Loading...
1991-06-26 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26TH, 1991 INDEX Area Variance No. 44-1991 Raymond Sherlock 1. Area Variance No. 45-1991 Donna McCabe 4. Area Variance No. 46-1991 John E. & Elizabeth F. McNairy 7. Area Variance No. 47-1991 Mary D. Scuderi Lucy Scuderi 14. Sign Variance No. 48-1991 Traveler's Insurance 16. Area Variance No. 73-1989 Edward J. Eppich 19. Notice of Appeal No. 2-91 BY: The Queensbury Planning Board 19. 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. QUEENSIIJRY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26TH, 1991 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY JEFFREY KELLEY CHARLES SICARD JOYCE EGGLESTON MICHAEL SHEA MEMBERS ABSENT BRUCE CARR DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT CRAYFORD SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW IIJSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-1991 TYPE II SR-lA RAYI01D SHERLOCK OIlIER: LAURIE I FRANCIS MELANSON LOT 8, MUD POND ROAD FOR COIISTRUCTION OF A ONE FAMILY DWELLING. THE FOONDATU. lIAS IIJILT WITHIN 24 FT. OF THE FRONT LINE. THE RE~IRED SETBACK IS 30 FT. TAX MP NO. 52-4-8 LOT SIZE: 22,944 SQ. FT. SECTION 4.02D-G RAY SHERLOCK, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 44-1991, Raymond Sherlock, June 20, 1991, Meeting Date: June 26, 1991 "This application is to vary the front yard setbacks of 30 ft. in the SR-IA zone. The applicant has built his foundation within 24 ft. of the front lot line. The project is on Azure Drive. This application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for an Area Variance. 1. Are there special conditions applying to this property or building, and not applying generally to other properties or buildings in the neighborhood? Yes. Due to an error in the construction, the foundation was inadvertently place so that it encroached 6 ft. into the front yard setback. 2. Would strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buil dings? Yes. The" foundation currently exists. 3. Would the strict appl ication of the dimensional requirements result in a specified practical difficulty? The applicant has a practical difficulty since the cost of moving the foundation could prohibit completion of the project. 4. Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance, or to property in the district? No. The 6 ft. encroachment is not significant. 5. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? Yes." MR. TURNER-Ray, can we have your input as to how this got where it got? MR. SHERLOCK-Ray Sherlock. I am representing Laurie and Francis Melanson. I measured this setback line from the center of the paved section of Azure Drive to get the 30 feet. Come to find out, Azure Drive is not in the center of the right-of-way. It's roughly seven feet out of the center of the right- of-way. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. SHERLOCK-Usually, I make considerable setback, but this person that we're building for is legally bl indo She asked for a short driveway. I gave her a much shorter driveway than I intended to. I thought I was legal with the 30 feet because I took it from the center of the paved portion. MR. TURNER-Okay, and it showed up after they did the survey? MR. SHERLOCK-I beg your pardon? MR. TURNER-And then it showed up after they did the survey? MR. SHERLOCK-Yes. It showed up after it was put in. As soon as I found I was in error, I secured the job site and shut it down and applied for this variance. 1 MR. TURNER-Okay. All right. Any questions, anyone? MR. KELLEY-Ray, I don't know that I remember what the actual floor plan of this building looks like, but should they someday want to put a garage on, would it go on this left hand side of this existing building? MR. SHERLOCK-It woul d set back from the, they woul d not attach a garage. They aren't even tal king of a garage at this point. MR. KELLEY-I guess the thought being, depending on the design of it, they might be able to angle it or set it back so that they could put an addition on and still meet the 30 foot setback from the street. MR. SHERLOCK-An addition or a garage, either one of them. could be added in such a way that it would not interfere with future 30 foot setbacks. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. SHERLOCK-If you desire, I have a set of the plans with me, if you would like to see the floor plan of the house. MR. KELLEY-No. I think that's all right, for the moment. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO CONtENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Joseph Scanlin, "As the owner of Lot Number 14 Azure Drive, I state that I have no objection to the proposed variance of 30 feet to 24 feet allowance for Lot Number 8 Mud Pond Road." Letter from James Suma, 19 Azure Drive, "I am writing to vehemently oppose the appl ication for variance by Raymond Sherlock and owner Laurie and Francis Melanson for construction of a one family dwell ing. I am unable to attend the public hearing June 19th. I live directly across the street and this dwelling, even with the required setback of 30 feet, is much too close to my property. It destroys the natural ambiance and aesthetic beauty of my home as well as the integrity of the neighborhood in general. This dwelling and my home are closer together than any two homes within a one mile radius. Previously. the closest home to me was approximately 80 yards, as I am 3/4th's surrounded by woods and field. This seclusion was the reason I purchased my home and I now feel forced to move because of this encroachment. I am philosophicallY opposed to such development in general, as there exist homes already built that cannot be sold and lots available that are not close to any other dwelling. I have no understanding of why construction of a dwelling was started without the builder first realizing the required setback. If the legal setback is not complied with, I will request some type of screening between this property and my own, if that is in my legal right. I am extremely concerned and agitated by this situation and oppose this variance on every grounds conceivable. I have no right to dictate what someone does with his or her property or tell someone where they may 1 ive, but I have a right to expect that all laws and Zoning Ordinances will be complied with and enforced. I strongly urge the Zoning Board to decline this application for a variance. Thank you very much for your time and consideration." MR. KELLEY-Who was that from? MRS. GOETZ-It's from James Suma, at 19. It's 19 Azure Drive, and then handwritten in, it looks like it's more from Mr. Suma. "I am attending graduate school nights in Albany and have an exam the night of the public hearing. This exam cannot be rescheduled and is the reason I cannot voice my opposition in person. P.S. It was brought to my attention by Pat Crayford that the dwelling in question was built as close to the road as possible because the owner has a handicap which necessitates it to be easily accessible. However, the owner may sell the home soon after construction, which then would make it's location on the lot irrelevant." MR. KELLEY-I've got a question for Ray. More for the record, I guess. One of the hardships tal ked about in your application was the cost moving the existing deck or rebuilding a foundation or something to that nature. Do you have an approximate cost of what that would be to move this back? MR. SHERLOCK-No, I don't have an approximate cost. It would be tearing the foundation apart completely, taking the deck off, redoing the whole thing and this is a $70,000 house to begin with. So, I would say probably there's roughly $10,000 in it. It would be another $10,000 to redo it. 2 MR. KELLEY-Okay. So it would be more than 10 percent of the total cost of the building? MR. SHERLOCK-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. SHERLOCK-This was started as affordable housing. I did not deliberately do what came about. MR. KELLEY-Right. MR. SHEA-It's a lot of money per foot to move the house six feet to get it in compliance. MR. KELLEY-Well, I went up myself and measured, as I was telling Ray, and I had it figured out, I thought the road was somewhere around 30 feet to the center of the road from his property line and 20 feet on the other side. So I had it somewhere around 10 feet off center. So I can kind of see where he's coming from. If you looked at the road, you'd say he did a good job and then all of a sudden, you didn't. MR. SHERLOCK-The map will show how the road goes at the wrong angle there. Rightfully the road, when it goes around the corner, should go more to the right, but it doesn't. It goes way to the left before it goes ri ght. MRS. GOETZ-Is this the similar problem we had in Hidden Hills, where we had a lot of these variances? MR. KELLEY-I think the Hidden Hills lots were similar only that a lot of the lots had curved frontages. The curved streets seemed to create more problems and this one happens to be, well, I guess you could call it curved. It's not a totally straight front. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else? What really happened was, he had the drawing from Morse Engineering. He went by that. Then when the survey came, after the fact, that's what showed up the discrepancy. That's what happened. MR. KELLEY-What was from Morse Engineering? MR. TURNER-He had the 1 ayout of the lot from Morse Engineering and then when they came and surveyed the property, then they discovered the error. That's what happened. The road didn't actually go like it showed on the plan, either. MR. KELLEY-So. Morse designed a plot plan not knowing the property line, either. MR. TURNER-Not knowing the property line either. So, it's actually not his fault. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. MRS. GOETZ-I hope they don't do that again. MR. TURNER-Well, that's where it came. That's how it came about. MRS. GOETZ-Has it been brought to their attention? MR. KELLEY-It sounds like you had the right approach. I mean, you went to an engineering company to do your plot plan and it still. MR. SHERLOCK-They went by the development map. MR. TURNER-The Subdivision Map. MR. SHERLOCK-The Subdivision Map, and the chances are I probably jumped the gun, too, by going in there and going from the center of the road, but the center of the road definitely is not where the center of the road is supposed to be. One end of it is in the right place. MR. KELLEY-Right. MR. SHERLOCK-The other end of it is not. I could have been a lot worse off if I, I called the surveyor to go in there and survey it. I wanted the 1 ine between Lot 7 and 8 defined. So when the surveyor was there. I asked him to survey the whole thing and this is when we found the error. I could have got the house completely done before I found that error. Just as soon as it showed up, I shut construction down. I didn't proceed, be reckless or, I like to be legal. I like to be right with the Town. I'm not trying to do something that I'm not entitled to. At this point in the game, I am pleading with the Board to accept this variance on behalf of my customers. 3 -- MR. KELLEY-I appreciate his willingness not to proceed, because he could come in and say, well, now I've got $40.000 invested and you're going to make me move it. So, I mean, at least he's trying to do it right. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. SHERLOCK-It's been shut down three, three and a half weeks since we found it. I talked to you at the time, Ted, and I talked to Mr. Kelley, defining the error that I found I had done. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, it's just an unfortunate thing, through no fault, really, of the builders. I guess, and to make them take it all down, do it again. MR. KELLEY-It doesn't become affordable. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. It's certainly not affordable housing when you're finished. MR. SHERLOCK-No, it would not be. If this house was $10,000 more money to begin with. these people would not have had this house. MR. TURNER-Yes. All right. Okay. Any further questions of Mr. Sherlock? None? Okay. Thanks, Ray. MR. SHERLOCK-Thank you. MR. TURNER-A motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-1991 RAYMOND SHERLOCK, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Susan Goetz: The variance is for 7.56 feet relief on the front lot from the required 30 foot setback. There's no effect on governmental facilities and no change in the neighborhood character as it is in an established residential subdivision.- Denial of this variance would cause substantial economic impact on the builder, as the total foundation would have to be relocated. Considering all the evidence and the manner in which the difficulty arose, the interest of justice will be served by allowing the variance. Duly adopted this 26th day of June. 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carr AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-1991 STREET EXTENSION, SECOND THE BACK PROPERTY LINE. FT. SECTION 7.074 TYPE II SR-lA DONNA Jl:CABE OWNER: ALLEN AND DOINA IUABE 211 FIFTH HOOSE FROM CAROLINE TO PLACE A SWIMMING POOL IN THE BACKYARD 10 FT. FROM THE REQUIRED SETBACK IS 20 FT. TAX MP NO. 131-7-4 LOT SIZE: 10,000 SQ. DONNA MCCABE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, June 25, 1991, Meeting Date: June 26, 1991 "The request is to place an above ground swinming pool 10 ft. from the back property line. The requirement in the SR-IA zone is 20 ft. backyard setbacks. The lot size is 10,000 sq. ft. and is located on Fifth Street Extension. This application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for an Area Variance. 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 lot is ±~ acre and is fairly densely developed with the house and garage. A small patio is off the back of the house which limits moving the pool too much closer to that structure. The septic system and leaching area take up the rest of the back yard. 2. Would strict appl ication of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings? No. The applicant currently has residential use of the property. 