Loading...
ZBA minutes.09.16.92 MR. TURNER-It's denied. The extension is denied. MR. PRILO-What do you do in that case, Ted? MR. TURNER-It's over. That's her move. MRS. JOYCE BGGLESTON-It's up to her, now, to come hack, or whatever. (8:09 p.m.) AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-1992 TYPE I WR-1A JOHm! L. POLK, JR. OWNER. SANS AS ABOVE EAST SIDE OF ASSEMBLY POINT FOR A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION IN A CHA, CREATION OF 2 SUBSTANDARD LOTS, AND 2 LOTS WITHOUT REQUIRED ROAD FRONTAGE, EXISTING STRUCTURES CANNOT MEET 75 FT. SHORELINE SETBACKS. (WARREN COWTY PLANNING) TAR MAP NO. 6-3-1 LOT SIZE: 2.14 ACRES SECTION 179-16(C), 179-60(B)(1)(C), I79-70A MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:09 p.m.) MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board approved, "With the condition that no further building or expansion be put on the present buildings, based on the fact that it is not changing anything, but drawing two lines on the map to divide the property into three pieces. Also approve a second area variance (if needed) for lots that do not front on a public right of way." STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area variance No. 43-1992, John L. Polk, Jr., "The Planning Board passed a Negative Declaration on the variance/subdivision of this property. The Board is aware of the circumstances of this lot. The applicant wants to create a three lot subdivision with two substandard lots, two lots without the required road frontage and two existing structures which do not meet the setbacks of seventy-five feet. The Zoning Administrator has indicated a total of six variances are necessary. The staff has made a site visit and researched the units on this property, primarily the cottages on proposed lots one and two. These camps are for summer use only. They are built on piers and the construction dates are 1954 and 1958 respectively. They are considered to be in average condition for seasonal rentals of that vintage. The assessment records indicate they are thirty feet and twenty feet from the lake but the survey scales them at plus/minus forty feet. The plan presented to the Board does not show the setbacks or cottage sizes. The units are on an unimproved driveway and a common septic system is located on what will be a third lot. In this particular case, the Board must weigh a number of issues. The proposal request is to create substandard lots and the rationale for that is because there will be no construction and no changes since everything is existing. The reality is that the units on two lots are not year round. There is not enough room on the proposed lots for individual septic systems and any purchaser will went to improve the property. Lakeshore property with a view is usually purchased at a relatively higher price. Anyone purchasing a lot will want more than a 1950's seasonal cabin on piers. The Board has to look at the long term impacts of the variance decision. In allowing the creation of substandard lots, is the Board creating a practical difficulty for any purchaser? The records do not show that significant improvements were made to the cottages over the years so financial loss would not appear to be an issue. The applicant has over two acres. It may be possible for him to create two lots that meet the one acre minimum. The Board is aware of what has happened on Lake George in the past and why it has been designated a Critical Environmental Area. The Board is also aware of the issues regarding lake protection in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and why the Lakeshore setbacks and density standards along waterfront areas were created. The request for variances was reviewed with regard to the criteria for Area variances. 1. Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. The applicant states that the placement of the summer rental cottages mandates the subdivision layout. The staff does not agree since the alternative plans showing minimum Iot requirements have not been submitted. The placement of existing structures does not automatically give credence to the creation of a subdivision with substandard lots, no road frontage and units which cannot meet setbacks. 2. Is this the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty or is there any other option available which would require no variance? No other options have been submitted. 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? one granting of the variances might put the Board in a difficult position when expansions on these lots are sought. 4. What are the effects 11 of the variance on public facilities and services? ffie septic system and water is on lot. Emergency vehicle access is over an unimproved driveway. 5. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? ffie Board will have to ascertain if practical difficulty has been proven.- MR. TURNER-The first thing we ought to do is do the Full Environmental Assessment Form. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Okay. The negative declaration, is that what you mean? MR. TURNER-Yes. MOFZON MO ACCEPT THU NEGATIVE LECIAE.ITZOM FOR AREA VARZANCH MO 43-1992 JURN L. FOLK, JR., Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: it's a Type I Action. It's a three lot subdivision in a Critical Environmental Area, Assembly Point, Lake George. For the creation of two substandard lots and two lots without required road frontage. Duly adopted this 17th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE MR. AUFFREDOU-Mr. Chairman, my name is Martin Auffredou. I'm from Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart, and Rhodes, a law firm in Glens Falls. I'm here on behalf of Mr. Polk. Mr. Polk could not be here tonight. He's out in Colorado and Arizona, his trip that he planned a long time ago to visit his daughter and her family. He had hoped to get this before the Board much sooner, but for a variety of reasons, we haven't been able to get before the Board until now. I guess first and foremast, what concerns me about the Staff's Comments is that I think the Staff is misleading the Board about the standard for an area variance. As of July let of this year, there was new State legislation that went into effect, and the Town law was amended, and practical difficulty is no longer the test for an area variance. The test for an area variance, essentially, comes down to this. The Board must weigh the benefit, if any, to the applicant, against the detriment to the Town, the detriment to the environment, the detriment to the physical characteristics of the land, the detriment to the community, the detriment to the neighborhood. Nowhere in the law is there anything about significant economic injury, economic loss, although we could prove that tonight, if we had to, we don't think that that's the standard anymore. Now, your variance ordinance, the Ordinance, yes, it does call for practical difficulties. I think the Ordinance is going to have to be updated. What I'm saying tonight is that 1 think you have to apply to new State law. I don't think you can apply your Ordinance at the present time. As for the application itself, what Mr. Polk proposes to do is really very simple. He proposes to take that piece of property which has been in his family for a long period of time, and divide it into three lots. The two smaller lots which are proposed to be created contain existing cottages. Those cottages, as the Staff pointed out, have been there for some time. He has rented those cottages out during a summer basis. There has been tenancy that has been in there during the summer. For all practical purpose, the lots are functionally divided today. Really the only thing that we're doing is we are memorializing boundary lines, which for all practical purposes exist. That's all that we're asking to do. Now, in order to get there, we have to come to you for a number of variances, but to suggest that, as Staff is suggesting, that we're doing something evil here, I think is very misleading. I think, really, what he wants to do is just subdivide the property so he can sell off the lots. That's all he wants to do, and I would suggest that if this isn't approved, I don't know what would be approved. Z really don't. It canes down to being a very simple application. Warm County Planning Board has recommended approval. The Town Planning Board has issued a negative declaration, given us expedited review on the subdivision for this week and next week, and I really think that your Staff, here, is overemphasizing a couple of issues. Let me get to those. First of all, the septic systems. Each cottage, if you will, has an existing septic system. There is a common easement for each of the septic systems in this area here. A slight correction. The large cottage which Mr. Polk proposes to retain for his own use has a septic tank, 2.000 gallon tank, with its own leaching field, its own drain field, this cottage and this cottage, and this cottage has a 1,000 gallon tank. 12 MR. PHILO-Where? MR. AUFFREDOU-Right in this area here. Yes. I have the map, and also let we point out, these septic systems are fully permitted by the Town of Queensbury as of this last spring, under the Lake George Park Commission Regulations, as implemented by the Town of Queensbury. There are three systems on the property, fully permitted, five year permit for this system, five year permit for this system, three year permit for this system. You can't get any better than that. You have a septic tank, here, which pumps to here. We have two 1,000 gallon tanks here, with a pump chamber, an alarm system that pumps the effluent to this easement up here. I'm not sure what more the applicant could do to create adequate septic systems, especially in light of the fact that these are only used on a seasonal base. The fact of the matter is he's met all the laws required for the development of the septic systems. Again, I cant to stress, fully permitted by the Town of Queensbury. MR. PHILO-Excuse me, you said, by law he has this covered. He may have it covered for the present time, but if he sells this piece of property right here, and divides it off the way you say, from this finished elevation to this lake is 18 inches. How are you going to put a septic tank in there when this guy owns it. You're not going to sell this piece of property and than go down the line and say, I want to ship it to my neighbors. MR. AUFFREDOU-Each tank meets the 100 foot setback, again, fully permitted. What's happened here is that the coy the system is proposed is that these are, in fact, shipping the effluent to this lot. Mr. Polk is aware of that, and when he sells the property, that's what's going to happen. There's going to be an easement reflected in the deed to these lots, which is going to say, yes, indeed, there is an easement for septic effluent, wastewater, to