Loading...
1995-08-23 ':!~ o R J G I I\r-A L QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD Of,APPEAL$ SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 23, 1995 INDEX Area Variance No. 41-1995 Angela M. Kladis 1 . A"ea Variance No. 53-1995 Bob Buruchian 23. Area, Va.riance No. 55-1995 Stephen S. Eva nusa, 41- Area Variance No. 56-1995 Pete,' & Mary Thomas 50. 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 S,TATE SUCH APPRPVAL, ,.OF SAID MINUTES. ,¡',j "'. ! . ¡; "¡"::::T(>, ¡f " . --I , , , .T , I , ' 'j f. I' ~; : I : í t \.-" -- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 23, 1995 ' 7:00 P.M. OF APPEALS I , ' MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY ROBERT KARPELES WILLIAM GREEN DAVID MENTER THOMAS FORD CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CARVIN-Before we begin, just a little bit of housekeeping stuff, gentlemen. I will be sending a letter to Supervisor Champagne, regarding Anthony Maresco, and that will read as follows. "Anthony Maresco, one of our Zoning Board members, advised me, via a telephone conversation, that his employment hours now conflict with the Zoning Board meeting, and that he has chosen to resign. We have sought a formal resignation letter from Mr. Maresco, but it has not been forthcoming. The Board has been short one member for over two months now. In fairness to the applicants and other Board members, I must ask the Town Board to seek a replacement for Mr. Maresco, based upon my telephone conversation with him and his lack of participation on the Board. I would appreciate this matter being addressed as soon as possible, as the current situation is a difficult one." And I have signed that, and that will be forwarded to the Town. Is there any questions or comments on that? Everyone's pretty much aware of what's happening there. Okay. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-1995 TYPE II WR-1A, CEA ANGELA M. KLADIS OWNER: EDWARD N. KENNEY, GRACE F. KENNEY, KRISTINE K. LAROSE, TRUSTEES MASON ROAD AT CLEVERDALE, PREMISES ARE LOCATED ON WESTERLY SIDE OF MASON ROAD, NORTHERLY, OF WETHERBEE AND SOUTHERLY OF HARADEN APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE THE EXISTING 1,632 SQ. FT. HOUSE AND 500 SQ. FT. GARAGE, AND REPLACE THEM WITH A 5,190 SQ. FT. HOUSE AND 782 SQ. FT. GARAGE, UTILIZING AND EXPANDING THE EXISTING HOUSE FOUNDATION, AND INSTALLING A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. PROPOSED SHORELINE SETBACK IS 43 FEET, SO RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM SECTION 179-60, WHICH REQUIRES A 75-FOOT SHORELINE SETBACK. PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS REQUIRE SIDE SETBACK RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-16C, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 8/16/95 TAX MAP NO. 13-1- 16 LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES SECTION 179-60, 179-16C WALTER REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 41-1995, Angela M. Kladis, Meeting Date: August 23, 1995 "Applicant: Angela M. Kladis Project Location: Mason Road, Cleverdale Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove the existing 1,632 square foot house and 500 square foot garage, and replace them with a 5,190 square foot house and a 782 square foot garage, utilizing house and expanding the existing house and installing a new septic system. The square footage of living space according to applicant is 3,360. The ground level on the lake side was included by staff, as it meets the building code criteria for habitable space, includes a 3/4 bath, a separate utilities area, sliding doors to - 1 - the lake, and could conceivably become finished living space in the future. The utility/storage space is approximately 175 square feet, leaving 1565 square feet on that level. The applicant claims that the lower level will not be used for living space. The iS$ue is addressed h~re so that any building permits filed in the future can be evaluated against this meeting record. Conformance with the Ordinance: Proposed shoreline setback for the house is 43 feet, so relief is sought from Section 179-60, which requires a 75~foot shoreline setback. The Zoning Administrator has determined that the proposed retaining walls are a part of the structure, so. require side setback relief from Section 179-16C, Waterfront Residential zone, which specifies a minimum of 20 feet on one side and a total of 50 feet. The proposed distance to the property line on the south side is six feet. On the north side, it is eleven feet, making a total of seventeen feet. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Ghapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant states that the existing house is substandard so wishes to replace it. 2. Feasible alternatives: If the use of the existing foundation were not an issue, this house and garage could be moved back ten feet and still meet the separation distances for the proposed septic system. Since the structure is being removed down to the foundation, the applicant has no rights to the setbacks of the current nonconforming structure. Another alternative would be the construction of a smaller house and garage, which would be more able to meet the setbacks. The existing house could be, u.pgraded and expanded. If the expansion were to be more than 50%, which the proposed amount of square footage would be, a variance would be required. An expansion of the existing house would )'equire site plan review by the Planning Board. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? Yes, applicant is asking for relief of over half the 75 foot shoreline setback. The side setback relief could also be considered substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? This is a very large house compared to the neighboring properties. According to the Assessor's records, the house to the south is 1296 s.f., plus garage, and the house to the north is 2090 s.f. These structures fit well into the lake community, while a 35-foot tall house 43 feet from the lake is unlikely to. 5. Is this diffi~ulty self-created? The desire to tear the existing house down instead of expanding it creates the need for setback relief, as does the perceived need for this much living space. This project could be compared to the Hodgkins property, a few lots north, with the same si~e lot. It has received a building permit for a conforming, year-round, 4 bedroom house, and two car garage, totalling 3668 square feet, (including covered porches), plus a new septic system, after being denied a shoreline setback variance. The Hodgkin's house is 25 feet tall, and has a full basement, not classifiable as habitable space. Site conditions were at least as difficult on this property as on the Kladis property. [Note: Total structures on this parcel equal 19% of the lot size.] Parcel History: The existing 1632 square foot, 4-bedroom house was built in 1925. The Assessor's office lists the house as "normal" condition, insulated in the attic and walls, and remodelled in 1975. Staff Comments and Concerns: As with others which have come before the Soard in the past months, placing a house and garage this size and height at the proposed distance from the shoreline seems inappropriate. It would be quite visible from the lake, especially with the amount of glass, reflective surfaces proposed. The Board has advised others that when setback relief is, sought, items such as the 35-foot height are not a matter of right, and reqµired the down-sizing of the structure. If the variance is granted, it is staff's recommendation that this project undergo site plan review with particular attention to visibility, shoreline restrictions, and stormwater runoff control measures. [Note: The house and garage total 4142 s.f., which is 21% of the lot.] SEOR: Type II, no further action required. These notes were prepared by Susan H. Cipperly, Planning Staff" - 2 - --" MR. THOMAS-"GENERAL NOTE about Waterfront Residential Zone revisio~s since all of the August 23, 1995 projects are in this zone -- The Town of Queensbury is in the process of revising the Waterfront Residential zone requirements. Proposed revisions were drafted by the Department of Community Development, the major changes being~ * a Floor-Area ratio (FAR) relating the square footage of all buildings to the size of the lot. * For setback and uses, Lakeshore lots woulðh~ve two fro~t yards, similar to a lot bounded by two roads * Side setbacks have been reduced, and made to relate to lot width. * The inclusion of a guest house (no kitchen appliances, no rental, no subdivision from main house) as an allowed use. * The height of the principal structure be limited to 28 feet, and accessory structures to 16 feet. The Town Board held a public hearing on these changes, and there will be an informational meeting at the North Queensbury Fire Station August 24, at 7 p.m. as well as one at th~ Bay Ridge Statió~ August 29 at 7 p.m. Changes to the proposal will then' be drafted~ Public :input : to dãte has suggested that: * A higher percentage be used in the FAR, such as 15-20% * The curie~t shoreline setback of 75 feet be reduced to 50 feet. * There has been general support for the height restrictions. The current Ordinance is still in effect, so applies to the projects on tonight's agenda. However, information is being provided in the notes with regard to some of these issues, in order that the public can evaluate the proposed changes in comparison to actual projects." "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 existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Concur with local conditions" Signed by C. Powel i SbUEh ~ Chairperson"' , " MR. CARVIN-Okay. Mr. Rehm, anything you'd care to add? MR. REHM-Yes, there is, Mr. Carvin. Thank you very much. I have a number of things to add. Initially, I have a few things to say about the comments that were just read. I've been practicing before this Board for approximately 25 years, and I have seen good things and bad things and questionable things, and the comments that I just heard and that th~To~n was kind enough to send to me a couple of days ago, fall pretty close to the low end of the standa"d in terms of reasonable evaluation of a project. There are a number of things wrong with those comments and I, for the record, must go into those, because the record is very important, as far as this project is concerned. First of all, the house size. The house size, the habitable space, the part that you usualiy call a house, is 3383 square feet. It is not in excess of 5,000 square feet. The Planning Staff has chosen to count the lower level, which is not planned for living space, which is storage space, which is cellar space, which is open to the lake because of the configuration of the land, has chosen to call that also habitable space because at some time in the future, it might be used. Well that's true of any cellar or' any lower level of any house. That's true of my house and that's true of your house, but that is not counting as habitable space, and it is unfair, it is unfair'~nd it'~ incorrectl'to include in a public notice that this house is over 5,000 square feet. Secondly, it's incorrect that the lower level is in compliance with the State Building Code for habitable space. For the record, I draw your attention to Part 712 of the State Building Code, which indicates that that is not the case. I have Todd Stewart with me tonight, who if you wish, can explain the details of that, but at least for the record, that is the case, but worst of all, and most unfair of all, is the fact that the Planning Staff is asking that the project be evaluated in terms of what might happen in the future, as far as changes in the Zoning Ordinance are concerned, so that this can be evaluated, and so the public can evaluate this, in terms of changes that are being discussed by the Town Board and have been recommended by the - 3 - Planning Staff. It is not sufficient that we comply with the laws that exist today, but we're expepted to comply with the law, I think, as it may exist in the future. Now the Planning Staff may say that that's overstated, but from an applicant's point of view, from the comments, it's not, and as a matter of fact, the official comments have in brackets certain evaluations that are based upon the proposed chaD~es. That being said, it's kind of unpleasant ,to say those thi ngs, ,but I thi nk it's very important. I would like to basically explain the project to you, if I may. MR. DUSEK-Walter, may I just interrupt for a moment, just so that we have, I want to get one poLnt clear on the record with the Board, before they even get into this application, and that is that I do want to encourage the Board, as they review it, and advise you as well, that it would be completely incorrect to even consider the new zoning changes that are proposed because they have no effect whatsoever on this project. We don't even know if they'll become law. They may be revised by the time they do become law. So I just wanted to make sure, as we go into this session, that everybody is clear that it's the current law that applies, and that that is the law under which thJs project has to be evaluated., ' MR. REHM-I appreciate that, Paul, and that is correct. One other thing. I need to correct the application. The property is no longer owned by the Kenneys. It's been conveyed to Mrs. Kladis, and I can provide that,deed to Planning Department, but the current record owner here is Angela Kladis, and she is the applicant here. The property is the former Ken~eY property on Mason Road in Cleverdale. It's about a half acre qf land, and you have in your packets a survey map prepared by Coulter & McCormack which shows you that there's 120 feet on the road. There's 141 feet on the lake, but that's as it winds and turns, and if I were to measure it in a straight line, it would be closer to 120, and you will also note that the depth of the property is about 165 feet. It's about a half an acre of land. It's currently improved by a garage, which is located 27 and a half feet from the road or so, a little closer on this corner, about 25 feet, and a single family residence, which is now located 37 and A half feet from the lake. The setback in this area is 75 feet. Now, a word ~bout the setback at Cleverdale. The Town Board, in the Zoning Ordinance, has indicated that the setback in this Waterfront Residential zone should be 75 feet, which, with that legislative action, meant that virtually every house in Cleverdale is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance, and when you have lots that are configured such as Cleverdale lots, the mere fact that there is a 75 foot Waterfront setback and a 30 foot setback from the road, which is 105 feet, for most lots that are well l~ss tha~ 200 feet, 165 and many smaller than this, really renders most of these lots in violatlon of the Zoning Ordinance, and the question is, well, is that regulation a reasonable regulation on Cleverdale, and on some of the other lakeshore parcels, when that's all the land that there is. I think it probably isn't, and to, it certainly is in situations where there's ~lenty of land, and around the lake, there are places where that occurs, but it's not here. In any event, the Kladis' propose to remove th~ garage, and to substantially remove the building, leaving the foundation, and to construct a new residence on the lot. Now I hope I didn't get too carried away with colors here, but it just seemed to me that I needed to categorize some of these things. What I have outlined in yellow are ,existing facilities. This is the house. This is an extension that's cantilevered toward the lake, and this is the garage. Now the yell~w are the'existing facilities. The yellow which is crosshatched in red is the portion of the house that is going to be removed, thus requcing the setback from the lake from 37 and a half feet, to 43 feet to the eaves, actually about 45 feet from the lake. So there's an improvement as far as setback is concerned there. I've also outlined an area in red, on both the northwest and southeast corners. Those are the areas where - 4 - -- - the footprint is proposed to be increased, and it is for that reason that the variance is required, becàuse this is a nonconforming building and we are increasing the footprint. Both of these areas of increased footprint are within the setback. The area in blue is a deck that is elevated, but it's open air, it's just an open deck. This area in red is the new two and a half car garage, and then there is an 'open breezeway from the garage to the house, and then there's an open porch on the front of the house. I have also, I asked Todd to show the location of trees on the map, and you'll see them on your map. There are several missing, as a matter of fact, and I have placed them on here. We went over today and looked at this very closely, but the front of this is fairly substantially treed, as is this side. These trees are relatively open at the lower level, but as you get up to the second level, which would be the main floor level in the upper level, the building is pretty well obscured by trees. So I don't think that, in terms of visibility from the lake, well, there would be a change, and it would certainly be more visible because it's a little bit larger here. I don't think that that would be a significant change from the lake, and particularly the areas of glass that were mentioned in the planning comments. I think that probably that would not have a resulting significant change. The attempt would be to leave these trees. Also the proposal is to construct a brand new sewage disposal system. This building was constructed in about 1925. I don't know when the sewage disposal system was constructed, but it's probably a somewhat ancient vintage. It's, apparently~ functioning properly. Nevertheless, the engineering and testing has been done to provide fo," a new sewage disposal system. Now, I've been here before talking about Mason Road, as you know. Mason Road is fairly typical of what's happening around the lake. A great deal of my practice has to do with lakeshore properties in the Town of Queensbury, the Town of Bolton, the Town of Lake George, and so on, and what is happening around the lake, and it is absolutely happening, is that there is a trend toward substantial upgrading of property, and it's been going on for the last 20 years. Current housing requirements, whether it's on the lake or off the lake, is that people want more room. They want more bathrooms, generally. They want spaciousness and generally openness. The people that purchased property on Lake George, by reason of the value of the property, are individuals that are looking for better than average housing, and that's what's happening on the lake, and while Cleverdale and other places around the lake have small lots, by in large, the development that we have seen has been a general improvement to the neighborhoods, a substantial improvement to the neighborhoods, a substantial improvement in terms of sewage disposal, a substantial improvement in terms of landscaping, a substantial improvement in terms of stormwater management and other environmental factors. The people are looking for larger houses, and if they are not allowed to build modestly larger houses, which require generally encroachments on setbacks, the econo~ic effect in the Town of Queensbury and the Town of Lake George and the Town of Bolton would be pretty substantial. So it's a tough balancing act to allow for reasonably sized houses, and the question is, what is a reasonably sized house? Is a 3300 square foot house, on a half acre of land reasonably sized? I have a 4,000 square foot house on half acre of land, and I have got plenty of land, plenty of land, and I'm able to disþose of my sewage, and I'm able to reasonably protect the lake and not encroach upon my neighbors. I could not build that house if I had to conform to a 75 foot setback. Now the property, as you know, slopes toward the lake, and because of that the house, the main level and the upper level of the hoùse will be exposed from the road, and then the lower level will also be exposed from the lakeside. I believe, and the architect and planners believe, that the impact to the community would be more negative by moving the house and the garage closer to the road then allowing it to remain at the location that it is, which is generally consistent with setbacks along Mason Road, and, frankly, it's generally - 5 - consistent with setbacks along Cleverdale. The application has some statistics, in terms of footprints, which include eaves. The footprint would increase from, and they're talking about the garage ~lso, actually, I think we're not talking about the garage, 1832 square feet to ~555 square feet. One of the interesting things is, there is an increase in the permeability in the green area on the lot, because of changes in blacktop and so on. Blacktop is being removed. The parking area is smaller and more efficient. As I mentioned before, the setback from the lake is increåsed. One other benefit is that the setback from the road is also increased, by about a third. Now we took the time to consider what's happened at Cleverdale, and I would like to dispute the Planning comments to the extent that this would be out of character with the "lake community". While this is not an extensive list, this is a list that we came up with in terms of houses on Cleverdale that are larger, some substantially larger. The Vercesi house is larger. The Longe house is larger. The Moynihan house is larger. The Lupe house is larger, and as much as I hate to say it, I think the Lewin house is larger, but there are other houses where we can't say whether they're larger or not, but they're similar in size. One is Bob Morris'. Another is Dick Mead's. Another is Birchenough's. Another is Evans. Another is, it was the Ingalls propert~ and it became the Smith property. It's between Moynihan and Takundewide. We think that that house is larger. Colegate Phillips house is probably larger, and there are a number of others. This house is not out of character with the neighbo~hood. The proposal is for three bedrooms, and you have the submission which includes the elevations and the floor plans, two levels of living space. The lower level will have only a laundry and a utility and a bathroom. There's no living space on the lower level. It is storage space, and probably, if it's like mine, storage space. There will be four baths. One at the lower level. One at the main level, and two upstairs baths. The Planning comments also indicate that side line variances, setbacks are required because of retaiDing walls that are proposed. I don't know that retaining walls require variances. I couldn't find that in the Zoning Ordinance, but I will say this. If they do require variances, we will not build the retaining walls. The retaining walls are just to make some sense out of the contours of the terrain, but it can be done other ways, with planting and so on. So we are not requesting side line variances, and if it is the Board's determination that retaining walls would require variances, then we won't build,them. From a permeability point of view, the rule is that 65 percent of the lot must be permeable. Here we have a permeability factor of 80 percent. So we're well in compliance ~Jith the "current permeab,ility requirements. The Planning comments said, well, we could move the house 10 feet closer to the road, and that is feasible. That could be done. The cost of doing that, in terms of dollars, would be well in excess of $20,000. It would not allow us to use the current foundation. It would really not improve things, in terms of view from the lake, and as a matter of fact, it would tend to raise the height of the property. It would result in substantial additional site disturbance. It would put the house closer to the road, which I believe would have a more substantial negative impact than the present location of the house. If there's a negative characterist~c of Mason Road right now, it's that the older places have garages. Most of them are older. The older places have garages that are really quite close to the road, a~d that,I believe from a Planning point of view, it would be a substantial benefit if they were moved back. We comply with the Zoning Ordinance in terms of size. We comply with the Zoning Ordinance in terms of height. We comply with the side setbacks. We comply and are improving the road setbacks. We comply with the permeaþility. We comply with ,use. Our only variance request is for a lakashore setback, and we are improving the lakeshore setback. We're improving the neighborhood, because of the substantial upgrade. We're making use of the existing facility to the extent that it's usable. This will not, under any stretch - 6 - of the imagination, based upon our evaluation, result in an undesirable change in the neighborhood. We think it's in conformance with the changes that are occurring with respect to the neighborhood. We really don't think there's an other viable, reasonable alternative. There are always alternatives, but I think in deciding whether something is a viable or reasonable alternative, you have to look at the totality of the circumstance. There was never a variance application where I couldn't figure out that there was some possible alternative. The question is, given the totality of the circumstances, is a reasonable alternative, is it an alternative that would benèfit the community greater than it will result in detriment to the applicant? I've just got a couple of other things. Given the nature of Cleverdale, the size of the lots, the depth of the lots, the unreasonableness of the 75 foot sètback, and I really say that that is an unreasonable requirement, I don't think that it can be said that this is a substantial variance. We are improving the situation. We're moving back approximately 45 feet from the lake. The house is well positioned with respect to the terrain, with respect to the location of the existing houses. So I think it is not substantial. I don't think anyone would argue that there are any substantial environmental impacts that would result from this. One other thing I might say is that we're going to comply with the draft Lake George Park Commission Stormwater Runoff Standards, which probably will, in most cases, deal with eaves drains, but there will be no additional runoff created by this project, and the runoff that currently exists will be disposed of without it getting into the lake as it currently does. That is a very substantial benefit, and finally the self-created issue. Is this a self-created hardship? It's very easy to say, well, they bought they lot and they knew what they were getting in to, and so, you know, they can live with what they've got. Mr. and Mrs. Kladis bought the lot with the intention of moving to Cleverdale, making it their permanent home. They need the additional facilities. In light of the current regulations and in light of the changes that are occurring in the area, they thought it was reasonable to expect that they could rèbuild this house in the manner that they have requested. It really isn't a hardship. It is, I think, a flawed regulation that we're dealing with. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Todd Stewart is here to answer questions of a technical nature, but I appreciate your attention in letting me go on. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions, gentlemen? point, I would open up the public hearing. Okay. At this PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PETER LEWIN MR. LEWIN-My name's Peter Lewin, and I live on Mason Road, five houses south of the Kladis' lot. I've reviewed the plans with Mr. Kladis, came over, and I believe it will be a great asset to the street, okay. I wish more peoplé would present plans such as this to such an extent we get an new septic system. I think it's a great project. The only question that 1 have, and i've talked with some of the neighbors, regarding the tree~. I know they're mar~ed on the charts, the removal of some diseased trees. I often walk a lot myself. There's quite a number of trees there that are dead or diseased. If there's some way, when the trees are taken down, that the Town can monitor' the situation so we don't have a situation like on Assembly Point where there's been two lots completely stripped in the last two or three years. That would be the only question that 1 have, that we don't end up with a strip lot regarding the trees, and I'm sure that that can be monitored somehow, but the project, I think, is great, and we'll get a new sèptic system. There's not too many of those anymore. - 7 - MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard in support? Anyone wishing to be heard in opposition? JUDY WETHE~BEE MRS. WETHERBEE-I'm Judy Wetherbee, and I live just to the south of the property. I've got two questions. One of them is, why is it called a two and a half car garage when the doors, there's three regular sized doors? Why would they put three doors if it's only a two and a half car garage? It seems to me it's a three car garage, and why wouldn't you call it a three car garage? TODD STEWART MR. STEWART-! guess it could be called a three car garage. The only reason it's a two and a half is it's a little smaller than a three car garage and the use is intended to be for tractors (lost word). MRS. WETHERBEE-It just, I think it's a little bit deceiving. other question is, is there any way is there an attic in building, no, I don't mean now. I mean, in the plan here. The this MR. STEWART-There's going to be an area of attic space, but it's not going to be for storage. MRS. WETHERBEE-Well, I just wondered if it wouldn't tone the whole thing down, so there's some way the roof line could do away with an attic space, and then you help the situation from the lake considerably, as far as looking at it. MR. STEWART-Unfortunately, having a two story (lost word) roof line to start on top of that order to have any pitch at all on the roof, there. house, you have to second story. In have a peaked roof MRS. WETHERBEE-Well, I have a story and a half house, and it's got a roof and rafters and all that. I have four foot knee walls. I'm not criticizing. I'm just trying to figure out if there isn't some way that there still could be room enough for three bedrooms up there, and have, four foot knee walls, for instance, or just something to bring the roof line back. MR. STEWART-I suppose there could be room' enough. It's just a matter of how wide to space. MRS. WETHERBEE-The other thing, as I looked at the plans, and I'm no engineer, but the area for the septic is going to be brought up higher, right, than the road level? MR. STEWART-No, actually, it's going to be about the same. MRS. WETHERBEE-Right now, because there's a slight grade from the north end of Cleverdale to the south end, I know that sometimes there's been water in my garage that comes from storm runoff. Will I get, now, even more, if they're a little bit higher? MR. STEWART-No. You'll get less because it'll be directed around the retaining wall. MRS. WETHERBEE-It will not go into the lake? MR. STEWART-Well, we've got some precautions to keep it from going to the lake. MRS. WETHERBEE-We're running into this (lost word) my sister-in- law, when people across the street blacktop, she now gets heavy stormwater into her kitchen, and another house, Mrs. Martin that was here the other night when it rains a lot, she gets runoff - 8 - - into her little back house that's there, and I'm just afraid with all this. MR. STEWART-The way we've got it designed, runoff leaving the property, to either side. more runoff than there is right now. there will be no There won't be any MRS. WETHERBEE-Then the other thing is about the trees. It looks like one of the trees, I mean, you can see right where the house is going to go. There's a tree right on the corner that's going to be, would have to come down, otherwise the house can't be squared up. Then there's trees where this garage is going to be that look to me like they're going to have to come down, and then there's another, a diseased birch and another tree that I understand will go. When you get down hereto where this proposed deck is on the north side of the house, aren't there trees that are going to have to come down there~ too, to include the deck. You've talked about the house, but you've said nothing about the deck. MR. STEWART-There is one tree that is just at the corner, there's one tree that's just off the corner of the house here 'that 'will have to be removed in order to construct that. MRS. WETHERBEE-Is that the Oak? MR. STEWART-No. MRS. WETHERBEE-I just thought maybe, if there's trees that are going to be interrupted because of the deck, maybe the deck could be built around the trees. People often do this around the lake and it's kind of nice actually. Those are my comments. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. BILL WETHERBEE MR. WETHERBEE-My name is Bill Wetherbee. Quite obviously, I live, since I co-habitat with my wife, in the property south of that about which we are concerned, and I can honestly say that these are not necessarily negative comments, although some will be so construed, I'm sure. In fact, my purpose in coming was to listen, in all candor, but the comments of counsel for the applicant in my opinion in my opinion are so laced, in some cases, with hype1-bole and deception, that I would at least want to sensitize the Board to what I feel are some of those illustrations of hyperbole} and urge you to at leas~ consider the balance of factors that are þrevalent in this situation, with all due respect to counsel's need to advance the, proposals of his client. First of all, we would commend the fact that the proposal basically follows the footprint of the current structure. We acknowledge that. It squares that structure off, and with that we have no particular argument. In fact, I think it is regrettable that more people do not try to follow that particular prescription when they raise a facility in a lakefront area such as that in which we reside. 'As has already been expressed by my wife, however, we are concerned about the loss of trees on the property. In my mind, there is a considerable degree of ambiguity which exists with respect to this matter. I've tried to study the schematic. I have talked to Mr. Kladis on two occasions, and he has been very open. Unfortunately, he could not be here this evening, and I must confess some concern, even though the schematic, because the schematic does not seem to always reconcile with his verbal assurances, and X believe it is important to consider that factor as my wife has suggested. I also am concerned, comments of counsel notwithstanding, with the degree to which the facility will comport with the residences in the area. I do not believe it is an understatement to say we are about to go under, literally, a massive structure which will rise - 9 - up to our north, substantially over that of virtually, I think I can say without any exception, any other structure on Mason Road and will well exceed the general profile of structures on thaf road. The claims of "substantial improvement" of counsel for the applicant notwithstanding, I would like to urge consideration of the Planning Departm~nt's comments in that respect. Concurrently, I believe the degree of expansion, about which there seems to be considerable ambiguity, warrants your consideration.. , Depending upon who I am listening to, it is either going to be 5,972 square feet, roughly triple, 300 percent that of the present facility, or it's not going to be, based upon whom I'm listening to. I wish that ambiguity could be resolved and we knew whether we have a facility that is 300 percent that of the present one, or very nearly so, or not. The legal ad says one thing. Counsel for the applicant contradicts them. I think the ambiguity in the long term uses of the basement, or whatever term is applied to the lowest level, I'm confused about that also, needs to be clarified. One party says it may be used for an area that may be habitated. The other says, well, who's to say what it's going to be used for. In his remarks, counsel for the applicant rehearsed and related a large number of occupants of the Cleverdale area. Of that list, two are residents of Mason Road. All the rest live elsewhere. If you look at Mason Road and its general characteristics, you will not find, I do not believe, any structures which embody nearly 6,000 square feet Finally, to equate greater stress upon land and the lake with "substántiai im~rovement" is an equation which mayor may not be valid. Counsel for the applicant consistently indicated that these kinds of improvements were substantial, and contributed significantly io the well being and welfare of the community. To automatically accept that is not necessarily valid. I wo~ld urge you~ in that context, to also consider the comments of your Planning Department. Tha~k you. MR. CARVIN-Thank you. JACK CUSHING MR. CUSHING-Good evening. My name is Jack Cushing, and I have a residence on Mason Ro~d, and bas~d on what I've heard tonight, I guess I'm an extremely rare bird who bought a house that was built 85 years ago, and I did not knock it down and I did not enlarge it, except for six feet on the back shed. We like the small house, and we think it's quite adequate for what we have, but we have improved it, and we didn't go into a tremendous amount of adding to the house, just a small shed in the back, but if you were to go up there and look at the gardens that my wife has put' in, if you were to look at the aluminum sidings that we've put on tbe original structure, if you would look at the new roof that we put on, if you would look at the new steps that we've put on ~oing down to the boathouse, if you'd look at the bay windows that we've put on in the front, all without expanding the house, you'd say, hey, that's a pretty good job, a pretty darn good job, and we have done that without the massive improvements that we've h~ard tonight, that have improved the prop~rties. We think that we have improved our property tremendously, but we have kept it at the small nature of what is in keeping for Cleverdale. Now I heard tonight from counsel that upgrading and spaciousness, the people will want better than average housing, therefore, because of that, it's going to give you s~bstantial improvements to the neighborhood. 'Again, I would have to say that I agree with Mr. Wetherbee, that it's hyperbole to the greatest extent, and that I would hope that the Zoning Board of Appeals would look at that exactly for what it is, as hyperbole, because bigness does not equate to improvement, as far as the neighborhood is concerned. I disagree that bigness means improvement, and I would be a very big hypocrite if I came here tonight and said that I was in favor of bigness, because I've just gone through, as you all know, a tremendous session of the past year on bigness to the Nth degree, and bigness means - 10 - '--- ~ improvement, it doesn't in most cases. It means cutting of beautiful trees that give an idyllic feeling to the community. It means a lot of bulldozing, which has happened. In means, in most cases, and I applaud YOU if this is not the case here, that there is less permeability. It gives you less beautiful views, and they can be eyesores, and in most instances they are. Another thing that I would like to disagree with is the out of character comments that were made that this would be in character with the neighborhood that we're talking about. Now, many examples that Mr. Rehm gave are not in the immediate vicinity of Mason Road, and I think that the Board has to look at balance here and look at the neighborhood. Now, th~ Town has a rule of thumb that when a house or a structure is going to be built, that they say that they will notify, if the variance is needed, homes that are within 500 feet. I believe that's the rule. That, to me, is the neighbo~hood, and the examples that were given, I don't see that Moynihan's house, half a mile away, has got any relevance to Mason Road. I don't think that Bob Morris' house, way up on the Point, has got any relevance to Mason Road. There were probably 10 examples given of homes that might be bigger, but if you're going to take that into consideration, please look at YOU1" maps and find out wh~re those 10 homes are. The homes that are in the neighborhood on Maéon Road by far are less than these 5,000 square feet, and my house, modest as it is, but very adequate for a family, and it's winterized and we can live there all year long if we want to, is 1200 square feet, and we have not tried to enlarge that, and it's serving a tremendous purpose. So in who's eyes are we looking at when we start talking about that it's undesirable or desirable? Think of the neighbors and think of the homes in that particular area. Some people like it small, strange as it may seem, and 1 am one of them. Believe it or not, I feel that this is a substantial variance. I think putting in the new septic system, and I agree with Peter Lewin that this is a great thing to have, and I would hope that more people would do that. I'm sure that these people, I don't know them, will be tremendous neighbors, and I'm not trying to get in any personal thing. I'm just talking about the structure and what has been said here. So I would ask the Board to look at this very carefully for the relevance so far as balance is concerned, and take a hard look at everythi~g that's been said. Thank you very much. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. JOHN BROCK MR. BROCK-My name is Jòhn Brock, and I have the property on Mason Road immediately to the east. That's the Mooring Post Marina. From what I~ve heard tonight, the people have bought a lot and want to put a nice home on it, which in a lot of ways I feel will enhance the neighborhood. There's nothing wrong with that, new septic system. They appear to be taking care of the runoff problem and everything else. I ,have one question. The structure being 35 feet high, directly across the road from me, which will pretty much block their lake view, and I don't have a problem with that as much as I would, I have a question, if the applicant would have opposition to a building being built 35 feet high directly to the east of their property? I guess that's for the applicant. MR. REHM-That's for the applicant. honestly, John, can't answer that. discussed that issue with them, and to answer. The applicant's not here. I I don't know. I've never it would be improper for me MR. BROCK-I guess my opinion on the whole proG~ss is, it's a good 35 feet between my p1"Operty and the lake. There's also a good 35 feet between the applicant's property and Cleverdale Road, not even blocking the lake view, and there's nothing wrong with them building their home. I'd be glad to see them build their home - 11 - and enjoy it, and from what I can see, it looks like it's going to be a beautiful home. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Any other public comment? Mr. Rehm? Is this rebuttal, is it? MR. REHM-It's a question. I would simply like to ask the Planning Department to explain their calculation on the size of the house, because, you know, we're, this 5,000 square foot figure is alarming to everyone, including us, and I don't want to put John on the spot, because John is not the one that did this, but I think this is the first time this calculation, this type of calculation, has ever been used. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I'm not going to beg the question. I want to move on to the correspondence, first, but I think maybe that'll give John an opportunity to maybe frame his answer, as it were. Is there any? MR. THOMAS-Yes. We have one letter, dated August 23, 1995, addressed to myself, "Dear Mr. Thomas: TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PUBLIC HEARING LISTED ABOVE, regarding Area Variance No. 41-1995, ANGELA M. KLADIS. This property is under new ownership, and the above named purchaser (Angela M. Kladis) must have been made well aware of the zoning laws and the setbacks set forth within these laws. It is possible, on this lot, Tax Map No. 13-1-16, to build a substantial home and garage at the 75 foot Lake side set back, meet the road and side setbacks, and install a new septic system within the property perimeters. In view of the above and of recent Board decisions on properties of long ownership, I feel this Board should be consistent and deny this request. Very truly yours, Dorothy B. Hodgkins Mason Road Tax Map No. 13-1- 10" MR. CARVIN-Okay. One last call for public comment? Seeing none, hearing none, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Your question is a very good one, and I'm going to refer it to the Planning Staff. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. I'll do the best I can. Upon reviewing the plans that were presented, the foundation plan showed a bathroom, a full bath including a shower, on the foundation plan. It also, if you look at the side elevation, it showed that there would be a nine foot ceiling height in the basement area. Based on that information, Dave Hatin, the Building Inspector, was asked to take a look at it and determine if this could be considered habitable space. I can't quote the Building Code. You apparently have copies of that Section. However, some of the criteria are two means of egress from the area, which this has, and a certain amount of glazing and ventilation, which I don't know what that amount is. At any rate, the Building Inspector was consulted and he said that, yes, this could be, at some point, turned into habitable space, and that's why it was included in this square foot calculation. MR. CARVIN-Okay. There's nothing to prevent this being habitable space now, is what you're saying, in other words, to preclude that? MR. GORALSKI-That's my understanding, yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So we could conceivably look at a very large Rec Room for a pool table? MR. GORALSKI-Right. It could, in the future, if it was carpeted and ,there were sufficient electrical outlets, this could be considered habitable space. - 12 - ----------------.--- - MR. MENTER-If I could ask you, Mr. Rehm, what were the factors, you weren't going to answer the question, but you brought it up earlier, stating that there were factors that made it uninhabitable, and just, if you could review those right now. MR. REHM-Todd can do that. MR. STEWART-If I may, I'd like to address the height issue first. The nine foot ceiling was facilitated by the fact that we needed to raise the home in order to get gravity, septic system out to the front yard where it needs to be, beyond the 75 foot setback. The issue of habitable space, New York state Building Code requires that any room, for any roo~ to be considered habitable, it must have eight percent of the floor area of the room as glazing area in the wall. So, for example, if you have a 100 square foot room, you must have eight square feet of glazing area in order for it to be considered habitable. The same for ventilation, but ventilation is four percent of the square footage. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Could I interrupt you for just a second. going to show my ignorance, because I'm not a contractor. is a glazing area? I'm What MR. STEWART-It's a window. MR. CARVIN-A window. Okay. MR. STEWART-The actual glass area. In this particular instance, the square footage inside that basement room is 1220 square feet. The glazing area, eight percent of that number, is 95.7, or 97.5, and the actual glazing area, glassed area in the room is only about 90 square feet. So by that fact alone, it cannot be considered habitable space. MR. CARVIN-Although, if I can bring it into layman's terms, it looks like it's got a sliding glass door and triple casement windows in the front? MR. STEWART-Correct. lake. If it did not wall. As it exists sliding glass door. That is more as an aesthetic value from the have that, it would certainly be a big blank right now, the basement area does have a It also has another glass door. MR. CARVIN-Are sliding glass doors normal doors for a basement? MR. STEWART-As it exists now, yes. They are. MR. FORD-As what exists now? MR. STEWART-There is a sliding glass door in the basement. MR. CARVIN-Well, no. Would you consider a sliding glass door a normal entrance for a basement? MR. STEWART-Yes. MR. CARVIN-You would? You would have one in your house? MR. STEWART-I don't have a walkout basement, but I have plenty of houses with walkout basements that had sliding doors. It facilitates the access of wheel barrels. built glass MR. CARVIN-But you've got a third car garage for wheel barrels. How many wheel barrels are we going to have here? Are we going to have a shop? MR. STEWART-I really don't know. MR. FORD-How many steps are there up to this sliding glass door? - 13 - f··, MR. STEWART-There are two steps from the inside, and there's two steps to the concrete patio from the outside. MR. FORD--Okay. steps. So the wheel barrel's going to go up over four MR. CARVIN-All I've got to say, it's got to be a heck of a wheel ban-el. MR. STEWART-Lets consider the aesthetic view, aesthetic looks from the outside. Would it look better with, say, a couple of steel panel doors? MR. CARVIN-I don't know. Again, I'm a layperson here. I see very few garage, that I would classify as garage doors or basement doors, which are sliding glass, and, I mean, that's just a layperson'$ observation, but I would have to agree with Staff. I do see a basement downstairs and I see a utility room and I see a very large space that probably is insulated. It will have quite a large exposure off the front there, and we have addressed issues like this in the past, and I guess if I'm on safe ground here that we have assumed that this habitable space in some of those other cases. I also have another question. You'd indicated the reason that it's a nine foot ceiling is that you had to raise the house up so that the septic system would work. Is that correct? MR. STEWART-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-All right. How about if you move the house up the hill? Does that serve the same purpose? MR. STEWART-It would, only it would raise the height of the house above the 35 foot. MR. CARVIN-Not if you lowered the downstairs area. As you come up the hill, you don't need a nine foot clearance, do you? It's only a storage area. MR. STEWART-That's correct. As you move into the hill, the front yard goes into the house. MR. CARVIN-So it comes down. MR. STEWART-You would need to lower the yard as well. MR. FORD-So you wouldn't need those four steps. MR. CARVIN-The front yard is toward the lake. I'm moving it away from the lake. MR. REHM-If you move the house back, toward the road, the house has to go up, because the grade comes down. MR. STEWART-I'm sorry. I' was confused by what you were considering the front yard. MR. CARVIN-Well, for argument's sake, lets say that the lake is the front yard. Okay. So, when I say, up the hill, I'm saying away from the lake. You will very rarely here me say move the house toward the lake, just for explanation. So, assuming that, if we move the house back away from the lake, does that maintain the 35 feet and still accomplish the drainage aspect? MR. STEWART-You'd have to increase the height of the house in the back. As you go back in to the hill, toward the back yard, even going back 10 feet raises. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I'm probably thick as a brick, but it seems to me, if we come into the hill, we lose some of the height - 14 - ~ -- here, while maintaining the same height of the house. MR. STEWART-That's true, but in the back yard, on the road side, you're increasing your grade level as y,ou go back as well. So now your grade levels may be up on the fifst floor windows, and we'd need more retaining walls in order to keep the grade out of the first floor. MR. CARVIN-Let me ponder it. MR. REHM-This lot slopes toward the lake. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. REHM-If we move the house toward the lake, the height from the top of the house to the ground would remain 35 feet, but the relative height of the house above sea level would reduce. The top of the house would become closer to the lake level. If you move the house toward the road, the entire project moves up. We're going up hill. Now you have to maintain a reasonably flat grade at the front of the house, the road' side of the house. So if you excavàte some of that hill out, you've got to move the house up a little bit to get to that grade, or excavate the whole thing, and that is, I suppose, another possibility is to excavate the thing. That causes other problems. MR. KARPELES-Well, aren't there some mechanical ways you can handle that septic problem? MR. REHM-Yes, there are. MR. KARPELES-So, really, that isn't a reason. It's probably a lot cheaper, mechanically, than building that height. MR. REHM-No, that is the reason. That is probably the better plan, but there are other ways of doing it. MR. KARPELES-That are cheaper, too. MR. REHM-That are cheaper, that don't work as well when the electricity is off, and I don't know that there's any serious planning problem in trying to do something that's economical, as opposed to more expensive. MR. FORD-While we're on this lower outlets are there in the plan? How level up? level, how many electrical many are there on the next MR. STEWART-We plan to build it to Code, to the National Electric Code. There will be an outlet on the first floor and on the second floor, every 12 feet. MR. FORD-That would include the basement area? MR. STEWART-No. The basement only requires one outlet near the panel, because it's nbt considered (lost word) space. MR. FORD-And that's what you're going to put in there? MR. STEWART-Yes. One outlet by the panel, as required. MR. FORD-And that's it? MR. STEWART-Yes. MR. REHM-Let me just state for the record, the lower this house will not be utilized for living space. It become a recreation room. It will not become a bedroom. not become a play room. It will remain a cellar. stating clearly on the record. . level of v-Jill not It will T ha t I' m - 15 - (\ 1""', MR. FORD-For how long, Mr. Rehm? MR. REHM-As far as I'm concerned, until the Town of Queensbury says otherwise. I get the impression that you people think we're trying to put something over on you, and we're not. We've told you that, we've given you plans that indicate that it's open space, storage space. I've said it clearly on the record, and I don't know what else we can do. If you don't believe us, you don't believe us, but at least the record is pretty clear. MR. CARVIN-Is this an accurate side drawing? MR. STEWART-I believe it's fairly accurate. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I guess to come back to my point, if we move the house this way and lose this area, we don't gain any or lose any, we have the same height here, but we've moved it back and we've just lost some of this bottom area. MR. STEWART-Yes. I think what you're seeing out there in the front, since this is a limited side view, the grade directly near the house needs to be a two percent minimum away from the house, in order to keep the water from running down along the foundations. The actual grade there, once you get out there on that (lost word) is level to the road, and I guess I don't understand how moving it back down the hill. MR. REHM-What you see here, Mr. Carvin, is the artificial grade, because of the retaining walls. This is not the actual grade. If you notice the plan, correct me if I'm wrong. MR. CARVIN-Even if that is the case, I mean, I don't care if the grade comes in here, I mean, is the concept alien to moving the house back and still having, accomplishing what you're looking to do without having the basement a)"ea? See, what I'm trying to do is get you back away from the lake. I mean, we've got a 75 foot setback that we have to deal with, and a minimum relief situation, and I'm trying to come to a point, here, that I'm not totally convinced that this can't be moved back further and still accomplish your living area, because, obviously, you're telling me the downstairs area is redundancy. MR. REHM-I can tell you, I think I can answer that. The house can be moved back, and I think it can be moved back about 10 feet and still have the proper separation from the sewer, the sewage disposal area, according to the Planning comments, that is physically possible. The effect of moving the house back would raise the house a little bit, but it's feasible. What they lose by moving back is the utilization of the existing foundation. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but that's sort of like saying to me, I went out and had a seven course dinner and had a Diet Coke. I mean, you're going to tear the house down, and you're just saying that you don't want to spend the extra money to put in a new foundation. MR. REHM-I'm not saying that. What I'm telling you is the effect of that, and if you want to put it dollars, it's about $20,000, and it requires additional site disturbance. is that that in terms of substantial MR. CARVIN-How much is it going to cost to raze the house? MR. STEWART-Much less than that. It's only a matter of extending the existing foundation. It doesn't require much. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but if you bought a lot in West Glens Falls and started from the bottom, you'd have the situation. So I don't qui te unde)'stand the argument. I QQ understand the argument, but I'm not totally convinced of it, I guess. - 16 - ~ MR. REHM-If the house were not there, that would be the logical thing to do, and move it back as far as you can and comply to the extent that you can, but the house is there. MR. CARVIN-Now it is. MR. REHM-The house is there, and the applicant wants to utilize that portion of the house which is, which can be utilized, and that's not an unreasonable thing to expect, to request, and from the balancing point of view, if they're not allowed to do that, it has a substantial monetary effect. MR. FORD-I spent over an hour on site, and I have concerns for the potential for a tremendous number of trees being lost. Mr. Rehm, you added some up there. I thought this was a fairly accurate depiction, here, and there are so many, by my calculations, 15 to 17 trees that would be lost on the site. Would you address that issue, please? MR. REHM-I don't think that's true. MR. FORD~Well, you see, they aren't on here. So my assumption is they're ~oing to go. MR. REHM-I'd like to have, maybe Todd can address that. MR. FORD-If this is accurate, then they're gòing. If it isn't accurate, then please point out what the percentage of accuracy is. How much can I depend on this? MR. STEWART-That shows, the Site Plan as we've drawn it shows a number of trees that will be left and a number of trees that we felt may need to come down in order to construct the house. MR. FORD-Then the trees that I couldn't find on here, but I could find on the property, I can assume are going to be taken down? MR. STEWART-Not necessárily. are right on the lakeshore shoreline map. There are three or four trees that that are not on that ~ap, the MR. REHM-The three trees closest to the lake just didn't get on this, but they are here. There's two at the end of the dock, and there's one at the corner. I couldn't tell for sure whether this was on the property, but there's a tree there, anyway. MR. STEWART-The only trees that we intend to take down are the ones that are absolutely necessary in order to do the excavation. MR. FORD-And that could be as high as 15 of those trees? MR. STEWART-I don't know the number. I haven't counted them. MR. FORD-I did. MR. CARVIN-Is that an accurate number, Tom, would you feel? MR. FORD-I marked them on here with X's where they do not appear on his schematic, and he adds those two, possibly, three in at the shoreline, that would bring my count to about 14, 14 or 15 that would be lost, and some of them are mature, substantial trees. MR. CARVIN-In the back of my mind, is there something about cutting within 35 feet of the lake? MR. GORALSKI-That's right. You'd require site plan review to cut within 35 feetof.the lake. MR. STEWART-There is a no cut zone shown on here, on the - 17 - schematic. Every tree that is within that no cut zone, that's not diseased, will have to be left, by law. MR. GREEN-You're not building anything inside of that, anyway. So there'd be no reason to do anything there anyway. MR. STEWART-Right, and it's unfortunate that they didn't get on the schematic, but I believe it was just an oversight. MR. CARVIN-Okày. Of the trees that you're concerned about, are most of those beyond the 35 feet, Tom? MR. FORD-Many of them are to the north. Several of them are to the south, and some are closer up to the road. MR. CARVIN-Are they beyond the 35 feet from the shoreline? MR. STEWART-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. STEWART-I've shown some in dotted lines here, that I felt may need to be removed in order to excavate for the garage, on the north side of this garage. MR. CARVIN-Okay. While you are there, it's probably going to be easier for me to show you on the map, but this area right here. All right. This is the garage, and this is a deck? MR. STEWART-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-And then this is a retaining wall. material in here? Is that going to be cement, or to be just open ground? What is the is that going MR. STEWART-Grass. MR. CARVIN-That is going to be grass. MR. STEWART-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And what is this, is that more decking there? MR. STEWART-That's decking, yes. MR. CARVIN-Is that covered? MR. STEWART-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Enclosed? MR. STEWART-Not enclosed. MR. CARVIN-Not enclosed. Okay. So this would be a breezeway? MR. STEWART-Yes. MR. CARVIN-But that is grass? MR. S TElr,JART-Yes . MR. CARVIN-This is a deck. I'm assuming wooden? MR. STEWART-Yes. MR. CARVIN-All right. This will be a grass area. This will be a breezeway. This would be covered, but not enclosed. Okay. Anyone else? MR. MENTER-Yes. One thing. Mr. Rehm, did you say that the - 18 - ---' permeability is increased on the property? MR. REHM-The permeability is increased a little bit. MR. MENTER-And how is that, I'm just trying to recall how the driveway fits into that? It looks like the proposed blacktop drive is pretty large. I'm just trying to figure out how all that works. MR. REHM-This shows the blacktop area. and an out. So there's removal of disposal area is, and that increases. Presently, there's an in blacktop where the sewer MR. MENTER-Okay. MR. REHM-Actually it's very close, but it's a small (lost word). I think we're about 20 percent impermeable, where the Ordinance allows 35 percent impermeable. MR. MENTER-Do we want to address the retaining wall issue, relative to setbacks? MR. FORD-I thought Mr. Rehm had already indicated they would not be building one? MR. REHM-No. I said that if a variance was required, we would not build one. MR. CARVIN-I don't know. I think that I'm going to refèi to Staff on that. I can't remember a retaining wall be considered. I guess if that had been a solid area not a grass area, I could see a setback, but I'm not positive of a retaining wa,ll. I mean, I don't know, wha~'s your feeling on that, John? MR. GORALSKI-The only thing I can tell yOU is Jim Martin made that decision as the Zoning Administrator, and this Board is the only one that can overturn that decision. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So, the deck I don't have a real challenge with on the, I guess it's the north side. I mean, that's pretty obvious. That's attached to the house, and that, normally, would be considered, you know, for side yard setbacks. MR. MENTER-Yes. It's the classification of those retaining walls. What type of structures are they? MR. CARVIN-Yes. Well, again, I don't have an answer for you. I'm looking that it is apparently going to be attached, or run to the north corner of the garage, the retaining wall, and then connect via a set of steps to the deck. That one, I think, could be arguable. The other side, again, as a layperson here, that appears to be a wall. MR. STEWART-They're both walls, actually. You've got grass areas on one side and grass areas on the other side. They just happen to be at different levels. MR. MENTER-Pressure treated eight by eights? MR. STEWART-Yes. MR. REHM-I think if you look at the definition of Side Yard, in the Ordinance, it says, a yard that is situated between the side line of the building and the adjacent side line of the lot, and extended from the rear line of the front yard to the front line of the rear yard, including any covered porches or canopies, whether or not enclosed. It's on Page 17948. MR. CARVIN-Well, question becomes, as I said, on the north side, I guess the I mean, a wooden deck is pretty obvious, but is - 19 - a grass, flat area part of the deck? I don't know. MR. STEWART-It has to be considered a yard. The rest of the yard is grass. MR. CARVIN-Well, the law defines it as being attached to the garage and the deck. So, as I said, we could pfobably go for a couple of hours on that, but I'm not sure I want to. On the other side, I guess I would have to, agree with you. That's sort of open ended, and th.t's not being bound by any buildings, and that does end at some point in the hill, as it were. MR. STEWART-The necessarily have clarify things, we from the garage. retaining wall on the north side does not to end at the garage. If that would help could end that retaining wall somewhere away MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess, as a middle of the road compromise, those steps could be considered coming off the deck, and I suppose that we could take a look, because they do look like they, ~oJel'1, they come close, )" ight, I mean, right, they're closer to the side yard setback, and I guess that's what we're looking at he)"e, right? MR. STEWART-Well, the steps that are built into the wall, they (lost words) from yard to yard, grass area area, not from deck to grass area. retaining to grass MR. CARVIN-Is the deck going to step down, one step, is that what you're saying? MR. STEWART-The deck will have one step onto the. MR. CARVIN-Onto the grass area. MR. MENTER-I'd be inclined to think that they were not, they wouldn't be considered þart of the 'building structure, in either case, probably. They're more topographical. You could say this level piece of grass could be used as a deck, but you can use a lawn for the same purposes as ð deck, also. MR. CARVIN-Well, they said they could lose the wall, too, and just have it slope, gradual slope. Would that be the alternative? I mean, that certainly yJould clarify the situation, I suppose. MR. THOMAS-I don't think either one of those retaining walls are considered part of the building. The steps don't come directly off the deck. There's a step down to the grass area, and the stairs go down from the grass area to the, the upper grass area to the lower grass area, even though it is connected to the building. People put landscaping timbers allover their lots. That's all it is is a landscaping timber. It's not a building of any sort. It's not a storage shed. It's not a garage. It's not part of the building. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. GREEN-No, I don't see the retaining walls as, I don't think they should have any effect on the setbacks, the deck, obviously, but not the stairs or the walls themselves. I wouldn't want to include those in there. MR. KARPELES-I agree. I don't think that they're here nor there, to tell you the truth. Like Chris says, I think people build those allover the place. MR. FORD-I'd feel a lot more comfortable with that if they weren't connected. - 20 - MR. MENTER-If they were running out of the building foundations, you mean? MR. FORD-Yes. It seems like an extension of. MR. THOMAS-It's just one way to tie it together, you know, so it looks like there's some symmetry to it. MR. CARVIN-I think they've given us an alternative. They've indicated that they would lose the wall if necessary, if they wanted to come around it. MR. THOMAS-I don't see why they should have to do that. MR. CARVIN-I'm not so bogged down in that issue. I think the living space is the bigger issue, and moving it back away from the lake. I think those are the two issues that I have. All right, are there any other questions, gentlemen? If not, I'm going to ask for comments, here, and lets get this thing moving. MR. MENTER-I, personally, fe~l that the Zoning Administrator was right, that Dave Hatin was right. He's the one that made the determination that the bottom would be considered living space. It's sort of, in ~ view, circumstantially not able to be living space, because it doesn't have outlets and it doesn't have the right percentage of windows. That's a real tough thing to go back and police, or monitor after the fact. Given the fact that it could be used as living space, with zero additional treatment, you know, is the issue, to me. Not what it takes to make it legal, but what it takes to actually use it as living space. So, right off the bat, I would consider that the same thing, as being part of the useable living space in the house. For me, the setbacks a little bit of a tougher issue, because it goes back to the question of, do we have, what are we working with? Are we working with a building or are we working with a vacant lot, because we're taking the whole building down? I personally believe that there's a lot of weight in the argument that there's a structure there and there's a foundation there, and that is what has to be weighed. So I wouldn't, summarily, say it's a new structure and we have to go back 75 feet and that's all there is to it. I do think there would have to be certain considerations made, particularly in the height and the size of the building, from both sides, because that is a pretty impressive facade, certainly, from the waterfront side, and I think it's going to have a pretty big impact from the front, also. So I would look toward some real modifications there in terms of the size and imposition of that structure. Those are my concerns. MR. KARPELES-Well, I don't feel we would be granting mlnlmum relief if we gave this. I don't see any reason why the house couldn't be moved back farther from the lake. Granted, it might cost a few more dollars, but I think it's called for. MR. GREEN-I go along the lines more of Bob, here. I guess I look at this a little more technically and along the lines of the regulation, rather than the space. I don't have a problem with the space, really that much with the facade, actually, but I think I'd like to get it back the 10 feet, and you're going to spend, who knows how many hundreds of thousands of do¡lars for this house. Another 1iv~ thousand for additional foundation, I don't think, to make it more in compliance, is going to be, you know, w6uld be that big of a detriment, and one of the other concerns being, if you can pull this back, you're going to be able to keep that big elm or oak or whatever it is, right on the front corner, and you'd probably be able to leave that one there, and that was one of the things that kind of struck me. You've got two nice really big trees there that would really cover the front of this. You're going to lose one of them right on the corner. If there was any way you could save that one, that would really help, I think, covering the front of this, too, from the - 21 - lake. Basement, habitable space, I don't know, I think in order to get two floors on the front, you've got to have three on the back. There's no way around that. That's why I don't have a particular problem with it, but I think you can come back, you can savé the treè, and it would help all the way around. MR. THOMAS-I don't have a problem with the setback from the lake, since it's existing. If you made the applicant move it back, there'd be some tearing down through there. There'd be a lot more excavation on the property. I do have a problem with the size of the hous~ and,the height of the house. I think that nine foot basement, it would be no problem whatsoever to convert that into living space and no one would know, especially with nine foot ceilings. That would be a great recreation room downstairs. It's nothing to wire it, to plumb it, anything like that. The 35 feet on the lake side, I think that's awful high. I think that they could downsize even the square footage of the house a little bit and bring it into somewhat more conformance with the houses around it. MR. FORD~I agree with what many of my colleagues have said, and just to reinforce Chris's point, on the size and height of the structure, I totally agree with that. When a structure is removed, I see this as the golden opportunity to c¿me into compliance, or a lot closer to compliance, than is being proposed here, and I think a greater effort should be made in that regard. My compliments to you for the new septic system. That's a real plus. I don't believe that this is a "moderate increase in the size". It more than doubles the size of the structure. I am very concerned that, at our bestest¡mate, approximately 15 trees, most of them mature, healthy trees, conceivably could be removed from this site, in order to put up this structure, and I believe that, as presented, it is more out of character than in character with the neighborhood. MR. CARVIN-Well, we certainly have wrestled these issues before, in a number of other' C<3ses. You gent lemen have pretty much touched on every, you've taken all my thunder. I believe that we do have an opportunity, because they are proposing to remove the structure, to certainly grant minimum relief by moving the house back from the lake, as far as "conceivably possible". We have dealt with this issue on two other cases. Obviously, the Hodgkins is the most recent. We've also had the Godnick, out on Glen Lake, as far as the three story, two story aspect, as far as the living space is concerned. I think the trend, even though the Ordinance does say 35 feet, I think that by their applying for an Area Variance, we are not mandated to adhere to that 35 feet, and I don't think I would be inaccurate in saying that the opinion or the feeling or the general trend in the Town is for lower structures out in the Waterfront Residential areas. I also think that a str~cture of this size is not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood there, and my compatriots here have pretty much covered all the ground, and that leaves us, at this point, with a motion. I'd ask for a motion either to approve, deny, or table this motion, if ~nybody wants to table it. Does anyon, ~ant to ta~e a sbot at it? ,,' : I .. MOTION TO Qt;~YAR,EA .VARtANCE NQ,. ,:41-1995 ' " ANGELA M. k~ADIS , I n;trodUced ÓY,Dav id Menter whoMQvèd, for '1 ts adoption, seçonded by Thomas For,q: t,': !:l, Therapplicant has Þropbsed to remo~e ~t~e ~xist~ng 1632s~uare foot house and 500 square foòt' gàrage and re¡jl'a.ce them :wi th a 5190 square foot house and 782 square foot garage, utilizing house and expanding the existing house and installing a new septic system. Applicant seeks relief from Section 179-60 which requires a 75 foot shoreline setback. It does not se~m that, in several aspects, this project would represent the minimum relief required to meet the ,applicant's needs. The setback of the house, while incr~ased from the waterfront in the proposed plan, - 22 - does not appear to be as close to the required setback as is possible, given this site. The fact that the house is being completely re-built lends it an opportunity to come much closer to meeting the actual setback than we have in this plan. The relief that's required is certainly substantial from the current zone which requires 75 foot of setback, proposing an actual 43 feet. It would appear, to myself, that this structure would have an effect on the neighborhood and community, and although there are similar structures in the area, those I do not believe represent the nature of the neighborhood well. Rather I think it is smaller structures and less imposing structures that define the neighborhood. The difficulty would certainly seem to be self-created, as the property was just purchased by the applicant, with full knowledge of current zoning in the area. The increase in square footage also is substantial to say the least, considering th~t all three floors would be considered to be habitable living space by virtue of ,the size, access to, and facilities in the ground level or basement area, that would be considered habitable living space also. Duly adopted this 23rd day of August, 1995, by the following vote: MR. MENTER-I think that would be it. I didn't address the side setbacks. MR. CARVIN-I was goi ng to say. We only need, the Zo,ni ng Administrator has determined, I guess by the fact that it's being written, that's a determination, is it, Paul, in other words, he's determined that a variance for side yard setback relief is required. If we make this part of the motion, thàt it is not a requirement, we just need a majority vote? Or should we make that a separate issue? MR. DUSEK-I think you'd be better to make that a separate issue, and I guess the question I would have is, is the applicant here for that variance on that? Has that been appealed, or is that before the Board, that issue? MR. REHM-We did not apply for that variance. The only reason we brought the issue up is the Planning comments. MR. DUSEK-I would not even address it, then, if it hasn't been, you know, if it's not up on appeal to you, and it's not part of the application, then I wouldn't even address that issue. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MENTER-Okay. So that would be the motion. AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Ca r vi n NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-1995 TYPE II WR-1A CEA BOB BURUCHIAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROUTE 9L TO CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PRO~OSES TO. CONSTRUCT, AN 82$ SQUA~E FOOT., ,GARAGE AT :.A", FRONT SETBACK OF 2 FT. 5 . IN. WHE~E 30 FT. IS REbuIRED, AND A SIDE SETBACK OF 17 FT.5 IN., WHERE A MINIMUM OF 20 IS REQUIRED. RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM SECTION 179-16C, WATERFRONT RE$IDENTIAL. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 8/16/95 TAX MAP NO. 11-1-7.1 LOT SIZE: 0.25 ACRES SECTION 179-16C BOB BURUCHIAN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Meeting Date: August Variance 23, '1995 No. 53-1995, Bob "Applicant: Bob Buruchian, Buruchian - 23 - Project Location: Russell Harris Road Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct an 897 square foot garage and proposes to place it 2.5 feet from the side property line on one side and 34' on the other side, and 17.5 feet from the front property line. Conformance with the Ordinance: Section 179-16C requires a front setback of 30 feet and a minimum side setback of 20 feet, with a total of 50 feet. Note: Russell Harris Road was adopted by Town Board Resolution No. 166, as a "road by use". It is described as being .17 mile long. It is paved, plowed and otherwise maintained by the Town, so would be considered a Town road for zoning purposes, which would be the establishment of which property line would be the front yard. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be able to store cars and a boat under cover. 2. Feasible alternatives: The applicant may be able to enclose the existing carport for cars, and build a smaller, more conforming boat storage building. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? This does appear to be a substantial amount of relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? There is a concern on the part of at least one neighbor about access from 'Brayton Road' which, apparently, the adjacent landowners have the right to construct. Placement of the garage in this location would landlock the lakefront lot if access were to be solely from Brayton Road. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The desire to store a boat and cars on site, and to construct a build~ng this size, is self generated, but it is a difficult site, as well. SEQR: Type II, no further action needed." ' MR. THOMAS-The same general' note read in the first variance application is attached. "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 construct a garage that cannot meet the required setbacks. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Disapprove Comments: The Warren County Planning Board believes that this garage is too close to Brayton Road, does not meet the side setback and there are other locations where it can be located where it could meet the setbacks 'or placed where a variance would not be so great." Signed by C. powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there anything that you'd care to add? MR. BURUCHIAN-Yes. To start off, the garage, I've reduced the size of the garage. I'd be willing to reduce the size as shown to 32' by 24'. I recently sold the red cottage, which is, I would suppose the west of my property, if you have a print there, and by doing so, I obtained an additional piece of property which I attached to the white cottage property, with the hopeful idea of building a garage. I have a couple of classic Criss Crafts that I'm restoring now, and this is why I want the garage. I doubt if I'll probably ever park a car there, because I do reside and I have a resort business in Florida, and I also have a business here. I run the Mountainside Grange Bed & Breakfast up on 9L. The garage will definitely conform to the white cottage, which I re-sided recently, and did quite a bit of improving inside. When you mentioned about Brayton Road, which came down from Warren County, Brayton Road is nonexisting, and there seems to be quite a lot of disagreement in the neighborhood there, where one of my neighbors, Leon Spath, questioned me about Russell Harris Road not being a Town road, and I was told by people in this Town that's definitely a Town road, and I wish this point would get cleared up tonight, even though my garage is in question. It seems like this is the problem with the neighbors, that they said to me the garage was not the problem. It's the access to the road. Now Brayton Road hás been on the tax maps for years, but Brayton Road is a rocky bluff behind my house. I mean, there's rocks higher than the whble ceiling. There's no way you're ever going to build a road there. I happen to be a Construction Manager, and I know what it costs, a mile, - 24 - to build a road, and I spoke to Mr. John Goralski, and he said he didn't think the Town had' any intention of building a road there also, and so I don't know where my garage would interfere with anything on the Brayton Road that's been marked on the map, that's not really a road. Tqe road that~ervices our property is Russell Harris Ro~ð,' ~hich was just, signs were just turned around. Those signs were in disarray for many years, and finally they just got turned around. MR. KARPELES-Is that the road that says "Boathouse Road" on our map"?' MR.' GORALSKI-Correct. MR. ßURUCHIAN-Boathouse Road is the ~oad ihat goes dow~ to the boath6û~e, which was Coolidge's Boat yard at that time. MR. KARPELES-Yes. but we've got a map and it says, Boathouse Road on it. MR. GORALSKI-Right. Harris Road. That's incorrect. , '\1:,11(:,.·. _ " That should be Russell MR. BURUCHIAN-See, it was named Outhouse Road when I drew that map, but it was Russell Harris Road, and I spoke to John about it, and I guess those corrections have been made. So Russell Harris feeds all these houses and goes through all these properties, and that's the road that everybody uses, and the Town maintains, and my garage, as far as the red höuse that I sold, the question came up, what happens if the Town takes that Russell Harris Road back and gives it back to the owners, and uses Brayton Road, but I just don't see the Town of Queensbury building a new road in there, and I've been told this by other people in this Town, and I don't know if the Town Attorney has any oplnlon on this, but I don't see why that should affect my garage. All I'm looking for is a garage to put a couple of boats in, where I can start my restoration project, and I have the property to do so, and I'm willing to reduce the size because I found out that I can get the two boats in there and have a little workshop on the side in a 32' by 24' garage, which is consid~rably smaller, and I'd be very happy with that, and I would place it anywhere on that property that the Town agrees, as long as I can drive a trailer on it, and I've made many configurations on how to do it, and I've got a lot of alternates here, if the Town if not happy with me putting it against Brayton. I'd also like to make a proposal that if the Town is not going to use that piece of property in the back" I'd be willing to pay taxes on it and purchase it from the Town at a nominal price. It's only a rock bluff, but it would give me the right to go against it, instead of having the setback. It's 35 feet wide, and it cannot be used for anything. It's just a monstrous rock bluff. at least the part behind my property is, and I mentioned that to Mr. Goralski, too, if the Town would be willing to sell me that piece of property. So then I wouldn't need a variance, because then I could butt my back of my garage right against that rock bluff, and I'd be content with that, but I am trying to get relief to get a garage, and if you could figure out how I can do it, I'd be very happy. MR. CARVIN-All right. Well, let me ask you, cut to the quick on any of your alternative plans, are there any with less relief than what this is? MR. BURUCHIAN-Well, I have angled the garage a little bit where I would definitely give, I'd give more side yard. See, I was, at first, when the letter came through, the front yard was told to me, which I questioned, two feet five inches, which I thought was wrong, but now it's been corrected this evening. So the front would be toward the road we're coming in on. I could use the 30 feet there if I had to. If I have to, do it, I'll do it, and I - 25 - could give 20 feet to the other side, but I can't give it to the back, because there's no way I can do it, because there's a rock bluff back there, and I'd be willing to do something with the Town on that property, if the Town is willing to work something out. MR. CARVIN-It seems to me I thought I saw in Staff Notes here, lets see, possible alternative, the applicant may be able to enclose the existing ~arport. MR. BURUCHIAN-Well, the existing carport's too low. I had to dig out the ground to get a little old 1971 Century Resorter in there. With a trailer, I had to dig it out so I could slide it under. The carport I don't even think is seven and a half feet high, and it's very small. I just will house a 17 or 18 foot boat, and then again, the rock bluff touches the carport, which I don't know if any of you people were up there to look at this site, it's quite a bluff. We climbed up there the other day and measured. It's 18 feet at it's highest. MR. CARVIN-I was out there, I think it was yesterday. Do you have a string outlining it, where the garage is going to be? MR. BURUCHIAN-Yes. That's one proposal. I had about four or five to come in, as I told John, I'm going to try to come in with alternates. So, I have tó be able to drive a trailer on there, and that's all I have to do is back a trailer in there and store it there, but I"d be willing to make an adjustment, in that sense. I did string it up, yesterday, for the 32' by 24' garage. MR. KARPELES-When you did that, did you leave this two feet five inch clearance from the? MR. BURUCHIAN-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Well, couldn't you increase that to four feet, five? MR. BURUCHIAN-Could I increase it to four feet five? MR. KARPELES-Yes. I you'd knock it off so would think if you knocked two that you'd have more relief. feet off, MR. BURUCHIAN-The trouble is, I have to have a certain way to come in from Russell Harris Road to swing a trailer in. Otherwise, the garage would be totally. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but you had it before. You had 34 feet. It would still be 34 feet from that other property line. MR. BURUCHIAN-Not exactly. When I laid out the garage, it just didn't work. That's why I shortened up the garage. I had a 26 foot by 34 garage, and it didn't work at all. There's no way, and driving in would be a nightmare. So I reduced the size of the garage and brought it over more, but if I could do it, I'd be glad to do it. MR. FORD-Brought it over more where, in what direction? MR. BURUCHIAN-Well, I'd bring it toward the hou$e so I'd have a bigget" swing. MR. FORD-Okay. So there'll be a setback there on that side lot line of how much? MR. BURUCHIAN-Well, if alternates here, quite getting in the garage. I could show you, I have a a few alternates here. My couple of problem is MR. BURUCHIAN-These are the alternates, two different alternates. - 26 - - This has been reduced. MR. CARVIN-That's the 34' x 26'. MR. FORD-So this one here would put it at the side setback of, it would be 20 feet at the closest. MR. BURUCHIAN-Let me tell you what I'd like the Town to consider, though. This is the property on Brayton Road, and I think a few of you have been up there. This is the rock bluff. If I put the garage here, I touch the rock there. I'd have to actually build a corner and chop out the rock. If the Town is not going to use this property, I could bring that garage back. I'd be willing to work something out and pay a fair assessment on that piece of property, even though I'd never use it, except to stick my garage in that corner. I don't know if that's possible. MR. CARVIN-I don't know. Paul, what would be the timeframe on a proposal like that, where he would ~ant to buy this little section of the road? Is that a feasible situation? MR. BURUCHIAN-Is that road ever going to be used, Paul? MR. DUSEK-Well, from what I'm hearing from John, and we'd have to verify this, you know, my office would go through the records and check it for sure, but it appears that there is no deed into the Town for that piece of property. It appears that there's never been an offer, an accepted offer of dedication of an easement or otherwise, and it also appears that it was never deemed a Town road when they went through the Town survey back in 1963. If all of those things are true, that would make it similar to other situations which I have advised the Town on, and the advice I've given is that we have no interest in those properties. It then becomes an issue that, typically, what we have found, in many old subdivisions, they had what they called paper streets that showed up, and those subdivisions, in turn, got incorporated into the tax maps, but a paper street, in and of itself, does not mean that the Town has any rights to build a road there. All it means is that there may be other people who have rights of easements and right-of-ways, but certainly not the Town. So, like I say, if we check all those things out, and it becomes what I think it is, a paper street, then there's nothing we can do for you. We don't own it. We can't sell it. MR. BURUCHIAN-So then it can stay the same. So it's anybody's property? MR. DUSEK-Well, I think you need to know, from your standpoint, you need to know where that thing came from. Is it part of a subdivision, for instance? Is it on a subdivision map? MR. BURUCHIAN-It's on the tax map. MR. DUSEK-Well, that doesn't mean anything. You really have to know where it came from in the sense of the original. MR. BURUCHIAN-Well, supposedly, what I heard, throughout the years, and Frank England is here. He probably is one of those that know more about that area, because his father-in-law built that, pretty much, in that area. He cut that other road in., It came from the Brayton Estate, which is now the Boucher Estate, but it's been on the Town maps for years, as the Brayton Road. MR. DUSEK-It's conceivable that somebody might have reserved it in the deed some place as a road, and if that's the case, it would belong to the person who originally reserved it, or their heirs. In other words, there's some research that has to be done, here. MR. BURUCHIAN-Well, if I can get my garage somehow close to that - 27 - property line where I have, it would help me out. I mean, if nobody's going to use that property down, you know, and if I can get that setback variance for this rear part, whatever you'd call it, the rear part of the garage, it would solve ~ problem. It is a big rock bluff, and this is totally useless, because it goes up in the air from over here, and it cuts in, and here it clears out a little bit and goes all the way around, but I have a tax map here if you'd like to see how it runs around. MR. CARVIN-I think the point is, I don't think we can approve that because that's on an area that could end up in dispute. So I really can't, on that one. MR. BURUCHIAN-Well, no, not this, but I'm saying, if we could get either one of these. I mean, I could see, after what he said, it couldn't be done because it would be a headache for me later on. MR. CARVIN-I was just trying to get a feel for the time. I mean, something like that. MR. DUSEK-In terms of looking for, you mean our work? MR. CARVIN-Yes. Well, you know, just as a rough idea. I mean, if he were to get a legal counsel and go through all the baloney. MR. DUSEK-Well, I think from his perspective, it's hard to tell how much work it'll be until somebody goes into the abstractive titles and looks at the tax maps. MR. BURUCHIAN-Yes. If what he says is true, I know, I mean, I don't think I'd want to pursue it. It could be very difficult. MR. DUSEK-As far as, if you want an answer as to whether the Town, definitively, has any interest in there, that I can give you an answer in about a week or two. i'1R. CARVIN-Okay. MR. BURUCHIAN-Well, these are the two options I have is reducing the garage, as I said, over the initial garage, and doing it like that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. FORD-Could I ask you how you intend to back the boats in there? You'd come in here? MR. BURUCHIAN-No, no. I'd come in here. I could get in there. I've got over 30 feet in there. These are all small boats. MR. FORD-Where are you going to drive, and then where are you going to back? MR. BURUCHIAN-Well, I'd be backing up in here, or I could even back up over here, as long as I have the clearance to go. The two boats I have, one is 17 foot and one is 22 foot. MR. KARPELES-It shows a stone wall in here. MR. BURUCHIAN-No. That's coming out. This is all getting filled in. MR. CARVIN-How old is the carport, do you know? MR. BURUCHIAN-That building was built, I believe, Frank, when was that building built, that white house was b~ilt in the 40's, 50's? FRANK ENGLAND - 28 - MR. ENGLAND-Some time in 1950. MR. BURUCHIAN-The carport's very level. You've seen it. I've got the little Century in there now. That's a 30 year old boat. MR. FORD-So this structure or this wall is coming out. MR. BURUCHIAN-Well, we're going to have that filled in. I'm planting trees here, which I spoke to John, because I did sell that property. In fact, I just ordered a bunch of Blue Spruces, eight foot high, to put in there. MR. FORD-So you couldn't drive into this and back across it? MR. BURUCHIAN-No. I sold that. That's another house. MR. FORD-No. I didn't ask that. You couldn't drive in there and then back into the garage if it were closer out this way? MR. BURUCHIAN-No. No. I need some turning room in here. MR. FORD-What if you drove in here and backed that way? M~. BURUCHIAN-You mean, drove on this property? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. BURUCHIAN-I don't think it would be right to drive on somebody's property and drive on somebody's property and back my trailer in. That's somebody else's property there. Plus, there'd be a bluff there. There's a wall here now. MR. FORD-I thought you were taking that out? MR. BURUCHIAN-I am, but I still have to put a wall in to retain for the driveway. I have to put some sort of wall here when I increase it, to enlarge my driveway area. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions, gentlemen? MR. BURUCHIAN-I mean, I made at least 20 different renditions of this and strung them all out, and I spent a lot of time on it, and the trailer is about a foot and a half, two feet bigger than the boat, and 26 foot would be the right size to do it, but 26 foot would just hurt me even more. So I thought if I came in with a smaller garage, you'd be more apt to give me permission to build it. I mean, when I sold this, I retained this part, and the Town already assessed me for this part of the property this year, and so I did it, hopefully, getting a garage s6mehow in there, some place in this section later on. That's one of the reasons I didn't sell this piece of property with this, and,the Town did up my assessment $4600. MR. FORD-And you don't have any access to any other garage in the Town? MR. BURUCHIAN-Well, I own the Mountainside Grange, which I resto)·ed. I don't know if you know where that is, and I have a boathouse in there. I've got boats in there, but it's just not convenient for me to work there, because I'm operating a Bed & Breakfast, and I'm planning to keep the property a lot longer than I'm going to keep the Grange Hall. MR. FORD-So yOU don't have that for sale right now? MR. BURUCHIAN-What, this? Yes. If I can't build a garage, it's going. If I can't build a garage, I really don't care to keep the house, and I thought I wouldn't have any problem. I'd put it up for sale, but I really don't see what that has to matter with it, either. I mean, I told my neighbors the same thing, but I - 29 - don't see what the argument, the neighbors are gIvIng me the argument about this road, and they're not objected to my garage, but I don't see what the road has to do with a garage at all. The road is a Town road. Is that true, that road is a Town road? MR. GORALSKI-Russell Harris Road is a Town road. MR. BURUCHIAN-Don't plan on changing it? MR. GORALSKI-No. The Highway Superintendent said they have no plans on changing that. MR. BURUCHIAN-No plans on building on Brayton Road, right? MR. GORALSKI-No plans on building where it says Brayton Road on your map here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Let me open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LEON SPATH MR. SPATH-I am William Spath. I am the owner of parcels just to the north of the applicant's, and I'll try to, I am here along with some of the landowners. Rather than stretch all the time, I think I'm speaking for most of them. We've had a lot of problems here. Now, you stated that for purposes of the variance, they're considering that a Town road. You said, for variance purposes, that confused me a little, and you said the Town claimed that as a Town road. Well what has happened here, we've got six landowners here that have access to their property on a road that was, that just went through the woods. There is a 35 foot right- of-way which, on the map, is Brayton Road. We may be able to clarify that. This is a survey of 1941, of all those lots, and the right-of-way is on here, and it was established when these lots were divided. The Town doesn't own it, and this was a question, he thought he might be able to buy it from the Town. I don't think, there's no way he can buy it from the Town, but what has happened here, this road was put in by the landowners, by Mr. England's in-laws, and they took a bulldozer and put it wherever they wanted to. The Town has come along and maintained it, graded it when it was gravel. They graded it. They plowed it, and they finally topped it, I would guess, eight years ago, and some place along the line, I assume, they have assumed ownership of it. I don't know all the ramifications here, but they say it's a Town road. I don't know all the legal ramifications of this thing, but it's accessed to all these properties. Now, where it stops, where it starts, how wide it is, I have no idea, but we've got property owners that are very upset because it runs through the middle of their property. We pay taxes on it. There is nothing on any of our deeds, any of our titles, that says that's a Town road, and they've assumed responsibility of it, and made most of us very, very unhappy, but there's not much we can do about it, but we pay taxes on it. Any square foot area on these lots is attributed to us. We pay taxes on it. There's nothing that says the Town owns part of our property. So that upsets us just a little bit, but there are other problems here. That driveway was established to access these lots. Bob stated that it's (loèt word) behind his property. It is, but where this right-of-way and his property and my property meet, it's accessible. There is at least 20 to 25 feet of right-of-way, and he's using that up there to park. That is accessible, and he says, well, that right-of-way will never, ever be developed. It very well may be. It can be very easily, and we, the landowners, are concerned about this, because what happens now, that property has been subdivided. Frank England, well, when the property was passed on from Frank's in-laws to Frank's wife, it was subdivided. Fine. It was in the family. Now, it's subdivided. - 30 - --- It's in two different parcels, and Bob was given easement into the parcel that he sold, through this road. Now ~ problem is, and the problem of all these individuals are, should we activate this right-of-way. These people that he sold the lot to do not have access to their property, only through the existing road, and it's a problem. If he puts a garage up there, we feel that he should furnish the right-of-way through that parcel that has been divided, to allow access to the parcel that he sold, should this right-of-way be activated. It's a legal ball, and this is why we're concerned about the garage, where it's location with. It's not conforming, there's one other garage on that whole road, well, two other garages on that whole road, and this is half again the size of either one of them. There's two, two car garages on that road, and his garage is half again the size of the two that are existing, but we are very, very concerned about this, and we object to blocking it off. We object to the size of it, and I'm saying this, I say this on behalf of the other people there, just for time sake, and there might be other people here that might want to SaY more or contradict what I'm saying, but everybody, he says it'~ a Town road. I won't disagree with the man, but if we should develop this right of WaY, and turn ,a~ound and say, we want our land back, the Town. We don't know whether the Town would ever abandon that. I don't think it meets criteria for a Town road. I don't know all the legal parts here, but they stopped paving at my property line, because they didn't know where to go. Winter time, sometimes they used to plow on Frank's. He was very upset because they piled snow there. They plowed on me for the last five years, but I understand it's illegal for any Town equipment to be on private property. So there's all sorts of problems here, and if they say it's a Town road, where does it stop? We haven't been able to find this out. I was hoping to get this found out tonight. Does it stop where they stopped paving on me? The last improvement that was done on it, Bob did on my property, simply because he said they could drive past it through my property to get to his, but there are problems here, and if that Town road goes to his property line, somebody better do something, because that plow is going to have to back, turn around on his property. I'm not going to let him do it on mine. All these things are going to have to be taken into consideration. That's all 1 can say. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I just have a question of the applicant. You said you had sold the lot recently, the red cottage? MR. BURUCHIAN-I sold that recently, last year. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Was that a preexisting, or is this a preexisting situation? MR. BURUCHIAN-Yes. They were preexisting, and I kept the tail end of it on the white cottage. I properties from Mr. England, who is here. just sold, I bought these MR. CARVIN-Wait a minute. You kept question is, this was a preexisting line? the tail end. lot here, or is I guess my this a new MR. BURUCHIAN-No. This is a new line here. It used to go this way. MR. CARVIN-It used to go that way, and when did you change it from this way to this way? MR. BURUCHIAN-When we sold it. MR. CARVIN-When was that? MR. BURUCHIAN-Last year. MR. CARVIN-I don't know but if we've got an illegal subdivision - 31 - here. MR. BURUCHIAN-Well, it was approved by the City. I was down and talked to. MR. GORALSKI-That subdivision was approved by Jim Martin. MR. BURUCHIAN-It was approved. MR. GORALSKI-I don't know that it was a subdivision. was a lot line adjustment. I think it MR. BURUCHIAN-It was a lot line change. That's all. It wasn't a subdivision. MR. MENTER-It was two lots to begin with, right. MR. BURUCHIAN-It was always preexisting. MR. GORALSKI-There were always two lots there. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-They just adjusted the lot line. MR. BURUCHIAN-And this has been t~.JO existing, how was this existing as b.JO lots? long, Frank, MR. ENGLAND-1943, '44. MR. BURUCHIAN-It was always two separate parcels. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm just trying to figure out how he figured the frontage on a. MR. SPATH-I've got that right here. That information is right here. MR. CARVIN-Because there's really no frontage on a Town road, for either one. One of them is. MR. SPATH-I had to give a right-of-way in here, which I also have. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So this was just a lot line adjustment. MR. BURUCHIAN-Lot line adjustment. I came exactly up this way. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So this one was the landlocked piece before? MR. BURUCHIAN-Right, which I have a )"ight-of-way down to the lake, which I've always had. MR. SPATH-This was changed. Originally, the line went down and split the boat house. It gave access to the lake. The original lines came down and split the boat house. Then he changed that around. MR. BURUCHIAN-Well, that was changed, also, as a lot line change, because what happened (lost words) the boat house was in the middle of the lot line, and I wouldn't purchase the property unless the Town agreed to change it, and they did. MR. MENTER-While you're here, let me ask you a question. On this drawing here, okay, this shows Brayton Road. MR. SPATH-That was originally split in 1960. MR. BURUCHIAN-The red boat house was behind the White property. MR. SPATH-That was the original, up until this most recent, up - 32 - --.---------.-.-.'---- '- until he ran it. He put all the boat house, you can see. This was the original, and this was the new one. MR. BURUCHIAN-Leon, let me explain, because I was with the engineers when they did it. This boathouse was a red boat house to that property. When I purchased it, my lawyer wouldn't allow me to purchase it that way. He said, you can't be purchasing property with the boathouse from one property behind the other. So we went to Crayford, I think she was here at the time, and she worked it out with whoever was in Planning, where we could bring the boat house behind the red house, adjoining the red house, which made more sense, and then it was adjusted on the tax maps, and we bought the two houses from Frank, and my daughter was supposed to buy one of these houses with me, but it didn't work out, so that's why I sold the other house, but now the red boat house is behind the red house, and this property ju~t has a right-of-way down to the dock. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, the line never did come this way, then. MR. BURUCHIAN-No, until last year. MR. CARVIN-It doesn't come there now, but the lot line adjustment was here, from point here to point here. So they made this the pointy part. That brought this in. MR. BURUCHIAN-To bring the boathouse to the red house. MR. CARVIN-So this one was a preexisting lot with no frontage on a Town road. MR. SPATH-Okay. Well, let me do some little clarification here. This was originally one lot, but what happened was when the VanderHowdens, this is Frank's in-laws, bought this property, they built the red camp on the adjacent lot, partially on the adjacent lot. You can see the original lot line was here. So, what happened, we gave 40 foot here, so that he could keep the red camp, pivoted on the original point, which gave us 10 foot down in front. This was all fill. We picked up 10 foot down in front, gave u.p 40 foOt in the back, I mean, for history sake. This was never two lots, but then when Frank's wife's mother, the VanderHowden, passed the property on, they passed it on in two separate parcels, which shows up in that other map, but the total parcel here was passed on to Frank's wife in two separate parcel. That's when this actually got split up, but the boathouse was also built on the adjacent property, but it's been 50 years. Nothing has ever been done, but this is the history. MR. BURUCHIAN-Yes, but now it's changed where the boathouse is behind the red house, which is the property way to do it, because the red boathouse belonged to the red house. MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess the road comes into here then? MR. SPATH-The road comes right in, right here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MENTER-Okay. My question is this. Where is Brayton Road? MR. SPATH-Okay. Brayton Road doesn't exist. MR. MENTER-Right. MR. CARVIN-It apparently would go this way, kind of follows the, and picks up Russell Harris Road, maybe. MR. SPATH-Yes, and I have the, Brayton Road was never ever developed. It was labeled Brayton Road because Richard Brayton set these lots up, and that was listed as Brayton Road, but it - 33 - ----- doesn't exist. MR. MENTER-So your propèrty actually crosses what is considered, now, this Town road, and goes over to here. MR. SPATH-Yes. They all come up to here. MR. MENTER-They come out there, to what is known as Brayton Road. MR. CARVIN-What they're arguing is that the Town has put a road through here. MR. MENTER-I understand that. MR. SPATH-Brayton Road was the right-of-way. MR. MENTER-But we don't know theoretically or otherwise. where it starts and stops, MR. CARVIN-No. MR. SPATH-I've got a map that shows where the Brayton Road, the right-of-way was, and where the existing road is in relationship to the distance. That's what exists on these six lots, and we have a number of the owners here tonight. This is the right-of- way right here, and that's the way the road goes. It's 12 foot here. There's rocks in here, but there's nothing stopping that from being developed. Bob is very, very mistaken to say that. MR. BURUCHIAN-But wait a minute, up to this point. MR. SPATH-Up to your line. MR. BURUCHIAN-Yes. MR. SPATH-Now, there's still. MR. BURUCHIAN-Yes. There's about 20 feet. MR. SPATH-Yes, that you can access your property. Up in here, no, beyond you, no way, but that isn't the question. MR. BURUCHIAN-Leon's question is, if it ever came to be that this road is abandoned by the Town, which I doubt the Town's going to abandon this road, and the Town takes over this road, I'd have to give these people a right-of-way to get in. That's why my garage has been moved over. I ,have 14 feet, and if they develop this road, they can come in that way. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. SPATH-Something else that has to be taken into consideration, then you have an access problem to your garage. MR. BURUCHIAN-No, I don't. MR. SPATH-Yes. If this is blocked off, and you can't come in this side of it with your sail boat, you're going to have to go around your garage. MR. BURUCHIAN-I can come in here, as long as I have enough turn around. MR. SPATH-Well, you don't. going to give you. Fourteen feet down here, Bob's, not MR. BURUCHIAN-Wait a minute. Fourteen feet of right-of-way doesn't going to prevent me from using it. It's only a right-of- way. This 14 feet here is still my property. - 34 - --_._----~--'-_._------_...- ~--, ----' MR. SPATH-There are a lot of questions here. MR. BURUCHIAN-The thing that they have to decide, I think the question that the neighbors have is wh~t the Town's going to do with that Town road, and from what 1 gather, the Town doesn't plan to give it up, unless you plan to build a new road in the back there, which I doubt you're going to do. My thing is that I'm interested in getting my garage, and I'll move it over if I have to, but I don't see what the road has to do with my garage. MR. SPATH-Well, he's got a two car garage over the Grange. MR. BURUCHIAN-Well, one thing has nothing to dp with the other. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyone else wishing to be heard in opposition? ROBERT WHITE MR. WHITE-My name is Robert White, and I'm in support of what Mr. Spath said, but I am here also for some further explanation. I've lived there, we've had a camp there since '36. So I've preceded everything that we've been talking about, and I would be glad to talk with someone, if we start to reconstruct this whole situation, but the bottom line is that we have, for years, been paying taxes on land that other people are using, because the road, effectively, cuts off 20 to 25 feet of the back of our property, maybe 50 feet in some cases. So that's one consideration. The other consideration, over and àbove this right-of-way and access and everything, is that on that fairly small piece of property, you're putting a very large garage~ and the effect is wall to wall roofs, and we talk about the decrease or increase of permeability, I think that should be looked at, when you're looking at this whole situation. I have no objection to people doing things on their property. I think that's one of the most private things people look for is what they can do on their own property, but I think we should be reaspnable when we look at the size of the garage that we're going to be wanting to build on a piece of property, as small as this. So please keep that in mind as you deliberate this evening. Thank you. MR. tARVIN-Okay. Thank you. opposition? Anyone else wishing to be heard in SANDRA SULLIVAN CUMMINGS MRS. SULLIVAN CUMMINGS-I support everything that Leon and Bob said. My name is Sandra Sullivan Cummings. I've been there since 1945, and I support everything that Leon and Bob have said. We have to cross one another's property. We've been paying taxes. They do come in and maintain the road, but we also have about 25 feet of property on the other side, and from what I understand, when we first went there, (lost word) came in with a bulldozer and went around trees and so on to get to his property. So it isn't any particular road that the County (lost words). So I support my neighbors. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard? MR. BURUCHIAN-I just want to say I came here for a variancé for a garage because I really would like to have a garage on that property, and if I cannot build a garage, I definitely will sell the property. My Grange Hall, which I restored, which was a mess when I bought it in the 80's, and I lived across the street as a you.ngster. I did a great job there, and I'm sure if,you.'ve ever been up there, you know that. I don't see what the Grange Hall, my owning a Grange Hall, has to do with building this garage, and I don't see where Mr. Spath has to bring up the fact that I have a garage at the Grange Hall. I don't see what one thing has to do with the other. I mean, I pay taxes at the Grange Hall, and I pay good taxes. I made an improvement on that property, and1've - 35 - made an improvement on this property, much more than I've seen any of the other neighbors do, and this garage will be an improvement, and it's not that big. It's only 24' by 32'. That's an average two car garage, and I don't see where the road problem has anything to do with my garage. I really don't. That's another problem, and they're argument is more with the road. I can't see why they'd object to the garage. We're at the end of the road. The road doesn't go through our property. It goes ~ to our property. I'm on the end. Nobody can build through my property. I'm at the end. I'm landlocked except for a right-of-way down to the water, which I had given to me by Mr. England, which gets transferred to me by the people I sold the red house to, and I don't see what the road or the Brayton Road or the proposed road or taking away, if they had this argument, they should have addressed it years ago, not now. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. BURUCHIAN-That's all I've have to say. I mean, I hope I can get the variance to get a garage. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. MR. SPATH-I have one more statement. You asked if there was any other options to him, as far as garages go, and that's the only reason I brought that up. MR. CARVIN-Okay. No, I think you, Gentlemen. We understand Any other public comment? we've covered the ground. the situation, I think. Thank Okay. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions of the applicant? I guess, how does a road by use come into being, and how do we kill a road by use, if we have to? MR. GORALSKI-Paul can explain how a road by use comes into being. The only thing I want to say, first off, is, in anticipation of this subject coming up, I went over to the Highway Department and spoke to them. Actually, I spoke to Rick Missita, the Deputy Highway Superintendent. Rick told me that that road coming to Mr. Buruchian's property is Russell Harris ~oad. It was dedicated in 1963, I believe it was May of '63, and as far as the Highway Department is concerned, Russell Harris Road ends at Mr. Buruchian's property line. Now Paul can explain to you how, in 1963 they decided that was a Town road and what the legal ramifications of that are. MR. DUSEK-Well, I guess the word you just used. mea n by that? I have one question, though, When you say "dedicated", John, from what do you MR. GORALSKI-That's what it said on the, he has a book, black book, that lists all the roads. MR. DUSEK-Okay. determination by thinking of the to? That wasn't a dedication, then. That was a the Highway Department at that time, if you're 1963 resolution, is that what you're referring MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. DUSEK-Okay. What happened is, and keep in mind, obviously, I wasn't here in 1963. So I'm reconstructing the events based on what I've read and heard, but it's !!J..l: understanding that in 1963, there was a massive done of all Town roads by a Town Official, probably the Highway Superintendent, and I believe there was some involvement of either the County or the State, and I also believe that the purpose of that was for ascertaining the total mileage - 36 - --_._-------~~._----_._.- ----- of roads for eventual State aid and things of that nature. What they did is they just simply went out and ran around Town and checked out all these roads. A lot of roads that they found and listed in that resolution, ultimately, the Town Board adopted a resolution and said these are the Town roads. A lot of them don't have deeds, and there's nothing in the records of the Town to indicate that they were ever dedicated or offered or anything of that nature. What they did is they said, well, if there's a roa~hat's being maintained, and it's being used by the public, for the most part, they said, well, that must be a Town Toad, and it's called a road by use. Under State law, if a road is used by the public and maintained by the Town for a period of 10 years, it becomes a Town road, and it becomes a Town road to the extent of the use. In other words, today, fo~ instance, as you're probably all aware, that when the Town accepts a road today, we don't accept anything less than three rods, or approximately 50 feet wide, but there's a lot of roads around Town that are much less than that, and that's because they're roads by use and they were required by the way the public traveled. So there's a lot of these typeè of roads in Town, and from what I'm hearing, it sounds to me like that's what happened here. This is a road that somebody determined was something the public used. If it's been used and maintained for 10 years, then that's it. It's a Town road. MR. MENTER-What does that do to the rights original owner of that property, as far as piece of property? of the owner, the their use of that MR. DUSEK-What it means is, actually, I'm glad you asked that, because what we technically have, when we have a road by use, is an easement. The property owner still owns the underlyipg land, but the Town has, and the general public, have a Yightof'paSsage over the land, essentially, and the right to maintain it and keep it in good repair. So the underlying property owner continues his ownership rights. MR. FORD-Which leads them to still be taxed for that property. MR. DUSEK-Correct. MR. MENTER-So Mr. Spath couldn't put up a fence on the east side of his property line, cutting off the road to everybody else, and say, this is the end of it? MR. DUSEK-Correct. MR. CARVIN-Nor could he charge a toll. MR. MENTER-Right, whatever. MR. CARVIN-But the trade off is that the Town maintains it, as to plowing and the what not. All right. Is it safe to assume that this situation, this road has been in existence over 10 years? MR. SPATH-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. $0 everybody can agree on that. All right. So I guess if that is the case then, we do not have a legal problem, as far as losing the road if the neighbors so decide to close that down. MR. DUSEK-Not on the, you know, here again, I haven't looked at these records, but from what I'm hearing this evening, on the face of it, I would have to say that it sounds to me like it's a Town road. MR. CARVIN-Okay, because I think it is important to, and germane to this garage, if this road is indeed the acc~ss. - 37 - MR. SPATH-What's a concern to us is, should we develop the right- of-way, and we turn around and claim our road back. MR. CARVIN-I would assume that the answer to that would be, if the Town abandons the use of the road. I mean, if it no longer becomes a road by use by use. If you folks stop using that road, and the Town stops maintaining, then I'm assuming that it must revert. MR. DUSEK-Yes, and that is the answer. When the Town abandons a r6ad, it would revert back, the property would go back to the underlying property owners. The only catch is that we do not abandon roads in the Town of Queensbury, at least I've advised the Town Board and the Highway Department not to abandon road, unless we get general releases from all of the property owners abutting that road. So if we were not able to get that, we would never abandon that road, and that's for liability reasons. We don't want somebody coming back on the Town saying, you closed us off, and I have no access to my property. MR. CARVIN-I can only think of one situation where abandoned road, and that was out on, out where that was, where the guy was looking to put the ball park was a road up through there that the Town abandoned. we had an ball park in. T her e MR. MENTER-Yes, off Big Boom. MR. CARVIN-Yes. So, I mean, if you folks stop using the road, which is probably unlikely, or if the Town should decided to put the right-of-way, or put a road down through there, then, yes, I guess the answer would be eventually you would get that land back. Okay. MR. GORALSKI-I just want to add something to that, and if the owner of this property. Mr. Buruchian's property, agreed to it, he would be one of the people that would have to sign that. MR. GREEN-But as long as he holds out on that waiver, you wouldn't be able to abandon it. MR. DUSEK-Well, when you say, you wouldn't be able to, my advice to the Town has been not to ever abandon a road unless we get the releases. Now, there are, I believe, some other mechanisms that may be used, in terms of similar things to condemnation rights, although I'm not going to claim to really have explored all those rights, but the general rule that we follow is, if we're going to abandon, we look for the releases first. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but I think it's a safe assumption that the Town is not moving in that direction, to the best of your knowledge. MR. DUSEK-I've heard nothing to that effect. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and I'm assuming that the neighbors are not planning to abandon the use of that road at this point, but I think having said that, we should be able to move on the garage. Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? All right. Any comments? Anybody got any thoughts? MR. FORD-You came up with several different configurations, but you maintain that the turning point, to back the trailers in, is the main concern, and that's why you continue to stay back either two or two and half feet off Brayton Road, right? MR. BURUCHIAN-Yes, off that property that's called Brayton Road, yes. MR. FORD-Did you give consideration to going closer to the carport? - 38 - _____...,0..-..______._.._______ MR. BURUCHIAN-Yes. I tried that. I certainly could. In fact, I tried that yesterday, and I even came up with a design, but I couldn't get it copied in time. I went down to Brennan's Quick Print, but they were closed, but where I would bring it closer to the carport, but I wanted to make it look, so it's adaptable to the house, so it's not going to look like a monster standing in front. That's one of the reasons I did reduce it, and the garage will have the same roof line as the house, the same siding as the house, the same window treatment as the house, and I probably could come up with a design that would work that way. Actually, the closer I get it to the house, the better turning situation I'm going to get. MR. FORD-Did you give any consideration to placing it on the lake side of the house, in this portion here, of the property? MR. BURUCHIAN-No, I can't do that, because I'd have no access to it. MR. FORD-How about here? MR. BURUCHIAN-No. This is filled with trees, and I really don't want to tear them down. MR. CARVIN-I have just another, kind of an interesting question. On a triangle, what's the front side? MR. GORALSKI-On a triangle? MR. CARVIN-Yes, I mean, which one is the front? relief of two and a half feet from the front. He's seeking MR. GORALSKI-Well, the description was actually written incorrectly. The front property line is the 63.03 foot line. MR. BURUCHIAN-See, if I could come into this brush here a little bit, I could get it clo~er, but the rocks start here. This is rock wall starting. MR. GORALSKI-Which would be the northerly property line. MR. CARVIN-Is this the front? MR. THOMAS-Yes. That's the front property line because that butts on a Town road. MR. CARVIN-All right. If this is the front, c¿n you move this back 30 feet? MR. BURUCHIAN-I could probably get that 30 feet back, yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but you're still going to always have a difficult time with the two and a half féet, two feet here. MR. BURUCHIAN-Well, I'm going to probably have to chop som~ of that rock away. It comes right in here, and I could possibly get that. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but you can get it 30 feet off the front line? MR. BURUCHIAN-Yes. I'd try hard to do it. MR. CARVIN-I mean, I don't see how we can not move it 30 feet. If he can move it 30 feet off the front line, it's impossible, the shape of this lot, not to have to grant relief from the side setbacks. The road shouldn't pose a problem, and even if the road were to be turned around at some point in the future, I don't think it would have a major effect. Does anybody have any problem with that? - 39 - MR. THOMAS-No. I just noticed, though, that utilities go right across the corner where it's 17.5 feet from that property line, and if you're going to go back 20 feet another two and a half, how are those wires that go across there going to be effected? MR. BURUCHIAN-The utilities over here, you mean? MR. THOMAS-Yes, the power, telephone, cable t.V. MR. BURUCHIAN-That goes quite high. MR. CARVIN-But there's a utility coming into the house here. MR. BURUCHIAN-It's quite high, much lower than that. MR. THOMAS-It comes over to here, goes down here, and goes back in this way. MR. BURUCHIAN-Yes, but this cliff is about 18 feet high here, and then goes about 25 feet above that? MR. THOMAS-How high is the garage going to be? MR. BURUCHIAN-Tha£'s going to be a one story garage, with a very, very, a similar roof, if you saw the site. It's going to be a matching roof to that. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. BURUCHIAN-I don't think the garage is going to come above that bluff. MR. THOMAS-Okay, just had to ask. MR. FORD-Are those, in fact, electrical wires? They're not? ,! MR. CÄRVI/'I:-,Wpn 't"Þ~ a prÇ>Qlem? , ,'t ,.¡. ,.' j ~ i " I,. MR. THOMAS~0ell, beca~sethe pole s~t~ UP on top of the rock, and the; PQts's ,at lèast a 4Ó foot pole; ",;¡et,five foot in the rock. So the.y,!~r,e,;;?5'feet aþQvè, there ~houldn "t be any problem with that wh'atsoEfver, b~,causeithe mi nimum is 10 feet ~ I ;., i " :j ¡ MR. FO~D-BU:t ypu can go over a structure ,as long as it's 10 feet above the roof? MR. THOMAS-As long as it's 10 feet above the roof. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other comments? Just as 8, footnote. Warren County has denied this. So that in order for us, if we make a motion to accept, it has to have at least five positive votes, so five out of the six, in order to pass it, would have to agree. MR. FORD-Again~ what was their rationale? , . 1 . MR. CARVIN-Well, they got bogged down in the Brayton Ro~d. MR. GORALSKI-I can tell you that Warren County Planning Board Just assumed that Brayton Road was a Town road, and it never even, y00 k~o~, dIdn't g6 nearlY into the depth of it that we did on it. MR. CARVIN-I suspect you're correct on that. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-1995 BOB BURUCHIAN, Introd0ced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by D¿3V id Menter: The applicant is proposing to construct a 24' by 32' or 768 - 40 - --.__._-------_._.,_._._~-------- square feet garage, and in order for him to construct this garage, he needs ,"elief from Section 179-16C requiring a front setback of 30 feet and a minimum side setback of 20 feet with a total of 50 feet. I would grant relief from the side setback of 20 feet, and I would grant 18 feet relief from the side setback. However, I would not grant any relief from the front setback of 30 feet. By the granting of this relief, I feel that we would be able to allow the applicant to build a garage, yet maintain the quality of the neighborhood. The applicant has proposed a number of alternatives, this being the minimum relief nece~sary to address this situation. Because of the unique nature of the lot, almost any placement of the garage would require some sort of relief from the side yard setbacks. This relief may appear to be substantial, but again, when weighed against the unusual shape of the lot, it truly is the minimum relief necessary. Again, by the granting of this relief, there does not appear to be any ill effects on the neighborhood or the community, although there has been concern expressed by the neighbors regarding the status of Russell Harris Road. Based upon all available information, it is believed that there is going to be no change in the status by the Town as to the Town road by use of Russell Harris Road. This might be considered a self-created situation because the desire to have a garage in addition to a carport on this site, as I said, might be self-generated, but again, the unusual siting of this lot, or the unusual shape and sitin~ of this lot, I think, goes a long ways in mitigating that self-created situation. The garage height of the garage cannot exceed 16 feet in height. Duly adopted this 23rd day of August, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, M,". Carvin NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-1995 TYPE II WR-1A, CEA STEPHEN S. EVANUSA OWNER: NANCY & JOE POLONSKI ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE THE EXISTING 2,000 SQ. FT. HOUSE AND REPLACE IT WITH A 2,500 SQ~ FT. HOUSE, AND PROPOSES A SHORELINE SETBACK OF 38 FEET WHERE 75 IS REQUIRED, SO RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM SECTION 179-60. SECTION 179-16C REQUIRES A SIDE SETBACK MINIMUM OF 20, AND A TOTAL OF 50 FEET. APPLItANT PROPOSES A SETBAtK OF 14.5 FEET ON ONE SIDE, AND A TOTAL OF 35.9 FEET. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 8/16/95 TAX MAP NO. 9-1-18 LOT SIZE: 0.28 ACRES SECTION 179-16 (6) STEPHEN EVANUSA, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 55-1995, Stephen S. Evánusa, Meeting Date: August 23, 1995 "Applicant: Stephen S. Evanusa Project Location: Assembly Point Proposed Project: Apþlicant proposes to remove the existing 2,000 square foot house and replace it with a 2,500 s.f. house. Conformance with' the Ordinance: Section 179-60 requires a shoreline setback of 75 feet -- applicant is proposing a setback of 38 feet. Section 179-16C requi,"es side setbacks totalling 50 feet, with a mlnlmum of 20 on one side. The proposed side setbacks are 14 and 20, for a total of 34. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant states that the existing building is in an antiquated state and in need of replacement. 2. Feasible alternatives: While the proposed setback of 48 feet matches that of the existing house, the addition of a; ten foot wide deck decreases the setback to 38 feet.' Th~'Þlarl~sHduld at'lea~~ be drawn so as not to increase the nonconformity. If the house were centered more on the lot, and designed with the septic separation distance of ten feet in mind, it may be possible to move the - 41 - structure further back from the shoreline. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The proposed shoreline setback is approximately half of the requirement. One side setback is conforming, at 20' minimum, but the other side, which should be 30', is proposed to be less than half that. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? It does not appear that the substitution of a 2,500 s.f. house for the 2,000 s.f. would have an adv~rse effect on the neighborhood. The further encroachment into the shoreline setback with an upper and lower deck could have a visual impact. 5. Is this difficulty self- created? The decision £0 replace versus renovate could be considered a self-created situation. Parcel History: Assessor's Office records state that this house was built in 1929, and it is in' 'normal' condition, is not insulated, and is built on piers or slab. Staff Comments and Concerns: No further comment. SEQR: Type II" MR. THOMAS-The same general note about Waterfront revisions as read in the first variance is attached. "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 construct a three bedroom, two story residence. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by C. Thomas Powel, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anything that you'd care to add? MR. EVANUSA-Yes. Thank you. I'm Steve Evanusa. I'm the architect for the project, and I'm the applicant. I guess, for everyone that has been to the site or has not been to the site, let me just give a general review of the building that's there. The Polonski's have lived in this house for about 10 years, and it's a cottage.' It's built on piers. Paragraph Five there, where it says built on piers or slabs, it's built on piers, and I was actually first hired to take a look at the house and see what we could do to it, because they wanted to retire there. They were using the house as a summer home, and wo~ld like to retire there permanently. It's a cute house, and I came up with some schemes to try to fix it up, and we got a contractor to take a look at it, and it really, it's a shame, but it's really a house that's gone a little bit too far, and we'd spend much, much more money refurbishing it, than building something new and actually to the specifications of a permanent home. The requirements of a new foundation would be that the house would have to be jacked up and a new foundation built in place. We thought of possibly moving the house out of the way, but there's a stone chimney that would preclude that. I mean, it would destroy the whole house to move it. Upon close inspection, all the floors were totally out of whack. All the plumbing is on the outside of the house. It is completely uninsulated, two by four construction. So it would be really a lot to bring it up to New York Energy Code, and it would need all new electric. So, upon reviewing what our alternatives were, the only alternative we really had was to try to build something on the same spot, and the desire is to put the house on the same spot as much as possible, Number Qne, and Number Two, to trY to maintain the character of that type of house. So the house that I came up with as a new house to replace this one is also, it's a two story house, but it is the same style, where the roof starts from the se60nd floor eaves, and it's what we would call a dormer house, where the second floor dormer is carved out of the larger roof, and not the entire floor is utilized. There's an eaves around the side, there's a knee wall that you can't get to wherever there's not a dormer, and entirely, the intent was to put a house.back there that was of the same character. There are a couple of other issues I'd like to mention. For one thing, (lost words) we would like to put a cellar in the house, that was not in the application. The cellar would be purely a mechanical cellar, no windows, no stair. After the last application, I thought I'd come clean with that, and so it really, the critical issue is the location of this new '- 42 - house, .nd I what I'd really like to convince you of right now is how appropriate and also impossible it is to put the house there and no place else. ThENe' is an e'xisting gàrage to tMe ,·e')1" of the house, which is the road side, and a septic field. So, if you take a close look at, I know it's hard to see, but the existing house in adQtted outline, andPLoposed house i$.~n the bold line. The septiè field and th~'g~~~9é þretty much p~eclude the house from moving at all toward the road, and our intent is to match the existing major part of the house with the front of the new house, the major part of the existing house, and that the balcohies that we're proposing match the protrusion of an entrance porch that_is existing enclosed space and part of the house. Actually, it~s an entrance poroh and steps. So that, at the first floor level, there's just simply a flat wood deck, and at the second floor level, there's. a smaller deck that just actually is designed to enhance the"facädel;'ð$ much as anything else. Also, providing a way for people to get out. So, the front is, if you can imagine, it's just a (lost word) and you come straight out from the house from the second floor, and this porch here is sticking out as far as that other porch was, on the existing house, and in terms of setbacks from the lake, I know you can't see these, but I hope you took a peek at them while you were walking in. I'd like you to notice that our project is near the largest house that's on the Point there. It's the one with the large lawn, y i th the geese on the front. So, in effect it's in a cove that actually recedes from the lake proper, so that the house is actually pretty far set back frbm the most prominent house that's out there on the Point, and as you can see, the front line at the lake curves around. It sounds like we're asking for a lot, but I don't think it's that bad, in terms of a visual impact, and the second thing is, in terms of visual impact, we purposefully maintained the same kind of a profile as the existing house, which is a dormered profile. It's slightly larger, just because we're going out a little bit farther, but total width is no wider than the existing total width of the house that's in place, and this is the lake elevation here, and that's the dormered elevation. So, in fact, there's a little bit of a Y in these architectural elevations, because you see everything flat. You have to remember, you're seeing things in three dimension. So the things that are closest to you are actually a lot of roof shapes that are going up, and at the very tip top of the house, which we propose to have a skylight up there, is actually, very much in the middle, and if you walk around the model, you can see that what you mainly see is the eaves with the dormers around it, and that was our intent. From the roadside, I'd like you to be aware that there is extensive vegetation around the existing house, and our intent is to not touch any of it. Most of it is not On our property. Most of it is either across the road, which is woods in perpetuity, from what I understand it is, and woods that are on the abounding properties. The trees are very tall, and effectively block out any view of the house, except a direct front view or'a diiect rear view. I took pictures walking along the road here, and as you can see, if you're walking from left to right, fro~ here, you see nothing, except maybe in the winter time you'll see the house through the trees. At this point, you're seeing a neighbor's garage, and only straight from the house you can see the hoGse, and as you walk past it, in the other direction, you can't see anything. There's two solid rows of trees on either side, and from the lake side, the same is true. In taking a boat ride around it, You see it mostly from the front, and it starts to recede very quickly, once you get off to the sides. One thing that we'd like to note is that it is a vacation cottage. So, in 2,000 square feet, they managed to get five bedrooms. We are reducing the total number of bedrooms to three bedrooms, and there's really a multi purpose room on the first floor, but that's not going to have a closet in it. So, you can't even consider it a bedroom. So we're actually reducing the number of bedrooms from the existing house, even though the house is getting slightly larger, and we are keeping the existing septic - 43 - ~_._.~---,--_._- field, which is (lost word) septic field. So, directly responding to the letter, on Point Number Three, where it says, "While the proposed setback of 48 feet matches that of the existing house, the addition of a ten foot wide deck decreases the setback to 38 feet", depending on how you look at it, there is an existing setback of 38 feet, but it's 38 feet to that existing entrance (lost word) that sticks out. So that is in line wi th the hold of the dec k, and wi th the general house, ~'Je want to hold the existing setback (lost word) the house. In terms of centering the house on the lot, I think I've explained, because of the garage and the septic field, it's really not an issue whether you can center it and maybe get it back a little bit further. We just can't push it back. Also, it is a small lot. It's our belief that at least holding a 20 foot side yard on one side of the house would allow some greater usability of the yard, primarily for gardening, and if you were to see the trees on that side of the lot, I think that that's probably, yoU don't want to have a garden on the lake side of the house, because that's the north side, and there's a severe wind. So that's probably the only place you could put a garden, and Mrs. Polonski is a gardener. As to note Number Five, is the difficulty self-created, I think I've addressed that. "The decision to replace versus renovate could be considered a self- created situation." We really did study retaining the existing house, and we came to the conclusion that it was very infeasible, and we believe that by carefully architecturally studying the new house, we probably have done something that's even going to be better. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions, gentlemen? Any comments? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I've got one. Stormwater runoff, that seems to have an extensive roof system to it. It's going to collect a lot of water to runoff. What about that? How are you going to contain that on the property? It's a big push around Lake George right now, stormwater runoff. MR. EVANUSA-Well, it's only slightly larger than the existing roof. So I really didn't see it as an issue. I will study that as an issue, if you wish me to. MR. THOMAS-I guess that's a big question around Lake George right now. MR. CARVIN-It sure is. MR. GORALSKI-The preferred means of stormwater management is to collect and infiltrate the stormwater, by means of possibly eaves gutters to drywells or eaves trenches, stone lined eaves trenches, something like that. MR. EVANUSA-We would certainly take those means into consideration. I mean, our intent is to do a good design of the property, so that would be something we would look at. MR. FORD-You reported that it's a summer home, and in fact is it not currently being used as rental property? JOE POLONSKI MR. POLONSKI-I'm Joe Polonski. Since we've had it, the same weeks in August, and that's it. we also will, you know, when we will not be up for rent. We rent it two weeks a year. couple have been renting it two It's not a business with us, and make our year round residence, it MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. MENTER-Number Two, as you were commenting to the Staff Notes, I was just trying to figure this out here. Essentially, the - 44 - ------------------ -.; existing steps in the front are at a 40 foot setback. Is that correct or no? MR. EVANUSA-Yes. It's 40 feet to the existing entrance~ MR. MENTER-Okay, and it's the new first floor flat deck that you propose to extend out further than that? MR. EVANU$A-Well, yes. I showed it at 10 feet beyond the house, and the only reason was for usability. I mean, if you see that it should be a little bit smaller back to the actual line, the 40 foot line, I think that'll work with us, but the only reason I showed it, asking for that, is just for usability. A 10 foot deck is architecturally more feasible. MR. MENTER-Yes. I'm just trying to get straight what we have and what we're proposing here. MR. EVANUSA-Right. So the house has, well, you can't really see very well from the photograph. MR. MENTER-Yes. I saw it. I remember the entrance there. MR. EVANUSA-It's that little, the enclosed entrance porch, that's 40 feet back, and the rest of the house, the full width of the house, is what we'd like to match the bulk of the new construction, 48 feet. MR. KARPELES-I've got a question. You show, cross hatched, here, the buildable zoning envelope. It looks like your septic field ends before you get to that. Why couldn't you move that house back, so that you were back on the end of the buildable zone? MR. EVANUSA-The buildable zoning envelope also refers to the side yard. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but I'm talking about the, I realize you've got a problem with the side yard, but most people don't like to get the setback because it obstructs their view on the sides, but as far as 1 can see from this house the view is all directly in front. MR. EVANUSA-Right. MR. KARPELES-So I don't see where increasing the setback would bother the view at all. MR. EVANUSA-Well, in order to maintain the rectangular shape of the house, by pushing it back, it impinges very much so on the septic field which is right in here. MR. KARPELES-Well, that isn't what your drawing shows. MR. CARVIN-It looks like you could bring it back about 16 feet. MR. GORALSKI-The squares to the west, those two squares to the west, are part of the septic system. They're septic tanks, and you're required to have, they're some type bf tank, and they're required to have a 10 foot separation between the foundation wall and those tanks. MR. FORD-What is the rest of the septic field, then? leach field? Is that MR. EVANUSA-Correct. I have the solids tank and then I have the leach field. MR. MENTER-It doesn't look like you have 10 foot there anyway. MR. KARPELES-Yes. It looks like it's closer to the corner. - 45 - MR. CARVIN-According to this, it's severely less than 10 feet. In fact, it's probably on average of about four foot, five foot. MR. MENTER-Tops. MR. GORALSKI-On any new foundation, would be required to be 10 feet from that tank. MR. KARPELES-Well, then he can't build it here. MR. CARVIN-He's going to have to move the septic system, then, or at least that portion of it. MR. GORALSKI-Or slide the building over. MR. CARVIN-Or back, if we're going to do that. I mean, he's got to move the septic. Move the tank. MR. GORALSKI-Or move the tank. MR. FORD-How would you propose to address that issue? MR. EVANUSA-I don't know 100 k at it. I mea n, in my pretty sensitive issues. somebody look at it that them. about the septic field. I'd have to experience with septic fields, they're Dealing with them, I'd have to have really knows what they're doing with MR. KARPELES-Yes, but you'd have to do that to even build over where you're building it now. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I was going to say. That's an issue that's got to be addressed. MR. FORD-You see what the existing problem is? It appears your southwest corner of the new structure would be only approximately three feet away from the current tank for solids. MR. GREEN-What are the two tanks? Typically, there's only one. MR. POLONSKI-One tank is solids and one is grey water. MR. CARVIN-An overflow. MR. POLONSKI-The grey water runs into a holding tank, the solids. MR. GORALSKI-I'm not sure that you need the 10 foot separation between the grey water tank. MR. GREEN-I was going to say. I don't think you need the separation. If you could just utilize maybe that back tank. MR. CARVIN-I'm not quite sure he can do that. MR. GREEN-I'm not a septic person, either. MR. CARVIN-He's got a pumping system, it's not leaching, it's pumping. MR. GORALSKI-Right. If you start altering a septic system, you're going to get into, it's a really, basically, if you alter a septic system, you have to bring it into conformance. MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. FORD-Mr. polonski, which tank is which, if you know. MR. POLONSKI-This is, the back tank is solids? MR. MENTER-The one closer to the house? - 46 - MR. POLONSKI-Yes. This is for solids. This is for grey water. MR. MENTER-See, the problem is, you can't get within 10 feet of that. MR. CARVIN-See, you can't get 10 feet of either of them, because I think even the second one is within 10 feet, even the grey water. See, when they have an overflow on the pump system, boy, I'll tell you, it gets to be real sticky. I know, because I've got one, because the old footprint is well within the 10 feet. It's beyond the 10 feet. MR. MENTER-And with that, you're simply not going to permit, right? That's going to pop up when you try to building permit, theoretically, of course. You probably want to get involved with changing the system at all. get a get a don't MR. CARVIN-Or if you do, we're going to probably. MR. EVANUSA-Basically, I think the project, I don't think I'd go through. MR. GORALSKI-It looks like if you, and I'm sorry, because I wasn't paying close attention to the discussion of the different side setbacks, but it looks like if you slid that building over seven feet, so that you had the 21 feet on the west side and the 14 feet on the east side, you would meet that 10 foot separation requirement. MR. FORD-He's just afraid of getting too close to those trees, or getting into the trees? MR. EVANUSA-Well, I just can't visualize what it would do to the house to move it over. I'd really have to study, I would like to study that, because if you're not opposed to that, that would be a solution. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I would also, if it's going to slide over toward the 21 foot, I would like to see what it might do if you slid it back from the lake another 10 or 15 feet. MR. EVANUSA-I don't think we can go garage then, because we'd be getting ga)' age. that far because of the up pretty close to the MR. GORALSKI-They're also required to have a 10 foot separation between the garage and the house. MR. FORD-We still can get closer. MR. CARVIN-We still can pull it back. MR. FORD-Because if that's fourteen, five on the garage. MR. CARVIN-I'd rather have eight foot on the garage and more foot from the lake. MR. GORALSKI-I'd have to, I think there's a New York State Building Code requirement. MR. CARVIN-We've granted relief, though, from that before, haven't we? MR. KARPELES-Of 10 feet? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I think there may be a Building Code requirement that there's a 10 foot separation. MR. CARVIN-At this point, he's got about 18 feet anyway. - 47 - MR. GORALSKI-I just don't want him to come back and not be aware that there may be ari issue of how close you are to the garage, also. MR. CARVIN-It's a balloon. He's got to be doing a lot of pulling and tugging. MR. FORD-He can go right with it, and he can come back at least eight. MR. GORALSKI-That's what it would appear. MR. CARVIN-And I think we ought to address the stormwater runoff situation, too, if we're going to go that, because I think Chris has got some pretty valid, because that will become an issue, if not at this time, certainly later on. All right. Why don't we open up the public hearing, and then I would opt, maybe, to move this to a table, but I'd like to open up the public hearing anyway. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GARDENER HARRIS MR. HARRIS-I'm not against this project at all. I'm awful glad to hear you people are concerned about the septic system, because the Assembly Point Association is spending $2,000 a year to test all around the Point there to make sure the septic systems are good. So I'm awful glad to hear you're taking consideration for the septic sysiems and leach fields, because we are spending all this money to test for them, and it looks like you're taking this into consider. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-I'm going to recommend, if the applicant is agreed to table this, for further reviewed. We'll try and get it back in, it's going to have to be in September, or October. Are you willing to table this? MR. EVANUSA-Yes, and, specifically, if I might, just to throw some more cards on the table, if the deck's at all an issue, visa via the existing main bulk of the house, then I would ask that you give us some relief 6n, you know, we would lessen the deck, if we didn't have to push it back toward the garage, because I think that would not be a great situation, being pushed up against that garage. MR. FORD-We're not suggesting it push up against the side of the garage. MR. EVANUSA-Well, 1 know, but eight, ten feet's pretty close. MR. FORD-Well, 40 feet to the lake is awfully close to the lake, too. MR. EVANUSA-We're trying to match the existing house. MR. THOMAS-So was the first guy. MR. CARVIN-Good point. MR. KARPELES-You've heard our opinion. MR. FORD-You've heard our opinion about having an opportunity to start over. NANCY POLONSKI MRS. POLONSKI-I'm Mrs. Polonski. I just wanted to say what comes - 48 - ......- .-' to my mind is that, of course we're very concerned about the appearance from the lake, but we also somehow need to consider how it would appear from the road, and pushing it back. MR. POLONSKI-If we push it over the 10 feet, and push it back, I think it's going to, it's not going to help the neighborhood. I think it's going look very odd in the neighborhood. MR. GORALSKI-If I could just make a recommendation. I don't think the Board is making a hard and fast statement. I think what they're asking you to do is look at some other options, as far as sliding it over, pushing it back from the lake, figuring out how there can be some relief from that 40 foot setback, so that they're looking for the minimum relief necessary. So they're just looking for you to investigate the options. MR. FORD-That's exactly right. We're not asking you to attach it to the garage or ask the neighbors to cut down their trees, so you can go over closer to their line. MR. CARVIN-But we would like you to be seQ~itive to what our position has been, and normally what we feet isiiimpo'rtant is to try to, where we have a situation like this, we try to get most folks back from the lake as far as possible. You have a unique situation here. I mean, I don't think there's anybody on the Board, and I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, that feels you need tó come back the 75 feet. I don't thi~k that that's going to be practical situation, but what We have to do is look at what we call minimum relief, and we have these other issues which, the septic I think is a very important issue, and the stormwater runoff. Are you going to inorease the number of bathrooms, or is that going to remain the same? MR. EVANUSA-There will be an increase to thr~e bathrooms. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and the current height of the building? MR. EVANUSA-The current height I don't know exactly, but the current height is probably in the 22, no more than 25. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and you're proposing? MR. EVANUSA-The proposal is for this to be 28, and then there's a skylight that's in the middle of the house, that would go up about 31. MR. CARVIN-Okay. 31? So you're going up, it would be a maximum of MR. EVANUSA-Yes, and that's the very tip of that skylight. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but the current house is only about 28? MR. EVANUSA-Right. The 28 foot line, this is the 28 foot line. MR. CARVIN-No. I'm saying the current existing structure? MR. EVANUSA-The current house, I think is about 25, I'm guessing. MR. CARVIN-So you're actually going up almost six feet. MR. THOMAS-That's to the top of the skylight, but three feet to the roof line. MR. EVANUSA-Yes. If I may address that. The reason to do that is that, in my architectural opinion, in order to maximize the usage for the second floor and maintain the dormer and low eaves look. We'd like to get a nice pitch on the main portion of the house. So, that bumps it up a bit. - 49 - MR. CARVIN-I'm Just cautioning YOU what our attitude, again, has been about raising the height, you know, in a new construction situation. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels about that, but I know how I feel about going up when the trend is going down. So~ okay. I would move to table. MOTION ,TO TAB~E AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-1995 STEPHEN S. EVANUSA, Intr6duced by Fréd Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: Tabled for a maximum of 60 days, to allow the applicant an opportunity to develop and explore other feasibl~ alternatives which may mitigate lesser relief being required. Also, to explore and investigate any potential problems with the sewer system, and also to develop and investigate stormwater runoff solutions. Duly adopted this 23rd day of August, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE t AREA vARIANCE NO. 56-1995 TYPE I WR-1A, CEA PETER & MARY THOMAS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROUTE 9L TO ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REVISE ,AN EXISTING GARAGE STRUCTURE TO ACCOMMODATE AN INDEPENDENT LIVING APARTMENT FOR HANDICAPPED SON. THIS WOULD CONSTITUTE A SECOND PRINCIPAL DWELLING SO RELIEF IS NEEDED FROM SECTION 179-12, WHICH ALLOWS NO MORE THAN ONE PRINCIPAL BUILDING IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE ON ANY SINGLE LOT LESS THAN TWO ACRES IN SIZE. EXTENSION OF THE GARAGE IS ALSO PLANNED, AND WOULD REQUIRE RELIEF FROM SIDE SETBACKS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 179-16C. (ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 8/16/95 TAX MAP NO. 7-1-30 LOT SIZE: 0.80 ACRES SECTION 179- 16C, 179-12 PETER THOMAS, PRESENT MR. GORALSKI-As I handed out earlier, because this is a Area Variance, the Long Form EAF is required. MR. THOMAS-Why would a Long Form be required for an Area Variance? MR. GORALSKI-There is a reason. MR. THOMAS-Because none of the same district. They're all lakeshore. other in the one's, same, they're all in the all of them were MR. GORALSKI-It is an Area Variance, but the Area Variance is to have more than one principal dwelling on the lot. SEQRA Regulations state that simple setback variances are considered Type II. This is not a simple setback variance. It's for having two dwellings on a lot. Although it's still an Area Variance, it's not a setback. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 56-1995, Peter & Mary Thomas, Meeting Date: August 23, 1995 "Applicant: Peter & Mary Thomas Project Location: Assembly Point Road Proposed Project: Applicants propose to revise an e~isting garage structure to accommod~te an independent livirig apartment for their ,handicapped son. The proposed unit in~ludes a kitchen, 2 bedrd6ms, living room, and bath. Conformance with the Ordinance: This project constitutes a second principal dwelling, so relief is needed from Section 179-12, which allows no more than one principal building - 50 - -- in a residential zone on any single lot less than two acres in size. Extension of the garage four feet to the rear is also planned with a proposed side setback of 9 feet, where a minimum of 20 i~ required, and requires relief of 11 feet. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Section 267, Town Law 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicants would be able to prov ide aPR,rqpr iate lIv ing SP¿3CØ fo" their, ,grO\l-JIl, son \I-¡ho is not able to live' totally independently. 2. Feasible alternatives: There is no way to accomplish this goal without a variance, as even a separate space attached to the main house would constitute a second dwelling unit. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? This is double the amount of living units allowed by the ordi~ance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? It appears there are a number of pröperties in the area with multiple dwellings or living space above the garage. This project, in particular would not be particularly visible, would have its own septic system, and would probably not impact the neighborhood. There has been no public comment to date. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? This request is due to a specific medical condition stemming from an accident and the parents desire to provide long-term independent living space for their son. Parcel History: The 1560 s.f. main house was constructed in 1925. The applicants purchased it within the last year, with this project in mind, as described in their application. (Note: The house plus the garage and proposed living space total 9% q,f this ,.80 acre lot si~.e.J , $taf,t,Comments and Concerns: It se~Ms that the applican't13qaq!:i' â"$ituätion which' would be diffi60lt to addr~ss in mos~'zd~es.. nQt~just WaterfrontResidenti~~. . They have ,'¥~ressed'~hei~wi11in~neS$ to limit this propoSed str0¢ture to their só~'s' use asþ~Y~'of, the var iarice. .., SEQ~'; . Unlisted, in C'"itical Ët\v11-9nmenltaIArea, , Yie~ds a Type Í"ac1:~on., A Lon~ FÇ>~rry EAFhas ",b~~n,'pYqvi~~ldr,."The Zpnlng Board should pâss a resolutIon stating that they lntend to ,. _ ' , - . -' ':- _ : - , _ _ _ t, _ ,' ~, . , _ _" _ I ,': ' ... _ . _ ' , be L~ad Agency for this projcict. There is no appliç~tión þending befç»-¿ the Planning Sbah3 at f:,hi~time, but Site plan 'r'~\/ie\l-JWill be needed if the'vaiiance is pa$sed." ' MR. THOMAS-Also the same general note about the Wàterfront Residential zones as in the first variance. "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 20th day of August 1995, the above application for an Area Variance to construct an independent living apartment over existing garage for handicapped son. was reviewed and the following actiön was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. A note to Fred Carvin, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals, from Sue Cipperly, Assistant Planner, Department of Community Development, Regarding Peter & Mary Thomas, Area Variance No. 56-1995, date is August 23, 1995 "In my notes I indicated that the Planning Board and the Adirondack Park Agency would need to sign off as Lead Agency in order for the Zoning Board to review the Long Form EAF on this application and v6te on it today. I had a conversation with Jim Hotaling of the APA this morning, in which he stated that the Agency would not be interested in the Lead Agency role for this project. Mr. Hotaling also suggested that in a case such as this, perhaps the use could be limited to the individual situation, and if the person were to cease using the space, that it revert to guest house status, which, by their definition, is for occasional use, not for rental, etc. The Planning Board approved a r~solution last night granting the Zoning Board Lead Agency Sta~us. If this variance is approved they will be seeing it as a sit~e'Pl:a!ñ, and will be able to use your review, rather than duplicating it. Their resolution is attached. I have also attached the resolution from BariIi Variance for your review. This was a si~ilar case:" Findings from the Queensbury Planning Board, 8/22/95, "MOTION TO LET THE ZBABE LEAD AGENCY FOR SEQRA ON THE PETER AND MARY THOMAS APPLICATION. Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, s~conded bj George Stark: ¡ II I Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 1995, by the following - 51 - vote: AYES: Paling Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. NOES: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mr. Obermayer" A letter, July 25th, to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board "Dear Mr. Martin: My application for a variance is enclosed. I would like to explain my 5-year plan for our property on Assembly Point. (1) We would like to build an independent living apartment for my son, Jeffrey. I would be glad to sign a document stating we will not use this apartment for rental income. (2) We would like to build our dock adding a second slip and deck. (3) We would like to do something with the house. Our plans for the house are too speculative at this point to say. I hope this overview of the next 5 years will help you with your decision. Enclosed you will find letters from my nearest neighbors voicing support of our plan. I would like to thank you and your staff for all the help provided to my wife and I. Sincerely, Peter Thomas" RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH THOMAS VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO.: Area Variance No. 56-1995 Dated: August 23. 1995 INTRODUCED BY: Chris Thomas WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Fred Carvin WHEREAS, in connection with the Peter & Mary Thomas project, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, by resolution, previously authorized the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals being lead agent, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queen~bury Zoning Board of Appeals hereby determines that it has sufficient information and determines the significance of the project in accordance with SEQRA as follows: 1) an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required for the action, as the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that there will be no significant effect or that identified environmental effects will not be significant for the following reasons: and BE IT FURTHER, - 52 - - RESOLVED, that the Executive Director is hereby authorized to give such notifications and make such filings as may be required under 617 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules, and Regulations of the State of New York. Duly adopted this 23rd day of August, 1995, by the following vot,e: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE MR. CARVIN-Now, I have reviewed the Full Environmental Assessment Form, and I will paS$ it among you gentlemen, but I find no negative declaration whatsoever. So if you want to review it very quickly. MR. MENTER-We all have a copy of it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Did anybody come up with anything? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. MENTËR-The,relo</as a,,~~'m not sqre if'th~s is pertinent or not. It's a tech~i¿allty pe~h~ps, but Will the þroject produce any solid waste, additional solid waste? MR. CARVIN-They answered no on the original application. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I would say no, in the house, if he couldn't situation, so, either way. in that their son would live have an independent living MR. MENTER-Right. MR. FORD-But there will be additional septic added. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but they're only concerned if there's 2,000 gallons extra a day. MR. GORALSKI-I guess my opinion would be, no, there wouldn't, because he's going to be living there one way or another, whether he lives in an apartment over the garage or lives in the house. It's still going to be the same amount of waste. MR. MENTER-Okay. MR. FORD-It would be the same amount. distributed in two different locations. It's just being MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. KARPELES-What does number of jobs generated mean? construction, less than six? During MR. GORALSKI-That actually applies to very large projects where, YOU know, for example, if you're building a Wal-Mart or K-Mart, there's going to be a significant number of jobs created, and then there'll be a certain number of permanent jobs created after that is constructed. MR. KARPELES-Okay. So this is zero, really. MR. GORALSKI-Well, you know, you could say that there would be a couple of construction jobs created by performing the renovations to the house. MR. CARVIN-I think I will open up a public hearing on this. Is there or is there likely to be any public controversy relating to - 53 - potentially adverse environmental impacts?" public hearing on the Full Environmental anyone has any comments. I would open up Assessment FO"m, a if PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. That takes care of the homework. must be Mr. Thomas? Okay. Is there anything that add to the application? Okay. You you care to MR. THOMAS-Yes, there is. Jeffrey is a joint owner of the piece of property, along ~ ith my wife and I. He is a learning disabled young man. He's 30 years old. We feel that, we've been talked to about having Jeffrey have his own separate living quarters where he lives alone, and starts to learn to do for himself. He's always lived at home. His mother hasn't really wanted him out of the house. We bought this piece of property. We had a different piece of property on the lake which we sold. We bought this piece of property because we thought it was big enough, and we could quite possibly put a place where ,he cou,Ld start tQ, live alone, yet be very closely supervised, a~d st~~t le~rning the skills that he will need when we're not there to take care of him. We feel that this is quite important for him and for his future well being. That's all. MR. CARVIN-Any questions, gentlemen? MR. FORD-Yes. area? Could you show me where the kitchen is in this MR. THOMAS-We put it in, we just put it down as a utility, and this is where the kitchen would be, right in this area. MR. FORD-Okay. So is there a sink, refrigerator, all of the amenities normally attributed to a kitchen? MR. THOMAS-And we weren't quite sure which way we would have to put it in, so we just left it as utility at this point. MR. FORD-The second question. If this is a dwelling exclusively for your son's use, what is the reason for two bedrooms. MR. THOMAS-He is a learning disabled boy, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't have friends that come and visit him and this that and the other. So if they do come, they have a place. MR. FORD-That's what I anticipated, but I had to ask the question. MR. GREEN-How much of the original ~arage is going to stay? MR. THOMAS-Actually, three walls will stay. On the one section where the stairs go up, the inside wall would stay, but there would be a wall outside. So three walls would stay. MR. GREEN-So there's no alteration of the foundation or anything? MR. THOMAS-Yes. The fou.ndation, foundation. That's one the bu.ilding reason for pushing is going to have it back, also. to have a new MR. GREEN-All right. I guess I didn't make myself basically, there isn't going to be anything in building left? clear. So, the original MR. THOMAS-Three walls would be left. - 54 - MR. GREEN-You're going to be able to put a new foundation under it with the three walls remaining? MR. THOMAS-We would have all the walls there while we put the foundat ion under it, a nd then \1-¡e t>Jou Id ta ~~ ,one, Ir¡a 1 ~ out. The back wall would stay until we got the found~tion fixèd. MR. GORALSKI-I thi nk we might need to clear that up. 'I be'lìieve the foundation is being repaired, the back ~~ll of, t.h~ foundation is being repaired. ' , , MR. THOMAS-The back wall and the, I guess, north wall. MR. GORALSKI-The north wall. MR. THOMAS-Are both, they're built almost on top of the ground. MR. GORALSKI-The rest of it is going to remain. MR. GREEN-Okay. That's my only question. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anything else? Okay. I'll open up the public hear ing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DICK GRAY MR. GRAY-Good evening. My name is Dick Gray. I'm a resident of the Town of Queensbury. I live on Pilot Knob Road. I'm here for Mr. and Mrs. Thomas, to attest to what they would like to accomplish. I've known them for 45 years. I've known their son since his birth, and that this is truly what they want to accomplish is independent living for this boy, who is 30. He is employed. He is handicapped, and unless you have been through a situation where you have a 30 year boy living with you who is handicapped, even if he's in the next room, it's a break for you. So this is not going to be rental property. I realize that this Board has probably been hoodwinked before. This is not the case, and I just wanted to state that what they're asking fot is definitely what they want to accomplish, independent living for a very nice young man. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. MAGGIE STEl.JART MRS. STEWART-Maggie Stewart. I live on Assembly Point, also, and I'm in favor of this project, but mycommerits have to do with, that I thought that, in addition to the Area Variance, the Thomas' needed a Use Variance because they're changing the use of the land that they bought from Single Family residence to two family residence, and they're changing the use of what used to be garage into year round living space. So I hoped that Mr. Dusek could stay here to give an opinion as to whether or not a Use Variance is needed, because I would think that it would be required, and my other comment is that I think the Board needs to be careful in setting precedents, and I'm sure'you're very aware of that. As I stated, I am in favor of this particular project, but if someone down the road wants to convert their garage into living space for their widowed grandmother or sister who has fallen upon hard times, where do you draw the line? It's just something to think about. Thanks. MR. CARVIN-Thank you. MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Carvin, maybe I should straighten out this whole Use Variance/Area Variance issue. Having the dwelling unit is an allowable use in the zone. So you don't need a Use Variance. That's why it becomes an Area Variance. The question is, you - 55 - have two dwelling units on the lot. That's why it's an Area Variance. Both of those are allowable uses. The only reason you would need a Use Variance is if YOU were proposing a use that was not an allowable use in the zone. MRS. STEWART-But this is not an allowable use, having two residences on a Waterfront One Acre. MR. GORALSKI-There's a distinction between the use and the number of uses. Okay. That's why they're here for an Area Variance. They need two Area Variances. One is for the setback relief, and the other is for having two dwelling units on the lot. Those are both Area Variances that are required. If they were proposing to run a retail business, that's not an allowable use in the zone, and that would require a Use Variance. , , MRS. STEWART-I understand that a residence is an allowable use, but two residences is not an allowable use. MR. CARVIN-Well, actually, the definition for Waterfront is, Waterfront Residential zones are divided into areas with two different densities. Waterfront One Acre, one principal building is allowed for everyone acre within the zone, and WR-3, where one principal building is allowed for every three acres. So what we're saying is th~'3t you can have one principal building, all right. Now the uses that are allowed in that principal building are Single Family dwelling, or you can have a hunting/fishing cabin less than 300 square feet. You can have sòme accessory items of a private garage, a storage shed, swimming pool, and so forth. What they are proposing to do, again, maybe I'll probably muddy the idea, but they're seeking relief from that by having two principals residences, and if this Board grants them relief on the two principal residences, then they, in essence, would be allowed to have two single family dwellings there. So that they're not changing the use, but they are changing the density or the area. MRS. STEWART-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-Let me try this again, for a third time. If they had two acres, they could have two dwelling units. Since they have less than two acres, they need an Area Variance to have those two dwelling units, because they don't have enough area to have two dwelling units: MRS. STEWART-Okay. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-It's as clear as mud, but it covers the ground. Okay. Anyone else wishing to be heard? GARDENER HARRIS MR. HARRIS-Gard Harris. I'm a neighbor up there, and I've talked to neighbors on both sides of where Mr. Thomas is going to go, and they are not here tonight. They definitely, they have no objection whatsoever to what he has in mind. There are others in the area on Assembly Point which have multiple buildings like that, too. So, as I say, nobody up there sees any objection to it at all. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Correspondence? Thank you. No other public comment? MR. C. THOMAS-Yes. We have three letteri. The first letter, dated July 24, 1995, "To Whom It May Concern: I have reviewed the plans for a garage apartment on the property of Peter & Mary Thomas of 1342 Assembly Pt. Rd. and I have no objection to it. It is my understanding that this is being done for their son for purposes of independent living. This property has been vacant for many y~ars and consequently run down. The Thomas' overall - 56 - ---",' plan for their property will only serve to enhance our neighborhood and that will be a plus. Sincerely, Jennie Bulman" A letter without a date, "Regarding variance on lot 7-1-30, Mr. and Mrs. Peter Thomas have shown us their plans for a garage and apartment, of which we approve. We understand they want the apartment so that their handicapped adult son can learn to live independently. We have no objection to this plan. Sincerely, Martha T. Harris J. Gardener Harris lot 7-1-28" A letter dated July 23, 1995, to the Queensbury Town Planning Board "I have viewed my next door neighbor's, Mary & Peter Thomas', plans to construct an apartment above their existing garage for independent living for their son, Jeffrey Thomas. I have no objections to their plan. Lois Garrand 1343 Assembly Pt. Rd. P.O. Box 206, Lake George, NY 12845" PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. A~y other questionsr Comments? MR. KARPELES-Well, I sympathize with these people, but I have real reservations about it. I think, just like this lady says, we're in danger of setting a precedent, and I wonder what would happen if these þeople decided to sell the place, after they do this. I guess I'm against it. MR. MENTER-Well, I have the same concerns, although, I'm not sure what the answer is. Depending on what the rest of the Board thinks, I think it merits some discussion, in terms of how it could be, if there is a way to grant this and protect the precedents, etc. I think that deserves some discussion, although I'm not sure how that would work, but I think that that's an issue. MR. GORALSKI-I think part of the notes that Sue gave you included a previous motion on a similar situation. MR. CARVIN-That was don't think this is, that mother-in-law apartment, it's not quite the same. though. I MR. GORALSKI-I'm really not sure. me that she put a motion to you. that case. I just know Sue mentioned to I don't know the particulars of MR. CARVIN-Well, this was, and I'll read the motion here, this was Edward & Robert Barili, and I'm not quite sure what the address was, but I think it's the one up on Walkup Road. "The applicant is proposing to convert part of an existing single family residence into two separate living space, one for her parents and one will result in an additional rental property, or what is commonly and affectionately known as a duplex structure. Section 179-15 does not allow duplex structures. So the applicant is seeking relief from this section. The applicant actually could receive more of a return on the property if they were to create building lots, and could actually have up to six additional houses, but that is not the applicánt's plan for the land. The alleged hardship relating to this property is unique, as their need for housing for their elderly parents, and their need for someone to oversee their property, by seeking this relief, would satisfy those two situations. By granting this variance, there would not be any adverse effect on the essential character of the neighborhood, because there is going to be no additional building out of the property. There has been no negative neighborhood comment, and that this appears to be the minimum variance necessary to address the unnecessary hardship proven by the applicant. It should,also be noted that this duplex situation will only exist and is limited to the lifetime of Mrs. Barili's parents, Mr. and Mrs. William Leary. At the death or moving of Mr. and Mrs. William Leary, this variance becomes null and void." Now I think what Sue was trying to prove here was that we have stipulated terms on the variance, because - 57 - that is contrary to normal variances. In other words, when a variance is granted, it goes with the land and not the owner. So that if you should sell the property, even though you're not going to use it as a rental, they would have the right to two single family residences there. MR. P. THOMAS-Could we put an amendment to the deed, restricting that? MR. CARVIN-Well, we can. As I said, I mean, we have done that in the past, and I think why we did this, and again, this was on a piece of property that was six or seven ,acres. So that there is significant differences in the reasoning behind this when we compare it to yours, for example, and I think I owe you the explanation of what the thinking was on this, is that in that particular case, the applicant could have subdivided into six one acre lots and b0ilt a structure, and been completely, they wouldn't have even had to ask for a variance. So that by asking for this, they, in essence, were, it was the path of least resistance, and the minimum relief, and this ~.Jas a duplex, and if memory serves correct, this was an attached section to their house. So that this was not an out building or new construction. MR. FORD-This is on a separate lot. MR. CARVIN-Yes. There are significant differences. So even though we, and as I said, I think what Sue was trying to show here was, yes, we have limited that, although that is not the normal procedure. The reasoning is that there is a lot of policing problems, because if you sell the property, chances are the Town of Queensbury won't know it until about four years later until some of the neighbors start complaining about the Hell's Angels group that moved up there is causing a real ruckus, and how did they get in there, and at that time, we'll probably have a problem, and how do we enforce it? So, having said that, I will continue on here with the rest of the discussion. MR. C. THOMAS-Well, my first impression is that we have given, in the past, variances, specifically the Hodgkins' variance for a living space over a garage. So the mold has been sort of kind of made. With the Hodgkins variance~ though, there was no kitchen in there, and to date, there still isn't a kitchen in that place, but I think this goes right along the lines of the Hodgkins application, except for the kitchen, and in this case, I don't see a problem with it, with the stipulation that, if we put it in th~ variance that the kitchen be removed when the Thomas' move out, or if their son decides to go live somewhere else, that the kitchen be removed. I know it's hard to police, but, I mean, how do we know that Mrs. Hodgkins can't throw a kitchen in there at any point in time? You'd never know. MR. CARVIN-And again, just to bring you up to date, they're going to be attaching the house to the, so, I mean, that's going to be a self solution, I guess. MR. C. THOMAS-Yes, but like I say, I think this parallels the Hodgkins' application. As far as the setback, you know, another, what is it 10.9 feet from the existing property line, 9.4 feet at the closest point. There's no objections from the neighborhood, really. MR. CARVIN-Well, let me ask you this. How far off the property line is it now? MR. P. THOMAS-About nine. MR. C. THOMAS-It looks like nine point. MR. CARVIN-You're going to be maintaining that, right? - 58 - MR. P. THOMAS-It might go a half a foot further, closer to the property line. MR. GORALSKI-Well, it's because the garage is skewed from the property line. MR. MENTER-But the foundation is going to stay, that west, what is that, north? The right side of the building, the garage, the side that's closest to the other property line, that's the north side. That foundation is not going to change, right? MR. P. THOMAS-It's cracked. It's going to be re-done, but it's going to stay right where it is. MR. MENTER-Okay. MR. GREEN-I can sum it up very easily. I think it's a wonderful idea. I think it's going to help the family out a lot, and it seems like these people have put a lot of thought into this, and they moved here specifically, apparently, to accommodate their son. Granted, 20 or 30 years from now, they maybe moving. There may be someone else there. I, personally, can't plan that far ahead, and I think it's a great idea. MR. FORD-As a retired Director of Special Programs for the Glens Falls City School District, I am particularly appreciative of the efforts that are being made on behalf of, by families, on behalf of their disabled young people. I just have a couple of questions. Can you be at all specific, relative to your son and the disability and the extent to which he already is independent. You say that he has a job, for example. Does he drive to and from that job? MR. P. THOMAS-No. He works in Albany and I take him and bring him home, but I don't want you to be misinformed. He can drive. He can drive, and he has a driver's license. He can drive to the Queensbury store or things like that, but he cannot handle, say, Albany traffic. That's one reason we moved here. We want him to be in a less congested area. He is capable of driving, but he is not, I wouldn't trust him in heavy traffic. MR. FORD-Did you explore the possibility, Mr. Thomas, of either constructing or purchasing a home for him, a small home, separate and apart from your current prope~ty? MR. P. THOMAS-We did explore, the only ~hing we have explored prior to this is the Ässociation for Retired People has some independent living quarters that are available, that are in the Latham area. We looked at a couple of those. I'm afraid I have a very attached wife who I don't think wants him to be that far away. So, while that might even be better, I don't know that my wife is willing to have him be that far away. MR. FORD-He requires the kind of supervision that able to provide if he is there on your property? requires that? you would be He actually MR. P. THOMAS-Yes. Jeffrey operates at maybé somewhere between a fifth and seventh grade level. He might operate higher in some areas and lower in others. So putting a, you know, he's a 30 year old sixth grader is hard to say, because he does a lot of things very, very well. Other things, money, he has no concept of what that it. So it all depends on where you (lost words). Were he completely only, I don't know that he'd ever be able to do it, but he's going to have to do something like that sooner or later. MR. CARVIN-Well, what is your feeling on, and I'm using this in a sensitive manner, a sixth grader, if that's his level, sixth, seventh, having kitchen facilities, in other words, stoves, - 59 - water, could that pose a danger, either to himself or to the building or to the neighborhood? MR. P. THOMAS-That's one reason why we, whatever we do, we want him fairly close. Jeffrey is somewhat self-reliant, as far as that goes. He'll make himself dinner. He's fairly careful. I don't know that I'd worry so much about things like that, as I would about, having people that are getting along. He's easily lead astray. Jeffrey is fairly level headed. He doesn't do an awful lot to get in trouble, but he could be easily lead. That's one reason why he has to be somewhat supervised, because he could get, you know, involved with the wrong people very easily. So keeping him close where we can keep an eye on him, somewhat control his environment is important. MR. CARVIN-What would you propose, I know you've indicated that you would be willing to have a stipulation that the variance is only good during your tenure. How would you propose to accomplish that, I guess? MR. P. THOMAS-I don't know. I don't know what would be appropro. I would be willing to give you a notarized letter to that effect, or, you know, maybe it could be written into the deed, as an amendment to the deed, I don't know. We would be willing to do whatever you think would be appropo. I'm kind of a novice at this. MR. ,GORALSKI-Mr. Chai rman, I would recommend that, if it was agreeable to Mr. Thomas, that if he were to put a condition such as that on the variance, that it so~ehow be written into the deed and recorded at the County Clerk's Office. Therefore, the next person that came to purchase that property, when they did a title search, they would be altered to that situation, and therefore, it would be a public notice. It wouldn't simply be on record with the Town. It would be on record at the County Clerk's Office. So that someone couldn't come in and say, well, I didn't know about it, because when they buy the property~ it's going to be on record at the County Clerk's Office. MR. MENTER-I think that's an excellent idea. I think there's a more far reaching reason for that, too. My concern, here, is, you know, we're talking about precedents, and I think that's a good way to more clearly isolate the issue to this one project. MR. FORD-That's where I was going with my line of questioning, to see what kind of restrictions we could put on this, because I don't want to open this up any more than we have already. MR. MENTER-Right. MR. KARPELES-Well, what would you do? Would you make it so that he had to rip down that apartment after, before he sold the? MR. GORALSKI-I guess, I'm not sure exactly how far you want to go with these restrictions. What I'm saying is whatever restrictions you put on it, one of the conditions L would recommend is that it somehow be written into the deed, and that deed be recorded at the Warren County Clerk's Office. MR. CARVIN-I think it's an excellent idea. The only problem is, I'm not quite sure which way the Town is going on this, because I know I've had many' conversations with Jim Martin and some of the other folks. This is going to be a problem that's going to be continuing about these grandmother apartments, these elderly care, in other words, parent care, that sort of thing. MR. MENTER-The scariest was the scariest thing. you're really scaring me. thing, but that's the way thing was what Chris said, to me. That Look at Hodgkins, he said, I said, now You're talking me right out of this it is. - 60 - MR. GREEN-I just have one comment here. I've been listening to the five of you, and you have a big concern with precedent. Being the newest member, I don't have that experience of people coming back and kind of throwing that at you saying, gee, six months ago you did this. I haven't seen that yet. It's not as real to me, but one of the' thi ngs that I thi nk is very important is that we look at everything individually, and I think this is a very extreme case, with a very, very good idea, and any restrictions are fine, and we can "'Jork that out, but I don't know if I cou.ld. MR. CARVIN-My only problem i~ that this is a Waterfront Residential area, and these tend to be the most sensitive areas, and they're the ones that tend to get built up, or overbuilt, the quickest, and I agree with you, Bill. I mean, we have to look at each one of these individually, and this is probably one of the hardest things, because I think there is a justification here, but I don't, I think our precedent here is that we have an overbuilt situation out there now, that, for years the Town has been trying to put brakes on, and now we're kind of perpètuating that situation out there, and again, I'm not saying that he doesn't have a good basis. Believe me, I'm trying to struggle in my own mind, I'd like to be able to caveat ~his, and if I, and I also know we're going to be confronted with this in more and more zones, not necessarily just Waterfront, but the Waterfront is one of the more sensitive ones, because it is, most of these lots are very small, most of them, we've had three of them tonight here. I mean, these lots get sold and they want to build monstrosity houses on them, and, because they all ~"¡ant to be by the lake, and I can't fault them for that. MR. MENTER-I would say also, the precédent issue is just for our own frame of r~ference in the future, when we have similar issues. It's unique, but it's not extreme or an unheard of issue. We'll have another one similar to this, for a very similar reason, in the next year, probably. MR. KARPELES-Mr. Thomas, did you know that these zoning restrictions were there when you bought the lot? MR. P. THOMAS-Yes. MR. KARPELES-But you bought it anyway. MR. GREEN-Let me ask you. You mentioned your son is a partial owner. Is he literally on the deed as a partial owner? MR. P. THOMAS-Yes, he is. MR. GREEN-Does that have any effect, being that he's not merely a son or a resident, or whatever, he is part owner of the property? MR. GORALSKI-It has no impact on density issue, no. MR. GREEN-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-Now, remember, there are two variances requested here. One is the setback variance, and the other is the density variance. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Well, I don't think anybody's got a 'problem with the setback. I mean, if we go with the density, the setback. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. If that's the case, in the past, what has happened, I can tell you, is that they can build a finished area above that garage, and not put a kitchen in it, and it's not a second dwelling unit, and they don't need a variance. MR. CARVIN-Well, this is, I've got a concern about the kitchen aspect, and I know where you're coming from. - 61 - MR. GORALSKI-I'm just saying that that is an will have. If you grant the setback variance variance, they can go ahead and make their install kitchen appliances. option that they and not the density renovations and not MR. CARVIN-We're moving toward a Quest cottage concept. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. CARVIN-In other words, I'm sure you're all aware of the guest cottage situ~tion, and I guess I also have a problem, from a safety standpoint, and again, obviously I don't know Jeffrey from anyone, but I do have some reservations, if he's at the sixth, seventh grade level. I would be very reluctant to leave my sixth grader or seventh grader at home for an extended period of time. MR. P. THOMAS-That's one thing we never do. Jeff,"eyalone. We never leave MR. CARVIN-Yes, but now, I'm assuming he's in the building with you. Is that correct? MR. P. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but what I'm watching All in the Family, eggs, and yoU wouldn't have transpiring in that particular saying is that you're sitting down and Jeffrey decides to cook some any idea of what is necessarily situation. MR. P. THOMAS-That's the same as it is in the house now. You're not with your seventh grader every single second. You go out to wash the car, it doesn't mean he couldn't burn the house down while you're out there. MR. CARVIN-Well, I still think the opportunity, though, is much greater. DICK GRAY MR. GRAY-Could I address the Board for a moment? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. GRAY-My sole purpose for being here this evening was to address the Board on the character of Mr. and Mrs. Thomas, but also to emphasiie that their son, I think you've been led astray by Mr. Thomas saying a seventh grade individual. Jeffrey does cook. He cooks ziti. He's truly capable of cooking his own meal. He's capable of driving a car. He has a driver's license. Jeffrey has a disability that is there, but I think the Board is going astray here. We've gone from something, we're talking about some independent living. We're talking about a break for the family who's been with Jeffrey for 30 years. Jeffrey relies on his mother and father. He is capable of independent living, and if we can do this on the same premises, it would encourage him to stand more alone, because there will be a day when he's going to have to do that, and I think, again, I realize we're talking about a variance, here, bµt that was my whole purpose for coming here this evening, was t~ empha~ize to the Board that, Number One, this is truly not rental property which every place on this lake is rental property, which I agree with the Board, it should be stopped, but this is an exception, and this boy can cook for himself. He's never done anything. He's just a real nice boy. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. motion. I don't Chr is? Any other questions? If not, lets try a know. Are you adamant one way or the other, MR. C. THOMAS-No. - 62 - ~- MR. CARVIN-Is anybody adamant one way or the other? MR. FORD-I'm going to come down in favor of it, as long as we can get the right stipulations and, quite honestly, I'm not exactly sure as to what all of them should be. MR. GREEN-That would be my opinion, too. I would make a motion, but I don't know how I would word those stipulations. MR. GORALSKI-Maybe I can make a suggestion. If you're leaning toward, my feeling is, when you say You're coming down in favor of it, you're in favor of it as long as you cén somehow guarantee that when the Thomas' or their son vacate the property, that the variance will expire. Is that correct? MR. C. THOMAS-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. What I would recommend, then, is that you make a motion stating that the variance for the second dwelling unit would expire when either Jeffrey Thomas or, well, I would say when Jeffrey Thomas vacates the property, and that you stipulate that that be written into the deed, in language that would be satisfactory to the Town Attorney, and recorded at the Warren County Clerk's Office. I think that's the best you're going to do. I understand your concern that 20 years down the road, who's going to know that. I can say that the only way you're going to, I don't think there's a way to guarantee that, to be honest with you, except to make as much public notice of it as possible. MR. CARVIN-I'm under the impression that happen to you and your wife, that there is a family member that would contemplate moving continuing Jeffrey's care. Is that a fair off track on that? if something should daughter, or another into Your house and assessment, or am I MR. P. THOMAS-I have a daughter, yes. GARDENER HARRIS MR. HARRIS-Could I say something on this, too. I live two houses from them, and I am related to them, and I have a grandson about Jeffrey's age, not quite, and Mary, his wife, has told me one of the reason's she's glad to move up here, that some day, when they're gone, Jeffrey's still around, my children will be there to help him along. That's all she said. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. P. THOMAS-We do have a daughter that's a year older than Jeffrey, who, you know, would probably take over the house, not as a full time resident, but she would tertalnly take over the house and probably be there most of the time with Jeffrey. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-1995 PETER & MARY THOMAS, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by The applicant is proposing to revise an existing garage structure to accommodate an independent living apartment for their handicapped son named Jeffrey P. Thomas, and the proposed unit is to include a kitchen, two bedrooms, a livingroom, and a bath. In order for the applicant to accomplish this project, they need relief from Section 179-12, which allows no more than one principal building in a residential zone on any single lot less than two acres in size. Also, in order to accomplish this - 63 - project, the applicant is proposing to extend the garage four feet in the rear, with a proposed side setback of nine feet, where a minimum of 20 is required, and I would thereby grant relief of 11 feet. The benefit to the applicant would be that he would be able to provide an appropriate living space for their grown son who, due to a handicap, is not able to live totally independently. As far as the side yard setbacks are concerned, there doesn't appear to be any feasible alternatives, and as far as the proposed independent living space for their son, it would probably be in the best interest for the Thomas' to have a somewhat supervisory ability to monitor their son's progress. In order for them to accomplish this, this would be the best feasible alternative. The relief could be considered substantial in relation to the Ordinance because they're doubling the number of living units. However, because of the unique situation with their son Jeffrey, this relief is deemed appropriate. By the granting of this relief, we could have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood and community. However, we would condition this variance on the following: that the variance is granted only for Jeffrey Thomas' occupancy of the proposed revised garage structure, and that if he should vacate those premises, that any kitchen or continued use of that structure as a second residential unit not allowed by Ordinance or the Town of Queensbury at that time, the variance becomes null and void at that point. We would also stipulate that the current deed to the property be amended to indicate this stipulation. Again, in very simple words, the variance goes with Jeffrey, as long as Jeffrey stays in the garage, or the new unit. If he should vacate it, or move, or you should move, then the unit has to, it loses its variance. So, with this stipulation, I do not feel that there would be a detrimental effect on the neighborhood or community. This difficulty might seem to be self-created, however, due to the specific medical condition of their son and their desire to allow him to lead as normal a life as possible, I would move that we grant this variance. That no Certificate of Occupancy be issued for the dwelling unit until the deed is amended and filed at the Warren County Clerk's Office. Duly adopted this 23rd day of August, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Ford, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE MR. P. THOMAS-Do I need to get an attorney to write up an amendment to that and bring it in to you? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. What I would recommend you do, now, I don't know, did Sue discuss with you the fact that you still need one more permit? Did she call you and talk to you about this? Okay, and it's not going to be a big deal, but you're going to have to go to the Planning Board because this is an expansion of a nonconforming structure. Okay. Which means you're going to have to go to the Planning Board for their review. If you come in, Sue or I can give you the application, and you're going to have to do it next month. So it is going to put you off a month. MR. CARVIN-Just Thursday, seven that everybody if you haven't take a look at a couple of final items, gentlemen. Next o'clock, we have five cases. There was a new one should have had, where they built the house. So made the visitation there, be sure to go out and it, Moonhill Road. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred Carvin, Chairman - 64 -