1990-07-25
~/
----
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JULY 25TH, 1990
INDEX
Use Variance No. 13-1990
J. Paul Barton
dlbla Docksider Restaurant
1.
Area Variance No. 14-1990
J. Paul Barton
dlbla Docksider Restaurant
14.
Area Variance No. 54-1990
Area Variance No. 55-1990
Area Variance No. 57-1990
Rauf and Barbara Cavak 17.
John J. and Barbara S. Lynch 26.
Timothy Barber 32.
Owner: Sue and Dick Rourke
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINurES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF
REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINurES (IF ANY) AND
WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINurES.
--
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JULY 25TH, 1990
7 : 30 P.M.
MEMBER.S PRESENT
THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN
SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY
JOYCE EGGLESTON
CHARLES SICARD
MICHAEL SHEA
JEFFREY KELLEY
KElŒERS ABSENT
BRUCE CARR
DEPUTY TOWN ATTORBE"I"-KARLA CORPUS
ZONING ADHINISTKATOR-PAT COLLARD
ASSISTANT PLANNER-STUART BAKER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
COJUmCTION OF HINU'rES
June 20th, 1990: Page 6, down at the bottom of the page, Mr. Turner, where it
says Bruce, where it says building to Route 9, you can't see, sib anything; Page
6, where it says the sign was 50 square feet with the readerboard on it at the
proper, sib setback, not site; Page 6, first paragraph, Mr. Shea is speaking,
to your knowledge, sib are there a great number of pe ople, not our there; Page
7, down towards the bottom, Mrs. Goetz is speaking, that's another thing, when
Aviation Mall went in, where it says, they had to cut those signs back, sib they
had a separate sign package that was just for Aviation Mall; Page 8, Mrs. Goetz
is speaking, half \laY down the page, sentence which says, I know if you \\'ere to
Mr. Nigro, sib I know if you were to æ. to Nigro; Page 8, Mrs. Goetz, where it
says, I'm surprised they didn't take all of this into consideration, at the very
end of that paragraph, where it says, even though it wouldn't be by variance,
sib even though it would have to be by variance
HOTION TO APPROVE JUNE 20TH, 1990 MINUTES AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Charles
Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz:
Duly adopted this 25th day of July, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Carr
OLD BUSINESS:
USE VARIANCE NO. 13-1990 TYPE: UNLISTED WK-lA J. PAUL BAKrOH D/B/A DCQ{SIDER
RESTAURANT OWER: SAME AS ABOVE GLEN LAKE ROAD, HALFWAY BETWEEN BAY ROAD AND
ROUTE 9 (LAKE GEORGE IIOAD) TO ADD 1,826 SQ. FT. TO' THE EXISTING RESTAURANT SPAŒ
WITH STORAGE OF D.Y GOODS, BUSINESS RECORDS ON SECOND STOR"! PO'RTIOR.. FIR.ST STOR"!
OF EXISTING RESTAURANT TO' BE RENOVATED.. SLEEPING QUAKrEIIS TO REMAIN AS IS (SECOND
STOR"!). (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 38-4-2 LOT SIZE: 0..98 ACRES SECIIOH
9.014
MACK DEAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. TURNER-Read the motion tabling the application in March.
MRS. GOETZ -Read motion. Motion was introduced by The cdore Turner and seconded
by Susan Goetz:
1
-
This is a Type I action we are tabling to propose to pass the lead agency status
to the Queensbury Planning Board as these matters are under their expertise.
We will act on it after the Queensbury Planning Board satisfies the SEQRA Review.
A Long EAF Form is necessary. The applicant has agreed to the tabling. (End of
Motion) And Mrs. Eggleston was absent, but, otherwise, it was a unanimous vote
to table. We have received a negative declaration of the SEQRA Review from the
Queensbury Planning Board and it's dated July 19th, 1990. Showing no negative
impact.
MR. TURNER-The next thing is, I discussed the criteria for the Use Variance with
Mr. Dusek and we have some information, and it's my belief that Mr. Barton does
not have to show reasonable return on this property. So, if you'l1..to this part
and then we'll discuss it and vote, as to whether the Board feels that he has
to have a Use Variance, to show reasonable return on his investment.
MRS. GOETZ-This is New York State Law, Zoning Law and it's Section 6.36, approval
of the Zoning Board of Appeals. "Your Zoning Ordinance authorizes the extension
of a nonconforming use with approval of the Board of Appeals. Such approval is
not a variance and it may be granted without proof of unnecessary hardship."
From New York State Law, Section 23.28, dealing with nonconforming uses. "In
the usual case, the nonconforming user has a more difficult problem than is
en co un tered by a conforming user when he seeks a variance. However, one Board
of Zoning Appeals effectively removed the requirement that a nonconforming, like
other users, show that his hardship is due to unique circumstances. This is
accomplished by finding nonconforming applicants exceptional or unique circumstances
in the fact it's nonconforming."
MR. TURNER-The question of the Use Variance is open for discussion. .after looking
at these two articles, it is the Board's opinion that Mr. Barton..he used to.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, Ted, even if he didn't have to prove reasonable financial
return, wouldn't he have to prove the other criteria?
MR. TURNER-He doesn't need to prove unnecessary hardship.
MRS. EGGLESTON-But there's four things that you have to meet, under a Use Variance,
right? Does that only eliminate one?
MR. TURNER-My contention is that
piece of property has been there
Am I right? Mr. Barton has assumed
he has certain vested property rights. This
for some 50 years, correct me if I'm wrong.
the ownership for some, how many years now?
MR. BARTON-Five.
MR. TURNER-Five, and it's always been the same establishment and it's my contention
that he does not have to prove this because he I s asking for an extension of a
nonconforming use. He doesn I t have to prove unnecessary hardship or reasonable
return. Maybe I better ask Mr. Dusek to address the Board in relation to this.
PAUL DUSEK, TOWN ATTORNEY
MR. DUSEK-Maybe I could be of assistance in this matter. For the record, Paul
Dusek, Town Attorney. The Chairman approached me with a question as to the proper
test to be employed in connection with this. Maybe I should start off, first
of all, trere's no question, under the Ordinance, that the Board has the authority
and, in fact, must decide whether or not it will grant a variance to the applicant
to build his structure. In addition to the Area Variance, so that, t re first
issue is, do you have to make a decision, yes. The second issue, though, is tre
criteria of your decisions and, when I was asked the question, I went to the
Ordinance and I find, under Section 9, or Article 9, it just simply says that
the nonconforming use maybe increased only by variance granted by t he Zoning Board
of Appeals. Well, it doesn't tell you what kind of variance. It doesn't tell
you that follow, necessarily, t he use variance test or the area variance test.
So, I then went through the entire Ordinance looking for a definition of variance
as to what exactly they wanted you, what test to use, and I couldn't find anything,
except that, in Article 10, the closest thing I find is that it says, in the very
beginning where it says purpose of the Article, it says, the purpose of this Article
is to provide variances from the Ordinance in cases where strict application thereof
would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. So, even there,
they don't tell you which test you're going to use. If you look down into the
second part of the Article which deals with the requirements for granting variances,
2
-
although they list the requirements, they still don't tell you which one of the
tests for you to use. As a result, leaving that area of research, I then researched
Anderson, on Zoning, and also read some cases and I found that there was a court
case by the Third Department of Health Division which is one step up from the
local Supreme Court we have which is our, the Department that we would ultimately
go to if Ÿ2 were ever challenged. We'd go to Supreme Court, first and, if
necessary, go to the next step and they have felt that there is no absolute
requirement that you'd use the unnecessary hardship test. Basically, then, if
that's true, it tells me that, in the first instance, it's up to this Board to
interpret its Ordinance as it sees fit and if you think it's appropriate that
that test not be employed, based upon reviewing the entire Ordinance, you can
do so. I think the main point I'd like to emphasize is there's no law, that I
can find at the moment, that requires you to use that test. I think it's a matter
of Board interpretation, in the first inst ance, to decide whether, based upon
the case that, I gave Mr. Turner a copy of just a blurb of that case, and, based
on the Ordinance as I've just reviewed it with you, and your own knowledge, Whether
you feel that, perhaps a different test should be used, such as the area variance
type test and I leave that up to the Board.
MR. TURNER-Any questions of Mr. Dusek?
MRS. GOETZ-So, Paul, ~u1d this type of problem apply to every extension of a
nonconforming USé?
MR. DUSEK-Yes. If you made a decision in this re gard, it would be applicable
in all your future decisions, unless the Ordinance was, in some fashion, rewritten
to be more clearly defined. I might add one more point, t lere is another basic
rule of law which says that the Ordinance will be strictly construed against the
Town who wrote it and there's also another rule of law t hat goes, t hat property
interest, of course, and vested property rights are held quite valuable and that
we should not try to divest people of property without due process or without
a clear meaning in the law that gives you the right to do so. So, When you, these
are all the legal, I'm trying to give you as many different legal tests that you'll
apply, here, and, hopefully, as you review the Ordinance, you can come up with
the answer.
MR. TURNER-Anyone else?
MR. SHEA-I think that vested rights is probably t le focal point of this issue,
given the fact that the Docksider has been there for the large number of years
it has. I think it does define itself as a nonconforming use, so it would be
my opinion, Mr. Chairman, that a Use Variance would not be necessary.
MR. TURNER-Anyone else?
MRS. EGGLESTON-We're opening a can of worms.
MR. TURNER-My question to Paul was based on a similar application that we had
here before us, in which.. ~s representing the application. I bought a book on
Anderson Zoning Law and indicated, at that time, that, according to that paragraph
and that Section of the book, that the applicant did not have to show unnecessary
hardship.
MR. KELLEY-What about the case of Steve Britton, here. That was, basically an
extension of a nonconforming, it was a preexisting, nonconforming use.
MR. TURNER-My idea of
and be there previous
establishment is there
The use doesn't change.
a nonconforming use is a use that. .app1icant to come in
to the zoning change or something. I think when an
50 years, it precludes any kind of a Zoning Ordinance.
It's..with that classification.
MR. KELLEY-I don't think I, personally, have a problem with this particular one.
I think of the other ones that have come up.
MR. TURNER-It's up to the Board.
MRS. GOETZ-But how do you keep control of situations, I mean, by Area Variance
only?
MR. DUSEK-Well, tle other suggestion I might make to the Board is, I think there's
two issues, here. There's one issue which is an interpretation of the Ordinance
which, of course, is within your jurisdiction. The other issue is, do we have
3
--
sufficient control. Should we be using this test. Well, that's for the legislative
body which, of course, is the Town Board. If there are problems with the Ordinance,
perhaps they should consider rewriting them, but that would be their domain.
You're the judicial body which is going to just interpret the Ordinance, and if
it's not a good thing, the way the Ordinance is written, then it's up to the Town
Board to change it.
MR. SICARD-Are you saying, Paul, that whichever way we vote tonight, instead of
adding. . my couldn't the Board,. .this particular case, but why couldn't the Board
make a decision at some future date, depending on the sense of the Board?
MR. DUSEK-Well, I think that the problem is that you should, at all times, of
course, apply the same rules in every case that comes before you and if you, in
the first instance, decide that an extension of a nonconforming use does not fall
under the criteria of the Use Variance, then, I mean, I don't know how you would
differentiate the next time around. I mean, these are general principles under
the review of the Ordinance. I don't know how you would change that.
MR. SICARD-Well, basically, all cases are..strictly defined.
MR. DUSEK-Well, there may be, at this moment, a case that, for some reason, is
different, but I'm just saying what you're doing, at the moment, is actually looking
at the Ordinance and saying, after we read this is the way we feel about this
Ordinance, that this is what it does.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, Paul, under the Use Variance, I think what I'm not clear
on, there are four criteria which must be met. One of them is a specified or
unnecessary hardship and that eliminates that, but what happens to the other three,
since, such as a reasonable financial return?
MR. DUSEK-Okay, this is what I was trying to emphasize in the beginning, if you
chose, or believe that the Ordinance, or it was your opinion that the Ordinance
did not require you to use that Use Variance test, you are still obligated, however,
by the Ordinance, to review t he variance request and so you would be saying, then,
that you believe that you should use the Area Variance criteria in your review.
You still do the review, but you're going ~se the other criteria. You're not
going to use the Use Variance criteria. So, the other criteria you'd be looking
at would be special circumstances, conditions, strict application would result
in practical difficulty, material detriment to the neighborhood, t hat type of
criteria. You'd be using the other set of criteria, completely.
MRS. EGGLESTON-The Area Variance.
MR. DUSEK-Right. Now, this would still be in addition to the other Area Variances
that I understand you have..to this application, as well, but, on the issue of,
do we extend this use, if you believe the the Ordinance is, either, not clear
on its face or, after reviewing it, t hat you feel that it's leaning toward not
using the Use Variance, then you're going to have to use the other criteria.
You just could not, not examine the issue all together. You do have to examine
the issue. It's just a matter of what test you use to do that.
MRS. GOETZ-But you just said that we should be consistent and we've been using
what's here for everyt bing that we've had when the Zoning Ordinance went into
effect. I mean, similar..nonconforming use..extension of. I'm worried about
singling this one case out. I'm just wondering, why should we be different with
this one, until it needs to be changed.
MR. DUSEK-The issue is not singling this case out, but rather, specifically, what
is the proper way, what is the proper way of, what is t he proper interpretation
of the Ordinance. I t bink that's a separate issue from the case. I don't know
if you've ever made an interpretation of the Ordinance, formally, as to this issue.
MRS. GOETZ-Well, first of all, I don't think we need to be rushed into doing that,
right on the spot because that's a serious consideration. To come in here and
find out, in five minutes, we've got to interpret this Ordinance, I just think
isn't fair.
MRS. EGGLESTON-See, I'm not clear, either.
MRS. GOETZ -I'm just wondering, what we did before with any other applications,
like Parillo's, ~sn't that an extension of a nonconforming use or an interpretation
or it was a complex issue, whatever.
4
-..-'
MR. DUSEK-Pari110's was whether or not there was even a nonconforming use and
whether it had lapsed 18 months. That was a little bit..
MR. TURNER-It's up to the Board. If the Board wants to hold off, that's up to
the Board. If the Board wants to hear it. I think the consensus is not to consider
this aspect of it now. So, it's up to the Board to make that interpretation.
MR. SICARD-When do we settle it. Do we have a special meeting or are we going
to make it the next one that comes up?
MRS. EGGLESTON-Why couldn't we just follow our normal pattern, like we do with
everybody else that's come before us and go through the same Use Variance criteria
and then, ~en we've had a chance to study this. .and make a decision. It gives
us a chance, maybe, to think of ~at we've done on some, that doesn't come to
us right of the bat, and see if \ole' re doing harm to somebody t hat we've already
not given that privilege.
MR. TURNER-Right.
MR. SHEA-It's my op~n~on that the Use Variance is not probably going to be the
most contested issue here with the Board, but rather the Area Variance. So, maybe
we should just..
MR. DUSEK-That is an idea for
and then we can reconsider
the Board would like to do.
bit more research for you.
the Board, is to take in proof on all issues, tonight,
the legal issue at another meeting, if that's what
In the meantime, perhaps, I could dig up a little
MR. SICARD-Well, how does this leave the applicant, tonight, though?
MR. DUSEK-Well, you wouldn't make a decision, tonight, you'd have to wait.
MR. SICARD-Would that..for tonight, that Use Variance, is that what you're saying?
