Loading...
1989-08-16 -- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 16TH, 1989 INDEX APPLICANT PAGE Area Variance No. 61-1989 Linda Clark Whitty 1. Area Variance No. 77-1989 W. Eric and Carrie Wiley 2. Sign Variance No. 84-1989 Log Jam Factory Stores/Rest. 7. Area Variance No. 88-1989 Richard Diehl 7. Area Variance No. 90-1989 Robert M. Lent 8. Area Variance No. 91-1989 James and Brenda Brown 10. Use Variance No. 92-1989 Harold and Shirley Nash 11. '''-..- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 16th, 1989 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRET AR Y 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 July 19th, 1989: Page 3, Mrs. Goetz, middle of page would you be giving an approval on that before the next meeting sIb would you be giving an opinion on that before the next meeting. MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF JULY 19TH, 1989, AS CORRECTED,Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jeffrey Kelley: Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 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 OLD BUSINESS AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-1989 WR-lA, LINDA CLARK WIßTTY ASH DRIVE, GLEN LAKE TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE PROPERTY. A GARAGE IS INCLUDED IN TIllS PLAN, BUT WILL BE BUILT AT A LATER 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 MR. MULLER-Asked if the eight feet is measured from the property line to the side of the proposed building having taken into account the eaves? MS. WHITTY-Understands that it is from the roof line. From the base of the building it will be 9 feet. MR. TURNER-Stated that the major problem is the size of the house on the small lot. Asked if this was her best offer? MS. WHITTY-Stated that if she changed it any further it would be too great of an expense. Stated the only way to get around the expense would be if I changed it by 2 feet. MR. KELLEY-Stated the property line has a curve through it so it couldn't come too far out because of the right-of-way. MS. WHITTY-Stated the easement has to be written in the deed. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-1989, LINDA CLARK WHITTY,Introduced by Daniel Griffin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jeffrey Kelley: The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulty due to the size and shape of the lot, this is a small lot. The square footage of the propose house has been reduced by 224 square feet. The setback on the north line has increased from 4 feet to 8 feet by moving the house forward. 1 This is a small lot with no other location for the dwelling, the septic system is on the side, steep slope, and gorge on the north, driveways on both east and west. No neighborhood opposition. The short EAF form shows no negative impact. They also need relief from Section 7.077 of the Zoning Ordinance which deals with frontage on a public road. We are granting the relief because it is not on a public road. Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 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. 77-1989 SFR-IA LC-lOA W. ERIC WILEY CARRIE M. WILEY WEST SIDE OF WEST MOUNTMN ROAD FOR THE CREATION OF A 2 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. (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 WILEY'S/LEON STEVES VANDUSEN AND STEVES/BILL THREW MR. O'CONNOR-Stated at last month's meeting we spoke of the offer by the applicant to withdraw one of the two proposed requests for relief, and we did offer to withdraw the request for relief for the requirement of the Ordinance saying that every lot have frontage on a town road which in essence eliminates the third lot. The requested relief would be that one lot would not have the required average lot width it would have a lot width of approximately 217 feet as opposed to the required lot width of 300 feet. That lot would have approximately 4.67 acres of land and would be used for one residence. The zone in this particular area requires one acre per residence. That lot because of it's narrow shape and because of the fact that it is on a collector street or arterial street has to have lot width twice what the normal lots in that zone would have. Normally that zone requires only a lot width of 150 feet, but because we are on West Mountain Road we are required to have double that. This is where we are still before the Board asking for a variance. Prior to last month's meeting I submitted a letter of my position on the burden of proof for the applicant for an area variance. Received a copy of the response by Town Attorney Paul Dusek. I feel that we are in agreement as to the principal's that are involved and he indicated that it's up to the Board to determine whether or not we have met proof that is required to show that there is a shifting of burden of proof from the applicant to the Town for the required requirement. The requirement is that the lot have 300 feet of frontage as to opposed to the 217 feet of frontage. We submitted a map marked up in red at last month's meeting. Presented to the Board to make part of the record. The map was done by Leon Steves, VanDusen and Steves. It shows that the applicant if he wanted odd shaped lots he could have three lots by getting into the definition of lot width. We are talking about a 58 acre parcel of land. We have to go to a formal subdivision in order for