3. Would the strict application of the dimensional requirements result in a specified practical difficulty? The result of strictly applying the Ordinance would result in the applicant not being allowed a pool. 4. Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance, or to property in the district? "No.5. Is this request the minimum rel ief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? Yes. The applicant has a lot which is one fourth of the current standard and with the existing structures there is not other area for placement of any accessory uses. The code requires that all pools be fenced. The Board may want to include the fencing in the variance." MR. TURNER-Could I have your name, please, for the record? MRS. MCCABE-Donna McCabe. 4 c_ MR. TURNER-One question I might have, Mrs. McCabe, is where do, the arms for the leach go off this way? MRS. MCCABE-Yes, yes they do. MR. TURNER-So, you couldn't move it this way? You couldn't move it, like, this way, to bring it within the 20 foot setback? MRS. MCCABE-Then it would be on the septic system. MR. TURNER-On the septic system? MRS. MCCABE-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone elsl~? MR. KELLEY-Does it need a side yard also? MR. TURNER-Yes. That's what I was just looking at. MR. KELLEY-Because in the Ordinance looks like the total side yard has to be 30 with a 10 foot minimum. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-And this shows s1>c foot seven. MR. TURNER-Six foot seven. That's what I was just looking at myself. MRS. CRAYFORD- The pool requÍ!'es a 10 foot setback from side yard. MR. TURNER-Yes. She's only six. seven. MRS. CRAYFORD-Right. MRS. MCCABE-I'm what? MR. TURNER-You're only six foot seven, with the pool. from the side yard, the side property line. MRS. MCCABE-No, it's further than that. MR. TURNER-How far is the ho~se from the property line. do you know that? MRS. MCCABE-Sixteen. MR. TURNER-Sixteen feet? Do€!s the property line go askew like this? Does it go this way? MRS. MCCABE-No. It goes right straight. MR. TURNER-Right straight back? MRS. MCCABE-Yes. and the pool is set, like, you know, maybe. MR. TURNER-In line with, inside of the outside of the house? MRS. MCCABE-It's inside of the outside of the house. I think, it's got to be sixteen, seven. MRS. GOETZ-It's just a mistake. Maybe when you copied it, this one didn't come out or something. MRS. MCCABE-It's very possible. It's got to be sixteen, seven. MR. TURNER-Sixteen feet, seven inches? MRS. MCCABE-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. YORK-Mr. Chairman, when I did my site visit, it appeared to be more than that, more like sixteen feet. MR. TURNER-Yes. Anyone else have any questions? 5 '- ~ MRS. EGGLESTON-I just was wondering how you were going to fill it? MRS. MCCABE-We have a private well and I'm going to fill it out of the private well. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. My concern was they're having problems with water pressure, terrible in that area. MRS. MCCABE-Water, right. The house has a private well. We put that in shortly after we bought it and we're filling it with that. MRS. EGGLESTON-I see you are hooked into the Town though, are you not? MRS. MCCABE-Yes. We are hooked into the Town. We use that for our inside water and we water our lawn and stuff with the outside water. That's hooked up to the outside outlets. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, you're definitely going to do it from the well? MRS. MCCABE-Yes. We are. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-The swimming pool is an above ground or in-ground? MRS. MCCABE- It's an above grl:>und. MR. TURNER-It's an above grolJnd. Four feet with the side walls? MRS. MCCABE-Yes. Are you going to put a deck on it? MRS. MCCABE-No. MR. TURNER-No. Not yet? MRS. MCCABE-No. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions of the applicant? I guess not. All right. Hearing none. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO CotlENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Al and Pat Burrows, 214 Fifth Street Extension, "We have no objections to them putting in the pool, but we would question them on hard rock noise coming from loud up volume speakers that many people have at pool parties. As close property owners, I don't believe we have to be subjected to that kind of unnecessary loud rock noise. We're not saying they shouldn't have pool parties, but that they should have some consideration for close property owners. I think this subject should be brought up as a point. Outside of this point, we have no objections to them having a pool. Sorry to sound like crabs." MRS. EGGLESTON-I think I not"iced pools on two sides of you. did I not? MRS. MCCABE-Yes, you did. MRS. EGGLESTON-And maybe one in the back. So, it's not going to be a. MRS. MCCABE-The hard rock mU!¡ic's coming from the one in the back. MR. TURNER-From the one in the back? MRS. MCCABE-The hard rock music's coming from the one in the back. My daughter is nine years old. She likes soft rock. She dl:>es play her stereo out in the back yard when she's out there, but we try to get her to keep it low. Okay? MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. No further questions? A motion's in order. MR. KELLEY-So, there was nObody in opposition to this? MR. TURNER-None at all. 6 --" MR. KELLEY-It appeared pretty well screened by hedges and trees along that back and side line there. MR. TURNER-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VAR1ANCE 10. 45-1991 DONNA IECABE, Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: They're seeking a relief of 10 feet from their rear yard setback. The Ordinance calls for a 20 foot rear yard setback, and this particular above ground pool will be 10 feet from that line. The practical difficulty is that this particular lot is 100 feet by 100 feet and much of the rear yard is taken up by a septic tank and leaching area and it appears that this would be the most reasonable location for a pool and that this would be the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. There appears to be no neighborhood opposition and this particular lot appears to be well screened by means of evergreens and aln existing fence on the west side of the property 1 ine. Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard. Mrs. Goet;~, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carr AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-1991 TYPE II MR-5 JOHN E. I ELIZABETH F. tl:IAIRY CMlER: SAtE AS ABOVE WALKER LANE, WEST OFF BAY ROAD TO CONSTRUCT A 6 FT. FENCE IN THE REAR YARD WITH MOST PLEASAIT SIDE FACING INWARD. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX IMP NO. 60-7-11.3 LOT SIZE: 125 FT. BY 185 FT. SECTION 7.091-A JOHN CARUSONE. REPRESENTING JIPPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 46-1991, John E. and Elizabeth F. McNairy. June 13, 1991, Meeting Date: June 26, 1991 "The réquest is to construct a 6 foot fence with the most attractive side facing the applicant. The residence is on Walker Lane. Section 7.091 specifies that fences in a residential di!¡trict shall have the most pleasant side facing adjacent properties. The applicant's yard abuts a professional office subdivision and they can see work going on at the adjacent office. This appl ication wa:; reviewed with regard to the area variance criteria. 1) Are there special conditions applying to this property or building and not applying generally to other properties or buildings in the neighborhood? The lot is residential, similar to others in the neighborhood except that it is adjacent to a professional subdivision and there is no screening to protect the visual amenities. 2) Would the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of th4! land or buildings? The applicant has use of the property as a residence. Placing a fence on the property would enhance the applicants use of the property and correct a situation in which screening should h&ve been provided between two different types of use. 3) Would the strict application of the dimensional requirements result in a specified practical difficulty? The strict application of the OrdinanCE! would require the applicant to place the fence so that the professional office would have the best ~¡ide facing it. In this instance the requirement does not seem to fit the situation. 4) Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance, or to property in the district? No.5) Is the request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficullty? There are no alternatives for the applicant to plant bushes etc., but for the purpose of creating a buffer fence is the fastest and easiest way to achieve a solution." MRS. GOETZ-The Warren County Pl anning Board returned saying "No County Impact". MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Carusone? MR. CARUSONE-My name is Johln Carusone and I'm a lawyer and my office is at 250 Bay Road in the Town of Queensbury and I represent Mr. and Mrs. McNairy and by way of background, I would just like to state that the McNairys built thei:r home, which is a duplex in which they live, and moved in their in February of 1980 and they've been residing there ever since. The house in which they live is not particularly large. It's two bedrooms. It has a living area, a kitchen, and a small dining area, and the essence of their house is what I would call their den or sun room, and that abuts off of the back of the duplex, and is virtually all glass and that part of the house contains their television. It has a wood stove, and they literally live in that house almost all the time they're there, except of course when they're in bed. The windows look out the backyard and they had a nice view of the wooded area behind them which looked into what is now the Hughes Subdivision. When John Hughes, who built their house by the way, initiated the subdivisio,n, particularly with respect to Dr. Kana's professional office. Mr. McNairy. orally at least, was lead to believe that when the professional building was put in, that there would be some kind of buffer between it and his house, so that he wouldn't have to look at what Dr. Kana does. This same representation was made by Dr. Kana himself, when the building was going up, to Mr. McNairy's son Ken who participated in selling materials through his employer to Dr. Kana for the construction 7 -- of his building. The building of Dr. Kana was finished in approximately November of 1990, when he moved in, and at that point landscaping, etc. hadn't been done, and in the Spring, when the landscaping went in and it appeared tel be concluded, Mr. McNairy went to Dr. Kana and indicated that there was no buffer between his house and. literally. his living space and Dr. Kana's office, particularly he indicated that he would like to know what was going to be done with respect to a buffer zone. Dr. Kana indicated to Mr. McNairy that he couldn't afford to put in anymore plantings at this time. Mr. McNairy thought about this and subsequently went back to Dr. Kana and suggested to him that he. Mr. McNairy, split the cost with Dr. Kana of putting in bushes, trees, shrubs. something to prevent the McNairy's, sitting in their living space, looking at Dr. Kana treating his patients. Dr. Kana, again, indicated that he couldn't afford to do this either. Therefore, when we get up to the present time, I think you can see why we'lre here. Al so, briefly by way of background. we have, if you wish to examine them, some of the site plan reviews with respect to this particular lot, and I have Sheet One of the site plan that was prepared and dated August 30, 1989, by Coulter and McCormick, in which it indicates that there would be a rete'1tion of a minimum of five feet of existing vegetation. That wasn't done, that didn't occur, and Mr. McNairy was aware of this when it occurred, but once again, the inference was, and he was always led to believe, that he would be taken care of, if you will, and I have this if you want to examine it or review it. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARUSONE-In addition, I have copies of the Beautification Committee Report that was done with respect to this property, dated Oc'~ober 9th, 1989, in which the Beautification Committee indicates that the plans show that plantings will be attractive and provide screening to neighbors. So, obviously. the Town of Queensbury had it at least somewhere in its mind that the neighbors or residents in that area would be protected when this professional building went in, and I have copies of this. I've underlined or underscored the language which I think is important. With respect to this particular application, my clients feel, and I hope I can voice it to you in the way they feel, that they are a retired couple. They live on the property all day. They don't go to work. Mr. McNairy is 81 years old. He resents the fact that he has to sit in his 1 iving space and watch Dr. Kana perform his work. He can see this from his living space, through his windows. He can see it from his backyard. He feels, therefore. that, really, it's Dr. Kana who should be putting up the fence and that, logically, if Dr. Kana were putting up the fence, then the smooth area facing the McNairys would be the area that they want facing them, and the post area, if you will, would be facing Dr. Kana, but since Dr. Kana has already turned down Mr. McNairy's compromise to share in the expense of putting up plantings, then the McNairys feel that, really, they are doin'g what Dr. Kana should be doing, creating a buffer between a professional building and the McNairys. Therefore, when you think about it from the perspective, logically, you would say, well, if the Kanas put up the fence, we wouldn't be here, because the fence would simply go up. So what the McNairy!; are asking for is the enjoyment of their property the way it was before, to be allowed to have a buffered area, to be allowed to sit in their living space and at least look at the most attractive side~ of the fence, and as an aside, they don't feel that this is any grave detriment to Dr. Kana, since· he's a professional building. He's there on limited times, that is, he's there during ordinary working hours. He probably is there for