Loading...
1992-01-22 '-- ~EENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR ŒETING JAJlJARY 22110, 1992 INDEX Use Variance No. 1-1992 Tyler Converse 1. Area Variance No. 3-1992 Guido Passarelli 10. Area Variance No. 4-1992 Jean Ann Dennis 23. 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. o ~ - QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR ŒETING JANUARY 22ND, 1992 7:34 P.... MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN JOYCE EGGLESTON, SECRETARY BRUCE CARR MICHAEL SHEA CHARLES SICARD ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT CRAYFORD TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: USE VARIMCE NO. 1-1992 TYPE II SR-lA TYLER CONVERSE mitER: SAME AS ABOVE WZERNE ROAD TO BURCH ROAD EXPMSION OF CONSTRUCTIOrt COMPMY. TAX MAP NO. 121-6-14 LOT SIZE: 100 FT. BY 180 FT. SECTIOrt 179-79 (D) TYLER CONVERSE, PRESENT (7:34 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Use Variance No. 1-1992, Tyler Converse, 1-21-92, Meeting Date: January 22, 1992 "The applicant has a multiuse facility which has been in existence in a residential neighborhood for some time. The property is located off a private road. The EAF indicates the applicant is requesting an area variance although a use variance has been applied for. According to assessment records the property was transferred in 1986 from Warren County then to Tyler Converse. Records show that the garage was identified for assessment purposes in 1990 and went on the tax roles in 1991. This application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for a use variance. 1) Is a reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned? The property is in a residential neighborhood with residences all around it. Anything constructed on the property would require variances since there is no frontage on a Town road. It would be difficult for the applicant to prove that there would be no reasonable return under any of the permitted uses. 2) Are the circumstances of this lot unique and not due to the unreasonableness of the Ordinance? The property is landlocked. The applicant uses the garage for storage of personal vehicles and commercial vehicles. The Board may want to determine when the structure was built, if it was originally an accessory structure or for commercial vehicles, and if the zoning ever allowed this type of facility. The history of the lot and structure may shed some light on whether circumstances are unique. 3) Is there an adverse effect on the neighborhood character? The garage appears to have been in existence for sometime. The Planning Staff noticed it over 18 months ago during a site visit to that area. It appeared to be a preexisting use. If that is the case there would be no change in the neighborhood character. If the structure was recently constructed the Board should discuss amount of traffic and what types which are impacting the neighborhood." MR. TURNER-It was built in 1986. Is that correct? MR. CONVERSE-Right. MR. TURNER-With no permit. Is that correct? MR. CONVERSE-Right. MR. TURNER-You store your personal vehicles in your? MR. CONVERSE-Right. MR. TURNER-And your big truck and your front end loader and backhoe is outside. MR. CONVERSE-No. I don't have that stuff. That's my father's stuff. MR. TURNER-That's your father's? MR. CONVERSE-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's in the garage, though, right? 1 MR. CONVERSE-What is? MRS. EGGLESTON-When I inspected it, there was a backhoe in the side part. MR. CONVERSE-There's a loader sitting there, just so it's out of the snow. That's all. MR. TURNER-That's his father's. MR. CONVERSE-That's my father's. MR. TURNER-The truck is his. MRS. EGGLESTON-Just the truck? MR. CONVERSE-Right. MR. TURNER-You've got another dump truck, right? MR. CONVERSE-Right. MR. TURNER-You store that in the garage? MR. CONVERSE-Inside, yes. MR. TURNER-Yes, along with your personal vehicles. MR. CONVERSE-Right. MR. TURNER-How many personal vehicles? MR. CONVERSE-Two. MR. TURNER-One pickup, one car? MR. CONVERSE-Two pickups. MR. TURNER-Two pickups. The dump truck is what, weight wise? What have you got the dump truck registered for, weight wise? MR. CONVERSE-116,000. MR. TURNER-16,000 pounds? MR. CONVERSE-jlI6,000. MR. TURNER-Not your big truck, the other small dump. MR. CONVERSE-That's only 16. MR. TURNER-It's under the 18. MR. CONVERSE-Yes, 18. MR. TURNER-Your house is, where, in relation to the garage? MR. CONVERSE-To the right, north. MR. TURNER-To the right. That's the one over here? MR. CONVERSE-Yes. MR. TURNER-And then there's a house right over here. Whose is this one? MR. CONVERSE-That's my father's. MR. TURNER-That's your father's. Are you advertised as a contractor? MR. CONVERSE-No. MR. TURNER-Are you listed in the phone book as a contractor? MR. CONVERSE-Yes. 2 ',-- MRS. EGGLESTON-Is that not advertising? MR. CONVERSE-Well, I guess it is advertising, then, yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-What is your profession? MR. CONVERSE-I haul material for people, like O'Connors, Kubrickys, Green Island. MR. TURNER-Would it be fair to say that your biggest share of the work that you do is with the big truck, and you'll drive it for hire, right? MR. CONVERSE-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-What kind of materials? MR. CONVERSE-Dirt, rocks, blacktop. MR. TURNER-Crushed stone. Okay. Does anyone else have any questions? MR. SHEA-How often do those trucks go in and out, every day? MR. CONVERSE-I leave in the morning. I come home at night. The same way you would go to work in the morning and come home at night. MR. SHEA-And the garage itself was built in 1986. What about the lean-to on the side of the garage? MR. CONVERSE-Just shortly after. MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't know as we established when the garage was built. MR. TURNER-Yes, '86. MR. SHEA-'86. MRS. EGGLESTON-But do you confirm that, 1986? MR. TURNER-Yes. Basically, what he does is he parks his vehicles there. It's a parking garage, in a sense, and he does some maintenance work on his vehicles inside of the garage. Is that correct? MR. CONVERSE-Right. MR. CARR-Any complaints from the neighbors? MR. CONVERSE-No, not that I know of. MR. TURNER-We've got one letter, anyway. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I noticed, as you look at the garage, to the left along the, it was like a line of trees between your property and, it's a new house, there was a lot of debris along there. MR. CONVERSE-Debris as in? MRS. EGGLESTON-Maybe a snowplow, and things like that, like heavy equipment, but not a tractor or anything like that. MR. CONVERSE-Yes. The snowplow goes to the truck that's parked underneath there. It's just easier leaving it out there where it's at, then it is underneath where it's at, because it doesn't all fit underneath there, you know. That's the only thing that's there is a snowplow and a trailer, a little equipment trailer, but I don't have any equipment, but I got the trailer at the right price, so I bought it, you know. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is it your contention this is a personal garage? MR. CONVERSE-Yes. That's all I have is my personal stuff in there. I mean, I don't work on equipment, or, you know, I don't do anything commercially. MRS. EGGLESTON-But I don't think I've ever seen a personal garage with doors that high on it. MR. CONVERSE-Well, it would be kind of hard to get the vehicle inside if you didn't have doors that big. 3 MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, not personal vehicles, would have no difficulty getting in a normal sized door. MR. CARR-I guess the question is, you don't take your family for a ride in your truck on a Sunday afternoon? MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. MR. CONVERSE-Well, I have, yes. MR. CARR-Just, without drawing a load anywhere? MR. CONVERSE-Well, sometimes, yes, if we want to go somewhere. If I've got to pick something up, yes, then they go with me. MR. CARR-Well, no, without drawing a load, I mean. MR. CONVERSE-No. MR. CARR-Why didn't you get a building permit? MR. CONVERSE-That goes back a long story. Everyone probably knows. MRS. EGGLESTON-Tell us. MR. CARR-Yes, because I don't. MRS. EGGLESTON-We don't know. MR. TURNER-A lot of us don't know. A lot of them don't know. MR. CONVERSE-Well, back when my father first bought the property, Warren Lane, the whole, that was all one deal, when he bought the whole thing. MR. TURNER-How much did he buy, Tyler? MR. CONVERSE-How much did he buy? MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. CONVERSE-I think there's, like, 16 acres or something there, and there was, probably, what, 15, 16 families down on that road that never had permits or never had any right-of-ways or anything to be down there, and so when the Town, you know, you people. MR. TURNER-They were trailers, right? MR. CONVERSE-Trailers, yes, and whatever else you want to call them, yes, but they were all down in there, and that was part of the, when my father bought the property, and they gave, like, a blanket permit for all those people to be down there, and that was part of the property, that blanket permit considered all that as part of the property. MR. SHEA-Who's "they" gave them? MR. CONVERSE-The Town Board. MR. CARR-Gave the people who owned the trailers permission to be there. MR. CONVERSE-All the people down through there to be there. MR. TURNER-To be there, yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's on Warren Lane, you're speaking of, though. MR. CONVERSE-That's right. MRS. EGGLESTON-You're on April Lane, which is a separate. MR. CONVERSE-That was all one lot. When dad bought it, it was all one lot. MR. CARR-It was his property, is that what you're saying? MR. CONVERSE-Yes. Warren Lane was my father's road. That was all considered one whole section, except for all those people. MR. CARR-Okay. It was not a Town road, then. 4 ----" MR. CONVERSE-Right. At the time, it was a private road. MR. CARR-It was a private road. MR. CONVERSE-But that the Town, seeing as how my father owned that land, the Town said that he was responsible for the maintenance of that road, but he didn't want the road, but the Town didn't want the road either. So, if he didn't want the road, the Town didn't want the road, well how did all those people get down in there and get power, water, and everything else down there? MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, did he sell the lots to all those people? MR. CONVERSE-No. The original owner sold the lots to the people. MRS. EGGLESTON-And to your father? MR. CONVERSE-Right, and the same, all those people were down there without permits either. MRS. EGGLESTON-How long ago was that? That was a considerable time ago, though, I believe. MR. CONVERSE-Like 20 years, maybe 15 years ago. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, and your garage was built in '86. MR. CONVERSE-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, that's kind of a different picture. MR. CONVERSE-Well, no because it was all blanket permit. It was all one section of property and they gave a blanket permit for all those people down through there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Forever? To build what you want? MR. CONVERSE-No. It was just a blanket permit. MR. TURNER-Just to be there. MR. CONVERSE-Just to be there. MR. CARR-Okay, but that still doesn't answer the question. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's 20 years ago. MR. CONVERSE-Well, I built it. That's all I can say. MR. CARR-Well, do you think that, I mean, did you know you had to have a building permit? MR. CONVERSE-Well, we felt, if it was a blanket permit, it was a blanket, you know, it went for everything. MR. CARR-It was a blanket permit to have a mobile home, probably, in a zone that, I mean, I'm not sure what this blanket permit did? MR. CONVERSE-Well, it allowed those people to stay there, because if those people didn't have a permit there, they should have been all towed out of there. MR. CARR-Stay there in a mobile home? MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. CARR-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-There are some houses on the street. They're not entirely mobile homes. MR. CONVERSE-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-Although that is a Mobile Home zone. MR. CARR-Well, no, but I'm just trying to establish what this blanket permit was. It wasn't a blank blanket permit to do anything you wanted. MR. CONVERSE-Because, well, my father, it's a long, I mean, it's a long story. I mean, when my father got the land, if he didn't want, the Town, they should have all been towed out of there then. I mean, it was on Channel 6. 