH-I believe five out of six. Social Services, they're one landowner, but we haven't contacted them. Mr. Gazazean, knowing the Crislip's penchant for land and what they do, you know, if their grounds, we didn't bother to talk to them, because I know, I'm sorry. Maureen tried a few times to get in touch with them. MR. FORD-So you've contacted five of the six? MR. LYNCH-The shultz's we tried. The Reeds we tried. MR. FORD-And how many of those five have agreed to sell you a portion of land? MR. LYNCH-Nobody. MR. FORD-You've had a refusal from all five? MRS. LYNCH-Well, several were not in a position to, because, for example, they themselves did not have 40 feet to sell. One was unable to because of terms on the title. Two were not interested, and so on and so forth. We, you know, we have looked. We have been unsuccessful. MR. LYNCH-And again, honestly, there may be one or two viabilities where you've got a half mile run going around back and forth,. but land values, we are contiguous with Rolling Ridge. One serious concern is, can we afford the land. As we said the last time, we're getting into this. We're going to build a nice house. It will conform with anything in the neighborhood, but we are on a budget, extremely thin. MR. FORD-But you did contact those people on Rolling Ridge who abut your property? MR. LYNCH-Yes. We talked to the Shultz's. I thought there was some land available there, and, basically, just absolute refusal to talk, negotiate, or whatever, and as I say, Mr. Gazazean doesn't have the option on one of his parcels, and the other one is not contiguous to our land. He was a good neighbor for a number of years. So we didn't have any options there. The Reeds. Maureen was over with Dr. Reed earlier, and so we've tried. Like I say, it just, at some point in time there was a strong suggestion that we go this way, that it was a relatively conservative way of getting out of what probably is as much the County's problem or error as it was ours, and this is the way we've proceeded, but pretty much A to Z. MR. THOMAS-I do believe I heard Dr. Garner approached him he talked about a land swap. Garner? What happened with that? say that when you Is that right, Dr. MR. LYNCH-The last time he and I talked, I proposed that, you know, we discuss some sort of a land swap, and he has yet to get back to me. This is the first time I've seen or talked to him since I made that proposal. MR. THOMAS-So nothing has been decided on the land swap? - 9 - '-'" -./ MR. LYNCH-Obviously, if we don't get this right away, we're not in a very good situation because we have a landlocked parcel. Here's somebody who could benefit from that mightily. I think the exact quote that I heaTd from him was, I'll do what's to my best interests. It's as simple as that. He is interested in purchasing the land, but, again, I've had that land. That's been in my family for over 30 years. I want to live on it. I just don't want to sell it. That's my land. Thirty years. I want to build my house on it. So we're not really interested in selling it, and regardless of what strong arming or disadventageous situations are going on. So, yes, we'd like to fight for our land. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. MARESCO-You've stated you have no intention to build more than your home on that property. MRS. LYNCH-No. You can see on the map, well, we had it last week. On the map, we specifically located it to preclude additional development. Even if we did not do that, as we mentioned last week, the variance does not meet the minimum requirements for a Town road. You cannot put a Town road in there without coming back here again. MR. LYNCH-Again, I kept that land for over 20 years. I had numerous opportunities to sell, subdivide, whatever. Outside of an enormous set of adversities, I'd still be living in that house with 13 acres. That's my intent. Outside of the foreclosure, actually, I'd still be living there. That's all I really wanted. That was passed down from my father. Thank you. MS. CIPPERLY-I'd like to ask one question, at least. Are you still planning to have a common drive with the Garners, if you develop this? I've heard a different number of driveways and roads and, are you still planning to have one access to the? MR. LYNCH-For the purposes of this variance, yes. The only option L have is to use a common road, and that 65 foot right-of- way. Again, it would be having completely cleared out a 3, 400 foot strip, basically, from the road back to the house. It would be extremely simple. If he wanted to put a second driveway in, one, I would applaud it, and, two, should be rather straightforward and easy, very easy, but as I sit here right now, my only option is to utilize this 65 foot ,-ight-of-way. He has the option of using any of another 100 feet or so of frontage if he wanted to do a second driveway. Again, if they have a concern about children or traffic or anything. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, another aspect to this is even if you did get your variance, this would still have to go to the Planning Board for subdivision approval, and that might cause a problem, as far as having two accesses onto the road, especially right there. I'd like to clarify a few things that have been said here. To ~ knowledge, for one thing, the way this happened at the County level, in the first place was, at least at that point in time, the County was not obligated to ask whether there had been a Town approval of a subdivision or not. They were just obligated to record deeds. That law has been changed as of last summer. Now they have to have some indication that this is approved by the Town when there's a subdivision. As far as the variance and signatures and such things, we were told by Paul Dusek that as far as a variance application goes, we needed only the signatures, after we told the applicants that they needed two signatures, Paul Dusek reviewed this and said as long as the variance application only affected the rear part of the property, we only needed the Lynchs signatures, but if it goes to a subdivision approval, we're going to need both. So that's probably another sticky wicket to get through. It was mentioned that it would be okay with the Town if there were two dwellings - 10 - '- --...../ on one lot. That, again, would have had to have been a cooperative effort between, I mean, both of the landowners would have to sign the building permit, and that didn't look like a likely situation eithe)-. So in addition to a surveyor not being able to provide a map, it also didn't. look like you'd have cooperation to get that situation satisfactory either. To my knowledge, Jim Martin never said that anybody had a building permit for that parcel. This is when this all kind of came up again was when the building permit was applied for and we said, there isn't any approved building lot there, and this did start back in the fall. In essence, neither person there could get a building permit because there is no approved subdivision. So these are not recognized building lots, except for what's there. So those were some little confusing statements theT8 that I thought needed to be corrected. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions? MR. FORD-Is there a map that is currently available? MR. TURNER-Yes. We've got one right here. MR. THOMAS-This is Ridge Road right here. This is the parcel that the Lynchs own. This is the 65 foot right-of-way. MR. TURNER-No further questions, anybody? Mr. Lynch? Any further comment, MR. LYNCH-No, sir. MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets see if anyone else wants to be heard. I think we've got another comment from the Garners. You have a further comment? MR. GARNER-Yes, please. MRS. GARNER-Giovanna Garner speaking. It upsets me a little bit to think that anyone would insinuate or consider that the issue of the children on the driveway is a moot point or something to be taken lightly. I think Mr. Lynch, of all people, is very well aware of what the end of the driveway looks like in the dead of winter. The snow banks are up six feet high. The driveway, as narrow as it is, gets narrower. As most people know, Ridge Road is very, very busy, and when you're trying to make a left or right into the driveway, you quickly make a left or right into the driveway, because of the oncoming traffic, and my concern is if there were to be other homes built back there, that there would be quite a bit of traffic, and I am concerned for my children. They are three, four, six and eight years old. DR. GARNER-The other comment about the building permit thing. I was told by Mr. Lynch that he would be granted a building permit by the Town, and in fact, my attorney had contacted Mr. Martin to ask him why this would be the case, met with him, and was told that based on the fact that they were two lots, the Town only recognizes it as one lot, and that because of the zoning density, you could put another home in there, that, yes, he would have to grant him a building permit. That's, obviously, changed, and I think that was as a result of consultation with Mr. Dusek, but I wasn't implying that the Town had agreed to give a building permit. MS. CIPPERLY-They could have given a building permit for another home if you had agreed. DR. GARNER-Okay. Yes, I was never made aware of that. MS. CIPPERLY-It's really confusing. DR. GARNER-The other thing, regarding the application, again, - 11 - "'-" -/ when, on the application it says, all landowners have been contacted. Again, that's a misrepresentation. I talked to Bob Reed this week. He was contacted this past Saturday. Mr. Kazazean was contacted 10 days prior to the last meeting, which, obviously was after the application had been submitted. I spoke with the Shultz's this week, and their contact was maybe two weeks ago. The Crislips were never approached for purchase. Only about the idea of putting the trees between the driveways. So the other lot is sold to