Loading...
1988-09-21 QUEENSBURY ZOlUNG BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting: Wednesday September 21, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. Present: Theodore Turner, Chairman Daniel Griffin Jeffrey Kelley Susan Goetz, Secretary Michael Muller Charles O. Sicard Paul Dusek, Town Attorney Daniel Ling, Ass't. Planner Mary Jane F. Moeller, Stenographer Chairman Turner called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The minutes from August 17, August 24, and September 7, 1988 will be discussed at the September 28, 1988 meeting. MOTION AMERDMERT AREA VARIANCE NO. 1401 Mooring Post Marina Ref: August 24, 1988 minutes, Page 20/21. Mr. Muller referred to the letter from Fire Marshal Bodenweiser regarding the potential fire hazards at the Marina. It was Mr. Muller's intention to incorporate that subject into his Resolution, however, it was unintentionally omitted. Acting on the advise of Counsel, there will be a reading of the orig- inal motion as read by the Board Secretary, a motion to reconsider the motion, and the stated amended motion. Mr. Muller moved DISAPPROVAL of Use Variance No. 1402, Mooring Post Marina. The applicant has demonstrated that, since he acquired the pro- perty, he has had the same types of uses. But as the changing uses then dictated up to 1988, there have been more sales, storage and quick-launch. Conclusion: This is an overburden on the property and equals expansion. You cannot create a hardship and then propose a solution. The expansion would require meeting all the tests for the Use Variance. He failed to satisfy the requirement that he had to show that the property cannot yield a reasonable return, especially pertaining to the residential property. He should show excessive hardship versus the impact on the neighborhood, such as parking and traffic needs. Mr. Muller moved APPROVAL that his Resolution for Use Variance No. 1402, Mooring Post Marina, on August 24, 1988 be reconsidered. Seconded by Mrs. Goetz. 1 Mr. Muller moved APPROVAL TO AMEND to his knowledge the original mo- tion and adopt it in all respects, but add to it that the DISAPPROVAL relies greatly on Fire Chief Bodenweiser's letter to the Board indicating that the plan proposed by the applicant created a dangerous condition, in terms of access during a fire and in terms of the possibility of explosion (Exhibit A). Seconded by Mr. Turner. Passed Unanimously Mr. Turner announced that Area Variance No. 1406, Empire Video Super Store, has been withdrawn. Effective immediately, Mr. Ling explained that all applications for sites situated on Lake George must be accompanied by an Environmental Assessment Form. The necessity for the form is because the Lake George Park Commission has established Lake George as a critical environmental area. OLD BUSINESS USE VARIANCE NO. 1385 Clark's Used Auto Parts Robert Clark The proposal is for a Junkyard on Sanders Road, LI-1A.. Mr. Turner stated that the applicant was to have received a letter by this meeting from Niagara Mohawk regarding an easement, or the application would be withdrawn. Robert Clark represented his application and affirmed to Mr. Turner that the letter has not been received. Niagara Mohawk could not guarantee when the communication would be available. Mr. Turner moved to TABLE Use Variance No. 1385, Clark's Used Auto Parts, until Mr. Clark has the proper correspondence from Niagara Mohawk regarding easement. The application is not to be posted until he has shown the correspondence to the Building Department. Seconded by Mr. Sicard. Passed Unanimously SIGN VARIANCE RD. 1395 Dunham Shoes 2 The application is to remove existing signs and replace with metal panels (painted). To add flood lights or similar lights above to light up the exterior. There previous month. Building that the time. were no representatives present. Due to miscommunication at the meeting, Mr. Turner requested to extend the Sign Variance one Mr. Ling said he has had no communication from the applicant, the Department has been kept apprised of the situation. He stated large roof sign has been situated on the roof for a period of Mr. Turner moved to TABLE Sign Variance No. 1395, Dunham Shoes, to give the applicant one more month to rework the application. Seconded by Mr. Muller. Passed Unanimously USE VARIANCE NO. 1398 Christine Leone The proposal is for a professional erection of a frame structure sided with enameled aluminum for the purpose of boat storage (will also have doors). No well or septic system. Christine Leone represented her application and stated she has run into practical difficulty on the septic system and well easement. Mr. Ray Buckley, engineer, inspected the property and stated that, because of a stream running adjacent to Mr. Voorhis' property, neighbor to the south, putting a septic through that would be impossible (on file). In addition, if it were possible it would be extremely expensive. Ms. Leone stated that she called Woodcock Bros. (well drillers) and they informed her that there is a risk in drilling a well under running water, also, it is no the custom of lending institutions to lend to people whose wells are not