Loading...
1991-07-24 ~EENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 24TH, 1991 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY JOYCE EGGLESTON BRUCE CARR JEFFREY KELLEY CHARLES SICARD MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL SHEA DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT CRAYFORD SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD IIJSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-1990 TYPE II lIR-lA JOHN J. AND BARBARA S. LYNCH OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 1272 BAY PARKWAY ASSEMBLY POINT, LAKE GEORGE FOR THE ADDITION OF A NEW MASTER BEDROOM AND DECK. REQUESTING RELIEF FROM 75 FT. SHORELINE SETBACK. (WARREN CooNTY PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 9-1-22 LOT SIZE: 15,235± SQ. FT. SECTION 7.012 (3) MRS. GOETZ-Read letter from James E. Hutt, to Ms. Lee York, July 1, 1991 "On July 25, 1990 the Zoning Board of Appeals granted John and Barbara Lynch, 1272 Bay Parkway, Assembly Point, a variance for an increase in the size of the structure on their property. On April 16th, 1991, the building permit #91-180 was issued following approval of the project by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board. Because of the delay in obtaining Planning Board approval construction had to be rescheduled to begin immediately after Labor Day 1991. As a result, we are asking for a one-year extension of the variance. If you have any questions, please call me. Thank you very much for your assistance in this. Sincerely, James E. Hutt, of the Ideas Company" MOTION TO GRANT THE RE~EST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-1990 JOHN J. AND BARBARA S. LYNCH, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Charles Sicard: Duly adopted this 24th day of July. 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard. Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-1991 TYPE II ÞR-5 IRVING DEAN, SR. OWNER: AND OHIO AVENUE TO CONSTRUCT A 12 FT. BY 22 FT. ONE CAR GARAGE. 60 FT. BY 100 FT. SECTION 4.02D-F (179-18) SAME AS ABOVE CORNER OF SOOTH TAX MAP 10. 127-11-2 LOT SIZE: JAMES DEAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner. Area Variance No. 54-1991. Irving Dean. Sr., July 23. 1991, Meeting Date: July 24. 1991 "The request is to add a garage which will not have the 30 ft. front setbacks. It also appears from the plan that the applicant may also need to vary the side yard minimum which is 10 ft. Also, Section 179-67 (A)(2) states that accessory use structures may not be located closer to a principle structure than 10 feet. The plan shows 6 ft. The applicant has a shed in the front yard which is not shown on the plan. The proposed garage will be 6 ft. from the property line. An old concrete block building is very close to· the line on the adjacent property. I reviewed the application 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? 1 The lot is small but is generally about the same size as the others in the neighborhood. Because of the location of the principal structure, however, placement of a conforming garage is impossible. 2. Would strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings? The request is for an accessory use which is incidental to the residential use. The appli cant has a resi dence there. The questi on the Board has to answer is, is a garage necessary for reasonable of a residential lot? 3. Would the strict application of the dimensional requirements result in a specified practical difficulty? The applicant has a number of vehicles in the yard which could be stored out of sight in a garage. This would improve the lot as well as the neighborhood. 4. Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance, or to property in the district? No.5. Is this the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? There are not any other realistic locations for the garage because of the septic system and the residential unit." MR. DEAN-James Dean. I'm hi s son. The vehi cl es that are menti oned in there, he doesn't even own. They're mine. and I was doing work to them. They don't stay at that residence. He only has one vehicle there. MR. TURNER-I didn't notice any vehicles. MR. DEAN-Okay. Just so that's cleared up. MR. TURNER-Mr. Dean, the shed in the front. how long has that been there? MR. DEAN-How long has the shed been in there? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. DEAN-Well, the shed was actually in the place where the garage was. We moved it to put a garage in there. MR. TURNER-Will you be moving that out of the front yard? MR. DEAN-Yes. We'll move it out of there. If that's the problem with the shed, I can move the shed out of there with no problem, because it's only on blocks. MR. TURNER-Is it under 100 square feet? MR. DEAN-Yes. MR. TURNER-You could put it in back of the trailer. MR. DEAN-Right. I could put it behind the trailer. MRS. GOETZ-I really think it would look better, don't you think? MR. DEAN-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-And it's right up towards the road. MR. DEAN-Yes. See, we had just moved it so that we could put the forms into it, is all we did, temporarily moved it. It's sitting on cement blocks, right now. I can move it anywhere I want. MR. TURNER-So, those forms that are there are actually the base of the garage? MR. DEAN-Right. That would be the floor of the garage, there. MR. TURNER-It's a pretty small and there's two fronts. In the rear, he doesn't have much of anything. MR. KELLEY-I was going to say, if you've got to have 30 feet from the street and 10 from the side, that's 40. That only leaves you 60 and the house is 56. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARR-I guess I have one question. You've got a 60 foot lot. You've got the 10 foot rear, 28 in the front. I mean. what about making the garage 12 by 20? I mean, why would you need that? 2 MR. DEAN-I could actually do that. I could actually take it down to a 20 foot. MR. CARR-I was going to say, is there a reason you need 22 feet? MR. DEAN-Well, the reason we had it set to 22 feet is the garage package that we looked at, but it could actually be accommodated to make it a 20 foot instead of 22 feet. MR. TURNER-Did you buy that same package, 12 by 20? MR. DEAN-Yes. I could get the same package. What I could do is just, instead of the 22 foot is, I'd have to shorten the beam on the actual sill of the building is all I'd have to do is bring it down the two feet. MR. CARR-I was wondering, if that's not that difficult to do, and then you don't have the front setback and you've got the rear setback. MR. KELLEY-The only problem that I would have is, I wondered why he didn't make it 24, to be honest with you, but if you went the 20 feet, before you did that, I'd say you want to measure your car or the vehicle you're going to put in there. MR. DEAN-It's an S10 Pickup. It would fit in there easily. MR. KELLEY-Okay. What about a regular sized car? MR. DEAN-That's all he owns. No other vehicles would be stored in there. MR. KELLEY-Okay. Well, I know, but I'm thinking he might get a different car someday and it won't fit in the garage. MR. DEAN-The average length of the average vehicle is 18 and a half feet. Any car that's manufactured from '84 up is 18 and a half feet. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MRS. GOETZ-Jeff. did you say the 24 is the standard. right, for a single? MR. KELLEY-Well, that, to me, in the houses that I see, is more common. I mean, I've seen twenty twos. That's not uncommon, but 20. I'd question 20 feet, personally. MRS. EGGLESTON-If he has to remove the building from the front, which we'd like him to get out of there, going with the 22, he might have storage space within the garage. You might better have that than have another shed in the yard. MRS. GOETZ-Plus, he might want to sell that, you know, in the future, and somebody else that would want to buy it might want more of a reasonable sized garage. MR. DEAN-Right. Okay. Yes. I could move that shed anywhere. I can put it behind the mobile home. So, you wouldn't even be able to visually see that from the road, then. MR. TURNER-Yes, not from South Avenue. MR. DEAN-Right. You could only see it on Ohio. I mean, you'd actually have to stop to see it. MRS. EGGLESTON-The only thing about it is, the yard is so small to begin with, that if you can conserve any of the space. MRS. GOETZ-There were a lot of things in the back, here. MR. DEAN-We've moved all that out of there. MRS. GOETZ-Did you? MR. DEAN-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-That must have helped. MR. DEAN-Yes. That's all gone out of there. There was a satellite dish and a few other things there. We moved that out. MR. TURNER-So, we're going to stick with the 12 by 22, right? MR. KELLEY-I think I would. 3 MR. DEAN-So, stay with the same package, then, that Grossman offered, that 12 by 22? MRS. GOETZ-I think so. MR. TURNER-Yes. Why buy two feet more of lumber and roofing and everything else? MR. DEAN-Yes. Okay. I just didn't know. because they were talking the frontage, if I would have to go down to the 20 foot and then. MR. KELLEY-Well, I think Bruce's comment is right. We always try to get you, if we can meet any setbacks, to meet them. At the same time. I don't think it's fair to impose something on you that maybe, at some point. becomes not usable. MR. DEAN-Right. MR. KELLEY-Somewhere there's a happy medium, and I think the 12 by 22, to me, is a happy medium, I guess. MR. DEAN-Okay. MR. TURNER-Any further discussion? If not, motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-1991 IRVING DEAN, SR., Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: This variance will grant relief to the applicant in three different areas. It will grant a front yard setback relief of two feet. Westerly side side line relief setback of four feet and a four feet relief from Section 179-67 which states, accessory use structures are to be 10 feet from the principal dwelling. The practical difficulty is the lot is located on a corner and it is a small lot. There doesn't appear to be a negative impact on the neighborhood and there is no neighborhood opposition and strict application of the Ordinance would deprive the applicant of having a garage. The request is the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Carr, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MRS. EGGLESTON-Should I put in there to remove the shed. make that part of the? MR. CARR-No, because it's an undersized shed. We can't. I don't think we can. MR. TURNER-No, but it doesn't belong in the front yard. MR. CARR-Right. MR. TURNER-They just moved it there. MR. DEAN-Right. I will move it. anyway. I mean, I just moved it so we could put the forms into it. MR. TURNER-He just moved it so he could pour the forms. He indicated to us that he's going to move it back, in back of the trailer. MR. DEAN-I'll move it behind the trailer, so it's out of the way. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, should it be part of my motion or not? Is it necessary or not? MR. DEAN-I'll move it. Trust me. AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-1991 TYPE I WR-lA MYRON S. RAPAPORT OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROUTE 9L TO OLD ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD, LEFT ON BURNT RIDGE, ENTRANCE TO HOUSE IS AT THIRD aMY CAMPa SIGN. TO CONSTRUCT AS 10 FT. BY 24 FT. BEDROOM. OLD BEDROOM IS BEING USED FOR ADDITIONAL CLOSET SPACE, A DRESSING AREA AND A SMALL DECK. VARIANCE NEEDED TO PERMIT A 55 FT. SETBACK IN LIEU OF THE RE(J. IRED 75 FT. SETBACK. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 5-1-18 LOT SIZE: 1.4 ACRES SECTION 7.012 (A){3) (179-60-[3]) HOWARD KRANTZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 4 Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 55-1991, Myron S. Rapaport, July 23, 1991, Meeting Date: July 24. 1991 "The appl icant is requesting a variance from the 75 foot shorel ine setbacks. The Board has determined that a variance from Section 179-79 A(2) - Enlargement of 50 percent of the original structure is also necessary. On June 20, 1984 the Rapaports were granted an Area Variance for an expansion to their camp. The camp was ±30 ft. by 28 ft. They received a variance to add 2 bedrooms totalling 590 sq. ft. (AV915). On December 18, 1985 the Rapaports received a variance for a 169 sq. ft. library addition. The applicant is now requesting to add an additional 10 ft. by 24 ft. bedroom. Since the Board has determined that the applicant needs a variance for a 50 percent expansion and the project is located in a Critical Environmental Area this is a Type I Action under SEQRA. The applicant has prepared a Long Environmental Assessment Form which the lead agency has to review. The Planning Board is also an involved agency. The Board will have to decide if you want to review the assessment form or request that the Planning Board take lead agency status. If you want to request that the Planning Board do the review, then you should generate a list of any concerns you have about the development and send them with your request to the Planning Board." MR. TURNER-Lets take care of the Type I. There's a Long Form in there. Does the Board feel that they ought to send it to the Planning Board? We usually do. MR. CARR-Yes. We usually do, don't we? MRS. GOETZ-What about the request for specific concerns? MRS. EGGLESTON-That we should look at. MR. TURNER-Do you have any concerns with the proposed addition? MR. CARR-Well, the only concern I have is, how much land is it using up? MRS. EGGLESTON-The permeability? MR. CARR-What's the total square footage of the house, now? MR. TURNER-What's the total? MR. CARR-Yes, with the proposed bedroom. MR. SICARD-What's the existing house? Is that what you're? MR. CARR-Well, the existing and the proposed bedroom. MR. SICARD-There's no dimensions, as far as the existing house. MR. TURNER-It was 30 by 28, so that's 840 square feet. MR. KELLEY-Original? MR. TURNER-He got a variance to add 590 square feet, and then they got a variance to add 169 square feet, and now they want to add 240 square feet. MR. KRANTZ-I can answer that. MRS. GOETZ-Well, what is it? MRS. EGGLESTON-1839. MR. KRANTZ-I believe, at present, that there is 1740, 1750 square feet, and I think the house will then contain about 1990 square feet, a 1 ittle under 2,000, and dimensionally it falls well short of that percentage of the lot than can be covered by the Ordinance. MRS. GOETZ-Which is 65 percent, minimum. MR. CARR-Permeable. MRS. GOETZ-Permeable. Okay, so, do you know, well, that would be one concern that they might look at. MR. CARR-Yes. How big is the lot? Any idea? MRS. EGGLESTON-I came up with 1839. if you use the dimensions they gave us. MR. TURNER-The camp was plus or minus 30 by 28. So. that's 840 square feet. 5 MR. KELLEY-Right. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MR. TURNER-And then they got a variance for 590. MR. KELLEY-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's 1430. MR. TURNER-Then they got a variance for 169. MR. KELLEY-Right. MR. TURNER-Now they want 240. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's 1839. MR. TURNER-That's what I got. MR. KELLEY-The Staff Notes, I believe, are incorrect. It says, "The applicant is now requesting to add an additional 10 by 24 bedroom". MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. KELLEY-It's really a 13 foot 6 inch by 24 with a corner chopped off. MR. TURNER-13.6 by 24? MR. KELLEY-So, it's more like 324 less that little corner, or whatever. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KRANTZ-The lot size, the frontage, I believe, is 185 feet, and I believe it goes back, approximately, 400 feet. but the tax map would show it for sure. MR. CARR-Okay. So, it's over an acre, then, isn't it? MR. KELLEY-Well, on the application is says, lot size: 1.4 acres. MR. KRANTZ-That's what's shown on the map, which I believe is approximately correct. MR. KELLEY-It's got to be pretty close. right? MR. KRANTZ-So, you must have about 60,000 square feet, anyway. MR. CARR-Yes. Of course, it's all up. MR. KRANTZ-Yes, the eastern portion of the lot is very steep. MRS. GOETZ-One item, the word on their application, where they say, replacement of a bedroom. I find that confusing. Is it a replacement or an addition? MR. KRANTZ-They are not adding a bedroom. What they're doing is, one of the existing bedrooms which is small, they're turning most of that into closet space, which they need, some into a dressing area, and some they're putting a small desk. I think there was a typo and it said deck on the report, but there's no deck inside the house. It's a desk area. So, they're not adding a bedroom to the home. They're taking a smaller bedroom, dividing it up so it's no longer a bedroom and they're putting in the size bedroom that you see. MRS. GOETZ-So they're adding on to the building in some way? MR. KRANTZ-Yes, absolutely. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. MRS. CRAYFORD-What size is being added to the building? MR. KRANTZ-What is shown on the map. 6 MRS. CRAYFORD-The size that we've talked about is being added? MR. CARR-Yes. The 13. MR. KELLEY-13.6 by 24. MR. KRANTZ-There's a drawing showing the dimensional requirements. They can add to the north. That's the existing structure, if you can picture it. The structure runs north and south. To the east is very steep. To the south, they would then get into a variance on the side setback with the neighbor, and, of course, to the west is towards the lake, which they can't do. When I answered the question that you can't add on to the structure to the east, technically I guess, that's not correct. If you want to spend an unlimited amount of money, I guess you could blast out into the side of the mountain, there. If you wanted to spend an unlimited amount of money, I guess you could add on to the east, but it's just not practical. MR. TURNER-How far in back of the house does the ledge start? Is there a level plane before? I went there, but I couldn't really see. MR. KRANTZ-Yes. It's steep right down to a small parking area behind the house, which is maybe, if anybody's been there they've seen it, 20 feet, and then they have the home and then it drops down, again. to the lake. MRS. GOETZ-Well, back to the concerns we might have to send to the Planning Board. Aren't we usually concerned with things that happen when they're digging up the land to add on? MR. CARR-Erosion control. MRS. GOETZ-Erosion control. MR. CARR-Runoff. MRS. GOETZ-Runoff. MRS. EGGLESTON-You mean the digging, too, the excavation involved? MRS. GOETZ-Yes. They usually try to, I think, shore it up so that a lot of runoff and dirt doesn't go down into the lake. MR. TURNER-Yes. There'd be no migration of the superstructure in the lake. MR. KRANTZ-Well, if I could address that. If anybody's familiar with the lot, there's little or no soil there. It's rock and ledge, and what they're going to be doing, I'm sure, is drilling into the rock. MRS. EGGLESTON-Actually, it's a pretty interesting piece of property. MRS. GOETZ-It is. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's kind of fascinating with all the doo dads he had around and the way it's cut up and the signs. MR. TURNER-Any other concerns that you want to send to the Planning Board? MR. KELLEY-Well, let me ask Howard a couple of questions, I guess. With this new proposed bedroom, or whatever, are they planning on doing anything different, in terms of bathrooms in the house? MR. KRANTZ-No. MR. KELLEY-When they get into moving, are they going to remodel and add another bathroom? MR. KRANTZ-No. As I understand it, it's just, Jeff, the new room is going to be the replacement bedroom. MR. KELLEY-Okay, because, I mean, that would be something I would want the Planning Board to address, would be any changes in bathroom and septics and things like that. Being on that rock like that. MR. KRANTZ-As I understand it, the map is what they intend to build, and if there's no bathroom shown. and I don't believe there is. MR. KELLEY-Is this used year round or just summer? MR. KRANTZ-Year round. 7 MR. KELLEY-It is year round? MR. KRANTZ-Yes. They live here year round. MR. KELLEY-They go up and down that driveway in the winter? Pretty brave people. MR. KRANTZ-I know Mrs. Rapaport has a four wheel drive vehicle, but where they actually park during the winter, I don't know. I believe they do use that driveway. They have it plowed out and they use the four wheel drive. MRS. GOETZ-Do they have an overall long range plan? Because it seems like every few years they're requesting to do a little more there. MR. KRANTZ-I don't believe so. Again, they do have a family that does visit with them that uses one of the bedrooms. They live there year round, and Mr. Rapaport has lived in the home year round since he bought it in the early 80's and resides with his wife and two children. MR. CARR-How old are his children? MR. KRANTZ-Well, they're his wife's children. A remarriage for both Mr. and Mrs. Rapaport. The daughter is 14 years of age and the son, I believe, is 11. MRS. EGGLESTON-And how many bedrooms are there, currently, in this cottage? MR. KRANTZ-There are four now, and four will remain, after the construction. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think we've probably covered all the. MR. KELLEY-It kind of makes you think back to the Ted Hans application, of what's reasonable. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. KELLEY-I mean, it's still under 2,000 square feet, no matter what you do, and if there's four people living there, you know. MOTION TO SEND THE TYPE I SEQRA REVIEW AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-1991 MYRON S. RAPAPORT TO THE QUEENSIIJRY PLANNING BOARD AND MAKE THEM THE LEAD AGENCY, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. SICARD-I was just curious, what does he have in there. now, for a septic system? MR. KRANTZ-I don't know. MR. SICARD-Is there any plans to reconstruct it with the additions or anything? MR. KRANTZ-Not to my knowledge. As far as I know, it's working. They're not adding any bathroom facilities or any increased water or waste use at all. MR. SICARD-There's a lot of rock up there. I didn't know what they were doing. It's pretty rocky territory. MR. TURNER-I think they'll probably get into it. The Planning Board will cover that. MR. SICARD-That's fine. MRS. YORK-Mr. Krantz, you should come in and get the site plan application and go through the criteria on there. The Planning Board, if you're within 500 feet of a lake shore or water body, does request that you bring in information on the septic system. MR. KRANTZ-Okay. MR. KELLEY-There's no other buildings on this other part of this plot plan, because, I mean, it shows a break in the line meaning there's more land. 8 MR. KRANTZ-No other buildings. MR. KELLEY-I mean, they've shown all the buildings that would be there? MR. KRANTZ-That's correct. MR. KELLEY-Okay. MR. KRANTZ-So, after the Planning Board goes through the SEQRA process, then it comes back. MR. TURNER-Then they will come back here and we'll entertain the variance. MS. CORPUS-Then it goes back to the Planning Board. MR. KRANTZ-After it comes back from Planning Board? MR. TURNER-Right. MS. CORPUS-The Planning Board will only review it for SEQRA purposes. MR. KRANTZ-Right. Then we come here on the Area Variance, and then it goes back? MRS. GOETZ-Just for the record, is the public hearing still open? Do you want me to say the Warren County? MR. TURNER-No. Lets hold that until later. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. MR. TURNER-The public hearing opened. We won't even open it. We'll just entertain it when he comes back. USE VARIANCE NO. 56-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A HOWARD EMMETT EILEEN EMMETT OWNER: ANDREW AND EILEEN MARISSAL Þl)0N HILL ROAD, NORTH ON BAY ROAD, LEFT ON TEE HILL ROAD, RIGHT ON MOON HILL ROAD TO MAINTAIN A MOBILE HOME IN AN RR-3A ZONE. (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 48-3-12 LOT SIZE: 2.5 ACRES SECTION 4.02D-C (179-15) HOWARD KRANTZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Use Variance No. 56-1991, Howard and Eileen Emmett, July 23, 1991, Meeting Date: July 24, 1991 "The applicant is requesting to maintain a single family residence and a mobile home on 2.5 acres in a 3 acre zone. In 1986 the applicant received a variance to place the mobile home on the lot with the stipulation that the property be subdivided. The applicant failed to carry out the stipulation of the Board. The applicant is returning before the Board since the variance requirement was never fulfilled and therefore lapsed. The request is to keep the two units on a single lot without subdividing. This application was reviewed with regard to the Use Variance criteria. 1. Is a reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned? Yes. The lot is zoned for residential uses and has an existing residence on it. 2. Are the circumstances of this lot unique and not due to the unreasonableness of the Ordinance? The lot is not unique. The two residential units existing on it does create a unique situation but this situation was created by the appl icant. 3. Is there an adverse effect on the neighborhood character? The second unit has been on the property since 1986 and has not had an adverse effect on the neighborhood." MRS. GOETZ-The Warren County Planning Board returned saying, "No County Impact". Okay. For the members that weren't here when we had thi s before, thi s is dated August 20th, 1986, the resol uti on was that the Board would approve this use variance for placement of mobile home. It's a good case of hardship. Won't change the neighborhood character, as there are other mobile homes in the area and this variance is subject to the deed change mentioned in the application. MR. KRANTZ-Well. it's just as stated there. I do appreciate Mrs. Goetz not reading some of the medical informati on attached to it. I woul d ask that that be, of course, part of the record, but I don't see any purpose served in going into detail in public. In addition, I have received, by way of medical authorization from Mrs. Marissal's physician in Glens Falls, copies of her medical condition through '86 and '87. during this period of time. If it really is necessary, I would 1 ike to show that, in private, to the Board, but I think there's enough there to see that they placed the mobile home on the property. They paid Mr. Dickinsen to do the subdivision map. They set it back properly from the proposed subdivision line. They did the front setback. They placed it permanently on the foundation, drilled well, septic system, everything permanently affixed. Those that have gone by it I think will realize it looks more like a home than like a mobile home. They did everything but Mrs. Marissal. 9 given her problems, failed to sign the deed that would have allowed for the subdivision. Mr. and Mrs. Emmett realized it, earlier this year, that it did not take place and, henc.e, we're back requesting the identical use variance that was granted in 1986. MR. TURNER-No subdivision? MR. KRANTZ-Well, we'd like to get it subdivided. We're really at the advice of the Zoning Board, to be very frank with you. If it's preferred that it be subdivided, that's, frankly, the preference of. MR. TURNER-We would rather have it, yes, that was what I was getting at. MR. KRANTZ-Yes, but what we wanted to do is just present the use variance, first, and get your impression on that. If that's a requirement, you'll know whether you find that acceptable or not. as far as an area variance is concerned. There was a change in the zone between '86 and tOday. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KRANTZ-That's the rub for the applicants. Back then it was no problem. Now, you've got, I think, three acre zoning in an area where the lots don't average anywhere near three acres. MRS. GOETZ-It seems like it would be better to subdivide it, though. MR. KRANTZ-I would agree, absolutely, to follow the original plan would make the most sense. MR. CARR-I think that's what I would prefer is to have it two lots. I mean, even if they are substandard lots for the zoning as it is now, it just seems like that was the more feasible and logical plan was the '86 plan, just to keep everything clean. MR. KRANTZ-And I might add, too, since that was the thinking of the Board back in '86, nothing has changed in the neighborhood. The zoning has changed, yes, as far as the lot area requirements, but in terms of all the immediate houses and mobile homes. it's identical. So, it's not as if granting the area variance will result in any change on the neighborhood at all. MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't have a problem with it. MR. CARR-I mean, I just think that if they ever sold this, somebody is going to come and say, I want to subdivide it, like they're doing in other parts. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. CARR-And then you're going to have to do it then. MR. KELLEY-Well. yes, if they want to sell one. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. MR. KRANTZ-Given the medical conditions of Mr. and Mrs. Emmett and their daughter, that is certainly a possibility in the future. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KRANTZ-That one might sell and one might remain. MR. TURNER-Do you have any questions of Mr. Krantz? I'll open the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further questions of Mr. Krantz? Okay. Motion's in order. MR. CARR-Well, now, what do we do? MRS. GOETZ-Yes. What is the process? MR. CARR-Do we grant the variance subject to a subdivision, again? MRS. CRAYFORD-Why don't you just grant a use variance and then they can decide if they want subdivide. MR. CARR-Well. no, because we want it subdivided, I believe. 10 MRS. CRAYFORD-I'm sorry. MRS. GOETZ-So we actually have to go through the whole granting of the use variance again? MS. CORPUS-The Board grants this use variance. One of the options would be to give it a time limit, make them come in again within a certain time frame, but it would not have to come back again before the Board if you didn't do that. The area variance would be a separate issue. MR. CARR-My thought was, maybe give them a two year time frame. with the recommendation that they subdivide the land, or apply for a subdivision of the land. MRS. EGGLESTON-Would they have to go through site plan and all of that if you gave them the? MS. CORPUS-Planning Board. MRS. EGGLESTON-To subdivide, if you said? MRS. CRAYFORD-They'd have to go through Preliminary and Final, two subdivision processes, but they'll come in to you for area variances first. MR. CARR-I can't see that as being much of a problem. I mean, really what we're trying to do is just implement the 1986 plan. MRS. GOETZ-So, at this point, it's just, it almost seems like it's just a matter of enforcing the prior, but is it because the time lapsed that it's something different? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. CARR-Yes. It's a new Ordinance. MRS. GOETZ-It went from Suburban Residential 30 to RR-3A. MRS. CRAYFORD-Well, they were given a time frame, originally. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MR. CARR-Howard, I mean, they do want to subdivide? MR. KRANTZ-Absolutely. Three of the four members are here, now, from the family. Mrs. Marissal could not attend this evening, but they are in full accord on their desire to do what should have been done back in '86. It's just a question of the mechanics and how it should be worded. We'll come back immediately with the application. I guess we have to get an area variance? MR. TURNER-An area variance, yes. MR. KRANTZ-And then go to the Planning Board for the two lot subdivision. MRS. GOETZ-So, my question is still, what do we do next, as a Zoning Board? MR. CARR-You grant a use variance with a time frame. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. You like the time frame? MR. CARR-Well, yes, because then if they come back, you know, in one or two years they should have it subdivided with it at that time. MRS. GOETZ-I would think one year should be enough. MR. CARR-Right, because probably next month we're going to see them back. MR. KRANTZ-Well, if you made it inside of a year, I can assure you that the map is already done. The deed has been prepared for years. If the condition is that they obtain the area variance and the two lot subdivision, we're going to file it, hopefully, within the month. MR. TURNER-So, one year is enough time for you? MR. KRANTZ-Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-Call me tomorrow, on the time frame, okay? MR. KRANTZ-Call you tomorrow? Is there something I don't know? 11 MRS. CRAYFORD-Never mind. MR. TURNER-I think we're going to condition it, Pat. MRS. CRAYFORD-Right. MR. TURNER-We're going to give them a year. MRS. CRAYFORD-I thought you were asking when you could file for your area variance. ASAP. You were, weren't you? MR. KRANTZ-Yes. We'd like to, yes. MR. CARR-Well, when's the deadline? MRS. CRAYFORD-Next Wednesday. That's what I wanted to tell him, it is next Wednesday, if you want to get it in. MR. KRANTZ-Thank you. If we can make it, we're going to try and get it in by Wednesday. MR. CARR-It seems like you've got most of the information. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. It wouldn't be a problem. MR. KELLEY-Why does he need a use variance? MR. KRANTZ-Area variance. We'll need an area variance. MR. KELLEY-I know, but, so why are we doing a use variance right now? MR. TURNER-He has to have a use variance to put the trailer. MR. KELLEY-It's already there. MR. TURNER-It ran out. There was a stipulation, with the use variance before, that accompanied that use variance, which they didn't act on. MR. KELLEY-Yes, but when did it run out? MRS. GOETZ-I don't think there was a time limit on that prior variance, was there, as to when it had to be subdivided? MR. KRANTZ-I think it was one year. MRS. CRAYFORD-It was one or two years. MR. KRANTZ-It was one year. MRS. EGGLESTON-You've got it there, haven't you? Where is it? MR. KELLEY-Is he here because he wants to be here, or did he get cited because he was a bad boy? MR. TURNER-No. MRS. CRAYFORD-He didn't get cited. You originally contacted me because they wanted to subdivide? Mr. Emmett came to see me. MR. KRANTZ-I believe Mr. and Mrs. Emmett, earlier this year, we realized that the paperwork wasn't done and they contacted me and then we realized that the requirement for subdivision hadn't been met and then we initiated the process by letter to, I spoke to Pat, and then a letter to Mr. Turner setting forth the history of what had happened. So, there was no citation. MR. KELLEY-I question why we even have a use variance? MRS. GOETZ-That's what my basic question is. I honestly don't see. MRS. CRAYFORD-They're here because the stipulation on the original variance, if I recall correctly, was the mobile home had to be moved off the property at a certain point in time and it was never removed. MR. KELLEY-So. we're doing this to let them keep it there. MRS. CRAYFORD-And you're doing this because of. 12 MR. KELLEY-Until he can get a subdivision. MR. CARR-And thereafter. MRS. CRAYFORD-And the mobile home is still there and it's not a permitted use there. A mobile home isn't permitted there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Would that have been part of the motion, Pat? MRS. CRAYFORD-It seemed to me it was. MRS. EGGLESTON-Because it isn't, is it? MRS. GOETZ-As it's written there, it isn't. MRS. CRAYFORD-What does the motion say? MR. TURNER-It says, the variance is subject to the deed change mentioned in the application. So the deed change is in the application and we added that right to the motion. MR. KRANTZ-Correct. MR. TURNER-They proposed to subdivide it. MR. CARR-And then once they didn't subdivide, they violated the term of the, you'd probably have a reasonable time. MR. TURNER-Here it is. Under the old application, dwelling on two and a half acres to be split to conform to current zoning. MRS. GOETZ-And because a variance is usually only good for one year? MR. TURNER-One year. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. MS. CORPUS-No. The variance runs with the land. MR. KELLEY-Was that an area variance or a use variance? MR. CARR-Right, but it's a variance subject to a condition, subsequent. MS. CORPUS-I know, but a variance normally runs with the land. It does not expire with any time frame, unless specifically cited by the Board, unless in that resolution there were a specific. MR. CARR-But they said the variance was subject to the splitting of the land, which never occurred. MRS. CRAYFORD-They had to subdivide the land in order to keep the mobile home there. MR. TURNER-Keep the mobile home. MR. KRANTZ-There were conditions attached to the granting of the use vari ance of which the one that was not complied with was the actual filing of the deed. Citing the mobile home certain distances from the road and the new subdivision line were complied with, but the deed wasn't filed. If there's a simpler way of doing this. MR. CARR-Well, I think what the question is, do we need to give you another use variance, now, or can you just comply with the one from '86? How long do you have before that one runs out? Is that the question, basically? MR. KELLEY-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-But, wouldn't you have looked at that. your department, before that came to us, if he's in violation? MS. CORPUS-Okay. Here we go. I have it. Section 179-92, unless otherwise specified or extended by the Zoning Board, decisions on any requests for variance shall expire if the applicant fails to undertake the proposed action or project or to obtain any necessary building permit or to comply with conditions of said authorization within one year from the filing date of the decision. MR. TURNER-It just got overlooked and it never got back in. 13 MR. KRANTZ-What happened is, they actually did undertake it. but they didn't finish it. MR. TURNER-Correct. MR. KRANTZ-They didn't meet all the conditions within the year. MR. TURNER-So. as the motion read, that the application was presented, we move the motion on the whole thing. The same motion would apply this time. MR. KRANTZ-Whatever is the most efficient way. I think we're all thinking the same way. MRS. GOETZ-I think we are. MR. TURNER-We've just got to move the motion to let it stay there. MR. KRANTZ-And I agree, from a planning perspective, it makes more sense to go back to the original two lot subdivision. rather than having a single lot with a residence and a separate residence on it. MR. TURNER-You've got two principal dwellings on it. MR. KRANTZ-Absolutely. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 56-1991 HOWARD EMMETT EILEEN EMMETT, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, This would be a use variance for placement of a mobile home in a Rural Residential Three Acre zone on a 1.0 acre parcel. MR. CARR-No. It's a 2.5, right now. MRS. GOETZ-It's a 2.5. so it's one, the mobile home's on the one. MRS. CRAYFORD-No. The mobile home's on the whole acreage. MR. CARR-Sue, I would just, may I suggest something? MRS. GOETZ-Yes. MR. CARR-Just give them the variance for one year, conditioned on them subdividing the land. MR. TURNER-Subdividing the land. MRS. GOETZ-Could I start again? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SICARD-Do you think that they can get the subdivision completed in one year? MR. CARR-I would hope. If not, we'll extend the variance. MR. TURNER-That's why I asked Mr. Krantz if he was comfortable with one year. MR. KRANTZ-Well, as I understand it, having gone through a three lot subdivision myself, which took an enormously long time, but that the process has been streamlined, somewhat? Is that fair to say, Lee, or no? MRS. YORK-Yes. I'm sure in a case like this, the Board would want the item to be expedited. There's no changes to the lot. MR. KRANTZ-That's correct. If a year is realistic, then that sounds agreeable. MR. TURNER-If it's realistic for you, I'd just as soon give you two years. MR. SICARD-Or at least a year and a half. MR. TURNER-I'd give you the two years and if you did it in one year or six months. that's all the more. MR. KRANTZ-We'll take two years, to play it safe. MR. TURNER-I'd rather have you have the two years, than have to come back. 14 MRS. EGGLESTON-Why do we do that? I mean, they've already had five years and it didn't get done, so, I'm more comfortable with a year. They're saying it can be done in a year, and Mr. Krantz is willing, so why go two years? I don't understand that. MR. CARR-If they have to come back for an extension. MR. EGGLESTON-Yes, we can give them. MR. TURNER-All right. I just want to give them enough time. If they get caught in a Catch 22 or something, then. MR. CARR-But they won't. MRS. CRAYFORD-All they'd need is six months, even if he got caught in a Catch 22. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think they've learned their lesson. Get it done so you don't get into this pickle again. MR. KELLEY-Do it a year. MR. TURNER-Make your motion. tl>TION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 56-1991 HOWARD EMMETT EILEEN EMMETT, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: To place a mobile home on the one acre lot and the single family home on the 1.5 acre lot, with the stipulation that they be granted subdivision approval within one year and the stipulation of the prior variance, which was variance 11 12. A reasonable return is possible if the land is used as zoned, and the circumstances of the lot are not unique. The difficulty existing is that the zoning changed there. It was Suburban Residential 30 at the time of the first variance and there's been a subsequent zoning change to RR-3A. So that now they are going to need area variances and go through the subdivision procedure before the Queensbury Planning Board. There has been no adverse effect on the neighborhood character and we have a petition from the neighbors fully supporting the granting of this variance. This variance is also necessary because of Section 179-92. The Short EAF shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard. Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. KRANTZ-May I ask, Mrs. Goetz, did you mean to say that the conditions for compl iance with the subdivision are for a period of one year, as opposed to that the variance exists for one year? MR. CARR-Right. MRS. GOETZ-Yes. I did, thanks. MR. CARR-Yes, because the variance becomes permanent if they comply. MR. KRANTZ-Within the year. MR. CARR-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MRS. GOETZ-What are you saying, Karla? MS. CORPUS-The variance would be granted with the condition that they obtain subdivision approval within one year. MR. KRANTZ-One year, right. MRS. GOETZ-I'd also like to think about adding one more sentence saying that this variance is also necessary because of Section 179-92. Do I need to put that in, the one that you quoted? MS. CORPUS-That it's before the Board because of the expiration of the previous variance. MRS. GOETZ-It wouldn't hurt to put it in. MS. CORPUS-That's fine. 15 MR. KRANTZ-Is the motion clear that, as regarding the subdivision, that the mobile home be on the one acre lot and the residence on the 1.5 acre, as originally required by the Board? MR. TURNER-No, I don't think so. MRS. GOETZ-No. Do you want it in there? MR. TURNER-The mobile home would be on the one acre lot, and the residence would be on the 1.5 acre lot. MR. KRANTZ-With the same dimensional requirements as required back in 1986? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KRANTZ-Mr. and Mrs. Marissal and Mr. and Mrs. Emmett truly appreciate your understanding as to the circumstances of this matter and want the Board to know how much they appreciate it. Thank you. I take it that, since you made it a condition to go back to the two lot subdivision, as a practical matter, you don't have any objection to the area variance that's necessary? MR. CARR-I don't know. Put it before us. AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-1991 TYPE II IIR-IA RICHARD R. SENESE OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE GLEN lAKE ROAD TO JAY ROAD REQJEST TO BUILD A 7 FT. BY 32 FT. DECK ONTO EXISTING CONCRETE APRON. (WARREll COONTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 43-1-21 LOT SIZE: 11,000 SQ. FT. SECTION 7.012, SHORELINE SETBACK (179-60) RICHARD SENESE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 57-1991, Richard R. Senese, July 23, 1991, Meeting Date: July 24, 1991 "The appl icant is requesting to place a 7 ft. by 32 ft. deck within 24 ft. of Glen Lake in 1 ieu of the required 75 ft. A memo from the Zoning Administrator regarding this development is attached. The applicant currently has a concrete patio which is ±31 ft. from the shorel ine. The intent is to add a deck extending from the patio out 7 ft. along the front of the structure. Some of the dimensions on the plot plan are not accurate. The applicant indicates that the lot is 53.21 ft. wide. However, the listed side yard setbacks are 21 ft. and 16 ft. and the house is shown as 32 ft. wide for a total of 69 ft. The Board may want to consider that the side yard setbacks in the WR-lA zone are a sum of 50 ft. with a minimum of 20 ft. The appl icant shows a sum of 37 ft. with a minimum of 16 ft. 