someone who is not reachable. So the only landowner that I have not talked to has been Dr. Reed's daughter, and so four out of the six people that ~ talked to were never approached for purchase. So to me that is not all landowners. Again, I don't know how he can say that this situation was not self created. It was self created based on his dividing of the land for the purpose of the mortgage, but again, without proper Town approval, and again, he chose not to get Town approval for whatever reason. Therefore, he circumvented the system, and now is coming back and asking for the Board to fix that problem that he caused. MR. KARPELES-Were you aware that the right-of-way existed when you bought the lot? DR. GARNER-There has never been a question of the right-of-way. I've never contested his right to use the right-of-way. Yes. I was aware of that. The contention that ~ have is with the variance, granting of the variance, and the possible future ramifications of that. MR. CARVIN-Mr. Lynch has indicated, and again, I don't want to get into the technicalities of who started the suggestion for the land swap, and I think you've indicated that that had also been brought up. Can you give us the current status, or potential status, of that, the possibility of a land swap? DR. GARNER-The last that I spoke with Mr. Lynch, I brought up a proposal, and then he called me a couple of days later with another proposal, and his proposal was for me to purchase or acquire interest in some land that Shultz has, which is one of the lots on Ridge Road a little bit around the curve, and transfer that to him, and he would give up his right-of-way, so that he would then have 40 foot road frontage. That, to me, did not seem like quite the fair deal. The other option ~ suggested was a swap of land on the northern side of the property for the right-of-way, and some land on the southern part of his parcel, and he said that he wasn't really interested in that idea because he'd already laid the house out where it is. There's too many big trees to cut down the other way, and that was his response. What was left up to me was the idea of contacting the Shultz's and buying a piece of land, and then giving it to him for moving the right-of-way, and I contacted them, and that land, they sold a lot next door to them, which, and they have been unable to contact these people since they bought it, and I have not been able to contact them, but, again, that's not a very feasible option in ~ eyes. MR. CARVIN-Then I can assume from your comments that the land swap, there is no possibility of forward movement there? DR. GARNER-At this point in time, as I said to Mr. Lynch, I am acting in my own best interest, which I think most reasonable people do. I would rather purchase the land from him, which I have offered to do, and just a quick aside to his previous comment in the previous meeting that it was nowhere near the value of the land, well, that's incorrect. He made the opening offer, and I countered from that. So, I don't consider that an unreasonable situation. Again, we tried everything we could to resolve the situation before we closed on the house, as a facilitator for the Bank since we were an interested purchasor, obviously. At this point in time, I would be more comfortable, - 12 - '- '-' based on my dealings with him, you know, again, his inability to negotiate when we were trying to close and make it a proper subdivision, because at that point in time he felt he had the ability to gain a building permit, and the misrepresentations that have happened, I would rather purchase the land than to have him have a house there. MS. CIPPERLY-The idea of access along a northern boundary was something that was brought up at the previous meeting on this as a possible solution. MR. MARESCO-How much of the land did you want to purchase, the whole? DR. GARNER-Yes. MR. TURNER-You want to purchase the whole thing, right? DR. GARNER-Yes. MR. TURNER-What you acquired from the Bank, plus what he's got. DR. GARNER-That was primarily as a method of resolving the subdivision problem. MR. TURNER-That's ~ method of resolving it. DR. GARNER-My method, yes. MR. TURNER-Okay, but that's not his method. compromise. You can't reach a DR. GARNER-Like I said before, we tried to make the land swap before the closing of the house, and it met with resistance, and after we closed on the house, again, he did not offer, he did not want that idea of the northern boundary thing. MS. CIPPERLY-Another option open to the Zoning Board is to refer this to the Planning Board for an opinion. MR. TURNER-There's got to be a solution here some place. You can't hold a gun in a guy's rib and say, I want your land and I'm not going to let you cross and out to the road. DR. GARNER-No. I'm not challenging his use of the right-of-way. He can use that, but because of the Town requirements, he doesn't have road frontage. MR. TURNER~That's fine. That's the only requirement that he lacks. He has a viable eight acres back there that he can build on and expand. DR. GARNER-And potentially expand. MR. TURNER-He says he doesn't want to. MR. CARVIN-That's the problem with .the right-of-ways. That's why my position is still unchanged on this. I think that this is a, it's not minimum relief, and I think it's a self created situation. I think that Mr. Lynch, whether on advice of counsel or whoever, I mean, he still has to take responsibility. Whether he got bad advice or good advice, it still falls on his shoulders that this was a situation that he created, and the Town is being asked to clean this up, and I think if we grant this variance, that we're going to open up a Pandora's Box, especially with the right-of-ways. I think we've always wanted some sort of incident of ownership when we look at these subdivisions, as far as access. I'm looking more at the future, and certainly I don't have a grudge against Mr. Lynch or anything. I sympathize with his plight, but I think that there's been a breakdown in - 13 - '.../ -../ communications here, from right along. I think the Bank realized this back in May, and I think they skiddadled out of the deal. MR. TURNER-That's just what they did. MR. CARVIN-I mean, but that's water under the dam. Now whether Mr. Lynch agreed with that because of counsel, I don't know, but that was the decision that's come down, and they indicated they would be left holding the bag, but I think they put the bag in their own hands, and I just have a very hard time with this particular variance. I would love to see the two of you people get together and try and work out some sort of land swap where we have some kind of access. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I mean, I still think, looking at the property, that there could be a common drive. I'd be more willing to grant a variance, a more minimum variance, relieving them, even if it was 35 feet of road frontage, as long as there was an incident of ownership there. I mean, that's ~ feeling on this. So, I would only hope that those negotiations could be re-opened and that some kind of compromise would be, this is what we asked back in May, that some kind of compromise be worked out with the Bank, and what the Bank is that they sold you the property. That was their compromise. DR. GARNER-Well, no. We were involved in that process. We knew what was going on there, and ~ got involved with the negotiation process to try clear up the situation, but, again, we ran into this stone wall with Mr. Lynch, basically. MR. MARESCO-Do you feel that it's really hopeless to come to some kind of agreement between you and Mr. Lynch, I mean, that this land swap is totally out of? DR. GARNER-No. I've not said true. I'm just saying that he negotiation process. that, and I don't think that's is the one who has terminated the MR. FORD-Could I ask the same question of Mr. Lynch? MR. TURNER-Yes. Would you come up to the microphone, Mr. Lynch? MR. FORD-What is the potential for some sort of a negotiated settlement here, either land swap or other arrangement being made, both of you being able to use the property? MR. LYNCH-As I previously put on the record, the last time I talked to Dr. Garner, I was trying, he said he would get back to me. I proposed some sort of a mutual swap. That's the last time he and I talked. The first time that he was referring to when we were looking for some sort of a land swap, back and forth in July, or whenever it was. Basically, they were offering me a 40 foot width of land, and I say, well, gee, I'd like at least 50 feet worth of land, and then all of a sudden I didn't hear from them for two months. So there's a little bit of crelling of the truth here. It's as simple as that. As long as his sole goal is to sit there, preclude the right-of-way over there, and buy my land at what I don't think is a reasonable price, even when, again, I don't want to sell it. That's it. He's trying to force me into selling the land by. MR. FORD-I'm not even suggesting that. I'm asking if there's a way of coming to a compromise here, and you two working this out. MR. TURNER-Can you two sit down and talk over this thing and come to some sort of an agreement? MR. LYNCH-Listen, last time I talked to him, that's exactly what - 14 - ......; '-- I said. Maybe there's a way out. Maybe we can trade. He was sitting in his office. We discussed that, etc., etc., and it was somewhat vacuous, I'll get back to you, but as long as he has the ability to give me a landlocked parcel, that sort of takes me out of the negotiating stage. No, I don't think it's possible at all. Again, I have a funny feeling if this variance goes through, again, it's not to light of the children or anything like that. There's plenty of room for two driveways. There's plenty of room for three driveways, you know, there's a setback for the children next to the road with a little bench and all that stuff on it. MR. TURNER-You don't think you can come to an agreement on a common driveway? You don't