Loading...
1996-02-21 r- ORIGINAL QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 21, f 9~6 INDEX .; ~ Area Variance No. 88-1995 Tax Map No. 107-1-54 Richard B. Slote c/o King Fuels .":,' ; j. Area Variance No. 1-1996 Tax Map No. 153-1-9 Herbert Heineman, Jr. Area Variance No. 2-1996 Tax Map No. 21-1-4 Richard & Jill Long Area Variance No. 75-1995 Discussion Item Alfred & Mary Ellen ~ristensen 1. -. I . 16. 23. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON TH~'FÓLLO~ING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL ,OF ~AID MINUTES. I'" :¡ ¡ , í ~' i; if , , r "' :' (I ~ . I ii, i, ¡'ii' , " , .' , ' :' ,~- ~ (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 2/21/96) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY ROBERT KARPELES WILLIAM GREEN BONNIE LAPHAM DAVID MENTER MEMBERS ABSENT THOMAS FORD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MARTIN-If I might, I just want to take an opportunity to introduce everybody to George Hilton. George is a new Assistant Planner in our office. He'll be direct staff to the Board from now on. Sue has gone on to help us with our long term planning, the Comprehensive Plan we want to really try and focus on that. So you'll be seeing George quite often, myself, and Sue will be in on occasion to try and rotate the meetings through, but a lot of the staff work and applications will be accomplished by George. MR. CARVIN-Welcome aboard, George, and good luck. MR. HILTON-Thank you very much. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-1995 TYPE II HC-1A RICHARD B. SLOTE c/o KING FUELS OWNER: THE KING SERVICE, INC. CORNER OF QUAKER AND BAY ROADS APPLICANT SEEKS TO LOCATE A PORTABLE SHED ON THEIR BAY ROAD PROPERTY, WHICH NEEDS RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-67A(3), ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, WHICH REQUIRES A 10 FT. SETBACK FROM THE REAR LINE, AND 50 FT. SEPARATION TO ANOTHER BUILDING. THIS CORNER LOT IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE TWO FRONT YARDS AND TWO REAR YARDS. SECTION 179-29C, TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE, REQUIRES A 75 FT. FRONT YARD SETBACK AND SECTION 179-23, HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, REQUIRES A 25 FT. REAR SETBACK. RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM BOTH SECTIONS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 12/13/95 TAX MAP NO. 107-1-54 LOT SIZE: 0.82 ACRES SECTION 179-29C, 179-67A(3), 179-23 RICHARD B. SLOTE, PRESENT MR. CARVIN-And I believe this was tabled. tabling? Do yoU have the MR. THOMAS-Yes, I do. MR. CARVIN-All right. Why don't yOU read that. MR. THOMAS-The meeting date was December 20, 1995, Variance File No. is 88-1995. "MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-1995 RICHARD B. SLOTE C/O KING FUELS, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: To allow the applicant a little additional time to come up with - 1 - (Cueensbury Zoning Board of App~als 2/21/96) some additional information as submitting a proper variance. to possibly re-siting or Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Gì"een, Mr. C;.HV in NOES: NONE" Signed, Fred A. Carvin, Chairman MR. CARVIN-Okay. If memory serves correct, we tabled this to give you a chance to consult with some consultants about re- locating the shed, and I'm assuming that you have accomplished such. I have seen some correspondence on that. MR. SLOTE-We talked to the New York state DEC, and they left it entirely up to us as long we had the system in operation, unless it was under re-construction. I talked to Longworth Environmental, having toured the site with me, the location that the shed is in is maximum efficiency using the least amount of elbows to pipe it. So then we called in a carpenter and we tried to see what we could do to make the shed as unobtTusive as possible. Did you receive copies of this? MR. CARVIN-I have received, I think, just a letter dated January 23rd. MR. MARTIN-I think George has some copies for you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. SLOTE-The shed that is currently there is approximately seven and ~ half feet high, and it does stand out. What we're hoping you'll allow us to do is take it away, and then rebuild the building at five foot height with a flat roof. We think it's very unobtrusive, and minimal visibility. MR. CARVIN-Okay. If memory also serves correct, I think you'd indicated this might be of a temporary nature. MR. SLOTE-We're hoping that it's a year to two years, maximum duration. It's in operation as we speak, and from what I hear from the environmentalists, it's doing a very good job of cleaning the situation. MR. KARPELES-You're saying a year to two years from now? MR. SLOTE-Or from its inception. I'd say, three months ago. We started the system about, MR. CARVIN-Well, I thought it wés longer than that. For some reason, I'm thinking this was back in June or July. MRS. LAPHAM-I thought it was last summer that it was started. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I thought it was last summer. MR. SLOTE-I think we installed it then, but the opeTation, the system was started, operated in maybe early fall. MRS. LAPHAM-And then it was supposed to be like a year, and now it's a year to two years. MR. SLOTE-I me an exact We' 're hopi ng possible. can't guarantee, the environmentalists wouldn't give date on when the contamination would be cleaned. for a year. We want to have it out as soon as .- 2 - -- (Cueensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 2/21/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? MR. MARTIN-Just for the Board's consideration, you may consider a timetable of approval, asking the applicant to come back in a year and provide a status report. MR. SLOTE-Can I offer something? New York State DEC produce every three months a brochure or booklet on exactly what the status is, and we provide it to them every three months. I could copy the Board if you'd like. MR. MARTIN-That's up to the Board. MR. KARPELES-It would and a hard place. I choice but to grant everything that could pQssible, lowering it. too? appear to me that they're between a rock really don't see where we have too much this, and I think that they're doing be done by making it as unobtrusive as Are you going to plant shrubs around it, MR. SLOTE-Well, I don't want them to try and hide it, everyone. to offend anybody. Either plant not plant them, whatever pleases MR. KARPELES-And I really don't think it's too bad right now. I never did think it was bad, but since it's a temporary nature, I think I'd go along with approving it. MR. MENTER-What was the extent of the discussion as to the alternatives to that location? Was it simply, this was the most efficient, or are there any dollars involved? MR. SLOTE-There are a lot of dollars involved, but also the only other spot that we could put it might be close to being as efficient as it now is to put it alongside the building where the restrooms are, have it come out from there, and it would be parking lot, and add two more elbows. MR. MARTIN-Does the efficiency have anything to do with the length of time that this will be up? In other words, if you lower the efficiency then this facility has to be there longer? MR. SLOTE-It adds to the length of time to Temediate the contamination. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. MENTER-I pretty much agree with Bob. You have something that is a necessary evil. We're just trying to mitigate the effects of that structure. There may be some other ideas. I'm thinking, mechanically, even though we haven't really seen anything or spoken with anybody, I think we could probably prove that that is the best place for it. MR. CARVIN-What is the operation, again, of this? air into the ground, is that my understanding? This forces MR. SLOTE-It's what's called a sparge system. It forces air into the ground just underneath the (lost words) which dislodges any petroleum particles that appear to be part of the earth. That brings it up above the water table, the petroleum floats on water, and we have suction lines that come into a filter system and separate it. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but this tends to run all on a vacuum, does it? MR. SLOTE-Well, there's a pump that forces the air in, a compressor, and a vacuum that pulls it out. - 3 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 2/21/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay. vacuum system, difference? Now, I understand the elbows, but I mean, on a I don't know that, it makes that big of a MR. SLOTE-I'll be honest with you. I'm not an engineer. I'm only going by what Longworth Environmental told me. MR. CARVIN-And they had indicated that they had no preference as to the location, is that correct, or did they have an objection to putting this into compliance? What did they exactly say? Maybe I misunderstood your original statement. MR. SLOTE-They think this is the spot for maximum efficiency. That's why we put it there in the first place. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Have they docu~ented that? MR. SLOTE-I don't know if I have anything with me in that regard. MR. CARVIN-If we're just talking air and water here, how big of a pipe are we talking? I mean, is it an inch, a two inch, a five inch? MR. SLOTE-I think they're probably two inch pipes. MR. CARVIN-See, I guess I'm not totally convinced that, by elbowing this' thing or bringing it into compliance, that that's going to be that detrimental. Now, again, I'm a long ways from a plumber. MR. MENTER-I mean, could it be as simple of the compressor, or the vacuum unit, units? as an issue of the size the capacity of those MR. SLOTE-I do know that they've got some pretty substantial equipment there compared to other sites that they're remediating. MR. CARVIN-Has this been buried under the blacktop, is it? MR. SLOTE-AII piping is buried, yes. MR. CARVIN-All right. So you had to dig up the blacktop to put the piping down, and then cover it up? MR. SLOTE-Re-blacktop it, yes. I have a letter from Longworth to New York State DEC, dated June 16, 1995. It's a Reader's Digest version of what the system is supposed to do. It (lost word) right now to 16 different sparge points. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I don't know, is there anything that maybe we can read into the record here? MR. THOMAS-I think I read that letter in. MR. CARVIN-I've got a letter from ENCON. MR. THOMAS-Is that dated June 16th? MR. CARVIN-16 June, yes. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I think I read that letter into the record. Yes. This one we already have. MR. SLOTE-As I said, I'm not an engineer, a geologist. MR. CARVIN-When was the last time you talked to Longworth Environmental? - 4 - ,- (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 2/21/96) MR. SLOTE-I talk to them almost every day. Just when they it out, they did it with as few elbows in it as they could. also had a representative of DEC go down and look at it, and couldn't come up with any valuable suggestions on it. I do that with the shed being lowered and a flat roof, it really be half as noticeable. laid They they feel will MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. GREEN-I didn't have a real problem to begin with, and I think we're going to talk three feet off the top of this if we build the shed, some bushes around it. I mean, that's not even as tall as a person standing out there. Originally there was a dumpster there or something. It's not going to be any taller than that. I think the problem really arose from the gentleman next door at the insurance company didn't like to look over the bushes and see the top of the shed. I think this is going to pretty much alleviate that problem, and long as maybe we, say a year from now, and see what sort of results, how it's working on the ground. If, a year from now, it's still going to be another two or three years, we may have to look at something else, but I don't, you know, I'd rather see it back there then stuck off the side of the building, personally. MRS. LAPHAM-I tend to agree with Bill. As I said, I didn't really have a problem with it to begin with. I thought it was very neat, the way it was positioned, until the neighbor came forth, and then I thought well maybe I should look at it from his point of view. If I had a building there, how would L feel? With it lowered, and if the shrubs are around it so that he sees green and not the building, I don't think there should be a problem, and I still firmly feel like I did the last time, that if we're cleaning up pollution, that should carry quite a heavy weight, even though, you know, in the record, DEC can go on for ever. MR. THOMAS-Last meeting I asked why that shed couldn't be moved down into one of those parking spaces, since the existing shed is eight by ten, I believe. MR. SLOTE-Eight by eight. MR. THOMAS-Eight by eight, the existing one, moved down into one of the parking spaces on the back, in line, since the vapor extraction line is only 10 feet off the building, which would put it right in the center of one of those parking spaces. So they could move it closer. If they moved it closer, it seems to me it would be more efficient to be there in less time, but Bill mentioned that putting that small building right next to the existing building wouldn't look very good, and I do like the idea of lowering it down to the five feet and planting shrubs around it and leaving it right where it is. So, I would have no problem with the new plan there, with the eight by eight shed five foot high, flat roof. MR. SLOTE-Don't say flat. It'll have some pitch. MR. THOMAS-Well, it'll have some pitch to it. MR. CARVIN-I don't remember if I had a public hearing opened or closed on this. MR. MARTIN-I think it was open. MR. CARVIN-Was it open? Okay. So I'll open up the public hearing if there's any additional public comment with regard to this application. -- 5 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 2/21/96) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARVIN-Any additional correspondence? MR. THOMAS-Yes, from the Warren County Planning Board. "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 construct an eight by eight Adirondack motif shed on existing concrete slab for approximately one year was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: Concur with local conditions." Signed by C. powel South, Chairperson, and a letter from King Fuels, dated December 20, 1995, addressed to me. "Please accept this as a notice that Mr. Greg Sherry is an agent of the cooperation and is authorized to represent our company concerning the above mentioned variance request." Signed by Richard B. Slate, Vice President, King Fuels. A letter dated J8nuary 23, 1996, addressed to Mr. Carvin. "1 would like to update the Zoning Board of Appeals on the progress we have made to site the extraction system located on our property at Quaker & Bay Roads. King Fuels has hired Longworth Environmental to consult with DEC in order to review the system's placement and any possible location options. We have requested that both Mr. Longworth and DEC report their recommendations to the Board of Appeals as soon as possible. 1 do not know the exact date that these recommendations will be made, however I will work with both parties to have the necessary information to your board in order to meet your next scheduled meeting in February, 1996. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, THE KING SERVICE, INC. Richard B. Slate Vice President" And that does it. MR. CARVIN-That does it? Okay. If there's no additional public comment, then I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-We've pretty much got everybody's. I'll entertain a motion. Whoever makes the motion, I would like to look at this, it's only prudent that we review this at least annually, and I think that any shed that is built or any motion that is made that upon completion or DEC's approval, that the area's cleaned up, that the shed be removed. Is that okay. MR. SLOTE-Yes. I'm. CARVIN-Okay. So havi ng made !1J.Y.. comments, I would encourage a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-1995 KING FUELS, Introduced by David Menter adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: RICHARD B. SLOTE C/O who moved for ltS Applicant is seeking to locate a portable shed on the Bay Road property which needs relief from Section 179-67A, accessory structures requiring a 10 foot setback from the rear line and 50 foot separation to another building. This corner lot is considered to have two front yards and two rear yards. Section 179-28C, Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, requires a 75 foot fTont yard setback, and 179-23, Highway Commercial, requires a 25 foot rear setback, therefore relief is sought from both of these sections. Applicant is under peculiar circumstances, due to Department of Environmental Conservation intervention and a prior spill situation that they have, and their necessity to clean that uP. using specific mechanical means. Althou~h 'the proper channels were not originally used in constructing this system, in terms of zoníng, it appears tha't theyeis little; 'ålt'erna-t.ive to the curnmt configuratí6n.' 'Applicant has off'ered to ,reducé the size of the shed to elit'nt nate: the visual impact. 