The URL can be used to link to this page

1996-02-28 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRU~.RY 28, ,19l~6 INDEX Area Variance No. 89-1995 Tax Map No. 14-2-20 James l'1oon'BY Area Variance No. 4-1996 Tax Map No. 124-1-9 Alfred J. Merchant Area Variance No. 3-1996 Tax Map No. 3-1-14 Mar k Handelma,n Area Variance No. 5-1996 Tax Map No. 40-1-33 l'1organ Vittengl Area Variance No. 6-1996 Tax Map No. 13-1-2 Jonathan Berger (l R 1 G r r\' l( f "') LO' ,,, " ! f ...~. , L 16. 26. ,1 :30. 43. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SU8JECT'~O BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF AI\lY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL ,OF, SAID MINtHES. , , . ! l' ¡ I. ,,1: i :\->1 ¡ . ,I ~ ; 1',:11 ;: . ì I I, , , " I L I, .' " " " . , '., . i" I L ¡ ~ ~ ,1 r j ¡"'\ I ;, I, :," d ' " I "!t "j,: ¡,~ I· ( (Queensbury ZBA mè'eting 2/28/96) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 28, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY DAVID MENTER BONNIE LAPHAM BILL GREEN MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT KARPELES THOMAS FORD PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CARVIN-Now we do have five members, so we do have a quorum, and any vote to approve has to be four positive votes either for or against. O..D BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 89-1995 TYPE I WR-1A CEA JAMES MOONEY OWNER: JAMES & SUSAN MOONEY CLEVERDALE ROAD, OFF MASON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AND REPLACE IT WITH A HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE HOME FOR USE BY PARENTS. RELIEF IS NEEDED FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL, AND FROM SECTION 179-12C, USE REGULATIONS, WHICH STATES THAT THERE WILL NOT BE MORE THAN ONE PRINCIPAL BUILDING ON A LOT LESS THAN TWO ACRES IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 12/13/95 TAX MAP NO. 14-2-20 LOT SIZE: 0.5202 ACRES SECTION 179-12C, 179-16 JAMES MOONEY, PRESENT MR. CARVIN-I think most everything was read in. read the tabling motion. Why don't you MR. THOMAS-The meeting date was December 20, 1995, Variance File No. 89-1995 for an Area Variance, tabled. "MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 89-1995 JAMES MOONEY, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: At the applicant's request, to allow him additional time to discuss his variance request with his neighbors. Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE" Signed by Fred A. Carvin, Chairman. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I think we've also, we've got some additional Staff Notes and addendums, too. Why don't we read that in. STAFF INPUT - 1 - (Queensbury Z8A meeting 2/28/96) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 89-1995, James Mooney, Meeting Date: February 28, 1996 "It has been brought to Staff's attention that the Site Development Data associated with Variance 89-1995 may be incorrect. The applicant is pToposing to remove a 507 square foot building and replace it with a 836 square foot building and replace it with a 836 square foot structure. Howevør, Pì"oposed Building Arei3 for the site is sho~t.Jn as 2852 square fèet. This represents an increase of only 36 squarè feet when in fact the increase will be 329 square feet. In addition, the plan which was submitted with this variance request is not to scale. On the site plan the new addition appears to be smaller than structure to be removed from the property. The new addition will actually be bigger than the building which will be removed, As a result, it is difficult to determine the ~ize of the addi tion in relation to the mai n st.ructure and lot. Staff has used the Assessor's records of the Town of Queensburyand has determi ned that the ex isti ng bui ldi ng/paved area of the lot. is 2975 square feet and the proposed area of building and paving will be 3304 square feet. According to thesè figures, per~eability requirements would be met. The relief that would be needed for the addition would be the same as what is being sought with this application. The zoning board may want to disc~ss the impact this increase in density would have on this lot and Lake George. The zoning board may also wished to see a scaled drawing and accurate Site Development Data before making a final decision on this matter. Staff would recommend that a stormwater management plan be submitted to the Planning Board with the site plan application for this building." MR. CARVIN-And this was submitted back to Warren County originally in becember. They di'dn't have a quorum, so it war.:: resubmitted for January, and we do have the results of that. MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 10th day of January 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to demolish existing building and rebuild with a 22' x 38' new dwelling that is handicap accessible. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact Comments: Provided that the septic system comply with all applicablø codes for the Town of Queensbury," Signed C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. HIL TON--If I may, I have some staff comment. MR. CARVIN-Sure. MR. HILTON-Yesterday when this information was brought to my attention, there were quite a few numbers being thrown around. This letter that was just read into the record for F='ebruary 28, 1996 states that the amount of square footage being removed is 507 square feet. We have, and I believe the applicant has, some revised figures that show that the amount being removed is approximately 643.5 square feet. As I said, it was pretty crazy yesterday. There was a lot of numbers going around, but if you look at. this sheet that YO'U havei n 'front of you. this is straight from the Assessor 's recoì"ds, and it's as accurate as wø know it to be. The point of the letter is to inform you that on the original applications the numbers may have beøn incorrect. We were asking for some correct numbers, which I feel we receivéd, and also to, you kno'w, just reiterate that the drawing we have may have not been to scale, and to express some of staff's past concerns. I'm sorry with the numbers. Like I said, there's a lot of them out there, but if you pay attention to this Site Development Data sheet, these are the most accurate numbers IrJe have. MR. CA¡RVIN-Okay. to believe then, Does anyone Geoì·ge, that have any question of staff? Am I our map he+e is not necessarily - 2 - ~ (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) correct, or to scale? MR. HILTON-Well, according to that map, there's a width measurement across the driveway, in front of the garage, which is indicated to be 38 feet. In measuring that, based on the scale of one to twenty, it didn't compute to be 38 feet. I believe Mr. Mooney has some explanation to that. He has told me that in actuality, I believe it's 33 feet, and Mr. Mooney will explain to you the reason behind that, and clear up any concerns you may have with the actual scale of that drawing. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mooney. MR. MOONEY-This survey was done by Coulter & McCormack, and that particular measurement was not done by them. It was done by me, and I made a mistake. So, I mean, that's the only line that was, for me to figure out this application on the paved area. I was trying to calculate the paved area myself, and that's why that is a mistake, and we corrected it by the new sheet you have in front of you. It should be 30 feet instead of 38. In the application the paved area is still reduced from the existing to the proposed anyway, taking up part of the driveway, to allow the new structure. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I know part of the tabling motion was to allow you an opportunity to. MR. MOONEY-Can I add just one thing here? As long as we're looking at the numbers page, also on this, the proposed square lot footage would be an increase of 329 square feet. Today's meeting with George and Jimmy, they've come up with a number of only an increase of 68 square feet, for increase of size of the foot plot, okay, and that also tables down to percentage of area. They have 72.39 percent green space on the property as it exists now, and the new addition, well, actual not the new addition, but the restructuring of the existing building that already sits there would only drop down the green space to a 72.10 percent green $pace. I think we're allowed 65 percent, up to 65 percent of green space, on the double lot that does pre-exist. MR. CARVIN-Okay. That's the footprint you're talking? MR. MOONEY-Yes. I just want to get all the numbers so we're still on the same page and we're not jumping back and forth. MR. CARVIN-So you're green space is only being reduced by .0025, approximately. MR. MOONEY-.0028, .0029, yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. However, the overall volume of the shed, or the new structure, it will be a larger structure than what's there currently? MR. MOONEY-Yes. building actually area is reduced by square feet. Does The square footage will increase, yes. is increased by 193 square feet, and the 125 square feet, plus the total increase that make sense? The paved of 68 MR. CARVIN-Well, you're going up, but you're reducing your driveway, if I'm understanding you correctly? MR. MOONEY-Right, trying to keep the green space the same. MR. CARVIN-Well, I don't have a problem with the green space. In other words, your green space is going to remain the same, but, I'm trying to determine how much of a bigger building we are actually going to have there. In other words, what is existing - :3 - - ,_..._..------~----- (Queensbury Z8A meeting 2/28/96) total? MR. MOONEY-If you'd look on the plan, when I talked to George today, or yesterday and today, (lost words) pre-existing shed, besides the one and a half story dwelling, we aTe not even taking it, that is no longer there. It's been demolished. We'aren't taking that into account anymore, as we did in the original application, that's why these numbers changed (lost words). So when we say that this is going to increase by 193 square feet; if you took the shed into account that's been destroyed, there wouldn't be any increase in the density. ' MR. CARVIN-Okay, but when was the shed taken'down? ' MR. MOONEY-Quite a few yeaTs ago. The (lost word) still has it under assessment costs. Is that the only question you have on that.? MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess I'm still confused. MR. HILTON-l.Jell, if I may. In computing these numberS', the shed was left out of these figures. We were basically going with the home, garage, the existing building that's ~oing to be removed, and any paved area on the lot. If you look at existing building area, it's listed as 2,879.5 square feet. Proposed building area 3,072 square feet.' That's roughly an increase of 193 square feet in building area. I think what the applicant is trying to say to you is that even with that, such an increase the green spac~ on the lot is virtually unchanged, but the actual increase in building area for the lot is 193 square feet. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does anybody else have any questions on this? Is everybody clear? MR. MENTER-I think so. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I know, Mr. Mooney, we had given you an opportunity to talk to the neighbors, and I guess I am in receipt of a letter dated February the 5th. I don't think that's been read into the record. It looks like we also have a lettét dated February the 2nd. Do you want to comment on that, or do you want this read into the record first? MR. MOONEY-I'd like to have it read~ MR. CARVIN-Okay. Why don't yOU; read the letter of February 2nd, and then February 5th. MR. THOMAS-Okay. A letter dated February 2, 1995, "Dear Zoning Board Members: We are writing in reference to the Area Variance application submitted by our neighbors, James and Susan Mooney. The Mooney's residence is immediately to our north on Cleverdale point. After discussing the matter at length with the Mooney's, we do not have objections to the planned building for the following reasons: 1. The new building would be a much more attractive building than that which presently stands. It will not be higher than that which is standing and will not be any closer to the 'Lake than the present footprints. In addition; the footprints will not be significantly larger than that 1,.Jhid- already exists in the same location. 2. The building already has plumbing. We understand from several sources that the Mooney's septic is more than sufficient to accommodate the planned use of this building. 3. The Mooneys have stated that they are willing to have a clause in their deed specifying that the buildi ng can never be uS'ed as a rental property. 4. The Mooney's property, one of the largest on Cleverdale, was previously two properties, and has one of the highest percentages of green space of any property on Cleverdale point. A good - 4 -- (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) portion of the proposed new footprint is on the blacktop driveway which will actually help to block some direct runoff from the driveway. Even with this improvement, they will still have a higher green area than almost any other property on the point. They take immaculate care of their property and have added plantings of trees and flowers which have enhanced the property. The Mooney's have been excellent neighbors who we feel care for the well-being of Cleverdale. They feel it is a safe and pleasant place to bring up their children, and they do not want changes made to Cleverdale which would be detrimental to the area now or in the future. Sincerely, Bob and Betsy Birchenough" A letter dated February 5th, "Dear Zoning Board Members: We would like to address concerns which have been voiced in letters sent to the Zoning Board of Appeals over the last month. Our main consideration was with our immediate neighbors to the north, William and Elizabeth Ward and John and Peggy Schroeder, and those to the south, Robert and Elizabeth Birchenough. The Schroeders and Wards voiced some concerns Just prior to the December 20th meeting with the Zoning Board. Because of these, we asked the Board to table our application in order to discuss the concerns with our neighbors. Shortly after the holidays, we met with them at the proposed site to address any problems they had. Based on this meeting, we made all of the changes that we thought would satisfy their objections. These included the east/lakeside setback, roof lines and heights, windows, vents to the outside and landscaping. By keeping the existing setbacks, roof lines and heights the same as the existing building, we would not be reducing their view of the lake or the sunlight or ventilation reaching their building and yard. Their view looking south toward our property should be enhanced. Our plans do not include a deck or porch. After discussing these issues at length and making all necessary adjustments to the proposed dwelling, they still did not feel that they could support the project. We have gone through many exercises to satisfy their objections with the project because they have always been good neighbors. We have also discussed the proposed project with our neighbors, the Birchenoughs. Their concerns have all been addressed, and they have no objections to this proposed improvement to our property. At the December 20th meeting there were letters from two other residents of Cleverdale. Their concerns ranged from density of the structures in relation to the size of the property to a statement that there was never a second dwelling on the property. We would like to respond to some of their concerns: a. There has been a second building (which at one time was used as a dwelling) since before we purchased the property. This is the building which we would now like to improve. The existing second dwellings in the area are on much smaller lots than ours as our property is a double lot. b. One letter states, , ...it is quite obvious that the land area is sufficiently filled with the structure, septic and driveway.' As stated in our application under Site Development Data, the green area actually slightly increases and the driveway area is reduced. This results in the green area remaining over 72%. We do not feel that this proposed change will 'add undue visual clutter'. In fact, the proposed improvements will enhance the visual appearance of the entire property. The existing structure is old and deteriorating. No trees or shrubs will be removed. Over the years we have added trees and shrubbery in order to prevent stormwater runoff into the lake. c. It has been clearly stated to both of our neighbors that we are willing to put in our deed that the proposed building is never to be rented. d. Several letters were concerned about the capacity of our septic system. According to the Planning Board, the present system is more than adequate for the proposed changes. The septic and stormwater systems were designed to accommodate the possible reuse of this building. We have tried to address the concerns of our neighbors and other residents of Cleverdale. We hope that the Board will accept our proposed variance. Thank you for your attention to - 5 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) our variance application. Sincerely, James and Susan Mooney" And I've got another letter here dated Febru8TY 26th. Have you seen this one? MR. CARVIN-I don't believe so. Okay. this into the record afterwards. I think I'm going to read MR. THOMAS-You want to read it in later? MR. CARVIN-Yes. Why don't we, all right, in other words, we have already read into the record letters from Sarah and Billings Wheeler, Joan Robertson, William and Elizabeth Ward, and John Schroeder. Those letters were read into the record at the last meeting. Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any questions of the applicant at this point with regard to this application? This new information? Okay. I think what I'd like to do at this point, if there's no questions fTom the Board, I'd like to open up, well, the public hearing is still open on this. So I'm going to invite the public to come up to make their comments, and then after we have the verbal comments, then I'll read in this letter. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN ELIZABETH WARD MRS. WARD-My name is Elizabeth Ward. I own the property directly to the north of the Mooneys. BILL t.JARD MR. WARD-My name is Bill Ward. I'm the husband of Elizabeth. F Üst of all, let me just kind of say, this is not an easy thi ng to do because in general I have known Jim for about 12 years. We have found them overall to be good neighbors. Our problem is with the proposed project. It's not really anything big. Basically, we feel compelled to object to the current proposal because we really believe that it will have a significant negative impact on our use and enjoyment of our property, which is property directly to the north, and would have a negative effect on the value of the property, should we at any point have to sell it. I know there have been a fair number of numbers being thrown back and forth here. I find it kind of confusing, as I suspect everyone does, but I'm still a little bit confused on the numbers here, and I want to just make sure that I understand what's being asserted. The report from Mr. Hilton here essentially says that the increase would be 329 square feet in what I call footprint, the area covered by the foundation of the building. I agree with that numbeT. The decrease, or the increase of 190 some odd square feet, which is what's on the revised site development sheet here, seems to take into account the area, the paved area that is proposed to be included within the footprint as well. That's an odd way of calculating it, it seems to me. The foundation, the outline of the building itself, we bel.ieveincreases by 329 square feet, which is an increase of about 65 percent over the structure that's proposed to be demolished. The massing of the building itself, in terms of area enclosed by the walls and the toof, appears to us to increase somewhere around 75,80% at minimum. So, putting those together, we clearly see this as being a much larger structure than the one that is proposed to be demolished. A couple of other ¡'lumbers here on the Site Development Data sheet that I don't understand how they were arrived at. One was the front yard setback, which is cited as being 104 feet. Now I realize the requirement is 75 feet, but that 104 is to the old shed that was torn down 12 years ago. The current setback is much closer to 116. Likewise, the width and depth area on the bottom of e~dsting talks about an existing depth of 46 feet. In truth it is 22 feet. So there's still some numbers that seem a little bit out of alignment. In - 6 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) the same way, on the second paragraph of the Staff Notes, I'm not sure exactly how those numbers are arrived at. This seems to imply that that is the combined total of paved area, plus area occupied by buildings. I don't think they're accurate. If one looks at the Site Development Data sheet, cite's approximately 3,000 square feet of building area, and it looks to me like (lost words) another 3,000 square feet of paved area, for a total of 6,000, rather than totals of around 29 and 33. So, essentially what we believe is that it would be an increase in the size of the building by about 65%, and in the mass of the building by around 75 or greater, how the roof line and that sort of thing works out. Assuming that those numbers are accurate, and if you want, we have calculations and site plans and that sort of thing here. I'd be very happy to share with you. What we really find is the, basis of our objections are the change of use that would take place here, the change in size of the structure, and the proximity to our residence, where all this would be taking place. Relative to the use, we believe that clearly going from a storage building to a residence is a fairly large change in use, in terms of the activity that would be generated in the building, and just everything else that goes along with a house, as opposed to a storage building that someone only enters occasion~lly. The change in the size, I think I've pointed out, and the proximity to our residence. The proposed project actually moves six feet closer to our residence than the existing building. It was stated that there is no change in that. That is not the case. It moves six feet closer, to the point where the new corner of the proposed building would be approximately 12 feet from our back porch. Add into that any kind of shrubbery, ground plantings, walkways, doors, this type of thing, and our feeling is one of a residence, a high level of use, moving very close to our existing residence. In summary, we believe that this is a substantial variance that's being asked for, a substantial degree of change from the existing regulations, and we believe that the current plan is detrimental to us for the reasons I expressed. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MRS. WARD-I'd like to point out that this building, the variance that's being requested would put this building approximately two feet from the property line, which I think is fairly close to a property line. I wanted to refer to the minutes of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on March 16, 1983. At this time, the Mooneys were seeking a variance in the lake setback to build the current house that they have there. I'm not going to read all the minutes, but Elizabeth Wetherbee Ward asked how many feet from the property line to the proposed structure. The Chairman answered, about 38.3 feet to the new proposed building. Miss Ward then asked if there were any plans to do anything with the framed dwelling in the rea}", and that's the building that is now being questioned. Mr. Mooney answered that at the present time there are no plans to use this building for anything other than a workshop. The Chairman asked if there were any plans to make it into a dwelling or just as an accessory. Mr. Mooney said, just as an accessory building. You can't make a second dwelling there as he understood things. The Chairman said that years ago there was an apartment there and he was wondering if there would be any claim that it was still in existence. Mr. Mooney said he had no plans to use it as a dwelling. If he used it, it would be used as a workshop or something like that. The Chairman said this would be noted in the record. The residence that, this building was not a residence. I grew up next to this building. It was a garage/storage shed area. At one time, there was, I believe, a toilet in there. I don't have any recollection, as a child playing there, of a sink or anything like that, and I don't think you could call it having been an apartment in any stretch. So that I don't think it was a - 7 - (Queensbuì-y ZBA meeting 2/28/96) residence. I also question the claim that was made that the existing septic system was put in with the thought in mind that a second dwelling might be added at some point, when your own records show th¡.Ü Mr. Mooney stated at the time that there was no intention to have a second dwelling on the property. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions, ladies and gentlemen? MR. GREEN-What was the date on that? MRS. WARD-This is March 16, 1983. Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. The regular meeting of the MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. MR. MENTER-Before we go on to the next comment. George, I would just like to clarify that issue there, with the footage. MR. HILTON-Well, as I've stated before, the letter, there were a great deal of numbers being circulated yesterday. The letter was done at one point when we had one set of numbers, and this Site Development Data sheet was done after reviewing the Assessor's file. MR. MENTER-To the best of your knowl~dge, at this point, total building increase would be the 193 square feet? ~1R. HILTON-To the best of my knowledge, yes, and, you knol.-J, anyone's welcome to come in to Town Hall tomorrow and I will sit down with them and go through the Assessor's recoTds. There may have been some mistakes made on it, you know, anywhere, but I sat down with Mr. Mooney. We went over thi§ sheet, and we sat in the Assessor's office with the file, and to the best of my knowledge, t.his is the most accurate information we have. MR. CARVIN-We've got a pToposed 22 by 38, total, on our map. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is that still correct, 22 by'38? All right. Does anybody have any idea of what the one and a half story frame dwelling is? I mean, what's existing. I don't particularly care what was there before. MR. WARD-The existing dwelling is 26 by 19.5. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank' you. MR. HILTON-And footage that we square feet. I don't have the dimensions, but the square show for that building comes out to be 643.5 MR. THOMAS-I show it 19 and a half by, how about close to 33. I'm going across the back here~ and I go across here in the front, 27 on one side and 33 on the other. MARGARET SCHROEDER MS. SCHROEDER-I'm Margaret Schroeder. I share the cottage with Eli zabeth and Wi 11 lam Waì-d. One of t:!!Y ma in concer ns is this new structure, it would appear to be 10 to 12 feet distance from our property. I'm concerned about fire spread, should there ever be a fire. This structure will stretch essentially from our living building to our garage. Ours is an old wood frame building, and if it catches, it's going to take anything around it with it, I believe, and I'm conceTned that, especially since it is a seasonal occupancy, that we could be away and something could start, and we could end up with a rather large situation here - 8 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) that would endanger people's lives, possibly. I'm also concerned, should they come forward with a patio or any sort of front entrance, they will be entering and exiting at approximately where we are cooking our dinner on our charcoal grill. So I can't really support this, as being just too close to us. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard in opposition? Okay. Why don't you read that one letter in. MR. THOMAS-A letter dated February 26, 1996, "Dear Board Members: This is written in reference to the Variance application of Mr. and Mrs. James Mooney to construct a second residential dwelling on their property on Cleverdale Road in the hamlet of Cleverdale. I write in response to certain assertions in the file pertinent to this matter and to urge the Zoning Board to maintain the provisions of Section 179-12C of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, which provides that there will be no more than one principal building in a residential zone on any single lot which is less than two acres in size. In a letter of February 5, 1996, the applicants contend that a building on their property which would be razed and replaced by the structure for which the variance is requested once was used as a 'dwelling.' This is inaccurate and potentially misleading. From the 1930's until 1962, I spent virtually all of every summer and nearly every spring and fall weekend as a resident of the property immediately north of the applicant's residence, that being the property now owned by the Schroeders and Wards. I have been well acquainted with every owner of the applicants' property since the 1930's and am hence entirely familiar with the use of the building proposed for replacement. At no time since the 1930's was the building ever used as a 'dwelling' -- that is, as a place of residence. From time to time in the 1930's and 1940's, the owner at that time engaged the services of a person who would act as a combination chauffeur/cook/handy-man/ and companion. For brief periods, the building would be used as a sort of bunk-house for that domestic, but hardly as a 'dwelling'. Meals were prepared and taken in the main cottage on the property. Moreover, the property was at that time used and occupied for scarcely more than two months per year. A cursory examination of the building would reveal its insufficiency as a 'dwelling' even by the living standards of the earlier years of this century. In a related communication of February 2, the authors of that message assert that the applicants' property was previously two properties. The property embraces more lake frontage than some lots on the east side of Cleverdale, but the previous seasonal cottage on the site, though much smaller than the current year-round residence, stood squarely in the center of the lot. The current one-half acre dimension of the property has been essentially unchanged through a succession of owners. At least at no time since the 1920's was it ever two properties. There hence should be no inference or assumption that the present configuration of buildings on the property reflects a reduction from some prior use. The applicants' letter of February 5 also points out that many Cleverdale properties already have auxiliary buildings sometimes used for dwelling purposes. Virtually all of these were pre-existing when the current zoning provisions were enacted. But if the fact that others have such provisions on their property is relevant, than anyone with a persuasive reason for a second principal building should be granted a variance. If the current provision is rational, there is no basis to waive it simply because of circumstances which prevailed before it was established. Similarly, the applicant's and related communications address the matter of septic system sufficiency in advancing support for granting the variance. While this concern is surely relevant, it alone does not respond to the matter of land over-burden and the impact of further residential density on this one-half acre parcel. On December 13, 1995, the Warren - 9 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) County Planning Board expressed concerns pertinent to (1) density of structures and (2) the intensity of use on the site. The current principal building on the property already embraces over 3,000 square feet of living space. This is far greater than the living space of the previous seasonal building on the site. Asking more of one-half acre of land ignores the already fragile environmental balance which over-population imposes. Approval of this proposal would produce excessive structural density, generate further environmental stress, and devalue property which members of my immediate family have owned for well over a century. Other alternatives would be more prudent and fairer. I urge your consideration accordingly. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, William B. Wetherbee" MR. CARVIN-Any ot.her public comment? Did you have a rebuttal? J. MOONEY'S REPRESENTATIVE-Yes. I just want to address a couple of things that I picked up on. There already is a pre-existing building there. It already does have a two foot setback. They're not going to be moving this building any closer to the property line. I dö foresee thêm moving closer to the lakeshore, based on'the drawing which is also within the setbacks required for the Town of Queensbury, and I'm sure that Mr. Mooney would be more than willing to move that building back so it does not encroach there, and as far as the fire hazard goes, with the building codes that exist today, the fire hazard is more next door than it will be in this new building, and the fourth thing is what this Use Variance is for, not. only the setback variance, which it actually pre-exists, and he meets all the requirements and the green space, but also in fact that this is actually for use for handicapped accessible, for use for his father-in-law and father in the summer time, and we have to deal with that problem sooner or later, where our parents aré getting older, and what are some of the ways we can deal with the situation and actually make their life more comfortable. MR. CARVIN-Any otheì- public comment? MRS. WARD-May I ask a question? If the proposed building is being designed for someone who is handicapped, does this mean that this will necessitate planting, such as at the front, I've seen the plan, an'd they've got sliding glass d001·S in the fl·011t of the building. They don't show a porch. They don't show a deck or anything like that. Do we then infer that we'll need some kind of a ramp to use that front door, and secondly, if we are thinking about a building for someone who is handicapped, how is a handicapped person served by a second floor? Are they going to put an elevator in? MR. CARVIN-Those are pretty good questions. J. MOONEY'S REPRESENTATIVE-Okay. There already exists a story and a half. So the idea is to re-build the story and a half that pre-exists. Okay. As far as handicapped accessibility, what is required for handicapped accessibility is a minimum of 36 inch square entryway for wheelchair entry. Since the pavement is at ground level as it exists right now, that would be easily accessible, whet.her it's a walker, a cane, a wheelchair, to have it, it's already at the level. There would not be any necessity for a ramp of any kind out the front. The entry, basically, is going to be on the side. Basic use for the sliders is for visual for the lake, and, yes, I'm sure it would be used for entry. There is a fence that actually exists there, and a gate that would go down and give entry for the adults down the north shore of the property, but as far as the story and a half, it's basically pre-existing. There is a story and a half there already, and that was the basic approach. The Mooneys did meet wi th the Wards a nd try to down size this, a nd keep the pr oper ty' - 10 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) within what was acceptable to them, and they're also going to work with them on what is acceptable to them, and I think it's more of a Use Variance than it is a setback. MS. CIPPERLY-Do you have any elevations of the building that you're proposing, any three dimensional drawings? J. MOONEY'S REPRESENTATIVE-No. We did not bring any plans with us here, and again, they're still open for working. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm looking at the minutes. I know that Sue had asked that same question before, and I believe that Mr. Mooney said he did do some drawings. J. MOONEY'S REPRESENTATIVE-We did provide the Wards with a sketch. MR. MOONEY-There are plans available. I didn't realize I would need them. MS. CIPPERLY-One reason I ask is if the eaves are parallel to the property line, are you measuring your setback from the eaves or from the foundation? MR. MOONEY-From the eaves. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay, because I just find it hard to visualize. J. MOONEY'S REPRESENTATIVE-That's why we're going south, because of the driveway. MS. CIPPERLY-Did you give any consideration to the suggestion of adding $omething on to your house instead of? MR. MOONEY-That's the same question the Warren County Planning Board asked me, and my response was, it's one thing having your in-laws close to you in the same lot, but living in your home is different. I'll also comment, why the second story, because we thought that we could put another room up there in case somebody had to stay with them. MS. CIPPERLY-So this is now really a two story? MR. MOONEY-It's going to go up. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm a little bit confused. Is this going to be a permanent residence, or just a part time residence? MR. MOONEY-They live in Florida six months of the year. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So it's not a permanent situation. It's only when they're up here? MR. MOONEY-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. All right. Any other public comment? Okay, if it's something new. I don't want to get into an argument here. MS. SCHROEDER-I understand. I just wish to point out that when this building is constructed, it will extend essentially from our current garage to our cottage, and will completely close in one side of our property, and also if Mr. Mooney wants his family close, I don't understand why they're going to be closer to us than to him. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other public comment? - 11 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) MR. WARD-Bill Ward again, and my first thing is sort of a question to the Board, I guess. If there is a pre-existin9 structure less than the setback requirements in this case of 26 feet, that doesn't mean that you can have a much larger building of the same close? MR. CARVIN-That's an interesting question, and I think l,AJe've had some answers handed down from the courts with regard to that, that, you're right. Just because you have a 26 or you have a building there, once the change is instituted, that it throws a whole new light on it. MR. WARD-Okay. The other thing I guess is pertinent in a way is, I'm glad to hear that they are willing to work with us. We are certainly willing to continue talking here, and, personally, I would feel that there are probably, Just from my first review, other alternatives that might meet the needs of the Mooneys and ultimately our concerns, and we'd be very happy to continue discussing this. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, thank you for that. MR. WARD-I alluded to, when I was here before, to Just some plans and some numbers. Could I leave those? MR. CARVIN-Sure. Okay. Any other public comment? Hearing none, seeing none, then I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Any questions of the applicant? Mr. Thomas has asked if the applicant wishes to perhaps table the application to explore other alternatives, or if he wants to proceed. I don't know, what does the Board feel? MR. MENTER-Perhaps we should poll the Board, discuss it and poll a little bit to get an idea of where everbody's at. We might have a clearer idea of where he should go. MR. CARVIN-My personal feeling is that on this particular application, I'm not too sure that there's too many things that can be done that would gather f.ll2::. vote. Lets put it that way. MR. THOMAS-Like I said to you, Mr. Ward is willing to talk some more, if Mr. Mooney is. So if they can hack it out. MR. MENTER-I think that's more where he was coming from. Personally, I would have a tough time with this, just because I agree with you. It's more of a use. To me, the bigger issue is the use, the dual use, and it's not a particularly unique situation in that neck of the woods. It's been the Board's position that, particularly in cases where there may be other alternatives that we wouldn't approve, you know, a second dwelling on that type of a property. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels, but with the application the way it is, that would certainly be my approach to it, to the question. MR. GREEN-My concern is more, I guess Just the opposite of Dave's. I'm more concerned with the size increase. I don't know if we've really nailed that down yet or not. I'd like to see maybe a little better floor plan of what's there and what is proposed to be there. I don't know. I, personally, don't have a real big problem with the second people there, but I'm not comfortable with the size of it, and going closer to the lake, even if you still can fall into the 75 feet. I don't like to see that. MRS. LAPHAM-I really don't have a lot to add to what Dave said. - 12 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) I'm in agreement there, and I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of a second building on a lakefront lot, even though I do know that that site is bigger than a lot of the sites on Cleverdale. MR. THOMAS-I'd like to see Mr. Mooney get his building, but I'd like to have him and the Wards and Ms. Schroeder talk it out and see if they can come to some compromise, so that we Qän give him this building. It appears to be a good plan. The only alternative I can see to this would be to convert the garage to a living space, and then convert the one and a half frame dwelling to garage, you know, for the cars. That's about the only other thing I could see to do here, but I would hope that the Mooneys and the Wards and Ms. Schroeder could talk this out and come to some kind of compromise where they would accept Mr. Mooney's plan" MR. CARVIN-Yes. I have hard problem with this because part of our responsibility is to weigh the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the community, and although it's nice to have our elderly parents close by, I don't feel that the applicant has demonstrated that they are in any fashion incapacitated and require 24 hour care. I feel that this is a convenience move rather than something that is more pressing, which leads me to the bigger issue of, when we grant a second residence here, I mean, we establish something forever, and I do have a real hard problem putting second residences on these very small lakefront lots. So it's not the size issue that really bogs me down, although I am somewhat concerned about the expansion out there. As Mr. Menter has indicated, it's really the use, that this is going to be used as a second residence, and I just think that the detriment to the community is greater if we were to move along those lines than the benefit to the applicant. So I don't know if there is a compromise with that particular situation, at least in !Il.l::. mind, and I don't want to close any doors, but that's the issue that's bogging ffi.§. down. MR. THOMAS-Well, Mr. Ward has presented the fact that there is room for compromise. MR. CARVIN-I don't know if he's, some of the other letters have indicated that they are extremely concerned about the second use. MR. WARD-What I said essentially was that we believe that zoning lS zoning, and has a good purpose, that there are circumstance whereby strict application of existing zoning is not for the greater good, and that that's why the Board exists, to weigh those matters, and if in it's wisdom it determines that the greater good is served by having a second residence on the property, we feel that there's room for compromise in finding a place for that second residence that we feel is going to be less obtrusive to our property. Essentially, the second residence thing, we're saying, if that's the wisdom of the Board, that encompasses much more than our very local review. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So what does the Board feel about tabling, or do you think we have a consensus here to move on this? We need four positive or four negative votes, depending on which way you want to look at it. MR. MOONEY-Can we table this, as was suggested? MR. CARVIN-I still think the issue resolves, at least in my mind, about the use, and again, I'll leave it to the discretion of the Board. If they feel that the use of a second residence is warranted, then I don't have a problem tabling it, but if the Board feels that the second re~~idence is the issue, and if there's four or five votes here that says that's the issue, I don't know where tabling it is going to further this situation. - 1:3 - (Queensbury Z8A meeting 2/28/96) MS. CIPPERLY-I guess as the staff person who sees a lot of these people come through the door, my concern would be about precedent here, and when people say, wel'l, they gave them one for, I mean, just fì-om our SOì·t of Department standpoi nt, that's what ~ see. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I mean, it hasn't really been demonstrated that this is going to be a full time residence. It ha~n't really been demonstrated, obviously, it has been indicated that they're only going to be using it six months. So obviously it's a convenience and not necessarily something that is critical to the continuance of the parents' care and welfare, and as I said, that's the benefit to the applicant. We're allowing him to have his parents come visit him every six months, which is, and he's stated that that's fine that they come and visit, but he doesn't want them in the house. MR. CARVIN-Well, then my feeling is that there are other alternatives. There's Ledgeview. There's rental property. There's any number of alternatives that can be accomplished without us havi.ng to grant a variance which ~.Jill go wit.h that building for as long as it's there, and that's my feeling on this, and as I said, up-sizing or downsizing or moving it around, it still will come back to that issue of the parents, that they don't appear to be, you know, we did grant one variance, back a few months ago, to parents who had a child that was extremely handicapped, and I think that the Board looked at that and said that that was a warranted case. I do not feel that this is a ~.Jarranted case, and as I said, that's mY position, and again, if the Board feels contrary to that, then I would ask you to table this and let the applicants, with the neighbors, work out the solution. If you feel that the issue is this, then I don't see the need to table it. MRS. LAPHAM-And there's also something that no one else has touched on yet either, and that's that Mr. Noun stated he'd be willing to put it in the deed that this could never be rented, and let us say that down the road, because you had said this variance will go with the structure as long as it stands, we have a second use. Down the road, the Mooneys, for whatever reason, decide to or have to sell the property, who's going to police that? How is it going to be policed? MR. CARVIN-Exactly. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, so we're bound to tha't when they're at the closing, looking at the property, and before you know it, they have all kinds of paying guests. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Again, you know, deed restrictions are some times used as a panacea, and they are not, but again, I mean, I don't want to keep beating this~ We'll be here until midnight if we don't move it along. We only have five folks here tonight. MR. MENTER-That's the other slde of the issue. There are only five people here. I agree with Fred, that the use is the big hurdle, to me, but at this point, there's two people, and I have no problem with tabling the thing and see what we can come up wi th ne:<t timø. MR. CARVIN-Chris, do you want to table it? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Bill? MR. GREEN-You've got me all confused, now, after sitting here listening to your dissertation. No. I t.hink I'm still comfortable in my original statement. I don't mind tabling it. _. 14 - -'..~ (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) MRS. LAPHAM-I don't mind tabling it, with the idea that maybe they could, the Mooneys and the Wards aTe encour~ged to talk about their problems, and that we would have, hopefully, two more Board members here. That's the big thing. I think all seven of us should be here, on something that's this controversial. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you wish to table this, in to reach a compromise with the neighbors? neighbors, is there room for compromise here, or be a situation that we look at next month or where we have made no progress? an effort to try Can I ask the is this going to the month after, MR. WARD-I would feel there's always room to compromise. I think our objections would remain the same, but just at a cursory glance at the property and the potential there, I would think that there would be ~ solutions that we would feel comfortable with, that would allow his father-in-law to live there, but not be in our back porch. MR. CARVIN-Okay. The only thing that I would like to add is that there are a number of other letters from a number of other people, and I realize that you folks are right on the front line, but theTe are other neighbors out there who have expressed some pretty, what appear to be firm positions. So I ask you, if you table this, I would ask you to contact these folks in an effort to convi nce them, because the)' have a vested interest in this also. I mean, it's just, you have a vested interest because you live next door, but that doesn't preclude the fact that if you guys come to an agreement that the rest of these folks are wrong. I mean, they live there also. So I would ask you to expand your efforts to try to convince your neighbors of the virtue of your project. Okay. MRS. WARD-If we come to some kind of an agreement, do we have some assurance that you will grant the variance? MR. CARVIN-No. Absolutely none. All that means is that you folks have gotten together and looked at the plan and you either agree or disagree with it, but as I said, it's going to take an awful lot of convincing ~ sitting here, weighing the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the community, to switch my vote. Now I'm not saying that I won't switch my vote, but it's going to have to be a really unique argument. 'I> MS. CIPPERLY-Another item that I want to check is the Park Agency on this. I remember a prior case where somebody wanted to put two dwellings on even a larger piece of property, and they said that constituted a subdivision under their regulations. Just for, actually, the protection of the applicant here, I think we'll look into that and see whether they would be required to try to get an APA subdivision, in order to have a second full dwelling on their property, because that has been brought up before. So I'll contact the APA tomorrow. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, like I said, even if all the neighbors, all that does is just add credence. I mean, certainly if all the neighbors and all the letters come in and say, well, yes, we were opposed to it last month, but this is the plan that we've worked out, it might add credibility to our decision, and I'm only one vote, but, no, that doesn't mean that there's any guarantee on a variance. Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 89-1995 JAMES MOONEY, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: At the applicant's request. To allow discuss his variance with his neighbors. him additional time to It should be noted that -- 15 - (Queensbury Z8A meeting 2/28/96) this will be the last tabling of this particular application. That's a 60 day tabling. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, MT. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford MR. CARVIN-Okay. You've got 60 days. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-1996 TYPE II LC-10A ALFRED J. MERCHANT OWNER: BESSIE E. CALLEJO EAST SIDE OF CORMUS ROAD, 383 FT. SOUTH OF THE LUZERNE ROAD INTERSECTION APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WHICH REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REQU:IREMENTS OF SECTION 179-13. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 2/14/96 TAX MAP NO. 124-1-9 LOT SIZE: 1.67 ACRES SECTION 179-13 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 4-1996, Alfred J. Merchant, Meeting Date: February 28, 1996 "PROJECT LOCATION: Cormus Road PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant is proposing to build a single family home and garage consisting of 2530 square feet of building area on a 1.67 acre lot. The proposed addition would not meet the required front and rear yaTd setbacks of the LC-I0 zoning district listed in Section 179-13. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE, ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267, TOWN LAW. 1. BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT: The applicant states that this would allow the construction of a single family home. 2. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: There appear to be no other alternatives which could provide a lesser amount of relief from the Zoning Ordinance. 3. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? The required front and rear yard setbacks are both 100 feet. The applicant is seeking a front yard setback of 71.74 feet and a rear yard setback of 63.54 feet. 4. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY? At this time there appear to be no neighborhood impacts associated with this request. Additional comment may be provided at the public hearing. 5. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED? No. This is a legal nonconforming lot containing 1.67 acres in a zone (LC-I0) requiring a minimum lot size of 10 acres. Any building which would occur on this lot would have difficulty maintaining the required setbacks. PARCEL HISTORY: After reviewing the assessors office files for thi~ property, all files indicate that this land has been owned by Bessie E. Callejo. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: The topography of the area is somewhat steep, however it appears that this site would be able to accommodate the proposed construction. The board may request that this project seek site plan review to ensure that the buildings can be safely constructed. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 14th day of February 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a single family residence on 1.67 acres. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: With the condition that the WCPB see this application again for Site Plan Review." Signed by C. Powel South; Chairperson. - 16 _. (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) MR. CARVIN-Is that something that Warren County has started to institute? That's the first time I think I've seen them ask for a site plan. MR. HILTON-I'm not sure what their policy is. MR. CARVIN-All right, does everyone understand what the applicant is requesting? Are there any questions of the applicant? Is there anything that you'd care to add? MR. STEVES-My name's Matt Steves, with VanDusen and Steves. The only thing I'd like to add to that is in regard to the question with the Warren County Planning Board, that because of the setback requirement is only 100 feet, and they basically almost overlap each other for front and rear setback, and where we're showing the house to be, they want to make sure that if a var~ance is given by this Board, that the house doesn't change from where we showed them it was propQsed to be, within reason, and. also because of the grade of,the property~ They would want to see possibly some grading anq drainage, and we are working on that. We've hired Jim Miller with MilJ,er Associates, Landscape Archi tect . He is worki ng wi th us on this project. ' MR. CARVIN-Okay. Yes, because my ~uestion is, why there? That seems a real challenge in and of itself. MR. STEVES-Some people like to have a challenge. It is not an impossible site to build on. It is a very buildabl~ site. It does have some site constraints that we do realize. We had some preliminary work,:dQne for drainage and grading, to bring in the driveway aDd br¡.ng it a,roundthe houseqnd for. a septic sys.tem. All preliminary reports and work show that it is suitable for a single family home. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now when I was out there the other day, it appeared that t;.here have been some trees cleared, or I'm assuming that·t;.hat. t;.here's a real steep bank, and then there's a semi , if I can use that term ever so loosely, semi flat area that does appear to have been either cleared or is a clearing. MR. STEVES-That is a cl(3aLing. There's a small clearing that is t.here, not.hing that my client has Qone. That clearing has been there for as long as I can remember. MR. CARVIN-All right. I'm assuming th~t. t.here's going to have to be some cutting and clearing out there. MR. STEVES-That~~ correct. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you have a rough idea of what that may? MR. STEVES-I can show you a sketch of what we have proposed. I can overlay it on the map here. As you can see the proposed bu,ildi ng.. and lay i ng out a rough idea of what the gradi ng and the driveway would look like, the clearing around the building and the clearing around the driveway, and preliminary reports is showing the driveway we can bring in and maintain under a 10% with a 3% grade for the 50 feet off the Town road, and meet all the standards that. is required by the Town. We have no problem in taking this plan and going before the Planning Board for site plan review, in case any of those concerns t.hat you might have will be addressed. MR. CARVIN-Yes. My feeling is that if a variance is granted, that I would definitely want it to go to site plan. MR. STEVES-We have no problem with that, and we would recommend it also. - 17 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-In answer to your question earlier, Fred, you asked if the Warren County. MR. CARVIN-Yes, about the Warren County wanting some site plan input. That's sort of the first time we've ever seen that. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I don't think they really have a legal right or anything to require that. That condition may be meaningless, but I think it was a valid suggestion in this case. MR. CARVIN-That was going to lead to my next question. I mean, where does their authority begin and end in something like that? I mean, I'm assuming it defers back to the Town, as far as the sit~e plan. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. Well, they tried to tell Mr. Mooney that he needed a Use Variance, also, which, you know, that isn't their job either. MR. CARVIN-I notice in a couple of the others coming up, they seem to be expanding their role. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. STEVES-I can't answer for them, but it's my understanding that they would just like to, if this does go to your Board and then is referred to the Plarining Board for Site Plan, that they would like an opportunity to review that again, just to see that it is basically what they have approved as far as the zoning issue's concerned. MS. CIPPERLY-They may have been under the impression that a Site Plan review was required, and that they were assuming they would see it again, if we want to look at that in a nice light. MR. not, CARVIN-All right. Any other questions of the applicant? I'll open up the public hearing. If PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICK ROGGE MR. ROGGE-I'm not sure if I'm in support or opposed, but I have some questions about it. My name is Rick Rogge, and I live on the property right adjacent to this, just to the south of it, and I'm concerned because of the topography out there, and possibly all those concerns would be answered in Site Plan review that you're speaking of, but I don't know that there's enough space for a septic system. I'm sure that they've taken the caution to look into that. The area that is up there is very steep, and I believe there's some requirements as to how steep a piece of property a septic system could be put on, and also the soils that aTe up there, there's a lot of heavy clay. When I put my house in, I was very surprised, because on the top it seems pretty loamy, but as we dug into it, we found it's all heavy clay, and of course that wouldn't help them in their septic system situation whatsoever. There were some other folks that wanted to build on this property some years ago, and their proposal wasn't nearly as sensible as this one, but my concern being that the homes that are up there currently, and some others that are being planned to be built up there in the near future all far exceed the 100 foot setback requiì·ement, and I believe that it may actually change things a little bit. Also my concern on the homeowners part if this were to go through, for them, this concern is, and that is, it's so steep right there. The snow plow goes by and their house is too close, I'm afraid they're -- 18 - (Cueensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) going to flinging things right I mean, that's not for me to them about that. through their front windows, but, say, but I would be concerned for MR. CARVIN-Well, there's certainly the potential for avalanche out there, I would guess. MR. ROGGE-They can't slide into the house. They could slide down it. T ha n k you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Just as an afterthought. You said that somebody else had put a plan in for this property. Do you know approximately when? MR. ROGGE-I think it was maybe about four or five years ago, somebody came and had proposed to put a house on that same property, and at that time the variance was denied, but quite honestly it wasn't quite as sensible a layout as this one. They were proposing to put it in, on the little black spot right up here in the corner, and they basically wanted the house right on the road, and if I recall correctly, everybody on the road was extremely opposed to that. It would have changed the neighborhood completely. At least these folks are really making an attempt at getting it into an area which might be a little bit better. Again, it's still going to be much closer than any other house that's on the house right now, and the one's that are being proposed. There's another house that's being built just down the road, in the next couple of years. There's another two land owners that are proposing to build homes, and they're both putting their houses actually a few hundred feet off of the road. 50 it really is a little bit different than what's existing and what else is being proposed for this site. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. In your research, was there any previous applications that you were aware of, or came across? MR. HILTON-I'll see if I can find it. There was a previous variance. There's a previous action listed on the application. However, I don't have any information. MS. CIPPERLY-I was ooing to mention that anqther aLI;.eì7,native that the Board has is to send this for an advisory opinion to the Planning Board without taking an action tonight, have it go to the Planning Board for an advisory opinion, and have it come back, and then it wouldn't necessarily have to go through a formal site plan, if you were satisfied with. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think I'd rather have the site plan, to be honest with you. The advisory is helpful, but I still think I would refer it to site plan after the advisory, because I think that this is a pretty touchy critical area up there. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I just wanted to remind you, there was that other option of, before you even. MR. CARVIN-Okay. hear i ng . Well, why don't we continue with the public BILL COOK MR. COOK-Good evening. My name's Bill Cook, and my wife and I own land on the other side of this property, and as Rick Rogge said, most of the houses there have a good setback. Most of them are rather nice homes, and we're concerned about the setback issue. It's a much better proposal than the one that was done about 1990, but I would still encourage to have a good setback on this site. The fact that it doesn't meet the rear setback, or distance, whatever it is, is really not so relevant, because - 19 - (Queensbury Z8A meeting 2/28/96) there's nothing back there that's accessible. that site is inaccessible. So to make my point quite concerned about the setback. The land behind quite cl('3ar, I'm MR. CARVIN-Okay. W~?'re looking at, what about 71 feet, and it looks like, if memory serves correct, there's no way we can move it forward or backward, or sideways. Well, it is an interesting dilemma. Okay. Any questions of Mr. Cook? Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard? RICK IRVINE MR. IRVINE-My name's Rick Irvine. I own the property at the end of Cormus Road. I bought the property a few years, planning to build a house up there. I currently live in Glens Falls, and I bought the property because I like the area up there, because it's, there's so many trees. The houses aie not visible from the road, as opposed to Glens Falls. Whoever bought the property, or whoever was going to build on the property before and cut all the trees down really ruined that lot. I wouldn't be so opposed to it if all the trees were there, but if you put a house in there right now, it's going to ruin the communities that are up there, and I feel it's a detriment to the neighborhood. The neighborhood is a nice floristy type, and there's not much property like U"lat left in Queensbury. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions? Okay. Thank you. other public comment? Okay. (iny JIM NEWBURY MR. NEWBURY-Hi. My name is Jim Newbury, and I own property across the street, and my big concern would be the setback, and culmination of everything you've heard, and also that road right there is pitched, and I know a few people this past winter that have almost gone over that bank, and one was saved by a guide wire of a telephone pole, pretty much at the center of that lot, and if they go, they're going to go over, and it's just a very tough spot. It's steep. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? You said there's no correspondence? MR. THOMAS-No correspondence. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. STEVES-I'll try to respond to some of the questions that were brought up. We also have the same concerns. That's why we have taken the time and spent over a month and a half with Mr. Merchant, to establish the best possible location for the building, to come in here and try to, we're conscious about the setback requirement also, but the bottom line with this lot, with the current setbacks, it's an unbuildable lot. A setback variance has to be given to make it any kind of a buildable lot IrJhatsoever. If you're going to build anything besides a dog house on this lot, it's going to require a variance for setbacks. We've placed the house in the best possible location, without nailing it down to within six inches, of the best place, (lost word) within the driveway, leave the existing drainage, you know, the grading requirements for the Town. We do realize that we should go in front of the Board for Site Plan review. We don't want that to be an issue with you, and you can say go on to the Planning Board for Site Plan review. We have all the intentions in the world of doing that, so lets get to the issue of the setbacks. As I say, 100 foot front and rear setback overlaps at the southerly end of the property, which is only about 120 foot wide, or deep, and the northerly end of the property is 221 feet. - 20 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) So as you can see, the best case scenario, we've got 21 feet, and it's a very small triangle, and again, we have placed it in the best possible position. We will go in front of the Planning Board and we'll address your concerns of drainage and grading, and clearing limits, we're inclined to only clear what little bit is necessary for construction of a home and for the driveway. The existing level area that's down here and that cleared area that Mr. Carvin was referring to earlier is the place we propose the septic system. As far as soil conditions, that's all things that we will address and confirm before a building permit can even be issued. We'd have to prove that we can have it on the 15%, not greater than 15% slopes. We have to prove the soil conditions are suitable for septic, and we are willing to do all that. All we're looking for, from this Board, is the relief from the setback variance, so we can move on to the Planning Board. MR. CARVIN-Okay. The garage, do you have, okay, the front of the house, or what would be, I guess, the east side. MR. THOMAS-The west side is the road side. MR. CARVIN-Okay. We don't need any setbacks for the garage, do we? MR. STEVES-The garage as proposed, if you're asking what the setback is from the road, it's greater than that that's proposed for the house. The closest portion to the front setback would be the southwest corner of the house, which is proposed at, 71.74 feet, and as far as the other concern which had to do with another application brought forth. The prints were done in 1990 by Joseph Callejo, and he did propose to put this house in the southwest corner of the property, and I believe he proposed a 22 foot side line and a 34 foot front setback. MR. CARVIN-All right. I do see you're looking setback of 63.54 feet. Is there any reason cannot be attached to the house and bring that or is it necessary to have a detached garage? for a rear yard why that garage into compliance, ALFRED MERCHANT MR. MERCHANT-I believe you couldn't make the turn into the garage in one swoop. MR. STEVES-He's asking why you have a detached garage. MR. CARVIN-Is there any reason attached into this area and still there? why the garage couldn't be have your paved area down in MR. MERCHANT-Again, just because you couldn't make the there, I don't think you could pull right into the garage here, versus having to make the complete U-turn, sort running start to get up the hill concept. swoop over o'f a, MR. CARVIN-Or a breaker coming down the hill concept, so you don't end up in Mr. Cook's back yard. MS. CIPPERLY-Fred, the distance we measure from the garage to Cormus Road is 80 feet, which would need relief from the front yard setback. So he needs it from the rear and the front for the garage. MR. CARVIN-That's what I'm saying. I'm trying to figure if there isn't a plan here to have the garage attached, or at least, because we have to grant minimum relief. MR. STEVES-The plan that I proposed to you has been well thought - 21 - (Oueensbury Z8A meeting 2/28/96) out, and this is the minimum relief that's possible to put a house on this site. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. STEVES-Besides moving it a few inches, this is what it's going to be. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there any other public comment? All right. Seeing none, hearing none, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-All right. Any questions of the applicant? Thoughts, feelings? MR. THOMAS-When I went up and looked at the property on Sunday, it was pretty slick up there. I don't see anywhere else on that property that house could be put. I think the applicant, or Mr. Steves, has used the property to the best advantage for the house and the garage, and I can see Mr. Merchant's concern for the garage being over there, rather than on a hairpin turn. It's just for trying to get up that grade, and I have no problem. Somebody coming rolling off that road and down that hill, I don't know if they'd make it to the house or not. I wouldn't know, and I wouldn't want to try it. MR. CARVIN-What if you were driving a fire truck or an ambulance. MR. THOMAS-I don't know. That's site plan. MR. STEVES-Another reason for the siting of the house and the garage is also to lengthen the driveway up, so that you have a nice grade coming down the property. I'll give you this preliminary grading plan to look at, you can pass it across and you can see why we did that. MR. MENTER-That property just disappears. It does seem to me to be about the best you can do with that property. I mean, obviously care was taken here. I think that that property, although it doesn't conform, it is a buildable lot. It should be a buildable lot. This appears to be about the best scenario that you're going t6 come up with. I think a site plan is critical on the thing, because I have had a house that was in a similar situation. Some unique problems with it. MR. STEVES-There's no question, we agree with that statement. MR. it, with on. MENTER-Essentially, though, I think I would be in favor of based on that. I just don't think you can do anything better the lot, and I think that it is a lot that should be built MR. CARVIN-Bill? MR. GREEN-I think an VanDusen and Steves taking a lot of time. awful lot of care has gone obviously is a pretty reputable One story or two story house? into this. fir m 1.'3 nd MR. MERCHANT-Two story. MR. STEVES-We also add to that that there is a height requirement within the APA, and we will adhere to it. MR. GREEN-Judging be being able to Judging from t.he about 40 feet. from the comments, the biggest concern seems to see the house from the road as they drive by. grade lines on here, you're going to be down - 22 -. (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) MR. STEVES-I believe that any trees on the road, I don't you'll see much of the house, except during this time year. think of the MR. GREEN-Exactly, and the way the lot drops off there, being so much below the road, I don't see a big problem actually seeing this house. It's not as if it's on road level. You're going to be approximately 40 feet below the road. I think this is about the best we can do. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, the only thing I would add, and I realize that because there are other homes on the road that are closer, and possibly not observing the setbacks, but are easily seen from the road, I realize each property and each variance should be unique and separate, and we shouldn't lump them all together, but as I drove up and down Cormus Road, when I went to look at this, there were some houses I couldn't see at all because they were set way, way back with winding driveways. There were others I could see quite clearly, probably more clearly than we would see this when the Merchants are finished, and I think I would agree with everyone else who've said that site plan review would be a necessity. MR. CARVIN-Does staff know, this has been in existence for how long, this lot? Is there any idea how long this lot has been a nonconforming lot? MR. STEVES-I might be able to shed some light on that for you. In 1964, it was transferred from the Warren County Treasurer to Bessie Callejo, and to the best of my knowledge, it goes back to about 1955. Back in 1955, it was as it exists today. MR. CARVIN-Okay. All right. Well, this is probably one of the hardest types of situations that we're confronted with, because we do have a nonconforming lot here, and an unusual situation, in that it's, obviously, up the side of a mountain, and almost any kind of a proposal in an LC-10 zone is going to require some kind of variance. I've been kicking this back and forth in my mind now for quite a while, because I've got to ask myself, what was the logic behind making 10 acre lots on top of a mountain, and I think it's kind of self evident that they really want to try to delay development up there, that these are extremely sensitive and unusual areas, and I kind of look at it, and I know this comes under probably more of the Site Plan, but if I was driving a fire truck or an ambulance, I'd have a real son of a gun of a time trying to come down a driveway like that, and, you know, I'm not so much concerned about the applicant's safety, but if we approve a house and there's a fire out there, and we get a fireman hurt or an ambulance person hurt, I probably would be awful concerned about that, but then I have to weigh the other side of the coin, in that if we can't grant some kind of relief here, we, in essence, have taken away an economic value from the owner, because this is a pre-existing, nonconforming, and as Mr. Menter has indicated, that this is a building lot, and it is an 1.6 acre, something like that, and I would hope that this is the minimum relief. I mean, the applicant has indicated that there really are not too many feasible alternatives that this is the minimum relief, and I do appreciate the neighbor's concerns about the setbacks. I don't know how big their property is, but if their property is conforming and has several acres, well certainly they have much more flexibility as to the placement of their houses, but, you know, I think for 1.6, the applicant's probably done a pretty decent job. So having said that, I would ask for a motion. We're going to send it to site plan review. I think we can grant the variance. The applicant has indicated that this is the minimum. Now I'm not an engineer or an - 23 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) architect. I drive out there on a Sunday morning in the middle of a blinding snow storm, cursing and swearing at Mr. Merchant as I'm driving up that road, and I look at a very, very unusual lot, but we're zoning. We're asked to grant a variance from an area. In other words, that, is this the minimum relief? Is the benefit to the applicant weighed against the detriment to the community, you know, we have a weight that we have to kind of balance here, and what I'm saying is that this is, although I may personally not want to see a whole lot of houses out there, because I hate to see the thought of, you know, trees. I mean, what happens next week when the house is built, gee whiz, there's a big elm tree sits right in the middle of the view, and as I'm driving up Luzerne Road, and I can look up on top of the mountain and I can see all the clear cutting, well, I mean, that plays into my mind, but I also have to weigh the fact that somebody owns this property and does have a right to an economic use to that property. MR. STEVES-In a quick response to the location. Like I say, we can move it around just a few feet, possibly, at the most. The reason for that is because the driveway works at a grade of approximately 10 percent of the steepest area, and then flats along the front of the house, and then the way that garage is set, with the turn in the driveway, we maintain a nice grade, if we continue the house down the slope a little farther, to enforce a 100 foot setback, we basically start to get beyond the reasonable grade for a driveway. MR. CARVIN-My personal feeling is that I wish that there was something that could be done with the garage, because that would eliminate at least one of the variances. Now I don't know if you have any types of houses. There's any number of houses that can be constructed out there, and again, I would hope that the applicant has given consideration to minimum relief on that. MR. STEVES-Yes, we have. MR. CARVIN-That's my only thought on that, that I'm looking at a flat piece of paper here, and I realize that, I didn't create the mount.ain, and )iOU want me to solve the problem. I don't know if I can do that. MR. MENTER-Do we have dimensions setbacks, for the back of the house Do you have those figures there? draw a big square. or actual setbacks, separate and the front of the garage? Because I think rather than MR. CARVIN-You can do that on a flat piece of paper, but that's not flat out there. I mean, you're going to have a four story front. and a one story back. MR. STEVES-You're talking the dimensions from the garage? MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. STEVES-It's approximately 80 feet. The reason I put it on there is because of the fact, we meet the side line setback for the garage of 100 feet, but we do not meet the front or rear setback for any of the structures. That's why we have to have that. MR. MENTER-I guess that's okay, because going into site plan, they'll be locked into it anyway. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Well, I'm hoping the Planning Board does their job and follows through on this and that they give careful consideration to all of these factors, drainage and safety and all that. I mean, we can take that into consideration, but I - 24 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) still comes back that this appears to be minimum relief. It seems to be, with the exception of the garage, and I'm being told that, for the number of reasons, I mean, they've given some pretty credible arguments here, the driveway, and having looked at that lot, I mean, it's going to be a son of a gun. I'm telling you, you've got yourself a real challenge there. MR. ROGGE-Would it be prudent to have the site plan review done first, so that if there's other alternatives they might be brought up at that time? MR. CARVIN-Well, we could probably refer it over for consideration, but you can't necessarily, it's still going to come back to site plan review. In other words, what we could do is that we could send this to the Planning Board and ask for their input, but that is not necessarily site plan review. That just is a feasibility. They could look at it and say, yes, this is feasible. Well, I can look at it and say that this looks, you know, having looked at the property, I can see that it's feasible to put a house there. The question is, you know, do we want a house there, and, as I said, I can't oppose the fact that we can put a house there. Now as long as that house meets all the other criteria, in other words, when we refer it to site plan, when they look at, we're not experts in soil and drainage and sewers and that sort of stuff, and they could look at that and say, well, look the plan as proposed doesn't work, and if it doesn't work, well then he can't go forward unless they revise the plan or bring it into compliance, and if that requires an additional variance, we're only granting them a variance from the setback of this. I mean, if he changes that, he's got to come back. MR. ROGGE-I guess what I was referring to was Mr. Cook's suggestion that if it would be possible to get relief from the back setback requirement, and not the front one, and possibly the planning, whatever the other review process is, they would be able to determine if that may be possible or may not be possible. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I don't have an answer for you, because I didn't go out there and measure and take whatever they call those things. I can only go on the information that we've been presented and, you know, as I said, the applicant is requesting minimum relief, and if he's measured it out, and I've looked at it, and this does not seem to be an unreasonable, they're only asking for about 29 feet relief from the front, and the problem that I have, as I said, is the garage. I mean, it seems to me that the garage, which is obviously down the hill further, I mean, I don't know if that's minimum relief there, but we're talking a garage, but I'm being told that it makes the most sense, because of the length of the driveway, from a safety aspect. So I can't argue any of the things that they've presented. I don't know if I can substantiate them, but it does not appear to be unreasonable. Okay. Any other questions, if not, does somebody want to move this. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-1996 ALFRED J. MERCHANT, Introduced by David Menter who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: The applicant's proposing to build a single family home and garage consisting of 2530 square feet building area, on a 1.67 acre lot. The proposed application would not meet the required front or rear yard setbacks in the LC-l0 zoning district. From the front setback, relief of 28.26 feet would be granted, and from the rear setback, relief of 36.46 feet of setback, front setback being the dimension off of the property line to the front of the house, and the rear setback being the distance from the rear corner of the garage to the east property line. This is a difficult lot, and it appears that the applicant has gone to some - 25 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) lengths in engineering the best possible solution to the problem of having a house on a lot with this topography and dimension. There don't appear to be any feasible alternatives to the proposal, and it would appear that use of this property as a building lot would demand a variance with at least these reliefs. There would appear to be minimal effects on the neighborhood and community, and those would consist of possible visibility of the house from the road, although this would not be completely unique in the neighborhood, and also possible difficulties in access to the property with emergency equipment. These issues, as well as septic and runoff issues, will be reviewed, as we will require a site plan review be performed with the Planning Board on this project. The difficulty does not appear to be self created, as the topography of this building lot is such that any building would require this type of variance. In as much as Warren County asked a site plan be referred to them on this project, we would ask that that be done also. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford 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 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 3-1996, Mark Handelman, Meeting Date: February 28, 1996 "PROJECT LOCATION: NYS Route 9L PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant is proposing to construct two new additions to an existing home. The additions would be a total of 560 square feet. This expansion would need relief from the shoreline setback requirements of Section 179-60, the side setback requirements of Section 179-16, and the expansion of a Nonconforming use requirements of Section 179-79A2. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE, ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267, TOWN LAW. 1. BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT: The applicant states that this construction will allow a larger addition to his family room. 2. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: Depending on the overall floor plan, the expansion which is proposed for the east side of the home could be reduced in width and moved back towards the driveway. By doing this the shoreline and side setbacks may be able to be met. The addition would then be in an area where the slope may not be as steep. 3. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? The required shoreline setback is 75 feet and the side setback is 20 feet. The applicant is proposing a 57.50 setback from the shore and a 14.68 setback from the side lot line. 4. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY? Comments on possible impacts may come up at the public hearing. 5. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED? The zoning for the lot requires 3 acres of land per lot. This is .95 acre lot is a legal nonconforming lot in the WR-3A zoning district. PARCEL HISTORY: This property - 26 -- " (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) was purchased by the original owner in 1994. The original building on this lot contained 840 square feet. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: As stated before, depending on the overall floor plan, locating the new addition closer to the driveway may be possible. This could possibly eliminate any need for any further setback relief for this property. If the Board feels that expansion in the areas shown is acceptable, any slope and stormwater runoff issues would be further addressed at the time of site plan review. SEOR: Type II, no further action r equ i ì· ed . II MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 14th day of February 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to construct an addition to family room. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Disapprove Comments: Creates a variance situation and already does not meet existing setbacks." Signed by C. powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I should point out to the applicant that because Warren County has disapproved this, that you need what we call a super majority. I'm sure you're aware of that, in which case, where you normally would need four positive votes, you need at least five. MR. STEVES-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I've never seen them do this. ,That's Warren County. Any thoughts from staff on what Warren County is doing? MS. CIpPERLY-The only thing that I know that's different is there are a number of new members on the Board, as of ,January 1st, who may be treating things differently. MR. CARVIN-But Ithi nk the comment ca,n be saJd of all of our variance applications. That's why they're variance applications. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. going on. It may be a certain amount of inexperience MR. CARVIN-Well, if I could ask staff to maybe contact some of these more inexperienced folks up there and get them some experiences, because they could run amuck here. Creates a variance situation? That's correct. I mean, that's why he's asking for avariance~ I don't mind that. I just was wondering if there was something else. MS. CIPPERLY-No. I had little unorthodox, but frequently. seen a couple of things that seemed a it seems like it's happening more MR. CARVIN-And I certainly don't want to take anything away from Warren County, but, were you at the meeting þy any chance? MR. STEVES-No, I was not. MS. CIPPERLY-I think we can come to some kind of understanding. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. STEVES-Somebody from my office did attend, but I wasn't there. MR. CARV:rN-We~ l" does everyone ,u ndersta nd what requesting? All right. Any questions of the there anything that you'd care to add? the applicant is applicant? Is MR. STEVES-I was on ,the phone with the applicant today, Mr. - 27 - (Cueensbury Z8A meeting 2/28/96) Handelman, and the response to some of the concerns, possibly, that the Board might have, and whatever concerns that Warren County had when they disapproved. As far as putting the addition on the west side, which would not be in conflict with the side line setback, as you can see the grade there is quite steep, and there is an existing concrete patio with a stone wall on the front. So it's an awful lot of work, excavation, and also on the west side of the house is the existing restroom and kitchen, and we'd have to reconfigure the whole interior of the house in order to increase the living space. The purpose for the living space, I guess, it's going to become more of, instead of a seasonal use, he's going to start using it a little bit more, and there isn't a lot of room in the existing building. So the proposed addition in the south end of the house, which you see, he encloses it and makes it is a closed rectangle, is just extending the kitchen out to make it a larger kitchen area, and the proposed 18 by 18 addition, it fits in right where the existing living or family room is now. He did mention that as far as the interior of the building, there's no way he could hold the addition back from the lake any farther and still make it be a direct addition to the living area, but he could possibly talk to his architect and have it reduced. Instead of it being an 18 foot house, maybe reduce it to 16 foot, if that would have any weighing. In other words, the side line setback, instead of having to be 14.68 would be increased to 16.68. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does staff have any idea how many times this place has been expanded? I see we started out at 800 and some odd feet, and it looks like we're up to, what, 2,000 something. MR. HILTON-I don't have the count as to how many reason for, we were checking square footage to see, how much it's been increased over the years. times, the basically, MR. CARVIN-My count, if my math is correct, is 12, 1300 square feet. MR. HILTON-Yes. I don't have a figure, though, as to how many times they've been in for expansion. MR. STEVES-We did a survey of the property, in updated it this year, and besides, I think where maybe an enclosed porch, there's no additional additions to the building since 1982. The purchased it in 1994. 1982, and we a small area, bui Idi ng. No owner of today MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, the current owner, Mr. Handelman, bought this in '94? MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions of the applicant, anybody? I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions of the applicant, ladies and gentlemen? Any thoughts, comments, feelings? MRS. LAPHAM-It does seem to me there's quite a bit of room. I realize it would be a lot more work to complete the square patio, would that provide, so that setbacks couldn't be met? Because we already have a nonconforming problem. I'd just hate to see it increase. Although the site is (lost words), I don't think it -. 28 -' (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) would cause any detrimental effect to the neighborhood. I don't even know if people would see it. MR. GREEN-I agree on both statements with Bonnie that, one, there does seem to be a lot of room over on the other side, Just looking at the outside of the floor plan, but again, I can't see where it would be any detriment to the other side, because there's, you know, it drops way off, and there's nothing really close to that side at all. It's very wooded, and it kind of falls back to this minimum sort of relief thing. It doesn't appear that you couldn't put it on the other side, other than causing more work and more,expense. MR. STEVES-In talking with the applicant himself, I have not been inside the building, but he assures me that on the other side, there's a wall down the middle of the building which separates the living side from the restroom and the kitchen and if you were going to put a family room on, you would have to go through the kitchen, take the wall out where the sink and all that stuff is. So that's his reasoning for wanting it on this side, and he does realize that it creates the need for a variance, and like I said, there's not much you can do about bringing it back into the lot, because it's back in the bedrooms and that kind of stuff, but he would be willing to reduce it to 16 foot in width. MR. GREEN-The camp now is strictly seasonal? MR. STEVES-I believe so. MR. GREEN-Do you have any feeling of what may happen down the road? MR. STEVES-No, I don't. I don't believe he's looking for it to be a year round home. I think at this point, the family is such that when they go up there and they do spend four or five months, they don't have the room. MR. MENTER-My comments would be essentially the same. sure I see a need for this configuration. Granted considerations, but I'm not sure that they outweigh the give it a variance. I'm not there's need to MR. THOMAS-I think Bill said it best, that this is probably the only place you could put it on there. The only thing that bothers me is I don't know what this addition's going to look like. Is it going to be totally glass enclosed? Is it going to be screen enclosed? One story? Two story? What's the foundation look like? Is there going to be water in there? There's just no use to it, you know. I'd like to see what the addition looks like. MR. STEVES-If it would please the Board, I would ask them that we table this, and then I will come back with the applicant and we'll have some renderings of the addition, possibly see if there's any way we can pull it away from the shore a little bit, and come up with an exact, instead of just a box on the new map for you. MS. CIPPERLY-It might be helpful to have an interior layout. MR. STEVES-Layout, no problem. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I'd be more comfortable. It looks like that there's feasible alternatives where you could probably accomplish what you want to do without any need for variances, and I know I'm reluctant to move forward without seeing some documentation, at least floor plans, and structures. Okay. Everybody kind of concur with that? Do you want to table this? - 29 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) M~. 'THOMAS--Yes.' MR. CARVIN-Does the applicant have a problem if we table this? MR. STEVES-No, not at all. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-1996 MARK HANDELMAN, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: To allow the applicant to provide additional detailed floor plans and schematic structural designs. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford MR. CARVIN-Okay. It's tabled. You know our 60 tabling. When you get the information, just contact staff and they'll get you back on the schedule. MR. STEVES-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-1996 TYPE II WR-1A CEA MORGAN VITTENGL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE NEAR THE END OF BIRDSALL ROAD, OFF OF ROUND POND ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSiRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WHICH REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16, THE SHORELINE RESTRICTIONS OF SECTION 179-60 AND THE STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-70. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 2/14/96 TAX MAP NO. 40-1-33 LOT SIZE: 12,500 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-60, 179-70 MORGAN VITTENGL, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 5-1996, Morgan Vittengl, Meeting Date: February 28, 1996 "PROJECT LOCATION: near the end of Birdsall Rd. PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant proposes to construct a single family home containing 924 square feet. If built, the home would not meet the side setbacks of Section 179-16 and the shoreline setbacks of Section 179-60. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE, ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267, TOWN LAW. 1. BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: The' applicant states that he would be able to demolish an existing camp on the property which has a shoreline setback of 25 feet and construct a new home and septic system. 2. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: The applicant may have the ability to move the proposed home farther away from Glen Lake in order to meet the shoreline setback. If this is done the new septic system would maintain the required setbacks on this property. There does not seem to be any alternatives which could provide a lesser amount of relief from the required side yard setback. 3. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE?: The shoreline setback is 75 feet and the side setback is 20 feet. The applicant proposes 68 feet of shoreline setback and 11 feet of side yard setback. 4. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY? It appears that the proposed construction would not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. There may be additional comments provided at the public hearing. 5. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED?: No. This lot contains approximately .29 acres in a zone (WR-IA) that requires a lot size of 1 acre. Any construction on this property would have difficulty -- 30 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) maintaining the side yard setback. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: The applicant may have the opportunity to maintain the shoreline setback by modifying the proposed plan. The Zoning Board should address the issue of allowing a home to be built which does not have direct access from a town road. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 14th day of February 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a lakefront home. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comment.s: with the condition that the WCPB review t.he Site Plan since this is a Critical Environmental Area." Signed C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Do you want that letter read? engineering. It concerns the MR. CARVIN-I read the letter. engineering concern. I think that's more of an MR. THOMAS-It goes more to the Planning Board than to us? MR. CARVIN-Yes. I was going to say. Well, you might want to read it in. I had a couple of questions in the letter. MR. THOMAS-Read the whole letter in? MR. CARVIN-I don't know. We can either refer to it. MR. GRE~N-Was it part of the original application? to be read in? Doe~5 it need MR. CARVIN-No. The 6nly question I had was these soil pits, in other words, where th¿y kind of drilled a pit and found that it appears to be all fill. So you may want to~ lets read it in. I think we better read it in, because I do have a question. I want to know what that ground is like out there. So why don't we read that in. MR. THOMAS-Okay. A let.ter dated January 19, 1996, to Dr. Morgan Vittengl, Malta Medical Center, 2554 Route 9, Ballston Spa, NY Regard: ~~xdsall Road, Glen Lake property, sewage disposal "Dear Dr. Vit~engl: As relayed t.o you by phone, I witnessed 2 test pits and conducted a percolation test on the rear portion of the above referenced lot. The attached sketch shows the approximate locations of the tests. Each test pit was excavated to a depth of approximately 7.5', and fine to coarse sand and 'gravel with cobbles and silt was encountered the full depth of each test pit (below topsoil). Test pit#l, furt.hest south, appeared to be in fill as wood and organic material were evident the entire depth of the pit, whereas the northerly pit, test pit 12, appeared to be in undisturbed native sqil. The fill in the southerly pit may be native soil excavated from the hillside when the parking area was created. No evidence of bedrock or seasonal high groundwater was found in either test pit. The percolation test was conducted at a depth of approximately 22", in the same material encountered in the test pits. The stabilized percolation rate was approximately 10 minutes 30 seconds per inch drop. ~ased o~ my review, I beli~ve' that a conventional subsurface sewage disposal system can be constructed on the lot f O,ì· a t, ¡,east a ,2 bed," oom home, and POSf.·:;i b I y a :3 b<;;Jdr oom home wit h modi flca'tions of the par ki ng àrea. The system would consist of a septic tank located in the parking area south of the proposed house location and a leach field located south of the existing parking area. The leachfield should be constructed at least 20' from the top of the embankment and must be set at least 10 back from each side lot line. Some regrading may be necessary along - 31 -- (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) the east property line where the grade rises. The proposed system must also be located at least 100' from water supplies. The system on the attached sketch is shown at least 100' from the domestic well on the property to the west as it is shown on the survey map completed by Andrew T. McCormack, dated November 7, 1995. A call was placed to the owner of the proper~y to the east to identify the location of potential Water supplies on that lot, however no answer has been received. Although no well casing was evident above the snow, the absence of a water supply within 100' of the proposed sewage disposal system must be verified. The proposed sewage system is located more than 100' north of Mud Pond, and the area just north of the pond labeled 'swamp' on the survey map is not listed as a wetland by either the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation or the Town of Queensbury. A discussion with Town personnel concluded that the area is not a water supply and therefore the 100' setback does not apply. I trust that this information satisfies your needs; should you have any questions, or if you need further assistance, please call me. Thank you. Sincerely, H. Thomas Jarrett, P.E. Pì· i ncipal II MR. CARVIN-Okay. Can you show me where those test pits were? DR. VITTENGL-Those were done right where it shows the leach field on the drawing. MR. CARVIN-Is it marked? I guess I'm missing it if it is. MRS. LAPHAM-Possibly leach field, and then you have the arrow? DR. VITTENGL-Possible leach field. MR. CARVIN-I see a possible leach field. That's where the tests "'Jere? DR. VITTENGL-Yes. MR. CARVIN-The thing that's kind of peaked my interest 1S the, how deep was that pit hole? How deep did you go down? DR. VITTENGL-Seven and a half feet. MR. CARVIN-Seven and a half feet. Okay. It's right there. Seven and a half feet, and that appears to be all, are you familiar with that, I mean the wood and the organic? DR. VITTENGL-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Is that just stuff that's been dumped there? I mean, are we going to have a sink hole situation? DR. VITTENGL-No. That area has been established for years. MR. CARVIN-Okay. As I remember the property, the current cabin, or camp or what have you sits down at the bottom of the hill. There seems to be steps that lead down. It seemed to me that there was quite a large mound there, and it looked like it was loose gravel. Now, again, I'm not an engineer. DR. VITTENGL-As you drove straight in, up on the top area? ¡VIR. CARVIN-'Yes. DR. VITTENGL-Yes. That sits on the property, and that would be excavated backM He alludes to that in this statement, as fa)· as some grading. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but the house is going to be located at the top -- 3"2 -- (Cueensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) of the hill. DR. VITTENGL-Right. It'll sit pretty much where the house is, adjacent to it. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but do you know if that mound is just loose rubble that was piled there years ago? DR. VITTENGL-Yes. That's been there, I believe, nine years. There's some loose rubble and stone and there's trees in there. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you know what's underneath that, or how deep down that might go? DR. VITTENGL-That's pretty consistent all through there. Any where you look along there is that sandy, cobble stone soil, all through that whole area, and that's been there for, as far as I know, forever, that mound. That's natural. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but you don't know if that was just filled in, years and years ago? DR. VITTENGL-No, that was not. There was a hill in back there. Apparently what they had to do to create a right-of-way behind all these camps for access to this spot, that actually opened up a hill that was there, and grade it and push it back toward the pond and take it out or whatever, and that's how they created the road from above. There's actually two accesses to this camp, from above and below in front. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So to the best of your knowledge, there's not going to be any problems there? DR. VITTENGL-Well, as far as erosion? MR. CARVIN-Putting a house or opening up erosion and that sort of thing? DR. VITTENGL-No. That soil that's there is virgin soil, as far as, there's been no fill brought in there to bring that up to grade or anything. In fact, the opposite has been done. It's been excavated to open that area up. MR. CARVIN-Okay. applicant? I have front of the deck? Thank you. one question. Any other questions of Your 68 feet, is that to the the DR. VITTENGL-Yes. MR. CARVIN-You've got an eight foot deck. DR. VITTENGL-No, excuse me, that's to the house. MR. CARVIN-That's to the house, then we need more relief. DR. VITTENGL-There's an eight foot deck. MR. CARVIN-Because that's to the house, but you've got an eight foot, so you're 60 feet. DR. VITTENGL-Sixty feet's correct. MR. CARVIN-Because I was going to say, I could get you 75 feet back if you only had a one foot deck. DR. VITTENGL-Well, I think part of what I'm work with, I think if you drove to the site, is that pad up above. If you push the house back too far, you're going to encroach your parking area - 33 - (Cueensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) and septic area. I'm trying to keep a happy medium there. In talking with John Goralski, they're indication is they're thinking of changing the rules in regards to setback from the lake from 75 feet to 50 feet. MR. CARVIN-I know, but if you thought they were going to change it, you should have waited. DR. VITTENGL-You never know. MR. CARVIN-That's right. You never know. Does staff understand what our problem is? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So we're not looking for 68 feet back. talking 60 feet, right? We're MR. THOMAS-Where did they measure the setback from? MR. CARVIN-The house. foot deck on there. In other words, I'm looking at an eight MR. THOMAS-How do they measure it from the lake? MR. CARVIN-I don't know. That's why I'm looking at this, and I'm trying to figure out whether we've got 60 or 68? MS. CIPPERLY-From the closest point of the lake to the front of t.he dec k is 60. DR. VITTENGL-This is a marker from the closest point on the shore. It's about 68. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but you see you've got to take it from the deck. DR. VITTENGL-Correct. MR. CARVIN-So if you loose the deck, then it's 68 feet, no it's 60 feet. DR. VITTENGL-Correct. MR. CARVIN-No. It's 68 here. If you loose the deck, it's 68, because he's saying it's 68 to here. DR. VITTENGL-But there's a limited amount of space. off back here, and we'd have to fit this in on the as well as parking, etc. This drops uppeì· mou nd , MR. CARVIN-So he's proposing 60 feet, right? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? MR. MENTER-I have a question, regarding the access. Where's the nearest road? Where does road end and right-of-way begin? DR. VITTENGL-There are two entrances to the property. From the back, you follow Birdsall in, it's shown on the map, as far as location, rough draft, if you went completely to the end of that road, this is the dead end, and then the Birdsall Road. At the very end of it, there's a right.-of-way agreement between the last three, four camps, and that's where they excavated (lost words) access from the property. There's also a right-of-way to the camp down in front, the other side of (lost words) but at the end of that entrance, that's how you get to the camp directly east of t.hat. - 34 - (Cueensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) MS. CIPPERLY-We went through this question on the Fitz variance, and the Town road, after some amount of discussion with Paul Naylor, I think it ends way out by where the pavement ends, out on Birdsall Road where the bike trail cuts across. I think that was our best guess, because she needed the same relief, and she's further in than. MR. MENTER-Yes. So it's essentially all right-of-way. MR. CARVIN-Well, it's been there, and I'm assuming the camp is occupied? DR. VITTENGL-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Or has been occupied recently. I don't know, what's staff's feeling about that? MS. CIPPERLY-The road access? MR. CARVIN-Are we going to have a problem for fire trucks or emergency vehicles if we needed to get up into there? MS. CIPPERLY-I guess I look at it as an existing situation, in that there's already a structure there. This is maybe even an improvement, because it's not quite as far down in, but that right-of-way situation has existed for years. MR. GREEN-The house right next to you, that's a year round house? DR. VITTENGL-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Is this going to be year round, or is this just going to be seasonal? DR. VITTENGL-No. This is seasonal. MRS. LAPHAM-But will it be seasonal in your plans, insulated heat, so someone could live in it year round? DR. VITTENGL-You could, I don't plan on insulating it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions? the public hearing. All right. I'll open up PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ROBERT HUGHES MR. HUGHES-My name's Robert Hughes. I'd like to preface that I'm not speaking in direct opposition. However, there are many issues that really need to be clarified. My family's owned the property that actually is the (lost word) bog described as Mud Pond. I had no malice intended toward my esteemed colleague here until the letter was read that I felt was commenting that Mud Pond doesn't require setback of 100 feet. I have to take specific issue with that commentary. To speak about Mud Pond, which my family happens to own 95% of, it's a pretty delicately balanced, isolated pit, created by a glacial deposits. I think to preface a little bit about the piece of land we're talking about, we're talking about a high ridge, about 50 feet high, about 200 feet wide, that's a deposit of glacial mareen, mostly large cobble and sand, which is between Mud Pond and Glen Lake. I find it difficult to see where a septic system is going to be able to be placed, if you respect my pond as it should be, because I don't think you've got 200 feet plus the width of a septic system. Issues like this have come up before, and you can put holding pits in for your septic, instead of actually having drains. Another point that I think needs to be made is that the - 35 - (Cueensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) access road that you've been talking about is where they've really knocked off the knob of the glacial hill. It's really a long ridge, and I've just brought some photographs of what the two owners have done, where they knocked the knob off, they knocked it off toward Mud Pond, and it's left quite a bit of rubble exposed, and it's been 10 years and more, and there's not a bit of grass growing on it, and I just would like to submit them for your review, but those are the two issues I have. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Staff, do you have any comment on that? MS. CIPPERLY-As far as the Rush Pond issue, I'd really have to ask Dave Hatin about that, if it's a septic question. DR. VITTENGL-Actually, I think on the map the view shows it 80 feet off some position in the swampy area, not the pond frontage itself. MR. HUGHES-Actually, that swamp is actually our property also. Although I would agree it's not designated wetlands. There's been a lot of people that have gotten in trouble for doing anything right there. MR. CARVIN-Are these issues that should be maybe addressed at site plan? MR. HILTON-We could raise them at site plan review. Personally, I'd feel more comfortable, as Sue said, if it is something that Dave Hatin would be more, if he's be better. to answer it, I'd want to speak to him first, and then, if need be, discuss it at site plan review. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is this something that should bear significance on an Area Variance? MS. CIPPERLY-Since it's been described as a seasonal camp, the possibility of the holding tank is there. It's not an acceptable system for a year round residence, unless they go to the Town Board for a variance. On the other hand, things have a way of turning into year round residences, also. I guess, as far as whether the Area Variance would be affected, I guess the question comes down to, if you want to give the variance, he's still got to get by the building code before he can construct the house. In order to put the septic system in or put the house up, it's going to have to meet the building code. MR. GREEN-I guess my question is, this land is a swamp, Mud Pond, whatever we want to call it, if it's not designated any protected area or anything other than just land, you know, do we really have to make an issue out of it at this point? MR. HUGHES-It is designated as on someone's map. I don't know whether it's a State map or a County map. It has been, and I've been visited by forest rangers over that issue before. It has been designated by someone. It's a small enough (lost words) that it really hasn't been recognized much on maps,' but. it. is very ckd icate. DR. VITTENGL-In regard to myself, I have no issue in regard to conforming to whatever codes she had mentioned would be required at the time of building, if that truly is the case, and I need to conform to whatever codes they may be. MS. CIPPERLY-Apparently, it says here Tom Jarrett had the discussion with Town personnel, concluded that the area's not a water supply, and therefore~ a 100 foot setback does not apply, but you may have talked to Dave, and the other thing I was going to mention, just because it's not classified as DEC wetland, that - 36 -- (Cueensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) may just be because of it's size, because DEC only goes down to, like, 12 acres in size. I don't know how big Mud Pond is, but that may be why it's been not classified. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MENTER-What about the neighbor immediately to the west? DR. VITTENGL-He was here earlier this evening. His name's Glen Powell. Nothing specific, other than the question that was raised in the letter. MR. THOMAS-No. Powell is on the east. DR. VITTENGL-Excuse me. I'm sorry. MR. THOMAS-Horowitz is on the west. MR. HUGHES-I believe that house has been sold in the last. DR. VITTENGL-Yes, it's been re-sold in the last six months. MR. CARVIN-While we're still on the public hearing, anyone wishing to be heard? Any correspondence? MR. THOMAS-Yes. This was received 2/27/96. "Why waste more tax money with these meetings, and why should the homeowners show concern? It is nothing more than a formality to cover your butts as you all let every guideline be broken that we all worked so hard for over the years to protect - the Lake!! Be aware, if it wasn't for the efforts of the Glen Lake Association and their diligence to protect the lake, none of the properties would have any value tax wise to Queensbury. Until the Board has sense enough to be aware of this and adhere to the requirements enacted to protect the Lake and already established homeowners these meetings are looked upon as a waste of time and tax dollars!! Many are leaving the area because of this situation and fear that within the next five years the properties and lake will be worthless. How sad!! For our offspring and Cueensbury!! Mr. Thomas, we hope you will share our feelings by reading this memo to the Board expressing the sentiments we all feel. I am sure one of us will attend the outcome!! Thank you. South End Homeo¡,.mers" No signatures, just the "South End Homeowners". MR. CARVIN-I guess it's safe to say there's no return address. MR. THOMAS-You're right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other correspondence? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other public comment? All right. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MENTER-Let me rephrase my question. Has anybody spoken to the guy who had just purchased that property on the left? DR. VITTENGL-They aren't in the area, as far as I'm aware, until some time in the spring. MR. MENTER-I see. As far as comment goes, again, there's nothing can be done by way or improvement or building or anything on that lot that doesn't require a variance, certainly side setback variances. I'm not 100%, or even close to it, clear on the issues that may be involved, in terms of the setback from the - 37 - (Cueensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) lake, in other words, exactly how much room is usable out behind the proposed house, and I Just feel like I Just don't know whether that could be moved back or not. MR. GREEN-I like the idea of coming back from the lake. At least that's an improvement, putting the leach field back from the lake, but then we're running into a problem with the back end of it also. I'm not sure that that's our concern. I think that may have to come more on the building permit and the code and what have you, whether you can put a sewer system there or not, relative to Mud Pond. I kind of agree with Dave that we're only short here 15 feet, as far as the lake is concerned. The sides there isn't much we can do with. I'm not certain we couldn't get a little bit more back. DR. VITTENGL-Your comment in regard' to that, I had talked at length with John Goralski in regard to setbacks and such, and in regard to the distance from the lake, most of that being visual impact from the water, you don't want to change things, etc. Two things would happen. One thing I did was, instead of going 35 feet, I kept the building at 30 feet, to be sensitive to that, and we talked about the changes that may be coming down the road, and in regard to their requirements. The second thing being I put the house back 75 feet, that could be (lost words) there's quite an obstructive view from the neighbor on one side, and who knows, down the road, what'll happen to the camp on the other slde. MR. GREEN-I noticed that myself. MR. CARVIN-Not to interrupt, but I'd like to recommend that, Just as a thought, that the applicant was requesting 68 feet to the house, and if the deck is left off, he would be at 68 feet, which I don't have a real problem with 68 feet. Now, I don't know if the Town is going to change the setback, but I suspect that at some point in the future, it may go to 50 feet, in which case, you could build your deck. So I guess what I'm trying to imply here, is that if you didn't have a deck, you'd be 68 feet back from the lake, and if they do go to 50 feet, you can always build your deck at a later point. MR. THOMAS-A bigger one. MR. CARVIN-Or even a bigger one, but we won't get into that. So, I didn't mean to interrupt. MR. GREEN-In general, I think it's a pretty well thought out plan. The first question I had when I went out there was how they got that trailer down there to begin with, or how you're going to get it out, but I think it's an improvement. You're getting back from the lake, and your septic is going to be a new septic. We're talking seasonal here, not real intensive at this point. I don't have a problem with it, just in general. MRS. LAPHAM-I really am hard put to see what else he could do, on this particular lot, but I am interested in hearing mOTe about Mud Pond, and whether that is or is not any kind of factor or thing that we have to think about. MS. CIPPERLY-The Zoning Board doesn't usually address septic issues. They address structures and setbacks. MRS. LAPHAM-So we don't concern oursel0es with that at all? MR. CARVIN-Well, I think this be referred to sIte this, under normal circumstances, would plan? MS. CIPPERLY-If it were an expansion of an existing camp, it - 38 - (Cueensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) would be. Since it wouldn't be. it's taking down a camp and it's You have the ability to do that. a vacant lot, MR. GREEN-Somebody wanted it back here, didn't they? MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, it's got to go to Warren County. So I think it's going to have to go to site plan. MS. CIPPERLY-Because Warren County said it had to? MR. CARVIN-No, I just am more comfortable, because I'm not comfortable with the fact of the land out there. I mean, I don't have a setbacks, and as I said, I don't have a problem. I mean, there's nothing that, you know, to use the lot, I mean, some kind of relief has to be granted, but I êl!l uncomfortable not knowing exactly what's underneath the ground there, and what kind of problems or headaches that we might be opening up, that was beyond the realm of this Board, but it still should be a concern, and that's why I would refer this to site plan, and certainly I think that would bring in Mud Pond and any of the septic conditions that, and ¡"Jhat that does, it gives t.he gentleman back there at least another opportunity to present that case, if there is a detriment out there. DR. VITTENGL-Is it possible to get approval for a pump out tank and then pursue the other option, if that is a viable option, to the Building Department? MR. CARVIN-Well, again, all I'm concerned with is the setbacks, in other words, whether it's prudent and just to give you a setback from the lake and the side yards, the side things. The rest of it really falls out of our purview, but I think it should be part of the system there some place. MR. THOMAS-In the staff notes, they say that, an 11 foot side yard setback. I measure seven because of the deck, on both the east and the west side. They went to the house again, even staff went to the house again, not to the deck. That's a problem. How do you propose to get down to the lake from this house, the same way, with the same set of stairs, or something right along that line? DR. VITTENGL-No. I have a drawing showing a (lost words) off the front. It's going to be a two story building. The basement will be built into the hill. So you're kind of halfway down that hill from there, and then there would be a series of retaining walls with berms and stairs going down from that, probably half the stairs, or actually maybe less, because that traverses across. MR. THOMAS-How many stories is this house? DR. VITTENGL-It's a single story with a basement. The basement's built into the hill side. MS. CIPPERLY-You're building new stairs? DR. VITTENGL-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-Those would be subject to setbacks, also. DR. VITTENGL-Stairs are subject to? MS. CIPPERLY-They are going down to your deck? DR. VITTENGL-No. The deck was actually going to extend out from t.he upper level. MS. CIPPERLY-Do you have drawings? -- 39 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) DR. VITTENGL-Yes. The be out here, and then a deck would be out here, the doorway would series of steps going down. MS. CIPPERLY-Going down to the lake? DR. VITTENGL-Yes. The lake is down in front. MR. GREEN-Not off the upper deck. basement? They're coming off the DR. VITTENGL-Right, from the lower end, from the lower level to the lake, not from the upper deck. MS. CIPPERLY-I'm not sure on that. There's no hardsurfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline, and it may fall into the deck category. MR. CARVIN-Well, is this a complete application or isn't it, I guess is the question? If it's not a complete application, then I'd refer it back. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, we didn't know there were stairs involved. MR. CARVIN-Well, there appears to be stalrs involved, I guess. MS. CIPPERLY-Down to the lake from the, you know. MR. CARVIN-Well, it seems to me we've got some misinformation, here. I mean, it seems to me that we've got some side yard irregularities. I mean, we're going from, you know, the house, but it's the deck, and both on the front, and the side. Now we've got steps, now a question on Mud Pond, possibly. I don't know, the more we keep tripping up here, we keep finding things. I mean, I don't know, does staff want to take a look at this again, to make sure that we've got a complete application? MS. CIPPERLY-It would be good to know exactly what the treatment is going to be between the deck and the lake. MR. CARVIN-What if we referred this over to Planning, because I'd like to get some additional tests in the ground out there, in other words, if this is meringue, as they call it, or is this thing going to hold a house on the hill? I mean, are we going to have some problems putting this thing there? MS. CIPPERLY-For their opinion, refer it. MR. CARVIN-This way you can maybe get your ducks in a row, as far as getting all these items squared away. DR. VITTENGL-The house It's about eight years fashion. next ago. door is It was fairly new construction. built in the very same MR. CARVIN-But is that built in the hill? DR. VITTENGL-Yes. MR. CARVIN-It is? MR. THOMAS-Yes. It's built the same way. DR. VITTENGL-They have a series of stairs, in fact, running directly from the camp completely to the water out in front of the house. MR. THOMAS-It shows on that drawing right there. It shows those wood stairs going right down to the lake. - 40 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm looking for a recommendation, staff, here, I guess. MS. CIPPERLY-I think we should refer it to the Planning Board for an advisory opinion, but also ask the applicant to show exactly what's going on between the structure and the lake. DR. VITTENGL-Can I show you what's on the drawing, that might shed some light on that. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, you wanted the setbacks. MR. CARVIN-Why don't I postpone this until later. We've got one other application that probably is going to take some time, and I do want to be out of here by 11 o'clock. So if this thing is going to take some time to thrash out, I'd rather table it or refer it back to Staff to get this thing in order, and we'll postpone it until next month. MS. CIPPERLY-I really don't know that I can resolve the issue of the stairs tonight. MR. CARVIN-That's what I was going to say, and I think we've gotten misinformation. I mean, Chris has pointed out what appears to be a problem, both with the setback and the side, and I think that if the applicant is going to go at 68, then the deck is going to have to come off, which may alter his whole plan as far as the house. I don't know. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, I would he's proposing for access that's structural or what. made of. like to have Jim Martin look at what down the lake to determine whether I don't know what it's going to be MR. CARVIN-I guess, in application here, then, misinformation. looking at it, I don't see a complete is what you're saying, or it's got some MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I think I'm going to refer this back to Planning. I'm going to table this. What's the Board's feeling on this? Table it? MR. THOMAS-Yes. Table it, throw it back to Planning, get the stairs results, get the side line setbacks resolved. Which way is it, seven, eleven? MR. CARVIN-Yes. I agree. MR. MENTER-That makes sense, and also I'd like to get some kind of a clarification as far as the rear property line, the factors that are involved on the rear, the south side. MR. CARVIN-All right, Bill, have you got any thoughts on tabling t.his? MR. GREEN-No. I don't mind tabling it. MRS. LAPHAM-I'm in agreement with that. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-1996 MORGAN VITTENGL, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Menter: I'm going to refer this application back to Planning. There appears to be a number of items that need to be resolved before t.his Board is comfortable in making a motion. I think that the - 41 - (Cueensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) staff should investigate the Mud Pond issue. I would ask staff to verify what the ground looks like out there, if we're going to have any problems with construction. If need be, this should be referred to the Planning for advisory, and I think we need to get the correct figures as far as the setbacks, and also if there's additional variances that may be needed or required. So I would ê\$k you to review thiË; to make sure that we have a complete appl i¿ation " and I wou 1'9 table th.1s for 60 days. Duly a~opted this 28t~ day of Febfuary, 1996, by the following vote: t-1S. CIPPERLY-Dö 'you want this referred to the Planning Board? MR. CARVIN-Do you think it should be? I mean, can we do that all within the 60 day? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Then why don't we refer it to Planning, I mean, if it can be done: I ~)n'twant to hold the applicant up. : MS. CIPPERLY-Well, conceivably, Planning Board meeting, and on meeti ng . it could be on the first March the Zoning Board for the second MR. THOMAS-Sue, how close does this th{~g come in reality? MS. CIPPERLY-That is gOing to the Town Board on Monday night to set a public hearing which..I assume will be toward the end of March. I dOn't know what th¿ir. MR. THOMAS-What if this passes through as written, before the Vittengls come back? Would he be under the new? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. THOMAS-'Be'caUse this is saying a50 foot shoreline setback and a 15 foot side line, 60 foot or less lot width. MS. CIPPERLY-He would need less relief. MR. THOMAS-He would need less relief from the side lines. He wouldn't need any from the lake. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Well, I think that if that goes through, we're not arguing that. MR. THOMAS-Ye~? MS. CIPPERL Y-So IrJhy don't you make them stay 68 feet back frorn the lake with this variance. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but it's the side lines. MR. CARVIN-Yes, I know, but it's the side lines and some of these other issues, plus if you say that there's steps that's going to cause a problem, lets get it squared away. Okay. AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOE:3: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford MR. CARVIN-Okay. So itJs tabled for 60 days, or you can bring it back sooner, as long as we can get the information. So I'd ask you to work with staff on that to get this thing into order. - 42 -- --<- (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) Tha nk you. MR. THOMAS-And if the law changes. MR. CARVIN-Then we've got one less item. Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-1996 TYPE II WR-1A CEA JONATHAN BERGER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SECOND LOT FROM THE END OF MASON ROAD ON THE LEFT SIDE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE A DECK ATTACHED 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. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 2/14/96 TAX MAP NO. 13-1-2 LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES SECTION 179- 16, 179-60 JONATHAN BERGER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 6-1996, Jonathan Berger, Meeting Date: February 28, 1996 "PROJECT LOCATION: Mason Road PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant proposes to replace a deck attached to a single family home. This deck would not meet the shoreline setbacks of Section 179-60 and the side yard setbacks of Section 179-16. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE, ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267, TOWN LAW. 1. BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT: The applicant states that he could replace a decaying, unsafe deck with a deck that would be safe to walk on. 2. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: There does not appear to be any alternatives that could provide a lesser amount of relief. 3. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE?: The shoreline setback is 75 feet and the side setback is 20 feet. The applicant proposes 30 feet of shoreline setback and 1 foot of side yard setback. 4. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY?: It appears that the proposed construction would not have any adverse impact on the neighborhood. There may be additional comments provided at the public hearing. 5. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED?: No. This lot contains approximately .26 acres in a zone (WR-1A) that requires a lot size of 1 acre. Any construction of a deck in the existing location would have difficulty maintaining the side yard and shoreline setbacks. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 14th day of February 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to replace an old deck. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: With the condition that there is no substantial increase or encroachment into the existing setback and it is basically a one for one replacement on the building footprint." Signed C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there anything that you'd care to add? MR. BERGER-Well, I can give you the background on it. It was an old, untreated wood deck, and it was built before the era of treated lumber, and over the last three years, the neighborhood squirrels have made it obvious to me I had a problem when they started burying acorns in it. Last summer, there were several seedlings growing in some areas of it. There were little tables strategical placed where my grandchildren couldn't walk. I had it rented to my next door neighbors for a couple of weeks, and I replaced the deck. So this is kind of after the fact. After I replaced it, Mr. O'Brien was checking a new room that my next door neighbors had on the back of their house and saw that I had a new deck and came over and told me that I couldn't do that. That's why I'm here. The original footings were used to replace -- 43 -- (Cueensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) the deck. The design and size is substantially the same. The slope of the property would make it impossible to put chairs or a picnic table anywhere in the yard within 50 feet of the house, in any direction. Also because of the slope of the property and the narrowness of the house, it would aesthetically look kind of ridiculous without that deck that allows it to look lowered. The basement is exposed down below it. MR. MENTER-When was the original deck built? MR. BERGER-In the late 70's. I believe it was '78 or '79. MR. CARVIN-And the replacement deck was put on? MR. BERGER-Just last summer. MR. CARVIN-Now you said "substantially" the same. How much, can you define "substantially"? What was the old deck? How much larger is this deck than the old deck? MR. BERGER-It might several inches larger on the front and one sIde.. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So the old deck was approximately how big? MR. BERGER-I don't have dimensions. The old deck was, the new deck is essentially the same as the old deck was. I can't be exactly sure because I never measured the old deck. I just told him to replace the deck as it was, and it was done. He used the original footing. Every post is in the original footing. That little rod that came out is up into the new post, and it looks exactly the same. My neighbors on both sides, thank God for small favors, have praised it, liked it, don't see any difference in it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? MF<. n·IOI"IAS-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JUDY WETHERBEE MRS. WETHERBEE-I'm Judy Wetherbee. I also live on Mason Road, and I have, will have, the same problem. Almost every house from probably mine north, to the end of Cleverdale, on the west side of Cleverdale, will have this problem, because we all have decks, and as you know, they eventually rot out, and you have the decks for years, and it's just a case of housekeeping, and repairing rotted wood, and obviously, it doesn't have a roof. It gets a lot of exposure, and they, periodically, rot. We've been fortunate. We didn't think we were breaking any rules. We have replaced, occasionally, a board. 50 far we've not had to replace any uprights, but the time's going to come, and I think it's kind of, it seems like it's an, something like that letter that that man wrote. Why do we have to come here to replace something that if our insurance company came and saw would probably cancel our insurance and say, hey, until you replace that, we're not going to give you coverage for liability, and I had no idea that this was going to be on tonight. I came for something else. I listened, and when I realized what Mr. Berger was here for, I thought, I may have the same problem some day, and apparently I cannot just go ahead and fix a deck that's been there for years, and I guess that's my question. Do we have to get permission to replace something that's been there for years, and if so, why? I mean, I'm not being rude. .,. 44 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) MS. your ')lour off. CIPPERLY-There's a difference between replacing even just decking, as you've said, you replaced, you know, boards on deck, would be fine, but this whole deck really was taken MRS. WETHERBEE-But see, that's the whole point. MS. CIPPERLY-And it also required a building permit. MRS. WETHERBEE-But that's my question. Why would it if you're just replacing something that there? You're not making it any bigger this way or this way. You're using the same, I assume you left the cement footing there. If we had to replace ours, that's ¡,.