Loading...
1991-04-17 '-' QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 17TH, 1991 INDEX Area Variance No. 30-1990 Area Variance No. 26-1991 Area Variance No. 27-1991 Area Variance No. 31-1991 Mi ke Ba i rd 1. Richard L. Mattison 3. George and Karen Chant 5. Scott A. Spell burg Judy L. Spellburg 10. Area Variance No. 32-1991 Robert and Jeanne Rizzo 12. Notice of Appeal No. 5-90 Susan E. Rourke RE: Brenneisen Boat Ramp 15. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 17TH, 1991 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER. CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ. SECRETARY JOYCE EGGLESTON CHARLES SICARD BRUCE CARR JEFFREY KELLEY MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL SHEA DEPUTY TOlIN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT CRAYFORD PLANNER-JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-1990 TYPE II LI-IA MIKE BAIRD OWNER: LORETTA BAIRD CORINTH ROAD, 1 MILE WEST OF EXIT 18 LOCATED BElWEEN WEST NT. DELI AND GARY BALL COUNTERTOPS FOR A 30 FT. BY 60 FT. ADDITION ONTO EXISTING BUILDING/BUSINESS. REQUESTING RELIEF FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK RE~IREJÐT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 126-1-35 LOT SIZE: 1.34 ACRES SECTION 4.020 MIKE BAIRD. PRESENT MRS. GOETZ-This is a 1etter from Michae1 J. Baird, "I am writing in reference to Area Variance 30-1990 that was granted to me in Apri1 of 1990. You wi11 find a copy of this approva1 enc10sed. As of this date, I have not app1ied for a bu11ding permit. It is my understanding that one must do so within one year of the approva1 date. Due to the unpredictab1e economy. I -find it unwise to expand at this time. Therefore. I wish to app1y for an extension. There have been no revisions pertaining to this variance. I simp1y wish to f0110w through at a time when the economy is more stab1e. If you have any questions or need further information. p1ease fee1 free to ca11. Thank you for your time and consideration. Michae1 J. Baird" Do you want me to read the motion? MR. TURNER-Maybe you better. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. This was the variance motion, "The app1icant is asking for an area variance on the west side of his property. The existing bui1ding is 13 feet from the west property 1ine. The Ordinance ca11s for 30 foot side setbacks and they are 100king for a 17 foot re1ief. The practica1 difficu1ty is that the tota1 wi dth of the property is 120 feet. With 30 foot si de setbacks on both si des. thi s wou1d on1y be 60 foot usab1e for the width area. We must take into consideration that there is a1so an existing dwe11ing on the property. If you were to attach the proposed bu11ding to the existing bui1ding and maintain a 30 foot side setback. it wou1d create an ungain1y f100r p1an and tend to crowd the space between the sing1e fami1y dwe11ing and the new bui1ding. By granting him this area variance. it wi11 1eave approximate1y 32 feet between the bu11dings. This is a good idea. providing for future access to the rear of the bu11ding such as the septic system. In the Light Industria1 One Acre Zone there cou1d be more future growth. This wou1d provide adequate access to the remainder of the property. This wou1d not be detrimenta1 to the purpose of the Ordinance. There's no adverse effect on pub1ic fac11ities or services and with the petition submitted, there is no neighborhood opposition." And it was a unanimous vote to grant this variance. This is a 1etter from Leroy Ba11. Jr. "We are his next door neighbors. We understand that if by Apr11 25th. 1991 Mr. Baird has not started construction of any kind. he has to go to the P1anning Board for renewa1." Which is a mistake. It shou1d be the Zoning Board. "If this is the case we. due to new circumstances. wou1d 1ike to withdraw our 1etter of consent. We are now against this variance. Too c10se to our fence." MR. TURNER-Michae1. can you update us when you may be 100king to start construction? MR. BAIRD-Basica11y, it was either going to be this summer or next summer. I mean. it's not going to be indefinite1y. There's definite1y economy prob1ems. I'd 1ike to see what happens, and it took a 1itt1e 10nger than I thought when I started this wh01e process. I thought I'd get a permit and bui1d and it wou1d probab1y be bui1t by now. but as you know it took me about eight months just to get through. So I thought I fo11owed every procedure quite thorough1y. By then it was fa11 time and I cou1dn't bu11d. 1 MR. TURNER-Okay. Any questions? None? Mr. Ba11, do you want to address the Board? LEROY BALL MR. BALL-What do you want me to say? MR. TURNER-I guess I want to know why you're against it. MR. BALL-Because it's 10 feet from his 1ine. MR. TURNER-Why were you in favor of it the 1ast time? MR. BALL-Because he ta1ked us into it. We feH sorry for him. He was going to do it right away. We said if he did we'd go a10ng with it. It wou1d 100k better than what he's got there now and he hasn't done anything different. It 100ks just 1ike it did before when we h011ered about it. Besides. if he wants it, he's got 500 feet of 1and by 120 feet wide. He can put it right where his other garage is and be a nice bu11ding. It wou1dn't hurt anybody and he can store his truck and everything e1se. He just bought a new pickup. a great big boat. There's nothing about the economy to start that bui1ding. He cou1d have started it anytime. Now, I 1ike Michae1. He's been a nice neighbor. In his own way. He doesn't even ta1k to me. So that's my point. He just s01d his other business out and they're a haH a m11e down the road and they haven't got any bi g bu11ding. They work out of a two car garage. You know what I mean? So why does he need a big bu11ding there now, right next to me? And my house faces this way. not the road. In other words. he's 27 feet from me, my we". you know what I mean. where his septic is going to go and the front of our house. we have to have a note on the door for everybody to come around the back door now because we can't get anybody in the front door. my own driveway and I just think it's too c10se. I went for it before. and I gave him a year and I figure he's had enough time and I'm retired and I don't want my insurance to go up and if he bu11ds it that c10se and he we11s it and he paints it. Then I've got to have more insurance and everything e1se on my home and I don't want it and that's a11 I can say. He's got a 10t of room and he doesn't need that great big bu11ding. If he does. 1et him put it out in back. Put it over a 1itt1e ways. Put it over the 30 feet. Just move it back a 1itt1e bit. That's a11 I ask. MR. SICARD-I think that shou1d have been brought up at the meeting. MR. TURNER-Yes, it shou1d have been. MR. BALL-It was brought up. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. BALL-I mentioned it a" first and we ta1ked it out. I signed the note for it and I went a10ng with it. MR. TURNER-No, but I mean. you didn't come up here. That's what we're saying. You said you were in favor of it the first time around. MR. BALL-No. I wasn't in favor of it. He said he was going to c1ean it a11 up and do it right away and it wou1d be a nice 100king bui1ding. He was going to re-finish the other 01d bui1ding and everything e1se. He hasn't done anything. I mean. he says he hasn't got any money, but he seems to do what he wants. MR. TURNER-I know. but the prob1em now is that he's a1ready been granted the variance. He's a1ready been through site p1an review. He's a11 set to go. It's just a matter of renewa1. MR. BALL-He said he was going to do it in a year. MR. TURNER-Yes, but we can renew it. We don't need to rehear it a11 over again. MR. BALL-No. I was going to say. he had a year to do it and he didn't do it. MR. TURNER-That's fine, but he has the option to renew the variance. He has that right to request that that be extended. MR. BALL-I just came up to say what I had to say because I had to get a 1awyer and put a b111board right down in front of the wh01e bui1ding. MR. TURNER-A11 right. MR. BALL-Because I own the property. I own the property it's even on. I just fee1 sorry for him because he doesn't 1ive up to his words. He says the economy is why he doesn't want to put the big bu11ding up. Yet he buys big boats and trucks and pick ups and everything e1se. 2 MR. TURNER-All right. I would move to extend it. MRS. GOETZ-For how long? MR. TURNER-One year. That's all he has it for. MOTION TO EXTEND AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-1990 MIKE BAIRD. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Bruce Carr: For a period of one year. DUlY adopted this 17th day of April, 1991. by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard. Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea NEil BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED CR-15 RICHARD L. MATTISON OWNER: SAJ┼ĺ AS ABOVE 6 RICHARDSON STREET FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 24 FT. BY 24 FT. GARAGE. TAX MAP NO. 130-2-6 LOT SIZE: 50 FT. BY 195 FT. SECTION 4.020 1 RICHARD MATTISON. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski. Planner. Area Variance No. 26-1991. Richard Mattison. April 11. 1991. Meeting Date: April 17. 1991 "The applicant wishes to construct a 24' by 24' garage that does not meet the side yard setback requirements. This is an undersized narrow lot. Because the side setback requirement is twenty feet. there is onlY a 10 foot wide strip of usable land on this property. This would not be wide enough for even a single car garage. I would recommend that the garage be built at least 25 feet from the house to al10w safe maneuvering space and be centered on the lot. This would be the minimum relief necessary to construct a garage." MR. TURNER-Mr. Mattison. where are your septic lines? MR. MATTISON-What I'm going to do. I'm going to move it. If I can get it here. I'm going to move it back here and put a whole new septic in back here because it's running right here. So instead I was going to put it over here, but I'm going to put it here like he's got it here so that there's going to be a new septic going in, if this is approved, for my two car garage. MR. TURNER-Okay. All right. MR. MATTISON-Right now the septic runs. like. here. MR. TURNER-Are you in agreement that you don't have room enough to get in the garage right there? MR. MATTISON-Yes. I'd like to get back farther. MR. TURNER-Go back 25 feet and center it up in the center of the lot. MR. MATTISON-Right. That would be better. yes. That would be okay. MR. TURNER-All right. Does anyone else have any questions of Mr. Mattison? MRS. GOETZ-Well. when did you buy the house? MR. MATTISON-I bought the house about 10 years ago. MRS. GOETZ-You bought this property 10 years ago? MR. MATTISON-Right. At least 10 years or maybe longer. Like. I've lived there for 20 years. MR. TURNER-Is there anyone else? MR. KELLEY-I think John's thinking about moving it back so you can get in and out of it. MRS. GOETZ-So what will the dimensions be? I mean. is it going to change? Will we need a rear setback? 3 MR. TURNER-We11. the garage is 24 and the 10t is 50. MRS. GOETZ-But I mean to move it back, towards the back 1ine, is that what you mean? MR. MATTISON-John made a sketch of it. I don't know if you've got it or not. MR. CARR-Mr. Mattison. why do you need a two car garage? MR. MATTISON-We11. because I've got my two new cars and I reaHy wanted. you know, I'd reaHy 11ke a two car garage. What good's a one car garage sitting outside if you've got, you know, that's reaHy why I want to bui1d the garage. MRS. EGGLESTON-Did the 1itt1e house next to you just change hands? One of those just s01d right there. MR. MATTISON-Yes. about a year ago it did. MRS. EGGLESTON-Then it's the one next to you that they cut in ha1f or something. MR. MATTISON-Yes, they've re-done it a11 over. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. MATTISON-John Castro 1ives over there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-If you center it on the 10t, you'd have 13.41. 24 from 50. MR. MATTISON-Si r. what we were going to do is put it over c10ser on the other one. It's going to be about 10 and a ha1f feet and 16 because my neighbor on the other side. John Ske11ie, we have no prob1em with either one of them, but the one on the other side. here. he's new in the neighborhood and a 10t of peop1e have had troub1e with him. so I'd 11ke to keep it away from him. away from his property. MR. TURNER-John's to the north? MR. MATTISON-Yes. Castro. MRS. GOETZ-So you want to go c10ser to Ske11ie? MR. MATTISON-Yes. I'd be 10 feet from John Ske11ie's. yes. MR. TURNER-I0.82? MR. MATTISON-Yes. right. MR. TURNER-A11 right. But you agree you're going to move it back from the house, though. aren't you? MR. MATTISON-Yes. MR. TURNER-25 feet? MR. MATTISON-Yes. MR. KELLEY-So what are the side yards that he's trying to get? MR. TURNER-It wou1d be 10.82 on the south side. 16 feet on the north side. and 25 feet from the house back. MR. KELLEY-Okay. That isn't going to change then? MR. TURNER-No. MR. KELLEY-It's just that it's going back 25 feet from the house. MR. CARR-Right. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. TURNER-Any further questions of Mr. Mattison? None? A11 right. Let me open the pub1ic hearing. 4 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COIIENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. GOETZ-I don't think there's anything in here. MR. TURNER-Okay. A motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-1991 RICHARD L. MATTISON. Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption. seconded by Joyce Eggleston: The applicant wishes to construct a 24 foot by 24 foot 2 car garage behind his house. He's seeking a variance from the side yard setbacks. The particular zone calls for a 20 foot side yard setback and Mr. Mattison is seeking. on the south property 1ine. a variance of 9.18 feet which would place his garage 10.82 feet from the southerlY property line. He is also seeking re1ief of four feet from his northerlY property line which would place the proposed garage 16 feet from his northerlY property line. The practical difficu1ty in this case is that his lot size is 50.82 feet in width and 198 feet in depth. If the Ordinance were strictlY adhered to. there would onlY be 10 feet of usable space through the center of this lOt. The applicant wishes to provide shelter for his two cars and other miscellaneous essential yard equipment. This appears to be a reasonable request and this is the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. It does not appear to adverselY effect public facilities or services. There is no neighborhood opposition and there appears to be no negative impact from the Short Environmental Assessment Form. The Board is also recommending that Mr. Mattison keep a distance of 25 feet between the existing house and the proposed garage. DUlY adopted this 17th day of April. 1991. by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard. Mrs. Goetz. Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Carr. Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MRS. GOETZ-Jeff. should we mention that the zoning classification changed? Is that part of the practical difficulty because this is that new zone that was created, or doesn't it matter? MR. TURNER-Yes. but not really because the lot is really undersized as far as the width of it goes. He'd reallY need a variance to do much of anything on it. MR. KELLEY-ProbablY. no matter what the zone was. MR. TURNER-No matter what he did. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA GEORGE AND KAREN CHANT OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE NORTH SIDE OF CRONIN ROAD BOTTOM OF HILL (YELLOW HOME) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8 FT. PRIVACY FENCE ON lHE EAST SIDE OF THE POOL. FENCES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES CAN BE A MAXIMUM OF 6 FT. IN HEIGHT. TAX MAP NO. 46-2-26, 27.1 LOT SIZE: 15,000 SQ. FT. SECTION 7.091 C GEORGE CHANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner. Area Variance 27-1991, George and Karen Chant, April 12, 1991. Meeting Date: April 17. 1991 "The request is to vary the area standards to allow for an 8 foot privacy fence instead of the required 6 feet. The applicant has a pool which is highlY visible to his neighbor and passersby. The topography in the area makes it difficu1t to place the pOOl where it would not be visible. The criteria for the area variance are as follows: 1 - Are there special conditions applying to this property or building. and not applying generally to other properties or buildings in the neighborhood? Yes, the house is situated in a lower lying area than the neighboring house and roadway. 2 - Would the strict app1ication of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the app1icant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings? The applicant has use of the land and buildings but not of the pool area which is required to be fenced for safety reasons. 3 - Would the strict application of the dimensional requirements resu1t in a specified practical difficu1ty? The strict app1ication of the dimensional requirements would allow the pOOl and deck to be visible. 4 - Would this variance 5 be materiaHy detrimenta1 to the purposes of this Ordinance. or to property in the district? No. 5 - Is this request minimum re1ief necessary to a11eviate the specified practica1 difficu1ty? It wou1d appear so. Two feet more on the top of a fence wou1d not seem an unreasonab1e request in this 10cation." MR. TURNER-Okay. George, you've got an above ground po01. What is it, three feet, four feet? MR. CHANT-George Chant. Four feet. MR. TURNER-You say six feet is not high enough, even though you're e1evated four feet above the ground and your backyard is quite a ways away from the road? MR. CHANT-Right. but coming down the road you can see right through everybody's front yard right into our backyard. MR. CARR-You mentioned in your app1ication about p1anting of shrubs. Are you intending to p1ant shrubs? MR. CHANT-I p1an on p1anting shrubs a10ng the property 1ine, yes, or. excuse me. a10ng the fence 11ne after the fence is constructed. yes. There'11 be. 1ike. a 10ng f10wer box put in. some shrubs put in. MR. CARR-A11 right. Okay. I was wondering. are you hoping that the shrubs grow higher than the fence. I mean for a natura1 barrier? MR. CHANT-Once I get the fence up I'H be ab1e to te11. It's hard to gauge, wa1king down the hiH. exact1y how high that eight foot fence is going to be and exact1y what can be seen and what not. but it's going to take years for a natura1 shrub 1ine to grow in. MR. CARR-Yes. but do you think two feet is going to make that much of a difference? MR. CHANT-I hope so. I rea11y don't want to put an awkward 100king one up. If I go ten. I think it's going to start 100king awkward. If I go six. I'm going to be 1itera11y two feet above the po01 area. MR. TURNER-If you go ten feet. you're going to be above your first f100r in the house. MR. CHANT-Not the way the po01's set into the backyard, no. MR. TURNER-We11. your po01's four feet above the ground. MR. CHANT-Right. MR. TURNER-You don't even have to have a fence around that. That's an e1evated po01. MR. CHANT-Right. I rea1ize that. I didn't ask for a fence because of a safety reason. because I fee1 I have to have it fenced in. MR. TURNER-Are you going to fence that deck? MR. CHANT-The deck wiH have a ra11ing around it with safety gates on the deck so no one can enter it that way. MR. TURNER-Yes. Anyone e1se? MR. CARR-Did you have any other possib1e 10cations for the po01? MR. CHANT-No. due to where the septic is. I cou1d have put it back. MR. CARR-What about the dog pen? Cou1d you have moved the dog pen or something? MR. CHANT-No. The dog pen. the actua1 corner of the dog pen is right lined up even with the septic system and the dog pen is no where near as big as the po01 and deck area. MR. KELLEY-You're 10t is the 100 by 150 foot 10t? MR. CHANT-Correct. MR. KELLEY-And on the Tax Map that's Number 26. MR. CHANT-Okay. Right. MR. KELLEY-And it says you a1so own the 1and to the east. which is the 4.2 acre. MR. CHANT-Right. the adjoining 10t, correct. 6 -- -" MR. KELLEY-Okay. I guess I'd have to ask, what is your proposed thought for future use of this other four acre piece of property? MR. CHANT-To be honest with you, I haven't given it any thought. as of yet. MR. KELLEY-Okay. I mean, I drove by and I know what you're saying. You come down the hiH and there is a iot of wide open space between your house and the one up the hiii. I guess. you know, if there were to be a house buiit there. for exampie, that possib1y cou1d sheiter some of this visibiiity that you have. Then you've got the other prob1em. if there's a house there. it's going to be that much c10ser to where you are. MR. CHANT-Yes. I beiieve. I don't know how the iaw stipu1ates. but does a 10t have to be a specific width anymore. because I think I on1y have. iike. 70 feet road 1ength there and then it goes out into the acreage. MR. TURNER-It's tapered, right. MR. CHANT-No. It's straight back. but it's on1y, 1ike, 70 feet wide now. So. I don't think they cou1d put a house within that acreage. within the entire acreage. yes. MR. TURNER-They'd have to have 40 feet on a road. They cou1d sti11 put the 10t on the back. MR. CHANT-Right. MR. TURNER-Or. I mean. a house on the back. MR. CHANT-Right. So therefore the house wou1d actuaHy sit farther in back. It wou1d sit behind the po01, if one was ever bui1t on that 10t. MRS. GOETZ-I don't remember a storage bui1ding behind the pooi. MR. CHANT-Okay. I just got the buiiding permit for that. That was actuaHy drawn for that buiiding permit and then I drew it ai1 at once because I knew it was a11 going to come up sooner or iater. MR. CARR-Mr. Chant. I guess my probiem is that I'm not sure that two feet's going to he1p you and yet now I kind of fee1 that we might be setting an exampie. I mean, that peop1e with po01s might be ab1e to get two extra feet or whatever. I mean, that's not what the Ordinance is for, but I'm just worried that a1so it's just not going to he1p you. I mean. that hi11's pretty high and it comes down. MR. CHANT-Weii, I rea1ize that. MR. CARR-I mean. you're rea11y taiking about a site iine of on1y four feet over where your poo1 is. That's not a very high distance. MR. CHANT-That side yard is being raised. okay. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. CHANT-There's going to be fii1 brought in that side yard to get proper drainage down through there. because I sit right on the bottom of the hi" and aii the water from that road usuaHy ends up in my side yard. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is that what the drainage ditch? MR. CHANT-That's what I've been trying to do. I've been ta1king to the Highway Supervisor trying to get some kind of answer to my prob1em because I'm sitting on the bottom of the hii1 and we haven't been abie to come up with anything. short of just keep rep1acing that 1ittie curbing that they're putting in there. On a hard rain. the rain comes over the curbing into my side yard. So, what I'm trying to do it put drainage down through the side yard and put grave1 in there that wiii, I'm aH in ciay. That whoie basin in there is ciay and the water basicaHy sits on top of a11 the c1ay. I'm trying to bring in gravei. and I think you were over. MRS. GOETZ- Yes. MR. CHANT-There's a pressure treated fence iine that I had put up. I had intended on putting this up. I had no idea that I couidn't put an eight foot fence up untii Vic came over to approve some of my buiiding activities in the house and he said, what are you doing with the fence. We got ta1king and he said. we11, you can't put an eight foot up. but you can put a six. So then we started ta1king and I went to Pat and this is how this ai1 came about. So in either case, the p01es were in, but the side yard wii1 be actua11y two feet above the base of that po01. okay, because the pooi sits in back of the garage and that's ho"owed out into a f1at area. okay. So the side yard wii1 be coming up and 7 then the eight foot fence 11ne wi" extend. So coming down the road. the po01 wi11 sit actua11y two feet be10w grade. I guess you wou1d say. So an eight foot fence 11ne wi" bring it. theoretica11y. 10 feet above the grade of the po01. but hopefu11y, you see. I didn't want to get too untactfu1 and just put a ten foot fence up. Fences. I understand. can be unsight1y if they're not done proper1y. I didn't want to get into an unsight1y situation. but I wanted as much privacy for our fam11y around the po01 area as I could get and sti11 maintain some kind of decent looking atmosphere around the house. So, basica"y. what it's going to be, there's going to be actual1y ten feet above grade with that eight foot fence because that side yard wi1l be back fi1led two feet and that's in the process of being done now. If you've driven by, you'l1 see al1 the fi11 coming in. MR. TURNER-Anyone e1se? MRS. EGGLESTON-I just think it's back from the road quite a distance. So rea11y you wouldn't think you wou1d need that high a fence and I don't know how it's going to he1p any either. but in his mind it is. MRS. GOETZ-When you come down Cronin Road. coming down that hi". you're usua"y going pretty fast. I can't imagine that people are going to be looking. I mean. I'm always watching the road when I come down that hil1 and to be 100king over into somebody's backyard. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. CHANT-Unfortunately. people do come down that road very fast. yes. If you were maintaining the speed 1imit. which I think is 35. It's just that the po01 is out in the open. A six foot high fence, you'd be ab1e to peer right over that fence a1most a" the way down that hi" because of the way the house is located. Originally when the house was buiH that road was actually even with the house. We have pictures of that. and they bui1t that road up over the past year. It's over four feet. So now what it's just making is the house is set even 10wer than the actua1 road is. MR. KELLEY-It's almost too bad that the deck wasn't on the other side. You cou1d put a four foot rai1 on the deck and you've got eight feet. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CHANT-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. KELLEY-I mean. you cou1d have had the rail enclosed rather than open. MR. CHANT-Again. I don't know if this w111 do it. but it's going to take many years to grow a natura1 shrub border in there. I'm 100king for something to e11minate that as much as I can. If that is what's needed then over the years a natural shrub fence wi11 be put in, but it's going to take years for that to grow. MR. TURNER-Any further questions? Al1 right. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Has anyone got any further questions of the app1icant? MR. KELLEY-We". could you give us a distance from the road to where the fence starts? Do you have a rough idea of what that is? MR. CHANT-No. I don't, because the road is actua"y set all the way on one side of their right-of-way. MR. TURNER-George. on the print, here, you've got 110 feet p1us or minus. Is that from the pooì to the road? MR. CHANT-That's to our property boundary. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CHANT-The road is actuaì1y another 10 feet or so beyond that, because the road is set a" the way on one side of the right-of-way. MR. TURNER-Now that 110 feet is to the front of the po01, the back of the po01? 