Loading...
1992-10-01 SP Area Variance No. 78-1991 Area Variance No. 93-1992 Area Variance No. 97-1992 ORIGINAL QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL IlEETING OCTOBER 1ST, 1992 INDEX Sandra Eggleston 1. Robert L. and Cheryl Evans 13. Clarence J. III and Cara D. Beames 17. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLWWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEAIß SPECIAL lIEETING OCTOBER 1ST, 1.992 7:04 P.II. 1ŒlIBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN JOYCE EGGLESTON, SECRETARY CHARLES SICARD CHRIS THOMAS FRED CARVIN lIBlIBERS ABSENT THOMAS PHILO MARIE PALING PLANNER-ARLYNE RUTHSCHILD STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-1991 LC-10A SANDRA EGGLESTON (]fiNER: SJJlIB AS ABOVE FULIBR ROAD, VACANT LOT AFTER LAST HOUSE ON LEFT THE APPLICANT RB(}UEST RELIEF FROII THE QUEENSBURY ZONING ORDINANCE 179-13 (C) ; PERlIBABILITY RE(}UEST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE ON A LOT FOR A REHEARING ON THE PREVIOUSLY DENIED (SEPTElIBER 16, 1992 DECISION BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEAIß) VARIANCE EXTENSION RB(}UBST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAIlILY DfiELLING fiHICH CANNOT lIEET SETBACKS AND PERIIEABILITY RB(}UIRBlIENTS. TAX MAP NO. 123-1.-1.5.22 LOT SIZE: 0.38 ACRES SECTION 1.79-1.3 DONALD KRUGER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:04 p.m.) MR. TURNER-Who's going to represent the application? MR. DUSEK-Mr. Chairman, before the Board gets started, if I may speak to the Board just for a matter of record here. I've spoken to some of the members of the Board, but not all of them. There has been some confusion over area variances and the criteria, since the State changed the law and the Town hasn't caught up to the change in the law. It's in the process. It'll be being amended as a result of some zoning amendments that have been proposed by the Town Board, but I think the thing to mention is that the test that the law has put into place is really very similar to the one that's already been employed by the Town. In fact, the questions are very similar, that you ask, and you consider, however, if there's any difference at all, and this is what I wanted to point out to the Board, the law now says that you take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance as granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood. Basically, what it used to be, and the way it's written in our law is that the applicant had to come forward and prove a case, prove a practical difficulty, and then the Town had to come forward and show why it was not a good idea to grant it in some fashion, as against some particular need or part of the Town's development where it wouldn't be good, and then the Board would enter into a weighing of the two. Now it's changed slightly that the applicant doesn't have to necessarily show a particular practical difficulty, but still does have to make an initial showing, and that is, the initial showing, is that of considering the, you know, show how it's going to be benefited by this particular application, and then the Town has to come forth with their side of the proof, and then once again the Board gets into the weighing situation. I only mention this because I know there has been some discrepancies over exactly how the Board should treat these, and I think that the answer is that you can use the same questions that you're currently considering, but you should get into more of a balancing when you make your decision, balancing the Town's interest as against the applicant's interest. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Kruger? MR. KRUGER-I'm Don Kruger. I'm going to be the builder on the house for Ms. Eggleston, and I have some copies of the survey map that shows the location of the house on the property. Before Sandy bought this property, she did apply before the Zoning Board for relief from setbacks and permeability, which she was granted the setbacks, but not the permeabili t y, but it was applied for September 1991, and she bought 1 the lot in good faith, thinking she had a 100 foot home, lot that she could build a home on, and she's a single parent, and I guess it's everybody's dream that they want their own home, and it becomes a practical difficulty to her, because she now owns the property, and if she can't get a right to build on it, then she ends up paying for the next five years on a piece of land that she can't use. I understand some of the neighbors have objected, that they didn't want another neighbor there, and I can appreciate that, but the land, for a period of time, was for sale, and they did have the opportunity to get that, and I think that was one of the arguments that was used two weeks ago. There was also an argument against percolation. We've had a percolation test done by an engineer. It came out at a six minute test, and we had the excavator up there, and also the Town road Superintendent, and they were both agreed that the land could be swaled in such a way as to deflect the ground water properly, respecting other people, and I just don't understand why it has to be such a difficult thing. The woman should be able to have a home on the property. She already owns it in good faith. MR. TURNER-Oka y. There's some question as to the setbacks. You can maneuver the house so you can meet the two setbacks, as she defined, make them 19 instead of 20, and I don't see that as any great point, but. MR. KRUGER-We went over it with Leon Steves, and he's laid the house out to meet every criteria that everybody's kind of thrown at him. MR. TURNER-Okay. Does anyone else have any questions of Mr. Kruger? Any further commen t? MR. KRUGER-As a builder, I think it's a practical lot to build on. I think she's got a very nice piece of property. I went up there and did some clearing out. The thing just is beautiful. She's got a 24 by 48 foot ranch house, three bedroom ranch house with a one car garage, and I personally don't feel that's that big of an item. My own house is on a 100 by 115 foot lot and I have a 70 foot ranch house. She's only asking for 62, less than 62, 61. MR. TURNER-Okay. Lets see. She's bounded on the east by St. Andrews, and she's bounded on the west by Bailey, and fronts