think you can come to an agreement on a separate driveway between the two of you? MR. LYNCH-Well, again, the separate driveway, throwing down a little bit of grey stone exists as we speak. It's there, period. It's there. It already exists. If we want a separate driveway, traffic is the thing, it can be done with about five or six, you know, three yards worth of blue stump, very easily, the same way I built the driveway that's in there right now. Again, the commonality of the two driveways is rather minimal. It's just one straight away, and I hope people don't shoot in and out of that driveway, that would be a little bit reckless, even if it's your own kid. There's only a little bit of commonality. For all intents and purposes, it's a straight line. You can see the end of it from the beginning, and vice versa. Red herrin~. Like I say, you can bring in about five or six dumps of stone and make a second driveway with your eyes closed. No sweat. Easy. MR. TURNER-All right. Lets not chase a Would you two gUYs be willing to sit down and come back to the Board with what you've tried it's not agreeable, then we'll move it. between the two of you, then. monkey by its tail. talk about thia and to work out, and if If it's agreeable MR. LYNCH-There's a room out there right now. I'll sit down with him, see what we can work out. As we speak ~-ight now, we have a mortgage in the hopper, and with the weather out there, we're doubly running out of time, as discussed the last time we had this meeting. MR. TURNER-Is that palatable to you, Dr. Garner? Can you two sit down, can you work this thing out, or not? DR. GARNER-I'm willing to negotiate, and I have been all along. MR. TURNER-Yes, but it's got to be a fair negotiation. MR. LYNCH-That's fine. I'll tell you what we're offered. MR. TURNER-Is 60 days enough, come back? MR. LYNCH-No. As I said, I'll go out right now and negotiate. Lets try to get this, I have a mortgage that's running out, as I speak, and my time to build is running out. MR. TURNER-Do you want to go out there and negotiate right now? MR. LYNCH-I have absolutely no problem with that. MR. TURNER-We can go on to another application and bring it back. DR. GARNER-I, personally, have a problem with that. MR. TURNER-Okay. DR. GARNER-I don't have time right now to negotiate, but I will be willing to negotiate. - 15 - '~-, -- -- MR. TURNER-All right. upset the apple cart. What's your time frame. I don't want to What's the time frame on the? MRS. LYNCH-A month ago. MR. LYNCH-We're hanging on for dear life to that mortgage. Like I say, it was negotiated way back when when we thought we could get a variance. As far as building time, if you go outside, the weather is such that time is running out in a major fast way. I don't know what's so important this evening, but I would, again. MR. CARVIN-Could we put them on next week's agenda? we're going to be here. I mean, MR. TURNER-Yes. There's room on next week's if you want to work it out between now and then and bring it back. Is that agreeable to both of you? MS. CIPPERLY.,..One point, here, that I think is one of the Garner's concerns, there is a difference. The required frontage for one principál building is 40 feet. If you're building multiple p,' i ncipal bui Idings, ,then you need the mi nimum frontage on a public road shall be the width of the right....of-way for a public collector strèet, which is 50 feet. If the intent here is to only build one structure, as the Lynchs ¡have indicated, then 40 feet should be adequate. MR..CARVIN-Yes, and then if he decides to.expand, then he would hðve to come back and get a variance because of the road frontage, but he would have incidental of ownership, and not a right-of-way, and then we can address that issue at that point, but at this point, we have a right-of-way situation which, as far as I'm concerned, is not, we're creating a land mine here. MS. CIPPERLY-I just wanted to clarify the differences in, depending on what the intent is, as far as putting what you want to put on that ba~k parcel, either 40 feet is adequate or you need 50. MR. TURNER-Okay. DR. GARNER-My question in responset~ that is the thing about four houses on a private drive, does that require more than 40 feet? MS. CIPPERLY-I was looking for that Section. That was what someone in the office mentioned today about another project, and he's more familiar with site plan applications than 1. 1 can look that up ,and have that information for next week. It would have to go to subdivision. That's why I say that one driveway, for example, would be better than two, because I think that's going to be an issue with the Planning Board, having two driveways in that short ~tretch. That's only about 80 feet on the road, and there may be some distance between driveways requirement, too. I know there is for commercial, at least, you can't have driveways closer than 150 feet to each other. So, I can have that, I can look those sorts of things up for next week, if you want to table it until next we'e,k. MR. TURNER-Okay. So, with your permission, we'll table it until week. You guys talk about it, and bring it back. MR. CARVIN-It's got to be, obviously, a serious negotiation. MR. TURNER-We want an answer next week, one Whether you agree to agree, or not to agree. way or the Okay. other. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Introduced by Theodore Turner seconded by Fred Carvin: NO. 65-1994 who moved MAUREEN for its M. LYNCH, adoption, - 16 - -../ So that the parties involved can maybe work out an agreement, and will be on the agenda for one week from today. Duly adopted this 14th day of December, 1994, by the following vote: MR. TURNER-I'll leave the public hearing open. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-1994 TYPE II WR-1A/CEA KRAFT CONSTRUCTION OWNER: GLEN & SHARON STEPHENSON REARDON ON GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ADD AN ENCLOSED SET OF STAIRS TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING RESIDENCE. THE EXISTING SIDE SETBACK IS ELEVEN (11) FEET AT THE NEAREST POINT, ON EACH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. PROPOSED SETBACK RANGES FROM EIGHT (8) TO TWELVE (12) FEET ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. SECTION 179-16 REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF TWENTY (20) FEET ON ONE SIDE AND A TOTAL OF FIFTY (50) FEET IN SIDE SETBACKS. RELIEF WILL ALSO BE NEEDED FROM THE SEVENTY-FIVE (75) FOOT SHORELINE SETBACK STATED IN SECTION 179-60. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 12/14/94 TAX MAP NO. 45-3-21 LOT SIZE: 10,000 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-16 RAY KRAFT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 68-1994, Kraft Construction, Meeting Date: December 14, 1994 "APPLICANT: Kraft Construction PROJECT LOCATION: Reardon Road on Glen Lake PROPOSED ACTION: Applicant proposes to add an enclosed set of stairs to an existing nonconforming residence. Applicant is modifying a basement and renovating an existing 720 sq. ft. cottage. CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The existing side setback is eleven (11) feet at the nearest point, on each side of the house. Proposed setback ranges from eight (8) to twelve (12) feet on the north side of the house. Section 179-16 requires a minimum of twenty (20) feet on one side and a total of fifty (50) feet in side setbacks. Relief will also be needed from the seventy-five (75) foot shoreline setback stated in Section 179-60, as the proposed distance is fifty-three (53) feet. REASON FOR VARIANCE REQUEST, AND BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: The stairs are needed in order to access the basement level from the house. Including the stairs within the existing building outline could adversely affect the small interior space. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: There does not seem to be any alternative that would not require a variance. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? This is a substantial amount of relief, but will increase the nonconformity of the structure by just four (4) feet. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY: Letters from the neighbors seem to indicate no problem with this proposal. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF CREATED? This difficulty stems from the undersized structure on a small lot (0.25 acres). PARCEL HISTORY: This parcel was purchased by the applicant in 1980. The cottage was built in 1952. The Assessor's records indicate 448 sq. ft. of living space. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: No further concerns. This project will undergo Site Plan Review by the Planning Board if the Variance is approved. SEQR: Type II, no further action required. " MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. KRAFT-My name is Ray Kraft and everything, so far, has been - 17 - '- -" explained right, this gentleman read. If you have any questions, I don't know. I'm a little new to this process. MR. TURNER-Okay. What have we got down cellar, where the stairs . ? are gOlng. MR. KRAFT-A family room and t,·.o b d ... e rooms. MR. CARVIN-Is there a set of stairs there now? MR. KRAFT-No. MR. TURNER-The wall is all up. MR. KRAFT-The house has been dug out from underneath and the cellar put in. MR. TURNER-Yes, they put a whole new foundation. I was up there today. MR. CARVIN-Is this going to be a full time residence, or is this just going to be a part time? MR. KRAFT-Well, it was a summer residence, and they're going to use it into the fall and spring, and go south for the winter. So it's just a longer season. MR. FORD-Would this allow for year round occupancy? MR. KRAFT-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Could the stairs be built in back? MR. KRAFT-The road access from the camp next to it runs too close to the house. MR. KARPELES-I was out there, and I don't see what you're talking about. There's only one camp and then there's a bank there. Is that the one? MR. KRAFT-The back of the camp has a septic system and the road. The front has the lake shore. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but it looks like there's room between the septic tank and the house, according to this plan we've got. MR. KRAFT-Well, the sewer line would run right through the stai ~-way . MR. KARPELES-How high is the sewer line? MR. KRAFT-About a foot, foot and a half down from the, coming out of the house. MR. KARPELES-So it wouldn't make a difference as to which end you put up and which end you put down? MR. KRAFT-Not really. The house is only 20 foot long, or 20 foot wide. MR. KARPELES-You haven't made it clear to me why the sewer line would interfere with the stairway. MR. KRAFT-It would run right into your head room, going either way, this way or coming in from the. MR. KARPELES-It's only a foot off the ground. I don't see how it's going to run into (lost word). MR. KRAFT-It would hit you about chest high coming down the - 18 - ',-- -..../ stai rs. MR. KARPELES-Depends on where you put the stairs, which end you put up and which end you put down. Doesn't it? MR. KRAFT-No, not on 20 foot. By the time you set your landing and your rise, coming either way, the septic hook-up is about mid range in the house. You'd hit either way. MR. TURNER-You hit the center of the stairway either way, is that what you're saying? MR. KRAFT-Yes. No matter which way you'd enter the stairs, from the right or the left of the house. MR. TURNER-What's the height in the basement? MR. KRAFT-Eight foot. MR. FORD-The septic does not come up through the basement? MR. KRAFT-No. It goes out the wall, the back wall of the house. MR. KARPELES-What'sin the basement, bedrooms? MR. KRAFT-Two bedrooms and a bath, or two bedrooms and a family room. MR. KARPELES-Not a bath? MR. KRAFT-There's going to be a hook-up there, but Tight now, there isn't. MR. KARPELES-Well, how are they going to get it up to the septic? MR. KRAFT-You'd have to pump it. MR. KARPELES-So then you could move the septic line, right, if you've got to pump it? MR. KRAFT-No. You've got the house right here and you've got your septic tank right here. There's only one way to get to it. There's a bathroom upstairs and a kitchen that would have to feed it. MR. KARPELES-According to this, there's 25 feet between the house and the septic tank. MR. KRAFT-I'd have to measure it again, but I still càn't see how I could run the line out of the back of the house and not run it through the stairway. It's not running horizontal to it. It's running right straight through it. MS. CIPPERLY-This septic line is not installed yet. MR. KRAFT-No. MS. CIPPERLY-Is there a way to run that out the side, like the south side of the house, out to the septic? MR. FORD-Or into the basement and out that way? Is that practical to send it into the basement and out that way? MR. KRAFT-Not really. behind the house, and bef ore. The opening on the tank is right directly that's where everything was coming out MS. CIPPERLY-The slab that was poured there the other day, that's included in this house outline, right? The slab at the rear of the house, that's going to be actually inside the house when - 19 - ~ -..../ you're done? MR. KRAFT-Right. It was there. We tore that part of the house down. Also, gentlemen, pushing the house any farther back, we have a problem with the Town with their plowing, because as it was last year, just where the house is right now, there was a good 10 foot of snow along the house from the Town. MR. TURNER-They plow that snow right into that bank? MR. KRAFT-No. They plow it right into the house. MR. TURNER-They do? MR. KRAFT-All the wings go to the right, and when they come down the road, they dump it right on that house. So as it is right now, they're going to have to stop it. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KRAFT-So if I push it out another four foot, they're going to have a bigger problem than they've got. MR. KARPELES-Well, the house is already there, right? You're not changing the footprint on the house? MR. KRAFT-No, but you're wanting to know why I don't put the stairs on the back of the house. MS. CIPPERLY-The rear wall of the hou.se will be where the slab is poured. So as far as putting the stairs right adjacent to the back of the house, you'd be trying to go into that slab. There's not basement under the rear part of the house, right? MR. KRAFT-No. MR. MARESCO-So you can't put it back there at all. MR. TURNER-No. It's a poured foundation. MS. CIPPERLY-I think the line of the back basement wall, correct me if I'm wrong, matches up about with the back wall of your stairway. MR. KRAFT-Well, where the proposed stairway is there's abou.t eight feet from the end of the stairway to the end of the house, and there's, like, four feet between the front of the stairway and the front of the house on the lake side. It sits in the middle of the house on the side. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. KRAFT-The camp also only being 20 feet wide with the kitchen and a bedroom sitting on the back of the house, on the ground floor, there's just no access without breaking up a kitchen or, just stick a stairway in there. It's just such a small house to start with that it's tough. It's like putting two trailers together. MR. TURNER-Well, you know, the way the house sits on the property, it sits askew on the property like that, so that kicks everything to the north. MS. CIPPERLY-What's going to be left upstairs in the house, as far as the floor plan? MR. KRAFT-Bedroom, kitchen, livingroom, they're going to be awful narrow, because It's a small house. You try to stick the tried in the first place, it just doesn't a bath, closets, but there's a center wall. stairs inside, which I leave you anything to - 20 - -..-'. live with. MR. TURNER-No, it doesn't. MR. FORD-A question of for approval, then his MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. FORD-Conversion of MR. TURNER-Yes, sir. sequence, Mr. Chairman. If we were to go Type II site plan would occur after that? seasonal dwellings to full time, 179-69. MS. CIPPERLY-I believe the other reason it plan is it's an expansion or enlargement structure in a Critical Environmental Area, into site plan review. has to go for site of a nonconforming and that kicks it MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-There's a Critical Environmental Area. It goes from the edge of the lake 100 feet back, and any preexisting nonconforming use that is enlarged would have to go for site plan. MR. FORD-I was just referring to the conversion from seasonal to year round, going with the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and the State Energy Conservation Construction Code. MR. TURNER-Yes. Does anyone have any questions? Okay. open the public hearing. Let me PUBLIC HEARING OPENED WENDY SAVAL KRAFT MRS. SAVAL KRAFT-My name is Wendy Saval Kraft, and I own the adjacent property. MR. TURNER-On which side? MRS. SAVAL KRAFT-On the side the stairs will be built. I know this couple very well. They have no intention of living there year round, because it is too small. They did, originally, think about putting it on the back end, but if you really went down there and took a look at where they are, they have to park on the other side of road. They can't even put their vehicle behind the house. It's just, the road's on the house. It can't happen. The interior of the home is so tiny that she's looking at eight foot wide rooms as it is, which is why when they came.to me and we talked about it, I told her I really didn't have any problem with them going out any further from the house because none of the lots down at that end of the lake conform. They're all little tiny pie shaped wedges, and if her having that stairway is going to make them happier in that home, then I think they ought to be allowed to have it. MR. TURNER-Okay. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further comment? MR. THOMAS-I've got a couple of letters. MR. TURNER-Okay. We have two letters. - 21 - -- -- MR. THOMAS-To the Town of Queensbury and Warren County Board members, "I'm the adjacent property owner to the Stephensons. They are seeking permission through Kraft Construction to have a set of stairs built and enclosed along side of their house. As the immêdiate neighbor and property owner, :r would like it to be known that I have no objection whatsoever to their proposed addition of the stairs, and hope that they are given permission to do as they wish. Since their home is so small, it would be a shame to try to put the stairs in the existing space. You may reach me at Ship Shape at 792-0867 if you have any questions for me. Sincerely, Wendy A. Saval" liTo Whom It May Concern: This proposed project involves running a set of stairs down the side of an existing structure from the upper level to the lower level and enclosing it. There simply is not sufficient room to have stairs internally. Thank you for your help and consideration with this project. Raymond H. Kraft, Jr. Kraft Construction" MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further comment? Did everybody look at it? There isn't room enough for anything up there. I mean, you've got to put it where it is, and the neighbors don't object. MR. MARESCO-I have no problems. MR. TURNER-It's minimum relief. The lot's only 50 foot wide. MR. KARPELES-I just think the lot's too small to do anything with. MR. TURNER-Well, it's a preexisting nonconforming lot, no doubt about it, but I mean, you know, he can't buy anything to go either way. MR. KARPELES-And this is just making it worse. MR. TURNER-Well, no, not really. MR. KARPELES-Eight feet from the property line is pretty darn close. Well, I'm just one vote. That's ~ feeling. MR. TURNER-Okay, but I mean, where else could he put it? Not in the back. MR. KARPELES-Hê'd have to live ~ithout it, like he's doing now, if he can't put it in back. MR. TURNER-He can't put it in back. There's a slab back there. MR. KARPELES-So he has to live without it. MR. TURNER-He has to live want to put a trap door in without it downstairs. Unless they the floor and jump down through that. MR. FORD-I would just be interested to see if they had explored the possibility of one of those circular stai~s, interior? MR. TURNER-Mr. Kraft, would you care to answer that? MR. KRAFT-I've got one at home, a~d it still takes up a lot of space. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. SAVAL KRAFT-I don't know if any of you are familiar with circular stairways, but this coUple that live there are. MR. TURNER-Yes, ma'am, I make them, I can make them. MRS. SAVAL KRAFT-They're approaching their 60's, and she has a problem with balance. She has a real problem going up normal stairs. I don't think she could handle a circular stairway. - 22 - ',,-- -.;' MR. TURNER-They are terrible. The building's so small, Tommy, I don't know where you'd even put that one. Really. Okay. A motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-1994 KRAFT CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: The applicant is proposing to add a set of enclosed stairs to an existing nonconforming residence, and the applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-16, which requires a minimum of 20 feet on one side and a total of 50 feet from side setbacks. I would move that we grant relief of 12 feet relief from the northeast corner and 8 feet from the northwest corner of this proposed action. I would also grant the relief of 39 feet from the total of 50. The applicant will also need relief from Section 179-60, which requires a 75 foot setback from the shoreline, and I would move that we grant 22 feet of relief from that Section. The benefit to the applicant is that by allowing him this variance it would allow him access to his basement level from the house, and because of the unique size of the house, there does not seem to be any feasible internal way that these steps could be constructed. It would seem that by granting of this variance this would be a minimum relief. There would not be any negative effects on the neighborhood or the community. This is not a self created situation because of the undersized structure and the small size of the lot. The lot is only a quarter of an acre, and this project will undergo Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 14th day of December, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Carvin, MT. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Ka1"peles ABSENT: Mr. Menter AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-1994 TYPE: UNLISTED UR-l0 JOSEPH RODRIGUEZ OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 0.67 ACRE PARCEL IN AN URBAN RESIDENTIAL-10 ACRE ZONE, CREATING A 20,645 SQUARE FOOT LOT WITH AN EXISTING DUPLEX AND AN 8,391 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY BUILDING LOT. SECTION 179-17 REQUIRES 10,000 SQUARE FEET FOR A SINGLE FAMILY LOT, AND 20,000 FOR A DUPLEX, SO RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM THIS SECTION. TAX MAP NO. 92-2- 2.58 LOT SIZE: 0.67 ACRES SECTION 179-17 JUANITA RODRIGUEZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 70-1994, Joseph Rodriguez, Meeting Date: December 14, 1994 "APPLICANT: Joseph Rodriguez PROJECT LOCATION: 40 Zenas Drive, off Dixon Road PROPOSED ACTION: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 0.67 acre parcel in an Urban Residential-l0 zone, creating a 20,645 sq. ft. lot with an existing duplex, and an 8,391 sq. ft. single family building lot. CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Section 179-17 requires 10,000 sq. ft. for a single family lot, and 20,000 for a duplex. One lot exceeds the requirement by 645 sq. ft., the other would be lacking 1,609 sq. ft. REASON FOR VARIANCE REQUEST, AND BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: Applicant would be able to sell the lot, and believes that a house on the lot would be an asset to the neighborhood. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: There is no alternative way of dividing the property. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? The relief requested is 16% of the lot size requirement. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY: It appears that the proposal could be an improvement, by blocking the view of the storage building behind the lot. It also appears that the adjoining neighbor to the east could find this - 23 - <-- --- subdivision objectionable, as it would mean a house where there formerly was an open view. No comment has been received to date. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF CREATED? The desire to subdivide is self-created. The lot size was determined when the Cresthaven subdivision was created. PARCEL HISTORY: The current owners purchased the property in 1993. The duplex was built in 1984. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: It may be prudent to seek an opinion from the Planning Board on this proposal before making a decision. SEQR: This is an Unlisted Action, so the Short Form EAF should be reviewed. If the variance is approved, this subdivision would require subdivision approval." MRS. RODRIGUEZ-My name is Juanita Rodriguez. My husband has not been able to attend the meeting. In January 1993, my husband and I decided to buy, from our friends, Mr. and Mrs. Brockelspee, the property at 40 Zenas Drive. This was a very important decision based on the fact that the property had, as shown to us by Mr. Brockelspee, in this tax bill, as .97 acres, which is 42,253 square foot. Our plans were, one, to keep our duplex for our retirement and, two, to sell our lot on the right side for our son's education in the second year of college. We, or I, went to the Town Office on Bay Road several times to gather information about the square footage. It was brought to our attention the discrepancy by Q1!L lawyer, Mr. Paul Pontiff, on February the 8th, as the letter that I have with me, eight days before the closing. Prior to this date, I had already checked, and I was informed that, yes, we had .97 acres. Of course, we proceeded and went back again to the Office, I did, personally. Yes, it was confirmed to me in the Office that, yes, in the books show that ~.Je did have, as Mr. Brocklespee show in the tax bill, .97. In October 1993, while I was ill, we received from Queensbury Town Office a tax history which I have it in my possession, of the property, as of September the 1st, 1993, describing our property now as .67. No explanation of any kind was given to us in this matter. We are talking about a big difference in square footage, 13,175 square footage difference. This will definitely decrease the value of our property. We feel that we have been deceived by our Queensbury Town Office. We've lived in Queensbury for 15 years, brought our children in the Queensbury School District, part of the time, and now they bring us to apply for an Area Variance. I come before you, and the next step will be for us to subdivide in order for us to be able to sell this lot on the right, of our property, and whoever will buy the house, we will make sure that it will be a house that will add to our neighborhood, as I show in here. It must be something that we have to approve, and I will show you this, we'll have to approve whoever buys the lot from us, so that the house that will be there, built, it will be an addition and an increase in the value of our homes in there. All the people that live on that road, they keep their houses very nice, and it's a very nice neighborhood. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets see if we have some questions here for you. You bought it in '93, is that correct? And you're saying that you weren't advised that that was already a preexisting subdivision? When you bought it in '93, you weren't advised that that was a preexisting subdivision and the lots were all laid out, as to size? MRS. RODRIGUEZ-The lots were all laid out, yes, but when I went to the Office, to the Town Office, they told me that the lots were not, it was not a subdivision. MR. TURNER-It wasn't a subdivision? MRS. RODRIGUEZ-It was not a subdivision. It was just a proposed subdivision. MR. TURNER-It's been a subdivision since 1978. - 24 - ",- -- MRS. RODRIGUEZ-And then, of course, they told me that the square footage that appears in the book was incorrect. MR. FORD-The square footage in your deed is accurate, Mrs. Rodriguez? MRS. RODRIGUEZ-I have the deed with me. MR. FORD-I don't need to see it. were aware of what the actual purchasing at that time? I just amount was wondering if of property you you were MRS. RODRIGUEZ-Before we bought it? Yes, we were aware because Mr. Brocklespee, we had the copy of the tax bill, and all the bills, all the papers that he gave us show .97. So when we went to apply for our mortgage, we were applying for a mortgage for the property for .97, and that's what appeared in the books at the Office. MR. FORD-But that's not what appears on your deed? MRS. RODRIGUEZ-In the deeds appear, well, it doesn't say specifically it is .97. It says all the descriptions, of course the lot, this lot appears a separate lot, the lot that we're talking about, it appears as a separate lot completely. MR. TURNER-On your deed? MRS. RODRIGUEZ-Yes, sir. MR. FORD-I'm wondering when that lot was carved off from the or igi nal pa,-cel. MR. TURNER-Not to jump in, application right here is the to subdivide, is that correct? Tom, but the line that's line that you drew, that on this you want MRS. RODRIGUEZ-That is correct. MR. TURNER-That's your line, and according to this tax map, that was all one parcel. Is that correct? Do you agree with that? MRS. RODRIGUEZ-According to that, it was all in one, yes. MR. TURNER-That's the date of the creation of the subdivision, 1978. So, it was there. I mean, that lot was already carved out. The line that appears on the map is the line that they drew where they want to subdivide the