Loading...
1995-09-20 ----~ I LE , QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 20, 1995 INDEX Area Variance No. 48-1994 Tax Map No. 106-5-12 Kathleen Griffin Jack Lebowitz 1 . Sign Variance No. 25-1995 Tax Map No. 102-1-1 Taco Bell 2. Area Variance No. 55-1995 Tax Map No. 9-1-18 Stephen S. Evanusa 8. Area Variance No. 51-1995 Tax Map No. 82-4-3 Gordon & Carol Stockman 14. Use Variance No. 59-1995 Tax Map No. 20-1-8 Michael DiPalma 20. Area Variance No. 62-1995 Tax Map No. 6-1-6 Norma A.Baertschi 32. Area Variance No. 63-1995 Tax Map No. 6-3-17 Michael Cantanuccl 35. 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. _~~ ~____n,_ -, .....", ¡, 1fØ;"l ).", ~~ ~~ 'f:'~ ~i\ I!!I'J!.;": 'ii , J ',....., v QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 20, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY THOMAS FORD DAVID MENTER WILLIAM GREEN ROBERT KARPELES OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-1995 TYPE II KATHLEEN GRIFFIN JACK LEBOWITZ OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 39 GARRISON ROAD REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FROM SEPTEMBER 28, 1994 APPROVAL BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. APPLICANT PROPOSED TO CONSTRUCT A PORCH ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOUSE, AND SEEKS SEVEN (7) FEET RELIEF FROM THE TWENTY (20) FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIRED BY SECTION 179- 20C. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 9/14/94 TAX MAP NO. 106-5-12 LOT SIZE: 0.34 ACRES SECTION 179-20C JON LAP PER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-A letter dated August 30, 1995, addressed to Mr. Fred Carvin, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals, "Dear Mr. Carvin: By this letter, I hereby request that the ZBA grant an extension of the enclosed Area Variance for an additional one year. Please place this matter on your agenda for a September ZBA meeting prior to September 28th, which will be one year from the date of approval of the variance. Please call me with any questions. Very truly yours, Jonathan C. Lapper" MR. CARVIN-Okay. Mr. Lapper, anything that you'd care to add? MR. LAPPER-No. Only that you may remember this from a year ago. We had a model that the architect had constructed that showed, and my partner Jack Lebowitz and his wife Kathleen on Garrison Road, they have a very small Cape, and what they plan to do, and now negotiating with contractors to get it started a year later, was to do an addition of a freestanding garage with a slight encroachment on the side setback which would be toward the neighbor's back yard, and the neighbor didn't have a problem with it, and then, additionally on the other side, just because the setback had changed, it would only be building an addition in the rear, would just bring it out as far as where the side setback is already, and I believe that was unanimously approved. We're just looking for an extension so that they can get it done. MR. CARVIN-Okay. applicant? Does anybody have any questions of the MR. FORD-After a year's delay, do we have any reason for that or any reason to believe that the work might be completed within the next year? MR. LAPPER-I believe they will, because they just brought me to review a construction contract and they met with the mortgage broker in the last two weeks. It's just really, they had a couple of contractors come in at a price that was way higher than they expected. So they went to a couple of different contractors. So it just took a year to get to this point, but now they're ready to go. It'll be a very nice improvement to their property. MR. CARVIN-Okay. You said there was a note to the file? - 1 - -- MR.'THOMAS-Yes.~ ,:. ] STAFF INPUT í:"¡ , , j "',', ,'j j Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 48-1994 Extension, Kathleen Griffin/Jack Lebowitz, Meeting Date: September 21, 1995 "Applicant: Kathleen Griffin/Jack Lebowitz Proposed Action: Renewal of AV 48-1995, September 28, 1994, due to unanticipated delays in finalizing construction plans and contracts. Applicant also received AV 37-1994 in July, 1994, regarding a garage setback associated with the same construction project. The applicant would appreciate renewal of both variances, if the Board would consider combining them under one resolution. Associated information is attached to this note." And it's just a file. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? open up the public hearing. Okay. I'll PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-One note from Merritt Scoville, 51 Garrison Road, Queensbury, New York, and it's Just written on the notice of public hearing, "No objection." PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Any final questions, gentlemen? I just have one. There is no change at all to the plans whatsoever? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO EXTEND AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-1994 AND AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-1994 KATHLEEN GRIFFIN & JACK LEBOWITZ, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: For a period of one year, until September 28, 1996, at the applicant's request. There has been no public objection to this proposed action, and there's no change to the plan. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 25-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-1A TACO BELL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 740 GLEN STREET AS A CONDITION OF USE VARIANCE NO. 12-1994, SUBJECT PROPERTY IS PART OF THE GLEN SQUARE BUSINESS COMPLEX, AND IS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO ONE (1) WALL SIGN OF UP TO ONE HUNDRED (100) SQUARE FEET, PER SECTION 140-6. IN ADDITION, APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL ONE (1) FREESTANDING FIFTY-TWO (52) SQUARE FOOT SIGN, SO RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM THIS SECTION. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 6/14/95 TAX MAP NO. 102-1-1 LOT SIZE: 0.48 ACRES SECTION: 140-6 JONATHAN LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-The Variance was tabled. "The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and resolved the following: Meeting Date: June 28, 1995 Variance File No. 25-1995 for a Sign Variance was Tabled "MOTION TO * APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 25-1995. TACO BELL CORPORATION, Introduced by David Menter who moved for its adoption. seconded by William Green: - 2 - "'- * (This vote came out to a three three, a no action; a denial, so the following motion was made to table, regarding Taco Bell) MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 25-1995. TACO BELL CORPORATION, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: I would moved that we table thi~ for a maximum of 60 days, allowing the Board an opportunity to perhaps address the issue on a more fuller basis, and also to allow the applicant an opportunity to explore other feasible alternatives, and to get a legal opi nion from the Town ·Attor ney as to the uniqueness of this particular situation. Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Ca r v i n Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. NOES: Mr. Ford " .~ . ABSENT: Mr. Maresco MR. CARVIN-Okay. In the interim, we have not had an additional member added to the Board. I have received a letter, dated July 19th. I don't think it's in your records, ,regarc;lim9 tl1e,'Taco Bell Sign Variance. This is from Paul Dusek, if you want to read that into the record, Chris. MR. THOMAS-A letter dated July 19, 1995, addressed to Fred Carvin "Dear Fred: Following up on our discussion, asI had to revise the opinion I verbally discussed with you and Tom the other day, I am providing a revised, written opinion concerning questions raised in connection with the two motions made by the Zoning BO?Oí:C;lr of Appeal~!,1:in:,.cormecti.on with t;.þe sig,n variance, applicat.ion of the Taco Bell COTPOlr,Çltion. Accon:;liPlg'to :.i,nfo¡rm,a:t;.ionpresef1ted to me, it is my understanding that a resolution approving a sign variance was entertained by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The vote on the resoluti.on was three to three with one member absent. Thereafter, the Board adopted a motion tabling the matter for a maximum of 60 days to allow the Board and the applicant to look at the issue further. After this, a question arose as to whether a tabling of the application was proper under the circumstances. It is my understanding that this question arose as a result of a concern as to whether the first motion resulted in no action, or was to be considered a denial of the variance. Although I feel that the matter has not been completely settled by the courts, it is my opinion that based on General Construction Law 41 and relevant court cases, the Board's first motion should appropriately be considered a no action. In other words, for the Boai'd to adopt an effective resolutio'n" it must bell, adopted, by a majority vote ~ Therefore, it ::j¡.s my opinio,nthat the Boa!T'd may cont'inue to ente:r¡;t~in motions until suchtime as a' m.otiofl to approve or a¡,motíon;to disapprove ris adopted by, ,major ity vote of the Board without majority vote of approval; hpwever, a variance ~~ not granted. j~ I l10tethat under the rules, o'f pa.rliamentary ,Prooedur~j it : is possible to recons~der the ,exact ,same resolution, provided a motion ;:is first ,successfully adopted to reconsider the matter." MR. CARVIN-So, essentially, we have just a no action. That was the opinion that Paul, we've asked for Paul's opinion with regard to the vote. So, having taken care of our end, I wiL.lentertain the applicant. Were you able to come to some kind of agreement or new proposal? Where do we go from here, Jon? MR. LAPPER~We 11, to stat" t wi th,; a od: "H 1.1 try to,jbe br,ief. Wi th me, tonight, is Dave Barlow from Clough Harbor, an engineer on the project. Everything Mr. Thomas said is correct. What was in the notice is wrong, in that it indicates that we're requesting - 3 - more than we are, because we, during the course of the meeting last time, before Mr. Menter's resolution, we compromised a number of times in the hope that we could get a majority to agree to grant the variance, and reduce to what we thought was the minimum relief possible. So that we had the 17 square foot sign which is on the building, the front facade sign now, which is a tiny sign, in 'our view. and we've reduced the request two ways, so that it would be no higher than 17 square feet, which is rela.tively low for a freestanding sign, and that it would only be 33 square feet. So the total of those two signs together would be 50. Although it is two signs, of course, it's half of what the Ordinance allows for one sign, and basically hoping that in light of other sign variance applications that the Board has reviewed in the last few months, some which you've granted and some which you~ve denied, that this will appear tö be reasonable and minimal and necessary, based upon the positioning of this building 75 feet back off the street to meet the front setback, which we were able to accomplish when we knocked down the old Carvel building. When you're coming up Glen Street from the south, it's still blocked until you're very close to this, because of the location of the Troy Savings Bank which is built at the old setback, very close to the street, and you also don't see the building until you're very close to it, where it's hard to get into the left lane to make a turn if you're coming from the south driving north, and for that reason, it's necessary to have a small 30 square foot pylon sign out front, that's rounded off or squared off to 33. Dave had some pictures that he'd like to show you. DAVE BARLOW MR. BARLOW-What'I have, before I bring this up, we had a digital rendering of what this sign would look like, and basically what this is, is we went out and photographed the site as it is today, and using available computer technology, we superimposed an image of the sign we'd like, to scale, square footage, the height and location. I'll bring that up. MR. THOMAS-How high did you say that sign was going to be, Jon? MR. LAPPER-Seventeen. MR. THOMAS-Seventeen feet to the top? MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. CARVIN-Well, we had in the motion here, they have also agreed to a 15 foot maximum height, on a 33 square foot pylon sign. MR. LAPPER-Perhaps my memory was off, after three months, the last thing was 15 feet. MR. CARVIN-Okay. applicant? Does anybody have any questions for the MR. THOMAS-What was the setback from the property line? MR. LAPPER-Of the sign? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. BARLOW-I believe it's 25 feet. I can check. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. LAPPER-The property line is pretty far back from the street. MR. THOMAS-Yes. So what you're asking for is a 34 square foot sign, 25 feet back from the property line, 15 feet high? That's exactly what you asked for last time. - 4 - -- ...---/ MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. THOMAS-So you're coming back and asking for the same thing. MR. LAPPER-We're coming back asking for the same thing because after doing that rendering, we think that is a pretty small sign to see from the street, and the minimum, and we wouldn't do a pylon sign less than 33 square feet, and we're hoping that, in light of some other applications, 50 square feet total will now look reasonable to you. That rendering also shows the Grand Opening sign which was on the building at the time, which is a cloth sign which is hanging, which makes the 17 square foot sign appear larger, but it's really, it's not. It's very tiny. MR. CARVIN-How long have you been open now, approximately? MR. BARLOW-We opened toward the end of June. MR. CARVIN-Has the fact that you haven't had a sign contributed significantly to the lack of business? MR. BARLOW-I really don't know what the sales figures are in this store. MR. LAPPER-We do keep hearing from Taco Bell Corporate that this is an important issue to them. MR. GREEN-Do you have any idea how tall the Savings Bank sign is? MR. BARLOW-It's in the vicinity of 15 feet. Just as a reference, for height perspective on that, the Taco Bell building is around 17 and a half feet up to the top of the parapet. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Gentlemen, has anybody's position changed significantly? Are you, now that we ha~e a visual presentation, is anyone, more or less comfortable, or less comfortable with this, or are we at the same spot we were two months ago? MR. GREEN-I didn't have a problem with it before, and I still don't. I don't have a problem with it at all. MR. MENTER-My position would be the same. MR. KARPELES-My position is the same. MR. FORD-I haven't changed my mind. I see no reason to. MR. THOMAS-My position is the same, in fact, it's reinforced with the new photograph that's been presented tonight. I think it's less obtrusive than I thought it would be, and I do believe that the Taco Bell does need that sign there for the northbound traffic on Route 9, in order to see the business before they get to it, because of how far the Bank building sits toward the road. If that Bank building ever gets torn down for some reason, and a new building goes in its place, I imagine it'll have to meet the new setbacks. There again, the new, you know, the Taco Bell would be visible, but at this point in time, with the Bank the way that it is, I believe that they need that sign in order to know that there's a Taco Bell there. MR. MENTER-I would add to that that, to me, a deciding issue was the uniqueness of this particular plaza unit, essentially having - 5 - its own entrance, independent of the main effect, which separates it fYom many other have restaurants which we mayor may not looking for some type of relief. plaza entrance, in plaza projects that see down the road, MR. CARVIN-Who's next to the Bank? Is that, Blockbuster. next to Blockbuster? Who's MR. LAPPER-The liquor store, a beer store. MR. CARVIN-They don't have a freestanding sign, do they? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I think they do, that discount beverage place that sits back. MR. CARVIN-I'm trying to think if there's anyone on that corridor that does not have a freestanding sign, but they're all separate parcels, aren't they? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And this one was, but you guys. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Everyone of those businesses has a freestanding sign, on that side of the road. There's the plaza across the street, there, but there's no freestanding signs over there. MR. LAPPER-This would be considerably smaller, the 33 square feet, than anybody else. MR. THOMAS-And the Blockbuster sign, that's quite large, and the building does sit close, to the road for that Blockbuster, whereas this building sits back, and it's a much smaller sign. MR. CARVIN-All right. Is there any anticipated changes see that we've got a, what is that, a Glen Square? Is the mall area is? All right. Is there going contemplated additions to that sign, do you know? of the, I that what to be any MR. BARLOW-As far as Taco Bell, or as far as something else? MR. CARVIN-In other words, I think the Ordinance, now, you can have the shops listed on a freestanding sign for the shopping plazas. MR. LAPPER-The only thing that would change is if the make up of the stores inside changed, in the back plaza. All three of the out parcels which have now been merged. well, I guess that's not true, but they're all owned by John Nigro. They were all separate, they were built as separate buildings with fTeestanding signs for that reason, ,and permitted to have freestanding signs, because they were separate parcels, and they still do have a separate entrance. They don't want to be on the Glen Square sign, because it would confuse people. The sign identifies where the business is, and that's how Taco Bell feels. So nothing would' be added' tò' the"'GlenSqua,rè s'ign unless the make UP of the stores inside the plaza changed. MR. FORD-But that is an avenue to pursue, if this were denied, by Taco Bell. In other words, they could have a sign there. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but we think that the issue here is seeing it when you're coming north, in advance, so you can move over to the left to make the turn in, and this is past it. MR. MENTER-But I do think that is a good question, Fred, because even though it would confuse people, I don't know that that's necessarily a bad thing. I mean, if your name's everywhere and )lOU. 're confusi ng people; so what? You're name's everywhere. I mean~ I think it does make sense to perhaps even make that part - 6 - ~ of it, that they don't also utilize that Glen Square sign with their name, which they would be entitled to do. Wouldn't they? MR. GREEN-I think in the last motion they said they weren't going to put one on there, I thought. MR. LAPPER-We were asked not to, and we have no desire to. Just those two signs would do it. MR. GREEN-Yes, has agreed not to use the Glen Square Plaza sign for any additional signage. MR. MENTER-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Well, MR. MENTER-Yes. Dave, do you want to reintroduce your motion? MR. THOMAS-Is that going to change, because this one here says 33? MR. CARVIN-Well, no, it still is 33. They :haven't changed it, all the numbers, as far as I can tell, 25 feet, 15 feet high, and 33 square foot, right? MR. LAPPER-It's really a little smaller than 33, but the way the Queensbury Planning Department squares it off, it comes to 33. MR. GREEN-Do you have to have another motion to re-open this motion? Isn't that what Paul said in his letter? MR. CARVIN-No. We haven't denied the motion, is what I'm saying. We're still in the motion category, as far as, ~ concerned, would be my interpretation of that. I think that's if we had turned down, if there was an actual denial, that we were hearing essentially the same application, but as far as I'm concerned, we're still hearing the same motion. We've reached a no decision. So, I mean, we could probably make motions until the cows came home. My vote will probably be changed, and I'll give you my reasons, that I guess, looking at the picture, and knowing that this was a freestanding or separate parcel, and that they combined it with the shopping plaza, and due to the fact that it really isn't out of character to have a sign there, considering that everybody else down the strip that close to the road does have a sign. I guess it would be a minimum relief situation. That doesn't mean that I've all of a sudden become a sign lover. MR. FORD-I just want to indicate that I,'ve driven up and down there many times, and the points made tonight, there are some new ones, and seeing the picture, I guess a sense of fair play on my part would indicate that it would be appropriate for me to change my vote, vote for approval. MR. CARVIN-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. CORPORATION, Introduced by David Menter adoption, seconded by William Green: 25-1995. TACO BELL who moved for its The proposal is to install a 33 square foot sign, freestanding sign. As a condition of the Use Variance No. 12-1994, subject property is part of the Glen Square business complex and is, therefore, entitled to one wall sign of up to 100 square feet per Section 140-6. Applicant wishes to install one freestanding 33 square foot sign, in addition to this wall sign, and therefore seeks relief from this Section. The applicant stands to benefit, due to increased visibility, particularly from the south. The visibility is limited due to the fact that the building is set back further from the road than the buildings immediately to the south of it, possibly creating a hazardous situation for those - 7 - turning left into the lot. There do not appear to be any adverse effects on the community or the neighborhood because the size of the sign is, the size of the proposed, is minimal, at 33 square feet. It fits in with the neighborhood, and it would certainly not change the character of the neighborhood at all. There do not appear to be any feasible alternatives, as the building is set so far back that any wall signage would not achieve the desired results. The difficulty also døes not appear to be self- created, as this building was merged with the Glen Square Plaza as a matter of traffic flow, convenience and was unrelated to signage. The fact that Taco Bell is designed with its own entrance and egress on Route 9 makes it uni~ue, as a Plaza restaurant. Taco Bell has also agreed to limit their wall signage to the current 16.9 square foot sign on the front of the building, has agreed not to utilize the Glen Square Plaza sign for any additional signage, and will locate their 33 square foot pylon sign 25 feet back from the property line. They have also agreed to a 15 foot maximum height on the 33 square foot pylon sign. Duly adopted this 28th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: Mr. Karpeles AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-1995 TYPE II WR-1A, CEA STEPHEN S. EVANUSA OWNER: NANCY & JOE POLONSKI ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE THE EXISTING 2,000 SQ. FT. HOUSE AND REPLACE IT WITH A 2,500 SQ. FT. HOUSE, AND PROPOSES A SHORELINE SETBACK OF 38 FEET WHERE 75 IS REQUIRED, SO RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM SECTION 179-60. SECTION 179-16C REQUIRES A SIDE SETBACK MINIMUM OF 20, AND A TOTAL OF 50 FEET. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SETBACK OF 14.5 FEET ON ONE SIDE, AND A TOTAL OF 35.9 FEET. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 8/16/95 TAX MAP NO. 9-1-18 LOT SIZE: 0.28 ACRES SECTION 179-16 (6) STEPHEN EVANUSA, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-"The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Meeting Date: August 23, 1995 Variance No. 55-1995 Area Variance was tabled "MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-1995 STEPHEN S. EVANUSA, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: Tabled for a maximum of 60 days, to allow the applicant an opportunity to develop and explore other feasible alternatives which may mitigate lesser relief being required. Also, to explore and investigate any potential problems with the sewer system, and also to develop and investigate stormwater runoff solutions. Duly adopted this 23rd day of August, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE" MR. CARVIN-Okay, and I see from some of the new blueprints and drawings it looks like you've repositioned some of the lines, as it were. MR. EVANUSA-We've studied all the items that you asked us to, and we've changed a couple of things and certain conclusions on others. MR. CARVIN-Okay. -'8 - -- MR. EVANUSA-Good eveni ng, gentlemen. The first. thi ng that we did was we studied the septic field, and I, went into the Building Department and we were looking at the card file for the current field. It's about 11 years old, and we've had our contractor bring out his construction manager on to the site and take a look at it, and all of this was also in the context of seeing what we could do to move the house to ameliorate the situation with the 75 foot setback. What we discovered was that the septic field itself is in excellent condition. It's fairly new, and that the tank that was the part that was closest to the house could actually be moved without damaging the existing septic field, and we went out there with a tape measure and with some stakes and positioned the house in several positions to see how those positions effected its relationship to the septic field, and you have to remember that the greatest problem with this site is that it is a quarter acre site, and we're trying to what we have applied to it are these one acre restrictions. So when you actually get on the site and start pushing the house around with stakes and strings, you see that everything is tiny, and inch is really a matter of the whole thing. We took the suggestion of trying to push the house toward the garage and toward the other lot line, but as a physical fact, that corner really wasn't helped much, in terms of distance from the septic field itself. MR. FORD-How much did it improve? MR. EVANUSA-It basically·, the best improvement we can get in any position to this plan was about a foot ;!.;'ò:iand that having been said, w.e have to juggle the upside and the: downside of moving the house wi th,that. one ,foo·t restr ictio:n, and basically came up , with the fact that moving,the house toward the' other lot line, switchi~g the ,14 feet with the 20~foot, as was discussed last time, really was no great improvement. It didn't gain any more than the foot that we could have gaißed in this particular scheme', and it also, destroyedwha:t is right: now ·the perenn!ial, bed on that side of the house, and also, the~Qne thing that I also added on to this plan is the exact tree locations. So that you will see that if we did move the house and ripped up the perennial beds and tried to put them on the other side of the house, they would be in the tree roots, because there is an enormous stand of trees on that side. So that 20 foot setback on that one side of the house really has a certain importance to the owner, and given:the fact that we could move the septic field and gain the foot, this was' pretty much the best solutiQn . th,st we could come up with. However, that having been said, not being able to move the house more than physically from the last application, we took the approach of what else could we do to the house to make it better in the setback situation. So we did two things. We reduced the size of the front deck, and we reduced the height of the house. Now, if you'll recall, the original design of the house had a peak skylight, and after doing some architectural studies and actually studying what the meaning of that skylight was to the design of the house, actually, the house is designed around the skylight. Just to do a quick aside, in terms of why this house is designed the way it is. The house is in the alley of trees. It's a very tight site. It gets very little sun, and because of the brightness of the lake and the fact that there's no sun to the back of the house, the central skylight design was evolved so that you could have natural sunlight throughout the whole house, throughout the whole day, and different times of the year. So, I had to study different ways to make that skylight work, without having it have the height that it had before, and basically, by removing it and doing a flat skylight, there's a couple of different ways we would do that, we'd still achieve the same architectural integrity of the light without having to have that extra height. So we reduced the height of the house six feet from the last time. MR. MENTER-Saves him some money, too. - 9 - MR. EVANUSA-Well, you've still got to put a skylight there. There's another issue that wasn't even brought up before, in that, in the front yard of the house, there's a miscellaneous bunch of structures, and if it would help the whole situation any, Mr. Polonski's willing to remove all the structures that are in this corner of the yard. It's rather large stone structure. It's a fireplace, and I think it's actually a barbecue, but I think it's about, I think it's eight foot high, and the (lost words) structure, so that would be removed. MR. FORD-I the other P1'oposi ng removed? noticed two proposals, one to remove the fireplace and to remove the chimney of the fireplace. Are you at this time that the entire structure would be MR. EVANUSA-Yes, sir. The chimney and the fireplace should be viewed as synonymous. Also, just as a clarification, there were two items that were not shown on the original plan, to show you that the existing house, given the definitions of what the house is, that's actually from being in the meeting the last time, when there was a discussion as to whether a set of stairs or a retaining wall would be considered part of the house. It came to light that these structures, which are steps, would probably also be considered as part of the house. So, I wanted to show you that there are other encumbrances to the lake side, that we're removing in order to construct the new construction. The final thing that you asked us to look at was the stormwater runoff, and my answer at the time was that we would do it per Code, and I did an analysis of how much rain water might be coming off the roof. We've got about 2,000 square feet of roof, and in our area, what I could come up with was the worst case scenario for rain fall was about seven inches in five minutes for a major storm, and given those calculations, I think that by having a standard sized gutters all the way around the house and four drain leaders and pipes, the ranges in diameter, taking it to two separate drywells should suffice for it, for stormwater runoff, and that's what I've shown. MR. KARPELES-Could you go over, again, why you can't move it back? MR. EVANUSA-As we were walking around the site, pushing the house around, it did not appear that, if you were to draw up a diagonal line across the front here, between that point of the septic field and the point in front of the tank, and moved this house back and forth along that diagonal line, it would not improve the distance, and between that and the fact that it was destroying this flower bed, and also encumbering on this garage structure, we call it a garage but you can't even get a car in there, basically. MR. KARPELES-You're given, right, that you're saying? saying that that 10 foot you have to maintain that? dimension Is that is a what MR. EVANUSA-That's the Code dimension. MR. KARPELES-From what, what is that from? MR. EVANUSA-There's We're moving the one septic field remains. another tank tank. The there. There's two tanks. second one remains, and the MR. KARPELES-That's a buried tank? MR. EVANUSA-Yes. MR. THOMAS-You have a scale on there that shows one inch equals one foot. Is that right? - 10 - --- --- MR. KARPELES-It's more like one inch equals ten feet. MR. MENTER-That's not right either, though. MR. KARPELES-Yes. That's less than an inch. MR. MENTER-It sure is. One inch equals, it looks like 16 feet. MR. EVANUSA-It's one inch equals 16 feet, sir. MR. MENTER-Yes. by three feet. Am I right in, you reduced the size of the deck Is that accurate? MR. CARVIN-Two feet. It was a ten foot. They're going down to eight. MR. MENTER-So the setback went from 38 to 40. MR. CARVIN-But the actual house is still going to be 48 feet back, right? MR. EVANUSA-Forty-nine feet, sir. MR. CARVIN-Forty-nine. MR. KARPELES-Somewhere I'm reading this wrong. shows a proposed deck 36 by 10 feet, right? The old pr i nt MR. EVANUSA-Ten feet, yes. MR. KARPELES-And where does it show the new deck, dimensions? MR. EVANUSA-I have that on this plan. MR. KARPELES-So you went two feet, from ten to eight. reading it wrong. I was MR. EVANUSA-I drew all the numbers up there, but I also wanted to show you the dimensions from these steps. We are actually improving it, from 35 feet between the front of the steps. MR. FORD-The existing steps, they're coming out? MR. EVANUSA-Yes, sir. MR. FORD-So the closest point would not be steps, but actually the front of the déck? MR. EVANUSA-Yes, sir. MR. FORD-Which has been reduced from ten to eight. Are there going to be steps on the front of the house, at ground level? MR. EVANUSA-No, sir. MR. CARVIN-But there are existing steps, is that correct? MR. EVANUSA-Yes, sir. We'd have to have maybe a step or so to the side of the house, to get from the front deck to the grade. The grade's pretty close. MR. FORD-So there will be no entrance directly on the front of the house? MR. EVANUSA-Not to the front, no. That's basically a viewing deck for the living room in that area MR. FORD-Those aren't sliding glass doors, then? MR. EVANUSA-Actually, they haven't been designed yet. We ' r e - 11 - r' hav i ng that discussion right now. I'm havi·ng a conversation with Mrs. Polanski about what kind of doors they'll be, because she doesn't like sliding glass doors. MR. FORD-But there will be doors? MR. EVANUSA-Possibly, possibly doors. This is my architectural problem. The v iew is to the side, and my solÜtiòn ,:: to that is always sliding glass doors off of the most glass area, and a lot of people these days don't 1 ike sl idi ng glass doors. They li ke French Doors, and of course some nice French Doors restrict the view, and the last several projects I've had, I've always gone to plate glass, and putting the door some place else. As it is right now, this may be all plate glass, and there may be a sliding door of some sort to the side, with a step coming off to the side of the house, and maybe a door, some sort of doorway on either end to get to the deck itself, but right now that's a conversation we're having, exactly how that deck is going to be used, and from where it's going to be accessed. MR. FORD-So, conceivably, steps could be built that would access that from the outside? MR. EVANUSA-They would not be to the front. MR. FORD-They would be built across, in front of one of the windows, blocking the view? MR. EVANUSA-Probably, there would be two ways of handling that. The steps would either start at this point and step down to the line of the house, or project down the line of the house. Would steps be allowed to protrude on the side yard lines? If that's a problem, then I would construct the stairs so they start in and wind up flush with the side of the house, but they would not be going toward the front side of the house. MR. MENTER-I think, as an accessory. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think, in the past, that we've taken them into consideration, as far as closeness, I mean, this is like a deck. If it's attached to the house, it becomes a part of the structure. MR. EVANUSA-Okay. So I would say that if I had steps, what I would do is I would start them at this point and step down to the side, in this direction, and to the side in this direction, like that. So that they actually lined up with the side of the house, but no further, and not to the front. MR. CARVIN-All right. The height of the house, is it going to stay at the same height? MR. EVANUSA-It's a couple of feet higher than the existing feet of the house. It's like 25. It's going to be probably 26 or 27, and that's actually this point right here, and these points right there. So it's not much of the house that's going to be at that height. It slopes down very quickly. It's steeper than 12 on 12 at this point. So the actual, the highest point of the house is not only set back from the lake, except for this point here, but it slopes down very quickly from there. I couldn't get any lower than that, because in order to make the greatest usability of the rooms inside, and not have everything a dormer, I had to get the roof up pretty fast, but like I said, I got it down six feet from the last presentation. MR. FORD-The ground level deck is, in your design at this point, to be made of what material? MR. EVANUSA~Wood, treated wooded. - 12 - -- MR. CARVIN-Any other questions, gentlemen? public hearing. I'll open up the PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-All right, thoughts? gentlemen, any comments, questions, MR. THOMAS-I think the architect has made a remarkable effort to comply to our wishes, from the last meeting, by rearranging the house, taking six feet off of the top of it, and about the only thing he didn't do for us was bend over backwards. So, I don't have a problem with this variance whatsoever. I think he did an excellent job, made an excellent presentation, and I think it'll improve the area, and also that, because of the limitations of the size of the lot, that the building will look good on that lot. The only thing that I'm a little leery of is all the glass in the front, reflecting, but you have that from every other place, too, that's along the lake. So, I have no problem with it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bill. MR. GREEN-I was pretty content with it, prior, other than the few things that were brought up, the extra septic tank and the runoff. I think those have been addressed very well, and taking the peak off the top, I don't have a major concern with it. MR. CARVIN-Tom? MR. FORD-I agree with everything that Chris and Bill have said. I like the effort. We had some real concerns, the first time around, and you took each of them individually, addressed them, and where it was reasonable, you've made some adjustments. I also like the fact that you have picked up on some of the other existing structures, such as the miscellaneous stone piers and the barbecue fireplace, and they will be removed, and my assumption is that that is going to improve the permeability on the lot, and I applaud the efforts. MR. CARVIN-Bob? MR. KARPELES-I think he's done a good job of shoe horning in a decent sized house on a very small lot, and I think it's going to 100 k nice. MR. CARVIN-Dave? MR. MENTER-I'm going to miss the peak. I was kind of looking forward to seeing that, but I agree. I think you've certainly convinced me that it's the least relief that is needed for this project. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I only have a couple of concerns. I don't have an overall concern with the project. I think the project has been well thought out. I think it's a minimum expansion, and I don't think it's anything that the lot couldn't support in an adequate fashion. I'd like to try to really nail down some of the specifics, as far as the height. Just a quick glance at our conversation from the last meeting, and from what you're saying tonight, I get a little bit tender when we get, about and possibly and, you know, maybe this high, because that eventually leads to conflict later on when it turns out that it's actually 35 feet high and not 28 feet high. So I'd like to try to nail down some of the specifics. Now, as I understand the proposed project, it will not exceed 2500 square feet. Is that correct? · - 13 - MR. EVANUSA-Yes~' ,sir. t-1R. C:ARVIN~Okay" and thê' Öurrent" ,;struc'ti.ureqi.is 2 ~OOOsquare feet? These arê accura,te numbers? Okay. If you can give me a height that you can live with. MR. EVANUSA-I would like to make it 28 feet, which would be three feet higher than it is right now. It's now 25. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does ,anybody have a problem with 28 feet as a height? MR. FORD-What would that do to I.<Jhat y,ou have presented? MR. EVANUSA-That's what's shown. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. CARVIN-We don't have to do any SEQRA on this, do we? doesn't appear to be. It's a Type II. Okay. If there other questions, I would ask for a motion. There are no MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-1995 STEPHEN S. EVANUSA, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by l--Ji lliam Green: The applicant is proposing to remove an existing 2,000 square foot house and replace it with a 2,500 square foot house, and in order for the applicant to proceed, he needs relief from Section 179-60, which requires a shoreline setback of 75 feet, and Section 179-16C, which requires side setbacks totaling 50 feet, with a minimum of 20 on one side. I would grant 35 feet of relief from Section 179-60, and I would grant 16 feet of relief from the total of 50 feet. The benefit to the applicant by the granting of this Area Variance would be that the applicant would be able to replace an antiquated house that is in need of replacement, and the proposed expansion is within keeping with both the lot size and the nature of the neighborhood. While the proposed setback relief of 35 feet may seem high, the actual house will actually be moved back an additional foot from the current foundation, and that the added eight feet is the result of a first floor deck protrusion. As far as the side yard setbacks are concerned, the house currently is conforming to the 20 feet minimum on the one side, but because of the unique size and shape of the lot, in order for the applicant to move forward, he would need relief of at least 16 feet from the total sum of 50. The applicant has shown and demonstrated that there are really no other feasible alternatives. Again, because of the siting of the septic and the placement of a garage, that this actually is the minimum relief necessary to allow the applicant to proceed with their project, and even though this may be a self created situation because the decision to replace versus renovate could be considered self created, it is felt that this particular project will have no detriment or adverse effect, and would be in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood and community. There has been absolutely no public opposition to this project as proposed. The height of the new building shall not exceed 28 feet. The applicant also has indicated that they will address any stormwater runoff issues. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-1995 STOCKMAN OWNER: SAME AS TYPE ABOVE II SFR-1A 98 AVIATION GORDON & CAROL ROAD APPLICANT ,- 14 - ~ PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-CAR GARAGE DETACHED GARAGE AT A SIDE SETBACK OF FIVE FEET AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-20, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, WHICH REQUIRES A SIDE SETBACK OF 20 FEET. TAX MAP NO. 82-4-3 LOT SIZE: 0.421 ACRES SECTION 179- 20 GORDON STOCKMAN, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-"The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Meeting Date: August 16, 1995 Variance File No. 51-1995 Area Variance "MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-1995 GORDON & CAROL STOCKMAN, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: To allow the applicants an opportunity to explore other possible sitings of the garage which would be more in conformance with the Town Ordinance or require a lesser relief than is being sought. Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles. Hr; Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr~ Gre.n~ Mr. Menter, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE" MR. CARVIN-Okay. It looks like we have a new project or a proposal here, if you would care to comment. new MR. STOCKMAN-What I've done is, in light of the drive in and the buildings and such to the property, I've (lost word) on your new copy, and I've also moved the garage, from the foot setback on the previous to a ten foot setback, and I've shown the driveway. here that five also MR. CARVIN-Okay. So it looks like you went from a five foot side yard setback to a ten feet, is that correct? MR. STOCKMAN-That is correct. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions, gentlemen? MR. THOMAS-The only thing that bothers me is, how is there three storage sheds on one lot? How long have those storage sheds been there? MR. STOCKMAN-Well, the one our back south is just a metal shed, probably a year, the back two probably a year. The one storage shed has probably been 50 years or better. MR. THOMAS-But the two in the back are fairly recent? MR. STOCKMAN-Fairly recent, within the last two years. (Lost words) we're not tearing it down, but in the future, it would be possibly a (lost word) area, at that point. MR. FORD-That's the 50 year old structure? MR. STOCKMAN-Correct. MR. CARVIN-Is that the one that's marked existing structure? Is that the 50 year old? MR. STOCKMAN-That is a house. The property next door is owned by my father's mother. MR. FORD-The plan would be to have the existing storage sheds on the back of the property'continue to be there? :"l! ; - 15 - MR. STOCKMAN-Correct. MR. GREEN-How about the big one? MR. STOCKMAN-In the future, we're planning on taking the stuff out of that and sticking it in the garage. MR. GREEN-And then that would be dismantled? Yes. MR. STOCKMAN-Probably in the next two years. The problem I have with the going so far to the side is because of the trees, and the (lost word) of the trees with my parents, and going back farther and turning to the side, which was proposed earlier also, is the style of the roof, which my mother likes, would totally ruin the effect to having it drawn back and go sideways, and you'd totally lose the effect of the building, as opposed to seeing the front as the side, and push it that much farther back on the property, and also center it up, if you see on the back area is a children's play area, which is small swings and such, and visually from the house, which, say in the center of the deck, which is the kitchen area, if you look out, you can see the children's area back there, and be ablato have a better visual, an eye on the grandchildren~ as opposed to having the garage on the center of the property. MR. CARVIN-The existing structure, again, what is that currently used for? MR. STOCKMAN-Nothing, just minimal existing house that was lived in by and it's just never been torn down. storage. It's just an my father and his parents, MR. CARVIN-Okay. It looks like it's starting to get a little bit long in the tooth. Is that an accurate description of that building? MR. STOCKMAN-You mean it's decaying? MR. CARVIN-Right. MR. STOCKMAN-It, structurally, is fairly sound, but it is on it's way out. That also has some storage. MR. CARVIN-I'll tell you we've got basically six buildings on one lot, and I really don't know if that's in keeping. I don't know if there's anybody else in the neighborhood that's got six buildings like that. MR. STOCKt1AN-Li ke I say, the big storage shed is goi ng to be eliminated, soon after the garage is built. MR. CARVIN-Well, you said several years. MR. STOCKMAN-Well, I don't have a specific time frame. When the garage is built, stuff gets moved, it will be, there isn't much to it. It doesn't have any foundation under it or flooring or anything like that. So it~s a secure building, but it's not (lost word). MR. CARVIN-And there's no plans to take down that old existing, the old house either? MR. STOCKMAN-Well, at this point, it hasn't been considered yet. I'm sure in the future there'll be a, it probably will come to that. CAROL STOCKMAN MRS. STOCKMAN-It's of no use. It's just storage~ There's no services in there. - 16 - "-,.. -- MR. STOCKMAN-It doesn't hurt anything. Why get rid of it? MR. CARVIN-Is anybody else bothered by that? MR. KARPELES-Yes. I'd look more favorably on this if you would commit yourself to removing tha~ storage shed and that existing structure within a definite period of time. MRS. STOCKMAN-The 30 foot storage shed? MR. KARPELES-The 30 foot storage shed and the other existing structure. MR. STOCKMAN-Shortly after construction of the new garage, I can guarantee that that will, be down. MR. CARVIN-These other two storage sheds in the back, are they permanent in nature? You say they're just those metal sheds, right? MR. STOCKMAN-The eight by ten is a metal shed, which is not permanent, and the eight by twelve is a wooden shed, which is not permanent. It's on blocks. It could be moved. MR. CARVIN-Okay, because Mr. Ford has made a comment. If you've got a four and half, I think it's five feet, I think that one has to be at least five feet off the property line, if memory serves correct. MR. FORD-That's the eight by twelve. MR. STOCKMAN-That could be moved if there was a problem. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. STOCKMAN-This is kind of a thick area back here. So I was, it's kind of a rough spot of shrubbery. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any plans to blacktop, at this point, or is it just going to be dirt and crushed stone? MR. STOCKMAN-You see the shaded in area, not at this point, because of the finances, but as you can see, coming down, there is a driveway, and (lost words) sidewalk, in the future. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? I'd like to open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Any other questions, guys? MR. KARPELES-Well, I'd be willing to grant the variance, providing that it was stipulated that the storage shed and the existing structure would both be removed within a definite mi nimum pe,- iod of time after the gar age is bui It . I thi nk he's agreed to two months, and with that condition, I think I would be in favor of it. MR. CARVIN-When do you anticipate starting construction on the garage, if granted? MR. STOCKMAN-Within the next couple of weeks, if everything is approved. MR. CARVIN-I don't know, how long does it take you to build a - 17 - garage? MR. STOCKMAN-Roughly, I'm doing it on my own here, so it would only be part time and on weekends. So, if the winter doesn't give me a hardship, it should be the end of November, as far as the frames, and the completion probably in the spring. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, with that, frame? What would you look at, finish his until the spring? Bob, what would be your time if he's really not going to MR. KARPELES-Well, I would say. MR. CARVIN-Certainly no longer than a year from now, the whole thing should be cleaned up. MR. KARPELES-I would think that that, certainly no longer than that. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, that's a long time. MR. KARPELES-But I think that overall, if you had the garage, buildings. it would be and got rid of an improvement, those other two MR. FORD-You understand what is being recommended? We're talking about both the existing storage shed and the existing structure to the east of the house. MR. STOCKMAN-Well, I agree. That's why this project has been in mind for so long. MR. CARVIN-I was just going to ask. It looks like there's a property line right through the center of that. MR. MENTER-So you could only take down part of the building. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, is there going to be a conflict with that, or will there be a challenge? MR. STOCKMAN-That's not a problem. MR. CARVIN-That's not a problem, okay. MR. STOCKMAN-That was our intention to start, originally. MR. MENTER-Is there any issue as to the number of storage sheds? MR. CARVIN-Not at this point. To give you a preview of things coming, there will be. Hopefully. MR. MENTER-Yes, okay. I think that would be a good solution, and that would take care of mz concern, which is just cluttering of the property. I think that would be a benefit to you, too, to get rid of that stuff and clean up the property, and given that. I don't really have a problem with the location. MR. THOMAS-I'm in 100 percent agreement with the other Board members, and I feel ,that removing the storage shed and the existing structure would add to the green space of the property that the new garage would be taking away, plus it would clean up the property, like tbe others have said. So I have no problem wit,h it. MR. FORD-I agree with that, but I do have one question, and that is, with that roof arrangement, what do you anticipate to be the maximum height of the garage? MR. STOCKMAN-I believe 24 foot, 24 foot six. - 18 - '~;1 MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is that going to be a two story? MR. STOCKMAN-Well, the above is just basically 90ing to be open. It would be possible storage. MRS. STOCKMAN-Consolidate in one spot. MR. STOCKMAN-You se.e the trees on ei the," side of that storage shed? If those trees come down, the shed is going to go with it. MR. FORD-You wouldn't want to lose those trees. MR. STOCKMAN-That's why we hope to stay away from, to stay back away from the trees enough, to the side of the property. MRS. STOCKMAN-The reason I want to keep those, they're all white birch. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. GREEN-Well, I'm really in the middle here. I think that getting rid of those other two structures would be a definite improvement, but I've almost got to stand by my first impressions when I went out there a month ago, that it's an awful lot of space, and I think we could do it with 20 feet. MR. STOCKMAN-Twenty feet actually brings the edge of the garage into the storage shed about two feet, unless you push the garage back, but that means a greater distance from the house every time that you, you use your garage for your car, so every time you exit, into your yard and out of your yard, it's an extra 20 or 30 feet to get to the house, and if I have to take down any trees really, the storage shed isn't a problem, it's just getting so close to the trees, and pushing it farther back. MRS. STOCKMAN-That keeps my expense down. When you start looking at a cement driveway. MR. GREEN-Is this, 26 feet wide, that's going to be, basically a two car garage? MR. STOCKMAN-Correct. MR. GREEN-One double door, or two single doors? MRS. STOCKMAN-One single. MR. GREEN-Well, I still think there's an awful lot there, but I would be willing to go along with the of the removal of the other two. of area back stipulations MR. STOCKMAN-The reason it looks so cleared out there is over the course of the last three or four years, I've taken a couple of trees and such like that to clear the area in preparation for this project. MR. CARVIN-Okay. structures, he's and replacing it reduction. If it's any consolation, if he removes the two going to be losing 1129 square feet of space, with 780. So I think that's a significant MR. GREEN-That is the only thing that is allowing me to agree with this. That's it. That's the only reason I will do it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. FORD-I would want to add one other stipulation. I believe on that southwest corner, get that additional storage shed in off that line further. - 19 - MR. CARVIN-Okay. A motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-1995 GORDON & CAROL STOCKMAN, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Applicant is proposing to construct a two-car, 30' x 26' garage which will be no higher than 24 and a half feet. In order for the applicant to proceed with his project he needs relief from Section 179-20, which requi res a side setback of 20 fe·et. I would grant 10 feet of relief from that Section. The benefit to the applicant would be that they'd be able to line their garage up with an existing driveway, and if the applicant were to move the garage the additional 10 feet, it would be out of alignment and actually be more of a hinderance and detriment to the overall back yard, which indicates that there really are no other feasible alternatives to the siting of this garage, in which some sort of relief would have to be granted. By the building of this garage, 10 feet from the property line, there does not appear to be any effect on the neighborhood or the community, and this difficulty does not appear to be self creatéd,because of the placement of the house, the existing driveway and the width of the current lot. However, I would also stipulate that this variance is contingent upon the removal of a 19' by 31' existing structure, as indicated on his plot plan, and an 18' x 30' storage shed indicated on his plot plan, and that the construction of the garage and the removal of the two existing structures be completed and all cleaned up no later than September 30, 1996. There has been no negative public comment with regard to this project, and by the applicant's willingness to remove the two antiquated and deteriorating existing structures, and replacing it with the new garage, I think it actually will be a betterment to the area and the community. Also, the applicant has a small, 8' by 12' foot semi-permanent storage shed four and a half feet off the property line that should be brought into compliance at five feet. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE USE VARIANCE NO. 59-1995 TYPE I LC-42A MICHAEL DIPALMA OWNER: SAME AS A80VE ACROSS FROM WILLIAMSON'S STORE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES TO HAVE A FISHING CHARTER SERVICE AS PART OF AN EXISTING BED AND 8REAKFAST 8USINESS. SINCE FISHING CHARTER IS NOT AN ALLOWED USE UNDER SECTION 179-13, LAND CONSERVATION, A USE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT. SECTION 179-7(8) DEFINITIONS, IS ALSO APPLICA8LE. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (LAKE GEORGE PARK) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 8/16/95 TAX MAP NO. 20-1-8 LOT SIZE: 0.5 ACRES SECTION 179-13, 179-7(B) MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-"The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Meeting Date: August 31, 1995 File No. 59-1995 Use Variance was tabled MOTION TO TA8LE USE VARIANCE NO. 59-1995 MICHAEL DIPALMA, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tabled pending a motion and further review by additional Board members. Tabled for 60 days. Duly adopted this 31st day of August, 1995, by the following vote: - 20 - - '-- AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin ,NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford" MR. CARVIN-Before we begin here, I want to make sure that the absent members, which I believe was Mr. Ford and Mr. Menter. have had an opportunity to read the minutes and feel comfortable commenting and voting on this particular motion, this issue. MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. CARVIN-All the applicant questions of the public hearing. right. Having said that. is there cares to add to the application? applicant by the Board? Okay. I anything that Okay. Any will open the PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, we held the public hearing at the last meeting, and at that time, you advised that the public hearing was closed. That there would be no presentation of any material at this time. That it was simply, the Board would vote on the application at this time. MR. CARVIN-Well, according to the minutes, as I understand it, that I still have the prerogative to open up the public hearing, and that our tabling motion was basically for further review by additional Board members. MR. O'CONNOR-We had specific discussion on that issue, because I had a question as to whether I should bring additional. MR. CARVIN-"I can always re-open it. By closing it we don't have to re-advertise it. Is that correct. Mr. O'Connor - If I recall right, Mr. Ford didn't think we needed a variance to go forward. Ms. Cipperly - Either way, we don't have to re-advertise it. We can provide the minutes to the members who weren't here. Yes. We actually have 30 days to make a motion anyway, right after. I waive the time limitations, says Mr. O'Connor. I think that I'm the one that has the (words lost) on that. Well, no can make a motion. Mr. O'Connor - I stipulate that I waive, so that you don't have, a problem., Mr. Carvin - I think I'd likè to ,table thi.s until we get a f.uller, Board for a motion. ,And then the motion that was Made to table, pending amotion and further review by additional Board members", and I think th.at there, has been additional comments, from the þublic that have come in, ðnd I think i~ would, behoove the Board to hear those comments:and open up the pUblic hearing before we move on this motion. Okay~ JOHN CAFFREY MR. CAFFREY-I'm the attorney for essentially, the next door neighbor's re-opening the hearing. I won't take going to talk about the legal status that ancient history. the Bleibtrey's who are, here, and I appreciate you much of your time. I'm not of the right-of-way and all MR. CARVIN-I was going to say. I'd germane to the Use Variance only, as original hearing a month ago. like to try to keep it wasstiþulatedi:! in the MR. CAFFREY-I'd really like to just take a look at the criteria under the New York State Town Law for the approval of a Use Variance. They must show unnecessary hardship, and they must show that with financial proof, and so far as I know, there isn't any financial proof in the record of a hardship, and they must - 21 - show it for each and every use allowed in that zone under the Town Zoning Ordinance before they can prove that they're entitled to a Use Variance, and they haven't even tried to do that. All they did is the came in and they talked about, they're not making money in this B & B. Well, there's no proof it won't earn a reasonable return if they sell it as a single family residence, if it's used for any of the other uses allowed under the Ordinance, and in the Land Conservation zone, which is probably at least 20 different uses. Now some of them probably aren't real practical, but they haven't met their burden of proof. We also believe this is a self-created hardship. He came in here. He applied for site plan review from the Planning Board over a year ago for a Bed & Breakfast, and he stipulated, Mr. O'Connor said on the record, at that time, that they're not asking the Board to condone the operation of a charter business from the dock. They stipulate to that effect. It was only for a B & B. Now they're saying they have a hardship. I'd also like to point out that this is not a unique situation. The ruling made by this Board before that the fishing charter couldn't operate from the B & B business would apply to any B & B located anywhere in the Land Conservation zone. Mr. O'Connor said in the minutes of the last meeting, well, it's not on a highway anymore. It's on Route 9L, in the Land Conservation zone, that's about as big a highway as you can get. It's a State highway. It's not buried off on some back road somewhere, and there's nothing that says a 8 & B has to have a fishing charter business to make a profit, and what if he came in here and he said he wasn't making any profit on his B & B so he wanted to open a bar? It just does not meet the test for a Use Variance. If, by chance, the Board does approve this variance, we would like to make sure that there are conditions attached, that the hours be limited to, say, nine to five, that there only be one boat, and as the County says, it should be limited only to the overnight B & B guests. We still don't think it meets the test, even with these conditions, we don't think it's approvable, but if the Board is going to approve it, we want to make sure that all these conditions that were bandied about at the last meeting don't slip through the cracks, and that they do get attached. In summary, the thing just does not qualify, under the Town Law standards, and under decades of case law before they were put into the Town Law for the Use Variance, and we don't think it should be approved. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyone else wishing to be heard in opposition? Any additional correspondence? MR. THOMAS-Yes. We have three letters. A letter dated September 18, 1995 "Dear Members of the Town Zoning Board of Appeals: Mr. DiPalma is now claiming that without a fishing charter business, it's a hardship on his Bed and Breakfast business. In the past, he has stated that his Bed and Breakfast has only one room to rent and someone can sleep on the. couch in the living room. When asked about whether or not he serves breakfast, Mr. DiPalma said the people staying there could go in the kitchen and make their own coffee. It appears that Mr. DiPalma's alleged hardship is definitely self-imposed and that the Bed and Breakfast was just an excuse to obtain approval from the Town for his fishing business. I have said that the noise from Mr. DiPalma's fishing business disturbs me greatly. Mr. O'Connor has said that I only thought I could hear voices at my house across the road. I would like you people to know that I did not 'think' I have heard Mr. DiPalma u.sing the 'F' word clearly. I know I heard him. I sincerely hope that you deny this use variance and protect the residential characteristics of this neighborhood. Very tru.ly yours, Grace Hanneford" A letter dated September 19, 1995, "To the Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: I realize Mr. Carvin closed the public hearing on this variance. However, I was so shocked by your apparent 360 degree reversal of position on this situation that I was at a loss for words. Since you did allow Mr. O'Connor to make a few more comments, I hope you will allow me the same courtesy. Even though a bed & breakfast is an - 22 - ........ allowed use in this residential area, it does not have to be allowed if other factors do not measure up. Mr. DiPalma does not have a parking area - only a small driveway. He is on a state highway on a blind curve and a junction of another road. Mr. DiPalma's own words regarding the sleeping area in his bed & breakfast were: 'There's one bedroom and a couch in the living room.' The addition was going to be a trophy room, according to Mr. DiPalma. We all realize that the Bed & breakfast was only a means to get the fishing business approved and now we are back to Mr. DiPalma having two businesses in a small right-of-way. Do you think you are being fair to completely reverse your previous decisions by agreeing that a hardship exists for this 'poor' man? You have the minutes from all the previous meetings with DiPalma, and you know he has lied from day one. You asked Mrs. Bleibtrey if they knew of the fishing business when they bought their property in 1984. Recheck your minutes - DiPalma continually denied having a fishing business, until Mr. Bleibtrey came upon his ad in a fishing magazine several years after they purchased their property. Board ,members, themselves, have caught' Mr. DiPalma in his lies and have accused him of such. I hope that each and everyone of you take a good, hard look not only at the question as to which party here yeally bears the burden of 'hardship', but at yourselves as well. Sincerely, Elsa Kraft" A letter dated September 20, 1995 "Gentlemen and Ladies of the Board of Appeals: I've been reliably informed that at a previous meeting of the Town Board to focus on this matter, Mr. DiPalma held up my letter to the Board and represented incorrectly that I approved of his plan to expand commercial operations on the small stream location ACCESSED BY HIS TEN FOOT RIGHT OF WAY TO THE LAKE SHORE WHERE HE DOCKS HIS COMMERCIAL FISHING BOAT. Our property has hundreds of feet bordering the DiPalma Bed and Breakfast enterprise, and soon to be our permanent residence. I represented our position previously to the Zoning Board, as well as concerns that in my judgement reflect valid concerns expressed by residents and media concerning the southern basin of Lake George. I would much prefer that the gentleman applicant avail himself of the launch facilities of anyone of the four long established MARINAS convenient to his Bed and Breakfast ente1"P1" ise , only one of whom was aware of Mr. D iPa Ima ' s application to the Zoning Board to establish his own commercial dock on what generally has been perceived to be Lakefront bordered by PRIVATE HOME PROPERTIES. All four area Marinas stand ready and anxious to service the DiPalma fishing parties launched generally very early in the morning in close and reliably informed boisterous proximity to the Bleibtrey family bedrooms, hence their repeatedly expressed concerns and my reasonable sympathy with this families concerns, as well as the concerns of others in the immediate area. I sympathize with Mr. DiPalma as well as the Bleibtrey family, but my letters to the Board did not represent approval of his application AS HE IS REPORTED TO HAVE REPRESENTED, in contrast to my clearly expressed concerns consistent with ongoing concerns for the water conditions in the southern basin expressed by lakefront residents, MARINAS paying high taxes tell me they WELCOME AND NEED MR. DIPALMA'S FISHING PARTY BUSINESS AND ARE EQUIPPED TO PROVIDE ALL THE ACCOMMODATING FACILITIES. Sincerely, Robert Bolen, Jr. Box 12 Pilot Knob, NY 12844" MR. GREEN-Chris, who is Elsa Kraft? located? Does it give where she's MS. CIPPERLY-She lives on the corner, by the North Queensbury Fire House. MR. THOMAS-She wasn't within 500 feet. notification. So she wasn't sent MR. CARVIN-I have to admit, I don't, a quick scanning of the minutes, I don't see where she was referred to in our last meeting, in other words, that this was germane. - 23 - MR. THOMAS-You mean the Bolen letter? MR. CARVIN-Or the Bolens. MR. THOMAS-It could have been Planning Board. MR. CARVIN-It could have been Planning Board. Okay. public comment? Any other MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Carvin, I'd like to respond, in part, for the record. I think the three letters that you have really don't offer much other argument except rehash the old arguments that we've heard for the last year and a half on the same application. Mr. Green asked where Mrs. Kraft lives. She lives at the beginning of Cleverdale, not at this site or near this site or within hearing of this site. I don't think Mr. Bolen lives in the immediate area. He does have property there, I take that back. The argument here is that this is a self-created hardship. It is not a self-created hardship. Mr. DiPalma went through the process, at the time, for all the necessary permits that would be required for him to do what he is asking to do at this particular time. He did, in January, receive site plan approval. At that time of that site plan approval, there was full discussion that there was intention to allow people who were guests of his bed and breakfast to depart from his own dock. There was exclusion of "the charter business", and I made exclusion of that. I still stand by that. It is not the intention of Mr. DiPalma to have people to come to this site and not be guests of the bed and breakfast, simply for the purpose of departing for fishing trips on the lake. I think that my comments in that regard have been taken out of context, as to what I said we were doing and weren't dol ng at that time, and if >'ou take a look at the mi nutes of that January 25th meeting, you can clearly distinguish between my argument and those who argued on the opposite side of that issue. This is not a self-created hardship. It's something that came about by the (lost word) of interpretation, long after we went through the approval p1·ocess. I raised an issue, and I still stand by the issue, as to the timeliness of the appeal that got this Board to initially decide that there was a variance required in this particular application. As to the question of the dollar and cents proof for, the basis for the hardship, we have spoken of that. When we are allowed to take people from our dock, we can operate our bed and breakfast. We think that that's the only attraction to a bed and breakfast in that particular area, is to have that type of amenity to go with it. Without it, we aren't going to operate. It's plain sense. It's not a matter of comparison of some profit to no profit. This is a permitted use, and this is what we have built the structure in part in reliance of. We are not using the addition, or we wouldn't have built the addition if we weTen't going to continue the bed and breakfast and have it in operation. The beds, the condition which was a room which started this whole thing, I forget exactly what it was, it was 12 by 13 feet, or something in that nature, which started this whole thing, but he needed a setback variance because of the LC-42 zone. That was completed, even before that application for the interpretation was filed with this Board. I think that we do meet the requirements for a Use Variance in this particular instance. I think it is unique to this property, and I think it is unique to what you have before you, and so I don't have a fear that we are not going to be able to sustain the burden of proof. That's !!!..l:. judgement. It's up to this Board to make the final Judgement on that issue, and I'm here to try to answer any of your questions, if you have questions, and so is ~1r. DiPalma. MR. CARVIN-Okay. To your knowledge, are there other, I'm going to use the term "specialty bed and breakfasts"? I'm assuming that what you're indicating is that your bed and breakfast is a specialty bed and breakfast, i.e. that it basically caters to the fishing clientele. Do you know if there's bed and breakfasts - 24 - '...... .", that concentrate on horse riding or, I don't know, skydiving or skeet-shooting or any, what would be a bed and breakfast, I guess? MR. O'CONNOR-At one time, we submitted to you, I think, brochures from various bed and breakfasts. Everybody seemed to offer some type of amenity to make themselves attractive to the public, as opposed to just being some place that you did stay and sleep in. I can submit those brochures back to you at this particular time. After doing this for a year and a half, I honestly didn't think we were going to get into the nuts and bolts of the application again this evening. I apologize to you for that. I, personally, have been to different bed and breakfasts that had different amenities. None in our particular area. I've been to ones in Vermont, Martha's Vineyard, different places, and everybody seems to have a little something different that they offer to the public. I think in Queensbury the bed and breakfasts that you have is the one up the road, here, which is the Blueberry, they call it the Blueberry Farms, or something of that nature. It's run by the Oudekerks, and the people can walk down through the pastures that they have, the berry fields that they have, and participate in their berry picking if they want to participate in that. There's one on Ridge Road. ,I know you've had some discussions with their swimming pool and what not as being an amenity that they offer, nothing peculiar to the land that I'm aware of. I don't know of any other bed and breakfast in Queensbury that offers the opportunity to go fishing from their premises. I would presume that anyone that's established on water might be able to offer that, whether it be on Glen Lake or Lake George, or whatever. I have the applications. I have a bunch of the brochures if you want to take them. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't know if that answers your question. MR. CARVIN-Okay. In other words, he may be unique in the Town of Queensbury, but specialty bed and breakfasts, I gueS$ what you're saying, are not unique in the world of bed and breakfasts. MR. O'CONNOR-No. I think they are. The one that I'm familiar with over in Vermont, that's outside of Arlington, we've been there three or four times, they have like a petting zoo or something of that nature with Llamas that you can go see. When I first started going there, they had horseback riding. They've discontinued that. Then they went to cross country skiing across the trails with the horseback riding. They still have that. So they have a feature that they offer. They don't have the feature of fishing. MR. CARVIN-Any other public comment? Hearing none, seeing none, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. O'CONNOR-Any questions of the applicant? MS. CIPPERLY-I think these are the brochures of some of them. That was part of the appeal. MR. CARVIN-Here's some other brochures that have been submitted in the past indicating certain specialty items that certain bed and breakfasts do offer, in conjunction with just the overnight accommodations. Okay. Chris, do you have any thoughts? MR. THOMAS-I think what this all boils down to, can the guests of the bed and breakfast step off the dock into the boat to go fishing. That's all what it boils down to, and when the Planning Board gave the approval for the bed and breakfast, right there, it gave them the right to use the dock, but the only issue here is, can they step off the dock into the boat to go fishing. - 25 - That's what I see it boiled down to, plain and simple, and that's what they're asking for this variance for, can we do it. Yes or no. I think the Planning Board has put us in a particularly hard place, here, and I don't see any optioM but to say yes, because the guests of the bed and breakfast are entitled to go down to the dock anyway. So, what's the big deal about stepping off a dock into a boat? They're already there anyway. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MENTER-Well, I would say we made the question quite a bit more complicated when we determined that a Use Variance was needed. Suddenly it's not that issue any longer. It's the issue of, does it specifically meet the criteria for a Use Variance. So, to me, that is the only issue, the Use Variance is the issue, and, you know, it's certainly unique. I don't believe it's a self-created hardship, but I don't believe that property could not receive a return without this Use Variance, in any of a number of different ways, and I've read through everything, and I just haven't seen where that has been proven, and that is the only stumbling block that I have, but once we determined that it needed a Use Variance, that became a question in !J.1.Z mind. So that's where I am with it. MR. CARVIN-Bob, any thoughts? MR. KARPELES-Well, I kind of feel the way I did last week. It's a tough one. I can't see how a fishing charter business has got to have a detrimental effect upon the character of the neighborhood, and the more I think about it, the more I think that that's true. If the fishing charter business had been there before all the neighbors moved in and so forth, I would have a lot more sympathy with it, but I can remember him being here and claiming that he did not have <'3 fishing charter business. So, that's the way I feel. MR. CARVIN-Bill? MR. GREEN-I think we addressed the charter business last week, that I don't consider taking the guests of the bed and breakfast off the dock as a charter. I consider that as an amenity of the bed and breakfast. As long as those trips are limited to guests, I don't have a problem with it. I don't want to see people driving up off the street, going for the day, and then leaving. If we limit it to guests only, I mean, Mr. DiPalma's chosen this particular business as his livelihood here, and sure there may be other reasonable uses for that property, but that's not what he has chosen, and he has had the approval for the bed and breakfast, and I would consider that a bed and breakfast on Lake George, you know, being able to fishing, whether from the dock or in a boat guided by Mr. DiPalma would be the same thing, and if we can't stop them from going down and going off the dock, what's the difference whether they get in a boat and go out on the lake? MR. MENTER-So it meets the criteria for a Use Variance? MR. GREEN-In !J.1.Z opinion. yes, and the, you know, not being able to show a return, I mean, I wouldn't go and stay there if I couldn't go fishing. I mean, that's what he has decided to use that property for, and that's what I would go there and stay for, and as you said, there might be other uses for that property, but that's not what he's chosen to use it for. MR. CARVIN-Tom? MR. FORD-Well, I think most will recall where I stood on whether or not a Use Variance was required. I was in opposition to that, but I stand ready to support the Board's decision, and that's where we are right now, that's brought us to that point. Having said that, I believe in reviewing the criteria that in fact a - 26 - --....- hardship does and will continue to exist, as long as an approved bed and breakfast can allow it's clients, it's patrons, to walk over an approved right-of-way to a dock owned by the proprietor. They can fish from that dock. They can cast for Bass, and yet, by restricting them to not being able to get off that dock and into a boat, I believe that we are creating a hardship for the proprietor, and I think that there are restrictions, as several of the Board members have indicated, such as confining the use of that boat to patrons of the bed and breakfast. If we were to confine the hours of operation, and also to a given boat, so that we don't have a flotilla or an armada operating off that dock, then it would seem to me that that would address or could address some of the neighbor's concerns and issues. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, you have raised~ once again, a number of interesting issues. This particular applicant has, over the last couple of years, raised an awful lot of interesting issues. I think we have to keep a number of items separate. I think as this thing has traveled through the system, that the charter business is, indeed a separate issue, away from the bed and breakfast~ I think we have a closure on that, in that Mr. DiPalma does not operate a charter business from his home off the deck. That if somebody shows up looking for a charter, that Mr. DiPalma goes down to his boat and drives to another marina, picks up that charter, and conducts his business. So I think it's semantics whether you say he conducts a charter business out of his house. I think he's got an office there, but I think the issue has been resolved, in that the actual presence of the customers actually are picked up elsewhere~ I think Mr. Thomas has got an interesting comment in that the bed and breakfast did go to site plan review, was approved, and he is allowed to have a bed and breakfast there. I also think that we all do what we do best, and in Mr. DiPalma's case, he is a licensed fishing guide, and has been a licensed fishing guide for a number of years~ and it only makes sense for him to operate a bed and breakfast stressing fishing. I don't know if he would, he probably would suffer an economic detriment if he tried to do something that he wasn't capable of doing. I mean, he may not be a hiker. He may not be a butterfly collector. He may not be a horseback rider, but he is a fisherman, and~ therefore~ he would more than likely operate most efficiently a bed and breakfast under a fishing guise. I think the big issue is the right-of-way issue, and I think that's an issue that we have to remain away from. I don't think that this would have half the impact that it's having if we were not dealing with a right-of-way, and I truly do sympathize with the Bleibtreys, and I don't have an answer, and I still think that that answer is found in civil court, as to what actually constitutes the use of a right-of-way. I have no doubt, again, I've stated this before, I have no doubt in my mind that Mr. Bleibtrey has a use to the right-of-way, but I'm not positive that paying customers, friends, or other folks that are visiting Mr. DiPalma also have that use of the right-of-way, and, again, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a judge, and I don't have an answer to that, and I think that answer is found elsewhere, not at the Zoning Board. I think that if we grant a variance, that the variance does have to stipulate, or should stipulate, the actual activities that can go on here. I think that the Use Variance is required, in this particular situation, and not only in this particular situation, but in many situations where ou'" Ordinances and our definitions are vague as to what can go on in a bed and breakfast. I think that just using the term "bed and breakfast" is too broad of a situation, that that covers too many areas, and I've used the example, in the past, of an amusement park. An amusement park may have 19 different rides, and they may bring in another ride, and that may actually need to apply for a Use Variance. So that issue has been confronted before, and I think it's the same issue with this bed and breakfast as far as the use is concerned. So I think that we have asked the applicant to submit a Use Variance, that it should stand the test of the Use Variance, and I guess my feeling is that on'all cases, it does - 27 - stand with, obviously, the stipulations, the test for the granting of a Use Variance. Having said that, I guess everything has been said. I would call for a motion. Does anybody have a motion? MR. GREEN-What were the hours stipulations that we talked about before? MR. CARVIN-Okay. I have a skeleton of a motion, and it's certainly a long ways from complete, but I think Mr. Caffrey has indicated the hours of, seven to five, was it? MR. CAFFREY-Nine to five. MR. CARVIN-Nine to five. I think that that's an unrealistic time frame for most fisherman. MR. CAFFREY-You've got to think of people sleeping in a house, though. Most people don't always get up that early. MR. CARVIN-I would entertain any thoughts on the hours. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I think we stipulated the last time, seven to nine, and I remind the Board that what we're talking about here is a very limited use. I think in the two years they've béen operating, they're talking about 13 different occasions on one year and 9 occasions on another year, where we actually operated, had people as a bed and breakfast. This is not the Grand Hotel. It is a very small, unobnoxious operation, and we will stand by the hours of seven to nine. MR. CARVIN-Is the Board comfortable with that? MR. THOMAS-Seven a.m. to nine p.m., or seven p.m. to nine a.m.? MR. O'CONNOR-Seven a.m. to nine p.m. MR. CARVIN-I think seven a.m. to nine p.m., all in the same day. MR. FORD-Well, while I feel comfortable with the seven a.m., the nine p.m. gives me some discomfort, in that, as we get deeper into the summer~ and into August, and pressing into September, we are now looking at nine p.m. being well after dark. Perhaps there would be some way of tying it into official sunset. Maybe that's being too restrictive, but we're looking at official sunset now of being around 6:59 p.m., seven o'clock, and by this, that would be a fishing charter out there on the lake two hours after dark. MS. CIPPERLY-I think in the last meeting Mr. DiPalma said something about dusk or dark, also. MICHAEL DIPALMA MR. DIPALMA-The reason I said nine p.m., a lot of the guides on the west side of the lake can be Bass fishing charters, called Bass charters, and they call me to take some of the people out when they're filled, and they're not over until, like, nine o'clock. So, actually, it wouldn't matter, because I'd be coming in empty, and that's not part of the deal, that's not for pay. MR. O'CONNOR-You'd probably wrap up your fishing at dusk. Probably a half hour, an hour after dusk, is that too late, an hour after dusk to get back to the dock? MR. DIPALMA-The reason I said that is I haven't used that dock after nine o'clock with people all year. I've been down there maybe two times, and that's it, but I want to cover myself in case one time I have to come in late. - 28 - MR. O'CONNOR-What we've done in other occasions is said that the ordinary hours of operation would be A, B, and C, with the understanding that there may be an exceptional occasion where something else happens. If you're on the northern part of the lake, and you get caught in a storm, you're certainly aren't going to try and get back through the storm. I don't know how you'd fit that in, but I've gone through big, long dissertations, and I think Mr. Caffrey even on the other side of that, with an asphalt (lost word) where we've talked about the occasional job that says, you will run 24 hours, or you will not get that particular job, and there's been exceptions made in that, on other Z8A, or the Planning Board has indicated that there's some understanding that sometimes there is an exception to what you put forth as being the rule. Nine p.m. we could live with on all occasions. If you've got to make it a little tighter, I would want to make it tighter with the understanding that that's normal operating hours. MR. KARPELES-I'm not in favor of the whole damn thing. I think seven a.m. is awfully early for the neighbors, if there's going to be any noise there, and as they've claimed they've heard some language come out of there. MR. O'CONNOR-We have neighbors here, also, Mr. Karpeles, who could testify that there's been no noise. We didn't bring them here tonight. They didn't want to go back through two years of testimony. We think it would be a fairly decent operation. They can go down and fish off that dock at any time. I think Mr. Thomas really has centered on what the real issue here is. Can they step off the dock and leave the premises, as opposed to staying on the dock. Likewise, that might be a benefit (lost word). You're not talking about changing the character of what's already permitted. MR. FORD-Is there any concern about the issue that I raised about the number of boats that would be uti 1 ized in 'the charter business? MR. O'CONNOR-I stipulated that we will have one boat utilized in the charter business, not the charter business. I've used that term before and gotten in trouble. We will have one boat used in connection with the bed and breakfast for bed and breakfast guests. That dock does allow two boats. That's the permit that we have from the Lake George Park Commission. There may be another boat there, but it will not be used in connection with our loading people from the bed and breakfast. MR. FORD-Could I ask for an explanation of something I read in the minutes of the last meeting, and that was that it was alleged that there had, at veTY times, been three or four boats at that dock? MR. O'CONNOR-I think the answer DiPalma gave you, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that on any time that there's been more than two boats there, it's been occasional. It's been during the day time. It was people just visiting. It's been very seldom. It's li ke anyb,ody's home. You could have four or five people visit you. This is his home. This is an accessory use to his home. They haven't been boats that have been there in connection with the other people going from that property fishing. MR. DIPALMA-What he said is correct, but many years ago, I was involved with another person at the dock. and I was a part time resident here. I just came back to take care of my property. Well, before I noticed that there were a couple of boats at the dock that weren't mine. So I told him to have one leave, and that boat did leave. After a while, this guy was being hassled so much, he decided to leave, too. So he's not there anymore, either. So it was never like three boats working. - 29 - I' "'--- MS. CIPPERLY-Are there particular days of the week that you operate, or is it? MR. O'CONNOR-Seven days a week. MS. CIPPERLY-I was trying to figure out the operating hours, if it was any particular days. MR. DIPALMA-The majority of people I take out on the weekends, holidays. I try to get them to come up during the week, because you don't have people during the week, and, unless they're on vacation during the summer, they can only make it on weekends, and you have to fit around their schedule. MR. CARVIN-Well, I've asked this question, I think, last week, or last meeting. Have you had an opportunity where clientele's for a bed and breakfast might show up with their own boats, and if so, would those boats be docked at your dock? MR. DIPALMA-If they were allowed to, they would be, allowed to meaning that I have a Class B Marina permit. There's a permit you have to get to have one or more of your boats, have two boats on your dock, one not being related to you, and this occurred because the Bleibtreys complained about me. MR. O'CONNOR-Lets not create an issue out of that subject. He is willing to stipulate that that will not occur. If somebody wants to stay at his place, with the bed and breakfast, and bring their own boat, they will have to make arrangements at a marina, or they will just have to trailer it and put it in on a day basis and take it back out on a day basis. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-That was not part of our presentation, or intention of our presentation. Lets not create a problem with this. MR. CARVIN-All right. I have, as I said, I assume nobody else has got a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 59-1995 MICHAEL DIPALMA, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: The applicant proposes to provide fishing opportunities as part of the services provided under his approved bed and breakfast operation. The applicant has indicated that a reasonable return cannot be realized from just the overnight bed and breakfast clientele, as this bed and bre~kfast is unique in that it is advertised and promoted as a fishing bed and breakfast. Mr. DiPalma has been and is a licensed fishing guide, and his expertise is in offering fishing as an accessory use beyond the normal overnight accommodations and breakfast associated with the operation of a bed and breakfast. Both the bed and breakfast and fishing opportunities are secondary to the occupancy of the dwelling by Mr DiPalma. This hardship is unique, as this is the only bed and breakfast in the area, and possibly the only bed and breakfast in the area offering fishing as an accessory use. There would be no adverse impact on the essential character of the neighborhood, as Mr. DiPalma indicates a low intensity use and activity with regard to the bed and breakfast, and this would be the minimum relief necessary to address the hardship indicated by the applicant, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood. However, the following restrictions do apply to the granting of this variance. Number One, no other fishing business is to be conducted from the property. Number Two, the fishing opportunities are only to be available to fully paid guests of the bed and breakfast who must stay overnight, and who's stay is limited to one week, as outlined by the Town Definitions for bed and breakfast facilities. Number Three, the - 30 - J hours of the fishing operation are limited to 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Number Four, only a single applicant owned and operated boat is to be used by any bed and breakfast occupant wishing to utilize the fishing opportunity. This Board is cognizant of Mr. and Mrs. Bliebtrey's and others opposition to this variance, but feel that the mitigating issue revolves around the use of a right-of-way, which we feel are not under the purview of this Board. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1995, by the following vote: MS. CIPPERLY-You had a phrase in there that said no other fishing business vJill be conducted from the dock. MR. CARVIN-No, from the property. MS. CIPPERLY-From the property. MR. O'CONNOR-That doesn't prohibit Mr. DiPalma from. MR. CARVIN-Having an office. MR. O'CONNOR-He and his boat going off the property. MR. CARVIN-That's correct. That changes no status. MR. O'CONNOR-That's my understanding. MR. CARVIN-In other words, the only fishing folks that YOU can take "off the dock" would be overnight guests of the bed and breakfast. MR. O'CONNOR-Or friends, that's not related to business. talking about business activities only. We're MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, we can't control friends, but maybe the Bleibtreys can. MR. O'CONNOR-My point is just so that we have discussion here, so that Staff has an understanding if there is an issue later. I'm trying to deal with~ I'm not trying to create issues. MR. CARVIN-I mean, are friends going off the dock now? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. THOMAS-You can't stop that~ MR. KARPELES-How can you distinguish between a friend and a charter service? MR. THOMAS-Check the receipt. MR. CARVIN-As I said, I think the issue still comes around the right-of-way. MR. GREEN-Don't even go down that road. AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Ford. Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles MR. CARVIN-I just done on DiPalma. correct, we did not until this meeting. noticed. We had a SEQRA that we should have It's a Type I. I think, if memory serves do that. I think we said we would put it off We can do that at the end. NEW BUSINESS: - 31 - AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-1995 TYPE II WR-IA CEA NORMA A. BAERTSCHI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD, ON WEST SIDE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RELOCATE AN EXISTING DOCK. RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM SECTION 179-60(B)1(b), WHICH DESCRIBES THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR DOCKS. CROSS REF. SPR 48-95 (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 9/13/95 (BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE) TAX MAP NO. 6-1-6 LOT SIZE: 0.12 ACRES SECTION 179-60( B )1( b ) BRUCE JORDAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 62-1995, Norma A. Baertschi, Meeting Date: September 20, 1995 "Applicant: Norma A. Baertschi Project Location: Assembly Point Road Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to relocate part of a pre-existing dot: k. Conformance with the Ordi nance: Section 179-60( B) requires a minimum setback of twenty feet from the adjacent property line extended into the lake on the same axis as the property line runs on-shore where it meets the lake or at right angles to the mean high-water mark, whichever results in the greater setback. The Zoning Administrator has interpreted this to mean that on the north side of the dock, the right angle line would be used, and on the south side, the line on the same aX1S as the property line would be used, as that would give the greatest amount of setback on either side of the dock. Therefore, the relief sought for the new dock would be six feet on the north side and eight feet on the south side. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be able to move the dock and end a lawsuit commenced by the northerly neighbor, apparently contending that the Baertschi dock is an intrusion on the use of their property. 2. Feasible alternatives: Continuing the lawsuit is only alternative which L;Jould not require a var iance, and would be more costly than moving the dock. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The relief is not substantial, and decreases the nonconformity on the north side. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? TheTe would be no adverse impact on the community. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? This difficulty was due to the location of a pre-existing dock, not due to actions by the applicant. Parcel History: The Baertschi's or family members have owned this and surrounding properties since the 1950's. Staff Comments and Concerns: Staff has no concerns over the relocation of the Baertschi dock. It seems unfortunate that this is taking place, since this minimal dock has existed for years in its current location. The dock on the adjoining property to the north does n6t appeaT to be located twenty feet off the property line extended into the lake, either. SEOR: Type II" MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren Cburity Planning Board, held on the 13th day of September 1995, the above application for an Area Variance to relocate existing dock to eliminate encroachment on neighboring property. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: Concurring with local conditions." Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there anything you'd care to add to the application? MR. JORDAN-I don't think there's really too much that I can add because it's a very straight forward application. We're here because of the technical requirements of this Ordinance, when you're either installing or relocating an existing dock. Under circumstances such as these, we have to apply for the relief that's requested here. The only other thing I can say is, from anyone's point of view, when you go out onto the lake, and you look back at this property, what you're going to see after the - 32 - -- proposed relocation is essentially the same as what you're going to see today. My people intended to clearly slide this thing 11 feet to the south to make it fit the proposed site that's indicated on Mr. Nesbitt's drawing, that's part of the application. They don't plan to reconfigure the structure, the amenities_ or anything else associated with the existing facilities, nor has any request been made of this application in respect to anything else, other than the relocation of the pier extending into the water. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions of the applicant? MR. THOMAS-I've just got one question for Bruce. Do you want the letter that you wrote to Bartlett~ Pontiff, Stewart and Rhodes read into the record? MR. JORDAN-That's that was actually and I thought it really here. not necessary. I left that as part of the, part of the Lake George Pa.rk."Commission record, would give you some background as to why we're MR. THOMAS-Okay.. So you don't want it read in there. MR. JORDAN-No, thank you very much. MR. CARVIN-All right. Anyother questions? I'd open the public hea ring. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FLORENCE CONNOR MRS. CONNOR-My name's Florence Connor, and I'm on Assembly Point, and I just want to say, I have no problem with this at all. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. MR. FORD-Could we ask how close you are to the property. MRS. CONNOR-I'm not close to the dock. I'm on the o,ther side of the Point, but I know the area. and I'm very watchful of, what goes on, and I feel this is no problem. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Any correspondence? MR. THOMAS-Yes. Just a note, at the bottom of a Notice of Public Hearing sent out, dated September 18. 1995, "Dear Christian Thomas: We will appreciate all the help your Board will give Norma Baertschi. She and Edward Baertschi are fine, cooperative neighbors. Yours truly. Lydia Ernest and Mr. George Ernst". PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Any questions, gentlemen, of the applicant? MR. THOMAS-What you're going to do is just take the existing dock, dismantle it, move it over, reassemble it? MR. JORDAN-That's correct. MR. THOMAS-You're not going to add any length to it, or width to it? MR. JORDAN-No. MR. THOMAS-Exactly the same? MR. JORDAN-We don't have any approval from the Park Commission to change the configuration, widen it, or anything of that nature. - 33 - MR. THOMAS-Okay. The approval from the Park Commission was just to relocate? MR. JORDAN-Yes, as is represented in the attachment to the application. MR. THOMAS-Okay. HR. CARVIN-I just havè one question of Staff'~1 In your, notes you indicate'the dock on the adjöi:ning propei·tyto the north does not appear to be located 2~ feet off th& proþerty line èxtending to the faké'either., Is there any follow up on that, o)~will there be any follow up on that? '-'. 'j MS~ CIPPERLY-Well, that underwent site p'lan rêview last year, and I don't know \¡,¡hat'the ~Planning 8bard's, I 'looked up :the Planning Board Site, Plan Review, and there reatly w'asn "t a surveyed þlot plan in there that sho~.¡ed the dista'nce to the p)"operty line, but wh€Ù; you. meaSL!¡,re it :on the survey,ed map öf the Baertschi 's, the neighboring dock 1sn't 20 feet f1"omthe line either-. So, ,it just seem:èd unfdrtÙnate ·thst thé:BaertscfH's had to mòve theirs. They're: bot.h pn:i:"::'ex 1st i ng doc ks '. ;,".. MR. CARVIN-Well, that"s what I'm asking. Will Planning follow up on thét to,vè~ify ,~heth~r a variance is needed? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. JORDAN-The one t.o the north is (lost. word) that's reasonably. , ,,'" MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. That was built last year, and as I said, I'd have to look into, I know Warren County mentioned setbacks, but I don't know why the Planning Board Staff didn't follow up on that. MR. CARVIN~Well, is this another case where they say they're going to do one thing and end up doing something else, I wonder? MS. CIPPERLY-I don't believe so. As I said, I have to look into that, but I will follow up on it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. anyone? Anyone order. Any other questions, gentlemen? uncomfortable with this? Okay. Any comments, Motion's in MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-1995 NORMA A. BAERTSCHI, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: The applicant is proposing to ie-locate part of a pre-existing dock. In order for the applicant to proceed with their project, they need relief from Section 179-608, which requires a mInImum setback of 20 feet from the adjacent property line, extended into the lake on the same axis as the property line run~ on shore. I would grant relief of eight feet on the north side and nine feet on the south side of, the minimum of 20 feet as outlined by Section 179-60B. The benefit to the applicant would be that they would be able to move their dock and end a lawsuit which has been commenced by a northerly neighbor, apparently: contending that· the Baertschi's dock is an intrusion on the use of their property. The only feasible alternative would be for the applicant to continue the lawsuit, which may result in the need of no variance, but obviously in the long run would probably be more costly than moving the dock. This relief is not substantial in relation and relative to the Ordinance. By the granting of this relief, there would be no adverse impact on the community. This difficulty is not self created, due to the location of the pre- existing dock and the current legal proceedings by the northerly neighbor. The 8aertschi's or family members have owned this particular property and surrounding property since the 1950's. - 34 - Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-1995 TYPE I WR-IA MICHAEL CANTANUCCI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD, ON WEST SIDE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMBINE 4 PROPERTIES TO CREATE A 1.9 ACRE LOT. THE LOTS CURRENTLY CONTAIN FOUR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES, TWO OF WHICH ARE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED, ONE RAZED AND REPLACED, AND ONE MODIFIED. SECTION 179-16C, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL, REQUIRES ONE ACRE PER PRINCIPLE BUILDING; SECTION 179-12 STATES THAT THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN ONE PRINCIPAL BUILDING IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE ON ANY SINGLE LOT LESS THAN TWO ACRES IN SIZE, SO RELIEF IS REQUIRED FROM THESE SECTIONS. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RAZE AN EXISTING CAMP SET BACK 32 FEET FROM THE SHORELINE, AND REPLACE IT WITH A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE SET BACK 50 FEET FROM THE SHORELINE, SO RELIEF IS NEEDED FROM THE 75 FOOT SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIRED IN SECTION 179-60. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (LAKE GEORGE PARK COMMISSION) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 9/13/95 TAX MAP NO. 6-3-17, 18, 32, 15.3 LOT SIZE: 1.9 ACRES SECTION 179-60, 179-16C, 179-12 CROSS REF. MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 22-1993 BOB STEWART, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 63-1995, Michael Cantanucci, Meeting Date: September 20, 1995 "Applicant: Michael Cantanucci Project Location: Brayton Lane, Assembly Point Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: Applicant proposes to combine 4 properties to create 1.9 acre lot.. The lots currently contain four residential structures, two of which are proposed to be removed, one razed and replaced, and one modified in the future. Section 179-16C, Waterfront Residential, requires one acre per principal building; Section 179-12 states that there shall be no more than one principal building ,in a residential zone on any single lot less than two acres in size, so relief is required from these sections. Applicant proposes to raze an existing camp set back 32 feet from the shoreline, and replace it ,with a 4,000 square foòt hòuseand 6,00 square foot garage set back 50 feet from the shoreline,' so relief is needed from the 75-foot shoreline setback required in Section 179-60. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant claims the existing structure is deteriorated and wishes to replace it with a newly constructed house. The new structure would also be considerably larger, at 4,000 square feet, than the existing building. 2. Feasible alternatives: Downsizing the house could make it possible to achieve better compliance with the required setbacks, as well as causing less site disturbance. Building the house in the rear portion of the property would be possible but not desirable, considering the waterfront nature of the lot. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The relief sought is 33% of the required setback. The number of principal structures would be double the allowed number, but under the proposed plan, the number of principal structures involved would be decreased by one. 4. Effects'on the neighborhood or communi ty? This project has, the potential for a great impact on the nature of this area. The size of the house, relative to the existing situation, and to others in the area, will make it much mors visible from the lake than the existing structures are. The proposed height is 33 feet at the highest point. Clearing necessary to construction could also have quite an impact visually, and appears to be of concern to those neighbors who have reviewed the file. The new septic system, with the leaching - 35 - area over 400 feet from the lake, would have a positive effect. Combining lots to create one large parcel nearly twice the required acreage could also be considered a desirable situation. The architect has made a commendable effort to capture the character of historic Adirondack construction, but the size of the structure is worrisome to some who live in the area, and plan to attend the public hearing to express their concerns personally. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The removal of the structures appears to be a combination of building condition and personal preference. The triangular shape of the front portion of the lot has some impact on building location. Parcel History: There are 3 parcels with structures on them, history as follows, based on Town Assessor's records: 6-3-17 6-3-18 6-3-32 Main house, built 1905, 4 bedrooms, 1863 s.f. liv. space Camp built 1903, 1 bedroom 500 s.f. Is Camp (red) built 1900, 2 bedroom 640 s.f. Is Staff Comments and Concerns: Staff believes it is possible to reduce the amount of relief required, primarily by reducing the size of the house and moving it back from the shore, possibly achieving compliance with the required 75-foot setback. If the variance is granted, it is recommended that this project be sent to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review to address stormwater runoff, visibility, delineate clearing areas, address engineering issues related to siting the septic system and boat storage building, etc. It should be noted that on the revised site plan submitted on September 18, with the rendering of the house, it is indicated that modifications are planned for the "Burnham Cottage". These are not being addressed at this time, and would require site plan review, at least. SEOR: This is an Unlisted action in a Critical Environmental Area, making it a Type I action. Applicant has completed a Long Form Environmental Assessment and the Zoning Board is the sole involved agency, so may proceed with the SEQR determination." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 13th day of September 1995, the above application for an Area Variance for the removal of 2 existing seasonal structures and replacement with a new year round residential structure and one storage structure. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact". Signed C. powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there anything that you'd care to add? MR. STEWART-Yes. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, my name is Bob Stewart. I'm an attorney from Glens Falls. I'm here tonight speaking on behalf of the owners of the property, of Wallace Trust, and Mr. James Wallace, the Trustee of that Trust, is here tonight to answer any questions, and I'm also here tonight on behalf of the potential buyer of that property, Mr. Michael Cantanucci, who's also here tonight. With me is Dennis MacElroy, of the Environmental Design Partnership, who has done most of the work in putting this entire package and preparation together, and he is probably going to be able to answer any technical questions that you may have, better than I can. I'm going to try to keep this quite brief, and hopefully cheerful because I think this looks like a pretty good one. You've heard the explanation that we're pulling together fouT parcels into one large parcel. If I may, this which is outlined in green is the resulting parcel, and you can see it's oddly shaped and it has this narrow neck in the middle. The ultimate proposal is to take a small existing house, which is here, and to refurbish it. That's not part of this application tonight. That matter will probably go, ultimately, before the Planning Board, but we thought you were entitled to be aware of that fact in your overall view of things. Here outlined in the clear black box is the one and a half story main house which now exists, and it exists 32 feet back from the lakeshore, and of course the owners could, or the potential buyer could re- - 36 - ----_._-_._--.,'-_.~-_.- build that, re-habit, and enlarge it backwards, but it's an old, old camp, I believe 1905 the application stated it was built. It's up on piers, and really there's nothing there to work with. You'd spend an awful lot of money and I think end up with (lost words) when you were done. Instead of that, the proposal is to demolish it, build a new house which would now be back 50 feet from the shoreline, rather than the 32 feet that you have now. The reason for the 52'feet, is to accommodate the size of the house, because as you corne back, and you can see the lot gets narrower and narrower, you have to have a total of 50 foot setbacks on either side, and to do that, you really can't get back much more than the 50 feet. The existing septic system, which is now up near the front of the lot, is going to be brought all the way back here to the rear of the lot, some 450 feet from the lake, and we think that will be an enormous improvement. There is a small camp existing right here on the corner. It's just outlined in a black line. It's a little hard to see. It actually encroaches over onto the neighbors somewhat, as you'll see. That's been there forever and a day. That's,going to be demolished entirely. There is another building back in this area, a camp which also will be demolished in its entirety. Mr. Cantanucci has several boats, and there is a proposal to have this storage building to store those boats in the winter time. Also because, here on Lake George, and I live up near the end of the Point and I have the same problem, he can't get a full basement down under these houses. So in terms of work area, storage, things of that nature, this would also serve for that purpose also. The present driveway accessing the property comes in across the adjacent neighbors. That's going to be eliminated, and a new road will come in, all the way on our property, and we will sign off to the neighbor any claims we have to that highway, which will be an enormous improvement for him. In terms of views, we have met with the Young family, who own this property here, and they're the only ones I can think of who's views might be effected at all, and in our discussions, and in agreement with them, the house has been designed so that this wall is at a bit of an angle, giving them all of the view out this Bay, and their best view is across this Bay and out the length of it to the main lake and Dome Island. There's a beautiful view out through there. This house will give them all of the view that they had before, and in fact should improve it, because we will be taking down this one and a half story house that's right there that blocks their view to some extent right now. So their new view will be as good as, if not better than, their existing view. In terms of the benefit to the potential buyer, of course, a new home. He has a large family, three children. His parents live with them. He wants to make provisions for them. It's a large Italian family, and, obviously, they need a home of some size to meet their needs. ~his old camp doesn't do it, and as I said, it's pretty dilapidated and old, and it would take an awful lot of money to really restore it correctly. It's been pulled back 20 feet which is, I think, a big enhancement for everybody, but to pull it back any farther, you start to get squeezed in so that you can't fit in a house of this house. It really would make no sense, of course, to buy, and pay the money that you have to pay for Lake George property, and get all the way back here, the back end of the property. That wouldn't make any sense at all. Now, in terms of the character of the neighborhood, I would like to show you these if I may. If you were to look at the property from the lake, the first house that you would see is pictured in this photograph. This would be the house immediately to the left, viewed from the lake, and you can get some idea of this proximity to the water. It clearly is not 75 feet or anywhere close to it. This next photograph I will pass around is the second house to the left, from the subject property, lovely places, but in terms of setback from the lake and whether we would be different or would create some problem, I think these may clear your mind. The third photograph coming along the table is the third house to the left of the subject property, and now the fourth photograph is still to the left. You're turning the - 37 - Point, and starting down toward the Harris Bay Boat Company, and there's about three houses shown there, and I'm not going to go any farther to the left. I think that will give you a pretty good idea. Now, immediately to the right of the subject property as viewed from the lake are these series of houses, turning the corner and heading back out onto Assembly Point. Now, Sue Cipperly kindly gave me today a computer printout of information that her Department has which shows this Point and the houses. I don't think it shows it, maybe, as clearly as those photographs do, but it shows the houses and their location, how close they are to the shorefront, and the house that is right at the Number 17 is the one that we propose to take down and build a new house 20 feet back from it, and you will see that in that area the old house that's existing now is farther back than almost anything else, and of course we intend to go 20 feet back from it. MR. FORD-A question if I might. You've used 20 feet back further several times. Is that accurate, or is it accurate at 50 feet? MR. STEWART-Well, we are 32 feet now, okay. Is it 52 or 50? DENNIS MACELROY MR. MACELROY-It's 50 from the main lake. little indentation just to the west side boathouse. It's 50 of the from that existing MR. STEWART-Okay. I was confused. We have two spots where we have to be careful. You'll see this little tiny bay that comes in behind the boathouse. If you went over there and looked you really wouldn't notice it, but it's there. At a diagonal from the proposed corner of the new house to it, that's 50 feet. Straight back from the main lake, and that's really what L was talking about, will be 52, whereas now we're 32, and that's the extra 20 I was talking about. MS. CIPPERLY-Those computer maps different scales of, the parcel actual location of the building know, the reason it's done from way to get a relative. that both of us lines are very on the parcel aerial photos, have given you, accur ate. The is within, you but it's a good MR. STEWART-Yes. It's my understanding that these were developed from aerial photographs, and I can't represent they're accurate. MR. KARPELES-What's 18? That isn't the wood frame camp? MS. CIPPERLY-That's the Burnham cottage, 18 is the parcel number. MR. STEWART-No, that's on another parcel. This, the Burnham camp I think did not show in the aerial photograph because of the trees. MR. MACELROY-That's Burnham. MR. STEWART-It another parcel. is Burnham? That's right. That's right, because there We're joining these parcels. ~...¡as MR. KARPELES-Well, that's what I'm wondering. right? That's this, MR. MACELROY-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-The parcels with numbers on them are the ones that are being effected by this project. MR. STEWART-All right. I think one last major point I would like to make, and then we'll answer any questions. I don't want to get into a long, drawn out oration. The appearance of the house itself, the buyer and his architect have spent a lot of time - 38 - -- "--- trying to come up with something that's beautiful but also fits this area of the country. What they've come up with, or attempted to come up with, is something that is Adirondack in style. It's a substantial house, but you'll notice that the forward portion of it, that portion closest to the lake, is one or one and a half story high. There is a section of it that is two stories high, but that's in the middle of the building and toward the rear. Now this is the general concept of the house, the appearance of the house that we'd like to build. The artist who rendered this, of course, doesn't show a single tree out in front, because there's point in doing an artist's rendering and then hiding it with a bunch of trees, but there are a substantial amount of trees there in that lake frontage area, and they will be maintained as best they can. Of course you know the rule that you have, within the first 35 feet, very, very limited cutting that can be allowed, but I didn't want to leave with you the impression that the house was going to be bare, as seen from the lake, as the artist has painted it here. All those trees, or certainly most of those trees will remain, but that is the type of design that Mr. Cantanucci is planning; So, from my point of view, it looked like there were a good deal of pluses. We're getting rid of small, older camps. We're combining a series of small, tiny, substandard parcels into one large lot. The lot is 1.9 acres, and we certainly wish we could squeeze one tenth of an acre more and have two. That would eliminate one of your decisions tonight, but it just isn't there. We would be left with the new house, the old house, which will ultimately be restored and improved, and a storage building way back from the lake which shouldn't be visible. The new septic system, I think 450 feet back from the lake, whereas the old one is up more to the front. We do not believe we impact or impair in any way on the neighbor's views. The new house ~ ill be back 20 feet farther than what's there now, and the house to be built is, I think, an elegant design. It should blend nicely in there, beautiful Adirondack in character, and again, I think that it will be a huge asset. So that's our pitch, and we'll answer any questions we can. MR. KARPELES-That Burnham camp you call it, is that tied in to the new septic tank, or will that be? MR. STEWART-It is not. Dennis, can you answer that? MR. MACELROY-It is not currently part of the four bedroom design in the back. We haven't shown as much, but there is a second two bedroom area that would be part of any site plan review that that property would be subject to or that structure would be subject to, in any further proceedings to the Planning Board. So the answer to the question there is there is another area, a two bedroom area, an area for a two bedroom system elsewhere on the property, that lt isn't shown there, but certainly will be in any presentation to the Planning Board, as far as the site plan revie\>J. MS. CIPPERLY-That would also be in the rear part of the property, right? MR. MACELROY-You can see on the site plans that you've received, the areas of Test Pits 9 and 10, over in this vicinity of the property. They were done, and that will support a two bedroom system in that area, which was what the Burnham cottage is. MR. CARVIN-What would you do, pump that all the way? MR. MACELROY-Correct, similar to the main structure also involves pumpi ng. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I have a just need a clarification. very long thing? question on the lot lines here. I Is this a separate parcel here, this - 39 - MR. MACELROY-That's part of property. the Repinski, the neighboring MR. CA~VIN-AII right. Is that being bought? MR. MACELROY-No. MR. CARVIN-All right. Then how are they going to get access if you're going to deed this away? MR. MACELROY-It appears that that easement, 6-3-15.3 is the access to the Repinski's, but it's not. The Repinski access is through that area, and they have no deeded rights to that. MR. STEWART-That's right. We have researched that. They have no legal rights to it, and they have never used OVer the years. They come in from a different direction. MR. MACELROY-The reason it comes and butts against that, it's access for 18, for Burnham. That access feeds Burnham as well. That's why it comes and butts up there. It's a natural question, everybody asks it, but it's not an access. MR. CARVIN-What is there, just a,dock here? MR. MACELROY-No. I don't know what the history of that is, but it's the same owner. This owner is the same for that parcel and that parcel, and it's effectively combined. It exists as two separate parcels, it's my understanding. It shows that way on the tax maps, but it's effectively one parcel with that owner. Again, I don't know the history of that, but it's (lost word). MR. STEWART-We are not attempting to cut anybody access, nor is anything here before this Board would have that effect at all. off from any seeking, that MR. CARVIN-So that's not going to be a problem then? MR. STEWART-No. MR. FORD-Structurally, the basement is, what? MR. MACELROY-There's no basement on that. It's on piers. MR. KARPELES-How about the new house. Is there any basement on that? MR. MACELROY-No. There wouldn~t be a, again, I can't speak for the architect. I'm not certain, but knowing the area, there would will not be any kind of full basement. There'd be some kind of footings, and a foundation wall obviously, but a crawl space type arrangement. MR. FORD-If this picture is not an accurate representation of the trees to remain, then is this plot plan accurate? MR. MACELROY-Correct. That's a representation of the vegetation that exists, the significant vegetation that exists within the 35 feet jurisdictional area. MR. FORD-And which would continue to here now, that tree will remain there, exist? If we see a is that accurate? tree MR. MACELROY-Right. That's in accordance with the Ordinance, but I would say that the Ordinance also allows for an alternative planting plan, subject to site plan review. MR. STEWART-Your Ordinance provides that an owner can meet with the Planning Board and discuss with them some cutting to give him access to a leach area. The cutting cannot be more than 20 - 40 - percent of the total trees that are there, to give them this corridor or access to the beach area, and whatever he does has to be done under the supervision and approval of the Planning Board, and whether or not somewhere along the line that would be appropriate, I don't want to tell you yes or no on that, but I will say that 80 percent or more of those trees are going to stay there because they shade the site to give you seclusion and the law requires it. It isn't something that we have a great of flexibility on, but I don't want to represent that every single tree will be there, because that wouldn't be an honest answer to your question. MR. CARVIN-Okay. gentlemen? Okay. Any other questions of the applicant, I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SHARON DAVIES MRS. DAVIES-I'd just like to say, I'm Sharon Davies, from Owen Davies Real Estate, and I've shown the property many, many times. I feel this buyer has one of the nicest plans. I mean, there were some families, three families couldn't buy that. Many people wanted to keep the lot separate. Some people thought about remodeling the house, but were going to enlarge it. The house is on piers and has some structural problems. $0 it takes a great deal of money just to consider remodeling it. I just feel this is a very good alternative for this property, to have all the lots combined into one lot. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? FLORENCE CONNOR MRS. CONNOR-I'm not really in opposition. I just have some questions. I'm Florence Connor, and I also live on Assembly Point Road. I want to say, it's not on the west side. It's on the east side. So you have it marked right. You have it down on the west side. Assembly Point's on the east side. First of all, I'm concerned, when I looked at that plan, that there's so much blacktop, and I don't know if this is a Zoning or a Planning Board. I don't like to see so much blacktop near the lake. I would rather see gravel or something. So I'd like you to consider the amount of blacktop that goes up toward the house, up toward the storage shed, and also I feel that, in the long run, there'll probably be blacktop going down to the Burnham house, too, because they'll want bring things in and out of there. That was one concern. The other concern I had is, is the storage house going to remain a storage house, or is there a possibility that some day that will turn into a cottage, because that seems to be what happens over on Assembly Point. Someone has a garage, and all of a sudden it's a house and it's rented. I don't mind a rental. I just don't like to see more and more cottages being built. The Burnham cottage, again, I was glad to hear it mentioned that there would need to be maybe a new septic system there, because if they enlarge the house, it's a one bedroom house now, and if it becomes larger, and I think that a septic system should be considered in that area, since it will be, the land will be changed in a way and it's a good time to put in something new there. I also am very concerned that we have a lot of wet area over in that, not particularly on that property, I'm not saying, but I know over just across the Brayton Lane road is very wet, and I'm concerned that this summer is so dry that anything ~t.Jould come up with a perc test as being proper, v-Jhere another day, another spring might be totally different. So I think you need to take into consideration the weather we've had this summer. The other thing, when you speak of dock area, if this man has so many boats, or this family has so many boats, are they allowed to have more than three boats on their residence, and will they be building new dock area? I think that's - 41 - something, also, that needs to be considered, whether it's today, or I'm not sure how you work it, when that would be discussed, but those are my three things. The thing is, I feel the house is also very tall, but again, I don't know as it imposes on the neighborhood. It just is tall compared to the houses that are adjacent to it, toward the west. Toward the east, there have been a couple of very tall houses built, but toward the west the houses are all pretty lov- , and most of them are more cottages, but again, I don't have a problem with (lost word) house in the neighborhood. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? TOM NESBITT MR. NESBITT-My name is Tom Nesbitt, and I am an owner of a right- of-way that's to the west of this site, but I'm also representing m)' sister, Sally Carey, who is a neighbor immediately to the east of this site. I'd like to first ask, is this an application simply for a variance from the setback, ratheT than anything else to do with the project? MR. CARVIN-It's primarily for setback, yes, and structures. principal MR. FORD-Two principal structures on less than two acres. MR. NESBITT-Well, firstly, I don't have a problem with those issues. However, there are some others that are of greater concern, that I think that you would be well advised to recommend site plan review. First of all, the septic system that they propose for the four bedrooms is in a high rocky area. It's also probably within a wetland that was flagged for the Youngs on the south side of Brayton Lane, and there is a very low wet pocket right where the driveway and Brayton Lane meet, which has resulted from the build up of Bray~on Lane by the Town of Queensbury and its maintenance. It was never always wet there, but it has been wet there for the last 10 years or so because the water cannot drain out of there, and it has created a wetland. Also, to the northeast of the proposed system, and in the vicinity of the proposed storage building, there is also a wetland pocket, and I know that there's wetland vegetation growing in that area, and it drains toward the north, toward the Repinski's land, and at one time Mr. Wallace wanted to put a driveway across the back of the Repinski property, but I gather he decided not to because it would have cost too much money to fill it in, and also if he would have gone across the low wet area, it would have caused some drainage problems, and also the proposed septic system is within 200 feet of my sister's water well, which serves as her drinking, I know the setback is only 100 feet, but with a big mound system like that, that's going to be required, there's going to be a significant amount of clearing, so that that system can be built correctly, and the nature of that property is all wooded, and one of the reasons I understood Mr. Wallace purchased that property was to provide a wooded buffer for the rest of their land, but I have no disagreement with the proposed use, except that in the process of developing it, there will be some significant vegetation removed, that has to be, and the actual amount of square footage of clearing doesn't show on there because it simply shows the tile fields, but because of the nature of the slope of the land, there will be substantial fill, and it'll encompass a relatively large square footage of area, and the other question was previously answered about the septic system for that Burnham camp, and the other question Mrs. Connor brought up about potential conversion of the storage or carriage house into residential use at some point in the future. A 36' by 48' building is certainly large enough to put some kind of an apartment up over it, not that I'm suggesting that Mr. Cantanucci would do that, but some future occupant might, and previous experience, there hasn't been - 42 - significant follow up in stipulations in the granting of variances up in that area, and I'm hoping that there will be, at least follow through on any conditions that are placed on variances. Thank you. SALLY CAREY MS. CAREY-I'm Sally Carey, that Tom has represented. First of all, I'm very impressed with the building. I think it's great. Our only concern is what happens on the back side of the property, since we're adjacent to it. When the proposed driveway that is to go into Brayton Lane is built, right now, as my brother stated, there's quite a pocket that fills up in the spring. You can see the staining on the rocks from that, that exists. That water now, when it reaches the point of Brayton Lane, the level of Brayton Lane, it flows down Brayton Lane, into the lake, across property that Tom and lawn, which is adjacent to the Young and Hall's property. It's a 15 foot strip of access to the lake, and so the lake receives drainage now from that pocket of wetland, and that's it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Any correspondence? MR. THOMAS-Yes. A letter dated September 20, 1995, regarding application for Michael Cantanucci, "The purpose of this letter is to support the application of Michael Cantanucci to Board of Zoning Appeals. I am the Trustee of the John Wallace Trust, owner of three of the four subject parcels of this application. The proposal before the Board of Zoning Appeals is consistent with what the beneficiaries of the John Wallace Trust intended when the present property configuration was created in 1993 and put on the market. The purpose of the 1993 property configuration was to sort out an intermingled pattern of holdings owned by the John Wallace Trust and my relatives. This checkerboard constrained options concerning use, bequest, and sale of these properties. The consolidation essentially created two areas of ownership: the eastern group of parcels, owned primarily by the John Wallace Trust but also including a parcel owned by my cousin's wife, Glenna Burnham; and the western group of parcels, owned by my aunt, Gertrude Young, and her children. Mr. Cantanucci is buying the eastern group of parcels. Both the eastern and western groups of parcels were designed to be as independent as possible in terms of privacy, setbacks, lakefront access, driveway access, and septic capability. The clearly stated and understood purpose for creating this configuration was to secure the independent viability of each of the groups. This maximized the freedom of each owner to use and/or sell their holdings. The application of Mr. Cantanucci before the Zoning Board of Appeals is consistent with the zoning of Queensbury, seeking minimal relief. We believe the consolidation of use on this site from four residential structures to single ownership, the upgrade of septic disposal, and the overall sensitivity of the design to the site all enhance the value of this and abutting properties. We therefore enthusiastically support the application and urge your approval. Sincerely, James H. Wallace Trustee, John Wallace Trust" A letter dated 9/18/95, subject Area Variance No. 63-1995, Michael Cantanucci "Carolyn and myself have reviewed the proposed site plan and are in agreement that it would be beneficial to the area and property owners nearby. It appears to be environmentally protective of the area including the lake. Sincerely, Joseph W. Shay for Carolyn Shay" A letter dated September 17, 1995, To the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Re: Michael Cantanucci Variance request I reside at R.R.#l Box 1368, Lake George, NY, and have executed a contract for the purchase of (#6-3-21) the lands of Michael & Miriam Rapaport, Brayton Lane, Lake George, N.Y. I have reviewed the plans for the proposed site by Environmental Design on Sept. 17, 1995. I support the project and the consolidation of lots. Certainly, the removal of some of the buildings and the routing of the septic will benefit the lake and neighbors. Very truly - 43 - - yours, Michael Grasso" That's it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other public comment? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Gentlemen, any questions, comments? MR. KARPELES-Do you show the permeability on here, anywhere? MR. THOMAS-Yes, it does, on the black and white one, down in the lower left hand corner. The lot coverage is 8.7 percent. The paved area drive is 9.9 percent, and the green area is 81.4 percent. That's lot coverage, so that would be the green space. MS. CIPPERLY-I also figured out the floor area ratio, just out of curiosity, for square footage of the new house, the boat storage building, the existing boat house, and the expanded guest cottage, and it comes to 10 percent, and that large lot really helps bring down the percentage. MR. CARVIN-Sue, I have a question. If this was t~",o acres, ~' ould they be allowed two principal residences? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So they're. MS. CIPPERLY-It's like a tenth of an acre. MR. CARVIN-A tenth of an acre short. MR. GREEN-And if they did have the two acres, they could have the two buildings without that variance. MS. CIPPERlY-Right. MR. CARVIN-Well, at this point, you only have, really, what, one principal building, and the Burnham house, when that one gets converted, is that the second principal residence that you're looking for? Okay. How about the boathouse that's existing, that two story boathouse. What kind of modifications or upgrading is going to occur there? MR. STEWART-I think some change of the siting might blend that with the new house. MR. MACELROY-Cosmetic, primarily, siding, roofing, windows, to match the design of the new main structure. MR. CARVIN-All right, because that does have a second story, which, from my observation is basically being used as a game room at this point. Is there an)' anticipated plans of ~",interizing that building, making the upstairs a ')-'ea)" )"ound use? MR. STEl.JART-No. MR. FORD-Are there toilet facilities in that structure now? MR. MACELROY-The boathouse? No. MR. STEWART-And in answer to the question about, at some time in the future the storage building being maybe converted to an apartment. Well, perhaps the lady who raised it doesn't know it, but this Board knows that no such thing could be done without the owner having to come to this Board and ask permission, and it would probably be a short trip, but we have absolutely no intention of ever doing that. That's not in anybody's mind. We want the Board to know that, and even if it was, I think our - 44 - -...-/ chances of ever doing it would be pretty bleak. I can't see us coming back asking for a third house on this property. MR. GREEN-I've got a question for Sue. between a garage and a carriage house? What's the difference MS. CIPPERLY-That's the applicant's term. MacElroy about what the intent was, as far building, and it is a boat storage, primarily. I questioned Mr. as use of that MR. GREEN-Don't we have a 900 square foot restriction on garages? MS. CIPPERLY-But it is not a garage. MR. GREEN-Well, that's my thought, is what is the difference between a garage and a carriage house, because this is 1700. MS. CIPPERLY-The garage, on this application, it shows a 600 square foot garage that goes with the house, and in our definitions, a garage is for, currently at least, a garage is for the storage of automobiles. In this zone, you can also have a private boat storage building, which is what this carriage house. MR. GREEN-Is there a size limitation to that? MS. CIPPERLY-No. MR. CARVIN-But he already has a boat house. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, you folks can discuss that. MR. STEWART-Your Ordinance allows certain accessory or ancillary uses, and a boathouse is one, private boat storage building is separate, one for summer and one for winter, because in the winter, these boats are so expensive, if you kept them in a boathouse (lost word) the boathouse out. MR. FORD-How many boats are we talking about? MR. STEWART-Two or three boats. JAMES WALLACE MR. WALLACE-I have one boat. My father has a boat. The storage building is just for winter storage. It would never be converted to an apartment. MR. CARVIN-And you can't utilize that boathouse down on the lake? MR. WALLACE-Not for winter storage, no. MR. CARVIN-Why not? MR. WALLACE-The height. There's not enough room to bring the boat out of the water, because of the roof, and, structurally, I'm not sure that it's built to support that kind of weight, to store two boats out of the water. MR. CARVIN-How big of a boat are we talking, here? MR. WALLACE-My boat is 25 feet and my father's boat is 20 feet. MR. CARVIN-And how high are these boats? They can't be more than, have they got a Bimini bridge or something? MR. WALLACE-Well, the second story of this game room that you call it, it has a low ceiling than a boathouse. So, to take it out of the water level, the ceiling height interferes with the height necessary to hoist a boat out of the water, and the docks that are on either side, I don't believe are strong enough to - 45 - support the weight of two boats. MR. STEWART-In that connection, maybe I can tell a little bit, because I hoist my own boats. You have to raise a boat high enough toward the ceiling so that you can put six by six support beams under it, and those rest on the piers on either side of the slip or the open water, and you've got to get the boat up higher than that, get the beams in and lower it back down. If this boathouse didn't have a second floor, you'd have plenty of play, but with a ceiling in it, which is the floor of the second floor, that's a real problem, because you can't get it high enough. MR. CARVIN-Well, wouldn't it be cheaper to refurbish the existing boathouse, as opposed to building a whole new one? MR. STEWART-Well, one of the problems you have is, Number One, working on the boat. If you're going to work on the boat and you're changing oil, yoU want clean (lost words), things of that nature, you don't want any of that to get in the water, obviously, that's illegal. If you want to do any work in the winter time, it's hard to get at it, and you have a danger factor, because ice on Lake George represents a real threat. If it were to take the boat house, you could lose your boat. Some people keep their boats in the boathouse, but I'd say probably the majority do not for that reason. MR. WALLACE-Also, there's no basement in the home. building would also serve as storage space. So that MS. CIPPERLY-One point to be made, as information, is that, in the Definitions, Boathouse, there's a definition for Boathouse, and there's a definition for Boat Storage, Private. The Boathouse, it says, "A structure that has direct access to a body of navigable water and: (1)ls used for storage of vessels and associated equipment; and (2) Does not have bathroom or kitchen facilities and is not designed or used for lodging or residency." Boat Storage, Private is, "A place, site or structure used to park, house or store, on anyone (1) lot, three (3) or fewer vessels, except canoes, rowboats and sailboats under eighteen (18) feet, owned by the property owner." There was one person, I think, expressed a concern about whether the space might be rented, and in the definition it states that the boats would have to be owned by the property owner, but there are two different definitions for those two different structures. MR. STEWART-And the zone allows for one of each. MR. GREEN-I didn't have a real problem with the other building, I just, last month we had a real go around about a 1200 foot garage, and this, to me, looks like a 1700 foot garage. MR. CARVIN-I agree. Yes. I think we're coming back to the same issues over and over again. MR. GREEN-But if we can technically call it a Boat Storage building. MR. CARVIN-I think we're just splitting hairs. I mean, lets call it what it is. MR. GREEN-Well, I don't know if we're splitting hairs, but if the Code, you know, lists it as something that you can call a building. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, it's a storage building, rather than a garage. I don't think the intent is to put automobiles in it. MR. STEWART-No. It's our understanding we cannot. MS. CIPPERLY-And when, Fred, you brought this up before. All the - 46 - references to boathouses are in under the shoreline regulations. So I had always associated boathouses with a dock structure, rather than an on land. MR. GREEN-Even with that building, we're still, what, 10 percent you said. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, and I figured 1,000 square feet for the existing boathouse that's on the water. It's 20 by 50, approximately. I didn't put in a second story, but that's still only another 1,000 square feet. I didn't quite know how to figure the square footage of a boat house, because there's water in there. MR. GREEN-Well, listening to the comments here, it seems like most of the people are not necessarily concerned with the building itself, which is what really kind of strikes me, but more of the runoff and the sewage and the wetlands and things of that sort that I guess the Planning Board should probably address better than us. I'm just a little concerned with, I guess the size and the height, but I haven't made a real fine decision. MS. CIPPERLY-Do you have a figure for the height of the very front part? It's got to be more than one story. There weren't any measurements on the drawing, of the proposed house. MR. MACELROY-Sue, I don't architect, but it's between that is the lowest point total height. have the specific figure from the the range of a story and a half, and of grade which was measured for the MR. STEWART-Incidentally, on that point, some of the photographs that I passed around earlier showed some quite tall buildings, and here's one right nearby. It would appear to be as high, if not higher, than what we are proposing here. This is not novel to the neighborhood. Some of those lovely old camps were pretty big and pretty high, some of them. MR. FORD-But we don't know what the height of this is proposed to be? MR. STEWART-Yes. We know. The height is 35 feet, that's allowed, and this is going to be 33 at its highest point. MR. CARVIN-And that's at the widow's peak. MR. STEWART-At the very peak. So we're under the allowable limit, but in terms of comparing ourselves with the neighbors, I didn't go over, I have no way of measuring this house, but some of these houses in that general area are pretty good size houses. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you, Bill. How about you, Chris? MR. THOMAS-My only concern, really, was that boat storage, and like Bill said, from that variance last month up on Glen Lake, going back and forth, but since it's been explained by Sue, again. MR. GREEN-If it's a separate listed structure other than garage, then I don't think we can argue about it. MR. THOMAS-No, I don't think we can either, Bill. MR. GREEN-I don't think we can make that determination. If it's a listed use, a listed accessory structure, then I don't think we can call it a garage, if the applicant is calling it a carriage house. MR. THOMAS-Are we going to send this over to the Planning Board before we make a decision? - 47 - MR. FORD-I think it's prime for that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. To establish wetlands. MR. THOMAS-Wetlands, drainage. MR. STEWART-Mr. Çhairman, we certainly have no objection to going before the Planning Board and having them review all of the technical and site preparations, but I would hate to see this Board's approval be held in abeyance, a lot of time has gone by. We have a mor~gage commitment to purchase this property that's about ready to expire. There are certain pressures here to, where the potential buyer needs to know where he stands. MR. CARVIN-How about you, Dave? MR. MENTER-Well, I think I would like to see the size and location issue addressed a little bit more. Mr. MacElroy, what consideration was there in trying to get this thing to meet setback? I mean, did yoU actually start from that point and say, gee, we just can't do it? How much concession do you need to make in terms of size to meet the required setbacks? MR. MACELROY-The structure as proposed, we've moved it back as far as possible \I.¡ithout violating the side setback. vJe're increasing that front setback to 50 foot minimum, and because of the configuration of the lot, it's obviously an unusually shaped lot. The more you push that back, you get into other setback violations, in terms of side yard. It's placed basically at 25 foot from either side setback. So it would conform to that point, seeking relief from the front. MR. MENTER-With that particular building. MR. MACELROY-Correct. MR. MENTER-Was any consideration given configuration of structure? to any different MR. MACELROY-I would say to some extent, and I would sort of pass off to the architect, the footprint and shape of the house and whatnot is not my area, decision, but certainly Mr. Cantanucci and his architect have spent a great deal of time trying to come up with a footprint to satisfy the need for the space requirements, and to the extent possible, the configuration of the lot. MR. WALLACE-If I could say something. We also tried to design the house with visual impact from the water in mind. If yoU look at the rendering that you have there, the bulk of the house goes away from the water in the rear, which moves it toward that narrow neck section of the lot. The image of this house from the water would not be big and atrocious like some other structures that I've seen up there, and we tried to be sensitive to that in the design. If you look at the footprint of the house, you'll see that the bulk of the living space occurs away from the water, tOll-lard the rear. MR. STEWART-And one comment I might add to that. If you try to reduce the footprint so that you can squeeze the house back a little bit, then to get the necessary living space, you've got to go up higher with the entire house, and that I don't think the architect wanted to do, and I sense this Board doesn't really want to do it. You don't want a lot of bulk down there by the shore front. You want to minimize it, and I think this plan has done that, while if you make them go higher, from front to back, to get the four bedrooms in, you're not serving your own purpose, perhaps. MR. MENTER-I am sensitive to the configuration of the lot, but my - 48 - big concern is, as Mr. Cantanucci said, is the appearance, or ä big concern is the appearance from the lake. Because like you said, there's some real monsters up there that are just terrible. MR. WALLACE-I don't think this one will fall into that category. MR. STEWART-I don't know if any of you had the opportunity as it is now by boat. I did this morning, and literally you can hardly see the existing house, which is 32 feet from the lake, because there are the trees there, and I can't put them in this diagram. I wish I could, but if you were to see them from the lake, that's quite heavily wooded along that shore frontage, and this house is not going to jump out at you. MS. CIPPERLY-One question I had was, I see where the front line of the house is, but could you explain the shape that, is that a deck or a porch or patio? MR. MACELROY-Did you see the rendering, Sue? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, I did, and it looked like a, and then there's a stone, it looked like a raised stone terrace. MR. WALLACE-That's like a patio, I guess. MR. CARVIN-Tom, do you have any thoughts? MR. FORD-Yes. I was really impressed with the idea of the septic system so far back from the structure and the lake, until I heard about the wetland consideration. MR. STEWART-We're not in any wetlands, Mr. Ford, and this has been examined by engineers and by experts as required by the Health Department. MR. FORD-According to this, you're right across the road from there. MR. STEWART-Yes, but there's no wetlands on this property. MR. FORD-Not on that property, but you're coming in awfully close to it as you move the septic system back and very close to that. MR. STEWART-Well, you're hundreds of feet back on that scale, and we're well within the requirements of New York State Department of Health as far as our separation from wetlands are concerned. That scale may be a little bit deceiving on that sketch, but that's quite a distance back. MR. CARVIN-You're probably looking at half, three quarters of an acre there. MR. STEWART-No, it's more than that, I think one inch is, I'm not sure, because I don't have a scale. MR. FORD-I see, when we have a new structure, we have a new opportunity to comply with setbacks, and I would rather grant side setbacks than I would setback relief from the lakeshore. MR. STEWART-I can understand your philosophy. One question ~ would have about it is this. A side setback, in this particular situation, is going to impact on the neighbor who owns that adjacent side lot, and the rear, the setback from the lakefront in this particular case is not going to, because we are farther back from the lake than most of our neighbors. So if we're granted any relief there, it's not going to injure them. They're up closer to the lake then we are. They would interfere \;- i th Q.YL view, not us interfering with theirs, but if you skimp on the side setback, then you are coming in on them. - 49 - MR. FORD-Could you designated wetland, the property, or very your perspective? address the issue of not the official, APA but the other depressions, or whatever, on close to it? How significant is that, from MR. MACELROY-You're speaking of the wet area on the applicant's parcel? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. MACELROY-Well, there's no question that there's som<? drainage movement through that area. Historically, there are wet times of the year in lower sections of that. The drainage problem caused by Brayton Lane I'm not totally familiar with, but if that's a drainage problem that's associated with the Town Highway, then there's some responsibility there as well. Perhaps in construction of a driveway or whatever, that could be assisted in this case. The location of the proposed septic system, as we have done test pits and perc tests in accordance with the Town of Queensbury Sanitary Code, Charlie Main, who is a recognized Soil Scientist, was on the site to review soil mottling, which is the indication of high seasonal groundwater. These test pits were done in AUgust of the year. So we've complied with the Town standards. There are areas that indicate, we did quite a number of test pits on the site. There are areas that indicated mottling which was not in compliance with the Town regulations. We have found an area that is above the lower area that has been spoken of. So, I'm confident that the area that the septic system is designed in is in compliance with the regulations, and it would be a raised system, in accordance "lith the definition of the Town's standards. There would be perhaps one to three feet of fill in a sloped area. It's a fairly standard design. It's not a sophisticated mound system, which is another level of detail and design. It would be pumped from the house area back to that, the pressure distribution, so that, in terms of design, I think. I had contacted the Town Building Department, John O'Brien. The Building Department was on site for a period of time while the septic was being excavated. So he's certainly aware of the site and area and the results that we obtained. MR. FORD-Is there any way, with all of the brought to bear on this, of extrapolating might be the impact of this system during not be as dryas this one has been? expertise that you've and projecting what a summer which would MR. MACELROY-Well, I don't know any different than another location that had a properly designed septic sy~tem. Effluent leaches into the ground, eventually reaches the groundwater column, but by the separation, horizontal and vertical separation distances required of the standards, the adequate treatment and purification of wastewater and effluent should have taken place. So, I can't tell you that you could go and monitor that any differently than any other septic system. I don't know how to do it other than that. MR. FORD-Thank you. MS. CIPPERLY-One question I just came up with, this Burnham camp, would that be a guest cottage, or would it be for year round, or whatever, full time occupancy by? MR. WALLACE-It's a fully equipped house with a kitchen. So it would not fall under that definition of guest cottage. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, what I'm wondering is, is everybody going to mainly live in the house, and this would be for use by people who came to visit, or is this second dwelling planned to be used by the parents? MR. WALLACE-People who came to visit. - 50 - MS. CIPPERLY-Okay, because that has some bearing on the septic question, also. MR. CARVIN-I think it has a lot of bearing on the whole application, because, I mean, in the past, we have tried to move residences back from the lake, and I think you guys are just walking away from that. I think, why the need for two main, you've got a 4,000 square foot house, and you want a second residence in the Burnham, and we're not even addressing that issue. I mean, are we going to move that one back 75 feet? I'm assuming that eventually that's going to be torn down. Is that correct? MR. STEWART-No. The Burnham one is going to stay. second principal residence. That's the MR. CARVIN-Yes, I realize that, but is that going to be refu)"bished? MR. STEWART-It's going to be refurbished, not torn down. MR. CARVIN-In other words, you're going to stay within the existing structure as it is right now. It's not going to be torn down completely then? MR. WALLACE-That's correct, with a separate septic system. MS. CIPPERLY-Another thing that I did discuss with Dennis here is that if that were kept on its own parcel, it would still have a right to be there, but it's actually better, in terms of running a new septic and setbacks. I did say, if you were to expand, it would probably be a situation like the, I believe you said it already has a loft in it, Dennis, the guest house already has a loft? MR. MACELROY-It has, I believe, a cathedral type ceiling in one portion of it. MS. CIPPERLY-It seemed like an expansion kind of like the Takundewide cottage that just put dormers and a different roof pitch. That would be subject to at least Planning Board review, also. MR. KARPELES-I think it's beautiful. I think they've given this a lot of thought. I think they've done a good job. They've moved it back away from the lake as far as practical, as far as 1 can see. I'd sure hate to see us screw it up. The only things the neighbors are concerned about, they're not concerned about the appearance of the house. They're concerned about the things that aren't our jurisdiction anyway, and if they're not concerned about it, why should we be concerned about it? MR. MENTER-I think it's a nice project reservation I would have might be the fact could increase the setback by making some really considered the proximity to the structure, looked at it quite that way. also, but the only that it could be, it changes, and I hadn't lake of the second MR. GREEN-But do we have any say in that? MR. CARVIN-Sure, we do. MR. KARPELES-That structure's already there. MR. GREEN-Only in the sense that we're short a tenth of an acre. MR. MENTER-Well, only in the sense that it's all tied in to the same property. MR. CARVIN-He could tear that one down and build a big house. - 51 - That way he's in compliance. MR. MENTER-Right. It's a question of compliance, and all the things you have to consider, but for me the only issue might be really the location of the new structure, and I do see that it is substantially pushed back, and I think even the design of the structure, the shape of it is such so that it enhances the area. It doesn't encroach on the neighbors. I understand that, too. Other than that, I think it's a good project. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I don't know. I have a hard time with this one, I think. I don't have one bit of problem with the house. I don't have a real problem with the setback of the house back the 50 feet or so. I do have a problem, I think you've got a huge boathouse that we're building back. The mitigating circumstances, this is just a fraction under two acres. So it's not like we're trying to cram a huge building on a quarter acre lot. So, I mean, I think it probably would fit the character of the neighborhood. I guess I do have a problem with that second camp, that second residence. I just think that we've got a belts and suspenders situation here. I don't think the applicant has proven to me the need for two primary residences on this lot. MR. STEWART-May I try to answer that partially? The economics it is, if someone buys this lot, they have to buy and pay for the second house. It's there, and the seller obviously wants (lost words). If this Board were to require that owner, whoever he or she might be, now the cost of this project is starting to get out of sight. If you price the project out of sight, then you're going to price it back to the cheap approach, and the cheap ~pp'(oach Ü;;¡:90in9 to be, I would think, leave that camp up,.and fix it. Sell the, existipgl0,t. ,It's legal. ' It,~s ~alable because it's a pre-existing lot, with its existing septic system, and let that one stay. Turn to the main camp, which is only 32 feet from the lake. On that one you can, again, a pre-existing, legal lot. You can re-build that. You can enhance it. You can enlarge it to the rear, to larger than this house is, without even having to come and ask for a variance before this Board, and you're back to the ticky tack, little tiny lots. If you force that, and you can do that economically, if you tell the person who wants to come an improve it, on making it one lot, building a new home, but if you tell me you've got to start tearing down valuable buildings, and you price it out of his reach, then it seems to me. MR. ,CA,RVIN-When was the Bur nham ; bui It? MS. CIPPERLY-1903. MR. CARVIN-1903? I mean, it looks like it's a two family thing, if it's the building that I'm looking at, or two doors. MICHAEL CANTANUCCI MR. CANTANUCCI-One thing you should know. I come from a family of nine, and my brothers and sisters, I want to have a place for them to come and stay when they come up to visit. That's the purpose for it. I'm not looking for a second residence. It's a guest house. So when my family come up and visit me, I can offer them a place to stay. MR. CARVIN-Well, I understand where you're coming from, but I also know that we're taking an 1800 square foot current camp and turning it into a 4,000 square foot, four bedroom. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, the Assessor's Office considers living space and doesn't consider things like screened porches. I mean, there's a difference between footprints and living space. MR. CARVIN-Yes, well, again, as I said, I know that for the lack ,- 52 - - of a tenth of an acre, you could have the two residences, but the other side that I know that the Board has tried to maintain is that whenever we can, we try to move the existing structures back. MR. CANTANUCCI-But we're also trying to be up front and merge all the parcels into one, to clean it up. There's two ways of playing the game, and we're not trying to play the game. MR. STEWART-There's one other point. I may have said it too fast when I went through my initial presentation. There's a third principal building on this property now that we are tearing down and not replacing, that also is on its own lot and could be sold and continued. You may have lost sight of that in the process. There's a lot of cleaning up and tiding up being done on this. MS. CIPPERLY-They're also tearing down that little bunk house. MR. CARVIN-Okay. ask for a motion. Any other questions, gentlemen? If not, I'd Do yoU want to do the SEQRA first? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I don't know what your intent is, as far as sending this to the Planning Board, but if you decide to send that to the Planning Board for site plan review, then it could be that they would, well, I guess they would just use your SECRA determination. I was just trying to figure that out. MR. STEWART-Yes. I think the SEQRA determination would have to come from this Board. MOTION THAT WE HAVE CONDUCTED A FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM AND IT HAS DISCLOSED NO NEGATIVE IMPACT, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Menter: Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE MR. CARVIN-All right. application. I would ask for a motion on the MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-1995 MICHAEL CANTANUCCI, Introduced by David Menter who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: On Brayton Lane, Assembly Point. Applicant proposes to combine 4 properties to create a 1.9 acre lot. The lots currently contain four residential structures, two of which are proposed to be removed, one razed and replaced, and one modified in the future. Section 179-16C, Waterfront Residential, requires one acre per principal building; Section 179-12 states that there shall be no more than one principal building in a residential zone on any single lot less than two acres in size, so relief is required from these sections. Applicant proposes to raze an existing camp set back 32 feet from the shoreline, and replace it with a 4,000 square foot house and 600 square foot garage set back 50 feet from the shoreline, so relief is needed from the 75-foot shoreline setback required in Section 179-60. The benefit to the applicant in this project would be that he would be able to build a structure large enough for his personal needs and also large enough to make it feasible to go through the expense of combining these single smaller properties into a larger one. The only alternative to the project as presented appears to be to downsize the proposed house in order to move it back, but the unique configuration of these accumulated properties make even that difficult because it narrows toward the middle, immediately - 53 - behind where that proposed house lS. The relief of 33 percent of the required setback may seem substantial, but there is an increase in setback from 18 to 20 feet, which is certainly an improvement. There were no negative statements from neighbors regarding the proposed structure itself. There were several comments expressing concern about the septic and wetlands that are part of the property, which will be addressed at site plan review in the future. The difficulty, while may be seen as being self-created, is actually the result of an effort of trying to incorporate several lots. Thereby ending up with a uniquely shaped lot which imposes limitations on building on it. I would also make part of this motion that this project go to the Planning Board for site plan review, to review septic issues, runoff issues and other relevant site issues. This is an Unlisted Action, making it a Type I. We have reviewed the SEQRA and found there to be no impact. One stipulation to this granting would be the height of the building not exceed 33 feet. Relief from Section 179-16C for one-tenth of an acre, and also Section 179-12, for one-tenth of an acre. Relief of 25 feet is also granted from Section 179-60, which requires a 75 foot shoreline setback. It is also stipulated that the proposed structure wil.l adhere as closely as possible in both structure and exterior appearance as the artist's rendering that was submitted as part of this application. We also stipulate that neither the proposed boat storage facility nor the existing boathouse be used in any way to increase living space on the property. Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Green NOES: Mr. Carvin MR. CARVIN-All right. Is there presented before the Board? Okay. before the Board, gentlemen. We some additional information to the any other business to be We have another issue to come have someone who is bringing Boa)"d. RAY WOOD MR. WOOD-Hi. I'm Ray Wood. I'm here to talk about the Harding case. On that letter from the contractor on the Hardings issue there, in there it says an officer from the Company came and talked to me and my neighbor about the planning and the deck and eve~ything. Nobody from this company ever came and talked to me. Like I said, when I came home from work that day, the deck was there, and the thing was, Mr. Harding and me were supposed to come to an agreement within 60 days. The man wouldn't talk to me. I've tried on three different occasions, and he just walks away from me, and then I come here tonight and I heard that he wants a postponement or something. I just don't understand that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Did we or do we have any written correspondence from this particular applicant requesting a furtherance of the table? I " MS,.CIPPERL Y,-L4,e~l , ,Jim ,Martin talked to,Mrs. Harding, ei thar late last week or the beginning of this week and told her she needed to get a letter in if she wanted to extend the tabling. I don't know if this was her response, but we received this in the mail like the next day, a copy to us, and in addition to whatever the neighbor's experience has been, I think it's the first paragraph on the second page says they applied for and received building permits from the Town, which is also a falsehood. So they did apply for a building permit. That's when we found they needed a variance, and no permits were ever granted. I think in view of Mr. Wood's comments, I will have our Compliance person call Mrs. Harding, because it doesn't sound like they are doing what the - 54 - Board advised them to do. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I guess my question is, I don't remember. MS. CIPPERLY-You tabled it for 60 days, and we can either make sure that a letter is here next week requesting an extension of that tabling, since it is within the same month, or if there's nothing forthcoming from this woman, we'll just have to treat it as an enforcement issue, but it doesn't sound as if any progress has bee n made. MR. CARVIN-Okay. All right. Well, then I guess you'll get a hold of them an advise them that we, and that's not a guarantee that the table will be extended, is that correct? MS. CIPPERL Y-It's up to you, if you ~t.Jant to extend it or not. If what Mr. Wood says is an accurate representation of the situation, then it wouldn't appear that an extension would do any good. MR. FORD-We can give them back with some sort of a front that it was going decking, if he won't talk 60 days to come back and talk and come solution, and we let them know right up to require some modification in that with them. MR. CARVIN-Okay. capable hands. Then I guess I'll leave it in Planning's MS. CIPPERLY-I'll have some definite answer for you next week as far as, we either have a letter or we don't. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and if we don't, then it goes beyond the 60 days and then it becomes an enforcement issue. MR. WOOD-Hasn't it been over 60 days already? 63 days. I thought it was MR. THOMAS-The meeting date was July 26th. September 26th. That's 60 days. They've have until MR. CARVIN-They've actually got 62 days. meetings, the 27th and the 28th. So we've got two MR. THOMAS-If we don't hear from them by next Wednesday. MR. WOOD-All right. I just wanted clarification. The way the contractor had that listed in there, it was like I wouldn't meet with him. MR. CARVIN-We appreciate your waiting until ten minutes to midnight to bring us up to speed, as it were. We have the DiPalma thing. I think that's the Long Form, too. All right. I'm going to move that we go into Executive Session to discuss a legal lawsuit that's been brought against the Zoning Board. Before we go into Executive Session, we've got to review the SEQRA Review on Michael DiPalma. MOTION THAT HAVING REVIEWED THE FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, I FIND THAT THERE ARE NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS., Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE - 55 - MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now we'll go into Executive Session. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS A LEGAL L WSUIT THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT AGAINST THE ZONING BOARD, Introduced b, Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpe'es: Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1995, by the fol owing vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, t1r. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, t1r. Carvin NOES: NONE MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced b,' Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpe es: Duly adopted this 20th day of September, 1995, by the fol owing vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred Carvin, Chairman - 56 -