Loading...
1996-05-15 ORIGINAL (~ \.- QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 15, 1996 INDEX Area Variance No. 22-1996 Tax Map No. 6-1-2 Michael C. Chrys 1. Area Variance No. 3-1996 Tax Map No. 3-1-14 Mark Handelman 2 . Area Variance No. 36-1996 Tax Map No. 124-1-9 Alfred J. Merchant 5. Area Variance No. 29-1996 Tax Map No. 10-1-12 Harold & Lyn Halliday 10. Area Variance No. 35-1995 Tax Map No. 42-1~4 Charles R. Carder 24. Area Variance No. 31-1996 Tax Map No. 13-2-42 Bruce & Joy Chekla 41. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ~ ....'~ L y -/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 15, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY ROBERT KARPELES WILLIAM GREEN BONNIE LAPHAM MEMBERS ABSENT THOMAS FORD DAVID MENTER PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-1996 TYPE II WR-1A MICHAEL C. CHRYS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LEFT SIDE OF ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPROX. 0.4 MILES NORTH OF INTERSECTION WITH NYS ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RELOCATE AND REPLACE A DOCK WHICH IS PARTIALLY ON ADJACENT NEIGHBORS PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM SHORELINE REGULATIONS OF SECTION 179-60 (B) (5) (b) (5). ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY CROSS REF. SPR 13-96 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 6-1-2 LOT SIZE: 0.31 ACRES SECTION 179-60(B) (5) (b) (5) MICHAEL CHRYS, PRESENT MR. CHRYS-I had called earlier in the week to see if I could get an extension on my tabling. MR. CARVIN-Okay. This is the first I've heard of it. MR. CHRYS-Okay. I talked to George about that, and he said because the 60 days was up, I had to come and request that of the Board. So, if I could do that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So I guess what you're asking is an extension of time to continue to table. How long do you, well, let me ask you this. The reason I think we tabled this was to get an opinion from Jim Martin as to how we should look at the property line. Is that correct? MR. CHRYS-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-And I see that we have an opinion, okay, and what's the reason that you need additional time? MR. CHRYS-There's other agencies that I've got to deal with, as I'm sure you're aware of, one's called the Park Commission. So I'm in the process of talking with them, and I've given them a formal plan for the first time as to exactly what I'm going to do there, and I just want to see what the feel is from there before I go forward and do anymore work. I have 30 days (lost words) . MR. THOMAS-It's good for 60 days. That was only a month ago. That was tabled April 17th. MR. CHRYS-I thought it was less than 60, but I wasn't sure. MR. HILTON-What's the official tabling in the file? - 1 - ....' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) MR. THOMAS-April 17th. MR. HILTON-Okay, then it would be good through June. I was mistakenly under the impression it was in March. I apologize, but he does have until the end of June. Sixty days from April would be June. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It was tabled April 17, 1996. So he's got until June. MR. CHRYS-So I don't need an extension. I have until June 17th, and you have a meeting in between that time, correct? MR. CARVIN-Yes, but you won't get back on before June. I can tell you that right now. MR. CHRYS-That's okay, but when in June is it? MR. HILTON-Our meetings are June, I believe, 19th and 26th. MR. CARVIN-Plus. MR. THOMAS-So you'd probably have to get on the 19th, because it's 60 days from, it's really 62 days, because some months have 31 in it. So they went with 62 days. So the 19th would give him the 60 days. MR. CARVIN-All right. Well, we actually have until the end of June to get him scheduled, until he runs out. All right. Well, then we'll continue to table, if that's okay with, anybody else have a problem with that? MR. KARPELES-No problem. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then the Chrys application is continued to be tabled. So anyone here this evening for Chrys, keep your eyes and ears open, I guess. MR. CHRYS-Yes. Can I ask you a question regarding that, people have driven up here twice. Is there like some kind of formal notification? MR. CARVIN-No. Okay. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-1996 TYPE II WR-3A CEA MARK HANDELMAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE NORTH SIDE OF ROUTE 9L, APPROX. 2,400 FT. NORTHWEST OF THE ROUTE 9L BAY ROAD INTERSECTION APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WHICH REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16 AND THE SHORELINE RESTRICTIONS OF SECTION 179-60, AND THE ENLARGEMENT OF A NONCONFORMING USE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-79A2. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 2/14/96 TAX MAP NO. 3-1-14 LOT SIZE: 0.95 ACRES SECTION 179-60, 179-79A2 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. CARVIN-I think this one was tabled a couple of times. MR. THOMAS-We had to table it last month. MR. CARVIN-And I think this is Warren County at it's best, right, we need a super majority. MARK HANDELMAN MR. HANDELMAN-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-And I know X was out the last time. So, who wasn't - 2 - '~ {Queensbury ZBA Meeting - 5/15/96} here. Mr. Ford, Mr. Menter and myself. Okay. All right. This was originally tabled for additional information, which I believe we did receive. Is that correct? All right, and for the benefit of those of us who were not here, can you bring us up to speed as to what you're proposing to do on this project? MR. STEVES-Yes. My name's Matt Steves, with VanDusen and Steves. I represent the Handelmans in this project. Back in February, we tabled it for further information. Since then, we've supplied you with what you requested. There's an elevation view of the proposed addition and the existing house from the lake side, which is provided to you {lost words} and the sketch of the layout of the interior of the building, which has also been provided, and we do have some pictures that we also have brought in case you wanted to look at the actual photos of the property. I believe you also have a copy of a letter from the neighbors stating that they have no problems with the proposed variance. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I have everything, with the exception of that last item. Do we have a letter? MR. THOMAS-I didn't see one. MR. STEVES-It was sent, let me see if I have a file copy here. This was from Jane A. Wait, to your Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury, dated March 21, 1996. "Please be advised that I own the property contiguous to the Handelmans, on the southeast. The purpose of this letter is to let the Town planning and zoning boards know that I and my family have reviewed the proposed addition on the southeast side of the Handelmans' house, and have no objection to the area variance (side yard setback) that they are requesting. We walked the property with the Handelmans, reviewed their plans, and are pleased with the care that they are taking with this project. We therefore consent to all aspects of this project, and in particular to the side yard setback variance. If I can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Jane A. Wait" MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions of the applicant? Everyone understands what the applicant is requesting? Does Staff have any additional input? MR. HILTON-None other than what we were looking for was some kind of floor plan that maybe showed us some reasons why they couldn't put the addition elsewhere and they've provided that. I think the elevations that have also been submitted are what the Board's been looking for. It seems that we have everything we need. MR. CARVIN-All right. So I assume you're comfortable with the project now? Because I know you've made some comments here. MR. HILTON-Yes. We had some comments. I think that now, in looking at it, with the layout of the home, it really doesn't seem feasible to "be placing it anywhere else on the home, and any of the site concerns and drainage concerns we will address at site plan review. MR. CARVIN-Okay. plan? This would automatically be referred to site MR. HILTON-Yes, because it's an expansion of a nonconforming structure. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does anybody have a problem with this? The only reason I'm asking is we need a super majority. So I want to kind of get a straw poll here. MRS. LAPHAM-No. When I went to the site, I thought there was - 3 - -..' ----' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) plenty of room. MR. GREEN-What was this going to be, a bedroom of sorts? MR. HANDELMAN-No. This is going to be a family room. There'll be no plumbing, no stoves or heaters. MR. GREEN-The basement is just accessible from that outside door? MR. HANDELMAN-That's correct. MR. GREEN-I'm fine with it. MR. KARPELES-I went up and looked at it. I couldn't see any objection to it. I don't see where it's going to bother anybody. MR. THOMAS-No objections whatsoever. MR. CARVIN-Okay. The. only question I have on the addition on the east side. YQu're indicating a stone foundation. That is not going to have sliding glass doors or any windows? MR. HANDELMAN-No. There'll be no exits from that building at all. MR. CARVIN-Other than that, just the one door? MR. HANDELMAN-And that'll be like a crawl space. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I think I left the public hearing open, did I? MR. HILTON-I don't have the minutes in front of me, but I believe you did. MR. CARVIN-Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. We had the additional correspondence read into the record. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. CARVIN-All right. Does anybody have any final questions? In which case, I'll ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 3 -1996 MARK HANDELMAN , Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: The applicant is proposing to construct two new additions to an existing home. The additions will total 560 square feet. As a result, the applicant needs relief from the shoreline setback requirements of Section 179-60, and the side setback requirements of Section 179-16, and the expansion of a nonconforming use requirement of Section 179-79A2. The benefit to the applicant by granting this variance would be that it would allow him to add a family room in the most logical locations on the house. There does not appear to be any feasible alternatives that would not require some sort of relief. I would, therefore, grant 17.5 feet from the shoreline setback of 75 feet, and I would grant 5.32 feet from the side setback, and obviously by granting the side and lake setbacks, I would grant relief from the nonconforming use requirements. This is a legal, nonconforming lot in a Waterfront Residential Three Acre zone. The lot is only .95 acres. So obviously this is not a - 4 - ',,- --..I' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) self-created difficulty. As stated before, the floor plan and plot plan that the applicant has presented makes the most sense and the best use of the property in relation to mitigating his request. Any stormwater runoff or slope issues should be addressed at the site plan review. By the granting of this variance, I do not believe that there would be any adverse impact on the community. Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Menter NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-1996 TYPE II LC-10A ALFRED J. MERCHANT OWNER: BESSIE E. CALLEJO EAST SIDE OF CORMUSROAD, 383 FT. FROM LUZERNE ROAD INTERSECTION APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A 1. 67 ACR.E LEGAL NONCONFORMING LOT. RELIEF IS REQUIRED FROM THE PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-13C. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/8/96 TAX MAP NO. 124-1-9 LOT SIZE: 1.69 ACRES SECTION 179-13C MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 36-1996, Alfred J. Merchant, Meeting Date: May 15, 1996 II APPLICANT : Alfred J. Merchant PROJECT LOCATION: Cormus Rd. Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: Applicant is proposing to construct a new single family home on a 1.67 acre lot in a LC-10A zone. This project requires relief from the permeability requirements of Section 179-13C. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: This would allow the applicant to build a new home on this property. 2. Feasible alternatives: There do not appear to be any alternatives which could provide a lesser amount of relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The relief being sought is 5.2% 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? There do not appear to be any negative impacts on the neighborhood at this time. Further comment may be provided at the public hearing. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? This is a legal nonconforming lot containing 1.67 acres in a zone (LC-10) requiring a minimum lot size of 10 acres. It would be difficult for a building on this lot to meet the 95% permeability standard required in this district. Staff comments and Concerns: The plan submitted with this application indicates a garage attached to the house and another detached from the main structure. The Zoning Ordinance only allows for one garage for this property. In order to construct a second garage, the applicant will have to seek a variance in the future. Any resolution should state that a variance is not being considered for a second garage at this time. The nonconforming setbacks on this property were previously approved by the ZBA in February 1996. 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 construct a single family home on a 1.67 acre legal non-conforming lot. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact. II Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Before we begin, do we have the other - 5 - -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) application, the one that we granted? MR. HILTON-I don't have that myself, if it's not in your box as a back up file. MR. THOMAS-No. MR. CARVIN-Would you have the plot plan from your previous application? MR. STEVES-I have the application from the previous. MR. CARVIN-No. I want to see the plot plan. I want to see how different this is from what was originally proposed, because I have a very large concern, as I did before, on this garage business. MR. STEVES-Again, for the record, my name is Matt Steves. The concern with the garage, the first variance we got was for the setbacks, and we showed on the first variance, and there's a copy of the plan, a detached garage. MR. CARVIN-Is that the first plan, is it? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. CARVIN-That's what I'm looking for. MR. STEVES-It did show a detached garage, and we did receive the setback variance, the required setbacks in this zone are 100 feet front to rear, and basically overlaps, so therefore we needed to have a setback variance. When Jim Miller, the Landscape Architect, drew up the site plan, because you also required that we go in front of site plan review, and we wholeheartedly agreed to that, he just said garage below. They're not using that as a garage. The garage for the building is the detached garage. MRS. LAPHAM-What's going to be where it says garage below? Basement? Storage? MR. STEVES-Just storage, I believe. MR. GREEN-So there'll be no garage doors? MR. STEVES-I'd have to check with the applicant, but at this time, he has told me that the garage that was removed is the garage for the property. MR. CARVIN-George, it seems to me that when we had talked about this originally, have you run the permeability without that building? If that detached garage was not there, would the applicant be in compliance? MR. HILTON-No. MR. CARVIN-He would not? The garage doesn't make up that much of a difference? MR. STEVES-No, it doesn't. MR. HILTON-It's my guess that it wouldn't either. They're listed at 89.8%. I doubt that garage would bring them to 95. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. STEVES-The first application that we had in front of you was an oversight by our part as well. We did have it listed as 89.8% on the original plan. When we did the detailed work for the site plan review, that green area did modify slightly, and it modifies to now - 6 - "'- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) at 89.8%, around 89 to 89.8. So because of the fact that we did not achieve a variance for the green area, that's why we were back. The 10 acre zone requires 95% green, with a 1.67 acre parcel. The footprint of the house, with the driveway, is almost impossible to achieve 95% without, unless you didn't put any structure on at all, and this has been submitted for site plan review. ,....,; MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everybody understand what the applicant is requesting? MR. THOMAS-It's just a, what's the word? MR. CARVIN-Technical glitch. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. GREEN-Well, we still have this concern of two garages, technically. George, when you said the garage is not being considered, are you saying the garage that's not attached is the one that's not considered? MR. HILTON-No. I just wanted, somehow in the motion, to have it brought up that you're not granting a variance for two garages, and also, they're seeking site plan approval. We're going to address it at that time, too. I just want"ed to make it clear and on the record, so that if, for some reason in the future, it comes up again, the Board did not grant any type of relief. MR. STEVES-They're not looking for that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. The dimensions on the detached garage, they will be within the 900 square feet, okay. Single story. There's no loft or anything like that, because I don't think I've ever seen any elevations on this. MR. STEVES-As far as the architectural look to the garage, it'll match the house, a cedar style sided. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So your driveway and everything else is the same? MR. STEVES-Yes, sir. MR. CARVIN-They're all in compliance, site plan, has site plan looked at that, are they comfortable with it or don't you know that? MR. STEVES - I don't know yet. comments on the site plan. I don' t know if staff has any MR. HILTON-I haven't even looked at the site plan yet. The reason we're, you know, presumably taking care of this variance here, and then once this is completed, we will look at it, the Planning Board will, as site plan. So we were just waiting until the Zoning Board is finished with this application. MR. KARPELES-Is this driveway all impermeable? MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. KARPELES-Isn't there some way you could shorten that? looks like a real long driveway. That MR. STEVES-We have to because of the grades, to maintain a certain grade to the driveway, and to basically'make it work, and that's the length that we have to provide. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but couldn't you come in from the other side? - 7 - -../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) Wouldn't that shorten it up? Then wouldn't you make your grades that way? MR. STEVES-This was looks the best as far as entrance to the property, exit to the property. It is a little steeper heading toward the south, it doesn't work quite as well. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions of the applicant? All right. I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARVIN-Any Correspondence? MR. THOMAS-Yes. A record of a telephone conversation, May 10, 1996, at 10:30 a.m., .between Rick Rogge and Pam Whiting of the Planning Office, Mr. Rogge is the adjacent property owner, subject was the Alfred Merchant Variance request, "He is unable to attend the meeting. He has reviewed information in the file and has spoken with Mr. Merchant and George Hilton from the Dept. of Community Development Planning Office. He is in support of the application!" And that's all we've got. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Does anyone have any questions here? MR. GREEN-I don't have a problem with the permeability at all. I just am concerned with this garage, if we could, at this point, make sure there's no garage under that house until, you know, unless they want to come back for another variance for that. That's my concern. MR. KARPELES-How does a lot like this get created in the first place, in a 10 acre zone? MR. HILTON-Well, without the pleasure of being here when it was created, I think that the zoning may have been different at one time. MR. CARVIN-Well, this was a pre-existing, and I think we went into this. I don't know if I've got an exact date. I know I went through the minutes here, and it goes back quite a ways. MR. KARPELES-Well, are there other lots in the same situation? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Adjacent to this? MR. HILTON-I'm not sure if they're adjacent. MR. KARPELES-That makes a difference as far as I'm concerned, as far as permeability, if they're going to be nine acres around there, or eight acres around there, with nothing on it, that's one thing, but if there are going to be other houses right up next to it. MR. STEVES-Below this property, heading down the mountain to the east, is owned by the Pearson property, which was part of the Cormus farm, and that's already been subdivided. No further subdivision can be done on that. So what is below that property would be basically forever wild, unless a variance is granted to it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. You weren't here when this was originally up in - 8 - '-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) - February, Bob. This is a pre-existing nonconforming lot of record, and I think it goes back quite a ways. There was some neighborhood opposition initially, and the question really, at that time, I think, was, at least in mY mind, was the garage, because I noticed, going through and reading the minutes, that I had a lot of concern about that detached garage then, 'and I also had some real concern about the length of the driveway and the steepness of the grade, not so much for the applicant, but if we needed to get a fire truck down in there or an ambulance, that I think it's, and still have reservations on that. I think it's a pretty challenging site. MR. STEVES-We held it to the standard for emergency vehicles. That's one of the reasons for the length of the driveway. MR. CARVIN-The applicant and his architect assured us that the house could be cited there and that there was probably very little bit of flexibility, maybe a couple of feet one way or the other, and if I'm misquoting you, just give me the high sign. The applicant, we never heard about an indoor garage on the house. I mean, that was just not, this was the original application, and that just was not an issue. In fact, I know I repeated asked if the garage could be put on the house, and was repeatedly told, that was not an option, and now I see that apparently it is an option. MR. STEVES-I think it's just, somebody wrote it in there that, I don't know what they were looking at the building permit, but it is my understanding that, no, it will not be a garage, and if it would make the Board feel more comfortable to take that into. MR. KARPELES-Well, it brings up the question, why can't the garage be there and get rid of the detached garage? MR. CARVIN-Well, that was my: question, and I can read you the answer. Essentially, they wanted that as a backstop in case they slide down the driveway, because he felt that coming down this driveway that it would be an awful steep turn, and he would be more comfortable putting his car in and out from a safety standpoint. So those are very good questions that you're asking, Bob, because you're following in noble footsteps. MR. HILTON-I think that still applies. I mean, it is a very steep site, and in. order to, if you were to put a garage that was attached to the residence, that would be kind of a rough corner to come around. I think that makes sense, that if you have a detached garage, it's better for access on the property, really, all I'm looking for is I don't want, you know, in the future, someone to come in and say, well, we showed it on the plans. We're entitled to it. We were granted relief because it was shown on the plans, it went for a variance. I have no problem with a detached garage. I just want to, somehow, clear it up so that we don't have two. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I mean, we've granted a variance for this. So it now comes-down to the permeability issue, and I think. MR. STEVES-Yes. I don't want to dwell on that, but the garage, as far as an engineering standpoint, works the best where we propose it, and as far as an economical standpoint, I'm sure the client would love to be able to have it all in one building, but it just works better. That's why it's proposed like this. MR. CARVIN-Okay. applicant? Does anybody have any other questions of the MR. THOMAS-I'm all set. MR. KARPELES-I think that, as far as permeability, if it's, the surrounding area isn't going to be saturated with houses, then I - 9 - J (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) really don't have a problem with it. There's a pretty view from there. It's a beautiful lot. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then if there's no additional questions, I'd ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-1996 ALFRED J. MERCHANT, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: The applicant is proposing to construct a single family home on a 1.67 acre lot in an LC-I0A zone. This project requires relief from the permeability requirements of Section 179-13C. The benefit to the applicant by the granting of this application is that it would allow him to continue to·pursue the site plan review and allow the applicant to build a new home on this property. Because of the unique size and situation of this lot, there does not appear to be any alternatives which would provide a lesser amount of relief. The applicant is seeking relief of only- 5.2% from the Ordinance. This is a legal, nonconforming lot in an LC-I0 Acre zone, and the applicant has been granted a variance from the setback requirements of the Ordinance. I think the applicant has demonstrated that the location and size of the house and more importantly of the driveway are best sited according to their plan, and unfortunately because of the steepness of the lot, and the length of the driveway, that the permeability on the lot becomes an issue. I would also condition this variance in that there will be no storage of automobiles in the residence at any time. That the only garage that we recognize is a conforming detached garage, and any deviation from that should be brought to this Board's attention immediately. By the granting of this variance, I do not feel that there would be any adverse effect on the neighborhood or the community, and again, I would still refer this to site plan review for their input with regard to the practicality and safety issues that this Board has brought up in the past, the feasibility of using this lot as the applicant has proposed. Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Menter 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 PETER BROWN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; HAL HALLIDAY, PRESENT MR. CARVIN-Now, I would like to bring the Board's attention to, apparently I received notification today that there is an advertising problem with this? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. CARVIN-That, apparently, due to some tax map readings or mis- readings or something, I'm not sure which, that proper notification was not sent out to all of the neighbors. The applicant has, and - 10 - "- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) ~ I'm assuming the applicant is here? MR. HILTON-They're out in the hall. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, maybe somebody should tell them what's going on. Okay. To start over. I've been informed that we have an advertising problem with this application, due to an oversight or some other explainable reason. Apparently, proper notification was not made to all of the neighbors. I understand that you would like to proceed with as much of this application as possible. MR. HALLIDAY-Mr. Carvin, my name is Hal Halliday. The only reason I would like to proceed is that I notice that some of the neighbors are here, and they've taken time, like we have, to plan our schedules around your schedule. MR. CARVIN-Right. MR. HALLIDAY-And we were not informed of this, I was not informed until 11 o'clock this morning, and the gentleman that's designing my building found out at seven 0' clock tonight when he arrived here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I found out at 11:10. MR. HALLIDAY-I don't understand how an office the size of the office of this Town can say they made a mistake and not notify property owners, with the computers and desks and file cabinets downstairs in this building. I don't understand it. MR. BROWN-Do you want us to explain this project tonight, or? MR. CARVIN-Let me outline how I would like to proceed, and then you can take it for what it's worth. What I would like to do is proceed as far as we can. I will start the application. I will take public comments tonight, but the Board cannot vote tonight. It will be properly advertised. The official, if I could use that term, public hearing will be slated for the 23rd, and we will leave it open to then. So that there may be additional public comment that may be made that evening. MR. BROWN-Just to let you know. I do believe it was advertised in the Post Star. I've got a copy. So it was officially noticed. I know the letters did not go out. What ramifications the letters went and which ones went and which ones didn't. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Again, these are technical questions. I'm just being told we are not in compliance. So I leave that to better minds than mine to figure out what the technicalities are. MR. HILTON-What had happened, and if I may, we have to, by our Ordinance, notify property owners within 500 feet of any variance that occurs within the Town. Our tax maps are such that we are right now transitioning over to a computerized GIS system where the tax map ID numbers are given to us by the County. The County is in the process of changing those, so they are virtually incorrect for our entire system. We're dependent upon the County. There was an advertising error. We did not notify some of the people within 500 feet. I apologize for the error, but mistakes do happen, and we are in a position where we will hear what we can tonight, and we will have correct advertising done and continue the hearing on the 23rd. MR. CARVIN-Now, what will happen on the 23rd, and I'm going to tell you right up front, I probably will have a minimal Board. By that I mean we have a seven member Board, but I've already received notification that three members of that Board will not be present that evening. So that, at most, I'm hoping to have four members, - 11 - ..~.,. ..~,.. ........'....., ".......... --" ,--- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) which would allow us to have a quorum, but you need to line everybody up in the same direction, and if there is additional public hearing, and aäditional comments, I would probably defer, I'll leave it to your discretion, but I would suggest that you would defer a vote or a motion until some time in June to allow the missing Board members to read the minutes, or, if the four people that are here on the 23rd feel comfortable on moving this, one way or the other, then that's what we'll do, but, as I said, I want to kind of plow ahead and get as much of this as we can done tonight, but we will not have a vote, and I think, in fact, two members, now that I think of it, you two won't be here for the 23rd. MR. THOMAS-I'll be here. MR. CARVIN-Yes. You and I will be here, and Bob. .That's only three. That would mean that the other ones would have to have the minutes and be brought up to speed. MR. BROWN-Basically, this is over the square footage of a garage. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Well, it's a lot of square footage over the garage, but we won't get into that. Maria, do you think it's possible to get the minutes for this section to the missing Board members by the 23rd? MS. GAGLIARDI-Yes. I think I could do it. MR. CARVIN-Yes. See, there's another curve, because two of the Board members that are here tonight will not, or at least they've notified me that they won't be here on the 23rd. So that leaves Mr. Karpeles, myself, and Mr. Thomas here who would be up to speed on the application, but the other Board member, Mr. Menter, will have to be provided the minutes and be comfortable before he would be able to vote on it. So, I'm just laying this out on the table. The 23rd is going to be a unique evening. I mean, we've got a full agenda this whole month, but we'll try to do it on the 23rd for a motion, but it may go into June. MR. HALLIDAY-Will you at least convey to the office that we did everything that we could do. MR. CARVIN-It's been conveyed. You can trust me. MR. HALLIDAY-I mean, we, just a little bit of history. I came to the Town. I'm not a builder. I asked this Building Department what I had to give to them to build a garage of my own, regarding separated, attached, connected. I hired a professional to design plans to what they wanted. They were presented to the Town, and at that time I was told, whoops, it's more than 900 square feet. You have to have a variance. It's really confusing to the average citizen that's trying to do it right, that's in this quagmire of paperwork downstairs, and they sluff if off like, oops, we just forgot to, we notified the wrong property owners. We're really trying to do it right, but we're frustrated at the cooperation we've had. MR. CARVIN-Well, I share your frustration, but I don't have any answers, other than what I've outlined. MR. BROWN-Would we know the 23rd? MR. CARVIN-The 23rd is when we meet. It will be publically advertised on the 23rd. So, I will entertain, I mean, if you want. I'm leaving it in your court which way you want me to handle this. As I said, I'm willing to proceed tonight, so that any of the neighbors that are here who want to express an opinion can, but we cannot vote. I mean, my hands are tied. - 12 - "-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting ....I 5/15/96) MR. BROWN-But whoever's here the 23rd can vote. MR. CARVIN-That's correct. have four votes. If it's then it gets delayed until as it stands right now. You need four votes. You've got to three, one, then it's a no action, and we do have a full Board. Now as I said, MR. BROWN-So should we appear the 23rd, and review it then, or should we review it now? MR. CARVIN-Well, we're going to be advertising ,on the 23rd. Now the Board members here, my suggestion, and that's just that, is that you make your case tonight, because you've got five of us right now. Because what that would do is that if it does get kicked into June, at least some of these missing members will be back in June, and you won't have to worry about them being up to speed. All right. Now, again, that's, you know, but I'm just telling you, on the 23rd, it's going to be a huge agenda already, and I've only got four members, at this point, that I know will be here. MR. BROWN-Well, we have some problems, too, because of the fact that the concrete floor is a (lost words) concrete floor and we're supposed to let them know the week of the 20th, I believe it was, whether it was a go or not, and we planned on, tonight, knowing pretty much whether it was a go or not. MR. CARVIN-As I said, I can poll the Board, but that's not a binding situation. MR. BROWN-Right. I understand. MR. HALLIDAY-Could you at least do that? At least we'll know what direction we're going in. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm more interested in getting the public input, because I don't want to have people coming out and then not having, necessarily, an opportunity to talk, but I just want to be fair to you, I mean, that this Board is just not going to be able to move it tonight. At the earliest, it would be the 23rd, and that's got a lot of headaches. In that case, then, we will proceed, and read the application into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 29-1996, Harold & Lyn Halliday, Meeting Date: May 15, 1996 "APPLICANT: Harold & Lyn Halliday PROJECT LOCATION: 2599 Ridge Road PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Applicant is proposing to construct a new two and one half story garage. The two main floors of the proposed garage would contain approximately 1296 square feet of space on each floor. In addition there would be an area above the two floors of garage space of approximately 8 feet in height which would contain 944 square feet of new building area. Tke overall new square footage of this new garage would be 3536 square feet. This new garage would require relief from Section 179-7B which limits the area of a garage to 900 square feet. 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 vehicles and other equipment. 2. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: The applicant could construct a garage that was closer to the 900 square foot maximum and utilize the carport at the rear of the property. 3. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? The applicant is seeking relief to build a garage that is 2636 square feet over the maximum allowed in the Zoning Ordinance. 4. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY? A structure of this size may effect drainage and stormwater runoff on this site. Additional comment may be provided at the public - 13 - ~.~"(,rJI';;"~""":~I.''';'-·.'"~''· ',,~...,:"._.':, ..,' ...-/ -..../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) hearing. 5. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF CREATED? A carport already exists on the property and the applicant has the ability to construct a garage that is more in scale with the existing home on the site and still meet the vehicle storage needs of this residence. STAFF COMMENTS & CONCERNS: Staff is concerned with allowing a garage to be built that is almost four times larger than what is allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed garage would be three feet taller than the home on this property. The Zoning Orqinance requires that detached accessory buildings be a minimum of 10 feet away from a principal structure. The site plan indicates a 6 foot separation between the garage and home. With an existing carport on site staff would question the need for a garage of this size. Because this application is not for minimum relief, staff cannot support this application. 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 construct a two and one half story garage space on the main floor and in the basement. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed C. Powel South, Chairperson. MRS. LAPHAM-When I looked at the site, I noticed you had some tour buses there. I mean, I'm a great customer of yours. I love your trips to New York. However, my question is this. Are you going to be building this garage so you can store these buses? MR. HALLIDAY-That's the number one question everybody wants to know. I'll let Peter explain it, but the garage door is only seven and a half foot high. A bus is 10 foot 6. I really don't think I could let the air out of the tires and fit them in the door. A bus is 42 foot long. The proposed garage is only 36. I have no intention of using the garage. If I get my way, the buses will be sold. They're up for sale, and I would like to slow my life down. Right now we're running one bus, but it's being sold, I hope, as soon as possible. They're for sale if you want one. So it will not be used for business purposes. It's strictly residential. If you look at the design closely, you will see that that's all that it could be used for. It can't fit a commercial vehicle in the garage. My van that's parked outside, the Ford van, is the largest thing that would fit in the door by four inches. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions? MR. GREEN-Not yet. MR. KARPELES-What's all the upstairs for? MR. HALLIDAY-The second floor? For storage. MR. KARPELES-It's two and a half, isn't it? MR. HALLIDAY-We have two doors on the back side of the building, because of the way the property is laid out. I designed the doors downstairs off the back yard, and then doors off the street level for vehicles upstairs also.' MR. BROWN-The lowest level is to the basement, the first floor of the garage, and the second floor would then become the storage area. MR. KARPELES-Okay. What is this, a four car garage, then? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. BROWN-It's actually a four car garage. - 14 - '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) '-..I MR. KARPELES-And then what's above that? MR. BROWN-There's a storage area. It's a cape cod type style, I guess, a full dormer across the rafters. Hal's got a lot of things to store. It's unheated, though. MRS. LAPHAM-How tall is it from the street level? MR. BROWN-The street level is three feet above the existing house. If you look at your front elevation, up from the first plan, up in the front right, you can actually see where the existing home is. Hal's got a couple of big weeping willows in the front. You wouldn't be able to see this. Up in the upper right hand corner, that's actually looking at it from the front, and the new building would actually be like three feet above the existing. MR. CARVIN-You'd have to go from ground level, though. How tall is it from here, from your lowest point to here? MR. BROWN-How much room is there? MR. CARVIN-No, the height. MR. BROWN-The height. . Twenty-six feet from the lowest point, I would say, twenty-seven feet, from the lowest point to the highest point, and that's from their back yard of the lowest point where the garage doors open on to the rear of the building. Looking at the east elevation, if you went from the bottom to the very top, if somebody had an architectural scale, I could measure that. It's on a cross section. MR. GREEN-It's a quarter to an inch. It's a regular roller door. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. HILTON-I don't have an architect's scale. MR. BROWN-It's 10 foot 5 and a half from the second floor to the peak of the ridge, 10 foot 5 and a half, 8 foot 1 and a half, that's 18 foot 7, and another 8 foot, 26 foot 7. It's 11 inches from the 27 foot side. MR. CARVIN-Does the existing house. sit into a hill on a basement also, does it? MR. BROWN-There's a lower level behind it, and you actually walk out onto that lower level. MR. HALLIDAY-It would match the lower garage door. MR. CARVIN-How big is that shed that's w~y out in the back? How long is a bus? MR. HALLIDAY-Forty-two foot, six inches. It's not for a bus. MR. CARVIN-I just was comparing the bus next to it, and it looked like it was pretty. MR. HALLIDAY-It is, it's all sto~age that we're trying to put in the garage. Let me make it really clear. If the buildings in the back yard are any question whatsoever, I will agree to remove them when the new garage is built, because the new garage is being built to put the stuff in the garage, my tools, my welders, my tåble saws. I just want my stuff inside. MR. BROWN-This is being called a garage, but you've got to realize, a lot of it's going to be storage areas. It's got garage doors on it, but the lower level is not. - 15 - ~ ------ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) MR. HALLIDAY-We don't like looking out the back of the house at the buildings anymore than anybody else does. If we build a garage, we'd like to remove these so we can have all nature out back. MR. CARVIN-How many private cars do you own? MR. HALLIDAY-Six. MR. CARVIN-Six? MR. HALLIDAY-Yes. My son has two. My daughter has one. I have two. My wife has one. I have a ten year old that's going to be driving in six years. MR. CARVIN-And she'll have two also? MR. HALLIDAY-Yes, probably. That is the reason we're building a garage of this size. MR. CARVIN-Geez, I thought my kids were ahead with just one. MR. HALLIDAY-Well, my son has a truck and a summer car. MR. CARVIN-Six autos for personal. MR. HALLIDAY-That's it. MR. CARVIN-None of these are for business? MR. HALLIDAY-All registered in my name and insured in my name personally. MR. CARVIN-Do any of them carry Halliday signs on the side on the side? MR. HALLIDAY-Yes, sir. The van. MR. CARVIN-And that's the only one? MR. HALLIDAY-Yes. That's the only one. MR. CARVIN-All right. None of the other cars carry signs? MR. HALLIDAY-No, sir. Not at this time. MR. CARVIN-Not at this time. Well, you're qualifying it now. Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? MR. GREEN-I'd like to hear the public comment first. MR. THOMAS-I want to hear the public comment. MR. CARVIN-Okay. In which case, I'll open up the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JAMES SCHOONOVER MR. SCHOONOVER-My name is James Schoonover. I live directly across from Harold's house, and this is going to look like a one story building, because half of it is in the ground. I have no problem at all. I look out my picture window and see this thing, and I have no problems at all. I'm probably the only one it's going to affect. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyone opposed? Anyone else wishing to be heard in support? - 16 - '''"'- ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) DON PENSEL MR. PENSEL-My name is Don pensel. I live nearby, and I have seen buses down in the back yard there, and he runs a business, a bus business, and I just expect that it's some kind of business proposition, to take rides up there, which is commercial. Well, it kind of detracts from my residential area, and it would have some affect on us eventually. If that's what it is, even so, it's such a big garage. It makes me wonder why a person would need such a big garage. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anything else, sir? MR. PENSEL-That's about all I can think of. suspicious of it, and the appearance of it. I'm just a little MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does anybody have any questions of Mr. Pensel? Okay. We appreciate your comments. Anyone else wishing to be heard? HOWARD KRANTZ MR. KRANTZ-Howard Krantz. I represent the adjoining property owners, Scott and Janice McLaughlin, and I understand there will be at least one more meeting to consider this application? MR. CARVIN-That's correct. This is a public hearing which will remain open. There will be no vote this evening, and again, we will entertain public input on the 23rd, after it has been properly noticed. So, the comments that are made tonight will be part of the record and considered as part of this application. MR. KRANTZ-My clients may have concerns regarding this application, but we'd like to reserve our comments for the following meeting. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I can't fault you for that. I mean, as I said, there will be another public hearing. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard? Do we have correspondence? MR. THOMAS-Yes. A phone call retrieved Tuesday, May 14th, regarding Hal Halliday. It was transcribed verbatim. "Message delivered at 6 a. m., Tuesday, May 14th - to listen, press 0 - (Automated Operator) ." This is the second time I've had to call. I'm calling to ~omplain about Hal Halliday which is on Route 9L . . . ., apparently he is running a bus terminal right across the street from my house, he's got a number of commercial buses there. He's got commercial dumpsters there. He's got mechanics on duty. Uh, this is the same individual who has harassed all of our immediate neighbors around him concerning anything from little ice cream stands to kids having Kool-aid things out. You know, I just wonder why everybody closes their eyes to him. We are in the process, something has to be done because I am speaking to an attorney and we are going to organize and try and do something because this is ridiculous. I really wish that something can be done pronto, because he's up, these buses are revving up at 4 in the morning. I have kids and animals that are being affected by this. As, from what I understand he is dumping oil back there, I mean it's getting worse and worse. I really hope that somebody can do something about it pronto." And there's no name on it. MR. HALLIDAY-Can I react to that? MR. CARVIN-Sure. MR. HALLIDAY-I would like to ask that that be stricken from the record because, since there's no name on it, and I deny every allegation in there and would welcome any of the Board members to please come visit my home. Okay. By the comments made in that, I - 17 - '--" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) am well aware who sent that, and I have done nothing wrong, and I put the pink sign up that you asked, and I would welcome any of you to please come to our home. We are proud of it. We've gotten Beautification awards, and I'll do anything I can to make this Board convinced that that is not the kind of piece of property I'm running. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I think the Board will take the fact that there's no author to the phone call. So I guess, it's a phone call received in relation to it, but it's an anonymous one. That's all I can say. MR. BROWN-Was there any notes as to the first one? MR. THOMAS-No. That's the only thing I've read everything on that piece of paper. verbatim from a phone call received at 6 a.m. one of the numbers at the Town hall. got, and that was, I That was· transcribed Tuesday, May 14th, on MR. HALLIDAY-For future reference, does this Board always read letters that get called in without signatures on them, just so I know, for the future? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Yes. We read everything. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Okay. Is there any other public comment? DONNA SCHOONOVER MRS. SCHOONOVER-May I just ask a question? I'm thoroughly confused. My name is Donna Schoonover, and I live directly across the road from Mr. Halliday. I am a bit confused on what is going on here. Are we here to discuss Mr. Halliday's bus business, or are we here to discuss an application for a private resident's garage? Because these are all being thrown in one basket. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MRS. SCHOONOVER-My concern is that if I bring, or Mr. Halliday or anyone brings an application to this Board for a building, whether it be a house or a garage, what their business, how they earn their money to build this building, shouldn't have anything to do with it. Now, I understand that there have been some problems with people saying that the buses are in the back yard. Well, if anybody ought to be bothered, it should be me, and so far they haven't bothered me. I hear them once in a while when they do start up in the morning. I seriously doubt, because of where they are in the back yard, they that anybody else could hear them. The only reason I do is because my bedroom happens to be on the front of the house and there's no storm window on it. It's also my understanding, and I would have to say it's only hearsay, that there was a complaint to Mr. Halliday about the back up beeper on the bus, which has been taken care of. We no longer hear it put in, but this is for a garage. He has two children who drive, one, Jason has a truck that he drives in the winter time and a car he drives in the summer time, two vehicles. Hal, as he said, does have the van and whatever, but I can't say too much, either. I have a lot of cars in my yard. I have a four car garage, but unfortunately my cars don't all get in my garage, but I am confused as to what we are dealing with here. Are we going to bring in, well, you did this to me, or you did that to me, or you've got a bus in your yard, or are we strictly talking about an addition to his property? MR. CARVIN-George, I can't make out the writing. This is, what's the zone on this? - 18 - '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) -...",I MR. HILTON-It's WR-1A. Waterfront Residential. MR. CARVIN-Waterfront Residential. Okay. MR. BROWN-I brought a sewer map with me, and the nearest waterfront, if you want to call it waterfront, there's no waterfront that I know of on Hal's property. I don't know where the wetland lines are, but it's not on the lake, lets put it that way. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and it's not a commercial zone, is it? MR. HILTON-No. It is a Waterfront Residential zone, and Peter's right. It's not on the waterfront, but it's within that zone. So it's held to the requirements and the standards of the WR-1A zoning district. It's toward the back of it. It's probably the last lot that's in WR-1A. MR. CARVIN-Do you know what it abuts, by any chance? MR. HILTON-Offhand, no. MR. BROWN-If you go down the road, of course, there's like two homes down the way, and the next thing is the Fire Station, of course then you have the Cleverdale Store. Going north on 9L South you come to Warner Bay, and of course you have the Castaway Marina, and I don't know what else, but it's no waterfront near him. MR. CARVIN-Okay. It's Rural Residential Five Acre. we're Waterfront. George, what's NC-1A? Okay. So MR. HILTON-Neighborhood Commercial. MR. BROWN-Which is part of that, I believe, part of that parcel. MR. CARVIN-Okay. He must sit right in here, then. Because this is all RR-5 Acre here. MR. HILTON-It may be that he backs up to the 5A. It may be that he backs up to the NC-1A. MR. CARVIN-Well, I would think, if this is all Waterfront right in here, it looks like it kind of runs, because here's Cleverdale. This is where that is. I don't know what the distances are, but it looks like this abuts the. MR. HILTON-Actually, that little island is the NC-1A, and the WR-1A backs up to the RR-5A. MR. CARVIN-Yes. That's what I'm saying. residential area though, right? So it's primarily a MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Classified, Residential. whether it's Waterfront or Rural MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So it's not been designed, nor is commercial being encouraged out through there. Is that correct? MR. HILTON-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and I think that's how it ties into the garage, I mean, because we've got an indication that we may have a commercial activity. This is my map, and I'm guessing that there is a little island of Neighborhood Commercial, which probably is the Store, and it is in the middle of the Rural Residential and Waterfront - 19 - -' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) Residential. So my guess is, even if you moved the line, you'd still be in a residential zone, but, in answer to this lady's question, we're hearing about a garage,. is what we're hearing about, and we have to be careful, because he's asking for a lot of relief. I mean, the Ordinance calls for 900 square feet, as a normal garage, and he's asking, by our calculations, for about four times that, and lots of kids and lots of cars are not necessarily a reason for us to grant a variance. MR. BROWN-The other thing is, he's already stated that he's willing to take down this existing shed that he houses all his saws and tools and his snowmobiles and things of that nature. There'll be stored, you can call it a storage area, garage area (lost words) areas within the garage, but it's going to be storage of vehicles there. I don't know if that would have any bearing on your decision. . MR. CARVIN-Okay. It may, I don't know. MR. BROWN-Well, shouid we take it back and redefine the areas of where he's going to have his saws and where he's going to store his snowmobiles or where he's going to store this, or where he's going to store that, or should we just leave it the way it is, as a garage? MR. CARVIN-I'm still entertaining public comment at this point. So I don't know how the Board wants to, and what additional questions the public hearing might have. So, are there any other public comments? Okay.' Does the Board have any questions of the applicant at this point, based upon what public input we've had? MR. THOMAS-No. I'll wait for the rest of them. MR. CARVIN-Okay. At this point, I'm going to leave the public hearing open. We will properly advertise this. The public hearing will continue on the 23rd. As I said, we have four members at that point. You've had a little preview, I think, of what some of the public feels, and the Board has a flavor for a little bit of both sides. So, the only thing I can say is that we will look forward to hearing the rest of it on the 23rd. Okay. Again, thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-1996 TYPE II WR-1A CEA CHARLES R. CARDER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE FITZGERALD ROAD, OFF MANNIS ROAD, THIRD HOUSE ON LEFT OF FITZGERALD RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE A DAMAGED METAL BUILDING WITH A LARGER WOODEN STRUCTURE TO BE USED FOR STORAGE. THE NEW BUILDING WOULD REQUIRE RELIEF FROM THE SETBACKS IN SECTION 179-16C AND THE SHORELINE SETBACK LISTED IN SECTION 179-60B, 5, 15, C. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING TAX MAP NO. 42- 1-4 LOT SIZE: 0.28 ACRES SECTION 179-16C SECTION 179-60B, 5, 15, C CHARLES CARDER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 35-1996, Charles R. Carder, Meeting Date: May 15, 1996 "APPLICANT: Charles Carder PROJECT LOCATION: Fitzgerald Rd. Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: Applicant is proposing to replace an existing metal shed by constructing a larger wooden structure. This new building requires relief from the shoreline setbacks listed in Section 179- 60B, 5, 15, C and the side setbacks of Section 179-16C. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefi t to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to replace a damaged building and construct a new wooden structure to be used for storage. 2. Feasible al ternati ves: There do not appear to be any alternatives which could provide a lesser amount of relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The shoreline relief being sought is 47 feet, - 20 - "'- .....,I (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) the side setback relief being sought is 18 feet. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or communi ty? There do not appear to be any negative impacts on the neighborhood at this time. Further comment may be provided at the public hearing. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The existing shed on the property has been damaged over the years due to heavy snow load. As a result of this heavy load the current structure cannot be used. Staff Comments & Concerns: The applicant indicates that the new shed will be 205 square feet in area. The submitted plan shows the original structure with about 100 square feet. The plan needs to be revised to show where the location of the proposed expansion will be. 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 replace a damaged metal building with a larger wooden structure to be used for storage. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Disapprove Comments: Excessive relief from the Ordinance. II Signed by C. powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARDER-May I make a comment on that? MR. CARVIN-Please, before I do. MR. CARDER-They indicated to me that because I live on the lake, that I should sacrifice. I really tried to ask them what they meant by that. MR. CARVIN-Well, I've had some conversations with some of the folks up at Warren County, and I've asked for their criteria when they look at these applications, and so far I've been unable to get any. So I don't think there are any. So, in lieu of that, I've got to believe they're doing some heavy duty drugs. MR. HILTON-I would just make one comment. The last part of the Staff comments indicated that we wanted to see a plan showing the exact location of the shed. Mr. Carder dropped those off to us, and I've just handed those out to you, indicating the proposed shed. He shows the existing, as is, and the dimensions of what's proposed. So he's satisfied that. MR. CARVIN-How tall is your current shed? MR. CARDER-It's got a regular, I think it's a six foot eight door, sir. MR. HILTON-Yes, eight feet. MR. CARVIN-You're going up, what, almost 13.8 on this one, on your proposed? What is this? MR. CARDER-Is that the height? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARDER-You're talking about the pitch of the roof? Yes. MR. CARVIN-Well, you're going up about four feet in height, then. MR. CARDER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-It's currently a 10 by 10, is it? MR. CARDER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-You're going to, what, a 15 by 15, is that what you're saying? - 21 - --' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) MR. THOMAS-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-You're cu~rent one is a metal shed, the type you'd buy at Sears? MR. CARDER-Yes. That is the third metal building that I've had on my property since, and I've just replaced it. It's a Sears building. It's on like a concrete type of a slab, but it's just blocks. MRS. LAPHAM-But they're movable? MR. CARDER-Yes, and last year it was destroyed again. everything, cover it with plastic. I've done MR. CARVIN-Do you know what the distance is, from that shed to the house is going to be? Is that over 10 feet? It looked pretty close when I was out there already. MR. CARDER-I didn't measure that. MR. HILTON-It appears to be more than 10 feet. I don't have a scale. One inch is equal to twenty on this plan. So the distance between the shed and the home appears to be more than 10. MR. CARVIN-Boy, I don't know. I didn't have my tape measure, but. MR. THOMAS-No. When I looked at it today, it looked like it was more than 10. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but we're putting a bigger building there. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It still looks like more than half an inch between the building and the new shed, because one inch equals twenty feet. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but this is an old plot plan. I don't even know if this is. MR. GREEN-It's 20 feet. MRS. LAPHAM-I think it's 20 feet to the existing, and it's 15 feet from the boundary to the new one. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I would reserve that that be measured. I may be losing a lot of things, and sight may be one of them. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I did it by scale according to this, but I wouldn't say you take that as gospel. I'm not a surveyor. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? MR. GREEN-No. MR. CARVIN-Then I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS MOZAL MRS. MOZAL-My name's Chris Mozal. I live three houses away from Chuck, and I am in support of what he wants to do. He does excellent work. He does a lot of it himself, and his building does need replacing. It's a real eyesore. When you look at the rest of his property, I think he really needs to do this, and from what he said, he will match it to the siding of his house, which I think will be an asset. I walk by and drive by every day, and I'm in 100% approval of what he wants to do, and my question is, why are you considering 10 feet? It's not a garage. It's just a storage - 22 - '"-- '--' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) shed. MR. HILTON-Any accessory structure has to be located at least 10 feet away from the principle structure, in this case the home. MRS. MOZAL-That's all I have to say. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Any questions? No? Okay. Anyone else wishing to be heard? Okay. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing's closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. should say. What's your feeling, Bonnie? Any questions, I MRS. LAPHAM-I don't have any questions. I have a question of George. The type of metal building that Mr. Carder has now, that doesn't need any kind of variance for anything, does it? I mean, as an appraiser, we consider the personal property because they're movable. MR. HILTON-Right. If it's under 100 square feet, he can go within five feet of the property line? It's when he gets above 100 feet that he needs variances for the location. MRS. LAPHAM-So he could actually do what he's doing now, but make it smaller, without a variance? MR. HILTON-If it were 100 square feet or less, he could do it without a variance and just would have to go in and get a building permit, as long as he was five feet away from the side property line. MRS. LAPHAM-Because when I was up there today, I could see why you want to do this, and with the metal buildings keep being destroyed, but I have to admit, I have a problem with it because it's just so congested there. You could hardly drive your car down there, and I have a tiny little car. To add more structures to it, as I said, I have a problem with it, but I'd like to hear what the rest of the Board thinks, also. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, Bill? MR. GREEN-There's quite a dirt wall there behind it. Are you going to approach the top of that with the 13' 8, do you have any idea, I guess, how tall that retaining wall behind the shed is? MR. CARDER-It's about six feet, and then above the wall, there's that, my neighbors, the Zacks have put up some big fence of Hemlocks, just as a barrier, because that's where they park their cars. So I can't see their fence and they can't see our fence, and the shed, they wouldn't even be able to see the shed from their house, through the trees, but it is about five, six feet, from, she wanted to know the height of the wall in back of the shed. MR. HILTON-Okay. The wall, when I was out there, it looked like it might have been six, seven feet, and then there's some growth, some trees on top of it that shield, the property that's right next to Mr. Carder's is basically looking over the shed out to the lake. MR. GREEN-Any utilities, water and electric, proposed for that? MR. CARDER-No. MR. GREEN-Just a double swinging door on the front? MR. CARDER-Yes. There'll be double set of just regular doors, 6 - 23 - ---- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) foot 8, by design, 6 foot 6. MR. GREEN-I guess I don't have any major concerns, since none of the neighbors really came out to say anything against it at this time. MR. CARVIN-How about you, Bob? MR. KARPELES-I agree with Bonnie. I think that it's already very congested there. Anything ad~ing on to it is just going to make it that much worse, and the way ~ understand it, he could replace the shed in kind. There's nothing stopping him from doing that. He doesn't even need approval from us to do that, right? It's just the enlarging part of it. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. KARPELES-I thìnk it's very congested. MR. CARDER-Would you explain to me what you mean by "congested". MRS. LAPHAM-Well, what ~ see is the lot is small and the house, as it is now, the house takes up a major portion of the lot, and you're adding another building, and it's very tight in there, and you don't have a lot of room to maneuver at all. Because when I went down there, somebody was coming out in the way, and I had to back into a neighbor's property, so that they could continue, or else they were going to have to back up and go back to wherever they came from so that ~ could continue. MR. CARDER-It's not going to increase this. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, it's not going to increase the traffic, no, this is true, but a larger shed would increase the amount of congestion, my feeling is, on your property itself. MR. CARDER-Yes. I use that area for just parking cars. I can park about two cars there. My problem is, because I talked to George about this. It's going to cost me a lot of money to even put in, because I need to put in a permanent building, and even to put in a 10 by 10 building, to me to put a 15 by 15 building, it's not economical. 'It's going to cost me, for the little amount of extra money to have a 15 by 15 building, I mean, it would help me, economically, as far as having a 15 by 15 building, versus a 10 foot. It's also going to give me extra storage. MR. CARVIN-How about a 12 by 12? MR. CARDER-I'm open for anything, folks. If you're going to object to 15, I will go with, I understand. It's just hard for me to understand some of the rules. I'm not going any closer to the building, and I'm not going any closer to my neighbors, and it's not going to affect me, as far as the congestion of the place, because I can only park three cars there, and the way the building's going to hurt anybody, and plus it's going to really make the appearance of my property so much. It's an old rusty building, and I've lived with it, and the rest of my place, I spend a lot of time making sure that my place looks good, and the property looks good and the grounds look good, and that's the only thing left that I need to do. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but making it bigger doesn't improve the looks. MR. CARDER-Yes, I know, but what it does, it helps me. MR. KARPELES-It makes it more visible from the lake, too. MR. CARDER-Yes, but it's going to look a lot better from the lake than the building that's there now. - 24 - '- -......I (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) MR. KARPELES-Well, yes, but replacing in kind, a good looking building would look better from the lake, too. MR. CARVIN-How about you, Chris? What do YOU think? MR. THOMAS-I have a question of Staff. It says the side setback relief being sought is 18 feet, yet the plans show that it's not going any closer to the property line. It shows almost seven feet off the property line. So they're going to be 13. Would it be 13 feet of relief, rather than 18? MR. HILTON-If you look at the map, yes. I'm looking at the site development data on Page Two of the application, which the applicant has indicated that he is proposing a two foot setback. MR. THOMAS-Yes, I saw that. I thought maybe he was going to put the building back farther, but this print that we got tonight shows that he's not. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. CARDER-The building now is about two feet from the, if this is showing, what you're saying. MR. THOMAS-It's almost seven feet from the property line. MR. CARDER-It's that close, and it's been there since, that's how close it is. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's why I question this map. MR. THOMAS-Yes. that shed there? VanDusen and Steves surveyed this in 1985. Was Is that the same shed that was there in 1985? MR. CARDER-The same shed. No, it's not the same shed, but it's put in the same place. MR. THOMAS-So, back then they showed it almost seven feet off the property line, and you're saying it's only two? MR. GREEN-Well, from the look of it, your property line may be up on the other side of that wall. MR. CARDER-The property line, according to the survey, when they surveyed the property, the wall is the property line. There's a block wall between the properties, and that is the property line, because there's a stake about, it's right in line, down by the lake. MR. CARVIN-I would have to concur with the applicant. I don't think there's more than two feet from the back of that shed to that stone wall, if that is indeed the property line. MR. HILTON-And the line may very well be up, like in the center of that wall. I mean, the edge of the wall may not be the property line. The line may be in toward the center of the wall, a little bit. MR. CARVIN-Well, with all the replacements, the sheds may have been moved from this map. MR. CARDER-The block foundation that's under the wall, what they did is they put down, the person that had the property before me, put down, they're about 30 inch by 15 inch patio blocks, and they're all laid side by side, and that's where the building is set on, and what he did is anchored the building in the patio blocks, but it's in the same place that it's been since I got the property. - 25 - '- .~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) MR. CARVIN-And when did you buy the property? MR. CARDER-It was '85 or '86, around that time. MR. CARVIN-Well, I didn't see the changed map, and my comments are, I kind of agree with Bob here, no wider, no longer, no higher, and I looked at it. I saw your shed. I guess I also understand your need for the permanent structure, because of the snow, and I agree with Bonnie. I think there's an awful lot of congestion in there, but would a 12 by 12 by 10 meet your purposes? MR. CARDER-If you'd let me build a 12 by 12, I'd be happy. Right now I just (lost words), I think a 10 by 10, I know a 10 by 10, for what I'd use it for, it's not big enough. I mean, I put stuff in there. I pile it right to the roof, in the winter time. MR. THOMAS-Let me throw this at you. What if you wanted to build a garage, I mean, with the dirt on the back side of it, that steep hill, the only place to put a garage is right where that shed is. I mean, he couldn't bring it any closer to the right-of-way. So, you know, instead of asking for a 900, or 450 square foot garage, he's only asking for a 225 foot shed. MR. CARVIN-That doesn't preclude that he comes back and asks for a garage. MR. THOMAS-Well, we can handle that when it comes in. Maybe we could, if he comes in for a garage, is to have him remove the shed, like we did down the road, and let him put his garage in. MR. CARDER-May I comment on that? MR. CARVIN-Sure. MR. CARDER-I have a proposal to put, and my contractor, he does a lot of work for me. He gave me a proposal for a garage, and the only reason I'd put a garage on, he figured out we have enough room, but that, $22,000 is a lot of money for a garage. MR. THOMAS-But if you had the money, you could be throwing a garage up there, rather than a 15 by 15 shed. So, we'd be really hard pressed to say no to a garage. MR. CARVIN-That's why I have been arguing to get us out of the definition business of garage and shed for two years now. We sit here two years later arguing over what's a garage and what's a shed. MR. THOMAS-That's right. Well, you know this isn't a garage because the door isn't big enough. MR. CARVIN-That's true. MR. THOMAS-Unless he's going to turn it sideways and shove it through. MR. CARVIN-Well, Warren County has thrown us a curve ball. In order for us to move on this, we'd need five votes lined up in the same direction, and I'm not hearing five votes lining up in the same direction. So we need to kind of thrash this around, folks. I mean, what's everybody feel on this? I'm going to open up the public hearing just for your comment, here, because I hate seeing people jump up and down. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED CHRIS MOZAL MRS. MOZAL-I'm glad I came tonight, because I have lived there for - 26 - '-/ -....../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) 15 years, and none of us have ever had a problem extending courtesy to another car to pass. It is a one way right-of-way, and nobody on that road has a problem with turning around, with getting by another property, and all of us have lived, they have lived there longer than I have, and we have never had a neighborhood dispute, and I think by sending out the letters, if there was anybody in opposition to this, there would be people here. I've talked with them. I can't speak for them, but nobody has a problem with what Chuck is doing. MR. CARVIN-As I said, I don't have a problem with what he's doing. It's just the size, although Chris does bring up a very good, valid point. I don't have a problem with the traffic. I think the traffic is. MRS. MOZAL-We'd have a real problem, each and everyone of us, if we wanted to build a garage, we'd have a real problem, because we'd either have to go into the bank, which I think Chuck's is like mine. It goes back 120 feet, so you'd be on the other side of the right-of-way, but then you're disturbing the hill there and causing a lot of problems like you do see next door, when they went into there, to comply with their septic, and there's still erosion, and that has not been solved in years, but we deal with that also. MR. CARVIN-Okay, folks. What do you think, here? MR. KARPELES-Well, you've got a proposal for a 12 by 12. I think I could go along with that. MR. CARVIN-Twelve by twelve by ten? MR. KARPELES-Yes. MR. THOMAS-In height 10? MR. CARVIN-Yes. I know that's about what I've got is a 12 by 12 by 10, and I've got to tell you, I can put a lot of stuff in it. MR. CARDER-You have to understand. This used to be my son-in- law's, and I had a home that was 3100 square feet down in Burnt Hills, and you can imagine when I tried to this place, I mean, the Salvation Army really had a bonanza, but I still have my snow- blower, my tractors and all that stuff, I gave to my kids, but I still have, my wife only allows me to throw so much stuff away, but I really do need the storage, but, you know, I really would like to have a 15 by 15, but I will take what I can get, but like I tell you, I was thinking about building a garage, but I also thought of my neighbors, because if I had built a garage, I mean, one of the biggest problems we have in that place right now is snow removal. MR. CARVIN-I heard about that, too. MR. CARDER-If I put a garage in next door to that, I mean, you can imagine, there's really no place, and I don't want to do that. Mr. Thomas brings up a good point. MR. CARVIN-Well, I applaud your ability to get three cars in there. I only had one car, and I had a tough time getting in and out of there. So three cars must be a real balancing act. MRS. MOZAL-It's not, though. I live right there. They never are out into the road. It's very neatly done when they park. If I could just add one more comment, because I may be in front of this Board some day, too. You people have to realize, where we are, there is not a lot of room, and just because we're on a lake and have small lots, why should he be denied three feet? That is not going to hurt anybody. - 27 - "--" -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) MR. CARVIN-One of the things that this Board has got to be governed by is minimum relief, and what he's proposing is almost double. I mean, even though it looks like small square footage, it still comes down to, he's got, what, am I looking at this right, 120, and we're going to 225, which is, by any stretch of the imagination, about 90 some odd percent, and more importantly, he's going from about eight feet up to about 13. MRS. MOZAL-There's trees in between that property, that won't even be visible, unless you're driving by it. MR. THOMAS-And I think if you look at this building from the lake, it would look more like a garage, the back end of a garage than it would a shed anyway. MR. CARVIN-You mean at 13? MR. THOMAS-No, at 15. What's the average garage width? MR. CARVIN-I don't know. MR. THOMAS-A single car garage, I think, is about 15 feet wide. MR. HILTON-At least, I would think. MRS. MOZAL-At least 12 or 15. MR. THOMAS-Yes. So, I mean, he would be allowed a garage, 900 square foot at that. MRS. MOZAL-May I also say that I am President of the Glen Lake Association, and our concern is septic. This is not related to septic whatsoever. MR. CARVIN-Well, I appreciate your concern with septic, but not only are we concerned with septic, but we also take in visual and all the other good things, and that's been one of the concerns, and don't get me wrong. I'm not being argumentative, here. I want to see him have a shed too. MRS. MOZAL-I just can't believe that you're going to take away three feet. I'd like you to give him a reason why. I just don't understand it, and I'd like a reason, and I'm not the applicant, and I know, Chuck and I are good friends. So I'm sure he doesn't mind my asking, because I'm thinking of my personal concerns with our property. MR. CARVIN-We 11, again, I'm going to come back to the minimum relief, because if I can expand upon your ability to come back, because what happens, and this is what this Board deals with a lot of times is, well, geez, you gave my neighbor a 95% expansion. Now, I've got a 20 by 20 building, I want 95%, also. See, so this guy got it, but now you're saying I can't have it, and it becomes a cumulati ve thing, and that's what happens around these lake ar,eas. If you don't believe me, I can show you our agenda for this month, because the Town is looking to change the Ordinance on the Waterfront Residential, and I'm looking at applications out of the gazoo here. MRS. MOZAL-If they were more reasonable, you wouldn't have applications up the gazoo. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's what I'm saying, you know, weigh, is a 90 or 95 percent expansion reasonable. it's only three feet, and I agree with you, but. we have to Now you say MRS. MOZAL-What if he came in here today with a proposal for a garage. - 28 - "-< ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) MR. CARVIN-But he's not. MRS. MOZAL-Could he get that and then down scale it? MR. CARVIN - I don't know, because I think he would have a side setback problem, probably, with the garage. I think almost anything that he does with that lot is going to require some kind of variances. MRS. MOZAL-And variances, that's why they exist. MR. CARVIN-That's correct, because better minds than mine have developed this. This is supposedly what the community wants as a standard, and it has gone through a lengthy process, and believe me, I don't make the rules, and this is the end result, and we have a list of criteria that we have to balance and weigh in order, that's why we're here, is to grant variances, and as I said, otherwise, everybody who comes through the door has got a justifiable case, and I don't want to prejudice anything, but the other guy, with his garage, at four times what the Code calls for, is justified. MR. CARDER-I thought this would be a breeze after listening to the last conversation. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but you didn't hear the outcome of that one. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Come back the 23rd, but what I'm saying is that this Board triee to be fair and impartial on all cases, and the weight that we use against that one is the same weight we are using here. MRS. MOZAL-Why can't he have the three feet? What reason would there be for you not giving him an extra three as opposed to an extra two? MR. CARVIN-Because it's a smaller amount of relief, and it still accomplishes, hopefully, what he's looking to do, with a shed. In other words, we've lowered down the height by about three feet, and we've brought the whole area, he's expanded outward by two feet, and upward by two feet, as opposed to out five feet and up five feet or six feet, whatever the math is on that. MR. CARDER-Well, the reason why he put the pitch on the roof there (lost words) the pitch was smaller. MR. CARVIN-Again, I'm not an architect, but I know that my 12 by 12 by 10 wooden shed holds a lot of snow. It hasn't fallen down. It's been there for a number of years. MR. CARDER-I wasn't going to make a comment, but you made a comment before about the neighbors (lost words) just tore down a house and built one fqur times the size, four times. I mean, this place is gorgeous. I don't fault the guy, because it looks beautiful. It's ten times better than the house that was there before, but that house was built four times the size of the one that was there. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I hear what you're saying. I truly do. I just need to find out if I can get the Board to line up in one direction or the other here. MR. THOMAS-I think 15 by 15, 13 feet high, it looks just like the back end of a garage, from the lake, and he has nowhere else on the property to put that thing. If he had some place across that right-of-way to put it, I would say, move it across the right-of- way, but to me, he could put a garage right there, 15 foot wide, 13 foot high, and you could, in fact, you go on the lake, you couldn't tell if that was a garage or a shed. Couldn't tell the difference, - 29 - ~" -..-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) unless you knew, unless you were sitting in this room, or you built it. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, my biggest change is from listening to the public comment, and while I think it's congested there, I think it's too big, I'd rather see the 12 by 12. I probably would not vote against it if the rest of the Board were so inclined to grant them the relief, because I feel that if his neighbors don't complain, who am I to complain? I mean, I don't live right next door to him. I don't have to try to drive that right-af-way every day. MR. CARVIN-I would vote my conviction and not what the Board feels, is my only caution to you on that. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, well, it's not even what the Board feels. It's that I feel very strongly if his neighbors don't object, then I'm not sure that I wish to pursue it, even though I do feel that it's too congested. MR. GREEN-I'd go along with my original opinion. I don't really see any congestion problem myself, personally. My only concern was sticking up above that wall, but after refreshing my memory a little bit, there are trees there and whatever. I don't think the neighbors are going to see it. Obviously, they got a letter about it, so they are here. I have to agree with Chris, too, that 15 feet wide is the same as a garage, and we'd have a much harder time dealing with that than this, and I'd go with the 15. MR. KARPELES-I could go along with the 12 by 12. I don't think I would go 15 by 15. My objection to it is the view from the lake. In fact, I'd rather see it not there at all, from the lake, and I don't know, we might say what we want to say about Warren County, but they evidentally feel the same way that some of us feel. MR. CARDER-May I comment on that? I listened to the Warren County Board, as I sat there, and I was amazed, I really was, because one person talked. One person. I asked everybody on the Board if they had looked at the property, and nobody commented. One person talked, and this man, he was the type of person that probably goes outside every day and looks up at the sky and says, it's one inch closer to fall. That was the comments that he was making, and it really bothered me, especially when he told me that because I live on the lake, that I should sacrifice, and I tried to get him to explain what he meant by sacrifice. My taxes do not reflect that I sacrifice. Okay. So that's the comment on the Warren County Planning Board. MR. HILTON-If I could just make the comment that, this lot, even though it is on the lake, has had an existing shed, in this location, for quite some time. It appears that it hasn't been a problem. It seems there's no place else to put it on the property. I mean, if you talk about view sheds, you know, views from the lake or anything like that, it's not like you can put it across the road on this property, because of the slope and how far it goes up. Sacrifice, I don't know, I don't think that you can deny him putting a shed here. I understand your concern over minimum relief, and I would just want you to keep that in consideration, that it doesn't seem that there's any place else to put this. It's been operating there for some time and it seems like it hasn't been a problem. MRS. MOZAL-I go out on the lake every day, and I think the thing there now looks terrible. I think if he matched the siding, it would look beautiful. MR. KARPELES-I thought it looked pretty bad, too. MRS. MOZAL-Well, then impact from the lake, I don't see what your - 30 - \"."....- ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) problem is with that, if it's three foot wider, and if he's allowed a shed, it's going to look beautiful. Please change your mind on that. MR. KARPELES-Well, what do you think, Fred? Were you at the Warren County Planning Board meeting? MRS. MOZAL-No. MR. KARPELES-You should have been there. MRS. MOZAL-I wish I had been. MR. CARVIN-They don't take public comment, though. It's a business meeting. So you wouldn't have been able to argue as convincingly. MRS. MOZAL-I don't mean to argue with you, either. It's just that I think it's unreasonable, if you're going to allow it. MR. CARVIN-One side of me says that we've spent an awful lot of time on a small shed, and we've had bigger issues than this, but I guess it is an issue. MR. THOMAS-It's a garage, Fred. property. Nowhere else to put it on the MRS. LAPHAM-The house and grounds are very well kept, and the shed is the real eyesore. MR. THOMAS-That's right. It's shaded from the neighbors, both sides. The only way you can see it is from the lake. It looks like the back end of a garage from the lake. MR. CARVIN-I guess I, begrudgingly, don't have a maior problem with it. How's that for hedging my bet? MR. THOMAS-I mean, that's why we give them variances because of the condition of the land or some other condition that exists. If this thing was a perfectly flat piece of land, we could tell him to push it to the back, or ask him to push it to the back, not tell him, but we can't. It's in the only spot it can be, as would a garage. It's in the only spot it can be, unless he wants to put a drive through garage over the road, which I don't see going in. To me, that 15 feet looks like a garage. It matches the house, the pitch runs the right way. MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess I'm hearing Staff doesn't have a real problem with this. MR. HILTON-I don't have a real problem with it, no. It's 10 feet away from the home. It meets the Ordinance requirement. They're coming in for a variance for what they need to come in for a variance for. It's a limited lot, but there's already a shed there. Five feet of length increase I don't think is detrimental to the neighborhood or this property. MR. CARVIN-The only thing that I would want to verify, I'll be very honest with you, because I want to make sure that these side setbacks are correct, because if you're saying it's two feet off the property line, and we've got a plot plan that says it's XX feet, then something has changed. MR. CARDER-You can go and look at it. MR. CARVIN-I don't want to, looking at it doesn't do me any good. It has to be measured. '. MR. CARDER-Well, I measured the setback. That building is in the , . - 31 - --./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) identical spot, and you can pick that building up and look right down into the holes that the guy, what he did is he drilled and he put lead anchors in the concrete blocks, and he bolted the building right down, and when I replaced the building, replaced it with the same size, and I put the same bolts in the same anchor holes. MR. CARVIN-Is there any way you can verify that, George, the setbacks? MR. HILTON-Not without some type of survey. MR. CARVIN-Expensive, is that? MR. HILTON-Well, if I can, it seems like they already have one done. I don't know if something can be worked out with VanDusen and Steves, where they may be able to stamp this, or, you know, if they feel that it's still accurate information. Other than that, I don' t know. The applicant would probably have to talk to VanDusen and Steves and see what they. MR. CARVIN-This is why I hate Warren County, because it throws this Board into a tither. MR. GREEN-So, Fred, you're saying you want to make sure they're 6.6 or 6 feet off the line not possibly 2 feet off the wall. MR. CARVIN-Well, I mean, the applicant is saying one thing, and I'm verifying what the applicant is saying, that it appears to be about two feet from the wall. The map here shows that it's 7 feet, 6.66. MR. GREEN-The only answer is that the line is not the wall. It's according to the surveys done, and whatever. MR. CARVIN-Or the shed has moved. MR. GREEN-Or the shed may have been mis-drawn on the survey. MR. THOMAS-See, this survey was done June 6, 1985, for Charles R. and Joyce A. Carder. So it was there when this property was surveyed for the Carders, and that's a stamped map. MR. GREEN-So then you're saying the line has got to be up on the other side of the wall. MR. THOMAS-The line has got to be sitting, what is it, 6.66 from that south corner, and 6.9 from that north corner. MR. CARVIN-The wall's not shown. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. GREEN-Either way, as long as it's two feet off the wall. MR. THOMAS-I think Mr. Carder has more property than he thinks he has. MR. GREEN-Possibly. MR. CARDER-Well, the iron stake is on Mr. Zack' s, it's on his beach. The one up on the side of the mountain, there's no way to line it up to look at it, but I just assumed that they (lost words) . MR. CARVIN-Well, what do you think, Bob? MR. KARPELES-Well, the more I think about it, the more I think if the neighbor's have no objection, I don't see why I should. - 32 - ''"'- ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) MR. CARVIN-All right. deck. Somebody move it. Lets get this off the MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-1996 CHARLES R. CARDER, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by William Green: The applicant is proposing to replace an existing metal structure with a wooden structure. It requires relief from Section 179-60B, 5, 15, C, which is lakefront setback and side setback from Section 179-16C. The benefit to the applicant would be he would be able to replace a damaged metal building with a wooden storage structure that is sturdier. There really doesn't appear to be any alternatives, due to the terrain of the land and the very steep slope behind, and the existing right-of-way that goes behind the house and from the lake front. The relief from the Ordinance is substantial. I would grant 47 feet setback from the lake, a 47 foot variance from the lake, and I would grant 13 feet from the side line. There doesn't appear to be any effects on the community or neighborhood. There has been no neighborhood objection. The difficulty was not self created because Mr. Carder did not put the huge hill in behind his house. The shed built as proposed would appear to be a garage, looking at it from the lake side, which is probably the view that most people would see of this building, since the dirt road that the building sits on is a private right of way. Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Menter AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-1996 TYPE II WR-1A CEA BRUCE & JOY CHEKLA OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LACKEY RD. OFF CLEVERDALE RD., FIRST HOUSE ON RIGHT THAT FACES LACKEY RD. APPLICANTS ARE PROPOSING TO REMOVE AN EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME. RELIEF IS NEEDED FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-l6C. RELIEF IS ALSO NEEDED FROM THE USE REGULATIONS OF SECTION 179-12C, 5 WHICH STATES THAT THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN ONE PRINCIPAL DWELLING IN ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONE LESS THAN 2 ACRES. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/8/96 TAX MAP NO. 13-2-42 LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES SECTION 179-16C, 179-12C, 5 DENNIS DAVIES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 31-1996, Bruce & Joy Chekla, Meeting Date: May 15, 1996 "APPLICANT: Bruce & Joy Chekla PROJECT LOCATION: Lackey Rd. Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: Applicant is proposing to remove an existing single family home and construct a smaller home in its place. In addition to this existing home, there is a smaller cabin on this .14 acre parcel. Relief is needed from the side setbacks in Section 179-16C and the use regulations of Section 179-12C, 5 which states that there shall be no more than one principal dwelling in a residential zone on less than 2 acres. 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 newer structurally sound home. 2. Feasible alternatives: There do not appear to be any alternatives that would provide less relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The applicant is seeking side setback relief of 18 feet. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? There does not appear to - 33 - -' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) 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 and the width of the home side setback relief would be necessary in order to reconstruct this house. Parcel History: This property was purchased by the Chekla' s in 1985. In 1992 a new 1000 gallon septic tank was installed. Staff Comments & Concerns: The application indicates a proposed 12 foot side setback as opposed to the 14 foot setback shown on the map. The applicant should indicate how much relief they are seeking. Some form of storm water retention should be indicated on any future plans for a building permit. 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 demolish existing dwelling and construct a new one family residence. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: With the condition that the one story cabin be removed and that the septic be in compliance with all Town sanitary codes. II Signed by C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-I have a question, George, with regard to Warren County. How are they going to enforce that? MR. HILTON-They can't. MR. CARVIN-Then how can we overturn that? MR. HILTON-They can't unless you make some kind of stipulation to that effect. MR. CARVIN-Well, Warren County has stipulated a variance. They've conditioned their approval, which I something I don't think I've ever seen. MR. HILTON-Right, and again, I can't explain their actions or what they've been doing. I know that if they put a stipulation like that in place, they have no way of enforcing it. It's up to the Town. I think they can recommend. MR. CARVIN-My question is, do we need four votes or five votes to overturn this, and do you see the dilemma I'm in? I mean, Warren County says that they're granting a conditioned approval. Now, in order for us to overturn a negative situation, which in effect is a conditioned approval, we need five votes. So I don't know if I need five votes or if I just should tell Warren County, hey, you know, good luck on enforcing this. I mean, if this Board, and again, I don't want to put words, maybe the Board feels comfortable with what Warren County is doing, but my question is, I mean, are they giving us additional criteria? MR. HILTON-As far as I know, and I may have to check this with our legal counsel, but they have given an approval. Any conditions that they place can only be recommendations only, and they cannot be enforced. As far as, does it make it a disapproval from Warren County, I can't answer that. I don't know if you would need the five votes. MR. CARVIN-Well, lets proceed. We'll find out where we end up. We'll have an answer. George, is there any way that we can get a hold of somebody at Warren County and have a meeting on this? This is getting a little, you know, I appreciate the job that they're doing, but I just need to know what their criteria is. I mean, if they're guided by the same criteria as we are, well that's fine, but if they've got a different set, I want to know it. MR. HILTON-We've asked them, repeatedly, for their criteria, what - 34 - "-- ~' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) they base their decisions on, and we have had no response either. It's gotten to the point where we have to find that out. I agree, and I will try to set up some kind of meeting, or at least get something in writing that states what they're required to do and what they're required to do, under what circumstances they're required to review applications. MR. CARVIN-Because this Board spends a lot of time visiting all these sites and I know pretty much for a fact that Warren County does not. I mean, they're County wide. They're not out visiting these things, and they're just doing these things in the blind, as far as I'm concerned. MR. HILTON-Right. Well, not to discuss other matters, but when a shed is excessive relief from the Ordinance, as opposed to a 3500 square foot garage. MR. CARVIN-Yes, on a County highway. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. CARVIN-It's the applicant's problem, it's your problem. Can you address what the applicant did? MR. DAVIS-Basically, all they did, when I was there that evening, because I've been through variances before. I was totally surprised I even had to stay. I mean, it just floored me when they called my name off (lost word) and when I did get up in front they, Number One, had a problem with the two family, the two single family residences being on the property, and I don't know if you've talked to George, but in the last few days, it has, between the owner and myself, they are willing to take the cabin down, with no problem at all. ' MR. CARVIN-Could you identify yourself for the record. MR. DAVIS-Dennis Davis. MR. CARVIN-Okay. cabin down? So the owner has agreed to take the one story MR. DAVIS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. In which case, why are we hearing this? Is there side setbacks? Am I missing something here? MR. HILTON-We also do have the side setback. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. HILTON-And front yard setback. MR. CARVIN-~kay. Continue. I'm sorry. MR. DAVIS-And the only other problem they had was that the septic conform to Queensbury standards. That's one of the conditions of the approval, which I tried to explain to them over there that because of the size of the lot and putting the building on it and the well, it's not physically possible to have, to change the septic and have it conforming. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is this system failing at this point? MR. DAVIS-No, it's not. This is a new system. put in in '94. I believe it was MR. CARVIN-Okay. George? - 35 - -.-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) MR. HILTON-I have, right in front of me, the file from August 1992 that indicates that an existing septic tank with anew 1,000 gallon tank and replacement of distribution line were put in place. They were signed off on by the Building and Codes Department. Four years later, I see no reason why it wouldn't be a non failing system that could serve one home on this property. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Under normal circumstances, if a variance was granted, and the system wasn't failing, we would not require an upgrading at this point. Is that correct? MR. HILTON-Right. At this point, with our Ordinances, we don't require upgrading. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So I guess that the septic is in compliance with all the Town sanitary codes, as we understand them. MR. HILTON-The best we can determine. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions of the applicant? MRS. LAPHAM-According to the Staff Notes, the applicant is proposing to remove the existing single family home and build a smaller one. Well, my notes tell me that the existing, unless I'm reading this wrong, but is roughly 1500 square feet, and the proposed is almost 2,000. MR. DAVIS-Well, what I meant by that is because when I first came in to talk to George about this, I was dealing with a footprint, because the existing building is 28 by 36, and the new building that they're proposing to do is 26 by 36. So I was talking footprint, versus square footage. MR. KARPELES-Is that 36 or 38? MRS. LAPHAM-It says 38. MR. KARPELES-It says 38. That confused me, too. MR. DAVIS-Yes. I'm sorry. It is 38. Thirty-six is the original building, twenty-eight by thirty-six. MRS. LAPHAM-And it's going to be a full two story, not a Cape? MR. DAVIS-Well, to be honest with you, we've gone from everything to a ranch cape to colonial, and the rèason they haven't had me do any plans for it yet is because they are waiting to see what happens. That elevation that I drew out quick this morning to get to George is the worst case scenario. That would be the colonial that they're going to build. Like I say, we've gone from everything to, we'll just put a ranch there to, maybe we'll do a cape, which is a story and a half, like they have, and this colonial was the last thing that they came up with, because they aren't going to have a basement. They'll just have a crawl space. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Again, I missed the height. WQat did you figure the height to be, Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I'm just looking, roughly 25, 26 to that bottom line. MR. CARVIN-Do you have the height. MR. DAVIS-Yes. It'll be between 25 and 26 feet, depending on how the grade finishes off. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, this bottom line would be the elevation. - 36 - '-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) ~ MR. DAVIS-The grade, yes. MRS. LAPHAM-And that's the worst case scenario, the full two stories. MR. DAVIS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So we're looking at, roughly, a 26 by 38 by 26 high? Is that a fair assessment? MR. DAVIS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and the applicant has agreed to remove the one story cabin totally from the lot? MR. DAVIS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I've got one. Your property line that runs along Mason Road, is it really back that far? MR. DAVIS-Yes, it is. MR. THOMAS-I mean, that parking lot, who owns that? MR. DAVIS-That is owned by, from what I understand from the owner of this property, that is owned by two or three different people, I believe, and they all park their cars there, or possibly one person owns it and allows other people to park there. He does not own, his property, if you went up there, you'll notice the parking lot has a short rail. MR. THOMAS-Yes, right. MR. DAVIS-When I went up there originally to look at it, I assumed that was his property line. It isn't. It's another, about 16 feet inside of that rail. There's a picket fence out back that goes around. That's the property line. If you're looking on Lackey Road, and you look at the corner of that picket fence, that's these people's property line. MR. THOMAS-No kidding? MR. DAVIS-Yes. It's only a 60 foot wide lot. It's a postage stamp, basically, and they park on the lawn. They don't have a driveway, per se. They just pull into the lawn when they're up there in the summer time. MR. THOMAS-That leads to my next question. Where's the garage? MR. DAVIS-No garage. MR. THOMAS~Do they plan on putting one in, in the future? MR. DAVIS-I told them not to even consider a garage. It wasn't even ever brought up. Basically, we'd be happy just to get the house in there. MR. 'CARVIN-Well, I noticed that one story cabin there sits up on pilings, it appears. Is there a water table problem there? MR. DAVIS-No, it's basically, the house is the same way. It's just they never put, you know, foundations under anything. The house is just sitting on the, basically it was just a laid up rock foundation, which a lot of it is falling down now, and it's in pretty poor shape. - 37 - -,,"--, --- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) MRS. LAPHAM-What's in the cabin? MR. DAVIS-There is a small kitchen in there. There's a bathroom in there, and it's basically, other than the bathroom, it's a one room type of thing. MR. CARVIN-Has it been utilized in the past? MR. DAVIS-Yes. As a matter of fact, they would, if it hadn't come down to the Warren County meeting where they put that stipulation on, when I got home that night, I called him, and he said, look, if we have to, we'll take it dòwn. He would still like to leave it there, and use it, but he is understanding, and is willing to. MR. CARVIN-Does he rent it? MR. DAVIS-No. From what I understand from the owner, it's just been used for their own personal use, if they have friends up, that come up with them from New York or whatever, they might stay out there. MR. CARVIN-Okay. hearing. Any other questions? I'll open up the public PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TOM BURKE MR. BURKE-I'm in support. My name is Tom Burke. I'm a neighbor across the street, and I think the house, I talked to Bruce. The house is an eyesore. It's very old, and I don't think I would want to live there. I know Bruce doesn't want to live there, it's so old. I stayed there as a baby, that's how old it is, but I'd be very happy to see a new dwelling go up on this site. I saw the plans, and I don't know if you've finalized the plans. MR. DAVIS-Those elevations were done at five o'clock this morning on my desk. So, no there's nothing that's been finalized. MR. BURKE-I have no problem. I'm only one of the neighbors. MR. KARPELES-How do you feel about the one story cabin? Would you like to see that ripped down? MR. BURKE-Again, I'm across the street, and that never bothered me. MR. CARVIN-How long has that cabin been there. Do you know right off the hand? MR. BURKE-As long as I've been there, 16 years, and beyond that, but I think the house should come down. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyone else wishing to be heard in support? JAMES FINNECY MR. FINNECY-I'm not sure that in support of or in disapproval of, but I'd like to offer some comments and perhaps ask some questions. I happen to own the property that's enclosed in that picket fence that someone has referred to here. I am basically, like Tom Burke, in favor of something being done with this property, because as the owner of (lost words) it isn't structurally sound. A couple of questions. One is, is the plan to replace the structure in the existing foundation? Is that the plan, or is that not known yet? MR. DAVIS-Basically, when I first approached the Town on this, it was stated to me that you can, a lot of times, stick to the original footprint. It makes things a lot easier as far as getting - 38 - --- -.I (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) variances and so on. It's been brought up to me severa~ other times that it would be nicer if the building could be moved over to another lot, maybe pushed back backwards a little bit into the lot. Again, that hasn't been established yet. MR. FINNECY-Is that needed before you can approve the plan or not? Is the location of the building on the site required before you can do anything? MR. CARVIN-Well, he's requesting a certain setback relief. So, I mean, if we grant it, it's going to be in that spot. MR. FINNECY-I guess, I don't know the answer to this, but is that relief that's requested in the existing? MR. DAVIS-Yes, it is. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Have you seen the footprint, here, of what is existing and what is proposed? MR. FINNECY-What I heard was, that might not be where you want to put it? MR. DAVIS-No. He would like to put this right where it is. I guess the only problem that I had heard along the line is people would like to see it farther away from the lake, which I'm trying to eliminate because I've got to maintain 10 feet to the existing septic tank. So we can't really go back any farther from the road, but we are trying to pick up two extra feet on the side, by cutting the width of the building down, and the size of the structure is. MR. FINNECY-The original or the new? MR. DAVIS-Of the new structure, visa via the existing one. MR. FINNECY-The new one is proposed, 26 by 38, what does that relate to in square footage in total? MR. KARPELES-I've got the old one, 1,008 square feet, and the new one 988. Is that right, the footprint. Maybe I multiplied wrong. Is that what you're asking, the square feet? MR. FINNECY-I'm really asking is the size of the new structure, visa via the existing structure, do I hear it's about double what the existing was? MR. DAVIS-No, because this is a story and a half, plus the 346 square feet of the small building that they're willing to remove, you're basically dealing with almost the same square footage of living space, and we're also getting rid of the 10 by 10, another 100 square feet on the back. So you're picking, between eliminating the one story cabin, getting rid of a 10 by 10, you're picking uP. almost 450 square feet. MR. FINNECY-Okay. I have no more questions. MR. CARVIN-Anyone else wishing to be heard? MR. KARPELES-It looks to me somewhere they're six inches off here on this, you're two feet, plus or minus, that must be six inches. MR. DAVIS-I've got the original survey right here if you'd like to see it, and that's where all these dimensions came from. MR. KARPELES-If we do grant relief, we want to be right. MR. DAVIS-It calls for 12.3 feet on the original survey, to the corner of the building, which was done by Morris Engineering. - 39 - - .- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) MR. CARVIN-Well, we won't be plus or minus. It'll be right on. It'll be 14, because we've got 60 feet right there. MR. KARPELES-Well, this is why I say that it appears that it's off a little bit is because he's got two feet, and ten feet six inches, which is twelve feet six inches. Then he's got 36 feet, six feet six inches from the property line, or whatever it is, and over here, he's got 10 feet plus 38 feet, and it's s~ill six feet six inches, but there's a six inch difference in there. Do you see what I'm saying? MR. CARVIN-You mean on the length of the lot? MR. KARPELES-Come here, I'll show you. It's only six inches. You say two feet, plus or minus, okay, that's two feet, ten feet six, is twelve feet six, and 36 feet six. Here it's 10-feet and 38 feet. You've added two feet on here, but there's two feet six inches here, if we added up all these dimensions. That's probably the clearest way to show it, from there to there, right? That's 12 feet 6, plus 36 feet, plus 6 feet 6. That's one (lost word), right. That's 13, 15, 55 feet 0 inches, right, and that's 10 feet and 38 feet and 6 feet 6 inches, 54 and a half. That's why I say it's six inches off somewhere. I guess what really concerns us is if this six feet six inch dimension is right. MR. DAVIS-Again, that came right off from the original survey. MR. CARVIN-You could make that seven from the front. MR. DAVIS-Off the original survey, it's six feet three inches. MR. KARPELES-So that's what it is. It's six feet, you're going to keep the six foot three inch dimension, right? Is that what you're saying? MR. DAVIS-I guess what I'm saying is I would like to pull the building back as far as I can to maintain the ;10 feet from the septic and whatever's in the front will just be a bonus, whatever gets picked up. MR. CARVIN-According to Mr. Karpeles' numbers it would look like that you could go at least seven feet. So it would pick up that six inches there. MR. KARPELES-Yes. here? So what are you going to ask for, seven feet MR. CARVIN-Yes, I think seven. MR. DAVIS-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Seven feet. Okay. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any correspondence, Chris? MR. THOMAS-Yes. We have one letter. A letter dated May 15, 1996, to the Zoning Board of Appeals. "As a neighbor of the Chekla's, (we live on Mason Road two doors from Lackey Road) we give complete approval to a variance to update and rebuild their present home. The house is very old, and to make it more comfortable and livable is a very reasonable request. In the matter of the zoning for two houses on a lot, the small second house was grandfathered there long before the Ordinance (179-12C,5) was enacted. We think that a separation of judgement should be made between previous grandfathered dwellings, and new construction of two dwellings. Thank you, Marion and Jack Cushing Mason Road,Cleverdale" MR. CARVIN-All right. Any other public comment? See ing none, - 40 - '- ' -.....;I (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) hearing none, public hearing closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. applicant? MR. THOMAS-It looks good to me. I was really concerned about that small cabin there, but if the applicant is willing to take it down, and conform closer to the Ordinance without two principal structures on one lot, I'm all for it, and I think that bringing that house as far away from Lackey Road as possible is a plus, and seeing that it has a new septic system in there, that's great, and he's also pulling it back two feet from that back property line, so that's even better, so they're really trying to pull this thing into conformance, or more into conformance, I have no problem whatsoever with it. Does the Board have any questions of the MR. CARVIN-How about you, Bill? MR. GREEN-It's nice to see a house that kind of fits the lot. You see some of these that are oversized for the lot. Obviously, the structure is in dire need of repair. I don't have a problem with the house. My only concern is I, personally, don't see a need to take down that cabin. That's just my opinion of it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How about you, Bob? MR. KARPELES-I think it would be a big improvement, and I feel that taking the cabin down would also be a big improvement. So, I'm happy to hear that they'd be willing to do that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I'd tend to agree with Bob and Chris. I think it is certainly going to be a major improvement, to see a nice home replacing a building that appears to be unsound, and I agree with both of their assessments that it would be nice to see the cabin removed also. MR. CARVIN-I have to concur. That certainly makes our job a lot easier, the applicant willing to take down that second residence. As far as the rest of it, yes, I think the numbers look pretty decent, as long as the building does not go any higher than 26 feet. So, I think the plans you drew up this morning may be, if this is it, I mean, this may be about the only thing that fits the space that we grant the relief to, to the 26 feet, and that's to the peak. Does somebody want to move it? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-1996 BRUCE« JOY CHEKLA, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: The applicant is proposing to remove a single family dwelling and construct a smaller home in its place. The applicant is also willing to remove the existing one story cabin on the property to bring the property more into conformance with the Ordinance, which would be one principal structure per one acre lot. I would grant relief from Section 179-16C, from the side and rear setbacks. I would grant six feet of relief from the rear setback, and I would grant 13 and a half feet of relief from the side setback. The benefit to the applicant is they would be able to have a newer structure there, and a building in perfect condition, it would be new. There doesn't seem to be any feasible alternatives, due to the siting of the septic system. Is this relief substantial to the Ordinance? It is substantial, but given the condition and the size of the lot, this is about the best they can do. There doesn't seem to be any neighborhood opposition to this, and this difficulty was - 41 - -~ ,--"",/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) not self created, given it's a 6,000 square foot lot in a one acre zone. I would like to add that the height of the building be no higher than 26 feet to the peak. Duly adopted this 15th day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mr. Menter MR. DAVIS-Could I ask a question? Where do I stand with this thing with Warren County now, about the septic? MR. CARVIN-You comply with the Town of Queensbury. Thát's all that matters is our zoning the way it currently is. You don't have to replace your septic system unless it fails at this point. Now that may change next week or next month or whatever, but right now, as far as I'm concerned, my interpretation would be that he's in compliance. MR. HILTON-Okay. We have one more item of business this evening before the Board. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. HILTON-Dean Howland is here. He's here to discuss Amirsaleh. They were applicants. MR. CARVIN-This is a call that I made, so if the applicant wants to come forward, I'll explain mY dilemma. Okay. MR. HOWLAND-My name's Dean Howland. MR. CARVIN-Okay. This is in regard to an application that was submitted back in May, I guess. MR. HILTON-It was before the April, the end of April, the deadline for the May meetings. MR. CARVIN-And I made a decision, because of the volume of work that this Board has been confronted with the last couple of months, and the number of applications that we had, and knowing full well that we have five meetings this month, I knew that we couldn't skew all the applications. There were four applications that we moved. Two of them were tabled. One of them was deemed incomplete. I actually had one other that I had, I was looking to move, but I got a call from Jim Martin asking if we could accommodate it. It happened to be the holiday, and unfortunately it didn't work because it was improperly advertised. So we went around in a circle, but in any event, I had to make a decision based upon what was being requested by the various applicants, and this particular applicant was seeking relief from the shoreline setback, which currently is 75 feet. They were proposing, and I have not seen the application so I'm relying upon Staff, but my understanding was that they were requesting 50 feet. I also knew that the Town Board was addressing that issue, and that there was a high probability that between now and June that the Town Board might move on that, making a reducing the shoreline setback from 75 down to 50, in essence making the application redundant. Using that logic, plus the ability and fact that I have 60 days to schedule an agenda, once an application is deemed complete, I made a decision to move that particular application to June. MR. HOWLAND-Well, ,the only reason I called today, because normally we get notified by mail, when we made the application. - 42 - '-- -...../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) MR. CARVIN-Yes. It's a complete application. MR. HOWLAND-We made the application because the owner came to me, again, to remodel his house, and said, well, if the zoning, laws are going to change, and I said, well, I went to all the meet1ngs last year on the proposed changes, and they weren't received well. I said, I've got copies of the ~ changes, but it's just a public hearing on May 6th. I told him that nothing, might or might not be decided at that time. So, I said, for you to save time, because he would like to build in the summer time, you should make the application, because this is not a given thing. I came to the Town before I made the application, and again, I called today because I hadn't been notified. I said, well, maybe because the Wednesday was the 1st, maybe they moved me back a couple of weeks, because normally I've been notified, and I wasn't notified. So I came in. MR. CARVIN-Mystified, I guess? MR. HOWLAND-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I apologize for you not being notified, because the application is complete, as I said, because of the time constraints that this Board has been dealing with, and the sheer volume of applications, the last couple of months, as I said. I know I have a 60 day window. MR. HOWLAND-I just assumed that was on this month, that's all. MR. CARVIN-Well, if we did not have the work load, you probably would have been, but as I said, we've had a couple of curve balls thrown at us tonight. I mean, as you can see, I mean, I do the best I can, when looking at an application, to try to figure out what the time frame that I think this Board will need to resolve whatever is being applied for. I figured tonight, I mean, I figured we would be able to scoot through, is it, Chrys, and here again, now that gets moved forward, so, I mean, the time that I had allocated there got shifted, and then Halliday, I figured that one was going to be kind of a, could be a challenge, and that has been moved now to the 23rd, which really overloads that. MR. HOWLAND-Can I just ask one question? MR. CARVIN-Sure. MR. HOWLAND-Since I'm going to be on next month anyway, I'm dealing with an architect from Texas, and he's trying to understand, I set the plans back to make it more like a lake house, and I told him that the proposed zoning changes were going to come to a 28 foot high building, possibly, 35 is standard throughout the US. After last week's meeting, is there a change? MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I can't speak for the Town Board. I do know that when I based mY decision, it was prior to the Town meeting. MR. HOWLAND-I understand that. What I'm trying to figure out is, we're trying to meet your criteria, and if I have to take the existing building as it was designed out, from grade to the top of the ridge it's got a steep pitch. It's 33 feet. It's just the type of style he has. If 28's going to be the criteria, before I come back, I want to make sure that the plans I have are down to 28 feet, so we don't have to come back again. I've seen you tonight put a stipulation of 26 feet on a building, that's all my question is. I'd like to come sort of prepared. MR. HILTON-If I may, right now, because you have filed an application, under the current zoning regulations for the Waterfront Residential District, you are going to be held to those - 43 - ~"'- ~" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) standards. Any changes that are made between now and whenever will not apply to this application. You would be held to the current standards because you filed your application in time. MR. CARVIN-But that does not mean that this Board may suggest or require a lower height than what is being applied for, and I'm saying that without seeing the application. So I don't know what you're applying for iQ relation. So I don't want you to, I want you to understand that you will be heard under the old criteria. MR. HOWLAND-Well, basically, there's a house that single, it's off the water line 24 feet. MR. CARVIN-I'm just saying that until we actually see a plan that I do know that this Board, in many instances and many cases, even though the height, like for example tonight, is 35 feet or whatever it is, that does not mean that that's a given. MR. HOWLAND-Because, again, he asked me that question, how does that relate to the setback requirement. MR. CARVIN-Well, we have to take a look at the whole project. Are they tearing down the house totally? MR. HOWLAND-Yes. It's totally filled up with water. MR. CARVIN-It's pre-existing nonconforming, is it? MR. HOWLAND-It's a 24,000 square foot lot. Your one acre zoning. MR. HILTON-Under an acre, yes. MR. CARVIN-Yes. So there's a lot of things that we will have to look at, and as I've said, just because it says 35 feet does not necessarily, and I'm not saying that this Board does. MR. HOWLAND-Yes. I'm just trying to get a feel, so that we don't come in wi th something that's way of f base, because I'm not designing this. MR. CARVIN-Well, as an aside, in a public conversation, not having arty relevant information in front of me, I would have a 28 foot plan available. MR. HILTON-The meetings in June, I believe, are the 19th and the 26th. MR. CARVIN-So far, and I don't know how many applications are coming in already. MR. HILTON-Yes. I'm not sure, either. Dean, thank you very much, I appreciate it. MR. HOWLAND-Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there any other business? MR. HILTON-Any other business? None that I letter that you may have in front of you, a from Little and 0' Connor, concerning the application. have, except for the Letter of Memorandum Mooring Post Marina MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. HILTON-We received this today. If the Board would like to review this, and we will try to get this to the members that weren't present this evening, and any comments you may have. I'm not even sure when the next meeting is. - 44 - '-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/15/96) '''''''' MR. CARVIN-Well, this really isn't to the Board. Lapper, Lemery & Reid and Jim Martin. MR. HILTON-Right. Well, that's true. I was submitting it to the Board for their. It's to Jon MR. CARVIN-Because as far as this Board is concerned, we are beyond the public hearing. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And, you know, as I said, when we develop our motion, it will be guided by the principles that we looked at the other night. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. CARVIN-Are there any questions on this? I'm not going to read it into the record because I don't think, officially, it is part of the record. MR. HILTON-No. MR. CARVIN-It's a private correspondence, as far as I'm concerned. MR. HILTON-I guess the only other question I would have, without having attended the meetings, is there a plan to move on this in May? Are we looking at maybe the 23rd or 22nd? MR. CARVIN-As it stands right now, the applicant has granted us until the 31st to make a motion, in other words, the SEQRA, our conditioned negative declaration. I have scheduled that for the 22nd for the vote. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. CARVIN-And hopefully we'll have at least five members on the 22nd, or possibly even six. I'm not sure. Tom Ford has indicated he probably would not be there, but in this particular instance all we need, really, is four. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. CARVIN-Because we had a full Board, and I think the Board will all be provided with a copy prior, so that, I mean, if anybody has a question on it, certainly they can relay their concerns to me, even though they may not be here in person, but we should be able to move on that on the 22nd. So it shouldn't be anything that's going to be extremely lengthy. I think this Board did a tremendous job here the other night, in really evaluating and hopefully coming up with some kind of solution on that. MR. THOMAS-I think it was the Board leadership. MR. CARVIN-Well, I had a lot of help from you guys, I really did. MR. THOMAS-I think that that plan you guys came up with, that was pretty good. I like that. MR. CARVIN-Well, as I said, it was a combined effort. So, if there's no other information, I would move for adjournment. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred A. Carvin, Chairman - 45 - ~.---._"...,- "_.'-'-"'-"'~"--"'-'" _...H_.._______