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? No. This property is similar to others in the neighborhood. 2. Would the strict application of the provisions of the Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings? No. The application of the Ordinance does not create a practical difficulty for the applicant. He currently has an existing patio which affords the same amenities as the deck. He has an allowable single family residence on the land. 3. Would the strict appl ication of the dimensional requirements result in a specified practical difficulty? The practical difficul ty is that the applicant began construction of the deck without the necessary variances. However, there is no other difficulty because he has an existing patio. 4. Would this variance be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance, or to property in the district? The shoreline setbacks were enlarged to afford the heavily developed lakes greater protection. The applicant states that the deck will stabilize the bank in proximity to the lake. An alternative might be to plant ground cover. Construction on a sloped bank is not a good form of erosion control. 5. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty? The applicant has not indicated that there is a practical difficulty." MRS. GOETZ-The Warren County Planning Board returned saying, "No County Impact". Okay. This is from Pat Crayford, the Zoning Administrator, to the Zoning Board of Appeals, July 23, 1991 outlining the sequence of events, "Mr. Senese completed a building permit application on May 31, 1991 requesting to build a 260 foot second floor addition to the front of his residence. Upon learning that a Variance and Planning Board approval would be required, he then met with Lee who asked if Mr. Senese could replace a 6 x 28 foot deck that had extended from the existing cement patio. I met with Mr. Senese at his residence so he could show me exactly where this replacement would be. On June 19, 1991 Mr. Senese applied for and was issued a building permit for this 6 x 28 foot replacement deck. Mr. & Mrs. Miller, the adjoining neighbors to the south. phoned me when they saw the construction. When I informed them that this was going to be a replacement they were very upset stating that a deck never existed and would sign an affidavit to that effect (attached). In addition attached is an affidavit from Robert Ploof that the deck was not in existence as of March 1991. Also I received a phone call from a neighbor with the same statement. Mr. Senese' Site Plan submitted for this Variance appl ication is inaccurate. The Tax Map showed the parcel to be 63.85 feet at the shoreline. The setbacks and deck would total 69 feet, therefore the setbacks shown are inaccurate." Attached is this affidavit from Helen B. Miller, saying that, "Since I have owned the aforementioned property no wooden deck has been located on the east side of Mr. Richard Senese's residence." Letter from Robert Ploof, to Ms. Pat Crayford, July 16 18, 1991, "In March 1991, Dick Senese. Jay Road. Glen Lake, wanted to hire me to replace his dock, retaining wall, build an addition and build an 8' x 32' deck, all on the lake side of his house. You researched the possibil ity of this project and advised me that I could replace the dock and existing retaining wall which from the lake was on the right side of his property. I told him this. At that time. there was no existing deck or evidence that there had ever been a deck there. I did no work for him on hi s property." MR. TURNER-Mr. Senese, do you have anything you want to add, right at this point? MR. SENESE-No. I heard all she said and I agree with some. Some I don't agree. MR. TURNER-What don't you agree with? MR. SENESE-Well, there was a deck over there or boards that I had put there prior to having it replaced the way I requested. I had my builder pull up the old wood, throw it behind the wood pile. It's still there, some of it. and I had him start building, and that's when they came over and told him to stop, David Hatin, and I called Mrs. Crayford the next day. She came over, looked at it, and I spoke with Mrs. York and they agreed to issue a building permit so I could continue to have my builder replace the deck. Only to find, the following day, they came over with a written Stop Work Order, with, I've got maybe a day's work to have the thing done. Like I say, under these circumstances, I would have never even, I would have left everything the way it was, had I known I was going to go through this. Even as it was, the first time around, I maybe had two or three hundred dollars worth of wood invested in the thing. The rest of it was in the back yard, but when I got the building permit issued and an okay to go on and continue, then another seven or eight hundred dollars went into the thing. So, then they stopped that and, well, my builder stopped and returned the material and so on. In the meantime, I had a petition signed. There's 16 names on here. Again, you can have this for the record. I don't know who put, that one name you mentioned. Mr. and Mrs. Miller I know, naturally, initiated this whole thing, but, Krug, did you say? MRS. GOETZ-Ploof. Evidently, you had him in for bids at some point? MR. SENESE- I had four or five peopl e in for bi ds, but I don't recoll ect that name, but I had four or five people in for bids, and he might have been one of them. Obviously, he didn't do it. MR. CARR-Mr. Senese, you had said that you had put some planking down? MR. SENESE-I had put some planking down back in '82 when I had the, I bought the house in '81. I applied for a building permit at the time, and it was turned down. So, I applied for a variance and it was okayed and I raised the roof and put an addition on it, and after that, I put some planking down just to protect from the erosion. It was a bank that slopes down toward the lake. I did it myself. Naturally, I'm not a professional builder. Over the years, the thing rotted and I had my dock replaced this year. I had my retaining wall replaced, and then I had this decking started to be replaced. and that's when all of this came about. Again, the whole deck that I'm speaking of isn't probably any longer than that table, maybe just a little bit wider, and already I've got a month and a half worth of hazard over there. You can't walk around it. I've had the footings and everything dug for the concrete. I have submitted drawings to Mr. Hatin, like he wanted, and I was running back and forth. I'll bet I was down there, six, seven times. down to the Planning Board down there, for one reason or another. Now the thing is almost done, within a days work of being done. Like I say, all it is is pressurized wood where there was regular wood before and I don't know what else to say. MRS. GOETZ-That seems to be the problem. You're saying it's replacement, but then some people say that it wasn't there. Could you enlighten us on that? MR. SENESE-Yes. What would you like to know? MRS. GOETZ-I'd like to know why they're saying it wasn't there? MR. SENESE-You'll have to ask them. You'll have to ask those people. I'm telling you what was there, and my builder told Mrs. Crayford and Dave Hatin that it was there. In fact, he was going to sign an affidavit, and then when I called Mrs. Crayford, my builder got a little bit worked up over the thing and wanted to get paid, after on and off for this thing. So, I paid him and I haven't seen him since. MR. CARR-Would he be willing to sign another affidavit for you? MR. SENESE-I don't know. I really don't know. MR. TURNER-You say it was there. How much was there? What did you actually put down on the ground or what did you put on the place, initially, when you said you laid the plank down? MR. SENESE-When I put it down. It wasn't done, like I say, like a professional builder would do it, but it was, after the addition was put on, I had wood left over so I laid it down there in front of the bank just so the bank wouldn't wash down into the lake. 17 MR. TURNER-You just laid it on top of the ground? MR. SENESE-That's right. So, this time, over a period of years, the thing got deteriorated. So when he replaced my dock, which I had called Mr. Hatin on and he said it didn't require a building permit, and I had my wall replaced. He said that didn't require a building permit. I said, well, in the meantime, take care of this deck. Take care of this deck and rip it up and he put, like I say, some of it behind the wood pile, some he hauled away. MR. TURNER-How big an area did you actually cover with the initial plank? MR. SENESE-The wi dth of the concrete apron, whi ch is about 32 feet, and I thi nk you're in error on the width of that building. It's 28 foot. I've included Tax Maps. The concrete apron is 32 foot long, but that goes out to the side where the stairs are. The building itself is 28 feet wide. MRS. EGGLESTON-I guess I can see why your neighbors might be skeptical, though, at your calling that a deck. Just laying boards on the ground. MR. SENESE-Well, it's a platform, that's all. It's a platform, yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, it's not a deck. I mean, there is definitely a difference. MR. SENESE-Well, yes. I don't know what the technical term of deck is. MRS. GOETZ-It's not a structure. MR. SENESE-No. MRS. GOETZ-So, you agree. You agree with the neighbors that it wasn't a structure? MR. SENESE-Yes. I suppose you could interpret it that way, but, again, as far as being detrimental, there's 16 names on that list you've got right there, on both sides of me. and most of them have been over there and looked at it, and I'm sure most of the people on the Board here have seen it. MRS. EGGLESTON-What is the hole in the ground for, that you had covered with board so nobody would fall in it? MR. SENESE-That was for the concrete footings. In fact, I had to put those boards there. I had people up there the Fourth of July weekend and, you know, it's a dangerous situation there. That's where the concrete footings were going to go. I submitted drawings to Dave Hatin, and then I had my builder come back. I thought everything was cleared up, and the following day Mrs. Crayford came over with a Stop Work Order. MR. CARR-Did you utilize the plankings? I mean, did you put a barbecue on it before or anything like that, patio furniture? MR. SENESE-Yes, of course. We sat out there. MR. CARR-It wasn't on a slope? It was flat? MR. SENESE-It was flat, yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-But nothing nailed together or, that you could say, I mean, you just laid them on the ground? Is that the consensus? MR. SENESE-Yes. I mean, like I say, I put a $25, $30,000 addition on the place. I had a lot of stuff left over. So I did that, more or less, on my own. I had the concrete patio poured and I could see where the bank was washing down. So, I put that there just, more or less, to keep it from that, but this time I wanted to do it on a more permanent nature. So I had paid somebody to do it for me. MRS. EGGLESTON-Who's your builder? MR. SENESE-Bonhote. Pete Bonhote, from Lake George. MRS. GOETZ-Is he with Bell Construction. MR. SENESE-Yes. Well, yes, but Pete Bonhote did the building. He's with Bell. MRS. GOETZ-On his own? Not with Bell Construction? MR. SENESE-No. He's with Bell. Like I say, it was a one man job. He