on their property. Ms. Leone's lawyer and Mr. Voorhis' lawyer did discuss a sale of the property, but it was cursory. Ms. Leone did not get a bid until yesterday afternoon and her attorney felt it was too low. She has not had time to discuss it with her accountant, therefore, Ms. Leone is requesting that the Board review her application as it stands. Ms. Leone contacted the company that would supply the building, and they advised her that a lesser building would be about the same amount of money, therefore, it is not cost effective. She feels that there will be a lot less impact on the area, with no utilities, less traffic. There will be a privacy fence around the entire perimeter (stockade fence). The 3 dimensions of the barn would be 48 ft. x 65 ft., plans are for a front door facing the road and a sliding door facing south, sky lights would be installed, because there would be no electricity, water would be drained to the north. The property was purchased in August 1976 and is pre- existing and nonconforming. After considerable discussion at the dais with Ms. Leone, Mr. Muller stated that certain items had to be proven regarding a Use Variance, two of which he has concerns. 1) The Variance has to be the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship. The building presented goes to the maximum of the specifications. The storage building is considered a nonconforming accessory use. 2) The stockade fence might give an unpleasant visual im- pact and would alter the character of the neighborhood. Since there is a tree line and shrubs already existing across the front, Ms. Leone thought that maybe she could do with a large gate across the driveway. The Board agreed with Ms. Leone that she is entitled to get something back on her property. But to balance the problem, it is not right to des- troy what the neighborhood has going. She reiterated that the property has been for sale for 2 1/2 years. Ms. Leone stated she would leave the final decision up to the Board, but wanted some right to do something, however, a three-car garage is too small for three 24-foot boats and two cars and not worth the money invested. Public Hearing Reopened: Wilson Mathias: attorney for E. & M. Voorhis. Mr. Mathias stated that Mr. Voorhis has offered to purchase the lot for $8,000. He referred to Article 10 B of the Zoning Ordinance, specific- ally Items 3. and 4. .... the Variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right of the applicant substantially the same as owners of other property in the same district possess without such a variance .... Mr. Mathias feels that a storage building would be setting a precedent in the neighborhood. of this located changing the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes Ordinance, or to property in the district in which the property is · The building would be twice as big as a house and would be the character of the neighborhood. Dorothy Burnham: Boulderwood Drive Mrs. Burnham stated that she has not heard discussed the possibility of installing a holding tank. She feels that, by erecting a storage build- ing on the site, the property is being rendered unsaleable as a residen- tial lot, it would be conducive to ·creeping commercialism.· Mrs. Burnham also believes it would be an error to issue a variance, when there has not been enough time to pursue the possibility of an offer to purchase. 4 Scott Johnson: lives nearby Mr. Johnson stated his objection to the building and fence, he is skeptical as to the final outcome of the facility. Mr. Johnson feels that a land buyer should be aware of the limitations of the property, espe- cially on land as small as the subject site. He asked the Board if there are any stipulations within the Ordinance that governs boat storage. The reason for the ques~ion is that boat marinas are constantly looking for storage space. Ms. Leone confirmed that, when the property was purchased, it had a trailer with a well and septic. However, after a fire, the Build- ing Department stated that the land had to be built to Ordinance specifica- tions, that is when problems with the well were encountered. Public Hearing Closed: Correspondence: Mrs. Goetz read a letter of objection from Mr./Mrs. Howard Fischer (on file). A letter from John Liccardo, neighbor, stated objections to the Variance and confirmed that he had made an offer to purchase (Ms. Leone denied any knowledge of this). Ms. Leone confirmed to Mr. Kelley that the personal belongings to put into the building include three 24-foot boats, an antique car, another car, three boat trailers, lawn mowers and other items presently stored around the yard. Ms. Leone did not know what the assessed value of the land is. Mr. Kelley moved DISAPPROVAL of Use Variance No. 1398, Christine Leone, because the building is oversized and is like a commercial build- ing. Under the Use Variance, there are four criteria and Ms. Leone has met only two of them, one being a hardship in not being able to sell the property. Criteria that the Board seeks is that the Variance cannot be materially detrimental to the Ordinance and that the Variance be the mini- mum, a 45 ft. x 68 ft. building