Loading...
1989-07-19 ------ ....~ ~ ----- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING JULY 19th, 1989 INDEX APPLICANT PAGE Area Variance No. 69-1989 Richard and Dorothy Mellor 1. Use Variance No. 1378 Carusone and Muller 2. Area Variance No. 77-1989 W. Eric Wiley & Carrie 2. M. Wiley Notice of Appeal API89 Frank Parillo 3. Area Variance No. 30-1989 Carole Cacioppi 5. Bruce & Joanne Armstrong Area Variance No. 33-1989 Carole Cacioppi 6. Dr. Jay Wasserman Area Variance No. 78-1989 Thomas and Carolyn Clary 7. Area Variance No. 79-1989 Pankaj K. & Virginia Das 9. Area Variance No. 80-1989 Myrtle Ramsey 10. Area Variance No. 81-1989 Thomas A. & Cynthia Britt II. ~, ~ /' " .---- --- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING JULY 19th, 1989 7:35 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY CHARLES O. SICARD DANIEL GRIFFIN JEFFREY KELLEY JOYCE EGGLESTON PAUL DUSEK-TOWN ATTORNEY LEE A. YORK, SENIOR PLANNER PAT COLLARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DA VE HA TIN, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND CODES MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL MULLER OLD BUSINESS AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-1989 WR-lA RICHARD AND DOROTHY MELLOR CLEVERDALE, 5 HOUSES PAST THE POST OFFICE, ON THE RIGHT-LAKESIDE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN UNATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE 21 FT. BY 24 FT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 13-3-3 SECTION 4.020 1,7.074 AlC LOT SIZE: 60 FT. BY 200 FT. DOROTHY MELLOR PRESENT MRS. GOETZ-Stated this was tabled at the last meeting at the request of the applicant so that they could secure a survey and further information. MR. TURNER-Stated that the original application stated 3 feet, asked what was is it now? MRS. MELLOR-Stated it was recommended we rethink and we made a couple changes. We attached the garage, we considered moving the one holding tank for the septic and have the survey done. We narrowed the garage from 21 ft. to 20 ft. wide, but made it longer from 24 ft. to 32 ft. because of moving the entry to the back of the house we need the additional room because of the slope. MR. TURNER-Asked if they were going to keep the building out by the road? MRS. MELLOR-Would like too. MR. GRIFFIN-Asked if this was going to be a two story garage? MRS. MELLOR-One story. MR. GRIFFIN-Asked she had any intentions of making the garage out by the road into apartments? MRS. MELLOR-No. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-1989, RICHARD AND DOROTHY MELLOR,Introduced by Daniel Griffin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty in asking for 9.7 feet instead of 20 feet required on the side setback which is on the south of the property. There is no other site on the property for the garage because of the septic tank and leach field. There is no negative effect on the neighborhood character. The existing garage on the property is never to be used for a dwelling or apartments. The short EAF form has been submitted and there is no negative impact. Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None 1 .~ /?"'/ '...... '-- -.....--' ABSENT:Mr. Muller USE VARIANCE NO. 1378 CARUSONE AND MULLER 250 BAY STREET REQUEST FOR AN ADDmONAL TWELVE MONTH EXTENSION ON THE APPROVAL GRANTED JULY 20, 1988. TO REMOVE THE EXISTING DWELLING AND BIDLD A NEW OFFICE TO BE USED FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICES. MR. CARUSONE PRESENT MRS. GOETZ-Asked if he found out whether or not he needed an elevator. MR. CARUSONE-Stated we went to the State and were denied our application for a variance although they have not given us an official decision. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 1378 CARUSONE AND MULLER,Introduced by Mr. Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jeffrey Kelley: To grant the extension requested by Carusone and Muller. This will be for a period of 12 months to extend the variance which was granted July 20th, 1988. Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Muller AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-1989 SFR-lA LC-IOA W. ERIC WILEY CARRIE M. WILEY WEST SIDE OF WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD FOR THE CREATION OF A 3 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDMSION. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 87-1-22 SECTION 4.053, 7.077 LOT SIZE: 58± ACRES MICHAEL O'CONNOR FIRM OF LITTLE AND O'CONNOR REPRESENTING W. ERIC WILEY AND CARRIE M. WILEY MR. TURNER-Stated this was tabled at the last meeting. MR. O'CONNOR-Stated that with permission of the Board he sent the Board members a copy of the letter summarizing his understanding of the burden of proof that is upon the applicant. A t the last meeting Leon Steves testified as to the fact that you could have three very odd shape lots. (Presented map to Board showing the configurations of the lots) We have one application for two variances before this Board. At the public hearing there were four neighbors who spoke in essence of a concern of only creating a building lot immediately behind them. That would be along behind the first two or three houses that are on Applehouse Lane, and would be the second variance we requested if it were permitted. In an effort to relieve the concern and to answer solely any concern that the neighbors would have, the applicant has agreed to withdraw the application for the second variance. In essence what we're asking the Board to do is to allow just one variance on this application. That would allow a four acre lot which would have some 60 feet less frontage on West Mountain Road, than is required. In that instance we would then have only two lots, we would have one four acre lot where the existing dwelling is, and have 53 acres beyond that on which we would build a second single family residence. MR. TURNER-Asked if anyone was here from that neighborhood that was here at the last meeting? NO RESPONSE MR. TURNER-Stated that the original application was denied although we didn't vote on it, and it was advertised as such. This is a new application that they would have to withdraw, and the Town would have to readvertise for the new one. MR. DUSEK-Asked Mike O'Connor, when he requested the application was it a single application with two variances requested on the application. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. There was a request for two variances. The plan that is before you was presented and the only thing that is new is the red marking on there that was done by Leon Steves since the last meeting to illustrate the practical difficulty of dotting the I's and crossing the TIs in complying with the requirements of the Ordinance. 2 "- .,--". - --- MR. TURNER-Has a problem with this because the people that were at the last meeting aren't here tonight. MR. DUSEK-Stated since the application was made as a single application I think its the Board's purview to approve or disapprove of the entire application and not allow any further activity on it. If the applicant wants to re-submit for a single variance next month this is his prerogative. The question I have is how much of a difference is the site plan or the plan that is presented to you. This is for the Board to decide in its own discretion of how much a difference there is tonight verses how much was the last time. Legally I think you could deny the entire application tonight or approve it if this is what you want to do. MR. O'CONNOR-Asked if it also a consideration that what were requesting is less of a subdivision that what was requested by the double application. Now what we are going to do is create a two acre no man's land behind the existing houses of the three neighbors who spoke. MR. TURNER-His only concern is that they're not here tonight to speak. MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated at the last meeting a vote was taken denying the application. One of the neighbors left with the impression that it had been denied, then we withdrew the motion. MR. O'CONNOR-Stated he would not have an objection if you tabled the application and I will submit proof to you that I've written the notice of the change. If you recall, their testimony and concern was only that a house be built behind them. Each one of three that spoke, said that they really had no objection to the second house being built on the back land, but they didn't want a house behind them. MRS. YORK-Staff will notify the neighbors. MR. O'CONNOR-Staff will notify neighbors of the consideration of the application of next month's meeting. I have formally withdrawn the application or a portion of the application which requested a variance from the requirement that all lots have town road frontage. MRS. GOETZ-Asked Paul, about the letter from Mr. O'Connor, would you be giving an approval on that before the next meeting. MR. DUSEK-Yes, if you would like me to submit something in writing I will do it. MR. TURNER-Stated that it would be better. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-1989. W. ERIC WILEY CARRIE M. WILEY,Introduced by The Zoning Board of Appeals: The Staff will be notifying the three neighbors who were concerned that this application will be reconsidered at the next Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. The applicant is withdrawing the portion of the variance request dealing with the variance needed from the requirement that all town lots have town road frontage. Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Muller OLD BUSINESS NOTICE OF APPEAL: AP189 FRANK PARILLO ELLSWORTH'S MARINA BAY ROAD TAX MAP NO. 23-1-19 THAT MR. PARILLO WOULD BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO USE THE EXISTING BOAT LAUNCH. JOHN RICHARDS FIRM OF LAPANN, REARDON, MORRIS, FITZGERALD & FIRTH, P.C. REPRESENTING FRANK PARILLO MRS. GOETZ-Read letter from John Richards, dated June 28th, 1989. (on file) Read letter from Dave Hatin, Director of Building and Code Enforcement dated June 27th, 1989. (on file) Read letter from John Richards, dated June 15th, 1989. (on file) MR. RICHARDS-Stated that what were asking for is your interpretation of our situation to see whether we have a problem. I would like to emphasize that there is no physical alternation, no change, nothing has been built, we're just using the boat launch the same its been continuously used with the only difference that the people of the general public using it as well. According 3 "" -- ......-"..-.-" - to Section 9.010 of the ?rdinance, if there is an extension or enlargement of a nonconforming use you have to have site plan approval by the Planning Board. This is not something that is going to be subject to a full blown review. We're not talking about isolated boat launch use, doesn't feel you can isolate this one particular thing. If you did isolate the boat launch, if we only had boat launching alone if this was our sole use of the property this change is not such that should require any kind of review or approval. MR. TURNER-Asked what they were going to do about parking? MR. RICHARDS-Stated there is existing parking. MR. TURNER-Noted that there is existing parking, asked if he had a permit for 95? MR. RICHARDS-His understanding is that all the permits have been approved and obtain on that from the Park Commission. As far as parking I'm not aware that there has been any problem with the parking. MR. TURNER-Stated that previously there have been problems with the parking. They used to park across the road, on the road, in the parking lot. MR. RICHARDS-Stated if parking became a problem then this would have to be addressed. Thinks that this is not an issue right now. MR. TURNER-Thinks it is part of the issue. Feels that this conflicts with the use. MR. GOETZ-Asked how did you happen to change it from a private launch to a public launch? MR. RICHARDS-Decided to see if there was an opportunity to see if people wanted to use his launch. Obviously this is not an aspect of a marina operation to get income from. It was used as a public launch years ago. MR. GRIFFIN-Noted that it was closed down. MR. TURNER-Asked how long he has owned this? MR. HA TIN-Stated that it is his understanding that Mr. Parillo, just purchased the property and Ellsworth did own it up until I believe two or three months ago. He owns a chunk of land that is between two of Ellsworth properties. MRS. GOETZ-Asked how did this come to his attention? MR. HATIN-Basically through neighbors. I was aware of it myself by driving by I noticed it was starting to get used. I was aware that it was closed. My feeling is that this is an increase in use, it's an increase in traffic, parking, and it should be addressed. This would be an expansion of a nonconforming use. MR. GRIFFIN-Stated four or five years ago there was a real problem with parking. Thinks that there is a substantial problem with parking. Not sure where you would find 95 spaces for parking in that corner section. MR. HA TIN-Stated that there have been no complaints registered to him as of yet as to the parking. Thinks that the concern of the neighbors that those conditions may rise again because now it is opened to the general public. My feeling is it should receive some approval and stipulations as to the parking issue. MR. RICHARDS-Feels that tonight they are here to decide whether or not this constitutes an expansion of a marina. MRS. GOETZ-Feels this should come back as a variance request where we would have public input. MR. RICHARDS-Feels this should be before the Planning Board. As he reads the Ordinance they don't have to meet the variance criteria because they are expanding a nonconforming use, they are not starting a brand new business. MR. HA TIN-Section 9.010, reason for site plan, its been our interpretation through meetings with Paul, that this applied strictly to residential because of the two sections that follow. Section 9.014 would apply in this particular point with the Board having the option to referring to the Planning Board. MRS. EGGLESTON-Read Section 9.020. Asked that in order to conform to the Ordinance does this not fall under the classification of a marina? 