Lot Number Three. MR. PRILO-In other words, they can dig up the neighbor's lawn anytime they want to? MR. AUFFREDOU-It doesn't have to be, it's already there, sir. MR. PHILO-I know it's there, but we have problems, and they call them filled up septic tanks. When that happens, and lined plugs, am I going over to that neighbor and start digging his lawn up? MR. TURNER-There's an easement, Tom. The easement will describe what maintenance can be done on the site. MR. AUFFREDOU-Plus, under the regulations, you have to have pump outs on a regular basis. MR. TURNER-Those aren't a septic tank. They're really a holding tank. They pump from one tank to the next tank, the second tank pumps to the field. MR. PHILO-So, you really don't have a septic system there. You have a holding tank there. MR. AUFFREDOU-We have, again, we have fully permitted septic systems. MR. TURNER-Permitted septic systems. MR. AUFFREDOU-Permitted Septic systems. MR. PHILO-Permitted now. MR. AUFFREDOU-Signed by Dave Hatin, just a matter of a few months ago. MR. PHILO-That's if the guy owns the whole piece of property, one piece of property. I can meet the criteria, but it can't meet it if you split it up. MR. AUFFREDOU-I respectfully disagree. MR. TURNER-The easement's going to be passed on, Tam. MR. AUFFREDOU-The lot size, as proposed, of course is substandard. This lot is about 19,000 square feet, a little bit less than a half acre, this lot 18,400, again, less than half an acre. This lot is 1.19 acres in size. We do need, 13 in order to do this, a variance from the lot size, minimum lot size requirements. We need a variance from the shoreline, a restriction, here, not from this lot, but from this lot. We've only got 110 feet, and we need 150. As far as the variance from the 40 feet of frontage on a public road, we've been back and forth on that, and back in March, when we were originally putting this application together, I contacted the then Zoning Administrator, and asked her about this particular problem. We both looked at the Zoning Ordinance. We both read it to each other over the phone, and we concluded that since no building permits were going to be issued, that that provision didn't need to be complied with, and the reason why is that the Ordinance says, every principal building shall be built upon a lot. However. I think it was early July of this year, the Zoning Administrator apparently changed her mind and submitted a statement to the Zoning Board, perhaps, the planning Board, that in fact we would need a variance from that provision. If that's what we need, that's fine. Again, we think we have what we need to get that. This is a drive which goes entirely through the property. We've got our 40 feet here. We don't have our 40 feet, or 40 feet here, but I can tell you, I don't think it's all that unusual, especially in a lake front area, to have lots which certainly don't front on a public roadway. I can cite the Durante and Riffe Subdivision on Dark Bay. There you've got a private road which connects 15 or 20 lots. Hone of those front on a public roadway. MR. PHILO-That's past tense though, right? MR. AUFFREDOU-That's correct, but what I'm saying is that it's not unusual for this kind of a situation in the Lake George area. Again, what I'm getting at here is that we're not altering the essential character of the neighborhood. We're not bringing any detriment to the neighborhood by suggesting that we need a variance or need a variance from that provision. There is access to the property through the driveway, and, again, the property is really only used during the summer season, it has been, that's the way it's always been used for years. As far as I know, that's the only coy it's ever been used. MR. PRILO-You want to winterize them and have them for year round homes. That's what you said, right? MR. AUFFREDOU-No, I'm not suggesting that. We had Mr. Burke, from Levack Realty, go up to the property to take a look at it, and give us an appraisal on on what these lots would be if they were subdivided. Mr. Burke thought that they could In fact be sold for summer residences. There are fireplaces there. MR. PHILO-Ready to fall down. They've got them banded on the wall now. They're really not safe. MR. AUFFREDOU-I can't speak to that. I haven't been right up to the fireplaces. I can't speak to that, but of course, if someone were to buy this, they could, in fact, attempt to winterize it and use it on, and I think what Mr. Polk has done to address that concern is I think what he said, look, I've got to come forward and I've got to get adequate septic systems for these properties. Again, he's done, maybe not exactly what each of you would have wanted him to do, but he's done it and he has the permits to do that, and I think really that's the key, that's the step in the right direction, if someone were to buy the property, and to cue forward and say, I want to winterize this, I want to renovate it, I rant to use this on a full time, year round basis. I'm trying to think what other variances we need. Lee, you said there was six identified variances? MRS. YORR-I believe the ones that Mrs. Crayford Identified were for two substandard lots, two lots without the required road frontage, and structures which cannot meet 75 foot shoreline setbacks. MR. AUFFREDOU-Again, this is what we've proposed. The only thing we're changing is we're establishing some boundary lines. We're going to change ownership, ultimately. There is the possibility that Mr. Polk would convey one or two of these parcels to some relatives. That's been talked about. Ultimately, the only change that's going to occur is ownership and a change In the registery of the deeds. Really, that's it. MR. TURNER-Mr. Auffredou, he Indicated when he was here the first time, Mr. Polk, that the lots were going to be conveyed to the children. MR. AUFFREDOU-That's been talked about, but I think he. MR. TURNER-That was his statement. 