Loading...
1995-08-31 SP f"'" o ORIGI~AL '''.'''-- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 31, 1995 INDEX APPEALS Use Variance No. 57-1995 Barbara J. Mallaney 1.. Area Variance No. 58-1995 Frank J. Lockhart Jessie C. Lockhart 6. Use Variance No. 59-1995 Michael DiPalma 10. Area Variance No. 48-1995 Alfred Kristensen Mary Ellen Kristensen 23. Area Variance No. 61-1995 Arthur & Donna LeMay 41. 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 MI NUTES . .....,..; "---, , QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 31, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY ROBEf-H f<ARPELES WILLIAM GREEN MEMBERS ABSENT DAVID ~/IEl'nER THOMAS FORI) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI ~EW BUSINESS: USE VARIANCE NO. 57-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-I0 BARBARA J. MALLANEY OWNER: JOHN LIAPES WEST SUNSET DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A MOBILE HOME ON A VACANT PARCEL OUTSIDE OF A MOBILE HOME OVERLAY ZONE AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 179-29, SO A USE VARIANCE IS NEEDED. TAX MAP NO. 117-2-28, 29 LOT SIZE: 0.12 ACRES SECTION 179-29 JOHN MAL LANEY , REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 57-1995, Barbara J. Mallaney, Meeting Date: August 31, 1995 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Applicant proposes placement of a mobile home on a vacant parcel outside of a Mobile Home Overlay zone as described in Section 179-29, so a Use Variance is needed. REVIEW CRITERIA, BASED ON SECTION 267-B OF TOWN LAW: 1. IS A REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? The applicant states that the expense of site preparation, plus the lot location would preclude the use of the site for a single family home. Information regarding the owner's attempts at marketing this property for use as a single family home would be helpful. It is not clear whether it has been listed with a realtor or, if so, for how long. 2. IS THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP RELATING TO THIS PARCEL UNIQUE OR DOES IT ALSO APPLY TO A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? There is nothing particularly unique about this property compared to others in the neighborhood, except that there is an existing mobile home on an adjacent lot, allowed by variance, July 16, 1986. That variance was granted because of the 45-foot lot width and that individual's inability to purchase additional land. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? It appears that, with the exception of the adjoining property, the surrounding neighborhood is comprised of standard single family homes, some of which are fairly new. There are other vacant lots for sale on Sunset Avenue. The addition of another mobile home on the street could affect the marketability of those lots for single family homes. 4. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP PROVEN BY THE APPLICANT AND AT THE SAME TIME PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY? If it were deemed that a hardship had been proven, and that the character of the neighborhood would be - 1 - ) ~ protected, this could be considered the minimum relief necessary. PARCEL HISTORY: In 1980, these two lots were listed as "Unknown Owner", taken over by Warren County, and sold at a tax sale to Mr. Liapes. The Town road is currently not paved in front of these properties, but there is approximately 82 feet of Town ownership past the end of the pavement. If these parcels were to be built upon, the Town would provide at least a graveled extension of Sunset Avenue. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: As mentioned above, the neighborhood is currently comprised mostly of single-family conventional homes, and seems to be upgrading over time. The placement of another mobile home on Sunset Avenue could be to the detriment of this trend. There is no apparent financial hardship here -- the applicant wishes to purchase the property and place a rental mobile home on it -- and has not shown that the property has been marketed as zoned. SEQR: Unlisted action. Short Form EAF review required." i'IR. CARVIN-Okay. application? Is there anything you'd care to add to your MR. MALLANEY-Well, no. Our intention is to leave the buffer zone between this trailer and the one next to it. We don't, you know, we're willing to meet anything that Town wants done. It's not the fact that we're looking to make the land less valuable. We realize that there's new homes there, but (lost words) it is zoned for a mobile home in Queensbury, there's really not a lot of it left. Most of it's been used. The lots that there are, most of them you need to get variances for already. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Could you address a couple of the Staff notes and concerns, especially regarding, has the property been marketed for single family home, and if so, what's the results? MR. MALLANEY-It's was my understanding that Mr. Liapes had tried to sell this property several times. What the reason this sale wasn't made, I'm not sure. He didn't discuss that with me. He did say that, you know, he had several people look at it, and the cost of developing it, for one reason or another, was expensive. The land is not level. There is some depth. There's a lot of trees on it, and I really don't believe that the houses down there would sell for actually what the people have in them today. I'm not saying that a trailer ~.Jould make their home ~..Jol-th Œl.Q..LQ. money. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Liapes? Are you purchasing the property from Mr. MR. MALLANEY-The purchase of the property is contingent upon the approval of this. If we can't put a trailer there, the property is worthless to us. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and you're going to be using it for a rental trailer, is that correct? MR. MALLANEY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So you're not going to be living there? MR. MALLANEY-No. MR. CARVIN-Now, the property, I went out there, and I guess I'm a little bit confused here. It is off in the woods there? MR. MALLANEY-Yes. i'1R. CARVIN-O kay . not to the left. So it's to I thought it the right of that mobile home and was the vacant lot on the corner. BARBARA MALLANEY - 2 - '-... MRS. MALLANEY-No, it's not. It's at the end of the road. The road dead ends right into that property. MR. CARVIN-Okay. It seems to me there was a house that sat across the street up on the hill. That road kind of ends at that mobile home. Are you going to be developing a road into that? MR. MALLANEY-We're going to have to do something, I guess. That was something we were going to discuss with the Town at a later date, but if the property was owned by us, if we had to deed it to them to put a road there, or, you know, basically all we're looking for today is to find out if we can put a home there. The extended costs we're really not too concerned about, if we have to blacktop the roads or extend water lines or anything like that (lost word) if we can put the home there. MR. CARVIN--CJ kay . being built, the regular home you inconsistent. You're not so much concerned about the road cost of the road, but leveling the land for a are concerned with. It seems rather MR. MALLANEY-Well, no. I'm not interested in the land to build a regular home, but other people have been, and they're concern was the cost of leveling that land was going to be extreme. I can level the land, I can extend the road. When I put the home in there, it's going to pay me back. As it is now, I'm paying the park. So, it's an investment, to me. Building the house to live in, it would be added expense to them. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? MR. THOMAS-No. I'll wait until after the public hearing. MR. CARVIN-All right. I will open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ROSEANN COLOUI'18 MRS. ~COLOUMB-My name is Roseann Coloumb. lawn all the property on East Alta Avenue, which is the back side of this property. I also own property on Sunset. I also on the north side of Alta Avenue. I Just came back from vacation and had this in the mail, and unfortunately, it started raining, so I didn't get too many good pictures, but I went out and invested in two packs of Polaroids to try and get some pictures. I have a stack of pictures of all new homes that people have built, purchased, landscaped, upgraded. The west end has always had a bad reputation. The people who live in the west end now are trying to clean up everything. It's taken 18 years to get there. I am very much against this trailer. lawn the two lots next to this other trailer park, and that's what I call it, because they have three trailers on one single lot. I don't want that to happen on the end of the street. I offered to buy the property from John Liapes. He said he was giving it to his daughter. He said it wasn't for sale. I don't know what else I can tell you, but you said you have been out there. If you've been out there, I'm sure you've seen these three trailers. Two of them are like Scotty camper trailers, one bigger one. The Ingrams are the ones that live there, and as you said, in '86 they bought it, and I thought there was supposed to be some kind of grandfather clause or something to that effect, that after three years they had to do something. Well they've done nothing but downgrade the property. It's a dump. They're throwing trash on my property. I've called Warren County Sheriff. They said unless I could catch them in the act, I can't do anything about it. I absolutely do not want another trailer. If John wants to sell it, and you don't want to sell it to us or anybody else, then you can leave it vacant. If he wants to upgrade it, he wants to build a house like all the other people have, we just put a three story addition on our - 3 - home. We are appraised at $110,000. This will depreciate all these new homes. It will drop our property value. They're trying to get all these trailers out of there. I don't see anything to where this is going to be an advantage for all the people and homeowners in that area. We have lawyers there. We have doctors there. We have firemen there. We have a dental person down there. We have the eye doctor at the end of the street, and I'm not sure what the business is on the corner of Nathan and Western, but I'm sure we could find out. I just never had any reason to go there to find out what kind of business it is. I don't know what else you want me to say. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, we appreciate your comments. MRS. COLOUMB-I do have pictures, and you're welcome to them. MR. CARVIN-Okay. If you want to bring them up, and we'll take a look at them. MRS. COLOUMB-Sure. These are all new homes in the area, and this is the dump that they want to build next to it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MRS. COLOUMB-Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Thank you. CHARLES INGRAM MR. INGRAM-My name is Charles Ingram. I live in the mobile home next to these two lots, and for one thing, I'm not throwing garbage on the Coloumb's property, and the reason my yard is a little messed up right now, I've had to do some maintenance on my home. As soon as that's finished, I'm going to clean up my yard. I've been trying to grow grass there forever, and it takes money, and I just haven't got a lot of it, and another thing, when I came to the Town here for a variance to put my mobile home there, I was given quite a hassle, and if I had had more land, I would have been glad to build a house, if I could afford it, because at the time, I had a good paying job. That closed up, and so that knocked me back financially, and it's been hard coming back, and I can't see having, this is a single wide mobile home that they ~.Jant to put in? MR. CARVIN-That would be my understanding. It looks like a 14' by 60', single wide. MR. INGRAM-Since I would have been forced to build a home, if I had had two lots, 1 can't see having a single wide on two lots, when I only have one lot. They want to put a double wide, that's another story, unless they're willing to maybe sell me half of one of those lots. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So I guess to summarize, you are in opposition to the mobile home being placed on that particular piece of property, and you also have indicated a willingness or an interest in purchasing the property, or at least a portion of the property? MR. INGRAM-Yes. See, Mr. Liapes had people down there, like Mrs. Coloumb said, looking at the property. Some of these people spoke to me, and I've kind of asked them, well, how much are you asking for this? One fellow told me, $12,000, and so a few minutes later after Mr. Liapes came back from walking around, I asked him, I said, John, how much are you asking for these lots? He said, I'll let you have' them for $15,000. Where is this guy coming from? I'm not sure if he really knows himself. No offense to the guy, but like I said about my home. I'm trying to get it fixed up. So there's maintenance on it. I had to replace - 4 - - -... a (lost word) last weekend, in the back corner, and that's just about completed. A portion of my floor I had to replace because of the water coming in around the windows. That's been taken care of. I planted some more grass this spring, and my lawn is looking quite good, until this heat wave hit us, and that killed just about all of my grass. So, I'm looking forward to maybe this spring, if I can afford to get enough topsoil in my yard, plant a whole new lawn, and it will look a whole lot better, and as far as my campers, I just purchased my camper, and that's strictly for recreational use, and as far as the other camper that's on there, the Town told me that, because I was camping on the property before, I had my home there, as soon as I had my home put on my property and established, I could camp as much as I want on my property, whether it may be in the camper or a tent or whatever, as long as it looks decent. I guess that's about it. Thank >/OU. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. AL.BERT IrJILLIAMS MR. WILLIAMS-My name is Albert Williams, and I own a couple of lots down on the corner. It would be on the, just down the street from this, opposite the other two on the other corner, if you know what I mean. This would be Nathan and Sunset. Now I used to have a Lot 14 there, but I had to purchase the one behind me from Alice Hermance, I think her name was, in order to build or even consider building on this property. I know for a fact that across the street, 31.2, that's, I think, $13 or $14,000. My lots are bigger, so they're worth equally that much, but they certainly won't be if we have an6ther mobile home up in there. Now, if they're talking a single, 14 wide, on a double lot, they certainly, there's area enough there to build a home, and a good home. As far as fill goes, that's one of the cheapest things you can buy for a house. I'm firmly, as I say, against this. I think it would degrade the neighborhood. They're starting to clean it up across Nathan. There's some very nice homes all around the area in there now. You're close to a shopping center down in the City that is within walking distance, practically. Some retiree might be interested in locating up in this area. I think that the Town should start the job they started, and keep the mobile homes in parks. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. MR. WILLIAMS-Can you make a quorum decision on this tonight? MR. CARVIN-If it appears that all of us are in agreement, yes. We need four votes. If it doesn't appear that we're all in agreement, then I'm going to ask to table these applications until we get a fuller board. Anyone else wishing to be heard in opposition? All right. Lets try the support. Anyone wishing to be heard in support of the application? All right. Any public comment at all? Any Correspondence? MR. THOMAS-Yes. We have one letter. No date on it. It's addressed to me. "Dear Mr. Thomas: Due to a previous commitment, we are unable to attend tonight's meeting. We wish, however, to express our concern over the placement of a mobile home on West Sunset Drive. Having driven through the surrounding streets, it is apparent that the area is re-emerging as one of affordable single family permanent dwellings. We feel that a mobile home would detract from the character of the neighborhood. Has the owner considered a modular home? Our feeling is that it would be more in keeping with the neighborhood properties. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Edward and Beverly Kerr." It is dated August 31, 1995, and that's it. MR. CARVIN-All right. Again, any other public comment? - 5 - ( \ o PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Gentlemen, and comments or questions? MR. GREEN-No. I think it's pretty clear that I don't think that this mobile home should go in here. It seems to be quite, I looked on the map, and it seems to be really pretty far away from the Mobile Home Overlay also. I didn't particularly like this from the start. MR. KARPELES-I agree with what people have been saying here. neighborhood looks like it's a pretty nice neighborhood, think it would detract from the value of the property. I think there should be a mobile home there. The and I do not MR. THOMAS-I agree with the other two Board members, that a mobile home should not go in here because of the re-emergence of the neighborhood. Also, too, that it's going to be a rental unit. It's not going to be for the owner's use, and if it was going to be for the owner's use, well, maybe I would give a little more credence, but with the owner being an absentee "landlord", I can't foresee this. Plus, the neighborhood opposition. MR. CARVIN-I agree. I'm going to move that we deny. MOTION TO DENY USE VARIANCE NO. 57-1995 BARBARA J. MALLANEY, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: The applicant is proposing to place a mobile home on a vacant parcel outside of a Mobile Home Overlay Zone, as described in Section 179-29, and therefore a Use Variance in order to accomplish this would be required. The applicant has not demonstrated, by the submission of competent financial information, that this lot could not be marketed or developed in compliance with the Ordinance, and has not demonstrated that a reasonable return is possible if the land is used as zoned. This particular parcel is not unique, in that the vast majority of the area is Single Family homes, and the only unique characteristic might be considered that there is an existing mobile home on an adjacent lot, which was granted by variance in 1986. It is felt that if we granted this relief, that the ongoing attempts of the neighborhood to improve its condition would be jeopardized, and that a detrimental and adverse effect on the character of the neighborhood would be created. It is also considered that this would be a maximum relief to address the unnecessary hardship, if proven by the applicant, but more importantly, we should protect the character of the neighborhood and the safety, health and welfare of the community. Duly adopted this 31st day of August, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-5A FRANK J. LOCKHART JESSIE C. LOCKHART OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE OFF ROUTE 9L - BETWEEN BAY RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SEPARATE A 2.57 ACRE PARCEL IN A RURAL RESIDENTIAL 5 ACRE ZONE, SO SEEKS RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-15, WHICH REQUIRES LOT SIZE OF 5 ACRES. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 8/16/95 TAX MAP NO. 23- 1-4.1 LOT SIZE: 35.65 ACRES SECTION 179-15 FRANK LOCKHART, PRESENT - 6 - STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 58-1995, Frank J. Lockhart and Jessie C. Lockhart, Meeting Date: August 31, 1995 "Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to separate a 2.57 acre parcel from a 35.65 acre parcel in a Rural Residential 5-acre zone, so seeks relief from Section 179-15, which requires a minimum lot size of 5 acres. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicants would be able to sell the subject lot as a building site. 2. Feasible alternatives: There do not appear to be any feasible alternatives to accomplish the applicants' purpose. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? Five acres are required, relief of 2.43 acres, or nearly 50%, is sought. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? It does not appear that this proposal would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. No public comment has been received to date. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? It appears that the situation stems from the location of the subject parcel across the road from the remainder of the property. Parcel History: A larger parcel was the subject of an area variance and subdivision approvals in 1991. This lot contained structures which, at that time, were kept with the main homestead. Staff Comments and Concerns: No further comment. SEQR: Unlisted. Short form EAF must be reviewed." MR. THOI'1AS-"At a meeting of the t..Jarren County Planning Board held on the 16th day of August 1995, the above application for an Area Variance to tear down an old barn and to construct a single family dwelling, was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve" Signed by C. Powel South, Chairman. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Mr. Lockhart, is there anything that you'd care to add to your application? MR. LOCKHART-Not really, unless you gentlemen have any questions. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions? MR. THOMAS-Not right now. MR. CARVIN-I guess I don't have any at this point. I do have one. Do you have any plans for that lot, or are you Just looking to sell it at this point? MR. LOCKHART-I have a buyer, if acreage is only (lost word) approved, it will be surveyed. I can get this approved. with a slide rule. If I That get MR. CARVIN-Did I see you were going to take the barn down? MR. LOCKHART-The gentleman that's buying the property is going to dispo~:;e of it. i"1R. CARVIt\ -O kay . MR. LOCKHART-I can sell it that way. That's the cheapest way to 90. MR. CARVIN-How close is that barn to the road? That's kind of a dilapidated barn, to say that politely. MR. LOCKHART-Yes. the road is o~ly 32 The back half fell down. In that area there, feet wide. That's a deeded ri9ht-of-way. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I guess this is kind of a question of Jim. I know that barn sits real close to the road, and I'd guess it's only five or six feet off the road, if even that. MR. LOCKHART-It's eight. - 7 - MR. CARVIN-About eight feet. If they were to come in for a house, would they have to meet the setbacks or could they utilize that barn somehow? t1R. t1ART IN-Yes. MR. LOCKHART-It won't go where the barn is. front of the barn in that cleared area there. It'll be down in MR. CARVIN-Okay. I know you have quite a bit of cleared area. I say quite a bit of cleared area. It looked like quite a bit of buildable area, and then there was a lot of woods. MR. LOCKHART-Just north of the, toward the lake, from the barn, is where we were talking. MR. MARTIN-The only other thing I is this in the Adirondack Park. all with the Park Agency? want to add at this time, too, Have you talked about this at MR. LOCKHART-I didn't know that I had to. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I just know that, we send all our decisions on, when they're involved in the Park Agency, and I think there's a 30 day response time or something from the point that this Board makes a decision, and they have the authority to overrule this Board. So I just put that out there. Should you get the approval tonight, there is that one last possibility that they could overrule. I'1R . LOCKHART -1'1y daughter (lost war ds ) Ray Brook. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's the place. MR. LOCKHART--Six months later, she got a reply. MR. MARTIN-I know. I'm just saying, they do frame, and I wanted to make you aware of that, have, I don't know, maybe Fred recalls, the Mountain that was overturned. have that time because ('>Ie did one near l.Jest MR. CARVIN-Yes. That was on that 40 acre deal. That was Carte. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'm not sure how they would view this. I hear things are different up there now, with the new administration. I just wanted to advise you of that though. I didn't want you to get blind-sided in the mail, or something, by it. MR. GREEN-How deep is that lot? parallel with the road. It seems to run pretty well MR. LOCKHART-Yes. It's roughly 180 to 200 feet. It's wider on the top than on the bottom. MR. CARVIN-Have these other parcels on your map here, this 1.89 acre, and this three acre, were these all created or are these existing lots or have these been sold off, on your map here. In other words, I'm assuming this was the original homestead, and it looks like these, in other words, this lot here. MR. LOCKHART-The original homestead was further down. This lS Andersons. MR. CARVIN-All right, but that almost looks like a landlock. MR. LOCKHART-It is. There's a right-of-way over this far. MR. CARVIN-All right, and freestanding lot? this is an existing separate - 8 - MR. LOCKHART-Yes. That's my daughter's with a house on it. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and then you kept this original as a part of the Number One lot, I take it? MR. LOCKHART-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So these are existing? MR. LOCKHART-Yes. MR. CARVIN-When were these lots created? MR. THOMAS-Would it be that 1991 subdivision? MR. MARTIN-I think that might have been 4.6, because that is at five acn:3S. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, because I see a 1.89, and I see a 3 acre, and then, I guess, I don't know if that's a three acre or a five acre, five acre. I mean, a lot of these lots look to be undersized. MR. MARTIN-Undersized. I would suspect that they pre-date the existing regulations. Lot Nine there, that's totally landlocked. I would suspect that's been there quite a while. MR. LOCKHART-That goes back to my great grandfather. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That sounds about right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. because this is the remaining Lot Number One, and apparently it does go across the road there, this one. MR. MARTIN-See that one frontage, there, of lot, what is it, 10.1 has 165 feet of frontage, that'll give you some scale. MR. GREEN-Do these have homes on them? MR. LOCKHART-This one does, and this one does. MR. CARVIN-Okay. hear i ng . Any other questions? I'll open the public PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Any questions or comments? MR. GREEN-I don't have any problem with it. I don't think there's anything else you can do. I mean, you could try and pick up some land across the road, but I think that's going to create more problems than it's going to solve. MR. KARPELES-I agree. MR. THOMAS-I agree with what Mr. Green says. It really wouldn't be any use picking up more land across the road anyway. because it would be divided by the road anyway, so it would be kind of useless. I don't see any problem whacking this lot off like that. It conforms to some of the other ones. MR. CARVIN-It's within keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. MR. MARTIN-Fred, I think, if it is the consensus of the Board, as it appears it is, I would emphasize that point in your resolution. That may help. That's what's sent to the APA. It - 9 - may help. MR. CARVIN-Okay. the motion? Thank you for that, Jim. Anybody want to make MR. KARPELËS-I'll makè it. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-1995 FRANK J. LOCKHART JESSIE C. LOCKHART, Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: They propose to separate a 2.57 acre parcel from a 35.65 acre parcel in a Rural Residential Five Acre Zone. So they need relief from Section 179-15. It would appear that this lot could only be used as a building lot by itself, as the road runs right next to it, and this lot size would seem to be in keeping with the surrounding lots in the area. There do not appear to be any feasible alternatives so that this applicant could use the land in any other way, or pick up additional acreage. The relief is substantial. It's 50 percent. However, as I've already stated, it is in keeping with the surrounding lots. It does not appear it would have any adverse effect on the neighborhood or community. No public comment has been received in opposition to this. Long EAF form has been reviewed, and there's no negative declaration. Duly adopted this 31st day of August, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NOt,IE ABSENT: Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford USE VARIANCE NO. 59-1995 TYPE I LC-42A MICHAEL DI PALMA OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ACROSS FROM WILLIAMSON'S STORE, ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES TO HAVE A FISHING CHARTER SERVICE AS PART OF AN EXISTING BED AND BREAKFAST BUSINESS. SINCE FISHING CHARTER IS NOT AN ALLOWED USE UNDER SECTION 179-13, LAND CONSERVATION ZONE, A USE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT. SECTION 179-7(B) DEFINITIONS, IS ALSO APPLICABLE. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (LAKE GEORGE PARK CEA) (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 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 59-1995, Michael DiPalma, Meeting Date: August 31, 1995 "MEETING DATE: August 31, 1995 APPLICANT: Michael DiPalma PROJECT LOCATION: Upper Ridge Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Applicant proposes to provide fishing opportunities as part of his approved Bed and Breakfast operation. A Zoning Board interpretation advised that a Use Variance would be needed in order to provide the fishing guide service in addition to the bed and breakfast lodging. USE VARIANCE REVIEW CRITERIA, BASED ON SECTION 267-B OF TOWN LAW: 1. IS A REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? The bed and breakfast clientele are primarily people who would choose to stay there because of the availability of fishing. A reasonable return from the business would not be possible if it were limited to lodging. 2. IS THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY UNIQUE, OR DOES IT ALSO APPLY TO A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? This property is the only bed and breakfast in the area, and may be the only fishing guide service, as well. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? Public comment during previous public hearings concerning this property fell on both sides of this issue. The - 10 - - -- adjacent neighbor to the north expressed concern over the use of a right-of-way for access to the dock. This appears to be a civil matter, dependent on what was specified in the deed. 4. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP PROVEN BY THE APPLICANT AND AT THE SAME TIME PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY? It appears to be. PARCEL HISTORY: This property was the subject of an Area Variance, Site Plan review, and a Zoning Board determination, which are attached. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: It does not appear that the addition of the fishing service to the bed and breakfast business would have an adverse impact, as long as the fishing service was extended only to those staying overnight at the bed and breakfast. The lssue of picking up customers at other locations on the lake is not a matter for the Zoning Board. SEeR: This is a Type I action. The Zoning Board is the sole agency, so may review the Long Form EAF at this time." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 16th day of August 1995, the above application for a Use Variance to allow single family residential and bed and breakfast facility was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: Approved with the condition that the dock only be used for charters by guests of the bed and breakfast." Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'd like to limit the discuss just to the Use Variance, here, if possible. We've gone through all the other ramifications, several times before. The applicant does have a right to a bed and breakfast. We have established the fact that he has, also, a fishing business where he does not take people from his dock. In other words, they are two separate and distinct businesses. There is a right-of-way across a neighbor's property. As Staff Notes indicate, I do not feel that the right- of-way is an issue in this. That is a civil matter, and I'm going to refer any of the right-of-way issues to a civil court, and should not be determined by this Board as to what constitutes the use of the right-of-way, and as I said, I'd like to limit the discussion on this application, just as the Staff Notes indicate. Having said that, is there anything that you'd care to add? MR. O'CONNOR-I wi¡l try to follow your directiqn. For the record, I'm Michael O'Connor. I am an attorney representing the applicant. This is my file. It's probably an inch, an inch and a half thick, and we've been here a number of times. Except for, perhaps, Mr. Green, we've beat this to death. What started out to be a, I think 13 by 14 room addition, so I agree wholeheartedly with your comments, Mr. Chairman. I will reserve, for purposes of the record, all my legal arguments. I have stood, even on the application for the Variance, in objection to the finding of this Board earlier that a Variance was required because of the nature of the activity, and I say that just for the purposes of the record. Having the Board rule that a Variance is necessary, I'd try to address that. Probably the hardest thing to explain is we went before the Lake George Park Commission as to whether or not we were operating a marina from this property, because we told them we wanted to take our Bed and Breakfast people out on the lake for fishing purposes. Their determination was that the activity that we're talking about took place out on the lake. It didn't take place at our property and, therefore, we didn't need a Class A Marina. We could operate as we presently operate, as a Class B Marina permit, which is something that ,Mr. DiPalma got some time ago. It's hard to tell you what we're óperating, when you 'try to disiinguish taking the people out on the boat out on the lake to go fishing, as opposed to operating a bed and breakfast. The impact, here is very, very insignificant. As you indicated, we're entitled to have people on the property for Bed and Breakfast purposes. We're entitled to have the people wander about our property. So they could go down to the Board. If they wanted to, they could go down to the - 11 -- dock. We talked about that when we did Site Plan Review. We talked about that the people even fishing off our dock down there as part of our Bed and Breakfast ambiance, if you will, and there was no objections to that. The number of times his boat goes up and down that stream is the same. Whether or not the people come from the house, walk down the trail, get in the boat with us, or whether they get out and get into their car and go meet us at another dock, the boat still has to get down to the lake. It's really an insignificant business, too. There was a room built, on purpose, for privacy, for Mr. DiPalma, which was an investment that was made, so that another room could be freed up for the purposes of Bed and Breakfast. He's not getting a reasonable return out of that room that was freed up, because he's not getting the Bed and Breakfast trade that he intended to get, and be able to use, by making his accommodations the way that he made them. I think, in 1994, and I think the records will show in 1994, he had 13 different occasions when he had guests there. In 1995, he's had guests there three times, or four times. I think in 1993, he had them there 10 times or 11 times. The record is within your record. People just don't appear to want to come use the place solely as a Bed and Breakfast, and he's had no people doing that. This is a unique Bed and Breakfast, if you will. It's off the beaten path. It's not something that people will see on a highway and stop and stay at. They come, mainly there because he's a fishing guide and a licensed fishing guide. It seems as though not only is there no one who wants to come simply for a Bed and Breakfast, but there are a lot less people who want to come for a Bed and Breakfast if they've got to go elsewhere to meet him. They might as well stay at those other places, and simply have him come and get them, and that's not fair. It's not giving him a fair return. Mr. DiPalma wants to speak. He promises to be very brief, as I hope I have been. If he isn't, I \l-Jill kick him. t-nCHAEL DI PALMA MR. DIPALMA-I want to address this to Mr. Carvin, because I know his feelings on the matter. He really doesn't know me. He knows what was said about me. I've never intended, ever, to operate an illegal business. Things were said about me which were out right lies, innuendos and half truths. When I first started this, it was my idea to rent the house and have people there, and that was that, and, 10 and behold, somebody moves in next door and says, you're operating this. When people come at you that way, you sort of react in a way maybe you shouldn't. Okay. I would just like to let you know that nobody has complained about this in the past two years, that I know of. Have the Bleibtrey's complained about it to anybody? I don't know. There haven't been any complaints. The neighborhood hasn't gone to heck, and I'm doing things the way I've always done them, with the advice of your Building Department is the advice that I took to do all this. That.'s it. MR. O'CONNOR-I think one other comment, and particularly for Mr. Green who I don't think has sat. in on hearing's on this before. We've had a number of neighbors come forth and speak on behalf of Mr. DiPalma, and there are two or three that speak against him. I've never tried to characterize things by numbers, but I think it's fairly equal if not. in numbers, close proximity, the immediate neighbors have had no objections, except for one. I leave that as part of the record. I assume that you've looked at some of the records. You attached those earlier decisions. I thank you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are there any questions? MR. GREEN-Not yet. MR. KARPELES-Not at this time. - 12 - -- - MR. THOMAS-Not right now. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I just have a couple. I've got actually just two. The hours. If you were granted this variance, is there, because I know a lot of people go night fishing. Is there any? MR. DIPALMA-I do not run any night charters. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there a reasonable hour. say, nothing after nine o'clock? MR. DIPALMA-In the evening? ¡VIR. CAR'v'IN'-"Yes. MR. DIPALMA-No, nothing after nine, except Bass fishermen, in the Spring, they come in there and spawn in that inlet. I know one or two have walked out of here with top plugs and cast it out from t.he clock. MR. O'CONNOR-He's talking about from the boat. MR. DIPALMA-Nothing from the boat. MR. CARVIN-Okay. What I'm saying is, if this were granted, because we had a, there was a concern with a Bed and Breakfast with a swimming pool. and the neighbors objected to the fact that t.he swimming pool was going to be used after nine o'clock or ten o'clock, and I'm wondering, you know, I'm not a fisherman. I gave it. up about 35 years ago, and, you know, as I said, I just didn't know if this was a normal situation with a fishing bus1.ness. MR. DIPALMA-It's not normal anyway. MR. O'CONNOR-How early would you start in the morning? MR. DIPALMA-Six o'clock on in the seven, and I have to run down to the I'm out there at 6:30. If they were out by se\'len. morning. If they start at Village to pick then uP. and staying at the house, I'd be MR. CARVIN-Okay, and the other question that I had was, do other folks bring boats. In other words, I don't know if, lets say that somebody showed up at your Bed and Breakfast with their boat. MR. DIPALMA-I know exactly what you mean. I've had friends come and leave boats there overnight. I have another friend who has their boat docked now, which I will charge for, but I pay my fee to the Park Commission for. extra boats, but someone's a friend, and he wants access to the lake, and I have room, I let him put it there, but the people, no, that come to the Bed and Breakfast, they, on the whole, do not have boats. I have had, on occasion, one or two boats having boats, 12 foot, 10 foot. they stay overnight one night. and that happened on two occasions since I've been doing this. I just want you to know that has occurred. MR. O'CONNOR-If those people had a boat, they wouldn't b~ involved in the activity we're talking about. They're there as Bed and Breakfast people. They'd do their own fishing on their OL.Jn. MR. DIPALMA-I wouldn't be guiding them. MF:.. 0 'CONNOR-He about is guiding L.Jouldn't be guests. guidin::,;¡ them. \;'J ha t. vJe ' r e ti3.1 king MR. CARVIN-Okay. So this will be just off your own boat? - 13 - r"\ MR. DIPALMA-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. That's what I wanted to establish was that this would be just your boat. Okay. I'd like to open up the public hea ring. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARGARET BLEIBTREY MRS. BLEIBTREY-Hi. I'm Margaret Bleibtrey. I am really the only truly adjacent property owner to this business. I don't know if you're all familiar with the map of the property. There's a 10 foot right-of-way going through my property. I'm not going to get into all the things I've gotten into in the past, and it's property on which I pay taxes, and it's my only home. It's my primary residence. It's not a secondary residence as Mr. DiPalma's is to him. I feel that this business definitely detracts from the value of my property. If you look at the size of the right-of-way, you have to remember, it's only 10 feet through my property, but it extends to only 20 feet down by the water. That's not even big enough for the LGPC to grant permission for a dock, and he wants to run a business out of that right-of-way, 10 feet, and then 20 feet of waterfront? Something's way out of line here, and also it's important to remember that it's right next to my home, and it is my property, okay. Granting this variance would essentially change the zoning on f.!lZ......prc.perty to commen:;ial. I don't ~'~ant it changed. I ~.Jant my home kept residential. It is my home. My daughter who's only 12, and I, definitely do not want strange men around there. This is where we live, okay, and as far as the extent of the business, I mean, Mr. Carvin, I know, has known the change in the stories, from year to year, as we've been here, and you all should be aware that there have been three or four boats, up to three or four boats, tied up down there, in my front yard, in the past. So who knows what will happen in the future if you grant this variance now, for a business next to my home. Also, I don't know if this is an issue here, but I was going to ask if this would be considered spot zoning, changing the zoning on a portion of my property for which Mr. DiPalma has an easement for commercial u::;;e. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I think that is an issue for civil court. We're not changing the zoning. We're granting a variance. In other words, he has an allowed use to a Bed and Breakfast, and he's asking for an accessory use to the Bed and Breakfast, all right, and I want to try to keep these issues lined up. MRS. BLEIBTREY-Isn't spot zoning something that you are concerned ~J.i u·e MR. CARVIN-No, we are not changing the zone. In other words, the zone already indicates that he can have a Bed and Breakfast, and he's asking for an additional use to the Bed and Breakfast. Okay. Now the issue of how the people get from his house, in other words, the guest to the dock, is a civil issue. MRS. BLEIBTREY-I understand that, but what I'm trying to accomplish here is to have the Board, as it has in the past, protect the residential area and protect the character of the neighborhood by enforcing the zoning laws as they should be enforced. MR. CARVIN-And that's why we requested a Use variance on this, because I agree with you that he is allowed a Bed and Breakfast, but by the very fact of the Bed and Breakfast does not necessarily allow him all the accessory uses, and that's why we have, in our earlier motion, requested or determined that they have to submit for a Use Variance, and that's what he's doing now. In other words, he has to meet the criteria for the Use - 14 - Variance for this accessory use. all right, and thiS is where this issue always gets bogged down, as I've said. It's the right of way issue, and we cannot address that issue. In other words, we can grant the accessory use, but I can't say how the people are going to go from Point A to Point B. That is a civil issue. Now, again, Mr. O'Connor is the lawyer and I'm not, and these items, I think, need to be argued in a civil court, as to how he's going to get the people from the Bed and Breakfast to the dock. MRS. BLEIBTREY-I understand what you're saying, but, you know, please remember what I've been through over the years with this, and I'm just asking you to protect my home and my property by following the zoning laws. I understand that there's a Use Variance and what you're trying to accomplish, but, you know, this is going to detract from the value of my property tremendously by having a business run through it, which I don't want there, and this is where I live. I'm sure no one here wants a business run out of their front yard. MR. CARVIN-Well, let me ask you this. How would you feel if this business, lets just assume for the moment that there is no right- of-way, that he owns the piece of property, in other words, where we have adjacent lots, in otl'''ler words, IrJhere you have your lot, and he has his lot, and he is operat..i ng a Bed and Breakfa~3t 24 hours a day. You see, that's an approved use in that zone. MRS. BLEIBTREY-Yes, that's an approved use. MR. CAF<VIN-Now, if he wanted to go skeet shooting off his dock, I would agree with )/ou that that's not an appro\/ed use in that particular zone, and if he wanted to skeet shoot off his dock, as an accessory to the Bed and Breakfast, and that was the analogy that I used, that he has to come forward to the Town and request the use, but, you see, the issue always gets bogged down into the right-of-way. I mean, he's got a right to conduct business in the Bed and Breakfast, and I know where you're coming from and, unfortunately, in order for him to get to his dock, he's got to go across your land, and this is what I've always, I'm saying here and now, that is not an issue that this Board can address. I mean, we can address the use issue, based upon, is the applicant going to get a reasonable return from his Bed and Breakfast if this is denied? Is this a unique situation? Will it alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Is the hardship self-created, and is this minimum relief necessary to alleviate his problem? I mean, these are the items. MRS. BLEIBTREY-The hardship is self-created. I think you know the business has been run through there illegally for quite a few years.. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I'm not going to get into the legality of the business, the Bed and Breakfast. MRS. BLEIBTREY-And as far as the business, fishing business, being approved, I notice that in the reading of the application, it was noted that prior approval was granted, but prior approval was not granted by the Site Plan Review, January of '95, for the fishing business. The prior approval was only granted for the Bed and Breakfast. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I'm going to dredge up old memories, but as I understand it. I think the issue of the fishing business was resolved, and I'm going to defer to Mr. O'Connor on that, in that the resolution was that he was allowed a fishing business there. Correct me if I'm wrong. MRS. BLEIBTREY-Page 32, January 26, 1994, the minutes of that meeting, and we went through this in February of this year, where, they stipulated, Mr. O'Connor himself stipulated to the - 15 - effect that approval for Bì"eakfast. the fishing charter business, they that. They were only seeking IrJere not s6eki n9 for the Bed and MR. CARVIN-That's correct. Back in January, that's all they were seeking was for the Bed and Breakfast. MRS. BLEIBTREY-I know, but in the first quarter of this year, we went through the fact that Mr. O'Connor was saying they had already received approval in the January meeting, for fishing charter business, and that's not true. I think that was revised. MR. CARVIN-Okay. The charter business, as I understand it, is not conducted from his home, that he picks up the folks off site. In other words, he goes some place else for those charters, but the Bed and Breakfast folks is where he wants to have this as an accessory use for those folks. That's what I'm trying to say is that there's two issues there, also. So I guess, and I hate to use the term "technically", but technically he is not running a fishing busin6ss there. The fishing business is being run elsewhere. He may have an office there. MRS. BLEIBTREY-Well, he changes with the wind. aware of that. I think you're MR. CARVIN-I'm quite familiar with that, too. MRS. BLEIBTREY-The only thing I'm asking is that you help me protect my home and my family. I know this is a Use Variance, but, you know, it does require a variance and I'm asking you to not grant that variance because it will adversely impact the neighborhood. It will adversely impact the value of my property, and generally cause major problems for me and my family as it has in the past. If the variance is granted, there's no telling what will happen in the future with this business, because, you know, there are some people, if you give them the inch, they'll take the mile, and there have been up to three and four boats down there, fishing charters, everybody come and, you know, have a party on the fishing boat, and I don't want that stuff to happen, and I'm asking you to help me by not permitting this Use Variance. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. GREEN-I have a question. How long have you lived in this lot? MRS. BLEIBTREY-About 10 years. MR. GREEN-Mr. DiPalma, how long have you owned your lot there? MR. DIPALMA-Eighteen years. MR. GREEN-When you bought your lot, you were well aware of the right-of-way for him to use the docks for, at that time, supposedly personal use? MRS. BLEIBTREY-Personal use. MR. GREEN-Was the dock as big as it is today? MRS. BLEIBTREY-Yes, unfortunately. MR. GREEN-So, if he were to remain solely personal, he could have three or four boats there anyway. MRS. BLEIBTREY-Well, not without permission from the Lake George Park Commission. MR. GREEN-Well, if he paid his dock permits, he could have three - 16 - or four boats there. MRS. BLEIBTREY-I believe that, I'm not a lawyer either, obviously, but I believe that the Lake George Park Commission would have change the status to a Class A Marina, which they're obviously not going to do, but that doesn't, see, I don't want to get into too much of what we've gone through already. MR. GREEN-Exactly, and I've gotten a little history on thlS also, but what we're trying to clear up here, in my own mind anyway, is your, one of your concerns is the amount of people coming and going, and if Mr. DiPalma did not, technically, take business off his dock, an allowable use, he could still have three or four boats there. He could have as many friends and neighbors come and go as he would like on a daily basis, as far as ¡ can understand. MRS. BLEIBTREY-I think that would require, as I said. MR. GREEN-If he's not charging people to park their boats there, and I'm just saying that I don't know if there's any way to limit the amount of traffic, okay, and that's my concern. I'm just addressing that. MRS. BLEIBTREY-By denying this Use Variance you would limit it drastically, and I foresee a great expansion of this business if this variance is granted, because Mr. DiPalma told me himself he was planning on an expansion, before, this was quite a number of years ago. I Just think that by granting this Use Variance, you would be setting a dangerous precedent, and things would definitely get out of hand here. MR. CARVIN-Thank you. MRS. BLEIBTREY-Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Anyone else wishing to be heard in opposition? GRACE HANNEFORD MRS. HANNEFORD-My name is Grace Hanneford, and I have a piece of property next to Mr. DiPalma, and my home is right across from where the dock is. I can hear the noise coming up from where the dock (lost words). I'm just against having two businesses in a residential district. We're residential, and these are two businesses that he wants. He's already got one, which is the Bed and Breakfast. Now he wants the other one, the fishing. It's residential. Please, lets keep it residential. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard in opposition? Any correspondence? MR. THOMAS-Yes. One letter. A letter dated August 28, 1995 "Sirs: As you consider Use Variance No. 59-1995 for Michael DiPalma, please be advised that I, as a close neighbor, have no objection to a fishing charter service as part of Mr. DiPalma's Bed and Breakfast business. His business is small and is run quietly without an adverse affect on the neighboring docks or residences. Yours truly, l'1s. Jane L. Crannell" MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other public comment? MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Carvin, Could I say a couple of things for the record? MR. CARVII\ -Sur e . MR. O'CONNOR-I'll try not to be way out in left field. This is the primary residence of Mr. DiPalma. It's not his secondary residence. This operation is accessory to his own use of the - 17 - property. Mr. DiPalma's a retired police officer from New Jersey. He does sometimes go to New Jersey to substitute teach and stays at a daughter's house down there, but this is the only residence that he has. I still don't understand the argument that this would detract from property values, because by your approvals, you're not introducing anything to the property or to the neighborhood that is not there already. The people that we're talking about serving are people that are solely guests as guests of the Bed and Breakfast. They're entitled to be there. They're entitled to walk the full extent of his property, whether it be by fee ownership or by right-of-way. The only thing we're talking about is whether or not they can get into the boat at that dock, or whether they've got to go back to their car and get into their car, and he'd meet them at a marina, and then take them out onto the lake, but he will have to go down to the boat. He will have to put his stuff into the boat, like a carpenter putting his tools in his pick up, and then going off to his job site. His job site, in this particular instance, is out on the lake, and that's where he provides his fishing guide service. So there's really no impact that you're talking about by your approval. What we're talking about, too, we get off into talking about three or four boats tied up. I asked, are there boats that you keep there, and apparently there've been boats there, but they're visitors, just like anybody who has a camp or has a boat or a dock. You're going to have people that visit you. This approval is for one boat for use for the guests of the Bed and Breakfast. If you want to limit the hours, that's agreeable. If there are any other limitations that you think are necessary, we certainly would be willing to consider them. This is not a big deal. I'm almost embarrassed. It's not a big deal in the sense that it's not a large volume business. It has very little impact. I'm sure it is of great significance to Mr. DiPalma, and it may be of great significance to the woman who just spoke. I know, if you look through these arguments, to a great degree when we talked about whether or not a variance was necessary, I felt, at that time, that the Board's feeling in part was that they didn't want to issue a blank check. They didn't want to say that people who have a Bed and Breakfast could do anything and everything as an amenity from that property. I almost felt as though you wanted to look at it and put some controls on it that were reasonable so that you wouldn't have negative impact, if you put before the swimming pools regulations, hours of operation of the swimming pool. Again, we're willing to abide by that. We're not asking for a blank check. As to whether or not this was self-created. It was not self-created. The room that we built to accommodate this use was fully built with the building permit prior to the appeal of the interpretation that got us back here looking for the variance. Mr. DiPalma went through the process. He applied. He got his approvals. He built the addition, and then we came back here. We have that still as an issue. You ruled one way. I take an objection to your ruling, but he fully had that addition built. There's specific exception (lost word) near self-created hardship for the self-created, if you do it in good faith. Under the circumstances, he had a legitimate building permit. That's basically my comments. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. KARPELES-How opeì'ation? long has this fishing business been in MR. DIPALMA-Since 1984 when I became a licensed fishing guide. MR. CARVIN-Any other public comment? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions? MR. GREEN-I'll tell you. I wouldn't go to a Bed and Breakfast - 18 - fishing lodge if I couldn't go fishing. As Mr. O'Connor said, that I don't think this is a really big deal here. The people can go down there and, like we're asking for a variance so they can step off their dock into the boat rather than getting in the car and driving up the road. 50 I don't have any problem with this at all, as long as we, you know, maybe seven, nine, something like that, people strictly staying at the Bed and Breakfast, along that line, but I think we're making a mountain out of a mole hill. MR. THOMA5-1 understand Mrs. Bleibtrey's concerns about people running up and down the right-of-way, to and from the dock, but, like Bill says, it's just a matter of stepping off a dock into a boat. These people would be going up and down that path anyway, even if they weren't going into the boat. They'd go down and stand on the dock. There's going to be the normal traffic there anyway. MR. GREEN-Just a question, I guess maybe for the record, for my own piece of mind, the actual right-of-way, are you actually using the right-of-way, other than down in front by your dock? MR. DIPALMA-Half of that right-of-way I'm not even using. I haven't cut a tree down on it. The only thing I'm doing now is new underbrush comes down, I cut it down. I use the front of it where the dock is, and I use the middle of it, from the road down, there's just one parking place in it which is not even used, but it can be trimmed and used for walking. That's what a right-of-way's for. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. KARPELES-The business was there when you bought the property, Mrs. Bleibtrey, is that right? MRS. BLEIBTREY-The right-of-way was there. MR. KARPElES-The fishing business was there. Was the fishing business there when you bought the property? MRS. BLEIBTREY-Not to my knowledge. MR. KARPELES-Something's wrong here. I'm mean you're saying that it was there 11 years ago. MRS. BLEIBTREY-Well, he's also said, in the past, that it wasn't there. MR. O'CONNOR-How long have you been licensed, Mr. DiPalma? MR. DIPALMA-Since 1984. MR. O'CONNOR-And how long have you been operating from the Pì' opeì' ty? MR. DIPALMA-Since 1984 when I became licensed. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I think the issue of the business is murky at best. I have no doubt that Mr. DiPalma is a licensed fishing guide. I think the issue of the business 1S that he has an office in his home, but he does not conduct the business out of his home. till right. So I think it becomes, he cloes not Iv:~ve a business, a fishing business, from his home. In other words, what he does is, it's just like a carpenter. You can have your licensed carpenter sign out front, but you do your business elsewhere, and you can have equipment that you can make cabinets and so forth in your home, and again, I'm just saying that this ,us the (;,¡ay that f.!J.l:. understandin9 of this v.¡hole t.hin9 has corne down. The interpretations are that people cannot show up at his home and go down to the dock for hire and get. int.o the boat. He - 19 - has to go down, get the boat, go to another point, whereby they get in and he takes them wherever they're going fishing. Now the issue evolves, and again, you can go through the transcripts of all the minutes and Mr. DiPalma has sometimes a unique habit of jumping both sides of the fence, and again, we've made comment to that, but as it stands right now, he does not have a business from his home, technically. MR. GREEN-Other than the Bed and Breakfast. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Now he does he have a sign out there saying Beaver Creek Lodge. He has advertised in fishing guides as a fishing guide service Bed and Breakfast. We do have that documented. He does have a right to a Bed and Breakfast. All right. That is an approved use in the zone. So that you can argue all night long whether he has a business in his house, and it's still going to come down to the same spot that, technically, he does not, but he does have a Bed and E3rea kfast. That has been approved by site plan. Is that correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and for the purposes of your record, at that time, we specifically said he took those people out on the lake for fishing guide purposes. MR. CARVIN-So now the issue, I feel, before us is, if a person shows up for the Bed and Breakfast and says, I want to go fishing, that is the issue. Are we going to approve an accessory use of a fishing or the Bed and Breakfast. Now, remember, the Bed and Breakfast is an accessory use to his home. Mr. O'Connor has indicated, and I fully believe Mr. DiPalma, that that is his primary residence. Now, I also do not have an answer of how a person, I think Mr. DiPalma has a right-of-way. Now, again, that's a matter for somebody else. I thi nk he can go across l'1rs. Bleibtrey's property. I'll leave it for the legal eagles to figure out whether paid guests at a Bed and Breakfast also have that same right to go across the right-of-way. Again, I don't know if there's precedents or if there's cases, and that is a case I strongly feel belongs in civil court. If Mrs. Bleibtrey feels that these other folks going across her property cannot do that, then I would suggest she seek legal counsel and pursue that in t.he ci viI courts. That is not a matter for zoni ng . ~,je wouldn't have, necessarily, as difficult a time on this if these properties were side by side, and we didn't have a right-of-way, or we had a very definitive line of ownership, but we don't, and as I said, the other issue is the Use Variance and Mr. O'Connor, obviously, has a right to his opinion whether this Board made the correct decision. We have allowed him reservation on that, so that if the Use Variance is not approved, he does have course to challenge us on, basically, two issues. I don't care. We've got our own lawyers, and I think we're right on that issue, but that's neither here nor there. That's a separate and distinct issue. So I think that if we are going to move ahead on this, I think we have to look at the criteria for granting the Use Variance in this particular situation, and if the Board feels that the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return from his Bed and Breakfast, as it currently is being operated, without this fishing situation, if this is a unique situation, if it will alter the character of the neighborhood, if the alleged hardship has been self-created, and if this is minimum relief. I think those are the only issues that we can address. I guess I've got two folks that have no problem meeting these criteria, and, Bob, I guess I'm still. MR. KARPELES-Yes. MR. CARVIN-If it's any problem with granting structured. I do have a it, as far as the hours. around at five o'clock in consolation, I think that I don't have a the Use Variance, as long as it's problem, and I think they've addressed I wouldn't want to have people banging the morning or eleven or twelve o'clock - 20 - at night. I think it has to be, as Warren County has indicated, that it can only be limited to Bed and Breakfast guests. I have no idea how we enforce that. I guess that's neither here nor there, but I guess if they show up and pay for the Bed and Breakfast and they want to go fishing, well, I assume that you have to figure out how to get them from your house to the dock, and I'm sure that, if you have to go through somebody else's property, or whatever, that's not this Board's problem. So I really don't have a problem. Is it unique? It's not unique in the sense that Mr. DiPalma basically has advertised a Bed and Breakfast with fishing service. Now I don't know what kind of response, or if he's advertised just Bed and Breakfast, whether anybody shows up, or if you are in any B & B Guides. MR. KARPELE'3-Well, vJhat I'm wrestling v.Jith, is there an ad\ierse effect on the essential character of the neighborhood. I think there is an adverse effect on the essential character of the neighborhood, but the problem is, when did this adverse effect begin, and when did the business begin. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, as I said, the business, you can look at the technicalities on this and say, well, fine, the business is not being run from the home, but my personal layman's opinion is that it is. MR. DIPALMA-Could I just make one statement, and clear what he's saying. It was brought out by one of YOUT Board members, which is the clearest thing I've heard here in three years. No matter what happens, fishing can go on from that dock, not for pay. My neighbors and myself. Yes, we'll be leaving at five o'clock if I go by myself, if I want to catch a certain type of fish, but if you say, no, you can't leave until seven, which is reasonable. I don't have a problem with that, we won't leave until seven, but I will be going out there at five, myself, which is my free right to do, and I don't want people complaining saying I'm doing things against what is down on paper, but the distinction that Mr. Karpeles is trying to make is, when did this all start. It all started when I moved there in 1978, when I started fishing off that dock. That's when it all started. I started fishing and I brought my friends there. The whole world knows it. The whole neighborhood knows it. You had people in there, some of you new Board members, you saw them stand up here and say, it didn't affect anything. They have boats in the dock right next to me. They never heard anything out of the ordinary. No loud talking like some people that don't even live next to me say they hear. There has never been a problem there. The problem came when the Bleibtrey's didn't want me to do this. That's when the problem occurred. I'm not saying she doesn't have a right to her opinion. She does. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, again, I'm not going to get into it, because the public hearing is not open. That brings it back to the right-of-way issue. MR. KARPELE'3-I could go along with it. MR. CARVIN-Well, do you feel that we should table this to get a fuller Board, I guess? I don't want anybody just to go along with it because they want to go along with it. I want everybody to be convinced, because we have a unique situation here, in that we have four members. MR. THOMAS-I would want to table this until we have a full Board, because this has been such a long, ongoing, highly publicized, very closely looked at issue, overall, that I would feel more comfortable with all the Board members voting. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think I would agree with that, even though, as I said, I will go on record that I, at this point, don't have a Teal problem with the Use Variance, but I think I'd like to - 21 - Pì'OPOSØ that l,,¡e. MR. THOMAS-And I think that the APA is going to get their fingers in on this, too. So if we had a full Board vote, it would look bet ter . t1R. U:¡RVIN-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-I think they have already declined jurisdiction of the issuø, Mr. Thomas. They've been written to. Every agency in the State has been written to. We've been to most of them, but I have no objection to the Board's adjourning it, but I would like to go out of here with an understanding that we have talked about only guests at the B~d and Breakfast. We have talked about only one boat owned by the owner of the Bed and Breakfast, utilized by this service. We had talked about limitation of hours from 7 a.m. to not later than 9 p.m. That's what you were talking about. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I think I would be more, you know, even 6:30 to certainly no later than nine or ten, but again, these hours are, if it's not a real problem, if it's only one or two. MR. O'CONNOR-Thirteen, fourteen times a year. eight thirty, if that's what your final. Six thiì-t)l to MR. DIPALMA-In the summer time, it won't be dark until nine. MR. CARVIN-Well, we tried that with the swimming pool, and again. MR. O'CONNOR-If there's something else, tell me what it is. MR. CARVIN-Well, I don't know. table it, but I'm going to keep focused on this issue only. So I this, as a table. That's why I think I'd like to these issues very narrow and think I'd like to maybe defer MR. GREEN-My only concern is that, trying to limit it to, specifically, this issue, and if we come back again, next month, and we've got two or three other people here. I mean, have we closed the public hearing? 1'1R. CARVIN-Yes. MR. GREEN-So there will be no other public comment? 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. MR. CARVIN-Yes. We have actually, what, 30 days to make a motion anyway, right, after? MR. O'CONNOR-I'd waive the time limitations. I think I'm the one that has the (lost word) on that. MR. CARVIN-Well, no can make a motion. MR. O'CONNOR-I stipulate that I'd waive, so you don't have a F·roblem. MR. CARVIN-I think I'd like to table this, until we get a fuller Board, for a motion. MR. THOMAS-You've got the Long EAF sitting right there in front - 22 - '-- of you. Do you want to do that now, or do you want to do it later? MR. CARVIN-Lets do it later. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Carvin, the EAF basically says there are no physical improvements proposed. It's kind of a misnomer to say you have an EAF. There are no physical improvements proposed. MR. CARVIN-Well, we can address that at the next meeting. Okay. I'm going to move that we table. MOTION TO TABLE 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: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NOt\IE ABSENT: Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-1995 TYPE II WR-IA CEA ALFRED KRISTENSEN MARY ELLEN KRISTENSEN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 120 SQ. FT. SHED AND CONSTRUCT A NEW, DETACHED 1,020 SQ. FT. 4-CAR GARAGE. SECTION 179-7 ALLOWS A 900 SQ. FT. 3-CAR GARAGE, SO APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THIS SECTION. SECTION 179-60 REQUIRES A SHORELINE SETBACK OF 75 FEET. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SETBACK OF 67 FEET, SO SEEKS RELIEF FROM THIS SECTION. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 8/16/95 TAX MAP NO. 41-1-25, 26 LOT SIZE: 0.717 ACRES SECTION 179-60, 179-7 CURTIS DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 48-1995, Alfred Kristensen and Mary Ellen Kristensen, Meeting Date: August 31, 1995 "Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove an existing 120 square foot shed and construct a new, detached 1020 square foot 4-car garage, so applicant seeks relief from Section 179-7, which allows a 900 square foot garage. Relief is also needed from the shoreline setback of 75 feet, required by Section 179-60, as applicant is proposing a setback of 67 feet. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be able to combine the square footage of the existing shed and the 900 s.f. garage, eliminating the shed. 2. Feasible alternatives: The alternative would be to have two separate structures. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The relief sought is 120 feet more than allowed in floor space, and setback relief of 8 feet. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? It does not appear that this project would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. No comment has been received to date. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The topography is extremely limiting on this site. If this were not the case, perhaps the applicant would build a 3-car, conforming garage and retain the storage shed. Needing a 4-car garage could be considered self- created, but the site is the major factor. Staff Comments and Concerns: Since the storage shed square footage is being used as a justification for this variance, if it is granted, a condition could be included which disallows any further storage buildings on the property. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." - 23 - -~ MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 16th day of August 1995, the above application for an Area Variance to remove an existing 120 sq. ft. shed and construct a new detached 1020 sq. ft. 4 car garage. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: Approved with the condition that the run-off from the house, garage, and black top areas be controlled and not allowed to run into Glen Lake." Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there anything that you'd care to add? MR. DYBAS-Yes. My name is Curtis Dybas, and I'm representing Alfred and Mary Ellen Kristensen. One thing I didn't mention in the application is part of the long range plans to turn this facility into a year round residence is the property area has been increased by 9,000 square feet, adding 50 feet of shoreline to this parcel, bringing the total shoreline to 175 feet. Even with this proposed structure, if it was approved, the building coverage of the site would be less than nine percent, the permeable area with the added square footage. The permeable area of the site exceeds the present site size. So we are bettering the site substantially. I believe, and allow the site size on Glen Lake, the only factor that's lacking on this particular site, it's not an acre. It's approximately three quarters of an acre. So we are improving the site dramatically in the area, to create this proposed garage. As the minutes of the Staff indicate, we are tearing down and giving away the existing shed to put this 1,020 square foot garage storage facility. It should be mentioned that due to the topography of the site, the entrance to this garage is on the end. It's on the 22 foot end. It's not a situation where you have a 48 foot long wall with four doors in it. As far as access of buildings to the garage, the end two are access of, the back two bays, if that's what you want to call it, are sort of limited, as far as accessibility, since there'd be a vehicle in front of them. It's primarily for storage, for boats, another vehicle, and the two rarely used vehicles in the outer bays. The storage, lawn furniture, seasonal stuff. The green area is about 74 percent of the proposed site, and as the brief says, there is no practical alternate location on the site. (lost words) utilizing, basically, the only level area down by the existing structures, which is one of the reasons why we're seeking the setback of eight feet. To move this structure back eight feet will mean substantial excavating of the bank. This site is approximately one on two. To move it back eight feet would mean cutting another eight by four feet in vertical height. This proposed location is minimum construction in the contours and vegetation (lost word) retaining wall, and utilizing the existing Tetaining wall that is there along the south edge of the parking, to be the south wall of the proposed garage. That's all I have. MR. CARVIN-Any questions of the applicant, gentlemen? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I have a couple. On your side elevations, you show that it's not a pitched roof like this. That it's an off set. It looks like there's a second story on this building that could be used for living space. Is that your intention? MR. DYBAS-No, it's not. There would not be sufficient space up there anyway to be a living space. That the intent of the roof, in that configuration, is to blend the design of existing house Number One into Number Two, put the drainage in the Tear of the house, instead of down to the south toward the lake, where you could handle that on the Tear of the proposed. MR. THOMAS-Which runs into my Number Two question. propose to take care of the runoff? HOlrJ do you MR. DYBAS-Well, we have 74 percent permeable area on the site. I don't think it's going to be a problem finding space to handle - 24 - -- ~'~ it. That particular soil up through there is sand and gravel. Any runoff off that rear will be handled by the soil condition. The south roof, the smaller that faces south, will be handled by gutters to remove it, so it doesn't run down adjacent to the house. It will drain backwards from that location. MR. THOMAS-What's the proposed height at the peak, driveway grade, from the entrance to the garage? I feet, but that shows. from th<3 see a 24 MR. DYBAS-Twenty-four feet visited the site, there's south wall. I felt that should be measured from that is from the lower area. If you a retaining wall running along that for a true indication, that height lowest point of the structure. MR. THOMAS-How high is that retaining wall? feet. That's about five MR. DYBAS-About five feet. MR. THOMAS-So it would be about 19 feet to the peak. MR. DYBAS-Nineteen feet to the peak. MR. THOMAS-What do you propose to do with that above the garage, I mean, above the parking bays? That looks like there's a lot of space up in there, on this elevation. MR. DYBAS-Use it as added storage, overhead storage in the qari,3.g<..'" . MR. THOMAS-In that case, you could build a 900 square foot garage and do away with the 128 foot shed and you'd have more than 128 feet above the garage. MR. DYBAS-Well, you have to build a pitch. So when you build a six foot wall. I don't know. I mean, the space is there because of the configuration of the structure. MS. CIPPERLY-It looks like you were trying to copy the lines of the house. MR. DYBAS-That is correct. That's one of the reasons, eliminating the shed and building one structure, to try to get it to blend with the house, in siding and shingles. MR. THOMAS-But if you built a 900 square foot structure, you would be in conformance, except for the setback from the lake, and you'd still have all the storage space above the parking bays. As you've stated, that's what it's for. You'd have more than the 128 foot you took away from the shed. MR. DYBAS-One of the things that is mentioned is a four car garage, and part of this plan is to have a four car garage, one bay being used to store a boat in the winter. MR. KARPELES-Are there going to be garage doors on both ends of this building, the east end and west end, or is one end going to be blank? MR. DYBAS-We would like to work both ends, but I don't know at this time. MR. KARPELES-I noticed the lot next door there is also owned by Mr. Kristensen. Do they intend to build on that? MR. DYBAS-I do not know. MR. KAF<PELES-Is that a full width lot, or how wide a lot is that? - 25 - L) MR. DYBAS-I do not have an answer for you. MR. KARPELES-There's no place over there to put a storage shed. Also, I see on the east side, it looks like the macadam parking is on somebody else's lot. Is that right? MR. DYBAS-That is correct. MR. KARPELES-There's a right-of-way there for that? MR. DYBAS-I do not have that legal question. Also, if you recall that parking area is for the neighbor's property. I believe the drivevJay goes across this p<3rcel. So I don't knovJ the ì"ight-'of- way arrangements at all. MR. CARVIN-And you say they're going to use this as a full time residence? MR. DYBAS-The plan is to convert this, or use it as a full residence. It is a heated structure now. It is a year li\/ing facility. time round MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is that a fairly new structure, do you know, the residence? MR. DYBAS-It was renovated in the early 90's, I believe. MR. CARVIN-Okay. removed? When you say renovated, was that totally MR. DYBAS-No. There was an existing structure there. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and they just built around it or over it or added to it? MR. DYBAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Did you do that original building? MR. DYBAS-No, I didn't. MR. CARVIN-Was there, well, do you know if there was a garage to the original structure? MR. DYBAS-My recollection being there on a couple of occasions, no. I believe it was strictly a seasonal dwelling. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions? MR. KARPELES-Not at this time. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-I'm Michael O'Connor. I and my family own three homes, probably within 200 feet of this property. Around the corner of the bay there there's two camps, three camps that separate us. Everything he's done on this site has been done extremely well and adds to the value of the neighborhood. He takes care of his property. He takes care of the effect it has on the lake. I'd like to see what he's requested be approved. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Any thoughts, questions? - 26 - --/ MR. THOMAS-I think if they, you know, if they knock off five feet four inches on it, that would give them a 902 square foot garage, and that would be so close to the Ordinance that there wouldn't be any problem, and they could still have their storage that they wanted, plus with the storage up above the garage, which would give you another 902 square feet, plus or minus, depending on how high that knee wall is. Even half that, at 450 square feet, that's three times the shed that's there now. I think if they brought that garage into conformance, and gave them relief from the setback, I think they could accomplish what they'd set out to elo. MS. CIPPERLY-Are you talking about taking five feet off of the length? MR. THOMAS-Off the length, off the 46 feet. four inch. MR . CARV I N-HOv-J direction it is? about if we move the whole thing Why can't they move it this way? in ~.Jhatø,,,'<E~r MR. THOMAS-They'd need relief from the lake setback. MR. CARVIN-Well, they'd need that anyway. MR. THOM{~S-Yes. MR. CARVIN-What I'm other words, get your saying is shift the whole thing side setback, what, 30 feet. over, in MR. THOMAS-But they're asking for a 1020 foot garage, and the Ordinance says a maximum of 900 square feet. MR. DYBAS-Going back to the notes of the Staff, again, I refer to the four car garage. Now, he has two antique automobiles that he wishes to store there, quite frankly, and this is the reason for the four car garage. He needs four bays or give up one car, well, two cars, because you cannot get that depth, those automobiles in a 39 foot depth, or 40 foot depth. Thøy just will not fit, and that was part of the request for the variance. Now, what the configuration of the roof is, and what happens above it in the attic, I don't think has a bearing on the variance. I mean, you can make a flat roof, and then there's no attic in it. Aesthetically, if that's acceptable, I doubt it, but it's, trying to blend this structure with the existing house is a desire of my client, and to have a four car garage. MR. THOMAS-Now the Ordinance does state that a three is maximum, and this isn't Dr. Kristensen's permanent is it? car garage residence, MR. DYBAS-He is planning to make this his year round residence. That's the reason for this plan. MS. CIPPERLY-Just another thought is I really don't have any particular bent on this one, but under the Ordinancø, he would be allowed a private boat storage building in a 900 square foot garage, and a storage shed. What would appeal to me, I guess, if things could all be combined into one structure, especially on the lake, rather than, in a way, forcing somebody to do it in three separate buildings. MR. DYBAS-Another thing to point out, you know, the three car garage is (lost words). You say, okay, you'll have this attic storage. Attic storage is fine, but what do you do with your lawn mower and your snow blower and your fire wood, and the things that, you know, you don't store that in your attic and you walk upstairs and drag it down and wheel it out. That's a fact. It's what I felt was a reasonable request for a variance, utilizing the 120 square feet of shed that's there, and using the 900 square feet that was permitted by variance. I feel that's a - 27 - ) ) reasonable request. The decision, granted, 1S yours, but this lS the approach that we took. MR. THOMAS-We look to grant minimum relief. MR. CARVIN-Yes, that's the problem. MR. THOMAS-But then, again, too. MR. KARPELES-It seems reasonable to you, but we've had other people come in and request the same thing, because they have antique automobiles, and have been turned down. Mr:;:. CARVIN-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-Where are the antiques stored right now, the cars, do you knolt-J? ALFRED KRISTENSEN DR. KRISTENSEN-I have one on my primary residence that is presently (lost words). There's one there, and the other one at a friend's garage up in Bolton Landing. MR. GREEN-Let me Just ask a question of Sue, again. You're saying that you can have, on this site, a 900 square foot garage, a storage shed of what size? MS. CIPPERLY-There really isn't any size limitation for a storage shed. The definition says for storage of lawn mowers and small t.hi ngs . MR. GREEN-Okay. Up to 120 square feet would be an acceptable size of a storage shed, and he could have an accessory building for boat storage also, and as long as he met the side setbacks and whatever, you could have those three additions to the primary residence? MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Carvin, as a friend of the court, can I ask a question? Wasn't the 900 foot adopted because of the abuse of somebody who built an enormous garage and started using it for business purposes? That's when it was adopted, three or four yE1¿HS ago. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I don't have an answer for that, Mike. I really don't. MR. O'CONNOR-It was up off of repairing trucks. Here you're solely for residential purposes. Ridge Road. Somebody start.ed talking about somebody using it MR. CARVIN-Yes. The problem is that we've wrestled with these large garages now for quite awhile, and we continue to wrestle with these. Four car ownership is not a fault of a variance. MR. O'CONNOR-It's an Area Variance, and you're talking about impact against, what's the negative impact? Who is going to be hurt by him having a four car garage as opposed to a three car garage? It's not a hardship issue. It's a question of impact. MR. CARVIN-Are there feasible alternatives? I don't know. Is this relief substantial to the Ordinance? I don't know. Effects on the neighborhood or community. We're talking the lake, which is, again, you know what that's all about out there, and is this difficulty self-created. - 28 - -- MR. GREEN-My only comment here, that you gentlemen have, but if one structure versus three, I advantage to the neighborhood. sure, I don't have the history we can, you know, get away with would think that would be an MR. CARVIN-I've got a couple of questions, and I think Mr. Thomas has got some pretty good comments, you know, the loft area. The mood, I guess, is to try to lower some of these, I mean, the proposed, and again, not that we have to be guided by that, right, but proposed garage heights are going to be at, what 16 feet? Is that what's being projected? I don't know if there is a height restriction now. MS. CIPPERLY-No, there isn't. MR. CARVIN-There isn't, but when you're building these 1,000 square foot things, I mean, and I'm not saying that Mr. Kristensen is going to do this, but, you know, these buildings are around 50 to 100 years, and they just have a bad habit of converting into other things, and again, that leads to another issue which I won't get into. The question I guess 1 have IS, can this be moved over? MR. GREEN-Do we have a side setback problem, or is it merely a front setback problem? MR. CARVIN-We've got both. Can this be moved this way? You've got this big area here right now which is all parking, you know, you've got four spaces or five spaces in there. You're going to continue to have the parking in here. Can this building be moved that IrJay? MR. DYBAS-It can be moved in this to the residence are right down point, then you can't get by the sL:u rs. direction, but the main stairs here. To move it beyond that structure (lost word) down the MR. CARVIN-We have a side setback problem here? MS. CIPPERLY-No. It's a minimum of 20, total of 50. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So we just have it from the lake? MS. CIPPERLY-Just the lake and the size. MR. CARVIN-And the size. MS. CIPPERLY-Where's the front door? MR. CARVIN-The front door is going to be here, the front door of the house is here? MR. DYBAS-The main stairs down to the house are here, because of the change of elevation. The main door to the house is right in that location. So if you slid forward, (lost word) right to that point, because then you get down the stairs to the structure, and you're very tight. It's probably out eight feet, or somewhere in that di ì'ect ion. MR. CARVIN-But you haven't made a decision whether going to be garage doors on this side? Because they do lot for entrance, and I'm assuming there'll be windows there'll be windows in this upper portion? there are ha\/e thi~:3 here, or MR. DYBAS-The intent is not to have anything along this wall. That would be strictly dead space up there. MR. GREEN-Is there going to be a floor in the attic area? MR. DYBAS-For storage, yes. As I said, the off set of the ridge - 29 - was to pick up the design of the house, and for drainage back to t.he south. MR. CARVIN-This could be lowered, though, do you think? MR. DYBAS-That. could be lowered. You could go back to somewhat of a center ridge. The reason we chose that was it was in keeping with the rest. of the house, and there are all windows up in here, but the windows here would be st.rictly for design or to keep it in concept with the way the house looks from the lake. That happens to be very important to me, quite frankly, and I want it to look nice, and I wouldn't. put. up anything, I hope, that wasn't appealing to the lake, but that was the reason for that kind of design. We thought it was sort of in keeping with this slope, when you looked at it. You could even repeat this notch of the house, if need be, which would alleviate your concern in attic space. MR. THOMAS-It's not the attic space I'm concerned about. It's the footprint of over 900 square feet. MR. DYBAS-But it's possible to create a clear story in this configuration, take this roof down, leave this long slope here for drainage, and then take this roof down and shadow the roof on the house. MR. THOMAS-That's just a design criteria. know, your customer or client wants, but. Whatever the, you MR. KARPELES-Well, it would look to me like if this driveway goes down here and goes on somebody else's property, you're going to have to do something some day with this other lot anyway. So why not move the garage over, this looks like it levels off in this area. Why not move the garage over in here and you can get back farther, and it'll take care of what appears to be a driveway problem. MR. CARVIN-Well, that hill is a son of a gun. Did you go down in there? MR. KARPELES-Yes, I sure did. MR. CAF<VIN-I'm telling you, this winter it's going to be i nter e~;3t i ng . MR. KARPELES-That's his problem, though, bu.t \"hy couldn't )lOU put the garage on an angle, maybe, back in here, and get back away from the lake a little more? MR. DYBAS-You're not going to gain, substantially, from the lake, because of t.hat contour of that bank. MR. KARPELES-Well, the contour comes back? MR. DYBAS-Not appreciably, not to give you the. MR. KARPELES-Well, the contour lines show that it does. It comes back like this. MR. DYBAS-You're not going to gain the distance (lost word) from the lake, and besides, if by moving that over, the one structure becomes more visible from the lake, and Number Two, it's not the intent to put it on the adjacent property. Even though he does own the property, the intent is not to put it over there. MR. KARPELES-What.'s going to happen here? Is this going to stay? Is that going to stay there? Are you going to be able to keep using this? You've got a right-of-way on there? DR. KRISTENSEN-Yes. - 30 - --- MR. KARPELES-So you intend to keep this driveway going down here? DR. KRISTENSEN-Yes. MR. KARPELES-And you don't intend to build a driveway up over here? DR. KRISTENSEN-I don't know yet, what I'm going to do there, quite frankly, because I don't know what I'm going to do with the properties on this side. I do think, if we thought about moving the garage back here, the first thing that strikes me is that it limits the access here, because this driveway is really to this lot. If we moved this garage back into here, I think it may create a problem in terms of getting down onto this property from that drive. MS. CIPPERLY-How would you be getting the boat into the garage? Would you be taking that out of the lake somewhere else, bringing it around, and you wouldn't be bringing that directly off of the lake at all? DR. KRISTENSEN-No. MS. CIPPERLY-I don't know what kind of boat know what kind of boa t he haf:3. MR. DYBAS-Not on that site, not unless it's a four wheel drive boat. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, one of Warren County's concerns runoff, and so if there was going to be any kind of a, know what the rest of, what the adjacent lot looks like. L..Jas the I don't MR. DYBAS-That survey information also was done McCormack. That is from the survey that topo, so accurate. by Coulter & that is quite MS. CIPPERLY-Accurate. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm going to take a straw poll, here, to see whether we want to vote on this or table this. Chris, are you four this or against it? MR. THOMAS-Well, in light of what Sue said about, you can have a 900 square foot garage, a boat storage facility, an a 128 or 150 square foot shed, well. MS. CIPPERLY-That's not to say he could physically do that on this site. MR. THOMAS-Well, the possibility does exist, if there was a lot of excavation work. MR. CARVIN-Yes, a lot, and some dynamite work, too, I think. MR. THOMAS-But, in light of that, I would rather see the four car, 1,020 square foot, than three separate structures out there. MR. KARPELES-Well, I guess we could say that about any lot, rigf",t? MR. THOMAS-Well, no. Could you really? How many garages have we turned down over the last, dozens. MR. KARPELES-Right. Any of them could build a storage shed. MR. THOMAS-Yes, could put a 150, plus a boat storage building, plus a 900 square foot garage. MS. CIPPERLY-You did use a similar thinking in, I think, in the - 31 - Marshall garage, which was about the same. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but that was new construction. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. That was new construction. was to build a second storage building. Their alternative t1R. CAP~IIN-Yes , but they were on how many acres of land, too. ~1S . CIPPERLY-It was 11 at the time, .and then it was going to be 22. MR. CARVIN-And it wasn't at the lake. I case. I think that's about the only four really dealt with, and as I said, that was but I can tell you we've had dozens, I everybody was a car collector, including sold It. remember the Marshall car garage that we've only new construction, say dozens come in, myself, and I finally MS. CIPPERLY-But if the applicant was willing to stipulate to that being it for storage, it might be helpful. MR. KARPELES-There've been so many others that I have felt that we shouldn't give on, and we haven't given on them, I don't see how I can justify giving on this one. I think we'd be setting a precedence that we're going to be stampeded in here. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I mean, we've been arguing this for in discussions with the Town Board, and some of the so forth of the Planning, and I haven't heard anybody want to extend the size from 900 square feet. That the norm. mo nt hs nO!"J, membe)- sand say that !"Je seems to be MR. GREEN-As I stated earlier, I don't have the history, and I haven't heard the people corne and heard them be turned down in the past. I think that any time that you can create one structure versus three, that's got to be a better situation. ~1R. CARVIN-I knoL..J I'd li ke to get a fuller Board. I hate to tablt:::: it, but. MR. GREEN-I don't think the shoreline is a big deal, eight feet on a seventy-five. MR. THOMAS-No. MR. CARVIN-No. I think the shoreline is obvious. You've got to, there just is no way that. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Carvin, can I add one thing that you haven't considered? Okay. Mr. Karpeles was looking at the, one thing you're focusing on impact with buildings and everything else. By doing this, he's eliminating the right to build a single family home. You haven't focused on that at all. He has a, I've got to get orientated because I haven't seen the map. This is, okay, this is his existing home. To this side where the garage is, is 125 foot vacant parcel of land, which is a pre-existing lot that he has the right to build on. It is a pre-existing nonconforming lot. When he takes the 25 feet off, and devotes it to this particular use, he will not be able to use the remaining 100 feet as a separate, stand alone building lot. He will have to add that to another piece that he owns, which is to this side. Right now, there are three, and they're on your tax map, and we just argued. MR. CARVIN-All right. cun'ently here? In other words, the property line is MR. O'CONNOR-F<ight there. MR. DYBAS-This is what I mentioned before, is what, we added 50 - 32 - --- feet to this property to do this. MR. O'CONNOR-So he's giving up, you could addition to these additional storage. substanti.91. have a house The gain there in here is MR. KARPELES~How wide is the lot that's remaining? MR. O'CONNOR-It's 100 feet, but you need one acre. MR. GREEN-You're going to end up going from three lots to two by doing this? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. You have t.hree single family homes to this slde. Actually, you haven't got all, you haven't got a full map. There are two vacant lots in here. When he gets done, he's going to have one vacant lot left where he's going to have 100 feet plus 80 feet. So you've got a significant gain, impact wise. MS. CIPPERLY-The Maynard property is the next. DR. KRISTENSEN-I have three lots here, and then Maynard. I have three more lots and then Maynard. T, theoretically, could put up three structures here, and then Maynard. MR. O'CONNOR-He has 125 feet which is vacant. He has 80 feet which is vacant. He has 50 feet which has a single family home on it. His four children own that, and these are all in different names. One's in husband and wife, I think the middle one's in Mary Ellen's name, and the end one is in the four kids' names, and then you have the Maynard property. MS. CIPPERLY-But you'd be willing to merge those as a condition of this variance? MR. O'CONNOR-Well, he's lost the pre-existing building right on this 125 feet, because this is a nonconforming lot, and you don't have the right to make it less nonconforming and still maintain your right to build. So he's got to decide how much of the 100 that's left he's going to throw into this lot, and how much he's going to throw into the next lot, and you asked a question, Bob, as to this driveway, which I wasn't up here, and I probably should have come up. This lot here? MR. KARPELES-Yes. This lot looks like it's on somebody else's property. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. It is. It's Mr. Newton, who's right here. Then he uses this to get down. He crosses three of Dr. <ristensen'~-3 lots to get down to that property, parks here. Al goes down on his own property, goes onto the Newton property, and then back on to his own property to get here. That's a joint, they've used that Jointly for years, 1950's, 1960's. MR. KARPELES-Well, the fact that it's on somebody else's property, coupled with the idea that this road is so steep coming down here, I would think that'd be something to try and correct, to remedy. That's a bad situation. MR. O'CONNOR-Newton is always going to have to have this. That's the only way Newton gets in. MR. CARVIN-This guy doesn't have access to this property. MR. O'CONNOR-Bob can't give that up. He's got a stairs that comes down this way that, you've got to be a pretty good billy goat to get up and down the stairs. MR. CARVIN-Yes. That whole ridge right through there is really ~:;teep . - 33 - MR. O'CONNOR-So that's a permanent condition. MR. GREEN-I just had a thought, while you guys were talking, just to address Bob's and maybe Chris' concerns, that you said you've looked at other garages, bigger than the 900 feet and you said, no, we've got to stay within 900 feet. In those cases, was it possible, on the lay of the land, to add the boat shed, to add the other shed? MR. CARVIN-In some cases. MR. GREEN-In that case, I would say, fine, a 900 square feet garage. In this case, I don't know if you could keep the 900 square foot garage, have the shed and the boat storage also, because of the topography. MR. O'CONNOR-You would have setback problems with anything that's flat. Utilizing the land this way, you make the least cut into the bank, and the only problem we've had on that whole side of the lake is a couple of the cuts where you can't control the erosion afterward. You go down behind Mozel's property. Every year they go in and they take off more of the bank that's falling down, and you've all heard about the Smith property, which is at the other end of the bank, where they cut in and now they can't do anything. You're either going to build on this little plateau that they dug out, or you build up on that very, very top, and if you're up on the top, you're almost up on the road right-of-way once you get to flat land. MR. CARVIN-Well, gentlemen, what do you think? MR. GREEN-If you had another option to store them some place else. MR. KARPELES-Well, you know, anybody could come storage shed, and then rip it down and say, I building because I got rid of my storage shed. doesn't carry much water with me here. and bu.ild a need a big~;H3'r That argument MR. GREEN-My point is that he can't, if he were to stick to the 900 square feet, well, I'm not going to work that one. MR. O'CONNOR-It would be very tough to locate the storage shed on that. lot. MR. GREEN-The thing, again, though is that merely because you own a lot with a slant on it., you're not entitled to a shed, you're not entitled to a boat place, you can build one if you can. MR. CARVIN-Let. me ask you this. Is the applicant's reason for having the variance, in other words, the four car garage, significant? I mean, I don't. know. MR. GREEN-Do I feel he has a just cause for a four car garage? If I had two ant.ique cars I wanted to keep inside, and had space to build on my own land rather than storing elsewhere, I would say, yes, that's just cause. Someone else may look at it that if you're going to have the cars. MR. O'CONNOR-You wouldn't like additional septic system in this feet of garage? to trade the possibility of an proximity to the lake for 400 MR. CARVIN-That's the only thing that's keeping me in this thing, I guess, is the fact that. he is, he's moving the lot line. He's giving up one lot. He could actually have three buildings out there, or we could get more members input. i'1f~ . GREEN-At <?ither, but I this point, just. I don't have a problem tabling it, - 34 - MR. THOMAS-Lets get the other two in here. MR. DYBAS-One more thing, a three car garage, you made mention of cutting five feet off the back of this. You can cut five feet off the back of this, and it's a two car garage, because you cannot get three cars in that depth. I mean, you're limited to that 22 foot wide plateau, which is narrow to start with. That's a medium size two car width. The depth that you would need to get three cars, what are you going to do, take the trunk a chunk out of the corner to get the footprint down to 900 square feet? You still need that 46 foot depth to piggyback two cars on one sidø. MR. GREEN-Well, I don't know if I would agree with that. I have a Suburban. It's only 18 feet wide. Two Suburbans, only 36, and you're talking about 39 feet. MR. DYBAS-You still have to get around it. MR. GREEN-I think we better table this off again, because I don't think we're going to have a consensus here. DR. KRISTENSEN-I'd like to just ask, so I have a clarification in my Q.iiD. mind here. If thiõ:; is not appro\/ed, I still ha\/e the right to, even if I had to struggle with the setbacks, to put up a 900 foot garage on that property, leave the shed I have. MR. CARVIN-If you could make the 75 foot setback. DR. KRISTENSEN-That's what I said. 1'1R. CARVIN--Yes. DR. KRISTENSEN-And, theoretically, put up a boat storage still have three buildable lots next to me, and do all if I so choose, if this gets turned down. Is u nden~ta ndi ng? besides, of that, that my MR. CARVIN-I guess that's what Planning is telling us. MS. CIPPERLY-I'm not saying he buildings on the site, but I'm accessory uses ln the zone. could physically just saying those get those aTe listed MR. O'CONNOR-There's no restriction on cutting and filling, is there, Sue? He could do the necessary cutting and filling, too. That would be more harmful than trying to build with the topographical featurøs, and I don't think the Doctor is saying that as a threat. MR. CARVIN-Well, I've got just four items that I'd like to see. I think I'd like to see no windows on the garage on the upper portion. I'd like to see the lower height. Certainly no other out buildings, in other words, no other storage sheds, buildings, whatnot, and certainly I'd contingent it upon the lot adjustment, and if I thought I could get away with it, I'd also make it that that garage can't be converted for any living space at all. DR. KRISTENSEN-You can get away with it. I doing that. This is strictly what we're anybody thinks differently, they're wrong. or whatever need be. I know that you're spi3ce . have no intention of telling you, and if I'll sign affidavits making this living 1'1R. CARVIN--Those are aD.::'. main concerns. DF~. I<RISTENSEN-The only use for a l-Jindow, as I said before, ~.Jas just to decide whether that would make it look better. I have no intention, I don't really care about windows, except for appearance. So that would be my only objection to that - 35 - particular concern that you have. nice, I would, personally, like to in, for no other reason than that. If windows would make it look see them be allowed to be put MR. CARVIN-I'm more concerned with, we get garages with sliding glass doors, and you can't believe what some of the stuff that comes through here, and that's my only suggestion about the windows, because if there's no windows, there can't be any living spacø. Right? MR. THOMAS-That's right. MS. CIPPERLY-Most of that upper part couldn't be living space a nY~'Jay . MR. CARVIN-Well, if he lowers the height. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I think you have to have seven and a half feet of. MR. THOMAS-It's about 19 feet right now. MR. GREEN-And you're going to have a nine foot door. MR. CARVIN-If we could get it down to 16. They've got it to the ground level of 24. MR. KARPELES-That's way below the garage. MR. CARVIN-From peak to basement, here, if you want to use it, or foundation, is 19. MR. KARPELES-That's 19. MR. CARVIN-And lets say if we got it down to 16, I think, which is, you know what I'm saying. In other words, drop that down, if there's no windows in it, at least on the front side, I guess, then it can't qualify as living space. MR. GREEN-Well, if you got it down to 16, the height would preclude that anyway. MR. CARVIN-It would severely limit it. Yes, the guess I can drop the window aspect, and go with, my biggest concern out there on the lake, is that that these big 1,000, 900 square foot buildings that 16, 18, 20 feet turn into living space. wi ndo~,.,¡s , but I because that i~-3 ~..