piece of property. MR. FORD-But that was one lot. MR. TURNER-It was one lot, all by itself. MR. FORD-As a part of the original subdivision? MR. TURNER-Yes. The dimension on the front property line is the same thing. Any further questions? Lets see what the public has to say. Do you have anything further to add, Mrs. Rodriguez? MRS. RODRIGUEZ-No, sir. MR. TURNER-Okay. All right. Let me see what the public has to say. I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KEVIN CROSBY MR. CROSBY-My name's Kevin Crosby, a property owner at 51 Zenas Drive, a couple of houses up from the proposed lot that you're - 25 - '-- ~ looking at. I'm opposed to this duplex going in. I disagree, breaking this lot down. I don't believe it's going to add to the value of anybody's house on the block by stuffing another house into, as you can see already, there's houses all around there. It's not a cul-de-sac. It's more of a T shaped road there. Snow plow comes by, last year we had a lot of, you know, you couldn't even see out your windows. Where are they going to put all that snow down there? Is the Town going to provide snow removal service for our block, which is quite an expense? It's going to be an eyesore. There is a concrete building behind that lot, you know, that's already there. You can't tear it down, but I don't think by putting a building in front of it it's going to make it look any better. It's going to be sticking out. I believe ~ property value will go down in a down market already. I bought ~ house for about $89,000. I don't think I could get $89,000 today. You start putting mostly single family homes on that block, people own their homes there. There are two duplexes right, one there, and there's one directly across from our house. The turnover is pretty high. The landlord does not take care of the property. The kids are forbidden even to go on that side of the street because there's all junk and everything in the yard. It would be the same thing going down there. There's no guarantee that that wouldn't happen. MR. TURNER-What size is your lot, Mr. Crosby, something around 12,000 square feet? MR. KARPELES-Can you point it out to us? MR. TURNER-I've got it on here on the map. MRS. RODRIGUEZ-May I say something, to the fact that he's saying that we don't keep our house in good condition and nice. MR. CROSBY-Ma'am, I'm not saying that you don't keep your house in condition. Are you going to be living there? MRS. RODRIGUEZ-No. That is not our residence, but we keep our house very nice. We work very hard to keep this home very nice. MR. CROSBY-Ma'am, you probably have a maid service or whatever, but. MR. TURNER-Could you point it out on the map? MR. CROSBY-Certainly, and to respond, I wasn't saying that you didn't keep a nice house, ma'am. I'm just saying that renters don't take care of their property as somebody who owns it. MRS. RODRIGUEZ-Well, we'd make sure that they do, sir. MR. CROSBY-I have a house right across from the road, ma'am, and if you'd like to go there and see the yard, it's covered with snow, but you can still see they never mowed their lawn. This is a duplex right here, and this one that I'm referring to. MR. MARESCO-Okay. So you're over here. Is yours the blue house? What color is yours? MR. CROSBY-Gray. MR. MARESCO-There's a blue house, though, right? MR. TURNER-That's right across, yes. MR. CROSBY-I also did speak to the adjacent owner there, Donna and Ricky Rostein, to the property to the right. They have a ranch there, and she also informed me that this application had been put in three previous times, and put down three times. So I feel bad that if somebody purchased a piece of land, thinking - 26 - ',--- '- that had .97 amount of land, and they didn't have it surveyed, when I purchased that house, I had a lot of people go look at that land, okay, to make sure that it was right. Maybe she has a lawsuit against the previous owners who sold her that land under false pretense, but I don't think it's fair to the rest of the neighborhood, because she got ripped off from somebody else, that we, you know, to stuff another house in there. I don't think that's ~- ight . MR. TURNER-Okay. Does at this point? Okay. anyone have any questions of Thank you. Mr. Crosby, GEORGE PHINNEY MR. PHINNEY-Good evening. Now I realize what you poor people go through. I've never been here before. It's been quite interesting. I live at 8 Reginald Drive, which is Reginald comes into Zenas. I live exactly behind the duplex in question. It buts up to the back of my property. Not to give anybody a bad time, but the gentleman that proceeded me is quite correct, and the condition of the way things are by the people that take care of that house. When you stuff another house in that street, I'm sure some of you have probably gone up there, in the opening we're talking about, the people like myself and the other neighbors I've talked to came up there because they wanted close to an acre of land and they wanted a front yard and a back yard and their neighbors had the same kind of things. You take all that away. You take away the appearance of it. When one doesn't have it or two doesn't have it, it's not there. If somebody's looking to buy a house, and that's the kind of neighborhood they're looking to get into, which is the neighborhood we felt we got into, that's what they want to have. They don't want it to change after we get in there, the rules change half way through the deal. It just doesn't work. It doesn't work for anybody, and I just don't think that's a fair thing to do, and I'm sure this lady is very honorable and means everything she says, but when you sell something to somebody, you have no control over what they do after they buy it. You can get all of the promises in the world that they're going to put a nice house. They're going to do this. They're going to do that. They're going to mow their lawn. You can't do a thing about it if they don't, and I really don't know the ramifications of the lot size being wrong when she bought it. We had ours surveyed on our own. The bank insisted, if nobody else, just to make sure we've got Jthe right size lot we paid for. I feel it would damage the property values in the area, and as we said, it is a down market already, and if you look around the street at the houses for sale, a lot of that is because of a down market and people can't afford to pay for what they get into when it was a high market. So that's all I have to say about it. MR. CARVIN-Can you show me which lot yours is, here? MR. PHINNEY-I hope I can. The piece of property we're talking about is which one? MR. TURNER-Right here. MR. PHINNEY-Okay. I believe this would be me right here. MR. CARVIN-All right. MR. PHINNEY-Yes. This is Reginald. MR. CARVIN-All right. Now this appears to be two landlocked pieces of property. This was Eastwood? MR. PHINNEY-Again, I'm terrible. on here. If you could show me Reginald - 27 - - .-' MR. TURNER-Do you front Dixon Road? MR. PHINNEY-No. MR. CARVIN-No, this is Zenas. is Zenas coming around here. This is Dixon Road here, and this MR. PHINNEY-If this is Reginald, this is the lot we're talking about, this is me. MR. CARVIN-You're right here? MR. PHINNEY-Yes, on the corner. The existing house here buts up to my back yard. MR. TURNER-You're right next to it. MR. MARESCO-These two pieces of property are landlocked? MR. PHINNEY-I couldn't tell you that. I honestly don't know what right-of-ways or things that are there. MR. TURNER-How long have you lived there? MR. PHINNEY-Ten years. MR. TURNER-Were you there when Mr. Eastwood something with, I think it's this lot right here? split a lot once before. Okay. Thank you. wanted to do They wanted to DAN RYE MR. RYE-My name's Dan Rye and I live right across from the proposed lot break up, and the only thing, there's a couple of things. The neighborhood is, at the end of the road right there, the traffic, it's not a true cul-de-sac. There's not a circle. It's just like a dead end T. So there's already a traffic break up problem there. As far as snow removal, last yea,-, the Town had a problem. They pushed most of the snow into her area, on to that corner. It wasn't really a circle to begin with. So there'd be a major snow problem. The Town trucks can't even turn around down there as it is, and every year they seem to get new people snow plowing that neighborhood, and they don't even do it right. They knock over mailboxes, or, they just have a problem as it is. They can't even turn around at the end, let alone if there's any more boxing up or stuffing. We just don't need any more traffic at that end. There's not enough room right there as it is. She does keep her duplex nice, but she's not going to have any power if it's sold. It's going to be out of her hands. I haven't got anything against her or anything like that, but I just don't think it's good, it would be pretty much to stuff it into that, if the Town could, if they could increase the end to make it a true circle or for snow removal, but everyone around me does not want, that's the biggest problem for traffic. We don't want any more traffic down at that end, and the snow removal is a major issue, and I just don't think it would increase the value of any of our houses. If anything, I think it would be a detriment, because, for the reason, it would be literally stuffing it into that. There's not really that much room in the end downt there. There just isn't. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any questions of Mr. Rye? directly across the street from it, Dan? Anybody? You live MR. RYE-Yes. MR. MARESCO-Which lot? Could you point that out? MR. KARPELES-This is the lot going to divide it right here. that she's talking Are you here? about. She's - 28 - "'---.