Loading...
1996-05-23 SP '",.....-.?t o RIG I "'~{ A L QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING MAY 23, 1996 INDEX Area Variance No. 5-1996 Tax Map No. 40-1-33 Morgan Vittengl 1. Area Variance No. 29-1996 Tax Map No. 10-1-12 Harold & Lyn Halliday 24. Area Variance No. 37-1996 Tax Map No. 6-3-17, 18 Michael Cantanucci 34. Area Variance No. 38-1996 Tax Map No. 6-1-5 John A. Shaffer 43. Area Variance No. 33-1996 Tax Map No. 121-1-16.41 Lawrence R. Parker 59. Area Variance No. 34-1996 Tax Map No. 54-1-8 Mark H. Mannix Sara B. Mannix 65. -- 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. I I r ¡\ \ to ~. 1..,,/ II. .... ,- !"''" r "'¡ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING MAY 23, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY ROBERT KARPELES DAVID MENTER CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-1996 TYPE II WR-1A MORGAN VITTENGL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE NEAR THE END OF BIRDSALL ROAD, OFF OF ROUND POND ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WHICH REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16, THE SHORELINE RESTRICTIONS OF SECTION 179-60 AND THE STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-70. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 2/14/96 TAX MAP NO. 40-1-33 LOT SIZE: 12,500 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-60, 179-70 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. CARVIN-Do we have the tabling on that? MR. THOMAS-Yes. The meeting date was February 28, 1996, Variance File No. 5-1996 "The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following TABLED MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-1996 MORGAN VITTENGL, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Menter: I'm going to refer this application back to Planning. There appears to be a number of items that need to be resolved before this Board is comfortable in making a motion. I think that the staff should investigate the Mud Pond issue. I would ask staff to verify what the ground looks like out there, if we're going to have any problems with construction. If need be, this should be referred to the Planning for advisory, and I think we need to get the correct figures as far as the setbacks, and also if there's additional variances that may be needed or required. So I would ask you to review this to make sure that we have a complete application, and I would table this for 60 days. Duly adopted ' this 28th day of February, 1996" MR. CARVIN-Okay, I'm assuming Staff has had an opportunity to review? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. We've had an opportunity to review it. The Planning Board also met on this issue, as requested by the Zoning Board, and they felt that site development issues had been addressed. I've also been presented with a site development data sheet. If you have any specific questions regarding that, I can go over that with you. We've also contacted both DEC and the Army Corps of Engineers regarding the Mud Pond issue. DEC has no jurisdiction. The Army Corps of Engineers said that it appears to them that they have no jurisdiction. The ¡each field meets the separation requirements from both Glen Lake and Mud Pond area. So that does not appear to be an issue. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and I suppose we ought to read these letters into - 1 - -- ....- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) the record. Do you have these, Chris, April the 22nd and March the 27th? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I've got them here somewhere. A letter dated April 22, 1996, regarding Vittengl property. "Dear Mr. Martin: Pursuant to the Zoning Board of Appeals' desire for more information regarding development of the referenced property, we have prepared the following document for review at the May meeting (s). 1. Information regarding existing topography has been obtained by Coulter & McCormack surveyors and is presented on the attached site plan. 2. A slope stability review has been performed and is addressed in the attached report from C.T. Male, Associates, P.C. The report concludes that the house proposed by Mr. Vittengl is feasible with slope protection. 3. A grading plan showing proposed contours has been prepared and is presented on the attached site plan. The plan shows minimal slope disturbance of the north facing slope adjacent to Glen Lake outside of the limits of the proposed house foundation, as recommended by the C.T. Male report. Access to the Glen Lake shorefront from the house is proposed via a new terraced stairway as shown on the attached detail. Erosion control in accordance with the 'New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion & Sediment Control' is specified on the plan as is re-vegetation of disturbed areas as soon as possible following initial disturbance. The existing cut slope along the easterly property line is proposed to be graded back to the east to provide a more stable and aesthetic slope. Permission has reportedly been granted by the adjoining property owner for this work. 4. A stormwater management design has been prepared and is shown on the attached site plan. The plan includes collection of roof runoff from the house in a gutter system that discharges to a new subsurface collection/infiltration trench to be constructed behind the house and continue southerly to the embankment overlooking Mud Pond. The trench is designed to intercept surface runoff along the down-slope property line and convey it downward into a stone filled trench that will promote infiltration into granular subsoils. In the southern portion of the site, adjacent to and downstream of the proposed septic system, the trench will not be constructed to promote infiltration due to the concern that effluent from the septic system could migrate to the trench and be transmitted to the Mud Pond wetland with inadequate treatment. Instead, the trench will be constructed as a closed pipe to convey excess stormwater to the trench outlet. In addition, a surface swale will be constructed along the east property line to intercept and convey upland stormwater from the developed portion of the site toward Mud Pond. We believe that this information satisfies the Town's needs; should you have any questions prior to the next scheduled meeting please call us. Sincerely, H. Thomas Jarrett, P. E. Principal" A letter dated March 27th, addressed to H. Thomas Jarrett, from C.T. Male Associates "Gentlemen: Per your request, C.T. Male Associates, P.C. has inspected a site along Glen Lake where a new house is proposed for construction for Mr. Morgan Vittengl. This letter summarizes the site conditions observed and the geotechnical issues which should be addressed in developing final plans for site development and construction of the house. Site Conditions The project site is located along the south side of Glen Lake at the end of an unnamed gravel-surfaced drive. It has 50 feet of lake frontage and extends back from the lake 250 feet. Its grades rise steeply from the edge of Glen Lake some 45 to 50 feet at an inclination estimated to be between 30 and 35 degrees to the horizontal. South of this slope the grades are relatively level until the final 25 to 75 feet of the property at which point they drop steeply to a marsh. A camp consisting of a trailer with attached shed and deck currently occupies the site. It is located on the slope bordering the lake. Immediately west of the project site a single story wood frame house with attached deck is perched at the crest of this steep slope. Camps of similar construction an sited on the slope also exist to the east of the pr.oject site. Geoloqical Conditions Glen Lake was formed during - 2 - \..- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting '-' 5/23/96) the last ice age. It is a geological feature known as a kettle, a depression formed when a block of ice broke from a glacier and slowly melted as a glacial drift was deposited around it. The glacial drift is composed of outwash deposits of sand, gravel and cobbles, and it is these deposits which form the steep ridge which border the south side of Glen Lake and are exposed in road cuts leading to the project site. These deposits are considered to be well drained, leaving them in a damp condition until they become saturated with groundwater. The groundwater table should be present at or a short distance above the level of Glen Lake. Slope Stability The slope bordering Glen Lake is considered stable at its present inclination provided its vegetative cover is maintained. Accordingly, just as other camps have been constructed along its crest, the proposed house may be similarly constructed. Trees and other vegetation should only be removed within the footprint of the house and its attached deck, where piers (posts) are installed to support the wood stairs leading from the deck to the lake. In addition, the camp, shed and deck which presently exist should be removed manually and the area where they are removed should then be graded to the present slope inclination and promptly re-vegetated. Erosion control matting should be installed and shrubbery intermittently planted in this area to inhibit erosion and surficial sloughing until a vegetative cover is~ell established. The house should have a roof gutter system which outlets to the south, not down the slope leading to Glen Lake. Foundation Support Conventional spread foundations may be used to support the proposed house. Those along or within 5 feet of the slope crest should be proportioned 'for a soil bearing pressure no greater than 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf). Further away from the slope crest, where the sloping ground surface does not diminish the allowable soil bearing pressure, 3,000 psf may be used to size the house foundations. Closure This report was prepared to address two geotechnical issues associated with construction of a house along Glen Lake, these being slope stability and safe allowable soil bearing pressure. Should you have any other questions regarding the soil or foundation conditions for this proj ect, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, C. T. Male Associates, P.C. Richard C. Wakeman, P.E. Senior Project Manager" MR. CARVIN-Does everybody on the Board understand what the engineers are saying? The applicant, I assume, understands what our C.T. Male has indicated. Okay. Staff has no other problems with this? MR. GORALSKI-We don't have any other issues, no. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and Planning had no other recommendations other than complying with our engineers? MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I can't remember if I left the public hearing open on this or not. MR. GORALSKI-I believe it was left open. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does anyone have any questions of the applicant? MR. MENTER-Not at this point. MR. KARPELES-Yes. Maybe you covered this the last time and I wasn't here. How does the sewage get up into the leach area? MR. JARRETT-My name is Tom Jarrett, representing the applicant. There is proposed a small sewage pump to be located within the house itself that will lift sewage up to the grade at the southern side of the property, and that'll flow by gravity into a septic - 3 - '- '-" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) tank and into the leach field. So it is a pump system, but it's within the house. MR. KARPELES-So inside the house it's higher than the leachfield, right? When it leaves the house, it's higher than the leach field? MR. JARRETT-Right. MR. KARPELES-And what does that blue line mean? retaining wall or something? Is that a MR. JARRETT-If you'd like, I could go through the technical i~sues on the site, as far as how we propose to design the site. MR. MENTER-That's probably a good idea. MR. JARRETT-This plan is essentially what you have in front of you. It's just a little larger and a little cleaner copy. MR. CARVIN-Well, the theory works anyway. MR. JARRETT-I know it does work. Okay. The immediate question---was this blue line that I believe you see traversing in an east/west direction behind the house and then, extends southerly toward the rear portion of the lot, and that is intended as our stormwater management system. Essentially, the trench in an east/west direction immediately behind the house would be intercepting discharge from a gutter system that's proposed on the roof system to the house. That will convey stormwater along the trench, essentially to infiltrate within the trench into the native soils on the site. The trench along the westerly boundary in a north/ south direction is intended to pick up surficial runoff across the site that's flowing in a westerly direction, and that will, again, be infiltrated into the native soils of the site. Now this system has been designed for a 50 year storm. Essentially all the runoff during a 50 year storm from the roof area of the house, the roof area of the garage and the dri veway area would be infiltrated. We'd have proposed a four inch outlet into the Mud Pond embankment to take overflows in case of storms exceeding 50 years or in the case of other excess runoff, during excess runoff. MR. CARVIN-Questions, Chris? MR. THOMAS-Yes, I just have one. At the end of this stormwater runoff, there's a straw bale dike. If you put that in this year, what happens to that straw bale dike in 10 years? Does it have to be replaced? MR. JARRETT-You're referring to? MR. THOMAS-Right there at the end of the pipe run. MR. JARRETT-On the Mud Pond side? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. JARRETT-That's strictly until the vegetation is re-established. That was just a temporary erosion control measure. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. JARRETT-That's all it's intended for. What we've shown on the drawing is some stone rip wrap, and that is intended to reduce the velocity, if there is any velocity (lost, words), to maintain stability on that slope. Frankly, we think it'll just trickle out that pipe and not run full, but we have provided that additional protection. - 4 - "-- ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) MR. THOMAS-Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Anybody else? MR. KARPELES-Yes. The house is 426 feet. So that is just about at grade, right, at that point, but then there's a nine foot cut in the wall in back, about? MR'. JARRETT-The house will be set back into the embankment. The lower level, the finished basement level, will be essentially below grade at the back of the house. MR. KARPELES-Yes, well, you're contour line shows, what is it·, 435 feet. Is that the contour line there? And the house is 427? MR. JARRETT-Grade behind the house is in the 435 range, 434. MR. KARPELES-So there's about a nine foot bank there. Right? MR. JARRETT-At the rear portion of the house? MR. KARPELES-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Approximately, yes. MR. KARPELES-So what is that going to be? .-- MR. JARRETT-That'll be the foundation, stem wall of the house will be designed for that earth pressure. MR. KARPELES-Okay. I guess I didn't get that. I'm sorry. So what did you say there's going to be some kind of a? MR. JARRETT-Well, essentially, that's going to be a normal, basement type construction at the rear of the house. It will be open at the front, facing Glen Lake, but the rear is similar to a normal basement. MR. KARPELES-Do we have one of these for the garage, or it doesn't show? MR. JARRETT-We don't have a building elevation for the garage. MR. MENTER-But the garage was not on the original application, was it? MR. JARRETT-No. The applicant wished to add the garage, and it was added to the site plan, subsequent to the earlier application. MR. KARPELES-So that's going to be, there's no cut for the garage, I gather, right? MR. JARRETT-No, that's correct. That's at grade. MR. MENTER-Well, that garage increases the relief required from that side, correct? MR'. JARRETT-That's correct. That garage, I believe, is shown as five feet from the property line. MR. MENTER-What does that do to the integrity of the application, the original application? MR.. GORALSKI-As far as I know, I believe it was re-advertised. MR.. MENTER-Was it? MR. GORALSKI-I believe so. I'm not positive of that, but I believe it was re-advertised. My understanding was that garage came up as - 5 - I I '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting '--' 5/23/96) part of the discussion previously, and that the recommendation was to include it as part of this application. MR. KARPELES-Then the existing structure that's there, this dotted line, that's going to be removed? MR. JARRETT-That structure, which is now 15 feet from the lake at its closest point, will be removed. MR. CARVIN-It does not appear to be advertised for a garage. MR. MENTER-Do you have the minutes? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. MENTER-I don't recall specifically. MR. GORALSKI-To be honest with you, I wasn't here the last time it was discussed, but that was my understanding. MR. MENTER-Tom, do you recall what was the discussion at the last meeting? ~ MR. JARRETT-No, frankly, I don't. I discussed it with Staff a couple of times and they told me it had been advertised, but I couldn't tell you the details of how and when. MR. THOMAS-No garage. MR. CARVIN-Just a home, 924 square foot. MR. KARPELES-That really changes it, doesn't it? MR. MENTER-Well, it changes the variance, yes. MR. KARPELES-What's the distance between the house and the garage? MR. JARRETT-Ten feet. MR. MENTER-What is the actual setback from the water? I had that in my notes as one of the issues. MR. JARRETT-To the proposed house? MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-The closest point is 61 feet, that's going to be the westerly corner. From the front end, the lakeshore near the dock, it's 74 feet, I believe. MR. MENTER-Sixty-one would be to the proposed deck? MR. JARRETT-To the deck, the closest point. MR. MENTER-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-If there's no record advertised, what I recommend you deliberations regarding the house and re-advertise for the garage. of the garage being re- do is go ahead with the then what we'd have to do is MR. CARVIN-I see no mention of any garage in the original discussion. There was a question about some stairs. MORGAN VITTENGL DR. VITTENGL-Well, I was charged money to re-advertise. - 6 - I I \,...... ......,/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) MR. GORALSKI-You were charged money to re-advertise? Then I'm sure it was re-advertised. If Dr. Vittengl paid the second fee, then I'm sure it was re-advertised. MR. CARVIN-I have a question on the stairs. Apparently Sue Cipperly, lets see, "You're building new stairs? Yes. Those would be subject to the setback also. Stairs are subject to, they're going down to your deck. No. The deck was actually going to be extended from the upper level. Do you have a drawing? Yes. The deck would be out here. The doorway would be here, and a series of steps going down. Going down to the lake? Yes. The lake down in front. Not off the upper deck but coming off the basement. Right, and from the lower level. I'm not sure about that. There's no hardsurfacing 50 feet and may fall into the deck category." And I ask, well, is this a complete application or isn't it. Sue Cipperly says, "Well, we didn' t know that there were stairs involved." I said, "Well, there appears to be stairs involved." MR. GORALSKI-I can address that. MR. CARVIN-But I don't see, there isn't any conversation on a garage, whatsoever. ,-- MR. GORALSKI-Do you want me to address the stairs? MR. CARVIN-Well, again, it was part of the conversation. MR. GORALSKI-Right. The way that the stairs are proposed to be constructed, they would not be part of the building because they're simply railroad ties anchored to the ground. They're not considered part of the building. That was the determination on that. As far as the garage goes, it was re-advertised, the project was, re-advertised for the public hearing tonight. My understanding was that the reason it was being re-advertised is because of the change and because of the time that had lapsed between the two, but the advertisement, the way it was published in the paper, does not include the garage. I don't know if that was on oversight on our part. I'm not sure why it was advertised that way, but the garage was not included. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, we don't have any indication of the garage being advertised, in 50 words or less. Okay. MR. GORALSKI,-Yes. As Mr. Thomas said, if it was an attached garage, that, you know, the single family dwelling could be considered to include that, but since the garage is actually going to be closer to the property line than the single family dwelling, I'm not particularly comfortable with proceeding on the garage, but I don't see any reason why you can't proceed with the house. MR. CARVIN-Well, lets see, the house, we're looking for relief, I've got 60 feet, right, from the, you're going to be 60 feet back from the lake? MR. JARRETT-Sixty feet measured parallel to the property line, sixty-one feet on an angle. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I know we had a conversation, going through there, and I had written down the number 60. The applicant is, originally I had proposed 68 feet of shoreline setback, and 11 feet of side yard setback, and I think it should be 60 feet. MR. JARRETT-It sounds like those numbers are to the house itself. MR. CARVIN-That's correct. MR. JARRETT-We calculated to the deck. - 7 - I I --- ,---"" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) MR. MENTER-The deck was an issue also, yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So we're still 60 feet, and what are we looking here for side setback to the deck? MR. JARRETT-Seven feet on either side to the deck. MR. CARVIN-So we're looking for, what, 13 feet on either, what is it, 20 feet, John? MR. GORALSKI-It's a sum of 50 with a minimum of 20 on any side. MR. CARVIN-So, we'll need 36 from the total, and the other issue I see is that Warren County wants to take a look at the site plan. MR. GORALSKI-There is no site plan review required by the Zoning Ordinance. If the Zoning Board thinks that there should be a site plan review, you can make that a condition of your approval. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, this is what Warren County is doing to us with this conditioning, approval with conditions. MR. GORALSKI-Right. They don't understand our Zoning Ordinance, so I don't think they realized that this technically, by the Zoning Ordinance, does not require the site plan review. JOHN RICHARDS MR. RICHARDS-Mr. Carvin, could I address the Board on the issue of notice, before we get into any more detail? I represent the adjacent owners. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Let me just find out what, if there's anything additional here that we've got to disclose. MR. JARRETT-The only thing that I would add at this time is that I believe Dr. Vittengl would be willing to locate the garage back to a similar setback of the house if that would clarify the issue tonight, at the Board's discretion. Well, I don't know here, Staff. I'm kind of up a tree on this one, because I've got an application request for a house, not a house and detached garage. MR. GORALSKI - Right. I'm not sure why it was, when it was re- advertised it was 're-advertised without the garage. All I can say is it would be my recommendation that you act only on the house and not on the garage. MR. CARVIN-I would have to concur with that. I think the garage would have to come back under a separate variance. Does anybody else have any questions of the applicant? MR. KARPELES-Yes. How about permeability? Have we got any kind of permeability? It looks like this lot is pretty well filled up. Is there any permeability problem there? MR. JARRETT-On the site data sheet that I've provided, we have given you calculations. MR. GORALSKI-Eighty-one percent of the parcel is green area, .8 percent is paved area, and 13.9 percent is building area. MR. JARRETT-You may wish to also add, John, that 3.9 percent is proposed as gravel driveway. MR. KARPELES-Does that include the garage, or without the garage? MR. JARRETT-The building area includes the garage, and includes the deck. - 8 - I I \..-. ......./ {Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96} MR. CARVIN-So even if the garage were built, we're okay? MR. GORALSKI~Yes. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions? Okay. Well, when I went through the notes, I noticed that the public hearing was closed, but we've re-advertised it. So, I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN RICHARDS MR. RICHARDS-Good evening. My name is John Richards. Ilm an attorney in Glens Falls, and I'm here representing Mr. and Mrs. Frey Frejborg who are the owners of the property immediately adjacent to this property. Before I go any further, I'd like to emphasize that the Frejborgs never received any official notice of this variance application. They only learned of it through happenstance yesterday, and they contacted me this afternoon, and before I say anything else, I'd like to reserve my right to contest your jurisdiction over the Frejborgs and your ability to make any decision tonight, and by being here doesn't mean that I've had a chance to adequately review any of the documents relevant to this. We have not seen the application or anything else, and really my first request to the Board, and the reason why I spoke up just a minute ago, is without getting into the details and the location and permeability and everything else, I want to emphasize that the Frejborgs want to be good neighbors. They'd like to review this with Dr. Vittengl. They're going to be living next to each other, but they're not in the position to do so tonight, to give any kind of adequate opinion on it, and we would request that the Board table this to as brief a term as is feasible. We're not trying to hold Dr. Vittengl up from any improvements on the property, but we certainly want a chance to have an opportunity to review all the documents, to meet with him, and Mr. Frejborg himself has just left the area on business and will not be back for two weeks, but as soon thereafter as possible we would be happy to proceed, if we could get a determination on this. They'd like the opportunity to meet with him before this matter becomes perhaps unnecessarily antagonistic among the neighbors. Certainly, as it stands now, and with the little we know, the Frejborgs are absolutely unalterably opposed to this application, and would concede that to put the deck within seven feet of the side setback, I think the figure was eleven feet for the building itself, you can see the Frejborg's problems. They purchased, this fall', outlined there, and I can't imagine anyone being more directly impacted by the decision of this Board than the Frejborgs. So my first request is that we table this for a brief period, for a chance to see if we can work out something that everyone can be agreeable with, and that would be my request to the Board at this time, with the right, if you don't agree with that, to address, as best I can, the specifics of this application. MR. CARVIN~Are you familiar with the south end homeowners? MR. RICHARDS-No. MR.. CARVIN-Okay. homeowners? Are the Frejborgs familiar with the south end MR. RICHARDS-Mrs. Frejborg is here tonight. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there an association of the south end homeowners, that you are aware of? ANITA FREJBORG MRS. FREJBORG-Yes. I heard it yesterday. - 9 - I I '- --- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) MR. CARVIN-You heard it yesterday. MRS. FREJBORG-Maybe I should ask Mrs. Frejborg to sit with me n case you have any more questions. MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Carvin, if I can just address the notification issue, what we do when we send out our 500 foot notices is we use the most recent tax roll information that we have, and at the time that this was sent out, the most recent tax roll information we had was that Ernest and Maureen Horowitz were the owners of the property. I assume that the Frejborgs bought the property from them. MRS. FREJBORG-Yes. MR. RICHARDS-That's correct. MR. GORALSKI-However, I mean, we just use the most up to date information we have. MR. RICHARDS-That may be the custom, but I don't think that's sufficient. Certainly in this case it wasn't sufficient. ..--- MR. GORALSKI-Well, I'm not an attorney, so I can't tell you whether or not that's sufficient. MR. CARVIN-I'm not either, but we did receive public comment on the night of February 28th from a Mr. Hughes. MR. RICHARDS-Yes. I'm trying to avoid finger pointing and anything like that right now. We're just saying, given this situation, can't the Board re-schedule this hearing, or table the hearing for several weeks until your next meeting, until we can have a chance to meet with Dr. Vittengl anq. perhaps make suggestions that everyone can live with. MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess any tabling at this point would be in the applicant's court. I don't find anything in the record. I feel pretty comfortable, from the comments that we got from the southend homeowners and other folks the other night, that we did advertise. I am uncomfortable with the fact that now I am looking at a garage, but obviously, that is being removed from this particular application. If you have some specific comments that you'd like to address to the Board with relation to this, the public hearing is open, and if the applicant wishes to table to consult with you for a period of time, that is also his decision, as far as the rest of it is concerned, I'm not quite sure where we want to go. MR. RICHARDS-Well, I was just (lost words) ask the applicant if he'd like to table, for the next meeting, as long as it's two weeks. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'll be the one who determines the meetings. MR. RICHARDS~I understand, whenever you meet next. DR. VITTENGL-No. I'd rather not table. MR. RICHARDS-Okay. I'd like to just take a moment. DR. VITTENGL-I'd be willing to talk about it outside. MR. CARVIN-I can postpone this until the end of the meeting, if you want to discuss it and come back, because I've got plenty of things I can do here. MR. RICHARDS-We're going to move this right along. - 10 - I , "'-, .......,I (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay. back. If you want to talk about it outside and come DR. VITTENGL-Is it possible to reach a conclusion tonight? MR. RICHARDS-No. We're not in a position to support this application tonight. We just don't have Mr. Frejborg here. We haven't looked at any of the documents. Stepping outside will not change that. ' We may be in a position to support this, or something similar to this, later on, after we've had a chance to review this. MR. JARRETT-I'd like to propose a possible compromise, and that is, our position is that Dr. Vittengl needs a variance to be able to build on this lot. If the Board wishes to hear that and make a decision on the variance, then specific technical issues regarding house location, adjusting the house, screening and that kind of thing can be discussed during site plan review by the Planning Board. That's only an option. We feel a variance is required either way, anyway. MR. MENTER-That's true, but a variance has to be specific. We can't gi ve a variance saying you don' t need to meet --the requirements, period. It has to be very specific. MR. CARVIN-I mean, I'm willing to, you know, if you guys want to talk it over and come back later during the course of the meeting, I don't have a problem with that. MR. RICHARDS-I don't think we're going to come to a conclusion tonight. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you want to address any specifics on this particular application at this point? MR. RICHARDS-I'd like to address several things, yes, and the first one, before we leave the notice requirements, the applicant is required to furnish the names of the property owners. MR. GORALSKI-No, that's not correct. The Town does. MR. RICHARDS-The Town. Well, it doesn't say that the Town can rely on the latest tax map figures or tax figures. It requires them to notify the property owners, and if they haven't notified the property ownèrs, through whatever mechanism they use, they haven't given adequate notice and this whole proceeding is fundamentally and fatally flawed, and that's the position we would take, and again, we're not waiving our rights to appeal that at a later date by being here, because we haven't had the information to review. MR. CARVIN-Is this normally conducted during the course of a mail? In other words, notification is mailed out, is that correct? MR. GORALSKI-Notification is mailed out and published in the newspaper. MR. CARVIN-And published in the newspaper. MR. GORALSKI-It's been published in the newspaper twice. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. RICHARDS-I can tell you that the Frejborgs found out about this by happening to run into a Town representati ve at the property yesterday. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and again, have you been in the area or have you been on vacation or anything in the last couple of, during - 11 - , ....J '--.- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) February? MR. RICHARDS-The house was vacant and they still live in Queensbury, but they weren't living at that property. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I guess, I'm going to ask Staff. I mean, you've conducted yourself in a proper fashion. I mean, the notices went out. I mean, we have public comment. So I know that some people got their notices. I can't personally deliver letters to every person. So I have to assume that the U.S. Mail is working in some fashion or function. MR. RICHARDS-But I think the Town's admitting that they did not send notice to the Frejborgs. MR. CARVIN-I think the Town, if I'm hearing him correct, is that you sent to the address of the property owner of record that we had at ,the time. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. RICHARDS-And that was incorrect information that the Town had. --- MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm not sure, again, if the Town has this information and gets it from other sources, then we may have to find the culprit some place else. I mean, if the Town is telling me they sent the notices to the most current up to date records that they had. MR. RICHARDS-Which is a New York City address. MR. CARVIN-Okay, well, again, I don't know, because Staff does this. I'm assuming that all of these functions were correct, and Staff is telling me that all of their functions were correct. MR. RICHARDS-I'm not trying to be unduly antagonistic, but it's just wrong what happened, and it can be corrected if we adjourn this. MR. CARVIN-I'm sorry that the Frejborgs, for whatever reason, did not get the notice, but the public hearing is here and now. MR. RICHARDS-We have recommended it be tabled, but apparently if it wants to continue, it will, but I'm just putting on notice. MR. CARVIN-That may not be out of the realm of possibility, but we're in the public hearing. I mean, if we hear sufficient information during the course of the public hearing, the Board may very well want to table this for additional information, but I'm not going to move on it until I have a public hearing. MR. RICHARDS-Well, I would just repeat, it's our position that this hearing has been fatally flawed because of the notice problem. Moving ahead to the particulars of this application, as best as we can determine them, as well as the requirements for any Area Variance, Section 267B requires that five elements be considered, and this application fails on all five. On the first, it requires that you determine whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties would be created by the granting of an Area Variance. All one has to do is look at that diagram and compare it to what is there now. The existing camp is down below here, near the lake. The view of the Frejborgs is undisturbed in that entire direction. If you build this camp as proposed, not only. is it substantially la~ger than the existing camp, and the deck itself as you've just heard is within seven feet of the bedroom window and the deck of the Frejborgs, and the building itself is, I believe the figure was , - 12 - , I \,... . ......,; (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) 11 feet, right in the entire view area of the east side of the Frejborg's house. The sunroom, the deck and the bedroom window would look right out onto this camp, this building. It's up higher. It would obliterate their view, one of the main reasons they bought the property. So he clearly has a detriment. Second, it says, whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method that's also feasible. That's something we'd like to have an opportunity to review with him, again. We're not trying to discourage beautification and improvement of this lot. Maybe there's something that could be done. Maybe there's an alternate position, an alternate design that can be done. We don't know whether that's feasible, and I don't think that the applicant has taken anything into consideration as to ways that would ameliorate the situation with us. So, as it stands now, we certainly think that there are alternatives, and they have to be explored. Third, whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. The way you're reducing the side setback by over 50%. MR. CARVIN-Okay. You have an alternative that will reduce the amount of relief being requested? MR. RICHARDS-We may well, but we'd have to have the chance to sit down and take a look. We don't know. ~ MR. CARVIN-Well, you just indicated that you had alternatives MR. RICHARDS-No. I said there may well be, or, if I said I,had, I apologize. I mis-spoke. We've just had a chance, today was the first time we've had a chance to look at anything. Fourth, whether the proposed variance would have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions, and we would stand on what we've already said on that, and whether the alleged difficulty was self- created. I don't know what the purchase date for Dr. Vittengl was, but certainly he bought it in its current configuration, this current pattern. So he must have been aware of the zoning requirements of this Town, and to have us suffer because of that, his self created hardship, is antithetical to the whole concept of the variance. There's not one element of these that he has met in his application. Again, we'd be delighted to work with him to see if we could come up with something that's acceptable to everyone without trying to build his house for him. I mean, I'm sure he wants to have control of that, but we might have some input as it directly effects the Frejborg's property. To proceed at this point is just totally unacceptable and really unfair to the Frejborgs. MR. CARVIN-Well, not holding you to anything, but you've indicated that the house is, you're uncomfortable with the house in that position, and looking at the size of that lot, I guess we either slide it forward or slide it back, or make it smaller. MR. RICHARDS-You're asking us to get into specifics without having looked at any of the data. We haven't looked at the height of the house. We haven't looked at the grades. This is all just thrown at us, really in the last few hours. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's what we've been looking at is the grades. We were concerned with the grades, and we were concerned enough to submit it to our engineers who submitted a report back and said that the plan that is being proposed is feasible. MR. RICHARDS-It may be feasible from a building standpoint., What is feasible or practical or acceptable to someone who lives 20 feet away from it is whole other matter when you, any time you buy a lakefront property, obviously one of the main things that goes into your purchase is the view. To summarily try to just discount their interest in this proceeding would be totally unfair. Again, we're not asking that this necessarily be denied. Lets give us a chance to look at it. If he doesn't want to give us that chance, then we - 13 ----- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) would say, yes, by all means deny it, but we're trying to be good neighbors here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions of Mr. Richards? MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Carvin, I'm sorry, John. I showed Mr. Richards the wrong section of the Ordinance. I can read you the section about Notice of Public Hearing. MR. CARVIN-Please. MR. GORALSKI - "Each notice of public hearing upon an application for site plan review or for the review of a variance application; or upon an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals from an action of the Zoning Administrator, shall be published once in the official newspaper of the town at least five (5) days prior to the date of the hearing. In addition, at least five (5) days prior to the date of the hearing, notices shall be mailed to all owners of the property within five hundred (500) feet of the exterior boundary of the property for which the application is made, as may be determined by the latest assessment of records of the town." And that's what was done. ----- MR. CARVIN-And that was what was done. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Anyone else wishing to be heard? DR. TOM HUGHES DR. HUGHES-Dr. Tom Hughes. I represent myself and the other members of the family who are co-owners of approximately 90% of the area which is now terms Mud Pond. I'm very disturbed about the fact that the wetlands that is obviously bordering the property has been ignored. That is wetlands, and I prompt you to do the dry sock test. If you wish to stand in that area and see if your socks stay dry. I'm sure that they won't. I'm not sure that the septic area has had adequate setback from the wetlands. It may be adequate from the pond, but it's your duty as members of this Board to protect Queensbury's natural resources, including the wetlands. I'm very concerned about septic runoff. I don't think we've had adequate testing regarding this, and I think it's wrong for this Board to allow the application to proceed without adequate information. To say that the DEC or the Army Corps of Engineers doesn't have jurisdiction doesn't tell us whether or not this is wetlands or not. It obviously is, and it would behoove you to do the, right thing. MR. CARVIN-Does Staff want to address the Army Corps of Engineers again? MR. GORALSKI-Based on the information that the Army Corps, I think there's a letter. I'm not sure where the letter is. MR. THOMAS-It's not in here. MR. GORALSKI-It's a letter that George Hilton had. Okay. Here we are. This is subject to Army Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction. "The New York District of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers were recently contacted by your office regarding activities proposed by Morgan Vittengl located in the Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York. During conversation, you requested a letter from this Office which describes Department of the Army jurisdiction. If a proposed activity is regulated by the Department of the Army, written authorization may be required from this Office prior to the commencement of activity. The Army Corps of Engineers regulates activities that include dredging for construction activities in or over an navigable waters of the United States. The excavation in and the placement of any dredged fill material in any waters of the United States, including coastal or inland wetlands, or the - 14 - I I \...-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting ........¡ 5/23/96) accomplishment of any work affecting the course, location, condition or capacity of such areas. Such activities may require a Department of Army permit in accordance with 33CFR320-330. Those water bodies including wetlands, water bodies, intermittent streams or natural drainage courses are considered to be waters of the United States. Currently, the State of New York Environmental Conservation recognizes and maps State Freshwater Wetlands for those wetland areas that are 12.4 acres or more, and/or are ecologically unique. A New York State DEC determination classifying any area as a non State regulated wetland does not free a property owner from his or her obligations under the Clean Water Act. The Corps regulates the excavation in and discharge of dredged or filled material into the Freshwater Wetlands, regardless of size. To remain out of Department of Army jurisdiction completely, we recommend that the applicant limit the project to those areas upland or any waters or wetlands of the United States. Not only is this environmentally sound, but it could potentially save the applicant considerable time and expense while attempting to obtain necessary Federal and State permits. If fill material is contemplated to be placed within those areas, the Corps' jurisdiction and the extent of these waters of the United States needs to be delineated according to the Federal methodology which requires evaluation of features including hydrology, vegetation- and soils present on the site. The current method of delineating Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional wetlands is in accordance with the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation manual technical report Y871. A copy of the manual may be obtained by the National Technical Information Service by calling (703) 487-4650. When the delineation has been accomplished, the applicant should supply wetland delineation reports to the New York District including wetland data sheets, a site map that shows the flag numbers and survey lines, photographs of the site. In addition, the applicant should submit a detailed description of the proposed construction activities, listing the individual fill requirements, in acres, within the waters of the U.S. and specifying the total number of acres of waters of the U.S. proposed to be lost or substantially modified. Please contact Christine DeLoria with any additional questions." So since there is no fill being proposed within any area that would be considered a wetland, at least this was the discussion over the phone, then there wouldn't be a permit issued, a permit required. There'd be no jurisdiction by the Army Corps. DR. HUGHES-This isn't a matter of fill. I'm concerned about the runoff from the drainage from the roof system as well as the septic system, and those variances, investigations into that information, from what I've just heard, should be forthcoming, from the applicant, and I don' t see it. Just because the wetland in question is less than the desired acreage required, the 12.5 or so acres that you mentioned in the letter, this area seems to be less than that or not presently recognized, but because it's not recognized does not mean it does not exist, and I think you'll agree that part of your position as members of this Board is to protect Queensbury's wetland, and for that matter mine, and I realize there's no fill going in there, but that does not mean that there's going to be no septic going in there. I'd like to see dye tests or whatever proving that that will not be the case. MR. CARVIN-Do we not have a letter from the applicant here indicating stormwater has been prepared, this has been submitted to site plan? MR. GORALSKI-There's been a stormwater management plan prepared by the applicant's engineer. It's been reviewed by Rist-Frost Associates. To our best information, based on the standard engineering practices, is that that septic system meets any setback requirements and is engineered to all current State and Federal Regulations. - 15 - I I "'\ '-- --' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) DR. HUGHES-Those setback requirements are relative to Mud Pond itself, not to the wetlands surrounding Mud Pond. You can see by yourself from that map that the blue areas, and what they consider Mud Pond, but obviously there is wetland right up to the border. MR. GORALSKI-The only wetland, I don't mean to be argumentative, but I just want to make sure you understand the regulations. Setbacks to the wetlands, setbacks to wetlands do not address Army Corps of Engineers wetlands, and the Army Corps of Engineer's jurisdiction is only for activities taking place within the wetland. They do not have a 100 foot buffer like DEC has. DR. HUGHES-Again, I'd ask the Board to look at more' than regulations. I think I would ask you to look at reality. It's obvious that there are wetlands tucked into the border of this piece of property, and by allowing sewage runoff to potentially run into Mud Pond, you're destroying a valuable piece of my property and a valuable resource for this community. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Anybody else wishing to be heard? Any questions? KEVIN DINEEN --- MR. DINEEN-I'm also a local homeowner, in the southend community. My name is Kevin Dineen. I live a couple of houses down from where Morgan's proposal is, and I guess I've got to plead a little ignorance myself. I'm just a summer resident there, and there's a lot of people that come in and out. I think there's three or four of us that are summer residents. There's some older folks that are year rounds residents and that's the kind of mix that we have up there, and I know somebody wrote a letter to you. I just heard about it myself, but I guess what we're really concerned about is just the rustic character of the place, and again, we're all looking forward to having you guys as neighbors up there, and we just want to make sure things are done right, and I just got into town myself a little while ago, and, you know, got the letter. I just came up and I saw the plans there yesterday, and I was like, you know, really don't know what the plan is, other than a good sized building there, and it's, I guess what we need to know is, you know, the side setbacks, what happened was that one of the houses that was built down last year, the side setback, I guess, is 20 feet. Thát side setback was, there was a variance given for a side setback down the lake about seven houses from the proposal right now, and there's a lot of property owners around there that are very unhappy with this new home. It's a three story home. It's taken away a lot of the views that are there, and when I, originally I bought my place eight, nine years ago. I took it to the ground and re-did it myself three years ago, and basically I stayed within the same footprints, which may be an option here. I know it's very small down below, and building up from there at different levels. So I think that there could be a compromise there, and we just, you know, as a group of people, we just kind of want to make sure that things are done right, not just a variance on such a lot as this, but you can get what you want. So hopefully we can, like they say, sit down and get this all done right. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Anyone else wishing to be heard? MR. RICHARDS-The Frejborgs have handed me this letter to the Board which is signed by some nine other residents. I'd like to give that to you. It just confirms their opposition to this variance request as stated at this time. MR. CARVIN-Anyone else wishing to be heard? That should be read in. Is that the same letter? - 16 - I I "---' ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) MR. THOMAS-Yes. It's the same letter but more signatures. MR. RICHARDS-No, it's not the same letter. That was a letter that the Frejborgs wrote up today that they had a chance to get the list of the 500 feet, people that were within 500 feet, and what they did was they passed that around to anybody that was on the list that was given notice, and I think everybody that they contacted has signed that letter. There hasn't been anybody that they have not contacted that hasn't signed that letter that that is within the 500 feet notice. MR. THOMAS-I have a letter that was received 5/22/96, which looks like an original of this, and the only thing on this letter 1 was just handed is it has the original signatures of the Frejborgs on it. Plus it has additional signatures on a third page, whereas this one doesn't. A letter to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, regarding Morgan Vittengl's proposal to construct a single family home and the side setbacks of Section 179-16, project location, at the end of Birdsall Road, Queensbury. "We, as a concerned community of property holders, would like to address this proposed Variance Application. The side setback for this zone is 20 feet. We are aware that many of the older 'camps' on Glen Lake are much closer in proximity to the lake and to their neighbors than the newer laws would allow, but that was then. We are more than happy to see improvements made, as long as they fall WITHIN our current guidelines which have been established for this lake. We are all aware of the reasoning behind these laws and ordinances: to retain and protect the rustic character and beauty of our Glen Lake and the surrounding properties. The property under discussion was purchased for a small amount when considering the value of the surrounding properties. We are sure that the buyer would have researched any directly appropriate setback laws if the property was bought with the intention to build. The logic behind the purchase of this ' small' property was presumed to be for the renovation of the pre-existing camp only as the size of the property is too small for a larger scale home. There has been one recent incident where there was a variance granted for building purposes, and it was most depressing for those homeowners who lost a beautiful view of the lake altogether. If this trend is allowed to continue, the character of Glen Lake and our homes will angle more towards the likes of condominiums rather than the beautiful homes we now have. 1. Benefit to the Applicant and surroundings: The applicant's wish to demolish the existing camp on the acquired property is beneficial to both the applicant and community. This upgrade will improve the property value of all those concerned. It is not our wish to hinder this renovational tactic. 