an emergency, occasionally. He's probably rarely there on a weekend, 'if ever, and his jOb, his focus, is to be working with his patients. So. for him to be opposed to a fence going up, under the circumstances, we don't feel is any grave injustice to him. especially consider"ing the background. We would, therefore, urge this Board to approve the application. If you have any questions about what I have said, I do have the people that I have referred to. here. MR. TURNER-Does anyone have any questions of Mr. Carusone? Okay, John, I guess not right now. We might have some later. BOB KANA DR. KANA-My name is Bob Kana and I'm the owner of the adjacent property. I am in no way opposed to the fence and I would like to clarify my position before the Board tonight. I request that the information provided herein I>e made part of the record of the John and El izabeth McNairy Area Variance application. I'd 1 ike to refer to my site plan. I've borrowed it, of course, from John, here. I have a copy which is not as clear as his. The area outlined in yellow at the bottom of the map is the area of buffer between the two properties. The following facts are presented for your consideration: The John Hughes Building Pemit and the site plan required him to retain a minimum of five feet of existing vegetation and to construct a one and one half foot high berm between the McNairy and Kostek properties. The berm was m!Ver constructed and the existing vegetatiom between the McNairy property and my property was removed. John Hughes informed me after the fact and wi th no pri or consul tati on with me that he and the McNëlirys had both agreed that it would be best to remove the scrub brush that constituted the existing vegetation between the two properties. At the time that John informed me of this action. I had already reached an agreement with Jim Girard Landscaping on a landscaping design for my property. Mr. Girard is here tonight and he is willing to testify on my behalf that I never planned to plant any trees in the buffer area in question behind my building. The reference in the McNairy variance appl ication. which would be Question Number 18, states that their request is made "due to the fact owner (assuming that would be me) failed to establish required buffer". I feel this fact is erroneous because, ,as noted above, the landscape design never considered such a buffer. I would additionally like to point out that as the present controversy arose, John Hughes, and this is from John. not from 8 - Mr. and Mrs. McNairy, offered the McNairys the opportunity to select some trees from his property at Ledgeview Village which he would then transplant. They declined the offer and elected the option of a fence instead. My prope."ty sits at an elevation some several feet above the McNairy property. It is my belief that we will continue to have a direct line of sight over this fence from certain window locations in my office. ThE! McNairy goal of screening privacy for their property will not be achieved. Should additional screening be required, it should be the contractor's responsibility to plant strategic appropriate greenery since the removal of the existing vegetation was done without my knowledge and without the approval of the Queensbury Planning Board. I went out, and there's a tree just on my side of the property line. I meilsured six feet high on the tree and there's a three by five card that hangs there at this point in tim ~, and you can look out those various windows and any Queensbury official or member of this Board is welcome to do so. You still have a very direct view into their property, into their house, if one wel'e to choose that. So, in conclusion, I make the following specific requests to the Zoning Board of Appeals and to the Planning Board: (1) I request that this matter be returned to the Planning Board for a decision on whether the construction of a berm and the planting of appropriate buffer vegetation is necessary. I request a written statement from the Planning Board or the appropriate Queensbury town official that the drainage situation and grading in the area between the two properties is now acceptable and that the required berm is not now necessary. I'd like to do this to avoid any futurE! controversy with problems of drainage that might arise. Also, I see no reason for the contractor to reestablish the minimum of five feet of existing vegetation. However, if the town rules that vegetation screening is required then the contractor should make the necessary corrections at his expense" (2) I have no objection to the request made in the McNairy variance application to erect a six foot high fence with the good side facing the McNairy property. However. as noted above, it is doubtful the fence will accomplish this goal of screening privacy. I would only ask that the side of the fE!nce facing me be painted or stained to an acceptable color and maintained as such. MR. TURNER-Thank you. DR. KANA-I do have Jim Girard here, if you'd like to question him. MR. TURNER-We have a question of you, first, Doctor. MRS. GOETZ-Dr. Kana, did YOll ever go and talk this over with John Hughes when trouble arose? Because from what Mr. Carusone was saying, it sounds like there was a lot of talk between you and the McNairys, and it seems like it should have been between them and John Hughes. DR. KANA-Well, I did talk tt) Mr. McNairy and I had questioned John late last fall when I sawall the vegetation was removed and he said that had been taken care of and there was nothing to be concerned with it, and then this spring when I talked to Mr. McNairy, I was aware of the situation, but I was trying to be professional about it without saying to him, well, John was supposed to leave that vegetation in and he didn't. I have talked to John about the matter and John's position, initially, was, why don't you plant three or four trees and I sa i d to John, why don't you plant three or four trees. You removed the buffer without discussing it with me and without going to the Planning Board. He said, if I had gone back to the Planning Board it would have held your occupancy up another month. That building is where I'm going to practice the rest of my life, hopefully, and I want to be able to sell it without problems with the cOllDl1unity and having everything clear. So, I really would like to see this issue settled, ,and of course, I refused John, in terms of me planting the trees. I felt that it was his responsibil ity, and then as things progressed and the McNairys decided to put the fence up, I had a little contact with John there, in that, he wanted me to go down and talk to Mr. McNairy about the fence and see if something couldn't be worked out, in terms of how it would be paid for, and I then consulted my attorney and he recommended that I enter into no further discussion with any of the parties until the presentation had been made here tonight. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. I have a question for the Staff. What is the recourse when somebody doesn't do what's on the site plan approval, as far as the Town goes? MRS. CRAYFORD-Sue, 1'm not :sure. I think we can either bring them back in to the Planning Board or if they haven't received a CO yet, possibly hold the CO. MRS. GOETZ-But you're in ther'e. obviously. MR. TURNER-He's in there. He's got his CO. DR. KANA-Yes. I moved in there November 1st. MRS. GOETZ-But I mean. it does seem, what is the purpose of having a site plan review if it's not going to be upheld? MR. KELLEY-Right. MRS. GOETZ-And I realize you're in there, but what should we do now? MRS. YORK-I believe that they would be in violation of their site plan, the developer. 9 -- MRS. GOETZ-What would the procedure be, then, at this point? MRS. YORK-It would be an enforcement procedure. MRS. CRAYFORD-Such as what? To be honest with you, I've never encountered this. MRS. GOETZ-It sounds like we could find out. MRS. CRAYFORD-I agree. MR. TURNER-Doctor, you say the fence isn't going to do the trick, right? DR. KANA-Well, I have no objection to the fence, and we certainly do not make it a habit of looking down there, but as I know and as the McNairys know, if somebody is in the window when patients are sitting in the chair, they do have a direct vision down. I think that the placement of the fence will alleviate a patient sitting in my chair having a direct view, but anybody who stands up or chose to stand up and look towards the McNairy property would be able to see over the fence, and I'm judging that on the basis of the six foot high three by five card. which I guess, by eye, as you look directly over that three by five card, the sl iding glass door which John referred to, I would say that my eye tells me that the line of site is about three feet up from ground level on the door. So that I believe that, as you look level across there. if they were sitting in the chairs and so on, as they do, that you would be able to see them, but as I say, anybody is welcome to come and take a view over that. MRS. GOETZ-What would you think of a combination of both trees put in and the fence? MR. TURNER-That's what I was just going to say. DR. KANA-Well. as I referred to in my letter, and I respect the McNairy's request for privacy, I almost feel that both need to be done in order to, that's why I refer to it as strategic plantings. That old brush that was along through there, I don't know that there was anything particularly beautiful about that, but I don't know that it's necessary, unless the Board feels that all of the greenery should be restored that was removed. I guess I don't feel that it's necessary, but I do thi nk, probably, some strategic plantings should be considered and that plan also calls for the construction of a drainage ditch through there which I believe was not accomplished. There's a contour to the land. but I'm not sure that that ditch was ever placed. MR. SHEA-Dr. Kana, could the scrub brush have been removed with the anticipation of doing new plantings so as to effect the buffered area that was required in the site plan? DR. KANA-I don't think so, Mike, because in the site plan that I used, which is a copy of this, and I think Jim Girard has the same plan, as we talked about what we would do, we never impinged upon that area because the existing vegetation was there. There are a few trees that would be in an area further up on the building that do not look directly on the McNairy area that were in the original plan which I have not put in as we made adjustments in the cost of the plantings, but those trees, I think, do you have that plan with you, that shows the trees further to the left. MR. SHEA-But if the original site plan required that, what was it, a foot and a half tall buffer, a berm. DR. KANA-A berm. and I think that was for the drainage probl em. so that my 1 and which is higher than the McNairy property, so that water would not run off onto their property. Had I known, initially, in the planning, we would have planned and budgeted for such. but I proceeded through the whole episode under the understanding that the five feet of existing vegetation was going to be there and would be maintained. MR. TURNER-Yes, but I think basically what happened was all the scrub brush that was in there was taken out. and what is left is what you have now. So the big trees are still there. DR. KANA-The big trees are still there. MR. TURNER-But anything else that blocks the view, it could be alders or anything like that, could have been taken out of there, and that's why you've got what you've got today. DR. KANA-Right. On this property, here. which is Mr. and Mrs. McNairy's property, everything was removed. In this area here, the Kostek property, things were not removed and if you stand in any area here and look down. you can barely see through that brush, so that had the existing vegetation been left here, Mr. McNairy might be better able to answer that than me, I truthfully don't know how high it was and how thick it was. So, whether that would have provided adequate screening, I don't know. MR. TURNER-What I'm suggesting is that what was there was taken out, and what was left is what you've got now, and that's why you've got the opening that you've got. 10 - DR. KANA-Right, and that's what has created the problem. MR. TURNER-Right. DR. KANA-So in the landscape that Jim has, and I'll let him speak for himself, this would be the final plan that we updated, we provided for a wild flower bed as a border between the two properties, and then these two trees in thi s area, these trees in thi s area, and these two trees, these three up here have not been planted for budgetary reasons. The three trees in here have and most of the shrubbery that's called for in this area is now in place. MR. TURNER-Okay. All right. If you want Mr. Girard to explain his. DR. KANA-Yes. I'd appreciate that. JIM GIRARD MR. GIRARD-My name is Jim Girard and, obviously, I own Jim Girard Landscape Maintenance Corporation, and my Company did the landscaping and the plan for Dr. Kana, here, and the date on this plan is 10/4/1989. and this is what we submitted to the Beautification Committee, and all I would like to do for Dr. Kana is verify that there was no planting schedule in this area between Mr. and Mrs. McNairy's property and Dr. Kana's, primarily because of the grading plan and the existing vegetation that is shown on this map, that was to be left. We have listed the existing White Pines and Silver Maples that are still there. They are fairly large trees, eight inch diameter trees. and six inch diameter trees. We buffered that area with wild flower just to make a smooth transition between a manicured lawn and the existing vegetation or the understory species that was there prior to our landscaping. At the time of landscaping this spring, that was all removed, and there is a clear path between the two properties. Our solution to that problem at that time was just to wild flower the entire area and that's what we did. The only planting that would be visible from the McNairy property that was not installed is this foundation planting, here, close to the building, and the reason for that is, the