¡hat we do. MS. CIPPERLY-It's because it's what's called a nonconforming structure. I n other wOì·ds, at least his deck is fUì·ther out. MRS. WETHERBEE-There again, I think, all on that side of Cleverdale will be, because the land slopes so. In order to use a level area, you have to have a deck, or ')lOU have to have something, either a deck or a porch that's enclosed. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, that's an explanation of the, how it came about, and I'm not siding with one side or the other. MRS. WETHERBEE-But you're saying that all of us will have to come before this Board to replace the uprights? MR. MENTER-Unfortunately, legally speaking, it's a structure, like a building, something that's on your building, and it doesn't conform to what the Code says. We're not saying we don't like decks in front of your houses. It's just one of those stupid little things that happens to fall within the. MRS. WETHERBEE-If I put on a new roof, do I have to, then, too? Because that's going to come up pretty soon. MS. CIPPERLY-No. That wouldn't require a variance. MR. CARVIN-Unless you extended ')lour roof out toward the lake. MRS. WETHERBEE-No, I understand. Yes. MR. BERGER-How about a gutter, if I wanted to add a gutter to my place? MR. CARVIN-Again, we could be here all night, you know, arguing. I'm just saying that, unfortunately, that these are nonconforming situations, and you are familiar with the Mooring Post. Well, tell me the difference between what you did and what they did? MS. CIPPERLY-Other than magnitude. MR. CARVIN-Other than magnitude. MRS. WETHERBEE-Well, no, because I'm not changing it. changi ng his. He's MR. CARVIN-Well, we don't know that. MRS. WETHERBEE-Well, his plans show that it's going to be entirely different. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, what I'm saying is that, he just shot the gun first, and now wants to put the bullet back in, and we have no idea, sitting here, I don't know whether there was a seven foot deck there, or a seven inch deck. Do you see what I'm ·W 45 -- (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) saying? MRS. WETHERBEE-I didn't understand that. you were Just choosing the same thing. I didn't realize that MR. BERGER-Would you like a photograph? MS. CIPPERLY-Sure. MR. CARVIN-We're not begrudging anybody a deck. I mean, if it's a safety issue, believe me. MRS. WETHERBEE-I'm plan. So, okay, perm! t. just flabbergasted that you have I understand now, and I will have to have to get a a MR. THOMAS-It worried about. shows it It's the from the side, that's same rail. the one I'd be MR. CARVIN-Again, I don't know if we could have backed it off a little bit, it's got one foot on the property line. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but if he had the upright over there before, what's he going to do, move it? MR. CARVIN-I don't know. Unfortunately, I don't know. MR. THOMAS-That looks like the same deck. MR. CARVIN-I don't know. Can you tell me how wide that deck 1" "'<> '"' . MR. THOMAS-What, on the front here, about nine foot. Hey, I'm the one with the ruler. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. BERGER-You can judge how f¿r the deck goes in front., because the sliding glass door is a certain width, and you can just. MR. CARVIN-Okay. you in support? Well, again, the public hearing is open. Are TOM BURKE MR. BURKE-Yes. I'm in support. My name is Tom Burke. I'm four doors away from Jon, and I have recalled seeing his old deck. I don't know what sizes. I wasn't that close to it, but I do know that it did need replacement, and he has replaced it, and it looks fine, and I'm with Mrs. Wetherbee. I was surprised to hear that we had to have a variance to rebuild something that's rotting, and if the boards underneath need replacement, would we dare to just do part of the deck? I think the whole thing would have to go, if it was all put in and one time. So I am surprised, and Mrs. Wetherbee is too, that we would need this thing. I'm here to support Jon's case. I don't know if you've changed the size, Jon, again, I haven't been close to it. It's your I.>Jor d . MR. BERGER-It's longer on one side. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. BURKE-We all have to go through this at one time or another, and it's a question that we ask, and it's going to take a lot of your time, too. MR. CARVIN-It already has, and I don't have answers for you. I really don't, but, you know, I do know that when we are presented - 46 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) with a fate accompli, we have less to go on. I mean, I don't know what we can do here. MRS. WETHERBEE-Are there other repairs that like that (lost words) because I don't want to break the law, but I really don't know. MR. CARVIN-Well, I don't have the Codes memorized, and I'm sure that staff doesn't, but I'm just saying that in that area, I think that everybody should be very sensitive, because we've had four cases tonight, I think three cases involved lake areas, and I think you can see the passion and intensity that these particular things do arouse. So, you know, I can't mandate people's actions, but I think that if I was a resident out on Mason Road, I'd be awful sensitive to any changes that I did, and I'd want to make sure that I had all the bases covered as best I could, because I'll guarantee that if you go in one direction, there's going to be people over there saying you should have gone in the other direction. I mean, that's just a fact of life out there, it seems, but in any event, we've got this particular situation. Is there any other public comment? MR. BERGER-As I've already noted, I haven't had any adverse comments from anybody that I know of along that side. MR. CARVIN-Is there any correspondence? MR. THOMAS-None whatsoever. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other public comment? Seeing none, hearing none, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay, folks. MR. THOMAS-I don't see any problem with this. In fact, I don't even think the applicant should be here for something like this, but somebody says he has to be. I don't see why he can't replace his deck in place, because of it's rotting, deteriorating, or anything like that. MR. CARVIN-I think a building permit was in order. MR. THOMAS-I do believe a building permit should have been, you know, the applicant should have applied for one of those, but I don't think the variance should be necessary. Well, since he is here before us and the Building Department says he needs a variance, well, I think we should give it to him, even though he has built a new deck. MR. MENTER-Aren't you glad you didn't make it bigger? MR. BERGER-I certainly had no intention to do anything wrong. It didn't occur to me at all that I had to. MR. MENTER-Yes, I agree with Chris. MR. GREEN-I don't have a problem with replacing the deck, one for one, and all this. My only concern is what Fred is alluding to, that just since I've been here, this cart before the horse has come up three or four times, and it really bothers me every single time, but I don't have an answer to it, and you've got a perfect example of, you know, what we have just down the road, that we're going to have to deal with shortly. MR. MENTER-Well, the question, to me, is would this have been granted? - 47 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) MR. GREEN-Sure it would. MR. MENTER-Okay. So there's no problem of the cart before the hOì- se . MR. CARVIN-Yes, but he should have applied, I mean, there is a mechanism that he went way outside, and now we're presented with a dilemma, and then we'll, somebody will comment, "'Jell, gee whiz, he got away with it because he built it first and then came and asked for permission. MR. GREEN-And I can just see where people aTe going to well, I'll save the money and build, and if I get caught, well, then I'll pay the money, and be done with it, and with little decks like that, I can see that happening. MR. CARVIN-Sure. MR. GREEN-In addition, I'm going to say, where people aren't going to take their chances, but I can see, as the woman said, everybody down through there's going to have to do this at some point, and if we start, if you start letting them go. MR. BERGER-I can assure you that if you do let this go, I won't go out advertising (lost words) easily. MR. CARVIN-I think it's already been advertised. MRS. LAPHAM-My feeling is what Bill's alluding to is people sticking on decks here and there, and I think that's completely different from what Mr. Berger did, which I can agree with his neighbor who called it "housekeeping". You can't just let a property deteriorate to the point where it's unsafe. He definitely ~shou.ld have gotten a building permit first, but at this point, I would be in favor of it, making sure he realizes it's not easy, but to grant the variance. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say. I think we had one other deck, there, that the guy built, and I don't know whatever resolved. Did he ever cut off part of it? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, he did. MR. GREEN-Did he really? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. GREEN-All right. That's nice to know. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, I also was you just had somebody up here lake, and the deck made it difficult time. So, I mean, existing house, too, because your deck, but, you know, I just sit things. Just sitting here thinking, well, whose house was 68 feet from the 60, and you were giving him a there's a difference with an éntrances and things onto the here and think about those MR. GREEN-I don't have a problem with this variance. I mean, I don't think there's any other ~.¡ay about it, but this is the same concern I had the last time, and the last time that, you know, I really hate to do it, but I don't see any alternative. I mean, we can't very well, you know, there's no penalty involved. There's no excessive, and I don't want to penalize you. You're trying to make it safe. MR. THOMAS-What if the squirrels started a fire in there and burned that deck off? - 48 -- (Cueensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) MS. CIPPERLY-Squirrels don't start fires. MR. THOMAS-How do you know? What if the deck had burned off for some reason or another? MS. CIPPERLY-If it was rotting, it wouldn't burn anyway. MR. THOMAS-You could replace in place, if it's burned, or if a tree came down through it. Say a tree came down through it. MS. CIPPERLY-Do you want to filibuster here, or what? MR. THOMAS-No. What if a tree came down through it? He could replace it in place, right? No problem. MS. CIPPERLY-That's true, and the Ordinance says you can. MR. THOMAS-That's right. MS. CIPPERLY-It's just that it's been pointed out in the last couple of years that you can't do that. MR. THOMAS-So, Mrs. Wetherbee, when you need to replace your deck, put a tree through it. MRS. WETHERBEE-I hope you didn't think I was arguing with you people. I just was shocked when I realized why he was here. MR. MENTER-We're que:3t ions. sitting here asking ourselves the same MR. GREEN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-When was the original deck put on? MR. BERGER-It was put on in the late 70's, but I don't know the exact year. May I add that all of the exits from my house, except one, are on that deck. It would be a fire hazard if I couldn't get out of the house. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but is there any reason that you need a nine foot deck? MR. BERGER-That's what was there. MRS. WETHERBEE-I think a house that high needs something like t.hat. MR. BERGER-Isn't there some way that you can figure out from that photograph that it's nine feet, from the width of the sliding glass door? MR. GREEN- I t, opportunity to too k your dec k to the shore. may be, but the idea is that when you have an reduce, you know, the nonconformance, as when you off, you had the opportunity to make it less close MR. CARVIN-If you had gone through the procedure the right way, I would have had you lose this one or two feet here, to be very honest with you, because if I could back, it may seem like a minor point, but I would have had you square that to the house. Okay. Because I would get it off, because you're only probably, what, about a foot or so. Now it may not seem like a big deal, but I have no idea what this is, if that's one or two feet, but that gives a little bit more space, or a little bit more conformance to the Ordinance. Now, I mean, if you want to make a point, I guess we could grant a variance but have him back this part off, but that's kind of ludicrous. So I'd ask for a motion. -- 49 _. (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. Introduced by David Menter who moved by Chris Thomas: 6-1996 JONATHAN BERGER, for its adoption, seconded Applicant proposes to replace a deck attached to a single family home, requiring relief from the side setback requirements of 179- 16, which would require 20 feet, and shoreline restrictions of Section 179-60. The applicant has replaced a deck on his home, maintaining the same dimensions that the original deck had, because of rotting of the original deck. He ~.¡as Unav.¿H(':: of the requirement for permit and variance, and is here after the fact. The benefit to the applicant is that he will maintain the same entrances, etc. There was no increase in size of the deck. The original piers were used in construction of the new deck. The relief of 45 feet is granted from the shoreline setback, and relief of 19 feet would be granted from the side setback. While the side setback appears to be substantial, it corresponds to the location of the house, which is extremely close to the side property line. There was no neighborhood or public opposition to the deck, and neighbors asserted that the size of the deck is the same as it originally was. This deck would appear to have no negative effects on the community. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 1996, by the following v'ote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Carvin ABSENT: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford MR. CARVIN-Okay. One final item of business, and that's LeeMilt Petroleum, and I'm not positive I understand all the ramifications, but to bring everybody up to speed, back a couple of months ago, thereabouts, we granted a variance to Garafolo gifts or something like that. MR. THOMAS-Yes, trains and flowers. MR. CARVIN-Trains and flowers, and as part of our recommendation, we had recommended that a permanent barrier be erected in some fashion, pretty much leaving it to the Planning Board, if memory serves correct, as to the height and method, and as I understand it, I think there's one issue that has come up, and possibly two. The issue is that when it went to the Planning, the Planning Board, could I tactfully say, pretty much ignored our recommendation, and has come up with some kind of totally alien alternative, which raises the question as to whether he actually has a variance, I think, and I may be going far field, because we had structured our request in such a fashion that it does not appear to be complied with, and I don't know, I think, George, you've got another issue. Am I gone far afield? The other issue, I'm going to throw it out, here, is the fact that I don't know, but if he's locating his plumbing business there. MR. HILTON-I'll tell you the truth. This is something that John's been handling. I know sketchy details of this, and what I do know, last night, before the Planning Board, Jon presented thlS as a discussion item, with the schematic that showed a different traffic circulation pattern for the property. The Planning Board recommended, or agreed, that they would just leave it as was approved, as the plan was approved. So they didn't recommend or vote to make any changes to the plan, leaving it as is. As far as any of your other questions and concerns, I have - 50 - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) no information for you. night. I haven't spoken to John since last MR. CARVIN-Okay. I have not seen the plan, but I'm assuming that there is no provision for a permanent barricade, I don't remember what our motion exactly read, but I'm pretty sure that I'm pretty close on that, that we wanted some kind of permanent barricade, or obstruction. If all else fails, read the minutes. "Applicant proposes to utilize two business shops", okay, "Applicant proposes to utilize two business shops in the rear of Getty Station on the corner of Dixon and Aviation. The area that's going to be used has previously held two businesses. The previous variance that was granted was conditioned up a new variance when new tenants wished to lease the space. This variance would be conditioned on, One, that it is granted to limit Getty Petroleum to allow Mr. Garafolo to operate a model train and gift business and a cut flower business. The ownerships of those businesses to be Ralph Garafolo. Second, that if Mr. Garafolo no longer continues to conduct these businesses, that this variance would cease to exist. I feel that the applicant has provided significant information indicating that a reasonable return of the land cannot be expected without the use of all the space in the existing structure. This site was originally built to accommodate several businesses and the existing use of the site is consistent with the mix of uses in the neighborhood, and would not cause an adverse affect on the character of the neighborhood. There has been public opinion that this use would probably be an improvement to the site. Mr. Garafolo has expressed great concern that he would be certain to improve the appearance of the site. The other concern is the traffic through the rear. I wish to also condition this variance that through traffic from Dixon to Aviation or vice versa be eliminated behind the building, the blockage being of a permanent nature and to be placed so that a maximum of 10 parking spaces be retained, the manner and method of the barrier to be determined by the applicant, Mr. Garafolo, and to be approved by site plan review, and that any and all existing future signs be met and require the sign permit as necessary." Now that was made by Mr. Green and seconded by Mr. Ford. So I think our motion is pretty specific that we wanted a permanent blockage. MR. MENTER-Yes, I'd say it pretty much says that. MR. GREEN-That's not a real or anything through there. It's just a parking area. MR. CARVIN-OlAnd the other concern is traffic through the reaT, and this is conditioned that the through traffic from Dixon to Aviation, or vice versa, be eliminated". I don't think that's too unclear. MR. MENTER-Then I'd say the variance does not exist. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, I think that you might want to carry that back to the Planning, that unless there's some sort of permanent blockage, eliminating the traffic, that Mr. Garafolo doesn't not have a variance, and I would also point out and ask staff to make sure that his plumbing business, in other words, we granted a variance to him for flowers, model train and gift, unless he's in the habit of gifting plumbing. MR. GREEN-Yes, Chris, you asked him about that. He said he might put his truck in there during the winter or something. MR. THOMAS-Well, he said he might store a water heater or two in there if it came in on a truck, but I've seen that brown truck parked in that bay there, just after we gave them the variance, like for four or five days straight. .. 51 -. - (Queensbury ZBA meeting 2/28/96) MR. CARVIN-Yes, because that was not our intent, to have a third business, a fourth business in there. If you could relay our concern. MR. HILTON-Just for my information, what was the date on those minutes? MR. CARVIN-November 8, 1995. ~1R. HIL TON-O kay . MR. CARVIN-And that is Use Variance No. 85-1995, and it was unanimously approved by all present. So if you would express our concerns to Planning and to Mr. Goralski, I'd appreciate it. MR. HILTON-I will let John know. MR. CARVIN-Okay. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred A. Carvin, Chairman .- 52 -