pushes to the limits all of the setbacks, it is way oversized for housing of three boats and possibly two cars. Seconded by Mr. Turner. Passed Unanimously AREA VARIANCE NO. 1400 William Bernard The ily home Road and viewed. application is to build a three bedroom, two bathroom, single fam- on the present vacant lot on the corner of New Assembly Point Knox Road, LR-1A. The Environmental Assessment Form was re- 5 '--- William Bernard represented the application, which was Tabled last month so the design and measurements could be reworked. He confirmed that the front door faces Assembly Point Road and the APA has approved the lot. There is sufficient land in the rear of the property for the septic sys- tem. As far as the Variance is concerned, the only problem is 85 feet in- stead of 100 ft. on the lake. The size of the lot is due to the construc- tion of the road through the parcel. Mr. Muller moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1400, William Bernard, as it is a reasonable request and there is no affect on the neighborhood character. The practical difficulty is that the lot exists with prior to APA approval. The applicant has reviewed the Environmental Assessment Form, the Zoning Board of Appeals agrees that there is no impact on the environment. Seconded by Mr. Turner. Passed Unanimously NEW BUSINESS AREA VARIANCE NO. 1405 Richard and Patricia Conte The proposal is for the construction of a single family dwelling on the vacant land, with the present foundation in place and graded. The location is off West Mt. Road to Northwest Village, up Northwest Road, second lot on the left on Woodridge Drive, RC-3A. Richard Conte represented the application. Mrs. Goetz read a note from Mr./Mrs. Conte explaining the error of 6/10 of a foot, or nine inches, during the construction of their house (Exhibit B). The dimension from the road is 29.3 feet instead of 30 feet. Public Hearingl no comment Mr. Griffin moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1405, Richard and Patricia Conte. This is the absolute minimum relief and the practical diff~culty is that a mistake was made in measuring for the foundation - 6/10 of a foot, or nine (9) inches to the south of the property. There is no neighborhood objection and no adverse affect. Seconded by Mr. Sicard. Passed Unanimously 6 AREA VARIANCE NO. 1407 Carol Freihofer The application is for the construction of a deck on the east side of the house in Cleverdale on Lake George, LR-1A. The location is 9L to Cleverdale Road to the very end of the road. John Matthews represented the applicant and verified that there is only one exit/entrance to the house. It was felt that another entrance/- exit would be of value; it is located opposite the existing exit. Regard- ing the setbacks, Mr. Matthews stated that he used an existing surveyor's plot plan. Mr. Griffin questioned the 30 foot measurement to the north- west, however, Mr. Matthews said some of the measurements are deceiving. Any of the measurements put to the lakeshore in lieu of the water table were measured with a .+/-.. As one looks at the deck from the lake direct- ly to the north, the side most westerly would be at ground level; as the deck progresses around the corner of the northeasterly side of the house, it is up about 3 1/2 to 4 feet. The deck will be built around the large oak tree. Mr. Turner was concerned about the four-foot extension of the deck on the northeasterly side of the house; however, Mr. Matthews said the reason for the deck was the appropriate placement of a second entrance and went with the lay of the land. Mr. Muller felt there is no adverse affect on the neighborhood, because of the surrounding water, and he did not feel the request was unreasonable. There is no visual impact from the lake and it is of low profile. Mr. Matthews advised that the stairs from the deck leading to the dock protrude about four feet, but could be repositioned to give the correct distance from the lake. Public Hearing: no comment Correspondence: Warren County Planning Board approved. The applicant completed the Environmental Assessment Form; there are no ·yes· answers. Mr. Matthews confirmed that the carport will be open-sided, the roof line will match the existing roof line and will be of the same construc- tion; there are no sleeping quarters. Mr. Muller moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1407, Carol Freihofer, for a Variance with the following: nine (9) foot setback off the rear property line for the construction of a carport; thirteen (13) foot setback from the lakeshore on the easterly side, allowing a 31 foot setback from the most northerly portion to allow construction of the stairs, 7 thirty (30) foot setback for the most westerly portion of the deck - measurements from the shoreline. The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty with the uniquely- shaped lot, it is surrounded on three sides by the shoreline and the pro- posed construction compliments this piece of property in that it follows the contours of the land. The applicant reviewed the Environmental Assess- ment Form, the Zoning Board of Appeals agrees with the applicant that