somebody to be able to own separately two houses on 58 acres of land. If you look at that this is something that we are not applying for. If we wanted to have odd shaped lots, I'm told that we could have three lots that would configure as shown on this map. Two maps show the same thing that we could again if we used an odd configuration have two lots without a request for a variance. If we make the southerly lot wider at the west end being 673 feet in width, and we average this, then the lot complies. Mr. Steves did you prepare these maps for me? MR. STEVES-Yes, I did. MR. O'CONNOR-Do those lots as you've shown them show that the applicant could comply with the minimum lot width by having this odd configuration? MR. STEVES-Yes, I did. MR. O'CONNOR-There are two different ways in which the applicant could do what he wants at this particular point without a variance. It doesn't make good planning. John Goralski has told me that the applicant under our present Ordinance could build a second residence on the property. The problem with that is then he would have to own both of them. There is no restriction that says that you can't build more than one principle residence per lot. This is not something that is practical. Mentions this specifically because we are not talking about whether we could have a house back here or not. The only issue before the Board is the required minimum lot width. The fourth alternative to this would be to construct a town road along the northerly 50 feet of property. If we did this then we could subdivide the small parcel in the front maybe into seven or eight lots. MR. THREW-RD #4 Box 516 Big Bay Road. 2 ~""- - MR. O'CONNOR-What is your occupation? MR. THREW-I'm an excavator, builder of roads. MR. O'CONNOR-Have you looked at the property of Mr. & Mrs. Wiley? MR. THREW-Yes, I have. MR. O'CONNOR-Have you prepared an estimate as to what the cost would be to construct a road per town specification to connect that property from West Mountain Road to the back of the property? MR. THREW-Yes, I have. MR. O'CONNOR-About how long a road would be constructed for that purpose? MR. THREW-Approximately 1,200 feet to the cuI da sac. MR. O'CONNOR-What would be the cost of that road for the road construction and for the installation of water? MR. THREW-About $98,500. MR. TURNER-Asked if he gave a written estimate? MR. THREW-Yes, I did. MR. O'CONNOR-Is this the written estimate you gave? MR. THREW-Yes, it is. MR. O'CONNOR-You did not make the notation on there Niagara Mohawk $20,000 for interest? MR. THREW-No. MR. O'CONNOR-You estimate here is simply $98,500? MR. THREW-Right. MR. GRIFFIN-Asked if this a 1,200 asphalt road. MR. O'CONNOR-The road per town specifications in order to subdivide this as a town subdivision. When you build a road for a subdivision of this nature thinks it's public knowledge that you would have to do underground power. I'm told that underground power for a road with 1,200 feet in length would be approximately $20,000. Your talking about $118,500 to construct this which would service maybe seven or eight lots. In addition to this you would have to consider carrying cost that your not going to sell seven or eight lots immediately upon the approval of the subdivision. If you sold all eight lots within the period of a year you would be very lucky. Thinks that you would have to add at least a minimum of $10,000 for interest of the carrying costs of your construction. Your talking approximately $125,000 without getting into selling costs, without getting into surveying or engineering costs. MR. O'CONNOR-Asked for an estimate of what the cost would be for surveying and engineering on such a subdivision? MR. STEVES-Wasn't prepared for this. MR. O'CONNOR-You've been on the property? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-What type of topographical features do you have on this property? MR. STEVES-None. MR. O'CONNOR-I mean your examination of the property. MR. STEVES-If the variance for the topo was granted I would say your talking probably $5,000 or $6,000. MR. O'CONNOR-Then would you have to go beyond that and do engineering for drainage? 3 ~.- MR. STEVES-Yes, you would. MR. O'CONONOR-I would submit to the Board and stand ready to answer any questions that you're probably talking about development cost of $150,000 to achieve the seven or eight lots of subdivision that you might be able to get if you put in a town road with a subdivision. WALLACE DEAN-429 Saratoga Road, South Glens Falls. MR. O'CONNOR-What is your occupation? MR. DEAN-Real Estate broker and appraiser. MR. O'CONNOR-How long have you been employed as a real estate appraiser? MR. DEAN-15 years. MR. O'CONNOR-Can you name some of the institutions that you've done business for locally? MR. DEAN-Albany Savings Bank, Beneficial Finance, Relocation Companies, Continental Insurance, First National Bank, Glens Falls National Bank, FHA Appraisers. MR. O'CONNOR-Have you had an opportunity to go over this property at my request? MR. DEAN-Yes, I have. MR. O'CONNOR-If this property were subdivided, and seven or eight lots were created by a town road, and the cost of creating that town road and obtaining that approval were approximately $150,000 would that yield a reasonable return for that investment or the seven or eight lots that you might end up with on this particular piece of property? MR. DEAN-No. It is my opinion