Loading...
1991-11-13 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL JEETING NOVEllJER 13TH, 1991 INDEX Use Variance No. 1297 James C. Fish 1. Area Variance No. 81-1991 Area Variance No. 81-1991 2. 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. ,,, ,--. --- ~EENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL JEETING NOVEMBER 13TH, 1991 7:35 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN SUSAN GOETZ, SECRETARY JOYCE EGGLESTON MICHAEL SHEA CHARLES SICARD BRUCE CARR SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: (7:35 p.m.) USE VARIANCE NO. 1297 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA JAMES C. FISH OIltER OF LOTS 13 AND 16: JAMES C. FISH OIltER OF LOT 15: DAVID AND JAYNE HARVEY SECOND STREET. OFF MAIN STREET FOR tÐDIFICATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE VARIANCE NO. 1297: JAMES C. FISH: TO OPERATE AN OFFICE AND SHOP FOR GLASS BUSINESS. TAX MAP NO. 134-6-13, 15, 16 LOT SIZE FOR LOT 13: ::1:172 FT. BY 100 FT. LOT SIZE FOR LOT 15: 97 FT. BY 142 FT. LOT SIZE FOR LOT 16: 82 FT. BY 131 FT. (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) DECEMBER 16, 1987: APPROVED WITH STIPULATIONS MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. GOETZ-Okay. This letter is from Little & O'Connor, Attorneys at Law, "In 1987, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved a use variance which allowed James Fish to move his business from Tax Map Parcel Number 134-6-11, on the west side of Second Street, to Tax Map Parcel No 134-6-13, 15, and 16. At that time, James C. Fish owned Parcels 13 and 16 and was a contract purchaser of parcel 15. That condition still remains the same. As part of the Board's approval, it required that James C. Fish file a declaration of restrictive covenants in the Warren County Clerk's Office saying that he would not subdivide parcels 13, 15, and 16, as long as he operates as business on parcels 13 and 16. Said declaration of restrictive covenants was filed in the Warren County Clerk's Office April 5th '88 in Book 704, I believe at Page 187. Tax Map Parcel No. 134-16-15 has never been incorporated into the operation of the business of James C. Fish. On that parcel is a single family residence with garage and same has been used even since the date of approval for residential purposes only. Now, because of economic conditions, it is necessary to mortgage the business property separate from the single family residence. The banking institution which is to take a mortgage on the business property will not approve of same due to the existence of the restrictive covenants above mentioned. The banking institution needs to be satisfied that if there were ever a foreclosure, they would be able to go forward and sell the business property as an independent parcel. Thus, it is requested that the Board modify its earlier approval and allow an amendment of the declaration of restrictive covenants to provide that only parcels 13 and 16 must remain unsubdivided during the period of operation of a business on any portion thereof. It is requested that parcel 15 be allowed to revert in full to residential use as presently zoned. This, in fact, is a lessening of the use variance, as was originally approved." STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Use Variance No. 1297, James C. Fish, 11-5-91, Meeting Date: November 13, 1991 "The request is to modify an existing ZBA conditional approval to allow the applicant to separate out the lot with an existing house on it, known as lot number 15. After reviewing the ZBA minutes it appears that the Board had a concern about the expansion of a nonconforming use. The lots which were proposed to be used for the commercial business were lots 15, 16, and 13. The Board did not want Mr. Fish to sell one of the lots as another commercial venture if a variance was granted on all three lots. The Board granted the variance with the stipulation that the property not be subdivided. (attached) The applicant is now requesting to have the condition removed so the business (lots 13 & 16) can be separated out for financial reasons. Parcel number 15 has an existing residence on it which has been used as such. The zoning on all the parcels is SR-1A. Adjacent to lots 15 and 16 is a CR-15 zone. From a long term point of view it would appear that lot number 15 will probably receive pressure to house a commercial use, simply because of its location. However, if the applicant wants to give up the commercial rights by variance on lot 15 and let the property revert to the zoning currently in force, staff does not view this as being a problem for the Town." MR. TURNER-Mr. O'Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor and with me tonight is James Fish and David Fish, who are the people that are interested in the application before the Board at this time. I think my letter pretty well states our position, 1 '----- .- our argument. We're trying to refinance the properties and because of the restrictive covenant, the bank wants us to get a modification of the variance that we had so that the business property would stand alone and not be combi ne wi th the res i dence that's next to it. We're not ta 1 ki ng about the increase of any density, increase of any use. If anything, we're talking about a lessening, as I pointed out in my letter. We're gi ving up some, perhaps, potenti al commerci a 1 ri ghts, and having the property revert, that we're talking about, being released from the restrictive covenant to solely residential use, which is the zoned use for that area. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any questions of Mr. O'Connor before he sits down? None? It's pretty simply I think. Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COIIENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. GOETZ-Ben Aronson of Double A Provisions called and states he has no objections. MR. TURNER-Okay. No further comment? Motion's in order. MRS. GOETZ-Is it still a use variance, or it's just changing the stipulations? MR. TURNER-No, no. It's just a modification. It's changing the stipulation in the previous variance. MR. SHEA-He was originally granted a use variance, correct? MR. TURNER-Right. He was granted the use variance. Now he wants to eliminate that one parcel and take it out. He wants to modify the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 1297 JAJES C. FISH, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael Shea: That the modification be removed from the previous motion and that parcel 13 and 16 will remain unsubdivided, and that parcel 15 be allowed to revert to the residential use as previously zoned, in that it's a less intense use. Duly adopted this 13th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will file an amended declaration of restrictive covenants that will contain that. MR. TURNER-All right. NEW IIISINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-1991 TYPE II SR-lA MICHAEL VASILOU, INC. mitER: SAtE AS ABOVE LOT 4. TINA LANE OFF WEST MOUNTAIN, ~ MILE NORTH OF CORINTH ROAD INTERSECTION FOR CONSTIIJCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 125-6-4 LOT SIZE: 34,000 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-70 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 81-1991, Michael Vasilou, Inc.. 11-5-91, Meeting Date: November 13, 1991 "The request is for an area variance to put a single family residence on an existing lot which does not have 40 feet of frontage on a Town road. The applicant owns lot number 4 off of Tina Lane. The subdivision map shows that one other lot was created with less than the required road frontage. It appears these lots were created in the 1970's and 1980's. This application was reviewed with regard to the area variance criteria. 1. Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. The lot was created with 25 feet of frontage on a town road. There is no way for additional property to be added to make this lot conforming. 2. Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty or is there any other option available which would require no variance? Yes, there are no other options. 3. Would this variance be detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood or conflict with the objectives of any plan or policy of the Town. No. The neighborhood is substantially developed. 2 '--. 4. What are the effects of the variance on pub 1 i c facil ities and servi ces? None 5. Is thi s request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? Yes." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. O'Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, again, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little and O'Connor. I'm here this evening representing Michael Vasilou, Inc., which is a building contractor which is the present owner of the property, and with me tonight, also, are Mr. and Mrs. Dingman, who are the contract purchasers of the property, and who are having a house built on this lot by Mr. Vasilou's firm. Basically, we've got a lot that fell through the cracks. This is a lot that was created when the two adjoining lots were sold off, the last being sold off in 1982. What we're proposing is not any different than what is in the neighborhood. A very substantial home is going to be built on there. We've got the plans here if you care to peruse those. I also have a plot plan which I think was attached to the application, which shows that we're going to meet all the present setback requirements. The only reason that we are here is because the frontage on the road is 25 feet instead of 40 feet. It's not something that we have any control over. I've got a very nice letter from Paul Dusek, the Town Attorney, in fact, it's a three page letter. I won't necessarily go through the whole letter with you, but basically what he says is that this is a very classic case for an area variance, because I wrote to him saying that I thought that the requirements of the Ordinance were unconstitutional to even make these people apply for an area variance in this particular instance. MR. CARR-Isn't it a matter of Town law, is th'at why it's here, because of 267, or something, of the Town law? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Two sixty seven says 20 feet frontage. So, you would comply with that, and probably in 1982 that's why they put 25 feet frontage. So, you still would comply with that. MR. CARR-So, why are you here? MR. O'CONNOR-Because there's a specific section in the Ordinance that says you have to have 40 feet. MR. TURNER-In the Ordinance it says you have to have 40 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-And the Zoning Administrator has said that that's different than the other dimensional requi rements of the Ordi nance, such as one acre. She says if we had 40 feet, even though we don't have one acre, we wouldn't need a variance. MR. CARR-And thi s is even though, I mean, I'm sure you've argued it, because thi s is a preexi sti ng lot of record. MR. O'CONNOR-A preexisting lot of record with no adjoining contiguous lands since 1982. They are reviewing their arguments back to me at this point. I think that they are going to probably suggest to the Town Board that there be some revision of our definitions, as we have them, because otherwise, I think this Board is going to be flooded with every lot that doesn't comply in any manner with the current rules and regulations. I've got another one now, on the corner of Oakwood and, right at the corner of Oakwood and Twi, cwood I think it is, right next to John Sennet's house. That lot does not comply with the one acre zone. He owns contiguous lands. There, we've got a written opinion that says you don't need a variance, but I don't want to have those people get into the same bind that these people got into, that they bought a lot in good faith. They tried to get their building permit going and get everything going before the frost is on the ground and whatnot, and all of a sudden find out they've got to go through a variance procedure. So, I do think, aside from this particular application, that the Town is probably going to look at that 179, there's two sections, 179-76 and 179-77, and maybe try and straighten some things out, because if you read those literally, as of October 1, 1991, there is no such thing as a nonconforming lot. Both of those had three year time frames on them, and we're past the time frame. So, then you go to everything else within the Ordinance, and if you don't have a particular section in the Ordinance that says that you have rights as a nonconforming lot, I think you've got some problems, and I don't think that's the intention. In fact, I was here in August of 1991 when this amendment was adopted, and suggested to the Town Board at that time that there was a problem and, orally, everybody said, no, that's not our intention. We're going to let lots that are nonconforming go forward, as long as the people meet all the setback requirements. without a variance, but now we're finding that that's not the interpretation or the determination, not interpretation. So, we are here. We have no real alternative. MR. CARR-Well, I mean, according to the argument of the Department, I mean, even if you have a house on a lot that only has 25 foot now, you, technically, should get a variance. That's ridiculous, isn't it? MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I'm waiting for somebody to tell Mr. Wiley that he has to go for a variance. You weren't here, I don't think, but everybody else was here when I spent the whole summer getting an area variance for a fellow who had four acres of land in one parcel and fifty three acres in the other land, and as of a couple of weeks ago, he was rebuilding the house on the four acre parcel. If I read this, and the same interpretation goes to that parcel as it goes to this parcel, he probably should have been told to get a variance, because he has no frontage on a road. 3 .-- -- MR. CARR-lhatis r1ght, but it's a preexisting lot of record. MR. O'CONNOR-With a variance. MR. TURNER-With a variance. He's got a variance for that. MR. O'CONNOR-So, basically, I think, if you look at the standards for area variance, okay, and really that's in the manner in which I would present it to you, without prolonging it, we have no alternatives. We are not detrimental in the manner in which we are doing it. We're building a very nice house there. It should be a benefit to that neighborhood. We'd be glad to share the plans with the Board or anybody else who has an interest in it. I don't know what else we can say to you. MR. TURNER-This was never a subdivision, was it? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. It's an approved subdivision. MR. TURNER-I asked that the other day, and they said no. MRS. EGGLESTON-It says it's an approved subdivision. MR. TURNER-Didn't Mike Brandt divide those lots up, at one time? Wasn't he the owner? MR. O'CONNOR-It says it was lot number four as shown on amended map of a proposed subdivision of lands from Micel and Mary Brandt, dated December 3rd, 1979, said map having been filed in the Warren County Clerk's Office December 21st, 1979. MR. TURNER-Okay, because I asked that question, and the answer to me was, no, it wasn't a subdivision. MR. O'CONNOR-So, it's an approved, it's a lot in an approved subdivision since the time of our zoning, in effect, and, see, even if you look at 179-76, the caption of that seems to give you an exemption for lots in an approved subdivision, but then they don't ever mention approved subdivision down below. Paul Dusek and I have spent maybe an hour or better going back and forth. He wants me to suggest some, because, if you read those two sections, everybody in Town is going to be here for a variance if they don't comply with any dimensional requirement, and I think maybe Mr. Dingman can answer this. There's houses on both sides of those lots right? MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-The two lots on both sides are already developed, owned by. MR. TURNER-This is the last lot in there, isn't that right, Mr. Dingman, yours is? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. SHEA-Mike, what's the square footage of the proposed hous~? MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Dingman. MR. DINGMAN MR. DINGMAN-The existing houses in there, anywhere from, I would say, from 900 to 1400. MR. TURNER-All right. MR. o 'CONNOR-I can show you the floor plan. I'm looking for a quick calculation. Mr. Dingman is an electrical contractor and is actually doing some of the work. He does contracting for Michael Vasilou, so he is probably more familiar with it than I am. I'm sure he is. He also designed the house. MR. TURNER-Does anybody want to see this? It's not a very big house. Do we have any further questions of Mr. O'Connor? Any further comment? None? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARK WELLINGTON MR. WELLINGTON-Good evening. My name's Mark Wellington. I am going to be their future neighbors. I live at 5 Tina Lane, and I guess you could say I'm in support of them, because I have no objections with them building their house there. I really don't think the style of the house or the size of the house is the problem here. Has anybody been down Tina Lane? 4 -... ~ MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. WELLINGTON-So, you've seen it and you see the problem that's going to be created there. When you stated about substantially developed road, I don't think it's anywhere near developed. Two years ago when we asked to have the road paved and completely developed, whether it be with curbs or whatever the case may be, they used left over paving when they took care of Bedford Close, that elite place that's behind us, there. They used leftover and they ended up only doing half our road, and they did a very poor job, and I'm sure that once the thing, I've never met them, by the way. I've never had a chance to meet them, but if you've ever been there in the winter time, you'll see that, right now it's like a very bad circle, cul-de-sac. Now, I'm to understand that it was supposed to be a T of some kind. I purchased the lot in '86. We built our house in '86, and we live on the right side as you come down the street, and most of the plows that plow the street plow everything to the right, and so it's been fairly convenient, for now, because it's been an empty lot. They've got to push everything right in there, and we are talking directly right in their driveway. So, once they develop it and they do have a driveway there, not only are we going to have a problem, they're going to have a problem also, but, like I said before, I have no qualms with them building, and if it does get developed in that, the way they've been doing it now. I usually, once a year when it snows very bad, I get a bi g pi 1 e of snow in front of my house and then they come with the front end loader and they move it down the road, but the question that I have, if they're going to be, I don't really understand all the legalities of everything here, but if it's not going to be okay for them to have that 25 foot road frontage, you know, if they have to have the 40, where are you going to get the other 15 feet from? MR. TURNER-That's the problem. They can't get the other 15 feet. That's the reason why they're here. MR. WELLINGTON-Okay. That's what I'm concerned about, because if you take from one side, you're going to mess up their driveway. If you take from the other side, you're going to mess up our driveway also. Do you see what I'm saying? MR. CARR-Yes. They couldn't take anybody else's property. MR. TURNER-They couldn't take it, no. MR. WELLINGTON-Now, as far as the property itself, what it is, that 25 foot frontage, that's that little bottleneck, there. That's the little sore spot right there. The actual property itself opens up and is very big. So, it's just that little part right there, but other than that I don't have any objections to it. MR. SICARD-You said that you had the snow removed. Who removed the snow with the payloader? Did you pay for it or did the Town come in? MR. WELLINGTON-No, the Town, but we had to request it because what they were doing, it's kind of funny, too, because I used to run out there about 11: 30 at ni ght when the guy woul d come down the road and be plowing my driveway in. We finally convinced him that bringing in that big truck wasn't going to work. They had to come back with the little dump truck with the small plow, because what they were doing was they were just, they were plowing everybody in, and it got to, as a matter of fact, I had my mailbox on my yard and being that it's on the right side with the plow coming down the right side, he would consistently plow my mailbox in and I wasn't getting any mail. So, I went down to the post office and the post master told me that I had to dig that out, and I said, have you ever dug out snow that's been plowed before? It's hard as rock. Well, that's not our problem. So, I solved it by moving my mailbox to the other side of the street to my neighbor's property. I'm almost positive that everybody on the street has no problem with them moving