there are no adverse conditions on the environment. Seconded by Mr. Kelley. Passed Unanimously AREA VARIANCE NO. 1408 William E. and Georgianna R. Montgomery, III The application is for a parking area to accompany a professional office building, 16 and 18 Main Street, across from Great Bay Seafood Restaurant and Dr. Welch's Office, HC-1S. A variance is required for park- ing spaces not able to meet existing setback requirements. Mr. Montgomery represented the application and presented three letters to the Board from three adjoining easterly neighbors, who are closest to the parking spaces in question. He also explained that the existing gar- age is being tied into the existing house. One of the garages will be demolished. Both of the houses are being rented residential at the pre- sent time, 16 Main Street will stay, 18 Main Street is on jacks. In a meeting with Mr. Ling and Richard Roberts, Planning Board Chair- man, there was an area indicated that would remain green, instead of paved, there is more than enough parking allocated. Prospective tenants in the professional office might be accounts, attorneys or a real estate organization. Both of the houses will be two stories. Notel The majority of the detailed discussion took place at the dais, with directions/locations not specifically defined, therefore, it was very difficult to report accurate specific information. Public Hearing Opened I Larry Lussierl Adirondack Auto Top Mr. Lussier expressed his disappointment in the plan, he does not feel the plans will improve the neighborhood. In general, the area is in a state of disrepair, there is a fence that is falling down between the pro- perties, there is a question as to who owns the fence. 8 '--' Mr. Kelley also expressed that he was disappointed in the plans for the building, and that there could be a better-looking building to tie into the neighborhood; however, parking was a problem. Mr. Montgomery has not been to the Beautification Committee, due to miscommunication; however, he and Mr. Eddy have spoken. A beautification plan will be submitted, once there has been an indication from the Zoning Board of Appeals as to whether or not a variance for the parking would be approved. There will be cedar siding over the building; there is existing grass and there will be shrubbery with the trees. There if this Board has at ion meets will be a presentation of a Site Plan before the Planning Board; Variance for the parking spaces is approved, then the Planning the right to change the configuration, so long as the configur- all setback requirements. Quentin Kestner, Town Designated Consultant/Engineer, will have the responsibility for approving the storm water management plan; the Planning Board will not review the application unless this step has been taken and Mr. Kestner communicates such to the Planning Board. The westerly building will have one office; it is not large. The most easterly building will have three offices; approximately 12 employees, accounting for +/-8 10 cars. There is some concern about three spots backing into traffic. On the presented plan, the -blue-shaded- parking spaces were more desirable, because they are at the back portion of a neighbor's property who has no objections. In addition, there is a 40 foot driveway that is 5 feet from the property line, which will be taken out and planted with grass. Public Bearing Opened Daniel Lingz Ass't Planner Mr. Ling a total of application. stated that, when he measured the buffer zone, he arrived at 9 spaces in the zone as opposed to 6 spaces, as stated in the Public Bearing Closed Correspondencez Warren County planning Board approved. Letters of approval from Mr./Mrs. Harold Robillard, 1 Thomas Street; Mr./Mrs. Vigor (Adirondack Tree Surgeon company); and one other neighbor. Mr. Muller moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1408, William E. and Georgianna R. Montgomery, allowing 33 parking spaces to be placed as shown on the Plan and as the Planning Board may amend by Site Plan Review. The Variance is necessary as demonstrated by practical difficulty because of the presently-required 50 parking spaces; which are at the expense of 9 --- --' open or green areas to enhance the aesthetics of the lot, 33 spaces are adequate to service the buildings as proposed. From the safety aspect, there are six required parking spaces that would be in a least attractive area on Main Street, this plan would take an advantage of safer parking. The applicant has been granted the right to keep the parking spaces as close as six feet from the easterly line and as close as five feet to the southerly line, which is the rear property line. With these varied setbacks, the applicant would not have to comply with the 50 foot required buffer between the residential use. Seconded by Mr. Sicard. Passed Unanimously AREA VARIANCE NO. 1409 William E. and Georgianna R. Montgomery, III The application is for a parking area to accompany a professional office building, 16 and 18 Main Street, across from Great Bay Seafood Rest- aurant and Dr. Welch's Office, HC-15. A variance is required to construct ten (10) spaces less than the 50 currently