14 MR. AUFFREDOU-Okay. That has been talked about. He may have changed his mind on that. That's still a possibility. He may, in fact, be doing that. was that earlier in the summer, when Bob Stewart was here? MR. TURNER-Yes. It was the first time he was here, the first time around, when we sent him to the planning Board for SEQRA. MR. AUFFREDOU-I know that he's considering doing acme estate planning and whatnot. I think that may be part of it. However, I can't say for sure that he's going to convey these to his children. He has talked about it. If that was the statement he made. MR. TURNER-That is the statem nt. I think it's on the record. MR. AUFFREDOU-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-You must admit, though, that if he doesn't, there's a high risk here of a lot of construction, wanting of variances. Nobody's going to take those old camps and pay a lot of money for them and leave them the way they are. By his own admission, he hasn't put any money into them, and they're not fit, really, for. MR. AUFFREDOU-It's a beautiful piece of property. MRS. EGGLESTON-It is. MR. AUFFREDOU-He does rent them out on a seasonal basis. He's had, year after year apparently, the same tenants come back. MRS. EGGLESTON-But that would change if they were sold. I mean, you're talking about, you have to talk about what would happen if they were sold. That's another set of circumstances. MR. AUFFREDOU-It is another set of circumstances. I suppose you could pull a positive out of anything, and maybe this is exactly what's needed up there, for someone new to come in and to update and to give the place a new look. MR. PHILO-If you start changing those setbacks, the people that have put a lot of money into that, the property around there, the square foot they have to pay for that. I don't want to see any trash places come up, and when I said to you, Mister, I went up and looked at that, I did, and I know what the elevation is, and the finished elevation is 18 inches. There's no way that they can put a septic tank in. They've got water coming off the main road, when it was raining, and I had people standing there with me, and it was running right down to the lake. So, if there's any type of construction, new construction there, they're going to need more room, and they don't have room to put a proper building in there, from the offset. They've got 38 feet from the lake to the front porch. I measured it, exactly 38 feet. other people up there are trying to put one in, and they have to go through this, and they're saying, how, they have to go through the criteria, what the Town has set. The Town has a bunch of rules they put in the book, and they want us to go by it, and than the people, the guy has a nice piece of property. I, myself, with that set on stilts the way it is, my own feeling, in the future, if he sells it to the son, and the son all of a sudden wants to change that, that's going to be a sore age turning in that corner, and to develop that road going in there, the water's coming off the main road, where the blacktop is, and it's coming right dorm there, on his property, and it's running right into the Iake. If we want to keep things beautiful, and we want to go by the standards of what we've set, I suggest, I said I was going to do the job on this Board, what I thought was right, and in my eyes, please don't split that up. If he's going to exist the way it is, let it stay, but when that building goes down, if I was the Building Inspector, I'd never give him another shot to change that lake view any more than it is. That's a beautiful lake. MR. AUFFREDOU-I can't agree with you more, and as the attorney for the Lake George Park Commission, I spend a good portion of the day working on matters to make sure that the lake is kept beautiful, but here, in this Instance, I see cottages which have existed for some time, they're preexisting. Arguable, they, in fact,. preexisted the setbacks from the lake. They've been there, and I think, I say that to suggest that somebody's going to came in and do something harmful to the property, I don't see how you can conclude that. Why would somebody make 15 an investment on one of these pieces of property, which is probably going to be a substantial sum of money to purchase, and do anything but improve it? MR. PHILO-lf you've got the percolation of the soil, and it won't take a septic tank, and they're going into a common system, already, what are you going to do when you go over there? You say you're going to get an easement to go out of there. I think the Town is causing a hardship on somebody that's going to buy that property in the future. MR. TURNER-Tom, if they're granted an easement from the tanks to the mound system, or whatever they have there, the septic field, that easement goes with the property, and everybody that purchases those lots will have that in their deed. They won't be able to put a separate tank and separate field on