Loading...
1990-08-15 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 15TH, 1990 INDEX Area Variance No. 97-1989 Loggers Equipment Sales, Inc. 1. Area Variance No. 75-1989 John T. Whalen, Jr. 2. Area Variance No. 47-1990 Bessie Callejo 2. Area Variance No. 103-1989 Priscilla Sanderspree 12. Use Variance No. 58-1990 Taylor and Lisa Stevenson 12. Area Variance No. 59-1990 Martha and Mi chae 1 Ho gan 17. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUIES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUIES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUIES. --- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 15TH, 1990 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY JOYCE EGGLESTON BRUCE CARR CHARLES SICARD MICHAEL SHEA JEFFREY KELLEY DEPUTY TOWN ATTORBEY- KARLA CORPUS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT COLLARD PLANNER-JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES June 27th, 1990: Page 5, second paragraph up from the bottom, where it says Mr. Kelley, fourth line down, support for, sib supporting calculations to that formula; Page 5, middle of the page, Mr. Gagliano is speaking, sixth line down, where it says "and the Penney's of the Mall", sib and the Penney's of the world"; Page 6, top of the page, 1st paragraph at the very end, "denoting the name of the, sib plaza; Page 8, second one down, where Mr. Turner is speaking, sib a freestanding sign that serves everyone in that mall; Page 8, next paragraph down, very bottom sentence, sib take away from the smaller guy and give it to the big guy; Page 8, next sentence down, third one down from that, Mr. Turner is speaking, readerboard serves a purpose because it advertises the events of the mall; Page 10, down to the bottom, third one up, where it says, Mr. Turner, you've got social clubs and fraternal organizations; Page 22, bottom of the page, fifth line up, Mr. Turner is speaking, at the very end, you're going to have your milk and bread and, sib very simple things; Page 30, very bottom paragraph, about midway, where the sentence at the end starts with, "Healy's house was owned by Albert Oudekerk, not Allen Oudekerk; Page 31, fourth line down, Mr. Turner is speaking, sib but that the use that the use there is not the use that could be there. It could be more objectionable; Page 33, seventh line up from the bottom, Mr. Turner is speaking, next to last sentence, where it starts, I think a more intense use, sib would have a more adverse effect on the neighborhood; Page 34, middle of the page, where Mr. Turner is speaking, that was the first time around when he came for the use, I think it was when he came for the minis tor age; Page 35, Mr. Turner is speaking, very end of the paragraph, eighth paragraph up from the bottom, doesn't bother you across the road, sib except the traffic; Page 4, about a third up from the bottom, Mrs. Goetz is speaking, they were saying, well, why couldn't, sib why could Aviation Mall have; Page 18, very first statement at the top, last word sib house, not road; Page 20, down at the bottom, Mr. Kelley is speaking, he was having trouble doing that, he was going to try to get additional income MOTION TO APPROVE JUlŒ 27TH, 1990 MINUTES AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Charles Sicard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Susan Goetz: Duly adopted this 15th day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. TURNER-The first order of business, which, evidently, is not on the agenda, is a request for an extension for Loggers Equipment, Sales, Inc. MRS. GOETZ-Read the letter from Miller, Mannix & Pratt, P.C., to Stuart Baker, Planning Department, dated August 10th, 1990 (attached) 1 -- MOTION TO IntroducE:d EgglE:ston: EXTEND AREA VAIlIANCE NO. 97-1989 by ThE:odorE: TurnE:r who movE:d for LOGGERS EQUIPMEBT SALES, INC. , its adoption, sE:condE:d by JOYCE: For a pE:riod of onE: YE:ar. Duly adoptE:d this 15th day of August, 1990, by thE: following votE:: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carr, Mr. ShE:a, Mrs. GOE:tz, Mr. KE:llE:Y, Mrs. EgglE:ston, Mr. TurnE:r NOES: NONE OLD BUSlBESS: AREA VAIlIANCE NO. 75-1989 LC-42A JOBB T. WBALIIØ, JR. OWER: SAME AS ABOVE HURTER LANE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. REQUEST FOR EX'l'EBSIOII OF TIME FRAME FROM THE APPROVAL ON 6/28/89. TAX MAP NO. 26-5-31 LOT SIZE: 160 FT. BY 146 FT. SECTIOIf 4.020A MRS. GOETZ-RE:ad thE: lE:ttE:r from John T. WhalE:n, to ThE:odorE: TurnE:r, Zoning Board of AppE:als, Chairman, datE:d July 10th, 1990 (attachE:d) MOTION TO BtXTDID AREA VARIABCE NO. 75-1989 JOlIN T. WBALEII, JR., IntroducE:d by ThE:odorE: TurnE:r who movE:d for its adoption, sE:condE:d by JE:ffrE:Y KE:llE:Y: For a pE:riod of onE: YE:ar, as rE:quE:stE:d by thE: applicant. Duly adoptE:d this 15th d~ of August, 1990, by thE: following votE:: AYES: Mrs. EgglE:ston, Mr. KE:llE:Y, Mrs. GOE:tz, Mr. ShE:a, Mr. Carr, Mr. Sicard, Mr. TurnE:r NOES: NONE AREA VAIlIANŒ NO. 47-1990 TYPE II LC-lOA BESSIE CALLEJO OWER: SAME AS ABOVE CORMUS ROAD, OFF LUZERBE ROAD FOR CONSTRUCTlœ OF A RESIDENCE 25.5 FEET FJWM THE REAR LOT LINE, AND 36 FEET FROM THE SIDE LOT LINE. REQUIIŒMENT IS FOR 100 FEET FROM ALL LOT LINES. TAX MAP NO. 124-1-9 LOT SIZE: 1.69 ACRES SECTlœ 4.020-A JACK LEBOWITZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOE CALLEJO, ALSO PRESENT MR. TURNER-WE: lE:ft this off, thE: last timE:, and rE:quE:stE:d a topo map from thE: applicant, Which has bE:E:n furnishE:d. MR. LEBOWITZ-Mr. Chairman, I'm Jack LE:bowitz of thE: law firm of LE:mE:ry and RE:E:d. I'm appE:aring on bE:half of thE: CallE:jo's, tonight. As you mE:ntionE:d, this application was tablE:d at thE: JunE: 27th, 1990 hE:aring of th~ Zoning Board of AppE:als. I think thE: gE:nE:ral SE:nSE: of thE: mE:E:ting, if I'm stating it accuratE:ly, was, that thE: applicant had put forth information that shoWE:d that hE: basically mE:t thE: tE:st of practical difficulty, as it's construE:d undE:r thE: gE:nE:ral law for Zoning OrdinancE:s, in that, hE: has a prE:E:xisting, nonconforming lot Which hE:'s ownE:d sincE: 1962 Which could not mE:E:t thE: 100 foot sE:tback rE:quirE:mE:nt bE:causE: thE: lot is only 130 fE:E:t dE:E:p. At that point, thE: Board askE:d that a topographical survE:Y bE: prE:parE:d to dE:monstratE: thE: claims that WE:rE: madE: at that mE:E:ting, that thE: topo graphy, thE: stE:E:p slopE:s on thE: sitE:, basically prE:cludE:d sE:tbacks of t hE: tYpE: which arE: now mand atE:d by thE: currE:nt Zoning OrdinancE: or, at thE: vE:ry lE:ast, that thE: application would conform with thE: standards that thE: variancE: is thE: minimum that's nE:cE:ssary to E:stablish rE:liE:f and, as you know, that map, prE:parE:d by a survE:yor, LE: en StE:VE:S, was providE:d last month and it basically shows, if you look at thE: map, that thE: topo graphy of thE: sitE: is vE:ry stE:E:p and drops away from thE: road, but thE:rE:' s an E:lE:vation of approximatE:ly 1215 fE:E:t so that thE: proposE:d sitE: of thE: hOUSE:, on thE: flat part, on thE: southwest cornE:r of thE: sitE: is in an arE:a of rE:lativE:ly flat tE:rrain, would only bE: about 10 fE:E:t bE:low thE: gradE: of thE: road. I'd likE: thE: rE:cord to rE:flE:ct that, \Ve WE:rE: just handE:d, by thE: Chairman, an analysis prE:parE:d by thE: Staff of thE: Board. ThE: conclusion of thE: analysis is that thE: applicant has not provE:n that his rE:quE:st is for minimal rE:liE:f and attachE:d on thE: third pagE: of that analysis is a topographic map that hypothE:sizE:s two altE:rnatE: locations for thE: building sitE: and, with all dUE: rE:spE:ct to thE: PlannE:r, \Ve'VE: just had a fE:w minutE:s to rE:viE:w this, but it SE:E:ms to mE:, Mr. Chairman, that thE: conclusions of this rE:port arE:somE:what, intE:rnally, inconsistE:nt. ThE: rE:port hypotþE:sizE:s two additional altE:rnativE:s. OnE: would bE: at a 38 pE:rcE:nt slopE:, 2 -..--" that's the one that's shown the furthest back, to the north. The second would be at a 31 percent slope and the report, before it reaches its conclusion, makes a statement with which I, as a professional in the area, and certainly the landowners would agree, that land with slope characteristics greater than 25 percent, experience extreme problems in development. At this slope, even lawnmowing could be a problem. It goes on to talk about the problems he experienced with 25 percent slopes and certainly would be even exacerbated at 31 or 38 percent slope. If you recall, at the last hearing, from the minutes of that, the neighboring landowner was talking about alternatives of siting further down on the site. He noted that he's had severe problems with the driveway washing out and very steep slopes that would be required to get down to the building site and I'd like to suggest, with all due respect to the Planner, that a very similar case could be made, here, that, in terms of the practical difficulties of working on this site, getting down to the building site, and even in terms of the environmental disturbance of the site, one is better off building in an area of shallower slopes, nearer to the road, where that kind of disturbance from running a driveway down a steep grade is minimized and, just in this context, I would like to note, as long as we're talking about environment, I'd just like to remind the Board, again, that, under SEQRA, when you're talking about a lot line variance, you're dealing with a Type II action which, categorically, is something which is been determined by the DEC to, typically, not involve SEQRA compliance because it doesn't involve what's thought of, generally, ever reaching a significant threshold of environmental significance. So, for these reasons, I'd like to respectfully submit that the, first of all, we're kind of surprised by the Staff analysis which we really haven't had time to react to, in terms of having, anybody. .these two alternatives which have been hypothesized and seeing whether they would make anymore sense than what is a. .variance on a. .previous. .and, second of all, on its face, we believe that the applicant has met its burden of showing practical difficulties, that there's something inherently unsuitable about most of this site for compatible development. To be quite candid wit h you, I'm a bit loath to move this matter to a vote if the Board is, necessarily, going to adopt the suggestions of the Planner, but, perhaps, we might be able to have some dialogµe along these lines. We could be prepared, in a certain instance, to look at these alternatives and study them and, perhaps, support our position that they're really not suitable. MR. TURNER-Do you want to have an opportunity to present the Board with your opinion, as to the synopsis, here, displayed by the Planning Department? Do you want to look at this, further, yourself? Do you want to table it again or what? MR. LEBOWITZ-Well sir, I believe it's kind of, in all candor, it puts me and the Callejo's in somewhat of a quandary. At the previous meeting it was indicated that, so long as the Callejo's could support their case, reasonably, for practical difficulties, and show that there weren't any other, more minimal, variances, that would accomplish the same purpose and they went out and hired Le en Steves and I think, from the face of it, this map seems to support the proposition that these other alternatives that you could put on the site are not feasible or environmentally preferable to what's being proposed. I don't want to re-invent the wheel and, I think the Board can look at the memorandum and see that there are some internal inconsistencies in what's being presented there, in terms of saying, on the one hand, that you want to hold slopes to less than 25 percent and then suggesting two alternatives where you need 31 and 38 percent driveways to get down to the building site. I guess I'd like to hear from the Board, in all fairness, and if the Board were inclined to deny it, I'd like leave to evaluate these alternatives. MRS. GOETZ-So, was your answer yes or no? MR. LEBOWITZ-Well, in all candor, I suppose if you're inclined to deny the application, I'd like leave to submit additional evidence. MR. CARR-I don't think he can answer yes or no, now. I mean, if the Board is going to accept the Staff Input that he hasn't seen, then I think we've got to table it to allow him to look at these alternatives and either refute them or- MR. TURNER-I think he ought to know whether he wants to review t he Staff Input or not. MR. CARR-Right, but I think maybe the Board should discuss it a little and hear the neighbors input into this and talk about it ourselves. MR. TURNER-I'm not saying we're not going to talk about it. if it's his idea that he wants to table it. I just asked him 3 MR. CARR-In fact ~ I don't think it's in anybody's best interest just to table it right now. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARR-I think we should go on with the discussion and see where that leads us. MR. LEBOWITZ-Thank you Mr. Carr. I appreciate that. MR. TURNER-Any questions for Mr. Lebowitz? MRS. GOETZ-Yes. What's the percentage of slope at the location where you're proposing the house? MR. LEBOWITZ-Well ~ I don't have my calculator with me ~ but it's very m1n1mum. You see ~ the road is at an elevation of 1215. The house is at an elevation of about 1205 to 1207, somewhere in that area~ so that would be 10 feet over~ I don't have a scale with me. MR. GORALSKI-I do. I'll tell you in a minute~ 12 feet in 50. MR. CARR-So~ that would be 24 percent~ right? Twenty-four over 100? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. TURNER-That's to the front edge of the house ~ John, from that property line to the edge? MR. GORALSKI-The property drops, in the area of the house~ it drops~ approximate1y~ 10 to 12 feet from the road to the rear of the house ~ and from the road to the rear of the house is about 50 feet. I can say t hat that is the flattest part of the property. MRS. GOETZ-That is the flattest? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, that's definitely the flattest part of the property. MR. LEBOWITZ-The other aspect is, you're minimizing the length that you run over the slope. I mean~ the slope can be 20 percent, or whatever~ but the driveway~ \\here the house is ~ that is a very short distance that you have to traverse and the amount of filling is minimized. MR. TURNER-Any further questions for Mr. Lebowitz, from the Board? MR. LEBOWITZ-Mr. Turner~ I know this is probably a bit unusual, but Mr. Callejo has requested an opportunity to make a brief statement, if that suits you? MR. TURNER-Sure. MR. CALLEJO-My name is Joe Callejo. I live at West. .New York and I'm a little confused by this report and I don't know if the Board understands it. Does the Board understand what it's saying? MR. TURNER-Yes. It's the Planning Staff's job to look at these plans and come up with an alternative or a solution ~ maybe ~ to it, in their eyes. We don't necessarily have to accept it. MR. CALLEJO-Okay, but~ to me~ my understanding of it~ as a 1ayman~ it's contradictory. It's saying you shouldn't build more than a 25 degree slope~ and yet they're suggesting that we go to a 31 or a 38 degree as an alternative ~ \\here we have something that's less than 25, is that correct? Am I right? MR. CARR-Well, I think the Staff is just pointing out the two other places on the property. I don't know if they're really making a recommendation. MR. CALLEJO-Okay~ I think what they're recommending~ my impression is~ else that we do~ besides this 10cation~ is going to be detrimental. that it's a reasonable a1ternative~ that's my impression. I think that we can't build in these other places. There is no alternative. that anyt hing I don't think they're saying MR. TURNER-They're showing the degree of slope where ~ if the house was set back at those distances~ what that pitch would be. 4 -../ MR. CALLEJO-Yes. MR. TURNER-And that's, basicallYt what they're showing. MR. CALLEJO-Yest butt obviously it can't be done. MR. TURNER-It's not cast in concrete. MR. CALLEJO-Well t the thing is, anyplace elset that's the point. is that they're proving that it cannot be done Thank you. MR. TURNER-OkaYt I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICHARD ROGGE MR. ROGGE-Good evening. My name is Rick Rogge. I own the property right adjacent to where this home is going to be built. A lot of the other pe ople that were here at the last meeting aren't here this evening because they didn't know that this was coming up tonight. I just contacted two of them on the phone and they're racing to get down here right now because they strongly oppose it. There wasn't any mailing that any of us received about this. I happened to be at the Town office, yesterday, and found out about it and that's why I'm here. MR. TURNER-Well t it got put off from the meeting that you were supposed to come to because the information..we didn't have in it hand SOt that's \\t1y it's here tonight. MR. ROGGE-Okay, I just want to make the point that I know there's quite a few other pe ople in the neighborhood that would be here, opposing this t this eveningt if they had known about it. Regarding the one comment that was made earlier t about my driveway washing out, my driveway does not wash out. It was a stone driveway for a couple of years. I paved it about a year and a half ago and it never washed out, even when there was just the stone driveway. So, that was an inaccurate statement. Looking at the, I took a quick look at the map that t I believe, was before you. Could I look at one of those? MR. TURNER-Sure. MR. ROGGE-The proposed locationt by the applicant, I don't think, is quite reasonable and t if it is tabled, I would be willing to go to the point of hiring an engineer to look at other possible solutions. I think that the solution or the option that is showing, where the house is in the center of the propertYt which is showing the 31 percent slopet I think that that slope could be substantially changed with a relatively small amount of effort, by the waYt because that soil has already been pushed down into a relatively more level area and it's pretty soft in there. So, the degree of effort put out to, maybe, reduce that slope a little bit more, I think would be quite minimal and then we would have a situation where there'd be an alternate slope, or alternate location, with a relatively small slope and I have to say that the real reason I believe that this variance is being requested is to reduce the cost of building on it, not because it can't be donet but because it would be a little cheaper to do it that way and I hope that I understand the variances and the zoning and stuff in Town has been set up to maintain the integrity of the Town and I don't think that that would be accomplished by granting this variance at its current situation. I also was told at the meeting, which was two months ago t that the applicant would come and see us t because I would really like to have a neighbor. I have two little guys, two sonst and they don't have any kids to play with up there, so we have one party at the very end of the road, neighbor, and they have some childrent but it would be wonderful to have some neighbors and I would very much welcome itt but I don't think that this variance is a good way to have that area develop up there. The whole area has been severely restricted, zoning wise, as to what can be built on it, the amount of property that's requiredt and everything else. This certainly is a preexisting lot and there certainly should be a solution to putting a house on it. I just don't believe that the variance that's being requested is the proper solution. Thank you very much. MR. TURNER-Anyone else opposed to the application? Is she one that was supposed to come? 5 -./ MR. ROGGE-Yes. She has no idea what's going on. SUSAN COOK MRS. COOK-No, I don't. MR. TURNER-I'll give you a couple of minutes, so you can talk about it. MRS. COOK-My name is Susan Cook and I live on Luzerne Mountain Road and our piece of property abuts right up against the property that is planning to be built upon and, seeing that I really don't know what's going on tonight, would it be possible to table it? MR. TURNER-No, we already tabled it once, unless the applicant wishes to table. I'm not sure, at this point, that we're going to table it, but I'm not going to move on it, until we do, some more testimony. MRS. COOK-Okay. MR. TURNER-Are you having anybody else come? MR. ROGGE-They haven't gotten here, yet. MR. TURNER-Okay, we'll hold off on that. Does the Board want to discuss any merits of this application, while we're waiting for the other people to come? MRS. EGGLESTON-I've got a question, Ted. The property to the north of this, between Luzerne Mountain Road and over to this lot, who owns that property and are we going to have pe ople back here who are going to need the same type of variance, since the land is built the same grade as the one in question tonight? For myself, I really feel this would be a detriment to the neighborhood. I mean, there certainly has to be another solution to that. You drive up West Mountain Road and you go out Cormus Road, all of the homes are built back off the road, without exception. There are none that are stuck way out, so close to the road and it really would be, from my point of view, like disrupting what the Town has planned should be in that area and what's going to be there, especially if West Mountain goes. We know there are going to be elaborate homes up there and they're going to be built back and it's just going to be, it's going to stick out like a sore thumb. There has to be another answer and who does own the land, by the way? Are they individual lots owned? Does anybody know, from this gentleman's, over to, who owns the other side of you, Mr. Callejo, do you know? MR. CALLEJO-The name was on the application. MRS. EGGLESTON-Because we could be setting ourselves up for the same sort of a request and, if you did one, you couldn't deny another, really. MRS. GOETZ-Because nothing's filled in. MR. ROGGE-I think I can answer that. I own one side. The Cook's own the other side and then, I think, there's a little piece. MR. TURNER-When you say the other side, you own to the west? MR. ROGGE-I own to the south. MR. TURNER-The south. MR. ROGGE-The Cook's own to the north. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. ROGGE-And, directly to the east, I believe there's a small piece that abuts to this, that is owned by the Cormus' . MRS. GOETZ-Here it is, on another page. the Cormus'. It's First National Bank, trustee for MR. ROGGE-Yes, it's in a trust. property. The two Cormus girls are the owners of the MRS. GOETZ-So, Mrs. Cook, your land is vacant, to the north, or is that where your house is? 6 - MRS. COOK-No, our house is on Luzerne Mountain Road. No, our house is not right next to where they're planning on building, but our property does abut to where they want to build. MR. TURNER-Okay, the Board's open to discussion, comments amongst yourselves. MR. CARR-Mike and I were talking about it and, Jack, you might want to address this issue or not, but I think Mr. Rogge brought up a good point, in that, one of the provisions for granting a variance is economic difficulty. There's an allegation, now, that this second lot, the 31 percent, could, with minimal financial difficulty, be brought up to a better percent than the old slope and I think I would like to hear, economically, what is the cost of building there, as opposed to.. I mean what's the additions and we haven't any evidence that way and I think that's what variances are most ly based on, in other words, economic hardship. MR. LEBOWITZ-Obviously, we're not prepared to address the different building costs, that's just something that came up tonight, but my understanding of an area variance and the distinction bet~en an area variance and a use variance is that, really, economics does not enter into an area variance at all. It really has to do, solely, with practical difficulties which is the unique conditions that effect a particular piece of land. If there was an economic test that had to get made for a use variance, obviously, we would have been prepared and would have addressed it. MR. CARR-Well, I think this was, two months ago, t hat was brought up. It was brought up that it was too expensive to build on another parcel and there was no, I mean, that statement was made, or another place on that parcel, I should say, that statement was made, but then again, now we've got a statement on the other side saying, no, it's not too expensive to do it, so I think it is an issue and I would like it, personally, to be resolved. I mean, if it is too expensive, there, quite frankly, I am leading, I mean, you have a building. You have to be able to build on that lot, somewhere and if it's a tremendous financial difficulty to place it on this 31 percent slope, which is being recommended or being put forth by the Staff, then I would say that you've got a very good case, but if it's only going to add $5,000, or whatever, to the cost of the house, then I would say maybe the neighbors have more of an interest in seeing the house put back for a small financial investment. MR. LEBOWITZ-Well, obviously, we're not prepared to address that, give dollars and cents proof of that sort. I mean, we can sort of make general statements. MR. CALLEJO-If I may, Mr. Ro gge suggested it would take 200 truck loads to fill at, the first meeting we were here. MR. TURNER-His lot. MR. CALLEJO-To fill his lot, yes. burden. Two hundred truck loads, that's a financial MR. TURNER-Yes, but that doesn't tell us whether it takes 200 or 50 truck loads on your lot, that's what we're saying. MR. EGGLESTON-Actually, Mr. Lebowitz keeps saying it's a unique piece of, his lot, is a unique piece of property. In that neighborhood it is not unique, and it's not different than a lot of the other lots in that area. MR. LEBOWITZ-Could I respond to that? I think that one of the things that we're dealing with, here, is that it's a preexisting lot and I think that's very important. This is an LC-IO District. If somebody were to come in, today, one of the other landowners out on this road, dealing with, mostly, larger parcels in that area, you'd have to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and these setbacks wouldn't really be an issue. I think it's important to focus on the fact that, no matter where we go on this lot, on a 130 foot deep lot which has been in existence for longer than the 30 years the Callejo' s have owned it, you're going to have to have some kind of variance, somewhere. I mean, what we're talking about is the minimum amount that's necessary to afford relief, but, in terms of the basic test of practical difficulties, I really think that's met by the topography of this lot. If it were a flat lot, and it was just a question of, was this house going to be more visible from the road or was it going to be more visible from the neighbors, which is the basic reason that setback laws are in the Ordinance, there wouldn't be any question that we could move this building lot all around the lot and should do that, but I think, here, when you look at slopes that drop 7 '---' away from th~ highway v~ry st~~ply, ~v~n though you can hav~ kind of a flat spot som~wh~r~ in th~ c~nt~r of th~ lot, you' r~ going to hav~ to go with a v~ry st~~p driv~way to g~t down to it and MRS. GOETZ-What was it zon~d, prior to this r~-zoning? Was it 10 acr~s? MR. GORALSKI-I think it was th~ sam~. It was within th~ APA. MR. TURNER-It was within th~ APA, w~ n~v~r chang~d it. MRS. GOETZ-And what was th~ front s~tback r~quir~m~nt, th~n? MR. LEBOWITZ-You'r~ sp~aking th~ imm~diat~, pr~vious Zoning Ordinanc~, Mr. Chairman. MRS. GOETZ-Right. MR. LEBOWITZ-Th~r~ was no APA in 1962. MR. CARR-Jack, I don't disagr~~ with practically all you'v~ said. I m~an, I agr~~ this is a building lot and you hav~ a right to build som~wh~r~ on that prop~rty. I m~an, I think that's a for~gon~ conclusion, I don't think w~ can, I m~an, no on~ can r~fut~ that, but th~ k~y is, minimal r~li~f and I think that' s ~at th~ issu~ is and is an 80 foot varianc~ from th~ front road, minimal r~li~f, or is it 20 f~~t b~caus~ this oth~r parc~l, you could build on, with a littl~ bit of . . but it could b~ don~ and I think that' s ~at th~ issu~ is coming down to. It is, for m~, anyway, and I don't know if it is to th~ r~st of th~ Board. MRS. EGGLESTON-I agr~~ with you, Bruc~. H~ k~~ps saying, minimal r~li~f. It isn't, by any str~tch of th~ imagination, at this point, minimal r~li~f. It's maximum r~li~f and w~ hav~n' t s~~n any r~asonabl~ alt~rnativ~s or what it would cost to, th~y k~~p saying it' s ~xtravagant or it costs a lot to build furth~r down, but w~ 1 v~ s~~n n~ighbors do it and w~ hav~n' t s~~n any actual figur~s on what it would cost to plac~ th~ hous~ som~wh~r~ ~1s~ on th~ prop~rty. It just s~~ms lik~ th~r~ls anoth~r spot on th~r~ to build and I will agr~~ with Mr. Rogg~, with minimal ~ffort, mayb~. MR. CARR-Mayb~, w~ don't know that. MR. LEBOWITZ-Y~s, w~'r~ kind of all shooting in th~ dark, h~r~, I agr~~. MRS. EGGLESTON-W~ don't hav~ all th~ information that w~ r~ally n~~d. MRS. GOETZ-On th~ subj~ct of th~ minimal r~li~f, in th~ '82 Ordinanc~, th~y would hav~ n~~d~d that to b~ back 50, so, no matt~r which on~ w~'r~ talking about, h~r~, you'r~ still asking for a lot. You would hav~ had to com~ in for a varianc~ th~n, to build wh~r~ you want to build it, now. MR. CALLEJO-In 1982? MRS. GOETZ-In th~ '82 Ordinanc~. MR. CALLEJO-B~caus~ w~ go back to 162. MRS. GOETZ-Right, I know, but my point is that, no matt~r what Ordinanc~..pr~~xist~d n~w Ordinanc~, but still, all along, you would still hav~ b~~n asking for a varianc~. MR. CALLEJO-Is th~r~ a dollar figur~ that you p~opl~ hav~ in mind, that would b~ ~xc~ssiv~, $100,000 or is it $5,000? MRS. GOETZ-W~l1, first of all, why would w~ ~v~n t~ll you b~caus~ I think you would com~ up with what w~ want~d to h~ar. MR. LEBOWITZ-I don't want to doubl~ t~am you, h~r~, tak~ up a lot of tim~, but, obviously, I, r~ading th~ t~a l~av~s, h~r~, I und~rstand that you'r~ agr~~ing with Staff, but I gu~ss I'm kind of in a quandary, wh~r~ w~ go from h~r~. If w~ w~r~ to com~ back with, tak~ a look at an alt~rnat~ to th~ 31 p~rc~nt slop~, why woul dn' t that b~, ar~ w~ going to hav~ to prov~ that w~ can build som~thing all th~ way back on th~, 30 f~~t from th~ lot lin~, down a 60 d~gr~~ slop~, b~for~ any r~li~f can b~ afford~d? I gu~ss I'm kind of in a quandary. MR. CARR-Jack, as soon as I look~d on this map, I saw two plac~s ~~r~ you could build. On~ wh~r~ you'v~ got th~ hous~ and th~ oth~r wh~r~ th~ 31 p~rc~nt slop~ is, that looks to b~ th~ two flat ar~as. Ev~rything ~ls~ is pr~tty uniform, fiv~ 8 feet slopes. So, you've got two areas. This is, I'm speaking my feelings, and not speaking for the Board, but I just want to know what the cost is between the two areas. I don't know what I would consider is acceptable or not. I mean, it maybe.. borderline or it might be, we all might be surprised that it's going to cost $3,000 to bring it up enough. I don't know. MR. LEBOWITZ-Well, I appreciate that concern and that observation. I guess what my quandary involves is how we bring some kind of closure to this application so that the Board and the applicant and even the neighbors can have substantial justice done and I guess where I'm going on it is, if we were to look into the alternatives on the flat spot, which will cost money. I mean, it costs money to go to Leon Steves and have a topographic map done or are we going to be kind of, I guess, if it's fair to ask, is it the sense of the Board that one of these other two sites would be approvab1e? MR. TURNER-When you came back the last time, you put the house back up five feet further. I mean, that's not minimum relief. You haven't shown any alternative to your plan, other than that five foot move. I think you've got to show us more than that. MR. CARR-Jack, you've got an estimate to build a house where you've got it proposed, right? I mean, you've got a builder who says, I will build it for "X", right? MR. LEBOWITZ-Yes. MR. CARR-Okay, could you get the builder to say, how much would it cost to build it there? Give us an estimate on how much it would cost to build there, then we would know the differences between the two sites. MR. CALLEJO-Wi11 we have to come back. MR. TURNER-I think you're going to have to. MR. CARR-That would seem, to me, the simplest way to get an estimate between the two sites and decide whether or not it's out of the question or is it reasonable. Mr. Rogge, you're in the construction field, perhaps. What I'm asking is, for your satisfaction, all I would ask is that maybe you supply him with the two estimates, just so he knows, for your own satisfaction and for the satisfaction of the neighbors, you could say, this number looks real. MR. ROGGE-How much fill is going through these sites. MR. CARR-Right. MR. SHEA-I'd like to point out one thing, and that is, I think the nature of, probably, all, but, certainly, many of the lots up there, given the slope on all of those properties, pretty much necessitates some kind of road work and fill, otherwise everyone would be in for a variance and everyone would be asking to build, 5, 10, 15, 20, or 36 feet off the road, which is probably not in the best interest of that neighborhood and the Ordinance, so I think that, before you prepare any estimates, or before you come back to the Board, you should probably come back with the understanding that there is going to be some expense. I would hate to have this Board approve a variance based, principally, on the fact that we are trying to eliminate a cost of building that is inherent up there, because of the nature of the land and the slope. MR. CALLEJO-We understand that, absolutely. MR. LEBOWITZ-Would it be fair, Mr. Chairman, if we were to go back to the drawing boards and get some estimates on what it would cost to do this, if I were to ask if I could get some sense of the Board, as to whether it feels that the center alternative shown is something reasonable and something which it could approve? MR. TURNER-No, I think you've got to prove to us that that is, possibly, not the best location. You come up with the alternative. Show us What you can do. It's not for us to tell you. You show us. You provide us with the alternative. That's What we're asking for. MR. LEBOWITZ-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-Would we be more receptive to, maybe, where the 31 percent grade is, is that your question? 