8 - -" MR. CHANT-It would be the front of the POOl, I believe. Let me look at my map. here. Okay. No, excuse me. that 110 feet is from the edge of that storage building. MR. TURNER-That's from the front of the storage building to the road? MR. CHANT-Right. No. from the front of the storage building to the edge of the property. MR. TURNER-You're 10 feet from the house to the POOl, probablY, are you? MR. KELLEY-II0 minus 45 and we've got it. MR. CHANT-Yes. We've got 45 and 24 and there's a four foot wall in there. so 28. MR. TURNER-Four feet there and then 28. MR. KELLEY-The front of the fence should be 65 feet from the property line. because. Ted. there's a wall, he's got a wall here. which is the edge of the fence. See, he's got 40 feet and then 5 feet. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-So that's 45 from the 110 would be about 65 feet. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's quite a ways back from the road. I mean. you've got to look to see the pool. I mean. I can understand his position, but you've got to say to yourself. well, George Chant Jives here, you know. I'm going to look and see what his pOOl looks like when I'm going by. MRS. GOETZ-That's what I was saying. I mean. I wouldn't even be thinking of looking in the backyard. MR. TURNER-Where's the practical difficulty? That's what I struggle with. We thought when we did the Ordinance. there, that six feet in the backyard was very reasonable. MR. KELLEY-The onlY time it isn't is where you get into slope situations. MR. TURNER-But you can't cure that. MR. KELLEY-I have the same thing with the people that are in my backyard. I mean, my house is high compared to the street behind, so they have a si x foot fence and then they ended up planting some kind of an evergreen tree that's a couple of feet above the fence or something. I'll tel1 you. the trees don't grow together. They al1 sit there and gape out my back window, but I mean. for them to real1y have privacy they'd have to have an eight or ten foot fence or something. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-But. again. it's the hil1 side situations that real1y create the problem. you know. on a flat level lOt. six feet would probablY be plenty. MRS. EGGLESTON-They do put the above ground pOOlS partlY in the ground. you know, they dig down in. MR. TURNER-Yes. about four inches and then they put a base underneath them. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is yours in the ground some or? MR. CHANT-No. It's 48. it's set up on concrete blocks, like patio blocks. MR. TURNER-Is your pOOl steel sided? MR. CHANT-Yes. MR. TURNER-I didn't notice, has it got out riggers on it, you know, supports? MR. CHANT-Braces. no. MR. KELLEY-If there were a two story house right next door or something that might be a little different. but it is 65 feet from the road. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-Wel1. I sympathize with the predicament. My feeling is that, I mean, it took me a while. I went down that hill, to even notice the POOl, and. I mean. I was looking for it. and I reany don't think two feet's going to help and I real1y just think it might be setting a bad example for something that I'm not convinced is real1y going to al1eviate the problem and I know, Mr. Chant. you aren't even convinced it's going to al1eviate the problem and I'm not even sure. from what the Board members have said. I'm not even sure there real1y is a problem. I know privacy is a very big issue to people. but I don't think it's as big a problem as you may envision. 9 -- - MR. KELLEY-The other thing. too. I think with a six foot fence. if you were .!!!.the po01, from what I remember driving down the road. I don't think you're going to see somebody in the water. MR. TURNER-The on1y time you're going to see them is if they're on the deck, if you can even see them then. MR. KELLEY-Yes, we11. that's the thing. The deck is on the other side. MR. TURNER-The deck is behind the house. MR. KELLEY-It wou1d be on the west side. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. KELLEY-I'm remembering going down and 100king and saying we11, I can see right there is where the edge of the po01 is. but the deck is another 18. we11. maybe it's 12 feet. It's a 1itt1e hard to te11 because it doesn't go ha1fway, but it's 12 p1us whatever the distance is from where your fence is. So it's a sti11 a ways over yet, you know, where somebody wou1d be in a 1awn chair or something. MR. TURNER-Okay. No further discussion? Okay. A motion's in order. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-1991 GEORGE AND KAREN CHANT. Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption. seconded by Joyce Egg1eston: The strict app1ication of the provisions of the Ordinance wou1d not deprive the app11cant of the reasonab1e use of the 1and or bui1dings. The strict app1ication of the dimensiona1 requirements wou1d not resu1t in a specified practica1 difficu1ty. Du1y adopted this 17th day of Apri1, 1991, by the f0110wing vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Egg1eston. Mr. Carr, Mr. Ke11ey, Mr. Sicard. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-1991 TYPE II IIR-IA SCOTT A. SPELLBURG JUDY L. SPELLBURG OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE HALL ROAD, GLEN LAKE FOR MODIFICATION OF DECK. DECK WILL NOT MEET SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 45-3-24 LOT SIZE: 10,500 SQ. FT. SECTION 7.012-3 I 4.020-D SCOTT SPELLBURG, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior P1anner, Area Variance No. 31-1991. Scott and Judy Spe11 burg. Apri1 12, 1991. Meeting Date: Apr11 17. 1991 "The request is to remove an exi sting porch and stai rs and bui1d a deck. The proposed deck wou1d be within 26 feet of the 1ake in 1ieu of the required 75 feet. The current setback is 32 feet from the 1ake shore. This is a further encroachment of 6 feet. The Spe11burg property is in a Critica1 Environmenta1 Area and is a Type I project under SEQRA. The Board has previous1y indicated that it wou1d prefer the P1anning Board take Lead Agency status and comp1ete the environmenta1 review. If this is the case the Board shou1d forma11y request this and a1so review the app1ication and send any concerns regarding it to the P1anning Board. The P1anning Board wi11 then incorporate your concerns into their environmenta1 review. Upon comp1etion of the SEQRA review. the project wi11 return for a zoning decision on the variance request." MRS. GOETZ-The Warren County P1anning Board returned saying "No County Impact". Okay. One thing I'd 1ike to just say. It was a1most impossib1e to know if you were in the right p1ace when you did the site inspection. There were no names on any of the homes and if the Staff cou1d some way 1et the app1icants know that they shou1d mark it some how. MR. TURNER-Okay. This is a Type I action. so we have to make a motion to move it to the P1anning Board for their review. Do we have any concerns? MR. CARR-We11. I just have one concern. Are you going c10ser to the Lake? MR. SPELLBURG-No. As a matter of fact, we're coming back away from the Lake. The existing stairs went even farther. MR. CARR-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-There were no existing stairs when we were there. You had a1ready moved a11 of that? 10 MR. SPELLBURG-AII but the steel beams that still held them. They're still in place. MRS. EGGLESTON-In the ground, where you couldn't see them. though, because we went right across the front of. MR. SPELLBURG-You should have seen them. then. There were sti11 two beams sitting there. They're rusty and you might not have paid much attention. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-He tOld me the old one was. like. four feet. So they're going four feet closer to the Lake. MRS. GOETZ-Four feet closer? MR. TURNER-Yes. Is that right. Mr. Spellburg? MR. SPELLBURG-Pardon me, I didn't hear you. MR. TURNER-When I had just had a conversation with you, there. a 1ittle whi1e ago, you tOld me that the old deck was approximatelY four feet wide. MR. SPELLBURG-The platform, yes, and then the stairs. MR. TURNER-Yes. So the new one is four feet wider than the old one. MRS. EGGLESTON-So it i! encroachment on the Lake. MR. TURNER-Yes, it's encroachment on the Lake. MR. SPELLBURG-The existing stairs came off the platform and ran even closer to the Lake than my deck is going to be. though. MR. TURNER-Which way do they run? Could you point it out on here? MR. SPELLBURG-Okay. The existing porch sat four feet off the front and then the stairs came down. MR. TURNER-They come directlY down to here? MR. SPELLBURG-Yes. straight down the front over the first landing right straight to the second landing. MR. TURNER-How far did this deck project over here? MR. SPELLBURG-Four feet. MR. TURNER-Just four feet? MR. SPELLBURG-Yes. it was just a little porch landing. MR. TURNER-Just a little porch? MR. SPELLBURG-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARR-What are you going to do now, for the stairwell or stairway? MR. SPELLBURG- I'm not going to have a stai rwel1 out the front. It's just going to wrap around to the back door. MR. CARR-All right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Boy, you're awfu11y close to your neighbor on, well. actua11y. they're a11 very close right in there. You could step from your door to theirs, it's so close. MR. TURNER-Did you see the little cement walk. Joyce, when you went up? MR. SPELLBURG- There was a walkway on that side where you say I'm getting close and I am close to the side setback. There's no doubt about it. There was a walkway existing there that's taking up the same amount of room that I plan on taking up. MR. TURNER-Yes. You're not going to encroach any farther than you were. 11 - MR. SPELLBURG-I'm not changing anything. rea11y. except for what you see in the front. MR. TURNER- Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Now, you have the s1iding g1ass door? MR. SPELLBURG-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. Because if you don't put something out there. isn't that going to be a safety hazard? MR. SPELLBURG-Yes. As a matter of fact it was with the stairs and everything there. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions? Anything you want to send to the P1anning Board? MR. CARR-The app1ication. MR. TURNER-The app1ication, we'11 send that. No prob1em with that. Anything e1se? MRS. EGGLESTON-It's just so, is there anything in the permeabi11ty on this, that there's reaHy not a very big 10t there. How does that? MR. KELLEY-It's got depth. though. MR. TURNER-It's got a 10t of depth. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. a1though it's not a11 usab1e. rea11y. It's just that right down in there everything is so together that. MR. TURNER-Okay. No further questions or nothing you want to send but the app11cation. 1ets entertain a motion to send this app11cation to the P1anning Board and make the P1anning Board the Lead Agency under the SEQRA Regs. MR. CARR-I'd make that motion. MOTION TO SEND TO THE PLANNING BOARD AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-1991 SCOTT A. SPELLIIJRG .J.IDY L. SPELLBURG AND MAKE THE PLANNING BOARD THE LEAD AGENCY UNDER THE SEQRA REGULATIONS, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption. seconded by Susan Goetz: Du1y adopted this 17th day of Apri1, 1990. by the f0110wing vote: AYES: Mrs. Egg1eston. Mr. Carr. Mr. Ke11ey. Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. TURNER-Okay. That goes to the P1anning Board. It wn1 probab1y be on next month. and then you'11 have to come back here for the variance. MR. SPELLBURG-In the P1anning. I thought I was set up for the P1anning for next week. MR. TURNER-Maybe. I don't know what their schedu1e is. Whatever it is. MR. SPELLBURG-Okay. MR. TURNER-Then you'11 be back and see us again. MR. SPELLBURG-Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-1991 TYPE II LI-lA ROBERT AND JEANNE RIZZO OWNER: SAJE AS ABOVE 32 EVERTS AVENUE FOR AN ADDITION OF 24 R. 6 IN. BY 24 R. 4 IN. FAMILY ROOM TO THE PREEXISTING RESIDENCE. ADDITION WILL NOT MEET SIDE SETBACK. (WARREN coum PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 107-1-11, 12 LOT SIZE: 30,000 SQ. FT. SECTION 4.020 N ROBERT AND JEANNE RIZZO. PRESENT MRS. GOETZ-The Warren County P1anning Board returned saying "No County Impact". STAFF INPUT 12 -- Notes from John Gora1ski, P1anner, Area Variance No. 32-1991, Robert and Jeanne Rizzo, Apr11 11. 1991, Meeting Date: Apr11 17, 1991 "The Rizzo's wish to construct a 24'-6" x 24'-4" addition to an existing house. The addi ti on w111 not meet the si de setback requi rement. Thi s property has been used as a residence for many years. The existing structure is not appropriate for 1ight industria1 use. The most restrictive residentia1 zones in Town do not require 30' side yard setbacks. It does not appear that this app1ication wou1d have any impact on pub1ic faci1ities or services nor wou1d it adverse1y impact the neighborhood. The addition cou1d be moved to the south to meet the setback requirement. Doing this wou1d make the interior 1ayout inconvenient and make the addition appear more obtrusive from the outside." MR. TURNER-Okay. The 1ayout of the new addition is going to encompass what? What is that going to? MR. RIZZO-A fami1y room. MR. TURNER-Cou1d we have your name for the record. MR. RIZZO-Robert Rizzo. MR. GORALSKI-Ted. there's a set of p1ans in the fi1e, I be1ieve. MR. TURNER-Is there? MR. GORALSKI-I be1ieve so. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARR-A1so, John. just to make sure that we're ta1king about al1 the variances that are needed. the 50 percent en1argement does not app1y to this? MR. GORALSKI-I be1ieve. if you 100k at the p1ans, the existing house is two stories. This is on1y one story and part of the shaded area on your site p1an actua11y encompasses part of the existing house. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. RIZZO-Yes. I brought a picture of that because the drawing isn't the best because there is an existing roof that's there. That's going to be coming off and tied around it. MRS. RIZZO-We did get 1etters from the immediate neighbors. MR. TURNER-Okay. We'l1 read them into the record. Thank you. Okay. Does anyone have any questions yet? We didn't rea11y try to zone you out of the house, but it's just there was so much 1ight industry there that we made that area 1ight industry. MRS. RIZZO-There's on1y two houses that are rea11y effected. MR. TURNER-Yes. That house has been there quite a whi1e. MRS. RIZZO-Right. Our house and the house next door. MR. TURNER-I forgot. Who used to 1ive there? I think I knew the fe110w who 1ived there before. MRS. RIZZO-Ster1ing Edwards. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-Heading towards G1ens Fa11s. that's a11 residentia1, though. MR. TURNER-Yes. Everything's residentia1. across the street. Did Mr. Edwards add on to that house? He did. didn't he, on the back end? MRS. RIZZO-Yes, the back end, and that's the part that we're p1anning on taking off. yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Is that the part that had 1ike the 1itt1e shed roof? MRS. RIZZO-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-I cou1d see it from the side. 13 MR. RIZZO-Right. This picture might just help to show that there's a little part that comes off the dining room and this is that shed roof in the back and it's just going to tie this together and make it better. MR. KELLEY-From the looks of what's existing and the driveway location and to tie into the house. it seems to be probably a very suitable plan. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. KELLEY-I mean. I don't know how you'd really change it in any way, probably. to come up with anything any better. MR. TURNER-The only way you could do it is move it around on the side. with, what's that, 24 and I don't know. is there a scale on this. but that wouldn't be practical. MR. KELLEY-Well, I was going to say, the side yard setback's 30 feet. That would be half way over into that addition. or roughly about the center of it. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-So probably no matter what he had to do, he'd have to get a variance. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-So you'd say. all right. is there any way to, what's the minimum variance. Well, his existing house is already 16 feet from the property line. So he isn't encroaching any more than what's already existing. I guess if there was a practical difficulty. it would be the location of the existing house and probably the change of zone. MR. TURNER-Yes. Anyone else? No more questions? MRS. EGGLESTON-No. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NaCOIllENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MR. TURNER-We have some letters. MRS. GOETZ-The first letter is from Terry and Dan Lenoir. "We are writing to let you know that we have been fully informed of our neighbors Bob and Jeanne Rizzo at 32 Everts Avenue proposed plan to build an addition onto their home. We are very much in agreement with Jeanne and Bob's building plan even though we understand it does not meet with the local building variance." This letter's from the Community Workshop Incorporated, "In consideration of your application for a variance for a 24 by 24 foot family room addition at your 32 Everts Avenue residence, CWI has no objection. even though the addition will not meet side setback requirements. Good luck with construction. Jane McEwen, Executive Vice President" And thi s is from Timothy and Linda Harrington, 27 Everts Avenue "We have no objection to the proposed addition of Robert and Jeanne Rizzo at 32 Everts Avenue in the Town of Queensbury." MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. KELLEY-I'd have to go back and look at that plan again, but this is showing 16 feet from the property line to what I would probably say is the edge of the building. but we may have overhangs there that might come into effect. I don't know. MR. TURNER-There is. Jeff. here's the picture. MR. KELLEY-Yes. So it's probably a foot. right? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-So they may want 15 feet instead of 16. MR. TURNER-Is that measured to the overhang. do you know? MR. RIZZO-I'm not sure what the drawing is. 14 MR. KELLEY-That's got a two foot overhang. Ted. MR. TURNER-Two foot? MR. KELLEY- Yes. MR. TURNER-I mean. this here. Is this measured to the side of the house or to the overhang? It's a two foot overhang. MRS. RIZZO-That's measured to the side of the house. MR. TURNER-Okay, we've got to deduct two feet. It's fourteen feet. Jeff. MR. KELLEY-I guess I'd ask the Rizzo's a question just probab1y more for the record, and that wou1d be. I notice you've got an architectura1 group that have done your drawings and I'd have to ask. did you 100k at any other proposa1s. just for what it's worth? MRS. RIZZO-We11. between Bob and I we did 100k at putting it on the other side of the house. going out towards the driveway. However, just with the s10pe, the down grade of the house, notice the house sits. 1ike. on the 1eve1 up. the house sits on sort of a s10pe. and what we want to do with the fami1y room. it just wou1dn't rea11y be too feasib1e. It's more appropriate to put it in the back. MR. RIZZO-And we p1ayed around with a few of the different aspects of that and one of the things that we wanted to keep was rea11y the front of the integrity of the house the same because we 1ike the 1ines and stuff on the house that way and we fe1t putting something to the side wou1d make it 100k 11 ke it was rea11y added on. MR. TURNER-A rea1 add on. yes. MR. RIZZO-A rea1 add on. This we thought we'd rep1ace and tie in and architectura11y it wou1d be nice for us and. obvious1y. just aesthetics. MR. TURNER-The break in the 1ines wou1d 100k better in the back than it wou1d on the side. MR. RIZZO-Yes. Part of that shaded area there is open which wi11 tie that where the door wou1d be. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anything e1se, Jeff? MR. KELLEY-I don't think so. We've got 14 instead of 16. They exp10red other a1ternatives, I wou1d say. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIAflCE NO. 32-1991 ROBERT AND JEANNE RIZZO. Introduced by Jeffrey Ke11ey who moved for its adoption. seconded by Char1es Sicard: The app1icant is proposing to construct a fam11y room addition to the rear of their existing home. We are proposing the variance be a variance of 16 feet from the 30 foot required in the Light Industria1 One Acre Zone. This wou1d a110w the eaves of the bu11ding to be 14 feet from the norther1y property 1ine. The app1icant demonstrated that other a1ternatives were exp10red and after carefu1 consideration the p1an before us was chosen to be the best addition possib1e. The practica1 difficu1ty is that the p1an shows that the existing house from the wa11 to the property 11ne is 16 feet. This new addition wou1d stay in the same bu11ding 11ne as the existing house. The other practica1 difficu1ty is that this was once a residentia1 zone that has now been changed to a Light Industria1 One Acre Zone which requires a 30 foot side yard setback. This is more restrictive than any other residentia1 zones in the Town. This appears to be the minimum re1ief necessary to a11eviate the practica1 difficu1ty. It is not detrimenta1 to the purposes of the Ordinance. It does not adverse1y impact the neighborhood and pub1ic faci1ities and services are not adverse1y effected. Du1y adopted this 17th day of Apri1. 1991. by the f0110wing vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mr. Ke11ey. Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Egg1eston. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 5-90 SUSAN E. ROURKE REGARDING: BRENNEISEN BOAT RAMP TAX MAP NO. 38-4-19 RE~EST FOR APPEAL BY SUSAN E. ROURKE REGARDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR' S DECISION AS OUTLINED IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING REFERRAL SHEET DATED 211/91. (SITE PLAN NO. 12-91). THE APPEAL STATES THAT A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 7.063-W (STANDARDS) lIAS REQUIRED. 15 -- - SUSAN E. ROURKE. PRESENT; JOHN CAFFREY, REPRESENTING MR. BRENNEISEN. PRESENT MRS. GOETZ-We have three "letters, here. from Susan Rourke. and this one is dated Apri1 1st. and it's "Regarding the boat "launch app1ication of Frank Brenneisen. Sr. attached: Two "!etters to Queensbury P"Ianning Board. p"!ease review these first for background. To Whom It May Concern: After reviewing my two "letters I wou"ld "!i ke to address myse"lf to the second one regarding the appea"l. Under the pub"lished "law notice being given for March 19th 1991 I have thirty days to appea"!. I was to"!d this isn't the case. Why? It seems Mrs. Co"l"!ard, Zoning Administrator, gave us permission to the app"licant to waive any need for a variance, ENCON Form or environmenta"l impact statement. This was done on Feb. 1st 1991 (unpub"!1shed). I be"!1eve I am correct to say this is i1"!ega"l. A"Iso. the "law attached backs up my cause. The fact that this was put in first then app1ied for on"!y compounds the wrongs doings. My questions are as fo1"!ows: 1. What are you going to do about these practices? 2. Is who you know sti"!"! more important than the "law? 3. When are your Boards going to start communicating? 4. Can the bank be fi1"!ed in? 5. Wl1"1 there be an investigation into these practices? In c10sing, I wou"ld appreciate knowing what determinations are made." And that was dated Apri1 1st. 1991. Then there was a "letter dated March 27th, 1991. "To the Queensbury P1anning Board. Regarding the boat 1aunch app"!1cation for Frank Brenneisen, Sr.. To Whom It May Concern: I am aware that Mr. Brenneisen's app"!1cation was granted. I am a"!so under the impression there is a thirty day appea"l "!aw. Enc"losed you wi"!1 find a copy of your ru"!es. I have high"!ighted the one that app"lies. I am p1acing an objection based on this ru1e. I a1so contend there wasn't a ramp there before and that after Mr. Brenneisen created the ramp he then app1ied. Governing the use, for persona"! use on1y. is just an appeasement and tota"!1y unenforceab"!e." And this 1etter is dated March 19. 1991, directed to the Queensbury P"Ianning Board. "Regarding the app"!ication of Frank Brenneisen, Sr. - to insta"l"! a private boat ramp for owner use on"!y. To Whom It May Concern: I object to the granting of this app"lication for the fo"l"!owing reasons. 1. This fa"!"!, from the water. I observed a boat ramp a1ready in p"!ace and grave"!ed. I did not see a permit posted. Be"lieve me. I 100ked. 2. How are you going to govern "private use?" I am under the impression that Mr. Brenneisen works on boats for profit. This probab"!y means boats tested after repair, and a"!"!owing customers to 1aunch. 3. I am aware there are a few ramps a1ready on private property. but that's just what they are private. I a1so know the permit came before the ramp. This app"!1cation cou"!d set a very harmfu"! trend for the 1ake. If his app1ication is denied does he have to fi11 the bank back in? Which department oversees its re-construction? In dosing, I hope you take my concerns and observations into consideration when making your decision. I'm sorry if my disapprova"l is upsetting for the app1icant, but caring for the "lake is everyone's business." And I be"lieve that we're being directed to this Section 7.063W "Boat ramps sha1"! be "limited to pub1ic boat "!aunch sites and commercia1"!y operated boat "launches." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mrs. Rourke. do you have any other further comments to make? MRS. ROURKE-Susan Rourke, Jay Road, G1en Lake. I know that the boat ramp was there. I ca11ed. in the fa1"!. the Bui1ding Inspector and reported the boat ramp. I ca1"!ed back a week "later to see if anyone had gone out and I was t01d no one had gotten around to it yet. The weather changed. The app"!1cation came up. The boat "launch was there and now the app1ication was being app1ied for. The fact that it was granted. the variances were waived a fu11 month in advance. just doesn't seem "!ogica"!. I mean. to put up a fence you have to have a form and those are my concerns. If one can do it. what's to say everybody is not going to do it. MRS. GOETZ-Is there a"!so a question about the thirty day appea"l? MRS. ROURKE-Yes. there was, because when I wrote the appea"l "letter, I got a ca"l"l from the P"Ianning Department and to"ld me that my appea"l cou"ld not be va"!idated because a decision had been made on February 1st. which was a fu1"! thirty days or better. it was a fu1"! thirty days before the app"!1cation every became pub"!1c know"!edge and that took precedent and I said that was i11ega1. How can you make your decision without pub"lishing it or hearing anything. You're not giving anybody a chance. She ca"l1ed, I be"lieve it was Ms. Corpus. and got back to me and advised me to continue on how I fe"lt was warranted so I wrote another "letter. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. I'm not c1ear on the appea1 part of it. MS. CORPUS-Cou"ld I address the Board for a moment. Okay. Basica"l1y what we have hear is a question of whether the Zoning Administrator had the authority to waive. if the Board be"lieves, if the Zoning Administrator was wrong. whether the Zoning Administrator had the authority to waive a variance in this case. If the Board decides that the Zoning Administrator decided. the question is. did the Zoning Administrator decide correct"ly. If the Board fee"!s the Zoning Administrator did not decide in stating that a variance was not needed. then the Zoning Administrator never had the authority to waive that and this is an ana"logous case to the Dream Lake Road case where a bui"lding permit was issued erroneous1y and the app1icant did have to come back and get a variance for not being on a pub"lic road because the Certificate of Occupancy cou"ld not be issued. A simp1e ana10gy for the Board. In that case. if the Board decides that the Zoning Administrator did not have the authority, then that can be attacked at any time. The thirty day time period does not rea11y begin to run unti1 someone. an aggrieved party, requests that the permit be revoked. Now. technica1"!y. in this case. we rea1"!y haven't done that. The Zoning Administrator has not issued a "letter of revocation or anything e"lse at this point. but 16 -. -~ that cou1d be the next step. In other words, we cou1d hear it now with this Board or not. If the Board. however, decides that the Zoning Administrator was correct in stating that no variance was needed. then we do have the question of the thirty day time period and whether that ran from whatever time it ran unti1 the time the appea1 was fi1ed. MR. CARR-Pat. why did you fee1 the variance was not needed in this case? Was it a preexisting boat ramp? MRS. CRAYFORD-No. I did not rea1ize this Section existed in the Ordinance. MR. CARR-You know it is now. MRS. CRAYFORD-I know it is now. MR. CARR-What wou1d your decision be? Were you correct in February 1st or incorrect? MRS. CRAYFORD-I was incorrect. MR. CARR-I think that answers that. MR. TURNER-Yes. That took care of that. MRS. ROURKE-Can I just ask one question? If G1en Lake is a Critica1 Environmenta1 Area. this is digging out the bank. Isn't that critica1? MR. CARR-Of course it is. MRS. EGGLESTON-Certain1y. MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Caffrey. MR. CAFFREY-My name's John Caffrey. 1'm an attorney representing Mr. Brenneisen. Just by way of background. so the Board knows what we're discussing here. This is not a particu1ar1y 1arge or significant boat ramp we're discussing. This is a map of Mr. Brenneisen's property. here. It runs approximate1y Hke this. It has 100 feet of frontage on G1en Lake. This is the house. right here. The driveway is right here. The house. when he purchased it many years ago. had an existing boat ramp that ran from the Lake. It was six feet wide. runs between a group of trees and then boats were run up this ramp and stored underneath the house in a craw1 space kind of area. His current boat is a 1ittle bigger than that and wou1dn't fit between these trees on its trai1er. So his p1an was to rep1ace the existing boat ramp with one over here that was a little wider and could hand1e his existing boat. The ramp that was constructed about 10 feet wide by 32 feet 10ng and the height, the raise up from the shore there. the water 1evel. is only about a foot or two. It's maybe 18 inches. It's not a very 1arge excavation there. In fact. many peop1e on this part of the Lake. when they want to 1aunch their boat. They don't have a ramp and they don't use a tral1er. They just kind of hau1 it up on shore without any kind of a ramp at a11. but since he likes to use a tral1er for his boat. you need a ramp to do that with. As far as the environmenta1 concerns that Mrs. Rourke had. there was a Ful1 Environmenta1 Assessment Form done. the Long Form. because this is a Critica1 Environmenta1 Area. and the P1anning Board. as Lead Agency. determined that there wou1d be no significant adverse impacts. MR. CARR-That was for the boat ramp? MR. CAFFREY-That was for the boat ramp, yes. MR. CARR-Why was he before the P1anning Board? MR. CAFFREY-The on1y reason this went before the P1anning Board is that there's a ru1e in the Zoning Ordinance that says that any excavation within. I think it's 50 feet of the lake. requires site p1an review. The ramp itse1f didn't require a bui1ding permit or it wasn't a site p1an review use or anything 1ike that. The only reason it went before the P1anning Board was because it inv01ved excavation within 50 feet of the lake. He also checked with the Department of Environmenta1 Conservation. was t01d by them that because he wasn't placing any fill in the waters of the lake. that aH of his excavation was up1and from the water line, that he didn't require a permit from them, but at the time he started this. he wasn't aware that he needed any permits. okay. and, again. it's not a listed site plan review use. It's just this excavation within 50 feet of the lake. So he did start this 1ast fa11 without any permits and then upon receiving the comp1aint he stopped work and filed his application with the Town. What he did. though. when he excavated it was he took the dirt from the new ramp area and used it to f111 in the 01d ramp. He doesn't have two ramps. He's just rep1acing his existing ramp. He also installed some berms in these areas here to contr01 any runoff that might come off his driveway and might possib1y come down into this area, to prevent that and he instal1ed stone. here, rather than just 1eaving it as dirt. he instal1ed stone in the ramp area to prevent any more erosion into the 1ake. Mr. Brenneisen is on the Board of the G1en Lake Association. He's very aware of the need to protect the Lake and keep erosion and stormwater runoff from causing poHution problems in the 1ake. Now. 17 -- --- there's severa1 procedura1 type issues that I think have to be addressed here before we even discuss whether or not the decision was correct. One is whether or not Mrs. Rourke has standing to fi1e this appea1. Apparent1y. her property is a good ways down the 1ake. It's not visib1e from Mr. Brenneisen's property or vice versa and I don't think she's shown that there's any effect from this on her and certain1y somebody who Hves in Lake George can't f11e a comp1aint about something on G1en Lake and I think she's pretty far away. here. MR. CARR-Any citizen of the Town can fi1e a comp1aint. MR. TURNER-Yes. they can. It doesn't make any difference. MR. CAFFREY-We11, I think you have to have at 1east minima1 standing to fi1e a comp1aint. MRS. GOETZ-Where wou1d it say that? MR. CAFFREY-We11. that's more a doctrine of case 1aw. It's not in the Ordinance itse1f. MS. CORPUS-Cou1d I address the Board. for a second, on that? Mr. Caffrey does have a point. In order to have standing, this appHcant wou1d have to prove that they are within a zone of interest. This is case 1aw. again. GeneraHy, that's he1d to be somewhere between, anywhere between 5 and 700 feet from the property in question and a1so to demonstrate that there is some 10ss of va1ue and that they're adverse1y effected by the action. The a11egation of dose proximity does give rise to an inference of standing, but they a1so have to prove actua1 injury of some sort to the property. MR. CARR-WeH. honest1y, I wou1d just say that anybody on G1en Lake wou1d probab1y have an interest as to a boat ramp on the 1ake. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, certain1y. MS. CORPUS-That determination is for the Board to make. MRS. GOETZ-Right. Again. we go back to a1ways citing case 1aw. I have a prob1em with that because I think every individua1 appHcation deserves it's own scrutiny and I'm not satisfied hearing that there's such and such case 1aw. b1ah, b1ah, you know. because I certain1y know Mr. Caffrey's been inv01ved with environmenta1 issues. MR. CAFFREY-That's correct. MRS. GOETZ-And I can't beHeve that you wou1dn't see that somebody Hving on G1en Lake wou1d have concerns about this. MR. CAFFREY-I'm not saying she doesn't have a concern. What I'm saying is it doesn't effect her and persona11y, from reviewing this and my own opinion. for whatever that's worth, I don't think there's any adverse effect from this on anybody. okay. We do have a statement here by some of the neighboring 1and owners that says. "As property owners on G1en Lake. we the undersigned have no objections as to Mr. Frank Brenneisen having a private boat ramp for owners use on1y on his property on G1en Lake and that's signed by three of the c10sest neighbors. the adjoining neighbors on each side and one of the ones on the other side of them. Then he ca11ed many of the other 1and owners in the neighborhood and they gave their consent that he add their names to that and I'd 1ike to just fi1e that with the Board. MR. CARR-We11. do you want to just hang onto that in case a variance is necessary? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-I mean. rea11y, that shou1dn't have any bearing on us, at this point. MR. TURNER-That's the question. The question is whether a variance is required. MR. CAFFREY-The point being that. in terms of any adverse effect on anybody. the adjoining neighbors certain1y don't have a prob1em with this. Apparent1y. she raised a 10t of concerns with the P1anning Board that she thought that this was going to be used commercia11y or something, but it's quite c1ear. here, that this is not a commercia1 thing. It's for his persona1 use on1y. and the Board so stipu1ated. As to the timing issues, I think that the thirty days has 10ng since come and gone and that she shou1d have fi1ed it within thirty days of Mrs. C011ard's decision. It wasn't 11ke she didn't know something was going on here. She was the one who fi1ed the comp1aint back in October and she cou1d have kept checki ng wi th the Town to see what was goi ng on and now that the thi rty days have run out. then to the extent that she's appea1ing from Mrs. CoHard's decision. I think that her time has run out. As far as. when she first fi1ed her appea1. she fi1ed it as an appea1 from the P1anning Board and I think you we11 know that nobody can appea1 a decision of the P1anning Board to this Board. Your remedy is to go to court and it seems to me that she's rea11y in the wrong forum here. MR. CARR-John, can I ask you a question? If she had appea1ed. I mean. do you think a variance was necessary? 18 ---- --- MR. CAFFREY-On the merits? MR. CARR- Yes. MR. CAFFREY-No. I don't. because that ru1e doesn't seem to me to be a substantive ru1e. It's not in the use schedu1e. It's part of the erosion contr01 standards. It's more of a. and frank1y it doesn't make much sense to me why it's in there, but it's not a substantive. MR. TURNER-Maybe the p1acement's in the wrong p1ace, but I think the words are pretty weH spe11ed out. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's right. MR. CAFFREY-And it seems to me it has more to do with erosion contr01. which he's addressed. MR. CARR-Sure. but I mean. yes. how do you define boat ramp sha11 be 1imited to. I mean, where's the? MRS. EGGLESTON-Not much p1ay there. MR. CAFFREY-No. We11, I just don't think that it's a substantive ru1e. A11 right. I'm not sure what it means. The other issue is the one of grandfathering. in terms of. under Artic1e IX, he had a preexisting boat ramp that it's a private, noncommercia1 use and he shou1d be ab1e to a1ter it or rep1ace it on his own property. The other one was there forever and was not f111ed in unti1 they undertook construction of this one. So I think there's that issue as we11. MR. TURNER-How 10ng has the other one been out of use? MR. CAFFREY-It's a1ways been there. MR. TURNER-How 10ng has it been out of use? MR. CAFFREY-I'm not sure about that. It's a1ways been avai1ab1e for use. FRANK BRENNEISEN, SR. MR. BRENNEISEN-Ten years. MR. TURNER-Ten years? It's gone. MR. CAFFREY-We11. if he didn't fi11 it in. I think it's sti11 a use, if it was sti11 there and avai1ab1e. MR. TURNER-If he's abandoned it. if he hasn't used it in 18 months. it's gone. MR. CAFFREY-If you move out of your house for 18 months. is it no 10nger a house? MR. TURNER-If you don't use that again. you've 10st it. MR. KELLEY-We11, if you had a house there and you wanted to tear it down and move it. you have to bui1d it in the same footprint. Otherwise. you've got to come in and conform to the new Ordinance. MR. TURNER-That's right. MR. KELLEY-I think a boat ramp wou1d be the same thing. You can't just move it and take it anywhere you want to. MR. TURNER-No. but 1ike I said before. it spe11s it right out that a boat ramp is not permitted for residentia1. It's in the wrong p1ace, but it's there. MR. KELLEY-I didn't have any troub1e reading it. MR. TURNER-No. me either. It's pretty c1ear. Okay. Any further questions of Mr. Caffrey? MRS. EGGLESTON-No. MR. TURNER-Mr. Brenneisen. MR. BRENNEISEN-My name is Frank Brenneisen and I 11ve on G1en Lake and what I'd 1i ke to address. Mr. Turner, you asked before if I'd been using it. when was the 1ast time I used that ramp. the 01d ramp, and I said ten years because it's been ten years since I've had my party boat and I cou1dn't use that because the two trees are six feet apart and the party boat is eight foot wide and I cou1dn't get it 19 down through there, but we have been using it for smaHer boats which I store right there, right now. My own two small boats I use and I put them in and out there, but I have never used any other boats going through there. just that one. because my big party boat is just too big for there. So I've always put it in through the public ramp and taken it out that way and stored it elsewhere, but since I retired. I'd like to keep it up on my own property li ke many other property owners do the same thing and if I don't use my trailer, I can pull it up on the bank like everybody else does and create a bit of erosion which is not the proper way to go. So I thought I would do what I thought was best and that was to fill in my old boat ramp and that's the reason I never filled that in. My wife was always asking me to fill that slope in there. because the rest of my ground is level. I said. no. when ever I get the time, I'll fiH that in by starting another boat ramp down the other side and that's exactly what I did and I think it's aH done and done properly. I did it aH myself. I had nobody else involved in it and it's been hand dug and it's been filled with Number Three stone to stop all the water erosion in the lake and if anybody, for the twenty years I've lived there. 