Loading...
1995-05-17 -\ @ ~~ ,I G .t1\J I~ ~ QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 17, 1995 INDEX Area Variance No. 14-1995 Tax Map No. 13-1-5 John W. & Lee V. Tabner 1. Area Variance No. 19-1995 Tax Map No. 131-5-25 Edward Pacyna 3. Area Variance No. 20-1995 Tax Map No. 85-1-7.74 John & Christianne Strough 6. Area Variance No. 21-1995 Tax Map No. 9-1-15 Milford Lester 18. Area Variance No. 23-1995 Tax Map No. 48-3-36.1 The Michael's Development 29. Group, Inc. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND.STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE, SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. "'-' --../ QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 17, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN THOMAS FORD WILLIAM GREENE ROBERT KARPELES DAVID MENTER MEMBERS ABSENT AtHHONY MARESCO CHRIS THOMAS PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-1995 TYPE II WR-1A APA CEA JOHN W. & LEE V. TABNER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE MASON ROAD, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE REAR OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE, AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-16C, REQUIREMENTS FOR WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE. THE HOUSE IS SITUATED ON A PARCEL 13-1-5, APPLICANT ALSO OWNS ADJACENT PROPERTIES 13-1-4 AND 13-1-3. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 4/12/95 TAX MAP NO. 13-1-5 LOT SIZE: 0.15 ACRES SECTION 179-16C CROSS REF. SPR-20-95 LEE HORNING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MENTER-Okay. This was a tabling dated April 19, 1995, for Variance No. 14-1995, "MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-1995 JOHN W. & LEE V. TABNER, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Maresco: Until the May meeting, after May the 10th, in County to render a decision with regard to this public hearing on this is closed. So that we first opportunity to make a motion on application, after May the 10th. order for Warren application. The will meet at the this particular Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford" MR. CARVIN-Okay, and I think we do have a decision from Warren Cou nty . MR. MENTER-From the Warren County Planning Board meeting, dated May 10th. "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 10th day of May 1995, the above application for an Area Variance to construct an addition to the rear of an existing residence. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact Thomas E. Haley, Chairperson" MR. CARVIN-Okay. I~ow, before I go to a motion, is the applicant here, Mr. and Mrs. Tabner? - 1 - -~ MR. HORNING-No, they're not. I'm Lee Horning. I'm representing the Tabners. MR. CARVIN-Okay. before we? Did you have any questions of the applicant MR. KARPELES-I was just wondering about permeability. Has somebody checked the permeability? MR. CARVIN-They're just at 65%. So they do meet the permeability requirements. ·MR. KARPELE5-There are three separate lots. I wonder if that permeaqility wasfigur.ed on the three lots total or, I don't know how permea,bility works in thÂt? ~s that the way they do that, take the three lots and figure the permeability? MR. CARVIN-Yes. When the entire ownership, according to the Staff Notes, when the entire ownership and all structures, driveways, etc., are considered, the permeability area,is 66% for the existing situation. The additional changes will ~e to 65%. So I'm under the impression that that is the combined lots. MR. KARPELES-I mean, it ¡'looks like it's pretty well fil.1ed up. MR. HORNING-I do have~ set of plans. MR. KARPELES-Yes. ,I'm ~qt going to calculate it. MR. CA~~IN-Are you comfortable with that? MR. KARPELES-Yes. If they say that that's it., , . ,! . MR. MENTER-We dld ~ddre~i'that. MR. CARVIN-Yes, I'm pretty sure, in reading the minutes, that we had looked at that. Okay. ' MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-1995 TABNER, Introduced by ,Fred Carvin w,ho moved seconded by David Menter: JOHN W. for its & LEE V. adoption, The applicant is proposing to construct a kitchen addition to the rear of an existing home. I would propose that we allow the applicant to construct a single story seven by twenty foot kitchen addition to the rear of their existing home. The applicant will need relief from Section 179-16C, which requires a side setback of twenty feet minimum and a total of fifty feet. The existing house is five feet from the south property line. 50 I would grant 15 feet of relief from the south property line, and it is 36 feet to the northerly line. So that the existing total is 41 feet. So I would grant nine feet of relief from the total of fifty. Section 179-79 allows adjacent lots in the Adirondack Park to be treated together as one for zoning purposes. Therefore, the northern setback can be measured from the northern line of the adjacent parcel, making it 36 feet. Section 179-16C requires 65 percent permeability, and when the entire ownership and all structures, driveways, etc. are considered, the additional change will bring the permeability to 65 percent, which is still conforming. The benefit to the applicant is, by allowing this variance, that they would have increased space in their kitchen area, which currently does not have enough eating area. Because of the size of the house and the situation of the lot, there does not appear to be any alternative way of accomplishing this 90al. There does not appear to be any effect on the neighborhood or the community. I might consider this difficulty as self-created, however, the changes that are bein9 proposed by the applicant do not appear to be excessive, and there is no public opposition to this plan. - 2 - ""~ --- Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Menter, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Maresco NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-1995 TYPE II CR-15 EDWARD PACYNA OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 40 MAIN STREET APPLICANT SEEKS TO REPLACE AN EXISTING OECK WITH A LARGER DECK AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE TWENTY-FOOT SlOE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-24, COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 5/10/95 TAX MAP NO. 131-5-25 LOT SIZE: 0.17 ACRES SECTION 179-24 EDWARD PACYNA STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Varianóe No. 19-1995, Edward Pacyna, Meeting Date: May 17, 1995 "APPLICANT: Edward Pacyna PROJECT LOCATION: Applicant seeks to replace an existing deck with a larger deck. CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Section 179-24, Commercial Residential zone, requires a twenty-foot side setback. Applicant is proposing a setback of 10 ft. 7 in., to m~tch the setback of the existing hou~e. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE, ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267, TOWN LAW. 1. BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: Applicant would be able to have a larger deck to replace the existing deck, which was in poor condition. 2. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: A smaller deck would be an alternative. 3. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? The relief sought is 53 percent of the requirement. 4. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY: There is no apparent detriment to the community. 5. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED? The desire for a deck, and of these dimensions, could be considered self~ created. It would have been pos¡sible to ,build a cÇ>nforming deck, but the space would not have been useable as much more'tha:n an entry porch. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: No further 'êômmênt. SEQR: Type II, no further action." MR. MENTER-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 10th day of May 1995, the above application for an Area Variance to replace an existing deck with a larger deck. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. No County Impact Thomas E. Haley, Chairperson" , MR. CARVIN-Okay. Mr. Pacyna, is there anything you'd care to add to the information, or the application? MR. PACYNA-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anybody on the Board have any q~estions of the applicant? I just have one. I see it's three quarters built at this point, is it? MR. PACYNA-Yes, the bottom, the whole framing on the bottòm is done. The roof section (lost word). MR. CARVIN-And when did you discover that yOU needed a variance, or how did that all come about. if I can ask that? MR. PACYNA-Well, what happened w~s I fell through, and I was going to put the same size that was on there, but I dècided I'd go bigger, and then the person building this for me said, if you go any bigger, you're going to need a variance or You're going to need a permit, and then the day I came for the permit, I showed the plans to Dave, I don't know his last name, and he looked at the drawings and said, I think you're all set. Go ahead and put - 3 - '-- - your base in so you can get in your back door, leave so YOU can inspect them, and then, and I didn't even time, when I signed up for the permit, that I would variance. It's not any bigger. the footings know at that even need a MR. CARVIN-Are you going to extend the roof line to cover that deck? Is that the general idea? MR. PACYNA-It'll be the existing house, I mean, it's not going to be as high as that, but it's not going to stick out past the house. Is that what you mean? MR. CARVIN-No, I'm saying the roof line, because as I remember the house, it's kind of a long house. Are yoU just going to extend the roof the same angle, everything? MR. PACYNA-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is it going to be a screened in porch, or is it going to be walled in? MR. PACYNA-Right now it's just going to be all open. I thought about screening it in. MR. CARVIN-Now you own the property up here? MR. PACYNA-Yes, I do. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and I noticed the property next door. Is that also yours, or is that somebody else's? I saw the construction was going on on the two? MR. PACYNA-No. MR. CARVIN-I wasn't sure if they were somehow related. MR. PACYNA-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? Okay. would open the public hearing. Then I PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MR. MENTER-The Town received a letter to the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Queensbury, "Being the owners of Lot No. 131-5-26, east of and adjacent to Mr. Pacyna's property, we look forward to seeing this improvement made to his home. As we are a commercial business, we know that this will enhance the appearance of Mr. Pacyna's fine home and make the neighborhood even more appealing to the general public. Being the owners of the adjacent property to Mr. Pacyna's, we have no objection to relieving him of the twenty-foot side setback requirement of Section,l,7~-24 ,<:;R-15 for his¡ ,qeck as long as~~, . are invited to Iso~e of 'his partiès. Ga~y Ra~dall Valerie Randall" Letter's dated 5/13/95, received 5/16/95. MR. CARVIN-Any questions from the Board of the applicant? MR. GREEN-The letter, that building to the east, 38, is that strictly a business, or is there a residence there, too? MR. PACYNA-Th~y're strictly commercial. MR. CARVIN-The house currently, is that a one bedroom, two - 4 - ''''~' --...I bedroom? MR. PACYNA-Two. MR. CARVIN-Two bedroom. Okay. Do you have any plans, at this point, of converting that deck area into living space, either now or in the very near future? MR. PACYNA-Not at this time. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. PACYNA-If I do, down the road, decide to do that, then what do I do? MR. CARVIN-I don't know. Sue's not here. It has something to do with the 50 percent expansion. So I guess you'd have to cross that bridge when we get to it. In relation to the rest of the house, 41, it's probably not close to the 50. That's a single story is it? I think that's a single story, the existing house. MR. PACYNA-Yes. Well, there's an upstairs that's an attic, (lost word) using the room. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How high are the walls? MR. PACYNA-There's (lost word) room. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is it under like five, si~ feet, something like that? MR. PACYNA-Well, it goes the whole length of the house. MR. CARVIN-No. I mean the height. MR. PACYNA-The center is probably less than seven feet. sloped in there. It's MR. CARVIN-It's not a problem now, but it may a problem in the future, because I know that there is some discussion about what we will define as habitable space. MR. PACYNA-I don't understand what that would have to do with if you close that in. MR. CARVIN-Nothing at this point. I just wanted to find out if that was the case, if that was goi ng to be the,f)."tyr~"p~an~ or not, but it has no bear i ng on this particularappl ìc~ation. I don't have a problem with it. I really don't. MR. PACYNA-Now there isn't a problem if I go ahead and put my screens and then put a glass panel in the winter so that snow doesn't come in? I mean, that's not considered closing it in. MR. CARVIN-It's not really habitable space heated. It's not insulated and so forth. questions? I would ask for a motion. because it's not Okay. Any other MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-1995 ~DWARD PACYNA, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by William Green: The applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-24, in relation to replacing an existing deck with a larger deck. Section 179-24 requires a 20 foot side setback, and the applicant is proposing a 10 foot 7 inch setback to match the setback of his existing house. So the applicant is seeking relief of 9.3 feet. The benefit to the applicant would be that he would be able to replace a much smaller deck, which was in poor condition, with a larger deck, which would be more in conformity and a more - 5 - "--' practical addition to the existing house. A feasible alternative might be a smaller deck, but as I indicated, from a practical standpoint and a usability standpoint, by conforming to the outside dimensions of the house, I don't think it would be a problem. There certainly would be no detrimental effects to the neighborhood or community, and certainly the desire for a deck and a deck of these dimensions could be considered self-created, but the location of the deck in relation to the lot and the neighbors, again, makes this a minimum relief situation. There's no public opposition to the application. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Menter, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Maresco AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-5A JOHN & CHRISTIANNE STROUGH OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 7 WOODCREST DRIVE APPLICANT PROPO$ES TO CONSTRUCT AN INGROUND SWIMMING POOL IN A SIDE YARD, AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-67, WHICH ALLOWS POOLS IN THE REAR YARD ONLY. TAX MAP NO. 85-1-7.74 LOT SIZE: 2.89 ACRES SECTION 179-67 JOHN STROUGH, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-1995, John & Christianne Stróugh, Meeting Date: May 17, 1995 "APPLICANT: John and Christianne Strough PROJECT LOCATION: 7 Woodcrest Drive PROPOSED ACTION: Applicant proposes to construct an inground swimming pool in a front/side yard. CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Section 179-67 allows pools in the rear yard only. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE, ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267, TOWN LAW. 1. BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: Applicant would be able to construct a pool in the preferred location. 2. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: While space at the rear of the house does appear limited, both by the high bank and the distance to the property line, there is room at the other side of the house to create a building situation similar to the one proposed. It should also be possible to move the pool back further, so it is next to the house, rather than in front of it. 3. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? This relief is a significant departure from the Ordinance requirements. 4. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY: It seems there could be an undesirable impact on adjacent neighbors in the form of noise, visibility, and privacy, considering the exposed nature of the proposed location. It is considerably higher. This lot appears to have been filled extensively in order to create a level building site. Information concerning the stability of the pool area may be needed in order to make a decision. 5. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED? Situating the house where it is has created the problem with swimming pool location. PARCEL HISTORY: This lot was created during a revision of the Stonecroft subdivision in December, 1988. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: It seems there are alternatives to the proposed pool location, which ought to be explored. Trying to concentrate the house, the swimming pool, and septic system in this area of the 2.89 acre site may be unrealistic, considering the topography and proximity to the steep slope. SEQR: Unlisted action. Short Form EAF must be reviewed." MR. CARVIN-Okay. A review of the Short Environmental Assessment Form would indicate a negative declaration. Okay. Mr. Strough, would you care to make comments to the Staff Notes? MR. STROUGH-Yes. In relation to the stability of the ground, - 6 - '---' - where this pool would be located, it would be on virgin soil, for the most part. Where it might not be on virgin soil, where the foundation of the pool would be four feet below the surface would, again, be on virgin area. As far as alternative to that particular location that we chose, that's the most desirable. Other locations would have problems with shading, trees. More trees would have to be taken down to accommodate the pool. There's also other geography problems with other particular areas. So the location of the pool where it is would suit our needs, and the location of the house, far and above the rest of the neighborhood, really wouldn't change the character of the neighborhood. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How would you address the issue of noise and visibility and privacy and things like that? MR. STROUGH-I would say that my pool in my location would be no more noise than anybody's pool in any other location. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I have just one question . Actually,j: ,'va got a couple of questions. I'll, probably h¡ve,móre before£ha"evening is done. As I went out there and lóoked.t it, y6u d6 sitq0ite fär above your neighþQrs.' It' is a pretty steep slopego.t ng down. Have you owned a pool before? Is this kindóf á first time for you? MR. STROUGH-First time. MR. CARVIN-Okay. One of the pleasures of the pool is that in the fall you get to empty it, and I know that there's two things that normally flow down hill, and one of them is water, and where you situate that pool, when you drain that water off, it will end up in your neighbor's ba~k yard. Have ~ou given any consider~tion to that? MR. STROUGH-I'm not fami¡iar with pools and flows. MR. CARVIN-I know you aren't. I am. " MR. STROUGH-As far as draining it for the winter, I khow you don't drain it all the way. You drain it maybe some, then you put a pool cover on top of it, and I don't think, I don't know of anybody else who has a pool who's talked about a drainage problem, but I've looked at other pools, and I don't see any big (lost words) in their lots. MR. CARVIN-My only point being is that y.ou sit a consiôer~ble distance above your neighbo~s, ~nd as I t~member it, and 1 think Staff has kind of alluded to this, is there space on the other side toward your driveway? Again, I'm remembering your driveway going up the hill there. I think you're locating it looking at the house on the right. Is there, because there's a house directly below you, if memory serves correct. MR. ,STROUGH-Yes, but there's also a place' off to the side where, if ii had to be drained, it could be drained in that direction, too. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but have you looked on the left? It seems to me that there's more space and less likelihood of that water flowing into a neighbors' back yard if you'd look on the left si~e of the house. MR. STROUGH-On the left side of the house, there's also a slope. There's a valley. There's no flat area. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So you have looked at it, and it's not a feasible location? MR. STROUGH-No. If draining the pool wås a problem, I could - 7 - probably drain it over there. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm mean, that's one of particular spot. just bringing it to the reservations that your attention. I I have about that MR. STROUGH-We certainly wouldn't do anything to damage anyone's property, and if it turns out to be the case, which I wouldn't want to happen in the first place. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? MR. KARPELES-I'd like to hear the public hearing, first. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then I will open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ERNIE GOBEILLE: MR. GOBEILLE-I'm John's neighbor, Ernie Gobeille. I live at 3 Wood¢rest, and my concern here is Fred's, that is my lot's the lowest one on Woodcrest, and water that comes down off that hill comes through my back yard, along side of my house and into the street, then makes a right hand turn and goes down into the sump that's right at the end of my driveway. I don't have a problem at all with John's pool, but I do have a problem with the water, and I did want to make sure that that water would not be draining into my back yard. Two years ago I spent a couple of thousand dollars putting a drainage system in my basement for that reason, that hill holds a lot of water, and most of it runs out through my property. MR. CARVIN-What size pool are you planning to put in? MR. STROUGH-Sixteen by thirty-two. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you know the approximate gallonage, how many gallons that will be? MR. STROUGH-I think I put 21,000 on the application, but when I, because off hand, I was just (lost word) but I think it's around 18,500. MR. CARVIN-Well, okay. MR. MENTER-How deep is the pool? MR. STROUGH-Eight foot at one end, the traditional 16 by 32 pool, you know. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I have a 16 by 32, and I think mine is around 17, roaybe 18,000. So you're pretty close on that, but I also know that, on average, I drop it down about a third to a half. So you're talking dumping, well, probably upwards of five to seven thousand gallons of water. MR. STROUGH-Well, that's obviously a concern, and it's a concern to me, too, but I wouldn't jeopardize Ernie in any way, and the water that Ernie's referring to is underground water, and it has run through there, traditionally, for who knows how long. We've (lost word) the road. It's been there, Ernie's neighbor has also had an experience with water, because it's like an artesian that runs right down through there, and I don't blame Ernie for being concerned about that. I don't think the pool would increase Ernie's endangerment to any water. The swimming pool, I don't think, comes into play with the water that Ernie's concerned with. MR. CARVIN-Looking at that hill, because I drove up and there's - 8 - '-- -..-/ apparently another loop, when you have a cul-de-sac that's in front of your house, and then I drove up the other side, I mean, you're pretty much on a ledge there, if memory serves correct. Unfortunately looked like there's houses all along that bottom ridge there. MR. STROUGH-Yes. I also own quite a bit of land going to the west, but that's where it could be drained. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, that's one of my concerns. Anything else, sir? Thank you. Okay. SANDY ALLEN MS. ALLEN-My name is Sandy Allen, and I live at 1 Woodcrest Drive, which I believe is Lot Number 7 on ,the,subdiyisiQnmap. My co-owner, Steve Smoller, is here also. 'I have a' couple of concerns, but first I want to say that Mr. Strough has built a fabulous house back there, and he's to be commended in the work that he's done and it's been really fantastic. What I'm worried about is that there's an area directly up in the back of ~ ~ome that has been left completely unvegetated right now, (lost w6rd) fill, and his proposal, as far as L can figure out, (lost word) from our house, he's proposing to put the pool immediately to the right of the unvegetated area, and my first concern is an engineering concern, in that is that area stable enough to place a pool, and then in addition I have concern for my own privacy and for the noise, and if they're going to light the pool with lights coming down into my back yard. I'm in a unique situation because I can't put up a fence like you'd normally put up a fence, normally, if he was putting a pool in back of his house, you would put up a fence, put up trees and you'd have privacy and that would be no problem. Unfortunately here, I can't, it's up too high. It's probably up about 50 feet. It's up too high for me to do anything to ensure the privacy of my own lot. I'd concur with the Town that there probably is some other land that's adjacent to this that could be appropriate for a pool, but I guess I'd like to suggest that maybe it's more feasible to move the pool back away from the edge, to get it closer to the house and in a more suitable area, and then to ensure that there's going to be vegetation along where the erosion has occurred or is going to occur in that area that's completely unvegetated right now and along the ridge, and I think that would be good not only to ensure that we don't end up with a bunch of dirt in our back yard, but also to provide the privacy and protection for us. MR. CARVIN-Anything else? Okay. STEVE SMaLLER MR. SMaLLER-My name's Steve Smoller. I also live atl Woodcrest Drive in Queensbury. I would reiterate also the concern about being close to the edge of the slope, about whether or not the soil there can withstand whatever weights and pressures are put on, as well as simply the fact that because there is no vegetation that we can put in or fencing that we could put in, because of the height of that slope, it would be helpful to keep that in mind, in terms of the privacy for our lot down below. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. comments? Thank you. Okay. Would you care to make any MR. STROUGH-Well, as far as stabilizing the bank, I think, first of all, that fill was just brought in (lost words) to level off an area between (lost word), and that will be stabilized, I mean, as a matter of processing the house. When they finish the house and they start doing the landscaping, that particular bank that she's referring to and he's referring to will be stabilized and vegetated. What bearing that has on the pool, again, the pool - 9 - area and the pool location, it's not mandated in stone. I'd be willing to move it back a couple of feet one way or the other. I don't see where it's going to make much difference, but if it would make you feel happier, I would be willing to shift it back a little bit, but it is on virgin soil and it will be on virgin soil and not on the unstable banks that you might think. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any plans to light the pool or pool area? MR. STROUGH-No more than just accommodating lights. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How about fencing? What kind of fencing? Is there going to be chain link? MR. STROUGH-Well, I want to put a white picket fence up for now, and then I'd eventually like to put a stone or brick fence, which would be between my other neighbors' and that lending itself to privacy and also cutting down on the noise. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do we have, it seems to me, isn't there a mandate height around the pool area? MS. CIPPERLY-At least four feet tall. What was just me was there is a fence requirement that it not be because, again, it's a front yard. You can't have a taller than four feet, without variance. occurring to higher than, fence that's MR. CARVIN-Well, I was going to suggest maybe a stockade fence, and then I thought about that six foot business, but I'm not sure if that's really a problem way up there, but I think that the stockade fence might cut down on the noise somewhat, but I'm not sure a picket fence is, I mean, do we allow picket fences around pools? I thought it had to be chain link or something? MS. CIPPERLY-I'm not certain. MR. MENTER-I don't think it specifies. MS. CIPPERLY-I think it just has to be, just a four foot tall mi nimum. MR. MENTER-I think that sort of mirrors the DOH requirement. MS. CIPPERLY-It's a State Building Code requirement. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? MR. FORD-Have you engaged a pool expert, relative to placement on the lot of the pool? MR. STROUGH-I've had three of them up there. MR. FORD-And they all concur with your assessment, this is the best place, or did you concur with theirs? MR. STROUGH-Well, I showed them where ~ thought it was suitable. They agreed with me. We looked around. It was mentioned that I would have to get a variance. I was surprised at that. They looked at it, of course, and they also thought that that area was probably the best and most suitable spot for a swimming pool. They saw nothing wrong with it. MR. FORD-Did they explore other placements on the site? MR. STROUGH-Did they? No. MR. FORD-Did they have any concern about the drainage which has been an issue raised tonight? MR. STROUGH-No. - 10 - -./ -- MR. FORD-Was it discussed? MR. STROUGH-No. MR. FORD-And did they have any concern about the land supporting the pool, at that point? MR. STROUGH-Yes. At the deeper end of the pool, the first place that we positioned the pool, there was some concern, my first position. So I moved the pool back into safer, definitely more virgin ten-itory than I original had it. So I've already move,d it toward the house, and maybe more so than what's indicated on the document. MR. KARPELES-Are the white stakes that are up there, are they the outline of the pool? MR. STROUGH-Yes, that's the proposed. MR. FORD-So it's closer to the house than 27 feet? MR. STROUGH-Give or take, yes, it's a little bit is, than that original drawing. You're looking it is closer. It's probably about four feet, about 22 feet, 23. closer, yes, it at the or iginal , so it's actually MR. FORD-But it is not back any further? It's closer to the house, but has it been moved back? MR. STROUGH-Yes, it's been shifted. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. STROUGH-I mean, I could move it a little bit closer to the house, I mean, the down side of that is the house creates a shadow because the sun sets and casts a shadow, but I can live with that. I'd rather have the pool and live with the shade. MR. CARVIN-Anyone else wishing to be heard on this particular application? Either for or against, general comments? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay, gentlemen, any questions or comments? MR. KARPELES-Well, it doesn't appear to me that this is the minimum relief, because it appeared to me when I was up there that this pool could be moved back quite a bit, into the side yard more. MR. STROUGH-Yes. I said I'd be willing to do that. MR. KARPELES-Yes, and it also appeared room on the west side of your lot to It wouldn't be as desirable, because realize that, but. to me that there would be put the pool if you want. that's by your garage, I MR. STROUGH-Not only that, the terrain isn't suitable. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but it appears the objection from the neighbors are both drainage and noise and light possibly, from what I've gathered, and the farther you got back, the lesser the noise and light problem would be. The drainage, I think you'd have to have somebody solve that problem or assure us it was going to be solved. That's my feeling. MR. STROUGH-Well, I can assure you that I don't want to make my neighbors unhappy. I've been meticulous with this house, and I'm meticulous with the way things are done and I like doing things right. - 11 - MR. KARPELES-I was impressed with the house, too. I think it's a beautiful home. MR. MENTER-My comment would be that I understand the difficulty that you have there with the topography. I'm not convinced, though, that something a little closer to Code can't be achieved. It goes, you know, convenience and desirability for you is an issue, but the reason for the rear yard Ordinance is just that, neighbor proximity, you know, once you get into a side yard setting with a pool. To me, that's the primary reason, and I think once you get to a point where it affects your neighbors, then conveniences and desirabilities for you sort of take a back seat to that. So, from my standpoint, the issue is, what is the least relief that we can achieve here, given the property, okay, and I know you've said that you would move it back a certain distance. MR. STROUGH-I might add I have kind of a unique situation, too, where I am. I mean, it's not your traditional neighborhood. I mean, when the codes were made, they were made, you had an ideal in mind about what a traditional neighborhood would be, you know, with a house maybe side by side. I'm not in that traditional sense. That's why I'm asking for this variance, based on my unique situation. MR. MENTER-I understand that. That's very true. I just am not, I'm just not completely comfortable that this would be, that we would be doi~g the best thing at that location, okay. I don't know exactly where. MR. STROUGH-Well, if I lived on Helen Drive, or Heinrick, and I put a swimming pool in my back yard, which would be entirely permissible, because that's what the Code says, my neighbor's back yard windows and their bedroom windows are much more vulnerable than my neighbors' bedroom windows. The noise would affect them much more than the swimming pool noise would affect any part of ~ neighborhood, and I'm actually in a better situation than most people putting in a swimming pool. MR. MENTER-Well, each, that may be. I mean, you do have to look at each case on its own merit, and, you know, my point would just go back to being, I'm not so sure that we can't do a little bit better than that location. MR. STROUGH-Have you been up there? MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. GREEN-I'd like to see it back farther. My first impression when I drove up there was the soil, too, but apparently it is virgin soil, but still it is kind just of hanging out there. That's my only thought. I don't think it's going to cause any real problem with the neighbors, any more than any other pool, let me put it that way, but we do have to look at everything individually, but I'd like to see it go back some. I can't say how much, but the farther back the better. MR. STROUGH-What I'm requesting is for a variance to other than the back yard. So if the main problem is back, I'd be willing to move it back. have it moving it MR. GREEN-Get it more along the side of the house rather than, you know, off the front corner. MR. CARVIN-Yes, I guess my feeling is pretty much in keeping with the rest of the Board. I realize you're asking for a variance from the side yard, as opposed to the back yard, and unfortunately, we don't have any criteria as far as side yard setbacks or any of the other things, where you have to be within a certain criteria. We do have some neighborhood concerns here, - 12 - ...-' "'-' and I think some of them are very justified, especially the water. I don't have any answers for you. I just know that you will, in all likelihood, have a problem getting rid of some of that water, but looking at your lot, I'm not quite sure where else to put it. You do have a unique situation there. MR. STROUGH-Well, where do you put yours? MR. CARVIN-Well, mine's kind of a unique situation also, because I have three acres, and I don't have any neighbors. So I've got plenty of places to put my pool, so it's not a fair question. It's in the back yard. MR. STROUGH-I mean where, not necessarily yours, but where do other people, when they drain theirs out of their back yards? MR. CARVIN-Most of them, believe it or not, dump it into the street and it runs down the culverts, and where you're situated, that's probably feasible, but you're looking at, how far is your driveway, 307 feet? That's quite a long hose, and you're only 60 feet from the edge of the cliff, so to speak, and as I said, I know there's two things that run down hill, and water is one of them, and where you dump it's going to run down hill, and it will accumulate at some point. It's going to be a problem. I don't have an answer for you. You're going to have to work with your neighbors on that, if we put it in the side. You're going to have that problem, probably to a lesser extent, on the other side, but as you indicate, that's really not a feasible alternative either because of the topography, and I guess my feeling is that if you can move it back, we can't really subject this to site plan, can we? MS. CIPPERLY-One thing you £än do, if engineering type things are a concern, is we can send it to Rist-Frost, but that would have to be an agreed upon expense on the part of the applicant, as far as the soils and the water. You can send it to the Planning Board for an advisory opinion. I'm not sure about requiring site plan review for it. MR. CARVIN-What do you feel about that if we referred this to the Planning Board for an opinion? You probably want to get moving on this, right? This is what, May. ' MR. STROUGH-Yes. Your cancer ns a nd your st ipu lat,ions, if we could incorporate these into the variance so that. MR. CARVIN-We can't, that's the problem. I can't mandate where water goes. MS. CIPPERLY-It's pos~ible that we could get an engineering opinion by next week's meeting. MR. CARVIN-I don't know. What do you guys think? Would you like to, I mean? MR. KARPELES-Well, I think the water is only one of the concerns. I think the other concern is the neighbors. Since we would be granting a variance, that the neighbors have to be satisfied that they're in agreement with that variance. I think he has to go back to his neighbors and work up an agreement with them as to a location. MR. CARVIN-Well, I've looked at this site. I think that, again, personal opinion, I think the noise probably won't be a real relevant issue. The light at night, of course, I don't know how many people use lights at night for swimming. I know, again, I'm basing it on my own experience, if we use it maybe two or three times during the summer, it's a lot, and it's certainly not for a long duration, and because of the altitude, that noise shouldn't be a major factor. Am I incorrect on that? - 13 - '-" MR. GOBEILLE-I don't think the noise is going to be an issue, at least from there. MR. CARVIN-Yes. My concerns, basically, is the stability of the ground, and you've indicated that it's all virgin, so I don't. MR. GOBEILLE-That whole hill is sand, basically. MR. CARVIN-Well, he's got a big house on it. house starts sliding down the hill, I think the following. I don't think it'll be the other way. So, unless pool will the be MR. FORD-John, how far back from its present location, where you've got the stakes, do you feel it could be placed? MR. STROUGH-I feel I could probably go back another 15 feet. Would that make any difference? MR. CARVIN-I think the further back you could move it, and as Staff has indicated, I think the further back and the closer to the house that you can move that I think will alleviate a lot of these concerns. MS. CIPPERLY-If you could move it back so that it's at least in back of the front line of the house, you could truly be in a side yard at least. MR. FORD-Yes, that's what I was trying to determine, if you could get it back that far. Do you feel you could? MR. STROUGH-Well, I could have Bill Threw do some excavating. I could do that. MR. FORD-So we're no longer dealing with a front yard issue. MR. MENTER~Of course you're talking about, just by the looks of this diagram, roughly, almost a full 30 feet. MR. STROUGH-Well, if I pushed it back another 15 feet, that'd be almost half and half, I think. It's a 16 by 32. It's already a little bit back there, but not much, but if I (lost word) another 15 feet, that would be a 50/50. It would move it away from the edge of the hill, which might make my neighbors happier. MS. CIPPERLY-Could I just ask, did you intend to put when you originally chose the design for the house location? a pool in and the MR. STROUGH-Well, I designed the house and everything with the house, and, yes, I've always had this particular spot in mind. MR. FORD-My compliments to you on your design work. MS. CIPPERLY-I'm just wondering why you never addressed the pool issue at the time you were designing the house. MR. STROUGH-Well, I didn't really think that it would be an issue. MR. CARVIN-Okay, you're going to, matter what. So assuming that you and that just leaves the water, and I guess I mean, water is going to run down hill no I guess, if that does become a problem, I'm are willing to work with the neighbors on that? MR. STROUGH-Yes, I am. MR. CARVIN-How do the neighbors feel about that? If he moves it back at least another 15 feet, and keep it as close to the house on the side. My personal feeling is that where that site is, it's probably the better site for a pool, and I think because of - 14 - .J '--' his elevation that it really won't be too detrimental to the, I also noticed there's not too many other pools in the area. Is that because of the hilly nature, or is it just because nobody else swims? MS. ALLEN-I think there's three or four in the neighborhood. MR. CARVIN-Are there? I tried to look in the neighborhood to see if there were and I didn't see any. That's why I was wondering. Okay, which leaves us to the situation, how do we monitor this, if we have to? MR. MENTER-It's not q question of monitoring. It's a question of, the answer to that's always the same, monitoring. It's more of a question of setting parameters. MR. STROUGH-Well, I think my neighbors will monitor it, and I will ask them to come up and help us site the pool. MR. CARVIN-All right. Then I guess we can grant relief from the rear yard. Is that the opinion that I'm getting from the Board and everybody? MR. FORD-As long as no more than 50 percent of the pool extends out beyond that front line of the house. ' MR. CARVIN-Does that sound fair? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-Are you planning to landscape around the pool? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-That may help the noise if it's a significant amount of. MR. CARVIN-Well, fencing and shrubbery and that sort of stuff will go a long way, but. MS. CIPPERLY-I've been in situations where I've actually been down hill from something, and you wouldn't think that it would be a noise problem but, like rock climbing and things. You can hear people up at the top better than at the bottom. MR. CARVIN-But that's going to be a problem whether he throws a party or has a pool. Noise is noise. MR. STROUGH-I'm not a party animal. MR. CARVIN-When you put the pool in, don't be surprised. Your neighbors will be right up there. Okay. If nobody else has got any comments, I'd ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-1995 JOHN STROUGH, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for seconded by William Green: & CHRISTIANNE its adoption, The applicant is proposing to construct an inground swimming pool in a front/side yard. Section 179-67 allows pools only in rear yards. I would grant relief from this Section, with the following caveats. That the applicant move the pool as close to the existing house as comfortably possible, and that no more than 50 percent of the pool length extend into the front yard area. I would also ask the applicant to take steps and be sensitive to the neighbors' concerns regarding excess water runoff, noise and lighting. I will leave it to the applicant's discretion as to the methods best utilized to resolve these issues, and that he would work with the neighbors in siting this pool. Although there does appear to be other feasible alternatives, each one of - 15 - -- these alternatives have significant handicaps, and that the siting of the pool in this area does appear to be the minimal relief necessary, and even though this relief appears to be substantial relative to the Ordinance, the applicant's willingness to move the pool as far back as possible into the side and rear setbacks and his willingness to work with the neighbors will go a long way in mitigating the substantial relief. Other than the issues that have been mentioned, there should be no other negative impact on the neighborhood or community. Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: MS. CIPPERLY-Fred, before you, another option occurred to me as you were doing this. Would it be good to have him get together with the neighbors, figure out a location for the pool, then come back and have the Board do a resolution then? MR. CARVIN-It's still going to come down to the same spot. We're going to have to grant relief from the front yard. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. I'm just figuring when the building permit comes through, it's just going to be kind of vague. MR. CARVIN-Yes, well, it's going to be vague because we don't have any criteria, and we're granting relief from the front yard situation. MR. KARPELES-Well, we could get a site plan, though. give us something to go on, that's better than this. very vague. I agree. It IrJould This is MR. CARVIN-Yes, well, I mean, he's really only feet. think his working with the neighbors, I going to be able to move it back 15, 20 MR. KARPELES-Yes, but what she·s saying is, how are they going to know whether he did what we thought he should do? MR. CARVIN-Essentially, he's working with the neighbors on this. I think that's the way my motion is worded. MR. KARPELES-I'd rather see something that we could approve, a drawing that showed how it's going to be. MR. CARVIN-I'm not sure that that's. MR. GREEN-I don't know if it's going to make any difference in the long run. MR. CARVIN-(lost word) gee whiz, can't he get another two feet, and we're really just granting relief from the front yard, you know, the pool area. MR. GREEN-I mean, are geographical stipulations or not. we supposed to be putting those in, though, or just granting the relief MR. CARVIN-I'm stipulating it that. MR. GREEN-Exactly. That's fine, but I don't. MS. CIPPERLY-In a similar situation where you granted the variance, this person had a location, a definite location, when they came in, which eventually you approved, and it was in a much greater detail than this particular map is, and it just seems to me you're granting something without really knowing where it is, but on the other hand, if the house were faced a different way, this would be the back yard. - 16 - --../ ',,-- MR. CARVIN-Yes. I mean, we're dealing with a handicapped situation because of the topography. I mean, I can say well, yes, he's got two and a half acres there. He should be able to find some place for the pool, but that's not realistic. If you look at the property, it's up the side of a hill. It sits on top of a hill. MR. MENTER-I think we're doing what we can to mitigate the effect here. If our stipulation is that. MR. CARVIN-He can't have it more than 15 feet into the front yard anyway MR. MENTER-Right. Fifty percent of the pool is behind that line. MR. GREEN-I'm certain if it doesn't meet that, we will hear from one of the neighbors, some place along the line. MR. CARVIN-I mean, if he moves it back, he's going to be 60, 65 feet from the side yard, and he's going to be well over, I don't have a measure here, but he's going to be almost 200 feet from the front. So it's not like he's sitting on top of somebody's back yard. I think by just pushing it back and getting it away from that rim, I think we should be able to accomplish this, is my feeling. MR. KARPELES-I think we can, too. I just think I'd like to know what I'm voting on when I'm voting. I've seen, we make people come in here with plans, define what they're going to do, and I think that's what he ought to do is define what he's going to do. MR. STROUGH-You have a picture of that lot and the house and the site plan there. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but I wouldn't call this an engineering drawing, by any stretch of the imagination. MR. STROUGH-No. MR. CARVIN-But we don't have any stipulation as far as side yard setbacks or anything, Bob, is what I'm saying. He has to be at least 10 feet off. He could put the pool right over here, if it was a flat piece of paper. He could put it any~here. MR. KARPELES-All I'm saying is that I think it creates the opportunity for something to get screwed up. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's point, he's moving it thing that we can grant or the side yard. what I'm saying is that, I mean, at this back. We're granting relief. The only relief is from the front yard situation, MR. STROUGH-I've been a good standing member of the community, and a teacher at the Queensbury school for 21 years. MR. KARPELES-Well, I'm not questioning that. MR. STROUGH-No, but I'm just saying that I can be trusted. MR. KARPELES-That isn't the point. That isn't my point at all. MR. STROUGH-I thought I'd throw that in. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, why don't you start at the top and lets see what I've got so far. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Carvin NOES: Mr. Karpeles - 17 - ABSENT: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Maresco AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-1995 TYPE II WR-1A/CEA APA MILFORD LESTER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 10 FT. BY 30 FT. ONE-STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME, AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE 75-FOOT SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIRED IN SECTION 179-60, AS THE EXISTING HOUSE IS 55 FEET FROM THE SHORELINE. APPLICANT ALSO PROPOSES TO CONVERT AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE INTO UTILITY SPACE AND ADD A BATH AND A BEDROOM ABOVE IT. TOTAL ADDITIONAL GROSS FLOOR AREA PROPOSED IS 960 SQ. FT., EXISTING GROSS FLOOR AREA IS 1,536, SO RELIEF IS REQUIRED FROM SECTION 179-79, WHICH STATES THAT NO ENLARGEMENT OR REBUILDING SHALL EXCEED 50% OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OF THE ORIGINAL DWELLING. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 5/10/95 TAX MAP NO. 9-1-5 LOT SIZE: 0.45 ACRES SECTION 179-16C, 179-60(15C) CROSS REF. SPR 26-95 DICK PARKER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-1995, Milford Lester, Meeting Date: May 17, 1995 "APPLICANT: Milford Lester PROJECT LOCATION: Assembly Point Road PROPOSED ACTION: Applicant proposes to construct a 10 ft. by 30 ft. family room addition to an existing home, plus convert an existing garage to utility space an add a master bedroom above the former garage. CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Section 179-60 requires a 75- foot shoreline setback. The original house is 55 feet from the shoreline, so relief is needed in order to match up the building line. Section 179-79 states that no enlargement or rebuilding shall exceed 50 percent of the gross floor area of the original dwelling. The total additional gross floor area proposed is 960, existing gfa is 1,536, so relief is required. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE, ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267, TOWN LAW: 1. BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: Applicant will be able to increase and improve upon the available living space. 2. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: Considering the unique nature of the existing log structure, alternatives appear to be limited. 3. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE?: The shoreline setback relief is twenty feet, or 27 percent of the requirement. The additional gross floor area is a 62.5 percent expansion, compared to the existing house, or 12.5 percent above the 50 percent allowed. 4. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY: It does not appear that these additions would have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood. This house is situated on a relatively large, well-landscaped lot, so visibility should not be a concern, either from the lake or the road. Concern was expressed by a neighbor over the septic capacity in view of the additional bedroom. This is a matter of NYS Dept. of Health law -- that the septic does not have to be replaced or changed unless it is shown to be failing. 5. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED?: The desire for additional living space is self-created, but the need for relief in order to accomplish it is related to the location and type of the existing structure. PARCEL HISTORY: This house was constructed in 1934, this is a 0.43 acre parcel. The Assessor's Office places the existing square footage at 1,374, considering the second floor a three-quarter story. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: No further comment. SEQR: This is an Unlisted action, but becomes a Type I because it is in a Critical Environmental Area. This application also requires site plan review by the Planning Board, who began the 30-day SEQR notification period on May 16, 1995. It is suggested that the Zoning Board defer to the Planning Board as lead agency, making a resolution to that effect." MR. CARVIN-Do we do that now, Sue, or do we? MS. CIPPERLY-You should do it today, at this meeting. - 18 - '--" ......" MR. CARVIN-Okay, after the motion, assuming that it's approved? MS. CIPPERLY-You cannot approve, YOU can't vote on it tonight. you caB·, have the public hear i ng, but ,thli:' vote can',t. be taken until after the $SQRA issue is decided by the Planning Board, which will be next T~ursday. MR. CARVIN-All right. ,Then what we'll do· is public hearing aspeG~. You understand th~t we to. render a decision thi~ evening because it over to the Planning ,Soard as lead agency. we'll have, the will not be able will be referred MS. CIPPERLY-It will not take a 30 day notice period, because the Zoning Board and the Planning Board are the only two involved agencies here. The Park Agency doesn't have any involvement here. So we can do it in a pretty quick turnaround. MR. CARVIN-Can we get it turned around by next week, or is that too quick? MS. CIPPERLY-No, because the Planning Board meeting is Thursday next week. I think it has something to do with Grievance Day being in this room next week. MR. CARVIN-Okay. June, right? Well, that means that it gets put off until MS. CIPPERLY-The actual vote will have to be in June. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Having said that, is there anything that you'd care to add to the application? MR: PARKER-My name is Dick Parker. I'm the representative. I've gone over the figures, and I don't think this is more than 50 percent. I'd like to sit down with Sue tomorrow 'or some other day, I don't know how she figures it, but I figured every conceivable way, and 1 don't come up with the same figures. I would like to (lost word) that portion. ' MR. CARVIN-Okay. Sue, would you care to make a comment? MS. CIPPERLY-The way I got the figures was I took the existing one and a half story log cabin_ we can't include the porch. It's not by the outline of the structure, it's by the gross floor area is living space, not porches and garages. MR. PARKER-But if you're going to count the I!.§.!cl. porch, why can't you count the existing porch? MS. CIPPERLY-I'm not counting the new porch. MR. PARKER-I don't know how you come up with the 960 squa,"e feet. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, I had that, because you were existing garage. You're then double that, because to count the garage area and then double expanding your living area into the using that as a utility room now, and you're putting a bedroom above it. MR. PARKER-I still think we're below the 50 percent, but I'd like to sit down with you and resolve that issue. MS. CIPPERLY-Sure. MR. CARVIN-You're not moving any closer to the lake are you? MR. PARKER-No. MR. CARVIN-I'd like to get this resolved now, because, I mean, if that's the only thing that's holding this up, isn't it? - 19 - MS. CIPPERLY-Well, it needs setback relief from shoreline setback, because it is a further encroachment onto, you are making more structure at a 55 foot setback. You're expanding the building sideways. The Park Agency doesn't consider, okay? MR. CARVIN-Okay. something else. Yes, I'm sorry. I see. Yes. We do need, on the side. I was thinking MS. CIPPERLY-But if you want to go over the figures right now, if you want to just give me what your figures are for the existing log cabin there. MR. PARKER-You're exempting the? MS. CIPPERLY-I'm exempting the existing front porch. So I'm talking about the area with the hash marks around the outline. MR. PARKER-So I come up with 830 square feet of the new space and 1903 with the existing space, which is 43 percent. MS. CIPPERLY-Can I add the existing log cabin as 32 by 24. MR. PARKER-I have 33 by 23. MS. CIPPERLY-I think it depended on which drawing I was looking at, too. Thirty-three by twenty-three? MR. PARKER-I'm taking it off of the site plan. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. MR. PARKER-Which is the most accurate. MS. CIPPERLY-And then the garage. MR. KARPELES-Thirty-three feet includes the porch, doesn't it? MR. PARKER-No. With the porch, it's square. It's a square. MR. KARPELES-The arrow goes out to the end of the porch. Your dimension line goes to the end of the porch. MR. PARKER-Correct, but that dimension is strictly for the family room addition. Taking 10 feet off that, the porch is 10 feet. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. So it's 23. ¡VIR. PARKER-Then it becomes 23 feet. MR. KARPELES-Okay, 23 feet. MR. PARKER-By 33 feet. MS. CIPPERLY-By 33 feet. MR. PARKER-Which is 759 square feet. MS. CIPPERLY-Your 33 is just the existing structure. where I came out with 32. That's MR. CARVIN-Which way does this 33 go? This way? MR. KARPELES-It's both ways. MR. CARVIN-It's a square. Okay. MR. KARPELES-This is 10 feet. The porch is 10 feet. MR. PARKER-The porch is 10 feet. - 20 - '- -...../ MR. FORD-The existing log cabin is 33 by 33? MS. CIPPERLY-Twenty-three by thirty-three. MR. PARKER-If you count the porch, it's 33 by (lost word). MR. CARVIN-Yes, but you can't count the porch because it's not living area. So it's 23 by 33. MR. PARKER-Times two. Then you're adding the utility room. MS. CIPPERLY-For the basic house that's there now, I just used the house and the second, what we just figured, the 23 by 33, times two, is what's existing there now. Because this is labeled as a garage. MR. PARKER-It actually is a utility room right now. It's not used as a garage. It may say a garage on here, but that's (lost wor d) . MS. CIPPERLY-Well, that's what I had to go by. So, right now, is it? MR. PARKER-There's no driveway actually going up. driveway does not go to those doors. The gravel MS. CIPPERLY-So is it, like, heated interior space? MR. PARKER-No, it's not. It's not heated. MS. CIPPERLY-Will it be? MR. PARKER-No. MS. CIPPERLY-So you're really saying there's no change in the use of that garage? MR. PARKER-Right. Correct. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. I mean, it's fine with me. If we come up with less than 50 percent, I won't be personally offended. MR. CARVIN-I think this opens up a whole new can of worms, here. I mean, either it's a garage or it's a living area, right, and if it was a garage originally, when did it become living area? MR. KARPELES-Is a utility room a living area? MR. CARVIN-I mean, we've gone round and round on this, it seems to me, several times, especially with garages on the lake. I'm going to go very slow. MR. PARKER-This is the curve here, and the driveway here. It does not go into that space. MR. MENTER-What do we have here for doors? There's doors there. Are those doors used? MR. PARKER-(Lost words) garage type doors. MR. MENTER-Those are garage doors. This siding, is this insulated? Not inside, just frame inside it. MR. PARKER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-About when was that built? Do you know, off hand? MR. PARKER-The addition, I don't know. addition was put on that? Do you know when the - 21 - -" MR. CARVIN-How long have you owned the house, Milf? MILFORD LESTER MR. LESTER-Since 1960. MR. CARVIN-And it was there prior to that? MR. LESTER-The original house was built in '34. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So it's nothing that you added since 1960? MR. LESTER-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay, so it goes to a prior owner. MR. MENTER-There's access from the inside to it, to the storage area? MR. PARKER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-It was a utility room when you bought it, in 1960? MR. LESTER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. FORD-The barn/garage type doors do function however? MR. PARKER-That's questionable, do they function well? MR. FORD-No, do they function, period. MS. CIPPERLY-It also appeared, from your porch addition, that you weren't going to be able to use this as. MR. PARKER-That's correct. We will not be able to (lost word). MS. CIPPERLY-It's something that needs to be clarified, then. So you're talking about in original, still original house is. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but it's still a storage shed. So that really is not inhabitable space, so it really can't be counted. MS. CIPPERLY-But it's not going to be habitable space either. So where we should count it is on the, we shouldn't. MR. CARVIN-But we can count the expansion upstairs, because he's going to be building over it. So you can use the dimension as far as the. MS. CIPPERLY-But that won't be a 50 percent. MR. CARVIN-Yes, it would. can't use the garage. So house, right? So you only figure. Why wouldn't it? Because you still you're still, you just have a square have, what, 1518 square feet, for a MS. CIPPERLY-As I said, the Assessor's Office set it at 1374. MR. CARVIN-What's the dimensions on the garage? Is that going to be? MR. PARKER-That's 19' 3" by 20. MR. CARVIN-Is that current, or is that existing? That's total. MR. PARKER-That's existing. MR. CARVIN-Nineteen by twenty? six feet? Okay. Now you're adding, what, - 22 - ~ ~' MS. CIPPERLY-Well, you don't count adding the, that porch is an exter ior pm"ch. MR. CARVIN-Well, is that going to be upstairs? MS. CIPPERLY-No. MR. CARVIN-So your upstairs addition is Just 19 by 20. So that's, what, 200, 380 feet. Okay, and the family room is going to be, what, 10 by 30, so that's 330. MR. KARPELES-Ten by thirty-three. MR. CARVIN-So I come up with 710. If I take a 19 by 20 upstairs garage, using the term "garage" in the biblical sense, I come up with 380 square feet upstairs new area. Is that approximately correct? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And then 330 and the family room, family room/kitchen area. So that's a total expansion of 710. MS. CIPPERLY-How did you do that? MR. CARVIN-I added 380 and 330. MR. KARPELES-Three eight-five, actually. It's 19 feet, 3 inches. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So we'll make that 715, and we have an area of 1510 and 715 is less than half. So he really doesn't need. MS. CIPPERLY-He doesn't need that relief then. the things that have been happening up there also, does this have a slab inside? It's, you know, lately, I wanted, MR. PARKER-Yes, it does. MS. CIPPERLY-So there's no modification to foundation or? MR. PARKER-It needs a new foundation, to support a second floor. MS. CIPPERLY-So is this going to be removed in order to do that? MR. PARKER-No. They're going to have to dig down and put a foundation underneath. Right now, it has a surface foundation. MS. CIPPERLY-You're just the recipient of some careful verbiage, here, that's all. So you're not taking down the existing garage. You're just putting a new foundation under it? MR. LESTER-Right, under the utility room. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. MR. KARPELES-A new foundation underneath it, without taking it down? MR. LESTER-How are you going to do that? MR. MENTER-You're going to have to do some new framing. it's going to need to be re-framed, re-built. I mean, MR. LESTER-Yes. MR. PARKER-And supported, excavated, supported, done a small portion at a time. MS. CIPPERLY-There's a house that that's happening to on Haviland Road right now. They've just Jacked it up and they're putting a - 23 - new foundation in underneath it. MR. KARPELES-Just make sure you do it that way, because we've had problems. Don't rip it all down. MR. CARVIN-If you are, tell us now. MR. FORD-By eye-balling this, I'm getting something different. Could you tell me what the distance is from the new, northwest corner of the new structure, that family room, what is that distance to the water line? MR. KARPELES-Fifty-five feet. MR. PARKER-It's slightly less than 55 feet. MR. FORD-How much less? MR. PARKER-I can't give you the, it jogs out there (lost word) so in most cases it's going to be more. MR. CARVIN-I come up with 55 feet, right on the number, all the way out to here. MR. MENTER-Well, we ended up here. MR. CARVIN-Well, then that's going to be different, then. MR. FORD-I'm looking at this point, here. MR. CARVIN-Forty-nine feet, forty-eight wind. I come up with just about fifty ì·uler. feet, depending on the feet with an architect's MR. MENTER-You're about five, six feet, by the looks of it, going by the jog in the shoreline, from the inside corner, which, technically, is the closest. MR. FORD-I just laid a slip of paper out on it, and figured it. There's some difference. MR. CARVIN-But on the other hand, the house is still, then why do we measure from here? That's what they're doing. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, see, this is 57 right here, if you measure from the closest point of the addition to the shoreline. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's 57 there. MR. MENTER-Fifty five's your minimum. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but if you come. MR. FORD-This is 55 on that corner. I'm looking from this corner to that point. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but that's what I'm saying. I think it's pretty darn close. MR. MENTER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-That's a one to ten scale map. So use a one to ten scale. MR. CARVIN-It looks like it's five feet closer. MS. CIPPERLY-But if you line is up with the side of the house. MR. CARVIN-Yes, I know. If you go straight, then it's perfect. It comes out to fifty five. - 24 - \ -' ..-J MR. KARPELES-Why is that dimension on an angle like that, instead of coming straight out? MR. MENTER-If this distance, this is kind of (lost word), but if this distance is less than 55, this is the distance to be considered, not this, just be virtue of the fact that it's parallel with the side of the home, right? I mean, the distance to the shoreline is the distance to the shoreline. MS. CIPPERLY-I see what you're saying, okay. MR. FORD-We're looking at approximately 50 feet. MR. MENTER-So, technically, it does get closer. MR. CARVIN-But look at this. If you use that same logic, then if we go from the existing, it comes out to 51 feet at the closest poi nt. MR. MENTER-Okay. So fifty-five is incorrect. MR. CARVIN-That's what I'm saying. I mean, so we're talking less than a foot. MR. MENTER-I don't have a problem with that. MR. CARVIN-Okay, because if we go from the corner of the existing to the closest shoreline, I come up with, well, 51 and a half. MS. CIPPERLY-It's important in your resolution to say that it's even with the front of the house. MR. CARVIN-And if we come here, it's exactly 49. So we're talking two feet difference, probably less than two feet. Okay. So thqt's going to be 49. Any other questions, gentlemen? Any other comments? Okay. Then are we all in agreement, we do not need the 50 percent? Sue, are we correct that we do not need the 50 percent expansion? MS. CIPPERLY-That appears that on, and the type of wouldn't count. to be the case. If they're leaving space is not changing, that lower floor MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then I think we want to be specific in our calculations and our motion, right, because if he goes over that, he's pretty close to the line. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So we want to make sure that we don't have any misunderstanding about the square footage when you grant relief. Okay. MR. PARKER-Are you accepting that? not? Are you including that or MS. CIPPERLY-I'm not. MR. MENTER-No. MR. CARVIN-I'm coming up that your expansion will be a grand total of 715 square feet, to an existing 1518 square feet, 23 by 33 times two, 759 times 2, right, is 1518, and the utility room will not be considered living space and it will not be converted into living? MR. PARKER-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-Because if you do, then that kicks it over. - 25 - '-- MR. PARKER-Right. MS. CIPPERLY-Then you'd be better to sit and get the 50 percent, then you'd have the option. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Does the Board see the dilemma here? I mean, we have a utility room that, conceivably, could be converted at some point, which would put it over the 50 percent expansion. MS. CIPPERLY-So if they convert it, they can come back. MR. GREEN-At this point, they're stating that it's not be converted. It's not going to be insulated. It's not be heated. As long as they conform to that plan, then see a problem with that. going to going to I don't MR. FORD-I could go with what is proposed. MR. CARVIN-All right. Well, we just want to be cautious when we stipulate in the motion that that's the case, because if at some point in the future somebody converts that to living space, then we have a whole new ball of wax. Okay. Do you understand what we're driving at? I mean, it may be better for you to seek relief from that, because if you wanted to convert that to an extra bedroom at some point, you'd already have the ducks in a row. MR. PARKER-If you're inclined to give us that. MR. CARVIN-Personally, I would be more inclined, I would be more comfortable, I mean, I'm only one vote, but I would rather address this issue today and not try to postpone it to some point in the future, because then it's going to be really muddy and unclear. MS. CIPPERLY-It just sort of depends on whether the Board views that as a problem or not. I'-1R. CARVIN-Well, it never becomes a pr oblem u nti 1 it is a problem. MR. FORD-I don't see it as a problem. I don't think we should make it, I don't think we should create it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. All right. Any other questions of the applicant? All right. So we're all set. We're going to throw out the 50 percent, and the only thing that you're going to need is relief from the 75 foot shore setback. Okay. All right. If there's no questions from the Board, I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARGARET STEWART MRS. STEWART-I'm a neighbor of Milford's. My name is Margaret Stewart, and I thought the plans looked very good. The only concern that we have is with the septic. We don't know where it is or how big it is, and we're adding another bedroom, and under the SEQRA process, you said it would be a Type I situation where an Environmental Assessment Form, the Long Form, would have to be filled out? MS. CIPPERLY-With the Planning Board, at this point. The Planning Board would be the lead agency for this, but as I stated in my notes, the Department of Health does not require the new system be installed unless it's been proved, like the installed the bedroom and then the system failed, they'd have to address that. - 26 - '-- -.../ MRS. STEWART-But not beforehand? MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MRS. STEWART-All right. Queensbury doesn't have any laws about five bedrooms a certain size septic system is required? MS. CIPPERLY-Those are all based on the State requirements, and we've run into this before up there where it may be a concern, but that's what the law says, as far as septic systems that are existing. MRS. STEWART-Would that be addressed under the SEQRA process? MS. CIPPERLY-It still wouldn't. MRS. STEWART-Wouldn't have any project? bearing on this particular MS. CIPPERLY-No. MR. CARVIN-I understand where concur with the septic issue. the way it is, unfortunately. you're coming from, and I It doesn't seem right, but sort of that's MRS. STEWART-And there has never been a problem, as far as ¡ know, but the only thing is, the trend up there now is to convert summer camps to year round houses, because it's high assessments and taxes. So, eventually, these camps are lived in 12 months out of the year, rather than three or four, and therefore the load on the septic is a lot bigger. MS. CIPPERLY-I know exactly what you're saying. MR. CARVIN-And believe me, we are very effects, but, unfortunately, it just is not to address, unless the system has failed. cognizant of all the under our guidelines MR. FORD-What is the length of time that the place has been used, currently? How many months of the year? MR. LESTER-No more than three. MR. FORD-And the septic system has not failed to date? MR. MENTER-Is that usage expected to continue that way? MR. PARKER-No more than that. MR. CARVIN-You're not going to be utilizing it full time, then? MR. LESTER-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any Correspondence? CORRESPONDENCE MR. MENTER-Just the note from the Warren County Planning Board, dated May 10, 1995, regarding Milford Lester's property, Assembly Point Road. "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 10th day of May, 1995, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a 10' x 30' one story addition to an existing house. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact Thomas E. Haley, Chairperson" PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Gentlemen, any other questions? - 27 - ","' MR. KARPELES-I've got a question here. Is this addition 715 square feet or 960 square feet? Because this says there's going to be a utility space and a bath and bedroom above the utility space. Total additional gross floor area proposed is 960 square feet, and I thought we all just agreed it was 715 square feet. MR. CARVIN-Yes, well I think she was taking that into consideration, because I think she was saying that that was going to be converted into living space and they're saying that it's not. MS. CIPPERLY-I included the first floor area which, currently, it was labeled as a garage, and on the architect's drawings, it was labeled as a utility space. So I thought it was being converted to living space. MR. KARPELES-Well, is a bath and a bedroom above it going to be added? MR. CARVIN-Yes. That's the 380. MR. KARPELES-That's the 380. Okay. MR. CARVIN-Yes. See the top portion will be 380. This remains uninhabitable, I guess, if I can use that term, and then 330, which is this portion here. Okay. All right. The public hearing's closed. Any additional comments, gentlemen? MR. KARPELES-Well, I don't particularly like this 55 feet setback. That existing setback is to the porch, and now you're going to make it to the living area. Isn't there some way you can move that family room and kitchen back so that it would be flush with the front of the house? So you'd be back 65 feet? MR. PARKER-Architecturally, no. Can I show you a (lost here of what it looks like? Architecturally, I think it not look good. You're talking about cutting it back there. word) I.>JOuld MR. KARPELES-Yes, moving this whole thing back. MR. PARKER-I'd get a hip roof out of that, and I'd get another shed roof, which is, to me, architecturally (lost word). MR. KARPELES-I don't know. I'd have to see it drawn the other way to see how it looks, whether it's architecturally right or not. ' MR. CARVIN-I understand the plan. In reality, he's not moving, it's less than a foot. I mean, that's just b~cause of the jigs and jags there. MR. KARPELES....:It's 10 feet from there to there. MR. PARKER-It also would block their new entrance (lost word) if I moved that back, the new entrance to the house would be blocked. MR. KARPELES-Well, couldn't you come out closer to the north side, extend out, go wider? Come back and go out? MR. PARKER-To gain the same roof pitch, I would be way above the windows on the side there. You have to match the pitch of the roof on the front. That's why I made that section come out exactly the same as the porch that, the front porch, so the roofs would be the same pitch. They would both come out 10 feet. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions? All right. Hearing none, theW I will move to table. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-1995 MILFORD LESTER, - 28 - -- -..,../' Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Because we have to refer this application to the who will become lead agency for the SEQRA review. application will be tabled until the June meeting. Planning Board So that this Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Maresco MR. CARVIN-Now this will be referred to the Planning, and they will, next week. MS. CIPPERLY-Are you leaving the public hearing opened or closed? MR. CARVIN-No. I closed the public hearing. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay, because, Mr. Parker, you said you couldn't be her e in .Ju ne . MR. PARKER-I can't be here for the 21st. MS. CIPPERLY-But I think you have most of your technical questions. MR. CARVIN-It's just really, I mean, unless there's some problem, it's just going to be for the motion, to approve or deny. MS. CIPPERLY-AIl the technical questions have been answered. MR. CARVIN-So we should be able to move on it, if there's no problem with SEQRA. MS. CIPPERLY-Which I don't anticipate, but I'm not the Planning Board. MR. CARVIN-So, some time in June. Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-1995 TYPE II SFR-1A CURRENT THE MICHAEL'S DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. OWNER: LAD ENTERPRISES 1/4 MILE NORTH OF BAY AND HAVILAND ROAD ON WEST SIDE OF BAY ROAD ONTO CEDAR COURT APPLICANT PROPOSES FRONT SETBACK OF 20 - 23 FEET FOR FOUR LOTS IN THE CEDAR COURT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT. THE ,ORIGINAL PLANNING BOARD APPROVED SUBDIVISION WAS SUBJECT TO UR-5 ZONING, SECTION 4.02 OF THE 1982 ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH REQUIRED THIRTY (30) FOOT FRONT SETBACKS, SO APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THIS REQUIREMENT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 5/10/95 TAX MAP NO. 48- 3-36.1 LOT SIZE: 1.58 ACRES SECTION 4.02 OF 1982 ORDINANCE JOHN MICHAELS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 23-1995, The Michael's Development Group, Inc., Meeting Date: May 17, 1995 "APPLICANT: The Michael's Development Group, I nc. PROJECT LOCATION: Ceda,- Court, off Bay Road PROPOSED ACTION: Applicant proposes front setback of 20-23 feet for four lots in the Cedar Court townhouse project. CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The original Planning Board approval, in 1987, specified 30-foot setbacks under the UR- 5 zoning. This is now an SFR-1A zone, which requires 30-foot front setbacks, as well. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE, ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267, TOWN LAW. 1. BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: The adjustment to the front setback would allow greater rear yard area for these multi-family units. 2. - 29 - FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: There do not seem to be any alternatives that would accomplish the objective, other than decreasing the number or size of the buildings. 3. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? This is generally a 33 percent reduction in the required setback. 4. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY: It does not appea,- there would be a detriment to the neighborhood. There are no reasons such as water lines, drainage systems, separation distances, etc. that would preclude reducing the setback. A twenty-foot single driveway would fit one car. This item ought to be discussed with the applicant to ensure that parking will not be a problem if this variance were granted. 5. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF- CREATED?: No. This is a new owner, attempting to improve on the approved plans of the previous owner. PARCEL HISTORY: This subdivision was approved in 1987. Out of 21 lots, 3 have been sold, representing 2 duplexes and a four-plex. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Staff would like to see as much as possible of the existing vegetation retained on these parcels, as it represents an amenity for the development. If reducing the setback can increase the possibility of retaining vegetation, this would seem desirable. SEOR: Type II, no further action required." MR. CARVIN-Okay. Would you care to add anything? MR. MICHAELS-Good evening. I'm John Michaels from the Michaels Group. I brought some pictures just to try and help clarify the situation in the area we're specifically talking about. To just give you a brief history, because I see some old maps and some new maps, we've contracted to purchase this parcel, and last night when we were in front of the Planning Board, and reduced the overall density of the project from 64 units to 48 units. This project was laid out in mostly, all the buildings yet to be completed, around the circle here, were going to be four unit townhouse buildings. In the center island, which is the area we're concerned about for the variance tonight, there were four, four unit townhouses or sixteen units in that area, and our revised layout, which was given approval last night, would reduce that density to 10. So we've already taken some steps to save some green space in that area. The specific reason we're requesting a variance in the front yard setback is, typically, with a townhouse development, because of the width of the unit, by the time you put your driveway and the tower and the water, it's very hard to save a lot of vegetation in the front of the unit, but in the back, because there is central septic system, there really are no restrictions on saving vegetation in the back. So by decreasing from 30 feet to 20 feet, we can save a lot more of that island that would give them a lot more trees in that island, make for a lot nicer project, and also because of our reduced density, we have more green area around the edges, and we're going to also have more of an opportunity to save trees, and that's really the reason and the request for the variance. There'll still be 30 feet of driveway, even though it's a 20 foot setback, because the right-of-way, there's still 10 foot of right-of-way. So each unit's still going to have a 30 foot long driveway, at minimum. So there's still going to be quite a bit of room. We've also in this project, which was not in the other pr6ject, the other project was most units, especially all your four units, the way they were laid out, all had to be one car garages, and at least half of our units are going to be two car garages, and the end units, typically, are always two car garages. So we think, if anything, we're going to increase the potential parking spots over the old design which didn't have an opportunity to go to two car garages, because the four unit buildings, center units could never have that. They wouldn't fit. In our project, we'll only have two center units, which, versus what would have been eight of the sixteen on the other. Just to give you an idea of a typical unit, this is a model that's going up now. It does have a two car garage, and you can see in the front you have the driveway side entry, but the back is really (lost word) a lot of the vegetation, and - 30 - ........ --..-' that's what we'd like things that attr~cted surrounding trees. to do. That was really one of the primary us to the site in the beginning was the MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions, gentlemen? I just:¡: have a couple. Okay. There's a note on the application, proposed modification to approved subdivision pending. Are they referring this back to the Planning, or what's the procedure here? Because this is an approved subdivision? I'm just saying, is this going back to the Planning Board, or has it gone back to the Planning aoard? MR. MICHAELS-It went there last night. It went to the Planning Board. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and they had no problems with it? MR. MICHAELS-No. MR. CARVIN-It was approved? MR. MICHAELS-They approved the layout, but, of course, they couldn't give the variance. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. this setback. Their approval last night wasn't dependent on MR. MICHAELS-We ran on separate courses. MR. CARVIN-Yes, because I'm looking at these lot configurations. They are significantly different. So that these are the old ones, here, and these are the new ones? MR. MICHAELS-Right. These are the ones that got approved last. MR. CARVIN-Okay. These are the approved ones? MR. MICHAELS-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. All right. Are there lot numbers on these, by any chance? MR. MICHAELS-Great lot numbers? No. MR. FORD-Which got approved? Can you show me on there? MR. MICHAELS-Yes. This layout got, this layout is approved. This is the old layout, okay. It had four, four unit buildings. That no longer exists. The new approval is that. Except, of course, they had to approve it at 30 foot front yard, so that's why we're here for the variance. MR. FORD-The outer extreme, that has not been built yet, right? MR. MICHAELS-No. The only thing that's been built is there's a two unit here, here, and one four unit building. Everything that's in the brown has not been built, although I did start this model~ MR. FORD-Those around the outside of Cedar Court have not been filled. Is it anticipated that you'll be coming in and requesting the same for those? MR. MICHAELS-No. We didn't have the hardship there that we had in the center islands. We don't anticipate the need for the setback. This is a lot of green area here. What we did do, as a side note, the original plan, each of these lots extended back (lost word) the back of the property line. What we did, in our reconfiguration, we took this property, basically around this horn, took it out of each individual lot and put it in the - 31 - --..... homeowners association. So we have a lot better control over clearing in that area, because the old plan, once that was sold off, it would have been a lot harder to fill. MR. FORD-So you've got common area out there as well as down her e? MR. MICHAELS-Right. There's common area here, which is a septic field, common area here, and now there's common area all here, which was part of the change last night. MR. CARVIN-Okay. are the principle Is that correct? Just a little housekeeping, Mr. Michaels. You and owner of the Michaels Development Group. MR. MICHAELS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. It's just that we've got to make sure that we've got the right speakers here. MR. KARPELES-Do you have any plans for what you're going to use in that center area, in the center of those four houses? MR. MICHAELS-You mean as far as the design of the units? MR. KARPELES-No, as far as the land usage? You're creating more open space. MR. MICHAELS-Yes. We're going to create more open space, but we're going to try to save every tree that we can, basically. MR. KARPELES-Well, you don't have any, a playground or anything like that? There are no plans for that? MR. MICHAELS-No. This, primarily, we targeted this market with the empty nester. There's really two markets. One the professional without a lot of kids, but probably more, like 75 percent of the sales we expect people are selling their big house and moving down, and that was one of the reasons for the layout, because with these twin units, we can get the master bedroom on the main floor, which is typically what this market is looking for, and you can't do that when you have these four unit buildings. They're just not logical. So that's what we ended up losing some of the lots, because these are bigger footprints. It allowed us to get the master bedroom on the main floor. So we have no need for amenities like playgrounds or that type of thing. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions, gentlemen? MR. MENTER-Were these pictures taken recently? MR. MICHAELS-A couple of weeks ago. Well, I think I töok them a week ago Monday. MR. MENTER-It looks like there's more trees in the pictures than there actually are. MR. MICHAELS-Now there's more leaves. I think that's the difference. We weren't starting to get the leaves yet. You see that was seeded then on the edges. MR. CARVIN-You're not proposing any changes on the outside, then? Is that correct? It's just the interior of those four? MR. MICHAELS-Correct. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are there lot numbers that we can identify these by, if we make a motion, unit numbers? - 32 - ~ ~ LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-Unit numbers, you're talking units 39 through 48. MR. CARVIN-Is that inclusive? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions? I will open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SHARON TURNER MS. TURNER-My name is Sharon Turner, and I live already there, and I'm one's who isn't going to have children, and I can say that my yard got torn up, and I don't have any trees in my back yard because of the previous owner, which (lost word) and I definitely would like more trees in this area, because that's one of the biggest problems that we have in our yard right now is they cut all the trees down and there's nothing back there. So I definitely support this. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any correspondence? CORRESPONDENCE MR. MENTER-Just the Warren County Planning Board, results meeting May 10, 1995. "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 10th day of May, 1995, the above application for an Area Variance for a front setback of 20 - 23' for four lots in the Cedar Court townhouse project was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact Thomas E. Haley" PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Gentlemen, last round for questions, comments? MR. FORD-It sounds like a good plan to me. MR. GREEN-Yes. It looks fine. I don't have any problems. MR. KARPELES-It looks better than the other one. MR. MENTER-Yes. There's no problem with it whatsoever. MR. CARVIN-Then I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-1995 THE MICHAEL'S ,DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., Introduced by David Menter who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: The applicant is proposing front setbacks ranging from 20 to 23 feet, on four lots in the Cedar Court Townhouse project, which will be limited to the Units Numbered 39 through 48. The original Planning Board approval in '87 specified 30 'foot setbacks. This has changed from a UR-5 zoning to a Single Family Residential 1 Acre zone, which requires a 30 foot front setback. The benefit to the applicant would be that the aesthetics of the entire area would be improved over the prior plan, based on the opportunity to save trees in this area. The feasible alternative would be to leave the original plan intact, which would create a less desirable outcome in terms of aesthetics for the area. There would appear to be no negative effects on the neighborhood or community. Utilities would be unaffected by this change. The difficulty does not appear to be self-created because it's a new owner, and not one who negotiated or applied for the original project approval. - 33 - ~_._~---~--- -... Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Maresco MR. CARVIN-Before we get finished, there's a couple of items of business that I want to address. Did you all receive, in your packets, the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. CARVIN-This is something that is going to be presented to the Town Board. Have you all read it? Do you understand what's going on here? Okay. Essentially, this will, hopefully, tackle some of the items that we've been grappling with here over the last several months. The first item, I guess, now this is really only going to be in the Waterfront Residential zones, and the information is pretty much self-explanatory, except that I have a couple of problems, and what we would like to do is, if you gentlemen have any comments or input on this. Now this does not mean that we're going to be able to change or alter the course of history here, but this has not been presented officially, as of yet, as far as I understand it, to the Town Board. So that if there's any corrections or comments or questions that we have with regard to this, that we want to raise these to Jim. The mechanism that we're going to be using is the minutes. So that if you have comments, put them on the record, and then when Maria gets done typing this, it will be on the record, as far as where we stand on these particular issues. MR. FORD-These would be the minutes of? MR. CARVIN-Tonight. MR. FORD-Tonight or a week from tonight? MR. CARVIN-No. I was under the impression it was going to be tonight, that we would, again, maybe discuss it next week, but I think Jim wants to move on this, doesn't he? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. You're comments would still be, if you had comments to make next week, there was an omission in your packet. I wasn't aware that that was even given to you. There's another section that I was going to write up, as far as the side setbacks, based on lot width, which I can also get to you, because what we're seeing, especially in the Waterfront Residential zones, is that it's one acre zoning with total of 50 foot setbacks and you've got generally a 60 foot wide lot units. So one thing I was going to propose was that the one acre lot size still be in place for subdividing, like if somebody had, possibly, five acres, which is unusual, and wanted to divide it, they would have to do one acre lots, but as far as setbacks, to have a more reasonable set of side setbacks based on lot width. For instance, if you had a 60 foot wide lot, we were contemplating a 15 feet on either side, which is about what we came out with on the, for instance, the Chanese application. He ended up with 15 foot side setbacks, which, after negotiating with a neighbor and everything. So, if you have any input on what you think might be a reasonable treatment of that, we've been looking at the various widths, and it looks like some of the information I supplied to the Town Board wasn't in your packet, too, as far as typical lot sizes on the lakes. Lake Sunnyside, we have a lot of lots that are, in fact, the majority of the lots on Sunnyside are 40 feet wide by up to 170 feet deep. You're not going to be able to accommodate those in some kind of a, no matter what you do, I think they're going to have to still come in for variances, but I think when you get up to 60 feet and 75 - 34 - ---- -' feet, you can start maybe modifying those requirements, so that, for one thing, you don't get stuck making these individual judgements on every case that comes in, and I don't know if you got the floor area ratio. MR. CARVIN-We got part of it. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. MR. KARPELES-I was wondering, where did this .1 come from? I mean, how does that back up with some of the things we've been having all kinds of arguments on and so forth? MS. CIPPERLY-The percentage? MR. KARPELES-Yes, .1, right, that's what you're saying, the gross floor area has to be .1 of the lot size? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. Well, we were also looking at existing lot sizes versus existing dwelling units, and trying to come up with something that seemed like a reasonable amount of building space, but not like over-building on the lot. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but how did you arrive upon .1? Have you compared that to any of the ones, like Hodgkins and so forth, that we've been wrestling with? MS. CIPPERLY-It's going to be smaller than what's been going on on Cleverdale. MR. KARPELES-What do you mean smaller? What are you saying? MS. CIPPERLY-For instance, the Hodgkins' lot is half acre. So they'd be allowed 2,000 square feet of building area. That's not just building, or if you can come up with a better percentage. MR. KARPELES-I'm just asking how it would look. MS. CIPPERLY-But that's the square footage of your house, both floors. MR. MENTER-That would tend to be limiting, compared to what's going on. MS. CIPPERLY-Plus, you know, your wanted to build, you'd be allowed a footage of building. garage, anything that you certain amount of square MR. KARPELES-I know. I'm just trying to get a feel for what this one-tenth is, in relationship to some of the things we've been wrestling with. Would the Hodgkins be allowed to do what they're doing, or what they want to do, or wouldn't they? MS. CIPPERLY-They're proposing 1400 square feet, I believe, for the house, plus the garage was a two ca)' garage, plus whatever they had above. This would be a little, they'd be over. MR. KARPELES-I think if we could take some of those and compare them, then we'd have a better idea whether this .1, we agree with it or not. Right now I have no idea. MS. CIPPERLY-We also have, on Cleverdale, there's a 3600 square foot house on a half acre or less lot, which seemed like a lot of house. MR. CARVIN-Yes. We've seen some pretty big houses up along the lake there. I remember a couple of years ago we approved a very large one on like a quarter acre. It was very small. MS. CIPPERLY-And somebody could always still come in and say, I - 35 - .... ' need relief from this because I need this, but in a way, we were trying to give more guidance and give you guys really more something to fall back on, in figuring these things out. Somebody just says, I need 5,000 square feet of house because that's what I need to live in year round, and it's on a half acre lot, plus a 900 square foot garage, you can get the feeling that that's too big, but we've been trying to quantify it. We also tried a sliding scale kind of thing, you know, if you had under a third of an acre or under a fourth of an acre, you were allowed a different percentage, and on the margins it got unfair because a person with a smaller lot actually could build a bigger house than the person just over the line into the next, so, if you have any thoughts on that. MR. CARVIN-Well, what I was hoping to do, maybe, is go through and tackle each of these areas, because there's a lot of meat here, there really is. The first area of this, this Gross Floor Area, on page, I don't know, I guess four, where the revised Ordinance will read, No enlargement or rebuilding shall exceed an aggregate of 50 percent of the Gross Floor Area and habitable space. I'm wondering, and this is a suggestion only, if you had given some consideration of putting the word "or" in there, and then taking whichever is either, A, the larger or the lesser, depending on which way you want to go with that. Because I think you're going to get very, very tangled up in the habitable space issue, as you have it currently outlined by definition. In other words, space occupied by one or more persons living, sleeping, eating or working, and I think that that could be construed a long a number of different lines, and I think, to give yourself flexibility, you may want to explore the possibility of using both tests. In other words, if the Gross Area came out to, say, 2,000 square feet, and the inhabitable area came out to be 2500 square feet, you could determine whichever is either the more, whether you want to have a bigger relation, or the less. MS. CIPPERLY-That's a section that Paul Dusek had indicated needed, he thought, needed some work. Also, I think, at least in the Waterfront Residential section of it. MR. CARVIN-Because what'll Lester, tonight, is a prime space which, you know, if it need, but if it's figured situation, and I think that's happen is that we'll have a, Milf example, where we now have a utility was included one way, precludes the the other way, he would need a a very good example. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I think, at least in that Waterfront zone, that total square footage figure is going to take away some of those problems. Because whether it's a utility space or not, it's total square footage, but nonconforming structures in other parts of Town would still come in under the. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think we need to come up with some kind of a definition of what habitable space is, but I'm not really comfortable with what has been proposed so far, because, not only do I think that the living, sleep, eating or working is unworkable, but I'm not quite sure Item Number Two on that page, Habitable space, except kitchens, shall be provided with natural light through one or more windows, skylights or transparent or translucent panels, and I'm not positive, you know, if somebody builds a house with no windows, they could say that it's all uninhabitable space. MS. CIPPERLY-They could because there's New York State Building Code requirements that there be, the person that wrote that was trying to base it on the Building Code, which requires a certain percentage of ventilation and light. So if there are things in there like that it's probably taken right out of the Building Code. You can't build a house with no windows. MR. CARVIN-And again, I had come up with something with, you - 36 - - './ know, if you were trying to come up with gross area, you know, exclude fully uninsulated attics or lofts, or include basements with head clearance over six feet. In other words, it doesn't matter whether it's insulated or not insulated, if you've got a basement, whether you finish it or don't finish it, fine, it's inhabitable space, if it's got a ceiling over six feet. MS. CIPPERLY-They'd also have to even, than that, because in order basement, you have to now have an directly to the outside and stuff. meet the, there's more to it, to have habitable space in your entrance directly to the, exit MR. CARVIN-Yes, but I'm just saying necessarily have to tie it that close. at a 50 percent expansion. I don't know if we I mean, if we're looking MS. CIPPERLY-You're saying if they have a finished basement, consider that to be existing. MR. CARVIN-Right. If they're looking to expand, then that should be part of it. MR. MENTER-The criteria being room dimension? MR. CARVIN-Well, use both criteria, either gross floor area or inhabitable space, as an or ,and then whichever is the lesser, in your calculation, or the greater, depending on which way you want to go with this. In other words, if you include the basement and the attic, we'll find the guy's got 3,000, and he's looking to add a thousand. Well, maybe that doesn't, but maybe if you knock out the basement as uninhabitable space, then, fine, he's only got 2,000, and now he is in the ballpark, as far as 50 percent expansion. MS. CIPPERLY-You saw an illustration of this with the Godnick house. He was saying his basement was uninhabitable, but it met the criteria for habitable space, as far as windows and ventilation. MR. CARVIN-And I'm just saying that, even if he walled it up, it still would have been inhabitable space, because, I mean, there's tons of folks out there who have. MS. CIPPERLY-Not by the Code it wouldn't be. People who finish their basements and don't have an exit to the outside, for example, are not. MR. CARVIN-What about split ranches? I mean, you don't have to finish the downstairs. I guess what I'm saying is that I understand the Code for new construction, but what do you do with a guy that doesn't have a basement, like Milf Lester who's got a utility room. MS. CIPPERLY-That's the section that needs the most work, and it's by no means. MR. CARVIN-I think we definitely need to get that, as far as lowering the height limitation, boy, I think that's right on the numbers. I think 28 feet on the lake area is just right there. MS. CIPPERLY-We're also believing that if somebody really had a physical problem with their site, where they needed something more than 28 feet, that's where a variance comes in, rather than try to address every, you know, give a broad brush 35 feet to everybody. I guess the original intent was for a lot of those sloping lots you might need something like 35, but it got to be people building 35 foot houses on a flat site. MR. CARVIN-Okay, argument, I think and I think as far as the front yard, backyard that's a good argument on the lake, because - 37 - .... they really do have two front yards. The only thing, I have a question as to your last thing here. In addition, in situations where 75 foot shoreline setbacks is obviously impossible, the front yard setbacks would give further guidance in a variance situation. I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying here. MS. CIPPERLY-For instance, this one we had here tonight. If say somebody had a house 30 feet from the lake and wanted to go a little closer or, at least the 30 feet would be an absolute minimum, because that's the, you know, for anybody in that zone, or for somebody who maybe wanted to be 19 feet from the lake. If standard front yard setback is even 30 feet, and they're even wanting to go beyond. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but what you're saying, that they could actually move it closer to the lake, because they're saying that we're farther from the road. MS. CIPPERLY-I'm talking about along the shoreline. MR. CARVIN-Yes, that's what I'm saying. MS. CIPPERLY-I'm just saying it's kind of a back up position, even, for you. It just seemed like, if you can't meet the 75, because your whole house is. MR. CARVIN-Well, no. I guess ~ question is, I mean, when the person comes in and says I'm moving it closer to the lake because I can meet the road setback, in other words, if I move the house toward the lake, I'll find that I can meet my front yard setback on the one side, but I can't on the other. I mean, where do we draw a compromising line, if I've only got 75 feet total? I mean, do you see what I'm saying? MS. CIPPERLY-What do you mean 75 feet total? MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm just saying that if I've got a lake here, and a road here, all right, what's the road setback, I mean the front yard setback? MS. CIPPERLY-Thirty feet, under this proposal, and seventy-five on the other side. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So seventy-five and thirty, and what are you saying, that we're going to have it thirty both sides? MS. CIPPERLY-No. I just was saying, it would still be seventy- five on the lake side, but where people, for instance, have their house, they are proposing a house that's 20 feet from the lake, can say, well that doesn't even meet your standard front setback. I mean, if we're considering it as two front, that wasn't a major point. It just seems like maybe 30 was a second standard. MR. CARVIN-Is 75 a State Code or is that a Town Code? MS. CIPPERLY-That's a Town, and I'm not even sure where that 75 came from, but so many of them are, the existing ones are within that 75 feet, and you end up making some arbitrary kind of decisions. It seemed like if it's also a front yard setback, you at least have the 30 foot requirement to fall back on also, but that was just my. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I just don't want it to be used against us by somebody saying that they want to go, you know, they want to flip it around. MS. CIPPERLY-The 75 foot would still be the. MR. CARVIN-They're saying, gee whiz, I'll take the 75 feet on the road side and the 30 feet on the lake side. - 38 - '--" ./ MS. CIPPERLY-They can't. No, the 75 feet is still the. MR. CARVIN-If I'm going to be confronted with two front yards, I should be able to look at either criteria. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, they've been having the benefit, so far, of having been treated as a back yard. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but the back yard, as far as the lake, is that it's a 75 foot from the lake, and I think that we really ought to maintain that aspect. I'd rather put them closer to the road than closer to the lake. I mean, that's my own personal opinion. That's why I wanted a little clarification on that. MS. CIPPERLY-What's happened is nobody really paid any attention to the fact that that was the front yard along the lake, because the 75 was so much more, and then the other side, toward the road, ended up with all the back yard uses, and the houses closer than somebody across the street who's not on the water front. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, anyway, those are, very briefly, some of ~ concerns. I don't know if anybody else has looked at any of these things, or, obviously, we will discuss these next week. MR. MENTER-I would certainly like to. I haven't had a chance to go through them. MS. CIPPERLY-The point that it's at with the Town Board, we gave a presentation a couple of weeks ago, and they, basically, agreed with the concept, and that it should be changed, and a public hearing can be set, but it hasn't yet, so we're at the point of sort of getting it into a better form to present, which I was kind of surprised that you had it already, but what I wanted to do was draw up a total, new incorporating all of those things, what would the Ordinance look like, because those were done in sort of segments, but it's good for you to have the justifications there in front of you. MR. CARVIN-Yes. No, I think it's a good format, and again, I appreciate, I won't divulge my source, but tell Jim thanks. Okay. All right, gentlemen, so if you would kind of look at this and try to get a handle if you've got any ideas or suggestions or comments. I guess we'll try to make some room for it next week. MS. CIPPERLY-I'll also get the lot width proposal written down for you and to you. MR. CARVIN-One final item. I'm going to move that we go into Executive Session to discuss matters related to the Mooring Post Ma r i na . MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS MATTERS RELATED TO THE MOORING POST MARINA, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Thomas MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Menter: Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Green, Mr. Ford, Mr. Carvin - 39 - " NOES: t"ONE ABSENT: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Thomas MR. CARVIN-One final item. As a result of some of the Mooring Post situations, we have initiated a dialogue, I guess, is probably the best way to explain it, right, Tom, with the Town Planning Board. We've met twice, now. I think there is movement there. If nothing else, there is dialogue, plenty of dialogue, but I think it's a learning experience on all parts, where we see some of the problems that the Town Board is conf,-onted with the Planning Board, and they certainly are seeing what ~ are confronted with. So, Tom has been in attendance with me. We will be meeting again, June something or other, well, May 30th, a Tuesday. At that meeting, we hope to have something on garages. Jim has indicated that he will try to have something concrete that we can discuss, as far as coming up with a solution to our constant garage issue. MR. MENTER-How about, if there's a garage door on it, it's a garage? MR. CARVIN-That's too simple. MR. GREEN-That sounds pretty reasonable, sure. MR. CARVIN-But what we'll try to do is either myself or Tom, and eventually I think we'll try to maybe rotate different people, if this thing continues to go on. MR. FORD-I think it's helpful dialogue. MR. CARVIN-Yes. As I said, it's only been two meetings. More importantly, I think it's very interesting to see what other people don't understand, and what ~ don't understand, so that it's certainly a good learning curve. MR. KARPELES-What have you been doing? having meetings with the Town Board? You've actually been MR. CARVIN-They're meetings, but they result in discussions, and what we do is we try to bring up, gee whiz, there's a problem. MR. KARPELES-You've been meeting with the Town Board and the Planning Board? MR. CARVIN-No, just Fred Champagne, these are just work sessions. These aren't meeting meetings. These are just department heads, so to speak, just meeting for planning, conversation strategies. MR. FORD-Based upon some of the experiences that we've had here, some of the issues that we've confronted, we're sharing that, and asking that some action be taken, such as some of this, legislative action, so that we will have a clearer guidance and maybe not even have to address some of the issues that have been such thorny ones, that have come before us, and so it's a way of ou,- conveying to others some of Q1!L f,-ustrations. MR. CARVIN-Or to get some of these things off our docket, that really shouldn't be on there to begin with, but, as I said, the two meetings, I think, have been beneficial, and, you know, like all things, it takes time, but I think eventually we may start to see some fruits out of these labors, but we just wanted to let you know that this seems to be a bi-weekly thing, or every couple of weeks we get together. The reception has been pretty decent. We've had Paul and Jim Martin, Fred Champagne, Bob Paling, Tom and myself, and Betty Monahan. MR. FORD-Betty was here for the first one. She's out of town now or would have been at the last one. - 40 - ~ ~ ~ MR. CARVIN-But again, we will keep you posted on that, and as I said, eventually, we'll rotate different people maybe through this if it continues. Hopefully it does. Okay. Any other business? Any other comments? I move for adjournment. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred Carvin, Chairman - 41 -