entrances to the building were juxtaposed at a later date. The entrance was changed. So our foundation planting was just reversed with it. So, it did not require a planting in this area. MR. SHEA-You saw the existing buffer prior to it being taken away, correct? Your plan was dated in '89. So, the scrub brush was still there. MR. GIRARD-Yes. MR. SHEA-Was that suffi ci ent screeni ng. in your estimati on? Woul d that have provi ded the necessary screening to make these parties happy? MR. GIRARD-That's hard to say, Mike, because, at that time, this was a totally wooded area, and during excavation to just leave an area of five feet, it would be pretty hard to ascertain if that was going to be enough to block the view from one building to another. MR. SHEA-But when you went in to do your work, the scrub brush had been removed at that point? MR. GIRARD-Yes. MR. SHEA-And, in your opinion. was that sufficient screening, the way that it was left? MR. GIRARD-No. MR. SHEA-I mean, would that, in your opinion, have complied with the site plan? MR. GIRARD-No. The site plan also, you know, there was a berm area for drainage, and that's why we directed our planting to other areas, so as not to disturb the berm that had to be constructed and the flow of water. That's why we hadn't scheduled anything in this area. In working with the contractor. we wanted him to do everything he could to retain these large Maples and the one existing White Pine that was there, and he did do that. MR. SHEA-When you went in to do your work and you found that the scrub brush had been removed. at that time, did you and Dr. Kana at all discuss that there might not be sufficient screening to protect the neighbors in that area that we're referring to? MR. GIRARD-No. Our final ized plans with Dr. Kana were over the winter months and everything was all set for us prior to that to go in to do the landscaping. At that time, no. to answer your question, we never did discuss that with Dr. Kana. DR. KANA-I certainly respect the right of these people to their privacy, and I would like to see them have their privacy. I guess my question is. I did not remove the existing vegetation and I don't feel that I'm responsible for providing them, at this point in time, with either new greenery or new vegetation. It wasn't me who removed it, and as I said in my statement. I was never informed. until after the fact. 11 that it had been removed, and there are questions that I have, with regard to the drainage. I have three different opinions on whether the drainage is adequate. Mr. Hughes has told me that he has spoken to people here, that is Queensbury officials, and that even though the drainage that he put in is not the same as called for in the site plan, that it is adequate and there's no problem. I had a good relationship with John throughout the construction of the building and I have no reason to doubt what he says, but as I requested in there, I really would like some feedback from the community that the drainage and all that is adequate, because I don't want to see future problems arise on this site because something wasn't done originally that should have been taken care of. MR. SHEA-Dr. Kana, I don't think you're obligated or responsible to provide shrubbery and trees for the neighbors, but you are obligated and responsible to comply with the site plan that was put into place and you did contract John Hughes. I mean, he was working for you. DR. KANA-That's correct. MR. SHEA-So, I see this as your responsibility, not John Hughes'. I mean, you may have an issue to take up with him. but I see it as your responsibility. You're the property owner. DR. KANA-That may be true, so, deciding on how you people proceed, that'll open new avenues. MRS. GOETZ-It seems like we're dealing with two issues, here. MR. TURNER-There is two issues. MRS. GOETZ-Because, you know, I'd like to ask John Carusone. It sounds like we need more information to even find out if the McNairys still want to proceed with the fence application. MR. CARUSONE-Yes, they want to proceed. MRS. GOETZ-Irregardless? MR. CARUSONE-The way I've heard Dr. Kana. he has no objecti on to thei r application wi th the excepti on of how they paint it. They would like to enjoy their property now. They're elderly people. They do not want to get involved in a brol1o with Dr. Kana and John Hughes and the Town and that may be resolved in 1994. They don't want to have to look at Dr. Kana's office and I presume he doesn't want his patients looking in their living room. DR. KANA-I don't want bad relations with the neighbors. MR. TURNER-I would say that the one issue before us tonight is the fence. The other issues you raised are to be taken up with other parties. They don't belong before this Board. DR. KANA-Okay. Will I receive any direction from this Board, in terms of how or where? MR. TURNER-The site plan has already been done. So that's an issue of enforcement now. So. I would say you'd have to go back to Planning and Staff and direct your avenues that way. DR. KANA-Okay. Thank you. MRS. CRAYFORD-Ted. I will look into this tomorrow and find out what to do about it. MR. TURNER-Right. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. Pat, like this Code Book. all this, it seems that there would have been certification that things were done as they were supposed to be, or should have been certification. No? Is that wrong? MR. TURNER-Let me just say, the site plan review was for the total project. So, this is only one phase of the total project. Dr. Kana has got his Occupancy Permit. He's in there. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. TURNER-All right. So maybe some of those aspects haven't been totally reviewed by enforcement. So, maybe that's where the glitch is. MRS. CRAYFORD-I'll look into it. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. GOETZ-Will you report back to us at some point? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. 12 MRS. GOETZ-I mean, I think we should know. I'm glad the Planning Board's here. tonight, in the audience, to see about some of these problems. DR. KANA-I hate to keep throwing things in, but you do understand that the Planning Board may say that that berm has to go in and that that ditch and everything may have to be placed there? MR. TURNER-The fence will be on their property. though. DR. KANA-That's correct. Right. and this construction would be on my property. MR. TURNER-Right. DR. KANA-And as I said, I have no objection to the fence. MR. TURNER-Okay. Fine. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JANE CARUSONE MRS. CARUSONE-I am related to the applicant's. I am one of their daughters, and so I've spent a lot of time in that glass room, and just for your clarification, the brush that you're discussing would not have solved the problem in any way. It was low scrub brush. So the removal of it in no way hurt the situation or enhanced it. It would not have helped it. MR. TURNER-Right. MRS. CARUSONE-And it's a real problem. I'm not sure it's a legal problem for you folks. Obviously, you can rule on the fence. It's a real, true shame and I think that maybe some things were said that misrepresented what my parents thought was going to be done for them, and that's unfortunate and I feel badly for them and wish there was more you could do. but certainly I hope that we can put the good side of the fence for them. MR. TURNER-Well. you know, just before you step down, if you go up there and look at it, just being a total stranger as we were to the project, when you look at it, there's no appearance of anything being gone, other than just the brush that was there. Whatever else was there is still there, on the back line. MRS. CARUSONE-But nothing was added. MR. TURNER-Nothing was added, but the underbrush was taken away, the brush that you're speaking about. MRS. CARUSONE-Well, I'm just saying that the brush would not have created a visual barrier. It wasn't high enough. MR. TURNER-No. right. It wasn't high enough. MRS. YORK-Excuse me. Could you please state your name for the record. MRS. CARUSONE-Jane Carusone. MRS. GOETZ-Does it sound like maybe the Planning Board should look at bigger and wider buffers when they come up against this? MRS. CARUSONE-Well, the one thing that occurred to me was, if you want to look at fault some place, perhaps by the Planning Board saying not clearing within five feet provides a buffer, maybe it doesn't provide a buffer in all cases. So, maybe other wording has to be discussed. MR. TURNER-It depends on what the cover is. MRS. CARUSONE-Yes. It depends entirely on what that five feet is, whether or not it's going to be sufficient. and beyond that, what was said to Dr. Kana by his builder or to my brother. who knows. Without a tape recorder, you can't go back and it's sort of one person's word against another's. MR. TURNER-Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard in support of the application? Opposed to the application? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE 13 MR. TURNER-None? MRS. GOETZ-None. MR. TURNER-Okay. A motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-1991 JOHN E. AND ELIZABETH F. Jl:NAIRY, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption. seconded by Theodore Turner: There are special conditions applying to this property and not applying generally to other properties or buildings in the neighborhood. This lot is residential and it is adjacent to a professional subdivision and there is minimal screening to protect the visual amenities. The McNairys do have reasonable use of their land, but with some hardships. The strict appl ication of the dimensional requirements would result in a specified practical difficulty. This variance would be to allow construction of a six foot fence with the most attractive side facing the applicant. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Ordinance and this request is the minimum reli ef. Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carr MR. TURNER-Mr. Montesi? RON MONTESI MR. MONTESI-By way of information, maybe we can direct Dr. Kana to seek some relief or some information specifically from the Planning Department and then to the Planning Board. John Hughes has an ongoing subdivision which requires every lot a site plan review. So, the Town of Queensbury and our Planning Department still has a wedge, if you will. and perhaps just call ing for an as built set of pl ans for this subdivision will be sufficient to show if there is any shortcomings. MR. TURNER-Right. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-1991 TYPE II WR-lA MARY D. SCUDERI WCY SCUDERI OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE ASSEMBLY POINT, LAKE GEORGE CHESTNUT LANE (SHORE COLONY), FIRST HOOSE ON RIGHT. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK WITH WALKWAY ATTACHED TO PORCH. DECK TO BE BUILT OVER EXISTING GARAGE. ACCESS FROM EXISTING CONCRETE STAIRS. THE WALKWAY WILL ENCROACH 3 FT. ON THE 30 FT. FRONT SETBACK. (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 8-6-8.1, 8.2, 7 LOT SIZE: 225 BY 100 SECTION 4.020-D, FRONT SETBACK JOHN RICHARDS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 47-1991, Mary D. and Lucy Scuderi, June 13. 1991, Meeting Date: June 26, 1991 "The request is to construct a deck out over an existing garage. The walkway will encroach 3 feet on the 30 foot front setback. The location is on Assembly Point in a WR-IA zone. The applicant was granted this variance previously and unfortunately let it lapse and is forced to re-apply. 1) Are there special conditions applying to this property or building, and not applying generally to other properties or buildings in the neighborhood? The house is currently nonconforming. The proposed deck itsel f will not create any greater encroachment. 2) Woul d strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings? The applicant has use of the house as a residence currently. 3) Would the strict application of the dimensional requirements result in a specified practical difficulty? The steps and accessway to the deck would have to be eliminated to bring the deck into conformance. This would make the deck inaccessible. This would certainly qual ify as a practical difficulty. 4) Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance, or to property in the district? No.5) Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? Yes." MRS. GOETZ-The Warren County Pl anning Board sai d "No County Impact". MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Richards? MR. RICHARDS-Good evening. My name is John Richards. I'm the attorney for Mary and Lucy Scuderi. and I believe that the application's self explanatory. It has been reviewed by this Board before. so I won't take up a lot of time. I'm available to ask any questions. MR. TURNER-Does anyone have any questions? 14 MRS. GOETZ-When we did the site inspection, it seemed like they had their contractor ready to go now, but now there's been this delay. MR. RICHARDS-Yes. There were a number of things that had to take place. that caused a delay, and survey work and some other things, but because of the seasons, we couldn't get it started in time. We're ready to go now, and I hope that he can still. we've been trying to keep him on line, and I hope we can still get him going quickly. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions? None? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN BURNING MR. BURNING-My name is John Burning and I am a resident of Assembly Point and I'm one of the Scuderi's nearest neighbors and I heartily endorse their application. MR. TURNER-Thank, John. Anyone else wish to be heard in support of the application? Opposed to the application? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MR. TURNER-Any further correspondence? MRS. GOETZ-No. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-1991 MARY D. SCUDERI LUCY SCUDERI. Introduced by Jeffrey Kelley who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: The variance requested is for relief from the front yard setback. The applicant is seeking to build a deck and a walkway which will be 27 feet from the front property line, in lieu of the 30 feet required. This variance was approved previously, but due to non-activity within the year's time frame, the variance expired and, basically, we're re-granting the variance that took place previously. It appears that this would be the minimum relief necessary to enable the construction of a deck. There is no neighborhood opposition. It doesn't appear to be detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance and this would be the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley. Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carr MRS. EGGLESTON-I would ask Mr. Richards, if somehow" they don't get this building done, to make sure when thei r permi t expi res, because we rea 11 y got raked over the coal s. It was everybody's faul t. but their own, as to why the permit expired and they weren't notified, and we should have, and really we got. MR. RICHARDS-Well, if I could just ask, I would ask the Board, at some point in the future. to consider or reconsider the necessity of having to come back here in two ways. First, it would seem to me, in a multi permit project, when you've got your variance and you're proceeding and you get your site plan review as we did, within the year's time, that that should be considered an undertaking of the project for purposes of compliance with the Ordinance, and you shouldn't have to come back and get an extension or. in this case, if we were deemed to have to come back, to apply a new is really time consuming for everybody, as opposed to just asking for an extension after the fact. So, I would only ask that you either you interpret or maybe the Town Attorney coul d look at the Ordinance again and suggest some changes, because this seems very time consuming for all concerned. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, it's time consuming for us too, but they certainly have an obligation to know where they're going or when their permit runs out. MR. RICHARDS-Right. 1'm just saying that if you have a multipl e permit project, if you go get the site plan review. that should be an undertaking of the project. MR. TURNER-Yes, but it might lay dormant for four or five years and no activity take place, then where are you? 15 MR. RICHARDS-After you've gotten all your permits, sure, then I can see that as a problem, because the site plan review permit would expire then. MR. TURNER-Yes. they do. MRS. GOETZ-But I think the thinking is that there could be new property owners around that property, you know, in years hence, after the first variance has been granted, or the Ordinance could be changed or whatever. So, I believe that's the thinking behind the way it is now, but thanks for your comments. MR. RICHARDS-Okay. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thanks, John. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 48-1991 TYPE II PC-lA TRAVELER1S INSURANCE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROOTE 9, NORTllfAY PLAZA, REAR OF PLAZA, IlAREHOOSE DRIVE TO ADD A SECOND SIGN DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE A NEW FACILITY IS BEING CREATED WHICH IS LOCATED IN A TOTALLY DIFFERENT AREA OF THE PLAZA. THE NEW SIGN WILL BE PLACED IN THE REAR OF THE PLAZA AND WON1T BE VISIBLE FROM THE MAIN PLAZA AREA. PROPOSAL IS FOR A IIALL SIGN. (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 72-7-4 TOM IRISH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Sign Variance No. 48-1991, Traveler's Insurance, June 25. 1991, Meeting Date: June 26. 1991 "The request is to add a second sign for a business. The location of placement is at the rear of the building located in the Northway Plaza. The applicant has indicated that this additional wall sign will have no impact because it is at the back of the building and will not be visible from the roadway. This application was reviewed with regard to the variance criteria. 1. Are there special circumstances or conditions applying to the land or signs which do not apply generally to land or signs in the neighborhood? The site plan states that this entrance will be used exclusively by Travelers employees. The employees should be familiar where the business entrances are located. Furthermore, the back door currently has a painted Travelers sign on it. Another large wall sign at this location would not appear to serve its intended purposes. 2. Would strict application of the Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of such sign or land? The applicant currently has a large sign which is highly visible. 3. Is the variance in general harmony with the restrictions established for the area? The sign would not be visible from the plaza or road, but it would be setting a precedent for this commercial area which might not be in keeping with the intent of the Ordinance. 4. Is the variance the minimum relief necessary to accomplish the intended objectives? The applicant currently has the back entrance identified which is minimum relief. 5. Is the variance in general harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance and not otherwise injurious to the neighborhood or detrimental to the public welfare? The variance would not be injurious to the neighborhood or publ ic welfare, but might set a precedent which was opposed to the intent of the Ordinance." MRS. GOETZ-The Warren County Planning Board returned indicating "No County Impact". MR. TURNER-Okay. Who's going to represent the application? MR. IRISH-My name's Tom Irish. I represent the Traveler's. I guess I have a question for the Board, in the fact that you mentioned there's a rear sign back there and I guess 1'm unfamiliar with this rear sign? MRS. GOETZ-I think that meant on the door. MR. TURNER-On the door. MRS. GOETZ-Painted on the door. MR. IRISH-No. MRS. GOETZ-Do you work for Traveler's? MR. IRISH-Yes. I'm Manager there, and I'm unfamiliar with the. MRS. GOETZ-Well, maybe we better take a second look. MR. IRISH-No. I mean. there's a little tiny sign on the rear door on the deck, but that's a separate part of the building. also. MRS. GOETZ-That isn't where the employees would be going in? MR. IRISH-No. The employees would be going in the new main entrance to the rear of the building which used to be a warehouse. That's just all been rehabed and ready for occupancy. 16 MR. TURNER-All right. Let me ask you a question. The new faci1 ity, is that totally separate from the one in the Montgomery Ward's? MR. IRISH-Yes, it is, except for an adjoining walkway. MR. TURNER-Just the walkway adjoins it? MR. IRISH-ExactIy. We created a whole new main entrance into this new building in the back. a million dollars worth, as a matter of fact. MR. TURNER-What part of the Company is going to be using the lower area? MR. IRISH-WeII, there's two separate operations, and the new operation stays in the main facility. The existing operation moves to the new facility, which is a 25,000 square foot facility. MR. TURNER-Yes, the old Grants store. Grants is right upstairs. That's what used to be there. MR. IRISH-Yes. I don't know what was back there before. MRS. GOETZ-Are there outside people that come there during the day? MR. IRISH-AbsoIuteIy, well, we have outside people that visit from allover the Country, and depending on what specific operation they want to come to, we would direct them accordingly, front or back or whatever. Actually, the back of the building is a lot more attractive, now, than the front of the building. MR. TURNER-Yes, it is. You're right. MR. IRISH-And they finished the landscaping today. I mean, it's actually the focal point of the, it's better looking than the front of the plaza, I would say. MR. TURNER-Well. really what it is, the sign on the front of the building, on the Montgomery Ward's side, that's almost a separate entity, except for, like he said, a walkway that adjoins them. Now the new facility is separate entity from that one. in a sense. It occupies another part of the plaza. MR. SHEA-Technically, it is in a different building. MR. TURNER-It is, technically, it is. MR. SHEA-They have created a connector, but it is in a different building. MR. TURNER-Right, a connector, it's just a walkway, an enclosed walkway. MR. KELLEY-Well. I think, isn't it true, also, that if, I drove around past where your entrance would be in the back. and there are other businesses back there, beyond you. If you go on up around, it seems like there. I can't remember the names, but there are one or two other businesses. MR. IRISH-Yes. The Wood Carte. There's signs on their doors. I mean, I don't, the Wood Carte and Peter Harris. Their entrance way and all that kind of stuff back there. MR. KELLEY-I guess I'm thinking if somebody went around back without a sign, how would you know which one you're going to, because there's more than one. I mean, granted, this one's pretty obvious that it's new and big, but it was, there was one that had a blue and white sign. maybe. MR. SHEA-Well, there's a warehousing facility back there, as well. MR. TURNER-There's a warehouse, right, right in the corner. MR. SHEA-That does not have a store front. MR. IRISH-Yes. Most of the businesses that have rear entrances. such as the Wood Carte, for picking up of your furniture or whatever, have signs on their back doors, I guess. I mean, they're painted on the doors. It's certainly not a cut out aluminum sign that goes over a main entrance way, but that's not really their main entrance way either. MR. TURNER-Okay. Does anyone have any further questions of Mr. Irish? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT 17 _/ PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MR. TURNER-Any further Correspondence? MRS. GOETZ-No. MR. TURNER-Any discussion? The plaza is allowed one freestanding sign and then a wall sign, but I feel since this is really a different entity, although it's part of Traveler's, it's in a different building. In order to identify it, you've got to have some direction. MRS. GOETZ-It's, like, one of the most legitimate variance requests I've heard in a long time, for signs. I mean. to me, this is really what a Sign Variance is all about, a request for one. MR. TURNER-Are you going to have a directional sign at the end of the driveway, coming in? How's somebody going to know, that, you're employees are going to know where it is, but I mean, somebody coming off the street might be misdirected. MR. IRISH-Not that I know. We don't plan to erect any other indicators as to going back there. Basically, our guests would be invited guests from different parts of the Country throughout different parts of the year. MR. TURNER-Whenever the situation calls for it. MR. IRISH-ExactIy. MR. SHEA-Is the main reception for business people coming to visit other than your employees, is that in the present and existing facility? So. someone coming in, that's where they would be received firstly? MR. IRISH-No. For that particular business entity, yes. For the business entity that's going into the warehouse, no. In other words. they're two separate entities completely. MR. SHEA-Well, I understand that, but lets say someone comes from Atlanta, Georgia and you tell them that you're a Travel er' s and that you're in Gl ens Fall s located in the Northway Pl aza and you give them directions to come there. Without a directional sign, which Mr. Turner refers to, to direct them specifically to the back property, wouldn't they naturally go to the front property. MR. IRISH-Yes. If we didn't direct them to go to the back, they would naturally go to the front, correct. MR. SHEA-But what we're trying to get at is, if we approve a variance for a sign. the one that you're requesting, over your new facility, which I think is appropriate, do you then need further signage to direct people back there. since it is in the back of the building, and not seen from people who do not know that it's there? MR. IRISH-I wouldn't believe so, no. The main entrance also has a main directory that's on the wall of the lobby which would then direct you to a phone number that you would call and then we would give them further directions if it was necessary. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions? None? Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 48-1991 TRAVELER'S INSURANCE, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: This would be to add a second sign for a business. It is 60 square feet. A wall sign made of cut out aluminum letters that say, "The Traveler's" with a little umbrella and it will be located on the rear of the building in Northway Plaza. The special ~ircumstances applying to this situation are that it is a separate entity from the existing Traveler's operation, in a separate building within the Plaza. The stri ct appli cation of the Si gn Ordi nance woul d deprive the appl icant of the reasonabl e use of the land. The variance is in general harmony with the sign restrictions established for the area. The variance request is the minimum relief and there's no neighborhood objection. Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carr 18 AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-1989 EDWARD J. EPPICH APPROVm BY lœING BOARD ON JUNE 28, 1989, FOR LOT 30, NORTHWEST VILLAGE SUBDIVISION, TOlIN OF QUEENSBURY, N. Y., AND EXTENDED ON JUNE 27, 1990 FOR 1 YEAR. EDWARD EPPICH, PRESENT MRS. GOETZ-We received a letter from Edward Eppich. Pursuant to Section 10.070 of Town Regulations, I hereby request that the Zoning Board of Appeal s will consider granting a one (1) year extension of Area Variance No. 73-1989. for the following reasons: As project co-ordinator for the absentee property owners, Mr. & Mrs. Edward D. Enright, I have negotiated with several Professional Engineering firms which specialize in the design of Sewage Disposal Systems on difficult building sites, and have selected one firm whose Proposal appears to be the most realistic and practical- said Proposal is being forwarded to Mr. Enright, whose work requires that he be out of the country for extended periods of time. These negotiations began in August of 1990, and because of the extensive soils testing and site accessibility problems, had to be curtailed thru the past winter. Once this Proposal is accepted by the Owner, the Engineering firm can proceed with the necessary testing and design required to properly locate a disposal system which will fulfill the requirements of the residence planned, and which will meet the requirements of the Town. The feasibll ity of being able to install a workable system is vital to the culmination of this project, and time goes on, necessitating the need for this Extension. In anticipation of being able to successfully locate an approved and practical Disposal System, the Owner authorized me to proceed with the drilling of the water supply well. This work was completed in late September of 1990, with the well drilling firm having successfully encountered the required volume of water flow at 600 ft. depth, and the well was capped for future use. Once a viable Disposal system is designed and able to be installed, work can proceed on the construction of the residence. possibly in early fall of this year, or late spring of 1992." MR. TURNER-Do you care to add anything, Ed? MR. EPPICH-No, that's about it. I'm Ed Eppich, representing the owners, and I'm here again. MR. KELLEY-Ed, was this the geodesic dome? MR. TURNER-Right. MR. EPPICH-Yes. MR. KELLEY-I remember. MR. EPPICH-It's a long wait, but hopefully it will get here. MR. TURNER-Does anybody have any problem with extending his variance request? Okay. MOTION TO EXTEND AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-1989 EDWARD EPPICH, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: For a period of one year. Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea. Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carr MR. TURNER-As the letter states, there's been problems with the property and with the sewage system, so I think the motion's in order. NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-91, APPEAL BY THE TOlIN OF QUEENSIIJRY PLANNING BOARD FROM A DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DATED DECEMBER 17, 1990 STATING THAT DEFINITION NUMBER 289, SUIIJIVISION REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING OROINANCE IN THE MAmR OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION NO. 7-1991, PRELIMINARY STAGE, FERGUSON - SHARP - GRAHL SUIIJIVISION. THE lœING ADMINISTRATOR HAS DETERMINm THAT THE CONVEYANCE OF ONE ACRE OF LAND CAN BE TREATED AS A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. THE PLANNING BOARD BELIEVES THAT THIS CONVEYANCE IS IN FACT A SUBDIVISION AND REQUIRES REVIEW UNDER THE TOWN OF QUEENSIIJRY LAND SUIIJIVISION REGULATIONS. PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT BAY ROAD, QUEENSBURY, DESIGNATED ON THE TAX MAP AS 60-7-5.1. MR. TURNER-Do you want to read the letter? MRS. GOETZ-The letter is to the Zoning Board of Appeals from Peter J. Cartier for the Planning Board, "I am writing this at the request of the Planning Board to request an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance with regard to definition of subdivision as it applies to the attached appl ication. The Planning Board is appeal ing the Zoning Administrator's determination. We bel ieve that the conveyance of property from Grahl to Sharp is a subdivision of property and requires a subdivision approval. 19 We disagree with Mrs. Crayford' s written determination that the conveyance of an acre of property can be considered a lot line adjustment because it ultimately will not create an additional parcel. The Planning Board, after reviewing the definitions of subdivision, lot and building lot. concluded that Mrs. Crayford's determination was in error and in direct conflict with the Declaration of Policy and Authorization stated in the Land Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Queensbury." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Cartier, do you wish to address the Board? PETER CARTI ER MR. CARTIER-For the record, Pete Cartier from the Planning Board. I don't know what else I can add to that. beyond what's in that cover letter, unless you want to ask me some questions about this application. I assume you all have a copy of the blueprint and have had a chance to look at it. If you want me to go through that, I'll be glad to do that. MRS. CRAYFORD-Mr. Turner. may I have my letter read? MR. TURNER-Sure. We're going to do that. MRS. GOETZ-There is a response letter dated June 18th, to Mr. Cartier from Pat Crayford. "I'm writing in reply to your letter of June 14th, 1991 to Ted Turner, requesting an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance with regard to the above referenced application. Your second paragraph is in error. as my determination does not refer to a lot line adjustment. My letter of December 21st, 1990 to William J. Nealon, III does refer to the Zoning Ordinance definition of Subdivision as a division of land into two or more lots. The transfer of Grahl's one acre parcel to Dr. Sharp's newly created parcel will result in one large parcel, not two. Two parcels will not be filed in the County Clerk's Office and Dr. Sharp will own one parcel and Mr. Grahl will still own one parcel. The proposed one acre parcel cannot be subdivided as a separate parcel as it does not front onto a Town road. The appl icant will have to request a variance from Section 7.077 Frontage upon a Public Street, which ultimately will not be needed as it will join a parcel fronting onto Bay Road. The proposed professional office is a Type II action. Therefore, the entire parcel of approximately 1.8 acres will be reviewed by the Planning Board. This acre parcel to be transferred is zoned MR-5, as is the smaller parcel. and a professional office is a permitted use in this zone. This transfer is in keeping with the Declaration of Policy and Authorization and the Land Subdivision Regulations of the Town. All items in Article I, Declaration of Policy A, Authorization, are almost identical to requirements to Type I and Type II Site Plan Review and Section 5.070 of the Ordinance. John Goralski approached me with a similar situation over one and a hal f years ago and we concl uded that conveyances of land that do not create additional lots should not be determined to be a subdivision. That has been the policy that he and I have used since then. Peter, why is it no one had the courtesy to discuss my decision with me before requesting this interpretation? Keeping in mind that no new parcels are being created by this conveyance, that subdivision review and site plan review have similar site requirements, that Dr. Sharp is proposing a building 160 feet off Bay Road, unlike a nearby insurance building, that Dr. Sharp would be delayed possibly two months, I ask you to reconsider your request to Ted Turner." MR. TURNER-Okay. Anything further, Pat? Okay. Pete. MR. CARTIER-Let me take you through this, as much for my own sake of clarification as anybody else. What Dr. Sharp is proposing to do is to purchase a piece of property from the Ferguson property and also a chunk of property from what is the Grahl property, okay. The Grahl property is not completely shown on here. It's my understanding that this piece of property and part of it fronts on Bay Road. It's part of the Canterberry Woods property. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. CARTIER-And, basically, what Pat is s"aying is the Ferguson property is subject to subdivision regulation, but this piece is not, and it is the Planning Board's contention, in fact, that the Grahl property is subject to subdivision regulations because a piece of property is being subdivided off that, okay. That's the issue, and what we're here for is to try seek clarification of, or your interpretation of whether or not the Subdivision Regulations apply to what is known as the Grahl property. If I could just read a couple of things to you. "Subdivision means a division of any (and this is what we're saying applies here) residential, cOllll1ercial. or industrial land into two or more lots, parcels, or sites, whether adjoining or not, for the purpose of sale, lease, license, or any form of separate ownership or occupancy by any person or by any other person controlled by, under common control with any such person or group of persons acting in concert as part of a common scheme or plan, providing, however, that this shall not apply to conveyances of small amounts of land to correct a boundary of a lot, so long as such conveyance does not create additional lots." I would like to suggest that we're not talking about correcting a boundary line, here. There's no error, so there's nothing to correct. If I might comment on some things on Pat's letter, in reference to her second paragraph, Pat's right. She doesn't mention lot line adjustment. but if Subdivision Reg's don't apply, then that's the only thing that's left, so, ergo, this would be a lot line adjustment. With regard to the third paragraph, again, it's our contention that the Grahl property is going to be divided into two lots and is therefore a subdivision. With regard to her fourth paragraph, in terms of road frontage, this piece is, in fact, part of a piece 20 --' of property that's not subdivided at the moment, but does have road frontage. With regard to the fifth paragraph, subdivision was not allowed previously because of site limitations on the site. specifically in terms of septic systems and with regard to the paragraph that starts with John's letter. I can't comment on that. I'm not familiar with that issue. MRS. GOETZ-Peter, the part that Dr. Sharp bought is going to then become part of an existing lot, is that it? MR. CARTIER-No. What's going to happen is, whàt Dr. Sharp is proposing to do is take a piece of property off the Ferguson, subdivide off this lot and become owner of that, and also purchase a piece of property from what is the Grahl property, combine those two into one lot, okay. That's basically what, correct if I'm wrong, Dr. Sharp. ROBERT SHARP DR. SHARP-Yes, that's correct. MR. CARTIER- I thi nk I've pretty much covered that. So what we're here asking you is whether or not the subdivision reg's do, in fact, apply to parceling off this piece of the Grahl property. MR. TURNER-Right. Any questions of Peter? MR. KELLEY-Let me make sure I understand it. This, I guess you've got labeled, or on this map it shows there's a, looks like there's a Lot Number One and a Lot Number Two and then a one acre proposed addition to Lot Number Two. Does that sound right? MR. TURNER-Number Two is the front lot. MR. KELLEY-Right. MR. TURNER-And the lot directly behind it is the one that's to be conveyed. MR. KELLEY-All right. Is there any problem with purchasing what's shown on here to be Lot Number Two. by itself? It has frontage on a Town road. Does that need subdivision approval by itself? WI LLIAM NEALON MR. NEALON-Yes, it does. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. NEALON-My name is William Nealon. I'm an attorney in Glens Falls, speaking on behalf and with Dr. Sharp. The subdivision application that was presented to the Planning Board was, in fact. presented by Russ Scudder and pertained to the subdivision of lands, the northerly third, shall we call it, of the property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Ferguson. which fronts on Bay Road and is just about a quarter of a mile south of this building. That northerly portion of the Ferguson property is what is the subject matter of the subdivision application that is before the Planning Board. Now, in order that this Board and the Planning Board have a complete and up front opportunity to see the thoroughness of Mr. Scudder and Dr. Sharp's plan, the totality of what was proposed or what is proposed was set forth on Mr. Scudder's plan. We did not come before either the Planning Board nor did we appear before this Board and will we appear before this Board later 0)1 trying to wedge something between the cracks. We're before you, soles bared, so to speak, telling you exactly what we would propose to do. Now, if I may digress for just one moment, I do have an example of what has been done in the past with a situation like this where there is essentially an accretion or an addition to existing parcels of land which, right from the Town up through the Tax Map Office and the Treasures Office and the County Center have been treated as one lot. What is proposed here is not two lots, not a back lot that we're going to sell off to somebody else and have a road that winds through our property, Dr. Sharp's property rather, and affords some stranger in interest an opportunity to buy a lot that we've finagled our way through subdivision approvals on. This is, as Dr. Kana was mentioning earlier, a location where Dr. Sharp intends to practice for the rest of his professional career. So, when Russ Scudder and Chuck Nacy put together the plans that were annexed to the subdivision plan. we told you and we told the Planning Board exactly what we had in mind. Two years ago, we had a similar situation out on Ridge Road. A family wanted to purchase a parcel of land. They wanted more land than was actually on that subdivision, approved subdivision map. If I might, this is a boundary 1 ine agreement that related to a parcel of land situated in Grant Acres. For the sake of the privacy of the owners, I've blocked out the names. but it is Lot 35 in the Grant Acres Subdivision. The front portion of Lot 35 was acquired first on. That was all of Lot 35 that was set forth in the subdivision. The parties who purchased the property, wanted that lot to be approximately one acre larger than it was shown on the subdivision. They got together with the owner and developer of the subdivision. We had many conferences with Mrs. Crayford's office. Our concerns were not terribly dissimilar, in some measures. as the concerns presented to Dr. Sharp. Subdivision 21 process is a very costly process. I'm sure the Board is aware of the expense that many applicants before it are faced with in going through the engineering analysis and the soil studies and so on and so forth. The determination here, and I've reduced a copy of the tax map and pinned it to the back, achieved a result in affording each one of the applicants, or each one of the interested parties, a desired result with a minimum of expense and it never