Loading...
1989-06-21 -.-/ QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING JUNE 21, 1989 INDEX Area Variance No. 1450 Agnes Burch l. Area Variance No. 1419 Queensbury Factory Outlet 3. Area Variance No. 61-1989 Linda Clark Whitty 4. Area Variance No. 62-1989 Catherine V. Harrington 7. Area Variance No. 63-1989 James B. Ayers 9. Use Variance No. 64-1989 Donald and Anna Farrington 12. Area Variance No. 65-1989 Charles M. Young 13. Area Variance No. 66-1989 Michael and Pamela Middleton 14. Area Variance No. 67-1989 Joe Nudi 15. Area Variance No. 68-1989 Gary McCoy 15. "'-.---,'- -- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING JUNE 21st, 1989 1:30 P.M. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY CHARLES O. SICARD DANIEL GRIFFIN JEFFREY KELLEY JOYCE EGGLESTON MICHAEL MULLER TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER PAT COLLARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CORRECTION OF MINUTES May 17th, 1989: Page 2, bottom of Page, Mr. Turner, sIb SFR zone is the most restricted zone in the Town. Page 4, Joyce Eggleston sIb feet between Tropicana and Dexter's, strike Dexter's. Page 10 Area Variance 48-1989, 2nd para. Motion sIb only location to build the sun porch on the house. Page 2, top of page, Susan Goetz, their sIb there, Paul Dusek, purgative sIb prerogative. Page 3, Motion 38-1989, 3rd sentence, property is not unique their sIb property is not unique there. Page 5, Variance 39-1989, 4th sentence, would like to propose sIb would like to enclose an exiting patio area. MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBUR Y ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF MAY 21st, 1989, AS CORRECTED,Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:None OLD BUSINESS AREA VARIANCE NO. 1450 SR-lA, AGNES BURCH E. BURCH ROAD APPLICANT IS ASKING TO DIVIDE THE 1.12 ACRES OF LAND SO THAT A MOBILE HOME CAN BE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY. AT PRESENT THERE IS A SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENCE ON THE 1.12 ACRES OF LAND. TAX MAP NO. 121-1-43 SECTION 4.020 G LOT SIZE: 1.12 ACRES ATTORNEY BRUCE JORDAN REPRESENTING AGNES BURCH MRS. GOETZ-Stated that this was tabled in December of 1988, the applicant requested to have it tabled so that they could consult the building inspector to get more information on possible options. MR. TURNER-Stated that the Public Hearing was held in reference to this application testimony was taken at that time. MR. JORDAN-Stated that he has been retained by the applicant since the time of the initial application. Explained to the Board that they have a piece of property which is located northerly of Luzerne Road, easterly of Birch Road. (Submitted copies of the tax map to the Board showing location of property). According to the tax map you have about 1.12 acres, assumes that this is the acreage of this application. Mrs. Burch is the title owner of the property, she has a wood frame structure upon the property where she resides, what she would like to do is have a mobile home installed on the site as a separate dwelling unit for her daughter. The applicant suggested that there is a subdivision, but thinks a more accurate state of the facts is what was just described, there is no intent to create a subdivision. On the tax map it is shown as Lot #43 just to the easterly side of Birch Road. There is a mobile home there now. Back in late September or early October of 1988, we met with a couple of representatives of the Town of Queensbury, explained what we wanted to do, asked if they were going to have any problems, they said no go ahead, but you are going to have to make an application before the Board to 1 -- _...../ get the approval. Maurice Combs, took this to mean that this was a mere paper shuffle that had to be observed. He bought the mobile home in and was later informed in writing by the Town of Queensbury, not do anything with this property, and don't improve the site. This is what prompted his first go around of filing the application for an area variance. There is no question that the duplicate use of this particular piece of property requires an area variance. Mrs. Burch is suggesting, however, that given the facts and circumstances and conditions that exist in the rest of the neighborhood, she would like to be able to use her property in the same way. The lot sizes that we are working with here, 1.12 acres, runs just shy of 49,000 square feet. Lot #42, which is south of the lot, is roughly 17,500 square feet, and was recently sold. It will have a mobile home installed on it in the near future, but it is vacant at the moment. To the east, Lot #41.1 is vacant; to the north Lot #45.3, is 15,000 square feet and has a residence on it. (Presented pictures to the Board of the neighborhood). On the westerly side of the street are Lots 51, 50, 49, and 62, and you have a number of mobile homes on the various lots as designated, Lot #5 you have a number of mobile homes also. Mrs. Burch and her daughter would like to have the opportunity to do the same as what's going on in the neighborhood. MRS. GOETZ-Stated that the applicant had tabled this for more additional information on other feasible alternatives, asked if he brought any in? MR. JORDAN-No. Stated that they did follow your suggestion, spoke with Dave Hatin. The alternatives that were presented were on the order that you could place the mobile home if you tear down the house or remove the mobile home and leave the house. One suggestion on the part of his client was to make the mobile home an extension of the house. What we're talking about in terms of the existing house is a very small wood frame structure and certainly the land would support the square footage of a much larger structure. Explained that they were advised if they were going to place the mobile home from the structure and connect it with some sort of a breeze-way as an alternative and make an it a addition to the house, believes that they we're advised that it would be treated as a separate structure. MR. TURNER-Stated that he was correct, but he is asking for 100% relief. It is zoned for one acre so your asking us to split it and gain 100% relief, we're allowed to grant you minimum relief, but not 100%. Stated that this is a mobile home overlay zone. We had made the suggestion back in December, that you get rid of the house and put the mobile home on the site because