required, ie& one space for each 100 sq. ft. of office space. Mr. Muller moved APPROVAL of Area Variance No. 1409, William E. and Georgianna R. Montgomery, III, for ten (10) less spaces than the fifty (50) required, because the applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty by all of the findings of fact and conclusions that were arrived at in Area Variance No. 1408. Seconded by Mr. Turner. Passed Unanimously INTERPRETATION NO. 43-1988 Barbara Arakelian This is to request an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance as it defines the permitted use of a single family dwelling and a permitted accessory of a garage as those terms apply to the LR-1A zone. Interpre- tation as it applies to Area Variance No. 1410. Barbara letter from Arakelian represented the application. Mrs. Goetz read a Mary Elizabeth Slevin, Esq., of Lombardi, Reinhard, Walsh & 10 '~ ~ Harrison explaining the reason for the Interpretation (Exhibit C). Mr. Turner stated that in the Lakeshore Residential zone the garage is a per- mitted accessory and nothing else, including living quarters. It has not been a practice of the Board to approve a request of this nature. Ms. Arakelian explained that there is a cabin with two bedrooms, bathroom and a porch, which is run down and seven (7) feet from a creek. When the house was built, a septic system was installed to accommodate an extra two bedrooms above the garage for the three sons, who have previously stayed in the cabin. The cabin is very damp and close to the creek. There is no room for expansion in the house, there are two bedrooms. Mrs. Goetz expressed her thoughts that this problem would have to be taken care of in a Variance, because of the bedroom request. No Board mem- ber could give a favorable Interpretation on what was proposed. Mr. Ling questioned as to whether the accompanying application should be a Use or Area Variance. He was not aware of any statement in the Ordinance which took care of this particular situation, however, Mr. Muller stated he felt it was sleeping quarters which made the building something other than a garage, a dwelling. Mr. Muller verified that Ms. Arakelian is permitted to replace or re- construct what presently exists. In addition, he felt there was an amend- ment to the Ordinance, dating just prior to the recent moratorium, that dealt with conversion of seasonal dwellings of pre-existing, nonconforming use, this was not readily available. Section 9.020 (Amended 5/25/84) was referred to but does not apply to this situation. Mr. Kelley moved that Interpretation 43-1988, Barbara Arakelian, needs to be HEARD UNDER A USE VARIANCE, as it will be a use not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Garages are a permitted accessory use, this needs to be discussed further. An Area Variance will be required for the purpose of setbacks. Seconded by Mr. Griffin. Passed Unanimously AREA VARIANCE NO. 1410 George and Barbara Arakelian This application is to remove the existing two (2) bedroom, bathroom cabin on Trout Pavilion Road, Kattskill Bay, LR-1A. The plan is to con- struct a two-car garage with two bedrooms and a bath on the second floor. No kitchen facilities. It will be occupied by family members. There are no future plans of renting or building a kitchen. This use will be for Summer only. 11 ......-/ Mr. Muller moved to TABLE Area Variance No. 1410, George and Barbara Arakelian, so that a Use Variance may be heard in October. By way of this motion, the Planning Department is requested to put Area Variance No. 1410 and the new Use Variance on the Agenda as Old Business. Seconded by Mr. Turner. Mr. Muller explained to Ms. Arakelian that 1) a hardship has to be demonstrated and 2) the applicant should be allowed to use the property for a purpose that is not ordinarily allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The applications and complete instructions will be secured at the Planning Department. Passed Unanimously AREA VARIANCE NO. 1411 R & M Supples, Inc. Kevin C. Speck This application is for an addition to the Auto Body Supply Warehouse and for a dumpster enclosure at 11 Boulevard, between lower Warren Street and Quaker Road, HC-15 and HI-3A. Kevin Speck represented the application and stated that the new build- ing would be one foot lower than the existing building, it is 12 ft. x 24 ft. There would be a 50 feet relief on the front, with a 22 ft. 6 in. setback. The building would be used for storage. Mr. Speck advised that he has not gone before the Beautification Committee, due to a lack of com- munication. He has talked to the Chairman and feels that Beautification is looking for screening for the dumpster, the plans for this is a a solid fence. Shipments of windshields are delivered two to three times/year, if the shipments are received on a Monday, the crates would have to be held for garbage pickup until the following Friday. Parking would be across the front, 115.26 ft. x 14.75 ft. Public Hearing Opened. no comment Correspondence. Warren County Planning Board approved. Mr. Griffen approved Area Variance No. 1411, R & M Supplies, Inc.. The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty with the size of the lot and position of the building, there is no other place the addition could go, with the septic system on the east. The relief will be 28.6 ft. on the front at the northwest corner. The applicants will be meeting with the Beautification Committee regarding dumpster screening. 