MR. DUSEK-Well, I'm saying, you could take all the evidence, you could hold your
hearing, you could take all the proof and then just reserve your decision until
such time as you have the legal issues clear.
MRS. EGGLESTON-But what about the fact that maybe we would pass the concerns,
tonight, under the old criteria? We can't do that?
MR. DUSEK-I think you ought to make, in the first instance, I think you ought
to make a judgement call as to whether that's the right test.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay.
MR. DUSEK-I think if you go ahead and you pass it under a Use Variance, then you've
made that judgement call, ~ether you wanted to or not.
MRS. EGGLESTON-Alright.
MR. TURNER-Any discussion?
MRS. GOETZ-I think we should act on it, just as it is before us. This is an odd
situation and I don't think it's fair to the applicant to now make them wait while
we suddenly decide that there might be something wrong with the Zoning Ordinance.
MR. DUSEK-It's not a question of, something's wrong. It's just a matter of how
you interpret it.
MRS. GOETZ-I thought it was a lack of something.
MR. DUSEK-Well, ~at it is, is that Article 9 does not specify, it says that when
they want to extend, they've got to come to you for a variance.
MRS. GOETZ-Right.
MR. DUSEK-And everybody, to date, I guess, has called it a Use Variance, but it
doesn't say that, it just says, a variance. So, t hat could mean that you follow
t he criteria that's listed for Use Variance or it could mean that you follow the
criteria listed for Area Variance and so, that's what you're saying. You're saying
5
---
t hat you feel that it would be the criteria for a Use Variance, if you were to
decide, based upon the way it's been presented to you tonight. On the other hand,
if you wanted to, you could say, based upon our review of the Ordinance, we feel
that the Area Variance criteria controls, on the extension issue. Then, you'd
still have to go and examine the other Area issues that you have and, of course,
obviously, Area criteria does hold for bot h. We all know that, but that's what
you're, you're making that decision in the first instance.
MR. TURNER-Does the Board feel that you want to hear it as a Use Variance?
MR. KELLEY-I would tend to think so, only because everybody else that's every
come here had to go through that.
MR. TURNER-Let's make that determination.
you want to make a motion.
If there's no further discussion, do
MOTION THAT THE BOAJtD CONSIDER THE AREA AND USE VARIANCE AS APPLIED FOR BY THE
DOCKSIDE., PAUL BAK'ION AND THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS APPLICANT WE WILL USE
THE CRITERIA THAT WE ARE ACCUSTOMED TO AND WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH AND THAT WE FEEL
CONFIDENT OF, Introduced by Michael Shea who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Susan Goetz:
Duly adopted this 25th day of July, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner
NOES: Mr. Sicard
ABSENT: Mr. Carr
MACK DEAN
MR. DEAN-For the record, my name is Mack Dean with Morse Engineering, representing
Mr. Paul Barton of the Docksider Restaurant and Mr. Barton is also here this
evening. Since we were last before t his Board, some months ago, t here have been
a number of changes in the proposed site plan and the building. We will cover
those quickly rather than reiterate a lot of information that you've already had
an opportunity to review. Basically, since our last meeting and since having
met with the Planning Board and Staff for the Town of Queensbury, they have reduced
the original proposal, the 12 foot extension, the addition of the building, to
a 4 foot extension, as opposed to 12. I don't know how well you can see
this(referring to map). To my left is the existing building. To my right is
the proposed addition. The placement of the building, as it is currently proposed,
increases our proposed setback distance to 42 feet from the closest point of the
sout hem Lake shore , to the sout herly part of the Lakeshore. The side setback,
on the westerly side, would remain the same, as it currently exists. There would
be no change to t hat side of the building. The easterly side would also remain,
approximately, 47 and a half feet and that is measured from the proposed stairway
and deck access to the second floor. From the foundation, I believe it would
measure in excess of 52 and a half feet. The rear of the building would be somewhat
closer, now, to the Glen Lake Road, than our original proposition, although that
is well in excess of 100 feet. We have really tried to find a way to reduce the
size of the building. We have considered expanding it, however, we still maintain
the same position as we have in the past, Number One, t hat we need that area for
septic system. There are a number of trees that we really wish to maintain or
replace those which have been diseased and have been removed and I think, most
of all, to afford Mr. Barton's neighbor, Miss Sullivan, on the east, a buffer
area. They've been good neighbors and they wish to maintain that buffer zone.
In addition to that, by expanding the building any further, east to west, we felt
might have more of an aesthetic impact than those that might be on the Lake.
We tried to keep at its original width, 34 feet, t hat is the addition at 34 feet.
Because of the requirements for septic system design, we could not move the building
any further rearward because this is the only area on the property t hat can be
used for septic system and there is just no way t hat we could infringe on that
area anymore than we have. We moved it back an additional five feet. I know
this figure said eight feet, five feet, doesn't add up, but, to the original
dimensions, but we did rearrange a couple of feet within the building, so,
essentially, we've moved the building back eight feet from what it originally
was from the front shoreline and five feet towards the rear of the, towards Glen
Lake Road. Anot her significant change in the overall plan is that we have added
our proposed shoreline reclamation which the Planning Board has reviewed as part
of their SEQRA Review. Basically, that entails, by reference to a map by Wesley
6
--
Cole in 1951 which showed the shoreline as it existed in 1951 t having a masonry
wall that extended for a majority of the portion of the front shoreline and we
have reestablished that perimeter in our application to DEC for shoreline
reclamation. I might point out that DEC anticipates issuing a permit for that
reclamation at the end of the required 30 day comment period \#.hich would be t
approximately t I think t t he third week in August. A shoreline reclamation does
not add an even amount of linear footage of shoreline. In other wordst if..we
would be reclaiming two feet of shore1inet \#.hereast if thet or somewhat of a point
of land at the sout hwest corner t we would be rec1aimingt approximately t 10 feet.
The overall net effectt in terms of setbacks from the existing building and proposed
building wu1d be t rather than a 42 foot setback to the closest point of the
addition and the shoreline t we would be gaining 53 feet which is a sub stantia1
gain in that front setback from the Lakeshore. While it is considerably shorter
than the required 75 feett it is an improvementt we fee1t in thatt Number Onet
we have redesigned the building to afford a greater setback and with the shoreline
reclamation t we will be even more. Is there anyone in particular that you would
question on?
MR. TURNER-Any questions?
MR. DEAN-I don't know how much you remember from the last meeting or where we
should actually pick up.
MRS. GOETZ-Is the parking a problem? It seems like there are a lot of cars parked
on the road for this time of year. Is there not adequate parking?
MR. DEAN-The parking has not been a problem this yeart except for this past weekend.
A certain law enforcement department had an outing there. The number of spaces
provided in the plan exceed those required by t he Ordinance. We've also extended
the parking area to the northeast which really has not been used in the past t
but it's only recently filled int about a year agot so that area will be added
to give adequate parking.
MR. TURNER-Anyone else? Jefft you've got a question?
MR. KELLEY-Ye s t I think probably just for a refresher t because I do think you
got into this maybe at the last meeting. I'd like to hear some information about
why you feel you need to expand in reference to the financial return of what
currently is there. The question beingt we have to ask you why it can't yield
a reasonable financial return the way you are right now.
MR. DEAN-I had thought I had kind of addressed that in the application itself t
howevert before you is an as built floor plan of the existing building wherein
the kitchen is located in this position in two separate roomst the total square
footage of \#.hich I believe iSt the total in the kitchen is 396 square feet. Some
homes have more kitchen space than that. That 396 feet includes a walk-in coo1ert
pizza oven t prep tables t dishwashing area and your necessary food preparation
cooking surfaces and so fortht plus a floor freezer and a stand up freezer. There's
a lot packed into that area and it's verYt very tight and congested. As you exit
the kitchent at the time this was drawnt the only door exiting the kitchen into
the restaurant itself passed through a portion of the bar area andt in order to
serve customers on the east wall and the sout h wall t you had to traverse t on a
number of occasionst and most occasions it's very difficult task for the waitresses
to get back and forth from the kitchen to the dining areas whicht as you can seet
are split in two different parts of the building. This t basically t is why we
are looking at a redesign t \#.hy we are looking at more space. Not necessarily
to provide t to double or triple the dining capabilities t but we're looking to
double the kitchen area. We're looking to improve and met the current for the
physically handicapped for the bathrooms and..on this whole thing is to add
approximately 30 seats and an additional dining space. Heret againt the design
becomes very functional for those who work there. It becomes very safe and
enjoyable t safe in terms of exitlegress t exit aisle space and so forth and much
more comfortable for those who visit the Docksider. In terms of reasonable returnt
I really believe that if we were here t tonight t looking for a new use this beingt
\#.hoever has beent in the past it's always beent somewhat t a dining recreation
area of very similar use or exact use of \#.hat it is today. I think if we were
looking at change this use while still being commercial t but a different kind
of commercial use. I would have different feelings about proving unnecessary
hardship. In this situationt we have a place that has existed. It's hadt rea11Yt
minimal maintenance over the years. It needs some major structural repairs to
the existing building which is cost in itself t just to maintain it as it is is
expensive. As I've noted in our narrative t supplied with the application t to
7
~
r~plac~ this building with a r~sid~ntial us~ w~ firmly b~li~v~ would b~ to d~ny
him possibl~, to gain a r~asonabl~ r~turn on th~ prop~rty, for what has b~~n
inv~st~d in th~ prop~rty, at this point in tim~, what it costs to r~novat~ this,
plus th~ fact that Mr. Barton would b~ looking for both anoth~r busin~ss location
and anoth~r hom~ and I think you should consid~r that, if h~ w~r~ forc~d to s~ll
this, through th~ Zoning r~asons, h~ at l~ast should b~ ~ntitl~d to r~plac~m~nt
in kind, in that, h~ should hav~ th~ ~njoym~nt of anoth~r hom~. I think, when
you start comparing costs..now h~ has a home and a busin~ss on th~ Lake. To replace
that, ev~n if the business wer~ in a separat~ location in a zon~ wher~ commercial
uses ar~ p~rmitt~d, just to purchase a hom~ on th~ Lak~, comparabl~ to what he
has now, would preclude a r~asonable r~turn.
MR. KELLEY-I think, Mack, I guess, maybe, w~ might want to h~ar som~thing more
about, you said som~ of th~ reasons you n~~d to ~xpand are for storag~ because
of th~ way you hav~ to purchase larg~r volumes of, I'm assuming, probably, beer
and food substances or what~ver. So, I'm assuming, you said you'r~ going to
increas~ your storage spac~, right?
MR. DEAN-That's correct. Our original storag~ space is shown as dry storage,
m~chanical heating room which compris~s 327 squar~ f~~t, that is the only storage
space on th~ pr~mises, on that floor. S~cond floor, curr~ntly, is ~ntir~ly
residential. Our proposal is to add 900 squar~ fe~t on th~ s~cond floor of the
addition which would provid~ office spac~ so that Paul can ~njoy his living room,
as we all should b~ abl~ to and an ar~a of r~staurant supplies, a typical storag~
area. Anyone who's in busin~ss or associated with business knows that you have
a lot of pap~rwork associat~d with that busin~ss that ne~ds to b~ fil~d and after
a number of years it just k~~ps adding up and you have to sav~ it for a certain
numb~r of years. So, this 900 square feet is acc~ssible from th~ kitch~n area
which is below this roof lin~, here via stairway directly off the kitchen and
Mr. Barton's apartment it would be also accessible from that sam~ stairway and
from an ~xt~rior stairway.
MR. KELLEY-So, you' r~ 900 squar~ f~et on th~ second floor and that' s mor~ for
office and storage facility of pap~r?
MR. DEAN-That's all storag~, r~staurant and supplies storag~ and so forth.
MR. KELLEY-That's on th~ s~cond floor?
MR. DEAN-That's correct.
MR. KELLEY-Is th~r~ any on the first floor.
MR. DEAN-Th~r~ is som~.
MR. KELLEY-I gu~ss I'm conc~rn~d about, I just want to know how much more storag~
area your trying to g~t to.
MR. DEAN-Okay.
MR. KELLEY-And it sounds kind of funny that you' r~ going to hav~ all this on th~
second floor. You've got to carryall those cas~s of b~~r to th~ s~cond floor?
MR. DEAN-Not on your lif~.
MR. KELLEY-Okay, k~ep going.
MR. DEAN-Ther~'s a nin~ and a half foot by eight foot area right off the kitchen
that would be us~d for a lot of th~ heavi~r, fast turn over it~ms such as b~verages
and that sort of thing. W~'ve also incr~ased, we'v~ doubl~d th~ siz~ of the walk-in
cooler and added, that by the way is eight by eight, w~'v~ add~d a walk-in fr~ezer
which will allow him, again, to buy bulk storage, bulk supplies of food. There
also would be a small storage area on the northwest corn~r that's 11 by 7, a littl~
less than 80 squar~ f~~t, could be us~d for additional chairs or tables, odds
and ends of things he might n~~d on sp~cial occasions.
PAUL BARTON
MR. BARTON-If I might add, Christmas d~corations, Hallowe~n, what~v~r. If you're
looking for what typ~ of storag~, ~specially upstairs, there's numerous paper
supplies, pizza boxes. We have liquor. It go~s on and on, can goods and right
now, w~ just, I'm ord~ring a cas~ at a tim~ of stuff because I just hav~ no plac~
to put it. It's amazing th~ stuff that you have in storage and it k~~ps getting,
8
-'
'---'
glasses, glassware behind the bar, extra equipment that if something breaks down
you have to have that you can throw in there to work and through the years, it's
just gotten to a point where there's just no place to put the stuff and that's
why there's definitely a big need for a larger storage area. I can verify that
in numerous ways. Thank you.
MR. SHEA-Paul, I think we've been over a number of these issues at the last meeting.
MR. BARTON-Right.
MR. SHEA-It seems to me that we're being a bit redundant here. So, I think what
we're trying to get to is, again, t he crux of the matter which is the reasonable
return on the property so maybe if you would address that issue succinctly, \\.e
could get on ~th this.
MR. BARTON-Do you have questions that I could ans\\.er? That's probably the best
way to do it, at this point because, needless to say, this is the first time I
have ever done this. As far as reasonable return, it's very difficult, at this
point, like I said, to order numerous case lots of things which we need..the price
is definitely higher. It's continuously growing stock that I have to have in
order to do the business. I don't know what else to add. If you have questions
that I can answer, maybe that would help, the best way to do it, as far as
reasonable return.
MR. TURNER-Do you have anything specific, Mike?
MR. SHEA-So, at the present time, the way t he building is
the nature of buying, you're not able to take advantage of
purchasing advantages. To obtain a reasonable return on
becoming more difficult or not?
configured and do to
certain discounts and
the property, is it
MR. BARTON-Yes it is, definitely and we can look at the floor, thé footage. As
far as traffic patterns, safety reasons, there's only so many tables you can put
in there, at this point. In order to get a decent volume, with the increase in
insurance, overhead, I feel I do need some more tables in order to keep it
functional. Functional, to me, is the key word, right here. It's very hard to
move around that building when there's a lot of people in there. Safety reasons,
it's very, very poor at the moment and I have to limit the number of people or
the number of tables that I have in there. If I could have the additional space,
the kitchen, especially, \\.e need that room to have people function and move through
safely. I've had occurrences where people have bumped into each other and almost
put their hands in the deep fryer. These things don't make me feel comfortable.