it would not. MR. O'CONNOR-What would be your development cost without getting into land cost per lot? MR. DEAN-Your looking at development cost without land cost per lot $150,000 somewhere $18,500 per lot. MR. O'CONNOR-This is without any assessment as to the land cost itself? MR. DEAN-Right. You have land cost on top on that. You also have a element of risk, what is the market going to do 6 months from now, a year from now or whatever. Every projection that you have may not hold true. That's the best scenario. MR. O'CONNOR-Stated that you require an individual to build a town road simply for the purpose of being able to build a house on the back of that property. Would that require that individual in your opinion to suffer a financial loss? MR. DEAN-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Would your opinion of the expense that we are talking about here of $150,000 be that this would be a significant economic loss. MR. DEAN-Yes, I believe that it would. MR. O'CONNOR-Stated the point is that when Mr. and Mrs. Wiley started this project wanted to build their own residence on the back of their property and sell off the front. We tried to do it from a conservative point of view and reserve options for future people down the road. This Board has indicated that maybe it is not amenable for those options staying open without there being a town road built at this time. We've said, we would withdraw what we thought were the reservations or the conditions which would allow those options to stay open. We would still like to have a mama and papa subdivision. We would like to create two separate lots out of the 58 acre parcel of land and have Mr. and Mrs. Wiley build their own residence on the back property. It will be a long driveway, we acknowledge that. It will have to be maintained at their own expense. If you recall that at the first meeting that was advertised we had three different neighbors appear. All three neighbors were concerned with what was going to on in their backyard. No one voiced an objection to Mr. Wiley creating two lots, they objected to the third lot with an idea that perhaps someone would build immediately behind Lots, 1, 2, and 3. We had a petition which was signed and would like to make part of the record. Had verbal consent by representatives of the parties who would be to the north of the front of the parcel that they had no objections to even three lots. The only people who appeared were lot owners, one, two, and three. They wanted to know if someone was going to build a house immediately behind their house. Thinks that this has been answered in total. These 4 people are not going to see anything different. We are talking about one lot which would be 4.67 acres on the south front piece. The back acre and the connecting drive come to a total of 53 acres. We are not talking about building anything in this area which was a concern. The town planner when they reviewed the application said that it was their opinion that it had no effect upon neighborhood character. The size and shape of the property I feel is proof of practical difficulty. We've shown that there is serious potential for economic loss if you are going to make someone build a town road simply to subdivide the 54 acre parcel of the land into two parcels. MR. MULLER-Asked if the plan as of now was to have a 4.67 acre parcel, asked how much road frontage? MR. O'CONNOR-Stated the road frontage is at an angle. It is 226 feet. MR. MULLER-Asked if what they want to create is one parcel that is 4.67 acres, and remainder of their holdings would be the other parcel? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Would indicate to the Board that the 4.67 acre parcel of land will be required to exit and enter West Mountain Road thru the 50 foot strip added back that joins the back property. This will be by easement agreement that we are willing to put in the deed that these people will not create a second driveway. Both parties will be coming out on the one driveway. MR. MULLER-Asked if the requirement for the 4.67 acre lot is 300 feet? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. We're talking about a variance which would be 8 feet of relief. MR. MULLER-Asked if they allow on the proposition that they've adequately proven the hardship of spending well in excess of $100,000, to put a roadway in and arguing should this variance be granted, what does the future hold for the big parcel that we're not going to see any subdivision in there? MR. O'CONNOR-Stated if you did see a subdivision you would answer the question that you have here. Then the Applehouse lot that we call the piece on the south would then be fronting on this road (refers to map) and the variance would become moot. We didn't want to get into commercial development we don't think it's economcially feasible to get into commercial development. We think it would be a serious economic loss to do that. We did try to cover part of our cost by being able to sell off the vacant parcel up front. MR. TURNER-Stated that in his last presentation it was stated that there was a potential to develop that back property and it might come about in the next three or four years. MR. O'CONNOR-Stated that it is not part of their presentation. We never had any intention of developing in the back, we don't think it's economically feasible to develop it in the back. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ROBERT RA YMOND-2 Applehouse Lane. I just heard Mr. O'Connor say that there will be three parties exiting on that alleged driveway that they want to put in. MR. O'CONNOR-Two. MR. RAYMOND-It would be two. This brings back the fact Mr. Wiley has 53 acres of land up on the mountain as I said two months ago when I was here the drainage problem would be affected if the variance goes through for the three lot subdivision which is what I really came prepared for until I found out late last night that it is now a two lot subdivision. If it can be mandated or deeded, however, the property directly behind my house, I don't see why a two lot breakdown with that one 4.67 acres of land I believe it was stays that way where there would be no development there, but I can only foresee in the future, I know if I owned 54 acres of land I would like to get some of my capital back. The best way to do that would be to sell some of that land off which then in turn puts an interior road which puts a building going right in the back of my house which I wonder about the drainage etc. MR. TURNER-There is nothing to say, that if Mr. Wiley sells the property to whomever that they can't subdivide that property again. MR. RA YMOND-I agree. What I'm saying is, that if in fact the 4.67 acres stays as one plot of land which faces onto West Mountain Road, yet it would still be less than the 300 feet which you people have established for the minimum frontage on that highway, is that correct? MR. MULLER-That's correct. Considering the alternatives I'm trying to figure out the opposition. You would be opposed to the maximum development of the 4.67 acre parcel. Your 5 preference would be to keep in intact, would it not? MR. RAYMOND-To keep this piece of property the 4.67 acres in one plot I really have no problem with that providing it stays that way forever. MR. MULLER-I just want to point out to you that it is their plan and there are no guarantees for the future. Anyone who owns it after tomorrow could come back and seek relief and then you would be here. Today's plan is okay. MR. RAYMOND-If it stays as a one parcel of property correct. If they do in fact now or in the future are going to build there I wonder what is going to happen with drainage and the problems that have already existed from water coming down off the mountain. MR. MULLER-The answer to that is that if a person chooses to subdivide they have to propose that to the Planning Board and you're here to ask those questions on what you plan for drainage, lot size all that stuff. None of which is here because they are proposing that they do not want to do that. I think your actually in agreement. MR. RAYMOND-As far as the 300 foot setback, I'm in agreement to letting Mr. Wiley utilize what he has for property and I think I have voiced that opinion in the past. As far as jeopardizing what I have. . . MR. TURNER-What you own verses what might come down on it. MR. RAYMOND-You did say, Mr. Turner that down the road there is a good conceivable possibility that there would be more than one house on 15 acres of land. MR. TURNER-There might be more than one house on 4.67 acres of land. MR. RA YMOND-I agree. I would have to come back and argue that case again. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter dated August 16th, 1989 from Paul Naylor, Highway Superintendent. Stated that if the subdivision were to become a reality, would like the road to meet town specifications and should review specifications again. (on file) Letter received August 16th, 1989 from Brian LaFlure, Chief Queensbury Central Fire Co. (see attached) Letter dated August 12th, 1989 from John Hayes, 3 Applehouse Lane. In opposition of area variance no. 77-1989. (see attached) DISCUSSION HELD MR. KELLEY-Referred to comments of Brian LaFlure. Thinks it would be absurd to ask an applicant to maintain their driveway 50 feet wide. Numerous town roads in the winter time are not plowed at 50 feet. Doesn't think this should be part of the stipulation. MR. TURNER-Thinks his comment is that if it's 50 feet wide then you have a place to put the snow. MR. MULLER-Thinks basically what he is saying it's okay if the driveway. . .with the width requirements of the road. MR. O'CONNOR-Doesn't think Mr. Naylor's letter differs too much from the first letter except that he said that if we are going to build a town road it would have to be per town specifications which we acknowledge. Mr. LaFlure's letter, I'm not sure exactly what all the input of the letter is. We are going to have a standard driveway. The length of the driveway is probably going to be 1,100 feet or 1,000 feet. We won't need the full cuI da sac that we would need to set up and go back up in there if we were going to have a subdivision. As to Mr. Hayes comment, thinks in that what he says is that he has no objections to a two lot subdivision, but he would have an objection to a three lot subdivision. Feels these were the comments made by the three neighbors that were here before. MR. MULLER-Feels most of his concerns are alleviated here with the size of the back parcel. Most of what we've seen has asked for relief from the corridor or arterial that was designated in asking for the flag lot have basically been small lots. I don't see that here. Thinks all of the opposition that I've heard on this project is actually satisfied by a two lot subdivision. Most of the opposition comes from the concerns that they will be subdividing behind residences on Applehouse Lane, that it not so. Asked that even if the Board was to approve the application 6 as proposed by virtue of a subdivision does this have to go to the Planning Board? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. MULLER-Stated then all the concerns about the drainage etc. will be addressed there. MR. TURNER-Stated his only problem with this is the accessibility of emergency vehicles. MR. MULLER-Feels that the property owner is taking some of the burden. He is making a plan that has some disabilities to it. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-1989 W. ERIC WILEY, CARRIE M. WILEY,Introduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: This approval is for the applicant seeking the area variance. The relief is sought for the minimum lot width requirement is Section 4.053 of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has proposed that from a large parcel they own they would create one lot 4.67 acres which would have frontage on public roads 226.4 feet. If this proposed lot was allowed there would be a residual lot of 53.87 acres, this would have a long narrow corridor to the municipal roadway, and 51.91 frontage on the roadway. These are the reasons that the proposal should be approved. Practical difficulty has been demonstrated they are meeting the requirements of the Ordinance. They have sought minimum relief. They have reduced their three lot subdivision to a two lot subdivision. There are great considerations for favoring this especially cost considerations. A creation of a road would be $100,000. The variance would protect the integrity of the present neighborhood. The environmental considerations that have been expressed by the neighbors will be addressed when the Wiley"s build on the residual parcel. They will have to go before the Queensbury Planning Board and have these considerations addressed. The applicant has indicated that the 4.67 acre lot and the 53.87 acre parcel will come into the municipal roadway at one curb cut which should be placed within the 51.91 corridor into the west side of West Mountain Road. Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Muller NOES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner ABSENT:None ðI \~~ SIGN VARIANCE NO. 84-1989 HC-lA LOG JAM FACTORY STORES/REST. PETER B. MCHUGH WILEY CREEK DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. FOR A DIRECTORY SIGN A'M'ACHED TO THE WALL FACING ROUTE 9. AT THE ROOF PEAK WOULD BE THE LOG JAM INSIGNIA. BELOW WOULD BE THREE DIRECTORY SIGNS APPROX. 4 FT. BY 6 FT. MOUNTED ON THE WALL. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 36-1-34.3 SECTION: SIGN ORDINANCE Letter from Peter McHugh requesting to be tabled until September meeting. The reason for the request is to allow me the opportunity to review the Adirondack Mall variance minutes. (on file) MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 84-1989, LOG JAM FACTORY STORES/REST. PETER B. MCHUGH,Introduced by Mr. Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Goetz: To be on next month's agenda. Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 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 NEW BUSINESS AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-1989 WR-lA RICHARD DIEHL CHESTNUT LANE, ASSEMBLY POINT TO MAINTAIN THE ALREADY CONSTRUCTED GARAGE. THE GARAGE WAS CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT A PERMIT AND IS IN VIOLATION OF BIDLDING SETBACKS. TAX MAP NO. 8-8-2 SECTION 4.020 D LOT SIZE: 75 FT. BY 100 FT. MR. DIEHL PRESENT 7 ',,- MR. TURNER-Stated that he wasn't aware that he needed a permit. MR. DIEHL-Felt in this instance that he didn't need a permit because he thought he was rebuilding an existing structure. MR. TURNER-Asked if he went outside of the limits of the existing structure? MR. DIEHL-Stated it was on a 3 foot setback in the back. I have owned the property for 17 years. MR. TURNER-Asked if the A frame that was there was as large as the new structure? MR. DIEHL-No. MR. GRIFFIN-Asked if there are any plans in the future that this may be used as an apartment? MR. DIEHL-No. MRS. GOETZ-Asked about the septic being in the driveway? MR. DIEHL-Stated this was there when he bought the property, nothing has changed. MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked when the deck was built? MR. DIEHL-Stated sometime after the original house was built was there when he bought the property. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) DISCUSSION HELD MR. KELLEY-Asked how far is it from his property line to any structures behind him? MR. DIEHL-Stated the closes house would be to the southeast corner of the lot it probably is 30 to 40 feet of distance. There are two houses in the back, one up the hill which is probably 50 feet away, to the southeast it would be 30 to 40 feet. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-1989 RICHARD DIHHL,lntroduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for it's adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: The applicant has shown practical difficulty this is a small lot size of 7,500 square feet. The applicant in this case has already constructed this boat storage. To place the structure 8 feet from the easterly line the minimum should be 20 feet, so the relief would be 12 feet. The relief on the rear which is really the south property line the building is placed 3 feet from the line, the requirement is 20 feet; the relief needed is 17 feet. The building is 3 feet from the deck which is attached to the house. The requirement is 10 feet from the house, the relief will be 7 feet. The practical difficulties are; the lot size and the placement of the existing house. There is no other good spot to put it. There is a hill on the side the needed garage size is to accommodate his boat in a lock facility. The short EAF form shows no negative impact. There is no neighborhood opposition. Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 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. 90-1989 RR-3A ROBERT M. LENT MOONmLL ROAD TO CREATH UNDERSIZED LOTSE IN A SUBDIVISION. THE PARCEL IS BEING SUBDMDED INTO 9 RESIDENTIAL LOTS; TWO LOTS WIDCH DO NOT MEET THE CURRENT 3 ACRE ZONING WILL BE CONVEYED TO TWO EXISTING PARCELS. TAX MAP NO. 48-3-4.1 SECTION 4.010 LOT SIZE: 3 ACRES 8 KEITH MANZ C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES PRESENT/SCOTT HATZ, LAW FIRM OF MCPHILLIPS, FITZGERALD, AND MEYERS REPRESENTING MR. HANNA MAP SHOWN TO BOARD STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) MR. TURNER-Asked if he knew anything about the discrepancies in the maps? MR. MANZ-Recently received correspondence from Mr. Nikas, regarding a couple discrepancies which we don't agree with, but we are going to meet with them to work it out. Did a complete boundary survey thinks it's the adjoining land owners misinterpretations with some of the stakes that we have in the field. Doesn't feel that it affects the issue of adding a couple of parcels to existing lots. Thinks that the issue can be discussed with the technicalities ironed out by the time we go to the Planning Board. MR. TURNER-Asked John if he knew about these when it was submitted? MR. GORALSKI-No.. Stated what happened in the past three days some neighbors have come in and feel that the plan is not accurate. The reason why I've suggested not to take any action is because I don't know who's right. Feels that there is not enough information necessary to make a decision. MR. MANZ-Stated the two lots with the discrepancies are on or near existing Lot C. Lot C. is going to maintain intact. We are adding area to Lots A and B. Lot B does border Hanna's property, but the problem that Mr. Hanna has isn't adjoining Lot B. MRS. EGGLESTON-Stated Lot B does have a discrepancy regarding an easement. MR. MANZ-Stated that Lot B is an existing lot and the parcel that we are adding to that lot doesn't have any easements across it. His problem is with an existing conditions not with what we are proposing. MRS. GOETZ-Stated that the shape of the Whiting property is not what is described in the deed. Asked if this has been worked out? MR. MANZ-Wasn't aware of this discrepancy. We will clarify this. MAP SHOWN TO NEIGHBORS. MR. MANZ EXPLAINED TO NEIGHBORS WHAT IS PROPOSED. MR. TURNER-Asked Paul about the discrepancy and what should be done? MR. DUSEK-Stated one of the first considerations of the Board should be that whatever documents are being utilized are the ones that reflect what you are dealing with. The other question I would have is that if the easement is not described. . . MR. MANZ-Stated that it is corrected as shown, but conditions that do remain we will look into with the property owner. If there is an easement we will show it. MR. DUSEK-Asked what proof do we have that there is an easement? SCOTT HA TZ-Stated that there was no easement that was given and the dispute is that Mr. Hanna owns the property which is southerly of existing Lot B on the map. Mr. Hanna purchased this is 1975, and previous to that time the previous owner's access to that lot was by means of a driveway which was partially paved and partially dirt. The problem is that there is nothing on the map to show that there is an acquired easement by description and our client has certain vested rights in these lots, they are not addressed on this map. Feels that tabling this matter might be more appropriate to allow the parties to get together to see if these concerns can be addressed. MR. MANZ-Acting on behalf of Bob Lent. If there are any easements that you would like because of the existing driveway that encroaches on the property, Bob Lent would be glad to grant that easement. Will grant whatever easement that you say you would like. MR. TURNER-Asked what this easement involves? MR. HA TZ-Stated the easement that my client, Mr. Hanna has, encompasses a driveway which extends in a semi-circular situation off of Moonhill Road, crossing a portion of existing Lot B, and coming onto his lot. 9 --- MR. HATZ REFERRED TO MAP TO SHOW THE BOARD MR. HANNA'S EASEMENT MR. MANZ-Stated that there is no actual easement shown right now. What we are showing is correct. MR. HA TZ-Stated that his client has a right for these to be shown. Request that this be tabled for these things to be cleared up. MR. TURNER-Stated that it doesn't really show the driveway or the easement. MR. MANZ-Stated it does show the current correct situation of no easement existing. It does show although it is light on the print, the mylar does show the actual driveway coming in the pave section of the driveway the remainder just the grading part. MR. HA TZ-Stated there is no easement that you will find in the County Clerk's Office, that acquire rights by descriptions by complying with certain legal requirements that he has no invested right to continue use of that driveway and if there is an easement there you will not find it in the record that are not shown on this subdivision map. MR. MANZ-Stated that all standard practices are that all file easements be on this map. MR. TURNER-Stated he doesn't have a problem with adding a piece, but I want everything clarified. MR. MULLER-Asked if he could be put on the agenda for the next meeting? MR. GORALSKI-Stated that if the Chairman instructs us to do so. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 90-1989 ROBERT M. LENT,lntroduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner: They will be returning to the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting in one week and have a map that shows everything that is on the land. Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 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. 91-1989 JAMES AND BRENDA BROWN RR-3A 97 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND TWO CAR GARAGE WITHOUT THE REQUIRED 30 FT. SIDE YARD SETBACK. HOUSE AND GARAGE WILL BE 15 FT. FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 60-7-6.2 SECTION 4.020 C LOT SIZE: 97.7 FT. BY 364.6 FT. JAMES AND BRENDA BROWN PRESENT MR. TURNER-Stated this is a lot that Mr. Brown proposed to build his house on. He proposed at the time to put a house on it, but wasn't able to at the time, now he is here for relief from the setback. The only feasible alternative he has as to placement of the garage is to put it behind the house thereby eliminating one side yard relief, but it would be in the back 1,600 feet. MRS. BROWN-Stated the ground does slope down to put the garage back there we would have a problem with the water. MR. MULLER-Asked what was the length across the propose house? MRS. BROWN-48 feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-Asked how long have they owned the property? MRS. BROWN-Stated it was deeded in their name in March 1988. MR. TURNER-Asked if the back side of the trees was there property line? MRS. BROWN-Yes. 10 ~ MRS. GOETZ-Asked if they are going to be rebuilding the barn someplace else? MRS. BROWN-It's been sold, doesn't know the plans for it. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) Warren County Planning approved. (on file) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 91-1989 JAMES AND BRENDA BROWN,Introduced by Mr. Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: The practical difficulty is the narrowest of the lot, the topography of the lot is also a problem. To the rear it slopes away from the road, thereby eliminating the alternative of putting the garage to the rear of the house and eliminating the need for a side yard variance. We did grant a previous variance which was for relief from the requirement of 100 feet frontage on the road this created a nonconforming lot. The relief granted is 15 feet on each side being the north and south sides. Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 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 USE VARIANCE NO. 92-1989 SR-lA HAROLD AND SIllRLEY NASH AT THE END OF SANDERS ROAD ON THE LEFT TO REPLACE A MOBILE HOME ON A LOT IN AN SR-lA ZONE WIllCH DOES NOT ALLOW MOBILE HOMES. TAX MAP NO. 126-1-53 SECTION 4.020 G LOT SIZE: 208 FT. BY 260 FT. SHIRLEY NASH PRESENT MR. TURNER-Asked if the house is gone? MRS. NASH-It's almost gone. MR. TURNER-Stated they've granted variances similar to this before. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED UNKNOWN-There has been. . . trailers all through that section on Luzerne Road. When was that changed? MR. TURNER-We just changed the Ordinance in October 1988. UNKNOWN-Was it publicized? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Are you wondering if it might be possible for a trailer. . .1 think her question is why is a trailer being allowed. It's not at the moment, but we're deciding on it. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's not a trailer zone. MRS. GOETZ-It's not approved for trailers. MR. TURNER-That's suburban residential one acre; there is no overlay zone there for trailers. In otherwords, that area may be designated as overlay for trailers so they can put trailers in there, but that's not the case, this is why Mrs. Nash is here. UNKNOWN-You mean then they are allowed to put trailers there? MR. TURNER-No, that's why she is here. MR. MULLER-She has a special reason why she should be allowed, and she is presenting it 11 ------- here this evening for us to consider if that's so. Your allowed as a member of the public to say, I agree with that or that's not so. UNKNOWN-I don't mind them putting it there everyone has to have a place to live. It's always been no trailer, no trailers. MR. TURNER-It's still that way. This is why she is here because the trailer is not permitted so she has to come for what is called a use variance. That is a use that is not permitted in the zone. UNKNOWN-You can give her a permit to live there? MR. TURNER-If she shows hardship we can or anyone else. UNKNOWN-Thank you. COLLEEN LASHWA Y-I was wondering is Shirley living in the trailer? MR. TURNER-No. COLLEEN LASHWAY-The house is being torn down? MR. TURNER-She wants to replace it with a trailer the house is un-insurable. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner (on file) MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 92-1989, HAROLD AND SIDRLEY NASH,lntroduced by Michael Muller who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: The applicant has shown hardship on the property. The present structure is un-insurable this is a feasible alternative to alleviate hardship and it's not detrimental to the neighborhood. Duly adopted this 16th day of August, 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. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 12 --- i:ij~~üwj~r,;) ¿ (LÃUG 15 19B!J~ ¡LANNING & Mrs. Lee A. York r)FI:JI'AftTMZON'NØ Senior Planner"! ENT Queensbury Planning Board Mrs. York, J Applehouse Lane ~ Queensbury, N.Y. 12804 August 12, 1989 "ll COPt I wish to express my concerns on the variance being requested by Eric and Carey Wiley for a proposed J lot division on the west side of West Mountain Road. My property adjoins this prop?s~d subdivision on Applehouse Lane. I feel that along with requ1r1ng Mr. Wiley to put in a larger access road, that the town board should look at the present drainage problems and the impact this J lot subdivision will have. When confronted with this at the last board meeting, Mr. Wiley and his attorney Mr. O'Connor kept avoiding a direct answer to this. They stated they wouldn't add any more drainage to the present drainage. This may be true but the present drainage will have to be altered in order to build on this land. Where is it going to go? The only place for the water to run is south onto the adjoining properties on Applehouse Lane, (the required access road will be on the North.) In the spring the run-off from West Mountain comes do~n along Mr. Wiley's property and floods our back yards with anywhere from 8" to 18" of water. At present, the water remains far enough away from the houses so as not to cause a major problem. If Mr. Wiley or whoever is allowed to build back of ouur property, alters the ground level so as to erect a structure, this will increase the amount of water that runs onto our property. This could not only have a devistating affect on our homes by flooding, but could render our septic systems useless because our leach field borders Mr. Wiley's property. If the planning board ignors the plees of the residents on Applehouse Lane and allows this subdivision to be built without proper drainage systems for spring run-off, the results could be very costly to ourselves and also the Town of Queensbury. I feel to avoid future legal costs, court battles and law suits, the town should require Mr. Wiley to either install these systems now before selling the property as lots and require that it be stated in the deeds that whoever purchases or builds, will have to install these systems. I can sympathize with Mr. Wiley not wanting to go to all the costs of a new road, drainage systems and so on, but if what he states is true (just wantin~ to sell the existing Applehouse Estate and move up on the mountain) why not do so? Sell the estate as 1 parcel and erect his mountain top estate (which wouldn't require all the expense). It seems to me that with all the money Mr. Wiley has spent so far in lawyer and surveying fees that the "Mom and Pop" idea he's trying to sell, has grown to a full scale commercial . , ---- operation. If this is the case, then Mr. Wiley will have to face the costs involved with a full scale commercial venture. I hope my concerns will be entered into the minutes of your meeting and given serious consideration by the members of the board. I only wish I could have presented this in person, but previous commitments stood in the way. . Sincerely -. . 4/ /1'7'~) Oaf--1- /J / /'1)J'l . - -- - - TO\y'~ ,QE~~~NSBURY Bay ~t!:"~M\'. . .;f ,~: NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 \\)~\~~y\ . \U l,~ \' '\9~':3 Brian LaFlure - Chief \ ~UG \) Queensbury Central tUNC Fire CO, NN\NG & 'L~T 1 Foster Ave. }LJ\ nJ:VM'''''''~ Que en s bu ry, NY 12804 RE: Wiley Variance The Chief of the Queensbury Central Fire Department, Brian LaFlure, reviewed the plans for the Wiley development which is before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. LaFlure was concerned about the 24' wide driveway leading to the back lot. In the winter this may cause a problem for emergency vehicles because of the ~nowbanks. lIe would rcqllcst that the Board mandate that the driveway be cleared to a width of 50 feet. The minimum driveway can be 24 feet but in order to assure emergency vehicle access the cleared area should be 50 feet for the entire length. Mr. LaFlure stated that the fire trucks carry an average of 1000 feet of hose per truck. In an emergency situation they would be required to involve multiple trucks which can cause a time delay in responding to the emergency. . As a general recommendation, Mr. LaFlure stated that the Town should consider limiting the maximum length of pri·vate drive- ways without hydrants to correspond with the supply line avail- ible to the fire department. Tnis should be done to protect the health and safety of the residents as well as the fire fighters. The Fire Department has expressed a concern because the Sub- division Regulations limit tne length of town Ioads to ~OOO feet for healtn and safety reasons but tne length of private driveways is not limited. "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" .<::;FTTI ED 1763