Loading...
1992-01-30 SP ~EENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 30TH, 1992 INDEX Area Variance No. 2-1992 Donald Kruger 1. Area Variance No. 3-1992 Guido Passarelli 20. Area Variance No. 6-1992 Guido Passarelli 22. 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. J ~ - ~EENSBURY ZOrtING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL ŒETING JANUARY 30TH, 1992 7:15 P.... ŒMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN JOYCE EGGLESTON, SECRETARY BRUCE CARR MICHAEL SHEA CHARLES SICARD ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-PAT CRAYFORD SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-lA DONALD KRUGER OIItER: SAtE AS ABOVE SHALLOII CREEK ROAD SOUTH BOfINER DRIVE SHALLOII CREEK SUBDIVISION lIAS APPROVED IN THE YEAR 1987 WITH SETBACKS AND AREA SIZE APPLICABLE AT THAT TI"E. RE~ESTING VARIANCE FOR PHASE I AND II TO ALLOW FOR SETBACKS AND LOT SIZE ON APPROVED SUBDIVISION. VARIANCE TO BUILD SINGlE FAMILY HOUSE. TAX MAP NO. 75-1-23.1, 23.5, 23.7, 23.2, 23.6, 23.10 LOT SIZE: 10,000 SQ. FT. SECTION 179.77 LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:15 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Area Variance No. 2-1992, Donald Kruger, 1-13-92, Meeting Date: January 15, 1992 "The Shallow Creek subdivision was approved in 1987 as a phased development. It appears from the minutes (attached) that the Planning Board had concerns regarding the brook at the southwest portion of lot 2 and the topography. The project was ultimately phased because of a Dept. of Health suggestion, since there was substantial fill needed. In the interim the standards for development changed. Mr. Kruger is requesting that he be allowed to develop with the setbacks which were applicable in 1987. There is a request from the Zoning Administrator that the Board grant variances to both phases of development. There is a letter from NYS DOH regarding lots 2 and 10 (Phase II). These, however, are not approved since the Planning Board did not give final approval. The applicant does have a final subdivision application for this on an agenda. There are questions regarding the stream on the property and whether the applicant can maintain the required setbacks. In Section 179-60 (pg. 18026) it states: (c) Shoreline setbacks. The minimum setback from the mean high-water mark of all principal buildings and accessory structures, other than docks or boathouses, shall be seventy-five (75) feet in the LI-IA, LI-3A, WR, SR, SFR, UR, MR, CR, and RR Zones and all Commercial Zones, one hundred (100) feet in LC and PR Zones and two hundred feet (200) feet in HI-3A Zones. In the definitions it states that: SHORELINE BUILDING SETBACK - The shortest distance, measured horizontally, between any point of a building and the shoreline of any lake, pond or the shorelines of any brook or stream within the town. (Amend 7-29-91 by lolo No. 14-1991) Because of the shoreline involvement, the Board should determine, if a setback of 100 ft. is required from classified streams and 75 feet from all streams, or the change in the definition changes the entire standard. The applicant may need other variances depending on the determination. There is also concern as to whether the applicant has the ability to meet the septic ordinance standards on lot 2. Staff has requested that a plot plan for lots 2 and 10 available at the meeting for the Board." MRS. YORK-If I could just interject, here. I spoke with David Hatin, Director of Building and Codes, this afternoon regarding lots 2 and 10. His feeling was that when Mr. Kruger gets ready to, given the fact that he would get the setback and lot size variances tonight, when he comes in with his plans to build there, if he does require a setback variance at that time, he will have to get it, but at this time, he may not be able to determine the specific location on the lot for the septic system and the house. So, Mr. Hatin suggested that perhaps you could approve both of these Phases and then. MR. TURNER-With the condition that? MRS. YORK-Right. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARR-May I ask, what are we being asked to approve tonight? MR. TURNER-Yes. The application states, on the one that I have, for the extension of year. What good is that? They're coming for a variance. 1 -- MR. STEVES-Hi. For the record, my name is Leon Steves from the fi rm of VanDusen and Steves, and it was Mr. Kruger who filled out the application prior to Monday's meeting of the Town Board, and that he would ask not for the one year extension, but that the waiver of the one year duration be waived, and have it run with the land. MR. CARR-Well, I guess to that, Leon, I ask, what's the practical difficulty, at this point? MR. STEVES-The practical difficulty is that the lots themselves, as approved in 1987, was based upon the setbacks and area sizes at that time. MR. CARR-Which were 1982. MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. STEVES-As you know, in this fast moving saga that has been taking place this month, the Town has granted him, and everyone, all developers, permission, up until October 1st of this year, to proceed with their development as it was approved. So that this meeting was set up before we had that understanding, but the practical difficulty is the fact that the lot sizes are the sizes they are. They can't be enlarged. The lots do not merge. MR. CARR-But it's not a practical difficulty today. He's got the right to build on them today. MR. STEVES-That's true. MR. CARR-And to have reasonable use of the property today. MR. STEVES-That's very true, but I'm not sure that they would have fulfilled all the lots, in construction, before October 1st. MR. CARR- Ri ght. MR. STEVES-So, we may as well cross this bridge, and cross it now that we're on the agenda. MR. CARR-But the Town Board has indicated, as of its meeting Monday, that it wants to address this issue and resolve it Town wide. For us to resolve this issue for Mr. Kruger, here, would be preempting the Town Board's power, at a premature level, because Mr. Kruger is not being harmed at this particular time. Today's date all the way to October 1st, he has not suffered any harm yet, and I don't want to tie the Town Board's hands by granting a variance that they, in their wisdom, may not agree with. I mean, they may have an entirely different scheme that they would like as the plan for the Town, when it comes to these subdivisions that were approved prior to the new Ordinance. MR. STEVES-Then, following your scenario, you don't really wish to see any developer in here at all until October 1st? MR. CARR-There's no need for a developer to be in here until October 1st. MR. STEVES-This is true. MR. CARR-So, I mean, I don't feel comfortable glvlng out variances, when I know that the Town Board has made a public statement that they are going to look at this particular Section and come up with a resolution to it. So, for.!:!!. to do it is usurping their power. MR. STEVES-On the other side of that coin, out here in the audience, I felt very much concern for the developers in this Town, that they would not get a building permit for at least a month, if not two, based upon the current law of the land, a week ago. MR. CARR-That's right, and that was resolved on Monday. MR. STEVES-Yes, for a temporary period of time. We wish to resolve it permanently. MR. CARR-So does the Town Board, and that was their intention, is to not jump into anything right now to cure the immediate need and give them 10 months, an additional 10 months, to October 1st, and then, during the interim, come up with the plan that will resolve this whole scenario and the developers, in all likelihood, would not even have to come before the Zoning Board, at any time, whether they need variances or not. MR. SHEA-Excuse me. For my benefit, because I was not here Monday night, and maybe for some people in the audience, what was the resolution that they came up with on Monday night, that temporarily resolves this problem? 2 ~ MR. CARR-Okay. Well, the issue we're talking about is Section 179.77 of the Code, which allowed the three year extension or waiver to subdivision lots of record, that they would not need area variances or side line setback variances for those lots, from October 1st 1988 to October 1st 1991. After that, they lost their status as a subdivision lot, if you will, and each lot would have to come back in for an area variance, because they were undersized, as well as setback variances. What the Town Board di d on Monday, and for anybody who wasn't here, was extend that from October 1st of 1991 to October 1st of 1992. Thereby, every subdivision lot in this Town, as long as it was a subdivision approved after 1982, will be allowed to have a building permit until October 1st. The Town Board wants to look at all the subdivisions in Town, during the next couple of months, and by this summer come up with a permanent resolution to that particular dilemma of what to do with subdivisions when the zoning changes. MR. SHEA-And prior to the Board taking that action, Mr. Steves and the other developers that were in here in the last couple of weeks, we were trying to streamline and speed up that process, because at that time they needed a variance first and then apply for a building permit, and they've now skipped one step. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. SHEA-They have to apply for a building permit, which was what they always had to do, in any case. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. CARR-Yes, and I guess what Mr. Kruger is just asking is that we grant him indefinite rights to this subdivision, based on the 1982 Statute, and I guess my feeling is that would be taking the Town Board's power, and I'm not sure we want to get into that, at this point. MR. STEVES-Well, I think that you have to look at it, tonight, in that Phase I and Phase II of this subdivision, consisting of 10 lots, Phase I of 8 lots and Phase II of 2 lots, the 2 lots in Phase II are what's before the Planning Board for their consideration. I think that they need an area variance granted before they can look at it, then, if you look at it that way, or I'd have to go back to the Planning Board and say, you'll have to review this under the 1987 Code, which they can do, because they've gotten Preliminary approval on it. MR. CARR-Well, I probably would agree with you, as to the two lots, that if they have not received approval for a subdivision lot. Is that correct? MRS. YORK-That's correct? MR. CARR-Then they would have to apply under the 1988 rules, and before Planning Board can give approval, all variances have to be in place. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. CARR-So, I'll agree as to that, but as to the other lots, I'm not going to give them a permanent variance when they don't need one today, is my opinion. MR. STEVES-Okay. I hear you, but you're really making me think on my feet up here, you know. I know, last week, we went through an awful lot of to do trying to cover bases with everybody. It wasn't a comfortable feeling, and I'm not sure a quick fix Monday night is necessarily going to alleviate all the problems. You may think so, at this moment, but none of us thought so last week. MR. CARR-Well, that's what we're trying to avoid is, the quick fix on Monday just alleviated the immediate problems that developers could not get a building permit, and it just left it the way it was, as of October 1st, 1991, leaving it for another year. What they want to look at, and that's exactly why they didn't take a lot of action Monday, is because they don't want a quick fix and just say, okay, give everybody a variance and just let them go on forever. They want to look at the whole situation and decide what is the best for the Town of Queensbury and the developers, you know, try to weigh everybody's interests, but I don't think that the Town Board didn't feel comfortable that they were in a position to do that Monday night, and on an individual basis, right now, I don't think we should feel comfortable doing it, as well, as long as there are no other, there's not a pressing need, at this point, for Mr. Kruger because he can go in tomorrow and get a building permit. He can go in on September 29th and get all building permits and have them for a year. MR. SHEA-So, none of the side yard setbacks were addressed? They're going to do that in their planning, or on an individual lot basis, through this Board? MR. CARR-Well, according to the new rules, the side line setbacks, if they were approved in the subdivision approval prior to '88, still apply, and don't need a variance. MR. STEVES-Dimensional and area both were granted Monday night? 3 -- MR. CARR-Yes. They extended Section 77 for one more year. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. CARR-That includes side line setbacks. MR. STEVES-Okay. Last summer they tried to do that, only with the area size of the lots, and not the dimensional. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. STEVES-But now you're telling me both have been extended for one year? MR. CARR-According to the reading of this, in the Town Attorney's opinion, yes. MR. STEVES-Okay. Both have been extended? MR. CARR-Yes. MR. STEVES-Okay. What do we do with Phase I then? Table it? MR. CARR-Phase I is moot. It should be withdrawn. I mean, it doesn't need any variances. MR. STEVES-He needs it for Phase II. MR. CARR-Ri ght, and we'll address Phase I I. I mean, I was not aware, honestly, of the di fferences between I and II. I thought II may have been approved already, but it hadn't. MR. TURNER-No, it hadn't, not by the Planning Board. MR. CARR-Yes, and before they can approve, he's got to get variances. MR. TURNER-Yes. Pat, have you issued any building permits for any of the subdivisions, after Monday night? MRS. CRAYFORD-We did two in Lehland, yesterday. MR. TURNER-The two lots that they talked about the other night. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. CARR-I mean, I've done a lot of talking. What do you feel? MR. STEVES-Yes. I mean, is this the consensus of the Board? MR. TURNER-I know, but I know what the Town Board did the other night, just like you said, but is it legal, without a public hearing. They've got to amend that Zoning Ordinance. They just can't say, oops, that's gone. Anytime you change that Zoning Ordinance, you've got to. MR. CARR-I thought Paul was comfortable with what they did. MR. TURNER-Well, I don't know. MRS. CRAYFORD-When we all left there, that's what we felt. MR. TURNER-I know, but I wasn't really comfortable with that. I'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth. MR. CARR-Right, but you know what they're going to do. I mean, if they did it wrong, they're going to catch it up. MR. TURNER-That's fine, but they haven't caught it up right now. They just said, I think I kind of got the impression, yes, maybe they did it, and yes maybe they didn't. They said they're going to do it, but I think they've got to go through the process to do it, that's what I'm saying. MR. CARR-But I guess my question is, then, should we give a permanent resolution to these individual subdivisions, as they come before us, when we know the Town Board's intention is to work on a Town wide resolution. MRS. EGGLESTON-Could we give one until October, I mean, if they're nervous about that. MR. TURNER-They don't need it. 4 MR. STEVES-Don't need one. MR. CARR-I mean, I'm not nervous that they did it wrong. I mean, there were so many people there. MR. STEVES-Somebody that was at the meeting informed me that there was conversation to the effect that what they have done is, as you told me tonight, but that the burden of proof and the burden of defense is on the individual developer himself, not the Town Board. So, if someone comes up here and gets a permit, they won't be denied, I agree, but if a lawyer, such as yourself, on a closing says, lets see your variance, and it isn't there, and you challenge that Town Law, where's this developer? Then he's left out in the cold. MRS. EGGLESTON-If he's a smart lawyer, he'll know you didn't need a variance. MR. TURNER-Not necessarily. MR. STEVES-Now he's got to check to see if the action taken Monday night was totally legal. MR. CARR-Well, then, I would feel more comfortable tabling this application, since it is the oplnl0n of the Town Counsel and the Building Department, and the Supervisor to issue these building permits. MR. TURNER-Paul is here. We can get him. MR. CARR-Well, no, I don't want Paul here tonight. I think I would feel more comfortable to have Paul, tomorrow, go through the procedure for amending this and make sure they did it right, if they didn't do it, but right now, as it stands, everyone believes it was done right. MR. TURNER-I know. They all left the room feeling real comfortable that's the way it was done, and it was done with. MR. CARR-And if it wasn't done right, then we can have another Special Meeting of the Zoning Board. MRS. EGGLESTON-Can I ask Lee why this meeting was called back on? Were the developers not comfortable with, I mean, why did? MRS. YORK-I had a discussion, after the meeting, with Mr. Turner and Mr. Dusek. At that point in time, Mr. Dusek said that the Town would certainly be handing out building permits as the Town Board had requested. However, it would be up to the individuals who own subdivisions to check with their lawyers and see if, at this point in time, they felt comfortable about it or they wanted to go forward with this meeting. Basically, the concern was, the Town is not going to challenge anyone here, but that doesn't mean another individual is not going to challenge anyone, and at this point in time, the legislation is not on the books. We have a mutual agreement at the Town level, but the legislation is not on the books. MR. CARR-So, now it is that the legislation is not on the books. You're saying it's not effective. MRS. YORK-No. It has to go through public hearing. We have an understanding, at this time, that that is what is going to happen, but there's a certain time period involved in legal advertising and doing that. I think it's fully the intent of the Town Board to do this. I believe it certainly is, and they are issuing building permits and no one is hurt, but he said, have every developer check with their attorneys and see if they want to go forward with the variance procedure or they would prefer to, if they feel comfortable enough with what was done tonight, to go forward. MR. CARR-But then, isn't it, I mean. MRS. YORK-It's putting this Board in a very precarious position. MR. CARR-It is, because we've got to decide, now, whether it was done right or not. MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. CARR-Which, no one has proved to me it hasn't been done right, and you're asking us to oversee, or really almost over throw what the Town Board has done. I mean, they've indicated to us, because they invited us all to that meeting, and they indicated to us and talked to us about working together for a common goa 1 . They announced thei r common goa 1, and now they're sayi ng, but if the deve 1 opers are uneasy, let them come in and circumvent what we're going to try to do, because they're asking for permanent variances. MR. STEVES-As suggested by the Town Attorney. MR. TURNER-Yes. 5 '-- MR. CARR-But he didn't suggest it at the meeting. I don't know when he suggested this. MRS. EGGLESTON-Bruce, why couldn't, just to reaffirm what they did, I mean, if anybody's queasy about it, why couldn't we give it until October? Then we've covered the same ground they've done, and you've got a. MR. CARR-Because I'm not sure we can give variances with time frames. MR. TURNER-I don't think we can give them with time frames. BRIAN GRANGER MR. GRANGER-What's the harm in giving the variance? MR. CARR-No. The law is you can't give a variance for the time frame. MR. GRANGER-No. What's the harm in giving a permanent variance, then, if this is what they're asking for, at this time? Brian Granger. MR. CARR-The variance, because it's a permanent one, and we aren't sure that the Town Board, through public hearings, isn't going to decide that they want another method of dealing with subdivisions who have received their approval prior to the new Code, but have not sold out, under the new Code. MRS. EGGLESTON-They were going to get a list, they asked for a list of all of the existing subdivisions that were going on within the Town that this would effect. MR. GRANGER-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-And they're going to put all that information together, see how many there are, and how they could treat it fairly for everybody, and how to handle it. MR. CARR-Fairly for everybody, and if we come in before that time and give a permanent variance to everybody, then we've made their decision for them. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. GRANGER-Well, the people that are here tonight are separate people, not for the whole. MR. CARR-Right, but that's just it, but that's piecemealing the problem, instead of addressing it as a whole, as has been announced that that's what's going to be done. MR. TURNER-All right. I've got a question for you. If they're going to issue building permits, for the houses in the subdivisions, all right, then why are they going to change anything? MR. CARR-As far as I know, I don't think they should. MR. TURNER-I didn't get that impression. I got the impression that if these subdivisions were approved that they were going to let them go, as approved. They were going to check the outstanding subdivisions that maybe hadn't been built on, the others that were outstanding, that hadn't sought any relief from us, as to where they were, and that's all I thought. MRS. EGGLESTON-Not do new legislation, you mean, right? MR. TURNER-Not do new legislation. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. Just extend that period for a year and do the building permits. MR. TURNER- Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think I might agree with you. MR. CARR-But they're going to have to come up with some legislation to deal with their findings. MRS. EGGLESTON-But they've got until October to do that. MR. CARR-Right, and no one's harmed until that time. MRS. EGGLESTON-Right. Do you think that's right, probably? MR. STEVES-You say that no one's harmed, but at closings, you have a lawyer for the buyer and a lawyer for the seller, and the lawyer for the buyer is going to say, lets see your variance. 6 ~' MR. CARR-That's right. The burden's on you to say that they did it wrong. So, I guess, then I would ask you, Leon, tell me the sites, you know, and the proper procedure, because the applicant is supposed to approve all the necessary requirements for a variance. Right now, as far as the Board's direction is concerned, we don't need a vari ance. You don't need a variance. So, I thi nk it's up to you to prove that we need the variance. MRS. EGGLESTON-If you've got a building permit, why would the attorney ask, did you get a variance? MR. STEVES-The issue of a building permit doesn't make it legal. MR. TURNER-No. MR. STEVES-The pure issuance of that building permit doesn't make it legal, and the Town is exonerated from any errs on their part. Therefore, it's the developer who has to prove that what he did is correct. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. STEVES-And I think that's why we're here tonight, is to avoid this from happening. You may say it's perfectly legal to get a building permit tomorrow. I'm not convinced that it is. MR. TURNER-No. I'm not either, not by any stretch of the imagination, because I think you're still illegal right now, even though what they did the other night, they seem to think it's legal. I think you're ill ega 1 . MR. CARR-Okay. Ted, are you comfortable with giving a permanent variance, then, because that's what we're being asked to give? MR. TURNER-I think that was their intent the other night. MR. CARR-To give a permanent variance or to give one until October 1st? MR. TURNER-No. Their intent, the other night, was to let these subdivisions go as they were approved, lot sizes, and so forth. MR. CARR-For another year to look at the problem. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARR-See, I don't agree that they said they were just going to. MR. STEVES-Go back to last week's meeting, before Monday night's meeting. Last week, Paul Dusek sat over here, the Town Attorney, and he told you that you cannot merge lots in a subdivision. MR. CARR-Right. It was taken away. MR. STEVES-He told you that. It was taken away. MR. CARR-That's right. MR. STEVES-He also said that he would suggest that all developers come in here and ask for a permanent variance. MR. CARR-That was a week ago. Monday things changed. MR. STEVES-I'm still working on last week. MR. TURNER-I don't think anything's changed. I think Monday it just got a little more confusing. MR. SHEA-It sounds like it to me. MR. TURNER-I don't think anything has changed at all. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, I don't know, when you've got the Town Attorney sitting there. You've got the Town Board sitting here, and they all said, this is what we're going to do, and the Attorney said it's legal and they voted on it and they passed it. MR. CARR-The resolution was to amend 179-77, until October 1st, 1992. MR. TURNER-They had no public hearing, no public notice, no nothing. Suppose there's people out there that want to speak on it. There was nobody here to speak on it. It's totally illegal. There's nothing caste in concrete, I don't think, not at this stage of the game. 7 MR. STEVES-I don't know, the people in the audience, if they're here tonight for this particular development or one of the others, but they're here for a reason. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. STEVES-They didn't have that opportunity Monday night. and I'm not criticizing what happened Monday night. I think it was a great action, but I still am here tonight. MR. TURNER-I think it was a concept more than an action. MR. STEVES-Yes, okay, but I'm here tonight to be sure that we cover our bases. MR. TURNER-I think their action might have been well intended, but I think it's out of order. MR. STEVES-You talk about these things that happen all the time. The APA has issued me a permit. I got it and the file's at the office. We recorded it and it's in every search that was ever sold out of this subdivision, and I've also got a letter from them that, five years after, said, oops, you didn't need a permit. Consider this null and void. Now, how do you do that, in an abstract that's already been taken care of and filed and action that's already been taken care of. How do you do that? That's why we're here tonight. Lets not have an oops tonight. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-I understand your dilemma, but I'm not willing to usurp the power of the Town Board. I mean. you're asking me to take one subdivision, I heard, I disagree with Mr. Turner. I heard them say, we're going to study the whole effect, Betty Monahan was the one that said it. She doesn't want a real quick answer to this that's going to effect the whole Town, but we can give a solution to the immediate problem and give us time to find a solution. MRS. EGGLESTON-She was adamant about it. MR. CARR-She was very adamant about it. MRS. YORK-Maybe I can, I might make things worse, but I'll try and clarify them. My understanding was that subdivisions that have received final approval, those phases that have received final approval, would be granted building permits. Those that have not yet received final approval and were in the phased process and were not built on were then going to be looked at as to how they should be treated, because it was still raw land. MR. CARR-At what time? I mean, from time frames, is this forever, or was this the October 1st that was thrown around? MRS. YORK- I don't know, Bruce. here and discuss this with you. them over here? I would be happy to go over and ask the Town Board to come on over They're right next door. or the Town Attorney. Do you want to get MR. TURNER-Yes, because these people came here for a reason. Lets get them over here. Lets find out. MRS. YORK-All right. MR. SICARD-The thing is, that we left that night, everybody seemed to be. it was all settled. MRS. EGGLESTON-I know it, thinking everybody was happy. MR. TURNER-No. I wasn't. MARY MCGUIRE MRS. MCGUIRE-My name is Mary McGuire, and I'm actually here with my father. Ray Galding, who has property near Herald Square, which is being brought up here tonight, okay. My question is, and I really don't know if I should be here for this. I'll give you this. I'll go by what you're saying. My father owned that property before his development, which I can show you a map. This is his development, Herald Square. This is Ray Galding's property, here, and these two properties, here. He owns this, he purchased these lots, here, back in 1969, before this road was put in for Herald Square. The original map for that, when he purchased it, is here. MR. CARR-Okay. MRS. MCGUIRE-He, in his deed, reads he borders a 50 foot right-of-way. When Guido Passarelli brought this development into place, he had it all re-surveyed. He moved that road. The original road bordered the Galding property. The new road he put in left the wedge and landlocked Ray Galding's property, which is actually a house here and two empty lots here. 8 '-- MR. CARR-Okay. MRS. MCGUIRE-So, now, this is landlocked from the road, which, I don't know how the Town let him do it, because this was the first, original deed, and they overpowered this deed and gave him a totally new deed and took. MR. CARR-So, this is a lot here and this is a lot? MRS. MCGUIRE-Yes. This is, on this front part, here, is Ray Galding's house. which is here. Then this is two empty lots right here. There's a lot here and a lot here, owned by Ray Galding, which is my father. MR. CARR-Okay. MRS. MCGUIRE-We've been to the attorney. We've been to this one. We've been to that one in the Town. The Town seemed to lose the original deed map. They didn't even have a copy of it. It's like. everybody's pushing us off on the other person, but yet now, that property, I want to build on. That's what it boils down to. My father is giving that land to me to build a house on. MR. CARR-You have to have it subdivided. MRS. MCGUIRE-It is subdivided. MR. CARR-No. As of, is it a subdivision or just divided? He owns both lots, right? MRS. MCGUIRE-Okay. My father owns this property. He just sold this. There was a house there. He has a house on thi s property. Now he also owns thi s and he also owns thi s. He had that already subdivided back before the deadline was changed, in September of '88, I believe. MR. CARR-Okay. MRS. MCGUIRE-He had that subdivided into two separate lots at that time. There are two separate deeds. MR. CARR-Okay. MRS. MCGUIRE-This is the house now. These are the two subdivided lots, and this is the house that was just sold. MR. CARR-Okay. He's okay then. MRS. MCGUIRE-Yes. He's okay, as far as that goes, but the bottom line is, Guido Passarelli came in and put a wedge. MR. CARR-Talk to your attorney about an easement by necessity. Just tell him easement by necessity, and you may be able to cross the property to get to that road. MRS. MCGUIRE-Well, why should we have to, if our deed reads it bordered that road? MR. CARR-Right, and that's why he moved it. The road's in. You aren't going to get him to move it, but he may have to give you an easement across his property. mean, it's just an easement by law. So, I would suggest that's what you talk to your attorney about. MRS. MCGUIRE-Why should I have to hire an attorney? Can't I do it through the Town? MR. CARR-No. The Town, this is not a Town matter. MR. TURNER-That's a civil matter. MR. CARR-Yes. This is a civil matter. MRS. MCGUIRE-But the Town gave him that development the way it is, which didn't go with the original deeds that the Town original said that. MR. CARR-The Town, they look at the plans as submitted by the applicant to decide whether or not that's the subdivision. MR. TURNER-Yes, if he doesn't show it, we don't know. MRS. EGGLESTON-And then it's advertised and people are supposed to come if they have a problem. MR. SHEA-The attorneys have to look at the deeds. They represent you and the other. 9 -- -- MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-That's right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MRS. MCGUIRE-Okay, but what about the deed maps. Don't the Town of Queensbury look at the deed maps when they bring in that new development map? MR. CARR-Not all the time. We'll have to talk about this later, but I don't, this is not a Town matter, but I think you have some rights for easements. I mean, you are not going to be landlocked. You will have access to your property. MRS. MCGUIRE-So, what I've got to do is hire my own attorney, get easement to that property. MR. CARR-Well, you might want to just confer with him, just to make sure what the deal is, and then talk to Guido about just putting a driveway across it. I don't really think that's going to be a problem. MRS. MCGUIRE-Guido already told me he'd give me that land if I'd let him build the house, and I paid him to build it, which I don't think is right. MR. CARR-No, and it may not be necessary, but it's not something the Town can really help you with. MRS. MCGUIRE-Okay. Thanks. MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Dusek. I explained to you the issue. PAUL DUSEK MR. DUSEK-I think I understand what the problem is and I'll do my best to see if I can clear up some confusion. I know, of course, that what we're talking about, here, is that Section 179.77, I believe it is, and what the Town Board did and what's been happening, and I know it's left your Board in quite a quandary, through no fault of your own, that's for sure. First of all, I think it's important to understand that what happened is 179.77 of the Zoning Ordinance essentially says, anybody who's had a subdivision that was approved and fully and lawfully in existence on September 30th, 1988, the day before our new Zoning Ordinance came into effect was exempt from our new Regulations for three years. It's really that simple, and we haven't had any problems with that. That worked out very well. What people weren't aware of, and this is where the confusion started, is in July, when the Ordinance was modified slightly, to make that as it reads, that it included everything, area, setbacks, the whole works, so that at the end of three years, a lot in an approved subdivision became nonconforming if it wasn't in the proper zone. For instance, if it was in a one acre zone and it only had a half acre, even though it was approved that way, it became nonconforming. Now, there's been much debate over what happened at that Town Board meeting and what the Town Board's intent was, and we can go on and on for a long time with that, and everybody can point to minutes and say different things. MR. CARR-The Town Board meeting you're talking about is summer, not this Monday. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. CARR-We haven't gotten to that yet. MR. DUSEK-Not yet, but the bottom line is, if you read the law as it was written, and this is how it got started, just recently. Some attorney, I guess, contacted somebody, was it Pat, and said, you know, your Zoning Ordinance seems to say that you've got to have a variance, if you have a one half acre lot in a one acre zone, even though it's in a subdivision, after October 1st, 1991, it seems like you've got to have a variance for that, and, at one point, I got involved and said, yes. You know what, he's right, and we went back to the minutes and we found that this was discussed at that meeting, that, presumably, everybody understood that this was what was going to happen, but for some reason or another, the Town did not enforce that provision of the Ordinance, and so, for a long time, since November of last year, November 1st, builders were only required to get variances from setbacks. They were never required to get variances from the area size. So, if you had a subdivision, approved by the Planning Board, prior to 1988, they would come in for a side line variance, if they needed it to put their house on, but if they were in an acre zone, but still only had a half acre lot, they were still issued a building permit. They never had to get that variance from the one acre lot requirement. All of a sudden, it came up and it was found and builders, of course, found themselves in predicaments. I know, Bruce, you were here at one of the meetings, just last week, when we were discussing it, and you said, gee, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. We almost have to grant him the variance. Why are they coming here before us. The Town Board attempted to deal with the situation on Monday, in a couple of different ways, and this is what, I think, lead to the confusion. The first way they tried to deal with it was to come up with a solution that would, basically, continue or exempt from this half acre, one acre business, the lots entirely, so that you wouldn't have to deal with it, or people 10 -- wouldn't have to come for a variance. There was no way that they could finalize whatever they did Monday. They were only going to start the process because they have to go through public hearings and all this other stuff. The proposal that was before them, though, was basically shot down because a better idea came up, and the better idea was, well, wait a minute guys. Rather than do this quick fix, this quick band aid, why don't you go back and revise that Section, make it four years instead of three, so that way we'll get this whole thing straightened away for now, and then, secondly, why don't you, in addition to doing that, why don't you, then, take a good hard look at this whole Section and maybe rewrite it, reestablish it, and really do something good here, and try to clean it up fully. There again, that was the idea that came out Monday, but no action could be taken on that because they have to go through the proper channels. They have to set a public hearing. They have to adopt it. Now, I have drafted the paperwork that they need to start the process, and I believe the Town Board will probably start the process this Monday and, eventually, they'll probably change that Section so it's four years instead of three years. MR. CARR-How long will that take? MR. DUSEK-Probably about a month, maybe a little longer. This one we can do relatively quickly because we've exempted the APA out of it and we don't have to worry about getting thei r approval, and we'll just go through, if the Town Board accepts what I've drafted, they would just go through Warren County Planning, the Planning Board, and they could probably get through the cycle in about a month, and I think it would probably, Lee's reviewing it from an environmental standpoint now, but my feeling is it probably qualifies for an unlisted action, and I don't know if it'll have an impact or not, but that'll be up to Lee to tell us. It seems like it's relatively minor, though. Where does that leave us in the meantime? Well, in addition to all of this going on, to try to clear up the problem for everybody, once and for all, we still have, though, the developers out there who are in the one acre zones, who have half acre lots in their subdivisions, and those are the same, some of them, in any event, are the same subdivisions where building permits were previously issued. The Town Board, Monday night, said that this doesn't seem fair. Why should one lot in the subdivision require a variance, where the other lot didn't require a variance? So what the Town said is, we're going to say that that Section isn't right, and we're not going to enforce it, okay. That didn't change the law, but it was a resolution saying we're not going to enforce that Section. The Building Inspector has agreed with that interpretation. So, what you have is a coincidence where the Town Board and the Building Inspector, so the Town in essence, is in agreement that that Section should not be enforced and that Building Permits should be issued anyway. So, now the question becomes, well, if that's the case, then why wouldn't anybody want to come for a variance to your Board, if they don't have to. The reason why, and I've explained this to a few attorneys who have called me. The reason, in my opinion, they still want to give a variance, and why your Board certainly still has the power to give a variance, is, that's the Town's position. The Town says, we don't want to enforce it, but, under law, that doesn't prevent other people from enforcing it. So, my advice to the developers was, until they get this four year provision in place, if you want to fully protect yourself, you ought to stay on the agenda and get your variances, and this Board certainly has the ability to grant that variance, just like you always have, and like you could before. Now, Lee mentioned to me something about maybe there was a concern that, would you be doing some damage to the Ordinance or to future plans. I really don't think so. I think that you have this authority, at any time, to grant this kind of a variance and I also think that, under the circumstances, especially in subdivisions that are already partially built out, where the infrastructure's in place, I think the applicant's can make a really good argument that they ought to get the variance. So, I don't know that you can really, you know, unless we can show some sort of a community, overriding need not to give them the variance, I think you're hard pressed to deny the application. MR. CARR-Don't you see a community need as the stated purpose of the Town Board not to have a quick fix to this situation, but to look at the situation as a whole? MR. DUSEK-No. I think the community need has to be driven at that particular area in that particular location. For instance, you had one, back a while ago, that was denied, which provided an excellent example. Somebody wanted to subdivide a lot and they wanted to have less than the required road frontage on the highway. The argument they said, well, I'm going to have a financial loss because this is a prime piece of property. The house is over here. I don't know if you remember it or not, and they said, we can subdivide. The reason why I remember it is because I was in court for you on it, but that we can subdivide it and it makes sense. This Board, after careful consideration, and after hearing from the Planning Staff, said, well, wait a minute, in that area, we required so much in road frontage, which was double the road frontage, because it was on an arterial corridor, for reasons, and the reasons, in the master plan, the reasons were that it was important to protect those areas so that we wouldn't have a lot of driveway cuts and there was other reasons that were given, but do you see how those reasons specifically deal with that property, then? The applicant is saying, I want my variance. The Town is saying, you shouldn't have a variance because of these reasons that are specifically applicable to your property. Reasons that are, overall, as to, well, we need time to get a Zoning Ordinance, those have never held water in the courts. In fact, that's how some of your moratoriums get shot down, because the courts just don't like those type of restraints on development. So, in my opinion, I think, at this point, here again, the limited variances that you're looking at, in these subdivisions, I don't think are going to change anything, and I think you're going to be hard pressed to deny it. 11 '- - MR. TURNER-They're certainly not going to impact anything, because everything's there. MR. DUSEK-Right. They're already in place anyway, and that's my opinion on the situation. MR. TURNER-I think, in relation to that, no matter how we deal with it, they're still under the same old criteria, until the other stuff becomes effective. MR. DUSEK-Well, right, the law hasn't been changed. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. DUSEK-Because it can't be changed until they go through the proper channels. All that's happened is, the Town Board and the Building Inspector are both agreed that they wouldn't enforce that Section, but that doesn't change the law, and the applicants, in fairness, should come before you and ask for a variance, just because they can protect themselves from another possible avenue of attack if somebody should ever want to, in the future. Now, once the law is changed, and this is the other thing that just hit me. Think about it this way for a moment. If that law gets changed the way the Board wants to, then they're going to put them back in the same status as what you're going to give them anyway. In the time that they build these things out, you know, if they get them built out before November, then it wouldn't be any different than if you granted them a variance or they extended it four years, because it's going to amount to the same thing. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-Okay. What happens at October 1st, say the Town comes up with a whole other scheme? MR. DUSEK-It'll be applicable for those, then existing. MR. CARR-Who don't have a variance. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. CARR-So, a variance is permanent. MR. DUSEK-That's right. It runs with the land. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-I agree with that. MR. CARR-Okay. So, it's not just that we're glvlng them the same thing the Town Board's giving them. We're giving them something more than the Town may give them. MR. TURNER-May give them. MR. DUSEK-You're right, to the extent of longevity, but initially, you're both giving them the same thing, if they adopt the four years, because if these developers build out those lots during that time period, everybody's the same. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-Well, right. I mean, yes, I think that's what everybody wants to do is to have the building going on. I'm just not convinced that our permanent solution is the best solution, as opposed to the Town looking at it and coming up with a solution to the problem. MR. DUSEK-Well, I guess the other thing you have to look at is how many lots are you affecting and what subdivisions are you affecting. MR. TURNER-Yes, right. MR. CARR-Well, there's a couple of large subdivisions that we're affecting. MR. DUSEK-And are they partially built out, at this point? MR. TURNER-Yes, they are. MR. CARR-One's not built out at all. Lehland Park's how many? MRS. MCGUIRE-Five. MR. TURNER-Five. MR. STEVES-All the infrastructure's in, though. 12 ----" MR. TURNER-Every thing's in. MR. STEVES-That's the important issue here, is infrastructure. You don't change things that have been created. MR. CARR-But then I would ask, how do you prove a side line setback? I mean, you'd have to show us that there isn't a house that could be built within the existing side lines, because their side line setbacks don't exist. at this point. MR. STEVES-I thought we addressed that last week, because you're diminishing the width by ten feet on a lot that, by restrictions, needs 2,000 square feet of building space. Now, if you reduce that down to 60 feet. and you reduce that further by 24, for a two car garage, you don't have much 1 eft, except go up the four stories. MR. CARR-But then you get into the argument that, I mean, I understand, and, believe me, I agree with what should be done, here, but then you get into the argument of, do you need a two car garage? There's 10 feet right there. I mean, you can really get into these things. I mean, I've heard that question, here, at this Board, before. MR. STEVES-Well, I think that the purpose of the Zoning Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals is the name, and that's what we're here for, is the relief that the burden of the Code has put upon the developers. MR. CARR-Yes, but I'm not sure that's a burden. MR. STEVES-It is, and I think there's case laws to that effect. MR. CARR-What, two car garage, as opposed to one car garage? MR. STEVES-No, to changing the size of the lots, after the infrastructure has been paid for. MR. CARR-I'm not talking size of the lots, now. MR. STEVES-I am, because size of the lots is also the usable area. So, you're talking dimensional relief, but only because the Town has put on a more restrictive requirement of that. MR. CARR-Then why would the Town even go about looking at this, if everyone should just come in and get a permanent variance? I mean, why waste the Town Board's time. MR. STEVES-The Board's name is the Zoning Board of Appeals. It isn't Zoning Board. It's Zoning Board of Appeals. You come here for relief, and I'm here for relief. I'm not here to argue with you. MR. CARR-No. I'm just trying to justify. MR. STEVES-I think that you're taking a very negative aspect of the Code. Paul has given you a very good synopsis of what happened. He's told you that we're not legal. You still don't want to make us legal. That's your opinion. MR. CARR-No. MR. STEVES-Well, then, I'll sit down and let you talk. because I don't agree with what you're telling me. MR. CARR-Right. I'm just trying to say that, I mean, the Town Board, we had this whole meeting, was to work closely together. I heard the Town Board say a very specific thing of what they wanted this Town to do, and now, you know, we're in a quandary of, do we give the relief that our hands have been tied and we should give the relief for, over the next month, or wait for the Town Board to make a better solution that would be better for the Town. That's all I'm saying. MR. STEVES-Personally, I'll be glad to withdraw any application I have before this Board, if you and the rest of the Board will go on record that you will stand behind any action that's brought against the developer for building upon a lot illegally. MR. CARR-You know I can't do that. MR. STEVES-Why not? MR. CARR-Because I can't bind the Town. MR. DUSEK-I think the other thing I should comment on, with regard to Bruce's concerns, and I understand your concerns. I mean, it certainly is a legitimate concern, and that is that you're concerned that whatever this may do may result in some sort of permanency that ties the hands of the Town later, in 13 ,--, --'" dealing with this, and you're basically trying to be cooperative and help the Town Board. The response I have to that, though. is that the Town Board obviously understands that their actions that they took the other night, in declaring some of these Sections unenforceable, would have certain ramifications. They also were there, and I said this at the meeting, and I'm trying to think of the exact words I used, but I did explain that, when somebody said something about variances, I said developers may very well want to come back and get variances just because of what I said, that other people may challenge them, not just the Town, to protect themselves. So, I made that statement at that meeting, and I think the Town understands, the Town Board, at least from what I can determine, seems to understand that we have a problem area, here, and it has to be dealt with, but the message, or at least the feeling that I'm getting, that they want to be fair to the people, in the meantime, and it seems to me that if somebody can come in and prove a case for a variance, which I think these people can, then they're entitled to it, and even if the laws should change, they'd probably be able to still make a case out for a variance, especially where the subdivision is all developed and approved by the Planning Board, the infrastructure's in place. I think you'd still be hard pressed not to give variances, even at that point, no matter what the law says at that time, because these places are already in existence. Now, new subdivisions, phases that haven't been approved or anything, I wouldn't, certainly. you know, think you'd have to give variances for those, because they're not even on the books yet, but the ones we're looking at are the ones, and, also, I might add, this Town Board resolution, specifically, was very narrow and said that it was talking about those subdivisions that were approved by the Planning Board after 1982. So. it was a very limited type of thing, because there, again, I think the thought is, just keep it very confined now so it doesn't get away from us in the manner that you're concerned with. MRS. EGGLESTON-So, why put the Town through all of that, because all of the developers who've got present subdivisions pending, that have been approved, are going to come in here and get variances, no matter what you guys do. So, why should the Town go through all the expense of doing that? MR. DUSEK-Of doing the changes, now, that they're going to do? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Why do that? MR. DUSEK-Well, to, one, eliminate the need to have to go for the variance. See, what they want to do. basi ca lly. MRS. EGGLESTON-But they're going to come anyway. MR. DUSEK-Well. they'll come during this window of time, but once the Ordinance is changed, then they don't have to worry about coming in again, because they'll be lawful, up to November 1st, and then what the Town Board wants to do. the goal, here, is, you see, is to create a window of time so that they can develop a permanent, good, solid fix, and that's, I think. the message that Bruce was coming away with, from the meeting the other night, and I've got to be honest with you, the solution that I came forth with initially, because that was most of my drafting for their local law that they were looking at, was not the best solution. The best solution that came out of that meeting was to change the three to four years, because it's not a permanent type of solution, and it gives them time to take a look at this whole situation and resolve it. In the meantime, the developers who come in to get the variance, they get it, they're on their way. They're protected. They can go ahead and build. They have that security, and the other thing I might add to you is that they have a real problem, because I know that if they are facing attorneys in closings that are looking at this thing, saying, gee, well, the law says this, and the Town Board says they're not going to enforce it, but, you know, I think an attorney's going to understand, looking at that project, well, it doesn't mean a neighbor can't enforce it. So. if that's the case, the best relief for that person to have is to get the variance from this Board, so that they're completely protected. Yes, it's a long term remedy, but at least it clears the problem for these particular developers who got caught in the cycle. I mean the other choice you have is to leave all those other lots out there, you know, in terms of the building permits that were previously issued, it raises the question with regard to those. So, I think if you establish a precedent, given a variance, you're going to have some impact, but once the Town Board gets back in, redoes the law, it'll straighten it away at that time, and the concerns that you have, in terms of fairness, will also be addressed further at that time, and I've got a feeling what you're probably going to see happening is that subdivisions are probably going to get the same type of relief that you're giving them anyway, in the end. That's probably what they'll end up doing, because the concern is, and this is true with most re-zonings, when you go through them, is you try to leave intact in the Town those things that make sense, those things that are receiving good reviews, and you try to change what needs to be changed and altered, and that's, I think. what Queensbury's been struggling with. We had some problems with that Section of the Ordinance that were attempted to be addressed last year. We thought we came up with a good solution. We found it backfired this year. So. now the Town Board's going to take another look at it, and I think the message that I'm getting, they just don't want to hurt anybody in the meantime, while the Town gets its house in order. MR. TURNER-Any other questions for Paul? Okay. Thanks. MR. STEVES-You mentioned a moment ago that anything that has phases and hasn't got final approval, these Boards shouldn't look at. We're talking about, in front of the Board tonight a 1987 subdivision that had final approval on the first phase. 