5 '-"" MR. CARR-Okay. So, your father was mad at the Town. Is that what we're gathering? MR. CONVERSE-No. He wasn't mad at the Town. No. It's just something that. I just built it. It's there. MR. TURNER-At the time the trailers went in there, they had to go in there under a hardship, and they had to get the hardship permission from the Town Board. The Town Board had jurisdiction at the time. MR. CONVERSE-Yes, Teddy was, he knows the whole story. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. TURNER-That's what happened. They went there, and they were there without it. MR. CARR-Okay. I mean, I guess what I'm trying to establish is, is your attitude that, tomorrow you're going to build whatever you want, also, and it's there and it's there? MR. CONVERSE-No. I mean, it's not the case. I mean, that stuff is there now. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, is this your father's property or your property, today? MR. CONVERSE-The lot where that is is mine. MRS. EGGLESTON-When was that deeded to you? MR. CONVERSE-Whenever, you just read it in the letter, there. MRS. EGGLESTON-'86. MR. TURNER- '86. MRS. EGGLESTON-The same year you put the garage on it. MR. CONVERSE-I think so, yes. I think it was before that I bought it, though. I don't know. You read the date off. MR. TURNER-1986, is when it's deeded to you. MR. CONVERSE-Okay. MR. TURNER-That's what it says in the Staff Notes. This is a separate lot from your house? MR. CONVERSE-Yes. MR. TURNER-This is a separate deeded lot of record? Your house is a separate deeded lot of record? MR. CONVERSE-My lot is on my father's land. MR. TURNER-Okay, but it's not deeded to you? MR. CONVERSE-It's not deeded to me. No. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARR-Have you ever been before this Board before, for a similar situation such as this? MR. CONVERSE-No. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. SHEA-And he's here because Dave Hatin brought it to our attention. Is that how? MR. TURNER-No. Here's what happened. He built it in '86. It's never been on the tax roll until this year. They picked it up in 1990, all right. It was built in '86. It's never been taxed. It was a garage that was built without a permit, in a zone not permitted for that size garage. The application is for a use variance. I think it says expansion of a construction company. Is that the notice? And now he says he's not a construction company. MRS. EGGLESTON-Which it is, because he advertises in the phone book as a. MR. CONVERSE-Well, I mean, that's coming out of the phone book, too. So, I mean, it is now, yes. 6 '~ MRS. EGGLESTON-But you said you make your living with these trucks. MR. TURNER-He has one. Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-He does snowplowing in the winter, and he hauls dirt and gravel and whatever, in the summer time, for hire. Anyone else? Okay. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN BREARLEY MR. BREARLEY-My name is John Brearley. I have property at 246B Birch Road, and I'm adjacent to Mr. Converse. I didn't know what this was implying. I thought he wanted to put another garage up. The only thing I'd like to say is there is quite a bit of noise that comes from that garage, late at night, early in the morning, and I rent to tenants. It's been brought to my notice that, trucks starting up at five o'clock in the morning, coming in late, ten, eleven o'clock at night. He's cleaning his box out, banging the gate until as late as one o'clock in the morning. I've never called the police on him. The man has to make a living, but I would like it stopped. I mean, if he's going to have a garage there, it's all right with me, but I don't want any noise where I'm going to lose tenants from my property. That's about all I have. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Barbara Cherry, RD3, Box 247, "I own three pieces of property in the vicinity which would be effected by the approval of a variance to Tyler Converse to expand his construction company location, Luzerne Road to Burch Road, in a Single Family Residence, One Acre zone, Variance No. 1-1992, Type II. I'm not sure I'll be able to make it to the meeting, Wednesday, January 22nd. I am not in favor of granting the variance. The area is a residential area, and I don't want businesses moving in. We rent two houses in the area. All three of us have small children and don't want more trucks and heavy equipment traveling up and down the roads. Already, in the warmer months, when we're outside more and have windows open, the noise from the trucks, early in the morning and late at night, is rather disturbing, especially the banging noises when he's clearing out his box on the truck at night which can be quite late, between 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. sometimes. The loud banging and revving of truck motors when they are starting up, being repaired, or having maintenance done can be quite frightening to young chil dren, not just annoying. I believe granti ng thi s vari ance woul d further change our nei ghborhood, which is supposed to be residential, and not for the better. We have zoning so this type of change won't happen. Since moving in, seven years ago, several houses have been fixed up in the neighborhood and I feel allowing a business to expand on the area is not to the advantage of present or future homeowners. Than k you for your time." MR. TURNER-Okay. Tyler, the question of the banging the tail gates and working late at night. MR. CONVERSE-Maybe once or twice I come in at night. I mean, when I'm out working, if I'm working in Albany or Speculator or wherever, but I don't think I've ever been banging the tail gate because, I mean, my father would shoot me. MRS. EGGLESTON-How do you clean them out, at days end? MR. CONVERSE-You do it when you're on the job. MR. TURNER-On the job. Yes. You might have a condition where, if you come in in the fall, it might get frozen, the box a little bit, or something like that. MR. CONVERSE-But even then, I don't, it goes right inside the garage. That's the only reason I built the garage, so it was in the garage and it's heated. MR. TURNER-Do you put your big truck in there? MR. CONVERSE-Yes, every night for six years it's been in there. MR. TURNER-But you don't store it there in the winter time? MR. CONVERSE-Yes. MR. TURNER-It wasn't there when I went up there. It was sitting outside in the lean-to. MR. CONVERSE-That's the little single axle. 7 "-, MR. TURNER-No, no, no. You're big truck. MR. CONVERSE-Maybe during the day time, yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CONVERSE-You weren't probably up there at night, but during the day time, if I'm working on the car or something, inside, then it does go outside and I put it underneath there, yes, but any other time it's inside. MR. TURNER-Any other questions? MR. SHEA-Do you foresee the business increasing in size? MR. CONVERSE-No. MR. SHEA-Where you would have the necessity of additional trucks? MR. CONVERSE-No. That's it. I can only drive what I've got. MR. SICARD-What time do you get started in the morning, there? MR. CONVERSE-Sometimes, if you have to be somewhere, you do have to leave in the morning. MR. TURNER-Yes. Is the diesel inside the garage in the morning, at night, all the time? MR. CONVERSE-Yes. MR. TURNER-Is it stored inside? Do you start it inside the garage? MR. CONVERSE-Yes. I start it in the garage, pull it outside, shut the door, and most of the time I take right off, because it's warm. MR. TURNER-Pull it outside, and let it warm up, right? It's warm, yes. MR. CONVERSE-That's one reason I do park them inside, so I don't have to let them sit outside running, you know. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is there not room inside the garage for the debris that's in the yard, that I spoke of earlier, the plow and whatnot, so that the premises would look tidier? MR. CONVERSE-Well, yes, there probably is, but, I mean, well, whatever. There's no need to have it inside there. I mean, people have snowplows out in their yard all the time. That's the only thing that's out there is the snowplow and that trailer, but there's a stockade fence around the place. MRS. EGGLESTON-You're the house right to the right, with the, kind of had a fence around it. MR. CONVERSE-The fence, yes. It's all the way around it. MRS. EGGLESTON-I noticed the debris wasn't on the side facing your house, but on the side facing the neighbor who just built the new house. MR. CONVERSE-And that's also behind a fence, too, even behind woods. MRS. EGGLESTON-Nevertheless, it's not to your. MR. CONVERSE-Well, he couldn't see it anyway, unless he looked over the top of the fence, or was standing in the window, I would imagine. MRS. EGGLESTON-Because I know it's not too far from the house, where the line is, there. I think you'll agree. MR. CONVERSE-There's quite a distance from the garage to the property line. MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm not talking about the garage. I'm talking about the property line to the new house. MR. CONVERSE-Whatever the Town allows him to build on. MR. SHEA-Were you in the business before 1986, when you constructed the garage? MR. CONVERSE-Yes. think one year before that. Yes. 8 ,,,,,./ MR. SHEA-Where did you park the trucks then? MR. CONVERSE-Outside. MR. SHEA-On the same property? MR. CONVERSE- Yes. Well, actually, no, because I just bought that property, I think, that same year. The property came up for back taxes, and that's when I purchased that, but I just parked them on the side of the road, there, my father's road. MR. SHEA-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-I guess my thoughts are that because there are so few mobile home areas in the Town of Queensbury. This is one of the few, and it just seems if we could keep it for mobile home, you just don't want to discourage people from going there because of the noise or whatnot. MR. CONVERSE-About the only way it would become a mobile home park is if my father made it a mobile home park. MRS. EGGLESTON-I'm not referring to a mobile home park. That is zoned for a mobile home, One Acre Mobile Home. Isn't that right? MR. TURNER- Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, and there are few of those within the Town. MR. TURNER-How many mobile homes are on the property right now, on your father's property? MR. CONVERSE-Two. MR. TURNER-Two. MR. CONVERSE-Well, yes, three. MR. TURNER-Three, and the rest are stick built? MR. CONVERSE-Right, and that's all the land that's available in that area. There's no other land for sale. When he purchased that land, that's what it was supposed to be, 20 years ago, was a park. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SHEA-This is a preexisting, nonconforming use, correct? MRS. CRAYFORD-It's a nonconforming use. MR. CARR-Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-It wasn't even conforming when it was built. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARR-So, it never got the preexisting, nonconforming status. MR. SHEA-Mr. Converse, if you had to move the trucks, if you weren't allowed to use that property the way that you're using it now, where would you park the trucks? MR. CONVERSE-I don't know. MR. SHEA-Well, if you're not granted a variance, you're going to have to be denied a variance, then you'd be in violation if you kept them there. You'd have to park them somewhere. MR. CONVERSE-I probably would. I'd have to hire a lawyer, then. MR. SHEA-Or rent a facility somewhere else. MR. CONVERSE-No. I don't know what I would do. MR. SHEA-Do you have any idea what that might cost you, or how it would impact your business, financially? MR. CONVERSE-Yes, probably a great deal. 9 -/ MR. CARR-I guess Mr. Shea is asking you, would it place a great financial burden on your livelihood? MR. CONVERSE-It would probably make me go out of business. MR. CARR-Is that what you wanted, Mike? MR. SHEA-Yes. That qualifies it. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. TURNER-A guy with one truck, one driver, it's pretty tough. MRS. EGGLESTON-But once you grant it, it could be more trucks and more drivers. MR. CARR-No. We can limit it. MR. TURNER-You could condition it. MRS. EGGLESTON-And condition the noise, none of this 11, between the normal working hours. MR. TURNER-I think he's got to treat the neighbors like he'd want them to treat him, you know. So, that's up to him to take care of that. MR. CONVERSE-Yes, but, I mean, when I leave in the morning, I mean, normal hours, for some of those people, are eight to four, you know. When I leave in the morning, I mean, there's enough trucks that come up there and park on the sides of the road and everything else. MR. TURNER-I've got some people, up by me, that do the same thing that he does, and they go by my house at four o'clock in the morning, five o'clock in the morning. If you're a good sleeper, it doesn't bother you. MR. CARR-I guess it would probably be more, just trying to be considerate at night. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I think the night is more irritating than the. MR. CARR-I mean, during the summer, trucks have to get out early because you use the daylight. MR. CONVERSE-Well, when I come home at night, I mean, most of the time, I'm beat, tired of sitting behind the wheel 14, 15 hours. You don't want to be out there doing too much. MR. TURNER-Isn't it a fact, also, that some of your work takes you out of town and your gone for. MR. CONVERSE-Yes. stay ri ght down. hours. I go, if they, work for Green Island, they have work down state or whatever. I I don't travel back and forth, because it's too hard, by the time you work 12, 14 MR. TURNER-Yes. You couldn't make it. Yes. Okay. Any further questions? Okay, then, motion's in order, if there's no further discussion. MOTIOrt TO APPROVE USE YARIAllCE 110. 1-1992 TYLER CONVERSE, Introduced by Michael Shea who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: With regard to the existing use of the property as a storage facility for trucks for Mr. Tyler Converse's livelihood. Due to the fact that if the right of use of this property is taken away, that it would adversely and detrimentally impact Mr. Converse's livelihood, and due to the fact that this use has existed for a substantial length of time, albeit in a residential neighborhood, the variance would necessitate that no expansion of the present use, with respect to the number of vehicles that Mr. Converse presently has, would be expanded up so as to mitigate the noise and traffic created by its present use. The circumstances of this lot and use variance are somewhat unique due to a long time history with this particular property. Further, that with the mitigated use of the property as is, that it would not cause undue adverse effect to the neighborhood character. This variance will also prohibit any future building on the lot. This variance will pertain to the present ownership only. Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Shea, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (8:13 p.m.) MR. TURNER-There will be a slight delay until the Town Attorney comes over. (8:24 p.m.) Okay. Paul, I'd ask you to address the Board on this issue (G. Passarelli), with respect to Article X. 10 '---- MR. DUSEK-This is something I'm familiar with, because I've had a few conversations with different attorneys who have called me, and also had some conversations with Pat, and also the Town Board, this past, late this past summer, also got into this whole issue, and if you'll bear with me for a minute, I think the history will help to explain what has happened here. What you have before you, this March 21st, 1990 interpretation, was given by the Zoning Board, and at this point, this interpretation is, I mean, it's valid, in terms that it stands on the record, but, right now, it really doesn't mean anything, because the Ordinance provisions that it referred to have all been revised, okay. So, there's new Ordinance provisions, but I think, if when we get all done with this and I explain it to you, you're going to see that what your decision says, if I understand your decision correctly, is probably closer to what the Town Board did, now, in any event, okay. So, we're probably all on the same wavelength. Basically, then, going back a couple of steps, before the Town Board, this late past summer, revised the Zoning Ordinance, there were provisions in the Zoning Ordinance which provided for the joinder of lots under certain instances. There were also some provisions, right underneath that, in the old Ordinance, that attempted, in some fashion, to exempt subdivisions from that joinder clause, although it was never really clear, and arguments were made, back and forth, as to whether subdivisions were included or excluded under the joinder provision, and I think this is one of the motions that came out of that whole controversy, originally, when it was in its old fashion. The Town Board undertook this discussion, during the summertime, to address this issue, and they decided that they did not want to join lots anywhere, in subdivisions or out of subdivisions, except in two places, and the two places they said that the old provisions would apply would be in the Adirondack Park Agency, and in Critical Environmental Areas. The reason for that. There was a lot of reasons for it. One was concern in Critical Environmental Areas. They just thought that that made sense, because whenever you can, to help make the small lots larger, but also the Adirondack Park Agency would not accept any of the changes in the Adirondack Park that were being proposed in that regard. So, to satisfy the Adirondack Park, yet still get accomplished what they wanted accomplished, they did the Adirondack Park, and then they said, well, you know, it makes sense to do Critical Environmental Area. So, as a result of their move in the summer, the joinder of lots part of this thing became applicable only in those two areas, Adirondack Park, Critical Environmental Area. Everywhere else in Town, the lots were not to be joined. They were left standing on their own. However, they said, we will let the '82 Ordinance, in so far as it governed before, for these half acre lots and stuff, apply for three years from the date of adoption of the old Ordinance, or, in other words, until October 1st of 1991. Thereafter, the lots would become nonconforming, even in the subdivisions, and they thought about that, and they said, that's okay, because they can come to the Zoning Board and get relief from those provisions. It's my understanding, in sitting through all of this, and I don't have the minutes and I can't point to anything off hand, but this is just my recollection and feeling from sitting through the meetings with the Town Board and also helping to draft it, that the thought was that it would be good to have the Zoning Board of Appeals just review these situations, just in case there was any situation that a variance should not be granted. I think they understood, and this is where I think, this point I'm not 100 percent clear on, but I think they understood that most of the lots would be granted variances because the people would be able to come in and prove a hardship. It's going to be difficult for this Board and most of your subdivisions to deny it because the people have money invested, they're going to prove a dollar and cents proof. I don't know the community can really come forth and show an overriding community cause that's going to say, no, you shouldn't grant the variance, but they wanted the check on the system, and they wanted to leave it to your Board to take a look at it, just in case something crazy happened. They just didn't want to give a blank check and say, well, you can build on these lots any way you wanted to. The other thing, I think, that might have been a criteria is that, what would you use for dimensional criteria, with the changing times, and the different types of subdivisions. So, I think the summary, then, is, the joinder provisions are gone, insofar as most areas of Town are concerned. The lots stand. The lots, on October 1st, 1991 all become nonconforming. If they're nonconforming in area, they need a variance before they can get a building permit, to get that building permit. If they're nonconforming with setbacks, they need that taken care of as well, and when I say area, I mean, you know, half acre, acre lots. This Board has the ability to review those matters and grant the relief. There has been discussions. One attorney, and I don't want to pick on names, so I won't mention the name, but one attorney said to me, well, he understood that and, you know, understood what I was saying, in terms of what that meant, but he just thought that that was almost like, why put everybody through that process, and my answer to that was, well, that was what the Town Board decided would be appropriate at that time. If he wanted it reconsidered, in terms of saying, well, in those situations, you don't have to come for variances, certainly, that could be taken up with the Town Board, but, at that point, when I walked away from that Town Board meeting where all this stuff was discussed, it was my understanding that they wanted a check in the system, and they thought that this was a reasonable check, and not an overly burdensome check. There may be differences of opinion, and maybe the issue should be further explored, but, right now, I think that's where we are. So, when an applicant who has a subdivision, which one is here tonight, Lehland Park? Lehland Park has got a full blown subdivision already received all approvals, right? They have undersized lots, now, according to the Ordinance. It seems to me that they should be coming in for a variance on the area and the setback, and that's what I understood, that they needed those two, and it's also my understanding that, they're obviously going to be able to prove a case for it, and unless the Town can come forth with an overriding concern on why the variance shouldn't be given, the Board is probably going to give it, and you may say, well, this seems rather academic, but this is a very easy case. There may be other cases out there involving single lots, maybe not in a subdivision some place, that maybe you might, you know, they might be justified in saying, well, the house maybe shouldn't be quite as big, or maybe the setback should be a little greater in that particular neighborhood, and I think that's what the Town Board was trying to look out for. The other answer was, simply join all the nonconforming lots, and they didn't like doing that. 11 ~ MR. CARR-Well, but by taking away the merger doctrine, okay, you have somebody that owns two lots, not a subdivision. They come in to us. The Town is saying we can't merge those. So, we have to give them the variance. MR. DUSEK-The Town's not saying you have to give them the variance, but what they're saying is. There's two separate lots that are not merged, and I'm saying. MR. CARR-Then, my question to you is, okay, how can we deny a variance? On what grounds could we deny an area variance because he's got a half acre lot. MR. DUSEK-And that's what I'm saying. It's very difficult. MR. CARR-It's impossible. I mean, I think the Supreme Court has already spoken to that issue, haven't they? MR. DUSEK-Unless you can show, like I say, I think in a subdivision, I don't see how you would do it. I would agree. MR. CARR-I'm not talking subdivision. I'm talking about two lots. MR. DUSEK-Well, if you're in a lot outside a subdivision some place, and there's something particular or peculiar in the community, there may be grounds. For instance, the variance, they may come in to build a house that is totally out of character with the cOlllliunity, much bigger than the rest of the houses, and that would be a reason to deny that variance. MR. CARR-No, no. strange reason, he all it is, it's on say, aesthetically, That's a reason to deny a setback variance, but I'm talking about, say, for some meets the setbacks, but they want to go straight up. It looks ugly as sin, and a half acre lot instead of an acre. How can we deny him? We can't look at it and I don't like it. MR. DUSEK-Right, on aesthetic grounds, but, you know, here we're speculating a little bit. MR. CARR-Well, no, I'm just saying I think the Town made a mistake, and I think they made a bad mistake by taking away the merger doctrine. MR. DUSEK-Well, that's the judgement call, and that was their decision, at the time. They just felt that they did not want to merge lots anymore throughout town. MR. CARR-Well, I guess I woul d just 1 i ke it brought back to them that, I mean, what they've done is they've tied our hands, and I don't think we can deny anybody. MRS. CRAYFORD-Excuse me. With all due respect. I was of the opinion, at those meetings. that the Town Board was of the impression that subdivision lots would not be mergered. I know that that's what they said. MR. DUSEK-Would not be merged? MRS. CRAYFORD-That's right, in subdivisions. MR. DUSEK-That's right. They're not. MR. CARR-Subdivisions only. MRS. CRAYFORD-Right, subdivisions only. MR. CARR-But now you're saying every lot. MR. DUSEK-Every lot was not supposed to be merged. I remember, because that's why they isolated just those that were in the Critical Environmental Areas and Adirondack Park. MR. CARR-What was the resolution? Do we have the resolution that was actually adopted. MR. DUSEK-There is a resolution. You'd have to really, though, the resolution is only going to adopt this particular Local Law. You'd have to go back through the