I just feel that the equipment that we need to keep up with modern day menus,
it's all, return wise, that's important to me, things that I have to do to keep
up with other businesses.
MR. SHEA-Thank you.
MRS. GOETZ-Mr. Barton, if you are granted what you propose, is that going to be
it because this is the second variance on that property?
MR. BARTON-I don't foresee anyt hing in the future that I would want to endeavor
to do on that property, no.
MRS. GOETZ-Because I think we do need to consider that. You can't keep saying,
now I need more because and then
MR. BARTON-Do you think, honestly, that I would have enough nerve to come back
and do this one more time?
MRS. GOETZ-I don't know.
MR. BARTON-Do you think that I would even think that the Board would allow me
to this? No, I have no desire whatsoever, at this point in my life, to increase
this. This is a one time deal that I think, that's been thoroughly t bought out
for the five years that I've been there. This is something I think I can live
with. I can function with and be very comfortable with and still be part of the
community and be important to the people on the Lake and still function as a member
of the community and I think this place is a very important part of the community.
I think I've proven that in five years, by the things that I've done and I really
don't expect to expand. I couldn't expand. How could I with all the requirements
and the zoning regulations.
9
---
MRS. GOETZ-You would have a problem.
MR. BARTON-I don't think I'd even have a chance. I wouldn't waste my time, effort,
and money to do it because I don't think it would ever go through.
MRS. GOETZ-Was the deck expansion part of an overall plan that you had at that
time? Did it include what you're now proposing?
MR. BARTON-No, I couldn't really say that because I didn't know what the business
was going to bear, What actually would happen, that was in my first year, I believe,
first year and a half of being open and I've seen that the deck's definitely become
one of the most popular places in the restaurant and I just feel that, overall,
with the expansion that I'm proposing, here, t hat it would make it much more
comfortable for the people that come in there all the time and it's part of their
community, part of their life and I just don't think it's unreasonable. I think
it's very functional and that's what I'm looking for is something functional where
people can walk in the door and walk around and feel comfortable. The pe op1e
can work there in a safe condition and safe environment. These things are important
to me.
MR. DEAN-May I expand on that just a moment. I have an idea that, in some respects,
been much more than Paul thought it might be, but in a lot of other respects it
hasn't been all that he hoped it might be. Even now with air conditioning the
Docksider, Which they haven't enjoyed for many years, at lunch time, you find
the deck is full on a nice, sunny day, such as today. When I was there for lunch
today, and I usually take a late lunch around 1:30, but there were only three
people sitting inside in the air conditioned area. The only draw back is, once
sun down arrives, our pesky little friends arrive with it, and it tends to drive
everybody inside with the mosquitoes and so forth. In addition to that, rainy
days and winter time, preclude any kind of deck dining. So, as much as we'd like
to think of summer being a long time, numerous sunny days, t he actual number of
days that that can be used for dining are not even a third of the year.
MR. TURNER-Any questions over here? Okay, I'll now open the public hearing.
PUBLIC BEARING OPENED
DR. JAMES cAROLAN
DR. CAROLAN-I am Dr. James Carolan. I come to summers at Glen Lake. I first
came to Glen Lake 55 years ago as the guest of Ruth Ringwood. We subsequently
married and are now, with our children, the owners of the property. .father in
1921. Needless to say, times change and we are distress with some of the signs
of deterioration on the Lake. No longer do we see a crayfish or (TAPE TURNED)
minnows beside our dock. we do see, particularly on weekends, increasing number
of noisy, speeding boats which I'm sure. .a11 piloted by residents of the Lake.
In today's Times Union we read about the following up at Saranac Lake, I will
just read two paragraphs to you, t his is today's paper: "For those living in
the Adirondacks, content with the illusion things are as good as they used to
be and don't need protecting, consider the unexpected plight of upper Saranac
Lake. Consider it because the same scenario well could be playing, in due time,
at a Lake near yoU." Anybody that wishes to see that, it's in today's Times Union
under the Local News. Therefore we believe every effort should be made to control
additional commercialization with it's..deterioration.
MR. TURNER-Any questions of Dr. Carolan, before he leaves? None. Okay. Thank
you. Anyone else opposed to the application.
RUTH RINGWOOD
MRS. RINGWOOD-My name's formerly Ruth Ringwood. I'm a resident of Glen Lake since,
well, the first time we came in 1920. My father helped, was a charter member
of an organization to preserve the Lake. So, naturally I can. .a11 these years.
I think it has not been brought out that Glen Lake is a tiny Lake. It's 3/4 of
a mile wide. It's a mile and a half long. It's not Lake George and it just can't
stand too much use and abuse. With all these propositions, the main thing has
been overlooked. There's a Zoning Law, 75 feet from the Lake. we have just
suffered through an addition to our place because of the Law. This Law was not
made just for us. It was made for everybody and it should be. Our addition,
now, is nestled up against four septic tanks. I mean, we have had a
little. .natura1ly, we have no objection to a restaurant. we have no objection
to somebody making a living, that's perfectly alright with us, it's just the Law.
If it applies to one, it should be true to everybody.
10
-.-/
HELEN DOYLE
MRS. DOYLE-My name is Helen Doyle. My husband and I have operated the Glenmore
Lodge for the past eight years. I, myself, was a guest for 15 years prior to
that. In the 23 since we've been coming up here, I've seen a lot of changes,
and, naturally..change and we understand that, but my question, now, is,
we,J.company on the Lake. I'd like to have..and I have lost some business up
here because of people coming too close to the Lake, I'm talking about the vehicles,
boats and, in fact, only last night, one of our guests was out there and if the
little boy didn't put his hands up, I'm not saying it came from there. It could
have could have been from some place else, I don't know, but, nevertheless, it's
dangerous. So, I'm saying that there has to be some restrictions made there.
Not because of this, but what's it do to somebody in my position? Does it mean
that my people can't go out swimming? Does it mean that they're going. . come that
close or what does it mean?
ROB ERT CAROLAN
MR. CAROLAN-My name is Robert Carolan and you've heard from my parents. I came
to Glen Lake, the first time, in 1941, \\ben I was 2 months old and I've come
regularly since then. Our concern is that the Lake is changing. It is being
over developed. This particularly happened in the fifties and the sixties. The
Zoning Laws ~re put into effect to stop over-development. That's the purpose
of them, to keep things away from the Lake and we are just asking you, the Zoning
Board, to please observe the rules, that they're there for a reason because the
reason effects us. Thank you.
RI CHARD CAROLAN
MR. CAROLAN-Richard Carolan, you've probably already heard enough from my family,
but, at the risk of overstating what has already been stated, a couple of issues
~re raised. I think a couple of important ones are the issue of hardship. Also
being a business man, I think people invest in things, anticipating, certainly,
\\bat the available returns are for a five year time frame, for them claiming a
hardship. In that case, I would question, in particularly, looking at what the
activity is, at the property, \\bich also raises the issue that, it was implied,
I think, in the application, that it was all Lake siders or predominant Lake siders
of service to Lake siders. I think I would dispute that and say that, if anything,
it's predominantly not Lake people that are taking advantage of this particular
piece of property. Thirdly the question was, I think, accurately raised about
the parking issue and I can't emphasize enough that, if you think parking is not
a problem and if it was very unique this past Sunday, just because of a group,
I think it was mentioned there are a number of groups that attend functions at
the Lake. I would invite you to spend the next two or three weekends there on
a Saturday and Sunday and tell me that parking is not an issue, today, without
the addition.. capability. This is an issue of development, as the others have
said, and I think it's very important that the laws exist to restrict development
where appropriate and that's the issue I think the Board has to take before it.
Thank you.
MR. TURNER-Anyone else? Public hearing's closed.
PUBLIC BEARING CLOSED
OOIUŒSPONDERŒ
STAFF INPU'r
Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached)
MRS. GOETZ-Did this go to the Warren County Planning Board?
MR. TURNER-This didn't go, did it?
MR. DEAN-Yes, it's been there.
MR. BAKER-Did you go again? Okay.
MR. DEAN-Actually, three times, I'm sorry. It's been approved.
MR. TURNER-Did they approve it, or did they just state, no County impact?
11
'--
-
MR. BAKER-The findings sheet should be in the file.
MRS. GOETZ-Do you have a copy of the Warren County report. Good, I'm glad you
have it. The Warren County Planning Board, and this is July 11th, 1990, approved.
"The County Planning Board concurs with the local Planning Board and their
conditions. "
MR. TURNER-Alright, do you have any further questions of the applicant?
MR. KELLEY-There was a question raised by some of the people, but I think it
pertains more to the Area Variance, so I will ask those questions at that time.
MR. TURNER-Okay, do you want to discuss any further details?
satisfied with all the answers?
None.
Are you
MR. KELLEY-I might ask another one. I think there still maybe some question left
about the yielding of a reasonable financial return and I guess to really pin
it down, we're talking about profit and loss, here, in business, and I don't know
if you have it with you or you've got it in your head, maybe. How would you
represent to us the profit and loss statement of this particular business? Do
you see it breaking even or are you just making it?
MR. BARTON-I am making money. The money that I'm making has been considerably
cut down by the amount of maintenance, repairs, and improvements to be part of
the community and make it look presentable and it's just an ongoing process of
things. This building was never made to be open during the winter until I bought
it. I put a lot of time, my own personal time, effort and money into it to maintain
it as a year round business and it seems to be getting worse and worse. Things
that I thought were okay, aren't okay. It's continuous expense, as far as putting
money back into it to keep it functional and to keep it safe for the people that
are in there. That's one of my biggest concerns and I think that maybe, not to
blow my own horn, but I am in the safety business, as a volunteer of the Bay Ridge
Volunteer Rescue Squad. The last thing I would ever want to see is someone to
get hurt or something to happen, a fire or anything in that building and I do
everything I can to make sure that it is safe as can be, that it is functional
and that there's not things that are going to cause somebody to be hurt or
jeopardize their lives and it's just gotten to a point where I can't justify
spending all this money to repair everything and replace it and, like I said,
it was never winterized until I bought it and the heat bills are sky high. This
the first year I haven't used the wood stove. I put heat in. I've used all sorts
of gas with the heating system and it's not going to get any better and I'm just
looking to improve the whole setup to make it more functional and safe and to
make it less of an expense. So, maybe not the increase in business, but also
you might want to consider the fact that the decrease and maintenance and repairs
would definitely make it more profitable for me, which would make me happier.
MR. KELLEY-Mack made a point about, you mentioned that there was major structural
repair needed. Could you elaborate on that a little bit?
MR. BARTON-The only thing that I would like to do, as far as major structural
repair, is to go down underneath the building, put new beams in and put new supports
underneath that, ~ich I think is definitely something I think anyone can understand
when the building's been there over 80 years and has been moved.
MR. KELLEY-What's the condition of your current septic system?
MR. BARTON-The septic system, at this time, is four and a half years old. Other
than general maintenance, ~ich is having it pumped out, we have had no prob lem
with it whatsoever. The only thing we've had to is, a couple of times the pump
has gotten a rock in it. We've had to pull the pump out of the pump chamber that
pumps out to the distribution box and into the leachfield, take it out and put
it back in.
MR. KELLEY-So, in other words, in thi s plan, you aren't anticipating getting into
that at all?
MR. BARTON-Pardon me?
MR. KELLEY-Are you anticipating redoing and of that, or is what you have in
existence adequate?
12
-'
'---'
MR. BARTON-No, I think it's right there in front of you that we're going to put,
probably, basically, a whole new twist in that. It's there.
MR. TURNER-Are you going to pump into the road?
MR. BARTON-There's three drywells at the moment. They'll be six. The tank sizes
will all be increased. There it is, SP1. I think that comes under the jurisdiction
of DOH, right?
MR. SHEA-Could we have a quote on doing that?
MR. BARTON-A quote on the price of doing that? Yes, about $25,000 and I'm sure
we'd have to..right down the road, Which I hope they do.
MR. KELLEY-So, there is a plan to improve the public facilities.
MR. BARTON-Everything I do is to try to make it better.
MR. SHEA-Again, I think one of the key focal points in determining Whether you
would be granted a Use Variance is the reasonable return issue and I'm happy to
hear you say that you are making money because. .the last meeting, here, J .making
money. At the time, I was probably interpreting that portion of the criteria
from the Ordinance as the only criteria in its strictest form, meaning that, the
reasonable return should be that you are making a profit and if you are not making
a profit, currently, then you're entitled to not being able to achieve a reasonable
return. Since then, I do not think that that is the intent in the wording of
reasonable return. I do know, as a business man, that you, like a lot of
businesses, are increasing, are being subject to increasing operating costs and
I for one, on this Board, feel that, under the present situation and circumstances
and conditions that if it stays status quo, that you probably would not be entitled
to a reasonable return on that property as it's presently being used. You are
entitled, of course, to use that property for a number of other uses, none of
Which, I think would be appealing to you, nor consistent with the history and
the usage of that property over the years in that area. So, again, it's my opinion
that you certainly meet the criteria for not, at the present time, being..a
reasonable return. So, I'm happy to hear you respond that, consistently with
your last appearance here.
MR. BARTON-Thank you.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm going to ask a question of the audience. Maybe I'll get my
head chopped off, but I'm going to ask it anyway. I think we based part of our
decision on whether neighbors and What not give opposition or approval or what
and in this case, I see an overWhelming approval. We've heard it through letters
and people who have been here. I'm somewhat baffled by the fact that, over the
past months, everything that has been tried to be accomplished at Story town or
the Great Escape by Mr. Wood, there's been a great opposition and I think this
project will have more impact on Glen Lake then anything Mr. Wood could do out
on Route 9 and I'm just wondering if someone here could explain to me how you
feel that this is so much different, and I'm not saying I'm opposed to it, I just
am looking for a reason of Why there's so much approval and do you realize that
you're giving your approval and someday this man might sell and you have given,
v.ell, let's say that someone else could come in there and you might not like what
they could do with this expanding facility. So, is there anyone here, you here
apparently are all in approval, is there someone here who can enlighten me in
that area?
MR. ROBERT CAROLAN-This is the first meeting that we've been at and, as you've
heard, v.e are against this motion. Obviously, there are many other who are for
it?
MRS. EGGLESTON-Absolutely.
favor.
We have many, many letters and people speaking in
MR. TURNER-At that first meeting, in March, v.e only had one person who really
wasn't in opposition to it. She didn't like the parking on the road and that's
the only opposition, but that's a police matter, that's not his fault. I know
they park on the side streets. They park in front of that place and I know that
that's a problem up there, but that just happens to be a problem around the Lake,
every place you go.
13
--
'---'
MR. ROBERT CAROLAN-Well, we were in opposition to the application by the Great
Escape and we I re in opposition to this because we agree with you, Mrs. Eggleston,
that this could have a potentially bad effect on the Lake.
MR. DEAN-Mr. Chairman, may I address the Board very briefly?
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. DEAN-I would like to bring to the attention and grab some. .members of the
Board. Last week, with the Queensbury Planning Board, we completed a very lengthy
Environmental Assessment Form. This document has very in-depth questions regarding
impacts not only on Glen Lake, but on surrounding properties and also impacts
on the community and the very last question asked before any decision is made
by the Board reviewing this is the impact on the growth and the character of the
community or the neighborhood, the answer to Which was no and the final question,
"Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to this project"
or related to potential adverse environmental impacts and the answer, again, was
no and I think we have shown, through support of, not only the immediate neighbors,
but the entire Glen Lake community, that this is a little bit more than local..
there used to be three other restaurant night clubs on the Lake. Two of those..and,
perhaps, you might look into the proposed expansion, here, as, perhaps, picking
up the slack those others have provided in that, in leaving, or no longer being
in business. Thank you.