the mobile home was in a better shape than what the house was. They didn't want to accept that. MR. JORDAN-Stated that we're not asking for a subdivision approval in the sense of winding up with two lots. . . MR TURNER-Stated that any division of land under the Ordianace now is a subdivision. MR. JORDAN-There is a difference between having two principal structures on a piece of property and being able to sell each property. MR. TURNER-There are no sub-standard lots in the zone. If we grant you the variance we're creating two sub-standard lots in the zone, 100% relief. MR. JORDAN-What you indicated earlier that the Board would like to do under the Ordinance, is grant the minimal relief that will do the job without violating to the Ordinance. MR. TURNER-Explained that the violation of the Ordinance is the fact that they have a residence there already on 1.12 acres. They want to put two structures on it. MR. JORDAN-Asked if he felt that the contiguous lots of substantially less acerage have any bearing on the application? MRS. GOETZ-Stated that the Ordinance was passed to improve people's situations. If we were to grant the variance it goes with the land and feels that it would be doing a harm to the other lot, squeezing two many people on one small lot. MR. JORDAN-Stated that speaking with the applicant and the other parties involved, it was indicated that if ever it reached the situation where they wanted to sell the property, they will stipulate in the description and convenant that would run with the land; that they would have to sell them as one separate dwelling unit. MR. TURNER-We suggested that the last time. MR. KELLEY-Explained that you also have to look at if you take 1.12 acres and you split it in half you come up with 22,000 square feet, that is where those two lots both would be smaller than the majority of what exists there already. MR. JORDAN-There are other lots that are larger, there is no question to that. 2 -~ PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter received June 16, 1989, from Mr. & Mrs. Robert Burch, 254A Burch Road not opposing this area variance no. 1450. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner, (On file) MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO.1450 AGNES BURCH,lntroduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jeffrey Kelley: The application supports the proposition that placing a mobile home next to this house on 1.12 acres would not affected the neighborhood character this is in a section that allows mobile homes and there would be no adverse impact on the public facilities. There are feasible alternatives. This would begin with this lot being double density. It is not unreasonable to require one dwelling on this lot. No practical difficulty has been demonstrated. Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. MulIer, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one AREA VARIANCE NO. 1419 PC-lA, QUEENSBURY FACTORY OUTLET CENTER SOUTHEAST CORNER OF INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 9 AND QUAKER ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 6,000 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING BUILDING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF ITS EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER IN THE PLACE OF AND INSTEAD OF TWO EXISTING BUILDINGS WIDCH WOULD BE REMOVED. THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING WOULD BE n F~ FROM THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 30 FT. AND THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE BUILDING WOULD BE 7 FT. FROM THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 50 FT. APPLICANT ASKING FOR EXTENSION OF TIllS APPROVAL FROM SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. TAX MAP NO. 103-1-1 SECTION 9.015 LOT SIZE 13.72 ACRES ROBERT STEWART REPRESENTING APPLICANT SAUL BIRNBAUM MR. STEWART-Stated that about 1 year ago Mr. Birnbaum sought an approval to expand the shopping center. He went before the Planning Board and the County Planning Board, and got approval which was contingent upon certain things. One of the major things was to install a red light, and this is a very difficult entrance to install a red light. Also realign the traffic entrance in both his shopping center and across the street where the Albany Saving Bank is. The Planning Board gave their approval around June 22, 1989 of last year. However, I came before this Board for a variance and we didn't need a variance for the expansion. But, there was up in the corner a prestanding old delapetated building, and the proposal was to take that down and put up a new one. Since we didn't meet the setbacks from the corner, we needed your approval and you gave us your approval on September 28, 1988. As you know this is a family fued and has been in litigation for several years. The essence of this is that my client Saul Birnbaum, is the record owner of the property, and that there is a dispute of whether or not the estate of his deceased brother should not be divided to an equal owner. The problem at this moment has not been resolved. The dispute is very bitter and a Supreme Court Judge, has made it clear to both sides that there is no way the two can co-exist together. Therefore he is going to have to order that the property be sold to an outsider. There are several negoations going on one of which may come to a conclusion within the next couple of weeks. The best benefit to my client and his brother estate would be to obtain an extension for another year for this right to expand so that they have the flexiblity to give the maximum value to the shopping center. Stated that Mr. Turner, and Mr. Sicard pointed out that a letter was sent by the legal representative of the brother's estate saying that they couldn't be here tonight and they want it adjourned. Stated that he is only asking for a year's extension on the right to expand the shopping center for whoever owns it. MRS. GOETZ-Read letter from Jonathan C. Lapper, Attorney for brother of Saul Birmbaum, asking for a postponement. (On file) 3 ~/ MR. MULLER-Stated that he feels Mr. Stewart, is correct. He is not asking for anything that hasn't been already granted. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 1419 QUEENSBURY FACTORY OUTLET CENTER,lntroduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded Mr. Turner: Extension for 12 month period from September 28, 1988. Mr. Stewart has presented the facts, please refer to his letter of May 19th, 1989. This is an extension for a 12 month period from September 28th, 1988 the date that approval was given for the setback variance. Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSTAIN:Mr. Sicard ABSENT: None NEW BUSINESS AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-1989, WR-lA, LINDA CLARK WHITrY ASH DRIVE, GLEN LAKE TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE PROPERTY. A GARAGE IS INCLUDED IN THIS PLAN BUT WILL BE BUILT AT A LA TER DATE. THE DRIVE WILL BE USED BY BOTH PARTIES AND AN EASEMENT PROVISION WILL BE WRITTEN INTO THE DEED. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS CONSIDERED A PREEXISTING NONCONFORMING BUILDING LOT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 39-1-58.3 SECTION 4.020 MIN. YARD SETBACKS SECTION 7.077 FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET LOT SIZE: .286 ACRES LINDA CLARK WHITTY PRESENT MAP SHOWN TO BOARD LINDA WHITTY-Stated that the only addition that she would like to add to the application is that the size of the house has changed somewhat. I have made it smaller, two feet off of the property line on the Tyrer property there would be an additional four feet. MR. GRIFFIN-Asked if she looked into the septic system to see if there is any other way that it could changed to move it to the front of the house closer up front? LINDA WHITTY-Stated that the septic system is presently placed right on the edge of a very steep rock. In order to get that septic system away from the well according to requirements, this is the only location I could put it and keep it off of the property lines. MR. GRIFFIN-Asked if she owned the driveway? LINDA WHITTY-Yes. There would be an easement. MRS. GOETZ-Asked if this was a Town road? LINDA WHITTY-No. MR. GRIFFIN-Asked who owns the land on the other side of the easement? LINDA WHITTY-Mr. Prenderville. MR. TURNER-Asked if the garage is going to be an eventuality? LINDA WHITTY-That's not going up at this time, it probably will at sometime. MR. TURNER-Asked how much further could she go forward with the house towards the driveway without hitting that slope? LINDA WHITTY-Stated that the driveway is not a slope. By bringing it forward it would make this area (refers to map) in violation. DISCUSSION AMOUNG BOARD MEMBERS MR. KELLEY-Asked what was the reason why this couldn't be moved towards the south? 4 .. LINDA WHITTY-Explained because the placement of the septic system it creates a problem. It has to be 10 feet off the Prenderville property line. The septic system can't be placed on the driveway between those two problems I can't move it further over. MR. KELLEY-Asked how far the septic system is from the house now? MR. TURNER-Stated 20 feet. MR. KELLEY-Stated that the house could be moved closer you could gain 6 feet it would give you a 10 foot rear setback. MRS. GOETZ-Asked about the gorge in the rear? LINDA WHITTY-This is why I was giving more consideration to the front of the house than the rear. The rear of the house there is nothing that would be able to go in there. I wouldn't be taking away from possible building that Tyrer might want to put in up in the northeastern end of his property. MRS. GOETZ-Asked how many square feet are in the house? LINDA WHITTY-2,672 square feet. MR. KELLEY-Feels that this is not a very good proposal. MR. TURNER-Stated that another alternative would be a different design for the house. MRS. GOETZ-Explained that the thought has been brought up that this proposed house is big for the constraints of your property, asked if it would be better for her to go with a smaller house? MR. KELLEY-Asked how she felt about moving the house forward 6 feet so you would have a 10 foot rear setback? LINDA WHITTY-It would put the driveway in front of the front door. MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked if this was going to be a single family year round home for your purpose? LINDA WHITTY-Yes. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DR. VINCENT PRENDERVILLE-I own the property that is in question as Lot #3. When we bought this property together originally the property was bought to protect this from an undesireable situation with the casino and casino parking lot and we just wanted to protect ourselves from encroachment by that parking lot. This plan came as a surprise to me, I find myself very concerned because that's a lot of house to put on that lot, most of it sits directly up on a bank. I would be concerned about whether or not. . .its been placed as far as it can be. Is this a two story house? MRS. GOETZ-Did you see the picture of it? MR. PRENDERVILLE-How many bedrooms are we talking about? LINDA WHITTY -Three. MR. PRENDERVILLE-Its an attractive looking home. I am concerned about cover between the properites, I'm concerned about the fact that the density in that area is really bad that corner. . .they are one on top of the other. If this can be worked out fine, but I think its an awful lot of house on this property. The road that used to be actually Ledford's, Ledford cut that road so you would have access from Birch Road, and Ash Drive. The density, visiblity, the environmental things is what I'm concerned about. HERBERT TYRER-I own the adjoining property. The constructed driveway. . .the easement over my property, I don't know if this can be transferred or not, also it cannot be used for commercial. I've been told tonight that this is also a daycare center it may not be true, it could be a rumor. I know the easement cannot be used for commerical. I have no objection to the house if they are interested in purchasing more land I may be interested in selling it so she would have room to build a house. Also on my property I have a view of the lake, I think this might restrict my view of the lake. As far as building a house I have no objection to that. MR. TURNER-Your not sure about the easement, your not sure that the easementt grants 5 '"- '- _..