19 and a half to be exact. anybody wants to take care of that lake any better than I do, I don't know who they are because I've worked on that lake since I retired from the Queensbury school as a bus mechanic. I work on that lake every ~, just like I did today. I put a well in today. I put docks in. I have clients on the lake that I do work for. I'm caretaker for about twenty places and in answer to Mrs. Rourke's question. before. about I do this commercially, I don't. My clients that live on the lake. if they have boats, I have been putting them in the lake and taking them out. If they have minor motor problems or just the winter service. I was doing it. I had five boats. Now I have three boats. and since I've retired. I've asked these clients of mine. try and get somebody else. I even recommended somebody who lives just down the road a little bit and I won't use his name right now, but he does it commercially and I asked them to use him because that phase of it I want to get out of. So this ramp is only for my use, to puH my boat up and put my boat back in. I'd like to keep my boat on my property instead of on somebody else's property. and the only other ones that would be using this boat ramp would by my offspring who don't live here. They live out of state. but when they they come to visit me in the summer time. they bring their own boats, that's it. MR. CARR-Mr. Brenneisen, I don't think anybody reaHy. here, I mean, unfortunately. we aren't here tonight on the merits of your application or the boat ramp. We have to decide whether a variance was necessary. MR. BRENNEISEN-Yes, but it seemed like we were getting away to other things and that's why I spoke up. It seemed like we were getting onto other things. So. like I say, the reason I wanted to put that boat ramp in there and the reason I felt I was right was because there was an existing boat ramp there when I purchased the house and I bought the contents of the house when I bought the house and the boats were underneath the building, stored underneath there and that's the way they got them in and out. MR. CAFFREY-I'd just add a couple of things. As Mr. Brenneisen corrected himself there. he has continued to use this and Article IX of the Zoning Ordinance says that a preexisting nonconforming use. assuming it's nonconforming, can be altered with site plan review and he did go through site plan review.' MR. TURNER-Wait a minute, John. Say that again. MR. CAFFREY-A preexisting nonconforming use can be altered with site plan review. MR. TURNER-Yes, but he didn't alter that one. He made a brand new one. MR. CAFFREY-He moved it across the yard. MR. TURNER-No. He made a brand new one. He just admitted that he uses the old one for the small boats and he uses this one for his big boats. He didn't alter the other one at all. MR. CAFFREY-Okay. He's filled in the old one. but. The other question I had was in Mrs. Rourke's letter. here, she says she's aware that there's other boat ramps on private property on the lake and she knows the permit came before the ramp. So there maybe that there's been some precedent that permits have been issued for ramps like this on the lake and they're not prohibited. I don't know what the records of the Town would show. MR. CARR-That doesn't do anything for your application. MR. CAFFREY-It could show a precedent of a prior interpretation. MR. CARR-Perhaps, but I think we'd still want to do it properly now, and if you have that evidence. MR. CAFFREY-I don't have, she's the one that said it. I don't know what the point is. MRS. ROURKE-I am aware of three boat ramps that have been there for 50 years. Some have been improved by graveling. That's all I meant. Those are the only three I'm aware of. MR. TURNER-Okay. any further questions? 20 MR. BRENNEISEN-I'd like to say one more thing. if I could. The answer to the question that was just arised from Mrs. Rourke and the answer she gave. I know of one boat ramp that was put in just like three years ago and it's all cement and that's private use, too. It's right out next to Mr. Valenti who lives out on the island or out on the peninsula. and that's a brand new one. only three years ago. Mr. Rich is the owner. He was granted it. MR. CARR-He was granted it or just did it? MR. TURNER-He never came here. He just did it. Nobody's been here for a ramp whatsoever. MR. BRENNEISEN-Wel1. I really don't know if he did or he didn't. I don't question anything like that. MR. TURNER-All I'm just saying to you that we've never entertained an application for a ramp on Glen Lake, period. MR. CAFFREY-It may have gone before the Planning Board. MR. TURNER-No. It can't go there. if it's private. It's got to come here. MR. CAFFREY-What I'm saying is. if the Planning Board has been issuing permits for these things. maybe there's an established interpretation that no variance is required. I don't know. I haven't seen the records. but I just want to raise that point. MR. TURNER-I can tell you. I don't believe there's one at all. I don't think you'll ever find one. MRS. CRAYFORD-I would just like to say. again. this was a complete oversight, nothing intentional. MRS. GOETZ-Well. I appreciate the fact that you are telling us what really happened and you can't help it. You made a mistake and that's it. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's right. MRS. GOETZ-We've all made mistakes, and now's the time to go the proper route. but I appreciate you saying that. MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Turner, a public hearing is scheduled on this. MR. TURNER-Yes. The public hearing is now open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further discussion? Is everybody in agreement that a variance is required? MR. KELLEY-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-I am. MR. CARR-I think it's clear. MRS. EGGLESTON-Definitely. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CAFFREY-Could I request a ruling, on the record, on the issue of timeliness and whether or not she can even appeal the Planning Board decision to the Zoning Board? MR. CARR-Yes. I'll gladly answer that one. MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CORPUS-That could be made part of the Board's motion. if the Board decides. MR. CARR-Because if there's an erroneous decision made by a Town Official, you obtain no rights through that decision. MR. CAFFREY-Then what's the purpose of the thirty day rule? 21 --- - MR. CARR-The thirty day ru1e is for a proper decision made, then the pub1ic has thirty days in which to answer. but if an improper decision is made. you can cha11enge that at any time. MR. CAFFREY-You don't know if it's proper or not unti1 you decide the merits? MR. TURNER-Mr. Caffrey, we wou1dn't know about it unti1 we were a1erted to it and this our first know1edge of it and as soon as we get notice of it. then we're acting on it now. Okay. Do you want to make a motion? MOTION ON NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 5-90 SUSAN E. ROURKE THAT MR. BRENNEISEN OBTAIN NO RIGHTS TO lHE RAMP BY MRS. COLLARD'S DECISION NOT TO HAVE HIM APPLY FOR A VARIANCE AND THAT A VARIANCE IS NECESSARY FOR lHE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PRIVATE BOAT RAMP WIlHIN lHE TOlIN OF QUEENSBURY. WE TO lHE FACT THAT THE INITIAL DECISION WAS ERRONEOUS, NO RIGHTS ACCRUED FOR WHICH A TIlE DEADLINE lIAS NECESSARY AND FURlHERJI)RE I BELIEVE MRS. ROURKE AS WELL AS ANY OTHER OWNER OF PROPERTY AROUND GLEN LAKE HAS A SUFFICIENT INTEREST IN lHE APPLICATION AND lHEREFORE HAS STANDING TO BRING lHE APPEAL, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption. seconded by Joyce Egg1eston: Du1y adopted this 17th day of Apri1. 1991, by the f0110wing vote: AYES: Mr. Ke11ey, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Egg1eston. Mr. Carr. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. TURNER-The 1ast time. when we had the app1ication before us up at the 1ake, we were discussing the merits of Artic1e IX, Section 9.011. Remember we were ta1king, the 1ast time we had the app1ication up at Lake George, the 1ast meeting, we were discussing Artic1e IX. Section 9.011. Expansion of a preexisting. nonconforming use. whether or not we agreed with the Zoning Administrator's interpretation. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-The thing of it is. we finished the meeting and then we went on to expand on Section 9.011. referring to DeMarco. etc. and I rea11y beHeve that if we tru1y stand behind this that we shou1d have a motion to that effect, because. MR. TURNER-Remember we were discussing the issue about the reading of Section 9.011, a sing1e fami1y dwe11ing or mobi1e home may be en1arged or rebui1t, rebui1t. remember the issue of rebui1t. as f0110ws. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. and they were going to tear the wh01e thing out and start over. MR. TURNER-They were going to tear it down. MRS. GOETZ-I think the point was that because the wording says "rebuiH" and it doesn't say rebuiH in the same footprint. that we fe1t just the fact that they're going to be rebui1ding it on the property. we do fee1 the 50 percent en1argement appHes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. MRS. GOETZ-And then, Bruce, remember you used the DeMarco examp1e. I'm just concerned that if we don't say how we fee1. these app1ications wi11 go through and we'11 never see it. MRS. CRAYFORD-Excuse me. what are you ta1king about? MR. CARR-Yes. cou1d we refresh, go way back. What are we ta1king about at the very beginning? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. I wou1d 1ike to know, too. MR. CARR-We got right into the merits, here, and I. MR. TURNER-A11 right. What it says is. A. aH setback provisions of this Ordinance sha11 be met and B. No en1argement or rebu11ding shaH exceed an aggregate of 50 percent of the gross f100r area of such sing1e fami1y dwe11ing or mobi1e home immediate1y prior to the commencement of the first en1argement or rebui1ding. We a1ready ta1ked about that before. MR. CARR-Now, what this guy. what is it? The guy up at Lake George wants to tear down the house completely? MR. TURNER-Right. MR. CARR-And then do what? 22 ~ --- MRS. EGGLESTON-Bui1d on vacant 1and. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. TURNER-And they said that this was not a preexisting nonconfonning use because they were tearing the bui1ding now. MR. CARR-That's right. Then we were going to make him meet the setbacks, and he didn't 1ike that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Now you're remembering. MR. CARR-That's right. MR. KELLEY-Yes, if you tear it down, now you've got a brand new 10t and you've got no grandfathered, no nothing. You're starting in as if it's an empty 10t. MR. TURNER-Yes, an empty 10t. MR. KELLEY-Yes, I agree to that. MR. CARR-That's ri ght. MS. CORPUS-That app1ication was withdrawn, correct? MRS. GOETZ-Right. MR. TURNER-Yes. We11, we're just discussing what arrived out of it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-So, what are you saying? MRS. GOETZ-We're concerned that peop1e want to en1arge beyond the 50 percent may not have to, we may never see app11cations before us because when they go to the Zoning Administrator, you might fee1 that they don't need the variance, based on that part of the app1ication. MR. CARR-Wen, no, because we wou1d get that back because, I mean, A is very c1ear. I mean, any en1argement or rebui1ding, a11 setbacks have to be met. So if it's a ~ bui1d and their too c10se to the Lake we're going to see it. MRS. CRAYFORD-Right. MR. CARR-And if it's considered just to be a rebui1ding but it's too c10se to the Lake, we're going to see it anyway because the rebui1ding is going to not meet the, the en1argement win not meet the setbac ks. MR. GORALSKI-I don't think that was the issue. With that particu1ar app1ication the issue was the 50 percent expansion. MRS. GOETZ-Right. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. If I have a house on a 10t, okay, and I come in and I get t01d that by putting a second f100r on I'm expanding by more than 50 percent and therefore I need a variance, okay. I think the question that came up is what happens if I tear down the existing house comp1ete1y, the contention being now I don't have anything that I'm en1arging by 50 percent. I have a vacant 10t. I'm going to bui1d a house twice a big as the one that used to be there, but I'm not en1arging by 50 percent because I'm bui1ding a new house on a vacant 10t. That was the argument that was being made. MR. CARR-Right. MR. GORALSKI-Do you agree with that or do you not agree with that? MR. CARR-I agree with it, but then they have to meet every sing1e requirement of the Ordinance. They 10se their nonconforming status, if that's the prob1em, they 10se their nonconforming status and they have to meet a11 the setbacks. MRS. CRAYFORD-Right. MR. CARR-If it's a b1ank piece of 1and, they have to treat it as a b1ank piece of 1and. 23 MRS. CRAYFORD-That's right. MR. CARR-They can't have b1ank for one purpose and preexisting nonconforming for another. I mean. you've got to. MRS. CRAYFORD-Right. That's how I've been treating those. MR. CARR-Yes. I wou1d think they have to be consistent. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MRS. GOETZ-When you use that DeMarco examp1e, afterwards, what did you mean, because you said that you fe1t that was a110wed because of that 9.011? MR. CARR-We11, I think what happened with the DeMarco matter, and it's we11 past any time for appea1. was that.... MRS. CRAYFORD-DeMarco was before me. MR. CARR-Yes. it was before you. MR. TURNER-~ before you. MR. CARR-What happened there is we argued, he had a 300 foot cabin at one end and we turned it into a home, in a different 10cation, based on that provision and at the time we preva11ed. after going to court. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-So, I'm just saying that I think it was wrong, that decision probab1y was wrong. MRS. EGGLESTON-We discussed, a1so, though about how it wou1d take it out of the hands of site p1an review by going the other route. MR. TURNER-That's what we were ta1king about. MRS. EGGLESTON-We were concerned about that and we said, we11 why wou1dn't peop1e up on G1en Lake just tear down their house and bui1d over and not go in the same footprint and then you'd on1y have to dea1 with this Board instead of going by two, because it e1iminated the site p1an and it 1eft, we were concerned about our having to get into areas that the P1anning Board hand1es. MR. GORALSKI-By the regu1ations, you're correct. However, at any time if this Board is concerned with environmenta1 issues, they have the right to refer it to the P1anning Board for recommendation and you shou1d keep that in mind. That's a very powerfu1 to01. MRS. EGGLESTON-But wou1d we hear them a11, John? Wou1d we know of a11 the instances. MR. CARR-We wou1d in that case. MR. GORALSKI-You wou1d because they'd be coming before you for a variance. MR. KELLEY~Yes. You'd 100k at it and if you were concerned about s10pes or parking or... MR. GORALSKI-Stormwater runoff. MR. KELLEY-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-But what if they met the setback requirements? Because if they do that now, they sti11 go to site p1an for septic and a11 that kind of stuff. Is that correct? MRS. CRAYFORD-No, they don't. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. they don't? MR. TURNER-No. If they tear that house down, they strip that 10t and that 10t is bear, they put a brand new house up. They meet a11 the setbacks, they just go get a permit. MRS. EGGlES10N-1hat's it. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's correct. MR. TURNER-Okay. 24 "- -- MRS. EGGLESTON-Even though it's in a Critica1 Environmenta1 Area? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. TURNER-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Shore1ine and a11 that. MR. CARR-We11, because the Critica1 Environmenta1 Area is 75 feet, I mean, technica11y, right? MR. GORALSKI-We11, the Critica1 Environmenta1 Area is 100 feet from the shore11ne, but in theory, when you estab1ish setbacks, you're making the assumption that you are minimizing the impacts on the property, okay. So if they meet a11 the setback requirements in the residentia1 zone and there's no use criteria for going for site p1an review, a11 they do is go for a permit. Now, a bui1ding permit has been determined to be an administrative action and therefore it's not subject to SEQRA. MS. CORPUS-It's not a reviewab1e action under SEQRA. MR. GORALSKI-Discretionary, is that the term I'm 100king for? MR. DUSEK-Administeria1. MR. GORALSKI-Right. as opposed to discretionary. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. TURNER-But the 1ast time, the wh01e issue was this, they stripped the 10t, aH right. They said they were going to strip the 10t. They were going to bui1d a brand new house. Now the question came up, even if they stripped the 10t and this Section says a nonconforming structure may be en1arged or rebui1t, that's the question, without going to site p1an review and that's where the difference is right there. MR. GORALSKI-Right. That's what I'm asking you. Is that what you're saying? MR. TURNER-I'm saying that if they strip the 10t and they put a brand new house on it and they put it on Lake George, G1en Lake, or wherever, even though it's a Catch-22, they rebui1d that house. It's the same thing. MR. GORALSKI-So you're saying they do have to app1y for the 50 percent. MR. TURNER-They have to go to site p1an review. That was the argument. That's what we were ta1king about 1ast time. MRS. CRAYFORD-Now, wait a minute. Why? MR. TURNER-They're jumping through the 100p, a11 right, and they're getting around the site p1an by stripping the 10t, a11 right. They can bui1d, if they knock the house down, they bui1d on the footprint, right. They sti11 go to site p1an review, if they en1arge that house. MR. CARR-They have to come here, too. MRS. EGGLESTON-They have to do both. MRS. CRAYFORD-You're saying if they en1arge it by 50 percent? MR. TURNER-Yes, a11 right. MRS. CRAYFORD-I agree with you. MR. TURNER-If they knock that house down and they bui1d a brand new one, what's the difference? TeH me. MRS. CRAYFORD-Now, wait a minute. Let me ask you something. If they tear the house down to the foundation and they bui1t on the same foundation, the same size house that was there before, what wou1d bring them in for any review? MR. TURNER-Not that. The 50 percent wou1d bring them in. MRS. CRAYFORD-I agree. 25 MR. TURNER-What I'm saying is if they knock that house down and they build a bigger house, this one went from 1900 square feet to 2800 square feet, that's where the argument came over this Section right here. This is a rebui1d, but their sti11 en1arging it by over 50 percent. MR. CARR-We11, no. I think the argument, Ted, though, wait a minute. MRS. CRAYFORD-No. They were here for 50 percent. MR. CARR-Yes, I think, you know, if they tear it down and rebuild it, the on1y thing that wou1d bring them back in front of this Board and perhaps site p1an is if they didn't meet setbacks. MR. TURNER-But they're not going to meet the setbacks. MR. CARR-Right, weH, if they don't meet the setbacks, then they're back here anyway, but I think you 10se aH your rights. If you tear it down and say, we11, I want to rebuild comp1ete1y, but I want to make some changes and I don't want to put it right on the foundation, but 100k I've done this. I've taken the house done and I had a house there, but this doesn't app1y because I took the 01d house down. We11, you can't say that. If it doesn't app1y, nothing app1ies. MRS. CRAYFORD-You're saying, if there was a structure there before, they take it down, they just strip that 1and bare and they bui1d another house, it's rebui1ding? MR. CARR-No. That's what Mr. Turner is saying. MRS. CRAYFORD-We11, wou1d somebody agree so I cou1d do my job. MR. TURNER-That's what I said. It is. That's what I say. it is. It's just a 100ph01e and it is this rebuil di ng. MR. CARR-We11, no, Ted, I think the wh01e thing about this and the on1y reason we have it here is because it was a nonconforming, probab1y area variance. to begin with. We're ta1king about the Lake. If they want to strip it down and put it 75 feet back, the Ordinance and the Town has a1ready said 75 feet back is fine. So if they want to do that, why shou1d we even be concerned? Because that's our goa1 is if we can get the houses back from the Lake, get them back from the Lake. MR. SICARD-That's right. If they're within the setbacks, too. MR. CARR-If they're within, if they meet the Ordinance, then we shou1d be happy because that's what the Ordinance is there for. We want everybody to meet it. MR. TURNER-We11. if they met the Ordinance, they wou1dn't be here anyway. MR. CARR-Ri ght. So whether they tear down a nonconforming house because it's too dose to the Lake and rebui1d, as 10ng as they rebui1d on the setbacks, I don't care. MRS. EGGLESTON-Can I just ask one question? I want to be c1ear in my mind about, take, for examp1e, I want to go back to G1en Lake where we had so many peop1e who wanted to tear down and build in the same footprint and they don't meet setbacks and a11 that kind of stuff. So they come before two Boards. They come before us, then they go to site p1an. So, in a11 honesty, why wou1dn't you say to them, get rid of the footprint and then you've on1y got to dea1 with one Board. You'd on1y have to go for setback requirements and you wou1dn't have to go for site p1an because it's a wh01e new building on a vacant 10t. That's what I want to be sure in my mind. Why wou1dn't, out of fairness, wou1dn't you te11 them that? Wou1d you do that? MRS. CRAYFORD-I just wou1dn't te11 them that. MRS. EGGLESTON-But why not? MRS. CRAYFORD-WeH, for instance, I had a gent1eman, the gent1eman that was sitting back here with Mr. Brenneisen, the guy with the cur1y hair. He's going, he 1ives on the point, to tear down the existing house. He's going to bui1d it exact1y on the same foundation. Same size house. Same foundation. I t01d him he wi11 need no Board approva1. MRS. EGGLESTON-But what if he was going to expand it 50 percent? MRS. CRAYFORD-If he were going to expand it and it were under 50 percent. MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm going to say ~ 50 percent. MRS. CRAYFORD-Then he wou1d be to you for a variance and he wou1d be to P1anning Board for site p1an. 26 MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. What if he didn't build in the same footprint and expanded it, deared the wh01e 10t and was going to bui1d a house twice as big? What Board wou1d he come before? MRS. CRAYFORD-Was he going to meet setbacks? MRS. EGGLESTON-No. MRS. CRAYFORD-Then he wou1d be before you. MRS. EGGLESTON-Our Board, a10ne, instead of two Boards, right? MRS. CRAYFORD-Not necessari1y, because if he's going to, okay, you're going to say he stripped it bare? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes, then it wou1d just. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. he'd just have to dea1 with one Board. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes, then he wou1d just have to dea1 with you. MR. CARR-Then we have the option to send him to the P1anning Board if we fee1 that it's warranted in the situation. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's right. You have that option. MRS. GOETZ-I have a question. What if it's a wh01e new bui1ding and it does meet the setbacks and it's bigger than the origina1? What wou1d you do? MRS. CRAYFORD-Then my fee1ing is that it doesn't need any approva1s. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. That's where I think we might have a difference and I agree, we shou1d get this straight. MR. CARR-But why? The nonconforming is the setback. If it's a nonconforming house. If we're worried about the house being there, on that 10t. then rebuilding a house they have to come back for a use variance. MR. TURNER-What I'm saying is, the guy's got a house. He's got a ceHar h01e. He stripped it down to the ce11ar h01e. He bui1ds the house. He bui1ds the new house on that ce11ar h01e. He expands it by 50 percent and he comes here. MR. CARR-Right. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARR-And we have the option to send him to P1anning. MR. TURNER-Now, he's got the same house. He dears the 10t. okay. He puts a brand new house on it, but he a1so increases the square footage in the brand new house by over 50 percent from the 01d house. MR. SICARD-Does he meet the setbacks? MR. CARR-Does he meet the setbacks? MRS. GOETZ-And he does. MR. TURNER-No. this guy wou1dn't. but he wou1d be here for that anyway. MR. CARR-Right. MR. TURNER-But I'm saying, that's where the difference is. MR. CARR-Let's finish this. Does he meet the setbacks or not? MR. TURNER-No. He doesn't. MR. CARR-Okay, then he's going to be here. MR. TURNER-He's going to be here for that. but he's not going to P1anning Board. MR. CARR-We can send him to P1anning Board if we're uncomfortab1e. We can say, I want this app1ication to go to P1anning Board. 27 -- - MR. TURNER-Do you know what I'm saying? You're saying to the guy that bui1ds on the same footprint, but he expands it by 50 percent, he's got to come here, right? MR. KELLEY-Right. MR. CARR-Right. MR. TURNER-You say to the other guy that strips the 10t bear, takes the house right down, starts an over again, he bui1ds a house more than 50 percent bigger than the one that was there, you don't have to go to the P1anning Board. MR. CARR-No. I wou1dn't te11 him that. MR. TURNER-But that's the way it is. MR. CARR-I wou1d say, in a11 1ike1ihood, you may not have to go to P1anning Board. MR. TURNER-That's where the argument came 1ast time. MR. CARR-Right. I wou1d say he's going to the P1anning Board because we aren't going to make those decisions. MR. TURNER-No, he's not going to the P1anning Board. MR. CARR-I wou1d send him. MRS. EGGLESTON-He wou1dn't be here if he meets a11 the setback requirements. MR. CARR-I don't care how big his house, as 10ng as he meets the setbacks. I have no right to, if he meets the setbacks, to te11 him how big his house can or cannot be. MR. TURNER-No, no. Yes, but he's on an undersized 10t. The 10t is Waterfront Residentia1 One Acre. MR. CARR-But if he meets the setbacks, we have no right to te11 him anything. MR. TURNER-No, he's not meeting the setbacks, but he's going to be here for that. MR. GORALSKI-Then he's going to be here and the Zoning Board can send him to the P1anning Board. MR. TURNER-I understand that, but we didn't get that far the 1ast time. That's what I'm saying. MRS. CRAYFORD-I don't te11 one person one thing and another person another thing. MR. TURNER-I know you don't, but this says to the one guy that's got the camp on the Lake, you can knock it down. If you bu11d a brand new camp, you can expand it by 50 percent as 10ng as you come here, right? MR. CARR-But Ted, I mean. MR. SICARD-He's got to meet the setbacks. MR. TURNER-I know, but you're ta1king a11 undersized 10ts, a11 right. MR. CARR-Sure. MR. TURNER-Then the other guy comes. He knocks the p1ace comp1ete1y down. He's going to do the same thing, but he's going to bui1d a brand new house, but he's sti11 going to expand it 50 percent more than the one that was on there before and you say that he doesn't have to come here. MR. CARR-To P1anning. MS. CORPUS-That appears to be the prob1em with the Ordinance that a110ws that. MR. CARR-In your examp1es, they both have to come here, to zoning. MR. TURNER-No. If he met the setbacks, he wou1dn't have to come here. MR. CARR-Then I don't care. MR. TURNER-No. I know, but that's what it's saying. 