MR. TURNER-Alright, a motion's in order.
MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 13-1990 J. PAUL BARTON D/B/A/ DOCKSIDER
RESTAURANT, Introduced by Michael Shea who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Joyce Eggleston:
We believe the property is a preexisting, nonconforming, use that if unable to
expand will result in hardship and prevent reasonable return of the property.
We believe the preservation of property rights should be maintained and that the
granting of this variance isn't materially detrimental to this Ordinance since
the business has been operating as a part of the neighborhood for over 30 years.
The Long EAF Form shows no negative impact.
Duly adopted this 25th day of July, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Carr
AREA VARIANCE NO.. 14-1990 'nPE II W-lA .J. PA1IIL BARrœ D/B/A DOO(SIDER
RESTAURANT OWBER: SAME AS ABClNE GLEN LAKE ROAD, BALFQ\ Y BETiEEN BA Y ROAD AND
ROUTE 9 (LAKE GltœGlt ROAD) FOR A 1,826 SQ.. F"l.. ADDITlœ TO THE EXISTING 2,212
SQ.. FT.. JlESTAtBBANT (TO BE RENOI1ATED) THAT inLL BE 36 Fl.. FJtQM THE SHORELINE.
ADDITlœ NEEDED TO PROVIDE FUNCXIœAL KITOIEN. ADEQUATE RESTROOM. DINING AREA
AFFORDING PRIVACY FOR VARIOUS ORGANIZATlœS WITH LESS arAHPED DINING SPAŒ
TIIROUGIIOur AND IMPROVED G1JEST SERVICB. THE LOT WILL NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED PElU'Þ"RLE
AREA. (\ilA.RIŒN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX HAP NO.. 38-4-2 LOT SIZE: 0.9 AQlES sEcrIœ
4.020-D, 7..012-3
MACK DEAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. GOETZ -Thi s was tabled previously and the motion was made by Theodore Turner
and seconded by Michael Shea: We are waiting for the SEQRA Review and we will
consider all the issues at that time. We can't move forward on the Area Variance
without the SEQRA Review. The applicant bas been requested to meet with the Zoning
Administrator on March 1st, 1990 to settle the permeability variance. The Zoning
Board of Appeals requests this applicant to amend his Area Variance 14-1990 if
necessary to include any necessary permeability variance request. This variance,
14-1990, could be considered at the March ZBA meeting. The applicant will be
assessed the actual cost of re-advertising this variance.
MR. TURNER-Mr. Dean, do you want to address that?
MR. DEAN-Very briefly, \\eIre, in this situation, looking, not only for an Area
Variance for setbacks from the Lake or the proposed shoreline, Which I addressed
in the Use Variance, but, in addition, \\e're also asking the Board to consider
a Variance from the permeability requirements in that the Zoning Ordinance requires,
14
'--
--
in the WR-1A zone, that each property have a 65 percent permeability. I think
we had a discussion on that at our previous meeting, after which I met with Pat
Collard, who is the Zoning Administrator and she very quickly straightened me
out on that problem and, soon after, I had submitted to Mr. Goralski, who is the
Planner on the Planning Staff with the Town of Queensbury. I don't know if you
have this letter on hand, but, basically, that I have submitted to Mr. Goralski,
certain site plan entitled LP1, alternate, which indicated revised permeability
calculations. Things have changed somewhat since that time. With the inclusion
of a shoreline reclamation plan, by regaining some ±1800 square feet of land surface
area, our current proposed permeability would be at 54 percent which would be
11 percent less than the 65 percent required, that covers our second variance
request.
MR. TURNER-Any questions for Mr. Dean?
MRS. GOETZ-No, but it shows the value of going to site plan review, that you can
come up with a better plan.
MR. TURNER-If there's no questions for Mr. Dean, I'll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC BEAKING OPENED
MR. TURNER-This is the Area Variance. This is the requirement, relief from the
75 foot setback and 11 percent relief from the permeability requirements.
ROBERT CAROLAN
MR. CAROLAN-My name is Robert Carolan. You've heard from me already.
our comments were more germane to this variance than to the others and
could consider them repeated and WE: can go home earlier.
I think
so if you
MR. TURNER-Okay, no further comments? The public Hearing is closed.
PUBLIC BEAJlING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENŒ
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached)
MR. KELLEY-I guess the map that, in your original plan, the building was forward
eight feet further than it is now?
MR. DEAN-That's correct.
MR. KELLEY-I guess maybe what I would like would be just a little COmIIient on,
you were able to cut it back eight feet, just something as to why you couldn't
go the other four and make it line up with the other building.
MR. DEAN-Well, basically, I've tried to establish that we've kept various room
sizes or area sizes to a minimum. The kitchen is not too large, but large enough
to handle the capacity of the bathrooms. The bathroom sizes are established,
both on the requirement for the number of fixtures and handicapped requirements.
So, roughly, each area breaks into l/3rd of the entire proposed addition. I'd
also expressed our concern about moving any further to the east, based on, I don't
mean to dazzle you with all these flashy.., the septic system location, as you
can see is probably the most restrictive reason why we can't relocate the building
and move it back further in that every bit of this area and this, in somewhat
of a rebuttal to the comments by Staff, there aren't any features to this property
which restrict our meeting the requirements for the setbacks and most of it is
right here with this mound or small hill. The upper most surface area and elevation
is approximately 406. The floor elevation of the restaurant is, approximately,
402 and a half or 403. This area is the only area on the property that can be
used for septic disposal and in lieu of municipal sewage disposal, there are no
alternatives. If, perhaps, this one area were located in a different part of
the lot, I think we could have very easily could have relocated our proposed
building expansion. We felt that with t he reclamation project, which also.. but
it will increase the proposed setback to 53 feet. As I had mentioned, nothing
on the we s t side would change. I think all the change s 0 ccur , mainl y, to the
east and, in a large part, to the north and, one final point, I think the question
was asked of Mr. Barton if he thought he might be back next year. When Paul and
15
'--
-
I first discussed this project, he was talking in terms of, I need more space
for the kitchen, I need more space, I need to spread out the dining, I need to
consolidate it and I said, Paul, you're going to get one shot at this, given the
zoning restrictions, zoning regulations at this point in time and there's no reason
to believe that they're going to be any less strict 10 years from now. I said
you might better sit down and decide exactly what you need for space, based on
the minimum relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals and you're going to have to
live with that and that was the premise for the design that you see before you
tonight.
MR. TURNER-Anything else, Jeff?
MR. KELLEY-Just a question about that permeability. You've got to refresh my
memory about the parking. Is that considered permeable or not?
MR. DEAN-No, it's not. We discussed that at length and we thought it was more
capricious to ask for a variance for 11 percent than to argue with the Zoning
Department.
MR. KELLEY-How does everybody feel about the 11 percent? I don't have a problem
with it.
MR. TURNER-What do you want to cover the area, the parking area, with?
got stone, but what number stone?
You've
MR. BARTON-What we have done, I believe it was probably 7, 8 weeks ago, is we
put lA in dust in there, 12 tandem truck loads in and I've spread it out, in some
places increased the thickness of the parking lot 5 to 6 inches. It seems to
be a marked improvement. I'm getting comments from everyone, but that's basically
what we're going to do. We're going to maintain that as it is, whether it's just
. .to fill in a hole and bring more fill in as needed, but that is, right now,
at this point, all we're trying to do with that and that was a great expense to
do that also, I might add, to maintain that.
MR. DEAN-Part of our stormwater management includes the parking area. Not only
is that, it's not designed as a drainage trench, per se, but also as a retention
area for stormwater runoff. So, that will solve a lot of that 11 percent that
we couldn't make in, so called, green area.
MR. KELLEY-It's that retention area, so to speak, I guess that's designed to test
water, let's say, that does runoff this parking lot and kind of hold it back before
it gets to the Lake, so it has to filter in rather than into the Lake. Is that
correct.
MR. DEAN-Absolutely, that's correct, Mr. Kelley. In fact, the whole design includes
all your roof runoff from the higher portions of the property from Glen Lake Road,
actually, all of that. Part of the shoreline reclamation plan also will incorporate
a slight swale at the edge, or the perimeter of the entire distance which will
also create, I really don't want to use the word retention area in the front because
it's, technically, and engineering wise, it's not so, but it will impede stormwater
runoff.
MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order.
BOTION TO APPROVE AIŒA VARIANCE NO. 14-1990 J. PAUL BARrON D/B/A DOCKSIDER
RESTAURANT, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Charles Sicard:
They're seeking two Area Variances. One is relief from the 75 foot shoreline
setback. They're proposing a 53 foot setback from the Lake. This would be a
relief of 22 feet. The applicant's demonstrated a hardship. To be 75 feet wouldn't
allow a reasonable way of attaching the addition to the existing building. Also,
they are restricted in where they can move the addition. Easterly is where the
septic system would be. Any addition to the west would be a further encroachment
on the shoreline setback. This is a minimum variance to alleviate the specific
practical difficulty. Strict application of the Ordinance creates this practical
difficulty. Regarding the 65 percent permeability variance, the applicant has
come forth with a 54 percent permeability proposal. Thi s would be an 11 percent
relief and seems to be acceptable in lieu of the stormwater drainage plan that
has been presented.
16
~
'-
Duly adopted this 25th day of July, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Carr
MR. KELLEY-Ted, do you consider this with the sea wall in place or without?
MR. BAKER-With the seawall in place.
MR. TURNER-Seawall in place.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARlANO NO.. 54-1990 T1PE II SR-lA HAW AND BAiBAHA CAVAK OWRER: SAME
AS ABCOJIlE 22 Qœ:o .ANNE OOl/DRT FOR OONSTRUcrUJI Œ' A STORAGE SHED mTH 6 FT..
SETBAO( FROM SIDE AND IŒAR Lor LINES.. TEN FOOI IS REQmIŒD «It SIDE AND 20 FT..
IS REQmlŒD «It IŒAR.. TAX:MAP NO.. 121-12-6'..2 Lor SIZE: 6,.468..06 SQ.. n.. SEcrrœ
4.020 G
RAUF CAVAK, PRESENT
MR. TURNER-Before we get started, just for the record, ladies and gentleman, the
size of the shed is 13 feet 8 inches by 16 feet when measured from the. .that' s
what this incorporates. Mr. Cavak, you're going to represent yourself?
MR. CAVAK-Yes.
MR. TURNER-How long have you lived there?
MR. CAVAK-My name's Rauf Cavak, sir. I've lived here for 8 months. I have 3
children in high school. One of them is going to college this year. Now, I bought
this house 8 months ago, \æ moved from Brooklyn, but we didn't know the laws in
Queensbury required a permit to build a shed and fence, but when I bought it the
Company said, you don't need a permit for the shed or the fence.
MR. TURNER-Who said that?
MR. CAVAK-The Association said to me I don't need a permit from the Town. I give
you my word, start to build a 100 foot shed and fence.
MR. TURNER-Okay, you wouldn't have needed a permit for the storage shed if it
was under 100 square feet, but it's over 100 square feet.
MR. CAVAK-It is under 100 square feet, sir.
MR. TURNER-We measure outside, not inside. We don't measure inside.
MR. CAVAK-I brought, from Brooklyn, left over from my old house, the 2 by 6 wood
pieces because I don't have 2 by 4. 2 by 6 makes 12, 1 foot, 12 inches, or my
wall gets bigger. So, 9 by 13 feet, 9 feet wide, long is 13 feet, not 16.
MR. TURNER-We have to count the overhang.
MR. CAVAK-Overhang, you have to count, I don't know, that's 30?
MR. TURNER-Yes, that's 30.
MR. CAVAK-29.5, the overhead.
MR. TURNER-That's 13?
MR. CAVAK-But it's my property side, not anybody's property. I am 6 feet in my
property and the back 100 feet belongs to the Association, Association property.
I am in ~ property.
MR. TURNER-You have to be 10 feet from the side line. Your property is 20 feet
from the back, from the rear line.
MR. CAVAK-I think this size of the measurement is misleading from the Town of
Queensbury.
17
MR. TURNER-What's mislead?
MR. CAVAK-Because I don't have so big a land.
MR. TURNER-I understand that.
MR. CAVAK-Only way you could do that, or it hits my house. You can't do it in
there. Everybody builds exactly 6 feet, 5 feet away.
MR. TURNER-Let me just say, if they have 100 square foot storage shed, less than
100 square feet, they could, no not your's.
MR. CAVAK-The Town of Queensbury said to me
MR. TURNER-Mr. Cavak, I'm not going to argue with you. I'm just telling you the
fact.
MR. CAVAK-No, I'm not arguing. Five feet on any border
MR. TURNER-That doesn't apply to your case because your over the 100 square feet,
that's why your here.
MR. CAVAK-I'm talking about external, sir.
MR. TURNER-That's why your here.
MR. CAVAK-I need my..home, I need a storage shed.
MR. TURNER-We're not arguing that point.
MR. CAVAK-Sir, you cannot, the Board or the Association, or the Permit Department
cannot single me out because everybody has sheds. I have a shed on my house,
the same place as, ~y do they single me out. That's what I'd like to know.
MRS. GOETZ-I'd like to know, I'm not saying that's true, but are those other storage
sheds 100 square feet, the neighboring ones?
MRS. COLLARD-The storage sheds that I'm aware of are 100 square feet or under.
MRS. GOETZ-Okay, they're smaller than yours.
MR. CAVAK-No, it's more than mine, bigger than mine. It's a 10 by 20 square feet,
long, are the sheds in there, Association properties, the people.
MRS. GOETZ-Have you measured them personally?
MR. CAVAK-No, I know the measurements. I'm an engineer.
MRS. GOETZ-How can you know it without measuring it on the property?
MR. CAVAK-I could measure how high, ma'am, I am an engineer. I work, yes, bigger
than my shed, they have people in there.
MR. TURNER-Well, they're in violation. If they have a 200 square foot shed, they've
got to be 10 feet from that side line, 20 feet from the rear line. If they're
not, they're in violation.
MR. CAVAK-Howabout if you have 100 square feet, how much can you be back?
MR. TURNER-You can be 5 feet from that rear line and the side line.
MR. CAVAK-Five feet, I see, okay, but you want a decision, you want to make it,
it's up to you people, sir.
PUBLIC BEARING OPI!RIJD
PHILLIP SANTESARO
MR. SANTESARO-My name is Phillip Santesaro. I live at Number 18 Queen Anne's
Court, Queensbury, Queen Victoria's Grant. I'm here with Mrs. Santesaro in support
of Mr. Cavak's application for a variance and in order to provide information
which I feel should be heard before this body rules on this matter. Having said
that, let me also state that I'm in favor of this variance for the following
18
--
reasons: Number One, Mr. Cavak had approval to bui ld this shed from the Board
of Directors of Queen Victoria's Grant. There were no dimensions given, either
base dimensions, roof overhang dimensions, or height of the building. Nor was
there anything else except the placement of this shed within the property lines.