minutes of the meeting to get, I think, the feeling of it, but the strong element that supports what I'm saying is the fact that they clearly arranged for merger in the Adirondack Park and Critical Environmental Areas. They clearly thought about it and they said, these are the only areas we want it merged. We don't want mergers anywhere else in Town. Now, like I say, you can disagree with the policy. It may be good, bad, or indifferent. It may be it ought to be re-looked at, but that was the decision, and they had the ability, of course, to make that decision at that time. 12 MRS. CRAYFORD-Also, Dave and I both, but Dave was very careful and asked you if lots in subdivisions were grandfathered, and you said yes. MR. DUSEK-Now, you're saying something I don't recall. MRS. CRAYFORD-I'm just saying, because, you know, based on that, a letter came out from our Department, to developers, saying that their lots were grandfathered, the lots sizes were grandfathered. MR. DUSEK-I don't remember ever saying that lots were grandfathered. Really, Pat, if I say something, I'll stand by what I say, right or wrong, but I really don't recall that. MRS. CRAYFORD-I'm just talking out loud, all right. The developers were of the opinion that they have legal building lots out there, if they can meet setbacks. MR. DUSEK-Well, I've had several conversations, and this is exactly the same tenor of all the conversations I've had with any attorneys or anybody who's called me on this position. My position's been the same all along. MRS. CRAYFORD-Well, communication got crossed somewhere. MR. CARR-I guess my feeling is, why even put them on the agenda, if we've got to give it to them? MRS. EGGLESTON-But I don't feel we can give a blanket to the developments, because this puts a whole different view on it. If just a plain guy on the street has three lots, he could come in and say, I want all three at once. Does that not set a precedent? MRS. CRAYFORD-I guess I feel that Lehland Park, Hidden Hills were approved subdivisions under a different zoning, and I don't understand why the variance couldn't be granted for the zoning that existed at the time they were approved. MR. TURNER-I made the statement, when we were talking about this, two meetings ago or three meetings ago, that, in certain cases, there were cases where you'd have to look, maybe you couldn't grant him a variance. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, take each one on its own merit. That's what Paul just said that the Board's intent was, to take each on its own merit. MR. SHEA-Each individual lot? MR. CARR-Each lot? MR. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-No, not necessarily each lot, but there might be instances where they only get approval for one phase, all right. MRS. CRAYFORD-Well, if you were going to consider granting a variance to allow for the setbacks that were approved, at the time, then it would be for whatever phase was approved. MR. TURNER- Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-Not Phase II that may be approved two years from now. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. DUSEK-I think, as a practical matter, though, to answer the question that, in terms of, can you issue a blanket approval for a particular subdivision, I think you certainly could, if it's the developer/common owner of all the lots. He's got a scheme ready that he wants to sell, and you think it's fair, under the circumstances. He can certainly prove a hardship, in terms of the funds and everything else he's got invested in the subdivision. I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact, the Board has done this, I know, on one prior occasion, in particular, that I had to go back and review back in '82, '83, before this Board, but it has been done in the past, but even if it hadn't been, I think you have the authority, because you're granting it to an individual for the lots in that subdivision which have gone through Planning Board review just recently. I think if you're worried about a precedent, the only precedent you're really going to set is that if somebody else comes in with a similar situation, they have a subdivision that's been fully reviewed within the recent time period, and they're looking for a blanket, they'll probably be entitled to it, but what's wrong with that? That's probably fair, too, under the circumstances. MR. TURNER-Yes. Exactly. MR. CARR-I think it's wasting our time. 13 '-- .-- MR. TURNER-No. I don't think so. You might have cases where this might very well apply to certain subdivisions. Where maybe you don't want to give them that blanket approval. Maybe there's something that, you know. MR. CARR-I think subdivisions are a different case. I think the Town Board has tied our hands, when it comes to individual lots, guys who have two or three lots next to each other. MR. TURNER-Yes, but I think they've. MR. CARR-And we're sunk. We can't do anything. MR. TURNER-Yes, well maybe not, but I think we can, in lots of cases. Board. We're going to look at it. We're going to determine that. They left it to us. I think they left us as a review They don't want to accept that. MR. CARR-But what are we reviewing? MR. TURNER-Maybe some instances you're not going to review a whole lot, but special cases. MR. SHEA-Special cases. MR. TURNER-There mi ght be some cases. There mi ght be some speci a 1 cases, and that was my comment, two, three weeks ago. MRS. EGGLESTON-But if you gave the whole blanket, there might be a special case in there that you don't know about. Then you wouldn't get to review it, because you've already given the blanket. MR. SHEA-That's true, and that's the risk that we run in reviewing what these folks are here for tonight, and getting all of them done in a group. MR. DUSEK-But I think, in a subdivision, that risk is relatively almost nonexistent, because the lots have all been laid out. They've been through the planning process. Presumably, they're properly watered and septiced and everything else. I think the instances where this Board is going to have more say is the isolated lots, and those were the ones that the Boards were concerned about. I think that they just felt, leave something, leave a check valve in the system, in case there's something that we're not thinking of right now, and this'll help control it, knowing that, yes, maybe a lot of these will be automatically approved. It may not be, it certainly can be debated on how to handle these things. Maybe it should have just been grandfathered and be done will all the subdivisions. Maybe that's what they'll reconsider, but at the moment, that's where the state of the law is. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further comment? Any further questions of Paul? MRS. YORK-Would you mind, Mrs. Eggleston, reading the legal notice, please? Thank you. MRS. EGGLESTON-For the? MR. TURNER-Guido Passarelli. MRS. EGGLESTON-Read that first, Ted, before we do the? MR. TURNER-Yes, because it's not advertised right now. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. "Notice of Public Hearing Pursuant to Section 179.103 of an Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, entitled Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury, and Sign Ordinance is hereby given that the Town Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Queensbury will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday January 22nd, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. at the Queensbury Town Office Building to consider the application for a variance of Guido Passarelli, Owner: Same, Side line restrictions are too severe to apply to 100 foot wide lots. Phase I and Phase II of Lehland Park Subdivision, location: East side of West Mountain Road, just a little north of Mountain View Lane in an SFR-IA zone." MR. TURNER-So, that's got to be re-advertised to include the dimensional requirements of the lot. MR. DUSEK-To include the area. You can grant part of it, but the area hasn't been advertised. MR. TURNER- Yes. LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-My name is Leon Steves. If what you're saying, tonight, all building in the Town of Queensbury is going to cease for one month. Pat can't legally issue a building permit for a month. MR. TURNER-No, she can't, without a variance. 14 '-- -' MR. DUSEK-For a variance, unless the Board would be willing to consider a special meeting, perhaps, would be the other way out of this. MR. STEVES-The other thing was, the actions of the Town precluded our thinking that an area variance was required. If it weren't true, how did we get this far? How did we get to tonight, on the agenda, if the thinking of the Town wasn't that all we needed was a side line variance? MR. CARR-I've also got a question. If we can't merge any of these things, can we tell them, you can't build on that lot? Do we have the legal right to tell 'them that? MR. DUSEK-No. I think that's what I'm saying. A variance is. MR. CARR-So, why are we even advertising? I mean, we can say no. So, an advertisement's not going to do anything, because the people could come in here and scream, up and down, and jump and yell and hit and throw at us, and we have to say yes. MR. DUSEK-But you still should create the legal record so that they're clean on their property. So, that nobody else will raise that issue. MR. SHEA-Yes. It's still a buildable lot, so long as they. MR. CARR-Maybe that's up to them. They are subject to attack because we didn't give them the notice. If somebody ever wants to take them to court, and they'd win. MRS. EGGLESTON-But what a farce. MR. CARR-Yes, but, I mean, this is what this has created, as to that issue. I mean, we can discuss the side lines, and that was advertised. So, anybody who cares about that is here. As to the area variances for the size of the lots, we can't do anything about it anyway. So, why even advertise it, and why make the developers go back and do, you know. MR. STEVES-I agree with that, and, Paul, I'll use an example. I believe that in the '82 Code, as modified, the development of any subdivision had to be phased. The phasing had to have so much completion on the first phase before the second phase could kick in. The final approval was granted only after that condition was met. That condition could have been met in September of 1991, and the Planning Board could have approved that subdivision, that phase of the subdivision, which on October 1st, then, according to this rule and regulation, would have been null and void, and now we'd have had to come back in for a variance immediately, for the area. That doesn't make any sense. MR. DUSEK-But that's the problem. MR. STEVES-That's exactly right. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. STEVES-Catch 22. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. It sure is. MR. TURNER-Lehland Park only got approval for Phase I. MR. STEVES-That's correct, and that's all we're asking for here. MR. TURNER-Okay, but the notice addresses Phase II. MR. STEVES-You can't really grant that, because we don't have a final approval on that, really. MR. TURNER-No. I know it, and you were allowed 50 lots, at that time. MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. TURNER-And now you're down to 35. MR. STEVES-That's correct, too. MR. TURNER-I don't have a problem scheduling a special meeting, as long as we can get the advertising done. MRS. YORK-We can certainly do that as soon as possible. When do you want to do it? 15 '-...