there. It's just a question of the 25 foot in there somewhere, but the other lot that was next to it, you know, since you've been there, the Baileys that would live almost in the same, opposite of them, I'm almost sure they have the same problem with the frontage, because they're kind of squeezed in there. You heard me chuckle, earlier, about the subdivision problem, well, when we first looked at the property, I thought it was kind of unique that it got passed through at the time, because I thought it was very poorly subdivided. Whoever subdivided it wasn't thinking properly at the time, because you have all this property, and then all of a sudden it's like they just stuck those two little bottlenecks in there. As a matter of fact, the Baileys property is very terrible and the DeChicks that live directly down at the end of the road is almost, like, pie shaped. I could not get the gist of the people that subdivided it up, but I don't want to name names or anything. MR. SHEA-Who subdivided it? MR. TURNER-Micel Brandt. MR. WELLINGTON-At a very convenient time, too, I believe, 1979, in that area somewhere, where he had a little power at the time, which he has now. So, I don't want to cross anybody, but, like I said before, I have no qualms. I've never met them or anything like that. My wife had talked to Lee York earlier in the day and asked them, asked about the same problems, about the road frontage and everything, and apparently there were a few people from Bedford Close that had raised complaints about these people building and I don't know if you are aware of it or not. 5 --. --" MR. TURNER-They're not here. So, we're not aware of it. MR. WELLINGTON-But, just for the record, those are the type of people that call up on the phone but don't have the nerve to come down here and say anything, and those are the kind of neighbors we are dealing with. As a matter of fact, I've never met those people. So, their comments aren't even worth putting on paper, but I'm glad that you were down there and you have seen it, because looking at it on paper and the plots and everything really doesn't do it justice. You have to actually go down there, and being that Mr. Brandt recently, our new supervisor lives close to that area, I'm going to try and push him to get our road developed because they've been doing that, it's been like that for a very long time, and I don't know if you've noticed. You drove down there. You drove down almost a dirt road, an old road, and then all of a sudden it turned into paved road. So, they appeased us a few years ago by giving us the leftover junk from Bedford Close and I wish they would do something, for these people's sake if not ours, too, develop it some way. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. MRS. YORK-Maybe, Mr. O'Connor, you could answer this question. I had someone research those lots through the Assessment records and it looked to me, when the lots were developed and sold, that it might have been done as a minor subdivision and then another minor subdivision which did not get any Planning Board review at the time. MR. O'CONNOR-The abstract wouldn't tell me that, and that's the only thing I've seen which said that this was created in '79. The lots on each side of it were sold by 1982, prior to the 1982 Ordinance. So, they would have been made nonconforming by the 1982 Ordinance, which is the first time when you talk about a specific amount of frontage on a road, other than what was in the Town law, and then they were made more nonconforming by increasing it in the 1988 Ordinance. The only thing I can give you is the subdivision map, which we can get. MRS. YORK-No. I just wondered about that. MR. O'CONNOR-I think what the last speaker has indicated is that there just is no more land available. You've got a lot that should be able to be built on. The T intersection may not be the modern way of developing. I think they've gone to radius type cul-de-sacs, and they've increased, even, the radius of the cul-de-sacs in the time that I've been making applications and whatnot, but there are a number of T intersections in the Town that, for one reason or another, were approved, and they are working, and I think they all have pretty much the same configuration as this. So, something can be worked out. Maybe with more development in there, the Highway Department will feel more inclined to finish the paving and take better care of it. They generally use the number of houses as some type of guideline, as to how much attention they pay to something. MRS. YORK-Well, in defense of the Highway Department, after Mrs. Wellington called today, I did give a call over to find out what was going on there, and what was expressed to me was that they tried to pave up where the houses are, in that T, as little as possible. They didn't take their entire right-of- way because they didn't want to take a lot of your lawns. Now, that's just what Mr. Naylor's office expressed to.me. MR. O'CONNOR-I also was in the family room of the house directly behind this lot last night, about 9, 10 o'clock, and the people have no objection to what we're proposing. They understand the type of house that's going in there. They know that somebody's going to build on it someday. They don't look upon that as a problem, but I have no reservation in saying that to you. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. WELLINGTON-I'd just like to add that I believe I speak on behalf of everybody on the street, that if it is does become developed fully, I believe a cul-de-sac would be the best for it, rather than the T. If I'm not mistaken, that's how it is, originally, on the map, as a T. MR. TURNER-T, right. MR. WELLINGTON-Right, and I believe a circle would be better for everybody involved, rather than the T, because I believe, you know, if you look at it, you go down the street and you look, if you put the T in, you would be taking away from a little bit of everybody on the property, rather than have the circle in there. I believe it would be more beneficial to the area, the circle. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. Any further comment from anyone? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. GOETZ-There was a phone call from Mrs. Robert Jones of West Mountain Road. They're objecting to the proposal. There are too many houses there already. 6 .- MR. TURNER-Okay. Any comment from the Board? Anyone? No comment? Okay. Motion's in order. tÐTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-1991 MICHAEL YASILOO. INC., Introduced by Mi chae 1 Shea who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Due to the unique nature of the shape of the lot and the fact that the property has less than the required road frontage, that being 25 feet, as opposed to the required 40 feet. Therefore, a relief of 15 feet needs to be granted, and that this lot is similar to other lots in the neighborhood. The variance would not be detrimental to the Ordinance and is the minimum relief necessary, and that there is no other available property to add to this to make up the additional 15 feet required. Duly adopted this 13th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea, Mrs. Goetz, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-On behalf of the applicant, I thank you very much, and I thank you and Staff for convening a special meeting particularly for these two people because they both had problems that were time pressing and I heartily thank you for doing that. I would ask the Board to maybe look at that section, both of those sections, because unless you want to be deluged wi th people who want to wea r a be 1 t and suspenders for an application for every nonconforming lot, I think the Town Board should be changing that, because as I read that section right now, there is no such thing as a legitimate nonconforming lot that is entitled to a building permit without a variance if you don't comply with all of the dimensional requirements, and I don't think that's the intention. It wasn't the intention in August, and it's not, people have told me it's not the intention, they've expressed that to me. MRS. YORK-Maybe, Mike, instead of having the Vasilous come for a variance, you should have them come for an interpretation and then you could get some clarification from this Board on that. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I would bow to others on that, okay. My reading of that, you can't interpret it the way I want you to interpret it. Both of those clauses say that they are out of effect as of three years from such and such, 1988, and if they're out of effect, you can't interpret it to say that it, read it what you want to read. So, we need a nonconformity exception, and, like in the City of Glens Falls, they're doing one now that you can have a nonconformity exception if you comply with all setback requirements or can comply with all setback requirements. So, in effect, that you're not a burden upon somebody else or upon some negative impact. You can't technically comply either with the acreage, with the lot width, average lot width, lot road frontage, lot depth, whatever the gross figure is, but you otherwise, within the lot, your improvements comply, they tell you you can go ahead and do it, and in the City of Glens Falls they also say, if you don't own any other contiguous lands that could be joined. You get those two type of safety valves on there, one that you can comply with the setbacks. Two, that you don't own any other contiguous lands so you, in effect, are creating your own hardship. You've got a pretty good, workable type thing that the Building Department can review and give permits, as opposed to making somebody come through this process for a variance. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. MRS. GOETZ-This is a problem that Dave Hatin mentioned to me. Did you get a chance to talk to him? It's just, like, Dave Hatin said that they have a problem. If a situation comes up in the office where they really need to know how the Zoning Board interprets whatever, Paul Dusek has said that it can't come to the Zoning Board unless the applicant asks to have it come, and it's causing a lot of trouble for them, and it sounds impractical. MR. SHEA-They want to know how we feel before they come? MRS. GOETZ-Well, no, not the applicant. MR. CARR-What are you talking about? It can't come to the Zoning Board without the applicant? What are you talking about? MRS. GOETZ-Maybe you can explain it better. MRS. YORK-Okay. (8: 15 p.m.) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 7