2. Relativity to the ordinance: The side setback IS 20 feet. The side setback will remain 20 feet. The applicant has proposed a side setback of only 11 feet, which actually transforms into only a setback of less than 8 feet with the building of any additions. This is not in compliance with the zoning laws and ordinances founded to protect CURRENT homeowners and their investments. NOTE: The applicant purchased this property with a 'Buyer Beware' clause intended to warn him of any intent to alter the state of the property without the approval of any existing neighbors, in this case, the Frejborgs and the Powells. 3. Effects on the neighborhood or community: As stated in the memorandum of George Hilton, Planning Assistant for the Town of Queensbury, 'It appears that the proposed construction would not have any adverse impact on the neighborhood.' This was written without the neighbors' knowledge of the entire impending plan. The Frejborgs, residing at 153 Birdsall Road, were not notified of any upcoming project concerning the Vittengl property until May 22nd of this year, and that was by no means of official notice. 4. Effects on the Frejborgs: The Frejborg's recently purchased their new home for a sum of $330,00,0. -. With a purchase such as this one, a person would expect to be able to retain the privacy for which they have paid. With the proposed building of the Vittengl house, a substantial amount of the beautiful scenery - 17 - '----' ---J (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) which they now enjoy would be taken away, and replaced by a wall, or deck, or' both. The trees that exist now and aide in the hindering of natural corrosion of the slope we live on, would be torn down, leaving the slope barren. The rustic look that we so much enjoy will certainly be gone. 5. A New Proposal: Build the new house according to the ordinance. Keep it A FULL 20 FEET from our property line. Let us all retain our beautiful natural landscape and enjoy it to the fullest. We feel that Mr. Vittengl and his family will make fine neighbors as long as his home does not intrude upon anyone else's and stays within the boundaries and does not exceed the current codes. Thank you. Anita Frejborg Frej Frejborg May 22, 1996 Queensbury, NY, Wallace R. Hirsch, D.E. Beadleston, Colleen J. Beadleston, Lewis A. Cooley, Gloria Cooley, Kevin Dineen, Ann P. Dineen, John Moos ebrugge r , Susan Moosebrugger, Maureen Valenti (talked over the phone at 11:00 a.m. 5/23/96), Linda Whittled (talked over the phone at 11:15 a.m. 5/23/96)" That's all the new correspondence. The old correspondence was read in at the last meeting. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other public comment? Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ___ MR. CARVIN-Any questions, Dave, thoughts, comments? MR. MENTER-Well, certainly I don' t have a problem with the notification issue. However, I don't recall, three months ago, the aesthetic issues being as important, in the public hearing, as the stormwater management and the septic and those type of issues. It kind of puts me at a little bit of a loss here. MR. CARVIN-How about you, Bob? MR. KARPELES-Well, I wasn't here for the meeting three months ago. So I've just got to go on what I see now, and what I've heard now. To me, it appears like an awful lot of setback relief is necessary, especially in view of the neighborhood objections, and the neighbors have indicated that they would like to work with the applicant and maybe work something out. I think it's a very unusual circumstance that they weren't notified, through no fault of their own and no fault of ours, but I think it should be c~rrected. I think they should have time to talk to the applicant. MR. CARVIN-Chris? MR. THOMAS-Just two things on this. Number One, again, being the notification process, and it not being the letter sent out to the proper property owners, and Number Two is the neighborhood opposition. The neighbors really aren't opposed to it, but they would like some input as to be able to modify or re-Iocate the building in some manner that would alleviate their concerns. The side setbacks seem to be the biggest issue here. Nobody has really mentioned the lake setback, and it's just the side setback on one side, on the Frejborg's side, and also the owners of Mud Pond and around there, the leaching and what effect would that have on the Pond, if any, but I don't know, we're not here to address that. I think that's taken care of at site plan. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bob, just a question. Do you feel that you're up to speed on this, or do you want to have time to read the minutes? MR. KARPELES-No. I think I'm up to speed. I've been out there. I've looked at the site. I've looked at the pictures. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So you're comfortable that you've got sufficient information without going through the minutes and public testimony - 18 - I { '-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting --/ 5/23/96) tonight? MR. KARPELES-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I didn't realize that you weren't here last time. Okay. As far as the notice on this is concerned, I'm pretty comfortable with the, you know, Staff says that they sent it out, plus the fact that they we did have indications that those notices were received back in February, and the Town can only do the best that it can.' I mean, that does not guarantee that we sent them out, that the proper people are the people who receive them. Unfortunately, it's not a perfect system. It is the best that we have, and I have all indication that that procedure was conducted and adhered to, and was successful. As far as the setbacks are concerned, I'm only looking at a 70 foot lot. MR. GORALSKI-Fifty. MR. CARVIN-Fifty foot wide. I mean, no matter what kind of structure is proposed there, it's going to need some kind of relief. So it comes down to a case of minimum relief, and the applicant has moved this house back. Now I guess it's debatable whether it could be moved back to full compliance, but certainly it's back further off the lake than what is currently there, which has always been the intent of this Board is to move residences back off the lake. I don't have an answer to this. I mean, the only thing that I can see is that on the Frejborg's side, that that deck be removed, but that only picks up a few feet, as far as I can tell. Is that correct? I mean, I'm looking at a seven foot deck. MR. THOMAS-Yes. You're looking at a four foot deck, seven foot off the property line. By removing that deck, the building itself would be 11 foot off the property line. MR. CARVIN-Eleven feet, yes, but I don't know what the distance, the Frejborg's are off their property line. MR. MENTER-Twenty-two. MR. CARVIN-Is it twenty-two? MR. MENTER-According to this diagram. MR. THOMAS-It shows 24 feet to the building itself. MR. CARVIN-Twenty-four, and eleven is, what, 35, if the deck were to come off. I'm just trying to figure out, you know, the other side is, as I remember it, there's no residences on the, is it Linehan? MR. THOMAS-Powell. Powell is on the east side. MR. CARVIN-Well, we're looking at, what, seven feet there, too, right? Well, the garage is not even part of the consideration. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It is seven feet on the east side, also, from the property line. MR. CARVIN-So, we're talking how wide of a house? How wide is the house, Tom, without the deck? MR. JARRETT-Twenty-eight feet. MR. CARVIN-Twenty-eight feet. I mean, how much smaller of a house do we put there? I mean, at 28 feet, if we take the deck off. Right? MR. JARRETT-It's only a 924 (lost words) excluding the deck, the - 19 - I I --' '--.-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) house itself. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm just saying, how big of a house can you build in a 50 foot wide lot, without some sort of relief? Where's the minimum relief? I mean, at 28 feet. MR. JARRETT-The way I read the Code, relief is needed, period. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. MENTER-Yes, it certainly is. MR. RICHARDS-Unless you do the same footprint. MR. CARVIN-Well, no, the same footprint's not on the lake, because he still would be here. Because any time you tear down a structure now it has to be brought into compliance. So I don't know how much more the neighbors are going to come up with. MR. KARPELES-Well, I don't know that there's any guarantee that every lot can be built on. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's why we're here, to grant minimum re~ief. As far as the septic, I think Chris is correct. I mean, these are issues that are probably more relevant in site plan. The site plan takes a hard look at this, and I have seen no indication from Staff or the site plan pre-review, if you want to call it that, that there's any complications or problems with this, at this point, I mean, based upon what information we have. So I think we just have a case here. MR. MENTER-I agree. I'm not sure what else can be done to mitigate, you know, the setback situations. I don't think that, you know, it's not a large house. MR. KARPELES-Well, the house could be moved farther back from the lake. MR. CARVIN-Remember, you're talking a slope there, coming up the hill. MR. KARPELES-You're cutting into that slope anyway. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. KARPELES-You're not cutting any more into it. MR. CARVIN-Well, those are our choices. MR. MENTER-The other thing to keep in mind is that there's four members here, right now. MR. CARVIN-I mean, I guess I'm leaning toward moving ahead on this, but I'm hearing from the rest of the Board that you may not be in that similar position. MR. KARPELES-You're hearing right, as far as I'm concerned. MR. CARVIN-So that would lead us to a no action, which would postpone it. MR. MENTER-That means we're not moving anywhere anyway, perhaps. MR. CARVIN-Yes. What do you want to do, Chris? , MR. THOMAS-I would go forward with it. I was just looking at the original print given us, back in February. Mr. Richards alluded to the fact that they would lose the view from the sunroom out to the - 20 - I { \",....- ......I (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) north and east. The sunroom is on the back of the house. I don't see where there's any real view of the lake from that sunroom. The Frejborgs have a wooden deck on the front of the house, and I know there are some windows on the side of the house. MR. CARVIN-Well, when I went out there, I think that, I can't quite buy 100% the visibility, because I think what they're looking at now, sitting down at the bottom of that hill, is pretty ugly. The house is going to be back, and that structure at the bottom is going to be removed. We've got two to move ahead and two to not move ahead, I guess, so at this point, are we comfortable tabling this. I mean, should we suggest a table until next month when we get a full Board? MR. KARPELES-Well, there's a possibility that the neighbors will be able to work with the applicant and work something out. MR. CARVIN-I'm saying that they're going to get the time, because I don't think we're going to get four votes going in one direction. MR. MENTER-That's for sure. .- MR. KARPELES-So it appears that tabling it is the right decision. MR. JARRETT-Two things. The reservations that the Board members have right now, are there issues that we could address or clarify for you, or are you clear on what the issues are? Is there something that we could explain or address that would help? MR. MENTER-I think there's just been a volume of previously unheard public comment. That itself is a pretty large issue. Other people weren't available before, whatever the situation is. The other issue is one of minimum relief, which is always, you can always go back and wrestle with that one until you get it almost where you want it, but that's, you need to be sure of that also. So, at least from my standpoint, the public opinion is probably the biggest factor. MR. JARRETT-For what it's worth, Dr. Vittengl has offered to meet with the neighbors, should you act on it tonight, and grant the variance, he'd still be willing to meet with the neighbors and discuss mitigation measures such as color, screening from that property line, those issues, or even house location, if it could be adjusted to satisfy minimum relief on the neighbors. I don't if we can or not. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm going to make a motion here probably in a couple of minutes, but I don't think I'm going to get four votes, and what the means is a no action, which postpones it until I can get a full Board, or we can eliminate the motion aspect and just go to the tabling, because I'm pretty thoroughly convinced that I'm not, I don't have four votes moving in either direction, either to approve or to deny. DR. VITTENGL-I'm just confused of options up there, then, for that type of lot. To position the house where it is there probably impacts it the least, because it's built into the hillside of the natural grade that's there. It would be further back than any house on the street or along that lane, as far as obstructing views. The house that's there now sits on the property line of the homeowner that was upset. I was unaware of any other options. If I build the house up on top of the hill, it would be that much higher. It's at 35 feet, right now as it stands it's only 30 feet, and half of that sits in the embankment itself. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, presented, not all of it. I concur with much of what you've As I said, if I was to move this, I - 21 - I I ., '-- ----' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) would probably condition it by the removal of that four foot deck along the neighbor's side, but even that as a suggestion, the other two Board members don't seem to be comfortable moving. So what I would like to suggest is, maybe you get together with, you know, table this for 30 days, or 60 days, get together with the neighbors and see if there is a plan that can be worked out that meets both of your concerns. DR. VITTENGL-How do I make, however many signatures are on there happy? MR. CARVIN-Unfortunately, you probably aren't, and that's where this Board will take a look at that, because you will, in illY opinion, require some sort of relief to move ahead with your project, because of the very uniqueness of the lot, but I don't know what aesthetic changes can be made to satisfy the neighbors, but they have, apparently, got Mr. Richards here as their spokes person for at least the neighbors, and I need a fuller Board. I mean, the other members will be brought up to speed, and at this point, if I have a seven member Board, we'll get four votes one way or the other, but at this point, I've got a real tough situation, because we can't move ahead. --- DR. VITTENGL-I don't know that I'll be able to change anything, as far as less impact. I'm not sure how to do that. MR. CARVIN-I don't have an answer for you either. I mean, the only answer that X have, at this point, 'as I said, I'm looking at your plan as proposed, X the garage, and I see a fairly modest, width wise, house at 28 feet. I'm not totally comfortable with the three stories in the front, but that, again, is not, something on that lot is, your height, I think, is still going to be within the current code. My original concerns was the slope of the land. We've got indications that that's not a problem. I had concerns about the soil conditions out there. Again, that has been addressed. I don't have a problem. Again, the engineers who I have to rely on. I'm not an engineer, but they're saying that that is a buildable site, that your project as proposed in this site is doable. Whether it's advisable or not is something else, but it is, apparently from an engineering standpoint, feasible. As far as the septic is concerned, I have not heard anything from our Staff, and we have referred this over to the Planning Board, at least for a preliminary site plan review, and I will be referring it over to, I ,mean, I would condition it, again, and this is just me speaking, I would condition this to a site plan in any event, so that that would get even more scrutiny, and again, if site plan finds that that is not the case, then your project stops. We're only here to grant the side and lake relief, taking into consideration the concerns of the neighbors, as far as the health, safety and welfare, but we have to balance that against the benefit to the applicant. Now, you've got two folks, Chris and I, that feel pretty comfortable that you've submitted enough information. However, Mr. Karpeles and Mr. Menter have differing opinions, and that's they're prerogative, and that's my dilemma. If I had seven members here, we'd have three other voices, and they may have additional concerns. What I am guided by, when I have a locked situation like this, is that that's a no decision, and it has to be postponed until such time as I can get a full Board, or four votes in the same direction, and I'm saying that in that interlude which is going to happen, from all indications, that you get a hold of your neighbors and do the best that you can, because when I have other members here, when they come back, you'll be able to present, well, look, this is where we are. We made an honest attempt with the neighbors. The neighbors either convinced me of the error of my way, or that they're situations were so ,outlandish that there was no progress, and then it will, again, fall back onto this Board to grant minimum relief, and again, if I've got six or seven members here, and four of them say, that's not minimum relief, the - 22 - I i ~ --../' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) project goes down. If there's four of them that say it's fine, then it goes ahead, and not only do YQ have this dilemma, but every other application that we're going to be hearing tonight has this dilemma of only a four member Board. So that's where I'm at. So, in lieu of that, I guess I would request that we table this, and you gentlemen don't have any change of hearts, right? You don't feel that you're going to be able to move on this, that you have sufficient information? MR. MENTER-No. I don't think it makes sense to make a motion. MR. KARPELES-No, I don't, either. MR. CARVIN-Well, I was just going to make a motion to table it. MR. KARPELES-Yes, right. That's fine. MR. CARVIN-I mean, I just want to put on the record that I do not have a consensus. MR. MENTER-Certainly. MR. CARVIN-Okay. ~ MR. GORALSKI-Should we just re-schedule it for June's meeting? MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm going to shoot it for June, yes, but, again, we've got to get the minutes out to the other members and bring them up to speed. So, I mean, but no longer than 60 days. MR. GORALSKI-Should we re-advertise this including the garage? MR. CARVIN-The garage is a new curve. I mean, it was not pat of the original application, and I don't want to change in the middle of the stream. MR. GORALSKI - I have to apologize. I wasn' t involved when the garage got added. I'm not sure what happened, but. MR. CARVIN-At no point have I seen any, I mean, in the original application there was no garage. MR. GORALSKI-Was there discussion at the Zoning Board or maybe at the Planning Board about the garage? MR. CARVIN-On a quick, cursory look at the minutes from that meeting, there is absolutely no mention of a garage at all. So, the garage is something new that dropped out of the sky. I see steps, and the steps apparently have taken care of themselves, but I don't see anything on garage. So I'm saying that this garage is not part of this application. MR. GORALSKI-I'm trying to find out all the issues, so we don't have any more stumbling blocks here. MR. CARVIN-I hear you. DR. VITTENGL-Could we re-address the garage again? MR. CARVIN-I don't have it as part of the original application. MR. THOMAS-You could amend it. MR. CARVIN-I don't know what the amending process is. I suppose if he amends it, we have to re-advertise it, r~ght? MR. GORALSKI-If we re-advertise it with the garage. - 23 - I I --../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) MR. CARVIN-I'm going to leave that to your discretion, but let me know one way or the other, or let this Board know what we're doing here. I mean, if it's garage, that opens up a whole new avenue, as far as I'm concerned, because we've had absolutely no discussion as the garage. MR. GORALSKI~Okay. MR. CARVIN-So, my preference would be is to, I mean, it wasn't part, we've come three-quarters of the way down this road without the garage, and I think that I would make that a separate issue. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. That's fine. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-1996 MORGAN VITTENGL, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Menter: Until we can get a full Board. Hopefully this tabling will allow the applicant and the neighbors an opportunity to open up a discussion to see if there are alternate feasible alternatives. Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1996, by the following vote~ AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Menter, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green MR. CARVIN-It's tabled. Okay. The next item of business is going to be the Halliday application. AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-1996 TYPE II WR-1A CEA HAROLD & LYN HALLIDAY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SOUTH SIDE OF NYS ROUTE 9L APPROX. 1/4 MILE EAST OF THE CLEVERDALE ROAD INTERSECTION APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A TWO AND ONE HALF STORY GARAGE WITH GARAGE SPACE ON THE MAIN FLOOR AND IN THE BASEMENT. THE MAIN FLOOR OF THE GARAGE WILL HAVE AN AREA OF 1,250 SQ. FT. GARAGES ARE LIMITED TO AN AREA OF 900 SQ. FT. BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THIS ACTION REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR A GARAGE LISTED IN SECTION 179-7B. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/8/96 TAX MAP NO. 10-1-12 LOT SIZE: 1.40 ACRES SECTION 179-7B MR. CARVIN-Okay. This is Halliday. Now when last we met, we had a noticing problem. MR. GORALSKI-Right, and today we received a letter from Mr. Halliday's agent, which I believe is in the file, requesting that this be tabled because they could not arrange their schedules to appear tonight. MR. CARVIN-Okay. However, the public hearing, the application was opened last, when last we met. What was it, the 15th? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-We had public comments made at that time, which are part of the record. The public hearing is still open. The public hearing will remain open, but we will not reach a decision tonight. So anyone wishing to be heard, either in support or in opposition of the Halliday application. We will be hearing this again, I suspect, at some point next month or the month after. I'm not sure which. It is not necessary that you make a comment this evening, because as I said, the public hearing will be left open. However, if you are unavailable or cannot make the next meeting, then I would strongly suggest that you make any comments regarding this - 24 - I i ~ ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) application tonight, and they will become part of the permanent record. So, again, I would ask if there's anyone wishing to be heard with regard to Harold and Lyn Halliday and their garage. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN HOWARD KRANTZ MR. KRANTZ-Good evening. Howard Krantz, an attorney in Lake George. I represent Scotty and Janice McLaughlin who own the contiguous property wrapping around this property as well, and I'll be brief. I know you had a long first item on the agenda. I know you have other people waiting. When we were here at the· last meeting, not last night, but the original meeting on this, I expressed to you that we had some concerns and we asked to reserve them. We tried to work them out with the applicant, and, alas, we were not successful in doing so. We have two concerns, and before identifying them, you need to understand the property line, and the survey map you're now looking at, which was prepared by VanDusen and Steves, shows this line here is the true property line. It actually cuts through the Halliday's property. The garage they propose to put on is to the south, basically. Now, that should corne as news to you, because if you look at their site plan,~ou had no indication of that. MR. THOMAS-Howard, what was that a map of, the McLaughlin property? MR. KRANTZ-Correct. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. KRANTZ-Right. The McLaughlin's sold, Chris, this parcel to the Hallidays. MR. THOMAS-With the lot line through the house? MR,. KRANTZ-With the lot line through the house. It was not known at the time. MR. THOMAS-Was the MR. KRANTZ-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. house existing when that lot was sold? Thanks. MR. KRANTZ-Leon did his map, the dating of this one, '95, last year. The property was sold quite a long time before that. MR. KARPELES-And can you show us on that where the property line goes, just roughly? MR. KRANTZ-The property line is here. It's somewhat faint on your map, but it starts at that point there and back. It's faint, and you'll see if you travel along it (lost word) 350 feet, and then it's obviously through the house, and then it's picked up again. Now, I rhetorically might ask you, how could someone possibly prepare a map and show property on the other side of this property line as belonging to Halliday? It makes you wonder, but the true property line is here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Again, I'm running on a very low battery tonight, so are you saying Mr. McLaughlin owns part of his house? Am I hearing this? MR. KRANTZ-Well, I don't want to get into issues of adverse possession. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but I want to hear that part of that house is - 25 - I I --/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) sitting on Mr. McLaughlin's land. MR. KRANTZ-Record title? Absolutely. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. KRANTZ-Here's the true property line. So the first concern we have is, is the garage set back sufficiently on the side yard setback, from the true property line? That mayor may not be a problem. I've tried to scale it out, but it's hard to do working with this map the last time I was here. If it isn't set back sufficient, then we ask that this process concerning this garage not be piecemealed by granting an Area Variance one month and· then they're coming back for another, but if you consider them total. I don't know the answer, whether it meets the side yard setback. This is in the Waterfront Residential zone. Is that 20 foot side? MR. GORALSKI-A 50 foot sum with a minimum of 20 on one side. So, if it's 20 feet, it would make it, I'm not sure. I don't have an architect's scale. MR. KRANTZ-It mayor may not make it. I'm not sure. The greater concern, if you remember their description of the garage, I think it's enclosing, there's a grade dropping off toward the back, and it's going to be multi stories in the back and fewer stories in the front, and if I recall the applicant's indication of how he's going to access this garage, he'll put a new driveway at this location, which is presumably within his property boundary, to gain access to the front, but that larger multi story level, he is going to use this gravel driveway here, to swing around and out access that way. This driveway is not on Mr. Halliday's property, and Mr. Halliday has received notice last month that the true owner of the property is withdrawing their permission to use that driveway. So how are they going to access the garage as far as the back is concerned? MR. CARVIN-How about that shed that's behind the house. Is that on Mr. McLaughlin's property also? MR. KRANTZ-Yes, and there's another out building on Mr. McLaughlin's property. There's two of them. It's kind of related. It's not 100% germane to the variance application, and I might add, also, that, and correct me if I'm wrong, that Mr. McLaughlin, I think it's fair to say he's neutral on this variance application. He's not for it. He's not against it. He's against it as proposed only because it would necessarily involve an encroachment and an access problem, and I believe that if the Hallidays can find some legal way to gain access to the back of their garage, then it's not a concern tO,the McLaughlins. MR. THOMAS-Mr. Krantz, why would anyone put a property line through a building like that? MR. KRANTZ-It was obviously a mistake. intentionally. It wasn't done MR. THOMAS-Okay, and this mistake was just found out in 1995 when VanDusen and Steves re-surveyed the property? MR. KRANTZ-Yes. Well, I think exactly where it was located was last year. I think they knew about it, generally, before then. They realized that a problem had been created. MR. THOMAS-Do the Hallidays know that this exists, their property line goes through their house like that? MR. KRANTZ-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Because in their application, they're saying they have setbacks from side yard one and side yard two of 80 plus feet and - 26 - I i \-' -......I (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) 45 feet, on their application. MR. KRANTZ-As I said before, when they put reputed owner of the applicant on property that they, with all due respect, they know or should have known belong to the neighbor, it gives you pause. MR. CARVIN-Well, let me ask you this. Do you have a calculation of what Mr. McLaughlin's property is in relation to Mr. Halliday's, in that Mr. Halliday says his area of parcel is 1.48 acres. Is that including the McLaughlin parcel, as you know it? MR. KRANTZ-I have no way of figuring that. The man who prepared this map, I think it was Mr. Brown. MR. THOMAS-Peter J. Brown. MR. KRANTZ-Right. I don't know what he used for calculation. I know that the true property line is kind of faint, and I think it's fair to say if I hadn't brought this to your attention tonight, you never would have known, and I don't say that in any criticism. Looking at this map, you never would have known that this is the true property line. MR. THOMAS-No, because he's telling us that side line setbacks are 80 feet and 45 feet. --- MR. KRANTZ-I don't know how he's measuring. MR. THOMAS-I'd like to know where he's measuring from. MR. CARVIN-Well, I want to make sure that we're solid on this property line. I mean, I'm assuming that this is legally documented that this is the actual property line, that this is not something that's just been discovered and that may have, you know, I'm not a lawyer. So I don't do real estate law. MR. KRANTZ-There's no question about it. MR. THOMAS-Is that map recorded? There's no stamp on that I can see from here. MR. KRANTZ-It doesn't have to be filed. It's a survey map prepared by VanDusen and Steves, Licensed Land Surveyors. MR. THOMAS-Right, but it's not on file with the County, that you know of? MR. KRANTZ-Right, which doesn't impact on its validity one way or the other. MR. CARVIN-How long has that property line been there, as far as you know? MR. KRANTZ-This parcel existed when it was created back in the 70's, 60's and 70's, on the sale to the Hallidays. MR. CARVIN-Have you been paying taxes on it? I mean, what's our tax map show? MR. KRANTZ-The tax map shows this. MR. GORALSKI-I believe that the tax map shows, well, the tax map shows similar to the one that Mr. Krantz is describing. MR. CARVIN-On the angle? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. MENTER-What was the original confusion? Describe Halliday's original idea of what he bought? - 27 - I ( ~ --- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) MR. KRANTZ-I can't speak for that. MR. MENTER-Well, I'm just trying to figure out what exactly the discrepancy is in that line. MR. KRANTZ-The discrepancy? MR. MENTER-In other words, what did you sell him? What did he think he was buying? SCOTT MCLAUGHLIN MR. MCLAUGHLIN-I could answer that, probably. Originally, ·this property was not surveyed. I had it done in the last year, August, whatever, of '95. Harold, I think you'll see the surveying stamp on the drawing that you have there of maybe 1980 that Dennis Dickensen surveyed it. It wasn't until then, Harold knew, at that time, that the line actually cut through the building. I thought, and I built the building. The building belonged to me and a partner that we were in business with at the time. I thought that the line came down like this, just missing the corner of the building. At the time that I sold the building, we closed down our business. We sold it to Harold. I gave him verbal permission~ I said, you can come around, I know it's a problem to get to the back of 'your property. I'll give you permission. You can drive around on me to get into the back of the property. At that time, I thought that the line came down in a manner like this, and missed the building. I didn' t know, until last August, that the line actually is where it is. I assumed that the line was missing the building. I had a problem, just kept moving over and over, closer to my property. He's got wood piled up. He's done improvements to it. I've talked to him about it. I'm not denying him the use of the driveway. I still would let him use the driveway, but I think that if he's going to put a garage up, he ought to put the driveway on its own property, then we would we either would block this line off. He'd move the (lost word) to whatever. I've offered to sell it to him. He isn't in a position to buy it. So I have no other choice. I guess at this time I'll let Howard. MR. KRANTZ-Again, I think Scotty's position is he can access on his property. He doesn't have an objection. He's not for it. He's not against it, as long as the access. Granting the variance and allowing this man to go ahead and construct something where he's not going to be able to access half the building, legally, is just going to make the problem worse. That's why we wanted to bring it to your attention. We tried to resolve this with Mr. Halliday, to no avail, but of the two concerns, the setback is the lesser of the two concerns. If it doesn't meet the setback, it's probably fairly close. It's really the access. MR. MENTER-Well, that's interesting. MR. CARVIN-I would ask Staff to verify the 1.48 acres, I mean, whether we're looking at a correct figure here. MR. MCLAUGHLIN-I think that, actually, his property is the 1.48 acres. I believe this is what we sold. That doesn't include the property that he's using of mine. MR. CARVIN-I'm assuming, John, he's got enough frontage on the road? MR. GORALSKI-Well, he's got a pre-existing lot. MR. CARVIN-But there's no driveway or curb cut, right, now? MR. GORALSKI-I appears to be that, actually, there is a loop drive, I believe, in front of the house, if I'm not mistaken. - 28 - I I "---' ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) MR. CARVIN-I don't remember. MR. GORALSKI-Just to the, what would be the south of the existing building. That is, actually, that is shown on the plan, too, the gravel driveway. MR. KRANTZ-This is how he intends to try and access the multistory garage in the back. If he can access on his own property, no problem. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anything else? Any questions of the speaker? MR. MENTER-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anything else? Anyone else wishing to be heard? Yes, sir. DON PENSEL MR. PENSEL- I'm Don Pense I , a couple of houses away from this project. It appears to be that, among other things, this garage projects out onto the next property next door. Is this correct? ---- MR. CARVIN-Not the garage, no. From all indications, the house sits on another piece of property, but the garage is fully on Mr. Halliday's property, if that's what you're referring to. MR. PENSEL-No. As I remember, the house was very close to the next property next door, and I owned that property and subdivided it, the best possible utilization that we could get out of that. MR. CARVIN-Mr. Krantz, maybe you could show him that map, where the garage is. MR. KRANTZ-Here's the garage here. MR. PENSEL- I see. Well, I'm entirely mistaken on that. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Anything else? Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard? Yes. STACEY CALOGERO MRS. CALOGERO-Hi. My name is Stacey Calogero, and I live adjacent to Mr. Halliday. I moved up here two years ago to Queensbury to escape the commercialism of myoId neighborhood, and what my concern is, what the garage is going to be used for. Around the end of February, I noticed a number of buses parked at the Halliday residence. I heard that he's building for his business which was sold in South Glens Falls, and I figured he was in transition, perhaps moving it to another location. However, it's now the end of May and there are still buses parked there. The fact is I'm nervous that I will be living next door to a bus terminal. Buses are going by my house. I have copies of ads run in the Post Star, as recently as May 15th, with tours running through June. So the phone number on these ads is his home phone. So he is conducting business at his house, and that was the reason, the proposal for his garage, a rather large one, big enough to house these buses. I'm left with the impression that this is what it's really going to be used for, and I'm really concerned that my neighborhood will not be residential, and about having buses zooming by, and children and animals. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. THOMAS-For your information, Mr. Halliday has stated that those buses will not go in those garages, nor will they fit those garages. He stated that last week. - 29 - I { ~ -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) MRS. CALOGERO-Okay. MR. CARVIN-However, his vans will. MR. THOMAS-Yes, his van. He stated he had six cars, I think, his family has. MRS. CALOGERO-So he's going to leave the buses outside and put all the cars outside? Should those buses really be there? That's my point. MR. CARVIN-Interesting question. MR. THOMAS-We don't know about that. MRS. CALOGERO-Okay. MR. THOMAS-But he did state that the six cars were going in. MR. CARVIN-Where are you? MRS. CALOGERO-I live adjacent. ..- MR. KARPELES-You said adjacent, but is it south, north, east? MR. GORALSKI-South. MRS. CALOGERO-Next door to Mr. Pensel's. MR. MENTER-Okay. MRS. CALOGERO-Okay. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard? ISABEL MUNOFF MRS. MUNOFF-My name is Isabel Munoff. I'm a property owner also within the 500 foot radius of Mr. Halliday's property. I'm one of the neighbors that wasn't notified at the last meeting. We should have gotten notification. We didn't. There was a clerical error, I suppose, on the part of your Staff. My comment here is neither pro nor con, because I really am facing very little information about the project. All the information I have is basically what was presented this evening. So, I guess my question is, Number One, if you are tabling this for another meeting, Number One, is the record corrected so that we will get notification of the next meeting? Is there going to be notification for the next meeting, and at the next meeting, what kind of business do you intend to conduct? How much will be discussed, and if none of this is going to be discussed, if it's just for decision making purposes, I'd like to know where I can view the information that was presented at the last meeting. MR. CARVIN-Okay. If you contact Staff, you can have a copy of the minutes. All of our minutes are taped and printed, and they are readily available. We have a file which, I guess, contains all of the pertinent information with regard to the application. In 25 wdrds or less, he is requesting relief from, I don't know, whatever section it is. We have an Ordinance that says you can have a 900 square foot garage, and he is proposing, and I don't want to stand or fall by the numbers here, but I believe he's proposing. MRS. MUNOFF-l,250 square feet, on one level, which was what was written in the notification we just got recently. MR. CARVIN-Right, but the overall square footage will be 3536 feet. So, it is about four times. So he's seeking relief from that - 30 - / I \- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting -..I 5/23/96) garage section. MR. THOMAS-Section 179-7B, which limits the area of a garage to 900 square feet. MRS. MUNOFF-Okay, and is the utilization of this garage strictly for personal vehicles, or is there a parking space, or a new dwelling space. MR. CARVIN-Yes. private garage. This is a waterfront district, and this is a So it should not be used for commercial use. MRS. MUNOFF-Okay. garage space? So the entire new structure is strictly for MR. CARVIN-That's how it's being presented. MR. GORALSKI-There is, I believe if you look at the plan there, I believe there's some type of storage space or something. MR. CARVIN-Storage space, yes, upstairs on the second or third level. .- MR. GORALSKI-Actually, on that lower level, there's a garage on the middle level, and then some type of. MR. CARVIN-This is the schematic, here, of what he is proposing. MRS. MUNOFF-I don't want to belabor that. That's okay. MR. THOMAS-He has stated, for the record, that he was going to store tools, snowmobiles, ATV's and six vehicles. MRS. MUNOFF-My last question, I mean, I don't know if you can address this at this meeting, because I guess this is a new development that has come up with respect to the property lines and what kind of process does have to happen now? Is that something that needs to be re-addressed at the next meeting? MR. CARVIN-Well, the property line, in and of itself, is not a challenge. Just because it goes through his house does not have a direct effect on the garage, other than the setback. We may have some incorrect figures if he's not taking it from the proper location. Okay. Of greater concern, as Mr. Krantz has indicated, is that the access to the lower tier, if I can so use that term, is project to go across his property and what he's saying is that that access will not be available to him. Now that does not mean that if he's granted that he can't find another access on his own property to that lower tier, but that's all that property line issue is at this point, and anything beyond that is not within the scope or realm of the Zoning Board, as far as Mr. Krantz has indicated, you know, is he going to make him move the house, and those are legal issues way beyond me. So we'll keep it to the zoning, but what we're looking at is, you know, is his request reasonable in comparison to the benefit to him, as opposed to the detriment to the community, and this is essentially the guidelines that we're supposed to look at this at, and certainly we're in the public hearing. None of us live directly out in there. We've all looked at the location, but we depend on, obviously, public input, both pro and con, as to what the neighbors feel. That's not to say that, you know, we've had lots of neighbors come in and say that a situation is bad, and this Board moves ahead in that direction, but we do listen to and value all comments. MRS. MUNOFF-And the public hearing will be open at the next meeting as well? MR. CARVIN-Yes. - 31 - I '( '-' -....' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) MRS. MUNOFF-Because I reserve any pro or con until I have a chance to take a look at the maps. MR. CARVIN-Yes. This one's kind of bouncing along in its rather unique fashion. We're looking at a situation where we're having a comedy of errors. We're trying to sort it out. I'm trying to be fair to everyone, because last meeting it was not advertised. We had some folks show up. We did not know, because it was improperly advertised, who did not get the notice, because they weren't there. So we couldn't do anything with that. We agreed, the applicant was very adamant in moving ahead. I gave him the option of, we could either postpone it to the proper time or we could open up the application, leave the public hearing open, with the· full understanding of the applicant that the public hearing would remain open to this meeting, and that any comments made last month, or last meeting, would be part of the record. Well, now we've got a situation where the applicant has requested a tabling. So the applicant is not here, but now I've got the public, because we've properly advertised this as a meeting tonight. Because the public hearing was open, and because the public is here, not that it's mandatory that you have to make a comment, but I'm suggesting if you can't make the next meeting, to make your comments tonight, but we will entertain the public. Now the public hearing will remain open. Now I don't know when this is going to be re-scheduled. MRS. MUNOFF-Will we receive notification? MR. CARVIN-It is unlikely. We do not normally re-notice. Do we, John? MR. GORALSKI-Not after proper notice has gone out, but we set our agendas between the last Wednesday of the month and the first Wednesday of the next month. MRS. MUNOFF-I respect you guys. You work a long day and come here at night, but also aren't we other public people working people as well? I can't make a second job of trying to check the agenda every day to see whether or not a hearing is going to be held. MR. CARVIN-That's why I'm asking, if you've got comments that are relevant to this, to obviously make them tonight. MRS. MUNOFF-I can't make comments because I wasn't informed of the last meeting when it was discussed, when it shouldn't have been because my legal rights as a citizen of Queensbury were violated. MR. GORALSKI-I can tell you that the date of the meeting will be determined some time between May 29th and June 6th. So if you call me on June 6th, we can tell you when the meeting will be, and it will be either the third or fourth Wednesday of June. MR. CARVIN-We normally put that in the paper, do we? MR. GORALSKI - Yes. It's usually published in the legal notices, but it's a lot easier to call us than it is to check the legal notices. MRS. MUNOFF-Yes. I don't make it a habit of scanning my legal notices. Maybe I should. Okay. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Sure. Anyone else wishing to be heard? MR. THOMAS-I've got some correspondence. A letter dated May 16, 1996, regarding Harold and Lyn Halliday, Variance No. 29-1996, addressed to me. "The size of the building in question is not only about four times the allowed size but for this reason alone is enough reason to deflate the value of residences nearby. Mr. - 32 - I I "- --.J' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) Halliday told me that he had several busses at his residence during the Lake Placid Olympics and for this reason he has the right to keep them there. Since this is certainly not allowable according to the zoning in this area he has no intention of obeying them anyway. How can he convince me that he intends to do so in the future with the busses or the building which could be used for offices, stationing of customers, and even housing limos. Queensbury says that such things are not allowed under zoning. What good is this if the laws are not enforced? Are we going to have zoning here or not? It would be better to have no zoning at all than to have it flaunted spoiling many peoples plans. The Town of Queensbury owes the citizens of every area of the town their carrying out the employment of these laws strictly so that people involved are not hurt and the town does not become a shambles. Very truly yours, Don pensel" A letter dated May 20, 1996, subj ect : Hal Halliday Variance "I have no obj ection to the building as long as commerce use is not allowed. I have passed this residence at least five times per week for the past 10 years and have never seen buses on the lot. In the past 2 months, I have observed 2 buses parked on the residential lot. If this variance is to do with commercial use of the property regarding 1. running a business 2. housing 2 buses. I am opposed to such activity in a residential neighborhood. Sincerely, Peter Lewin" And that's it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other public comment? Okay. Then I would move that we table this application. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-1996 HAROLD & LYN HALLIDAY, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: For no more than 60 days, to be heard at the first opportunity. Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1996, by the following vote: MR. THOMAS-Wait a minute. I've got a fax here. MR. CARVIN-Read it in. MR. THOMAS-A fax received today at 1:30 p.m., addressed to James Martin, "As you are aware, I am Mr. and Mrs. Hal Halliday's builder in the project currently under Zoning Board of Appeals consideration, which is scheduled again for this evening. Unfortunately, through no fault of the Halliday's, the original meeting became an informal review and informal presentation only, in consideration of those neighbors properly notified. Hal and I were both unable to free up our schedules for this evening and request the procedure be properly processed next month, allowing for all concerns and parties to be properly addressed in the normal format. At this time, I also request copies of all correspondence received to date, including the Staff reports and anonymous which we be accepted into the file. You can either mail or fax these items to my address above, whichever's easiest. Sincerely, Peter J. Brown, Peter J. Brown Construction Management" AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green MR. CARVIN-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANC~ NO. 37-1996 TYPE II WR-1A CEA MICHAEL CANTANUCCI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE BRAYTON LANE OFF ASSEMBLY PT. RD. APPROX. - 33 - I I .......; '--- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) 0.2 MILES ON LEFT APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A COVERED WALKWAY WHICH WILL BE ATTACHED TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THIS WALKWAY REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179- 16C. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO SEEKING TO CONSTRUCT A 190 SQ. FT. GAZEBO REQUIRING RELIEF FROM THE SHORELINE SETBACKS IN SECTION 179- 60B, 5, 15, C. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/8/96 TAX MAP NO. 0.41 ACRES, 0.14 ACRES SECTION 179-60B(l) (C), 179-16C DENNIS MACELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 37-1996, Michael Cantanucci, Meeting Date: May 23, 1996 "APPLICANT: Michael Cantanucci PROJECT LOCATION: Brayton Lane Proposed Project and Conformance wi th the Ordinance: Applicant proposes to construct a covered walkway attached to a single family home. Relief is needed from the side setbacks listed in Section 179-16C. A 190 square foot gazebo is also proposed to be located 19 feet from the shoreline. Relief is needed from the shoreline setbacks in Section 179-60B, 5, 15, C. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build a covered walkway attached to his home and a new gazebo. 2. Feasible alternatives: The applicant may have the ability to construct a walkway that would need a lesser amount of relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The applicant is seeking side setback relief of 19 feet and shoreline setback relief of 56 feet. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? There do not appear to be any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Additional comment may be given at the public hearing. 5. Is this difficulty self created? This lot tapers inward as it goes away from the shoreline. Any accessory structure builtin this area of the lot would need setback relief. Parcel History This lot has been owned by Michael Cantanucci since September 1995. Staff Comments & Concerns: The height of the proposed gazebo and walkway should be indicated by the applicant. Staff is concerned with allowing a walkway this close to the side property line. Staff would encourage the applicant to redesign this walkway so that less side setback relief is needed. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-IIAt a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 8th day of May 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a covered walkway which will be attached to a single family home and to construct a 190 sq. ft. gazebo was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everybody understand what the applicant is requesting? Any questions? MR. MENTER-Is the relief required on the walkway is nine feet or nineteen feet? MR. THOMAS-Nineteen feet, no eleven feet. MR. GORALSKI-It would be 11 feet from the property line. He has 20 on the other side, so it would have to be 30 on that side. MR. MENTER-Okay. So it is 19 feet. Got it. Okay. MR. CARVIN-Any questions? MR. KARPELES-No. MR. THOMAS-After the public hearing. 34 I - - I '- ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MACELROY-Can I update you on part of this application? First of all, I'm Dennis MacElroy from Environmental Designs, an engineer representing Mr. Cantanucci. One point of correction, first of all, from the reading of the application. The lot size is 1.9 acres. You may remember from last fall, it's a consolidation of smaller lots, which two of them were, I guess, the .4 acres and the .4 acres that are listed on the agenda, but the lot size is 1.9 acres. MR. THOMAS-Yes. The 1.9 acres is crossed out on the application. 0.14 acres is written in. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I don't know, but it is 1.9. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. MACELROY-One aspect of the request was the gazebo within the shoreline setback. Mr. Cantanucci, upon closer review, he had submitted this back earlier in the month, obviously., He's been to the site twice now, and with more careful review of the placement of that gazebo, he's decided to withdraw that element of.-- the application, feeling strongly about the impact it potentially would have on the Young's view shed. It's simply a matter of being to the site and understanding better the positioning of that structure and how it might have potentially impacted the neighbor's view. So, it's as simple as that. He's 'removed, withdrawn his request for that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MACELROY-If I could explain a little further on the covered walkway. In September of '95, the applicant received a variance, which allowed for a 50 foot setback from the shoreline, with a certain footprint. The house is as it's been finally designed, has a 'slightly different configuration of its footprint. It's the same area. The jigs and jogs are slightly different. The application that you see, positioned the main structure within the setbacks, side yard setbacks, the same 50 foot front yard setback that was granted previously. Originally, we had just split the difference on the side yard, 25 and 25, and now it is 20 feet, the positioning of the side yard on the easterly side is 20 feet. The side yard on the westerly side, or the side that the Young's property is on, is 30 feet. The main structure itself falls within those setbacks. The request for a variance deals with an open, covered walkway which, based on its configuration and angle of to this structure would require replacement of it to within 11 feet of the side property line, thus technically giving a 19 foot request for the variance. This is basically, the structure itself is, the mass of the structure has moved back slightly from the original placement, the footprint that was approved on the previous variance and the site plan that followed in October. Following the action from this Board, we plan to go back for a site plan modification to address that slight shifting of the building within the site and the effect that might have on other site elements. I'd talk with the Planning Staff about that. MR. MENTER-Is the design of that walkway strictly aesthetic, going out in the 90 degree angle, you know, that distance from the porch? MR. MASON-Certainly, it's functional, to some extent that there is aesthetic features to it, the way that that enters in at that angle, taking advantage of the interior design, as well, and the window locations, the entry into the building, and therefore it has to be, it has to come out from the building toward the property line far enough to clear the edge of what would be the southwesterly edge, corner of that garage. - 35 - I I --/ '--- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) MR. KARPELES-Why can't it go parallel with the side of the house? MR. CARVIN-Or why do you need it at all? MR. KARPELES-Yes. Why do you need it? MR. MASON-Itis a feature that is tied in with to the character of the design, the architectural, Adirondack concept that has been followed with the design of the structure, covered walkway fits in with that. MR. CARVIN-But architecture is not part of our criteria. MR. KARPELES-Yes. Why wasn't it on the original proposal? MR. MASON-It's an idea that has come forward through the design development of this structure. MR. CARVIN-What purpose does a covered walkway serve, other than to keep you dry for a longer distance? MR. MASON-It's a design feature that ties into the design of the house. The function of it, it allows for passage from the drive area into the entry of the house. MR. CARVIN-What would happen ifevervbodv in the Town of Queensbury wanted a covered walkway that infringed upon their neighbor's side yard setbacks? I like to stay dry just as much as the next guy, but I've got a hard time with this one. MR. THOMAS-Is there any entry from the garage into the house, interior wise? MR. MASON-Well, for the two cars that are parked there. Not for any visitors or guests to the home. No. MR. KARPELES-Well, why couldn't the walkway run parallel with the garage, the side? MR. MASON-The entry is at an angle. See the way the entry? MR. KARPELES - Yes, I see that, but so what? So you can come parallel to there and then go into the entry, can't you? MR. MENTER-Well, even if you came off the 45, you'd require relief. MR. CARVIN-I'm saying it requires relief. MR. MENTER-It would anyway. MR. CARVIN-And I don't have any criteria, I mean, a covered. , MR. KARPELES-Well, does it require relief, if you run it parallel? MR. CARVIN-I guess. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but what if you came right in here? MR. MENTER-I see, to the other side of that. MR. CARVIN-Well, if he can make it fit. MR. KARPELES-Then it wouldn't need relief. Why can't it be built that way? MR. MASON-So that it falls within the side setback? MR. KARPELES-Right. I - 36 - I '-- -..-I (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) MR. MENTER-He's talking about you coming off the adjacent side of the entry porch, not even the same end of the entry porch. MR. MASON - I understand what you're saying. Not being the architect for the design of the structure, I can' t tell you how that, functionally, how he put the entry of the house and how that may tie in, but that what I sense the architect. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but we have to grant minimum relief. MR. MASON-I understand. MR. KARPELES~Unless we understand it, how can we grant it? . MR. CARVIN-Any other questions? MR. KARPELES-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other comments? MICHAEL CANTANUCCI MR. CANTANUCCI-I could approach this a different way. I..-have looked at numerous other options. I can flip it, and I wouldn't have to come here tonight, but in so doing that, it would move the house 10 feet closer to the Young's property, and I thought that that would be more desirable, from their perspective, than having a minimal amount of covered walkway, end up closer to them. MR. THOMAS-By flipping it, you mean do a mirror image of the house, and move it two feet to the west? MR. CANTANUCCI-And employ the 20 foot setback on the Young's side. Where now the 20 foot setback is on this side, where there's not a structure, the house on this lot is up in proximity to the shoreline. We've chosen the 30 foot to be on this side, which puts the mass of the structure 10 feet further than the other way. There's also a natural berm that builds up at the outermost point of that walkway. When we say it's 11 feet, it's 11 feet at that outermost point, where it hits that angle, but there is a berm that's a natural 'elevation between that point and the Young's property, and you have a shed on their property which borders the property. I am sensitive to my neighbors and some of the things I've talked to them about. That's why I moved the gazebo, at their request. The architect's thought that that would be a nice feature element, but seeing where it would go, I disagree. I think that this is a better approach than flipping the house and having the house 10 feet closer to my neighbors, and the covered walkway is an important element, an important feature for me. I spent a lot of time with my architects designing the house. We liked the Adirondack flavor of timbers with a roof that would be open. It is practical to try to get out of a car and walk into a house without getting soaking wet. . MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anything else? I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FRED YOUNG MR. YOUNG-I'm Fred Young. I'm a little concerned about the re- design of the house, and I'm not aware of whether it's come close to our house or not, and I don't understand why that walkway has to go at a right angle and come so close. It's a rather large structure as is. With the existing house (lost words) this little block right here, and he's building this huge house here, and then he's going to continue it out by, you know, directions like that, and it just seems to me that he's already built a huge house on - 37 - I ( .-/ '---" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) this piece of property, and it seems to me there might be another way to do this walkway, like you say, go parallel, because to me to walk over this way and then walk that way to get into the house would be a lot of extra footsteps. MR. CARVIN-Any questions of the speaker? Anyone else wishing to be heard? ROBERT WALDEN MR. WALDEN-I'm Robert Walden on 23 Brayton Lane. I'd like to ask if the walkway would be seen from the lake side, whether it would increase the look of the house, the size of the house, or whe~her it was in back of the house, sufficient so that it's hidden from the lake, from the angle. That would make a big difference, because it's a big enough, a very large house now. MR. CARVIN-Well, that sits up a hill. That sits back. I would say, visually, from the lake, I think the house is going to be pretty large. I think the house is going to be, you know, sort of like, the house will be seen before the walkway. I don't think the walkway will be that, I mean, from the lake. ---- MR. WALDEN-I'm not sure. I mean, that's pretty small. My eyes are not 'that good. Where is that walkway? MR. CARVIN-The walkway is, I've highlighted it in yellow. So it's kind of an angle. I don't know if you can see it or not, on that map here. MR. MASON-It's right here. The view angles in from the lake. It's fair minor. MR. WALDEN-Is that the boathouse there? MR. MASON-That's the boathouse structure here, right. MR. CARVIN-It's kind of a semi cove area there. MR. MASON-Correct. Yes. MR. CARVIN-I don't think the walkway, visually, would be an impact from the lake. I think the visual impact is the house. I think the house will be very visible. MR. WALDEN-Does that mean, is that a parking area that is going to a parking area, or is it going to another house? MR. MACELROY-This is the drive that enters to the garage, and it's off of the drive. MR. WALDEN-In other words, there's no entry in from the garage into the house? MR. MACELROY-From inside the garage? MR. WALDEN-Yés. MR. MACELROY-Yes. MR. WALDEN-Well, then why do you need a walkway? MR. CANTANUCCI-Well, because I'm not going to leave my garage doors open every time a visitor comes visiting. MR. WALDEN-That's the entrance to the house there? MR. CANTANUCCI-Right. That's the entrance to the house. - 38 - I { '- J (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) MR. WALDEN-I see. Okay, and once the garage doors are down, that's the entrance to the house. Michael, answer this for me. Why can't it 'follow the contour of the house? MR. CANTANUCCI-I can re-visit that, but what I think that I will probably do, if it's not approved, is flip it. The' reason I thought that this was a better approach was because it would keep the house 10 feet further away from Youngs. MR. WALDEN-You're going to be parking where, Michael. MR. MACELROY-They're going to be parking in front of the garage. MR. WALDEN-They're going to be parking here, in the parking area, Michael? MR. CANTANUCCI-Yes. MR. WALDEN-So basically you're saying that they're going to be walking like this and then into the house, right? Why can't it be this way and into the house? It is the design? MR. CANTANUCCI-Yes. It's an architectural design that~is preferred, and it will work by flipping the image of the house so that the entry, instead of being on this side and going this way and in, we like this design. We can shift the house over 10 feet and go this way and in, and not have to come here. MR. WALDEN-And that is another entrance way? MR. CANTANUCCI-No. It wouldn't be another entrance. It's a little complicated, and I don't quite understand it myself, but we'd be flipping the house, so this entrance. MR. WALDEN-I understand. MR. CANTANUCCI-It would end up on this side, and we would like to go with this design, which will work on this side, without having to come in for a variance, but it would push the house 10 feet more this way. MR. WALDEN-Yes, but if it's a practical thing, Michael, I would think that you would just follow the contour right to the doorway there, and eliminate the way out there. (lost words) public driveway and still not go way, what is the distance here? What would that be? I mean, that's pretty big. That's almost as big as this, this whole thing. I'm doing this, Mr. Chairman and Board, because I'm a designer, and I'm an artist, and I really don't see, from a practical point of view, if Michael got this variance for his house. MR. CANTANUCCI-It's architectural. It's more interesting this way. MR. WALDEN-I'm saying that it will impact on the look of the size of that land. It does. I mean, if you look at this and you look at this, it's almost the same size, so from looking at it, even though it's an open piece there, it is, then, a much larger piece on the same piece of property, and I'm not saying I object to it. I'm saying there is an alternative to that, so that it would hug this and you wouldn't even see it, and it would be a covered walkway, and I don't think anybody would have an objection to that, if it's hugging close to the house. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Correspondence? Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard? MR. THOMAS-A letter dated May 21, 1996 "Dear Zoning Board of - 39 - I I -' "--', (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) Appeals: This letter is in reference to Area Variance No. 37-1996 concerning relief from setbacks requested by Michael Cantanucci. Standards in zoning protect the waters of Lake George by regulating the human impact on the property surrounding it's shores. I grow more concerned as new owners ask for changes in these standards not due to hardship, but due to extravagant individual desires. Purchasing shoreline property does not make one automatically aware of the unique responsibilities that come with owning and developing shoreline property. The property purchased is unique because it borders one of the largest clearwater lakes left in the state. A lake that is sensitive to all that surrounds it. The additional structures Mr. Cantanucci proposes further covers the permeable area of the land. If I recall correctly Mr. Cantanucci has "been granted a number of variance requests already. If in fact you grant him yet another for a covered walkway and an additional gazebo to go along with his boathouse, covered dock, two single family homes ad storage barn soon his entire shoreline will be one of manmade structures. In addition there will be more felling of trees and removal of foliage that will encourage runoff into the lake. I like to think our zoning laws are to protect us from ourselves. This seems a case where Mr. Cantanucci needs a little protection from his own shortsightedness and we as neighbors and keepers of the lake need a little protection from --his overdevelopment. Sincerely yours, Florence E. Connor" And that's the only one I've got. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other public comment? Seeing none, hearing none, public hearing closed. PUBLIC HBARING CLOSBD MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions of the applicant? Bob, what do you think? MR. KARPELES-I don't see why we need to grant a variance. It looks to me like it's possible to build the walkway without getting any setback relief. So that would be minimum relief. I have another question. This house, evidentally, has been shifted since we granted the original variance. Is that right? Does that mean we need a new variance? MR. GORALSKI-It's still within the 50 foot shoreline setback, and I believe it's within the footprint. It's just kind of the jogs, the original shape didn't have so many jogs in it, but as far as the criteria for your variance, it still meets all those criteria. MR. CARVIN-In other words, the side setbacks, height and all that? MR. GORALSKI-I don't believe there are any side setback variances. I think it was a shoreline setback. MR. CARVIN-What I'm saying is, yes, just shoreline, height restrictions, anything like that? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, right. MR. CARVIN-This was something that I know, I didn't remember, I don't remember voting for this, but I know that this was a combination. There were a number of issues there that we, that was related to, because it's a large boathouse. I mean, that boathouse, because that boathouse is a pretty big boathouse, and if this house is in comparison, it's going to be a big house. It's a big house. No doubt about it. MR. KARPELES-Well, I remember at the time that the variance was granted, I thought they did a good job. - 40 - I I \...r ........,/' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) MR. CANTANUCCI-Yes. The mass of the house is toward the back, from the lake. MR. KARPELES-But I'm surprised that they didn't incorporate everything they wanted at that time. MR. CANTANUCCI-Well, at that time, I had only purchased. the property the month before, and the purchase was contingent upon being able to get your approval. I didn't have enough time to do such details and diligence prior to that meeting, and I couldn't buy the lot unless. MR. KARPELES-I thought it was pretty definitive. I thought that's what we approved, but that's okay. My comment stand. MR. CANTANUCCI-See, there is another alternative. MR. 'CARVIN-Okay. Dave, any comments? MR. MENTER-Yes. Actually, I think the thing would look real nice, I mean, the Adirondack style is great, but I don't think it's within the scope of this Board to grant a variance for that type of an accessory. That's it to the point, actually. ~ MR. CARVIN-Okay. Chris? MR. THOMAS-No. Let Mr. Cantanucci talk. He had a comment. MR. CANTANUCCI-I'm sorry. I don't mean to keep interrupting. My timing is poor here this evening. I want you to understand, though, maybe the sensitivity to the Young's puts me in an uncomfortable position here this evening. The architectural design is an important feature. We have a way to accomplish that without asking for a variance here this evening. However, my sensitivity to the Young's brought me here. I know you're bringing up other suggestions that maybe we could change the shape of the walkway, etc. If you deny me the variance, I will explore that, but I think, when I go back and meet with my architect and he exprèsses his feel for that walkway and making it interesting instead of just a straight shot into the house, we can accomplish that without a variance, by flipping the walkway. However, that pushes the house ten feet closer to the Young's, which was my main motivation for coming here this evening. MR. CARVIN-On the other hand, you could leave the house where it is and not have a covered walk, because I think I do tend to agree with the written comment. It seems to be a rather frivolous accessory. Now, we've struggled with other applications on the lake, dealing with handicapped folks on lake front property who have some pretty legitimate things, and we've turned them down, and me sitting here, granting a variance for a sidewalk, I just have a hard time with it, and, you know, I realize that architectural aesthetics, and you have alternatives. I mean, if you can build it in compliance, I can't say no. I mean, that's your prerogative and right. It's your moral decision whether you want to move the house 10 feet closer to your neighbor, because from a logistics and legal standpoint, you are in compliance with the Code. He has no moan and groan from that. So, I mean, as I said, if you are sensitive to your neighbors, your choices are to flip it, and build it in compliance, or forget it and be very sensitive to your neighbors and leave the house where it is. I can't make that decision for you. I can say that I can't support this application as it's submitted. Having said that, any other questions? Then I'd ask for a motion. MOTI'ON TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-1996 MICHAEL CANTANUCCI, Introduced by David Menter who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: - 41 - I { ~ ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) On Brayton Lane, who is proposing to construct a covered walkway attached to his proposed single family home. Relief would be needed from side aggregate setback. It would be a 19 foot relief required. The benefit to the applicant on this project would primarily be one of aesthetics. Feasible alternatives would include simply re-designing the covered walkway in such a manner as it would be in compliance. The relief would be substantial in that it would be in excess of 60 percent of what is required and the difficulty would appear to be self-create, in as much as the covered walkway is considered a non essential addition. Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Menter, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-1996 TYPE II WR-1A CEA JOHN A. SHAFFER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD, APPROX. 4/10 OF MILE UP ON LEFT FROM INTERSECTION WITH ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING DWELLING AND GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW DWELLING. THIS ACTION REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-16C. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/8/96 TAX MAP NO. 6-1-5 LOT SIZE: 0.32 ACRES SECTION 179-16C LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOHN SHAFFER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 38-1996, John Shaffer, Meeting Date: May 23, 1996 "APPLICANT: John Shaffer PROJECT LOCATION: Assembly Point Rd. Proposed proj ect and Conformance with the Ordinance: Applicant proposes to remove an existing home and garage replacing them with a new single family dwelling. Relief is needed from the side yard setback listed in Section 179-16C. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build a new home and attach garage on his property. Feasible alternatives: It appears that there are no other alternatives which could provide a lesser amount of relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking side setback relief of 2.5 feet on one side and 12.5 on the other side. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? There do not appear to be any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Additional comment may be given at the public hearing. 5. Is this difficulty self created? Due to the width of this lot (75.5 feet), side setback relief would most likely be needed to build a home on this property. Parcel History: This .35 acre lot has been owned by John Shaffer since February 1988. Staff Comments &: Concerns: The applicant will submit building elevations indicating the height and design of the proposed structure. The board may want to consider what impact this 4560 square foot building will have on this .35 acre lot. SEQR: Type II, no further action required. II MR. THOMAS-II At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 8th day of May 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to demolish existing dwelling and garage and construct a new dwelling. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: Concurring with local conditions." Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson" MR. KARPELES-I've got a question for Staff. Does this 4560 square feet include the garage? - 42 - I ( \-- ......,,¡ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) MR. GORALSKI-To be honest with you, I didn't figure that square footage out, and Leon just mentioned to me that he doesn't believe that that's the correct number. So you might want to discuss with him what he feels the numbers are. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, it's an awful big number, if it is. MR. KARPELES-Yes, it is. MR. STEVES-Well, that's not right. MR. KARPELES-What is it? MR. STEVES-The correct figure, 2235, not including the garage. MR. KARPELES-That's quite a difference. MR. STEVES-Including the garage, it would be 3520. MR. CARVIN-That's just footprint. MR. SHAFFER-No. For the record, my name's John Shaffer. That's the living space. --- MR. CARVIN-That's the one and a half stories, total? MR. SHAFFER-Living space. MR. GORALSKI-The only thing I can think of is that, and this has come up in the past. I don't know if there's a walkout basement in this property. MR. SHAFFER-There's no walkout basement. MR. GORALSKI-There's no walkout basement. floors. So there's just two MR. CARVIN-It doesn't appear. Is this the correct schematic? MR. GORALSKI-And that's the lake side? MR. CARVIN-This is the lake side. MR. GORALSKI-Okay, then I'm not sure. I would have to defer to. MR. CARVIN-How tall is the current building there now, to the peak? MR. SHAFFER-The current building is 21 feet. MR. CARVIN-And that's to the peak, is it? MR. SHAFFER-That's to the peak. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and the highest point on this is, approximately? MR. SHAFFER-The highest point with that little peak there at the sitting room. The roof line is 29 feet. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So you're going from 21 to 29. MR. SHAFFER-Right. MR. CARVIN-And that's the roof line, and then this little thing probably jags up another. MR. SHAFFER-Two feet. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, a couple of feet. I have a question on that dock. I've got a little insert down here. Is that another - 43 - I I , --' "'-.-..-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) little lot, is that? Is that what this little triangle is? MR. SHAFFER-Well, there was a boundary dispute with my neighbor, and that was a proposal that I was going to lease the land to them. Their dock was actually on my land. To avoid any problem, I was going to lease it to them. MR. CARVIN-What happened? MR. SHAFFER-They didn't accept the lease. MR. CARVIN-And where's their dock? MR. SHAFFER-They're going to move it. MR. CARVIN-And that dock had been there how long? MR. SHAFFER-Their dock? I have no idea. think, about six years ago. They re-built it, I MR. CARVIN-How long as your dock been there? MR. SHAFFER-That was re-built two years ago. We moved it fro~the property line. It used to be right on the property line. This is the old dock that you're looking at. MR. CARVIN-This is not an accurate reflection, then? MR. SHAFFER-Not with the boathouse there. That's all been moved. MR. CARVIN-And was a permit applied for that dock? MR. SHAFFER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it was. Dock approval by Planning Board in 1994. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions? MR. THOMAS-Is there a deck on the front of this house? MR. SHAFFER-There's a porch. MR. THOMAS-Okay. old house, right? I'm looking at the deck. There's a deck on the I didn't walk around to the front of it. MR. SHAFFER-Yes. There's a deck. MR. THOMAS-Okay. old house. What I'm looking at, where it says "deck" is the MR. SHAFFER-That's the old house. We're moving the new house back. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Yes, 75.70 feet from the property line. MR. SHAFFER-We're about 60 some odd feet now. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STEVES-One of the comments that Staff made was the side lot yard variance request for relief, two and a half feet to twelve and a half feet. I don't know how they came up with that 12 and a half feet. MR. CARVIN-I think he's saying seeking relief. I mean, is it going to be about, what is the setback there? MR. MENTER-The setback's 20, right? - 44 - I ( "'--' .......,; (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Sum of 50 with a minimum of 20. MR. CARVIN-My guess is that you're probably 17 and a half feet off one, and darn close to, 16 and three quarters. MR. STEVES-We're at 16.75 on one side, and then the other side is 14.52. MR. CARVIN-I see, okay. Yes, I saw this number, yes. MR. STEVES-Yes. We tried to show the old setback as well as the new. MR. CARVIN-Okay. That's to the old house. MR. THOMAS-Yes. See this is the old house right here. This is where I got confused. See, that deck right there? This is the old house right here, and this is the old garage. MR. CARVIN-No, but this one looks like it's going to be even further. So it's going to be 1657, to the old house, yes. - MR. THOMAS-This is the old house. MR. CARVIN-That's what I'm saying, 1657 and 1675. MR. STEVES-Yes, that's to the new house, and this is to the new house to the overhang. MR. CARVIN-Yòu've got a little jag in there. I see, okay. MR. STEVES-Right (lost words) . MR. THOMAS-I thought it was to the old house. MR. STEVES-No. MR'. THOMAS-Got it. MR. STEVES-And we're at 75, 70 from the lake, at the nearest point on the building. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED EDWARD G. BAERTSCHI MR. BAERTSCHI-My name is Edward G. Baertschi. I live across the road from the applicant. This is my wife Norma, and we've got a number of questions in regard to this particular application. The determination, Number One, is in regard to where this proposed house or dwelling is going to be. In regard to this piece of property that the applicant owns, you see a figure of 75.5, or 75 and a half feet, of lake frontage. According to their deed, which they got from the Carey's, their property is only 75 feet, no more and no less. The original piece of property was 100 feet. My in- laws sold the property, or divided it and sold a portion to Mr. Foster Carey, saying 75 feet of lake frontage. Our piece of property, or what's left of it, remained at 25 feet. Now, when I went to school, 25 from 100 leaves 75, or 75 from 100 leaves 25, coming to 100 feet. It doesn't come out at 75 and a half feet. There's a discrepancy, and I'm going to be looking into this, in regard to that particular point. Secondly, on this plot here, it shows that the boundary line extends in the middle of Assembly - 45 - I ( --' '-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) Point Road. It doesn't. This is not a user road. This road is owned by the Town of Queensbury, apparently, from the top of the hill to, I believe, where the McCall residence is, and how this is proven is I've got the deeds where the property was deeded to the Town of Queensbury, and from what I understand, in the event, if the road was ever abandoned, the Town had the option to either sell it to or divide it between the people who lived on that particular portion of the road. It's a bonafide owned Town road, and the property line does not go to the center of the road. Also, there's a discrepancy, again, this is only in regard to where the proposed site of this dwelling's going to be. I had my land surveyed, which it says, Lands of Lamparella, belongs to my wife and her sister. This aluminum rod, or stainless steel rod, is at this point right here. Now, when I had my lot surveyed, the survey line came to the right-of-way of the road. There is a discrepancy of 11.3 feet from this aluminum rod to the right-of-way of the road, and that can be verified, if you want to see that, on this map done by Thomas L. Nesbitt, Licensed. If you'll look right here, here's the aluminum rod, or whatever, and here is the both to the right-of-way of the road. MR. THOMAS-You're saying that's the corner pin between your property and the road right-of-way? ~ MR. BAERTSCHI-That's the corner. Right, right there. MR. CARVIN-And you're saying this distance is 11? MR. BAERTSCHI-11.3, 11 feet three inches. MR. CARVIN-Okay, to there, approximately. MR. MENTER-You're saying the right-of-way is here? MR. CARVIN-No, the right-of-way runs here. In other words, here's the aluminum rod, which is here, and he's saying that the property, and I'm assuming that this is what you're saying, is that the property line, to the right-of-way. MR. BAERTSCHI-This piece which was surveyed, okay, this goes to the right-of-way of the road. From this point to here is 11.3 inches, 11 feet 3 inches. MR. CARVIN-Which would be to here. MR. BAERTSCHI-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. BAERTSCHI-Again, I think that might take a determination as to where this. MR. MENTER-How does that bear on the house? MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, that has no bearing. MR. MENTER-I don't think any of those things have a bearing on this house. MR. CARVIN-In other words, we're looking at the distance from here to here, and side to side. MR. BAERTSCHI-Well, how about in regard to the septic system? What's the setback from the road to a septic system? MR. CARVIN-I don't know, John? MR. GORALSKI-Ten feet from the property line. - 46 - I ( \-~. -" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) MR. BAERTSCHI-From the property line? MR: GORALSKI-Correct. MR. CARVIN-And this one would appear, at least visually, to have a problem on that, I mean, according to this schematic, I mean, if you figure this to be 11.3 feet. MR. MENTER-Well, it doesn' t change the property. misunderstanding, does it change the property line? Unless I'm MR. THOMAS-Yes, the property line is not here. MR. CARVIN-He's claiming the property line is not here, it's actually here. MR. MENTER-He was actually using this? MR. CARVIN-Yes, in other words, to get the 10 feet, but this is 11., well, to the septic it is. MR. MENTER-But that doesn't make any difference. .- MR. THOMAS-Yes, to the property line, it does. MR. CARVIN-In other words, it has to be 10 feet off here. MR. MENTER-Right. MR. CARVIN-And what I'm saying is that this is well within the 10 feet to the property line. MR. MENTER-Right. MR. THOMAS-If this distance from here to here is less than 10 feet. MR. CARVIN-Is less than 10 feet, this has got to be somewhat moved, or another. MR. MENTER-Yes, but the right-of-way here has nothing to do with that. MR. STEVES-Mr. Carvin, if I could help you, we addressed that, and there's no problem with the property line to the septic system. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I mean, I understand what this gentleman is saying, but I'm not positive that the septic could not be accommodated in the space that's left, and still maintain a 10 foot. MR. STEVES-I will address these issues. MR. BAERTSCHI-Also, one of my objections is, and I just got this information now, is in regard to the height of this building. You say the current building is 21 feet. The proposed building is 29 feet. Right now, with the 21 feet, I have very limited view of the lake. All I see is just a little portion of it, and I do see the mountains. With 29 feet, it'll wipe out everything, and I think any member of the Board that would care to come up there and take a look, sitting on my front deck is what I'm going to be looking at is a roof. Also, and again, maybe I should start this comment off, with regard to the notices. The land also on my side of the road, adjacent to it, is owned by my sister-in-law. She had not received notice until this morning. Yesterday. I was here Monday morning, in regard to this, but normally we get three notices, because we own the property next door, which is this piece there. We get a notice for property that we own across the road, and we get a notice, my sister-in-law gets a notice for the property that she - 47 - I I -/ "-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) owns, and we called, and she had not gotten the notice. I had come down here and asked how come we didn't get those notices, and one of the comments was, when we looked at the listed, and they looked also at the list, they did not see the name Lamparella. What they did see is Baertschi/Lamparella, so they sent it to us, and the gal said, well, we would normally send it to the address that's on the tax bill. Well, Mrs. Lamparella gets a tax bill out in Rochester for the piece of property that she owns, her and her husband. She never received that notice until yesterday. She called Mr. Hilton. She talked with him on the phone, and she had suggested, she wanted more information with regard to this, because she's out in Rochester and has no way of getting here in this short of time, and she has a lot of commitments (lost words) and she would like to have this tabled, so she can look into what's involved. MR. CARVIN-Do you know what the postmark was on the envelope? NORMA BAERTSCHI MRS. BAERTSCHI-I just called her to see if she'd gotten a notice, and she said, no. I called her Monday night, and she was away Monday night, and I got her Tuesday night, and she got her notice yesterday. She said she had gotten notice from Mr. Cantanucci, which we had not gotten. We usually get that, but we didn't get anything on his. MR. GORALSKI-The notices were properly sent out. We are required to send notices out five days in advance. The notices were sent out five days in advance. We cannot control the speed of the mail. We can only control when we send out the notices, and they were sent out in the proper time frame. MR. BAERTSCHI -No. I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is, the three notices that we would normally get, we only received one, and when I talked with the gal, she had said, seeing the name Lamparella and Baertschi on the one notice, it had come to us. The notice that Mrs. Lamparella was to get was for her lot across the road, which she lives in Rochester, and she didn't get that notice until yesterday morning. MR. GORALSKI-But she did receive it. MR. BAERTSCHI-Yesterday. MR. GORALSKI-There's nothing I can do about that. That's what I'm telling you. MR. BAERTSCHI-Well, when was it sent out? MR. GORALSKI-Five days ago. MR. BAERTSCHI-Five days ago? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, that would have been last Friday. MR. BAERTSCHI-Well, Monday when I talked, that notice had not been sent to her because they had sent the one to 90 Assembly Point Road. That's why I questioned it. I said, she lives in Rochester. MR. GORALSKI-I don't know. I don't know who you spoke to. All I know is, my understanding is that all the notices were properly sent. MR. BAERTSCHI-I'm just saying that she hadn't received the notice until yesterday. She would like to have it tabled so she can look at what's being involved in this, because her lot which is across the road and to the left of us, eventually she wants to build a retirement home there, and that's going to be impacted, with regard - 48 - \-' -.......' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) to'this. MRS. BAERTSCHI-I had some other questions, too. I wondered if this was going to have a blacktop drive or not. I'd like to know that, because there, again, we're going to the point where we're making more and more impermeable surface. MR. CARVIN-It says on the thing here, crushed stone. MRS. BAERTSCHI-That's the old one. MR. THOMAS-That's the old one. MR. CARVIN-Is that the old one? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Proposed drive. Well, it doesn't say old crushed stone. It just says proposed drive, crushed stone. Leon, are we going to have crushed stone or blacktop? MR. STEVES-Crushed stone. ---- MR. CARVIN-Crushed stone/blacktop? MR. STEVES-Impervious conditions, I think if you check our calculations, we're less than we are at the present time. MR. CARVIN-You're going to have a better situation? MR. GORALSKI-There'll be an increase in the permeable area. MR. CARVIN-Rlght. So I guess the answer is crushed stone at this point. MR. BAERTSCHI-How about the septic system? What's the setbacks from the lake to the septic system? MR. CARVIN-I don't have an answer. MR. GORALSKI-I believe it's 100 feet. I'd have to look. MRS. BAERTSCHI-I believe it's 200 feet, because Mr. McCall wanted 100 feet. MR. CARVIN-Is it going to be a new system or is it an old system? MR. SHAFFER-This'll be a brand new system. MR. CARVIN-It'll be a brand new system. Okay. MR. GORALSKI-There is a provision where, in some cases, it has to be 200. Let me check. MRS. BAERTSCHI-How many bathrooms are going to be in this new house? MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess the bathroom are related to the septic, but I'm more concerned about the side setbacks. I mean, we could ask how many windows there are. I just am asking for comments that might be relevant. You brought up some pretty good points, but we're being asked to grant relief from side yard setback. Is there anything else? MR. BAERTSCHI - I'm jus t concerned on the height of the building, how that's going to impact me. MR. CARVIN-I think it's a legitimate concern and one, hopefully, we - 49 - -' '---' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) can address. MR. BAERTSCHI-The Board members should come up and take a look. I mean, that's the best way. MR. CARVIN-I know I've been out there, and I suspect the rest of the Board has been out there. So we're aware of that situation. MR. BAERTSCHI-I do want to make one point clear. You brought up this little triangle down to the lake. We're in the process of moving that over. The actual dock, or complex, which we have is on our side, and what is on our side of the property line. It's not o~ the other side of the property line. What it entails is the fact that the Lake George Park Commission says that, due to the fact that the property line runs on an angle, it extends out and cuts across our dock, but we're in the process of moving that over. MR. CARVIN-Anything else? MR. BAERTSCHI-I believe that's it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then I'll ask if anyone else has any public comment. Anyone else wishing to be heard? Any correspondence? ---- MR. THOMAS-Yes. A letter dated May 22, 1996, To Whom It May Concern, Regarding John A. Shaffer, applicant "Since I am unable to attend the May 23rd meeting which will address Mr. Shaffer's request, I would like to submit my objections to a variance for relief from setbacks for a new dwelling in a Critical Environmental Area. Building a larger house on this .35 acre lot will cover more land that is needed to absorb water that will otherwise run off into the lake, thus continuing to issue, these variances, which are a major source of lake pollution, seems questionable to me. What would be left for future generations? Sincerely, Eunice K. Wilkins" A letter dated May 21, 1996, addressed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. This letter is in reference to Area Variance No. 38-1996 concerning relief from setbacks requested by John A. Shaffer. I applaud the town of Queensbury for making a set of standards in zoning that protects the waters of Lake George by regulating the human impact on the property surrounding its shores. However, I grow very concerned as letters asking for changes in these standards are not due to hardship, but due to the extravagant desires of individuals to take a relatively small parcel of property and propose to cover it with proportionately oversized structures, walkways and blacktop thereby stressing the land left on their lot and ultimately their neighbors. Wanting a big house on a small lot is not an extreme hardship. If one wants a particular small lot; build a small house. If one wants a larger house; buy a bigger lot. Remember, over-stressed land creates a number of dilemmas. Compare parts of Cleverdale and Rockhurst to Assembly Point. The difference is open space. Assembly Point has space to insure that the impact of society is not as stressful on the lake as it is in Cleverdale and Rockhurst. Please be critical and remember the zoning laws protect that space and are in place for a reason. Only extreme hardship should warrant altering those laws. It is only through boards such as this zoning board, that we as individuals can have faith that Lake George will survive for generations to come. Your obligation is to protect the community from mistakes and shortsightedness. Sincerely yours, Florence E. Connor" A Record of Telephone Conversation between George Hilton, Planning Staff, and Cheryl Lamparella, on Thursday, May 23, 1996, at 10:15 a.m., regarding Area Variance No. 38-1996, applicant: John Shaffer "Cheryl Lamparella called to say that she just received notice this morning (Thursday May 23, 1996) of the Thursday, May 23, 1996 Public Hearing regarding Mr. Shaffer's proposal to build a new home on Assembly, Point Rd. Cheryl is concerned because she has not had an opportunity to review this proposal which would directly effect her properties which are located directly to the south and across the street. Cheryl would - 50 - "'--- -.I (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) like to reqUest that this item be tabled in order to allow her adequate time to review this proposal and think further about what impacts this development would have on her property and the surrounding neighborhood. Some of Cheryl's concerns at this time are that this proposal would block her views of the lake; that this proposal would not be an appropriate size given the lakefront location; and that this home would be particularly big for the lot it is proposed to be located on. Cheryl closed the conversation by again requesting that this item be tabled in order to allow her adequate timè to review this project and any potential impacts in more detail." And that's it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other public comment? Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GORALSKI-If you're interested, I have an answer on the separation distance from the lake. A 100 foot separation is required unless a fill system or a mound system is being used. Then a 200 foot separation is required. So if it's a conventional system, 100 feet would be required. ---- MR. CARVIN-Any questions of the applicant? Dave? What do you think, MR. MENTER-Only regarding the septic. Leon, you said you had some calculations there. MR. STEVES-Yes, I do. MR. CARVIN-Well, this is a letter. Correspondence? Would you consider this MR. THOMAS-Yes, I would. A letter received at the meeting, to the Queensbury Town Planning Board and the Zoning Board. "I, Mary Weinman, have reviewed the plot plan for the Shaffer's new home on Assembly Point Road. My property on Assembly Point is immediately to the north of the Shaffer's property and we share a common property line. I agree with their proposed setback of approximately 16 feet adjoining my property. I also would accept reducing their setback adjoining my property in order to increase the setback on the southern boundary of their property to 20 feet. Mark Weinman 38 Orlando Avenue Albany, NY 12203" MR. STEVES-When we did the survey for Mr. Shaffer a few years ago, there wasn't any concern as to the location of highway bounds at that time or the need to go the expense of proving this location. We know where it is, and there was never any question of its ownership, but we have a drawing in the septic area. We have addressed that issue of this location of that property line and made the proper setbacks from it, and we've depicted it on the drawing tonight. In addition to the comments made, there was a question as to visibility. I haven't seen the deck. Perhaps you have, but I have been told that it is probably a second story deck. So assuming that this is true, it is 12 feet above the ground, the ground, as tp the topo maps prepared by New York State who did the shoreline survey, that proposed location is, at best, 326, and at 12 feet it's 338. Mr. Shaffer's house, the (lost word) elevation is 332, add 21 feet to that, and you come up with an elevation area of 353. I find it very difficult to see the roof from an elevation of 338. So that I don't see how we're intruding the view sheds of anyone. The building's going to be in a similar shape and location. MR. CARVIN-It's not similar shape. higher. It's going to be eight feet - 51 - ----- -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) MR. STEVES-It is going to be higher, nine feet higher. MR. CARVIN-Nine feet higher. MR. STEVES-I'm sorry, eight feet higher. The north elevation, then, would be at 361, compared to the deck elevation of 338. It's still above eye (lost words) . MR. KARPELES-What did you say the deck elevation was? MR. STEVES-I'm using the (lost words), if the elevation of the deck is 12 feet off the ground. MR. KARPELES-No, just what is it? What did you say it was? MR. STEVES-338. MR. KARPELES-And what's the elevation of the roof? MR. STEVES-The present roof is 353. MR. KARPELES-353. So the roof is higher than the deck? ~ MR. STEVES-Yes. It's higher than the neighbor's deck. MR. CARVIN-Excuse me, Leon. Who's deck are we talking about? MR. STEVES-The neighbor's deck. MR. CARVIN-Okay, now, when you say the neighbors, the Baertschi's? MR. STEVES-Yes. I'm talking about the neighbor's deck. The gentleman that was here just prior was commenting about his view shed, that all he could see was roof, and I'm explaining why he could only see roof is because he is 15 feet below the elevation level. MR. KARPELES-Right now, existing? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I think I agree. He lives back in here, is that correct? MR., STEVES-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. This crowns in here some place, is what you're saying. This is the higher point of the property down through there. The road is slightly below grade. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And this house is a single story? MR. SHAFFER-It's a story and a half. MR. CARVIN-And story and a half, 21 feet high, all right, and if he's sitting down below here now, how is you going up nine feet improve his view? MR. STEVES-It isn't going to improve it. You aren't going to see the lake in any respect. MR. CARVIN-No, but what he's saying is, and I would have to concur with him, that all he would be looking at is the back end of a very large house, that sits on a hill that appears even larger. MR. STEVES-Well, my understanding of his comment was that his view - 52 - '-- ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) shed is impeded because of the new building, and it's impeded now by the existing building. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but it's certainly not going to be less. MR. SHAFFER-I think that we're going to actually improve the view shed because we're going to bring in the setbacks on side, which are nine feet now, and we're going to increase it to 16, which means he'll be able to see the lake down past the building. Also, that garage that sits right out by the road blocks his view, and that garage is going to come down. So he's going to be able to see right straight down the property line down to the lake. He'll be able to see a lot more of the lake from his deck than he no~ sees. MR. CARVIN-Okay. On your application, you've indicated current square foot of 2,048, and your proposed is 2280. Yet, you gave us a figure of 2635, and then 3520 with the garage. MR. STEVES-I think probably a portion of the problem is, you're talking here footprint, as opposed to living space. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, how much living space is in the curr~ntly one and a half story house? MR. SHAFFER-1600. MR. CARVIN-Okay. garage? And the difference, the 2,048, is that the MR. STEVES-Yes, it is. MR. CARVIN-So, 1600 plus, whatever, talking a 400 square foot garage? going up by about 1,000 square feet? what Okay. have we got? We're The living space is MR. SHAFFER-We're going from 1600 to 2600, yes. MR. CARVIN-And then when you add the garage in, you're going to a total of 3500. MR. SHAFFER-No, 31, I think. MR. CARVIN-You gave me 3520. So, if we keep everything on an even keel, we're going to go from 2,048 with a garage to 3520 with a garage. MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-I figure that to be a 75% increase. rule about that some place? Don't we have a MR. SHAFFER-The new one's 3115, including the new garage. MR. STEVES-It's 2635 without the garage. It's 480 square foot with the garage. MR. CARVIN-So 3115 is now the number? MR. SHAFFER-Yes, 3115. MR. MENTER-So it would increase it 520 or so. MR. CARVIN-I guess it's somewhere around 35%, 36%. We're looking at 36%. Okay. I want to make sure I get my numbers right here. Okay. What do you want to do here, gentlemen? MR. MENTER-I hate to bring this up again, but the actual setbacks - 53 - -.J' '---" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) proposed here, 16.75 and 14.75. MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. MENTER-That is correct? Okay. MR. SHAFFER-That one setback was nine. MR. MENTER-Right. Well, the way I see it, there's a lot of improvement in a lot of different aspects here. The setback from the lake's improved. The side setbacks are improved. The permeabilityis improved, and he's still well within height requirements. I certainly don't see any, I don't see a· real negative impact here, and I think, as I've said, there's a lot of improvement. MR. BAERTSCHI-May I make one comment? MR. CARVIN-The public hearing has been closed. MR. BAERTSCHI-Yes, but we're talking about the plain impact on me. This is what you're discussing. This is what you're going to make your decision on. What Mr. Shaffer said after I finished i~not necessarily true. So, I think that I should have a right to my comments in regard to that. MR. CARVIN-Do you want to hear the comment? MR. MENTER-Sure. MR. BAERTSCHI-He's saying that if the garage is removed, it's going to give me more view of the lake. What am I going to be looking at is his boathouse. Remove that potion of the garage, I'm looking down, yes, all I'm going to see is the boathouse. If you raise the roof line to 29 feet, what view I have of the mountain is gone. It's completely gone. Also, when he removes that down along that line, he's got shrubbery, and when the years to come, that shrubbery's going to big. I'm not going to see lake at all. Also, on the left hand side, he's got shrubbery down through there. He's got forsythia bushes, which are growing taller and taller and taller, and that is taking the view away. Regardless of what, moving me to the left and giving me more room to the left, and taking a garage down on the right, I'm still not getting much view. I'm going to be seeing his boathouse, and on the left hand side, I'm winding up seeing bushes, but I am loosing the mountains with the height, and that can be proven if you want to come up and take a look. MR. KARPELES-I pretty much agree with Dave. When I went up there and I looked at it, my initial reaction was that this is going to be a big improvement, removing the, increasing the setback from the lake, getting rid of the garage. I understand the gentleman's difficulty with the view, but he's within the allowable height for a building in that area. That's mY feeling. MR. THOMAS-I agree with the other Board members, and I'd like to add that the 'addition of a new septic system is a big improvement on the property, and also to the lake and the Lake George basin. I hear Mr. Baertschi's concern about his view, and I sympathize with him, but I don't really see any way we can lower that roof any. It's a six on twelve pitch now. If you brought that down to a four on twelve, how much would that bring you down? MR. BAERTSCHI-Why does the house have to be that big? He's got it up a story and a half now. Why does it have to be any higher? MR. CARVIN-I'm sorry, sir. If you keep interrupting, I'm going to have to ask you to leave, because the public hearing is closed. - 54 - \..- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) ...-' MR. THOMAS-I was asking Leon, if you brought that down to a four on twelve pitch, how much would that lower that roof? MR. STEVES-Right now it's six on twelve? MR. THOMAS-Yes. The plan says six on twelve, lowering it down to a four on twelve. What would that lower the peak, from 29 down to? MR. STEVES-About three feet. MR. THOMAS-About three feet? So that would be 29 down to 26. It's at 21 now. So that would still be going up five feet. Has· there been any consideration of reducing the size of the building? MR. SHAFFER-The only problem in reducing the size is we're trying to accommodate a couple of offices in there, one for myself and one for my wife. MR. THOMAS-How wide is this building? MR. SHAFFER-The present building is 44. This one is going to be 40. So, we're reducing it four feet. ~ MR. THOMAS-I can see where we could get the roof down four feet, but I don't know if that alleviates Mr. Baertschi's concerns. MR. STEVES-I wouldn't want to 'change an architect's plans, personally, without consulting the architect. He has trusses on here now, six by twelve, and I'm not a builder. (lost words) the truss, you're changing the snow load, the load on your side. I think the architect would have to be consulted as to the change, instead of being required to change that. MR. CARVIN-Yes. My feeling is I'd certainly like to see it lowered, in some fashion and form. MR. SHAFFER-I think that when he designed this, he built that according to Code (lost words) that's what he told me. MR. CARVIN-Well, that still doesn't eliminate my problem, going up eight to nine feet. MR. THOMAS-What if you brought the grade down, the grade of the existing property? It crowns and then goes down. MR. CARVIN-Wéll, I don't know what that's going to do to the runoff patterns and so forth. Do you know what I'm saying? We could be creating a worse situation than what we're resolving. MR. THOMAS-I'm just throwing it out because the architect's rendering shows it a flat piece of property in there. MR. CARVIN-Well, we're looking at one design, you know. I'm not an architect, and again, I understand what the applicant is asking, he's got 1600 square feet. I don't see anything terribly structurally wrong with the house, and he's going to go to 2600. I mean, the living space is a pretty good jump. You're talking 30, 40 percent. When you crunch all the numbers out, it doesn't look all that bad, but then I look at it, .35 acre. I mean, we are putting, and that's the trend. I mean, we've seen it time after time after time, that these bigger and bigger houses are getting on these smaller and smaller lots. The numbers, in and of themselves, don't always, and I don't know about you guys. I drive out in some of these places later on, and I say, geez, we approved that? MR. THOMAS-You hear about the one on Glen Lake all the time. - 55 - '-'" '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) MR. CARVIN-Yes, and I know I've been out to Baertschi's, and, you know, I've stood on that road, and I've looked at the back end of that house, and I've looked at another eight feet or nine feet there, and, I mean, you quite literally will be sitting in a hole. We have to weigh the value to the applicant against the detriment to the neighborhood, and in this case one neighbor in particular. I think he's about the only one that would probably be directly impacted, but it's a continuation of a trend. I mean, the new Code, and I'm not using that as a criteria. I want to emphasize that. I think the new Code, you'll see these houses in the 25 to 26 feet range. Is that correct, John? MR. GORALSKI-I believe 28 is what is proposed. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. STEVES-I would like to comment on that, that the proposal is from the Town Board, not the (lost words) . MR. CARVIN-That's not a criteria that's being used. MR. STEVES-No, I understand that, nor is it from the Comprehensive Planning Board, and I don't believe the Board has made that kind of proposal. Right, John? MR. GORALSKI"':No. That proposal was initiated through the Community Development Department, sent to the Town Board, and it has not been acted on yet. MR. CARVIN-That still does not eliminate the dilemma. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. SHAFFER-One of the things that we're trying to address here and correct some of the problems that exist on the property, that septic system we presently have is an old oil drum, and we'd like to correct that, and that's one of the things we're addressing here is to get that further back toward the road. MR. CARVIN-Is this the only plan that you've ever looked at? MR. SHAFFER-We had looked at three plans. MR. CARVIN-Are any of them lower than this? MR. SHAFFER-No. The problem is that I'm a C.P.A., and I would like to have an office there. My wife's a teacher. She'd have an office, and to get everything in there, we just can't do it on a lower plan. It won't work. Twenty-nine feet is awful close to the proposed 28. MR. CARVIN-Again, as I said, I'm not saying that's the criteria. MR. SHAFFER-We're six feet under the current rule. We've worked real hard on this. We've worked three months on this plan trying to get this thing to go the way we want it, and get the setbacks, increase the setbacks, because we want to increase the setbacks. MR. CARVIN-That peak, I realize we're talking the 29 foot, but you also told me that the peak of that cornise, or whatever you want to call it, sitting room, is another two feet above that. MR. SHAFFER-That's not visible from the road, as you're sitting down, or from the Baertschi's, because you're looking up. The Baertschi's deck, their second story deck, is now level with my first floor. So their third deck is 21 feet below my roof. So they're looking up at an angle like this, and I don't think nine feet. ' - 56 - \....... ........,¡ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) MR. CARVIN-Well, that's pretty much my feeling. MR. KARPELES-I think you raised some good points, though. MR. CARVIN-And I think this sounds like another one where we need more than four people. MR. KARPELES-I'm not sure. MR. CARVIN-Gentlemen, it's ten minutes to eleven. these 39 hour days. I just love MR. MENTER-Okay. So what are the options? MR. CARVIN-Well, the options are that we can put it to a vote tonight. I can pretty much tell you that I'm not totally convinced that this plan is the best plan, and as I said, I have a real problem with the height going up. I mean, if I had a full Board and voting last, I would vote no. I'll tell you that, and in my conscience I can't vote yes, just because there's four, to move this application along. MR. STEVES-But that's not one of the areas that we're seeking relief. We're seeking relief on the side line setbacks, not on the height, not on the shoreline, not on the rear yard. We're seeking relief only on the side line setback. MR. CARVIN-I know. MR. STEVES-We have limited area for building space available on this lot. It's not a perfect world. We've got to work with what we have. MR. CARVIN-But I know we've had cases where, with Area Variances, height can playa factor, and does playa factor. MR. STEVES-No question, and we're not encroach that (lost word) height is part of the Area Variance request. It certainly would be if he had to narrow this down. MR. CARVIN-I still have a hard time with it. I don't get the sense that I'm getting four votes one way or the other. MR. MENTER-Yes. I think you're right about that, and I think that really limits the options. I mean, that's just a fact, it sounds like. So you know what that means. MR. STEVES-Tabling is probably the only option. MR. MENTER-Either way, that's right. MR. CARVIN-I don't like to keep tabling these things. If we could get a full Board, it would help. MR. THOMAS-I would table it. MR. CARVIN-All right. Then make the motion, please. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-1996 JOHN A. SHAFFER, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: For no more than 62 days, in order to get a full Board and for the other Board members to come up to speed on tonight's hearing. Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin - 57 - ,---' '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-1996 TYPE II SR-1A LAWRENCE R. PARKER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 69 JOHN STREET, SECOND HOUSE EAST OF TOMAHAWK ROAD APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND GARAGE ON HIS PROPERTY. THE NEW GARAGE WOULD BE 768 SQ. FT. IN AREA. THE ZONING ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR ONLY ONE GARAGE ON THIS PROPERTY. RELIEF IS NEEDED FROM THE ACCESSORY USE DEFINITION IN SECTION 179- 7B WHICH STATES THAT ACCESSORY USE APPLIES TO A SINGULAR USE ON A PROPERTY. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/8/96 TAX MAP NO. 121-1-16.41 LOT SIZE: 0.50 ACRES SECTION 179-7B LAWRENCE PARKER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 33-1996, Lawrence R. Parker, Meeting Date: May 23, 1996 "APPLICANT: Lawrence Parker, PROJECT LOCATION: 69 John Street Proposed Project and Confor.mance with the Ordinance: Applicant is proposing to construct a second garage on his approximately .50 acre lot. An existing 23 foot x 11 Æoot garage already exists on this property attached to the principal structure. Relief is needed from Section 179-7B which allows for only one accessory use per property. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build a garage to store his automobiles. 2. Feasible alternatives: The applicant may have the ability to add on to the existing 23 x 11 foot garage or use it in a way so that the proposed garage would be the only one on this property. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking a second garage on his property. The Zoning Ordinance allows for only one garage per property. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? There do not appear to be any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Additional comment may be given at the public hearing. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The applicant has an existing on site garage which could be enlarged unless it is being converted to another use. Parcel History: This. 50 acre lot was purchased by Lawrence Parker in 1988. Staff Comments & Concerns: The existing on site garage could be enlarged to accommodate a second car. If this is not possible, Staff has no obj ection to this garage but would recommend that the existing garage be abandoned and converted to another use. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 8th day of May 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a second garage on his property. was re~iewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by C. Powell South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everybody understand what the applicant is requesting? I have a question of Mr. Parker. Mr. Parker, this is a subdivision, is it? MR. PARKER-I believe so. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are there any covenants in your deed restricting garages to be attached? MR. PARKER-Not that I know of. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So there's no deed restrictions whatsoever for that. There's nothing precluding you from having a detached garage, by deed? - 58 - \.- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) ~. MR. PARKER-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. The reason I asked that, I didn't know. I drove around that area, and I only saw one detached garage. All the others were attached. Is there any reason why you can't attach your garage? MR. PARKER-Later on, that one will become another bedroom. I only have two bedrooms upstairs on the first floor. That'll make that a bedroom later on, and then a two car garage. My neighbor's got one next door, in the gold house. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but I guess that still doesn't preclude you from adding the garage to the house. MR. PARKER-It would make the house too long. My house is 38 feet and 11 feet is the garage. If we put another garage on, it's going to make the house look awful long. MR. CARVIN-Not any longer than the rest of them there. I mean, they're all pretty much the same style. I don't live too far from there, and I go through that community or neighborhood quite often. So that's why I was wondering, because it's very rare to see a detached garage over in that area, and that's why I was wondering if there was any deed restrictions. MR. PARKER-Not that I know of. My neighbor next door has got one. MR. CARVIN-I only saw one, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, and sometimes these things get built prior to other neighbors coming in and all that good stuff. Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? That's all I've got at this point. MR. GORALSKI-I believe if that existing garage, what are the dimensions of the existing garage? MR. PARKER-11 by 22. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, and the proposed garage is 768 square feet. If you added the two of them together, it would be above the 900 square feet. So he couldn't build this size garage as an addition to the existing garage, because then you'd be over the 900 square feet. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but by how much? MR. MENTER-It would be 10, 10. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions? I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRISTOPHER & KATHY GREEN MR. GREEN-Christopher and Kathy Green. We live on 7 Cherokee Lane. We are Mr. Parker's rear neighbor. Larry came over with the detailed sketch about five minutes before I went on vacation, and he just said this is what I want to build. He kind of caught us off guard, and I'm a believer you should be able to do with your own land pretty much what you'd like to, as long as you don't infringe on your neighbors, and such, but we've had a lot of time to think aböut it now, and the impact it/would have on us. I believe it is possible to put something else up in place of this that large, it's as large as his home, and it would be visible. It's right out our back door. He's explained to me that he would - 59 - '---' '---- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) like a 6/12 pitch, I believe, with trusses, which that exceeds his present pitch on his present roof now. I believe he has a 3/12, maybe, on his house now. He has a shed that might have a 4/12, and the way he explained it, it would end up, the roof would be higher, on lower ground, the roof would be higher than it's present, and it's just going to ruin the aesthetics of the neighborhood, personally, from my point. I don't know a great deal about the building he'd like to construct, I mean, the siding, the roofing, etc. Right now, there is asphalt shingles, wood shingles on the home that, you know, (lost words) the shed has asphalt and sheet metal, and I don't know even what kind of roof, really. I haven't spent the time to go over and see him. That's partially my fault, but I'm not in favor of it, I guess. That's why I'm here, and he mentioned the trusses. I don't know if they're power trusses on the center that would give access for a second story. I've cut out of the newspaper, Sunday's Post Star, just an 18 by 23 two car garage. They seemed to have plenty of ample space for a detached. I myself, personally, I would think it would look a whole lot better to the neighborhood if he didn't, in fact, just add on, wipe out the first garage and add on a two car garage. You said that you had been through the neighborhood. Most of them are set up, generally, that way. There are a few detached. There's even, down the street from us, on Morgan, there's a two story home with a-two story garage, but aesthetically, they all blend together, and it seems kind of ridiculous to have a storage facility on such a small lot of a size equal to your home. Perhaps maybe that's something that he would be looking for a bigger home even, add a second story or, like I say, add a two car garage. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. Another concern we had was, as far as the property lines, how close this building will be from the line. MR. CARVIN-They're indicating, what, 27 feet, 27 and a half feet, from the side. MR. GREEN-Twenty-seven, plus twenty-four. I don't, honestly, myself, personally see how, now, Larry and I, we put a fence up together. We split the cost put a nice fence up behind us, and we use the, most of us anyway, use the telephone boxes for a corner marker, basically. It could be off a half a foot either way, but generally they laid the lots out pretty much the same all the way down, and if you look from the fence out to the telephone box on the street, I don't possibly see how he could set it over 27 feet from the line. I did go over, I stopped over one day when Larry wasn't home, and I spoke to his wife, and he had spray painted some corner markers as to where he'd like to construct that, and I stood on one of them, and honestly, myself, it looks about four or five feet. I don't know. Like I say, I don't think anyone's had a survey there, per se. Everybody kind of, we had found corner pins in the back of the lots, and we generally go by those. MR. MENTER-Are you Lot 51? MR. GORALSKI-33. MR. MENTER-33. MR. GREEN-33. MR. CARVIN-Well, it's an interesting speculation. I come up with 128 feet, by his measurements, on a 140 foot lot. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that's what I come up with. Forgot to add the 11 feet, on the back of the garage. MR. GORALSKI-On the back of the garage. MR. CARVIN-38.2, and then another 11 for the garage. - 60 - '--, ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) MR. THOMAS-Yes, 11 for the garage. points and halfs. There's 139, plus all the MR. CARVIN-Yes, 139. Okay. That works. Anything else? MR. GREEN-That's all. MR. CARVIN-I just had one question. You've indicated a concern about the height. Do you know, did he indicate what the height of this was going to be? MR. GREEN-He indicated that, even when the ground is lower, it slopes away from the house, when that was constructed, the peak of the roof would be higher than the present. MR. CARVIN-Which is, what's an average house? MR. PARKER-About 12, 13 feet. MR. CARVIN-How high are you planning the garage? MR. PARKER-Just a one car garage with a 6/12 pitched roof. I can go four foot. .-- MR. CARVIN-How high? MR. PARKER-It's 12, 13 feet. MR. GORALSKI-If you've got an eight foot wall, and then a 6/12 pitch and a 24 foot wide garage would be another six feet. So you'd be 14 feet. MR. CARVIN-And that's about, what, an average house? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, an average ranch would probably run 14 to 16 feet, something like that. MR. CARVIN-Thank you. Okay. Anyone else wishing to be heard? JOHN PRUIKSMA MR. PRUIKSMA- I'm John Pruiksma, 5 Cherokee Lane. We share an adj acent corner to the north and west of his property. I can understand wanting extra space. I, myself, have a detached garage, two car garage that is 24 by 28, and no other garage or shed on the property. One of mY biggest questions was also the relief from the rear property line and also following the aesthetics of the neighborhood, what type of siding, what type of roof, those concerns. As far as the plot plan, I haven't seen that, the parcel location compared to the lot line, and stuff like that. I believe on this map ,I would be number 31. I'm new in the neighborhood also. I believe it is residential, and that would be something that would have to be followed. Am I correct in saying that? MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. PRUIKSMA-That's all I have to say. MR. CARVIN-Anyone else wishing to be heard? Yes, sir. MICHAEL BERRY MR. BERRY-My name is Michael Berry. I live on the west side, on the corner of Tomahawk, down from Larry, one of his neighbors. My question is, I just want to know how far trom the boundary the corner of my boundary and his boundary will the garage be? MR. GORALSKI-Twenty-seven. - 61 - ~'-_.../ '-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) MR. BERRY-Twenty-seven feet. If you go by the marker that he's saying, my boundary line, like Chris said, we all share the same corner, back boundary, to the phone box, if you've got it marked out there. I don't even know if there's 27 feet in between there. I mean, there's probably about 40 feet, but he's not right off the boundary. He's probably eight or nine feet, I'd say, it looks like. MR. PARKER-I moved it over, closer to the house. MR. GORALSKI-This isn't surveyed. MR. BERRY-So,the corner will be 27 feet over? MR. THOMAS-Yes. It'll be 27 feet from the common property line. MR. BERRY-Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard? MR. PRUIKSMA-Mr. Pruiksma again. I'm just curious if there has been a site survey done, an inspection of what he has laid out in that respect. Again, in accordance with the property line area, whether there will actually be (lost words) . ~ MR. CARVIN-Well, what we do is we'll go out and visit these sites. We have what he's proposing, and we visit the sites, and get a feel for the neighborhoods, and if the Board approves it. I don't think this one goes to site plan, but the building inspector does follow up and' make sure that it is in compliance with what ever the variance that's granted. MR. GORALSKI-We would confirm the location of the garage. MR. CARVIN-Confirm the location. Okay. Anyone else wishing to be heard? Correspondence? MR. THOMAS-No correspondence. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyone else? public hearing is closed. Seeing none, hearing none, the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I'll start with you, Chris, what do you think? Any questions? MR. THOMAS-No. To me, it's just a little bigger than it should be. I think if it was brought down to a 24 by 28 like the neighbor has, and put on a 4 on 12 pitched roof, and brought attached to the house, I don't think he would even need to be here, and converted the existing garage to some other kind of space, other than a garage. I think that would be a better plan. MR. MENTER-I concur. I think there's two problems. One is that you're ending up here with two garages, okay. You specifically need just one. So, whether it means combining them or changing the use of the other one, you know, the other thing would be resolved with the same action, because your gross garage space is over 900 feet, which is the maximum, okay. What was the square footage of this new? MR. GORALSKI-The total carne out to 1,010 square feet. MR. MENTER-Just this, the 24 by 32. MR. GORALSKI-It was 768. MR. MENTER-If you converted the other one, you could even increase that, without being in here for a variance. - 62 - "-~ -....,." (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) MR. GORALSKI-Yes. A comment I wanted to make, if he eliminated the existing garage, he wouldn't need a variance. MR. MENTER-Right. MR. GORALSKI-That building could be built, the square footage that he's proposing, everything, and he would just have to eliminate the existing garage. MR. MENTER-To me, that's the stumbling block. I mean, you've got the two garages, but to take care of that problem. MR. PARKER-What if I made that into a bedroom? MR. MENTER-If you converted the attached garage, you mean? MR. PARKER-Yes. problem. I could convert it to a bedroom. That's not a MR. GORALSKI-As long as that was done prior. MR. MENTER-You would actually need to do that. MR. GORALSKI-Right. --- MR. MENTER-You would actually need to do that before you did the garage. MR. PARKER-No problem. MR. GORALSKI-Right. eliminated, prior to variance is required. If the existing attached garage was construction of the proposed garage, no MR. PARKER-What would I have to do? MR. MENTER-Go to the Building Department. MR. GORALSKI-Basically, what we've done in the past is, if you remove the garage door and finish off that wall, whether you put a window in or just a wall and re-side it, as long as it's no longer a garage where you can park vehicles, then you're all set. MR. PARKER-No problem. MR. MENTER-And if that's the case, then we can. MR. GORALSKI-Well, then it would be up to Mr. Parker to withdraw his application, if that's what he's going to do. MR. PARKER-I'll withdraw it. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. CARVIN-It sounds good to me. MR. GORALSKI-You understand, though, that you can't build the new garage until the old garage is gone. MR. PARKER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Because I was going to say if you put a 24 by 26 attached, and with the 238 he has, comes to 877, and he could still convert it later, but if that's what he's going to do. Is that what you're going to do? MR. PARKER-I'll just eliminate that garage. MR. CARVIN-I'm saying, what's the status of this application right - 63 - - '- '-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) now? MR. GORALSKI-Well, it's up to Mr. Parker, but if he is changing his proposal, so that he's going to basically turn that existing garage either into simply storage space attached to his house or, well, anything that he can't park a vehicle in, then he doesn't need a variance. So he might as well withdraw his application, if that's what he's going to do. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Now, if he were to build a 24 by 26 attached, with the existing 253 square foot garage, if my math is correct, a 23 by 11. MR. GORALSKI-And he wouldn't need a variance for that either. MR. CARVIN-He wouldn't need a variance for that either. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. CARVIN-Because he comes in on a total of 877. MR. GORALSKI-Right. So he has two options. --- MR. PARKER-I'll withdraw it, and take the garage door off and I'll make it a bedroom, a storage area. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I was going to say, as Mr. Thomas said, you could probably build a 30 by 30, 900 square feet, if you convert that. You'd be allowed 900 square feet, as long as you meet all the side setbacks. MR. PARKER-I'll withdraw it. I'm withdrawing my application for the garage. MR. CARVIN-Thank you. MR. GORALSKI-You can come in and get a building permit tomorrow. AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-1996 TYPE II SR-1A MARK H. MANNIX SARA B. MANNIX OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE EAST SIDE OF RIDGE ROAD, ADJACENT TO THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY OF 988 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANTS WISH TO BUILD A NEW HOME ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT ONLY HAS 25 FEET OF ROAD FRONTAGE. RELIEF IS NEEDED FROM SECTION 179 -7 OA WHICH REQUIRES EACH LOT TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF 40 FEET OF ROAD FRONTAGE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/8/96 TAX MAP NO. 54-1-8 LOT SIZE: 4.70 ACRES SECTION 179-70A MARK MANNIX, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 34-1996, Mark H. Mannix, Sara B. Mannix, Meeting Date: May 23, 1996 "APPLICANT: Mark & Sara Mannix PROJECT LOCATION: 988 Ridge Road proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: Applicant is proposing to build a new home on a piece of property that only has 25 feet of road frontage. The Zoning Ordinance requires each lot to have at least 40 feet of road frontage. Relief is being sought from Section 179- 70A which requires 40 foot of road frontage for each principal building. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicants to build a new home on their lot. 2. Feasible alternatives: There do not seem to be any alternatives that would provide less relief. 3. IS this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The applicant is seeking 15 feet of relief from the required road frontage. . 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? There do not appear to be any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Additional comment may be given at the public hearing. 5. Is this difficulty self created? - 64 - "'--'" .,-"" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) This lot is a legal nonconforming lot with 25 feet of road frontage. Arty development of this lot would need a variance. Parcel History: This 4.7 acre piece of property was purchased by Mark & Sara Mannix in October of 1994. Staff Comments & Concerns: Staff is concerned about allowing this land to be subdivided in the future. If this were to occur, more than one property would have its only access off of this existing 25 foot wide strip of land. This could present problems accessing this property from automobiles which could include emergency vehicles. Staff would recommend a stipulation that no subdivision of this land will occur in the future. SEQR: Type II, no further action required. II MR. THOMAS-IIAt a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, -held on the 8th day of May 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to permit 25' road frontage was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Does requesting? Okay. everybody understand what the Any questions? Any comments? applicant is MR. MANNIX-We will not be subdividing the land. First off, I'm Mark Mannix, the owner of the property. All this property belonged to my stepmother's mother-in-law, I think. At some point it was divided in the early 70's when there weren't any of the Zoning Ordinances that we have now, and when she divided it, she must have thought that 25 feet would be sufficient, or else why would she have a 4.7 acre piece of acreage in the back. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions, gentlemen? Okay. the public hearing. I'll open up PUBLIC HEARING OPENED VINCENT SPERO MR. SPERO-My name is vincent Spero. I live at the tail end of the property, the land wished to be developed. First of all, to address the statement that Mr. Mannix made about why the property was left there and not divided up, I assume it's because it's wet property, and was assumed it could never be built on. As far as the environmental impact, that is, of course, a wetland with a stream running through it that runs into Halfway Brook. Any building or developing, any runoff, any septic on that property would run into that stream and into the brook. The Mannix's also plan to tear down, cut down, the strip of trees along the stream in the back of the woods there, to dry up the ground, which would also dry up a good portion of the stream. My neighbors and I, we bought that property there because it was quite, somewhat isolated, and to allow a variance for people to put a driveway right outside of my neighbor's window is kind of ridiculous. I mean, that's why we have zoning laws, to prevent things like this. I mean, you've got very old trees back there that would just be torn down. You've got all kinds of wildlife back there that would disappear. You've got a nesting pair of piliated woodpeckers back there that are not only rare, but they're endangered. You've got nesting hawks back there, not to mention all the other wildlife, turkey, grouse, everything that would just disappear, once they tore down all the woods back there, and don't let them kid you. They're not just going to put a house back there. They're going to tear down all the trees back there. That strip of land borders our property that goes into the woods there, which is the only buffer we have from a development on the other side which is Stonehurst, which eventually will be built up, but right now that's the only buffer we have from that. Now, I've owned a house and paid taxes in Queensbury for 16 years. I moved up here from the city to Queensbury because it was a quiet, country town, which is now, every time you turn around, people are being granted variances for everything. I mean, you see houses - 65 - ~' '---. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) that look like skyscrapers going up everywhere. People are putting houses where you wouldn't even think of putting a garage. They're putting houses there. I mean, how would any of you on the Board like to look out your bedroom window and instead of seeing trees and flowers that you're used to seeing, you're seeing driveways, seeing paved roads, with traffic going in and out? We're going to be subject to bulldozers, logging trucks going in and out of here all summer, maybe into the fall. We don't know. We don't want to deal with that. I mean, come on, how could you, in good conscience, grant that? I mean, how could you do that? It doesn't make sense to me. I mean, all these trees would have to be cut down. There's also a power pole on that strip of land, I believe, a power transformer. That's going to have to be moved if they make any kind of, where are they going to move that? Are they going to move it onto someone else's property? What are they going to do with that? What are they going to do with trees that border that strip of land? I mean, you have like very old stately pine trees that's what the Adirondacks are famous for. What are you going to do, cut them in half, cut them down? I mean, it's going to look like crap. It's going to ruin the beauty of our property that we take pride in and take care of, and who knows what they're going to do in the future, after the house is up, with the rest of the property back. We know that they plan on cutting all the trees to dry up the ground, because it's very wet back there. You couldn't even go back there unless you had boots on. I don' t know how they're going to build unless that section they're planning on putting the house on is dried up somehow. I don't know how they , re going to do that, but the peace, serenity, the wildlife, everything is thrown out the window if these people are allowed to have a variance. I mean, why do we have the zoning laws written if they're not held up? I mean, it doesn' t make any sense. Not only, it's going to ruin our property value having that there, and everyone else's property value, not to mention the noise pollution, the eye pollution, the loss of wildlife, wildlife habitat. I mean, for all X know, that could even be considered a wetland back there. I don't know. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are you all finished? MR. SPERO-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard? Yes sir. JIM GREY MR. GREY-My name is Jim Grey. I live at 984 Ridge Road. I also think that allowing a house to be put back in there would be an environmental tragedy. 4.7 acres does sound reasonable, but the majority of that property is wet, and there is a stream. I don't see how it's possible to put a septic system in there that wouldn't contaminate the creek, and thus contaminate Halfway Brook. That area has been developed quite a bit with the addition of Stonehurst, and the addition of Stonehurst, it is the only buffer we have for that development. As far as the 25 feet goes, we like our neighborhood. We love our neighborhood. The regulation says 40 feet. I would like to see that honored. There is an alternative, if it's necessary to put a house back there. We have made a commitment in our neighborhood. It's of record, the Mannix's paid very minimal for that property. They could have met the requirement of the 40 feet by purchasing land some land out of the Stonehurst development as access to that property. That's a commitment we have made, and they, obviously, have not wanted to do that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I guess I don't understand your last statement here. You've made a commitment to do? - 66 - '- '-'" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) MR. GREY-We, in the neighborhood, we have made a commitment in there, in seeking out this neighborhood and paying the cost to live there. The Mannix's paid very minimal for that property that they now own. They could have met the requirement of the 40 feet road frontage by accessing that property from the Stonehurst development. MR. CARVIN-Okay. When would that have occurred? Is that something that's being planned or could have been done recently? MR. GREY-That could have been done. I don't know if it's still possible now, but Stonehurst development does border that property on the side. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but when was this lot created? MR. GREY-Which lot? MR. CARVIN-This lot with the 25 foot thong here? MR. GREY-Are you talking about the proposed variance, the right-of- way? -- MR. CARVIN-Well, no. I'm saying this lot just didn't appear out of nowhere. I mean, it had to have been planned. I mean, somebody cut this up from a larger chunk. I mean, this 25 feet just didn't miraculously appear last week. I'm saying, how long has it been there? MR. GREY-I have no idea how long it's been there. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and you're saying that they should have, or could have, had access, or when they planned this 25 feet it should have been 40 feet on this side? I just want to make sure I'm understanding you, here. MR. SPERO-I think what he's saying now is as an alternative to causing all the stress on our property, and on the neighbors, they could seek an access point through Stonehurst, it could be an access to that property, but they did not want to have to pay for that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. ~. GREY-They could have met the requirement for the 40 feet of road frontage by purchasing an access to the land. MR. CARVIN-I guess, what road are we talking about, Ridge Road, or is there another road over here that they could have access? MR. THOMAS-See where that Maine Enterprises is? That's Stonehurst Subdivision. MR. CARVIN-Okay. There's a road section? I mean, this is where I'm having difficulty. I mean, I understand what he's saying, but I don't see the logistics here, where the road. MR. GREY-Okay. This 25 foot section, okay, the property is. MR. CARVIN-I understand that. MR. GREY-Stonehurst runs in here. Stonehurst goes down here. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but are these lots here? Are these lots sold? MR. GREY-As far as I know, they are sold to about here. MR. THOMAS-But they're lots that back up to that property line. - 67 - .,., '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) There aren't any roads laid out in the subdivision. MR. GORALSKI-No roads adjacent to that property line. MR. THOMAS-That goes in. These are all lots along in here. These are the back of lots in here. So there's no road that comes down to this property line, or proposed road within the subdivision that comes down to that property. So what they would have to do is actually buy a lot out of that subdivision and make that their road. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyone else wishing to be heard? Yes, sir. JOHN VANDERWARKER MR. VANDERWARKER-My name is John Vanderwarker, and I live two parcels north of this right-of-way, and I've lived there about, I think, 21 years, and my kids used to run out there in those woods and everything, and it kind of baffles me wnere he's going to put a house out there, because like they say, it's all wet. He'd have to bring tons and tons of fill in there. If that's wetlands, what I heard from the first gentleman tonight, that would involve the engineer, they go in there and start dumping fill in there, ~nto the wetland. MR. CARVIN-Well, quite possibly. MR. VANDERWARKER-I mean, because it'is, I don't know if you people have ever walked out there or not, but, I mean, he's got four and a half acres, but it's four and a half acres this way, and how wide it is, I have no idea how wide it is, but, I mean, you go out 15 feet, it drops right off to a cliff, and that's where all the wetland is, down below that. MR. CARVIN-I ,don't have any answers for you. So, I don't have any answers. MR. VANDERWARKER-Other than that, I'd just repeat what everybody else said. It would be a shame to put a driveway between two houses. I mean, there's two trees that I know of that are going to have to be trimmed or cut down quite a bit. They've probably been there 30 years. That's all I've got to say. MR. CARVIN-Anyone else? Correspondence? Anyone else wishing to be heard? MR. THOMAS-No correspondence. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Mr. Mannix, if you have any additional comments. MR. MANNIX-I think it's ironic that people are concerned about how much traffic the driveway is going to cause, when you're living on Ridge Road, which is probably one of the busiest streets going north south in that area. The effect on my wife and my car going back and forth, driving to work, coming home from work, a couple of trips on Saturday and Sunday, does not appear to me like it's a whole heck of a lot of traffic. As a buffer, it is in no way going to'be logged. Mr. Spero is inaccurate when he says we're going to strip it. MR. SPERO-I'm just going by what was told me, out of your own mouth. Did you or did you not say you were going to strip trees down along the stream to dry up? Isn't that what you said? MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm not going to have bantering back and forth. MR. SPERO-I'm not going to have him throwing a line of crap out - 68 - 'v" '-'" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) here either. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MANNIX-Now also, as I've said, we do not plan to develop this. It will be strictly for residential zone because this whole property is residential, right, including the lots in front of our house. Is that correct? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. MANNIX-So you cannot sell things from your houses. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. MANNIX-Okay. Now, what I'm here tonight for, is your approval to get the possibility to put a driveway. This isn't a site plan review. I just want to know if I can do it. I've got designs for a house drawn up. If you guys give me the go ahead and say that I can put a driveway in through there, then I will go back with engineers and qualified surveyors, put the house where I think it can go legally, so that it will obey setbacks from the stream , which I have no qualms about saying is there, from the wet area, from the property line. I don't think that that's an issue, at this point. To me it's just, can I put a driveway through there. Now, obviously I will be back in front of you guys again with whoever else has a comment about this, and then that is when we can worry about streams, setbacks, nesting areas for hawks and things like that. Now, also, I think the idea that this is a minimal cost, granted we did buy this piece of property for $5,000, but to build a house on this will probably cost $120,000, and that is not cheap. So we have a phenomenal investment put into this little piece of property. We're not going to clear cut it. It's going to be nice. There will be a buffer. I think it's great that the gentleman said his kids played on the property. I don't see why we'd have an objection to that in the future. That's it. MR. CARVIN-Any other public comment? One rebuttal. MR. SPERO-Mr. Mannix is saying one thing now, but what's to stop him from doing something totally the opposite once the building starts and once the building is even up. We're getting two sides here, and I can see that, just from his statement now. When he came down on my property, he and his wife told me they were going to cut the trees down to dry the ground. Now he's saying he's not going to. He's either had a change of heart, or he's not speaking the truth, and as far as, he only wants a variance to put a road in, that's just the beginning. I mean, why does he want a road unless he wants to get in there and put up the house and clear out the trees and everything else. I mean, you can't put a house there unless you take down trees, and he's not just going to clear out the trees around the house. They're going to clear out the trees all the way down, I'm telling you. Don't be mislead by what they're telling you. I mean, they're going to tell you anything to get the variance. Okay. They're going to tell you what you want to hear, but you've got to think, and also, put yourselves in our position. We all paid good money. We all pay good taxes, and we moved out there. We paid the price to be there, and now these people want to move in and do this to it. It's definitely not right. It's just not right. Have you people been out to look at the property? So you know that most of that property is wet. You can't even go back there now without boots on. MR. CARVIN-All right. If you have anything additional that you want to put on the record I would appreciate it. MR. SPERO-On the record I'll say, he was talking about trespassing. My property goes into the woods part way, and his property - 69 - .-..../ - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) continues on from that. They went across my property to get to their property. So that's trespassing, too. I don't look at it like that. All I want to do is preserve what's there. That's the only buffer that we have to the development that's on the other side, and once they start building there that buffer is gone. We're going to look out our window and we're going to see lights. We're going to see trees. We're going to see a road, and I'm at the tail end. So I don't have it as bad as some of my other neighbors who are going to look out their bedroom window and have a driveway there, and going to have to put up with bulldozers and everything else going in and out of there. We're going to have to listen to that all summer, and possibly who knows how long after that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyone else? MR. GREY-Yes. Mannix's want money and get mean buying a We all paid a to live there, a proper access lot. good price for our homes. If the I would rather see them spend the to their property, even if it does MR. CARVIN-Any other comment? public hearing is closed. Seeing none, hearing none, the --- PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Do you want to table this? I mean, it's midnight. MR. KARPELES-I don't know. I don't know how everybody feels. If we have four people that were agreed. I don't even know how ~ feel. MR. MENTER-Right. That's mY problem. MR. GORALSKI-A couple of things I should mention. One is there is a restriction of no cutting within 35 feet of a stream, and there is a 75 foot setback, building setback from a stream, for what that's worth. I just wanted to make sure. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Well, that would be a site plan situation. Is that correct? MR. GORALSKI-Well, there'd be no, as long as he meets' those requirements, there will be no site plan review. It's an allowable use in the zone. It's a conforming lot, as long as he meets the setbacks from the stream, the setbacks from the property line and is not cutting within 35 feet of a stream, there would be no other reviews. MR. CARVIN-And did you indicate that this was something that a stepmother or somebody had? Did she buy it in this state, or was this something that she created? MR. MANNIX-This was created, I think, in 1973. MR. CARVIN-Have you got any idea what the 1973 Ordinances were about road frontage? MR. GORALSKI-There was an Ordinance, but there was no regulation, as long as you had frontage. Actually, the Ordinance in '73 probably didn't even address it because you could subdivide without approval if you were doing four lots or less. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So it's a preexisting nonconforming. MR. GORALSKI-It's a preexisting nonconforming lot. MR. KARPELES-Have you determined any area on that lot that would - 70 - '--" . (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) ,-,,' be, you think you would build on if you did build there? MR. MANNIX-To the immediate left of the access drive. MR. MENTER-As you drive into the property? Yes. MR. KARPELES-Immediate left as you drive in there. MR. CARVIN-I don't have a problem with it. It's a preexisting nonconforming. He has a right to the use of the land. That's been there since at least 1973. MR. KARPELES-I think that as long as he's willing to have us st,ipulate that it can't be subdivided, I don't see any big objection to it either. MR. MENTER-It looks like that is the only spot that he could build on, to me. MR. KARPELES-He will have to go to site plan review. MR. GORALSKI-No. It's an allowable use in this zone. ~ MR. CARVIN-The only thing we can stipulate is that only one house be built, because I think it's a one acre residential. Is it? MR. GORALSKI-Suburban Residential One Acre. MR. CARVIN-So he could technically put four acres. That could be subdivided for four houses, but the access would still be on that 25, and I agree with Staff, that that is not a situation I want to create. MR. MANNIX-I could sign something and have that notarized tomorrow. MR. KARPELES-Well, we can stipulate that. MR. GORALSKI-If buffering is an issue, maybe you could require that no trees be cut except for the driveway, within 20 feet of the property line, or something like that. MR. KARPELES-Well, what are we buffering from? That's something I haven't understood. MR. GORALSKI-Well, suggestions. I don't know. I'm just throwing out MR. KARPELES,-It's a residential area. area. It's a nice residential MR. GORALSKI-The only question in front of you right now is the 20 foot wide access. That's the only question in front of you. MR. CARVIN-Minimum relief is the criteria. MR. MENTER-It's going to probably run into area issues later. MR. CARVIN-Well, if there's area issues later, they come back. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-1996 MARK H. MANNIX SARA B. MANNIX, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: The applicant is proposing to build a new home on a piece of property that only has 25 feet of road frontage. The Zoning Ordinance requires each lot to have at least 40 feet of road frontage. The relief that's being sought is from Section 179-70A, which requires a 40 foot road frontage for each principal building. - 71 - ',./ ""v" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) The benefit to the applicant would be that it would allow the applicant to explore the possibility of building a new home on their lot. There does not seem to be any feasible alternatives that would provide less relief, as there is only 25 feet that is available to the road, and there does not appear that any of the neighbors are going to sell 15 feet. I would grant 15 feet of relief from Section 179-70A. There does not appear to be any, negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood as this is a pre- existing nonconforming lot. It has been a nonconforming lot since approximately the early 70's, and only 25 feet of road frontage. I would also condition this variance that there would not be allowed any subdividing in the future, and that this variance is granted for the building of a single residential home. It"must meet all the requirements set by the Town of Queensbury and all the appropriate agencies, and if not, then obviously the appropriate variances would have to be sought. Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1996, by the following vote: MR. THOMAS-I just have one question for Mr. Mannix. think of it when you mentioned that it appears that would sell them any property. Did you approach the either side to try and buy a 15 foot strip? You made me no neighbors neighbors on --- MR. MANNIX-I haven't approached them, and I think we know what the answer would be. MR. THOMAS-On either side? On both sides? MR. MANNIX-Not both sides. MR. CARVIN-Well, what do you gentlemen want to do? Do you want to have them check the neighbors first? Explore all the possibilities? I can strike that from the motion, the feasibility of him purchasing. MR. THOMAS-I would say, I would ask Mr. Mannix to go approach the neighbors either side. I don't think, from Mr. Grey's testimony, that he would be acceptable to an offer, but we haven't heard anybody representing the owners of the lands of Wilbur Dickinson, as to whether they might or might not. MR. CARVIN-Are you Mrs. Dickinson? I hate to put her on the spot. Are you Mrs. Dickinson? MRS. DICKINSON-Yes, I am. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MRS. DICKINSON-And I was wondering where he was getting the room. MR. CARVIN-Well, because it abuts your property, would you have an interest in selling him 15 feet, so he could meet the compliance? MRS. DICKINSON-No way. No way will I ruin my property. No way. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. KARPELES-You've got your answer. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MRS. DICKINSON-And another thing, there's a light pole there with a transformer on it, and that's not from on my property either. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think that's something that Mr. Mannix will have to take up with Mr. Niagara Mohawk. Then I guess I will leave my motion as it stands, but I'll just amend that, Maria, that the - 72 - '\./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/96) likelihood of Mr. Grey selling the 15 feet is unlikely. It can't be confirmed, but definitely Mrs. Dickinson has indicated that she has no interest in selling any of her property. v AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Menter, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred A. Carvin, Chairman -- - 73 -