12 -- --' Chairman Turner adjourned the meeting at 10130 p.m. Date h~7~9A'FP Mary J F. Moeller Date Stenographer ~Çl~ Theodore Turner Chairman 13 -' TOWN OF QVEENSBVRY Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12801-9725 - 518-792-5832 August 22, 1988 TO: Ted Turner, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: N. W. Bodenweiser, Fire Marshal SUB: Fire Potential - Mooring PQt Marina After reviewing the plot plan proposal and variance requests for the Mooring Post Marina, it is the opinion of this office that this building would be a potential major source of fire jeopardizing the surrounding homes. Another concern of this office is life as well as property with regards to the transporting of numerous boats in and out of the facility. Upon presentation of building plans other aspects of this project regarding fire prevention would have to be considered. "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 ¡; ý.!+ IIZU T II- c'-' '-../ TO OUR NEIGHBORS AND ZONING BOARV WE ARE BUILVING A HOME IN NORTHWEST VILLAGE ON LOT #7 WOOVRIVGE VRIVE. VURING EXCAVATION FOR THE FOUNDATION WE HIT SHALE ANQ AN UNDERGROUND SPRING, WHICH FLOOVEV THE SITE. WE INAVVERTENTLY LOST OUR POSITION ON THE PROPERTY. WE UNFORTUNATELY MAVE AN HONEST MISTAKE AND APOLOGIZE TO OUR NEIGHBORS AND THE ZONING BOARV FOR THIS INCONVENIENCE. THANK YOU RICHARV S. & PATRICIA A. CONTE WE THE UNDERSIGNEV VO NOT OBJECT TO THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE. # 'Iff-I" 17 r? ..,. ,~.....-_-:-_.~ L"'W OFFICES OF :V'\ Je/'-p- ~'Ct" '1 j 13-/1ðt HARRISON. P.C. 10 0 , 'ì ~ r '-' LOMBARDI. REINHARD. WALSH 8c 5 COMPUTER DRIVE WEST. BOX CN150.3 ALBANY, NEW YORK 12205 TELEPHONE 15181 .38'2000 FILLCO P,l, "..'" ~ ~·.F'.·I~)~~~SEL lOUI$ \.0"'8""01 11.52-10..' H4~ODO.~ "1:1"104"'-0 o..."v I.. LOM......OI "'CHA"tO ft, W"'LSH. JfIt H...ttl.."N ". HAIIt.fSON ANTHONV J. AMODEO. JfIt. THOM"S J. JO.DAN .....V ELIZ....ETH SLEVIN TELECOPIE" 15181 .38·2.71 , ./,~ .' August 26, 1988 çjd-?-n~ · a ~ 5' ¡;~ ¡Jt/' €J Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals c/o Mr. Ted Turner Bay and Haviland Road R.D. #1 Box 98 Queensbury, New York 12801 Re: Arakelian property located at Trout Pavilion Road, Katskill Bay Dear Members of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals: I am requesting by this letter an interpretation, from the Zoning Board of Appeals,of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance as it applies to proposed work on the above referenced property. The owners of the property currently have a single family residence on the property which was approved by the relevant authorities in Queensbury and a pre-existing cabin on the property. The property is located in the Lakeshore Residential Zone of LR-IA. The cabin is old, unattractive and in need of significant repair. The owners are proposing to tear down the existing cabin which has two bedrooms and one bathroom and replace it with a new two car garage with two bedrooms and one bathroom on the second floor. No kitchen facilities will be included. No plumbing other than that necessary for the bathroom is proposed in the plan. The new building will be used by family members for summer use only. (See map and plans attached.) Given the above description of the proposal, I am requesting an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance as it defines the permitted use of a single family dwelling and a permitted accessory of a garage as those terms apply to the LR-IA zone. It is unclear whether the garage is a permitted accessory use or whether it is a second primary residence. "Garage" is defined in Article 2(42) as an accessory building or structure, attached or detached, used primarily to shelter automobiles (etc.). "Single Family Dwelling" as defined in Article 2(99) includes any detached building containing one dwelling unit,...designed for occupancy by one family. The proposed structure appears to more closely fulfill the € 'IHII§/T ç ..ml, REINH)n.(b. WALSH & HARRISON, P.C. .-....../ definition of "Garage" since its primary purpose will be to shelter automobiles and the use as sleeping quarters is purely incidental to that primary use. Contrasted with that is the definition of a Single Family Dwelling. Since there will be no kitchen facilities and no living space other than the two bedrooms, it appears that this would not be acceptable of a unit designed for the occupancy of a family. Given this situation, I therefore request of the Board an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance as it applies to this proposal. This information is necessary so that it may be determined whether an application must be filed for a use variance with regard to the proposed structure. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. MES/mb encs. Very truly yours, 4~({Þ~~/c//~ ~Y~iZ~: Sl:V¡'; .17'1./1-113 17 C