9 MR. LEBOWITZ-Well, yes, it would be, because, obviously, it's going to be something of a burden on the applicant to develop these alternatives and I guess I'd like to know whether it's the sense of the Board, tonight, that either of these alternatives would address it's objectives so that we could spend the money and work up some kind of alternative without coming back in here and being in relatively the same position. I get a sense it is. MR. TURNER-What I'm saying to you is, we want the most distance from the road we can get and the house in the right place, where it be longs, that's what we want. MRS. GOETZ-And I'm looking for more than 20 feet from the road. MR. TURNER-Yes, or 25. MRS. GOETZ-Don't just add a little five feet here and there. MR. LEBOWITZ-No, I'm asking, I guess, maybe, I'm being misunderstood. I'm asking for the Board, to just get some sense from the Board about the Staff's proposed alternative and, particularly, if we were to go out and get an estimate for the one that's shown in the center, the 31 percent estimate, and have that thing worked up, whether that would be something that just, conceptually, and I'm not going to hold you to it, but I think I'd feel a little bit more comfort if I knew that the sense of the Board, tonight, was that that was something that it could live with, if we were to come back with something like that. MRS. EGGLESTON-We're trained to determine how far back from the road is this 31 percent proposed location. MR. CARR-It's like 80 from every side. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, certainly, that's a more receptive, something you could deal with, as opposed to 20 feet from the road. MR. CARR,..I think you're going to find that's the best slope you're going to get, is 31 percent on this property. So, I think that would be the most likely alternative. I'm not looking to have one over in the northeast corner and one over there and real tough slopes. I mean, 31 percent is about the best you're going to do on this slope, so that seems to be the most logical place to get an estimate for and it's also more in the center, that would be my feeling. MR. TURNER-I mean, you've got the Staff Input, so work from there. Obviously, I can tell you right now, I don't think the Board is even looking at the 38 percent slope. We're looking at the center one, 31 percent. MR. LEBOWITZ-I appreciate your help and your candor, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston. MR. KELLEY-I was going to make a comment, myself. I think the middle proposal, as they said, is something that should be looked at. Myself, I think, maybe, there might be some place in between even that one and one that's closest to.. I am concerned, as they are, about the 20 feet from the road. Going down a hi 11 like that, a snow plow can put snow on your front door. I don't think it makes sense out of that standpoint. I think, in my mind, you should look at driveway alternatives. I mean, something other than just going straight down in. Maybe, there's a thing that goes around, you could turn the house on the lot a litt Ie bit, so you could get a winding type thing rather than a straight. MR. LEBOWITZ-Consult your local landscape architect. MR. KELLEY-Well, the other thing is, we asked for a survey map of the topos and I assume this is What you brought. MR. LEBOWITZ-No, sir. MR. KELLEY-Alright. MR. LEBOWITZ-That's a copy of that, I believe, with some drawings done by the Staff. MR. CARR-It's in our packets. 10 -- MR. SHEA-I'd like to just add, I think that the Board's major concern is really the setback and to minimize the relief. The question of whether it is a 24, or 31, or 38 percent slope, I don't think, at least I don't have a sense as to the difference of impact on the environment for that and I would suggest to you, I know that Dave Hatin has contacted another property owner in Queensbury with regards to the amount of the slope, so I know that that would be an issue with him, even if we grant the variance. So, I would just suggest to you that, if you're looking for an alternative site, something that is farther away from the road, which would be more acceptable to the Board, that there should be some analysis as to getting the slope as low as possible..the 3l,..have problems, even with 31 percent. MR. LEBOWITZ-You're saying that the natural slopes, as they've been calculated by the Planners, maybe too steep and, if I understand you correctly, you're saying you want more fill brought in to kind of level the slopes, is that it? MR. SHEA-I'm saying that I think that that would be an issue with Dave Hatin because I know it is now with another property in Queensbury Who has greater than 25 percent slopes. MR. GORALSKI-I think I can, maybe, clarify that a little further. There's a section of the Zoning Ordinance, in the supplementary regulations, that discusses construction on slopes greater than 25 percent. So, when you're working up your cost estimate, be sure that you address the issues in Sections, Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance because that will effect the cost. MR. LEBOWITZ-Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that mostly What we're talking about is that, if there were a building site, there would be mostly level and we're talking about the access to the site. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. LEBOWITZ-I don't think that we're talking about building down the mountain side. I think we're just talking about getting there. MR. GORALSKI-Well, I think Mr. Shea's point is just to make sure that you look at Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance and make sure that the concerns about constructing on slopes are addressed because they may effect your cost estimate. MR. LEBOWITZ-Okay, sure, that's a good suggestion. May I just have a very, very brief moment, here? MR. TURNER-Sure. MR. LEBOWITZ-Mr. Chairman, I've discussed the matter with the Callejo' s, very briefly and they've heard the discussion and I'd like to move that we be permitted to table this application with leave to re-submit after an analysis of the alternatives prepared by Staff. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-1990 BESSIE CALLEJO, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: To table at the applicants request, so that they might re-submit the application after they have time to analyze the Staff Input as to the possible alternatives for placement of the proposed house. Duly adopted this 15th day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. ROGGE-Could I say one more thing? I'd very much like to hear, this time, actually, what you're doing because I'd really like to have a neighbor up there. I think it would be wonderful. Last time, we were told we'd be kind of let in so we could all work together on it and I'd really like to do that. MR. CALLEJO-Nothing has transpired, yet. MR. ROGGE-Okay. You had a buyer for the property, before. 11 -- MR. CALLEJO-Y~s. MR. ROGGE-Do you still hav~ that buy~r? Ar~ th~y still int~r~st~d in it? MR. CALLEJO-W~ll, lid hav~ to talk to him. MR. ROGGE-So, at this point, you'r~ applying so you can s~ll th~ prop~rty? MR. LEBOWITZ-I'll t~ll you what, do you hav~ a card, or you can tak~ my card. Wh~n w~ g~t to a point w~'11 g~t in touch with you. MR. TURNER-You' 11 b~ r~sch~dul~d as soon as you g~t th~ information in, Mr. L~bowitz. MR. LEBOWITZ-Y~s, sir. I'll b~ in touch with th~ S~cr~tary. AREA VARIANCE NO. 103-1989 T'M.'E: UNLISTED LC-42A pnSCILLA SANDE:.sPIlEE NEW OWNER: SUSAN œCœINI CORRER OF FOX IIOAD AND RUNTER LANE TO OONSTIUJCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE THAT WOULD Nor MEET THE FBIONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK IlEQUIREMENTS.. REQUESTING AN EXTENSIœ OF TIME FIlAME FBØI. THE APPIOVAL OF 9/20/89.. TAX MAP NO.. 26-5-29 Lor SIZE: 2/3± ACRES SEcrION 4.020A MOTION TO EXTEND AREA VARIANCE NO. 103-1989 PRISCILLA SANDERSPREE, Introduc~d by Th~odor~ Turn~r who mov~d for its adoption, s~cond~d by Micha~l Sh~a: At th~ r~qu~st of th~ applicant, for a p~riod of on~ y~ar. Duly adopt~d this 15th day of August, 1990, by th~ following vot~: AYES: Mrs. EggI~ston, Mr. K~ll~y, Mrs. Go~tz, Mr. Sh~a, Mr. Carr, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turn~r NOES: NONE NEW BUSINESS: USE VARIANCE NO. 58-1990 T'lPE: UNLISTED UR-10 TAYiLOR AND LISA STEVENSON OWNER: HOWARD LAROSE SHEIIfAN AVENUE TO MALLORY AVENUE, LEFT œ NATHAN STIlEET; LEFT œ ALTA AVENUE; 4TH AND 5TH LOTS ON LEFT TO PLACE A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING MOBILE HOME 14 FT. BY 70 FT. IN A UR-10 ZONB. TAX MAP NO. 117-2-41 AND 42 LOT SIZE: 23,865 SQ. FT. SECTION 4.020 E TAYLOR STEVENSON, PRESENT MR. TURNER-Mr. St~v~nson, youlr~ going to buy Lots 41 and 42, right? MR. STEVENSON-Y~s. MR. TURNER-Okay, and th~ trail~r youlr~ going to put on th~r~ is a n~w trail~r? MR. STEVENSON-An 184. MR. TURNER-An '84, okay. MR. TURNER-Okay, my oth~r qu~stion would b~, why wouldn't you build a stick hous~ th~r~? MR. STEVENSON-Just affordability. I'v~ b~~n stuck with this trail~r. I'v~ b~~n trying to s~ll it. IIV~ tri~d to buy a hous~ and th~ bank r~quir~s m~ to s~ll this trail~r b~for~ I could g~t th~ loan and I couldn' t s~ll th~ trai1~r, so I couldn I t get th~ loan and th~ hous~ that I was trying to buy was sold and I just hav~n' t b~~n abl~ to get rid of it. I m~an, it' s som~thing that I owe quit~ a bit of mon~y on. I owe $18,000 on an 184 and I cannot g~t rid of it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Wh~r~ is it locat~d, now? MR. STEVENSON-It's in Forg~ Park Trail~r Park. MRS. EGGLESTON-What's th~ asking cost of th~ lot? MR. STEVENSON-It's a sp~cial situation. b~. I'm purchasing it for $3,000 cash a littl~ bit of my s~rvic~s, wants m~ total is $4,000. It's quit~ a bit lower than what it should and th~ g~ntl~man who has it, has r~quir~d to work off a thousand dollars. So, th~ 12 -- MR. TURNER-That's for both lots? MR. STEVENSON-Yess sir. MR. TURNER-I know there's some new houses right down the street from YOUs that were just put theres last falls I guesss and then there'ss on Sunsets right behind its there's a couple of nice houses there. One's a modulars looks like it might be a modulars that brown one? MR. STEVENSON-Yess I believe they did have a modular put in. ..like a trailers a very narrows long modulars that'ss basicallys like a trailer. I don't know what the codes ares but it meets the.. MRS. GOETZ-You live ons is it Briarwoods Circle? MR. STEVENSON-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-In a homes right now? MR. STEVENSON-Yess in this mobile home. MRS. GOETZ-And you want to move this mobile home? MR. STEVENSON-Yes. MR. CARR-If you move the mobile home s are you going to have skirting around the outside of it and everything? MR. STEVENSON-Yess sir. MR. TURNER-Are you going to put a foundation under it? MR. STEVENSON-I would in the futures but I can't do it now. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. STEVENSON-I would consider putting a cellar underneath it down. . built up a little further. MR. KELLEY-Mr. Stevensons in the application it says that the lot was for sale on and off for five years. Could you tell me how it was placed on the market for sale? MR. STEVENSON-It was through a realtor. He had had it through realtors. Cliff Summers Realty in Diamond point s approximately five years ago s and he's had it listed in Lake Luzerne Realtys about two years ago and Jay Corlands from Warrensburg s had been interested in the lot s but nothing materialized. I guess s he's not a realtor. MRS. GOETZ-And it's been on the market for these full five yearss or on and off? MR. STEVENSON-Wells on and off. MRS. GOETZ-I wonder why a local realtor wasn't handling it? I means that seems odd. MR. STEVENSON-I think that's because he's got all his properties in these realtors hands. He's been trying to unload them to build a development that's he's looking at and they're trying to unload some lands for financial aids to get this property going and the development. MR. KELLEY-When you list these different real estate people s does it happen to mention how much the property was for sale for s when it was listed by each of these two or three different people? MR. STEVENSON-Nos I don'ts sir. I don't have that. I do know thats a year agos he offered it to me for $6s000 and $6 or $8s000 must have been around the area he was talking about. MR. KELLEY-Sos we're talking two lots for $6,000? 13 MR. STEVENSON-Well, at that time, it was one lot. It was one lot for $6,000, if he couldn't get a sale for that, the bigger one of the two. The other one didn't meet the requirements, I don't think, for building, 10,000 square feet, I don't think it meets the requirements. MR. CARR-I don't think..could be sold individually. MR. TURNER-If you tried to take off the deck..You could sell them separately. MR. KELLEY-You could sell them separately? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Why wouldn't they be joined together as one lot that would be conforming? MRS. COLLARD-They basically are. MR. STEVENSON-You see, the larger lot of the two, meets the requirements and both of them together, obviously,..but the smaller lot, he really, if you separated them, it wouldn't work out because the smaller one wouldn't meet the 10,000 square feet requirements, I don't believe. MR. TURNER-You say there's eight mobile homes within a mile? MR. STEVENSON-Yes, I went down through, in looking at the map MR. TURNER-There's one down at the end of the street from Alta. MR. STEVENSON-Yes, there's a house that would be, it would be between two houses, and then, on the corner, there's a trailer. Down on Alta and Columbia corner, there's a trailer and you were mentioning that there's houses that are put in between these there, on these side streets. There's several mobile homes throughout that little section there. MR. TURNER-There's one at the end of Sunset, I think, on the north side. MR. STEVENSON-Yes. MR. TURNER-That's on a real small lot. MR. STEVENSON-But it was in that section, it's not outside of, it's from Western Avenue to Sherman to Luzerne, in there. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-I could ask Ted and Susan who worked on the zoning, why that wasn't made a permissible spot for trailers. What was your objective, if there are eight in there? MR. TURNER-It was UR-lO, at the time, before we changed it, and we left it at UR-10, we felt there was enough residential use in there that it didn't require placement of a mobile home there, even though there was some there. MRS. EGGLESTON-The homes do far out number the MR. TURNER-Yes. You drive down Alta Avenue and Sherman Avenue, I don't think there's one trailer. MRS. EGGLESTON-No, just in isolated spots. MR. TURNER-Just in isolated spots. Most of them have been there before the Zoning Ordinance went into effect. MRS. EGGLESTON-I know, I can sympathize with them wanting to get out of the trailer park, however, to me it's no different than if he came and wanted a trailer on Richardson Street or Corinth Road or Ridge Road or any other place. You'd set up the zonings of where you want the trailers and all we have to see is word to get around, we let one trailer go in a spot, by variance, and I think we'd be flooded because there's a lot of people who'd like to get out of the trailer parks and there just aren't that many spots, really, to put them. I have seen some advertised in the paper, though. Have you looked at any of those? There have been a couple of ads in the paper where you could buy a lot that was acceptable to a mobile home. 14 MR. STEVENSON-Th~r~ ar~ lots that ar~ availabl~. It I s just that, lean' t afford th~m. This is a situation wh~r~ th~ land has b~~n provid~d and.. that mak~s it affordabl~ to m~, oth~rwis~ I hav~ no way out. This is th~ only way out. I couldn't s~ll th~ trail~r and this is an opportunity that f~ll into my hands and I can prov~ financial hardship on m~, as far not b~ing abl~ to go any furth~r. I'd b~ stuck in a trail~r park for th~ r~st of my lif~. MR. CARR-Mr. St~v~nson, would it b~ possibl~, you had th~ cash to buy th~ prop~rty and..would it b~, mayb~, a wis~ inv~stm~nt to buy th~ prop~rty, now, so you could g~t yours~lf in th~ position to build a stick built hom~. I m~an, it's not going to, if you buy th~ prop~rty, it's not going to cr~at~ an additional cost. MR. STEVENSON-Not r~ally and, y~t, y~s. I'm s~lf ~mploy~d and I'm going to hav~ to work off on~ thousand dollars of that, which m~ans I'll hav~ on~ thousand dollars l~ss incom~, which, at this point, right now, is r~ally survival and I m~an, I could still, 1ik~ you said, purchas~ it and wait, but it would b~..carrying ov~r. MR. CARR-I can sympathiz~ with your situation, but, also, th~ probl~m with a Us~ Varianc~, in a zon~, that th~ prop~rty' s not zon~d for this us~, is just that, that it' s s~tting a pr~c~d~nt that, r~ally, w~ would hav~ to allow just about ~v~rybody to plac~ trail~rs Wh~r~ th~y would lik~ only b~caus~ th~r~ is a financial burd~n, but it's not a financial burd~n du~ to th~ prop~rty. It's a financial burd~n to you, as you'r~ in a tough situation. I und~rstand that, but that's not th~ financial burd~n for this zoning that w~ n~~d. It has to b~ b~caus~ of th~ prop~rty. MR. KELLEY-Joyc~ and I w~r~ talking, th~r~' s a littl~ bit of conflict, I think, in that, th~ own~r of th~ prop~rty is Howard LaRos~ and h~'s not h~r~ saying h~'s got a hardship. It's th~ applicant who's asking for th~ varianc~ that has th~ hardship. Th~ own~r do~sn't. MR. TURNER-Right. H~ has th~ hardship, as far as th~ financial ~nd of it go~s, for him, not for Howard. MR. STEVENSON-I don't know if you could consid~r it a hardship, but Howard's d~v~loping a n~w. .that h~' s trying to ti~ m~ into to work for him. This is his way, h~ actually sold it to m~ for a f~w thousand dollars l~ss than. .paid for, so that h~ could g~t my s~rvic~s. MR. KELLEY-W~ll, I und~rstand Wh~r~ you' r~ coming from. I sympathiz~ with that, but I think, at th~ sam~ tim~, What you hav~ to look at is th~ zoning and h~r~, this own~r of a pi~c~ of prop~rty, I know th~r~'s som~ t~stimony that h~, suppos~dly, had it for sal~ and you m~ntion~d som~ r~al ~stat~ p~opl~. From my ~xp~ri~nc~ in th~ building busin~ss and th~ planning d~v~lopm~nt busin~ss, I would say th~ last two in particular might not ~v~n b~ a tru~ t~st of Wh~th~r som~thing is salabl~ or not, only b~caus~ th~ ~conomy is kind of down and m~ss~d up. Th~r~'s a lot of d~v~lopm~nts that I know that hav~n't sold any lots. So, to say th~r~'s b~~n a probl~m, h~r~, I would say th~r~ could b~ a probl~m all ov~r. So, I'd hav~ to tak~ som~ of that and kind of put it asid~ and say, well, how good a t~stimony is that, r~ally. MR. STEVENSON-I'm not sur~ What th~ pric~ was, but, ~v~n if th~ mark~t's bad, and I do b~li~v~ th~ pric~ was $6,000 for th~ on~ lot, Which is a st~al Wh~n we bought it, it s~~ms to m~, I thought, not ~v~rybody wants to b~ n~xt to a.. but it's not lik~ I hav~ a choic~. MRS. GOETZ-It sounds lik~ we'r~ hard h~art~d, but if you list~n~d to Mr. Carr, you might b~ doing yours~lf a favor, in th~ long run, to buy it, and hop~ that you can put an affordabl~ hom~ th~r~, ~v~ntually and you' r~ going to ~nd up with som~thing good. I m~an, to buy that, for that amount of mon~y, sounds pr~tty good and I don't know if th~r~'s mor~ to th~ story than we'r~ b~ing told. MR. STEVENSON-I d~finit~ly don't plan on l~tting it go by, ~ith~r way. MRS. GOETZ-Right. MR. STEVENSON-It I s just that it puts m~ back, I don't know how long. You can't tak~ som~thing that you owe $18,000 on and turn it ov~r. .fiv~, six y~ars down th~ road, b~for~ I could think about it. MR. TURNER-At som~ point in tim~, you could s~ll th~ hom~. .mobil~ hom~ park, too. You might b~ abl~ to s~ll th~ trail~r that's in th~ mobil~ hom~ park. You might b~ abl~ to s~ll that, th~n you could turn around and inv~st that mon~y in that pi~c~ of prop~rty. 15 MR. STEVENSON-Well,..have been trying to sell that mobile home for over two years, now. MR. TURNER-It takes fast as they used to. time, sometimes, no doubt about Let me open the public hearing. it . Things don't move as PUBLIC BEAJUNC OPENED MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. 0' CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, just as somebody sitting and listening, I wonder if the Board would consider having the applicant ask for an adjournment so that he could go to the present owner, as Mr. Kelley has suggested, and come back with affidavits from the realtors that were involved and the owners, as to how long the effort has been made to sell it, as a single family residence, and what those results are and I think that you might then have some evidence before you, hard evidence, that the existing owner has a hardship, as to getting a reasonable return from the property, as a single family residence, that you could consider, as well as maybe the plight of the present applicant. I think you're right in saying that it has to be the hardship of the present owner and not the fellow who's buying it because probably the applicant, unknowingly, what Mr. Carr suggested might be correct, but if you do buy it, you've self created your own hardship and you'll never get a variance for that, other than for single family, because you bought it knowing what the existing zoning is and you're then into it, so you might be better off asking for an adjournment to fully explore all the possibilities and presenting everything that you can present to the Board, so the Board can make a decision based upon that, as opposed to on what you've presented tonight. Go to LaRose and find out all the circumstances of how he's marketing it and what he's been doing. I haven't been involved with this particular piece of property, but I've been involved with the LaRose's, this is Howard Senior? MR. STEVENSON-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-And he has been marketing his property ever since Winney LaRose died. This may even be a piece of property that is based upon the tax sale which creates a little bit of a marketability problems for single family residents, where it wouldn't for somebody who owns a mobile home, if they're willing to move on to it. There's a lot of circumstances that he could probably develop and present to you, that you might consider, and might consider worthy or might not consider worthy, but I don't think he's pre sented everyt hing he could pre sent to you. SHIRLEY HARVEY MRS. HARVEY-I'm Shirley Harvey. I have a lot on that parcel down in that area. All those lots are too small for building. They're only about 50 feet wide and 120 feet long, that' s ~y I don't object to their building there and it's very dense woods and I'd like to see them cleaned up, anyway. Thank you. PUBLIC BEAJUNG (1,OSED U>RRESPœDENCE MR. TURNER-We'll read this into the record, and then if you want to table it, we'll give you that opportunity. Do you want to table the application? First, let's read this into the record, then you'll have that opportunity. STAFF INPUT Notes from John S. Goralski, Planner (attached) MR. STEVENSON-I was just listening to the gentleman that was up in front of us talking and this is a Tax Law and it's also..in '62. I've been trying to trace it back, but I haven't had much luck with that. I thought I might add that. MR. TURNER-Is it your position you want to table this to provide us with further information to support your application? MR. STEVENSON-Yes, sir. 16 MOTION TO TABLE USE VAIIIABCE NO. 58-1990 TAYLOR AND LISA STEVENSON, Introduce:d by The:odore: Turne:r who move:d for its adoption, se:conde:d by Bruce: Carr: To table: at the: re:que:st of the: applicant, in orde:r to provide: more: information as to the: history of the: prope:rty, as to information on atte:mpte:d sale: of the: prope:rty. Dulyadopte:d this 15th day of August, 1990, by the: following vote:: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carr, Mr. She:a, Mrs. Goe:tz, Mr. Ke:lle:y, Mrs. Eggle:ston, Mr. Turne:r NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-Are: you tabling with the: public he:aring he:ld ope:n? MR. TURNER-The: public he:aring will be: he:ld ope:n. MR. GORALSKI-The: public he:aring was close:d. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm making that point. MR. TURNER-It de:pe:nds on the: information and how quick it come:s back. If it's two or thre:e: months down the: road, the:n we: , 11 have: to ope:n back up the: public he:aring, obviously. MR. 0' CONNOR-If you table: with the: public he:aring ope:n, you don't liave: to re:-adve:rtise:, is all my point, Mr. Chairman. MR. TURNER-I unde:rstand that. MR. 0' CONNOR-You, e:arlie:r, had made: a motion to close: the: public he:aring, but, as it's be:ing table:d, it might make: more: se:nse: to table: with the: public he:aring ope:n, at le:ast until ne:xt month. I'm making a te:chnical point. I'm not trying to prolong anything. MR. TURNER-I don't think that he:'ll ge:t that information in the: time: that we: ne:e:d it. MRS. GOETZ-So, do you want to table: with the: public he:aring ope:n? MR. TURNER-Ye:s, I'll table: with the: public he:aring ope:n. MOTION TO AllEND USE VAIIIANCE NO. 58-1990 TAYLOR AND LISA STEVENSON, Introduce:d by The:odore: Turne:r who move:d for its adoption, se:conde:d by Bruce: Carr: To table: with the: public he:aring le:ft ope:n. Duly adopte:d this 15th day of August, 1990, by the: following vote:: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carr, Mr. She:a, Mrs. Goe:tz, Mr. Ke:lle:y, Mrs. Eggle:ston, Mr. Turne:r NOES: NONE AREA VAHIANCE NO.. 59-1990 T"lPE: œLISTED 1iIR.-1A MAKnIA AND MIœAEL BOGAN OWNER: SAKE AS ABOVE PIŒEER POINT, FIrlGERALD ROAD GLEN LAKE REQŒSTING RELIEF FROM REQUIREMENT FOR FRONTAGE UPŒ A PtDBLIC STJlEE'l.. FOR O>NVEKSIŒ OF THE RESIDENTIAL SEASONAL DIiELLING TO A BAR ROŒD D\iELLIB8.. (\iåRREN O>1JNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO.. 0..19 AQŒS SEClIŒ7..077 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Turne:r, I'd just like: to me:ntion that the:re: should be: a corre:ction on your a~nda. This should be: tre:ate:d as a Type: I action, since: it's an Unliste:d action in a critical e:nvironme:ntal are:a. MR. TURNER-Alright. MS. CORPUS -Mr. Chairman, if I could make: one: more: comme:nt. I'd also like: to, pe:rhaps, ame:nd the: application or add to it that, not only would this be: a variance: application from Se:ction 7.077 of the: Ordinance:, but also Se:ction 280(a) of Town Law, just for the: Board's re:fe:re:nce:. 17 - MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman and Ladies and Gentleman, I'm Michael O'Connor from the Law firm of Little and O'Connor. For the purpose of the record, I am appearing here on behalf of Michael and Martha Hogan. They're application before the Board is for an Area Variance. They are the second owners of a lot that was created in 1957 when Bill Barton divide what was known as Pioneer Point into three pieces, keeping one, selling one to Carol Hillis and trading one to Bob Hughes and all built summer residences there. Those residences have become obsolete, at this point and Michael Hogan bought from Carol Hillis in 1976, wished to put a modern structure on their premises and, in order to do so, they need a building permit so "INe' re running into Section 280(a) of the Town Law which says that you must be on a Town Road to have a building permit and also the particular section of the Town Ordinance which says that you must have Town road frontage of at least 40 feet. This is a circtmlstance that was created long before the zoning was created. There are no possible alternatives because there's no land available that would make a connection to a Town road, but, basically, it's a yes or no type situation. He can utilize the property or he cannot utilize the property. .getting a building permit. In the old days, "INe used to argue that Glen Lake was a navigable body of water and, therefore, that was road frontage. I think we've kind of lost that argtmlent with a new definition within the Town Ordinance. In Lake George, you can still argue that. You can argue that Lake George is a navigable body of water and that is road frontage and it's a successful. .prove an argtmlent. We've changed our definition of road frontage, by saying it's accessible to emergency vehicles. It would be tough to get an emergency vehicle across Glen Lake. Although I've offered and I've had them down there to go across the island which is directly in front of this property and my property, Which is, I think my property is about 80 feet away from this property. If there ever is a fire on the island, they come down my driveway and go out that way because the boats on our property..I think it's the classic case of the need for an Area Variance and if you have any questions, I'd be glad to address them. I will indicate to the Board that this is not the only application that's going to be made before this project can be completed. I think we're also going to apply to the Planning Board for a Site Plan Review because we're converting a seasonal residence to a full time residence. We are also going to be applying to the Town Board for a Septic Ordinance Variance because what we're going to be putting in here is going to be a holding tank and there's not going to be a foundation under the house. It's going to be built, the house he wants to build is on the same foundation, same footprint. There's no change to that. It's on a slab. We can put a holding tank in and have the proper setback from the adjoining line of Hughes, but then it would be too close to the slab. So, we're going to have to get a variance from that 10 foot requirement, that it's supposed to be 10 feet from the house and 10 feet from the neighbors. I don't think it's really material, we don't have a basement. We really don't anticipate a problem obtaining that variance from the Town Board. The Site Plan Review, they will take a look at it. We, in fact, are going to create more permeable surface than what is presently there. We are going to upgrade the septic system from what is there and there will be a general improvement to the neighborhood and to the Lake. MS. CORPUS-Are you absolutely positive that's What you're going to do? MR. O'CONNOR-What? MS. CORPUS-Is that your definite, absolute plan? MR. O'CONNOR-What do you mean? MS. CORPUS - Ye s or no? MR. O'CONNOR-To improve the Lake? Yes. MR. GORALSKI-And you remember our correction on the agenda? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MS. CORPUS-Okay, in that case, this is a Type I, coordinated review action which would require determination of Lead Agency bet"lNeen the Planning Board, the Town Board MR. O'CONNOR-You have the Long Form affidavit filed. MS. CORPUS-Right. What would happen, in this case, is, this Board, we have to determine which Board will become Lead Agent, in this case, whether it's the Zoning Board, the Planning Board, or the Town Board. 18 --' MR. O'CONNOR-This is the only Board, though, that has anything to do with this particular variance application. MS. CORPUS-Correct, but it's still a coordinated review of the whole project. MR. O'CONNOR-It can, independent review. review. under SEQRA, be a coordinated review, or it can be an There's no requirement that a Board make it a coordinated MS. CORPUS-Well, that's up to the Board. If the Board chooses to view the project, as a whole, and determines that it's not, it would be inappropriate for this Board to make the SEQRA determination in this Long Form based on the information before it, then another Board would have to be chosen as Lead Agency, perhaps the Planning Board or the Town Board. MR. SICARD-Wouldn't that be better? MS. CORPUS-That is an option. This Board has to make a determination whether you have enough information to fill out this questionnaire because of the extensiveness of this project. If not, the Planning Board would have to rule on the SEQRA and it would have to come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a ruling on this application after the SEQRA has been done. MR. O'CONNOR-I will submit to the Board that we will go through SEQRA before each Board because each action that we're asking each Board to do is separate and distinct from what the other Boards will be doing. The Planning Board will be getting involved with siting on the property, runoff on the property and everything else which this Board really is not, of concern to this Board because this Board is simply saying, can you build not on a Town road or can you continue to build not on a Town road. It isn't into, really, the construction of what we're going to construct. We need a building permit and whether we're building a five story building or a one story building or half of a building or twice a building, we still need a building permit and that's What we're here for and the question simply is, I think, under 280(a) of the Town Law and even under the Sections of the Zoning Law, is Whether or not we will present a danger to anyone by not being on a Town road or Town frontage. I would ask this Board not to get involved with making a coordinated review because then I'm going to get into the horse and the cart problems Where, if I go to the Planning Board, they are not going to take action until all other variances that are necessary have been granted and.. \\hose first and whose second. I don't think it's prejudice to anyone to have this Board take a position that, as to this variance, they are going to be lead agency, not as to the total project, just simply Whether or not we can build not on a Town road. MRS. GOETZ-Okay, you said you're going to increase the permeability? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-How? MR. 0' CONNOR-The existing walks are going to be removed, along the building, and the building is going to be grained into crushed stone areas that would be placed where those walks are and neatly around the northerly edge of the building, I think, the southerly edge of the building and a portion of the western edge of the building. MS. CORPUS-Mr. O'Connor, I've got a reference, here, to the SEQRA Reg's and 617.6 that says, for involving more determination of all Type I actions and for coordinated review of unlisted actions than one agency, a lead agency must be established prior to significance. MR. 0' CONNOR-So, you have to make a determination of lead agency and I'm asking this Board to determine itself to be lead agency as to this application for this variance and that's permissible. Is it not permissible? MS. CORPUS-Well, if you look at it from, if you did segregate it, it is just to the variance, then it would only have this one agency involved, that's correct. MR. 0' CONNOR-And we still have to do a Long Form because of our designation of environmentally critical sensitive area, anything within 200 feet of the Lake and that's \\hy you've got the Long Form affidavit in front of you. If I go by that issue, but the one other thing, for your record, I would like to state is that I have spoken with both Robert Hughes and Edith Hughes, Who owned the property 19 -- --' on the east of the premises and I've spoken to both William and Anna Mae Barton who are on the innnediate south of the property. They all have no objection to what is proposed. They have seen the plans. It's been explained to them. They are very happy. They, in fact, use the same right-of-way to go across my property, to go across my mother's property, the tail end of Floyd Rourke's property to get to the Town road. MR. TURNER-I think our first position is to determine lead agency. Talk it out. Do you want the Planning Board to handle it? MR. CARR-No, I think MR. TURNER-I don't think we really need it. They're going to redo it again, anyway. MR. CARR-Right. MR. TURNER-But, I mean for this particular part of the application. MR. CARR-But I think we have to be lead agency for this part. MR. TURNER-For this part. MR. CARR-Mike has suggested the way it's treated, is that a vote that we have to do, to make ourselves lead agency? MS. CORPUS-Yes, it's a Type I action and a lead agency has to be determined. MOTION TO MAKE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THE LEAD AGENCY FOR THIS AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-1990 MARTHA AND MICHAEL HOGAN, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: They are seeking variance from Section 7.077 of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 280(a) of Town Law. Duly adopted this 15th day of August, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Shea, Mr. Carr, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. TURNER-Probably the next step would be to determine MR. GORALSKI-To review Part II of the Long EAF. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. GORALSKI-You should probably have your public hearing first. MR. TURNER-Okay, I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO OJMMENT PUBLIC HEARING o.OSED STAFF INPur Notes from Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner (attached) MR. TURNER-The next step, I guess, is to review this Long EAF? MR. GORALSKI-That's right. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's not filled out. MR. GORALSKI-It is filled out. It just so happens that most of the stuff in the EAF really doesn't apply to this situation. What you should do, I think the stuff in Part I of the Long EAF is descriptive in nature, to give you information on the site. I think everyone's familiar with the site and the proposal in front of them. So, I think if you go to Part II, start with Number One, Impact on Land, will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? 20 MR. CARR-And WE: havE: to answer thE:sE:? MR. GORALSKI-You havE: to answer that. havE: to answer thE:m. I'll writE: down your answers, but you MR. CARR-Do we havE: to votE: on E:ach qUE:stion? MR. GORALSKI-No. Just a simplE: YE:S or no. MS. CORPUS-And thE: Board should rE:mE:mbE:r, you'rE: just considE:ring frontagE: on a public strE:E:t and what is E:xisting thE:rE: and what would bE: changE:d by this variancE:. MOTION THAT WE HAVE BEVIEWED THE LONG EAF AND THE PROJECT WILL NOT BESULT IN ANY LARGE OR IMPORTANT IMPACT AND IS ONE WHICH WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, THEBEFOBE, A NEGATIVE DECLAJlATION WILL BE PREPARED, In trod UCE:d by Susan GOE:tz who movE:d for its adoption, sE:condE:d by ThE:odorE: TurnE:r: Duly adoptE:d this 15th day of August, 1990, by thE: following votE:: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carr, Mr. ShE:a, Mrs. GOE:tz, Mr. KE:11E:Y, Mrs. Egg1E:ston, Mr. TurnE:r NOES: NONE MR. CARR-Now, is this just onE: motion or do we havE: to havE: a motion on thE: variancE: too? MR. GORALSKI-You havE: to do this first, thE:n thE: variancE:. MR. TURNER-This first and thE:n thE: variancE:. ArE:a VariancE:. Now, motion I s in ordE:r for thE: MOTION TO APPROVE AJrEA VARIANCE NO. 59-1990 IfARTBA AND IUCBAEL HOGAN, IntroducE:d by JOYCE: Egg1E:ston who movE:d for its adoption, sE:condE:d by BrucE: Carr: This \VOu1d bE: to approvE: rE:1iE:f from SE:ction 7.077 of thE: Zoning OrdinancE: and SE:ction 280(a) of Town Law and this \VOu1d bE: a variancE: from thE: rE:quirE:mE:nt of frontagE: on a public road. Strict application of thE: OrdinancE: would dE:ny thE: applicant of rE:bui1ding on an E:xisting footprint. ThE: variancE: would not bE: dE:trimE:nta1 to thE: othE:r propE:rtiE:s in thE: nE:ighborhood and this rE:1iE:f is of a minimum naturE:. ThE:rE: will bE: no impact on public faci1itiE:s or sE:rvicE:s and thE:rE:'s no nE:ighborhood opposition. Duly adoptE:d this 15th day of August, 1990, by thE: following votE:: AYES: Mrs. Egg1E:ston, Mr. KE:11E:Y, Mrs. GOE:tz, Mr. ShE:a, Mr. Carr, Mr. Sicard, Mr. TurnE:r NOES: NONE MR. O' CONNOR-I oftE:n appE:ar on bE:half of thE: G1E:n LakE: Association and I rE:ally don't think this is in conflict with what I'vE: prE:sE:ntE:d bE:forE:. . .E:1iminating a SE:ptic systE:m which is. .right now and I think we arE: going to improvE: thE: shE:E:t runoff. This is going to bE: a biggE:r hOUSE:, morE: squarE: footagE:, but it's going to bE: a bE:ttE:r systE:m, as far as thE: SE:ptic goE:s. WE: , rE: not going to bE: building c1oSE:r to thE: LakE:. I think I do objE:ct to pE:op1E: who try to crE:E:p out. If thE:Y stay back and improvE: thE: SE:ptic systE:m, E:VE:n if thE:Y makE: it biggE:r, I think it's going to bE: an improvE:mE:nt. On motion mE:E:ting was adjournE:d. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, ThE:odorE: TurnE:r, Chairman 21 John C. Mannix Benjamin R. Pratt, Jr. Joøeph M. Walsh Mark J. Schachner· John C. Mannix. Jr." Thomas G. Clements..· Jeffrey J. Friedland .... Sandra L. Allen· Joøeph M. Kowalczyk, Jr.· 'A'" AdmlUed In M-.eh_U. "AI... AdmlUed New Huapohlre ... A'" Admltled In Dlatrtet of Columbia .... AIIo Admltled In CO....eetleut l"ILLER. l'1ANNIX & PRATT. P.C. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW ONE BROAD STREET PLAZA P.O. Box 765 GLENS FALLS, NEW YORK 12801 (518) 793·6611 John W. Miller (1908-1968) Toll Free In N.Y. State 800-421-6166 August 10, 1990 fò~-r-t+t= ~6uST 15 +-~ -v3A M. ~ HAND DELIVERED Stewart Baker, Assistant Planner Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay Road Queens bury, New York 12804 ." ~ 4 ~I"Kt!'.,r ~s I....~ r S +t..c:.. i.............., "0.,,,.., <... \J.C. ..{:...~ ~~ ~'" ,--r:L . . Re: Loggers Equipment Sales, Inc. Area Variance No. 97-1989 Dear Stew: As per our meeting this morning we request an extension of the above area variance. As we discussed, Loggers is hoping to relocate its business to the rear parcel of this property in the near future. Loggers reasons for requesting an area variance continue to remain the same as in their original application. Please advise me if the Zoning Board of Appeals can consider this next Wednesday. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to call me. Yours truly, , P.c. SLA/djb PRINTED ON @ RECYCLED PAPER '" Aa . - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY -.-/ planning Department "NOTE TO FILE" Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: August 9, 1990 By: John S. Goralski X Area Variance Use Variance - Sip Variance := Interpretation Other: SubdiYision: Sketch, PreJimift..._ _ _ -z, Site Plan Rmew - Petition far a Change of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDds Permit Final Application Number: Area Variance No. 75-1989 Applic:ant·. Name: John T. Whalen, Jr. MeetiDg Date: August 15, 1990 ............................................................................................ Variance number 75-1989 was filed on August 8, 1989. Under Section 10.070 of the Zoning Ordinance, this variance expired because a Building Permit was not obtained within one year. It is my opinion that the conditions which were the basis of the original approval, have not changed in the past year. I would recommend that the Board approve this request. A ttached, please find the original Findings Sheet. JSG/sed 1" " · '_ ..UCI:;¡.....J':-· \ ß~~;:~: ~LANNI~ONINC DIPARTMINT / / - ~ --' /<:z:;; 3 ~-~/Y~~ ~L~ ....4~ / N.- y /2-B 4-S--(/ /~- , ~. ~~r~ NY. /2-8Q/ / ~.Á- ~ 9 ..ð ~ ~ ~ ~ z:;- ./L-L/: 4!--é: ~ ~'~:2~~- /~ ~ .~~ ~ ~ ~¿~"?Ç- '¿~ . ; ~ -. , ......,-....... ---- - .>--- ..~-~ ;p ~ Theodore TlWller. Chairman R.D. .1. 13<1 Meadowbrook Road. Box 40<1 Queenlbury. New York IZ804 5lUan Go 'ecretan I q Wincre",-"",nve ' Queenlbury, New York lZ804 TO: John r. Whalen, Jr. RE: Area Variance No. 15-1<18<1 John T. Whalen, Jr. Hunter Lane Farm-To-Market Road Queenlbury. N.'