¡hat happens is that get above MR. DYBAS-Can I interject? We'd rather go without the windows and keep the pitch, and hold the upstairs space, the Code says 50 percent of the area has to be over seven feet, six to be habitable space. If you're below that, you can't ever make it habitable space, and even that is, I think that's six feet upstairs now to the ridge. I mean, I'd rather keep the slope and not have windows, if they maintain that profile. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think if foundation to peak is 16 feet, how does that efføct you, from the floor of the garagø? MR. DYBAS-I need eight feet for a retaining wall. MR. CARVIN-That's part of your foundation. You know what I'm saying, your floor. MR. DYBAS-The measurement from the floor of the garage. MR. CARVIN-Yes, to the peak. MR. DYBAS-It's 16, 17 feet. will you give me 17? I don't want to change the roof pitch. - 36 - _..: MR. O'CONNOR-Why don't you let him have the pitch he thinks he needs to keep, maintain the symmetry of the house, but have him not put the storage area internal so that it would qualify for living space, if that's your concern. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm just also, the height. I think if we keep it to 16 or 17 feet, that that's going to pretty much preclude, and if it's a garage, and it gets turned into something else, then that becomes a whole different issue, but the upstairs area at 17 feet becomes extremely difficult. You either lose the garage or you have a very small space upstairs for living space, and like you say, I don't think you can do it at 17. Maybe you can. MR. THOMAS-Yes. They'd never get it at the 17. MR. CARVIN-It would be pretty close, wouldn't it? MR. THOMAS-Yes, because you've got to get a nine foot garage door in there, plus above that. MS. CIPPERLY-You also need a certain percent on light and vent.ilation. MR. DYBAS-Eight percent for light. ventilation. (Lost word) percent for MR. CARVIN-Any problem with that, Bob? MR. KARPELES-No, lets do it. MS. CIPPERLY-Another thing that I would like to see on here is, if this got. to the building permit stage, I would like to see some definite drainage, way to handle the drainage. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think, didn't Warren County, they've got it. as a stipulation, I thought. MR. DYBAS-It's part of Warren County, and it will be addressed. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-1995 ALFRED KRISTENSEN MARY ELLEN KRISTENSEN, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by William Green: The applicant is proposing to remove an existing 120 square foot shed and construct a new, detached 1,020 square foot four car garage. As a result of this request, the applicant needs relief from Section 179-7, which allows a 900 square foot garage. Relief is also needed from the shoreline setback of 75 feet, required by Section 179-60. Because of the unusual configuration of the property, I would grant relief of eight feet from the 75 foot requirement of Section 179-60, as to go back the full 75 feet would require a tremendous amount of excessive excavation to the property. I would also grant relief of 120 square feet for the construction of the garage. The benefit to the applicant would be that he'd be able to combine the square footage of the existing shed in the 900 square foot garage into one singular building, eliminating an accessory structure. By allowing this oversized garage, the applicant has proposed storing a boat, which again would eliminate the need for another accessory structure. This motion is conditioned that no other accessory structures, either for boats, storage, or garage, and certainly living space, be allowed on this particular parcel. By the granting of this relief, there does not appear to be any adverse effect on the neighborhood or the community, and there has been no public comment received to date that has been negative. Although the desire for a four car garage could be considered self-created, because the applicant is willing to reconfigure the lot lines of two other lots that he currently owns, to bring this garage into compliance from the side yard setbacks, plus the fact - 37 - ') that the applicant is agreeing not to have any other accessory structures, mitigates much of this self-created difficulty. I would also condition this variance, that the height of the new proposed garage is not in excess of 17 feet from the driving surface or parking surface of the garage to the peak. The applicant has agreed to submit the lot line adjustments indicating 25 feet from an adjacent lot. Once the applicant has provided that documentation, the building permit for the garage can be issued. The applicant also will no longer have three building lots. They will only have one vacant buildable lot, in addition to the 50 foot lot that's already occupied by a residence. They will submit the ultimate subdivision of the 230 feet for site plan review to this Board or to the Planning Boa'rd, whichever you determine. That they will make those deed restrictions in a restrictive covenant that will be filed at the County Clerk's Office. That the applicant also address and meet all the conditions imposed by Warren County, as far as the runoff from the house, garage and blacktop areas be controlled and not allowed to run into Glen Lake, and that this proposed garage not be converted, at any point in the future, into living space. Duly adopted this 31st day of August, 1995, by the following vote: MR. O'CONNOR-I think the intention will be that he will do a boundary line adjustment on the 125 foot lot and his the existing house lot, so that he moves the boundary 25 feet, which is shown as being included in this new addition, leaving him a nonconforming lot created recently of 100 feet, to which he would not be entitled to a building permit. The 80 foot lot would stay as it is, and later, once they get this thing situated, he can determine, maybe he's going to end up taking more and adding it to this garage lot. He's taking 125 and 80 foot lot. Basically, he's going to have one building lot left. So he may want to parcel that out in a manner that he doesn't really know right now. He understands that he will have two building lots, one where his present house exists and one where he now has two vacant lots. He wants to reserve for the future, maybe, how he parcels that out. MR. CARVIN-So he's still going to have three lots, at this point, is what you're saying. MR. O'CONNOR-He will have two building lots. We understand that we have two building lots, once you take 25 feet away from that 125. You lose the right to use it as a building lot, unless we come back here and get a variance. MS. CIPPERLY-That's what I was afraid of, was coming back in and trying to get it. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, we'll stipulate that we won't come back to get a, we understand that between the existing frontage, which I think is 125, the existing vacant lot is 125, 25 feet of which we're going to use for this garage, and the existing vacant lot of 80 feet. We will have only two building lots, from this day forward, to use. I can make that clear in writing for you if you want. I don't mean to confuse you with the words. He's going to end up with 180 feet of vacant land next to this place he's got. He may want to put part of that over with the kids' lot. They've got 50 feet over there. He may want to give them 25 feet. He may want to give 25 feet in addition to his own garage lot now, and he may want to end up with the middle lot being 130. It's still an improvement over what you have left. You've got 80 feet right now and you could build a house on it. Some place along the line, that's going to be a wider lot. Chris said, we're taking three lots and making it two. Is that simpler? There's another one of those steep, steep driveways which is on the other side. It's steeper, and we've got to figure out how that works. That's the only way to get into the faT lot is that. You - 38 - suggested coming in the other way? Actually, right now the way it is, it works. When you get somebody up there with a topographical, a topographical hasn't been done on those other lots, they may be able to figure out something a little bit better. MR. CARVIN-How long do you think that might take? What's your time frame on getting the three into the two? MR. O'CONNOR-Not in the near future. The lot that's on the 50 foot lot, or the house that's on the 50 foot lot, 1930 camp that's a camp, camp. It's summarized. It's a summer camp. It's not been made into a year round place. It depends on what happens over there. We can stipulate that we will understand that between the existing 125 feet, the vacant 125 feet, and the 80 feet, we have only one additional building right. MR. CARVIN-I've put an awful lot of the lot line adjustment on this, in that motion. MR. O'CONNOR-How about a restrictive covenant, desires, that the balance of the lands will principal residence only. if the be usec1 T OI,oJTì so for one~ MR. CARVIN-If we can get that into the motion. MS. CIPPERLY-It seem what we're doing is making a less conforming lot. The lot that you're taking that land from is now becoming less conforming. MR. O'CONNOR-Which means I lose my building rights on it. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, I don't even know if we're supposed to make less conforming lots. MR. O'Cm~NOR-I've made a illegal subdil./ision. nonconforming lot less nonconforming, so I'd lose rights on it, but I can add that to the 80 feet. I 'V·8 made a my building MS. CIPPERLY-Why don't you do that? MR. O'CONNOR-Because we don't know how much we want to imagine we will come in here with a map that will show lands, and we probably will put some land over next to over next to the 50 foot parcel, make that a little bit and then we'll add some to the 80 foot, and make that bigger, and then we'll add some to this one here. add. I all the the 80, bigger, a little MS. CIPPERLY-Maybe they'll just have to wait until they have the map. MR. CARVIN-Do you want to wait t.o see the map? MS. CIPPERLY-No. I mean, you can make that a condition of your motion. MR. CARVIN-That we see the map? MS. CIPPERLY-That they do the transfers before the building permit is granted. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's what I had, essentially. MR. O'CONNOR-We might not know if the kids want to build a year round home there for years. I'm willing to put something on record in the County Clerk's Office that the balance of the 100 feet, that we're cutting the 25 feet out, will not be a separate building lot. MR. THOMAS-Where's the 25 feet coming from? - 39 - MR. O'CONNOR-The 125 foot lot. MR. THOMAS-Say they're taking 50 feet off of it. MR. O'CONNOR-The 25 feet was already taken off years ago. MR. THOMAS-You're saying 25 feet, and I'm getting lost on the 25 feet, all I see is 50 feet, right here. MR. DYBAS-These two pins, this parcel, as the Doctor just say, given over when this was re-modeled, and then this 25 is the 25 that you're taking away from the 125 foot lot next door. MR. THOMAS-So this lot over here is 100 feet. MR. DYBAS-Left. Next to it is an 80 foot vacant lot. Next to it is a 50 foot lot that has a camp on it, and what we're saying is we don't know how we would want to, we realize by doing this we now only have two, one lot to build on instead of two. What we don't know yet is that we might, because of the configuration of this driveway and the accessibility to these lots, we don't know if we might want to take, say, this total that's left, this 50, the 80 and the 100. We don't know how we'd want to split that. We might want to make this 50 foot lot, with the camp on it, 75, for example, might make the middle one 130, or whatever, and then add a few more feet to this one. MR. O'CONNOR-How understanding that building, principal and that the actual to site plan review. about this the applicant building, on configuration suggestion? It's on the will have only one additional the vacant lands that adjoin, of those lands must be subject MR. CARVIN-I don't have a problem. MR. O'CONNOR-See, I think it might make sense to make this 75 feet, okay. I don't see anybody ever turning us down. We've got a 50 foot lot. I come in here and say, okay, we're going to make this 75 feet. We had an 80 foot lot in here, but we're going to move it over a little bit, and it's going to turn out to be 100 feet, or maybe 125 feet, and we start with 230. So we've got another 50 feet we can throw on heTe, or 30 feet. Every lot is going to be bigger. MR. DYBAS-We just don't want (lost word) say that we're stuck with a 50 foot lot here that we can never change. MR. CARVIN-I just want some kind of documentation that this line is going to occur. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. That I can do. I will do a boundary line adjustment between this lot and that lot. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, what I'm saying is that once that occurs, then the building permit can be issued. MR. O'CONNOR-Then I don't have a problem with that. you were saying do the configuration of all three. I thought. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's what I thought was going to happen, because I thought you were ln a position, but obviously you're saying you're not in a position to figure that out, and I can appreciate that, but staff is saying that they want to know something on these other lots so that they don't have somebody coming in later on, right, with a 50 or 100 foot lot, that this doesn't get lost in the shuffle. Is that my understanding, here, Sue? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. - 40 - -- MR. O'CONNOR-I can give three parcels by deed we'll put it up in the in the record any time go do something. you a stipulation, and I can refer to the reference, okay, and I can say it, and County Clerk's Office, and then it appears somebody goes to do a title search or they MS. CIPPERLY-Are you Dr. Kristensen's attorney, by the way? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. I just want that on the record. AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin tiDES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-1995 RR-3A TYPE II ARTHUR & DONNA LEMAY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 721 MOON HILL ROAD APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM SIDE AND FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. THE STRUCTURE HAS EXISTING FRONT SETBACK OF 36.46 FT., WHERE 50 FT. IS REQUIRED, AND A SIDE SETBACK OF 13.94 SQ. FT. WHERE 30 FT. IS REQUIRED. RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM SECTION 179-15C, SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL-3 ACRE ZONE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 8/16/95 TAX MAP NO. 48-1- 12.223 LOT SIZE: 1.54 ACRES SECTION 179-15C ARTHUR & DONNA LEMAY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 61-1995, Arthur & Donna LeMay, Meeting Date: August 31, 1995 "Applicant: Arthur & Donna LeMay Project Location: 721 Moon Hill Road Proposed Project: Applicant is seeking relief from side and front setback requirements of Section 179-15C, for an existing home. It was constructed at a 36.45 front setback where 50 feet is required, and aside setback of 13.94 where 30 feet is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law: 1. Benefit to applicant: Applicant would be able to use their home. 2. Feasible alternatives: There does not appear to be a feasible way to achieve the required setbacks. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The relief is 6.06 feet on the side and 13.55 on the front. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? The house does appear close to the road, particularly as the fence and well are in the right-of-way. No comment has been received from neighbors. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? This difficulty was definitely self- created, or builder created. The site does have difficult topography. but better attention could have been paid to the boundaries of the property. SEQR: Type II, no further action required. " MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 16th day of August 1995, the above application for an Area Variance to maintain nonconforming setbacks in the front and side yards was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation t.o: No County Impact." Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there anything that you'd care to add? MR. LEMAY-No. I don't care to add too much. I've got pictures of the house built, and I've talked to the neighbors. (Lost word) surveyed. This was the last issue that I had to have done to get the occupancy permit, that I didn't know about. So I had it done, and we found out that the house was off on the setbacks, but the landscape, the way the land is set, it's about the only place I could put the house. So I've got pictures to show you, - 41 - if you want to look at them. MR. CARVIN-Could the house have been built in compliance? MR. LEMAY-Well, I set the stakes up. I'm not a surveyor or anything. I had the contractor put the house up where I put the stakes. I thought I was in my boundaries, but until I got this surveyed map, I can see I was off a few feet on the side where the porch would be 13.94. So I'm talking to the neighbors. They said that they were not concerned about it, after we found out all this. I didn't do it knowingly, but now we've got this situation, and that's why I'm here. The front setback, you can see lS 36 feet to the well, but then if you go to the road, you've got your 50 feet, but I guess that's not the way it works, from the property line to the edge of the house. That's about it, unless you want to see the pictures. MR. CARVIN-I was out there. pictures? Does anybody else want to see the MR. THOMAS-No, I was out there. MR. CARVIN-Any questions? MR. GREEN-Are you living there now, or is it rented? MR. LEMAY-I've got a temporary permit. MR. GREEN-And this is going to be your permanent residence? t1RS. LEt1AY-'Yes. MR. KARPELES-What are you going to do if they ever widen the road and it goes over your well? MR. LEMAY-The well is back beyond the fence. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but they're both in the right-of-way, right, for the road? MR. LEMAY-Well, where's the right-of-way, from the center of the road 25 feet in? MR. KARPELES-I guess, that's what this thing says is it's in the right-of-way, doesn't it? MS. CIPPERLY-The survey shows that the well and the fence are outside of the property line. MR. KARPELES-Outside of the property line, but not necessarily in the right-of-way of the road? MS. CIPPERLY-The right-of-way is the next thing. MR. KARPELES-Yes. road, right? Okay. So it's in the right-of-way of the MR. LEMAY-Well, there's probably a 15 foot gutter across there, from the edge of the road to my fence. MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess my question is that there is nothing that would have precluded you from building the house ln compliance, if you'd had it surveyed and measured. MR. LEMAY-Well, we didn't know that there was a survey at the end of the property back here. MR. CAF<VIN-No, what I'm saying is that the house could be, in other words, if it had been sited properly you could build this in compliance, or it could have been built in compliance. - 42 - - MR. LEMAY-I couldn't go back any further. It could have been moved a little bit over where you see the driveway, if I'd known that line was off b>' tf'''lat much. I thought I had it marked where I was within my boundaries, but after I got this surveyed, I found out I wasn't, and that's why I approached the neighbor and told them about it, and they were not concerned about it, on that side. On the road side, well, that's up to you. MR. GREEN-My biggest question is, how could this happen? just because you didn't have it surveyed initially? Is it MR. LEMAY-We bought this off of Island View Enterprises, and we had a map, well, they had it surveyed, but we did not have the footage across the front of it, from where you see the stake to the house, to the 13 feet. All we had was four stakes. The two on the bottom are down in the swamp. So, in order to get to them and try to figure out where the property line is, coming up the side, when I walked from the swamp up to the road front, I would mark the trees, and I thought I was going in a straight line, but when I came to have it surveyed, I was off by 13, 14 feet. MR. CARVIN-Okay. When you applied, you applied for a building permit, is that correct? ~m. LEI'1AY·-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and did you give them specific on the building permit,or did you tell them that you were going to build it in compliance? MR. LEMAY-Yes. We submitted the plot plan from the builder, but the builder only went where I told him the stakes were, and I thought I was within my boundaries. MR. GREEN-Who was your builder? Someone local? MR. LEMAY-Larry Clute. MR. CARVIN-My biggest problem with this is I can't, in my mind, or legally, come up with any reason to grant a variance. MRS. L.EI'1AY-t.Je didn 't kno~" that ~-. e had to have the survey done, because we didn't have to go to the bank. I guess that's when they require that you get the survey done. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but my point is that when you applied for the building permit, were you aware that you had to have certain side setbacks and so forth? ~1RS . no one su r "".Iey didn't LEMAY-Yes, but we thought that we were within them, because ever required a survey. No one said, you have to have a to show us that the house is in a specific place. We know it until we applied for our occupancy permit. MR. CARVH~-But ~"hat I'm say! ng is, that's; not a faul t of the Orcli nance. MR. LEMAY-Well, if the Ordinance said, when you put your footings ln, then come have it surveyed, I would have known. MR. CARVIN-No. The Ordinance says that it's your responsibility to make sure that if it has to be 30 feet or 50 feet, that that's where it is, because that's what the Ordinance is. MR. GREEN-It's your responsibility to know where your lot line is. MR. LEMAY-Well, we thought we did. MR. CARVIN-See, I mean, we get people and builders all the time - 43 - coming in and saying, this is what we want to build, and then we go out and build whatever we darn well please, and I'm not saying that this is the case here, but then we have to come up. MR. LEMAY-If I had known it when we put the footings in, then I would have moved it to comply, but we didn't know it. MR. CARVIN-But most people do do that. In other words, they use the mechanics you don't just go out and stick a stake if you take that responsibility on your the mistake, then. That's what, I'm of this thing. in the ground, shoulders, and saying. I mean, and then you make MRS. LEMAY-We couldn't have moved it back any further, because we were right on a ridge, and it just fell off. MR. CARVIN-Then why didn't you come for the variance before hand? MRS. LEMAY-Because we didn't know that we weren't. We thought we were. We measured from the corner of the building to the road, and it was 50 feet, but when they surveyed it, they said it was 37. something feet. So we didn't know until the building was already up and we were all ready to move in that we weren't where they considered the edge of the road. MR. GREEN-The problem is, that's not. MR. LEMAY-Well, the only thing I can do is try to buy a strip of land off of the neighbor. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say. That's the only thing that I can think of is to buy a piece of property there or something. MR. LEMAY-Yes, but they're not here to testify against it. said it was all right. They MS. CIPPERLY-I think, judging by the way the driveway and things, that's not likely to be possible, and front area is really more of a problem than the side. is there, I think the MR. CARVIN-But, I mean, you know, what happens the next time some guy comes in and, I mean, you know, we have to go through a set of criteria, otherwise, anybody could come in and say, we're going to build it in compliance and then, gee whiz, guess what, we put up a $50 million shopping center, and we've had that case where the guy did it and we made him tear it up. MR. LEMAY-Yes, but we've got the house there. MR. CARVIN-So didn't he. MR. LEMAY-Well, how about if I buy a strip off the neighbor? They're not giving me any problems. MR. CARVIN-I have a real hard time with it, and one over, believe me. This has been the one through my mind for the longest of time. I've mulled this that's been going MR. LEMAY-Well, when they give you the footings in, if they had requested it right off the bat. permit, when I put the then, I would have know MR. GREEN-It's your responsibility. the first stake goes in the ground. You should do that before MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, when you come in to the Town and say, I'm building my house in compliance, and the Town comes out and, you kno~.,¡. MR. LEMAY-Yes, but they didn't request it. They didn't tell us - 44 - anything about it then. They waited and we're moved in. Now they tell surveyed to make sure that's. until the house was all up us we've got to have that MR. GREEN-Well, the idea is it was originally, the permit was given on the fact that it was going to be in compliance. The only reason they survey it after it to make sure that it is, and in this case they found out it wasn't. MR. THOMAS-Why is the edge of Moon Hill Road 30 feet off that property line? Making the other edge 50 feet of the property line, which is the width of the right-of-way. That means that south side of Moon Hill Road runs right along the property line on the south side of the road. MS. CIPPERLY-It may be because that's the way they had it built. I don't know, but it may be that the land was there and the road going up over the hill, and the way the road had been constructed, it didn't center on the right-of-way. I figure that's a County road, and if the County didn't have a problem with it. MR. THOMAS-Is Moon Hill Road a County road? No, that's a Town road. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, it is. MR. THOMAS-Is it? Why couldn't Mr. LeMay approach the County and see if he could buy 14 feet across the front of that? MS. CIPPERLY-Because he may end up with a 14 foot chunk sticking out of the. MR. GREEN-Into the right-of-way. MR. THOMAS-If the County isn't going to use all that right-of- way. if they're going to keep their road all the way to the south side of the right-of-way. not saying that the County would do it, but I've seen it done before, from the State. MS. CIPPERLY-A fellow out on West Mountain Road is in the process of. MR. THOMAS-Yes, trying to reclaim some of that. MR. KARPELES-What if you had come in before? Would yoU have had a good reason for getting a variance? I mean, it bothers me that you didn't get a variance ahead of time. and we're setting precedent. Is there any way we can justify giving you a variance. I mean, why did you locate the house so close to the road? MRS. LEMAY-Because the property line just drops right off in the back and it goes down into a, there's a big swamp back there. MR. LEMAY-That's filled in, if you want to look at the grade. MR. KARPELES-And there and, really, I didn't find it bothers me is that if we would have given a variance, I was up it doesn't look that close to the road, to me. objectionable. I think the only thing that the cart came before the horse. MR. GREEN-Your original plan was supposedly in compliance. It just didn't get built where you thought it was going to. Okay. MR. KARPELES-Can we look at those pictures again. I really didn't notice that there, I was wondering at the time when I was up there looking at it why you had built it so close to the road. MR. CARVIN-Sue, this subdivision up there, is that wetlands down - 45 - in back? MRS. LEMAY-Yes. It's all swamp back there. MS. CIPPERLY-It's steep and it has wetlands down in back. MR. CARVIN-I'm trying to think. We saw something on subdivision, back a couple, or three years ago, and it's kicking around in the back of my mind. this been MRS. LEMAY-That's why it's only one foot five acres. grandfathered or something. It v-Jas MR. CARVIN-I think, what's the zone out there? MS. CIPPERLY-It's RR-3 Acre. MR. CARVIN-Three acre, and we came down to one and a half. That's why we allowed these smaller lots. MRS. LEMAY-None of the back of our property is usable. MR. CARVIN-Because that property had been marketed for a long time, if memory serves correct. MR. KARPELES-It's a County road and the County figured they don't have any County impact, right? Do they know this? Do they know that the well's on their? MS. CIPPERLY-They had everything that you have. MR. CARVIN-But that's not unusual for the County. make visitations. They don't MR. GREEN-I tend to agree with Bob that I don't see a real problem with where it sets, but I just, as he said, the cart before the house here, and we had this with Guido and his parking lot out in back, exactly, and we made him tear it up. So, I don't knov-J. MR. KARPELES-Well, if we wouldn't have given a first place, then I could see you make them tear got a feeling we probably would have given them a variance in the it up, but I've variance. MR. GREEN-I don't see any reason why it could come over to the left any more. MR. CARVIN-I think the house could have been built in compliance, Bob. That's!llL. problem. MR. GREEN-I think that 13 off the back side could have been closer to 30. Maybe not, you know, maybe farther down the hill, maybe not, but I do think it could have come over closer to the dr i vev-Jay . MR. CARVIN-We're talking an acre and a half here. It's not like it's 150 by 150 lot. Your tolerances there are a lot less. MR. LEMAY-That's about as far back as we can go. MR. CARVIN-And again, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you, and maybe it was an economic problem that you didn't get somebody to site the house. You just went out and sited it )ioursel f . MRS. LEMAY-Because we thought we were where we belonged on the lot. We didn't do it intentionally. We're living in it. We don't have anywhere else to go now. MR. THOMAS-I think it was a very honest mistake, that was made - 46 - ""¿ because of, Number One, where Moon Hill Road lays inside that right-of-way, now if that road was over where it was supposed to be, another, well, the road is 20 feet wide. So if it was 15 feet off the property line. It's sitting at 30 now, they would have been back another 15 feet, and that would have been the 50 feet on that side, on the front. As far as the side, well, they could have slid it over a little bit, but I think it was an honest mistake on their part, and I think the County having their Moon Hill Road way off the center of their right-of-way, where the road is supposed to be in the center of the right-of-way, also threw them off. So, I wouldn't have any problem granting a variance for this house in this particular case, because I think it's unique and I think it was just a plain, honest mistake. MR. KARPELES-Yes, and the neighbor doesn't seem to mind. MR. TI'10MAS-No. MR. KARPELES-I don't see where he would. objectionable to me. It didn't look MR. THOMAS-Yes. There's There's no public comment, no objections. so far. There's no lette)-s. ~1RS. LEMAY-I,.Je went down and told them everything. l..Je were honest with them right up front, but they didn't have any problems at all. MR. GREEN-I totally agree with you that I think it was a very honest mistake. I think it was a mistake that could have been very easily avoided by having it sited by someone that does that, knows how to do it correctly. Maybe I have kind of a skewed view, being that I used to be in t.he contracting business, that I wouldn't thinking about digging a hole in the ground without knowing exactly where I'm digging it, but, again, I totally agree with you. I think it's an honest mistake. I don't think he tried to do this on purpose, but my concern, again, is with Fred, that what's the next guy going to do, and the next one and the next one? It just builds. MR. THOMAS-Well, this doesn't happen, for the amount of houses built in Queensbury, t.his is onl)" the ~:3econd one I'\/e seen. MR. CARVIN-And the first one was a porch. MR. THOMAS-And the first one, I t.hink it was over by an eight inch block is all it was over by. MR. CARVIN-By about a foot, and this is actually the first one we've ever had like this, other than the shopping centers. MR. THOMAS-Well, no, the only thing on the shopping center was just the black top. It wasn't the building itself. It was just the black top around it. It wasn't the actual building. MR. GREEN-I don't have a problem with the varlance to solve the problem. I don't think there is any other alternative. MR. KARPELES-If I went up there and it just struck me, looking at it, that it was objectionable, that it was too close to the road, but I don't feel that way. I went up there and I looked at. it, and it looked great to me. MR. THOMAS-No. Like I said, that road sits way, is 15 feet from where it should be, plus the fact that the applicant's also offered to approach the property owner on the east side there to see if he could get six foot of property there, to maybe even get that into twenty foot compliance. MR. CARVIN-I don't know. Do you know what the distance on your - 47 - _.~-_.._-..., neighbor's house is, to his line? feet? Maybe he doesn't have the 20 MR. THOMAS-Maybe he doesn't have it. MRS. LEMAY-It goes really weird, because the property's real wide across the front, and then it comes way down, but they're way up on a hill away from us. MR. CAF<VIN-Could he give you six feet? MR. THOMAS-Yes. Could he sell you SlX feet and still maintain his 30 foot setback? MS. CIPPERLY-His driveway comes down right next to. MR. THOMAS-A pin. Well, it shows macadam driveway on there. MS. CIPPERLY-I don't know that you'd really accomplish anything by. MR. KARPELES-Yes. What do you gain by doing that? MR. GREEN-I'm not in objection to giving the variance and just letting it go. My only concern is that, the idea that it wasn't done correctly initially, but you can't fix it now, and I think a variance is going to solve the problem. It has to, and I'm not, you know, I don't think he's got to go out and buy another six feet of property to fix that. MR. KARPELES-We had another one. We had that O'Tooles, with the deck. Didn't they build a deck before they got their? MR. CARVIN-Yes, but boy what did we put them through. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but we gave it to them. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but they had to put up a barricade and shrubs and every other thing. MR. THOMAS-The one with O'Tooles, they gave us one map and the Planning Board another map. That right there was intentional. MR. CARVIN-That one was. MR. KARPELES-And it was objectionable, too. MR. CARVIN-And that supposedly dies once the guy sells O'Tooles. So, we'll see. I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GREEN-What sort of reaction have you gotten from Mr. Clute? MRS. LEMAY-That we told him to put it where he put it. MR. LEMAY-I told him I put the stake there, but I just didn't realize the property line was only 13 feet. I walked it, and I tl''',ou.ght that I had at least 30 there, on the front. It's back as far as it can go without going over the bank. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-1995 ARTHUR & DONNA LEMAY, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: That we give relief of 6.06 feet on the side line setback and - 48 - .-" 13.55 feet on the front setback. The required setback on the side is 30 feet, and the required setback on the front is 50 feet. The benefit to the applicant is the applicant would be able to occupy their home permanently. There does not seem to be any feasible alternatives, since trying to purchase additional land from the neighbor would require modification to the site plan/subdivision review. The relief is substantial, but there is nothing else that can be done. There is no effect on the neighborhood or community. There has been no negative comment from the public. Even though this difficulty was self-created, it was, in my opinion, an honest mistake on the part of the applicant, and they are very few and far between in this Town. This is the minimum relief necessary. Duly adopted this 31st day of August, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES:. NOt'-lE ABSENT: Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford MR. LEMAY-Thank you for your help. MR. CARVIN-Okay. We're adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred Carvin, Chairman - 49 -