-/- relief to you? HERBERT TYRER-In my deeds it cannot be deeded off to somebody else. If the property is sold you can sell the easement. He is not selling the easement because he is going to be using the easement himself. I don't know if Mr. Prenderville, is using it for the same reason or not. DR. PRENDERVILLE-The easement thing troubles me a little. This is something that has been used since 1902. Its now an easement and the other proeprty is owned by Mr. Mahoney, the driveway has been there since 1902 and used continueous. MR. SICARD-The easements would be in the deeds. MAR Y VAN VRANKEN-Dr. Prenderville fiance, here representing the other members of the Prenderville family, specifically Mr. & Mrs. Mark Prenderville who live in Diamond Point, but since this is his summer residence and are up on a frequent basis. They would be here, but they are on their honeymoon. As Dr. Prenderville, stated to the best of our knowledge when this particular piece of land was purchased, it was to act as a barrier from the Casino which was in operation at that time. There was never any discussion in the deed that the property this specific parcel was divided between Rev. Clark, and Dr. Prenderville. There was never a statement made that this property was going to be built upon. Infact, at several points in time Rev. Clark has said that he would not welcome an additional cottage or whatever on Dr. Prenderville's property, just in general comment. As being a long time members of the Glen Lake Protective Association, we have a very real concern about the environmental impact and overloading of Glen Lake. Glen Lake is already overbuilt. It's been built on, its been subdivided, and we hate to see the nature of Glen Lake be further destroyed and divided. Oak Knoll is one of the oldest camps on Glen Lake, and with not having any kind of city water, city sewer, we worry about the impact about another septic system in that area as well. With the limited amount of property to build on and destroying the natural appearance around the camp we felt at the time when we saw the original communication from your office, that this structure was far to big to accomodate this property. We find that if they moved it forward we feel that with a family, children, and cars going in and out, additional cars going out, that it would present a noise distrubance, and moving it forward would create even more of a noise distrubance. We worry that the structure of the property could affect the resale value of our summer home. We also worry that in granting a variance for a structure on a odd shape, small piece of property of this size, whether this will act as a precendent for other variances on Glen Lake, which we would be naturally opposed to. This is what the rest of the Prenderville family has to say; sorry we all couldn't be here, but we just wanted to make that clear. Thank you. LINDA WHITTY-First of all I do not run a day care center, I'm a teacher. I have two children and they have friends over, but I do not run a day care center. In terms of the view of the Tyrer house, I would be surprised if you could see the lake from his house that's further back beyond this piece of property. It would be very difficult to see the lake because there are no windows facing our property from his house, its just the garage. I can see the lake somewhat, but I cannot see the entire lake from the property that I'm proposing to put the house on. It should also be noted that there are two ways out of this particular piece of property. The driveway which was built after the purchase of the back piece there is an easement put into the deed at the time in which this piece was purchased and my parents put a driveway in along the property line and then the driveway continues out onto Birch Road, so their are really two ways of getting in and out of this particular piece of property. MRS. GOETZ-I would like to ask you in your application you made a statement that you weren't able to buy any additional land, and now Mr. Tyrer proposed that it might be possible. LINDA WHITTY-That's sounds like a great idea, but I don't think I can afford it at this time. MRS. GOETZ-Do you know what the price might be? LINDA WHITTY-I can't set the price. MRS. GOETZ-I know you can't set the price, but would you be willing to talk to him about it because that might have a bigger bearing on it if you had a bigger lot for that size house. LINDA WHITTY -To be honest with you I'm working with a single income so I really cannot sketch beyond a piece of property purchased at this time. It would be something that I would like to consider for the future, but at this time I don't feel that I am in a position to do so. MRS. GOETZ-Would you consider redesigning the house and making it smaller? LINDA WHITTY-I would consider redesigning to make it smaller, but from what I understand Mr. Tyrer, does not have any objection to house being four feet off the property line, is that true? 6 -' MR. TYRER-Yes. LINDA WHITTY-There is no objection on his part, and that way it would help Mr. Prenderville's desire to keep the house as further back as possible, and it wouldn't be interrupting anyone else on the other side of the property. MR. MULLER-Would you consider tabling your application to redesign a plan that has a smaller house. I just have difficuly in the size of your house which I consider to be a large house for an extremely small lot. In my recollection I can only think of one other lot that is about that small that we had to struggle with to grant a area variance. We granted it, it was around Glen Lake, we all felt uncomfortable about it. I think you have a house here that would look great on about 2 acres. LINDA WHITTY-Is there a problem in terms of the legality of putting this size house on this lot? MR. MULLER-In answer to that question, the legality that is of more concern is in granting what you seek as a area variance; you would have to investigate feasible alternatives, in my own mind feasible alternatives would be to investigate what Mr. Tryer, might require in a way of a purchase price for the property. That's just an alternative and it is feasible. I think that the law would require that you address that. As for the size of the house, again that has to do with feasible alternatives. That is, that in granting you the minimum relief necessary to accomplish what you want to do, build a house on a lot, and for us not to torture the Zoning Ordiance to the point that we're ignoring it. We try to look at different size houses or different shape houses, so that's why I'm suggesting that you might want to table and come back with drawings that have other ideas for a house. We all recognize what constraints your under on the size and shape of this lot, so obviously a smaller house requires less setback