only worked, maybe, two and a half days on the thing, and it was 99 percent complete. Now, when I was stopped the first time. 18 well, he was stopped. I was at work. He called me home. I came home to see he had the joice up, just the joice, and I said, all right. Stop here. Now, if they're not going to allow me to do this under a repair thing, all right. We'll have to get the building permit. In fact, I went down to fill out variances and so forth, way back then, and I spoke with Mrs. York and Pat Crayford and so on, and they decided to allow me to have the building permit in lieu of all these variances and so on. So, I said, all right. That's fine. So, I called him up, and the following week he started again. She said, well, make sure you submit footing drawings and so on and so forth. In fact. I went down there twice. He wasn't satisfied with one drawing. I drew it up again. I do that type of work, and he was satisfied and he issued a building permit number, but I never received the permit in hand. So, I call my builder and I said, when can you start again. Well, he was busy that day working on Fort William Henry. He said the next day, or whenever it was. I said, fine. So start. He came over and worked. maybe. two or three hours, and Pat came over with the Stop Work Order again, but then, again, there was more money invested in there. Still, it wasn't complete. MRS. GOETZ-It's been a complicated issue, but it would seem that the Town had acted properly. They went through all the steps, and we now agree that there was no real structure there. MR. SENESE-Yes. I understand. MRS. GOETZ-So we need to move on. What about the dimensions of the lot, the questions about that? MR. SENESE-The lot should be right on the Tax Map. Now, my lot originally, I guess they were all 50 foot wide, but apparently St. Pierre bought 15 feet off of Accardi, and it's all on the Tax Map. So that lot is 64.85 feet wide along that lake shore, and it should be on the Tax Map that I've included there, and as far as the dimensions from the side line, Millers property to the house, is about, what, 16 feet on the other side, and then there's 28 feet of house. Now, it's not 32 feet of house. It's 28 feet. MRS. GOETZ-It's on here that it's 28. Something's not adding up, though. MR. SENESE-What do you have for the shoreline frontage? MR. TURNER-53.21. MRS. EGGLESTON-53. 21. MR. SENESE-That's not correct. Like I say, it's that plus 10 feet more, that was bought. MRS. GOETZ-But you submitted the plan showing these dimensions. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. You drew this. MR. SENESE-It doesn't show 60? MR. TURNER-No. MR. SENESE-Well, it should. There should be a little jog out there. MS. CORPUS-Mrs. Goetz, if the Board has a question as to the dimensions, you could request to see the actual deed. The Tax Maps are not legally necessarily correct. MR. SENESE-Yes. In fact, on the other hand, maybe it's on the other paperwork for the Planning Board that I attached the other map to. but it was a xeroxed copy of the deeded map. I don't have it here. MRS. GOETZ-Well, that's too bad. I really think that we need to see the proper dimensions and that maybe we should just table this until you can bring them in. MR. SENESE-As a matter of fact, that map that you're looking at was the map that I used when I had the addition put on in '82. I dug up all the old papers and so on. MRS. GOETZ-Okay, but we have to have the proper dimensions before we can act on this. MR. SENESE-All right. MR. CARR-I would also like to see a sworn affidavit from Mr. Bonhote as to what was there when he started. MR. SENESE-I don't know if I can get him to do that. Like I say, he was all ready to do that. MR. CARR-Well, I think we've got a sworn affidavit saying it wasn't there. We've got you saying it was there, and now we've got an independent, third party, here, who might be able to shed some light. We've got one other guy who's saying it wasn't there. 19 MRS. GOETZ-But it sounds like we now agree that it wasn't there. I don't think we need the affidavit from Bonhote. MR. SENESE-Well, it wasn't a deck as you, no, all right, then it wasn't a deck as you see it. MR. CARR-Well, I do want to hear what was there. I want to know what was there. What wood was there and what it was. MR. TURNER-He said he laid plank down on the ground. MR. SENESE-That's all, and like I say, I still have some of it up behind the the wood pile over there. MR. TURNER-You just took the plank and laid it on top of the ground, never nailed it together, or nothing, just laid it there. That's not a deck. It's not supported by columns or anything. MR. SENESE-No. It wasn't supported by column concrete or footings, no. MRS. GOETZ-I think we all agree on that, now. MR. TURNER-It wasn't nailed together? MR. SENESE-No. MRS. GOETZ-It wasn't a deck and it wasn't there, and it seems like we all agree on that, at this point. MR. KELLEY-No, but I guess I would question, in the Staff Input, it says, the appl icant is requesting to replace a 7 by 32 deck, but I don't see, on the application, where he's replacing it. MR. SENESE-What did I say? I don't know exact words, here. MR. KELLEY-It says, proposed use of property. MR. SENESE-Request to build a 7 by 32 foot deck onto existing concrete apron to prevent erosion. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Kelley, it was advertised to build, not to replace. MRS. YORK-It says, request to build a 7 ft. by 32 ft. deck onto an existing concrete apron. MRS. CRAYFORD-They're mentioning replace because that is in my letter, as to how it was told to me. MRS. YORK-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-It really is so small. It was a very small area. I think we really do need all of the dimensions before we can. MRS. GOETZ-Because I can see why Pat Crayford has to word it that way, because she had to tell us what was the sequence of events here. That all these things were happening. MR. SENESE-I understand that. It's just that 1'm in sort of a bind, too, because at first it was no go and I told him, naturally, he stopped when Dave Hatin came over, and then I went down. I thought I had explained to them, and they said, well, okay, go ahead. So, I called my builder back to go ahead, and as soon as he started to go ahead again, again, it cost me more money and material and labor. So. I'm in a bind, now. This has been, what, four, five weeks now, that I've got not only an unsightly. but an unsafe condition there. MRS. EGGLESTON-But I have to say, you created that by saying you were replacing. That's why they gave you the permit to begin with. If you had said, I'm going to build a new deck, they would have sent you to all the proper places and you wouldn't have had to go through all of that. MR. SENESE-Well, it might have been the word description, there, but, I mean, certainly everybody was over there to look at it the way it was. MRS. GOETZ-Well. the the words used, I mean, there's a big difference, and I think we all agree on that, right now. MR. SENESE-Yes. MR. CARR-Well, I want to follow up on that. You said they were over there to look? I mean. Pat. did you see the planking as it was? MRS. CRAYFORD-No, I didn't. That's all. saw old planking piled up in the back yard that he said had been there. 20 MR. SENESE-Yes, that had been there. MR. CARR-Did Dave see it, that you know of? MRS. CRAYFORD-No. Dave didn't see it either. MR. SENESE-No. but at the particular time, he had just dug out there. and like I said, the old boards were up behind the wood pile and he had just started putting the joices up. So, I said, all right, if Mr. Hatin said to stop, stop, and he did stop. I might have had a days work, a half a days work in there, or he did, and some material, but then when I thought I had it straightened out, the following week, I said. well, okay, continue, and then it took another days work, another $5, $600 worth of lumber, only to be stopped a second time. That's the thing. MR. CARR-Right, but you see I think what has happened is no one saw it, so they were only going with what you were able to tell them, and that was a replacement. MRS. CRAYFORD-I was taking his word for it. MR. CARR-Right. exactly. MR. SENESE-Yes. MR. CARR-And this is where the problem has come in and. so I don't think that. MR. SENESE-I wish we could have all that ironed out before I started. MR. CARR-Right. I just want to make sure that it's clear that the Town, on the record, that the Town did not physically see the plankings on the ground before. MR. SENESE-No, of course not. I understand that, but 1 i ke I say, it was starting up the second time is what wound up tearing up the property, like she said, the holes in the ground were for the footings that I was going to submit the drawing, here, to Mr. Hatin and so on. Well, in any event, again, I don't know what to do, now. Like I say, it's still there. Nothing else has been done. and I'm trying to go through the right procedures, here. If I made a mistake the first time around, at least I'm tryi ng to do what I can do thi s time around, but I don't know, now, as far as dimensi ons and so on. I do have the deeded map at work. I can certainly submit that. MR. CARR-Well, yes. you're going to have to, because I don't think we're prepared to vote on this at this point. MR. SENESE-Yes, all right, and anything else that you might require. I'm certainly familiar with this place. here. I've been here many times in the last month and a half or so. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-I want to ask you a question. This is the existing house, is that right? MR. SENESE-Yes. MR. TURNER-And this is the area right here, all right. Where was the planking? MR. SENESE-Right in front, here. MR. TURNER-Where? Between here, this line and this proposed deck? MR. SENESE-No. MR. TURNER-Or right here, from here to here? MR. SENESE-That's right, and then that's to the lake. This is the actual dimensions. MR. TURNER-All right. This is a walkway, is that right? MR. SENESE-Yes. that's right. MR. TURNER-And this goes to the proposed deck? MR. SENESE-Right. MR. TURNER-Which is 7 foot by 18 foot? MR. SENESE-No. It's 18 foot from here to here. It's going to go from 18 to 32. MR. TURNER-32? ." MR. SENESE-Yes, 32. MR. TURNER-All right, and this is existing? Was this existing? MR. SENESE-Yes. MR. TURNER-For how long? MR. SENESE-Since '82. MR. TURNER-All right. So then you put the planking from here down? MR. SENESE-Yes. in that area. MR. KELLEY-Do you want to table it for more information? MR. TURNER-Yes. I'd table it, but I think I'm in the same position they're in. I want to see all the measurements and now you've responded to what you call a repl acement, as being the pl ank there which was the deck which it's not. So this is a proposed whole new deck. MR. SENSE-It's 7 by 32, yes. MR. CARR-I would also like to see something from Mr. Bonhote as to what was there. I mean. he seems to be the only third party who actual saw this. MR. SENESE-I'll ask him again. Again, he was all willing and able to do that. MR. CARR-I want to hear what he describes it as. MR. TURNER-That's what I just asked him. That that was existing since '82. He put the planks cross way down here. Okay. Any further questions? Okay. I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DON MILLER MR. MILLER-Good evening. My name is Don Miller. I