- "--' MR. RYE-Yes. I'm right there. There's already a foreclosure right next to me right now, and that house is, so there's already a little bit of a problem to that neighborhood. MR. TURNER-Is that the one that's for sale, that's got the For Sale sign? MR. RYE-Yes. It's not even for sale right now. a problem with that house being taken care of. think it would be very good. There's already So, I just don't MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard? SHIRLEY WELLS MRS. WELLS-I'm not When we all went in told we had to do a of the houses are in to get the same kind just my point. really near. Shirley Wells, at there and started to buy a house, house of a certain value, which I there, and my question is, how are of value on such a small lot? And 43 Zenas. we were think all you going that was MR. TURNER-Anyone else wish to be heard? Okay. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. RODRIGUEZ-I also spoke to Mr. Steves, which was the one who, Mr. Van Dusen and Mr. Steves were the ones that prepared this proposed subdivision. I went to his office and I spoke to him. He pointed out to me that there was no problem to make a small house like I show you in the picture. There was enough room to make a nice home, just like the ones that are there already. This lot that we have is used by the neighbors kids to go and play there, and I go there every week, sometimes twice a week, to pick up toys from my lot, to pick up papers from my lot, to pick up cans from my lot, every week, so that we can keep our house always clean and always presentable and nice. So we work very hard to keep this lot clean and nice and also the house as well. The lawn and the house in itself. We're very careful with the people that are there, that live there as well. We like to have a house that is nice and that we take pride in. Even if we don't live in the house. MR. TURNER-Well, again, you know, getting back to the main issue is that you bought a lot that was in a preexisting subdivision, and you created the hardship yourself by buying a lot and then want to subdivide it. They're put there for size, and they're arranged so that everything kind of corresponds, and, you know, you come here seeking a variance to undersize a lot considerably, to put another house on it, and to me, that's just a self created hardship. You knew what you were buying when you bought it. MRS. RODRIGUEZ-When we bought it, we thought that we were buying according to our tax bill. It showed that we had .97. Now we just received a note from the Office, that we only have .67. So it shows everything that it was .97. MR. TURNER-Yes, but Mr. Pontiff represented you, when you closed on the property. Is that correct? MRS. RODRIGUEZ-Mr. Pontiff is our lawyer, yes. MR. TURNER-And he did not pick it up? MRS. RODRIGUEZ-He picked it up eight days before the closing. MR. TURNER-Well, you had the opportunity to back out. MRS. RODRIGUEZ-Well, what happened was, when I received the letter from my lawyer, I went to the Office, three times, to the - 29 - - - Town Office here, and they showed me, they told me that, yes, we did have .97. Three times they showed me, and I have proof of that. They told me that I have .97. So, for us, this .67 was a mistake, because they said to us, yes, you do have .97. That is a big difference. MR. TURNER-Right, but your deed describes the property, too, and the lawyer should have picked it up. MRS. RODRIGUEZ-The lawyer picked it up because of this, the two together doesn't amount to .97. That's the reason why he picked it up, and because I showed him this. MR. MARESCO-But you were aware of it eight days before you closed, right? MRS. RODRIGUEZ-Before the closing, I came back to the Office in here before the closing. After I received Mr. Pontiff's letter, then I came to the Office and the Office told me, no, Mrs. Rodriguez. You have .97. So we went ahead and we bought the property. MR. MARESCO-Thinking it was .97. MRS. RODRIGUEZ-Right, .97. MR. FORD-What did your legal counsel indicate to you when you brought that to his attention? MRS. RODRIGUEZ-He said then if you tell that you have .97, it was just an error, because this also shows in the tax that we have .97. then bill MR. FORD-So he didn't go back on what his original idea was, in other words, the original dimensions that he said brought it to .67? He was then able to agree with the Town and your report from the Town it was .97? MRS. RODRIGUEZ-No. I was the one who came to the Town, and I was the one who asked the Town to check this, and I explained to them why. The Town said to me, no, Mrs. Rodriguez. You have .97. So I called Mr. Pontiff's legal secretary, Lois Fenway, and I said, Lois, I went to the Office. They did say to me that this must be an error because, yes, we do have .97 like it shows in the tax bill. Because (lost word) was paying the taxes on .97 all the years that they owned the property. So then she said, well, it must have been an error, a mistake, but then at the closing Paul says to me, Jenny, there is still Jay at the Town Office has said to us that, yes, you only have .67. MR. FORD-When this was originally subdivided, my assumption is that if it had been able to be subdivided, it would have been at that time, but it was not. MR. TURNER-I think, again, I don't know which gentleman it is. I think one of them stated that there was three times that this has been here. MRS. RODRIGUEZ-I am not aware of that, because the Brocklespees did not try to subdivide the property. MR. TURNER-No, no. I'm not saying YOU, but somebody else. I know that, I think Mr. Eastwood was here, in respect to that piece of property that you bought, or part of it. No, but I'm just saying. I know it's been here at some point in time, because I've been on the Board long enough so I remember. MRS. RODRIGUEZ-Well, I'm not going to say, but I think that he was interested in buying it. - 30 - -...../ MR. TURNER-But at some point in time, it has been here, and I think it's been proposed to be subdivided, and it's never gotten by this Board and there again, you know, I think your counsel did you an injustice by not following up on it. Telling you you owned .97 and you only owned .67. That's not a mistake of the Ordinance. MRS. RODRIGUEZ-That was a mistake of the Town of Queensbury, because if the Town of Queensbury charging my (lost word) who owned the house before us. MR. TURNER-Your counsel should have investigated it further when you questioned him in respect to that piece of property as to the actual size of it. If he knew there was a problem there, he should have investigated. He should have not let you close on it. You might not have bought it if that's all there was. MR. FORD-Mrs. Rodriguez, didn't you just a moment ago say, however, that Mr. Pontiff indicated at the closing to you that there still was a problem and, in fact, you were purchasing .67 acr es? MRS. RODRIGUEZ-Yes. MR. FORD-So you knew what you were purchasing. MRS. RODRIGUEZ-Yes, just before the closing, yes, but of course still, when I came to the Office, still, February the 9th, the closing was the 16th, still February the 9th, they were telling me in here, no, you have .97. So, to me, really deep in our heart, we really thought that this was just a mistake of .67. We really thought, deep in our heart that, no, they're telling us that we do have .97 so we must have .97, and the tax bills, they were paying taxes on .97 all these years. So we were sure, no, this must be a mistake. We just, this must be a mistake, because they're telling us, no, it's approved. I have the paper. They added up everything. This is what you have, Mrs. Rodriguez, .97. So we went ahead and bought it thinking, no, that must be a mistake. MR. TURNER-But again, I think Mr. Ford said to you, did you, the lawyer advised you that you only had .67. MRS. RODRIGUEZ-No. He didn't advise me. He told me that Jay, because I went also to Jay after I received this letter from the Town of Queensbury saying Brocklespees have .97 and you only have .67. So I went to Jay also, and Jay also told me, after I received this in, after I bought the house, Jay also pointed out that I only have in this lot 8,406, which is still a small discrepancy, and that I have .67, and he was the one who investigated this for our lawyer, but I was not informed of that. MR. CARVIN-As far as I'm concerned, it really doesn't matter whether it's .97 or .67. The fact of the matter still remains that we're looking at, I'm assuming this number of 8391 is a correct figure. If this were to be subdivided, and I've only done a sampling of some of the others off this particular tax map, it would be an extraordinarily small lot, where the average size tends to run, well, the smallest that I find is around 10,720, and the largest appears, and the average appears to be about 12,000. So, I mean, we're looking at creating an extraordina)-ily small lot, which I would feel would probably alter the character of the neighborhood, if nothing else, as far as an Area Variance is concerned, and I guess that is my position. MR. TURNER--Yes. MR. CARVIN-So, I mean, it doesn't really matter whether you thought you were buying a .97 acre or .67 acre. The fact is that - 31 - ~-- ~ --' this is the lot that we are presented with. MRS. RODRIGUEZ-May I say something? MR. TURNER-Sure. MRS. RODRIGUEZ-You said that the difference of the .97 and .67, to you, is not a big difference. To us, it is 13,000 square footage difference. So the mistake that the Town of Queensbury did, charging the Brocklespees all these years for .97, to us is a big difference, because our property goes lower. MR. CARVIN-Have YOU been ta:<ed on .97 acres? MRS. RODRIGUEZ-No, I wasn't. MR. CARVIN-Then that's their problem. Our problem is here. Our problem is al the dòcumentation that I have shows that we've got a 28,000 square foot or 29,000 square foot lot, and you're asking us to subdivide this into an 8,000 and a 20,000 square foot lot. We have certain criteria that we have to adhere to. One of which is if by allowing this variance to go through, if we would create a detrimental, or have an impact on the community or the neighborhood, and my feeling is that if we grant this variance, that we would create a detriment or have an effect on the community. Now whoever was paying the taxes on the .97 is irrelevant. I mean, that's their problem to take up with the Town of Queensbury. It has no bearing on this variance. MRS. RODRIGUEZ-I understand that, sir. My point was not that. MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess position, and if the Board think we should move along. what I'm saying is that that's my has got any other questions, then I MR. TURNER-That's ~ position. ~ position is that they knew what they were buying. They knew where they were buying. They knew what it was already laid out at, and they had ample opportunity to either not buy it or buy it. They took the choice to buy it. It's a self created hardship. MR. FORD-Mrs. Rodriguez has indicated that she knew at the time of the closing that she was purchasing .67 acres. It's my belief that if this had been able to be subdivided, while this whole subdivision, this whole area was being subdivided, it would have been at that time. It was not because it should not have been, and I don't think it should be now. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Ted, I've got three letters. MR. TURNER-You've got three letters? Okay. MR. THOMAS-The first letter was received December 14, 1994 "Dear Zoning Board: We are unable to attend here tonight due to a prior commitment that we were unable to change. We are residents at 63 Zenas Dr. Our home sits facing the lot in question. We have a picture window that looks out over the lot, and if a home were to be built on this lot it would obstruct our view. And we would only see the side of that house. The lot, from what we understand is not large enough to meet zoning requirements for the Town of Queensbury. We have come before you several other times in the past, to protest someone building on this lot. The lot was owned by David Eastwood, and he came before you several times to try and get approval to build on this lot, and you denied approval, which we were gTeatful. We once again ask that you do not approve building a house on this lot because the lot is not meeting zoning codes. We have discussed this with other residents on Zenas Dr. that agree with us and have in the past - 32 - ~ '--' come before you to oppose building here. Please take into consideration our feelings and opinion. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Rick and Donna Rothstein" A letter dated December 12, 1994 "Dear Sir: As an owner of more than nine years of the residence at 61 Zenas Drive, I am writing to you with great concern over the proposed variance being considered on 40 Zenas Drive, Queensbury. Unfortunately I am unable to attend the public hearing on December 14, 1994 as I will be out of town on business. It is this letters intent to inform you of my disagreement in allowing this subdivision to be passed. Many reasons for my disagreement include: safety, congestion, snow removal, to name a few. Presently, as parents of small children we are naturally concerned over the increase in motor vehicles that will incur with a new family dwelling. Congestion of housing is another concern of ours. As in the past, at other public hearings on this particular property issue, the citing of congestion was made clear. This new dwelling would be in direct line of vision from our home. In the event of a fire or other emergency, the tightness of homes would make it seem that we would all be in jeopardy or at least a higher risk of danger. Presently, the snow removal capabilities are limited on our street. Since there is extreme tightness in turning the snow plow trucks around at this time, I can't imagine what we would do with the snow accumulation if another dwelling was added. Zenas Drive does not hold a true cul-de-sac for our residence, so there is no real turn around space, for present local residents on our street. This is why we have a dead end sign placed at 53 Zenas Drive. As stated earlier, we have been to two other public hearings on this stated land, in which people have wanted to build a single dwelling home on. It was conclusive that this particular land area is too small and in a position where multiple residents would be affected by its view and congestion. We would like to propose to the present owners that possibly some form of beautification of its present appearance would be of greatest importance to the neighborhood instead of any new dwelling. I'm sure the Town of Queensbury Beautification Committee would agree. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Joseph L. DuFour and family" A letter dated December 10, 1994 "I am writing this in response to your notice of public hearing for application of variance for Joseph Rodriguez at 40 Zenas Drive in the Town of Queensbury. As I have prior committments on Wednesday, December 14, 1994, I will be unable to attend the meeting. However, I do wish to make my opinion heard. First, I am concerned with vehicle safety. The duplex that Mr. Rodriguez owns already has four cars sitting in the driveway, creating twice the traffic compared to a single family home. I, as well as most of the neighbors, have small children who enjoy playing together and riding their bikes up and down the street. More vehicles in this area will create an unsafe condition. Second, I am concerned with appearance. Mr. Rodriguez has done very little to maintain the appearance of his property since he has acquired ownership. The duplex is in need of paint and the lawn requires reseeding. As with any non-owner occupied dwelling the lack of 'pride of ownership' is evident. With the amount of vehicles in the yard, the property resembles a used car lot. In his defense, he did seal the driveway this year for the first time since the driveway was poured. The lawn, what is left of it, is only mowed and manicured on average of twice a month. Third, I am concerned with the devaluing of my property and that of the residences around me. With the manner that the non-owner occupied residences are maintained in this neighborhood the last thing we need is another. The tenants of these properties pay no taxes. Can we be sure that Mr. Rodriguez will live in this proposed dwelling? I think not, but rather it will become another non-owner occupied residence contributing to the unsightliness that already exists. This in effect reduces the desirability and value of my property. Will the Town of Queensbury myself and my neighbors a break on our taxes? Again I think not. In order to build a house on a substandard lot, Mr. Rodriguez will have to build a smaller house without a garage to - 33 - ~-- .......,... '-' -- satisfy set back requirements further devaluing our larger houses. Or, Mr. Rodriguez will have to build a two story house, in a neighborhood where all the houses are one story creating obstruction to views and disruption of continuity. Fourth, I am concerned with the town. During the winter months the town snow plows already have problems with turning around on the dead end street. Several times last winter the snow plow was stuck requiring more heavy equipment to extricate it. Another house in this area will only compound the problem. This can be verified through the Town Highway Supervisor. If the Town of Queensbury grants this variance, it will in effect convert our quiet neighborhood into a non-owner occupied residential slum. We currently have three duplexes in the area, and several one family units being rented. Again I am concerned with the indiscriminate devaluing of property that's occuring in this neighborhood just so a non-resident can make a profit. I think from the tone of this letter you can tell that I am against this application for variance. The Town of Queensbury should enforce some sort of beautification on this property rather than contribute to further decimation of our neighborhood. If you feel the need for additional commentary, please feel free to contact me at the above telephone number. Sincerely, Timothy M. Ruscio & Family PS When making your decision please consider your motto 'Home of Natural Beauty...A Good Place To Live'." MR. TURNER-All right. A motion's in order. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-1994 JOSEPH RODRIGUEZ, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a .67 acre parcel creating two lots approximately 20,645 square feet and 8,391 square feet. I think by the granting of this variance that an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood and would be a detriment to nearby properties. Also by granting of the proposed variance, it would have an adverse effect and impact on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and that the alleged difficulty is self created. There has been a number of neighborhood comments regarding the safety and health issues related to the unique siting of this property and the lack of snow removal due to the fact that the road T's in the subdivision. Duly adopted this 14th day of December, 1994, by the following vote: MRS. RODRIGUEZ-Mr. Turner, may I say something before it's closed, please? Our lot is used, everyone wants the snow to be in our lot. All the snow around goes to our lot. So our lot is just for the service of the snow, but we wanted to change it and make it a nice home there, because I have a builder who is interested in buying the lot from us to make a house like I showed you in the paper. I just want to make that clear, because we take care of our home, and what they're saying there, you can pass by in the summer, and we take care of our home. I'll go there every week to make sure that everything, all the children that play in the lot, they put toys in there and I'll go and I'll pick them up. I'm always cleaning up that lot. MR. TURNER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Ford, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter On motion meeting was adjourned. - 34 - RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman ~ -i - 35 -