- ~ MR. TURNER-Just as soon as you can get it done, and the Board, we can all arrive at a decision as to when we can meet, here. MR. CARR-I think it's a waste of the taxpayers money. MR. TURNER-Yes, I know. It is, but that's the way we've got to do it. MR. CARR-I mean, but, otherwise, what's going to happen? MR. TURNER-Nothing's going to happen. MR. CARR-Nothing's going to happen. So, it's going to cost the Town about $150 just to bring us back. It's going to cost them time. It's going to cost Pat. MR. TURNER-I know, but that's not our doing. That's nobody's doing. MR. CARR-I think we can make an interpretation that, in this case, the advertisement was enough to alert the people that there was area variance difficulty with this park, and if they were interested, they should be here. MR. TURNER-The only ones interested are the people that are involved in the development, Passarelli's people, Kruger, and the rest of them. MR. CARR-Right, but I think the people were notified that there was an area variance going on here. MRS. EGGLESTON-If they were interested, they'd be here, whether it's area or what. MR. CARR-They'd be here. MR. TURNER-Well, there's only three houses in his development, so far, and one's a model and two are going up. MR. CARR-Yes, but I'm looking at, West Mountain Road there's. MR. SHEA- Yes. I understand what you're sayi ng, but what about the case where there may be another developer out there who has not had the same ability to get in here and come before this particular kind of review. I mean, we're worried about the advertising and notification. I don't think you can think of it in terms of just the people around that development or those that might be effected by living in it, but you have to be concerned about other developers, and how it might have, in the past, impacted. MR. TURNER-Yes. You've got two or three of them right here tonight. MR. CARR-Yes, but I guess I'm not sure what the adverse impact to them, if we do it tonight, is. MR. TURNER-All right. Let me say this, and I think he can testify. One lot in your subdivision has been sold, when? You've got one house going up now. You've got a model home. AL CERRONE MR. CERRONE-One lot has already been sold, in there, all right, the model. We have one going up right now. MR. TURNER-Then you've got two lots that are sold. MR. CERRONE-Two signed contracts, to start. MR. TURNER-Right, and one, the start date for the first lot, the contract for the first lot, is what? MR. CERRONE-Whenever we get going. That's how we stand with those contracts, right now. MR. TURNER-Okay, and that was signed, when? They're right beside each other? MR. CERRONE-Yes. It's lot 19 and lot 20. As a matter of fact, the lots are cleared already. We cleared them, and they're ready to go. MR. TURNER-Yes. Lot 19 is the one they want to get started on right away? Is that the one? MR. CERRONE-They both do. MR. TURNER-They both want to start right away? 16 ',---, ~' MR. CERRONE-Yes. They want to be in by May. MR. TURNER-By May? MR. CERRONE-Yes, if it's possible. MR. TURNER-That's not realistic. MR. CERRONE-That's what I'm saying, if it's possible. We want to get going with it. They want to be in by the end of May sometime. We have the same situation in Herald Square, too, now. Again, we have contracts there, too. MR. DUSEK-Leon, the particular lots in question, are they within 500 feet of the County road? MR. STEVES-No. They're beyond 500 feet. MR. DUSEK-Because if they're outside 500 feet, then at least you can address the two lots. MR. CERRONE-They're lots. MR. CARR-Well, how can we address the two lots? MR. SHEA-We're not going to address just two lots. We're going to address all the lots in the subdivision. MR. DUSEK-No, but the problem you have is that you have to go back to the County on the whole. MR. STEVES-No. They're way off. MR. DUSEK-So, you could do two lots within the minimum advertising period of next week, if it's not a County review matter. MR. CERRONE-No. That's all the way in the back of the subdivision. MR. DUSEK-So, there's your out for the two lots, to at least give them immediate relief for that. MR. TURNER-This got denied at the County. MR. DUSEK-Well, you need a majority plus one. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CERRONE-I don't think that was represented to them, at the Town. MR. TURNER-I know, but I mean, it was represented as two lots, wasn't it, at the County? MR. CERRONE-Yes. I don't know what happened. MR. STEVES-That's the way the County took it, but not the way they were notified of it. Lee sent the notification over to them saying that it was the entire subdivision. MR. DUSEK-If it's just these two lots, you don't need a majority plus one, because it's out of the County, anyway. So, it's only a majority vote. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-So, the County is not going to be involved in this particular, in any event, for the two lots. For the entire subdivision, it may, but I think the two, then, that would clear the way for the Board to set a special meeting and grant the area variance and setback. You could, actually, grant the setback tonight, if you wanted, and just grant the area variance the next time. MR. TURNER-Yes. That part's been advertised correctly. So, we could do that. MR. STEVES-Would the granting of the setbacks. MR. TURNER-It wouldn't let him get a building permit. MR. STEVES-It wouldn't let him get a building permit. Okay. MR. TURNER-This doesn't reference the two lots, this advertising. MR. STEVES-No. It references the entire subdivision. 17 -- ---- MR. TURNER-Yes. The notice only references the whole thing. MR. CARR-Well, we could do all the side lines. MR. DUSEK-The previous notice does the whole subdivision? MR. TURNER-This notice, there, Phase I. MR. DUSEK-So, it might be better to re-advertise and do just the two lots. Get them over with, and go back to the County for the whole ball of wax, then do the rest of them, all in one swoop, but at least it gets the two lots that you need. Right? MR. TURNER-19 and 20. MR. DUSEK-You resolve that problem immediately, and then the rest of the subdivision gets resolved in two weeks. MR. CERRONE-Well, yes, as long as we can keep going with it. MR. TURNER-That'll get you going. MR. SHEA-Well, and you'd want to do Herald Square at the same time, too. MR. CERRONE-Right. I need Herald Square, too, because I have contracts there, and I have the same scenario, the same situation. MR. SHEA-Re-advertise it and let him come back in for both places. MR. TURNER-Right. He's got to apply for the Herald Square anyway. He's got to submit a separate application for that. MR. SHEA-But can we do them both during that special meeting? Can he get an application in? MR. TURNER-No, because she's got to advertise it. MR. SHEA-I know, but you're going to have to re-advertise this, anyway. MR. TURNER-Yes, right. MRS. EGGLESTON-You mean, do Herald Square at the same time? Advertise Herald Square in that short time? MR. SHEA- Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't know how practical that, to get an application in. MR. CARR-Well, they'd have to have the application in tomorrow. MRS. YORK-I believe he has an application in for a re-zoning on Herald Square. MRS. EGGLESTON-They do? MR. TURNER-That's right. They do. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURNER-They do have a petition in for a zone change. MR. DUSEK-I guess the question, Leon, at this point, would be, I mean, is two lots the only problem you have, immediately, or are there more? MR. CERRONE-Our immediate problems, yes, but we are working with other people, you know, we have a lot of interested people. So, we are working with people. MR. DUSEK-If the rest of the subdivision were resolved in the February meeting, would that cause a problem? MR. CERRONE-That should be no problem. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. DUSEK-Then that's a solution. 18 '--'" MR. TURNER-Yes, right. MR. CARR-But tonight we could discuss the side lines. MRS. CRAYFORD-But I still can't give them a building permit. MR. TURNER-Can't give them a building permit anyway. MR. CARR-No, but then we can come back, and the next meeting will be a three minute meeting, because we can't deny him. MR. DUSEK-You could do the side setbacks for the County. It's all been advertised for the whole subdivision. You could get that out of the way, anyway, and then just re-advertise for the two lots, immediately and then do the areas on the rest of the lots in February. MR. STEVES-If you did that, and we went back to the County with an area variance, they would feel intimidated to pass it, this time, instead of kicking this around. Now, you may not feel that's, you know, that you don't want it kicked around, but I would appreciate it. I was absent that night. I didn't show up over there. MR. CARR-Why don't we do what was advertised, since we're here. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. CARR-And if there's anybody adverse to it, they're here. MR. TURNER-Okay. We'll do it. MR. CARR-We'll do the public hearing. MR. TURNER-Okay. (8: 55 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-1992 TYPE II SFR-lA GUIDO PASSARELLI OIØER: SAlE AS ABOVE EAST SIDE OF lEST MOUNTAIN ROAD, JUST A LImE NORTH OF tlJUNTAIN VIEW LANE SIDE LINE RESTRICTIONS ARE TOO SEVERE TO APPLY TO 100 FT. WIDE LOTS. PHASE I AND PHASE II OF LELMD PARK SUBDIVISION. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 74-2-999 (ALL LOTS WITHIN) (FORMER TAX MAP NO. 74-1-30.1) LOT SIZE: 60.13 ACRES SECTION 179-20 LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:55 p.m) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 3-1992, Guido Passarelli, 1-13-92, Meeting Date: January 22, 1992 "The applicant is requesting to vary the side line restrictions in Phase I & Phase II of the Lehland Park Subdivision. Warren County recommended disapproval since the application only referred to lots 74-1-30 and 74-1-32. There was also a concern about the statement that a 60 foot wide house would not be reasonable use of the land. The Warren County Planning Board believed that there was no practical difficulty. As the Board is aware the subdivision was approved for 102 lots in 1987. Staff is requesting a map indicating the entire subdivision lots which variances are being requested for and a typical lot layout. Given the previous discussion of the Board and the various developers, it appears that the applicants do not realize that the ZBA needs detailed information which relates to the checklist. Since there appears to be confusion on the part of more than one applicant, information has been requested which should be available for your meeting. This appears to be a fairness issue which the Board will be deciding. The phasing requirement which was passed to protect the Town has in certain instances been detrimental to the developer. The ordinance changed in 1988 and subsequent phases were required to have a minimum sideyard setback of 20 feet. The previous standard was minimum of 10 feet. The applicant is requesting to maintain the 10 foot minimum under which all phases received preliminary approval." MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board disapproved, with a comment, "Sufficient room - 60' houses can be built and still comply with the Zoning Ordinance~ MR. STEVES-We have color coded a map, here, showing the lots of the approved subdivision, and the yellow shows the building area that is permitted under the present Code, with the 20 foot side line setbacks, the 20 foot rear, and the deed restriction of a 50 foot front setback. The deeds also carry a restriction of 2,000 square foot per house. That's an enormous size house, and it's very difficult to put that on a 60 foot wide lot, usable area. The developer, in his original presentation of the plan, expected at that time a 70 foot usable area, and that's what he's asking for tonight is a relief back to that Code, so that the side line setbacks, then, are 10 foot minimum, 30 foot total. MR. TURNER-Okay. All right. 19 --- --../ MR. CARR-So, we're talking about 10 feet, right, on one side? MR. TURNER-Yes, 10 feet on one side. MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. TURNER-That's what it was approved at. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. TURNER-And now it's 20. Any questions of Leon? AL CERRONE MR. CERRONE-I just wanted to say one thing. It could be 15, 15, too. MR. TURNER-Yes. The houses that you're building now. What have you got for setbacks on those? Did you stay with the 10, the ones that are under construction? MR. CERRONE-The ones that we have right now will comply, yes, with the 10 foot. One house is 64 feet, with the garage. Al Cerrone. According to Warren County, a 60 foot wide home is fine, but what happens to your garage? You've got a 24 foot garage on these houses, then your house is down to 36 feet. It won't comply, not with the deed restrictions. MR. TURNER-Yes. Do you have a layout of a house on the lot? MR. CERRONE-Right now, no. On lot 20, that house there is 64 feet across the front. MR. TURNER-How about 19? MR. CERRONE-Lot 19, I believe, is 58 or 59 feet. MR. TURNER-Basically, what you're going to do right around here, on the curbs you're going to angle them with the road? MR. CERRONE-Yes, try to keep them contour with the road. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. Thanks. MR. STEVES-In addition to that, not all the lots will be built to that maximum. Depending upon the particular design, some of them will have less than the needed 70 feet, and some of them, as you can see, are large enough to accommodate it as it is. MR. TURNER-Is lot 20 and lot 19, what's the house size, itself going to be? Is that going to be over 2,000? MR. CERRONE-Yes. MR. TURNER-Both lots? MR. CERRONE-Both of them are over 2,000, yes. Lot 20, I believe, is about 2150 square feet, and lot 19 is just over 2,000 feet, but that's a ranch on lot 19, and lot 20's a two story colonial. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. STEVES-Mr. Chairman, we'd also like to note that the 2,000 square foot is living space, not in garage. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. STEVES-So, when you have an attached garage, that really makes a good sized house. MR. TURNER-Yes. Any further questions? None? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DON KRUGER MR. KRUGER-I'm Don Kruger, and I'm Al's neighbor, and I'd like to support him. I think that, in all due respect to the County Board, which I don't know any of those men, but I don't think they fully grasp what the real estate situation is in 1991, in Warren County, and you sit down with a customer 20 -- that wants to buy your home, they're not interested in a 60 foot house on a 100 foot lot. In my case, I've got 100 foot lot, the same situation that Al has. There's two 70 footers in there and one 68 foot lot. They're occupied by people that are single people. They don't even have families, but that's what people want. They want a home with a nice street scape. They want something that looks good, and when people make their decision, half the time it's before they even get out of the car. They want to see a nice, fine looking home, and, I mean, the converse of that is you can go down to South Glens Falls, down to Edgewater there, and look at those little 40 foot cracker boxes that are sticking out of those lots, there. I don't know, maybe they're doing us a favor. Maybe we could sell those. Maybe we could make money. I don't know. I don't know if the Town would really want them. They're not tax rateables. I don't see how they're an asset to a Town, but a man's building a 70 foot home, it seems to me it's a better tax rateable, and more of an asset to the Town and to the neighborhood. So, I'd like to speak out in support of Al. MR. TURNER-Okay, thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any further discussion? Okay. Motion's in order. tlJTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE fIO. 3-1992 GUIDO PASSARELLI, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: And allow the applicant relief from the side yard setbacks for the lots located in Phase I of the Leland Park Subdivision. The variance would grant the applicant a relief of 10 feet from the required total side yard setbacks of 40 feet, with a minimum side line setback of 10 feet. This subdivision was approved with these requirements in 1987 and the applicant has demonstrated that the continuation of these setbacks would not be detrimental to the purposes of the Ordinance or to other properties in the area. There are special conditions which apply to this applicant, in that the applicant has already had these setbacks reviewed under a Planning Board scenario and that to not grant the variance would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of the property and may even cause an economic hardship. I was referring to the infrastructure. The one year expiration provision does not apply to this variance. Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. DUSEK-The only other comment, for the Board's consideration, so that you don't have to deal with this again, there is, in your Ordinance, a one year provision that the variance is automatically expired. Since you're granting it to the subdivision as a whole, and I don't know if they're going to have this built out within a year, you may want to, at this same time, say that that provision won't apply. So, that that way the variance will stay in effect permanently. It's just an idea, otherwise, you're going to be in a bind again next year. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. CARR-That sounds good to me. MRS. YORK-Would the Board like to, how's Thursday the 30th of January? MR. TURNER-January 30th? Can everybody make it? MRS. YORK-I'll have to see if I can get this room for you. MR. TURNER-You've got all the information from the applicant you need? MR. CARR-Can we try to do it earlier? MRS. YORK-It's going to be tight even then. MR. CARR-No, not ~ wise, time wise? MRS. YORK-It's up to you guys. Do you want to come in at four 0' clock in the afternoon? We could do it at four o'clock in the afternoon. MRS. EGGLESTON-I have to work for a living. MR. CARR-Yes, but I'm thinking, what about right after work, five or five thirty? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I'm flexible. I'll come whenever the rest of you can. MRS. YORK-What's your preference? 21 -- --' MR. TURNER-It would be tough for me to make it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, how about six thirty, seven o'clock? MR. TURNER-How about seven o'clock? MR. CARR-That would be fine. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. STEVES-Do you want to do that for Herald Square, too? MR. TURNER-Don't you have a petition for a change of zone? MR. STEVES-Only for, well. MRS. CRAYFORD-Herald Square's a re-zoning. There's a difference. MRS. YORK-And Herald Square has to go through the County, and we could not do it at the same time. MR. CERRONE-Why does it have to go to the County? MRS. YORK-Where is it located? It's on West Mountain? MR. CERRONE-It's more than 500 feet away from any County road. MRS. YORK-Great. MR. DUSEK-There's no County? MR. STEVES-No County Impact. MR. DUSEK-Well, then you probably can bypass that. Why is Herald Square in for a re-zoning? I thought there was an approved subdivision there? MR. STEVES-It is, for Phase II and III, which is the continuation of the subdivision itself. MR. DUSEK-So, the re-zoning is for Phase II and III? MR. STEVES-Well, the Planning Board made a recommendation for all phases of it to be approved. Now, if we aren't going to get a building permit until we get something out there, which is the quickest way of doing it? MR. DUSEK-I guess, you're losing me, Leon. Is the whole thing all approved? MR. STEVES-No. The whole thing has got Preliminary approval. MR. DUSEK-So, you don't have any approval? MR. STEVES-Yes. We have Phase I totally approved. MR. DUSEK-Okay, and is it Phase I that you wanted the variance, for those lots? MR. STEVES- Yes. MR. DUSEK-Then the variance procedure would be faster, for those lots, then the re-zoning procedure. MR. CERRONE-But, also, at the same time, 60 percent of Herald Square, on Phase I, is built out. So, we're going through to get into Phase II, now, too, in Herald Square. MR. DUSEK- In Phase II and I II, I think those really ought to go through re-zoning, because there's no approved subdivision in place on those, and this Board's going to be hard pressed to give you complete variances there. Now, there's an instance, where, do you know what I'm saying, there are no lots, yet. MR. CERRONE-No. I don't want to put pressure on the Board. The only thing I'm asking is, as it stands right now, I can't even get a building permit on Herald Square, okay. MRS. CRAYFORD-You might want to get variance on Phase I, the remaining lots in Phase I. MR. CERRONE-Okay. 22 ',- -' MRS. YORK-If you can get the paperwork in, we can distribute it to the Board, at their pleasure, if they want to hear it. MR. CARR-Well, you've got to advertise it. So, he's got to have it in by when? MRS. YORK-Yes, but you're having a meeting on the 30th. MR. CARR-Right, but when does he have to have it in? MRS. EGGLESTON-When would he have to have the application? MR. TURNER-Tomorrow. MRS. YORK-Tomorrow. MR. STEVES-Stop by the office tomorrow, sign it, and I'll bring it up. How many copies do we have to have? MR. CARR-Thirteen. MRS. YORK-Thirteen. MR. STEVES-Okay. (9:18 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-lA JEAN Mrt DENNIS mitER: SAME AS ABOVE HILUIIUt ROAD, CLEVERDALE TO ADD A SECOND STORY TO EXISTING CAMP. TAX MAP NO. 11-1-1.22 LOT SIZE: 1.500 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-79 A(2) JEAN ANN DENNIS, PRESENT (9:18 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 4-1992, Jean Ann Dennis, 1-20-92, Meeting Date: January 22, 1992 "The applicant wishes to add a second story to a cottage in Takundewide. This will be an expansion of over 50%. The applicant purchased the property in 1987. The cottage is on a piece of property which is 1500 sq. ft. (44 ft. x 52 ft., .03 of an acre). The house is 24 x 32 (footprint 768). The property is part of a seasonal cottage resort development which has been in existence for many years. The individual properties were sold with extremely small land areas but with access to larger greenspace. The property in question does not have frontage on a Town road. The Takundewide cottages are a planned community utilizing the same water system. It appears that the septic field for each unit may be beyond the small piece of property owned by the individuals. It would appear that Section 179-69 "Conversion of Seasonal dwelling units" might be applicable also. The Staff has just become aware that this application is a Type I under SEQRA, and that the Planning Board is involved. If the Board believes that this application meets the criteria for an area variance for setbacks and 50% expansion, the Board should consider allowing the Planning Board to be lead agency for SEQRA purposes. The site is in a Critical Environmental Area. This application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for an area variance. 1) Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. The lot size is .03 of an acre. The structure is currently nonconforming. It appears the lot was created that way and purchased that way. The applicant bought a cottage in a planned community. The rationale for having a planned area is to avoid changes which can effect the values of the property of the other residences. It would appear that the applicant was aware of the limitations when they purchased the property. The minimum yard setbacks in 1987 were 30 feet in the front, the side yard having a minimum of 10 feet with a total of 30 ft. and a rear setback of 20 ft. (Lakeshore Residential zone). 2) Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty or is there any other option available which would require no variance? There are no options which would require no variance. 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? Expansion of this cottage would certainly set a precedent for the Takundewide community. It would appear that these structures were not intended for year round use. The Board is aware of the concerns expressed in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan regarding expansions in Critical Environmental Areas. The over-building along shorelines created conflicts regarding lake quality and the creation of the Lake George Park Commission. The objectives of the Zoning Ordinance are to limit expansions along lake shores. 4) What are the effects of the variance on public facilities and services? It would appear the water and sewer facilities are private. The long term effects of cottage expansions on Takundewide could be significant if all the units followed suit. Traffic and lake impacts would have to be considered. 5) Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? It would appear that the owner purchased the property with the knowledge of its 1 imitations for expansion." MR. TURNER-Okay. Is Mr. Grogan going to represent the application? That's who signed the slip. MRS. DENNIS-No. I'm Jean Ann Dennis. 23 -- -- MR. TURNER-Okay. Does the Board agree that this is the criteria for an area variance, as far as the setbacks go? MR. CARR-I guess I don't understand the question. MR. TURNER-Well, this is, Takundewide's an Association? MRS. DENNIS-Yes, it is. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. CARR-But you own your square, right? MRS. DENNIS-Yes. MR. CARR-Do you have a deed to it? MRS. DENNIS-Yes. MR. CARR-So, I would say, yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think it would be. I agree. MR. CARR-Is there restrictions on your transferability of that square? I mean, can you sell it to anyone you want? MRS. DENNIS-Yes. MR. CARR-Do they have to apply to an Association for acceptance, or anything like that? MRS. DENNIS-Not that I know of. I don't believe so. MR. CARR-I mean, you didn't have to? MRS. DENNIS-No. If I sell it, they would just have to take part in the Association, as far as paying the annual fee. MR. CARR-Okay, for, like, the water and septic, right, but the Association can't say. MRS. DENNIS-That's all part of the fee that we pay. MR. CARR-Okay. The Association can't say, no, we aren't going to accept this applicant? MRS. DENNIS-No. I don't believe so. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. TURNER-The Association accepts fees for the maintenance of the property, is that correct? MRS. DENNIS-Right. MR. TURNER-Okay, and you're going to expand it by more than 50 percent? MRS. DENNIS-Correct. MR. CARR-Now, when you say, expand it by more than 50 percent, what do you mean? Are you expanding your footprint out already? MRS. DENNIS-We would like to go to a second story. MR. CARR-Just exactly straight up? MRS. DENNIS-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. Is it going straight up, or is it going to go out? MRS. DENNIS-No. It's not going to change the, it's going to use the same base that's there. MR. TURNER-Is this going to be a year round occupancy? MRS. DENNIS-No. It will still stay seasonal. 24 ',,-- ..- MR. CARR-Will it be equipped for year round occupancy? MRS. DENNIS-To a certain extent, but we're only going to put a crawl space underneath it if we get an approval. MR. CARR-Okay. I mean, will it be insulated for year round, electric heat, or heat? MRS. DENNIS-Well, there's heat, now. We probably would do some, while we're putting the addition on, because we want to update the standards, as far as pl umbing and such. So, we were going to do a substantial amount of gutting. So, we would insulate, at the time. Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-What do you mean you'd put a crawl space? There already is a crawl space under the? MRS. DENNIS-No. We have pylons, as it stands now. MR. TURNER- Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, you're going to change the base? MRS. DENNIS-Well, we would have to restructure the foundation, in order to repair pylons that are there, but also to support a second story, but we wouldn't change, we would do it within that. MR. TURNER-You would need the additional structural supports to carry the second floor. MRS. DENNIS-Correct. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. SHEA-Do you have any sort of plans or drawings as to what it might look like? MRS. DENNIS-You have them, I believe. MRS. EGGLESTON-Not of what the completed project will look like. MRS. DENNIS-Yes. We submitted them. MR. TURNER-Here it is. We've got it right here. MRS. EGGLESTON-All right. MR. CARR-I didn't make it up to the lake to see this. I was remiss, but how many other homes? MR. TURNER-They're all identical. MR. SHEA-Every little cottage is the same size. MR. CARR-So, none of them have two stories, right now? MR. TURNER-No. MRS. DENNIS-No. Our setback is more than 500 feet back from the lake, though. We're about 8, 900 feet back from the lake. So, we are not within that 500 foot. MR. TURNER-Critical Environmental Area. MRS. DENNIS-Right. MR. TURNER-Yes, you're back quite a ways. MRS. DENNIS-Yes, we're back as far as you can go. MR. CARR-So, is this not, or is it or is it not SEQRA? MRS. EGGLESTON-It says it is. MRS. YORK-Well, if they're not within 500 feet of the lake, they must have measured from the entire Association area. MRS. EGGLESTON-Complex? MRS. YORK- Yes. 25 -- .- MRS. CRAYFORD-Their little lot is not within 500 feet of the lake. MRS. YORK-Then they are not within the Critical Environmental Area. MR. SHEA-But part of Takundewide is. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. CARR-Yes, but we are reviewing. MR. TURNER-Yes, but is any of the common area within 500 feet of the lake? MRS. YORK- Yes. MR. SHEA-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARR-Does that work? MR. TURNER-Yes. They own it. They have to pay a maintenance fee to maintain the property. Everybody. MR. SHEA-So, it would have to come under SEQRA, I would think. MR. TURNER-Yes. I would say so. MR. CARR-Well, I mean, if I pay into an Association, but my lot's over here. MR. SHEA-But you own part of the green space. MR. CARR-But it's not, the green space is not what we're reviewing. We're reviewing this lot. MRS. EGGLESTON-But that's considered part of your property, which is. MR. CARR-Well, I guess my question is, yes, the green space is included in your deed somehow? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER- Yes. MRS. DENNIS-I don't think so. We only own exactly what our, 10 feet, or something, beyond our existing cottage, all the way around. MR. CARR-How did you become a member of the Association? Did that have anything to do with the recorded deed? MRS. DENNIS-I don't believe so. All we own is the existing area around our cottage. and that's all we are required to maintain. MR. CARR-Because if there's nothing in the deed that says, and all the rights, and you have to join the Association, then I don't see how we can say that this parcel, because that's a lot of record. MRS. EGGLESTON-But she said, in order to sell the property, they had to belong to the Association. Didn't you say that? So, if you were to sell it, the next person has to belong to the Association and pay their dues? MRS. DENNIS-Correct. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. Where does that come from? Is that in writing? They give you something in writing that says that. or? MR. SHEA-It's got to be part of the deed covenant. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-I would think it would, yes. That's what I'm trying to get at, is that it would have to be within the. MICHAEL DENNIS 26 MR. DENNIS-I might be able to help clarify this. I'm Michael Dennis, Jean Ann's husband. We received clear title to the footprint that our lot is on, including 10 feet all the way around it. Under the Homeowners Association, there is a separate ownership by members of the Association for all the green space. It also carries a separate liability policy that covers only the Homeowners Association. We have a separate liability policy on our camp. MR. CARR-What happens if somebody buys your house and doesn't want to join the Homeowners Association? MR. DENNIS-One of the restrictive covenants in the deed mandates that they do. MR. CARR-Okay. Well, that ties it in. Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Is there anything within the Association that says you have to get permission from the Association to do this? MRS. DENNIS-You have a copy of the letter that I have their approval. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MRS. DENNIS-We were under the understanding, when we purchased this cottage, that we could put this addition on. We had understood that from Mr. Mason, Alger Mason, before we ever purchased. After he died, they sold some of the cottages. At that time, were given a print of a second story that was approved, that we could put a second story. We have two teenage children, a boy and a girl. We need more room. We purchased it with the understanding that we could put a second story on. MRS. EGGLESTON-Didn't it strike you as strange, though, that no one has ever done that? I mean, the cottages, each one sits right. MRS. DENNIS-Well, they've only been sold for five years. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, five years is enough, though, to expand, if you have. MRS. DENNIS-I really think everybody was kind of just feeling their areas out. There are some people that won't do it. They have grown children. MR. TURNER-You purchased it in 1987? MRS. DENNIS-Right. We rented it five years before that. MR. TURNER-You rented it five years before that. MRS. DENNIS-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, I must say, Mrs. Dennis, you're at the back of this, from the lake. So, how are you going to feel if all of these little cottages in front of you want a second story up on their, between you and the 1 a ke. How are you go i ng to fee 1, because once we te 11 you yes, it's go i ng to be hard pressed to tell these others that come in, no, even though it might block your view. MRS. DENNIS-Well, we're on a hill, fortunately. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's pretty flat, though. I was up there. It's a little grade, but nothing significant. MRS. DENNIS-We are. We're higher than a lot of those. Again, we purchased it knowing that someone could do that, and we kind of anticipated that there would be some of this that's going on. I also believe that the Homeowners Association has the right to decipher, you know, just because they give me this approval for this layout does not mean that they will necessarily give it to everyone. MRS. EGGLESTON-But you understand we would be hard pressed to say? MRS. DENNIS-Right, but they will reserve the right to what can go in what area, as well. MRS. EGGLESTON-But, to answer my question, how would you feel about these places in front of you, between you and the lake, and there are many, because you're way up the back, how would you feel about all of these building up? MRS. DENNIS-I don't think it would bother me. As I said, we felt that, at the time that we purchased the place, that this was going to happen, that was one of the reasons why we love it there, but we bought it with two bedrooms. MRS. EGGLESTON-They are tiny. 27 --'" MRS. DENNIS-Yes, they are, and there is no kitchen. It's at the end. The livingroom, we want to turn one of the bedrooms into a kitchen, but we knew that we were going to have to do this with the two children, one boy and one girl. So, we anticipated that others would want to do the same thing up there. MRS. EGGLESTON-Because it's like opening a can of worms. It's really. MR. CARR-Who else reviews this? MRS. EGGLESTON-It didn't go before the County. I don't see any other thing here, where it went. MR. CARR-Is this APA? MR. TURNER- Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-It would have to be. MR. TURNER-It would have to go. Yes. MR. SHEA-And all of these cottages at Takundewide, they're all tied into one common septic system, or? MRS. DENNIS-No. I believe we each have our own. MR. SHEA-Okay. MR. CARR-I guess that would be, I mean, that's going to come from SEQRA, but, I mean, that's going to be a concern, if everybody adds more bedrooms and more, I mean, then you've got, on a th i rd of an acre, or not even a third, three hundreds of an acre. MRS. EGGLESTON-What's the size of the house you have? MRS. DENNIS-Twenty four by. MR. TURNER-Twenty four by thirty two. MRS. EGGLESTON-And then 10 extra feet around. MR. TURNER-760. MR. CARR-What's your current septic system? I mean, what do you have? MRS. DENNIS-I believe it's 1,000 gallons. MR. CARR-Do you know where it's located? MRS. DENNIS-It's out behind our back of our cottage, by itself. MRS. EGGLESTON-Does every cottage have a 1,000 gallon septic? MR. TURNER-Have they been updated since they've been put in? Is this a new system they put in on this particular cottage? MRS. DENNIS-Well, no, not since we've had it, but I did have it checked, this summer, and it's in good shape. I checked it for the purpose of our planning. MR. CARR-What's the rule on leachfields? Do you have to keep the leachfield on your own property, too? MR. TURNER-You can't. It's all common area. They own part of it. They've got to own it. It's got to venture off, on that small a lot, because I think the spread between the arms is, like, four feet, and you've got to have so much square footage for the bedroom space. Okay. What's the Board's pleasure? Do you feel this comes under SEQRA? MR. CARR-Well, I guess we've got to send it to the Planning Board, right? MR. TURNER-Yes, the Planning Board. Yes. MR. CARR-I'm sure people have warned you what a difficult time you're going to have, I mean, with this whole process, I mean, because of where you're located and the septic concerns, I mean, I hope they've warned you. MRS. DENNIS-Who's "they"? 28 "---' MR. CARR-Well, just people, anyone who's been through the process. MRS. DENNIS-We've been warned. I must admit. MRS. EGGLESTON-We won't be the biggest hurdle, probably, but the APA will be, probably. MRS. DENNIS-Yes, but we're not changing the number of people that are using the cottage? I mean, there are still only four of us. MR. CARR-No, not you, but the next person that comes might have six people using that toilet. MRS. DENNIS-We don't plan on letting go of it too soon. MRS. EGGLESTON-And the whole Park Commission is to have a less density along the lake, and really to build all those up, it kind of changes the view from the lake. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. CARR-I guess what we're also saying is, wherever you go, you better be very prepared with a lot of data, because otherwise they're just going to send you back. I mean, because they're going to want to know everything about. MRS. EGGLESTON-Exactly where the septic is. Like, you just have a little diagram saying it's here and it's 1,000 gallons. You've got to be much more specific as to where it is and the size, and, you can't say, I think it's 1,000 gallon because that wouldn't fly. You have to know. MR. CARR-I mean, you're probably going to need a survey of where everything is, exactly. I mean, I'm not saying this to have you spend money, or whatever, but I know, sooner or later, a Board is going to say, get it surveyed because we want to see where you're going to put the septic and we want an engineer to testify that that's enough septic, and it's on your property. So, you might as well do it at the start, so you have it. MRS. DENNIS-Okay. MR. TURNER-This isn't a remodeling. This is a total rebuild of the structure. MRS. DENNIS-Just about, yes. MR. TURNER-Just about. Yes. I mean, outside, new windows, new doors, new everything. MRS. DENNIS-It's really. MR. TURNER-The only thing you're going to save is the fireplace. MRS. DENNIS-Even that, it's probably going to. MRS. EGGLESTON-But is it going to look like the rest of the cottages? MRS. DENNIS-Yes, well, similarities, other than the second story, it still will have the green shutters. It'll layout exactly the same. MR. CARR-Now, do we have to count those overhangs? MR. TURNER- Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Over the 10 foot. MR. CARR-Well, it's overhanging the foundation. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's why it's more than 50 percent expansion, probably. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-If the overhangs aren't there now and they're installing overhangs, then it would be an area variance. MRS. DENNIS-They are there. MRS. CRAYFORD-But you told me that they are there. MRS. DENNIS-They're there. 29 -- MR. TURNER-Yes, but, I mean, are you going to change the configuration of it? Are you going to extend them any farther? MRS. DENNIS-We can't. You have to keep it within the same, everything has to be exactly the same as what exists. MR. CARR-Yes, because it kind of looks like the second story was what went out a little. MRS. EGGLESTON-Overhangs the bottom, here. MR. CARR-No? Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-It looks, from this, like the second story overhangs the first story. MR. TURNER-It does. MRS. DENNIS-Well, but the roof does now, in other words, all the way around the building, as it exists, even where the peak, the side where the peak, still overhangs the side of the building. It's not flat. MR. CARR-Right. I guess my point, though, is if you've got a one story and the overhang's two feet, but then you go out two feet, and that overhang's two feet, then you're out four feet from the bottom, aren't you? MRS. DENNIS-But we're not going out any farther. MR. CARR-They're not going out any farther? MR. SHEA-They're not doing that. MR. TURNER-They're not doing that. MR. CARR-Okay, because it just looks, on the map, like it's spreading out a little. MR. DENNIS-It's not going out any farther. We'll have the same soffet on the new roof as what's present on the old roof. MR. CARR-Okay. looked at it wrong. Sorry. MR. TURNER-Okay. Well, I guess the first thing, then, that we do, is, I would move to make the Planning Board the lead agency for the SEQRA Review. This will have to go to them first. After that review, it'll come back to us. That's as far as we can go with it tonight. tl)TION TO MAKE THE PLANNING BOARD LEAD AGENCY FOR THE SEQRA REVIEW FOR AREA VARIANCE 110. 4-1992 JEAN ANN DE....IS, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bruce Carr: Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MRS. DENNIS-Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. (9:44 p.m.) Okay. Now we have some unfinished business. Mr. Steves? This is in reference to Mr. Harris' application. LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-This is the same plan with a slight modification to it. I'm Leon Steves. I've left the portion south of Rainbow Trail off for a purpose. I was very confused, after last week's meeting, and after talking with everyone, as to whether or not the lot that's in the existing subdivision merges with raw land or not. MR. CARR-And it doesn't. MR. STEVES-Well, I think that's your discretion, not mine. I talked, again, tonight with Paul about it, and told him of the concerns that I had on it and why I, you know, I've prepared three different scenarios for this, okay, to show that condition, and I think he has indicated that this is your discretion. If you wanted to call it that some of this has to go with this other raw land, then you should call it that way. I'm supposed to be working for a client, but that's what he told me. So, really, right now, what we've done up above here is prepared a 10 lot subdivision, meeting all the cri teri a of the 30 - Code, with the exception of lot 1, which does not have 150 feet of frontage. It does have a 150 width, and I guess maybe that woul d meet the Code, so that all we needed was 40 feet. So, I rea lly don't need a variance on the 10 lots. So far, okay? MRS. YORK-I like it. MR. STEVES-Thanks. So, then I had, if any of you want this larger map, I've got one for you. What you have is not this one. MR. CARR-It's not that one? MR. STEVES-No. So, you see, this doesn't need a variance at all, what we have here. All right. Below Rainbow Trail, now we're getting into where we need the variance. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. STEVES-And I have prepared three scenarios, and I think I've explained why I did the three scenarios, okay, and I can anticipate what you're going to tell me. So, we will take the one that you wish to review or approve tonight, if that's your wish, and incorporate that into the minutes, and into the record, along with the, well, that map doesn't need to be presented, because it doesn't need a variance. MRS. EGGLESTON-Didn't the one up in the corner, though, not have enough road frontage? MR. STEVES-It only needs 40 feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-And there was enough there? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. STEVES-So, you can see, hopefully, all lots will work. They all have the 150 width. They have the setback needed. The front setback is 30. The rear is 20. The sides are sum of 30 with a 10 minimum. They all have one acre, and the lot width is at the building line, or the average width of the lot. Unless you can see something wrong with lot 1, I would say we have all the necessary requirements. MR. CARR-So, where do you have to go with that? Do you have to go to the Planning Board with that? MR. STEVES-Yes. This is just starting. Whatever version you approve, below the road, will be incorporated on this plan and sent to the Planning Board, as a concept plan. They will review it for its content, for its meeting of the Code, perhaps grant it approval for that, and then we'll have to really get into work, to do a lot of improvements for Preliminary approval. MR. CARR-But I think you know my feelings. I don't like the three, this is the first one. I mean, that was the first one that came to us, right? I mean, that's what we started with last week. MR. STEVES-Okay. Yes, I guess you're right. MR. CARR-46.6.6, we started with that. MR. STEVES-Yes, you're right. That's correct. Okay. So, what we have done is eliminated that one. MR. CARR-Well, I mean, that's just me. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. I agree, we agree, the one last week. MR. CARR-This is the one we started with, making three out of that rectangle. MR. STEVES-To be honest with you, of the two that are remaining, I think that the three lot, by merging the one lot that is approved, it makes a better looking condition, for consistency. My argument, all along, has been keeping in character, and this is more in keeping with character than this would be. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. STEVES-So, I'm trying to be consistent in my arguments. MR. CARR-Honestly, I like this one better. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-It gets rid of that one lot. 31 "'-- MR. STEVES-So, then this is the one that will be incorporated in your set of plans. MR. TURNER-Yes. Are you in agreement? MR. SICARD-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, that's the one, really, we came up with last week. MR. TURNER-That's the first one you showed us last week. MR. STEVES-That's correct. The reason I decided to bring three scenarios to you was because of my misunderstanding of it, that you could not merge this. MR. CARR-I'm not going to force it. I'll do it if the applicant voluntarily says. MR. STEVES-Well, I think you can. The conditions have to be considered, and I think that's what Paul was saying earlier. You have to look at the conditions, and dictate. MRS. EGGLESTON-If we went with this, he'd be getting one less lot out of the subdivision, wouldn't he? MR. CARR-No. MR. STEVES-No. MRS. EGGLESTON-If you only went with two here? MR. CARR-No, because this would be a lot. MR. STEVES-No. We had 16 to start. MR. TURNER-No, no. He had 16 to start, that's counting the big lot. MR. STEVES-See, we're going to go in to the Planning Board, now, and I'm not being facetious, we're going to go in to the Planning Board with those 10 lots. You don't have any review jurisdiction whatsoever on those. MR. CARR-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. STEVES-What we're talking about, then, really, is this. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, so am I. He wanted 16, originally. Last week we cut it down to. MR. STEVES-Thirteen. MRS. EGGLESTON-Thirteen. MR. STEVES-Right, and the question was whether or not this was merged. MR. TURNER-Yes, right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. STEVES-And I guess it still is, but he was willing, last week, to merge it. So, I don't see any problem with that. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARR-Yes. That's fine. I just don't want it reflected in the records that we forced him to merge it. I mean, I want it reflected that's a voluntary part, because we have no jurisdiction to merge lots. Correct? Remember what Paul just said here. We have no jurisdiction to merge a lot, except in a Critical Environmental Area or the APA. MR. TURNER-APA. MR. CARR-Those two scenarios. MRS. EGGLESTON-But, to answer my question, this concept would only give him 12. MR. CARR-Right, but this is technically a building lot of record. 32 -..../ MRS. EGGLESTON-So, okay, all right, but not part of this, he didn't include it in this. So, it would have only given him 12. If we didn't merge. he'd only wind up with 12, within the subdivision. MR. STEVES-Yes. Well, he's going to wind up with 12 anyway, because he's already got that one, okay. So, he would have to come back for a variance. area and dimensional. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. STEVES-Okay. So, really, he had indicated, last week, that he had no problems with that. MR. TURNER-Yes, right. MR. STEVES-So, to relieve you of any burden, then, that you're imposing upon him, we can go on record that he did agree to that. MR. TURNER-He agrees to the concept, right? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. Everybody like it? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. STEVES-Then would you give back to me the ones that you don't want, so I can dispose of them? MRS. EGGLESTON-I'll put one in the folder, the right one. MR. STEVES-The right one. Okay. Fine. MRS. YORK-Would you just date that, Mrs. Eggleston? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I'm putting, accepted plan. MRS. YORK-Thank you very much. MR. TURNER-Put the date right on it. MRS. EGGLESTON-All right. MR. TURNER-I think he's going to like the development. I think it's going to look a lot better than what he had proposed, I really do, with what you've got there. MR. STEVES-I don't know. I still have my reservations about that. I really do. MR. TURNER-The thing of it is, that area up there is what it is right now. It's not going to change. It's not going to go away. MR. STEVES-No, but you're not going to get somebody to come in there and pay you more for a lot. MR. TURNER-No, but like he said, he's not going to sell them for over $12,000, the lots, okay. So somebody, more than likely, is going to want the land versus the house, in that area. MRS. EGGLESTON-But a lot of people bought two lots. Leon. MR. TURNER- Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-To get the bigger space. That's really what makes you convinced that. MR. STEVES-I've had both, and I'll tell, I became a slave to the lawn. and now I've got a small lot, and I'm happy as can be. MRS. EGGLESTON-Some people like that, though. MR. TURNER-Okay. We have a motion to accept the lot. IIJTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIMCE NO. 94-1991 H. RUSSELL HARRIS, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: 33 '~ As amended, based on the map submitted this evening marked and numbered Map Number 94-1991, for the creation of three lots on the southern side of Rainbow Trail. The three lots created, working from west to east, will have an area of .65 acres, .65 acres, and .93 acres. The third mentioned lot is merged with a lot presently owned by the same owner on a voluntary basis. The Short EAF shows no negative impact. Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 34