14 -- MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. STEVES-Two lots which were left out for Phase II only had Preliminary approval. We attempted to go to the Planning Board the other night, but it was withdrawn for various reasons, but the Planning Board's hands would be tied, in approving that, or they could approve it under the '87 law, but the Board would have to have immediately granted a variance for the setback and area sizes. So, we're here, tonight, for the area and setback requirements of that Code. MR. DUSEK-For two lots? MR. STEVES-For two lots. MR. TURNER-Yes, but what conditions were tied to the lots? Weren't there conditions tied to those two lots, for approval? MR. STEVES-Subdivision approval. MR. TURNER-Yes, but. MRS. YORK-Yes, the condition on those lots was that it had the approval of the Department of Health for septic systems. MRS. EGGLESTON-I think there was a letter. MR. STEVES-I think that, in your minutes tonight, you said you had a letter of that approval. MRS. YORK-Right, and there is a letter from Brian Fear of the Health Department in there. MR. STEVES-Pardon me, Lee. Rather than keep Mr. Dusek here, were you referring to that type of scenario? MR. DUSEK-No. I'm thinking of the scenario of, I don't want to mention any names, but I know of at least a couple of subdivisions that received Phase I approval. They've been either all built out or partially built out. They had Phase II and III, which were numerous houses that were on the drawing boards. They never got final approval, and I'm just saying, you don't want to, I don't think, at this point, you're in a position to grant a blanket variance for them, because they knew at the time when the Zoning Ordinance changed, they got trapped under the new Zoning Ordinance, and I know there's a couple of them that are looking for re-zonings, and that would seem to be the appropriate relief. If you have a special, isolated case, I mean, I don't mean to be throwing that in there, and I didn't mean to do that. MR. STEVES-That's why I asked for the clarification. Thank you. MRS. EGGLESTON-We did get a letter from the Department of Health. We read that the last time. MR. DUSEK-Yes, that may be something that's going to have to be looked at in its own merits. I don't fully understand what you're saying, but I was thinking, in my mind, the big, huge, Phase II, 30 lots, you know, to go, that have not been approved, in any fashion, by the Planning Board. MR. STEVES-Yes. Well, rather than just take a Phase cOllll1ent tonight, that's why I asked the question. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. I guess we're all set. MR. DUSEK-Hopefully I've helped. MR. TURNER-Thanks, Paul. Leon, are you agent for Mr. Kruger? Do you want him to speak for you, Don? Do you want to declare him as your agent? It's not on the paper. DONALD KRUGER MR. KRUGER-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. STEVES-He filled out the application before he realized. MR. TURNER-I don't know if he's just speaking in generalities or what, but the first time around, since you're here, we'll get your permission. Okay. Do you have anything else? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 15 MARK HOFFMAN MR. HOFFMAN-I'm confused. Which application are we referring to? MR. TURNER-We're referring to Donald Kruger, Shallow Creek Subdivision. MRS. YORK-Both Phase I and Phase II. MR. TURNER-Phase I and Phase II. MR. STEVES-Do you want a map? MR. TURNER-Yes, if you've got one. Are you in support of the application? MR. HOFFMAN-Well, I'm asking for clarification. I don't know if I need, do I need to commit myself yet? MR. TURNER-No, not yet. Go ahead. Ask your first question. MR. HOFFMAN-My name is Mark Hoffman from Bonner Drive. Well, as long as you have the map, this is Phase II, here? MR. STEVES-Yes, these two lots are Phase II. MR. HOFFMAN-What is this lot, here? What does this consist of, here? Is there a house going in here? MR. STEVES-Yes, there's a planned house back there. MR. HOFFMAN-And that's already been approved? MR. STEVES-That's been approved. MR. HOFFMAN-That would be Lot 9? MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. HOFFMAN-I just have some questions. 1'm somewhat concerned about the stream behind the two lots there. I know there's been some flooding in the area, due to some other construction that's gone on. I'm not sure exactly what the role of the Department of Health was. If there was a letter, I'd like to hear it read and find out exactly what their finding was. I think it's an important, environmentally sensitive stream. It supplies a good deal of marsh land out east toward the Northway, and ultimately supplies some of the water supply to Glen Lake, and I would like to know more about that. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARR-Should we read the letter now, so he can. MRS. EGGLESTON-It doesn't address the Brook. It's only about the fill. MR. TURNER-It doesn't address that. It only talks about the fill. He had to fill the lot, too, and that's all it talks about. If we had the minutes, but that stream is a Class A stream. MR. CARR- Yes. MR. TURNER-Mr. Hoffman, this is in reference to the remarks you just made about the stream in the back. Mrs. Eggleston will read the letter. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's from Patricia Crayford to the Zoning Board of Appeals, "It has come to my attention that an intermittent stream is located on or near lots 2 and 10 of the Shallow Creek Subdivision. I talked with Kevin Bliss of the DEC today who said this is a Class Double A Stream, which is a protected classification. Therefore, all septic systems will have to be 100 feet from the stream, and the structure 75 feet from the stream. Also, site plan review is required to place fill within 50 feet of any stream. I don't believe the original subdivision plan shows this stream. Therefore, I cannot make a setback determination." MR. TURNER-Does that answer your question? MR. CARR-I think Mr. Steves is going to address the setback. Is that what your concern is? MR. HOFFMAN-Yes. Apparently, the issue hasn't been resolved, from the standpoint of the Department of Health, if that letter is from the Department of Health. 16 - MR. TURNER-No. He addressed the distances in that. He just addressed the distances. Read the Department of Health. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, we do have one from the Department of Health, and it answers the question, why the Phase II didn't get final approval to begin with. It's to Jeffrey Anthony, from Brian Fear, District Director, New York State Department of Health, RE: Shallow Creek Subdivision, Phase II, "On October 20th, 1987, I wrote you indicating that Phase I of this project was approvable, and outlining the conditions for approval of Phase II, which consisted of lots 2 and 10. Please be advised that on May 22nd, 1991, I accompanied Mr. Don Kruger on an inspection of those two lots. At that time, I determined that the lots had been properly filled, and that the fill was stabilized. Since the conditions for approval have been met, by this letter, I am granting final approval for Phase II of the project." MR. HOFFMAN-Okay. That's the Department of Health. MR. TURNER-Yes, but that was the condition of the final approval on that lot. MR. HOFFMAN-Now, the other letter that you read, from the DEC, how does that relate? MRS. EGGLESTON-No, the other letter was from Patricia Crayford, the Zoning Administrator, and she was raising the questions of the stream, and she says what the setbacks have to be. Would you like me to read it again? MR. HOFFMAN-No. MR. STEVES-Kevin B1 &s is from Regulatory Affairs at DEC, and that's who she was referring to in the letter. MR. HOFFMAN-Okay. So, it's not clear to me whether he was satisfied that the plan met their criteria. MR. TURNER-Their setbacks. MR. HOFFMAN-Based on the first letter, it appeared that that was not the case, but then you read another letter from the Department of Health indicating that their criteria have been met. I'm not sure if the two are talking about the same thing. MR. TURNER-No, they're not. The one letter from the Department of Health is in relation to the fill that had to go on the lot. MR. HOFFMAN-Okay. MR. TURNER-The other letter is in relation to the setbacks that apply to the lot, as to the stream, the distance from the stream. MR. HOFFMAN-Okay, and you're going to address that? MR. STEVES-I'll try. MR. HOFFMAN-Okay. MR. TURNER-Mr. Steves. MR. STEVES-The stream corri dor has been shown on all plans, and these are the ori gi na 1 plans that were approved back in 1987, but you'll see it on the grading plan that's in front of you. You'll see it, I think, on the next sheet as well, and you also see it on the subdivision plan, it's over here. See, it shows up very well here as the dash, three dots, dash, line. To supplement the plan that you have in front of you, we've enlarged it, and we also went out in the field and actually located the stream again, as to its exact location today. I mean, this is fresh off the press, and it is shown there in blue, as the exact location of that stream, which is an intermittent stream, and we have taken the liberty of also showing the proposed house and setback as well. MR. SICARD-What does intermittent mean, just on rainy days? MR. STEVES-Yes. I think it's a controlled discharge stream from the City reservoir. MR. CARR-So, what is the setback? Is that? MRS. EGGLESTON-We just read it here. MR. CARR-No, no. What's the setback that he's got for the proposed house? MR. STEVES-The setback from the stream? 17 -- MR. CARR-Yes. MR. STEVES-Okay. The setback from the stream is going to have to be 75 feet to any structure, and 100 feet to the septic. If Mr. Kruger places his septic to the front of his house, in a drywell condition, he will meet the 100 foot setback. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. STEVES-The house itself would have to be pushed back away from the road so that he could have his proper setbacks from the septic. The septic has to be 10 feet from the road. The septic is eight feet to ten feet wide, drywells, and then you've got to be another 20 feet to the house. So, you have to be back, that's 40 feet back from the road, 38 minimum, 40 feet, roughly, and you do that, and you put a house 30 feet in size, then you're going to be 70 feet back from the road line, which puts you in the proximity of 42 feet from the stream. MRS. EGGLESTON-Instead of the 75 required. MR. STEVES-That's correct. We'd have to come back for a setback from the stream bed. That's correct. MR. CARR-Is that being asked to be given tonight, or is that not? MR. STEVES-I don't think it was made as part of the application. MR. TURNER-No, it wasn't. MR. CARR-No? MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARR-So, we can't address it tonight? MR. STEVES-No. MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. STEVES-But I'm informing you of where it is. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. STEVES-Now, as you can see from the configuration shown here, that the nearest point is right in back of the house, but off to the side a considerable distance from there, okay, and the house size shown is not reduced, but rather a normal size 30 by 70 foot house. So, we've taken, if you will, the maximum condition of the house, size, that be placed down there. We also have shown the normal setbacks for that lot, as approved back in '87. MR. TURNER-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are you on the agenda with the Planning Board for the final approval on Phase II? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. STEVES-Yes, we are. MRS. EGGLESTON-When will that be? MR. STEVES-It will be in February. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else wish to be heard in support of the application? Opposed to the application? MR. HOFFMAN-I'm just not sure I understand exactly what the jurisdiction of this Board is, versus the Planning Board, and who is responsible for insuring the proper setback from the stream? MR. TURNER-We grant setbacks and area variance for the lots. Planning Board does site plan review. MR. HOFFMAN-Well, I'm just confused about, I thought I heard you say that you coul dn' t address the issue of the setbacks from the stream. MR. TURNER-The stream setback, tonight, because it's not on the agenda. He's only asking for approval for Phase I and Phase II of the subdivision. 