Loading...
1997-08-20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 20, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY LEWIS STONE ROBERT KARPELES ROBERT MC NALLY PAUL HAYES MEMBERS ABSENT BRIAN CUSTER SENIOR PLANNER -SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-1997 TYPE II WR-1A BETSY MALMAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 27 SUNSET LANE, OFF OF ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE WHICH WILL NOT MEET THE REQUIRED SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-16, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 8-9-4 LOT SIZE: 0.18 ACRES SECTION 179-16 BETSY MALMAN, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-Just read the tabling motion on that one. We’ve already had the public hearing and all the other stuff. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. “The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and resolved the following. Meeting Date: June 18, 1997 Variance File No. 30-1997 Area Variance Tabled Motion to Table Area Variance No. 30-1997 Betsy Malman: Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: For further information from the contractor. The further information would be a front and th side elevation, and distance to the septic tank from the garage. Duly adopted this 18 day of June, 1997 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE” MR. THOMAS-Is there another tabling for last month’s, with a July date on it? Because there was no one here. We may have just carried the tabling right on through. I didn’t know. I think we may have just carried the tabling right on through, because it’s good for 62 days anyway. All right. I do believe I left the public hearing open. We’ll get to the correspondence right after. I’ll ask anyone who would like to speak in favor of this variance to come forward at this time. In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. THOMAS-Correspondence? th MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. This letter was received June 11. So I probably have read that. That’s from Betsy Malman talking about her contractor. Okay. So it’s just this one. Variance No. 30- 1997, 12 Salem Drive, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866, June 25, 1997 , To the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board, “Dear Zoning Board Members: I am writing to express my opposition to the application to construct a garage at 27 Sunset Lane that would be in violation of current zoning requirements. My husband expressed his opposition at the last zoning board public hearing. If this garage is constructed, the back will be right at our property line and will obscure the view we have of Pilot Knob mountains and the lake. I believe the loss of this view will seriously reduce the value of our property at 29 Sunset Lane. Our house has been in our family for almost 30 years. The original house at 27 Sunset Lane was a one story home. When that house was there, we could see the mountains and lake from our living room and bedroom windows. The owner previous to Mrs. Malman, constructed a two story building. I do not know if they had to get zoning approval. When the present house was built, it totally blocked our view. Right now from those two windows I see the back of Mrs. Malman’s house and a propane tank. If you allow the garage to be built then our view will be the back of the house, back of the garage and propane tank. For these reasons, I do not believe the variance should be granted. As a compromise, I suggest the possibility of building a garage at the top of Mrs. Malman’s driveway. This location would not block our view. Please feel free to contact me if you require further information. Sincerely, Nancy Burke 29 Sunset Lane” And that does it, as far as I can see here. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any questions for the applicant? Anyone? MR. STONE-Well, I’m still not sure, looking at the drawing that was submitted, I’m not sure where that goes on the lot. MRS. MALMAN-I submitted some pictures. Did everybody see the pictures? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-That’s the original one. Yes. MR. THOMAS-The applicant has given us some pictures to look at. So, take a minute. You see this right here? That shows the height of the garage. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. This is a different picture. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Well, if you stood up on the property next door, it would show you where the top of the garage would be. The height of that stick, right where that rag is tied. That stick there, that’s the height of the peak. It’s 11 foot six out of the. MR. STONE-Yes, but is this the stick here, is this the rag? MR. THOMAS-Yes. That’s the stick with the rag on it. That’s the one we asked the builder to put in. MRS. MALMAN-Actually, you know, I put all those sticks in. So it’s probably around 12 feet. I couldn’t get everything exact. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Well, the garage is 11’ 6”. So the rag is probably at 11’ 6”, real close. MR. KARPELES-You know, I went up there this morning and I looked at it, and it looked to me, I saw a lounge chair out in the back yard of your neighbor, and it looked to me like there’s a real narrow area that he can see anything out of there, and if the garage is built there, it is going to block his view entirely. MRS. MALMAN-He’s got from where I would start the garage, there would be about 16 or 17 feet. In the pictures, the whole view, and after that there isn’t any view anyway. MR. KARPELES-Well, yes. It looked to me like there’s a real narrow view. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. STONE-Right over the top of your deck. MR. KARPELES-And it’s going to be entirely blocked out if, that’s the way I saw it. MRS. MALMAN-If you stood there, you’d see, right where the picture is, is his view. He gets the whole view of the mountains, the lake. The other part is comletely blocked by trees, and there’s no view anyway. MR. KARPELES-That’s the way I saw it. MR. THOMAS-So the only view is, see, this is standing at the other property, on her deck, but if you go over where the garage is, where the car is parked, over here, okay, and you look, you’re up here on the other property here, you look right over the top of the car, you’re looking right at that. MR. STONE-See, that’s what I saw. With the garage, though, you can’t see it. We also had, did we not have an objection from the neighbor back here? MR. THOMAS-Yes. They were going to shift it to three feet. MRS. MALMAN-We have an agreement with them, the Dubins. MR. STONE-We don’t know anything about it, though. MRS. MALMAN-But that was all, in the first meeting. MR. HAYES-That they were satisfied with the three feet or something. MRS. MALMAN-Yes. MR. STONE-How close is this garage going to be to the edge of the deck? Is that the seven and a half feet? MRS. MALMAN-Yes. Because you have the septic to deal with there, and then I have the leach field, that it can’t be too close to the leach field down the other end of the driveway. MR. STONE-Well, you don’t know exactly where the septic tank is? MRS. MALMAN-It’s underneath the deck. MR. STONE-It’s under the deck? MRS. MALMAN-Yes. MR. STONE-So if the garage were right next to the deck. MRS. MALMAN-Well, I’m moving it over a little to allow the people the view. MR. STONE-I see what you’re saying. MRS. LAPHAM-If the septic’s under the deck, where are the leach fields? MR. THOMAS-Right at the end. You haven’t got that, the plot plan right there. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Right here. MR. STONE-You’re saying the leach field is partly paved over? MRS. MALMAN-I assume it is. I don’t know exactly. I just know by the map that I have. I assume it’s partially paved over, though. MS. CIPPERLY-So where’s Sunset? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MRS. LAPHAM-Well, Sunset is up here, but Sunset runs east and west, not north. MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant? Well, no more questions for the applicant, lets see what everybody thinks. I’ll start down there at the end with Bob. MR. MC NALLY-In all honesty, I think by constructing this garage, they’re going to cut off the neighbor’s view. It seems to me the construction of the garage as suggested, in that particular corner, is going to have a substantial effect on the next door neighbor. (Lost words) you, and looking at the (lost words) elevation, it would certainly seem to me that the neighbor is going to have no view of the lake. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I think a property owner’s right to develop his property is an important right in our society, but I don’t think it’s without consideration of the impact on the neighbors. I think that there’s a very substantial impact on the property value to the neighbor or the enjoyment of their property. So I would be opposed. MR. THOMAS-Lew? MR. STONE-I basically share the thoughts of Paul. Yes, you have a right to build a garage, but you’re taking a property, you’re really hindering a property who has very little view of the lake, because of the house that was built after he bought the house, apparently, and now you’re taking more away, and I would be inclined not to grant the variance. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. KARPELES-I agree 100% with everything that’s been said. I don’t think I can elaborate upon it. When I looked at it, it looked to me like their view was going to be considerably obstructed if this garage was built, and they have a very limited view even now, and it would be even worse. So I would be against this variance. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I want to ask Mrs. Malman a question, first. Do you live there all year round? MRS. MALMAN-Yes. I’m planning to live there all year round, yes. MRS. LAPHAM-But you don’t live there all year round now? MRS. MALMAN-No. Within the next year, I’m planning on moving up here. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, all right. I’m now torn because I tend to agree with the other Board members, particularly if Mrs. Malman was just a summer resident, because one does not need a garage in the summer, particularly, but if she’s living there all year round, she should have the right to build a garage in the winter where it’s needed up here. So I really, I’m right on the fence. I’m not sure what I want to do, which I realize is no help to anyone else here. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It’s my opinion that the applicant, you know, is entitled to a garage, even though it doesn’t fit on the property and a variance is required. As far as blocking the view of the other lot, you know, that has to be taken into consideration. That’s one of the considerations for an Area Variance, but to me, I think she should have the garage, and I think, you know, it’s a small enough garage. I mean, it’s 11 feet 6 inches tall. That’s pretty short for a garage, I think, seeing that the door is eight foot. The roof is going to be fairly flat, I would say, and I think with the lot behind it, up there where their only view is out in that back lawn, I think the roof would be flat enough that it won’t obstruct the view totally. There will be some obstruction but not a lot of obstruction. So, I don’t think I would have any problem with this, granting this variance. Having said that, I will now ask for a motion from someone. MR. STONE-Before we go there, Mr. Chairman, I’m just wondering if it’s possible that a garage could be built on the driveway somewhere in front of the house or leading up to the house. MR. THOMAS-Well, because of that steep road coming up there, it goes up. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. STONE-It could be flattened out, though. MR. THOMAS-Well, I don’t see where that steep driveway could be flattened out, and once you get up to the top, then there’s a septic system up there. It’s located the only place it can be located on that piece of property. We’re in a Waterfront Residential zone, and usually they’re required to have one acre of land, but since they don’t have one acre of land, and there’s no way that they can get one acre of land, or any more land, then, you know, this is the only solution that the applicant has. MR. STONE-What is behind the paved area, between you and the Dubins? There is ground in there that you own, isn’t there, or is that the leach field, directly behind the house? MRS. MALMAN-That’s not my property over there. My property ends just a few feet after the paved area. MR. STONE-It does? MRS. MALMAN-Yes. MR. STONE-There’s a fence which is back further, but the fence is not marking the boundary of the property. Behind the house, to the south. MRS. MALMAN-Yes, the fence. I’m assuming that’s on the property line. MR. THOMAS-Well, no, it’s not. That rail fence is not on the property line. It sits on the other. MR. STONE-But there is property back there, though, that’s what I’m getting at. MR. THOMAS-Originally, she wanted it right on the property line, and these people said no. MR. STONE-I understand that. I knew there was green back here, though, but that’s not yours. MR. THOMAS-No. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions, comments? MR. KARPELES-I don’t necessarily feel that everybody is entitled to have a garage. I mean, when they bought the house, they knew that was the size lot, and they knew what was there, and I don’t think that they have a right to obstruct somebody else’s, to interfere with somebody else’s enjoyment of the lake because they don’t have a garage. MR. THOMAS-Well, I don’t think it’s going to obstruct the view of the lake that much, because, you know, they’re only going up, lets see, the garage is eight, eight. MR. KARPELES-Well, if you look at that picture with the flag on top of it, you can see that they can’t see the lake. MRS. LAPHAM-But in the picture, though, it shows, isn’t the garage going to be where the car is in the picture? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-And that’s over where they just look into the trees anyway. MR. THOMAS-Yes. If you look at the picture, it says right on the caption there that the garage is going to be where the car is parked. MRS. LAPHAM-And if it’s where the car is parked, you’re just seeing the trees, and you’ll still see the trees, because they’ll be over the roof of the garage. MR. STONE-The garage is going to be here, and you’re saying there’s a view between the garage and the house over the deck. Is that what we’re talking about right now? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. THOMAS-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-But what we were saying about the trees is there isn’t a view there, through those trees, anyway, except in the winter. MR. STONE-I don’t think this is that steep up here, though. MR. KARPELES-I don’t, either. I don’t see why there can’t be a garage built there. MR. STONE-That’s not that steep, once you get up, just at the edge. MR. KARPELES-Up there it’s flat. I turned around in there without any problem at all. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but you’ve got to remember, the septic system is right in there. MR. STONE-I’m talking here. If you look at this, you come up a steep hill, no question about it, but then it levels out. This is not much of a grade here, from here to here, and yet that’s in, it’s going to block her view, somewhat. MR. THOMAS-It’s 24 feet from here to the back property line. That garage is 22. It would bring it right up even with the deck, the three feet, like this would bring it right up even with the deck. If you put it back here, it doesn’t flatten out until you get up the top of the hill, by the deck. So if you put the garage this way, then the view from this up here, he’s going to be looking at that whole side of that garage roof, this way. Whereas this way, he’s looking down it. He’s only got like about a three on, you’re looking at about a three on one pitch on that garage, too, which isn’t that. That’s just my opinion, and I’ve been known to be wrong. So would anyone like to make a motion? MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-1997 BETSY MALMAN , Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: The relief would allow the applicant to build a garage for vehicle storage. However, this garage, when I look at it, blocks the view that the neighbor has of the lake, and would be a detriment to the neighborhood. I think there are alternative locations on this property where they could build a garage. The relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance. The applicant is seeking 25 feet of rear yard setback relief and 10 feet of side yard setback relief, and as I’ve already said, it appears that the proposed garage would have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The difficulty would, in my mind, be self created since they purchased the lot. They knew what the limitations were when they purchased the lot, and I don’t think everybody is automatically permitted to build a garage when there isn’t room to do it. th Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles NOES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas ABSENT: Mr. Custer Area Variance No. MR. THOMAS-Four, two, so the variance is denied. Next on the agenda is 31-1997 Geraldine & Robert Middleton . Is anyone here to represent the Middletons? I guess it’s been postponed until the September meeting. We’ll go right into New Business. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-1997 TYPE II MR-5 MH OVERLAY BRUCE BURTON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE INDIANA AVENUE BETWEEN LUZERNE ROAD AND CENTRAL AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE A MOBILE HOME ON A LOT IN A MOBILE HOME OVERLAY ZONE WHICH WILL NOT MEET THE FRONT YARD SETBACKS FOR THE UNDERLYING MR-5 ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-18, MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL 5. TAX MAP NO. 127-5-12 LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES SECTION 179-18 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) BRUCE BURTON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 35-1997, Bruce Burton, Meeting Date: August 20, 1997 PROJECT LOCATION:Proposed Project and Conformance with the “ Indiana Avenue Ordinance: The applicant seeks to locate a mobile home on a lot zoned MR-5 and in a Mobile Home Overlay Zone. The location of the home will not meet the front yard setbacks of the Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267 underlying MR-5 zone. Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would permit the applicant to place a home on a 2. Feasible alternatives: lot with a nonconforming front yard setback. The width of the lot and the location of a proposed septic system make it difficult to locate the home on the lot without 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? requiring some type of setback relief. 4. The applicant is seeking 6 feet of front yard setback relief which appears to be minimal. Effects on the neighborhood or community? Staff anticipates no negative impacts if the 5. Is this difficulty self created? requested relief were granted. The dimensions of this lot make Staff it difficult to place a mobile home on this lot which would not need some setback relief. Comments & Concerns: Staff considers the requested relief a minimal request. Staff believes that the home would not be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood and would benefit SEQR: the applicant. Type II, no further action required.” MR. THOMAS-All right, and there’s nothing from Warren County on this. MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is the applicant here? MR. BURTON-Yes, I am. MR.THOMAS-Would you just state your name for the record. MR. BURTON-My name is Bruce Burton. MR. THOMAS-Okay. This is a vacant lot now? MR. BURTON-Yes, it is. MR. THOMAS-Has there ever been anything on there before? MR. BURTON-No. Nothing. MR. THOMAS-The proposed trailer, how old is it? MR. BURTON-The home, I believe, is a 1992. It’s vinyl sided, shingle roofed. The home has been inspected by somebody from the Town who’s been out there and looked the home over. The interior is drywall. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So it meets all the building codes and stuff like that? MR. BURTON-Yes, it does. MR. THOMAS-Is that Town water on that road? MR. BURTON-Yes. MR. STONE-Do you own the lot? MR. BURTON-Yes, I do. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. STONE-I was just looking at the sketch plan. MR. BURTON-Well, it’s in Paul Breton’s name right now, but I am the owner of the lot. Paul loaned me the money for the lot. So that’s the way we’re working it. MR. STONE-I just wanted to get rid of that confusion. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? MR. KARPELES-Well, where is the front door going to be on this? MR. BURTON-It’s going to be on, looking at the lot, the front door would be on the left side of the home. I’d say probably 30 feet down on the left hand side of the home. MR. KARPELES-So, are you going to have a walkway going around the front? MR. BURTON-Yes, I am, a concrete walkway. MR. KARPELES-It would be about in the middle of the home, in other words? MR. BURTON-Roughly, at least a third of the way back. MR. MC NALLY-I didn’t understand the ownership. You’re saying Paul Breton owns it? MR. BURTON-The property is in Paul Breton’s name right now. MR. MC NALLY-But it’s going to be in your name? MR. BURTON-Yes. Paul loaned me the money to buy the property, but to secure the loan with Paul, we kept the property in Paul’s name. MR. MC NALLY-And you have an existing trailer that you’re going to put on the lot? MR. BURTON-Yes. The home is sitting in Lamp Lighter Estates right now. MR. MC NALLY-Is it your intent to live there yourself? MR. BURTON-No. I’m not sure yet whether we’re going to rent it or just put it up for sale. That hasn’t been decided yet. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JEAN MOONEY MRS. MOONEY-I live down the street, on the corner. My name is Jean Mooney. I live with my husband and my mother, on the corner of Indiana and Central Avenues. It’s a blue double wide on the corner. I got a variance. I can appreciate where you’re coming from with all the paper work, but my question is, I don’t understatand why the Town would even entertain a variance for something that’s going to turn out to be a rental property or something other than the primary owner’s use. That area, at one time, was a horrendous, horrendous district, because of that. Land is cheap. They picked it up. They threw shacks on it. It was terrible. I mean, I don’t know how long you people have been familiar with that area, but it was terrible, and that lot is very small. I mean, how many bedrooms is this trailer, for one. MR. BURTON-I take it you’re opposed? MRS. MOONEY-Well, I don’t know. I’m upset with the fact that everything in that area is owned, not everything, but a good deal of the property in that area is owned by people other than who live there, and it turns out to be a rental district that we, the property owners, have to put up with. I’m concerned about where the children are going to play, where the, if he was going to live 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) there himself or had some poor mother who couldn’t take care of herself, needed a place to stay, that kind of thing. That’s one thing, but just to be like a tenament on a private lot is just, you know, it doesn’t turn out good. You don’t live in the area, you can’t monitor the tenants. I have a tenant that lives right next door. I know how tough that is, and when you live across Town, and you plop a family on a lot that’s too small, I have a problem with that, and there’s a lot of it up there, which is why I’m here now. Enough is enough. MR. THOMAS-Anything else? MRS. MOONEY-No, but I still didn’t find out how many bedrooms there were. MR. BURTON-Three bedrooms. MRS. MOONEY-So it’s a family with children. If you rent it, it’s a family with children, on a lot that’s already too small. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Anything else? MRS. MOONEY-I guess not. MR. THOMAS-Thanks. Would anyone else like to be heard? Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-I don’t think there was any correspondence. No, nothing I can find. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I will close the public hearing PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant? No more questions? MRS. LAPHAM-The ownership has me a little puzzled. Why did Paul Breton sell you the lot in this manner? Why didn’t he erect a double wide himself or the mobile home? MR. BURTON-Well, we’re going to sell the lot. I’m pretty sure we’re not going to use it as rental property. I’m not into rental property. Originally, our intentions were, it was bought for my son, but now I have a son that doesn’t know what he’s going to do. So we’re just, you know, everything was put together, now the best thing for us to do is probably just sell the property, and not worry about putting my son in there. MRS. LAPHAM-Had you already put a deposit on the mobile home? MR. BURTON-I bought the mobile home. I already own the mobile home. MRS. LAPHAM-And so now you just need a place to put it. MR. BURTON-Right, and we bought the property knowing it was zoned for mobile homes up there. It wasn’t until we got up in there and got measuring it that we found out we were six feet off. So that’s why we asked for the six foot variance. Actually, it has the two bathrooms in it. If it had one bathroom, it would meet the criteria, but it has a two bathroom home, but when I spoke with the Town, it was just a larger septic system that would go in there, that the ground would hold it, would take it, to accommodate the home and the area. So everything was legal on it. It’s just a matter of whether or not we have a two bathroom home or a one bathroom home. That’s with a six foot. Either way, the lady was concerned about how many people were going to live in the home. Regardless, it would be a three bedroom home could go in the area. The six foot variance just happens to be a two bathroom home instead of a one bathroom. MRS. LAPHAM-In other words, if you had a mobile home that had three bedrooms and one bath, you wouldn’t need the six feet. You wouldn’t be here. MR. BURTON-Right, but this here is a better set up. I mean, it’s a nice home, and when we were able to purchase the home, I mean, it was a nice home, and would definitely upgrade the area. Definitely upgrade it. MRS. LAPHAM-He wouldn’t need a variance if he had one less bathroom. Is that what I’m hearing? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. THOMAS-Well, it would be six feet shorter. It would fit. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, and then you wouldn’t need a variance. MS. CIPPERLY-Or one less bedroom. I mean, if we didn’t have a specific trailer we were dealing with. MR. THOMAS-I have one question for Staff. In the MR-5 zone, it says “Front Yard”, and it has three stars after it, and that says, “Or the average setback of the two buildings adjoining”, whichever is greater. Did you measure the two buildings? Or look at the two buildings adjoining? MS. CIPPERLY-I’m not the person who reviewed this. That person’s on their way to Denver. So I don’t know what the adjoining two structures were. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Like I say, whichever is greater. The 30 feet is probably greater, but we never know. So, it’s just something to think about. Next time. MR. BURTON-There are a number of homes up and down that street that are not set back 30 feet, that are older homes. So I mean, this is not a home that is out of place up there, as far as setbacks. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-Yes, but what that’s really saying, if the two other houses were 50 feet back, then it’s got to be 50 feet. So the 30 is the minimum, regardless of what we’re talking about. MR. THOMAS-Yes. A minimum of 30, or the other one. Any other questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. Bonnie, what do you think? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I don’t really think it’s out of character with the neighborhood. I think he’s asking for four feet of relief, which is minimal, or six feet, rather, which is minimal relief. I’m not sure I would be crazy about the idea of granting a variance to someone who is going to not make it their primary residence, but on the other hand, as far as renting it, but I am not particularly against him having the package and then re-selling it to a family that would make it their primary residence. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. KARPELES-Well, it’s kind of a screwy lot. I don’t know, but I really don’t have any real strong feelings against it. I think six feet of relief is kind of minimal, and as far as whether he owned it, I mean, somebody could come in here and say they’re going to live in it, and the next day they could sell it anyway. So what does that mean. MR. STONE-Or rent it. MR. KARPELES-Yes, or rent it. So I guess I would go along with it. MR. THOMAS-Lew? MR. STONE-I’m inclined to go along with it. I think it, at least in the initial phase, it will be an improvement to the neighborhood. I hope that the owner of the property, whether it’s you, sir, or whether you sell it to someone else, I hope that they would maintain it. I agree with the woman who spoke earlier, that that neighborhood is trying to very hard to improve itself, and looking at that lot, I think anything that’s on there, and with somebody taking care of the rest of the stubble around the lot, I think it’ll be, I certainly would be inclined to grant the variance. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I’m in agreement with the rest of the Board, and I think six feet is minimal relief that you could really have to ask for, and I think it’s an important aspect of his ownership of the property. He has the right to develop it in the way that’s in accordance with the rules set forth, and he’s been more than honest. Like Mr. Karpeles said, he doesn’t have to totally justify himself in that way, so I think I would be inclined to be in favor of this. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. McNally. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. MC NALLY-Well, I’ll preface Staff by saying first I do think it’s minimal relief, and I would be in favor of granting the variance. With that being said, I’m not on the Town Board, and I didn’t make this Zoning Ordinance which requires a 30 foot frontage for setback. It seems to me that if someone is going to buy some property, and he’s going to buy a mobile home to place on the property, which is permitted in this particular area, that they would give some thought (lost words) how long the thing was. The Town Zoning Code calls for certain setbacks, and I really do think that they should be followed, (lost words), but the neighborhood is a mixed character. There are some nice small homes there. There are some poor small homes. There are some pretty lousy mobile homes, and there are some nice mobile homes. I think by putting an appropriate mobile home on the property, it probably is a minimal change and probably an improvement to the property. I would be in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members. I think it’s an appropriate use for the property. It’s like Mr. McNally said, we didn’t make the rules. We just grant relief from them. In this area, the minimum square footage is 10,000 square feet, and way back when, these lots were all hacked up. This was whacked into a 60 by 100, which is 6,000 square feet. So it’s only 60% of what is required now. Back then, it was no big problem with a 60 foot lot, but now they’re requiring a minimum of 10,000 square feet on a lot, and a lot of people, well, you just can’t get it in this neighborhood, and it is an allowed use. The mobile home is an allowed use, and it’s a fairly new one. It’s only five years old, and the applicant has stated that the home is shingle roofed, vinyl sided, sheetrocked inside. So we know it’s not a real old one that could collapse any minute. So, as the other Board members have said, any other applicant could come in here and say, yes, I’m going to live here and tomorrow put the For Sale sign out or the For Rent sign. So I have no problem with it. Having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-1997 BRUCE BURTON , Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: The applicant is seeking to locate a mobile home on a lot zoned MR-5, and in a Mobile Home Overlay Zone. The location of the home will not meet the front yard setbacks of the underlying MR-5 zone, which are 30 feet. The benefit to the applicant is that this relief would permit the applicant to place a home on a lot with a nonconforming front yard setback. The feasible alternatives are minimal because the width of the lot and the location of the proposed septic system make it difficult to locate the home on the lot without requiring some type of setback relief. The applicant is seeking six feet of front yard setback relief, which appears to be minimal. The neighborhood should benefit from the use of this vacant lot, which currently creates a bad appearance for the neighborhood, and a new building on that with someone taking care of the property certainly should improve the neighborhood. This difficulty is self created in that it is a 6,000 square foot lot, 100 by 60, and in attempt to put in the best possible trailer, trying to get a three bedroom trailer with two bathrooms, it makes it difficult to replace this mobile home without some setback relief. th Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Custer MR. THOMAS-There you go. You’re all set. MR. BURTON-Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-1997 TYPE II WR-1A CEA WILLIAM & LORRAINE KEIS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE EAST SIDE OF CLEVERDALE ROAD 276 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANTS PROPOSE TO CONSTRUCT ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING HOME. THE ADDITIONS WILL NOT MEET THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN SECTION 179-16, 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE. CROSS REF. SPR 30-97 TAX MAP NO. 13-3- 25 LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES SECTION 179-16 JOSEPH LENARO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 39-1997, William & Lorraine Keis, Meeting Date: August PROJECT LOCATION:Proposed Project and 20, 1997 “ 276 Cleverdale Road, east side Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant proposes to remove an existing sunporch and construct a 16 ft. by 32 ft. living space addition. The applicant also proposes removing an existing front porch with no replacement and removal and expansion of an additional front porch. The Criteria for proposed additions will not meet the rear (side) setbacks of the WR-1A zone. considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to improve and slightly increase the amount of living 2. Feasible alternatives: space in this home. It appears that there are no alternatives which 3. would allow the applicant to increase the square footage of this home while requiring less relief. Is this relief subbstantial relative to the Ordinance? The rear setback requirement is 30 ft. The proposed lakeside addition is 18.6 ft. from the rear (south) lot line. The existing house is also 18.6 ft. from the rear line. The proposed road side (west) porch addition is 24.0 ft. from the rear (north) lot line and is also in line with the existing house. The relief is interpreted as minimal relative to 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? the Ordinance. Staff anticipates no negative 5. Is this difficulty self impacts with this request to construct an addition to an existing home. created? The size of this nonconforming lot and the location of the existing house do allow for Staff Comments and Concerns: expansion that would not require the proposed relief. Staff believes that this proposal would not have any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Board will review this application should the ZBA choose to grant relief. The SEQR: Planning Board will look at issues such as stormwater runoff. Type II, no further action required.” MR. THOMAS-All right, and nothing from the County. MRS. LAPHAM-No. MS. CIPPERLY-Could I ask you a question before they start? I’m just looking at this drawing for the first time. The lot width on here is, what? MR. LENARO-It’s 60 plus 30 feet, so 90 feet total. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Do you have anything else you want to add, say, tell us about? MR. LENARO-Yes. My name is Joseph Lenaro. I’m representing the applicant, Bill and Lorraine Keis. They are both here in the audience tonight. I wanted to just briefly discuss the program that was used to develop the plans for this building expansion, so you can see what was incorporated, and why we’re looking for this relief. The building expansion, in the back, is basically aligning the side elevation of the wall along this common wall line, not increasing the current setback from 18.6, providing approximately a two foot addition to this side of the existing sunroom. The addition to the rear is four feet. The addition here is as well two feet. The program that was being developed is primarily based upon the interior spaces that were trying to be created as well as the aesthetics or the appearance of the elevation, the lake front elevation. To briefly go over the floor plan that is being proposed, building plans were submitted as part of the building permit application. I’m not aware if you had an opportunity to review those plans. The sunroom, this is the road here. This would be the lake here. This line right here represents the existing sunroom limits, and as you can see, it’s a minor expansion of this facility, but the major components that are occurring inside is a significant renovation, which is taking a small kitchen in this area and re-defining that kitchen in this area 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) and accommodating a country style kitchen where you would have the kitchen operations occur here, and then the dining operations occur here, taking advantage of the views of the lake. The other element is an expansion of the existing family room and living room, eliminating a small area of the sunroom and combing these spaces so they act more as a permanent type use for common living family room operation, and by eliminating the jog in the wall, this space has become more opened up and more uniform for placement of furniture and separation of the two different types of occupancies of that individual space. The exterior components that were being considered as part of this program development is trying to incorporate a line of fenestration that would introduce some symmetry to the existing rear elevation. It’s my understanding that most of the Board members did have an opportunity to view the existing structure. One of the changes to the front I’ll get to a little bit later, but one of the changes to the back that we’re proposing with this expansion is to try to introduce some symmetry. By allowing the relief of allowing this jog to come out two additional feet, allows me to line up the structure and the addition and balance this addition, so that line of fenestration can occur between these proposed dormers being constructed over the existing windows. This allows me to center these main elements and promote the symmetry that we’re trying to provide here. By not allowing that two foot relief and balancing this expansion, the addition looks top heavy. The dormers are going to be heavier above this lower element because it’ll be squeezed in a little bit two additional feet. The same types of elements were being considered when we did the expansion or the renovation in the front, if you’d like to take a look at that. See the dormer lines here? These are new dormers being constructed over the existing windows. The window treatments are being proposed as additional, and if these lines were in here, not bringing this out two foot even on both sides, we’d have a top heavy looking elevation from the lake. So by promoting this symmetry and allowing this minor expansion on both sides of the existing structure, I’m able to promote this very symmetrical and more appealing rear elevation or lake front elevation of the residence. In the front of front of the structure, the primary goal was to eliminate, as you’ve noticed, there were two porches on this front elevation, and two front doors, both of them entering the building. The goal with our renovation to the front is to eliminate this porch and this entrance and make it a combined porch and entrance, making it look more like a single family residence and not a duplex, improving and focusing on a single main entrance to the residence. So those are the basic program needs that we were trying to address with our plans, and we are here seeking the relief for the variance to allow for us to reconstruct this structure, and again, not exceeding any of the existing, nonconforming setbacks to the front, or not exceeding any of the existing nonconforming setbacks to the side or rear, however it would be defined. MR. STONE-The applicant asked me to remind you that the lake is front and the street is back. MR. LENARO-We have two fronts, yes. MR. STONE-As a lake owner, we work hard at that. MS. CIPPERLY-Could I make a comment on that? Just in looking at the Staff Notes, which again, I wasn’t the one that prepared it, the lot width here is 90 feet, and it’s considered to actually have two front yards, you’re correct, because of the changes in the Waterfront Residential zone. So, the setback that’s required between the road and the front porch is 30 feet. That’s correct, in the notes. So it looks like they’re proposing, I don’t see the distance that would actually be. MR. LENARO-26.2 is the existing, and it is being maintained. MS. CIPPERLY-So on that issue, you’re looking for a little over three feet of relief. If you look at the Ordinance, for a lot that is 90 feet wide, the side and rear setbacks are actually 20 feet. MR. LENARO-Exactly. MS. CIPPERLY-So, the Staff Notes said 30 feet. So you’re actually seeking about a foot and a half of relief on that, where the sunroom is. So I just wanted to correct that, because that required setback is actually 20. MR. LENARO-And the relief is very minor. MR. STONE-A question of the Staff. Sue, is not the setback to the stoop itself, not to the actual wall of the house? MS. CIPPERLY-That’s what I was saying. On the front it looks like the 26.2 is to the corner of the house. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. STONE-Right. MS. CIPPERLY-And the porch is. MR. LENARO-It would be four feet less. MS. CIPPERLY-Four feet less. MR. STONE-So it would be 22 feet. MS. CIPPERLY-So 22 feet out of the 30. MR. LENARO-The existing porch is four feet. So the porch that we’re eliminating, that comes out four feet, we’re basically taking that area off, and sliding it next to where the existing four foot porch. There’s actually two front porches. We’re demolishing both front porches, and reconstructing a porch of similar size, at one location, and the setback is not being increased. MR. STONE-Is that still going to be 22 feet from the property line? MR. LENARO-Exactly. MR. STONE-So it’s 22, not 26. That’s the point I’m trying to make. MR. LENARO-I’ve got you. Okay. That’s fine. MS. CIPPERLY-But my major point was that there was a 10 foot difference in what the Staff Notes said for the sunroom setback. MR. STONE-Side setback. MS. CIPPERLY-If you have two front yards, you have two rear yards, but it doesn’t make any difference. The setback is the same for side and rear in these new regulations. MR. THOMAS-If you look on this print at the end of the 60 foot part going north, that property line jogs in a foot and a half, and then goes 30 feet to the next north property line. So, I don’t know how far that is from that new porch. That measurement’s not on there. MR. LENARO-Which measurement? The porch, the new porch, there is a dimension of 24 feet. There’s a side yard. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s a side yard, but I mean to the front yard. MR. LENARO-Again, that front porch that’s being proposed is in the same exact location of an existing porch, and it’s not going to be coming out any farther than the existing porch is. If you look on, I don’t know if you have the floor plans, but I know they show, may I approach the Board? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. LENARO-See, there’s an existing door here, and an existing porch here, existing door here, and an existing porch here. What we’re doing is eliminating that door and that porch, and making this a double door, basically taking that same porch area and sliding it next to this, so the setback from here to the road is not changing. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but see this is still a pre-existing, nonconforming setback. MR. LENARO-Exactly. MR. THOMAS-So we have to grant you relief from that, too. MR. LENARO-Exactly. MR. THOMAS-So we need to know what that measurement is. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. LENARO-I would use the basis of it being this 26.2 minus the 4 feet, because this building line. MR. THOMAS-Minus the 1.5. See this 1.5 right here, that comes back. So it’s 1.5. So it’s 22 minus 5 and a half. MR. STONE-26 minus 5 and a half. MR. LENARO-Yes, 26.2 minus 4 minus. MR. STONE-If that is absolutely parallel to the property line. MR. LENARO-The original survey that this was based on didn’t have a building setback to that, specifically. MR. STONE-And that property line is correct, in terms of the width of the road? MR. LENARO-The property line that’s shown on here is based on a field survey that is referenced in my map reference. MR. STONE-So there’s no additional right-of-way to the road at that point? Because I know that sometimes comes into question. Cleverdale Road is not a dedicated road. It’s a road by use, I believe. MR. LENARO-That I’m not sure. MS. CIPPERLY-It’s a road by use. MR. STONE-A road by use. So it doesn’t have to be three rods. It’s whatever it is. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-So, Lew, you’re saying the same rules don’t apply as a dedicated road? MR. STONE-A dedicated road has to be three rods wide, 49 and a half feet. This road is whatever it is. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. I guess I wanted you to just repeat that, and you did. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant’s agent? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this project? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Does anyone else have any more questions for Mr. Lenaro? If not, lets go down and find out what everybody thinks. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I would say that if all the applications had minimal relief like this one does, and the beautiful plans, our job would be easy. I don’t think I need to say anything more than that. I’m in favor of the application. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I agree, absolutely. I think the Keis’ are very fortunate to have such a large lot on Cleverdale. It’s not often we see a 90 foot wide lot on Cleverdale, plus a very deep lot, and I think it’s great. I think what they’re doing is only going to make an asset to the community, and I have absolutely no problem. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. THOMAS-Mr. Karpeles? MR. KARPELES-I agree. I think it’s a big improvement, and I think it’s going to increase the value of the land. It’s going to increase the looks in the area. It’s an asset to the neighborhood. The only objection I can find is the spelling of the engineer. Engineers are notoriously bad spellers. I can say that, because I am one. MR. STONE-“No wak”. This is not a Chinese house. MR. KARPELES-“Plans show know structures believed to exist” k-n-o-w. Other than that, it looks like a pretty good plan. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I think this is a great plan. It’s definitely going to improve things, particularly the front elevation or rear elevation, depending on, the roadside elevation with the two front doors that makes it look like a duplex now, it’ll look a lot better when it appears to be what it is, which is a very nice one family home. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and Bob, Jr., I guess I’ll have to call you. Bob, Sr and Bob, Jr. MR. MC NALLY-Next time I go up there I won’t be confused and think this is a duplex. I swore it was a duplex walking up to the house, because of the two front entrances. By eliminating one of them, and then combing the two overhangs, you’re essentially (lost words). On the rear, certainly it’s a minimal relief that he’s requested to expand the sunroom a foot and a half toward the south. I’ll approve. MR. THOMAS-All right. I have no problem with this. I think it will be an improvement to the house. What else can I say? I think everything else has been said. Having said that, would someone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-1997 WILLIAM AND LORRAINE KEIS , Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: The applicants propose to construct additions to an existing home, they propose two overhangs on the side of their home to the west adjacent to Cleverdale Road, and to reconstruct one overhang, four by twelve feet, no closer to Cleverdale Road than the existing structure already is. They also propose an addition to the south side of their sunroom, a distance of 1.6 feet, to bring that sunroom flush with the existing main structure of the building. The applicants are seeking a variance which is 9.3 feet on the west, and 1.5 feet on the south. These variances are minimal relief. They will have no impact on the surrounding area. They are improvements to the property, and for that reason , my motion is that the application be approved. th Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Custer MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. LENARO-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-1997 TYPE II CR-15 BERNARD PALMER, SR. OWNER: TH SAME AS ABOVE MAIN STREET, SOUTH SIDE OF STREET, 4 HOUSE PAST RICHARDSON STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO OPERATE A CRAFT AND ANTIQUE SHOP ON THEIR PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT’S PROPERTY IS NOT ONE ACRE IN SIZE WHICH IS REQUIRED IN THE CR-15 ZONE FOR COMMERCIAL BUSINESS. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE ABOVE- MENTIONED REQUIREMENT WHICH IS LISTED IN SECTION 179-24, COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL 15. CROSS REF. SPR 27-97 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8/13/97 TAX MAP NO. 131-5-24 LOT SIZE: 0.17 ACRES SECTION 179-2 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) BERNARD PALMER, SR., PRESENT MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, since Mr. Palmer and I are engaged in a political campaign against each other, I will recuse myself from this variance hearing. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So excused. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 44-1997, Bernard Palmer, Sr., Meeting Date: August 20, PROJECT LOCATION:Proposed Project and Conformance with 1997 “ 42 Main Street, the Ordinance: The applicant proposes to operate a craft and antique shop within a front porch area of his property. The area of this property (7500 sq. ft.) does not conform to the zoning ordinance which requires a minimum of one acre of land for the operation of commercial uses in Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town the CR-15 zone. Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to operate a commercial use 2. Feasible alternatives: which would be conveniently located on the same site as his home. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Alternatives are limited due to the size of this lot. Ordinance? The applicant is seeking to allow a commercial use on a piece of property with a lot 4. area of 7500 sq. ft. One acre, 43,560 sq. ft., is required for commercial uses in a CR-15 zone. Effects on the neighborhood or community? Staff anticipates no negative impacts with this 5. Is this difficulty self created? request to operate a commercial use on this property. The size of this lot makes it difficult to conform to current regulations which were put into place after this Staff Comments & Concerns: lot was created. Should the ZBA choose to grant relief, the Planning Board will also review this application and will look at issues such as stormwater SEQR: management and parking. Type II, no further action required.” th MRS. LAPHAM-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 13 day of August 1997, the above application for an Area Variance to operate a craft shop on an existing front porch was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: With the condition that the means of egress/ingress would be such that a curb cut would limit access into the front yard area and the cars would be parked in an east-west direction, therefore parallel to the road. Configure the parking as to encourage driving onto the road rather than backing onto the road. This does not have to be a formal curb cut, it could be fencing or landscaping, just so that it is an impediment to traffic backing out.” Signed Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Palmer, is there anything else you want to add, say? MR. PALMER-No. MR. THOMAS-Not a thing? I have two questions for you. On Page Two of the application, under the review questions, Questions Number Two and Four weren’t answered. MR. PALMER-What were they? MR. THOMAS-The first one is “What effect would this variance have on the character of the community and the health, safety and welfare of the community?” MR. PALMER-It wouldn’t change anything. MR. THOMAS-And the fourth one was, “Is the amount of relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?” MR. PALMER-What do you mean by that? MR. THOMAS-Will this change, the Ordinance calls for one acre, and you have 7500 square feet. Would you consider this relief substantial or not, if this variance were granted? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. PALMER-It’s minor relief, yes. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Any questions for the applicant? MR. KARPELES-Well, this comment that the Warren County Planning Board has I think is a good comment. How do you propose you can comply with that, the parking? MR. PALMER-Well, I’m going to have them pull in on the west side, and they’ll be able to pull out on the east side. MR. KARPELES-In front of the place? MR. PALMER-Yes. MR. KARPELES-You can’t go around in back of the place? MR. PALMER-Eventually, they’ll be able to do that. I’m going to take that garage down. Do you have a copy of the thing I, okay, eventually, I’m going to take that garage out of there. MR. KARPELES-No, I don’t think I got a copy of this. MR. THOMAS-You didn’t get a copy of this? It’s not stapled on the back? On the application. MR. KARPELES-I’ve got it. Okay. MR. PALMER-Eventually I’ll be taking that garage out of there and they’ll be able to drive right around, but in the mean time, they’ll be able to come in on the driveway side, which is the west side, and come out the other side. I’m going to level that all off there. MR. KARPELES-So they’ll be pulling out frontwards into the traffic, right? MR. PALMER-Right. MS. CIPPERLY-One comment that I have, since these notes were done, again, not by me, but if this is going to be converted to a commercial use, right now there’s a building permit for a residential use for that porch. If the use changes to commercial, it will need to have a different kind of separation wall between the commercial space in the house, and also it will need a handicapped ramp to be able to access the shop. MR. THOMAS-Wait a minute. Tell me about the wall. MS. CIPPERLY-It’ll have to, let me get my note here, from Dave Hatin our Building Inspector. It says, “Mr. Palmer will have to provide a one hour fire separation as well as a handicapped ramp for this commercial venture.” One hour fire separation is usually a different kind of drywall, sheetrock. MR. THOMAS-So, it’s no big deal. MS. CIPPERLY-No. The ramp, I think, might be more of a consideration, as far as space goes on the site, and, you know, if this goes to the Planning Board, that’s something they’re going to have to look at as far as being able to access this site. MR. THOMAS-So we’re really not concerned about the handicapped access, or really the fire wall either. MS. CIPPERLY-I’m bringing that up because I haven’t seen the site and I didn’t know how tight the site was, as far as being able to work, because space is an issue here, the number of square feet of space. In fact, our Ordinance normally requires, for a commercial use it requires five parking spaces for everything 1,000 square feet. Well, this is 218 or whatever I just figured out. So there’d have to be at least. MR. PALMER-Two parking places. That’s what I was told. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. So I just thought I would add that to the record, that it does have some building code considerations that may effect the site plan eventually and could effect your considerations of lot size. MR. THOMAS-Gotcha. MR. PALMER-If I may, I’m going t have the ramp right in the front, and it’s going to come around by the door, where the door is on the porch. The wheelchair access ramp will be right in front. MR. THOMAS-Okay. That takes care of that, and then the fire wall issue there, you just have to nail up some different sheetrock, I guess. MR. PALMER-Just tell me where that goes and I’ll take care of that. MR. THOMAS-That’s up to the Building Department. Mr. Hatin takes care of that, and I imagine at the Planning Board they’ll talk about that, too. MR. MC NALLY-So I understand it, when you look at this building, your entrance is going to be on the right hand side, on the side of the porch? That’s how I read your plans. MR. PALMER-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And you’re going to build some kind of handicapped access there? MR. PALMER-The handicapped access will be on the front of the building, and it’ll come around to where the door is. MR. MC NALLY-What would that consist of, a ramp of some kind, I take it? MR. PALMER-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Handrails that would lead to that entrance? MR. PALMER-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Then that would be the only entrance to your business then, would be the combined handicapped and regular entrance? MR. PALMER-Yes, there would be for the wheelchairs to come up, and then on the other part there, I’ll have for people to walk down, if that’s what you mean. MR. MC NALLY-When I look at that side of your house, I see a 15 foot distance between the existing main house and the side lot line on the west side. MR. PALMER-Yes, probably right around there, 15 from the house to the side. From the porch, it’s probably 18, just roughly. MR. MC NALLY-Because that’s what I was going to ask you, how far in the porch was. MR. PALMER-It’s probably three feet, I’m just guessing. MR. MC NALLY-Is it 50 feet from the north property line to the main house? It looked awfully short when I visited it. MR. PALMER-It’s 50 feet from the middle of the road to the front of the house. MR. MC NALLY-I see. So that line is like the middle of the road. Do you have like an idea where your property line actually is, or where the edge of the road might be? MR. PALMER-The edge of the road is 20 feet from the front of the porch. MR. THOMAS-I would say that probably the property line, if it’s 20 feet, yes, it would probably be another five feet closer to the house. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MRS. LAPHAM-It would be right about here, wouldn’t it? MR. THOMAS-Yes. That’s a County Highway. So those vary in width, too. MRS. LAPHAM-Now you live in the house now? MR. PALMER-Yes, ma’am. MRS. LAPHAM-And do you have any intention of ever, not ever, in the near future, of leaving and making the whole house the shop? MR. PALMER-That is in my plans, but it’s not really in the immediate future. I want to see how the craft shop goes. If I make a bundle there. MRS. LAPHAM-Then you’ll move up town. MR. PALMER-Up town, yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Up town and open up your whole house to the shop, in the future. MR. PALMER-That’s a possibility. MS. CIPPERLY-Can I ask where you got the dimensions for this lot, the 50 by 150. Was that off a tax map or do you have a survey map? MR. PALMER-That’s off my deed, I think. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. MR. PALMER-Which everybody should have a copy of that. MS. CIPPERLY-Because the 50 feet to the corner of the house looks actually pretty good. It’s about a third of the side lot line there. So the porch is, you said 12. MR. THOMAS-Lets see. The porch is 18 and a half feet across. MS. CIPPERLY-Do you see what I’m saying, Chris? The corner of the house, if that’s 50 feet from the road, and if this drawing is to scale, that looks like about a third of that side lot line. So I think that 50 feet is pretty good. Then if you take away the, what was it, 12 feet wide for the porch? MR. THOMAS-Yes, 12 feet. MS. CIPPERLY-That would bring you to 38. MR. THOMAS-Well, that 50 foot measurement is from center line. MR. PALMER-Yes, that’s from the center of the road. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. That’s why I asked where these lot dimensions. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and then you figure that the road sits in the middle of the road right-of-way, which is 50 feet wide, 49 and a half. So actually the house sits back 25 feet from the property line. The porch sticks out 12 feet. So the porch is probably 13 feet from the property line. MR. PALMER-Twenty feet from the edge of the road. I measured it, the porch. MR. HAYES-And you said that the edge of the road, we had to allow another five feet for the property line itself. So if you measured it 20, it would actually be 15 feet from the property line. MR. THOMAS-Well, the lanes on a highway are 11 feet wide. So 25 minus 11 is 14. So there would be 14 feet from the edge of the pavement to the property line. MR. PALMER-No. I think it’s about 18. I measured right to the pavement. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. THOMAS-You measured to the pavement? MR. PALMER-To the edge of the pavement. MR. THOMAS-Not to the center line of the pavement. MR. PALMER-The 50 foot is from the center line. The 20 foot is from the edge of the pavement. MR. MC NALLY-The edge of the pavement to the front of the house? MR. PALMER-The front of the porch. The 50 feet, I measured when I didn’t have the porch on there. Somebody said it went from the middle of the road, so I measured from the middle of the road, to the front of the house, and then I put the porch on. MR. THOMAS-Some deeds do read from middle line of road. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, they do. MR. PALMER-Well, that’s what somebody told me, so that’s why I measured it that way. MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant? MR. MC NALLY-I just want to understand what we’re being asked to approve. MR. THOMAS-We’re being asked to approve the fact that, in a CR-15 zone, the minimum lot area is one acre, okay, for a commercial use. Mr. Palmer’s area, his lot area, is 7500 square feet, which is about, what, one-fifth, one-sixth. MR. MC NALLY-Do we also have to approve variances from your side and front setbacks, along with the lot size? MR. THOMAS-If we do, then it wasn’t advertised right. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, that’s why I was a little concerned about the dimensions, here. There was no porch on your house to begin with, right? MR. PALMER-Yes, there was. MS. CIPPERLY-Was it this same size? MR. PALMER-I think there’s two feet difference. MS. CIPPERLY-This is two feet? MR. PALMER-Wider. The other porch was about 10 by 18. This is 12 by 18, but this one’s enclosed. The other one wasn’t enclosed. MS. CIPPERLY-So this one is actually two feet, probably about two feet closer to the road than the old one. MR. PALMER-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-When was that changed then? It’s under construction as we speak. This is just a new change? MR. PALMER-In the last six months. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. MC NALLY-If I look at 179-24, the Commercial Residential 15 zone, it seems to me that you need a front setback of 75 feet. You need a side setback of a minimum of 20 feet. Am I reading that right? MS. CIPPERLY-He originally came in for his porch as a residential porch. A residential use in that zone requires a front setback of 50 feet. MR. PALMER-Excuse me a minute. When I first asked, told them I was going to put a porch on, I told them I was going to have a craft shop in it. I didn’t say I was going to have it residential. I don’t know where you got that information. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. I don’t know how the Building Permit got issued, then, before you went through this process, because if it was going to be for a commercial use, in fact, when I asked the Building Department, they said it was being put on as a residential porch, and that’s how you got your Building Permit, before this process, and then you wanted to change and use it as a commercial use, but I’ll take your word for it that you mentioned it ahead of time. That makes it worse, because if it were a commercial use, you’d have to be 75 feet back from the road. So either way, you would need a variance for the structure. MR. THOMAS-You need setback variances, not just a variance from the fact that it’s an undersized lot. I don’t believe the advertisements read side line setbacks, and also I do believe, doesn’t it say in here something about a buffer zone? MS. CIPPERLY-Not between uses. It would be at a zone line. MR. THOMAS-Yes, at a zone line. MS. CIPPERLY-The other thing, you were talking about like you need an acre for commercial use, but even for a residential, I mean, this is a nonconforming lot, even with the zone. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. PALMER-There are businesses right next door to me that are just as close to the road, and up and down the street there’s businesses that are even closer to the road. MS. CIPPERLY-How do they handle their parking? Is it parallel like you’re proposing, or do they have a different shaped lot? MR. PALMER-The man right next door to me, they drive out in back of his place, and then they turn around and come back out. MR. HAYES-Which one is that? MR. PALMER-That’s the massage parlor, and then next door to them, the Impressive Imprints is, they have parking. I think they go right around the building. MR. HAYES-But they have internal parking there. MR. PALMER-Yes. Eventually, I will have parking out in back, and all that. MR. THOMAS-Was it advertised right or wasn’t it? I don’t want to get into another ball game. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, as far as I was told by the Building Department, that there was a permit issued for a residential porch. So, to me, there probably should have been a setback variance applied for, for the porch, even it if was residential, but I don’t have the Building Permit file right here. So I’m a little confused by the dimensions here on the front, as to whether this would work for cars coming in to the front, and not having seen the site, I don’t have a good picture of it. Is there even room for a car to get in and out of there? MR. PALMER-Sure there’s room. I’ve been parking there since 1973, on my front yard. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, but to add a handicapped ramp onto the front of the porch, that would, again, require some setback relief. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. MC NALLY-And it’s going to turn around the corner, too, on the driveway side. You’re going to narrow that even further. MR. THOMAS-Well, if he keeps it three feet, it’ll stick out the same width as the building. I don’t know how wide a handicapped ramp has to be. MR. PALMER-Thirty-six inches, I believe. MR. THOMAS-So that’s four feet. So you’re going to be hanging out by 10 inches. MS. CIPPERLY-And there’s a 20 foot side setback required here. MR. THOMAS-Yes, and he’s got 15 now. It sounds like this needs to be re-advertised, because I don’t think we have all the variances listed here that we need. MR. HAYES-He needs a front and a side yard setback, right? MR. THOMAS-Front and side yard setback. MR. HAYES-Both sides. MR. THOMAS-Yes, is there 50 feet between the buildings? Since there’s commercial both sides of him? MS. CIPPERLY-I don’t know where the buildings are on the other. MR. HAYES-They’re close, they’re pretty close. MR. THOMAS-Yes, because it says, all commercial buildings shall be a minimum of 50 feet apart, with 20 foot minimum side yard setback. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I think that has to do with fire access. MR. THOMAS-It probably does. MS. CIPPERLY-I think we need some better dimensions here, for one thing, and I think it really would require an Area Variance. MR. PALMER-What do you mean better dimensions? I’ve got it all drawn out. I did everything they told me to do. I got all the footage right here on paper. MS. CIPPERLY-As I said, I wasn’t part of that process. The Staff person who was doing this job is no longer at the Town. The Building Department may have had a drawing similar to this, and the 50 foot setback is a little deceiving because it looks like it’s to the property line. MR. PALMER-I told you it’s to the middle of the road. MR. KARPELES-We need to know where it is from the property line. We have to know how far it is from the property line. MR. PALMER-Well, I have that right here. It’s 20 foot from the edge of the road to the front of the porch. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but we don’t know where the property line is in relationship to the edge of the road. MR. PALMER-It’s probably two foot difference right there, where the pipe is. MR. KARPELES-We don’t know. I mean, we’d have to know where it is. MR. MC NALLY-Even if we agreed with you, you would have to (lost words) so that we knew what type of variance to issue, and to advertise. MR. PALMER-So, what are we saying? You’re going to hold me up some more? I mean, I called about this last November and told you what I wanted to do. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. THOMAS-Like I say, you’re here before us. The only thing we have are the pieces of paper that the Town gives us, that you gave to the Town. MR. PALMER-That’s what they asked me for. They gave me a thing and told me what I needed, and I handed it all in to them, and I was right there when they checked through it. MR. THOMAS-Well, whoever checked through it didn’t check that front property line, because it doesn’t show the pins or anything like that. MS. CIPPERLY-There’s also a considerable amount of information missing on this application that really should have been supplied. The questions weren’t answered. So I don’t really know how this got through. MR. THOMAS-Yes, how did this get through? I mean, this is so incomplete. The only thing I can say is give the applicant back the application, get it filled out totally, especially this page here, the site development page, because that lists all the proposed and existing setbacks, and then we’ll have to reschedule for next month. MS. CIPPERLY-That’s what I would say would have to happen. MR. THOMAS-Yes. So I would think we would have to table it. Does anybody think any differently? Okay. MR. MC NALLY-I agree. MR. KARPELES-I agree. MRS. LAPHAM-I agree. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. PALMER-So what do I need to do here? MR. THOMAS-This Page Two, where it says Site Development Data, where it says proposed, okay, the building area, existing, this has to be filled in. Proposed, this has to be filled in. Your setbacks, existing, proposed, and required. MR. PALMER-It’s all right here, you know. MR. THOMAS-Well, it’s got to be in here. MS. CIPPERLY-To the property line it has to be, also. MR. KARPELES-Yes. The property line has to be defined on the sketch. MR. PALMER-Well, thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-All right. We’re going to table it until 62 days. MR. PALMER-Would you send me a letter? MR. THOMAS-Yes. They’ll send you a letter, tell you what you need. MS. CIPPERLY-We have to have this application back in. Then we’ll. MR. THOMAS-Well, do you want to give him back the original one to fill it in? MS. CIPPERLY-I mean, we have to have an application before we can put it on the agenda. We have to have that information. MR. THOMAS-Well, we’ll just table it for up to 62 days, and if he brings it back in, in time for the September meeting, well, then we can put it on September’s. MR. PALMER-When am I going to be able to open up the craft shop? 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. THOMAS-That I couldn’t tell you. That’s not our department over here. It’s not mine. MR. MC NALLY-We can’t act on an application until it’s been properly advertised, and that requires setback variances, and your application is incomplete. You needed that kind of information like a survey. I know, probably it’s two feet, probably it’s five feet, but that’s not enough. So if you can cooperate by getting that information, even if the Town told you you didn’t need it before. MR. PALMER-Well, I did everything they asked me to do. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t disagree with you. MR. PALMER-And this is just holding me up and costing me money. MR. MC NALLY-At least when we get this kind of information, and as much information as you can give us, then we can act on your application. We can’t until then. MR. PALMER-Thank you. MR. KARPELES-You know there’s no guarantee it’s going to get approved once you get this information in. MR. PALMER-That doesn’t surprise me. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-1997 BERNARD PALMER, SR. , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: So the applicant can furnish us with more information, and so that the application can be advertised properly. th Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Custer MR KARPELES-Should we save this? MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, we should be getting new ones on this one, because that Page Two should be filled out. MR. KARPELES-Are we going to get entirely new? MR. THOMAS-We should get entirely new ones. MS. CIPPERLY-I think you should. MR. THOMAS-With the second page filled out, and also when it comes back in, the Questions Two and Four that he didn’t answer before. That takes care of that one. AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-1997 TYPE II WR-1A CEA MIKE DORAN PEGGY WARD OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE ROCKHURST ROAD, THIRD HOUSE ON RIGHT PAST MARINA APPLICANT’S PROPOSE TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME. THE EXPANSION WOULD BE MORE THAN A 50 PERCENT EXPANSION OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AT THIS LOCATION, AND WOULD NOT CONFORM TO THE FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE REGULATIONS LISTED IN SECTION 179-79 AND THE FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 179-16, WATERFRONT 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE. CROSS REF. SPR 31-97 TAX MAP NO. 15-1-49 LOT SIZE: 0.08 ACRES SECTION 179-79, 179-16 DEAN HOWLAND, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-1997, Mike Doran Peggy Ward, Meeting Date: August PROJECT LOCATION:Proposed Project and Conformance with 20, 1997 “ Rockhurst Rd. the Ordinance: The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing home. The expansion will not meet the Floor Area Ratio requirements of the WR-1A zone and will be an expansion of greater than 50% of the square footage of the original structure on this property. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to increase the amount of living space in this Feasible alternatives: home. It appears that there are no alternatives which would allow the 3. Is this relief applicant to increase the square footage of this home while requiring less relief. substantial relative to the ordinance? The applicant is seeking to add 410 square feet of living space to this home. The original square footage of this home is listed as 728 sq. ft. Therefore the applicant seeks to expand this home by 56% of the area of the original structure. The applicant 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? proposes a Floor Area Ratio of 42%. Staff Is anticipates no negative impacts with this request to construct an addition to an existing home. this difficulty self created? The size of the nonconforming lot and the amount of living space currently built at this location do not allow any expansion that would not require some form of Staff Comments & Concerns: relief. Staff believes this proposal would not have any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Board will review this application should the ZBA choose to grant relief. The Planning Board will look at issues such as stormwater runoff. SEQR: Type II, no further action required.” MR. THOMAS-All right. Any other things you want to add? MR. HOWLAND-Yes. My name is Dean Howland, and I’m the agent, and during the reading of the Staff Notes, they said that the existing building or previous building was 700 and some odd square feet. It’s 873.32 square feet. It’s been that way for as long as I’ve ever been around there. MR. THOMAS-The original building on the lot may have been the 712. MRS. LAPHAM-728. MR. THOMAS-It may have been 728. MR. HOWLAND-Maybe. MR. THOMAS-In the original, but that’s what they have to go by, the original building that was there, even though there may have been three or four additions put on to it. They have to go by the size of the original building that was first built on that lot. MR. HOWLAND-Where did they get the original? MR. THOMAS-Tax records, Assessor’s records. MS. CIPPERLY-That may be. Because there was a porch on the front here that may not have been in the Assessor’s records as living space, but now I believe that bumped out part is living space now. MR. HOWLAND-Yes. It’s been there for as long as I’ve been working on Rockhurst. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MS. CIPPERLY-But that may be that it was expanded into, but we have to go by the original, the Code reads over the original structure. MR. HOWLAND-Okay. Well, I have no knowledge of that, but we were trying to stay within the zoning law, or the increase for a remodeling job of up to 50%. We tried to make the existing building look like a small salt box A-Frame, and therefore the roof that’s on the southern side of the existing house, we also raised the roof pitch there. At one time, it was going to be a cathedral ceiling in their area, but budget restraints, we’re going to leave the roof as is and just go up and over it. There’s really no way to get to that area above the roof unless you climb over a stairwell and jump over a three and a half foot space to get to it. It’s just going to be an attic like it is now. Other than that, (lost words) setbacks anywhere on Rockhurst, and that building also. Do you have any questions? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I’ve got one question. On this map you gave us, on the road side, it says something in there, and I can’t read what it says. MR. HOWLAND-That I had put in two things, and it was for the septic tank, holding tanks. There’s a septic system behind the house, on the road side of the house now as it exists. That’s where they all are. MR. THOMAS-Just holding tanks? MR. HOWLAND-No. We made a variance request for putting in holding tanks, which was approved Monday night, but Rockhurst, most of them go out to, I’m not sure, some have tanks and then they go to a drywell, whatever was required back in the 50’s when it was built, but almost all your leach fields are underneath the roads. MR. THOMAS-In that 10.4 feet behind the house? MR. HOWLAND-I would say they go right to the center line of the road. I would say, it’s just like if you go down on Seeley Road. I just grew up there. I know that part, that are a lot of things, they’ll just criss cross over the road. There was old leach fields that criss cross all back and forth in the road. I don’t know where the existing septic system is, and if you do anything to the lake, the first thing that you want to get approved for is to put in something that’s new and which the owners did on Monday night. They got approved for putting in holding tanks behind the house. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-Like the neighbor across the street who has holding tanks. MR. HOWLAND-Right. That was put in last year. Correct. That’s the only thing that you can do on Rockhurst at this time. MR. THOMAS-But that’s what that says is septic back here. MR. HOWLAND-Yes. We don’t know where it is. MR. THOMAS-I had no idea what that said. I looked and looked. MR. HOWLAND-Well, you re-print it, it makes it a little hard. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-It’s actually in blue. Can’t you see that or in color. MR. THOMAS-So basically the footprint’s going to stay the same, and it’s going to put the second story on. MR. HOWLAND-There’ll be a second story on the north wing, coming out over the porch, which will house the master bedroom and a bathroom, and then downstairs, the existing bedroom and the kitchen will become a kitchen/dining area. MS. CIPPERLY-Could you clarify something for me, then? On the plot plan, what would be, let see, the northerly line of the house says 24 feet. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. HOWLAND-Correct. MS. CIPPERLY-And then on your drawing of the house, I believe that says 34, on the first floor? MR. HOWLAND-No, it’s 24. MS. CIPPERLY-It’s 24, and on the south side of the house, it says 30, and it would actually be? MR. HOWLAND-No, it says 20. MS. CIPPERLY-The print is too small for me, I guess. MR. HOWLAND-Well, I just had to put it on this sized paper, and I didn’t increase the size of the print. MS. CIPPERLY-So, that says 20 on the. MR. HOWLAND-It’s 20 feet on the south side. MS. CIPPERLY-And 24 on the. MR. HOWLAND-Then you have 21 foot 8, along the lake; 4 foot jog, 18 foot 4. MRS. LAPHAM-On the new first floor, the existing bedroom, is that still going to be there? MR. HOWLAND-That is an existing bedroom. Next to it is a bathroom that is existing, but it’s going to be increased by about three feet, so I can put a tub in it, and then where the table is, well, there’s a sliding glass door out in front of it, and there’s a wall, existing wall, somewhere in the right hand side of the sliding glass door, if the door is to the top of your page, and then there’s a closet, and there’s a bedroom that’s the same, actually, the master bedroom is actually smaller than the existing bedroom that’s shown there. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, but the existing bedroom’s going to stay? MR. HOWLAND-Correct. MRS. LAPHAM-And the bathroom is going to be enlarged. Now what is right here? Is that a cathedral ceiling? MR. HOWLAND-That’s the living room area. MRS. LAPHAM-The new bedroom is going to be on the second floor? MR. HOWLAND-The new bedroom and bath will be above that. MRS. LAPHAM-Will be above this. Well, what’s going to be here? MR. HOWLAND-That’s a living room now. That’s going to be maintained. MRS. LAPHAM-And that’s going to remain the living room? MR. HOWLAND-Correct. MRS. LAPHAM-So we will have a two bath, two bedroom home. MR. HOWLAND-Correct, and you have a two bedroom, one bath home at the moment. MR. STONE-What’s the elevation of this, when it gets all done? MR. HOWLAND-The height will be 23 feet, to the high part of the ridge. We looked at putting on a full second story, and then like a 5/12 pitch, but then you’re getting a real low roof, real high, like a lot of the homes that are there, and it just didn’t, aesthetically, look real nice. So we went with four foot knee walls in the second story, and the cathedral ceiling in there. MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant? 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. KARPELES-I’ve got a question. I don’t know if it’s for Staff or who, but what does Floor Area Ratio mean? MR. STONE-That’s the new law. MR. KARPELES-It says, “The applicant seeks to expand this home by 56% of the area of the original structure. The applicant proposes a Floor Area Ratio of 42%” MR. STONE-That’s the new law where it’s 22%. I assume that’s what we’re talking about, Sue, right? MS. CIPPERLY-Right. When we revised the Waterfront Regulations last year, part of the reason that we were revising them is because Cleverdale and Glen Lake and all these places really don’t conform to a one acre lot size. I mean, they’re very small lots. So we did things like adjust setbacks by lot widths, but as you Zoning Board members know, you are often being asked to put a very large house on a relatively. MR. KARPELES-That’s the ratio of the floor to the square footage of the lot? MR. STONE-Right. MR. KARPELES-Okay. That’s all I wondered. MR. THOMAS-Is it the footprint or is it the total floor area? MS. CIPPERLY-It’s the total of the house, any covered porches, a garage, any structure that’s on the lot except for if you have a shed that’s 100 square feet or less. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but is it upstairs and downstairs? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. KARPELES-So after he gets through, he’s going to have 42%, and it should be what? MR. STONE-22. MS. CIPPERLY-22. MR. THOMAS-What about decks, is that covered in there? MS. CIPPERLY-Decks, if they’re not covered, are excluded. MR. THOMAS-Excluded. MS. CIPPERLY-The purpose of that being covered porches often end up being living space, and we also included, often the exposed basements become living space as well. So those are included, if they meet a certain height above the, if there’s like half the wall is covered. Because you are being faced with so many variances for houses, particularly on Cleverdale, where each one was, you were being asked to make some fairly arbitrary judgments. So this was, in one sense, to give some guidance to the Board, and give you something to have backing as far as, other than a gut feeling that something’s too big for the lot. MR. STONE-Sue, where’s the greater than 50%? Where is that in? MS. CIPPERLY-That’s in the nonconforming structures, which is. MR. MC NALLY-179-79. MR. STONE-Thank you. MS. CIPPERLY-I’m getting rusty. I haven’t done this for a while. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. STONE-Okay. Yes, 179-79. It’s still over 50%, though. Even with your new numbers, it’s over 50%. It’s 52? MR. HOWLAND-No, with my numbers, no. Because I didn’t realize this building’s been existing. They bought it the way it was. They bought it that way. MR. STONE-410 is not 50%. Okay. I see. MS.CIPPERLY-Also the second floor, I remember looking at this a while back, and your dimensions, your total square footage for the house was 1283, right? MR. HOWLAND-Correct. MS. CIPPERLY-And you’re saying that the first floor is 873, and I get 432 for the second floor, which doesn’t. MR. HOWLAND-Minus the stairwell. There’s no floor there. MR. CIPPERLY-Okay. That’s how you got that figure. MR. HOWLAND-Correct. I just have one question, too. Last year when they were making the new Zoning Ordinance, you brought up at a lot of the meetings, in reference to Rockhurst and other areas where you already exceeded any of the 22% of the area of the lot. I mean, they’re already maxed out, quite obviously, and that’s when we were told, as a builder’s association, that the 50% rule would kick in. Then you would go back, that you could increase 50% of the existing living space. So, I’m not sure how the new Zoning law originates, but we did bring up that question as a building group, and that’s the answer that we got. MR. STONE-It’s not in the law. MR. HOWLAND-Well, that’s what we were told, and that’s how we addressed it, because you do have these, well, you do have Rockhurst. Lets put it that way. MS. CIPPERLY-And frankly Rockhurst was one of the reasons, there are lots there that are .01 acres, and should they have a 2,000 square foot house on them, that was a major reason for the law, particularly with. MR. HOWLAND-I can give you a little history about Rockhurst, too. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, I know you could. MR. STONE-Back to your family. MR. HOWLAND-Well, yes it was, but originally it was only going to be l4 lots on Rockhurst, all on the Sandy Bay side. The original road was going to remain on the shoreline, on the eastern, on the Warner Bay side, and Speaker Heck somehow got involved in it, because he lived across by the entrance of Irish Bay, or just in Irish Bay. I was 10 years old at the time. I just heard this story about 10 years ago. I didn’t know anything about it, and my dad, quite obviously, had bought the hotel, the old hotel. It was owned by another Howland family, but not related, and he wrote it in this little book that he wrote right before he died, and he invested all his money. He had a partner, I believe, too, at the time, and they were devastated when all of a sudden they couldn’t divide their 14 lots up, and Speaker came back with a group of people and said, well, this is what you can have, and my dad said, wrote that he was devastated because he said he invested his whole life savings in this piece of property and now he couldn’t do what he wanted to do, and he didn’t think that this little cabanas would sell. Who would want a little tiny lot with a cabana on it? They sold out in three weeks. That’s how Rockhurst became Rockhurst. It was not originally. I do have the original map and everything, but it is now what it is. I think the building that we designed is quite a good looking building, and again, not taking away from some of the other buildings that have been added and left too high, too tall there, and that’s what we were trying to do is come up with something that was pleasing to the eye. MS. CIPPERLY-I was thinking about the lake situation, when we were talking about the trailer variance. We were saying , this is a really small lot, and I think it was 60 by 100, which is sort of a typical lot on Cleverdale. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. STONE-Yes, or less. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. THOMAS-All right. Anymore questions for Mr. Howland? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes., from Harold Kirpatrick, Glens Falls Plastic Surgeons, Harold Kirpatrick, MD, 492 Glen Street, Glens Falls, 8/13/97 “Dear Zoning Board: The owners Mike Duran and Peggy Ward should not be granted a variance for their addition unless they agree to convert their septic system to holding tanks only with no septic field. Their property is not large enough to stand more bathrooms and bedrooms with 50 ft. of lake front and less than 125 setback. I vote no. Sincerely, Dr. Harold Kirpatrick East Lake George House PS If they construct a holding tank system, I am not opposed to this variance. The tanks must be inspected before being covered.” MR. THOMAS-Gee, I think we just found a new job for Dr. Kirpatrick. Is that it? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-You do propose to put new holding tanks in? MR. HOWLAND-Yes. It was approved by the Board on Monday night. The Town Board approved that we could go ahead and do it. MR. STONE-The Board of Health. MR. HOWLAND-That’s right, yes, they were the Board of Health. MR. STONE-The Town Board acting as the Board of Health. MR. HOWLAND-Okay. That’s a requirement, too, when we upgraded with the new ordinance. MR. THOMAS-You ought to drop Dr. Kirpatrick a note and ask him to come over and look at it, see if it meets his approval. MR. HOWLAND-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant or his agent. If not, lets talk about it. We’ll start with Lew. MR. STONE-I’m concerned by this. I’ll tell you why I’m concerned. On October 6, 1996, the Town Board, as you know, after a long deliberation, came up with a new Waterfront zoning law. The intent, at least the, to me in my mind, the hidden intent was to try to get people to combine lots on Rockhurst, not to build bigger houses. In other words, if you wanted to buy a bigger house, buy your neighbor out. At least that’s how I heard it. That’s my take on it. Rockhurst is a problem. I mean, we all know that. The people who live there love it, and I understand that, but we’ve got this new law. It’s less than a year old. I’m inclined to abide by it and not grant any variances at this point, particularly one that takes this 22% and almost doubles it by whatever numbers we’re talking about, the 42%. I think that is a huge variance. We are obligated to grant minimum relief, and I’m not happy. I’ll keep an open mind as I listen to my fellow Board members, but I just feel that we’ve got this law. We have an extremely small lot, and I don’t want to compound a problem that may have happened 50 years ago, whenever it happened, or 20, 40 years ago. I’m concerned by it, and I want to listen for a little while. MR. THOMAS-Question mark. Jaime? 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. HAYES-I think the things that Lew has brought up are certainly important. We are charged with granting minimum variance, but I think the plans that have been submitted, I’ve spent a lot of time on the lot, as much as that golden retriever would let me, and it didn’t seem that the impact on the neighbors would be, I don’t think there would be any negative impact on the neighbors, and I think that, you know, I think it’s a quality plan, and I think it’s a property owner trying to upgrade property improvements, and that includes putting in holding tanks, which is obviously an improvement from a health perspective. So I would probably be in favor of granting the variance. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob, jr. MR. MC NALLY-I hadn’t been on Rockhurst Road in, it must be 20 years, until I visited this house, and driving down the road, I was surprised how close the houses were, but walking the other side of the house, I can see very much why people in Rockhurst like the area. It would be ideal if we could all, owned any property on the lake, if we could all own 100 foot, 200 foot, 300 feet, but that’s not possible. This house, if I look at the map that they submitted, would be the same size and same footprint as when Leslie Coulter did the survey back in 1956. There has been no change, significant or otherwise to speak of. The proposed plans are, they’re nice. It will be an improvement, I think, in many respects, over many of the houses in the area. It is an increase in size, and it is certainly something that would concern me, being so close to the lake, but I understand the increase is only some 400 some odd square feet, and consists of a minimal increase in elevation on an existing footprint. The benefit to the applicant would be good and substantial. They’d be allowed to use their house to a greater extent, give them more room. There really isn’t any feasible alternative, and this is not a case like we had with that garage over there tonight, where you’ve got neighbors whose views are going to be changed or who’s going to have a real problem with an increase in size or space or expansion. So all these things in mind, I tend to favor the application. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I tend to favor two parts of it. I think it’s a very tasteful expansion. I don’t think it is going to look overpowering either from the lake or the road. The holding tanks are definitely a plus, and while, yes, it would be very nice if we could make Rockhurst go away by buying out your neighbors and so forth, but with the property values, as everyone knows, have escalated on the lake so in the last 20 years that that’s not, I don’t think that’s a realistic or practical solution, for somebody who has just bought property there in the last few years, and when you look at this from the lake side, I don’t think it’s going to be obtrusive. So I guess I would be inclined, as much as I hate to add one more square foot of anything on Rockhurst, I might be inclined to go along with this one because the addition is tasteful and not obtrusive. MR. THOMAS-Bob, Sr.? MR. KARPELES-Well, once again, Bonnie has pretty well expressed my thoughts. I can see Lew’s point, but I think the die is cast. I don’t like those small lots up there, but I don’t think it’s going to change at this stage of the game. Since we’re stuck with them, we might as well make the most of what we’ve got, and I think this is an improvement to the house. I remember when there was one house on Rockhurst besides the Willard, the Dempseys. MR. HOWLAND-I remember that, too. MRS. LAPHAM-So do I. That just shows how old we all are. MR. KARPELES-And for years, I came back and I drove through Rockhurst, I couldn’t believe it. Yes, I guess I can go along with it. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. KARPELES-I have one question, though. We approved something up at Rockhurst once before, and were overridden by another Board of some kind. MS. CIPPERLY-It’s called the Adirondack Park Agency. MR. KARPELES-The APA? Do they have jurisdiction over this, too? MS. CIPPERLY-They could. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. KARPELES-So you’ll have to go before them, and there’s. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, they review your decisions, and they could overturn your decision. MR. KARPELES-They did on Rockhurst. That’s the only time I remember was at Rockhurst, I think. MS. CIPPERLY-Usually, if they overturn something, it’s because it was not minimum relief, which you may want to consider in this case. I’m having very mixed feelings on this because, for one thing, they seem like nice people. I think that would be a nice looking house, but as I go up Rockhurst and try to imagine all of them going to a two story, that is something that’s been happening in the last, say three years. We’ve had a lot of two story additions there, and, frankly, if you’re looking at it from the Cleverdale peninsula there, it already looks fairly urban, and I’m, you know, just from a visual standpoint, that is another place to think of looking at it from. You’re not really impeding anybody’s view, but, you know, this one, for example, is eight feet from the property line on one side, and about two on the other, and if everybody goes with this two story, you know, we need more room, we’ll go up. I just have a little difficulty with that picture, especially with the size of the road. You’re sort of encouraging more use of the area. Then we can have our friends come, which means another car, and anyway, and we weren’t, maybe it seemed to Lew that we were trying to encourage people to buy the lot next door, by doing this Ordinance, and that’s really not the case. That would be one way of somebody being able to build a larger house, but that wasn’t like the underlying thinking of. MR. STONE-No. MS. CIPPERLY-So, we were just trying to make it so that you could have a reasonable sized house, compared to a lot, and if you have half an acre up there, you really have no problem, really, building it’s like 7,000 square feet you’re allowed, but as you get down to the smaller lots, it is more of an issue, but that was the point. So I guess if I had been writing the Staff Notes, I wouldn’t have been quite so optimistic about this project, as you can probably tell. I just had more to do with seeing people constantly coming before the Zoning Board and just, the overall picture of what’s happening on their lakes, including Glen Lake and the other lakes. So I’m glad I don’t have to be in your seat, but there was a Town Ordinance made, and there was opportunity for public input, and this is what a community decided, and I’m afraid of the precedents, frankly, that, you know, if you grant one. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but isn’t the precedent already there? I mean, aren’t there a lot of houses? MS. CIPPERLY-This is really the first time you’ve done a Floor Area Ratio variance, since the law was enacted. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but there are certainly other houses up there that are two stories, right? MS. CIPPERLY-Right. They were built before the law went into effect, or had their permits before. MR. STONE-Yes. That’s the point that I was trying to make. This is the first test. MR. KARPELES-Sue’s convinced me. I’m on the fence now. MS. CIPPERLY-I mean, I’m on the fence because I really think that, you know, I think this would be much more attractive than what’s there, but I wish it could be smaller. It’s also fairly close to the lake, and that’s the problem with Rockhurst, too. MR. STONE-Sue, one of the comments you made is something which I noticed which I didn’t talk about, was the fact that there are a number of homes that have done exactly what these two are talking about, and I couldn’t help but think of an area that I used to live in many years ago, in Honolulu, a street that was two story buildings, that I used to walk from where we lived down to Waikai Beach, when I was in the Service, and now this road that I crossed has become a canyon. There are 40 story buildings on every, all along this road, and this is what I was kind of feeling yesterday, particularly when I couldn’t, I wasn’t sure where I could turn around. I mean, I was heading north, and I was afraid I was going to have to become amphibian before I found a place to turn around. I turned around in the middle of the road, actually, a little back and then forward. I’m just concerned that we’re going to get, first of all, we got the law, and as Sue says, it is the first time, and I just, I want to wait for a while, and I’m concerned that we’re going to have a wall on 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) either side of the road as you drive down, because certainly the side setbacks are never going to change. They’re about as minimum as they possibly can be. MR. THOMAS-It’s a wall going down through there now. I mean, if you drive, the only way you can see not a wall is to drive, when you go down like this, and you’ve got to be one good driver if you’re going to drive like that on that narrow road. So, you know, I don’t see where a second floor is going to make any difference in this case, using that rationale that it’s going to look like a wall, like it did in Honolulu. MRS. LAPHAM-We are supposed to take each variance application on a case by case basis, and one of the things that’s got me swayed in favor of this particular one is I think it’s going to look better when they’re finished than what’s there now, and then the upgrade of the septic systems has got to be a major improvement. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Well, I go along with Jaime and Bob, Jr. and Bonnie about this. I think that this will be an improvement, and in going down through the five criteria for an Area Variance, there’s really no other way that they can achieve what they want to without the variance. They’re definitely not being an undesirable change in the neighborhood. The request is substantial, but they’re not extending it toward the road, toward the lake, or toward the lot lines. I don’t see any adverse physical or environmental effects, other than stormwater runoff, which will probably be addressed at the Planning Board. Yes, no? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. They would have to go to the Planning Board because it’s an expansion. MR. THOMAS-Yes, and the alleged difficulty is self created? Not really, because that’s an existing lot that’s only, what, 3,000 square feet, plus or minus, and there’s really no other way they can go up or expand the house without going up. So I would be more inclined to be in favor of this. Anymore comments or questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-1997 MIKE DORAN PEGGY WARD , Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing home. The expansion will not meet the floor area ratio requirements of a WR-1A zone, and the expansion of greater than 50% of square footage of the original structure. The benefit to the applicant is to increase the overall living space in his home by some 410 square feet. The relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance, but it appears that there’s no other alternative which would allow the applicant to increase their home in a way that they’d like to, requiring less relief. As far as effects on the neighborhood, there doesn’t appear to be any negative impacts on the neighborhood, at least the immediate neighbors, and I don’t believe the difficulty is self created, being that all the nonconforming lots in the area are relatively the same, and they were pre-existing. The applicants are seeking 42% floor area ratio, and the statutes require no more than 22%. So they’re requesting 20% additional floor area ratio to zoning. th Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles ABSENT: Mr. Custer MR. THOMAS-Four to two. Warren County didn’t disapprove this. So it goes. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. Also, just for your information, the Adirondack Park Agency reviews our resolutions, and they have up to 30 days to comment on them. So don’t start. MRS. LAPHAM-Don’t start building tomorrow. MS. CIPPERLY-Sometimes we get something from them, and sometimes we don’t. MR. HOWLAND-Okay. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thanks. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-1997 TYPE II HARRY RUECKER WR-1A CEA OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE GUNN LANE, OFF CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A DECK ATTACHED TO AN EXISTING HOME. THE DECK WILL NOT MEET THE SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN SECTION 179-16, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8/13/97 TAX MAP NO. 12-3-18.4 LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES SECTION 179-16 HARRY RUECKER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 38-1997, Harry Ruecker, Meeting Date: August 20, 1997 PROJECT LOCATION:Proposed Project and Conformance with the “ Gunn Lane Ordinance: The applicant proposes to construct a deck to an existing home. The new deck will Criteria for considering an Area not meet the shoreline setbacks listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant 2. Feasible states that construction of a deck would allow for further enjoyment of his property. alternatives: The applicant may have the ability to shape the deck or reduce the size of the deck 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? so that less relief will be needed. The 4. Effects on the applicant is seeking a 20 foot shoreline setback where 50 feet is required. neighborhood or community? Although it appears that the deck would not effect views from surrounding properties, allowing a 20 foot shoreline setback could lead to similar request from 5. Is this difficulty self created? surrounding property owners. As stated before, the applicant may be able to construct a different size deck or place it in a different area which would require Staff Comments & Concerns: less relief. Based on rough measurements the deck will have a surface area of 845 square feet. A deck of this size located this close to the shoreline could be considered more than minimum relief. The ZBA should also consider that there appear to be feasible alternatives to what is proposed by the applicant which would require a lesser amount of relief. If the ZBA chooses to grant some form of relief, staff recommends a stipulation that proof of compliance with the stipulations from subdivision 15-88 be provided before a building permit is SEQR: issued for this project. Type II, no further action required.” th MRS. LAPHAM-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 13 day of August 1997, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a deck addition to a single family dwelling was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Disapprove Comments: Based on visual impact, encroachment on the lake, loss of vegetation and soil erosion issues.” Signed Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Before we get going on this, since Warren County has disapproved it, we need a super majority to approve this application, which means that five members have to vote yes to override Warren County. Having said that, Mr. Ruecker, is there anything else you’d like to add to your application or anything you’d like to say? MR. RUECKER-Yes. It could be smaller, but I didn’t really know how to go about putting in something on a deck size. As far as that 20 foot from the lake, that comes to a point. I got the deck out of a magazine. It looked attractive. I sort of staked it out. The size could be reduced, but you have this photo do you? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. STONE-No. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. STONE-We’ve got an overhead shot, apparently. MR. RUECKER-All right. I have a book here where I got it out of. It doesn’t necessarily have to have the benches, either, and then I have landscaping that’s going to go along with the house, which I haven’t done yet because I’ve been holding off to sort of find some relief and make the deck a little larger. When the home was built, I couldn’t, because of that 50 foot setback, I think I spoke to someone that came out, was it you, Bonnie? Yes, and when I do put a table and chairs around it, the last chair is ready to fall off. It’s about that far away from the deck that’s on the house now. So that’s how this all came about, you know, it started. It really wasn’t going to be attached. The application says attached. I mean, I don’t have to attach it to the house, and it was going to follow the contour of the property, sort of gradually slopes down. I’m definitely open for recommendations. MR. STONE-Do you have a marina permit? MR. RUECKER-A marina permit? MR. STONE-You have four docks. I don’t understand how a private home has four docks. MR. RUECKER-I’ve had four docks for twenty years. MR. STONE-I ask again, do you have a marina permit? Because the Park Commission doesn’t usually allow four docks on one piece of property. It’s just a question. If you don’t have an answer, you don’t have an answer. I’m just surprised that somebody hasn’t said anything. MR. RUECKER-Okay. Do I have an answer? MR. STONE-No. If you don’t, fine, no problem. MR. RUECKER-Well, I have three cottages. There’s three cottages on that parcel. MR. STONE-Okay, but your lot is a, your house is on one lot. Those cottages are not on your lot. MR. RUECKER-When I purchased the property 20 years ago, there were three cottages and a house. The house was on that lot, and then it was moved on the back side where somebody built a tennis court and I sold it off. So I had a slip for every house, and I still have a slip for every house. MR. STONE-And they have an easement across your property to get there? MR. RUECKER-I own it. I mean, when you say an easement. MR. STONE-Well, but there’s a separate lot. It’s not a big thing. I was just curious. I’ve never seen a lot with four docks on it before, in all of my looking at, unless they have a marina permit, but it’s nothing to do with us. MR. RUECKER-I pay a commercial rate because the cottages are rented out. MR. STONE-Or the docks. MR. RUECKER-Yes. When I rent a cottage, nobody’s going to rent a cottage without a dock, but these docks were in there before the Adirondack Park was formed. MR. STONE-The Park Commission. I’m not talking about the Adirondack Park. MR. RUECKER-Or the Park Commission or whatever it is. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-How long has this house been here? MR. RUECKER-Three years now. MR. THOMAS-Three years? Was there a variance granted for that? 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. RUECKER-Yes. Because the, I think the setback was 75 feet. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it was 75 feet at the time. MR. RUECKER-And I had that real nice building lot that I wanted to put a house on, and so I had to go for relief. Twenty years ago, I didn’t have the money to build a house on the water, and then when it was, and I thought I had all the ducks in line, with the house that was moved, and I had all the provisions done and everything else, then when I was ready to build a house, that was all null and void. I had to start again, and two attorneys, two years later. MR. STONE-This willow tree is no longer there. It’s a 25 foot willow, it says? MR. RUECKER-The willow tree is not there. A pine tree just died again. When you put in a foundation and you have the back hoes and everything coming in and disrupting the roots and everything, that’s on the side of the house that has to be taken down. It’s still standing. MS. CIPPERLY-In the Staff Notes, which George wrote, he talked to George, it says if the ZBA chooses to approve this, we would need proof of compliance with stipulations from Subdivision 15-88 before a building permit is issued. Do you understand what that means? MR. RUECKER-No. MR. THOMAS-I don’t, either. MR. STONE-I don’t, either. MS. CIPPERLY-It seems like it had something to do with taking down one of those rental buildings. I have a very limited knowledge of it. MR. RUECKER-Do I know what that means? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. RUECKER-Yes. When I did a subdivision, and I sold off, I sold that, there was a larger, older home on the property, the three cottages and then an older home. I sold that off to get me started with the finances to build the new house. At that time, to sell it off, I went through a subdivision. They said if I sold any more lots off, then I would have to remove one of those cottages because it’s one cottage per acre. MS. CIPPERLY-And you haven’t sold any more lots? MR. RUECKER-No. MR. KARPELES-I’m confused. Where are these cottages now? MR. HAYES-They’re the brown with the green trim, right behind there. They’re kind of up in the air a little bit. MR. RUECKER-I jacked them up last year because the, all the main stringers were rotting and that was never done, so I got air through them. I went and got a permit for that. MR. KARPELES-Is that going to be used by people from these cottages? Is this deck going to be used by people from these cottages? MR. RUECKER-No. MR. STONE-What are these little lots over here? Are they just sort of easements to the lake? MR. RUECKER-Yes. MR. STONE-Next to you? These ones, between you and Hans? I mean, I’ve never seen anything quite so small. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. RUECKER-Well, there’ s a lot of things, when said you’d never seen the docks either. Every time a parcel was sold off over here, they whacked off another piece, they whacked off another piece, and then this. There’s a boathouse here that went with this house. Then when Parisi built his here, he bought this. Then he’s an attorney and he traded over the deed for the boathouse, switched it off. You know, I mean, it’s, but that’s how that was done. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. RUECKER-And then that other house was here. Because I had all that property right to the end. MR. STONE-So you were on the east side? MR. RUECKER-No. This parcel went with it. Right. MR. STONE-You own that, too, okay. MR. RUECKER-And then I wanted to build a house there, and then all of this came about, you know, things have changed, and things do change. Somebody just asked about, are the people going to use that. See, I’m going to put landscaping in here to sort of make a little border, but the people from the cottages come down, and they come down in this area here. MR. HAYES-The open area. MR. RUECKER-Yes. I’m not going to, I’ve got a lot of money invested in that, my retirement home. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing. Any more questions for the applicant? MR. MC NALLY-Did you ever think about putting a deck somewhere else? MR. RUECKER-Where would you recommend? MR. MC NALLY-I wouldn’t recommend anywhere. I’m just wondering if you had considered alternate sites, that’s all. MR. RUECKER-No. An alternate site, alternate smaller, but an extension, you know, just a step down or something of where the deck is. I tried to make it as convenient as possible to use it from the house. I have glass sliding doors there. MR. MC NALLY-You have that existing wood deck, right? MR. RUECKER-Yes, but it’s seven feet. With a table and four chairs. I mean, I was able to show it to somebody. MR. HAYES-I have a question for the Chairman. If he reduces, on site, the area of the deck here, would he have to go back through Warren County? MS. CIPPERLY-No. MR. THOMAS-No. MS. CIPPERLY-If it’s something that’s less 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. RUECKER-I sort of mentioned that to them, and they said, well, we’re voting on what you presented. They said, if you want to discuss that with Queensbury, then fine, but we’re just looking at what we see now, and the answer is no. MS. CIPPERLY-When you came into the office to discuss part of this, you were, at that time, thinking of a hot tub here somewhere. Is that still part of your plans? It looks like it might go in that little. MR. RUECKER-In that corner of the house, that little nook, with the overhang. MRS. LAPHAM-This right here. MS. CIPPERLY-Is that within the deck, or is that at the end of the wood deck? MR. RUECKER-Yes. It was sort of go like in here. Right in this area in here. There’s a petition up now on the house, now, you know, like a privacy wall. MRS. LAPHAM-Right. This is the house right here, and this is where you’re thinking of putting the hot tub? MR. RUECKER-No. Here. Right in here, and that’s a four foot overhang. So it would sort of go in here and blend in with whatever I do on this deck over here. MR. STONE-What’s your, as the property now stands, what is your setback from the closest point of the lake? MR. RUECKER-About 50 feet. MR. STONE-It’s 50, so about in here somewhere where it comes in? Because it says 62 here. So you must mean in here somewhere. Didn’t I say 62 feet? MR. THOMAS-Right through the willow tree. MR. STONE-Right through the willow tree. It says 62 from the corner of the house, and then the lake jogs in. So I’m saying. MR. RUECKER-All right. Well then maybe this was the furthest part out. Okay. Here it was, when I measured it, maybe I should have taken where the lake goes out the furthest. MR. STONE-I mean, here it’s probably still more than 50 feet, because this comes in a little bit, but that, so it’s probably more like 62. MR. THOMAS-Well, it’s on the site development data as 50, it’s got 55. MR. STONE-Fifty-five? Okay. MR. KARPELES-Why did Warren County turn this down? We don’t have a copy of this in our folder. MR. HAYES-She read the reasons. MR. KARPELES-I know. MRS. LAPHAM-I can read them again. Warren County recommendation to disapprove based on visual impact, encroachment on the lake, loss of vegetation and soil erosion issues. MR. KARPELES-Soil erosion. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, it’s an open area with grass. There’s a lot of discussion now-a-days about, you know, if you use fertilizer and so on, if it leaches into the lake. MR. KARPELES-So then that would be an improvement, then, I would think, right, to have the deck? 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, I guess, because you take up more of that grass. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. If you look at it the other view, you would be taking away some of that grass area which right now is helping, whether it’s fertilized or not, it’s helping to control runoff into the lake. So you’d be creating a hard surface. MR. KARPELES-Is that considered permeable or impermeable? MS. CIPPERLY-Impermeable. Permeability isn’t an issue here. He’s got, 65% is open. MR. STONE-But the area under the deck, the grass will die. So even if the water goes through, it’s just going to, it’s going to be hard pan after a while. It’s going to get concentrated, and no grass to, no roots. MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant? All right. Lets start this one. I’ll start with Bob, Sr. here. MR. MC NALLY-Was there any letters or anything? MR. THOMAS-No. MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. KARPELES-Well, I’m kind of in Never Never Land on this thing. I can see both points of view. If there were a neighbor here complaining, it would make it a lot easier for me, but I can see where he is boxed in. There’s a big house up here on the right, and he gets absolutely no view that way, and even when this is in, he isn’t going to be sticking out any farther. It’s pretty much in line with the camp on the south side, and I really don’t see where it’s going to effect the vision of anybody else, a deck from bothering you. As I say, I’m kind of on the fence, but I would be inclined to go along with it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? MR. STONE-I’m definitely not inclined to go along with it, as it’s proposed. I think getting anything within 20 feet of the lake is wrong. I think we have a reasonable setback in our new law. I think everything that I know about the lake and everything that I care about the lake, having been living on the lake, I think 20 feet is too close. I think taking out that much grass, I don’t see the hardship with a beautiful lawn there right now. I really don’t, and as proposed, the 20 feet is just too much relief, as far as I’m concerned. MR. RUECKER-How many feet would, I don’t know what the right word would be? MR. STONE-Well, I could start with 50, but I guess I would like to see a design. I mean, that’s, currently we’re asking for 50 feet. I think as the Staff Notes indicate, that if we give away, everybody wants to be, a lot of people want to be close to the lake, for whatever reason. If you start encroaching on that, whether it’s a deck or a structure, a building structure, I think you’re opening a Pandora’s Box, quite frankly. MR. RUECKER-Well, how many feet? MR. STONE-Well, I say 50. MR. RUECKER-Fifty, well, that’s exactly where it is now. MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. RUECKER-Then the answer is, you can’t make it any closer? MR. STONE-I would certainly consider extending your current deck, if you’re telling me that chairs fall off, I could extend that five feet, six feet, so that the chairs don’t fall off, and then you’ve got your table and you’ve got your umbrella and everything else, but when you start to go all the way out here with this massive, and this is a massive project. This is not a small deck. MR. RUECKER-It doesn’t have to be this large, but I didn’t know how to present this. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. STONE-But we are faced with what you presented to us, and we can’t condition it, because we don’t know where you’re going to go. First of all, you have an irregular shape. So there’s no way that I could, if you said it’s going to be 30 feet from the lake, but what’s it going to look like? I don’t know. MR. RUECKER-Well, I’m trying to make it as. MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. RUECKER-With pictures and myself, and maybe as I start, if I said, well, can I go 20 feet more? And see how I like it. I mean, I put out stakes, I might not, I don’t know. When I start building, I might not like the way it looks, either, but I would like to put an addition on, or an extension. MR. STONE-And I think a minimum relief would extension relief is something that I could consider, but this is not minimum relief. MR. RUECKER-All right. What would be minimum? MR. STONE-As I say, another, I can’t tell you until I see it, but an enlargement of your current deck area, that you say you use, but you have a problem with the fourth or fifth chair. It falls off. Find a way for the fourth or fifth chair to stay on there. MR. RUECKER-Well, there’s a lot of other things. Every time I put tables and chairs down, I’ve got to pick them up when I cut the grass. MR. STONE-You have a deck there right now, you’re saying. MR.RUECKER-I have a deck with a table and four chairs, right, and then when I entertain I have more tables and more chairs. They’re on the grass, and now you’ve got to move it. I’d like to make it a little more convenient. MR. STONE-I understood you to say that what you currently use for your family tends to fall off the deck. MR. RUECKER-It does. I mean, somebody was there to see it. MR.STONE-And I would be happy granting some relief to help that situation, but not a deck as massive as this. MR. RUECKER-All right. No, I can go along with that. MR. THOMAS-Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I think we’re interest balancing here. That’s part of our job. I would have no problem being in favor of the first part of the deck if the second part was alleviated. MR. THOMAS-The second part being? MR. HAYES-That’s closest to the lake. MR. RUECKER-The little “Y” part? MR. HAYES-That part that jets off, you know, basically there’s a square part of it there that looks to me like it’s 25 feet, but part of that is your existing. MR. RUECKER-Okay, or made that other part smaller and still have a, in other words, so it just doesn’t look like everybody’s deck. I wanted to do something a little more, what is that word, creative? MR. HAYES-I would think that you could angle it just the way that it is, before it steps down. I mean, that would give you an architectural look, and I wouldn’t have a problem with that. I think that, you know, I think that at 845 square feet, it’s a little bit of a reach, as it is now, from an aesthetics point of view, but you’re certainly entitled to improve your property in a way that’s 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) continuous with the other property, and I think having that one layer, as an example, would do that. I would be inclined to be in favor of that, and opposed to 845 square feet. MR. RUECKER-All right. MR. HAYES-Can he do that, Mr. Chairman? MR. THOMAS-He’d have to submit another drawing. MR. RUECKER-Well, could you give me guidelines on like how many square feet, and then I could incorporate that into a? MR. THOMAS-Well, I don’t think, we’re not worried about square feet. We’re worried about setbacks. MR. RUECKER-Okay. How far from the lake? MR. THOMAS-Well, you ask us and we’ll tell you. MRS. LAPHAM-Sue, is there any guidance that Planning or somebody could give him? MS. CIPPERLY-Not really. That’s what your job is. I mean, not to give him guidance, but as you said, I think after he’s heard what you’ve said, and it seems to be a general feeling that that’s a fair sized deck, and that you may not approve that. You could table it and he can come back with something smaller that would still be acceptable to him, and you can react to that, but it’s hard for the Board to say anything without something to look at. MR. THOMAS-We can’t build the deck for you. We can’t tell you what you want. MR. RUECKER-No, but I really don’t want to come back with another drawing, and then you say, well, it’s still not 50 feet. MR. KARPELES-Well, he gave you a guideline, didn’t he? MR. RUECKER-He didn’t mention how many feet back. He just said. MR. KARPELES-He said right to the edge of this point, or right where it’s square. MR. STONE-Can you show us how this fits in. MR. KARPELES-At least one guy has told you what he wants. MR. STONE-I’m trying to figure out where this goes, exactly. Does that go this way? Where’s your current deck? Where does it end? Right here? Okay. MR. RUECKER-Do you want to see a picture of the house? MR. STONE-If you have it. I’ve been there. MR. RUECKER-I have it in my briefcase. MR. KARPELES-You mean of the existing house? MR. RUECKER-Yes. MR. KARPELES-I don’t think that’s the problem. MR. STONE-This is the existing deck right here, this little thing that you call a wood deck? MR. RUECKER-Yes. MR.STONE-All right. Now that’s here. MR. RUECKER-Again, this came out of a magazine. It wasn’t my house. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. STONE-Well, sort of , but we’ve got to deal with the house, not the sort of. I’m trying to figure out, this corner is this corner, approximately? MR. RUECKER-Yes. MR. STONE-All right. Then you come out here, and you go over here, and I don’t see this “Y” here. MR. RUECKER-Those were steps or something here. MR. STONE-So this could even be, depending upon where the lake goes, it could even be more than 20 feet, less than 20 feet. MR. RUECKER-You could put steps here. MR. STONE-But we have to deal with what you’re showing us. That’s the problem. Am I correct, Mr. Chairman? MR. THOMAS-That’s right. MR. RUECKER-I wish I’d taken mechanical drawing in school, but I didn’t. MR. HAYES-Do you want to table it? MS. CIPPERLY-One suggestion. If you wanted to, you could ask for an alternative, but at the same time maybe have Mr. Ruecker flag this out on his property, approximately where this one would be, versus whatever other one he might come up with. MR. RUECKER-Okay. This, from here to here, is 29 feet. I wrote down. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. The deck sticks out 29 feet from the front of the house. MR. STONE-Well, but then it sticks out further here, then. MR. RUECKER-Yes, well, it was just mentioned by this gentleman to forget about this and go out 29 feet, like that, and then maybe I would make a little wing, incorporate it in the 29 feet. So it would be no more than 29 feet. MR. STONE-But this is how far from the lake? MR. RUECKER-From here to here, 29 feet. How far from here? MR. STONE-I’m only concerned about this distance. MR. HAYES-If that’s 29 from there, and that’s 20, I mean, if that’s one line right to there, it’s got to be something less than 10 feet additional to the 20. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And you’ve got the jog in the lake there. So it’s even closer. MR. HAYES-I would think you’d have to be somewhat further away from that lake than that, but you’ve got to come with a new plan. We can’t give you specific numbers. I guess that’s what they’re telling you. MR. MC NALLY-Looking at this proposed addition, as I look at it, if you’ve got 62 feet, you’ve got some space, from what I see from the map that’s shown there, you can lawfully add a deck without having a variance. You say that you’re 50 feet from the lake to the house. MR. RUECKER-That’s what I was under the impression. I didn’t even know. I’m going to go out there and measure that, because we had to go for a variance. MR. MC NALLY-It seems to me that there would be alternatives which would not require a variance, if you can get an additional 10 feet on one side of your house. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. STONE-You’ve got more than 50 feet, certainly, from your house to the lake. It looked that way to me. MS. CIPPERLY-You needed to go for a variance because at the time, the setback was 75 feet. MR. STONE-When you built the house, it was 75 feet. You needed a variance when you built. MR. RUECKER-Yes. MR. STONE-And you got one. MR. RUECKER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s what Sue is saying. MR. RUECKER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-But that doesn’t mean that your house is 50 feet from the lake. MR. STONE-It means whatever you asked for at the time. We could look it up, right, Sue? MR. RUECKER-What are you suggesting? MR. MC NALLY-I’m not suggesting anything. I’m saying that under the existing plan, I would vote to deny it, because I think it’s too close to the lake. I think that there are alternate sites that you haven’t considered. I don’t think you’ve provided us enough information so that I can tell whether or not half of this is within the 50 foot buffer zone, most of it’s within the 50 foot buffer zone or not. There’s a lot of space around your house that you can use. MR. RUECKER-Okay. So up to 50 feet, I don’t have to come here, is that what you’re saying? MR. STONE-If you’re within 50 feet of the lake, you don’t have to come here. MR. MC NALLY-The shoreline setback is 50 foot, and I see a 62 foot dimension. I see probably where it’s less than 62 foot. So I have no idea, but the plan you’ve shown me shows a 29 foot jog, and then an additional eight to ten feet. That’s a 40 foot deck toward the lake. I can’t approve it as it is. No way. MR. RUECKER-Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-So, we can table this, and he can try again, and then he hasn’t lost his opportunity to come back. MR. KARPELES-Maybe he doesn’t need a variance. MR. THOMAS-Well, if he can stay more than 50 feet away from the lake, he doesn’t. You don’t need to see us. MR. STONE-Do you want to open the public hearing again and then table it? MR. THOMAS-Yes, I think I’ll do that. I’ll open the public hearing back up. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. THOMAS-And I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-1997 HARRY RUECKER , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: For the applicant to bring in additional drawings, and for alternative drawings. th Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Custer MR. THOMAS-So as soon as you get those to the Staff, we can get them back on. MR. RUECKER-What would the date be on that? MS. CIPPERLY-Probably the third. ststth MR. THOMAS-The third Wednesday would be the 21, September 21, and September 28, will be the two meetings in September. MS. CIPPERLY-And I believe you’re scheduled for the Planning Board this month, pending the approval of this. So we can shift that all to September. MR. RUECKER-You mean there’s two steps I have to go. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I’ll have to check on the Planning Board situation, see whether you need to go to them, but we’ll have you back here in September. We’ll put you on the first meeting. MR. RUECKER-Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-The Polanski residence on Assembly Point. MR. STONE-We granted a variance for that. Polanski, that’s up on the end. That’s next to Stewart. MR. THOMAS-They want to extend the variance for another year. MR. STONE-They’re not ready to build. That was before my. MRS. LAPHAM-Actually, that was before my time. MR. KARPELES-I remember that. MS. CIPPERLY-They got an extension last year, and I guess they’re not. MR. THOMAS-Yes. This is a 1995 variance, 55-1995. MR. STONE-So that’s before the new law. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-I can see why they want an extension. I don’t know what they were trying to do. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I don’t remember what that was all about. The name looks familiar, but. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, it was a little yellow cottage. MR. STONE-Yes. I know the house. I know the house. MR. THOMAS-Whereabouts is it? MR. STONE-Right at the end, right at the end of the point. Do you know where Bob Stewart’s house is? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. STONE-The big house on the other, you don’t know where Bob Stewart’s is? MRS. LAPHAM-Right at the end of the point. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/20/97) MR. STONE-Just to the east of that. The one that used to be the steamboat dock. MRS. LAPHAM-Right. MR. STONE-That’s Bob Stewart’s property, and then just to the east of that, Polanski is either the first or second house. MS. LAPHAM-It’s bright yellow. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-If you say so. MS. CIPPERLY-At any rate, it was not an overly large house or anything. It was very similar in size. MR. THOMAS-What was he asking for, just setbacks? MR. KARPELES-I’ve forgotten what he was looking for. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, because he was going to remove the existing house, and put up a new one, and I think the shoreline setback was one issue. MR. THOMAS-Does anybody have any objection to extending this? MR. STONE-The only reason I would have an objection, coming in with the new law. MR. HAYES-I don’t even think we were on. MR. STONE-We weren’t on, but I mean. MRS. LAPHAM-We’re voting on something that we have no idea what anybody’s talking about. MS. CIPPERLY-You know what, for your meeting next week, I will get you the information. MR. THOMAS-Yes, why don’t you do that. MS. CIPPERLY-Because I’m thinking it may have been even, that was probably when there was a 75 foot shoreline setback. MR. THOMAS-Well, yes, in ’95, yes, there was 75 foot. MR. STONE-That’s right. MS. CIPPERLY-But I think there was some side, we’ll see how that compares to the new law. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Well, just get the, you can get the minutes, and the resolution. We can go from there. Is there anybody else that has anything? MR. STONE-Do you want to do minutes? We just got them. We haven’t looked at them. MR. THOMAS-Yes, you haven’t looked at them yet. MR. STONE-Good. MR. THOMAS-I’ll make a motion we adjourn. On motion, meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 46