The placement given was 5 feet from the shed side and 5 feet from the rear. Queen
Victoria's Grant Association regulations also state that shed construction would
not require Town approval. Now, let me just read that statement from the Queen
Victoria's Grant regulations, and I quote, "Sheds are permitted on Queen Victoria's
Grant under the following conditions: The Town of Queensbury, according to the
Zoning Board, does not require building permits for storage sheds if the shed
is under 10 by 12. This is the maximum size the Association will allow. It is
the responsibility of each homeowner to make sure that all Town regulations are
followed for the installation of the shed. The storage shed must be set back
in the house's footprint 5 feet from the center line of the property." There
is nothing else in these regulations to guide Mr. Cavak or myself and that I s my
signed statement, right there.
MR. TURNER-Okay, but those regulations don't supersede the Town Zoning Ordinance.
MR. SANTESARO-I understand that, sir, but what I'm trying to tell you
MR. TURNER-I understand.
MR. SANTESARO-What I'm trying to explain to you is that Mr. Cavak, by order of
the Queen Victoria's Grant regulations, mich was the ruling body at that time,
mislead this gentleman and he went ahead. Let me get back to the rest of my
statement, if you will. Miss Sullivan, mo lives in the same building as Mr.
Cavak, and myself, are the only residents that can see this structure up close,
and that is only if we view it from our own back yards. All of us passing on
the street, or otherwise, in addition to Miss Sullivan and myself, even from our
own back yards, can only see the top section of the shed in question. In my
opinion, the shed has more character and class than any shed in this neighborhood
or any other neighborhood. It's a credit to the builder. The opposition to this
variance, again, in my personal opinion, is a result of a very unrelated matter
that has very little to do with the size or placement of the shed and, ladies
and gentleman, this business has no presence at this hearing. This should not
have any bearing on it whatsoever. I believe that when you assess the facts and
the statements made by the opposition, you would consider the facts as presented
and be mindful of the rights of the Cavak family and the type of situation in
which he operated, that you'll have to rule in favor. Now, the Cavak family
followed the regulations Which are, at best, incomplete, ambiguous, and seriously
open to inaccurate interpretation to a much greater degree than this. If you
look around Queensbury and Queen Victoria's Grant, you'll see what I'm talking
about. Therefore, I believe Mr. Cavak built a shed, believing the Association
approval was accurate and that all that waS necessary and needed, in light of
these facts, I feel the Town must agree to this variance and the hardship that
Mr. Cavak was put through because of the misinterpretation brought about by the
leadership of Queen Victoria's Grant. Thank you.
MR. TURNER-Anyone else wish to be heard in support of the application? Opposed
to the application.
PATRICK MANNIX
MR. MANNIX-First let me briefly rebut, first, Mr. Cavak's
MRS. GOETZ-Your name, please.
MR. MANNIX-Patrick Mannix. 11m an attorney from Glens Falls and I represent the
Sullivans Who live in the other portion of this building. These are duplexes.
In order, as I'm sure you're fami liar, to grant a variance, there are certain
criteria that the applicant must present and he has the burden of proof of showing
you that he is entitled to the relief he seeks. I submit that Mr. Cavak' s
application, in and of itself, requires a denial of this application. In answer
to Question 13, Are there special conditions applying to this property or building
and not applying, generally, to other properties or buildings in the neighborhood?
No, all properties are the same. That certainly doesn I t show any hardship on
his part. As respects the Homeowner's Association. On May 1st, 1990, a letter
was mailed to Mr. Cavak, 22 Queen Anne's Court by the Walmore Management, 343
Hillside, Stillwater, NY and they reflect that permission was granted to build
a shed conditioned upon Association and Queensbury Ordinance guidelines and
according to the pictures submitted with your request, according to complaints
received by three separate neighbors, your shed does not meet compliance
requirements. So, he was not mislead by anybody. There's a letter that was sent
19
-
to him. I assume he received it. Miss Sullivan and myself have taken the time
to visit several of the neighbors, not allover Queen Anne's Court, in the immediate
area and you'll see by our legend that this indicates the applicant I s property.
This is an empty lot, A, over here and these are the people opposed, in red.
All on the other side of the street, one, two, three, four, five, on the same
side of the street. I heard you refer, earlier, and in the other application,
that numbers meant something, here. Further, I asked Miss Sullivan to circulate
the neighborhood and have a petition signed by those people that were opposed
to that application and I would like to submit that. I also understand there
is a letter that's been sent to the Board by another resident expressing their
dismay and their request that the application not be granted. As to any question
about the size of the shed, I would submit the letter of May 30th, signed by a
Patricia M. Collard, Zoning Administrator, which sets out the size and other..
Not to belabor the point any further, but just to, perhaps, assist you in your
determination, I have some photographs that I would like the Board to look at.
There's a front view of Mr. Cavak' s home, another one and here is the view of
the shed from Miss Sullivan's back yard, two views, and here is a picture of a
shed which is in compliance with the Town Ordinance, which is in the immediate
area and you can see the entire difference between the two sheds from those points.
In view of all the circumstances and all the evidence pertinent to this application,
I request the Board to find in favor of the Sullivan's position and deny the
application. I'd be glad to answer any questions you have.
MR. TURNER-Any questions of Mr. Mannix from the Board? None? Thank you.
BARBARA CAVAK
MRS. CAVAK-Barbara Cavak. Speaking of the letter that we got from Morgan
Management, we got the letter after the shed was completely finished. We built
it with the instruction of Queens, when we bought the house. That, væ got later,
that letter, from Miss Kaye. We don't know who Morgan Management is.
MR. CAVAK-It is false management.
MRS. CAVAK-We don't know who he is and he's not on the Board. We inquired and
nobody could tell us anything and we don't have. .paid because we don't know who
that company is.
MR. CAVAK-It's a harassing letter sending this gentleman.
MRS. CAVAK-And there's more problems to it than just the shed.
MR. CAVAK-They want to take over my house.
MRS. CAVAK-I don't want to go into that because it has nothing to do with that,
but there is a problem that we have had since we've moved into our house and we
do get harassed for whatever we build on our property, but that has nothing to
do with your Board. I just would like you to consider
MR. TURNER-Just let me say something, you have to know, there are restrictions
in the Town of Queensbury that requires permits for buildings.
MRS. CAVAK-Yes, \\e know that.
MR. TURNER-And you have to find out, you just call the Town Hall and ask for the
Planning Department and they'll straighten you out on all those matters, if you
have any questions whatsoever.
MRS. CAVAK-We did not know that because we went to the Association and the
Association and we..permit.
MR. CAVAK-The Association fooled us.
MRS. CAVAK-And there's a personal problem between the President of the Association,
with Miss Sullivan, with Mr. Hartman and that's why we are in this position, to
begin with.
MR. CAVAK-I didn't build a 100 story building in New York, sir. I built my shed.
MRS. GOETZ-We already heard that.
MR. CAVAK-I need a shed for my five children.
20
----
--
MRS. CAVAK-Excuse me, I ask you to make a decision, whatever you decide.
MR. CAVAK-It' s not political anymore, you want it, you don't want it. What can
I do.
MR. TURNER-It's not the problem with the shed. It's where the shed is located.
MR. CAVAK-The shed is located on my property.
MR. TURNER-That has nothing to do with it. It has to meet the side setback and
the rear setback.
MR. CAVAK-Remove all 200 of them, the same like mine.
MR. TURNER-Mr. Cavak, if they're in violation, they'll probably be here for a
variance, if it's granted. The Board has a right to grant it or deny it.
MR. CAVAK-Whatever you decide, sir.
MRS. CAVAK-So, please make your decision. Let us know.
MR. CAVAK-And I want to remove her shed, too, same thing and we don't build a
big deal. This is harassment. This man is harassing us.
MR. SANTESARO-Can I just say a word, please. I firmly believe, I'm a neighbor.
I live two doors away.
MR. TURNER-Maybe you answered a question before, but how long have you lived there?
MR. SANTESARO-I moved in January 26th of this year.
MR. TURNER-Are you aware of the Ordinances in the Town of Queensbury, that this
is a Zoning Ordinance.
MR. SANTESARO-Yes, I am.
MR. TURNER-When you moved there, were you aware of that?
MR. SANTESARO-Yes, I am and I was not aware of the shed requirements until this
letter came out. Now, the shed is a shed of 10 by 12 which there is no Ordinance
required. There's no setback required. There's no permit required. That's the
information
MR. TURNER-10 by 12 is 120 square feet.
MRS. CAVAK-That's what they sent us.
MR. SANTESARO-That's what we were told by Queen Victoria's Grant.
MR. TURNER-They're wrong, that's why you're here.
MR. SANTESARO-I'm telling you, exactly, they're wrong. The point I'm trying to
make, you witnessed Mr. Cavak. You heard him. The timing of this situation is
all too critical to your decision. The timing is such that the shed was built
on specifications given to him. The complaint was not made until the shed was
built. The letter was not received until the shed was built. Mr. Cavak had no
idea he was in violation. If he has to, now, live up to those dimensions, that
shed will be right outside his bedroom window and that is not allowed, either.
Mr. Cavak has a very severe hardship, in that, he needs this storage shed. He
was misled. The timing was one that caused it and the operation of Queen Victoria's
Grant Association is the body that caused it. I was there. I'm a witness and
I'll attest to it until Hell freezes over.
PUBLIC HEARING (J.,OSED
OORBEspœDENa:
Letter from Mrs. Ron Marino, 3 Queen Anne's Court. Considering the application
for a variance for Mr. and Mrs. Cavak, it's a beautiful shed. I see nothing wrong
with it, but if he did not comply with Queen Victoria's Grant Association Bylaws,
he must go by Queen Victoria's Grant Bylaws. Thank you.
Letter from Marcia Vanness, 45 Margaret Drive. I am not in favor of this. It
is also not in compliance with Queen Victoria's Grant Association Bylaws.
21
"--
'-
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached)
MRS. EGGLESTON-How many names are on the petition opposed to it, Susan?
MRS. GOETZ-Okay, we've got, Karen Sullivan, Robert Hartman, Janice Luciano, Marian
Sheldon, Margaret Coffey, Marie Huba, Laura Fish, Elaine Lawson, Edward Lawson,
Nina Kaye, Joseph Perez, Jean Latham, Sherry Ash, Leroy Ash, and Susan Martin.
The petition says, as to grant it would be an additional problem and another action
taken by the applicants to further depreciate the value of our property and the
application has failed to show any hardship necessitating granting the application.
MR. KELLEY-Maybe you know, Ted, just looking at your map, on the plot plan, does
it look like the rear of this property is 63 feet wide?
MR. TURNER-Sixty-three, ten right.
MR. KELLEY-Right, alright, and we got 38
MR. TURNER-Thirty eight seven and a quarter from the back of the house to the
property line.
MR. KELLEY-So, Wlat they're saying, if he stayed 20 feet off the rear line, the
eave of this roof would be 5 feet from the existing structure.
MR. TURNER-It's got to be 10 feet. An accessory use has to be 10 feet from the
principle structure.
MR. KELLEY-Let's say if you went to the left, in other words, looking at
MR. TURNER-There would be open space.
MR. KELLEY-Right, there's big open space out there. I'm trying to figure out
if, because of the size of the building, you could place it anywhere on there.
MR. TURNER-Mr. Cavak, how much is the offset in the corner, could you come up
here, please.
MR. CAVAK-Yes, sir.
MR. TURNER-I want to ask you a question. You show a jog, here, on the building.
What is that measurement from there to there? How much is that from there to
there?
MR. CAVAK-Well, this one's about 3 feet.
MR. TURNER-Three feet? That little jog is three feet?
MR. CAVAK-Approximately.
MR. KELLEY-I'm trying to figure out if he could even put it on there. Let I s say
if you didn I t think about anything about what it looked like, if you put it so
that it could meet all the setbacks, could you do it.
MR. TURNER-I think you can. You've got to be 10 feet in from the side setback.
So, he's got 44 feet 10 inches from the side line to that little jog. So, 10
feet would diminish that to 34 feet.
MR. SHEA - I have a question from Mr. Cavak.
MR. KELLEy-It's not 10 feet from the building.
MR. TURNER-It's got to be 10 feet from the principle building.
MR. KELLEY-So, you've got to have 10 feet from the building, 20 feet from the
rear.
MR. CAVAK-I build 20 feet, 10 feet to keep it from hitting my building.
MR. TURNER-Mr. Shea. We have a question.
22
'-
---
~
MR. SHEA-Well, one in observation, first. There are a number of sheds up there
that are not 10 feet from the principle building. So, there are others up there
that are in violation of the Ordinance, for the record. Secondly, Wlat is your
business. You said you were an engineer. Do you build these sheds commercially.
MR. CAVAK-Sir, I am from Germany and..factory. I had a business, myself, in
Manhattan, NY and I went to school, technical school, in Germany to learn
everything, house building, I built, maybe, 6, 7 houses myself.
MR. SHEA-I was going to say, you have a very good looking shed.
MR. CAVAK-That' s why I say, this has been political. Do you want to shut this
down?
MR. TURNER-No, ~'re not talking about that.
meet and you're here asking us to give you
but that's all we're going to talk about.
There's a requirement you have to
relief from that requirement, okay,
MR. KELLEY-So, I guess if we're 10 feet off the line and we said the overall size
of that building is 16 feet by the time you count
MR. TURNER-Sixteen feet long and 13 feet in.
MR. KELLEY-So, there's 26 feet. So, 8 from 44, 10 would be, somewhere's around
18 feet. I wonder if that's 18.1? It's hard to tell whether it's in meters or?
MR. TURNER-Is that 44 feet 10 inches, or is that 44 feet.
MR. CAVAK-Forty-four feet?
MR. TURNER-On your dimension, here.
MR. CAVAK-The other one's in feet, yes.
MR. TURNER-Yes, but you have something after that. Is that 10 inches or what?
MR. CAVAK-10 inches.
MR. KELLEY-So, that leaves them 18 feet, 10.
MR. TURNER-Yes. He could meet the side line setback.
MR. SHEA-I have a question of Mr. Mannix. You're client's, are they the Nelson's?
MR. MANNIX-Su11ivan's on the other half of the house.
MR. SHEA-Can you tell me, Wlat is the real objection to the negative effect or
impact of this shed, aside from it not conforming to the written rules, as far
as placement is concerned. What's the real nature of the concern?
MR. MANNIX-Mr. Cavak pointed that out to the Board. He doesn't have to look out
his bedroom window and look at that shed, but we do and we had nothing to do with
building it.
MR. TURNER-Jeffrey, Ybat did you come up with? I got 18 ft. 10 in.
MR. KELLEY-So, that's from, if they drew a straight line off that jog.
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-So, it's still only going to be 8 feet off of the principle dwelling.
MR. TURNER-Principle dwelling, yes.
MR. KELLEY-Mr. Mannix, since we're trying to come up with the best possible
solution, Ybat would your recommendation be or your client's recommendation be
as to where they would like this placed?
MR. MANNIX-We have nothing to say, as to where it's placed, so long as they conform
to the rules and regulations of the Zoning Board of the Town of Queensbury, that's
what we have to do and that's what the Association rules and regulations require.
I'd be glad to furnish a copy of them to the Board, so you can see them.
23
"--
MR. KELLEY-I'm just a little concerned, I guess, that, here we are, granted we
have an oversized building that's 38 feet 7 inches from the back of this house.