28 --- MR. CARR-Yes. but do you care? If he meets a11 the setbacks, do you care that you don't get to see? MR. TURNER-He meets the setbacks, but he's sti11 going with a bigger house, a11 right. MR. CARR-Yes. How cou1d you deny him? MR. TURNER-On an undersized 10t, in a Critica1 Environmenta1 Area. MR. CARR-But wait, if it's an undersized 1ot, then he can't meet the setbacks. He'd need a variance. MR. TURNER-No, he might very we11. MR. GORALSKI-What you're doing is you're pena1izing him because he had a house there once before. MR. TURNER-No. You're not pena1izing him. MR. GORALSKI-Sure you are. If he had a vacant 10t, you wou1dn't have a question. There wou1dn't be a question. MR. CARR-If there's a vacant 10t that's undersized right now, I mean there's a coup1e of them, I know, but I mean if somebody came in and cou1d meet the setbacks on that 10t, can they bu11d without a variance, even though it's a preexisting undersized 10t? MR. GORALSKI-Just get a bui1ding permit. MRS. CRAYFORD-Just get a bui1ding permit. MR. GORALSKI-No matter how big it is, as 10ng as it meets a11 the setbacks. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's right. MR. CARR-Then I sti11 don't have a prob1em. As 10ng as they meet the setbacks. MRS. CRAYFORD-We11, this Ordinance doesn't a110w me to require anything of them. MR. TURNER-No. I know. I'm not saying that. Just for discussion. MR. CARR-I mean, there's enough of those 10ts around that if somebody rea11y wants to tear down their house, you know, just to en1arge it, and make it a vacant 10t and then meet the setbacks, if it's an undersized 10t, they're going to have troub1e meeting the setbacks, especia11y anything around the Lake. I mean, it's going to be a1most impossib1e. MRS. CRAYFORD-Definite1y. MR. CARR-But my fee1ing is, if you can get them 75 feet back, I don't care if they have a two foot side yard variance, I mean, that wou1d be, I think, preferab1e to having them right on top of the Lake but 10 feet on each side. MR. GORALSKI-Once again, I just want to mention this again because a 10t of, in a 10t of towns every time you go to the Zoning Board, the first thing you've got to do is go to the P1anning Board for a referra1. In this Town that very rare1y happens. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's true. MR. GORALSKI-Since I've been here it's on1y happened once. If you have any concern, whether it's on the Lake or maybe it's on a ridge or on a scenic vista or something 1ike that, if you have any concerns about a project and it's impact, environmenta11y or on traffic or something 1ike that, you shou1d serious1y consider sending it to the P1anning Board. Whether or not it says in the Ordinance that they have to go to the P1anning Board. If you think there's a 1egitimate concern that shou1d be addressed, you shou1d send it to the P1anning Board. MR. TURNER-Yes, but I guess my point is I guess they were under the impression they didn't have to go. MR. GORALSKI-We11, they might have been under that impression, but if the Zoning Board t01d them, we're not going to approve it un1ess you do. MR. TURNER-Didn't you meet with them and Pau1 and their attorney. MRS. CRAYFORD-I don't even know who you're ta1king about. MR. TURNER-Rehm. John Mason. 29 ---...- -.....;" MRS. CRAYFORD-I would have to review the application, Ted. I don't recall. Did I meet with them? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-Of course. MR. TURNER-Yes, you, Paul, and their attorney. Didn't you an meet together and discuss this. just what we're talking about? MRS. CRAYFORD-Is that the one where they took the windows out? MR. TURNER-No. MR. GORALSKI-Hans, right? MR. TURNER-Hans. MRS. CRAYFORD-No. We didn't meet on that. MR. DUSEK-I thought I met with Walter Rehm on something. MRS. CRAYFORD-But it wasn't this one they're talking about. That one we met, they were taking windows out and putting windows in, altering. Hans we did not meet on, you and I. MR. DUSEK-Yes, but, I might have, maybe Dave Hatin was in on it or something. MR. CRAYFORD-I don't know, but anyway. Hans I would have to look at the application again and read the minutes. I want to read the minutes and see what your concerns are. MR. TURNER-Well, no that was his proposal, to take the old camp down. Turn the house a different angle. It didn't meet the shoreline setback. It didn't meet any of the setbacks. MRS. CRAYFORD-Right, and they had to have 50 percent. MR. TURNER-What I was saying, they had a 1928 square foot house that existed there. They were going to go to 2800 and something with a brand new one. MR. SICARD-They were going out of the footprint. MR. CARR-Yes, that's right. MR. TURNER-Part of it, yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-They didn't need 50 percent? MS. CORPUS-No. They weren't on the same footprint. They were changing it. MR. CARR-See, what they wanted us to do is they wanted us to treat it as a vacant lot. MR. TURNER-As a vacant lot. MR. CARR-Okay. So they didn't need the 50 percent, but then they said, but the house is already that close to the Lake, so why can't. MRS. CRAYFORD-You can't do that. MR. GORALSKI-Right. You can't use that as an argument. MR. CARR-And that's what we're saying is you can't have it both ways. You've got to have it one way or the other. MRS. CRAYFORD-I haven't read those minutes, but I'm going to read them. MRS. GOETZ-But they wanted their cake and eat it too is what they wanted. Okay. Wen, that's good to know that we probablY don't refer things as much as we should. MR. TURNER-We have before, but not necessarily that because an thi s stuff is generany gone to the Planning Board for site plan review, especiallY on the Lake. MR. GORALSKI-Wen, the City of Glens Fans, I don't think there's anything the Zoning Board decides on that doesn't go to the Planning Board. 30 '- MR. CARR-No, it a1ways goes to the P1anning Board first. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD- The Town I came from, aH zoning app1ications went to the P1anning Board first. The app1icant did not have to appear, but the P1anning Board reviewed a11 app1ications. Gave their referra1. MR. TURNER-Before. yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. Does everybody understand where we went and how we got there? MRS. CRAYFORD-Are we a11 in agreement now? You know, if any of you ever have a question about anything, I hope you'11 come in and ta1k to me about it. MR. CARR-On the Quaker Road, the KB 100 sign. MRS. CRAYFORD-Our friend Mr. DeSantis phoned me a week and a ha1f ago and said that the sign company that made that is going to put a Htt1e pane1 over the Bee. They're just going to dip a pane1 over the Bee and wipe the Bee out, the bumb1ebee. MRS. GOETZ-When wou1d that be happening? MRS. CRAYFORD-We11, that was a week and a ha1f ago he t01d me that. MR. CARR-It just seems to me that Mrs. Fairc10ud, when she was here saying. if you give me this variance, it's a11 going to be the same 1ettering, nice and neat, you know, and I thought that was part of our variance was that we wou1d a110w four names on it, a11 the same 1ettering and now a11 of a sudden they're putting pink and b1ue. MRS. CRAYFORD-But the motion doesn't say a11 the same 1ettering. MR. CARR-It doesn't? We messed up. MRS. CRAYFORD-I can on1y enforce what you've made, but I w111 caH Mr. DeSantis and ask him when the bumb1ebee is disappearing. MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Dusek wants to ta1k to us about Adicommco. right? MR. DUSEK-Yes. I'd 1i ke to recommend that the Board make a motion to go into Executive Session to discuss the matter of 1itigation which inv01ves Adicommco. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll move that the Board go into Executive Session for discussion of the matter of Adicommco which is in 1itigation. MOTION TO 60 INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Char1es Sicard: Du1y adopted this 17th day of Apri1. 1991, by the f0110wing vote: AYES: Mr. Ke11ey, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Egg1eston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea tlJTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adopti on, seconded by Char1es Sicard: Du1y adopted this 17th day of Apri1, 1991, by the f0110wing vote: AYES: Mr. Ke11ey. Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Egg1eston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. DUSEK-Now, the next item I just wanted to touch base with you brief1y because I know that particularly for Sue this has been a major concern, and that is our Sign Ordinance. I have gotten, I guess Pat was going to give you, or did you a1ready get them? 31 --- MR. TURNER-We got them. MRS. EGGLESTON-We've got them. MR. DUSEK-Okay. I have a1ready started a review of that, p1us the fact that because, this is a 1itt1e tricky. We have a new Code. I don't know if you know about this, or maybe you've seen it as some of the Board meetings or whatever, but there's a brand new Town of Queensbury Code Book that is being, that h pub1ished, and it wi11 be p1aced into effect short1y after May 6th. Because of that and because of the way we're set up now with Genera1 Code and everything, we have to rewrite the amendment into Bin Drafting form which my secretary is in the process of doing, okay. So as a first phase, that's one prob1em. The second prob1em I had was that in reviewing the Sign Ordinance and amending the previous Sign Ordinance, it's very important that we, one, don't mess up ourse1ves on existing cases and second of an that we don't mess up on these 10 year c1auses where we're trying to get rid of the bin board from the Town, in certain areas anyway, or the grandfathering. So I want to see, in tota1 format, which is what my office is now generating, the 01d 1aw with the information being de1eted in brackets, with the new information an under1ined, so I can draw a direct comparison between what we had and where we're going. Then it wi11 be adopted by way of further change which win be an amendment type Loca1 Law which wi11 set forth on1y the specific parts we're amending and then with covering 1anguage so we don't, you know, 11ke I say, mess up any cases that we current1y have pending. For purposes of working with this Board as wen as the P1anning Board and the Town Board, what you w111 get from me eventuany is the 01d 1aw with bracketed provisions being taken out. The entire 01d 1aw, with bracketed provisions showing what's being taken out, under1ined information showing what's being added. That's what we win work from to make sure that we're a11 in agreement as to the 1anguage and the imp1ications of the 1anguage. which I wi11 review with you after we get this first phase done. Then, once that's an done, then we've got one more phase to go, in terms of the drafting of the bi11 that I need to present to the Town Board so that we don't 10se anything in the process. So that's the stages, just to 1et you know. I made a cOlTl11itment to Sue, back a coup1e of months ago. I said, Apri1, Sue, is going to 100k pretty good for me to get at thi s and I have had a chance to get at it. So we're underway with it. MRS. GOETZ-Good. Does this go in that Code Book? MR. DUSEK-Yes. The 01d Sign Ordinance, as it current1y exists, is now in the Code Book and that's one of the reasons, too, why we have to be so e1aborate, because when we send it to them, what they're going to do is on1y revise the pages or sections of the Law that have to be revised. Everything e1se stays the same on their computer. So we have to set it up so that they can funne1 it through at their offices. MRS. GOETZ-Where are those offices? MRS. CRAYFORD-Genera1 Code Pub1ishing, Rochester. MRS. GOETZ-And then they pub1ish it a11 again? MR. DUSEK-We11, they don't pub1ish the wh01e Code. The on1y pUb1ish the pages. MR. TURNER-The pages. MR. CARR-They did the G1ens Fa11s, didn't they? MR. DUSEK-Yes. They've done a 10t of them around this State. I think you're going to 1ike this new Code Book that we've got coming out. MRS. GOETZ-Now, the other Zoning Board members, did you have a chance to go through the proposed Ordinance, you know, since we had that other one handed out to you a few months ago? MRS. CRAYFORD-I just handed them the fina1 draft tonight. MRS. GOETZ-Right. This one. MRS. CRAYFORD-You're asking about the one that we handed out. MRS. GOETZ-Yes, because remember when we wanted to have the Zoning Board support the new proposa1 and I can understand that they just didn't fee1 that they cou1d support something they hadn't seen. So at that point, and I wondered if anybody ever 100ked at what they were given. MR. DUSEK-You might find it easier to 100k at what I'm going to give you, because I'll ten you. the difficu1ty I had is, as I started to review this, I had the 01d one in front of me with the new one and I was trying to figure out what was changed and it's very, very difficu1t to do that. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. 32 - MR. DUSEK-Pat's latest version, she's marked it for you. So you can see what was changed from the '90 copy, but it's comparing the '90 copy to the old copy is just very time consuming. That's why I finally said, I've got to redo it anyway, and I don't want to take any changes of having something we don't want. So I'm going to have it totally retyped first, then I will continue my review. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. Well that's good. Thanks. I'm glad that you're working on it because it's just going to make life easier for everybody once it's done. MR. DUSEK-Yes, it'll be easier for me, too. MR. TURNER-All right. Is that it? Okay. A motion to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 33