it, either Lot One or Lot Two. That would be on lot Three. MR. AUFFREDOU-They'll never need to. MR. TURNER-Right. They won't have to. MRS. EGGLESTON-Why would you say that? What if the existing holding tank or whatever is there will not hold or support a year round residence with a family of six, opposed to a seasonal being used three months in the summer? How can you say they would never need better sewage or septic systems? MR. TURNER-All right. If we go with what the County says, all right, with the condition that no further building or expansion, key word "expansion", be put on the present buildings based on the fact that it is not changing anything, but drawing two lines on the map to divide the property into three pieces. Nothing's going to change. If we go with that condition, nothing changes. MR. CARVIN-But I think something will change over time, Ted. Those buildings will fall down. MR. TURNER-They're going to have to rebuild them. Right, but they have to build them in the footprint. MR. CARVIN-And they would rebuild them in the same footprint, but when they rebuild them, and again, we don't know what kind of technological improvements might come along, and I think Joyce's point is well taken. It is conceivable that these are only summer use now, and I think we're just looking for trouble by creating three lots here. I have no problem with two lots of an acre size, which would be in conformance with the Ordinance, but I think by creating all of these small lots, we have a situation like we just got done sort of resolving. we keep creating these little smaller and smaller lots. MR. AUFFREDOU-But I think this situation is different from that situation. I think, here you've already got cottages which are built. You've got footprints. You've got septic systems. Again, I can't stress enough that these septic systems are permitted by the Town. MRS. EGGLESTON-For the existing use. MR. PHILO-For the existing use, right. MR. AUFFREDOU-No, again, under the Lake George Park Commission Regulations, and as implemented by the Town of Queensbury seasonal use is not a factor, seasonal use is not a factor. what's a factor? The amount of bedrooms is a factor, bedrooms and bathrooms are taken into consideration, whether they're used year round, or whether they're used a day out of the year, and what's happened here is that we have permits for these systems, and under the regulations, it has been determined that what is in the ground is sufficient for two bedroom cottages, two bedroom one bathroom cottages, for year round use, for one day out of the year use. Now, if what you're saying is that these, if you're going along with the Warren County Planning Board, that no other alteration or expansion can occur, I think that's fine. I think, realistically, I'm not sure that any could occur anyway, because in order for someone to cone in and say, I'd like to expand, I'd like to do this, and I'd like to do that, we're talking about a host of new variances. You're talking about problems with the Park Commission, problems, perhaps, with the APA, all kinds of consents. What we're saying to you is that the proposal will create three lots with three septic systems which are fully permitted by the Town. 26 MR. TURNER-Any other questions Of Mr. Auffredou? Okay. I'II open the public hearing. PUBLIC REARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLBSTON-Okay. We have a letter from Frederick and Barbara Hart, Assembly Point, Lake George, "Being that we are unable to attend tonight's meeting, we are sending to you our thoughts and comments on the proposed variance request for the John L. Polk, three lot subdivision. In regard to the above referenced variance request, we wish to recommend against the requested change to the lbws of Queensbury's existing WR-lA zoning for this property. This change will, in our view, lead to continued pressures on the whole of Assembly Point for further development activities with eventual overall significant environmental impacts on Assembly Point and the surrounding lake waters. We also seriously question what future development of the three lot subdivision may occur, being that a precedent will be set by the Town's granting this variance. As has already occurred on Assembly Point, properties are purchased and existing structures demolished, to be replaced by generally larger residences. The ability of the existing communal on-site wastewater treatment system that now serves the tc Polk cottages and main house would, in our view, be questionable. In another context, however, we can't understand the request for this subdivision by the Polk family. The current Tom's assessment of Assembly Point is gradually forcing many of the long time residents to sell their property because of the ever increasing real property taxes and the inflation of property values which the residents have no control over. The Town, therefore, will have to consider this effect in the environmental review process, and which will without doubt lead to further requests for zoning variances from property owners who can no longer bear the property tax burden. In summary, again, we do not favor the requested change and variance for this three lot subdivision. However, in reviewing some of the information provided by the Planning Department, it would seem that a two lot subdivision could be granted for this property which would be in accord With the current WR-lA zoning regulation, except