If we said, okay, you have to make a conforming size building, he could make that
building and, if he met the rear setback, he's going to be some 15 feet closer
to their bedroom window than this building is. Apparently, that's preferable.
MR. MANNIX-We can't control that. We have no objection to any way he puts that
building that conforms to the rules and regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
MR. KELLEY-You mean he can paint it pink and stripes?
MR. MANNIX-He can't do that, according to Association rules.
MR. TURNER-My only position in this matter is the setback, so let's decide on
it, mether we want him to leave it there and then he'll have to come up with
an alternative if it's denied. If it's approved, then that's a different matter.
MR. KELLEY-I think this is kind of like the houses we get that are two feet closer
to the line, or whatever. It's always the same old thing, every time you make
a mistake, you come in and get a variance for it. We said. .move the house, the
next guy wouldn't be so apt to make the mistake.
MR. TURNER-That's been done.
MR. KELLEY-So, I guess, we're in a similar circumstance.
MR. SICARD-You've got to take into consideration, too, there might be a lot more
room in there we don't know about. This is another thing. What are we going
to do about that, get the Building Inspector out there? Pat will go up there
and measure it.
MR. KELLEY-It's the policing agency that has to take care of that.
MR. SICARD-Well, it really isn't fair to one and not to the other. I can understand
how the mistake was made, but what do we do to correct it. Is he willing to move
it?
MR. TURNER-He has an alternative. He can make it conform to size, or he can
MR. KELLEY-Right.
MR. TURNER-He does have an alternative, irregardless of what the application says.
MR. SICARD-I think the Town law supersedes the Association law.
MR. TURNER-It does.
MR. SICARD-I think they need to be straighten out also, in advising their tenants,
if they build a 10 by 20, it's bad.
MR. KELLEY-Can someone send a letter to that Association?
MRS. COLLARD-Miss Kaye and I have been in contact with one another and they have,
as far as I understand, they have revised their Association rules to agree with
our Queensbury Zoning Ordinances.
MR. SICARD-That's nice.
MR. SANTESARO-Can I say something, again, please. I feel there's an awful
miscarriage of justice being done here, tonight. I know you haven't made a decision
yet, but I can see the way this thing is swaying. I have an application, here,
signed by the President of Queen Victoria's Grant, granting me the right to put
up a 10 by 12 shed.
MR. TURNER-It's wrong.
MR. SANTESARO-It I S wrong, but I didn't put up a 10 by 12 shed, I just happened
to buy a package that was smaller or I would have been in the same violation as
Mr. Cavak. Now, we're going to ask Mr. Cavak to make up for the misleading that
went on by Queen Victoria's Grant, at his expense. I find that grossly injustice.
Gross injustice, to sit here and crucify this man because he was misled to believe
he was doing it within the rules and regulations of Queen Victoria's Grant and
I'm here to attest to that fact. All the other people in opposition to this can't
24
---
see the shed and if you asked them, personally, what they thought of it, they'd
tell you it's a damn fine looking building. What's permeating here tonight is
not the placement of the shed, not the size of the shed, not the footprint of
the shed. There's another matter and this is being used as a hammer to hit this
poor man over the head.
MR. TURNER-I'm sorry, you're wrong. The issue is the setbacks, that's all.
MR. CAVAK-What does that say?
MR. TURNER-I don't care what it says, it's wrong.
MR. KELLEY-I think he should take that up with the Association.
MR. TURNER-I think you should take that up with the Association.
MR. SICARD-Maybe they should pay you the damages, here.
MR. CAVAK-May I speak one more time, sir?
MR. TURNER-One more time.
MR. CAVAK-I have, from Nina Kaye, the Association President, a permit to build
a shed and fence, right there.
MR. TURNER-They don't have a right to issue that.
MR. CAVAK-I got the permit. I built it. They gave me the permit, after the shed
was built. She says, go ahead, build. The second time, she went back to Mrs.
Pat, ~ didn't know Queensbury's law, 1 .penalty. She knew that, the President
of the Association, she went back, complained, a four hour meeting in her house,
against me. I didn't know anything. I thought we had the permit. We built the
shed for this. She gave me..after the shed was built, she said, go ahead, build.
MR. TURNER-Can I ask you a question? When you lived in Brooklyn, didn't you have
to abide by the rules and regulations there?
MR. CAVAK-Yes, 110 foot.
MR. TURNER-Why didn't you inquire as to the rules and regulations here?
MR. CAVAK-I built one shed, five family, I need the space.
MR. TURNER-My question is, \\hy didn't you inquire as to the rules and regulations
he re ?
MR. CAVAK-I didn't know. She said to us, ~ don't have to go to Queensbury for
a permit. I told you, they fooled me. They want to damage our family. They
had a four hour meeting with her. This is not fair. I have two letters giving
me the permission, special delivery, from the post office. They fooled us, with
Pat, together. ..Association says, I don't recognize it. I said, \\hat, you don't
recognize it? Association says to Pat. I said, what, I have to go to go for
a permit. I will go for a permit, then, but I built it already. She gave me
two more permits for the chimney and the porch. She gave me. I built already.
I will go for a permit to the Town. This has completely hurt my family.
MR. TURNER-Did you get a permit for the chimney and the porch previous to getting
the permit for the shed? Did you build the shed after you built the chimney and
porch?
MRS. CAVAK-No, after.
MR. CAVAK-After.
MR. TURNER-After the shed?
MR. CAVAK-I find out I have to make permit from the Town. I didn't go to the
Association. I just wrote a letter to the Association. I have the permit. I'm
going to build. She refuses me. She says, I'm going to shut down. I'm going
to take over your house. I have letters here.
MRS. CAVAK-Put a lien on the house.
25
-..-'
MR. TURNER-That's a stop work order, that's all it is.
MR. CAVAK-They want to put a lien on my house.
completely, no mind. This is hurting the people
too. This is ridiculous. Messing up the whole
five family. I have kids.
I'm a simple man, t his woman's
and fooling the Queensbury Town,
thing, one little shed. I have
MR. TURNER-We understand it.
MR. CAVAK-This is on my property, that shed. Miss Sullivan, the lawyer said,
my shed shows from her window. Not true. Because I have a 6 foot high fence
on that. She couldn't see my shed. Where did she take these pictures of my land,
violated, trespassing.
MR. TURNER-Wait a minute. We're not going to get into that at all.
MR. CAVAK-Where did he take this picture, I want to know.
MR. TURNER-I don't know. You ask them.
MR. CAVAK-That's not fair. Here, on my property, that's not legal.
MR. TURNER-That's not a matter that's before us tonight, Okay? Alright, a motion's
in order. Do you want to talk about it anymore or are you satisfied?
MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-1990 RAUF AND BARBARA CAVAK, Introduced by
Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston:
This was for an Area Variance request. There are other reasonable alternatives
for building this or another shed on the property. The strict interpretation
of the Ordinance would not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the
property. Because of the alternatives available, the applicant can solve the
problem without a variance. If a variance was granted, it would be detrimental
to the purpose of the Ordinance and the neighborhood.
Duly adopted this 25th day of July, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner
NOES: Mr. Shea
ABSENT: Mr. Carr
AREA VARIANCE NO.. 55-1990 T1PE II VR-1A JœN J. AND BARBARA S.. L BOllI OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE 1272 BAY PARKWAY ASSEMBLY POINT, LAKE GEORGE FOR THE ADDITU»f
OF A NEW KASTER BEDROOM AND DEQ{.. REQUESTING BELIEF FROM 75 FT. SHORELINE SETBAQ{..
(WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO.. 9-1-22 Lor SIZE: 15,235± AQlES SECI'I<»f
1..012 (3)
KEVIN DAILY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. DAILY-Good evening Chairman Turner and Members of the Board, Stuart, Pat,
Karla. I'm here representing John and Barbara Lynch who are present, here, in
the audience this evening. My name is Kevin Daily. I'm a lawyer with the law
firm of Hinman, Straub, Pigors, and Manning with offices at 71 Bay Street in Glens
Falls. To give a brief orientation, the property is located on the east side
of Assembly Point. It's bounded, on the north, by the property of Russo. On
the south, by the property of Ruffing and.. On the west, by Bay Parkway and on
the east by Lake George. The property consists of an existing single family
seasonal structure on a 15,155 square foot lot. The property was built before
the modern zoning laws, Which was about in 1988. It is the desire of the applicant
to add a master bedroom addition and deck on the northern side of the property
and when we had looked at the alternatives, it seemed that the most logical place
to add the addition would be immediately adjacent to the house on the north side.
Other alternatives would include adding it on the east side, which would be closer
to the Lake, which was not a viable alternative. On the west side, which would
be toward Bay Parkway, Which we also felt was not viable in that it would interfere
with parking and with the plans for the septic system. If it was added on the
south side, there just wasn't enough rOom not to violate the side line setback
on the southern side of the property. So, looking at the alternatives, \\e felt
that the proposed place for the addition was the most logical and I think that
26
--
one of the standards that you applied, I use the word logical, you use the word
practical and practical difficulty is the standard that is set forth in the Zoning
Ordinance for the grant of a setback variance. I've been following your discussions
this evening on Use Variances and setback variances and I'm mindful of the fact
that there are four criteria that you've set forth that should be met and we will
do that. The first of the criteria is a description of special circumstances
or conditions. The circumstances or conditions that we find ourselves with here
is that the house exists. It exists, now, with a setback of 38 feet from the
shore. The modern zoning law requires 75 feet. We have looked at the practical
alternatives of complying with the new setback line of 75 feet and find that there
is nothing that we can do, in the way of meeting the 75 foot setback, other than
to go in a westerly direction, that might result in a structure that might be
about 100 or 120 feet long and, perhaps, 20 or 25 feet wide. So, we didn't see
that as a practical alternative. We're also required to show that there's something
that separates this particular application from other neighboring properties,
that differentiates it and I think that when you look at your record for properties
on Assembly Point, as they circle Bay Parkway, between Bay Parkway and the Lake,
I think that you'll see that many of the properties have had additions added over
the course of years. Probably not that many since the new zoning law went into
effect in 1988. I would expect that, at one time or another, they mayor may
not have required setback variances. Our special circumstance is that, since
the new zoning law was passed in 1988, we find ourselves in need of this and I
think, at this point, we may be the only applicant on Assembly Point who is looking
for this particular relief. So, I think that that would differentiate us from
the other properties in the neighborhood. So, are we different than the other
properties, in some ways, no. Are we the same, yes and I think that's one thing
we would have to distinguish, here. Point Two, strict application of the
dimensional requirements would result in a practical difficulty. The dimensional
requirements require that you be setback 75 feet. Well, right now, we are setback
38 feet. The addition would be 27 feet away from the shore. Now, to describe
the property, it is generally rectangular. However, at the northeastern portion
of the property, it starts to show a configuration a little bit away from a strictly
rectangular position to an area that starts to move a little bit towards the
property. The house is generally aligned with Bay Parkway. So, to come up with
a logical extension, we find that we are going a little bit closer to the shore,
38 feet versus 27 feet. The only way to change that, I notice that you're talking
about moving structures. .not require them to do that, but if the house has been
angled at a 9 or 10 degree turn away from the shore and actually follows the
shoreline configuration rather than the road, we could probably build the addition
and maintain the 38 foot setback. As it is, to go straight out and actually make
the house somewhat of a square, we would be forced to come within 27 feet of the
shore and that is Why we are asking for a 48 foot setback. Condition Number Three
that must be addressed is, would the granting of a variance be materially
detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance. Well, the purposes of the Ordinance
are to protect..and to promote the private enjoyment of people's property. The
Zone WR-lA allows single family residential and I think that what is proposed
here is entirely in compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. We
reco ~ize that the zoning setbacks, 75 feet, are there to enhance pe ople' s views
of the Lake and to protect the Lake. However, we feel that we are not interfering
with anyone's view of the Lake, especially the neighbors, and to require us to
set the proposed addition farther back, attach it to the back of the house, would
necessitate removing the septic tank or the parking closer to the Lake and I think
the alternatives are not as attractive, so What we have come up with is a 10 gical
plan and I think that, by addressing the logical plan, we also have come up with
a practical plan and that has presented difficulty, we're not talking about the
change in use. We're actually talking about a setback variance which is an Area
Variance, the standard for the grant is, once again, practical difficulty. Number
four, public facilities and services would not be adversely effected. We are
entirely in agreement with the Planning Department on that and we do not feel
that there are any adverse circumstances Whatsoever. Can I answer any questions?
MR. TURNER-Yes. What's the general layout, the configuration of the house, the
size that's there now.
MR. DAILY-I think I would defer to my client for that.
JOHN LYNCH
MR. LYNCH-The house has, basically, a summer Adirondack building with a downstairs,
living room, and a very small kitchen, an eating area off of the living room,
a bathroom upstairs, and one small bedroom. Upstairs is an open environment with
a cathedral ceiling and walls that go up about 10 feet and there are four bedrooms
in the upstairs.
27
--
MR. TURNER-What would be the total occupancy of the present building, without
the addition??
MR. LYNCH-How many people?
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. LYNCH-It's a summer residence. My wife and I have six children. All of Wham
are at various stages of adulthood. We have a couple of them that are already
self sufficient. We have three that are still in college and we have one who
is a special child. He's 25 years old and he will always be with us.
MR. TURNER-Okay, so in the summer, how many residents?
MR. LYNCH-In the summer we have children back and forth and my wife and I are
t here permanent.
MR. TURNER-So, how many during the week?
MR. LYNCH-My wife and I and whatever members of the family show up.
MRS. GOETZ-You mentioned that you might, eventually, make this year round.
MR. LYNCH-We are making it year round now.
MRS. GOETZ-I mean, you mentioned it when I did the site inspection.
MR. LYNCH-It is our intention, when we do the renovations, to make it a year round
hame and we've made an application of the Planning Board for Site Plan Review
for a permanent, the Zoning Ordinance requires that, before that can be considered
you have to reach the Site Plan.
MR. TURNER-Yes, the Site Plan.
MR. LYNCH-But we are planning on building a permanent home, year round.
MRS. EGGLESTON-How long have you owned the property?
MR. LYNCH-Since 1984.
MR. TURNER-No basement?
MR. LYNCH-No basement. It's our intention to put in a crawl space.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I think you also mentioned, while we were inspecting, that you
were going to improve the septic.
MR. LYNCH-We hired an engineer wh c has designed a proposed septic system. .and
that. . through Planning Board for Site Plan Review, as part of the Board review,
I think.
MR. TURNER-That's part of the review of the Planning Board. It has to be certified
by an engineer as satisfactory.
MR. LYNCH-It has been.
MRS. GOETZ-This will go to APA?
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-Are we looking for a 3 or 4 foot side yard setback as well as the..?
MR. DAILY-No, Jeff, that would not be the case.
MR. KELLEY-I saw the 30 and 20 and Ilm thinking of some kind of a 50 combined-
MR. DAILY-You've got to have a total of 50 on the size, we are, actually, right
at 50. We have 23.4 on one side and 26.6 on the other. So, we: meet the side
line and rear setback requirements. We do not need a variance there.
MR. KELLEY-I guess I got confused by the dotted lines. It looks like it's over
the line. You've got it on the other side. Okay.
28
'---"
~
MR. DAILY-We wanted to get right to the point.
applicant.
We know that we are only the third
MR. TURNER-The addition's going to be a full, meet the ridge line, existing?