created any additional lot. We do not intend to create any additional lot here. What we intended to do was tell you what are plans were. Now. it appears that we are being slapped across the wrist, somewhat, for leveling with the Board and telling you what we want to do. The parcel that is in issue here, that is to be added to the parcel which we acknowledge to be and is the subject of the subdivision application is separated by hundreds of feet, at least, perhaps over 1,000 feet, from the nearest roadway at the Grahl property. There's a a swale area. It drops down, as you can see by some of the topographical features on the map that was included in the application, and the practical real ity of that portion of the lands that would be acquired by addition from Mr. Grahl is that that land is not of value and it is not now nor has it been historically accessible, other than by foot. The Ferguson property, which is the sUbject matter of the subdivision application, is also subject to two separate setback requirements. Mrs. Crayford drew the Board's attention to the building that lies immediately across the street. As I read the Highway Corridor Subdivision requirements, that building should have been at least 75 feet from the highway right-of-way. I didn't pace it off. but it didn't appear to me to be 75 feet from the Highway right-of-way. Dr. Sharp's property that he intends to acquire from Mr. and Mrs. Ferguson has. passing through it, Old Maids Brook. We are required to have at least 100 feet back from Old Maids Brook. and we are also required to be a minimum of 75 feet back from the highway right-of-way along Bay Road. If one takes a look at the map and looks at the Ferguson property, one can see that remaining 100 feet from Old Maids Brook and a minimum of 75 feet from the highway right-of-way, we really have no buildable land on the Ferguson Subdivision, the lot proposed to be subdivided from Ferguson. The only terrain that is really suitable for construction lies westerly of that land that is the subject matter of the proposed subdivision. There would not be a separate lot created at any time. The agreement with Mr. Grahl does not provide for the creation of a separate lot. It provides for an adjustment in the boundaries and accretion. if you will. of those lands to the then existing lands as we would propose it. owned by Dr. Sharp lying immediately to the east. The other aspect of the matter, which Mrs. Crayford alluded to, is the matter of the site plan review, septic, and other concerns that might be the proper subject and are the proper subject of inquiry by the Town would be dealt with in site plan review. We have taken that step of showing where we intend to locate a pressure mound septic system on the property we hope to acquire from Mr. Grahl. We have a contract to acquire that property, and the essence of having to go through this subdivision process all over again results in further delay, further expense. We've been quoted, simply for the engineering studies and to prepare. you get another subdivision appl ication from Mr. Scudder's office, four figures. As I look through the intentions set forth for the MR-5 zone, and I draw the Board's attention to Section 4.020 F. It says, the purpose of an MR zone is designed to provide for an anticipated increasing demand for high density multi family housing and professional office buildings in an area near commercial services, subject to intense development pressure. What we're really doing here is we're limiting the impact of any prospective intense development pressure by saying, this is just one lot, and we're going to put Dr. Sharp's office on it and it is one parcel. We're not going to sell it off. If we tried to sell it off. we would have to. certainly, come back here and apply to this Board for subdivision approval, but we do not intend to structure the property with two lots. It is to be one lot. It is one project on one lot. If I might also speak to some of the issues that the Planning Board drew. Again, one can interpret subdivision in a variety of ways, but it connotes a division. We are adding to property. We are dividing the Ferguson property. We are adding to that property. The definition of lot, we have one lot, one parcel that's anticipated or is the intended result of that addition to the Ferguson property, not multi lots, and we have one building lot because the practical impact of the setback requirements and the slope requirements as set forth or as nature has given it to us effectively dictate one place to put a structure. That's where we want to put the structure. Therefore, we are asking that Mrs. Crayford's interpretation be upheld. I think it is a fair and reasonable and cost effective interpretation of this Ordinance. Certainly, if there is a further clarification which the Boards coll ectively want to get on with 1 ater on. in respect to such items, 1 et them get on wi th it later on. These contracts and these plans were all drawn in reliance on a reasonable interpretation, one that has, as I've indicated, been in place for" similar sized additions, in my own personal experience, since at least August of 1989. MR. TURNER-Lets see if we have any questions. Any questions for Mr. Nealon? MR. KELLEY-Well. one. I guess I'm confused as to, does Lot Number Two have subdivision approval already? MR. TURNER-No. MR. NEALON-No. The appl ication that is before you this evening was, as I understand it, I was not present when the matter was presented to the Planning Board, drew out of the Planning Board's review of the Ferguson Site Plan and Ferguson Subdivision Process and Lots One and Two and the reference in the application to their being two lots refers, in fact, to the Ferguson lot, the one lot that would remain and the one lot that would be acquired by Dr. Sharp, not to any other properties. So, as to Ferguson, indeed, there are two lots, the one that the Fergusons have their residence on and the one that would be acquired by and used, essentially, as access to the interior portion by Dr. Sharp. MR. KELLEY-Okay. 22 MRS. EGGLESTON-How much property is there, in total, that belongs to the Grahl? MR. NEALON-My recollection is in excess of 35 acres. I think I have a copy of the tax map. Let me look. MRS. CRAYFORD-You're right. It's true, Bill. It's 35 something. MR. TURNER-Thirty five acres? MRS. CRAYFORD-Thirty five point something. MR. TURNER-That's close enough. MR. NEALON-I bel ieve that that portion pf the Grahl property that is actually housing represents a very small fraction of that 35 acres. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else? None? Okay. Mr. Caimano. NICK CAIMANO MR. CAIMANO-Nick Caimano, a member of the Planning Board. Just a couple of thoughts, as the discussion was going on, here, to see if we can get back on track and where, certainly, I am coming from. The first thing that strikes me is the consistent use of the word "interpret" in this discussion when, as I recall in the public hearing at the Town Board level, we were to "read" the Ordinances, not "interpret" at the Zoning Administrator level. That's Number One. Number Two, we have a situation. here, where we have an unbuildable lot. and we grant that. That's a problem we've found, and then we have another lot, the Grahl lot, which was one lot and now a portion of that is going to be another one. It's two lots. We have to use the subdivision. I don't see where there's anything but logic there. Mr. Grahl had a lot. A portion of that lot is now going to be something else. Mr. Grahl may not have two lots, but that lot is going to be two. It is a subdivision. It wouldn't have cost anything more. We'd have gone through the process just as we always have. I just think we got off onto a bad track here, and I ask you to think about the fact that we have two lots here. There are two lots. MR. CARTIER-Well, I think Nick, basically, said what I was going to say, too. I'm confused, too. That's why we're here. Applying logic to this, we're going to subdivide, the Ferguson property is required to be subdivided, and we're subdividing off a smaller lot, but the piece that is not subject to subdivision is a bigger lot and somehow I find some conflict there and I can't see how to pin that down. How big the total property is I'm not sure is the issue here. I think we need to get back on. does the subdivision regulation apply to the cutting off of this property. I understand what Mr. Nealon is saying, in terms of we're going to end up with one lot, but the fact of the matter is, that is going to be one lot created out of two other pieces of property and I'm not sure how that appl ies here. I wish you well in your deliberations. I reallY do. MRS. GOETZ-Thanks. MR. KELLEY-The way I look at it, if you've got the Lot Number Two, it's Numbered Two on the lot. MR. CARTIER-Which is the Ferguson property, right, I don't have the map in front of me. MR. KELLEY-All right. If you're say1.0g that is trying to be approved as a lot, the first thing it doesn't have is enough area, because we're in an MR-5 zone. Is that correct? MR. CARTIER-What's the area of the lot? I'm not sure. MR. TURNER-Yes it does. MR. CARTIER-Yes, I think it does. MR. KELLEY-162 by 200, so that's not a five acre. MR. CARTIER-Well, MR-5 is 5,000. MR. KELLEY-5,OOO, all right. I'm thinking five acre. MR. CARTIER-So, yes, it is the right size. MR. KELLEY-So, anyway, regardless, I guess I'm saying, here's a lot and you're adding to it to give it more size and to make it a buildable lot, okay, but it was a lot to start with. All that's taking place is it's becoming more usable. 23 _/ MR. CARTIER-Okay. I agree with that. I understand what you're saying, but it's our contention that in order to do that. that back property has to go through the subdivision process. That's our contention. We're dividing off a piece of property from the Grahl property and joining it to another lot that's being divided off another piece of property to complete one lot. MR. SHEA-The Grahl parcel that is subject to sale to Dr. Sharp is being subdivided from the larger Grahl property, that can't be denied. MRS. GOETZ-It can't, because if it's not a subdivision and it's not a lot line adjustment. what is it? MR. CARTIER-Well, my understanding is, if it's not a subdivision, it JJL a lot line adjustment. Those are the only two options you have in a situation like this. MRS. GOETZ-But I thought that you said this wasn't a lot line adjustment? MR. CARTIER-That's correct. MRS. GOETZ-So, it's a subdivision? MR. CARTIER-What I'm saying, it's either or, there is no other third option, as I understand it. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. Well, I'd just like to make a couple of comments. Whether or not the property has some difficulties with it isn't the point that I think that we're talking about, here, tonight. MR. TURNER-No. MRS. GOETZ-And there might be some cost effective problems with the delay, but that isn't what we have to be concerned with specifically, because whatever we determine are going to have far reaching effects in the Town. I don't think that we're talking about what Dr. Sharp is going to do with the property. I see it as talking about what the Grahl's are going to do with the property. DR. SHARP-If I could just say one thing. I'm Bob Sharp, the purchaser. The Ordinance also provides for a lot line correction, which I don't know what that means. There seems to be a lot of indecision as far what this means, but it also provides for correction of lot lines for the purposes of, to be added to another piece of property as long as another lot is not created, or something to that effect, and just as was proposed. from a subdivision standpoint, looking at it from subdividing from Grahl's, the lot line boundary correction also would apply in this instance, it seems to me, in that that's in fact what we're attempting to do is add a piece to this Ferguson piece. MR. TURNER-I guess my thoughts on that lot line adjustment would be that if you have a irregular shaped lot and the fellow behind you or beside you has an irregular shaped lot, and if you maybe want to square up a boundary line, that's a lot line adjustment, but not to take over an acre and call that a lot line adjustment. That's not a lot line adjustment. DR. SHARP-Okay. Well, traditionally, I understand it's only appropriate that it had been handled that way in the past. MR. TURNER-I think this is a clear subdivision. You're taking a piece of property from another owner. cutting it off, selling it. That's a subdivision. DR. SHARP-Do we have legal interpretation of this Ordinance? MR. TURNER-You will. You'll have a motion. DR. SHARP-Okay, because I don't know what it means either. MRS. GOETZ-It seems like there could be an inadequacy in the Zoning Ordinance about the fact that there is no definition for lot line correction, and, unfortunately, you got the brunt of that, and hopefully that might be considered as a change in the future. CAROL PULVER MRS. PULVER-Carol Pulver, Planning Board. I have a question, and my concern is I do see this as two subdivisions going on, but if, when it came before the Planning Board, Lot Number Two, that is an unbuildable lot practically. I think I figured out their building could be about five feet onto that lot, so, basically, you can't have a building on it. and it's not in the Town of Queensbury's Ordinance to subdivide land that is unbuildable. So, in effect, how can we as a Planning Board give site plan to a lot that's not buildable? MRS. GOETZ-But, to my way of thinking, just because it's unbuildable doesn't mean it isn't a lot. 24 MRS. PULVER-No. I t has the potenti al, but you need to get the subdivi si on of Grahl's property and then the subdivision of the Ferguson property, to put the two together to make a buildable lot. MRS. GOETZ-Right, which is exactly what we're talking about. It sounds like we agree. MRS. PULVER-Good. MR. NEALON-Well, I think, from the Town's standpoint, one objective that ought not be lost site of is that I believe, from a Zoning Administrator standpoint, that it would not be particularly desirable to have two lots there, and that's what you're going