!. IZ804 ATTN: John T. Whalen, Jr. DATE:' ~ ~ -, JUN 2 B . ~ ¡Jr ~ '<'1)' ~\/¡iD ) " /" , ¡l.rri0\)·"/ Meetinll Date We ba.. ""ewed tbe requeet fer. ~ Are. Variuce u. Variuce S.... Variuc. Other aDd b... tbe foUow" rec:_.....tI_r ~ APPROVED DENIED TABLED RESOLVED: , MonON TO APPRO'S ARIA VARlANCS NO. THIll. .IOU T. WHALIN. .IL Introduced by Daniel Griffin who moved Cor its adoption, seconded by Mr. Turner, The applicant has demonstrated practical dlCflculty thla II an older building lot In a subdivillon approved in the 1970'1. We have approved many varlance'l In thll area because oC the undersized lots. No adverse neighborhood eCCect, and no alternatives. The short EAF Corm shows no negative impact. Variance II Cor reduction of lotlllze, width and aJlsetbackl. Duly adopted thll 28th day oC June, 1989, by the foUowlnl vote, A YES, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Griffin, Mr. KeUey, Mrs. Eßleston, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Mr, MuUer SlüN 9~ Theodore Turnft', Chairmu Qu..n.blll'Y Zoning lou'll or Appeal. ~..tI_ I' 1ft ........... .. ...... ......... ... ...... -... .I ........... TT I sed 00'_ .._.. _It... .. _ .. _ ..... __ of ...-aa. ""1'_ _ ., ....... r.. . ...... .... ..." " ... ........ 'e... .. .......,.... t.. .......... ..... .. ......... ,. ...... _ ---. ........ ...." t. ._'..'" ........ .. ...,...... .. __ ., ........ ..l1ft....... I' ...., ....... ._u_" M" .........". .UII' ... . I) ,... ,... till ,. U.. .... II ... ....... ....... APPROVAL or TIllS APPUCA11OII.....1 TllAT TIm APPUCAMT CA. IIOW APPLY I'OIt A BUILDING PERMIT. "HOME OF NATUIUL BEAUTY A 0000 /ltACE TO LIVE" SETTLED '7Q .. ; ~ " .- ~ - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ---,,' P1=anning Department If NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: Augusf 15, 1990 Lee A. York By: X Area Variance Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Other: SubdiYiaiOD: Sketch, Pre1immary" - - , Site Plan Review - Petition for a Change of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDds Permit FiDal AppücationNumber: Area Variance No. 47-1990 Appticant'. Name: Bessie Callejo MeetiDg Date: August 15, 1990 ............................................................................................ This application was tabled for more information. This was a topographical map at 5 foot contour intervals. The applicant is requesting relief from the 100 foot setbacks required in the LC-10A zone. The request is to place a residence 2.0 feet from the front property line. The property is 130± feet deep at the point where the applicant wants to place the house. The topographic map indicates that the land goes from a 1,2.10 foot contour to 1,115 feet above sea level. This is over 350 feet or a 30 percent slope. If the applicant moved the house to the north or further back on the property, it could be built within the setback limits specified in the Ordinance or with minimal variance (15 feet rear, 10 feet front - map attached). The slope in this case would go from 1,2.05 to 1,170 over 90 feet or a 38 percent slope. The slope factors can be overcome. In another scenario, the house can be moved to 80 feet from the property line (map attached). The slope could be reduced to 31 percent and a front and rear setback of 80 feet (map attached). The area in question was designated Land Conservation ten acres because of the limitations related to the slope and the development constraints. An excerpt from the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (page 8) is as follows: '> Variance No. 47-11j1jU - Land with slope characteristics greater than 25 percent experience extreme problems in development. At this slope even lawn mowing could be a problem. Development costs are highest with other problems related to bedrock or water table usually accompanying this slope range. Runoff is extreme sometimes resulting in little infiltration and erosion of exposed soils. Areas with these characteristics are most evident in the mountainous region, but also existing along stream corridors, along the Hudson River and in the Glens Lake, Lake Sunnyside areas. It was recognized in the zoning that these sensitive areas had to be protected by allowing less density and greater setbacks. The applicant has not proven that their request is for minimal relief. The applicant has not described any feasible alternatives. The degree of the variance is substantial in relation to the Ordinance. The neighboring property owner developed on similar property without requesting a variance, which indicates that the property is not unique in developmental constraints. There is no adverse effect on public facilities. LA Y Ised -.....--- ~ "V> "I:;) - ---- ... .... "- " .... ~ " , ',,- ""-, "-" , "\ "'-, "-" "- \ ", '\ , , , \ o,,"=> , " " ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ a u ~ ,'1- , ~ ..... ..... I .... \ \ , \ \ ,I:;) " , ~. \..., \ 1145 ~ ..... .... \ 4t) ~ /? ;y .... ..... .... .... .... o~~ :{It).... .... ..... ...... ....... ...... ..... .... , ,'=> " \ 1105 ". ~ 3·' 'i:-- - -- ~} ~ I> / r· 1 1 1 0 -, / / /-; ',,//,' ~ . ~ - '. / '- 1115 '120 1125 :::' --' ¡ 1;30 \ \ \ \ i \ ! 1135 , '40 'L \no: ~~X~ ~ ,. ¡ ,- r .:;, .P ~Ñ I _ ~,,; ~o't( ~ ~ ~. -. 1155 ,\ \ - 115C - ~ 1 ~ 60 \ 1165 , " 1170 1./ ~' I" 1175 ~', . ~. c-\ "10 j5 \ ' 0 ~'.c:."'" ". ~ 2.. .ç. \ .~~ '~ --í - 7185 '180 ,'-" ~ 2'1 \ ,,":J .~ ~" .--J -' . p, st.~ .___ ' ~'h), - __ 1190 ..¡ '{ 1~ ~ . ----... --------- ;.¡ . - ---. . "''',¡r'J;: -91 ~ ". ----------'" \--------- \ . '\ \,. \ --o,,~ \' cQ ,,1: o~ ,,']; .1.' C) \ ~ ~{f1Jìi!1!!! '~ - '---' TOWN OF QUEENSBURY P1"nniY\g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: By: Au~ust 6. 1990 Stuart G. Baker X Area Variance - Use Variance - Sign Variance == Interpretation Subdirision: S1tet~ Prelimifta- _ _ -J' Site Plan Reriew == Petition fer a CbaDge of Zone Freshwater Wetlaada Permit FiDal Other: Application Number: Area Variance No. 103-1989 AppliC&Dt'. Name: Priscilla SandersDree MeetiDg Date: AU2USt IS. J 990 ............................................................................................ The applicant is requesting an extension of a variance granted on September 20, 1989. If none of the conditions that led to this approval have changed, I would recommend approval of this request. I have attached the original findings of 9/20/89 for this application for your review. SB/pw ;0 /ì.;/I ~ --~ . - ~er~ J Øfiwi~~ ~. DEPARTMENT 31 Woodbrook Drive Ridge, New York 11961 July 6, 1990 Town of Queensbury Zoning Board Bay Road Queensbury, New York 12804 RE: Area Variance No. 103-1989 John and Susan Cecchini corner of Fox Road and Hunter Lane To whom it may concern: It has come to my attention that Variance No. 103-1989 will expire on September 20, 1990. As we will be unable to file for a Building Permit before this time, we ask that you consider granting us an extension during your August agenda. Should you need to contact us for any reason we can reached at (516) 821-0864 or at the above address. Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Sincerly, ~~~~ Susan Cecchini '> ~ , --- Theodore Tl.Il'ner. Chairman R.D. _5. Box 409 139 Meadowbrook Road Queensbury, Ne... York 1280" Susan Geotz. Secretary 19 Wmcrest Dnve Queensbury, ~;ew . 12804 -- TO: Priscilla Sanderspree Area Vanance :-10. 103-1089 RE: P.Q.. Bow: 192 Priscìlla Sanderspree Cl.v.rrl..aI~ N V corner of Fox Road and Hunte!:" Lane "A,n ATTN: Priscilla Sander spree DATE: September 20. 1989 Meeting Date We have reviewed the request for: ....!. Area Variance Use Variance Sign Variance Other and have the followiftl recommendatioft.: .J APPROVED DENIED TABLED RESOLVED: troduced For aU the reasons in the start notes bei", that. strict application at the dimensional requirements ot the Zonlnr Ordinance would make this lot unbuildable. This lot Is in an approved subdivision and development at this site would have no impact on public tacilitles and servtc.. Duly adopted this 20th day ot September. 1989, by the roUowlnr vote: A YES: Mrs. Goetz. Mr. Sicard, Mr. Keney, Mrs. En1eston, Mr. MuUer, Mr. Turner NOES: None ABSENT:Non. PLEAn: READ THE BACK OF THIS FORM 'I'IIuk you. APJII'"al of tbia appUcatioD m... that the appUcaat cu DOW apply for a ~ '-it UDIeII ,..... luda .... AdtroDdack PU'k jUI'taiIUctiODal. ~ý'~ ~ T....... CJIairm.. ~... Bovd of Appea1a 'M'/_ '" ~ .. - -- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY P1anning Department "NOTE TO FILER Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: August 9, 1990 By: .T nhn S l.n?"::> l~k; Area VuiaDce --y- Use Variance == Sign Variance _ Interpretation Subdi.øion: Sketch, _ Preliminary, Site Plan Review - _ Petition for a Change of Zone Freshwater WetlaDds Permit Final Other: Application Number: Use Variance No. 58-1990 Applicant'. Name: Taylor and Lisa Stevenson, Owner: Howard LaRose MeetiDg Date: August 15, 1990 ............................................................................................ In making a determination on a Use Variance, the Board must consider the criteria setforth in Section 10.040B. It does not appear that there is any unnecessary hardship to the applicant arIsIng from the provisions of the Ordinance. Furthermore, this lot does not appear to be unique with respect to topography, shape, or size. A statement on page 2 of the application indicates the owner has been attempting to sell the property for five years without results. This would indicate the property cannot yield a reasonable financial return. if used as zoned. The placement of a mobile home on this lot would not be detrimental to the purpose of the UR-IO zone. It provides for infill of the high density areas. Also, this request would be the minimum relief necessary since it would maintain the residential character of the area. ; " ~ ~. - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY - - P1é1'nning Department "NOTE TO FILE" By: August 9, 1990 Stuart G. Baker Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: X Area VariaDce Use Variance - Sip Variance == Interpretation Subdi.uïon: Site Plan Rmew - Petition for a Change of Zone - Freshwater WetlaDds Permit Sketch, Prelim· - mary, FiDal Other: Application Number: Area Variance No. 59-1990 Applicant'. Name: Martha and Michael Hogan MeetiDg Date: August 15, 1990 ............................................................................................ The applicants would like to demolish the existing seasonal dwelling, and rebuild a year-round home in the existing footprint. They are requesting a variance from Section 7.077 of the Ordinance, which requires frontage upon on public street. The applicants' lot is accessed through a deeded right-of-way. I have reviewed the application according to the criteria in Article 10, and I have the following comments: 1. There are many seaso.nal and year-round properties along Glen Lake that do not have direct access onto public roads. Strict application of this Section of the Ordinance would deny this property owner, and all owners of similar properties, the ability to rebuild for any purpose, on an existing footprint. z. The variance would not be detrimental to the other properties in this district, and is the minimum relief necessary for the stated objective. 3. There will be no impact on public facilities and services. SGB/sed . "