MR. DAILY-Yes, the addition is planned to aesthetically fit in with what is there.
So, it would look like one house, rather than look like something that was stuck
on there. We felt that, to enhance the property, it should be aesthetically
pleasing and have some architectural meaning.
MR. TURNER-Do you have any questions, Jeff?
MR. KELLEY-Do you know what the present square footage of the existing house is
and then I'd also want to know what the additional square footage is on this master
bedroom portion?
MR. DAILY-I have the dimensions. The existing house is 28 feet 3 inches by 28
feet 3 inches, that's including the porch. We have a 10 by 19 enclosed porch,
here. We've got a 28 feet 3 inches by 28 feet 3 inches and then there's 10 feet
by 28 feet 3 inches front. So, the addition kind of looks like it's about a 40
percent addition.
MR. KELLEY-And then these things, this has got the sloping walls upstairs.
MR. DAILY-Right.
MR. KELLEY-Is this going to be all bedroom or bedroom/bathroom?
MR. LYNCH-It's a bedroom/bathroom. (TAPE TURNED) Site Plan Review list.
what were there, about 12 or 14 points that we had to address in terms
application there.
Stuart,
of our
MR. TURNER-Is the upstairs actually a cathedral ceiling or is it a..you pick them
up and then the ceiling goes up?
MR. LYNCH-Currently there is no walls inside of the building, inside of the
structure at all, it's just all open.
MR. TURNER-It's just the roof..are open?
MR. LYNCH-Right.
MR. KELLEY-So, your four bedroom upstairs is really more like one room with four
beds?
MR. LYNCH-Actually..divided by four half petitions.
MRS. LYNCH-The kids enjoy it, but we don't.
MR. KELLEY-Basically, according to the dimensions they have on that particular
plan, his living space on the first floor would be somewhere around 798 square
feet and so now you go up to the upstairs, somet hing where you have sloped walls
and the actual usable space up there is going to be less than that. We're not
looking at a very big house, really, to start with.
MR. LYNCH-The house is very small..lives as a summer residence a lot larger because
there's no walls and the porch is open and there's no insulation.
MR. DAILY-Certainly, the approval of the addition would add to the enjoyment of
t he property by the owners immense 1 y and I think it's fairly consistent wit h the
zoning law, that we certainly are entitled to enjoy the property. You should
not be limited and I don't think any zoning law anYWlere woul d limit you to only
having, really, a seasonal residence that you can only enjoy part time. We're
simply h oping to enhance the property. In fact, when I was upstair s doing a little
research, I saw some of the assessments on Assembly Point and the Lynch property
is assessed fairly high. Some of t he other properties are assessed substantially
higher and I think t hat these properties are somewhat larger and have, at one
time or another, had additions added so that pe cple coul d, certainly, enjoy their
property. On Assembly Point. So, we're hoping to be afforded the same opportunity.
29
MR. TURNER-I didn't hear you when you talked about the septic systems because
I was doing something else, but is it centered right or left of the building?
MR. DAILY-I can show you, Mr. Chairman. This is an updated version (referring
to map) The septic system, the existing septic system, is actually in fron t and
that will be moved here and there will be a force pump which will take it out
to a mount, and this is a Wisconsin Mount System. So, once, for Site Plan approval
process, we had to show parking, where the septic system will go, and, of course,
here's the setback line, so that really would leave you with..this for any type
of addition and then that might, t hat would really present a hardship to have
t he existing house, here, and any addition that woul d be added, somewhere back
here. It just woul dn' t flow architecturally and ge 010 gically.
(END OF FIRST DISK)
30
'~'
--
MR. SICARD-Who designed the mount, the Wisconsin Mount?
MR. LYNCH-Jim Hutchins, who's done a lot of work, here, in the Town of Queensbury.
Originally, I think, he was with Morse?
MR. BAKER-Yes, he was.
MR. LYNCH-And, when we originally hired him, he was with Morse and then he started
off on his own.
MR. TURNER-Okay, any further questions of the applicant?
MR. KELLEY-The porches that are existing, now, are they going to remain as porches
or are they going to be converted, in this renovation, as living space?
MR. LYNCH-No, unfortunately, because of the restrictions, we had to incorporate
the front portion of the house in order to have that as living space and that's
a big regret on my wife's and my part because that's been one of the joys of our
lives is the front porch.
MR. KELLEY-So, I guess that's why you proposed to have a deck out there. Then
you'd have some kind of an outdoor space to put a chair or anything.
MR. LYNCH-Yes, right, exactly.
MR. TURNER-Okay, let me open the public hearing.
PUBLIC BEARING OPENED
NO OOMMENT
PUBLIC BEARING CLOSED
CORRESPONDENCE
Warren Coun ty Planning Board just said No Coun ty Impact
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached)
MR. TURNER-Do we have an updated map or did you pick it up?
MR. DAILY-We have submitted..our application. Also, Mr. Chairman, as a supplement
to the application and to address the four points in the Zoning Ordinance, we
have prepared a.. findings.
MR. TURNER-Do we have the upd ated map, Jeff?
MR. KELLEY-No.
MR. TURNER-Do you have any upd ated maps I could take a look at? It kind of shows
Where the parking and the septic will be.
MOTION TO APPROVE AlIEA VARIANCE NO. 55-1990 JOHN J. AND BARBARA S. LYNCH,
Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley wh 0 moved for its adoption, seconded by Thecdore
Turner:
Testimony has been given that there are special circumstances applying to the
property. This house existed and was in existence prior to the Ordinance. The
75 foot shoreline setback would be impractical. The reason being 75 feet from
the shoreline would place any addition to the extreme rear of the existing building.
In some places, any addition would have to be a separate building. Strict
application of the dimensional requirements woul d deny t he applicant reasonable
use of the property. Any other architectural plan could prove to be unsightly
and waul d detract from the aesthetics of t he property and be extremel y expensive.
If they adhered to all the setbacks, it wouldn't leave much space for the
installation of a new septic system or ample parking facilities. This waul dn r t
be detrimental to the purpose of the Ordinance. It's minimum relief necessary
to relieve the practical difficulty. The specific variance woul d be a relief
of 48 feet. Looking at the northeast corner of the proposed addition, the depth
would be 27 feet from t he shoreline rather than the 75 feet required. Public
facilities and services wouldn't be adversely effected. There has been discussion
among Board members
31
'-
about future planning. Should a garage be proposed in the future s by granting
this variance s it would allow for the proper area for a garage to be built that
would conform with all the setbacks. There was no neighborhood opposition.
Duly adopted this 25th day of Julys 1990s by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kelleys
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Carr
Mrs. Egglestons Mr. Sicards Mrs. Goetzs Mr. Sheas Mr. Turner
AREA VARlANΠNO. 57-1990 T1'PE II W-lA TIMOTHY BARBER O'IiNEJh
JIIOURKE .JA~ JIOAD, GLEN LAKE FOR EXPANSIœ OF EXISTING HESIDENœ.
RELIEF FJØ{ SIDE AND SHORELINE SETBACK EQOIREMENTS. (WARREN Q)1!NTY
TAX MAP NO. 43-1-15 Lor SIZE: 14,400 SQ. M.. SECXIœ 4.020 - D, 7:012
sm AND DICK
REQlDE STING
PLANNING)
TIM BARBERs PRESENT
MR. TURNER-I've got a question for you. How bad is the presents seasonal dwelling?
MR. BARBER-The present seasonal dwelling has no permanent foundation under it.
The house iss approximatelys over 50 years of age. I'd like to submit some pictures
that are of the structure.
MR. TURNER-How bad is its internally?
MR. BARBER-Internallys the structures the rafters are
MR. TURNER-Is it salvageable or not?
MR. BARBER-Nos it's not salvageables sir. It would have to be completely gutted
and restructured on the inside s t he rafters and also the floor joys and a lot
of the stud members.
MR. TURNER-And the lot is s \J1a t s 200? How big is that lot?
MR. BARBER-225 by 65 s I believe.
MR. TURNER-225 by 64.
MR. BARBER-64.
MR. TURNER-Why would you not consider tearing it down and moving it back s so you
can meet the shoreline setback?
MR. BARBER-We are considering tearing it down. We are not considering moving
it back becauses if we moved it backs it would hinder the view of the Lake. All
other homes next to it are either closer or at the same point at the start of
this exi~ting home. If we moved it backs \..e would not be able to have the view
shared by others of the Lake.
MR. TURNER-You'd have to move it back 30 feet.
MR. BARBER-Exactly.
MR. TURNER-Is that an 8 or a 5s that's a 5s 30 feet.
MR. BARBER-Yes.
MR. TURNER-Okays anyone else have any questions?
MR. BARBER-Could I submit these pictures?
MR. TURNER-Sure.
MR. BARBER-I have a couple of letters from. .neighbors shere. There's a picture
of the pump s there. The home has severely lacked maintenance over the years s
as you can tell.
MR. TURNER-Yess it needs a new roof and everything.
MR. BARBER-The lumber's badly dry rotted throughout.
32
--
'-
MR. TURNER-How far back is the house to the right and to the left? How far back
is it?
MR. BARBER-To the right and to the left, I'm going to make an approximation and
not measure it. I'm going to say either of equal distance or
MR. TURNER-Are they ahead of the structure that we're talking about or are they
behind it?
MR. BARBER-The left is to the head. Looking to the Lake, t he one to the left
is ahead and the one to the right is behind.
SUE ROURKE
MRS. ROURKE-I'm Sue Rourke. I was just going to tell Tim the house on the right
is up on a little rise and that's setback. He had it right and the one to the
left's just for~rd.
MR. KELLEY-Yes, I guess I don't know that I'm totally clear on the extent of What
we're going to do here. Are we going to take the basic bui lding and remodel it
and just add on off the side?
MR. BARBER-No, ~ want to demolish the existing building. First of all, it has
no permanent crawl space or anyt bing else and to remodel it would be, in a sense,
to totally rebuild it.
MR. KELLEY-Ted, I guess, if I understand him right, if they tore it down, they
could build on the footprint that they've got?
MR. TURNER-But they're expanding the footprint.
MR. KELLEY-Right.
MR. TURNER-Timmy, you've got a dimension one way, but you don't have the other
two the other ~y. Let's see, you've got 24 foot wide in the back, that's the
size of the existing camp. How wide is this right here?
MR. BARBER-This right here is 23 feet.
MR. TURNER-This is 23 feet?
MR. BARBER-Yes.
MR. TURNER-No, that's from there to that side, how wide is..
MR. BARBER-No, that's not a
MR. TURNER-That's nothing, a porch?
MR. BARBER-No, there's nothing there.
MR. TURNER-So, the size of the camp is 24 by 51?
MR. BARBER-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-I guess I'm confused. The existing footprint, then, is 24 by 51?
MR. BARBER-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-Alright,
make it two storys.
any variance.
so that's 1224 square feet and, in theory, I guess, you can
So, you could make a 2448 square foot house without getting
MR. TURNER-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-I would think that you ought to look at a different floor plan.
MR. BARBER-Yes, ~ were considering that, too, but, also, she is moving up from
a home in Glens Falls, Wlich, they have resided there for many years and they
need all the room they can get. That's why ~ 1 re going for this Area Variance.
We want to widen the house and also bring it back.
MR. SICARD-But you could get more square footage if you were to build two storys.
33
~
--"
MR. BARBER-Yes, ~ also do want to go up two storys over that one section. The
existing structure that's there has a small 10ft and the rest of it is a cathedral
type building.
MR. TURNER-Where the camp is and to the back of the camp, in the back of the camp
where that hump starts to come up. You've got, probably, what, 100 feet, 75 feet?
MR. BARBER-From the camp to where that hump starts to come up?
MR. TURNER-Yes, it's about 75 feet?
MR. BARBER-No, it's probably 10 feet.
MR. TURNER-It's more than that, isn't it?
MR. BARBER-You mean the rise in the stone wall? Oh, yes, from the back door to
the, yes, it's probably 90 to 100 feet.
MRS. EGGLESTON-So, how much square footage are you asking for?
MR. BARBER-We're asking for 3100 square feet, total.
MRS. GOETZ-That close to the Lake. Okay, this is a chance to improve the situation
when the new Land Use Plan was written because of over development on water bodies,
that's why their stricter shoreline setbacks ~nt into effect.
MR. BARBER-Right.
MRS. GOETZ-And I would think anyone on the Lake would want to improve the situation
and move back from the Lake, not be right on top of it.
MR. BARBER-But what we're saying, here, if we do move back, t he home, looking
out the window, t he front of the home, ~ want to put a nice great room, sitting
room and, if you were to move the home back, ~ would be looking out our windows
and seeing the two adjacent neighbors on both sides. We would not be able to
take in a sense, a view of the Lake as the adjacent neighbors. We would be setback.
MRS. GOETZ-But that's just one thing that people have to deal with. They just
have to face reality, that times have changed and we need to improve our visual
environment.
MR. TURNER-You're in the lower end of that Bay. You're on this side of the point,
aren't you?
MR. BARBER-Yes.
MR. TURNER-So, you can't see west?
MR. BARBER-We can see, from a standpoint of where we are now, yes, ~ can see
southwest. We can just make it by the point.
MR. TURNER-You can just make it by the point?
MR. BARBER-You can just see by the point, but, if we were to move back, the neighbor
on the right of us, Tinney, they're elevated, and above us.
MR. TURNER-Yes, I know.
MR. BARBER-And, if we were to move back, \\here would be sitting in the living
room, you'd be looking into their home. You would not be able to see around their
home.
MRS. EGGLESTON-How close to the line is the house? When I did the site inspection
there was a lot of people at the house to the right and already that's very close.
I mean, you could have joined their party from the house and you're proposing
to go closer.
MR. BARBER-You're saying looking at the Lake to the right?
MR. EGGLESTON-Yes, to the right.
34
~
MR. BARBER-We're not proposing to go closer to that house at all.
MRS. EGGLESTON-How close is that house, though, to this?
MR. BARBER-From the house to that property line, it's close to 23 feet.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I mean the house next door. How far are they from this, the property
line?
MR. BARBER-Oh, from their property line, probably, 10 feet back from, I would
say, 10 to 12 feet.
MR. TURNER-And the other house the other way?
MR. BARBER-Ye s, they're somewhat, probably, 15 feet, off their property line.
MRS. EGGLESTON-That's a lot of house.
MR. BARBER-They need a lot of room.
MRS. EGGLESTON-It sounds almost like two family.
MR. BARBER-No, ~ need a lot of closet space. We have a lot of belongings and
gatherings that, t his is going to be a retirement home and they want to do it
once and get it over with, to make it architecturally blend in with the rest of
the area and not have to add on. The down stairs would be a 30 by 60 and the
upper portion, ~ wanted to step that back to a 30 by 40 which would give us outside
dimensions of 1200 square feet, basically, no, ~'d have to put a crawl space.
MR. TURNER-They go about 4 or 5 feet?
MR. BARBER-Yes.
MR. TURNER-There, again, ~'re not talking about whether they can see up the Lake
or not, ~Ire asking for relief from the setback.
MR. KELLEY-I know, I mean, the existing building didn't really meet the side lines.
I guess my own feeling would be either let's try to move it back and see if we
can conform more or take the footprint that's there and go with that or, I guess,
I was going to say, you can't add on the back, or can you, because then you're
not in the same footprint, right?