to have, otherwise, because it will come in as a deed, as opposed to a boundary 1 i ne agreement, and it wi 11 show on the tax map as two lots and if we want to divide hairs, the objective of this Ordinance is to achieve with over sight and with fairness, the reasonable and rational development of the Town. If reasonable and rational development means that one goes forward and lays all the cards out on the table so that everything is understood, that to me is reasoned and rational. That we describe the property added to Mr. Ferguson's property as an addition and not a subdivision is a reasoned and logical interpretation, one which has been appl ied by this Town through its Planning and Zoning offices for several years. Now, I don't know what the history has been between the Town or this Board or anyone else and Mr. Grahl." That's not our concern, although I guess it has become our concern, but we have precedent within the Town of taking an acre and whether it be, as you all uded to Mr. Turner, of taking a property 1 ine that may have a jog here and a jog there and squaring it up because it was not convenient or practical to administer between adjoining property 1 ine owners, or taking a property 1 ine that was inadequate, a property lot that was inadequate for reasonable purposes and adjusting that, I find there to be no real difference. If we tried to skate this thing through either the Planning Board or this Board without tell ing you what we're about, I could see that one might question it, but here we have tried to tell you exactly what we want to do and do it in an expedient, cost effective way, and now there seems to be a jurisdictional problem, here, that we're being caught on the horns of, and I submit that if Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Grahl had chosen to get together and adjust their boundary line. they would not come before this Board. MR. SHEA-There was no reason for them to do that at the time. It woul dn' t have made any sense to do it. There would have been no gain for either of them to do it at that point. MR. NEALON-That's not for me to say. Mr. Shea, with all due respect, but if they had chosen to do that, to adjust the lands just between themselves, it wouldn't come before any of these Boards. That Dr. Sharp, as contract vendee of the Ferguson property, would want to avail himself of that same opportunity and there to be no functional difference between those two. MR. SHEA-Dr. Sharp is buying a portion of the total Ferguson property, and, therefore, going through subdivision process? MR. NEALON-That's correct. MR. SHEA-And is he not doing exactly the same thing, therefore, on the Grahl property? MR. NEALON-He is adjusting a boundary line between Mr. Ferguson's former property. MR. SHEA-No, he's doing the same thing. MR. TURNER-He's doing the same thing. MR. SHEA-He's doing exactly the same thing to the Grahl property that he is to the Ferguson property. Therefore, the subdivision process should apply. MR. NEALON-He would also be an owner of that property, the Ferguson property, and then we are adjusting lands. MR. SHEA-Will he not be owner of part of the Grahl property that he purchases? MR. NEALON-No. MR. TURNER-No? MR. NEALON-Not at that juncture in time. MR. SHEA-I don't understand that logic. MR. NEALON-Well. he acquires the Ferguson property. that is what's before the Planning Board in the subdivision process. After he acquires the Ferguson property, if he and Mr. Grahl choose to adjust their property line, we sought in it, an interpretation from the Administration, based on historical precedent, you know, the lot adjustments and so on that were shown in the boundary line agreement that I presented to you. It was an acre of land on a two acre parcel. 25 ~ MR. SHEA-Why don't you purchase the Grahl property and go through the subdivi sion process for it and adjust the boundary line on the Ferguson property? MR. NEALON-Because we would not have road access. There would be no logic at all to acquire the Grahl property at all. Why would we buy a landlocked parcel? MR. SHEA-I'm not suggesting you could do that. It appears to me that you're picking and choosing things that you cannot. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. NEALON-No. I beg to differ, because we are not picking and choosing. We are proposing to become the owners of the lands that have road frontage and that would provide reasonable access to an interior portion which is otherwise functionally landlocked. I mean, there is a road 1,000 feet away. through hill and dale, but you cannot drive a vehicle from any portion of Mr. Grahl's property to where Dr. Sharp wants to develop it. DR. SHARP-I should point out also that we're only doing what we were advised to do some four to six months ago by the Town and we were trying to cooperate and that's why we proceeded as we were advised to do. MRS. GOETZ-I don't think anybody thinks that you're not trying to do the right thing. It's unfortunate, but we have to interpret this, and it doesn't seem like it's going to come out the way you would like it to. MR. TURNER-All right. Anyone else from the Planning Board? MR. CARTIER-I would just make one final comment and that is I would ask the Board to, again, read the definition of subdivision and tell us whether or not it applies to the Grahl property. MR. KELLEY-I guess I would have a question about the Ordinance and that is, if you look at the Grahl property and it says that you want to take it and, lets say we're going to make two lots, it says that each lot shall have frontage on a Town road. All ri ght. So, you're goi ng to create a lot that does not have any frontage on a Town road. Can you do that? MRS. CRAYFORD-No. MR. CARTIER-I think I can answer that. What's happening is, he's going to combine those two lots into one. MR. KELLEY-Yes, but you're talking about two separate subdivisions. MR. CARTIER-Very interesting. I understand your point, now. MR. KELLEY-One subdivision is fine. It has frontage. You're taking another piece of land, saying that's a separate subdivision. but it doesn't front on a Town road. How can you even subdivide it? MR. CARTIER-Well. you now have two problems to deal with. MRS. EGGLESTON-It doesn't seem to me that correct and adjust mean the same thing anyway and there is no mention of adjust in the subdivision rules, and, certainly, by any stretch of the imagination, this is not a correction of a boundary line, not in my mind anyway. So, it falls back to the subdivision. MR. CAIMANO-Nick Caimano again. Just a further thought. Two things, really. There was a question about whether they were purchasing an unbuildable lot, I'm sorry, a landlocked lot with no road, but. in fact, they've purchased an unbuildable lot. So, what's the difference? The other thing is, what we're talking about, here, if we don't go to subdivision, is not freedom and the other things that Mr. Nealon talked about, but anarchy. That anybody can decide, lets get together with a lawyer and we'll all adjust it. and then we, as a Town, have lost all control. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. NEALON-As I began my comments, the proposed office that Dr. Sharp would intend to build, here. is subject to the review, by the Town, in site plan. It's subject to Health authority review. It's sUbject to ENCON review for the crossing of Old Maids Brook. The entire development is thoroughly overseen at virtually ever stage of its implementation. It is not anarchy. If people are out in the outback and they want to adjust lands between themselves, I don't know what a constitutionally drafted ordinance can do to prevent that, "but we're not talking about anarchy, here. We're talking about being very upfront with every Board that we have been before. Reasonably relying on interpretations that have been applied in the past and we had every reason to expect would be applied again. and I think the comment about the second parcel being an unsubdividable parcel is very germane. I'm sorry I didn't recognize that myself, but actually, we're caught, yet, on another dilemma horn, because when we go 26 --- to the Planning Board and come before you, if we're required to, we're asking you to subdivide a piece of land that is verboten for subdivision because it doesn't have any road frontage, and that's a separate lot. So, you essentially take a professional office that we're hoping to build a respectable distance from Bay Road, and configure in keeping with current architectural standards and in keeping with the requirements of ENCON and so on, and you're saying, forget it. We'll build one 25 feet from the highway, that's okay, because, I don't know, maybe there's a lot of money across the street, but I find it unfortunate that the Town is asking people of reasonable means to jump through impossible hoops. MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets move it. Any further discussion? MR. SHEA-Just to say that Jeff's revelation here, tonight, is an interesting one, but that's not what's before us, here, tonight. MR. TURNER-No. MR. SHEA-It's simply a matter of making a determination of whether this is a subdivision or not, correct? MR. TURNER-That's correct. Okay. Do you want to move it? MS. CORPUS-I'm not participating in the discussion. Our office is not rendering any legal advice to any parties here, but I just have a question for Mr. Turner? Did you open the public hearing? MR. TURNER-I think everybody that's here to speak, spoke, but if I didn't. I'll open it. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COÞl£NT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KELLEY-I'm looking at this book a little bit more, here. You get into layout of lots and we get into Letter F, there. It says. where there's a question as to the suitabil ity of a lot or lots for their intended use due to factors such as rock formations, flood conditions, or similar circumstances, the Planning Board may, after adequate investigation, require modification of such lots. All right. So. what if we're here to subdivide the Ferguson lot and they say. you know, it's subdividable, but it really isn't buildable and we want you to acquire more land to make it a usable, buildable piece of property. Okay. Using that logic. can you then look at this additional piece of property and maybe say, okay, it's a subdivision of the property, but because we've requested this, it now becomes. well, lets say a legal lot because by making you do this it now has frontage on a Town road. Is there a way around this? In other words. we're saying we're subdividing the land in the back, but due to special circumstances, which it says they can do, that he may be able to do this particular piece of land. I don't know. MR. TURNER-But they're still subdividing a preexisting lot. They're making another lot to incorporate into the front lot. That's still a subdivision. in my estimation. MR. KELLEY-Well, I'm saying that it is, but I'm also trying to read it so that, well, maybe it is a subdivision of the second piece of property, but maybe you can make it a subdividable lot because you've said, due to restrictions on the road front lot, you need to acquire this and you can tie the two together. somehow. I know that's not what we're going to vote on, but I'm trying to think of the ultimate solution. MR. TURNER-I understand what you're saying. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. NEALON-Mr. Turner, regardless of how the Board might vote today, an interpretation of Mrs. Crayford's interpretation, we would appreciate any guidance, such as that which was offered by Mr. Kelley, that you might, and those members of the Planning Board that are here tonight might be able to offer, because certainly the concerns that we have brought before you are concerns that will. again, be before you. I'm sure, by other individual s. It is, I think, important for the Town and the Boards that serve the Town. to have an Ordinance that people can work with and work with you in connection with, and certainly facilitating reasonable access to that development in a manner that is both just and forth right, that is in the interest of all and I would command your attention to Mr. Kelley's concerns. MR. TURNER-All right. We have a motion by Mr. Shea. MOTION TO AGREE WITH THE T(IØf OF CJjEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD THAT THE PROPOSED ACQUISITIOI OF THE GRAHL PROPERn BY DR. SHARP IS IN FACT A SUBDIVISION OF SAID PROPERTY AND THEREFORE RE~IRES SUBDIVISION PROCESS AND APPROVALS BY THE APPLICANT, Introduced by Michael Shea who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: Duly adopted this 26th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: 27 ---- .- '---' '--' AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Carr MR. TURNER-We have one other item before we go. Do you want to read that letter, there. MRS. GOETZ-"Dear Zoning Board Members: Non point source pollution is the primary focus of the Warren County Water Qual ity Strategy Committee. In the Lake George Basin, these priority problems are runoff on non-permeable surfaces, siltation, and nutrient loading. Often, a ZBA can be of significant impact in this arena by conditioning variances for the greater environmental good. An example of this mechanism is the new addition to the Lake George Chamber of Commerce Building which required a variance. Upon meeting the criteria for approval, the Board then requested a plantingllandscaping design, required the removal of certain blacktop areas for percolation, required that roof runoff be contained in a recharge pit, and three collection drywells to be built to address the parking lot runoff. This has resulted in a first class environmental design instead of just another addition to this problem of non point source pollution. The ZBAs are certainly not the cure all for this problem, but can be significant impact in getting the ball roll ing and putting these conservation practices on the land. If I can be of any technical assistance. don't hesitate to ask. George McGowan, Chairman, Warren County Water Qual ity Strategy Committee." MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 28