live adjacent to, or next door to Mr. Senese. We are opposed to this particular deck that he wants to submit for building. at his present location. Now, as stated on your map, there, he is saying he is 16 feet from my property to this proposed deck. I I m not a contractor, but I do know how to read a rul er, and I went down and measured it as 7 feet 3 inches to my property line. MR. TURNER-That's why we requested the measurements. MR. MILLER-Okay. That's a start. I feel it's an invasion to my privacy, for one thing. We have had prior problems with Mr. Senese in the past, verbal abuse and harassment. We feel this deck is too close to our property and would encourage more of that (verbal abuse and harassment). The request to build the decking to prevent erosion of sandy slope bank also is an error. There was no sandy slope bank there until he removed the existing growth that was there to dig for his deck. There was green growth shrubs there. There was no sandy washout that could have been there. The fact that Mr. Senese has provided false information involving this particular deck and the so called existing sea wall, which was not existing, and he never obtained a permit for the Town of Queensbury for a complete sea wall, nor did he get ENCON involved, which is the proper way of doing things for a sea wall. We feel that the 15 foot setback from the property line, and the 75 foot setback from the lake should be enforced and a variance should not be permitted to be issued. MR. TURNER-How long have you lived there, Mr. Miller? MR. MILLER-We've lived there 12 years, and we have lived there full time. We did not rent, as was stated earlier, by some people. We never rented the property. We moved in and lived there year round for 12 years and we have had numerous boundary disputes with the neighbor in question, all because my land was surveyed and his wasn't and we don't need to get involved with that, but there was no existing deck there. We signed an affidavit and we supplied pictures to Pat to prove that there was no deck there. You have an affidavit signed by. MR. TURNER-How about the sea wall? Do you have proof that the sea wall wasn't there? MR. MILLER-Sure. I can get you pictures of that, too. He had a retaining wall, I will guesstimate the size of 15 to 18 feet long, three 6 by 6 pressure treated high that fell over about three years after it had been put in, that was put in without a permit, and now he has done a compl ete sea wall from one end of his property to the other end of his property and tied into my sea wall, done with 22 '~ pressure treated 6 by 6's. I think they're four tiers high. The entire length of this property. I put in the sea wall six years ago when I did an addition on my home. It took me four and a half months to get a permit from ENCON and it also took me two or three meetings with the Board meeting to get their okay to go ahead and put in a sea wall from the Town of Queensbury. Everything by the book. I knew it was going to be tough, but I wanted to do it right, and that's what we did, and we finally got it, and the Town of Queensbury requires ENCON to be involved when you put in a sea wall, anything that you put in the lake, and there was no existing one there. There was a small, that did not go the entire length of his property, nor was as high as the one that is put in now. I mean, we pay our taxes to have all this stuff protected and the abuse of that is not necessary or the false statements or the direct, I hate to use the word lies, but they definitely are right to your face lies regarding the situation. MR. KELLEY-I guess my comment would be, if there's photographs either in Pat's file or office, or he has some, it might. MR. TURNER-We'd like to see them. MR. KELLEY-Yes. MR. MILLER-If you'd like to see more photographs regarding the more front of his property without the sea wall there. MR. TURNER-Are they dated, the pictures? MR. MILLER-I don't believe they are. It doesn't matter if they're dated or not. A sea wall permit in the Town of Queensbury has been in effect forever and so has it been through ENCON. MRS. EGGLESTON-Do we have the pictures in the file, Pat? He says he gave them to you. MRS. CRAYFORD-No. They showed them to me and I gave them back to them. Okay. MR. MILLER-We'd be more than glad to bring them in and let you review them. MR. TURNER-We'd like to see them the next time, because we're going to table it. MR. MILLER-I haven't got a problem with that at all. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. MILLER-Okay, thank you. CORRESPONDENCE MRS. GOETZ-The petition that was brought in, we the following have no objection to the deck extension of Mr. and Mrs. Richard Senese, signed by Mr. and Mrs. Peter Accardi, Jeffrey Barrett, Dave and Linda Daily, M.C. Sicard, George Sicard, Mary Sicard, Matthew Sicard, Terence Sommo, Monica Haight, Dick and Sue Rourke, Jean and Bill Luresh, Susan and Bob Hame, Robert Accardi, Peter Accardi, Carolyn Accardi, and Palma Doty, and then there's a letter from Dick and Sue Rourke, "We have no objection to the Senese' building a deck. It will only serve to enhance their home. We are in favor of you granting this variance." This is from Charles and Mary Sicard, "As owners of property in the vicinity of residence of the above, please be advised that we have no objection to variance covering the 7 by 12 foot deck." MR. TURNER-I'll leave the public hearing open. If it's the Board's pleasure, I'll table the application for further information. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE 110. 57-1991 RICIfARD R. SENESE, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Tabled for further information, a survey map showing correct dimensions. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Carr, Mr. Kelley. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. TURNER-Do you want a survey map showing the correct dimensions? MR. SENESE-MY deeded map, when you say a survey map, when I bought the property, back in '81, there's iron pipes that are supposed to show where the, property lines are and my deeded map is probably based on that, I would think. 23 MR. CARR-I think, because of the information, we're going to need a survey. I mean, now we're saying it's 16 feet, now we're saying it's 7 and a half feet. I mean, I think we're going to need this information to clarify. I mean, if your deeded map is a survey, I mean, who certified it? I mean, is it just? MR. SENESE-I know what you mean. My deeded map is, I would think, a surveyed map. It's on record. In other words, what I'm getting at is, if I have to pay X amount of dollars, I don't even know how much, to have the property surveyed, now, to put $1,000 deck, I've already got, between this paperwork and the attorney that I had that was giving me advice to fill out all this stuff, I've already got over $200 just in the paperwork alone. MR. CARR-Well, what's your deeded map? Is that just the deed description? MR. SENESE-No. It's a map showing the property and Mr. Sicard's property around. MR. TURNER-A survey map, showing the dimensions, showing the iron pipes? MR. SENESE-It was presented to me with my deed and mortgage papers and so on. on file, here. imagine it's the map MR. CARR-Well, I would ask that you show it to Lee, because, I mean, Lee, you know what we need. MR. SENESE-All right. I can bring it in and show it to her. MRS. CRAYFORD-You need something to scale. MR. CARR-Right. We need something to scale. MR. SENESE-I don't know if it's to scale. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, when the neighbors had it surveyed. He just said he had it surveyed. Did they put markers down that line and do you agree with them? MR. SENESE-Well, he left, but I've located three pipes. One on the shoreline. One in the back, separating myself and Accardi, Miller is on the other side, and that pipe I can't find. Now what happened to that pipe, I don't know. It was there when we moved there. I'm not saying they moved it or didn't move it. Like he said, there has been a lot of little troubles over the past, they've been there 12 years, we've been there 11 years, 10 years. MRS. YORK-Excuse me, Mr. Senese. What the Board is requesting is a map that is stamped by a licensed surveyor or a licensed engineer, okay. MR. SENESE-All right. MRS. YORK-So check the map you have. If it is stamped by one of those individuals, then you can use that map. MR. SENESE-All right. MRS. YORK-If not. you will have to get something that fits their bill. MR. SENESE-All right. MRS. GOETZ-You're going to have to assess your own situation. If you don't want to pay a lot of money for what we need to make a good decision, you might just have to withdraw your application and not go further. I think it's just something that you're going to really have to think about. MR. SENESE-Yes. I mean, if I had $100,000 invested into the house, 1 ike some of these things on the agenda, here, but I'm, so far, I've got $900 into the deck, plus, like I say, a couple hundred dollars just in paperwork. MR. CARR-And we aren't even into the merits of the deck, yet, and it's encroachment on the lake. mean, you know, we're just trying to figure out where it is and what it is. MR. SENESE-I know. I understand your predicament. Again, it really isn't, some of these people have been there to look at it. It really isn't that big of a deal, as some of these neighbors attest to on that petition. If it's going to cost me twice as much as it is to take that thing and have it surveyed and so on and so forth, then it is to finish the thing up. MR. TURNER-It might very well. MR. CARR-Yes, and then there's no guarantee that it will be approved. 24 '---' MR. SENESE-Then should I fill in the holes, at least, I mean, I've got boards covering, where the footings are supposed to be? I don't know. MR. CARR-I guess all we're advising is that, whether the neighbors approve it or not, there's a stated policy for Critical Environmental Areas and encroaching further onto lakes and if you followed anything this Board has done, there's been a lot of debate about moving anything closer to the lake. MR. SENESE-Yes. I understand that. All I can say in my defense is, and it doesn't make it right, there's properties that go right to the lake over there. MR. CARR-Right, but probably not since 1985, have they gone any closer. MR. SENESE-Well, all right. Like I say, if I could pull back two months ago, I would have let the thing stay the way it was, rotted boards or not, erosion or not. I would have had the same situation I've got now, except I've already spent $900 in material and labor. MR. CARR-Well, all I can say to help you, you know, you can't get your money back, but I guess it's not, is there a problem with planking on the ground? MR. SENESE-Well, there's no concrete in those holes, now. MRS. CRAYFORD-He can put some boards on the ground. for all I care. You can lay boards on the ground if you want to. MR. CARR-I mean, can he replace what he had? Not even replace, because, I mean, do we have any control over that? MRS. CRAYFORD-I mean, anybody can put boards down on the ground. You just can't put footings. MR. SENESE-Really, you were there, Mrs. Goetz. You see that that little thing really, again, I don't want to put you people on the spot. MR. TURNER-No. What we're saying to you, if you want to spend $5. $600, if that's what it comes to, to do what you want to do now, to just get to where you maybe can address the issue in front of us, or do you want to withdraw your application and take out what you've got and go back to what you had? That's where you are. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, if he already has a map, it wouldn't be that costly. Go back. Find your map. See what you've got. MR. SENESE-Let me try that, then. It's been like that for the last six weeks. MRS. EGGLESTON-And then come back. MR. SENESE-When would I come back, then? MRS. YORK-Well. this Board, if you want to table it, why don't you table it for 30 days. MR. SENESE-By that time, I will certainly make a decision. MR. TURNER-You'll make a decision by that time. MRS. YORK-Are you going to leave the public hearing open on this? MR. TURNER-Yes, I am. MRS. YORK-Okay. MRS. GOETZ-Do you want a survey map showing the correct dimensions? MRS. EGGLESTON-Everything we can get. MR. CARR-I want a correct. to scale. MRS. EGGLESTON-Just like she said, with an engineer or a surveyor. MR. KELLEY-What about a copy of the deed? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. SENESE-All right. I'll bring in all my paperwork. 25 --- MR. TURNER-Bring it to Lee. She knows what you've got to have, and if it doesn't satisfy her, then you'll have to go from there, okay? MR. SENESE-All right. AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-1991 TYPE II lIR-lA JOAN S. STONE œNER: SAlE AS ABOVE WEST SIDE OF ASSEMBLY POINT, PROPERTY LIES IIIEDIATELY NORTH OF INTERSECTION OF LAKE PARICIIAY AND FOREST DRIVE. TO DEIIILISH AN OLD EXISTING RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW YEAR ROOND RESIDENCE. AREA VARIANCE IS REQUIRED TO Al.LOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE PLACED 50 FT. FROJI THE LAIŒFRONT IN LIBJ OF THE REQUIRED 75 FT. (WARREN coom PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 8-1-4 LOT SIZE: 100 FT. BY 157 FT. SECTION 7.012 (179-60) MRS. GOETZ-We have a letter regarding Area Variance No. 58-1991, Joan S. Stone, and it's from Robert Stewart. the attorney representing them, "This law firm represents Mr. and Mrs. Stone who's Area Variance concerning their property on Assembly Point is on the ZBA agenda for this evening. We have just been advised by Dr. James Hogan, the neighbor immediately to the north, that he has just received notice at his home on Ohio, and while he states that he expects to be 100 percent in support of the application, he has firmly requested that we adjourn it to the next board meeting so that he will have an opportunity to review the plans. My clients hate to adjourn this matter on such short notice, but I feel that maintaining the goodwill of the neighbor is critical, and I therefore formally request that this matter be tabled until the meeting on August 21st, 1991. I have advised Chairman Turner of this situation and he indicated his consent under these circumstances." MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-1991 JOAN S. STONE, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jeffrey Kelley: So that the neighbor to the north, Dr. James Hogan, has ample time to review the plan as proposed, and the applicant will pay to have this re-advertised. Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. TURNER-And the applicant will pay for the re-advertising. That's the tabling procedure. MRS. GOETZ-Could I just ask a question? Pat, remember last month when we had the Dr. Kana, well, it was actually the McNairy application, and then I had that question about what do we do with the site plan agreement isn't kept totally? MRS. CRAYFORD-I haven't had time to put a memo together or anything about it, I'm sorry to say. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. I just don't want to forget it. MRS. CRAYFORD-I have a meeting with this gentleman over here next week and we'll be discussing it. MRS. GOETZ-Okay. Thanks. MR. TURNER-Anything else? Okay. Mr. Dusek, wants to address the Board. MR. DUSEK-Mr. Chairman, yes, I would ask if the Board would consider going into Executive Session to discuss a matter of litigation involving Parillo. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are we doing the minutes after, Sue? MRS. GOETZ-We've got to do the minutes, too. MRS. YORK-Do you want to do the minutes, now? MR. TURNER-Yes. We'll hold off on the Executive Session for a minute. We'll do the minutes first, and then we'll get the Executive Session. CORRECTION OF MINUTES June 19, 1991: Page 4, middle of the page, just above where it says, Motion to Accept the Long Form SEQRA, the last sentence at the bottom, it says, then we'll get into the actual application, not actuary MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED OF THE JUNE 19TH, 1991, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: 26 --- --- Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea June 26, 1991: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 26TH, 1991, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Carr ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. CARR-Executive Session? MR. TURNER-Executive Session. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS A MTTER OF LITIGATION INVOLVING PARILLO, Introduced by Susan Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MOTION TO COlE OOT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr: Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. DUSEK-Okay. You are now back in regular session and this Board can conduct any other business that it feels fit to come before the Board. MOTION TO REHEAR THE PARILLO APPEAL OF DAVE HATIN'S DETERMINATION REGARDING THE MRINA IN DUNHAM'S BAY AND THE BOAT LAUNCH SITE, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: Duly adopted this 24th day of July. 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. CARR-Now, do we, on the record, have to vote for you not to prosecute this case any further? MR. DUSEK-l would like something, just so that I am covered. MOTION THAT WE DETERMINED THAT THE TOlIN ATTORNEY SHOOLD NOT PURSUE AN APPEAL OF TIE APPELLATE DIVISION DECISION IN THE MTTER OF BlAfICIE IRELAND, ETAL. VERSUS TIE l1IIt ~EENSIIIRY lOllING BOARD OR APPEALS, ETAL., Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: 27 ~c ___,/ Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. DUSEK-When do you want it heard? MR. CARR-Should we have it heard in a Special Session? MR. TURNER-We better have just one meeting for that, because if we don't. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. SICARD-We have to remember one thing, he's leaving, and he won't be here after next month. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Jeff? When is your last, you'll be here in August, or will you be here in September? MR. KELLEY-August. MR. CARR-When can it be advertised. Paul? MR. DUSEK-Well, we could get it out to the paper within two to three days, I would suspect. Is there a 500 foot notification? MR. TURNER-Yes. five days. MR. DUSEK-So you we may need a little longer than that. Weill need five days to get it noticed. Lets see, what do we have, now? We're at Wednesday, aren't we? They may not have it out until next week sometime. altogether. MR. CARR-Well, and then, how long a notice period? MR. DUSEK-Do you recall, Karla, how long are the notice periods, five or ten days? MS. CORPUS-I don't recall. MR. DUSEK-Is it five, Ted? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-Well, if we have two meetings, do you want to do it, like, the Thursday afterwards? MR. TURNER-Five days notice in the newspaper and five days notice to the residence within 500 feet. MS. CORPUS-Right, residence within 500 feet. Now, would the Board vote to do this before notifying Mr. Parillo? I guess they could. MR. CARR-He says he's got new evidence. MR. DUSEK-We'll mail him a copy of the notice. Obviously, John Richards is going to be calling me tomorrow anyway. MR. TURNER-Right. You'll know the decision anyway. MR. DUSEK-I'm sorry. I must have missed something. Did you get a date fixed? MR. TURNER-Not yet. MS. CORPUS-Just for the Board's information, the Planning Board's meeting on the 13th, as another meeting. So that day's taken up. MR. CARR-So then are we meeting on the 15th? MS. CORPUS-No. They're having a Special Meeting on the 13th. 28 ~ '-' MRS. EGGLESTON-If we couldn't get it on until September and we had new Board members, would they be able to act on it as well? MRS. GOETZ-If they chose to, but look at what problems we've had with the Planning Board. MR. CARR-How about Wednesday the 14th? That would be close, wouldn't it? MR. DUSEK-That would be cutting it aWfully close for notices and everything. MRS. EGGLESTON-It would be good if we could do it in August, because then that's giving a fair shake to all those summer people to get here. MR. CARR-Ri ght. MRS. EGGLESTON-I mean, you want, if we're going to do it, we might as well be as fair as we can. MR. CARR-What about Thursday the 22nd? That would be the night after our first meeting? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, that would be all right. MR. TURNER-Could we get it the 15th? MR. CARR-No. They said it would be too close. MR. TURNER-Too close? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-It's still July. It's only the 24th. MS. CORPUS-I think it could be noticed, Paul, for the 15th. This is only the 24th. MRS. EGGLESTON-Seven days left in July. MR. DUSEK-It would be tight. I suppose, working with the Planning Department, do you think they could do it? MS. CORPUS-I make no comment. MR. DUSEK-If that's what you want to shoot for, that's. MR. CARR-The 15th or the 22nd, I don't care. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Somewhere in there. MR. TURNER-I would suspect, you know, if you got it in motion tomorrow, it would be the 25th. Monday you could get it in the paper, and you could probably even here, maybe, the eighth. MRS. EGGLESTON-We've got to notify all the people, though. right, send notices to? MRS. GOETZ-Yes, but you want to give them adequate notice. MR. DUSEK-You want to give them as much as you can. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARR-How about the 15th? MRS. GOETZ-Go for the 15th. MR. DUSEK-Do you want to do that? MR. TURNER-Is the 15th all right with everybody? Okay. MR. CARR-Do you want to start at 7:30, 7:00? MRS. EGGLESTON-7:00, Karla? MS. CORPUS-I would have to check to make sure this room isn't being used, first of all. 29 ~ --- MRS. EGGLESTON-All right. We'll leave that to you, then. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's a Thursday. MS. CORPUS-Do you want to take a vote? MRS. GOETZ-On the meeting? MR. TURNER-Yes. MOTION TO HOLD A SPECIAL MEETING TO ENTERTAIN THE REHEARING OF THE PARILLO APPLICATION ON THE 15TH OF AUGUST 1991 AT 7 P...., Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea MOTION TO AMEND THE PREVIOOS MOTION WHICH SAID WE DO NOT WISH TO APPEAL AND SAY THAT THE tlITION NOW IS THAT THIS BOARD IS DELEGATING TO PAUL DUSEK THE AUTHORITY TO LOOK INTO l1E APPEAL PROCESS AND IF IN HIS JUDGEMENT IT IS NOT TOO TIME CONSUMING NOR COSTLY TO THE TOWN TO REALLY PRESERVE THE APPEAL, THEN HE DO SO, Introduced by Bruce C~rr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kelley, Mr. Carr, Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Shea On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 30