MR. BARBER-The only problem being, though, if we did move it back, they would
lose enjoyment of the property, that's why ~'re going for those reliefs.
MRS. GOETZ-But, there are going to be limitations to developing on a waterfront.
You can't have it all and when we hear all this talk about the Glen Lake Association
is concerned about their surroundings and then we have somebody come in that wants
to build a huge house so close to the Lake. We get different messages from people
around Glen Lake. I fully agree with what Joyce had said earlier this evening.
I mean, ~ have to think of it from that aspect and what the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan, the purposes of it.
MRS. EGGLESTON-How long has she owned this property?
MR. BARBER-They have owned it for about 50 years. They are the original, the
Rourke family's the original builder of that home of the camp that is there now
and we're also, for the proposed septic, the septic is right next to the home,
as in the print, there. We want to move that way to the back and have a pump
up system to the back and get an engineer to approve the system for the site.
MRS. GOETZ-You have to do that anyway.
MR. BARBER-Yes.
MRS. EGGLESTON-It would appear to me there could be a little give here. Not
to be hard nosed, but that's one whale of a house to put between these two existing.
It would be like
MR. BARBER-If you look around, though, you'll notice that many of the homes on
Glen Lake are of that size and character. We I ve even been involved in building
some of them.
35
'--
~
MRS. GOETZ-But the people on Glen Lake have a tendency to create some of their
own problems by having this type of thing done.
MRS. EGGLESTON-It seems to be if you're, I guess I'm going to say, well liked,
nobody complains. On the other hand, that they're up here in mass, don't do that
to the Lake. It's hard to get a direct message.
MR. SHEA-If the two most important factors is building. .the amount of distance
that you end up being back from the Lake and I know that that's a major. .taking
advantage of that adjoining..being as close to the Lake as you can be..is reasonable
and then the size of the house, if it's going to be a permanent retirement
residence. Probably the best recommendation for you would be to keep the same
footprint and go two storys, which would give you 2448 square foot which, in and
of itself, is still a large house for that neighborhood and then you wouldn't
be required to ask for a variance from the shcreline setback.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I was just going to add, too, t he houses around you have decks
or porches. This does not call for a deck or a porch, am I right?
MR. BARBER-This is correct.
MRS. EGGLESTON-So, were you to get this, would you come back and say, I need a
porch or a deck?
MR. BARBER-No, the structure that's going to be built, the front room is going
to be a step dO\\ìl to the existing level and then the rear is going to, to the
s lope of the land, it's going to come up a cocp Ie of steps. No, it woul d be
conformed to the land.
MRS. EGGLESTON-But without a porch or a deck?
MR. BARBER-Yes.
MBS. EGGLESTON-Well, I think Mike had a good suggestion, there.
MR. BARBER-What we're really concerned with is, they're moving out of a home,
downtown, that's approximately 3600 square feet and they have a lot of, over the
years they've collected a lot of stuff and they really need the room.
MRS. GOETZ-But they have to take into consideration where they would be living
full time, now. There's a big difference between living in a city location or
a to\\ìl location and on the water front. It's just a reality that you have to
deal wit h.
MB. TURNER-Okay, any ot her que st ions for Timmy?
now.
I'll open the public hearing
PUBLIC HEAlING OPENED
MONICA HATE
MRS. HATE-I'm Monica Hate and I'm the Rourke's neighbor to the north and I'm looking
forward to Dick and Sue being my permanent neighbors and I know t bit any house
that they build is going to be an improvement to our neighborhood. However, upon
looking at the plot plan submitted by the contractor, I find several mistakes
and discrepancies which I would like to bring to the attention of the Board.
The applicant's plot plan shows a total of 69 feet presently, house and two side
lines. Now, they claim the lot is 65 feet, which I think is right, on the
wa terfron t, but up in the back it's 60. So, if you add up t hose lot line s , it
comes to 69 feet, no\\' how can you fit that on a lot that's a little more than
60 feet wide. Therefore, there is an error in the plot plan. The proposed
dimensions add up to 69 feet. Since the lot is about 60 odd feet wide, it has
to encroach on some cne' s land by 9 feet. Side line setback on the north is
presently shown as 22 feet. It's actually 20 feet, according to my survey
measurements. Proposed side line setback, if variance is granted on the north,
is shown as 16 feet. It will be 14 feet because of 2 foot area, if granted, or
only 7 feet if there's an error of 9 feet. Adjoining property on the north shown
as Doty's is incorrect. It's Hate. Adjoining property on the north shown as
having no well, incorrect. There is a well on the adjoining property. The front
setback from t he Lake is shown as 45 feet. Now, I'm not sure just where it's
being measured and, as the Lake winds and turns, there's a variance there, but
I measured it as being around 39 feet. Now, I feel the applicant should be required
to present the Board with
36
~
'--'
arr accurate survey showing accurate information. It is clear that the information
presented to the Board is incorrect. It could be off by 9 feet. Granting a
variance on the north side as requested by applicant would officially recognize
2 feet of my lot as belonging to the applicant and this is wrong. The applicant's
have not shown any practical difficulty or hardship to justify t he variance they
requested. They have only shown what they would like to do or prefer to do.
Now, I still would like the Rourke's to be neighbors and I have no objection to
a new home going up, but I feel I have to protect my property also.
MR. TURNER-Okay, any questions? Thank you.
MR. KELLEY-It appears, from the tax map, that
measurement. It doesn't look bigger than that.
that's not longer.
that 60 feet is the correct
(Referring to map) That's 64,
MR. BARBER-Right, that is an error.
MR. TURNER-I think, at this point, from the information received from the neighbor,
I think we ought to table it until t he measurements are clarified more and that
side setback.
MR. KELLEY-Alright, if \'2' re going to get into that, do you actually have a set
of drawings for the house?
MR. BARBER-Yes, we do. We have a preliminary set of drawings that have just been
completed.
MR. TURNER-And you just had a survey done, I believe, didn't you? There's some
stakes up there. Are those yours?
MR. BARBER-No, those were not put in by a surveyor.
MRS. HATE-They're mine. They ~ put in by a surveyor. They've been taken down
several times. I've had the surveyor coming back to reset them. I'm paying for
all of this.
MR. BARBER-And, if need be, we will be glad to get our lot surveyed, too.
MR. TURNER-Well, I think, we've got to have the right measurements.
MR. BARBER-Sure.
MR. TURNER-We can't deal with what we've got here.
MR. BARBER-Right.
MR. TURNER-Anyone else?
MR. SHEA-I agree.
MRS. EGGLESTON-I agree.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-1990 TIKOTJIY BARBER, Introduced by The cxlore
Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard:
Until the applicant can clarify the measurements with a survey of the property
and bring the plans for the house and any alternate plans that he may have looked
at before he arrived at this plan.
Duly adopted this 25th day of July, 1990, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Carr
MS. CORPUS-Tim, the best way to make sure the tax maps aren't wrong is get a copy
of the deed.
MR. BARBER-Okay.
MR. BAKER-Have that survey done from the deed.
37
,-./
MS. CORPUS-Yes.
MR. KELLEY-Yes, I wouldn't take that as gospel.
MS. CORPUS-Not the tax map.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Theodore Turner, Chairman
38
\.
-
~,
-
--
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
p :anning Department
"NOTE TO FILE·
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
July 25, 1990
By:
.John S. C;or;:¡l!;k;
Area Variance
X Use Variance
- Sign Variance
~ Interpretation
Subdi.mioa: Sketch, _ Preliminary,
Site Plan Reriew
- Petition for a Change of Zone
- Freshwater WetlaDds Permit
Final
Other:
Appücation Number:
Use Variance No. 13-1990
Appticant'a Name:
J. Paul Barton, dlbla Docksider Restaurant
MeetiDg Date:
July 25, 1990
****........*..*..****************************..*******..**.***....****.********....****.***
The Zoning Board of Appeals must find that all of the circumstances listed in Section
10.040 B exist if a Use Variance is to be granted.
It does not appear that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying
to this property that are a result of the shape of the lot or the topography.
There has been no evidence presented to substantiate the claim that the property
cannot yield a reasonable return.
The fact that this is a preexisting nonconforming use means that there are property
rights relating to this property ··which are in excess of those of other property owners in
the district. Expanding the nonconforming use would compound this situation.
The reason a Use Variance is required is that this is already considered an
inappropriate use for the WR-1A zone. As nonconforming uses expand, they should be
encouraged to move to sites where the use is allowable.
JSGlsed
;>
.Ii&
-
-
---
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
pl:anni"B Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
July 25, 1990
John S. Goralski
By:
X Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sign Variance
- Interpretation
SubdiYiåoa: Sketch, _ PrelimiDary,
Site Plan Rmew
- Petition far a ChaDge of Zone
- Freshwater Wetlanda Permit
Final
Other:
Appücation Number:
Appticant'. Name:
Area Variance No. 14-1990
J. Paul Barton dlbla Docksider Restaurant
MeetiDg Date:
July 25, 1990
............................................................................................
Section 10.040 A lists the criteria for granting an Area Variance.
There does not appear to be any unique circumstances applying to this property
such that strict application of the dimensional requirements would deprive the applicant
of reasonable use of the property.
The purpose of the WR-1A zone is "to protect the delicate ecological balance of
all lakes..." The property as it exists does not meet the permeability or shoreline setback
requirements. Allowing the applicant to increase these nonconformities would conflict
with the purpose of the zone.
JSG/sed
~
~
".
~,
-
-'
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
P1=-nning Department
"NOTE TO FILE"
By:
July 23, 1990
John S. Goralski
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
X Area Variance
Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
SubdiYisioa: Sketch, _ PreümiDary,
Site Plan Re-riew
- Petition for a Change of Zone
- Freshwater Wet1aDdø Permit
FiDal
Other:
Application Number: Area Variance No. 54-1990
Applicant'. Name: Rauf and Barbara Cavak
MeetiDg Date: July 25, 1990
............................................................................................
It does not appear that strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive
the applicant of reasonable use of the property. There is ample room in the rear of the
house to place a 9 ft. by 13 ft. storage shed while conforming to all of the setback
requirements. This lot is the same or very similar to every other lot in this subdivision.
Therefore, there are no special circumstances or conditions applying to this land and not
applying generally to land in the neighborhood. In affect, granting of this variance would
mean that every other property owner in the subdivision is entitled to the same relief.
If every property owner is entitled to the same relief, then the Zoning Regulations
are inappropriate for this area.. I do not think the regulations are inappropriate. The
setback requirements are based on the goal of maintaining the rural character of the
community as setforth in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
JSGlsed
--------
"
p
~
-
--
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
PI~nning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date:
July 20. 1990
Stuart G. Baker
By:
X Area VuiaDce
U. Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
Other:
Subdi'riaion: Sketch. _ ~iDary.
Site Plan Rmew
- Petition for a Change of Zone
- Freshwater WetlaDds Permit
Final
AppUcatioD Number: Area Variance No. 55-1990
AppUcaDt'a Name: John J. and Barbara S. Lynch
MeetiDg Date: July 25, 1990
............................................................................................
The applicant is seeking a variance from the 75 ft. shoreline setback for
the addition of a masterlbedroom and a deck. Relief of 48 ft. is requested.
I have reviewed the application in accordance with Article 10, and I have the
following comments:
I. There are no special circumstances applying to this property or
building, which do not apply to other properties in this neighborhood.
2. Strict application of the dimensional requirements would not deny the
applicant of reasonable use of the property. The property currently has
a U-shaped dock, and the existing structure can have interior renovations
done to facilitate year-round use without a variance.
3. One of the purposes of the waterfront residential zoning is to
protect the visual character of the shoreline. The 75 foot shoreline
setback was created in response to the following strategy from the Town
Comprehensive Land Use Plan: "Establish development setback requirements
more appropriate to the sensitivity of the water resources in the Town of
Queensbury." The variance requested would be detrimental to the purpose
of WR-IA zoning, and contradicts the stated objective and strategy of the
Comprehensive Lane Use Plan.
4. Public facilities and services would not be adversely affected.
All four criteria for an area variance as listed in Article 10 must be
met before a variance may be granted. A specific practical difficulty created
by the property or the ordinance must be found before minimal relief can be
determined.
SB/pw
;
...
-
-
-
--
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
~:lnning Department
-NOTE TO FILE-
Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner
Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner
Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner
Date: July 23, 1990
By: Lee York
X Area VariaDce
- Use Variance
- Sign Variance
== Interpretation
Other:
SubdiYisioa: Sketch, _ PrelimiDary,
Site Plan Review -
- Petition far a Change of Zone
- Freshwater WetlaDds Permit
FiDal
Appücation Number:
AppUcantls Name:
Area Variance No. 57-1990
Timothy Barber, Owner: Sue and Dick Rourke
Meeting Date:
July 25, 1990
............................................................................................
The applicant is requesting relief from side and shoreline setbacks. The zone is
WR-IA and the applicant intends to renovate and enlarge a preexisting nonconforming
structure. The requested relief is 16 feet, 22 feet, and 23 feet on the sides, as opposed
to the requirement of a sum of 50 feet on the side with a minimum of 20 feet per side.
TI1e shoreline request is for 45 feet rather than the required 75 feet.
Glen Lake formerly was the site for many seasonal use I.:amps. Over the years, many
of the structures along the lake have been renovated to year round use.
The Rourke's property is 2~5 feet by 64 feet on the lakeshore.
The Rourke's must meet the tests for an Area Variance. These are:
Are there special cODditions applying to this property or buildiDg, aDd not applying
to others in the neighbarhood.?
The application states that the house is a shack. This does not address the question
as the applicant currently has the ability to upgrade the existing structure with no variances.
The other lots in the neighborhood are similar in nature. The lots hold camps which have
been upgraded.
Page 1 of 2
-----~---_.--
---
AV57-1990
Would the strict application of the Ordinance deprive the applicant of reasonable
use of the pI~ly?
The applicant can bring the current structure up to code with no variances. The
Ordinance has not deprived the applicant of reasonable use of the property.
Would the strict application of the dimeDSional requirements result in a specified
practical difficulty?
No. The applicant has no practical difficulty. He has the ability to upgrade his
camp because he desires to enlarge it, and is not a practical difficulty created by the
Ordinance.
Would the variance be materially detrimental to the Ordinance cr to property in
the district?
The Comprehensive Land Use Plan which is the philosophy behind the Ordinance
states that the intensity of private shoreline development has detracted from the shoreline
appearance, and increased the nutrient loading of Glen Lake. The scenic and recreational
uses such as swimming and fishing have been impaired because of this. One of the strategies
listed with regard to the water resources is to reduce densities in aquifer recharge areas
and areas of high soil percolation, which is the Glen Lake area. Another is to reduce
potential development intensities in the vicinity of sensitive water resources. The Town
Board has declared Glen Lake and the land within 100 feet of the shoreline a Critical
Environmental Area.
The Zoning and Ordinances were based on the can-ying capacity of the land, and
continued expansion of use and area on sensitive lands is detrimental to the purposes of
the Ordinance and to the property in the district.
Is the request the miDimal relief to alleviate the practical difficulty?
The applicant has other alternatives which would require no variances. He could
add a partial second story with site plan approval. He could also expand in the rear, away
from the Lake which would give him the minimum of ZO feet side setbacks, although the
total would not be 50 feet, it would be close to it. Utilizing either of these alternatives,
there would be less impact on the neighbors or the lake.
LA y Ised
Page Z of Z
.---....--. -- --.