1'heex isti ng _. 6- '-' (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 2/21/96) structure will be removed and a new structure not to exceed five feet will be constructed on the same slab. The replacement of the shed is to be completed by April 1, 1996. We would also require that the applicant, upon completion of the shed, plant shrubs to as much as possible obscure the view of the shed. In addition, the applicant will supply to the Board its own report, generated quarterly, on the performance of the system. In addition, the applicant will appear before this Board the first February meeting in 1997 to review the status of this variance and its continuance if necessary. This action would appear to constitute the least affects on the neighborhood and community, given the short term nature of the need. In addition, upon notice of completion of the required decontamination by DEC, this variance will be void, and the shed will be immediately removed by the applicant. That we're granting 20 feet from the south property line. The shed is five feet off the property line right now. So grant 20 feet of relief from the south property, and 20 feet from the front property. He needs 25 feet from the south property. He's got five, and he's 55 feet where he needs 75. The shed is not to be moved an inch from where it is right now. Duly adopted this 21st day of February, 1996, by the following vote: MR. SLOTE-Could I ask one question? If the winter is still severe in April, can I have until some time in May to do this? MR. CARVIN-Why don't You've got five weeks. problem. we cross that bridge It's not a big shed. when we get to it. It shouldn't be a MR. SLOTE-No. The shed isn't a problem. I was thinking about the shrubbeì-Y. MR. CARVIN-Well, obviously, the shrubbery you whenever. I think we're more concerned about down" can't plant until getting the shed MR. MARTIN-The Enforcement Officer will be by. I think you know Mr. Goralski? MR. SLOTE-Yes, sir. MR. MARTIN-He'll be by, and that's something you can work out with him if weather permits. MR. SLOTE-Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. CARVIN-Okay. So we'll see you next year. MR. SLOTE-And I promise we'll have it out sooner than you think. MR. CARVIN-Good. We're going to hold you to that. Okay. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-1996 TYPE II WR-1A JR. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE MAYFLOWER ROAD), NEXT TO LAST HOUSE ON THE RIGHT CEA HERBERT HEINEMAN, LANE, (OFF PILOT KNOB APPLICANT PROPOSES TO -- 7 - (Cueensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 2/21/96) CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO SINGLE FAMILY HOME WHICH REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 179-16. CROSS REF. SPR 3-96 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 2/14/96 TAX MAP NO. 153-1-9 LOT SIZE: 0.66 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 SEAN MCDONALD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 1-1996, Herbert Heineman, Jr., Meeting Date: February 21, 1996 "PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant is proposing to build a 280 square foot addition to his home which will contain a bedroom, bathroom and a laundry room. This addition will not meet the required side setbacks required by Section 179-16. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE. ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267, TOWN LAW. 1. BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT: The applicant states that this addition will provide additional living space for his family. 2. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: One possible alternative would be for the applicant to attach the addition to another area of the house which would not be in violation of any setbacks on the property. One such area would be the front of the home at the north end of the home. 3. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? The relief is 55% of the requirement. 4. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY? An addition to this home in the proposed location may have an impact on the owner of the property to the south's view of Lake George. Comments on other possible impacts may come up at the public hearing. 5. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED? No. This lot which contains .66 acres is located in a zone (W~-1A) where the minimum lot size is one acre. With any type of expansion on this lot it would be difficult to maintain the required setbacks. PARCEL HISTORY: This property, which was purchased by the current owner in 1992, received site plan approval for a bathroom dormer above the garage on June 23, 1992. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: At the time of site plan review for the bathroom dormer both staff and the ZBA had concerns about allowing building expansion which would over stress the property and the lake. The Board should determine what effect this expansion would have on adjacent property owners and if there are any alternatives to expansion in this location. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the WaTren County Planning Board held on the 14th day of February 1996, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a 14' x 23' addition to an existing home for a bedroom and bathroom/laundry. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact. II Signed by C.' powel South, Cha,iì-person. MR. CARVIN-I just need some clarification. This came before the ZBA in 1992? MR. THOMAS-June 23rd. MR. HILTON-The bathroom. MR. CARVIN-I'm talking about the bathroom, yes. MR. HILTON-Which is above the garage. MR. THOMAS-June 23, 1992 was the site plan approval. MR. CARVIN-Was it just sIte plan approval, or did it get a variance? MR. HILTON-There was a variance and they came in with a site plan - 8 - ~ (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 2/21/96) review in addition to that variance. MR. GARVIN-Boy" I don't r,emember this. I've got a variance in '88. MR. MENTER-That was an expansion in '88. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I was trying to get the history on this clear in my mind. All right. There's something here dated July 20, 1988 that says Fred and Carol Ducey. "This is a nonconfoì-ming expansion of five feet and will be no closer to the property line. .,... The garage will not be used for sleeping." And I'm assuming that that must have been a ZBA determination back in 1988. MR. HILTON-Yes. I have in my hand a related file. It was Area Variance No. 13-81. Then the resolution is dated July 20, 1988. I also have here a file, Site Plan No. 29-92, which is dated June 23, 1992, and a motion to build a five by eight bathroom dormer on a playroom above the garage. MR. CARVIN-Okay. That's a site plan, right? MR. HILTON-Right. MR. CARV~N-And that WaS by the Planning Board. MR. HILTON-Yes, but the variance that was before the Board was in 1988 . MR. CARVIN-It was in '88? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MENTER-But that variance is for a different project, isn't it? MR. CARVIN--Yes. MR. MCDONALD-Excuse me. I'm Sean McDonald. I'm his agent, and I believe Mrs. Ducey owned the property then. She applied for that variance, and what they had was a whole garage right there, and they made it into a little bit larger garage. I believe ~hey made their garage a little bit larger and bigger, and they expanded to the side lot line a couple of feet more, so they could fit two cars in it. I think that's what the 1988 was. The one that was three years ago for the dormer bathroom addition, we applied for it, and Mr. Heineman never went through with it. MR. CARVIN-Okay, that was the '92 was it? MR. MCDONALD-Yes. MR. CARVIN-All right. Correct me if I'm wrong, Jim, I mean, a dormer should have come before the ZBA. MR. MARTIN-Not if it's on the second floor only and there's no expansion of the footprint. If it occurs on the second floor, then it's expansion of a nonconforming structure and it went for site plan, but if it expanded the footprint, it should have come to the ZBA. MR. CARVIN-Which was in '88. MR. MARTIN-Right. I've got the '88 file here. The application only makes reference to the expansion of the garage. MR. CARVIN-Okay. It got wider, but did it go up, in '88? -- 9 - ~~ (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 2/21/96) MR. MARTIN-The residence? MR. CARVIN-No, the garage. MR. MARTIN-It shows here it further encroached on the side yard setback, but the size of the garage is not shown here. It doesn't have the dimensions on the addition. I don't see any reference to dimensions on the addition. It encroached into the setback again. It may have extended that four foot, ten inch nonconforming setback, but I don't see any reference to the size of the garage. It says the nonconforming expansion of five feet, and will be no closer to the side property line. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I know the garaøe got wider, but I don't knolrJ if it went up at the same time. I don't know if it went up at the same time, and now we've got a dormer. MR. MCDONALD-There is no dormer on it. MR. CARVIN-Well, there was a proposed dormer, right? MR. MCDONALD-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So this variance is null and void because there was never a building permit issued? MR. MARTIN-They never pursued it. Yes, it would be void. MR. CARVIN-Okay. In other words, for them to put a bathroom in, they'd have to come through the system again, right? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARVIN-All right. So the '92 site plan is null and void. I want to make sure, all right, does everybody understand that? Well, the '88 variance is okay because they actually did expand in '88, as far as we can tell, okay, and there is no bathroom in the garage. Okay. Does everybody understand what the applicant is proposing to do? Okay. In which case, does anyone have any questions of the applicant? MR. THOMAS-Is that a one or two story addition? MR. MCDONALD-It's a one story. MR. THOMAS-Is the roof line going to match the existing roof line, or is it going to be lower? MR. MCDONALD-It will match the garage side, facing the garage, and then it will hip UP and come underneath the existing window. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. MCDONALD-It'll be a long roof, coming out to 14 feet, but hip up to match the existing roof line, existing gable, and come underneath the window that's there. MR. THOMAS-Okay. propert,y line? So it's going to slope toward the south MR. MCDONALD-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Did you make any plans for water runoff on that roof, such as gutters or some kind of? MR. MCDONALD-No. MR. THOMAS-Because it is 11 feet away from that property line, - 10 -. " - (Cueensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 2/21/96 ) the Rosetti property next door. I do believe it's just a little lower than that building, and that building does sit back from that building. MR. MCDONALD-It seems right where we're putting this addition it slopes to the lake, goes back to the garage, plus over to his property line. MR. THOMAS-Yes, because the house sits up on a crown on that road. MR. MCDONALD-Right. MR. THOMAS-Is it a full bath, three-quarter bath, half bath? MR. MCDONALD-It would be just a shower, a shower bath. MR. THOMAS-Just a shower, and it would tie into the existing septic system? MR. MCDONALD-That's right. MR. THOMAS-That's all I've got for now. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How about Bonnie, any questions of the applicant at this point? MRS. LAPHAM-No. The biggest thing I'd be worried about would be the comment from the neighbor to the south, how they felt about it, because it would seem to me they would be very close, and while I don>t think it would block their view from the lake> it would certainly be one of the first things they would see, would be this big wall of an addition, from their property. So I would be ve'"y concer ned to see how they fel t . MR. CARVIN-Bill? MR. GREEN-Nothing right now. MR. CARVIN-Dave? MR. MENTER-It looks like, is it going to just be this side of the bilco door, then? The bilco door's going to stay? MR. MCDONALD-Yes. MR. MENTER-And I noticed on the application, is it 10 or 11 feet, from the side yard, the side yard at the finished setback? It's 11? MR. MCDONALD-Eleven, plus some inches, and I heard someone say that the garage setback is four foot ten, and that one is seven foot ten, according to the stakes that are in the ground. MR. MENTER-Where was that, in the notes? MR. MCDONALD-It was back in 1988, and Herb had contacted his neighbor about what he was trying to do, and he was getting some response back from him. I don't know if he got that yet or not. MR. MENTER-Any other locations on the property considered? MR. MCDONALD-No. MR. MARTIN-What is the nature structure? Could it physically somewhere along that rear wall? and the floor accommodate this plan of the addition off - 11- (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 2/21/96) MR. MCDONALD-The lakeside wall or the other? MR. MARTIN-The rear side wall toward Mayflower Lane? MR. MCDONALD-Okay. septic is up, well, That's the main entrance to the I think you have it on your plan. house. The MR. MARTIN-Yes, I see it. MR. MCDONALD-And it has quite a slope coming down to where his walkway is, so, actually, no, it can't go there. This seemed to be the best spot. It was right off the kitchen for the laundry (lost words) bedroom if someone comes up in the summer time. MR. KARPELES-What kind of a foundation is going to have under it? MR. MCDONALD-It would have a four foot frost wall, and a crawl space foundation. MR. KARPELES-All right. You've got a great big tree there. It's going to destroy the roots of that tree, I would presume. MR. CARVIN-There's a tree right smack dab in the middle of lt, as far as ~ can calculate, the birch. MR. ¿,::Ind viel¡.J that? KARPELES-It looked like if you dug any kind of foundation, it looks to me like that could very well interfere with the of the neighbor to the south. Has anybody investigated MR. MCDONALD-The way his house is located, it's pointing more toward directly west. So if you're out on his lot and you looked that way, yes, you'll see it, but I don't think it would affect his view any which way. MR. KARPELES-Tell me, again, why you can't put that behind the house? You said something about, what were the reasons? MR. MCDONALD-Well, there's a septic system over on that side. MR. KARPELES-Yes, well we see where that is, over on the south side. MR. MCDONALD-I don't think I have enough room between the house and the garage to do anything. Plus, that's his main entranceway coming up to his front door. MR. KARPELES-Well, can't you put an entranceway on this new room? MR. MCDONALD-I guess there's a lot of things I could do. MR. KARPELES-Well, we have to grant the minimum variance, minimum relief, and I'm not convinced this is minimum relief. It's your job to convince us. MR. MCDONALD-Well, I'd different things and here. have to go submit them back and draw UP a bunch of to Herb, and then come back MR. MENTER-Do you know the location of that septic tank or system that is there? MR. MCDONALD-The best I can tell is right there, from what the old guy whO does Pilot Knob septic services, that's what I got from him. MR. MENTER-Right inside the box on the paper here? - 12 - '-- - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 2/21/96) MR. MCDONALD-Yes. It was a septic system designed for, there was an Inn there, and this house, and another small structure that all fed into that septic that's there. MR. CARVIN-The existing house, how many bedrooms in it right now? MR. MCDONALD-I believe there's three. MR. CARVIN-There's three bedrooms. Okay. ba t h? Is there a bath, two MR. MCDONALD-There's probably two baths, and a powder room. MR. MARTIN-With such a distance off the lake, is there any way to put this off the front of the camp? MR. CARVIN-Let me get a couple of things straight here. Okay. So there's three bedrooms. There's at least two baths and a powder room, and this is a two story structure, is it, inside? MR. MCDONALD-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So there's a downstairs and an upstairs. Is there a basement? MR. MCDONALD-A crawl space. MR. CARVIN-A crawl space. Is it finished or is it usable, or is it being used? MR. MCDONALD-The crawl space? MR. CARVIN-Yes, other than storage, possibly? MR. MCDONALD-Just storage. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and Mr. Heineman has how many people at home, currently? MR. MCDONALD-He and his wife. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and he needs another bedroom, another bath, and a laundry in addition, for just the two of them? MR. MCDONALD-No. This is for when his family and her kids all come there, or come there and stay on the holidays. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but what would be the maximum utilization then? I mean, are we talking full time residence here? MR. MCDONALD-Not to my knowledge, no. MR. CARVIN-Okay. It just seems like it's an awful big house, and I'm not begrudging anybody anything, and he bought it in 1992, knowing it was three bedrooms at that point, and now we're looking to expand the situation even further for what appears to be part time occupancy, or just very occasional occupancy. MR. MCDONALD-That's a owned the house, and so he acquired it. previous marriages, pretty good assessment, and Mrs. Ducey Mr. Heineman (lost words) a few years ago, Okay. They both have children from their and they have grandchildren. MR. CARVIN-Well, I appreciate the expanding family, but I'm not quite sure that that is covered under the zoning rules as far as minimum variance is concerned. Okay. I'm sorry, Jim, did you have anything else? -- 13 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 2/21/96) MR. MARTIN-I was just wondering, I don't know. After that last exchange, it sort of weakens my question. I notice there is quite a dimension off the front there, a dimension that we're usually not used to seeing. Sometimes we see as little as ten or fifteen feet from the lake. There is quite a distance there. Is there any possibility of an expansion off the front, because our shoreline setback is 75 feet. So you've got quite a distance there to work with that wouldn't need a variance. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think what might be appropriate here is that if there is somethi ng that can be conformi ng, because I'm goi IVJ to have a hard time granting a variance on this, based on a minimum relief. I mean, if he can build something in compliance, he's going to be better served. I mean, that's my own feeling. I don't know about everybody else. MR. KARPELES-You know how l feel. MR. CARVIN-I do, Bob. Does anybody else have any questions of the applicant? All right. Then I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARVIN-Any correspondence? MR. THOMAS-Yes. One note, "Please record me in favor of granting relief to Heineman setback request. Merritt E. Scoville" Dated 2/14/96. That's it. MR. CARVIN-And Mr. Scoville is? MR. THOMAS-Well, according to properties, it looks like three applicant. the ta;~ map, properties to the he 1~3 thr ee north of the MR. CARVIN-To the north, okay. MR. THOMAS-I would guess. going by. I don't have a tax map. I'm just MR. ~(ARPELES·-Yes. I saw a sign there, "Scovi lIe" . MRS. LAPHAM-The way the road winds. MR. CARVIN-All right. No other correspondence? MR. THOMAS-That's it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any additional public comment? Okay. Hearing none, seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-I don't know how the rest of the Board feels. I know how 1 feel on this. I think it's going to be, the applicant is going to be better served to maybe have you sit down and dTaw up, see if you can draw up something that might be in compliance, would be my feeling, and there's two ways we can tackle this. We can table this up to a maximum of 60 days, to allow you to re- visit this. Okay. In other words, if you can come up with a schematic or a better alternative that doesn't require a variance, then the thing just goes away. If, on the other hand, you feel you want to pursue this, or can come up with something that shows us maybe a minimum variance relief, I think you can be better served on that. Otherwise, I think, and again, I'm only speaking for myself, you know, we can put this to a vote and see how it goes, in which case you'll' have a determination. SO'I'm goi ng to thro"'J it over into your court, as to how you "'Jant to - 14 - --.. - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 2/21/96) handle this. MR. MCDONALD-How would I do something with building something on this side of the house, as far as a minimum variance goes? What do you mean by that? MR. CARVIN-Well, again, if it's smaller, or if you adjust it and need less relief, then you can come back within the 60 days, if we tabled this. It will still be an active application. MR. MCDONALD-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Again, as I said, I don't know what schematics you might be able to come up with, but I think that if there is something that could be built more in compliance, you're going to be better off, because as I said, I have a hard time granting, I think, a large amount of relief for something that is, you know, he's already got three bedrooms. He's looking for a fourth, and, you know, I realize expanding families, but it seems we're just building an awful lot of house on a very small lot again, which is something I know ~ am particularly sensitive to up on the lake, and I think that this Board has, become more and more sensitive to those types of issues. So, having said that, I'm going to let you decide, where would you like us to take this? MR. MCDONALD-We best leave it open, until I talk to Mr. Heineman. I'll come up with some alternatives, and then the ball's back in his court, as to what he wants me to do with this. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have a problem with that, or does anyone feel strongly that we should go forward on this, allow the applicant to try to seek? MR. THOMAS-No. I would like to make one comment though. That if this was!IJ.Z::. house, and I had an opportunity to pu·t a bedroom toward the lake, and overlook the lake, I would do it. MR. MENTER-Yes. I'd make it the master bedroom. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. MCDONALD-Yes, that could be a selling point. MR. THOMAS-Yes, a bedroom overlooking the lake. MR. MARTIN-That's very unusual that we meet the shoreline setbac k . MR. THOMAS-It sure is. MR. MARTIN-Let alone the existing house, and then the addition. That's very unusual. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It'll move it to the front niche. have side line and lake setback, if you of the house there, in that one little MR. MARTIN-And there is going to be consideration hopefully by the end of March, to increasing the setback feet, or I should say decreasing it to 50 feet. given, to 50 MR. THOMAS-So, yes, he's got the golden opportunity right here, a bedroom right out the front. MR. CARVIN-All right. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-1996 HERBERT HEINEMAN. JR., Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by -- 15 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 2/21/96) Chris Thomas: Tabled to allow the applicant an opportunity to design or develop a plan more in compliance with the Ordinance. Duly adopted this 21st day of February, 1996, by the following vote : .~ AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now our tabling schedule is 60. MR. MARTIN-And that's for new information to be received, or another request made to the Board to further extend that. MR. MCDONALD-Okay, MR. MARTIN-Otherwise it just voids, and the application ceases. MR. CARVIN-Okay. tonight? Thank you. Okay. Is Paul going to be here MR. MARTIN-He's scheduled to be. We haven't heard from him. AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-1996 TYPE II LC-42A RICHARD & JILL LONG OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE WEST SIDE OF ROUTE 9L, APPROX. 4 MILES NORTH OF THE ROUTE 149, ROUTE 9L INTERSECTION, AND LOCATED SOUTH OF WILLIAMSON'S STORE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WHICH REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE SIDE SETBACK AND PERMEABI·LITY REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-13, AND THE ENLARGEMENT OF A NONCONFORMING USE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-79A2. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 2/14/96 TAX MAP NO. 21-1-4 LOT SIZE: 19,000 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-13, 179-79A2 RICHARD & JILL LONG, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 2-1996, Richard & Jill Long, Meeting Date: February 21, 1996 "PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicants are proposing to build a 705 square foot addition to their home. This addition will not meet the required side setbacks and permeability standards required by Section 179-13, and is an expansion that is over 50% of the area of the original structure (Section 179- 79A2). The applicant proposes that the minimum side setback for the new addition be 20 feet. The resulting permeability will be approximately 91% instead of the required 95%. The applicants have also indicated that in the future they may wish to seek approval for a garage addition for this property. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE, ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267, TOWN LAW. i. BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT: The applicant states that this addition will provide additional living space for their family, 2. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: There does not seem to be any alternatives which could provide a lesser amount of relief from the Ordinance. 3. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE?: The relief is 80% of the requirement. 4. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY?: It appears that an addition to this home in the proposed location would not have an impact on the neighborhood at this time. However, there may be some further comments at the public hearing. 5. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED?: No. This lot contains approximately .48 acres. ... 16 .. --- - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 2/21/96) This property is a legal nonconforming lot located in a LC-42A zone which requires 42 acres of minimum lot size. Any type of building expansion on this lot would not be able to accommodate the required setbacks for the zoning that is in place. PARCEL HISTORY: The square footage of the original building was 454 square feet. The property was purchased by the current owners in November 1994. 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 an addition to existing home. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: t-~o County Impact. II Signed by C. Powel South, ChaiTperson. MR. CARVIN-I had heard that this was turned down by the County because there was insufficient information? MR. THOMAS-No. There's the last meeting, the 14th. MR. LONG-Excuse me. They had started it when we first got there. We had the infoTmation and gave it to them, put it in front of them, and then they approved it. MR. CARVIN-All right. So this is, because I had heard that they turned it down because of the driveway or something. MR. LONG-Right, but we had the information when we got there. MR. CARVIN-Right, so No County understand the application, what do? Are there any questions? Impact. Okay. Everyone the applicant is proposing to MR. KARPELES-Well,it appears to me like that lot is getting pretty much overloaded, if the permeability is below what it should be. I mean, you only bought that in 1994. Were you aware of the fact that you couldn't expand it at that time? MRS,. LONG-No. They told us that we could. When we bought it, we asked about building on, before we bought it, and they said that there would be no problem adding on. MR. LONG-And we're tearing down part. MRS. LONG-Right. We're using some of where the structure is. We're adding, we're tearing that down. already there, we just want to, we're squaring it off. existing So what's MR. MENTER-Well, to me, the permeability's not a big issue. You're talking 91% versus 95%. It's a few small percentage points in a very small percentage of nonpermeable space on the lot. Did you look at any other locations for expansion, any other ways to expand? MRS. LONG-We have a septic in the back, and if we went over onto the north side of the property, because the property line runs at a diagonal. OUT house sits square with the road, but the property goes kind of like at an angle. So if we went off of the north side, we'd cut right into the neighbor's, I mean, we're right on the line, where we are now. MR. LONG-And the setbacks are 100 feet in the 42 acre, anyway. MR. MENTER-How far out is that well in front? MR. LONG-It won't be anywhere near the well. MRS. LONG-It's like 11 feet now, well, it's more than 11, from where it is nO"'J. - 17 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 2/21/96) MR. LONG-The well is in front of what's already existing, and we're not tearing down. MR. MENTER-Well, I was thinking of the terms of maybe building. I mean, the about 30 feet. front of the building in well looks to me to be MRS. LONG-No. If we came out off of the front room, where it says 17 feet across, lf we came out onto that, we would be on top of the well there, into living, you know. MR. MENTER-So you don't know how far out it is, that well? MR. LONG-It's 15 feet, I would guess. MR. HILTON-If I may, for just a moment. I'd like to point out to the Board that, originally, this home was built with 454 square feet of living space, and in our Code, the minimum allowable floor area for a dwelling is 800 square feet. So they started pretty much in a deficit of floor area of over 350 square feet, or approximately 350 square feet. They're in a large, you know, 42 acre zoning, nonconforming lot. Staff seems to think, or at least in m..z.: opinion, if we're starting, if they lrJere starting below the allowable figure floor area in the first place, you know, they're not, I guess they're not looking to crowd the site as much. I mean, they started with less than they could have had, at the time of original building, just for your information. MR. GREEN-There's a lot to the south, a wooded lot. You said the gentleman farther south owns that? I'1RS. LONG-Right. wheì" e he Ii ves . He owns that lot and the lot next to it There's an unbuildable lot between there. is MR. GREEN-That was my question for Jim. There's a wooded lot in there. Is that unbuildable? MR. MARTIN-The one indicated as Hooker? MRS. LONG-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Unbuildable for what reasons? Is it wet? MR. LONG-The setbacks. I guess he bought it and then there was a trailer on there, it's a buffer zone. MR. MARTIN-That's LC-42 also? MRS. LONG--Yes. MR. MARTIN-What's the dimensions on that lot? MRS. LONG-I don't know. MR. GREEN-It couldn't be more than a couple of hundred feet across, I would say. You're in the same situation. MRS. LONG-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Probably a little bit smaller than your lot. MRS. LONG-But someone told us that he originally bought it with a trailer on that. MR. MARTIN-It could have been. You'd have to look at the history, but with side yards of 100 feet on each side yard, you're looking at a minimum of 200 feet just for that, to accommodate that alone. So those are pretty stringent. - 18 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 2/21/96) MR. GREEN-You're pretty certain there probably would never be anything built on there. MR. CARVIN-Without a variance. MR. MARTIN-Not without a variance. MR. GREEN-Without a variance of some kind, yes. MR. MARTIN-It also depends on when the lot comes into play. I mean, if these lots were the result of a Planning Board approved subdivision, which it's unlikely that they are, then it would held to the standard of the time that the subdivision was approved, but I doubt that's the case. These probably pre-date any sort of zoning. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, do you have any idea when this lot was created? MR. MARTIN-No. George looked that up. There's no indication of any subdivision anyhow. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So you went back 10 years, 15 years, anyway? MR. HILTON-Yes, as far as our Assessor's records go. MR. CARVIN--O kay . MR. GREEN-I don't have any real big concern about it, actually. MRS. LAPHAM-I was just wondering, what are you going this room? I read all through my notes and I couldn't to put in see? MR. LONG-Well, when we do this, we're going to remodel the inside of what we already have there. MRS. LONG-I'm knocking out a bedroom, and I'm going to make some place where we can eat, because right now we eat in our living room because we don't have room for a diningroom table in our kitchen. It's very small. So we're eliminating a bedroom, and we're going to have a bedroom, actually, we're eliminating two bedrooms, because we're tearing down one of the bedrooms that's there now. We're going to build. So it's going to be two bedrooms and then we're going to have a bath. MRS. LAPHAM-So in this addition there's going to be two bedrooms and a bath? MRS. LONG,-Yer:3. MRS. LAPHAM-And then you'll gut the existing structure, and put a living room, dining room, kitchen. MRS. LONG-Yes, I'm going to make a dining room in there, some place where I can sit with my family. MRS. LAPHAM-How many baths will that put 1n the house? MR. LONG-There's already two. MRS. LONG-There's already two in there. MR. LONG-Well, one and a half. 50 it will still be one and a hal f. MRS. LAPHAM-Will it be one and a half or two and a half when you're finished, with the new? .- 19 - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 2/21/96) MRS. LONG-One and a half, because we're eliminating one of the bathrooms. There's a bedroom and a bathroom that we're eliminating. So we're just going to rebuild them, when we build on, in that new structure. It's going to be a new bathroom to replace what's already there. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. have two bedrooms, So, altogether, when we're all finished, we'll and a bath and a half? MRS. LONG-Right. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Is this all in one story? r1R. l.ONG'-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Do you know what the overall square footage of the structure will be, if you do get the addition as shown? Did you calculate that out? MRS. LONG-It should be right on the application. MR. MARTIN-Yes, it's shown here. 2,030. Yes. Total house would be MRS. LONG-Right. 1'1F~. MARTIN-'O kay . MR. CARVIN-Why do I have 1325 as the building area? that include? What does MR. MENTER-That's existing. MR. CARVIN-Is that existing building? Yet, we're saying the square footage of the original building is 454 square feet. MR. MARTIN-Right. The current building area is 1325. They're proposing to go to 2030, but the provision of the Code requires that we go off the original size of the original structure. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm slow to~ight. So, there's been another addition on to this, prior, to bring it up to the 1300? MH. MARTIN"·'Ú?is. MR. CARVIN-And when was that, any idea? MH. HILTON-I don't have the Assessor's records available to me right now, but in reviewing them, there were additions that have brought it up to 1325, but I don't know when they occurred. MR. MENTER-Certainly prior to the Long's purchase. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Well, they bought it just recently. MR. MARTIN-I would imagine they weren't even anywhere in recent time. MRS. LONG-When we us said that when and a diningroom. bought the property, the one who had it before they moved in they had added on a living room MR. MENTER-The expansion percentage still goes to the original square footage. MR. CARVIN-Yes, I guess it would, wouldn't it? .. 20 -' '-. - (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 2/21/96) MR. MARTIN-That's the way it reads. MR. CARVIN-Yes, it's to eliminate what's happening here. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think George's point is well taken, though. I mean, an original structure of 454 square feet is, I mean, that's not even a living standard. MR. CARVIN-Even if we look at it from the 1300 to a 2000, is it a 50? MR. MENTER-It's close. MR. GREEN-Not if you back out what they're building over, basically. MR. MARTIN-See they're only permitted, the way the Code reads, they'd only be permitted a 200 square foot expansion, because it would be 50% of the original 454. MR. CARVIN-But we have no idea how many time this thing has been expanded. It could be one. It could be two. It could be three. MR. MARTIN-I don't know. I think that's a relatively recent provision of the Code, that 50%. MR. CARVIN-I still don't have a problem with it. MR. MENTER-That's the only part that concerned me was the 50% expansion, the relative size of the expansion. The setbacks, I think, are sort of mitigated by the circumstances, as well as the permeability. MR. THOMAS-I just want to say that I agree with Dave about the permeability, that the 95% required, that as Mr. Turner stated once, that in our SFR 1 Acre, which is our most restrictive, that the permeability is 65%, and that the setbacks in our most restrictive zone is 20 foot on the side, and that's what the applicant is proposing. If this lot was sitting in an SFR-l zone, they wouldn't be here. So I have no problem whatsoever with this, as drawn. MR. CARVIN-Okay. hearing. Any other questions? I'll open up the public PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Any additional questions from the Board? I'd ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-1996 RICHARD & JILL LONG, Introduced by William Green who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Menter: Applicant proposes to construct an addition to a single family home which requires relief from the side setback and permeability requirements of Section 179-13, and the enlargement of a Nonconforming Use requirements of Section 179-79A2. The applicant is proposing to build a 705 foot square addition to their home. This addition will not meet the required side setbacks and permeability standards required by Section 179-13, and since this expansion is over 50 percent of the area of the original structure, a variance is also needed for Section 179- 79A2. Applicant proposes that the minimum side setback for the - 21 -- ...-' (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 2/21/96) new addition be 20 feet. The addition will result in a 91 percent permeability instead of the 95 percent required by the Code. Due to the nature of the size of the lot, approximately .48 acres in a 42 acre zone, most of the relief needed is due to the lot size. There does not seem to be any feasible alternatives that could provide a lesser amount of relief from the Ordinances. It also appears that there would be no detrimental impacts on the community or neighborhood. Duly adopted this 21st day of February, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: Mr. Karpeles ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. CARVIN-Okay. I've got an item here on the Randolph's, the bed and breakfast. I've got that that's coming up for review in April of, we did this in April of '93. So it's March or April. We gave a three year extension on that. I think we should contact them. Who was on the Board when the Randolph's, that's the bed and breakfast? I know Bob, you were, and I think, Chris, 'lOU IrJer e . MR. THOMAS-April of '93? MR. MARTIN-Yes, Chris was h~re~ MR. CARVIN-Dave, you might' have been. That was the bed and breakfast. Actually, it goes back to '92, I think, actually. MR. MARTIN-No, it was '93. MR. CARVIN-That's when we gave it a three year extension, because it was coming off a one year extension, at that point. What it is, it's a bed and breakfast in a residential area, on Ridge Road, and I think it came before the Board in 1992 originally, and the Board gave a variance for one year, asking them to come back to make sure that there was no major impact, that the neighbors, there was some opposition when it first came up, and so they came back in 1993. Again, I don't think there was any real public opposition at that point, and it did not seem to be an overly intensive situation. So, in 1993, the Board granted a three year extension, which is going to be coming up in the next month or so, and I think that what I'd like to try to do is if we can get them back in, if there is no public opposition, to make that a permanent situation. MR. MARTIN-I know it, because they were rather concerned the last time, after their last approval. They came forward for a request to change the Codes that treated bed and breakfast, and they were very concerned about loosing their variance, and all that for the three year expiration, and that never came about, obviously. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, I think if staff can follow that up and maybe get them onto the agenda for March or April, and we'll see if maybe we can review that situation. It's not fair to go on another three or four months and the variance goes down the tubes. Okay. Item Number Two, this real estate review, Jim. You say that the Town, this would be Town approved? I don't know if anybody can make that, but it looks interesting. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's something we would pay for, if you submit a request to go. MR. CARVIN-Is there a cut off on this, Jim, do you know? w. 22 - '-- -' (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 2/21/96) MR. MARTIN-I can't recall. There usually is. MR. THOMAS-Isn't that down in Westchester County somewhere? MR. MARTIN-No. It's right down in Saratoga. It's on a Saturday or Sunday, and if you do use your own car to go, mileage and all that, is. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I don't know if Paul is going to give us a talk or not, but it's not looking real good, if he is. MR. MARTIN-Mr. Kladis, now, is going to come in to see what he can do to build a conforming house. MR. CARVIN-Okay. right? We have another one here, the Kristensen, MR. MARTIN-Yes. I got a call from Mike O'Connor, get a chance to return it. So, I don't know if he about that or not. but I didn't was calling MR. CARVIN-Well, we got a letter. I guess, then, is Area Variance Ellen Kristensen. Okay. Next item of business, No. 75-1995 Alfred and Mary DISCUSSION ITEM: AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-1995 ALFRED & MARY ELLEN KRISTENSEN APPLICANT REQUESTS FOUR MONTH EXTENSION OF TABLING. SEE LETTER DATED JANUARY 26, 1996 IN FILE. DISCUSSION OF COURT CASE (ANGELA M. KLADIS) ZBA AND PAUL DUSEK, TOWN ATTORNEY MR. MARTIN-I did talk to Curt Dybas today. They are going to be submitting, for sure, for March. He'll have it in by February 28th, for a substantially reduced request. He's talking now literally a 10 by 10 addition off of the one side of the house there where, I think it would be the west side of the house, southwest, Kristensen on Glen Lake. So it will be revised down¡"Jard. MR. CARVIN-All right. have the let.ter? Why don't you read the letter. Do you MR. THOMAS-Yes, I do. MR. CARVIN-Just read that in. MR. THOMAS-A letter dated January 26, 1996, Planning Board. Attention: Jim Martin Kristensen, Glen Lake "Dear Jim: We would four month adjournment in order to finalize If you have any questions, please call. Michael J. O'Connor, Esq." to the Queensbury RE: Alfred E. like to request a our land use plans. Very truly yours, MR. CARVIt+--O kay . from January 30? I'm assuming they're asking for four months MR. MARTIN-Right, and I think they have finalized call I had today would update that. letter, and coming in for a March meeting. those. they will The be MR. THOMAS-Why did they ask for four months when they only need a month? MR. MARTIN-I don't know. MR. THOMAS-Haven't we delayed this one twice? -- 23 -- r' (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 2/21/96) MR. CARVIN-Well, I don't think we ever even heard it, to be honest with you. I think it was tabled before it even came out of the gate. MR. MARTIN-Well, there was another issue that came up, and there's rather a storied history here, with, see, Dr. Kristensen bought several lots adjoining his original parcel, and he did everything right, and he wrote me a letter asking if that was okay to do that, would there be any restrictions on that, and would the lots remain under separate ownership. I had thought, there is an adjoining clause in the Ordinance that applies to lots under the same ownership in the APA and in a Critical Environmental Area. At the time he asked me, I wrote back and responded, no, there's not, because I thought that applied only in the Adirondack Park Agency area, but it is also true for Critical Environmental Area also, which is the first 100 feet back from Glen Lake. So now all these lots are joined. So there's an outstanding issue to be worked out about that, but that will be coming also over the next month or two. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Again, I don't have a pr¿bl~~ giving them four months. MR. MARTIN-We'll see it for sure in March, in terms of the side yard relief. MR. CARVIN-Were we also going to see the Mooring Post in March, or is there any indication there? MR. MARTIN-I think so. I talked to Tom Nace today. He finally cleared his decks to qet at that, and he anticipates it coming in in March. MR. CARVIN-All right. Well, we're going to have to work some of these out, because I'm not sure I want to have two major gun battles in March. MR. MARTIN-Well, I'll advise you as soon as it comes in, or I'll call you, Fred, and see how you want to schedule things out. MR. CARVIN-All right. MOTION TO GRANT A FOUR MONTH TABLING FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 75- 1995 ALFRED & MARY E~LEN KRISTENSE~,' Introdu6ed by ÞredCarvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Menter: Duly adopted this 21st day of February, 1996, by the following vot~e : AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Carvin NO E S : I'~ Ot'.,fE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. THOMAS-Is this going to set a dangerous precedent for others, coming in wanting a tabling, you know, they don't like what they hear? MR. CARVIN-Not really. I think we've got justification here. I don't have a problem. I'd like to give them the time to get their ducks in a row on this. MR. they THOMAS-Shouldn't they have had came? their ducks in a row before MR. CARVIN-Well, I don't have a problem with it. -' 24 - ''-. ~ (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 2/21/96) MR. MARTIN-Whenever anybody asks me, I do say they are reviewed on a case by case basis, and it is the decision of the Board. MR. MENTER-I don't think there's been a problem with it, or a tendency to have a big problem with tabling it. MR. CARVIN-I think what we've had a problem in the past is tabling it and not without any timeframe, and then just loosing them. So I think the 60 days is more for our benefit, to make sure that these things don't get lost in the shuffle. MR. MARTIN-We don't have that many outstanding issues like this. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Minutes? I could have sworn we'd Septembeì- . You're correct on these, September? done some of these minutes since MR. MARTIN-I rely on the clerical staff at the office to make sure those are correct. CORRECTION OF MINUTES September 28, 1996: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28TH AS WRITTEN, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 21st day of February, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford October 18, 1996: scr atch that, line again, line seven, same line "I'd have Page 9, Mr. Menter, center of page, "I think, five, since it began, scratch "I think", scratch "just you know", and the end of the to", scratch that MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER THE 18TH, AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 21st day of February, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford October 25, 1996: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25. 1995, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 21st day of February, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin - 25 - (Oueensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 2/21/96) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford November 8, 1996: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8. 1995, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 21st day of February, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford November 29, 1996: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER THE 29TH, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 21st day of February, 1996, by the following \jote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford December 20, 1995: MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER THE 20TH, Introduced by Fred Car\jin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly \jöte, : adopted this 21st day, of February, 1996, , r b)/ the follovJi ng AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: !'.IONE ABSENT: Mr. Förd MR. CARVIN-One final, I guess, is the, I don't know how to phrase this, nomination, election, suggestion, recommendation of Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary for 1996. MR. THOMAS-We can't do the Chairman. That's appointed by the TOvJí1 Board. MR. CARVIN-Well, we can make a recommendation to the Town Board. MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD THAT FRED A. CARVIN REMAIN AS CHAIRMAN OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Menter: Duly adopted this 21st day of February, 1996, by the following \lot,e: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin -- 26 - ""'-..\ ..,.;' (Oueensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 2/21/96) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. CARVIN-I appreciate that. I will only caveat that my term is up in September of 1996. MR. THOMAS-Well, we think the Town Board will push that ahead when they appoint you new Chairman. MR. CARVIN-I'm serious. If anybody else cares to take over the mantle of leadership and get the big bucks, as it were, I would not be opposed. MR. THOMAS-Well, we can always appoint Tom. He's not here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I guess Vice Chairman. Any thoughts as far as Vice Chairman? MR. KARPELES-I think we're fine. MR. THOI'1AS--Yes. I think we're fine. Stic,k wi.th Tom. MR. CARVIN-Okay. whatever we are, as Then we'll keep our Board of is. All in favor say, aye. Directors, or MR. THOMAS-Aye. MRS. LAPHAM-Aye. MR. KARPELES-Aye. t<1R. MEI'HER-Aye. MR. GREEN-Aye. MR. CARVIN-Aye. Well, if there's no further business before the Board, and I guess Mr. Dusek is not going to, I can move us into Executive Session and go through what that's all about. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS THE KLADIS TRIAL, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 21st day of February, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MOTION TO COME OUT Carvin who moved for OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Fred Duly adopted this 21st day of February, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford On motion meeting was adjourned. ~~ 27 "m' - --- ,/ - ------......... ", '" ./' " (Cueensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 2/21/96) RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred A. Carvin, Chairman .w 213 .-