relief. MR. MULLER-I'm just saying that there may be alternatives that you could consider. We don't have such a long house, its 26 feet wide on one end, 24 feet wide where your garage is, and quite honestly 24 ft. is not an unusual depth or length of a garage. LINDA WHITTy-If I did away with the porch on the side would that help? MR. MULLER-I don't think it helps. LINDA WHITTY-How many feet are you proposing that I shrink the house? MR. TURNER-It's determined on what kind of house you put on the lot, how you put it on the lot. LINDA WHITTY-So what your looking for is more property on one line? MR. TURNER-On that line, your asking for considerable relief of 16 feet. MR. KELLEY-We like to see the house 20 feet from the property line because that's what the Zoning Ordiannce says. Your going to have a little problem there, but what we're saying is, come up with something. Four isn't acceptable; somewhere between four and twenty is. MR. MULLER-The building inspector is going to measure from your property line to the drip line of the building and that's your setback. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-1989, LINDA CLARK WIllTTY,lntroduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Applicant wishes to table this application to bring back some feasbile alternatives for the proposed building. Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-1989, SR-20, CATHERINE V. HARRINGTON PINELLO ROAD, LAST RESIDENCE ON RIGHT TO CONSTRUCT A 2 CAR GARAGE 28 FT. WIDE BY 36 FT. LONG 7 ..., '"--~~ THAT WILL ALSO HOUSE THE CAMPER (TRAVEL AND TRAILER) TAX MAP NO. 147-1-72 SECTION 2.020 LOT SIZE: 100 FT. BY 200 FT. JAMES E. HITCHCOCK JR. SON-IN-LAW REPRESENTING CATHERINE V. HARRINGTON MR. TURNER-Asked what was going to be the height of the garage? MR. HITCHCOCK-18 feet. MR. TURNER-Asked the size of the garage doors? MR. HITCHCOCK-Two 10 foot doors. MR. KELLEY-Asked how wide? MR. HITCHCOCK-1O ft. by 10 ft. Stated that he needs these size doors to get the camper in, then go for a vehicle with one bay on that side. Has a car, pickup, motorcycle, travel trailer. Stated that they intend to buy the property, first to propose a garage with a house to follow. SHOWED PICTURE OF THE TRAVEL TRAILER TO THE BOARD MR. GRIFFIN-Would like to know what is the practical difficulty? MR. TURNER-To get the vehicles into the garage. MR. KELLEY-What is his intent? MR. HITCHCOCK-Rather than to build two separate buildings just propose to build a garage. MR. KELLEY-Stated that a 900 square foot garage would be a allowable size. One of the comments that we have is that if you make a garage 25 ft. wide by 36 ft. long, that would come up to 900 sq. ft. Asked if he could get by with a 25 ft? If not, then why is 28 ft. better? MR. HITCHCOCK-Explained that your not going to be able to put two 10 foot doors on 25 ft. you wouldn't have any support for the roof. MR. KELLEY-Stated that he could have a foot on each side, three feet in the middle. MR. TURNER-Asked what the garage was going to be made of? MR. HITCHCOCK-Wood construction. Explained that 2 feet even for a center support, would be 2 ft. 8 inches on each side to the exterior wall on the garage. Your talking roughly 2 feet on each side, 2 feet exactly in the center with 10 foot doors. MR. KELLEY-Asked if his idea was to put the trailer on one side, and then park the other vehicles in front of it. MR. HITCHCOCK-Right. On the other bay it would hold the other vehicle. MR. SICARD-Asked if he could put in a single door? MR. HITCHCOCK-Stated that the only problem with a single door is the amount of weight. MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked if all of these vehicles were his own personal use, asked if there was any intent to repair, sell? MR. HITCHCOCK-Just my own. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BILL ROBINSON-Lake George. I think we both have valid points, its America let the guy go. Its so close its rediculous. All these points touch me close, I'm American that's the big thing. I think this is crazy. MRS. GOETZ-It might seem like there have been people who have suffered in the Town. For instance logging business going in single family residential. MR. ROBINSON-The thing is go againstthe logger, don't go against the guy with the garage. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED STAFF INPUT 8 -~ Notes from John Goralski, Planner, (On file) DISCUSSION HELD MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked if he added a carport to the garage would it be considered an additon or separate? PAT COLLARD-Separate. MR. KELLEY-Asked when the zoning plan was revised and they came up with 900 sq. ft., what was the thinking behind it. MR. TURNER-Stated that people were putting up big garages and running businesses out of them that's why they limited the size. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-1989 CATHERINE V. HARRINGTON,Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded Charles Sicard: The variance in this case is for a 1,008 square foot garage, and the requirement is no larger than 900 square feet. The applicant has shown good intentions that this would be used for personal storage of personal belongings. The increase in the size is necessary because the travel trailer is 8 feet 3 inches wide, 18 feet long. He is asking for two 10 foot overhead doors, the plans shown seems to be the best looking approach for the problem. There is not an adverse effect on the neighborhood or public facilities, no neighborhood opposition. The short EAF shows no negative impact, this is a reasonable request. Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mr.Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: Mrs. Eggleston ABSENT:N one AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-1989 WR-lA, JAMES B. AYERS EAST SHORE OF WARNER BAY ON LAKE GEORGE FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF THE TWO DOCKS WITH ADDmON OF BOATHOUSE. NEW DOCKS TO BE LOCATED 10 FT. FROM THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY LINE REQUIRING A VARIANCE FROM THE 20 FT. SIDE SETBACK RULE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 19-1-42 SECTION 4.020-D LOT SIZE: I ACRES JAMES A YERS PRESENT/BILL ROBINSON BUILDER MR. TURNER-Asked since he owns Lot 42, and 43, those are contiguous lots why couldn't he bring the dock in? MR. ROBINSON-Stated that where the docks are is the best spot for the docks. The docks were built in 1936. MR. GORALSKI-Stated that they have taken down half of the existing dock, and they have not started construction of the dock yet. MR. ROBINSON-Said that the only thing that they did with the dock was take out the stringers piled all the rock. Didn't realize that you needed a variance to rebuild a dock that existed, and the fact that the dock used to be on the property line, and I'm putting it 10 feet further away from the property line. Lake George Park Commission approved this without a variance, stated that they wanted us to have approval. ENCON gave us approval. Only thought he was going to have to get site plan review to put a deck on the dock. (Presented pictures of the decks and docks). MR. TURNER-Asked if this was going to be a U shaped dock? MR. ROBINSON-Its going to be a U shaped dock. MR. TURNER-8 foot on one side, 6 foot on the other? MR. ROBINSON-Yes. MR. GRIFFIN-Asked about further movement to the north? MR. ROBINSON-Stated that if you go over to the north there is a straight up vertical 8 foot cliff and there are trees that stick out. That area of the lake for about 600 yards has alot 9 ..-- of hemlock and cedar. All the house were built about 8 years ago and all kept inside the trees, so we can see out, no one can see in. We do it for our advantage for the shade on the porch and the other peoples advantage not to see us. MR. GRIFFIN-Asked about the older dock? MR. ROBINSON-Stated that the older dock is exactly the same except for that the demensions are not going to be exactly the same because the old dock got hit by ice and is all twisted. Two years ago when we filed the dimensions to Lake George Park Commission, we measured all those dimensions and its odd shaped so we don't want to build the dock with this odd shape. MR. MULLER-Asked if this type of thing is subject to 30 day review by the Adirondack Park Agency on any variances that are on that shoreline? MR. GORALSKI-This is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency, the dock also requires site plan review. MR. ROBINSON-Doesn't understand why you need to go through this? MR. GORALSKI-Stated that if he was just replacing the dock that was there, your correct. The Ordinance states that every dock that is built on any lake in Queensbury, requires site plan review. MR. ROBINSON-Asked why they couldn't say it was exsiting? MRS. GOETZ-Stated that it is now in a different place. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. DEWEY-The movement of the dock is no problem to me. Its a 10 foot advantage as far as I'm concerned. That's the situation, we have a site plan review, how soon can this be done? MR. GORALSKI-If the plans are in by the last Wedensday of June, it should be on the agenda for the July Planning Board Meeting. MR. DEWEY-Which is? MR. GORALSKI-The 3rd Tuesday in July. MR. ROBINSON-I have it all done, but they won't let me give it to them until we get the variance. MR. DEWEY-The site plan has to do with the boathouse portion? MR. GORALSKI-The dock and the boathouse both require site plan review? MR. DEWEY-By? MR. GORALSKI-By the Planning Board. MR. DEWEY-That's in Queensbury? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. DEWEY-I thought you said something about. . . MR. GORALSKI-The Adirondack Park Agency will also review this, but that review will be done by the time. .. Any variance that is granted by this Board that is within the Adirondack Park, has to be reviewed by the Adirondack Park Agency. At this point they have 30 days from the date that this approval. MR. ROBINSON-For the deck only? MR. DEWEY-The material that Mr. Robinson gave you is the material that is needed for the Planning Board? MR. GORALSKI-Pretty much, yes. MR. DEWEY-Is it or is it not? MR. GORALSKI-I would have to review the entire application. MR. DEWEY-We gave you 15 copies of this. 10 MR. GORALSKI- You made 14 copies of this for the Zoning Board of Appeals application. The Planning Board does have some different requirements, if the plan comes in I'd be happy to review it and make sure its complete and ready for review. I can do that tomorrow if you like. MR. DEWEY-So we have to get more copies of what we've presented to you down to your office tomorrow? MR. GORALSKI-We will review it, and if it has all the information that's required by the Planning Board we make 14 copies, the application fee and we will be all set. MR. DEWEY-I appreciate it, Thank you. MR. ROBINSON-The dock is existing do you have the right to do that. You have a way to do that I know you do. MR. TURNER-You just stated tonight that the old dock was on the property line and your moving it 10 feet over away from the property line, that's why your here. MR. ROBINSON-No. The reason why I'm here is because. . . MR. TURNER-You've violated the side setback, that's why your here. MR. ROBINSON-The reason why I'm here, they said if I put a deck on this dock the whole thing has to go through variance at that point because the dock the existing dock before all your laws can be rebuilt, right? MR. TURNER-If it's on the same site, but you've moved it 10 feet. MR. ROBINSON-The thing is the deck is going on the dock. If this deck wasn't going on this dock I wouldn't have to come here at all because I would of just rebuilt the dock and I wouldn't need any of these permits. MR. TURNER-That's correct, if you left it where it was. MR. ROBINSON-All we need is site plan review to tell us the type of decks I build are aesthetic to the area, and compatible with what's going on there, that has to go through site plan review so that at site plan review people can check capability. You don't need to do that about a dock that everybody looked at and will look at in the future. You can go existing dock, I know you can. MR. TURNER-Your wrong. MR. DEWEY-Can we get approval of the 10 foot variance. MR. TURNER-Absolutely, that's what your here for tonight, that's all we can give you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from C. B. Dewey and Julia Dewey, not opposing this Area Variance No. 63-1989. (On file) Warren County Planning Board approved. (On file) STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (On file) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-1989, JAMES B. A YERS,Introduced by Daniel Griffin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: This is a variance for a 10 foot side setback in lieu of the required 20 feet. The applicant has demonstrated the practical difficulty that the present proposed site is the best location. Moving it further north would be difficult becasue of steep slopes, rocks, and the need to remove trees. The proposed dock is 10 feet from the property line this would be better than the old dock which is on the property line. There is no neighborhood opposition. This variance is for the 10 foot side setback only, the other requirements will be handled by the Queensbury Plannning Board. The short EAF form shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 1989, by the following vote: 11 ~~ A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:None USE VARIANCE NO. 64-1989, SR-lA, DONALD AND ANNA FARRINGTON OFF CORINTH ROAD, PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAY, 2/10 MILE PAST REVERE ROAD GOING WEST TO REPLACE THE OLD MOBILE HOME (10 FT. BY 50 FT.) WITH A NEW MOBILE HOME (14 FT. BY 70 FT.) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 150-1-9 SECTION 4.020 G LOT SIZE: 140 FT. BY 312 FT. ANNA FARRINGTON PRESENT PLANS SHOWN TO BOARD PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARGARET MCDONALD-Have a 36 lot subdivision on the western side of Sherman Island Road. There is a cuI da sac and this is going to be visible from the cuI da sac where the homes are when the lots are cleared and the homes are put there. We think that will be a hinderance to sell the land that it is there now. MRS. GOETZ-You can see it now? MRS. MCDONALD-Yes. Once the lots are cleared it will be more visible. MRS. FARRINGTON-Would you rather see a 1960 trailer sitting there, because its not going to come off the lot until I put a new home there. MRS. MCDONALD-This isn't a personal vendetta. Unfortunately trailers are not in the market for a subdivision. MRS. GOETZ-Do you realize that this mobile home can stay there? MRS. MCDONALD-Yes we do. MR. TURNER-Would you rather see a newer one rather than an older one? MRS. EGGLESTON-How long ago did you purchase your property? MRS. MCDONALD-About 23 years ago. MRS. FARRINGTON-We've been living there for fifty years. ROBERT MCDONALD-I also own that subdivision. The existing trailer there is alot smaller than the one that's going in there. If you add 20 foot more onto a trailer that is much more visible whether its an old trailer or new trailer. If anybody came to look at this subdivision they are going to see this trailer, its going to be exposed 20 more feet. I would rather see the old one there even if it stays there forever. What I would rather see is a new home built. MR. TURNER-How many lots are you saying that you can see that trailer? MR. MCDONALD-I can show you a picture of the subdivison. (Showed pictures to Board) As you come in from Sherman Island Road, come into the cuI da sac this is where the trailer sits length wise. DISCUSSION AMOUNG BOARD MEMBERS AND MR. MCDONALD MR. KELLEY-This is a approved subdivision? MR. MCDONALD-This was approved in 1981. MRS. GOETZ-You knew there was a trailer there before you bought the property. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning approved. (On file) 12 -..-/ STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (On file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. TURNER-In reference to Staff Notes, asked the applicant if they could move the trailer forward 2 feet? MRS. FARRINGTON-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 64-1989, DONALD AND ANNA FARRINGTON,lntroduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded Charles Sicard: The applicant has shown that this is a 1960 mobile home and it has been there a long time. It is not unreasonable for them to update their mobile home. There is neighborhood objection, but in balance it will be better to replace an older mobile home. It will be a 14 ft. by 70 ft. mobile home and the present setback requirements can be met. Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Mul1er, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-1989, WR-IA, CHARLES M. YOUNG ASSEMBLY POINT, BRAYTON LANE PAST HOLLY LANE TO ELIMINATE ONE LOT BY DIVIDING IT AND COMBINING EACH OF THE PIECES WITH AN ADJACENT LOT TO PRODUCE TWO LOTS OF LARGER SIZE (BUT STILL LESS THAN 1 ACRE). PROPERTY IS FOR OCCASIONAL FAMILY SUMMER VACATION USE. NO CHANGES ARE PLANNED IN THE LAND OR BUILDINGS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 6-3-15.1 SECTION 4.020 MIN. LOT SIZE SECTION 7.077 FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET LOT SIZE: I ACRE MR. ROBERT STEWART REPRESENTING JOHN WALLACE TRUST/CHARLES YOUNG PRESENT MRS. GOETZ-Read letter from Edith A. Nordlander and Gertrude Young, dated May 25, 1989. (On file) MR. STEW ART-Stated that this is a delicate situation because all of these people are family members. The John Wallace Trust, owns Lot 15.1, and 17, and owns 1/3rd of Lot 33. It is Lot 33 that is proposed to be joined with half of the Lot 15.1 that is to be split. Mr. Young made this application on the assumption that by tonight he would be the full owner of Lot 33, and would therefore have the right to . . . that he would join Lot 33 with half of Lot 15.1. I have no reason to know that he wouldn't be right, but unfortunately that has not come about as yet. Our law firm is representing the trustee. There has been some communication, but we've had difficulty reaching him. At the present time Lot 33 is still owned by three separate families. The problem that we're faced with is that if you approve this subdivision tonight you are taking the westerly half of Lot 15.1, and creating a separate. . .of the lot, it does not automatically join with Lot 33 because they are separate ownership. The easterly half of Lot 15.1 is proposed to be joined with Lot 18, but at the present time the two lots are divided by a private driveway or road of which the Wallace Trust ownes 1/2, and Nordlander ownes the other half, and Mr. Young doesn't own any. Technically those two lots would not be merged automactically under the Ordinances, and so you would have created four tiny lots out of what are now three. I don't have any clear authority from my client to opppose it, I'm not sure that I want to do that. Suggested that until the owership of Lot 33 is resolved, and until that road which divides Lot 18 from Lot 15.1, that the matter be tabled. MR. MULLER-Asked if what if the Board were to approve it subject to him obtaining title to Lot 33. Asked what the problem was with