18 -' -' MR. CARR-For area variances. MR. TURNER-Area and. MR. HOFFMAN-Area meaning the acreage per lot? MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. HOFFMAN-So, he has to come back to this Board again. MR. TURNER-And setback, but lot 2 doesn't have a house on it yet. MR. HOFFMAN-Okay. MR. TURNER-So, there's nothing. MR. CARR-Just the basi c side, front, and rear setback 1 ines, ri ght, not addressi ng the stream setback tonight. MR. TURNER-Right. We're not addressing that. MR. CARR-That's a separate issue, and it's probably an issue that should be brought up before final approval at the Planning Board. MR. TURNER-The house on that drawing is proposed. That doesn't mean, I don't know if that means he's going to build that size house or not. MR. SHEA-In all likelihood, he'll be back in in February to ask for a variance of the difference between 42 and 75, so he can place the house that much closer to the stream than is required, which is 75 feet. MR. HOFFMAN-Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else wish to be heard on this application? Okay. The public hearing's closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any discussion? MR. CARR-So, we shouldn't consider the setbacks for the septic and the house, as opposed to the stream? MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. STEVES-I hear your question. As far as the septic is concerned, if there's a difficulty there, then we would have to go to the Town Board of Health, okay. MR. TURNER-Yes, on the septic. MR. STEVES-But Brian Fear has already granted approval on it, if you will. Now, you've got me. MR. CARR-Well, he granted approval on the stabilization of the soil. MR. TURNER-Yes, the soil. MR. STEVES-Which is the same thing. Ergo, he says, I grant approval for Phase II. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-All right. MR. STEVES-I mean, that's the way I heard the letter being read. Maybe you want to check that. MR. CARR-No, no. That's all right. MR. TURNER-Any discussion? Motion's in order. tmT!ON TO APPROVE AREA VARIAIICE NO. 2-1992 DOMLD KRUGER, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: 19 -- And grant him the area variances requested for Phase I and Phase II of the Shallow Creek Subdivision, with the same dimensional requirements as applied to Phase I when they received their approval in 1987, being the relief granted for this variance, and those same dimensional requirements apply to the lots created in Phase II. The review of the Short EAF as it applies to the variances granted tonight would show no environmental impact. Duly adopted this 30th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (8:33 p.m.) AREA VARIMCE NO. 3-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-lA GUIDO PASSARELLI mitER: SAlE AS ABOVE EAST SIDE OF WEST ÞDJNTAIN ROAD, JUST A LImE NORTH OF ÞDJNTAIN VIEW lANE. AT RE~EST TO VARY THE LOT SIZE FOR PHASE I OF THE LEHLAND PARK SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP 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 THE APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:33 p.m.) MR. STEVES-If I may, I want to be sure you've got the correct application, because I made two of them. MRS. EGGLESTON-It says revised. MR. STEVES-Okay. What we're seeking, tonight, is just for the two lots, 19 and 20. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. STEVES-It should say that on Item 6 on the front page of the application. MR. TURNER-Yes, you're right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, it does. "Tax Map No. Section 74 Block 2 Lot 999 Lots 19 and 20 Lehland Park". MR. STEVES-Right, and the reason for that, I think you remember, is the area variance has to go to the County for the lots within 500 feet of West Mountain Road. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. CARR-Is there any new Staff Input for just this one? MR. TURNER-No. MR. STEVES-As you recall, the last time we met, we sought dimensional relief because we thought that was required at the time, and we were granted that dimensional relief on the lots. We now have to go back for an area relief, because of whatever, but we're going back with the application that has been submitted for the February meeting. Then it will go to the County first, because anything within 500 feet of the County road has to be reviewed by them. So, tonight, we're only only talking of the two lots, 19 and 20, to grant immediate, if you will, relief for the construction of the house that's there. MR. TURNER-Where's the old County notes? They denied you, didn't they? They denied you on the whole thing. MR. STEVES-Yes, but that was on dimensional relief, and you granted that to us last week. MR. TURNER-Okay. All right. MR. STEVES-So, now we had to go back for an area variance. MR. TURNER-Yes. Any questions? No questions? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BILL HAll MR. HALL-My name is Bill Hall. The two lots they have here, that they're trying to get a variance for, is coming to my back yard. What I'm concerned with is the greenery. Is there a space in between there that was proposed, that was supposed to be there. Is that still going to stay? MR. STEVES-Sir, I have to address that. You may be the neighbor, but you have to be at least 500 feet away from here, from these two houses. 20 - -- MR. HALL-Well, that's what I wasn't sure of. MR. STEVES-If not further. I may have a master plan with me. MR. CARR-You must be the neighbor to Phase II, right? Is that the problem? MR. HALL-Well, by this map, Bonner Drive should be coming in here, if I'm right. MR. TURNER-No. I think that's Phase II, isn't it? MR. STEVES-No. Bonner Drive is down here. MR. TURNER-Yes, it's way down there. MR. HALL-Okay. Then this is going up this way. Okay. I'm sorry. MARK HOFFMAN MR. HOFFMAN-Could you point out the lots in question on that map. MR. STEVES-These are the two lots in question. If you live on Bonner Drive, you live down in here. MR. HOFFMAN-And the County has jurisdiction over the rest of that? MR. STEVES-No. The County has review jurisdiction with anything within 500 feet of a County road. MR. HOFFMAN-So, the rest of these don't need variances? MR. STEVES-Yes. They need area variances. That's why we're here tonight, to get the two on 19 and 20, but we're going to the County with the rest of it, for area only. MR. CARR-Nineteen and twenty have contracts on them. MR. STEVES-Thank you very much. MR. HOFFMAN-And these are all in Phase I. is that correct? MR. TURNER-These are in Phase I. Right. MR. STEVES-Yes. This is Phase I. CHERYL HOFFMAN MRS. HOFFMAN-Cheryl Hoffman. I live at 14 Bonner Drive. I'm concerned about the traffic that this development is going to create on West Mountain Road. I'm concerned because we have a bl ind curve with a 50 mile an hour speed limit and our bus stops, and you cannot see the road because the bus comes up and curves around, okay. So, there are several blind spots and you cannot see children boarding or getting off the bus. MR. TURNER-Are you speaking about where the intersection of Mountain View and West Mountain Road comes out? MRS. HOFFMAN-Mount View, West Mountain, and Bonner Drive. MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. HOFFMAN-Now, I've gone to the school board with this. I've written to the State of New York, and they tell me it's a problem that I have to bring to my Town, and the people in the neighborhood have to feel strongly about this, that something gets done, and I feel that I'm going from one department to another department to another department, and this isn't being addressed, and now we have two developments that are going in, that are bringing more traffic to the area. That's all I'd like to say. MR. TURNER-Have you approached the Town Board, as to a speed change there? MRS. HOFFMAN-I've approached the County, the State, and I have gone through the school. MR. TURNER-Have they taken a traffic study? MRS. HOFFMAN-They have put 1 ines across. They haven't tol d me the outcomes of any of these things, but. MR. TURNER-How recently? 21 -./ MRS. HOFFMAN-I couldn't give a date or time. MR. TURNER-This year? Last year? MRS. HOFFMAN-I think it was within the last year. Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any discussion? Motion's in order. ÞlJTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIAIICE NO. 3-1992 GUIDO PASSARELLI, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: As it applies to Lot 19 and 20 of the Lehland Park Subdivision. The relief granted would be to allow those lots to be built upon using the dimensional requirements as were approved with the initial Phase I Subdivision approval. A review of the Short EAF shows that the variances would have no adverse environmental impact. Duly adopted this 30th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (8:46 p.m.) NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-IA GUIDO PASSARELLI DIffER: HERALD SQUARE SUBDIVISION, SHERMAN AVErtUE A REQUEST TO VARY THE LOT SIZE AND SETBACKS IN PHASE I. TAX IMP NO. 125-9 (ALL LOTS WITHIN) LOT SIZE: 35 ACRES SECTIOrt 179-79 LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:46 p.m.) MR. TURNER-No Staff Input? MRS. EGGLESTON-No. We don't have any. MR. TURNER-Okay. Leon. MR. STEVES-I've attached to each of the applications a Tax Map itself, showing the subdivision of Herald Square, and if anyone in the audience wishes, I think I may have a larger version of it to hang up. MR. TURNER-What's the total build out on that subdivision? There's quite a few homes in there now. MR. STEVES-Yes, there are. Seventy percent. Again, for what it's worth, on the top of the page of area variances, on Number 18 of the comments, waiver requested to extend, a permanent waiver, or variance. MRS. EGGLESTON-Thank you, Leon. MR. STEVES-Sorry. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's okay. We'll insert Number 18 as part of the application, "Other Comments Waiver requested to extend one year 1 imit forever". MR. STEVES-Correct. MRS. EGGLESTON-Thank you. That's kind of ambiguous. MR. CARR-What's that mean? MR. STEVES-Well, I was told that your variances are only good for one year, if it isn't built out. MR. TURNER-Correct. MR. STEVES-And, therefore, we would just have to be back here, again, in a year's time. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. STEVES-So, that's why we're asking for a permanent waiver, or a permanent variance, then be granted. 22 - --.-' MR. CARR-Should we have done that for Kruger? MR. STEVES-Yes. We asked for it. I don't know if you granted it or not. MR. CARR-I didn't hear it. MR. TURNER-No, we didn't. MR. STEVES-And the one before this, the same thing. MR. TURNER-We'll amend them. MR. CARR- Yes. MR. STEVES-Okay. On 19 and 20 you don't have to, because they're going to build on them. MR. TURNER-Yes. We'll amend the first one and this one. MR. STEVES-Would you? Thank you very much. MR. TURNER-All right. Any questions of Leon? None? All right. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO CotlŒNT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. Jl)TION TO APPROVE AREA VARIAllCE NO. 6-1992 GUIDO PASSARELLI, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: And grant the applicant the requested relief from the dimensional and area requirements of the Ordinance. Specifically, the applicant would be allowed to build on the approved subdivision lots, according to the dimensional requirements of the Ordinance, as were initially granted with their subdivision approval. These variances would also have the one year limitation of existence waived for noncompliance with the variance granted. A review of the Short EAF shows that the variances granted have no significant adverse environmental impact. This applies only to Phase I of the subdivision. Duly adopted this 30th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE (8:54 p.m.) MR. TURNER-Now, lets back up to the Kruger Area Variance No. 2-1992. Mr. Carr? Jl)TION TO IUÐID AREA VARIAllCE NO. 2-1992 OOIIALD KRUGER, Introduced by Bruce Carr who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: To include a one year limitation of existence waived for noncompliance with the variance granted. Duly adopted this 30th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carr, Mr. Shea, Mr. Sicard, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. STEVES-Thank you very much. MR. TURNER-Okay. We have one more item of business on Area Variance No. 4-1992 Jean Ann Dennis, and I'd ask her attorney to address the Board, at this point. MRS. CRAYFORD-I explained to Mr. Turner that we may want to talk about the expansion before you go into anything. MR. TURNER-Yes. ED GROGAN 23 - MR. GROGAN-Yes. I'm Ed Grogan, and Jean Dennis asked me to appear with her, tonight, on this variance. As I looked through the papers and read the Ordinance and inquired of Jean as to just how the structure that's existing, what it consists of, I don't know that we're properly before this Board because it is not an application to add a second story, as the Board might have taken from the papers, because there is an attic in this building, and it's actually a request to change the configuration of the roof and to put some windows in the roof so that they can live up on that second floor. The second floor is already there. It's not going to be added. The floor space is already there. MR. SICARD-Is the plumbing fixtures in? MR. GROGAN-No, there isn't any plumbing up there. MR. SICARD-No plumbing in the new place either. MR. TURNER-You're going to remove the part of the roof at the second floor level? Is that what you're going to do, because she said before she was going to remodel the whole building. MR. GROGAN-Well, they're going to remodel, yes, but the floor space on the second floor is already there. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. GROGAN-What she plans to do is to put two bedrooms, and I think a bath, on the existing second floor. MR. CARR-I guess the question is whether the attic is. MR. TURNER-Whether it's a 50 percent expansion. MR. CARR-Right, because if it's already there, the floor space is there. MR. GROGAN-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Weren't the plans, though, of a new framework from the bottom up, but in the same footprint? MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. GROGAN-Yes. They're not going out at all, in any direction. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. I understand that. MR. CARR-But there's no new square footage of floor space, they're saying, because there's already two floors. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's what I just learned tonight. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, you can have an attic and it's not a living. MR. CARR-Well, that's the question. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I mean, you can have a little, and these aren't. MR. CARR-What's the definition of Floor Space? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-Floor Space? "Gross Floor Area - The area in square feet within the exterior walls". MR. CARR-And we've counted that as second floor and stuff. So, the attic's within the exterior walls. MRS. CRAYFORD-Right. To me, a 50 percent, this is ml definition of a 50 percent. MR. TURNER-What's the square footage of the attic? MR. GROGAN-Well, it's the same as the. MR. TURNER-No, it's not. You've got no side walls. MR. GROGAN-The floor space is the same. MR. TURNER-But the square footage isn't, though, because the roof pitches down. You've got a pitched roof. 24 "--' ~ MR. CARR-Mr. Grogan, could we just draw you a quick diagram so you could show us. Okay. If you have a house, like here, as it exists now, with just a regular roof, okay. Now, the question is, does the attic/second floor go from this point to, well, this point of the roof, or is it up closer, here. MR. GROGAN-No. It's down here, because there are other units in the little development up there, where they have converted that attic space to living space. MR. CARR-To living space. So, the floor area is the same, I mean, it mirrors downstairs. MR. GROGAN-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Just the downstairs, not the attic, because it's within the exterior walls. MR. CARR-Well, you were saying that it was less floor space, because it might be closer up toward the pi nnac 1 e of the roof, but it's not. It's ri ght, it goes from where the wall meets the roof over to the other side, where the wall meets the roof. So, it matches the same square as the first floor. MR. GROGAN-The actual dimensions are not going to change at all, for the building. They're going to, obviously, make it nice. MR. CARR-Yes. So, you're just going to add a little bit of wall space and add a new roof to it. MR. GROGAN-Right. MR. DENNIS-We're going to reconfigure the roof, basically. MR. GROGAN-The roof line not going higher than it is now. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. GROGAN-But there are just going to be some windows in the side of the roof. MR. CARR-So the roof, as it exists now, will not go up any, a foot or two or anything? MR. GROGAN-No. MR. CARR-So, our concern about it being built up as a skyscraper and all these little skyscrapers being built up, the roof is going to stay right at the same level? MRS. DENNIS-We're just changing the configuration of it. MR. SHEA-You're changing the pitch, but the height of the peak remains the same? MR. GROGAN-Correct. MR. CARR-So, what's our concern the other way? Is there a concern the other way? If it's not getting any higher, right? MR. SHEA-Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-See, I was of the opinion, by the application, and in talking with the Dennis', that they were adding a second floor. MR. CARR-Yes. MR. SHEA-We all were. MR. CARR-That's what think everybody thought. MRS. CRAYFORD-Right. MR. GROGAN-I have to admit, I did too when Mrs. Dennis called me. It wasn't until I was sitting here tonight talking to her that it dawned on me that there is this floor area and they really aren't. MR. DENNIS-We could have probably better presented it if we had said we were remodeling the second floor. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-Yes. In fact, that's what you're doing. 25 MR. DENNIS-That's actually what it is. MRS. CRAYFORD-Put that on your building permit, please. MR. TURNER-When you were here the last time you said you were going to remodel the whole structure. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, from the bottom up. MR. TURNER-From the ground up. That's what you said. MRS. EGGLESTON-And redoing the whole thing. MR. GROGAN-And the application does say, and, no question the application said to add a second floor, a second story. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARR-There was a lot of confusion obviously. MR. TURNER-Is this going to be a seasonal building? MRS. DENNIS-Yes. MR. TURNER-It's not going to be year round? MRS. DENNIS-No. MR. DENNIS-We have a home in Wilton. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-Bruce, do you want to see the house plans. MR. GROGAN-My question, I don't know if we're before the right Board. MRS. CRAYFORD-I don't think you need to be before any Board, to be honest with you. MR. TURNER-As long as you're not going to convert it, that's all. If you're going to convert it to a year round occupancy, then you've got to have a site plan. MR. SHEA-Basically, you're adding dormers to the. MR. GROGAN-Correct. MR. SHEA-Yes. MR. CARR-So, what do we need, just for them to withdraw the application? MR. TURNER-They've just got to withdraw their application. MR. CARR-Because as long as we. MR. TURNER-As long as we agree that. MR. CARR-Mrs. Dennis, can you give us one name of somebody who has living space on that second floor already? MR. TURNER-Nobody. MRS. EGGLESTON-There are none. MRS. DENNIS-Yes, there is. MR. TURNER-Who? MR. CARR-Or location of one? MRS. DENNIS-It's right by us. MR. DENNIS-If you walk right around ours, you'll see. 26 -- MRS. EGGLESTON-Are you talking about using the attic, though, an area that you can't stand up in? They're tall enough to? MRS. DENNIS-No. They live up there. They use it as a bedroom for the kids, and they use it as a family room, and you know, all around living space. There's windows in it, on the ends. MR. CARR-Thank you. MR. SHEA-They couldn't put a basketball team up there, that's for sure, but if the peak of the roof is tall enough to accommodate. MRS. DENNIS-Their son is almost as tall as Mike is, and he's up there. MR. DENNIS-I can freestand. MRS. DENNIS-We go lip there and store and everything and he walks up there. MR. DENNIS-There's presently access to the second floor. MR. CARR-I guess, unless the Board has a problem with the floor area, all they have to do is withdraw the application. MR. TURNER-That's all. MR. SHEA-They can withdraw it here tonight. We've done that before. You just have to withdraw the application and we'll approve it. MR. TURNER- Yes. MR. CARR-We don't even have to approve a withdrawal, do we? MR. TURNER-No. MR. GROGAN-What we would do is withdraw the application and then go to you to get a building permit? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. GROGAN-Okay. MR. CARR-And we're settled on the Critical Environmental Area, and all that? MRS. YORK-It's not an issue. MR. CARR-It's not an issue? Okay. Good. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. GROGAN-I'm impressed with your building. It's the first time up here. MR. DENNIS-Thank you for your time. MR. TURNER-Thank you. MRS. YORK-Before you leave, Mr. Turner, you have 10, possibly 11, applications for the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. TURNER-Right. How busy, though? Are they area? Use? MRS. YORK-Why don't you stop in tomorrow? MR. TURNER-Okay. MRS. YORK-I'm going to recommend that if you want to make two meetings, just have one when I'm not here. Why don't you take a look at the tentative agenda, Ted, and decide. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Eleven's an awful lot to have on one meeting. MR. TURNER-Yes. We'll have two meetings. It's just too much. I'll leave it up to your good discretion to sort them out. MRS. YORK-We usually put them on in the order they come in. Do you want to have the two meetings, go back to the two meeting schedule on the 19th and the 26th? 27 '--- MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, if we've got 11. MR. SHEA-Although, didn't you raise the issue about it being during vacation? MRS. YORK-I'm going to be gone. It is during school vacation. MR. TURNER-Nobody's going to be gone? MRS. YORK-Okay. Well, all the applicants are, obviously, going to be here. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 28 ----