for the 75 foot shoreline setbacks. We would favor this alternative." MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. AUFFREDOU-If I could, Mr. Chairman, I would just suggest that the BOard consider that the Warren County Planning Board recommended approval of this, as long as what is on the property remains on the property. MR. PHILO-No year round residents, right? MR. AUFFREDOU-I suppose that's correct. It's been seasonal use. MR. TURNER-Seasonal use. MR. THOMAS-The three lots, you can't do that around the lot. Like we just did with Ms. Eggleston, she had a small nonconforming lot. You're creating the same problem here. If this is divided into two lots, you're conforming closer to what the requirement calls for. Three lots, no. I'd go along with two lots. MR. AUFFREDOU-I can appreciate your concern. Again, our proposal is to, basically, create boundary lines which, for what we believe for all practical purposes already exist, and that's what we're doing. I suppose to create two separate lots we'd have to put two of the cottages on one lot, and the other, we may have to keep one cottage on the large lot that Mr. Polk, I think that presents some problems for Mr. Polk, and obviously, I think it would be much more favorable to do what he proposes to do. MRS. EGGLESTOW-What could happen though is, if you did a two lot subdivision, whoever bought the two cottages, if they wanted a large home like they're putting around the lake today, they could build the larger home and have room for the septic on the two lots. MR. AUFFREDOU-Or they could come back and say I'd like to build two, just what I'm doing. I have two cottages. I suppose under the APA regulations they could 17 come in and argue, I've got existing structures, and I'm permitted to build existing structures, again, I have two, I can build two. MR. TURNER-Yes, they can build on the footprint. MRS. EGGLESTON-For my own personal viewpoint, I really think the two lot subdivision would be the best, in that there are a lot of places up there, with the main cottage and three or four little ones, and to divide all of those up into little pieces of property, you're going to have all over Lake George these little nonconforming lots that have troubles with septics and whatnot. So why not now, when we have the chance, try to keep it to a minimum, ask for minimum relief, not maximum, is what you're doing. MR. AUFFREDOU-I understand what you're saying, but, again, if you're suggesting that we're going to create septic system problems, I think you're creating, what You're saying is that every single septic system on Lake George is a problem, because what Mr. Polk has done, again, is he's complied with the best available technology for this property. I was up there today, and I think there's an awful lot of lots this size and smaller up there. MRS. EGGLESTON-There are, but that's no reason to create more. MR. AUFFREDOU-I'm not suggesting that. What I'm suggesting is that the Creation is not offensive to the character of the neighborhood, and that's the test for the variance. MR. TURNER-Any further discussion? Okay. Motion's in order. Either make a motion to deny it, or make a motion to approve it with the relief that's requested, shoreline, the length on the shoreline, density on the lot, and the 40 wide right of way. MR. PRII.O-That and cottage, no matter what happens, that would never meet standards. If they could move that, as you said, with the two on one lot, if you built it up to two parcels, you've got a can of worms both ways. MR. AUFFREDOU-I appreciate what you're saying, but I think from a legal point of view, we're okay, because that cottage is there. That's our position, and we're not suggesting that we're going to do anything different with this, and that's where we're coming down. NOTION TO DEWY AREA VARZANCE NO. 43-1992 JOBN L. POLE JR., Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Eggleston: In that it is not felt that the minimum variance necessary to alleviate practical difficulty has been shown. That there are other options available that would require either a limited or no variance, and that if we passed this variance, it would be detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood, and would be in conflict with the objectives and plans and policies of the Town. It also could have an effect on the public facilities and services. Duly adopted this 16th day of September, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Phi2o, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston NOES: Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner MR. AUFFREDOU-I'm not happy with the results, but that happens sometimes. I'd just like to point out, I do think we've complied with all the standards this evening. I just went to note that for the record. MRS. YORX-Thank you. I'll contact Mr. Dusak tomorrow as soon as possible. Thank you for bringing that up. MR. TURNER-And I think, for the record, that the Board ought to have the correct standards in front of them. MRS. YORE-Yes. I will contact Mr. Dusek. I was unaware of any changes myself. (8:53 p.m.) USE VARIANCE NO. 87-1992 TYPE: UNLISYSD UR-10 LANKY BOAS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 42 BOULEVARD FOR CONSRRUCTZW OF A 22 FT. BY 20 PT. AUDITION ONTO THE BEAUTY SALON. BEAUT'IFICATIW COIULITTEE (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 111-3-14 LOT SIZE: 100 FT. BY 250 PT. SWTYW 179-17(2) 18