4 c, ~..-- -...-"-'" -~ MR. DUSEK-Stated when a nonconforming use exists you have to identify exactly what that nonconforming use is. In this particular case it's originally a nonconforming use with that of a public boat launch facility plus the rental of dock space as I understand it. Some point along the line he discontinued the public boat launch in part of it and then continued to rent dock space, and the people who used the dock space could also use that launching facility. Once he discontinued that use for 18 months, which he indicated he had, you may now go back and very strictly look at a nonconforming uses. Right now what he has is a private rental of dock space and those boats are allowed to launch their boats on that ramp. He does not have now a public launching facility. Contrary to what Mr. Richards, would indicate, I would have to say that I feel that we now not only have a mere increase in use, but rather we actually have a change in the type of facilities. Feels under those circumstances you have to come back in for a variance request. MR. TURNER-Stated that his argument is that he is conflicting with the Ordinance, with the parking, traffic, and use. MRS. GOETZ-Asked if the zoning is water front residential? MR. HATIN-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Looking under Site Plan Review, Type II private dock it doesn't list marina as a use. Asked if this is why it would have to be a variance? MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. RICHARDS-Feels that the Board is losing site of the fact. Not one thing is being changed. MR. DUSEK-Here you have more or less a private facility now becoming public and I see this as a change more than just a mere increase. I'm saying that you take the use as applied to at this particular time. UNKNOWN-Stated that Mr. Ellsworth did allow boats to be launched in other locations on his property. He did launch his clients boats even though he didn't use that ramp. MOTION TO DENY NOTICE OF APPEAL AP189, FRANK PARILLO,lntroduced by Daniel Griffin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: This is a a public launch site not used in excess of 18 months. They are now requesting a public launch site without a variance and this would be an expansion of a nonconforming use with substantially changing the facility with a large impact of the surrounding area. We're referring to Article 9, Section 9.014 of the Zoning Ordinance of Queensbury, whereby we feel this request for the use should be handled as a variance request before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Muller AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-1989 WR-1A CAROLE CACIOPPI APPROVED ON MARCH 26, 1989 TO AUTHORIZE HER TO SELL LOT 20 AS AN UNDERSIZED LOT. W. BRUCE AND JOANNE ARMSTRONG LOT 20, LAKE SUNNYSIDE ESTATES REQUEST FOR VARIANCE EXTENSION BRUCE ARMSTRONG PRESENT MRS. GOETZ-Read letter from Bruce and Joanne Armstrong, 7 Brookwood Drive, Queensbury, dated June 21st, 1989. (on file) MR. TURNER-Stated his problem in granting the extension right now is that the approval was March 22nd, 1989, and for a period of five years. MR. ARMSTRONG-Stated that he is asking for any consideration the Board would be granting in extending the variance. MR. TURNER-Feels that they are too early in asking for an extension. Doesn't think the Board would have a problem if he came back, but I think only on a one year basis. MRS. GOETZ-Stated that a five year request is highly irregular because circumstances could change a lot. We just granted this variance, and to come back in and asked us for an extension 5 ''" -- - ----.-" for five years is too much. MR. ARMSTRONG-Stated at the time that they entered the contract we were very aware that the variance had been granted. At the time we were purchasing it because of the cost of the land we planned on building in two or three years. We found that the variance was only granted for a year meaning we would have to start building, didn't see how they could do that. It concerns us in purchasing the land and not having a variance to build by March of this coming year. MR. TURNER-Feels the Board doesn't have any problems with granting the variance just feels they're too early. MRS. GOETZ-Stated the Board has to be concerned with the land itself. MR. ARMSTRONG-Stated if the Board granted an extension we are going to purchase the land. MRS. GOETZ-Asked what would happen if the Board didn't give approval at this time? MR. ARMSTRONG-Stated they would feel more comfortable. . . MR. KELLEY-Feels their concern is legitimate, but agrees with the rest of the Board with the one year extension. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-1989 CAROLE CACIOPPI, W. BRUCE AND JOANNE ARMSTRONG,lntroduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: It would be detrimental to the Ordinance to put an extension on a variance that was approved only on March 22nd, 1989. It would be not to our best interest to put an extension three to five years on the variance wish in the future. The applicant may reappear within a year to request the same thing. Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Muller AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-1989 WR-lA, CAROLE CACIOPPI APPROVED ON MARCH 22ND, 1989 TO AUTHORIZE HER TO SELL LOT 19 AS AN UNDERSIZED LOT. DR. JAY WASSERMAN LOT 19, LAKE SUNNYSIDE ESTATES REQUEST FOR VARIANCE EXTENSION. MR. JOHN CAFFRY REPRESENTING DR. JAY WASSERMAN MR. CAFFRY-Stated they are only asking for a two year extension, and he understands that the original variance that was granted to Mrs. Cacioppi, was granted to enable her to sell separately. As you have seen, both of the purchasers of the lots need an extension of the variance. For the Board to say she should sell to someone and build immediately doesn't seem like a practical solution. On the other hand, she could wait until next February and then she would have no problem with the buyers and these extensions. Not sure why its necessary to wait until next February to get an extension. It's asking a purchaser to take an awful lot of risk. We would request that the Board put some certainty into its process for the purchaser of these lots as well as Mrs. Cacioppi, and grant the extension now. Doesn't believe in the next year or two the Ordinance is going to be changed that drastically that it would be necessary for the Board to be concerned about changes in that time frame. MR. TURNER-Feels the same reasons apply to this one as they did the other one. The Board has no problem in extending the variance in the right time frame. I can understand your concern. MR. CAFFRY-Asked since they don't have a problem in granting the variance in February, why not do it now and provide these people with some certainty? MR. TURNER-Stated that they already granted a variance. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-1989 CAROLE CACIOPPI, DR. JA Y WASSERMAN,lntroduced Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: An extension of the variance would be detrimental to the Zoning Ordinance. It would take away the ability of the Zoning Board of Appeals, to look at property that needs to be reviewed. 6 '"- '-- --- .-....-'- ---' To ask the applicant to reappear isn't unreasonable in effect this would give the applicant two years in which to build a house. The Zoning Board of Appeals doesn't want to set a precedent in extending variances beyond the year. Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Muller AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-1989 WR-lA THOMAS AND CAROLYN CLARY REARDON ROAD, NORTH ON BAY ROAD TO TEE fiLL ROAD, LEFT TO REARDON ROAD. TO ENCLOSE THE PRESENT DECK WITH WINDOWS AND SCREENS (L-SHAPED): 12 FT. BY 6 FT. PLUS 8 FT. BY 20 FT. TO INCREASE THE LIVING ARE USE. ALSO, TO CONSTRUCT A (34 FT. BY 4 FT.) DOCK TO HOIST BOAT OUT OF WATER FOR WINTER STORAGE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 45-3-15 SECTION: 7.012-3, 7.012-2 G LOT SIZE: 53 FT. BY 318 FT. JOHN CLARY PRESENT MR. TURNER-Asked if everyone was aware that they had a building permit? What he needs is a variance. MR. HA TIN-Stated the reason this is before the Board is some research was done by Pat, and she found out that there was no variance for the deck which was built without a variance. Therefore, they're more or less here for a variance to maintain the deck. MR. TURNER-Asked if the deck was part of the original plan? MR. HA TIN-Believes there was a deck built under the permit. MR. KELLEY -Doesn't feel this is any different that what is in the area. MRS. EGGLESTON-Doesn't feel it will interfere with the next door neighbors view. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Board approved. (on file) Letter from S. Jane Story, property owner of property near Thomas and Carolyn Clary, not opposing area variance no. 78-1989. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Seeley, neighbors of the Clary's, not opposing area variance no. 78-1989. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) DISCUSSION AMONG BOARD MEMBERS DISCUSSION HELD MR. KELLEY-Asked if this was going to be U-shaped? MR. CLARY-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Asked if it was going to have a roof? MR. CLARY-No. MR. TURNER-Stated that they meet the setbacks the only problem is that they don't have the footage on the lake. PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED MR. WAGNER-As I understand the dock is to be not closer than 20 feet to adjoining property 7 -- -' -- lines is that correct? MR. TURNER-That's correct. MR. WAGNER-51 i feet on the water and two 20's taken out of there doesn't leave much is that correct? You have 20 feet on my side, and 20 on Olsen's side that's 40 feet. MR. TURNER-The old dock Mr. Wagner, only had to be 10 feet, and that exists. He wishes to add the arm on to the west, not on to your side. That section of dock is preexisting we don't have any jurisdiction over that. MR. WAGNER-Preexisting from when? MR. TURNER-Since he put it in. Under the Old Ordinance it only had to be 10 feet. MR. WAGNER-That was like two months ago? MR. TURNER-No. He could realign the dock as long as its the same crib. MR. WAGNER-The dock that is currently there I would ask a question when was that put in the completely new dock? MR. TURNER-The wood is new he just reconstructed the dock that was there. MR. WAGNER-He reconstructed the dock with new wood and now he only has to be 10 feet away. MR. TURNER-Because the dock was there previously before this Old Ordinance. MR. WAGNER-Thank you. MRS. OLSEN-The thing that I'm wondering about is there going to be a top on it. MR. TURNER-No, no top. MRS. OLSEN-Its going on my side? MR. TURNER-No. DAN OLSEN-Could we examine prints Mr. Turner? MR. TURNER-Yes. DISCUSSION AMONG BOARD MEMBERS AND MRS. OLSEN AND DAN OLSEN MR. TURNER-Mr. Wagner, if the piers on the dock that your speaking about are in the water, he has the right to modify that dock without changing anything underneath. The setback under the old Ordinance was 10 feet, but we have no jurisdiction over that. MR. WAGNER-We were discussing the distance between the water and the structure. The question was when the deck was installed what was the. . .distance to the water? MRS. EGGLESTON-50 feet under the Old Ordinance. MR. WAGNER-The distance allowed is 50 feet? MR. TURNER-50 foot setback from the shoreline. MR. WAGNER-I don't think they have a 50 foot setback. MRS. GOETZ-it looks like the bottom line here is that a mistake was made when that building permit was given out before because we should have had a variance on it that's the way I see it. MR. TURNER-The building permit for the deck was issued without a variance that's it. It was over looked. It was a mistake. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-1989, THOMAS AND CAROL YN CLARY,lntroduced by Daniel Griffin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: 8 -- - --~ This is an expansion of a preexisting nonconforming use for the deck. The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty in that a building permit was acquired sometime ago without the proper variance process. This motion is to approve the variance for the deck which will be L shaped 12 ft. by 6 ft. plus 8 ft. by 20 ft. across the front facing the lake. There is no negative impact on the neighborhood character. The short EAF form shows no negative impact. The second part of the motion deals with a request for a U shape dock this would be to add on to the existing dock. The new dock will be 19 ft. wide. One leg 34 feet, and one leg 36 feet. The reason for the variance is that they don't have the needed 100 feet on the lake. The practical difficulty is the size of the lot the applicant can't buy anymore property to the east or west. The existing dock has a 10 foot side setback on the north side. No negative neighborhood impact. Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: Mrs. Goetz ABSENT:Mr. Muller AREA VARIANCE NO. 79-1989 WR-lA, P ANKAJ K. DAS VIRGINIA DAS GOING NORTH ON ROCKHURST ROAD, FOURTH HOUSE FROM THE END (RED HOUSE) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 16 FT. BY 13 FT. EXTENSION OF THE DECK TO THE PRESENT DECK SIZE (30 FT. BY 13 FT). REQUEST FOR SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE AND SHORELINE SETBACK VARIANCE. (WARREN COUNT PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 15-1-19 SECTION: 7.012-3, 4.020-D LOT SIZE: 80 FT. BY 120 FT. MR. P ANKAJ K. DAS PRESENT MR. TURNER-Asked how long he owned the property? MR. DAS-Since the end of March. Stated the map shows a bedroom with a sliding glass door what 1 would like to do is walk to the deck. . . MR. TURNER-Asked what would the elevation be? MR. DAS-One foot up. MR. KELLEY-Stated that the deck is shown extending on the north side. Your proposing to bring the end of the deck even with the house rather than have it stick out beyond that? MR. DAS-Yes. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAUL CARY-I live north of the red house with my fiancee. 1 don't have a problem with them coming north as long as he is line with everybody. 1 do have a problem with him going closer to the lake; the reason being that if it's enclosed later then he'll come back with another variance for the deck closer to the lake. 1 think we're all close enough to the lake as it is. MR. TURNER-I doubt that he will get it. MR. CAR Y -I know what your saying. MR. TURNER-I'm serious AP A wouldn't even approve it. MR. CARY-I don't want to see a deck closer to the lake. MR. TURNER-I don't think you would have to worry about it. MR. CARY-He is closer to the lake than we are which is no big deal, but he bought it a month ago knowing where he was. MR. TURNER-I'm saying from previous cases AP A will not grant shoreline setbacks. UNKNOWN-Now or-late,r? MR. TURNER-Now. The) have already turned us down on several applications. MR. CAR Y -I agree if somebody wants to come north, but 1 just don't want anybody closer to the lake. 9 ....'. -- JUDY ZERA Y-I live next door to Dr. Das. We wanted the rent house when we were doing renovations on our house. We have. . .with not going any closer to the lake than our existing deck was which was the Wilson's property which had been in that family for 30 years. We would ask the same thing of Dr. Das, coming out to the side of the red house in front. . .1 can certainly agree we rented that red house for two months, and it would of been very nice to of been able to step out onto that deck we don't have a problem with that at all. I do however, have a problem of anybody going closer to the lake so I would ask the Board to approve the length of the deck but, not the width of the deck. MR. TURNER-The width? JUDY ZERA Y-I would approve it to go. . . MR. TURNER-The 13 feet? JUDY ZERA Y-North, but not to the lake. MR. TURNER-He is not requesting that there is no change. MS. ZERA Y -That's fine. I think that's a wonderful idea and after renting the house. . . MR. TURNER-The only reason for that is because its an extension and violates the shoreline. UNKNOWN-Is it true if you have a deck 14 feet or 16 feet from your house that you can enclose it without a variance? PAT COLLARD-If it's a conforming deck and meets the setbacks. MRS. HALL-Our question is that we don't want to see that deck enclosed and now is the time to find out whether he is able to or not. MR. TURNER-We don't have to address that issue right now that's not before us. MRS. HALL-It could happen without us. . . PAT COLLARD-If its conforming and it meets setback yes, but this does not meet the setbacks. MRS. HALL-Okay. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning approved. Comment, the application approved with the stipulation that the deck be flushed with the side wall of the house. (on file) STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 79-1989, P ANKAJ K. DAS AND VIRGINIA DAS,Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: The applicant has demonstrated some what of a practical difficulty in that he would like to be able to exit the bedroom onto the deck which will be no more encroachment on the shoreline setback. The approved deck will be 13 ft. by 13 ft., the side setback on the north property will be 20 feet. The reason he needs a sideline setback variance is that the sum of the two side yards don't equal 50 feet. The new deck will not extend any closer to the north property line. This project is 44 feet from the shoreline. No negative neighborhood impact. The short EAF shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Muller AREA VARIANCE NO. 80-1989 SR-lA, MYRTLE RAMSEY WEST END OF RIVER STREET, WEST SIDE OF ROZELLE STREET, SOUTH SIDE OF MURRAY A VENUE TO CONSTRUCT 10 -"..- THE GARAGE AND HOUSE BY WAY OF A BREEZEWAY. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 134-6-28 SECTION: 4.020-G LOT SIZE: 155 FT. BY 100 FT. MRS. RAMSEY PRESENT MR. TURNER-Stated the problem is that she has a house that's been there a considerable length of time she couldn't meet the setbacks no matter what she does. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning approved. (on file) STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 80-1989, MYRTLE RAMSEY,Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: There appears to be no alternative that would achieve the purpose. The breezeway will, and this is the practical difficulty. The practical difficulty also is that this is an older home built before any Zoning Ordinance. The variance is needed on the front setback one of 19 feet in lieu of the required 30 feet. There is no negative impact on the neighborhood or public facilities. The short EAF form shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Muller AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-1989 WR-lA THOMAS A. AND CYNTlßA M. BRITT SULLIVAN PLACE, GLEN LAKE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 28 FT. BY 46 FT. PRIMARY RANCH HOME WITH A FULL CELLAR; ALSO LANDSCAPING WILL BE DONE TO IMPROVE THE APPEARANCE OF THE PROPERTY. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 38-2-5,6 SECTION: 4.020-D LOT SIZE: 180 FT. BY 100 FT. THOMAS AND CYNTHIA BRITT PRESENT MR. TURNER-Asked if they owned Lots 5, 6, 10, 11, and l2? MR. BRITT-Right. MR. TURNER-Stated that they are contiguous lots so for zoning purposes they've been joined. DISCUSSION AMONG BOARD MEMBERS MR. BRITT-Stated that mainly there are ranch homes in that area. MR. KELLEY-Asked if they were going to divide the lot in half and sell off the other one. MR. BRITT-No. Its been in the family for years. MR. TURNER-Stated that what he wants to do is rent the house he lives in now and propose to build a new house on the other lot and live in that. Asked if all the lots are in one deed? MR. BRITT-They are on one deed. They are split up in parcels. MR. TURNER-Asked how they were joined? MR. BRITT-There is only one deed, but they are all separate lots on that deed. MR. TURNER-Stated the way to get around this is to subdivide the property then he wouldn't need a variance. 11 --- MRS. BRITT-Stated that they would need a variance for each parcel because this is zoned water front residential. MR. TURNER-Stated the reason they're zoned water front residential is when the new Zoning Ordinance went into effect there was a concern for density there is a high percolation rate up there. MR. GRIFFIN-Asked what was intended for the other parcels? MR. BRITT-Going to keep them. MR. GRIFFIN-Asked that if later would they come in for a variance for the other parcels? MRS. BRITT-No. Just the house. This is it. MR. GRIFFIN-Asked about the other building? MR. BRITT-Stated this will help them pay the mortgage. MRS. GOETZ-Concerned about setting a precedent of allowing two dwellings on one piece of property. Maybe this is an example of why you should grant a variance there or there could be an exception to the rule. MR. TURNER-Stated that by definition the lots are contiguous. DISCUSSION HELD AMONG BOARD MEMBERS MR. TURNER-Stated another thing that they should consider is that the zoning has changed, but there are buildings are up there on substandard lots. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Robert and Patricia Sullivan, dated July 1st, 1989. In favor of the area variance no. 81-1989. (on file) Letter from Richard and Carol Desnoyers, dated July 17th, 1989. In favor of area variance no. 81-1989. (on file) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MRS. GOETZ-Asked if they thought about taking down the house that they live now, what would you be doing with that? MRS. BRITT-Stated that they would be renting that. MRS. GOETZ-Asked would they be renting this year round? MRS. BRITT-Seasonal. MRS. GOETZ-Asked if they meet all the setbacks? MR. TURNER-Stated that another thing that we have to think of is are they going to suffer economic lost if they can't have reasonable use of the property. MR. GRIFFIN-Stated they've been deprived of the use of the land. MR. TURNER-Stated they've been zoned out of the use of the land. The change in zones created the situation that brought them to where they are today. PAT COLLARD-They do meet all the setbacks. MR. TURNER-Stated that they have a lot of land, but its cut up in such a way the only place you can build is on the other road. 12 - - MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-1989, THOMAS A. AND CYNTIßA M. BRITl',Introduced by Daniel Griffin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: We believe the applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty in several ways. The change in the Zoning Ordinance would deny the applicant the reasonable use of the property. There are nothing but substandard lots throughout the subdivision. If required to subdivide, it would propose an economic hardship. The request is to construct a second dwelling on the single lot this would be on Lots 5, and 6 fronting on Sullivan Place. This will not change the neighborhood character. The short EAF form shows no negative impact. The applicant has owned this property since 1982. Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. Muller On motion the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 13