the driveway? MR. STEWART-Stated that it would require some sort of a deed from the Wallace Trust to Nordlander in order to make these one lot. MR. MULLER-Asked that if the Board were to approve it tonight pending the resolution of the driveway split for the most northerly lot, and pending the applicant's acquistion of a deed for Lot 33, then he has nothing until he acquires those things? MR. STEWART-Stated that the problem is that is has no authority to say. MR. YOUNG-Stated that on the tax map we have family ownership as of May 17th, the first 13 -_/' one is Alexanderson in process to Nordlander, this has been accomplished. Items #2, as of approximately 4 weeks ago that was accomplished as far as Nordlander is concerned. The same was sent over to the Wallace Trust. A letter was written to Mr. Stewart's firm on June 1st. (Read 1st sentence of letter to Board) Lot #33 is now owned 2/3rds by Gertrude Young. Feels that the joining together of the two main plots has a map showing the driveway terminating on Edith Nordlander's property, this is before the driveway existed as a separate parcel. This is that way still it is owned by Wallace and Nordlander, this shows the driveway was. . .those two lots, doesn't believe this is the case, feels this should be check out. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-1989, CHARLES M. YOUNG,Introduced by Mr. Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: To table this application pending information to be furni;hed as to the ownership of the properties in question. Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:None AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-1989, SR-lA, MICHAEL AND PAMELA MIDDLETON BELLOWS CIRCLE CLENDON RIDGE SUBDIVISION FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN INGROUND SWIMIMING POOL ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PROPERTY. TAX MAP NO. 121-1-53.153 SECTION 7.074 LOT SIZE: 34,561.29 SQ. FT. MICHAEL MIDDLETON PRESENT MR. TURNER-Asked about the lot that adjoins his property in front of the swimming pool area, is this a lot that was purchased for investment that maybe down the road your going to sell it? MR. MIDDLETON-Stated that its a privacy lot, not a building lot. MR. KELLEY-Asked about the land to the north, asked how far it was from there to the next house? MR. MIDDLETON-Land to the north is Dr. Karp's, possibly 1/2 mile. MR. KELLEY-Asked if he knew if he had any plans to do anything with this, is it of a size that you could do anything with it? MR. MIDDLETON-Has no idea. Stated that he could have constructed his house where I wanted to put the pool, it could have been my back yard. Owns the cuI da sac, could have placed my house in a different location and that would have been my backyard. MR. GRIFFIN-Asked if this was near Dr. Karp's apartments? MRS. MIDDLETON-Stated that she spoke with a Real Estate Agent that has worked for Dr. Karp. Spoken with Dr. Karp, and he wants this private where his house is. MR. MIDDLETON-Stated that they own the residential part of his property. MRS. MIDDLETON-Stated that his apartments are quit far away. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (On file) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-1989, MICHAEL AND PAMELA MIDDLETON,Introduced by Daniel Griffin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: The variance is to place the pool in the north side yard instead of the backyard. The proposed location is the best on the lot, the practical difficulty is that there is a septic system and leach 14 -~ field in the back of the house, a drop in grade and trees on the east side of the house. The applicant owns the property on the west side. There is no neighborhood objection, no negative neighborhood impact. The short EAF form shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. MulJer, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-1989, MR-5, JOE NUDI NORTHWEST CORNER OF omo AND SOUTH AVENUE INTERSECTION FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A 14 FT. BY 70 FT. NEW MOBILE HOME. TmS WILL REPLACE THE 14 FT. BY 60 FT. MOBILE HOME THAT IS PRESENTLY ON THE SITE. TAX MAP NO. 127-9-9 SECTION 4.020 F LOT SIZE: .138 ACRES JOE NUDI PRESENT MR. TURNER-Asked if the one that's there is it gone? MR. NUDI-Correct. MR. TURNER-Asked about the two frontages? MR. NUDI-Stated that the one frontage on Central is no problem. The problem is the setback on Ohio, and with most of the new homes today the 70 foot is actually a 66 foot body. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (On file) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-1989, JOE NUDI,Introduced by Mr. Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: The practical difficulty is the need to modernize the mobile home. The size of the trailer is the practical difficulty and the size of the lot is another difficulty. They need a six foot relief on the front which is Ohio A venue. Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-1989, UR-IO, GARY MCCOY CORNER DIXON ROAD AND COLONIAL COURT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN INGROUND SWIMMING POOL IN THE BACKYARD WITH A 5f FT. REAR YARD SETBACK. TAX MAP NO. 92-I-L3 SECTION 7.074 4-B LOT SIZE: 80 FT. BY 120 FT. GARY MCCOY PRESENT MR. KELLEY-Stated that there isn't much you can do to improve the setbacks. MRS. GOETZ-Asked if there was a door in the back of the house to get to the pool? MR. MCCOY-There is already a fence around it. MRS. GOETZ-Asked if he would be coming out his front door? MR. MCCOY-Have to go around the house to get to the back. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 15 -~ NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (On file) MOTION TO APROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-1989, GARY MCCOY, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: This approval is based on the testimony given that the piece of property is a corner lot and has unique circumstances with two setbacks, swimmiming pools should be in the rear of the house. The distance from the line to the house is 27 feet, the pool will be 5 i feet from the north sideline this is a relief of 4! feet. There is no adverse effect on the neighborhood, no other place on the property to put the pool. Duly adopted this 21st day of June, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:N one On motion the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 16