Fuller Road. So, she cannot buy any property to increase the dimensions of her lot. Is that correct? MR. KRUGER-That's correct. MR. TURNER-Okay. That's all I have to say. I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOE BRAYTON MR. BRAYTON-I'm opposed to it. Joe Brayton. What I'm curious to know is how come they can build on a small piece of property like that when my son has to buy 10 acres to build in that area. The Fuller's have property, trying to give five acres to their daughter, which has been in the family for three or four generations, and they couldn't build on it, a couple of years ago, couldn't get a variance. I'm opposed to the size of the property, being in the Adirondack Park and everything, it's not a legal situation. MR. TURNER-Anyone else opposed to the application? CHRIS ST. ANDREWS MR. ST. ANDREWS-My name's Chris St. Andrews. I'm a neighbor she's going to build next door to, and I'm opposed to this. This is my third time speaking up here. I've gone over most of it with you already. You've heard most of the points that I have to make. I don't want to reiterate them. You know what they are. I spoke to you at the last meeting. A couple of things I don't understand. If this third acre lot is not too small to build on, and if 15 feet is not to close to my property lines, what would be? What would you consider too small? What would you consider too close? MR. TURNER-You own the acreage to the east, right? MR. ST. ANDREWS-That's right. MR. TURNER-You're not going to sell her any of your land, are you? MR. ST. ANDREWS-No. I would rather buy her piece of land and add it to mine. 2 MR. TURNER-Yes, but that's not the case. The question is. MR. ST. ANDREWS-No. Why would I do that, Ted? Why would I do that? MR. TURNER-I'm just asking you. So, therefore, she can't buy anything from you. She can't buy anything from Bailey. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Why not? I don't know that that was ever approached. MS. S. EGGLESTON-Mr. Bailey won't sell. I've already asked him. MR. TURNER-He won't sell. We have a letter right here. MR. ST. ANDREWS-His land is for sale, as I understand it. MR. TURNER- probabl y all of it. MR. ST. ANDREWS-All of it is for sale. MS. s. EGGLESTON-I know. I approached him. MR. ST. ANDREWS-I don't doubt that you did. MR. TURNER-Oka y. nonconforming. So, in good faith she bought a lot. It's preexisting MR. ST. ANDREWS-Right, and you gave her a year to build on it, and she didn't do it, and now she's coming back again. MR. TURNER-We gave her one year, and she came back and asked for an extension. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Right. She had a year to build on it. If she wanted the American Dream home, why didn't she build on it? You gave her a year. MR. TURNER-A lot of people don't build on it in a year, Mr. St. Andrews. A lot of people come back here and get extensions of variances. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Okay. Fine. I don't understand, since she's bought it, the land's been for sale. Now, if someone was going to build their dream home on this, why is the land for sale? It would seem you would keep the land for yourself, build on it, and live there. It seems to me it's a loophole in the law that she's trying to take advantage of a piece of property that was bought in a tax sale for $2500. MS. S. EGGLESTON-I didn't buy it for $2500. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Somebody did. MS. S. EGGLESTON-I paid a lot of money. MR. ST. ANDREWS-The piece of property was bought for a small amount of money. When I asked to buy it at the second meeting, Sandra Eggleston called me and offered to sell it to me for $25,000 of my home. That seemed like an awful lot of money to me, but the land has been for sale since then, and I just don't understand why ~ don't see it to some extent that if someone is trying to buy something, whatever she paid for it $10, $11, $12,000, is selling is for $25,000. She's trying to make money off this thing. It's still for sale. I don't know whether she's going to live there or not, but she could just build a house, if you allow her to, and sell the house. She doesn't give a hoot about the neighborhood. She's just going to sell it, take the money, and go wherever she wants to live. If everybody is opposed to it on Fuller Road, all the neighbors, as you will find out, have something to say about it, and I think you should lend it some, we trust that you will hear us. MR. TURNER-Let me ask you a question. If you bought the lot at a Tax Sale, and that lot was deeded to you, all right, as a lot, what would you do with it? MR. ST. ANDREWS-I'd put it into my property as one unit. MR. TURNER-Suppose you decided not to? Suppose you just bought it as an investment? MR. ST. ANDREWS-I wouldn't do that on Fuller Road. 3 MR. TURNER-No. Just a hypothetical question. investment? MR. ST. ANDREWS-Oka y. Suppose you bought it for an MR. BRAYTON-The first thing you'd do is check and see if it's legal to build on it, before they buy it. MR. TURNER-It's a legal lot. It's a lot of record. MR. BRAYTON-No, it's not. MR. TURNER-Yes, it is. MR. BRAYTON-No, it's not. MR. TURNER-Well, I differ wi th you. MR. ST. ANDREWS-You're saying that it is, and all we're saying is we'd like you to listen to our argument and we'd like you to put some weight to it, and I think you have the power within your group to deny this, and you can do that. You can do that, Ted. MR. TURNER-We can den y it. We can approve it. MR. ST. ANDREWS-That's right, and you can deny it, and that's what we'd like you to do. The petition shows that the neighbors are unified in how they feel about it. We feel you gave her time to build, and we don't feel this is in keeping with Fuller Road, and the space tha t ' s there on Fuller Road. If an y of you drove up Fuller Road, it's a brea th of fresh air going up there, and it's a nice part of Town. If someone's just building it to sell it, I think that weighs into it. MR. TURNER- I guess, you know, you didn't answer my question. I asked you, if you bought the lot as an investment, how much would you want for that lot, if you didn't include it in your property? MR. ST. ANDREWS-Twice as much as I bought it for, two months later? That seems like one heck of a deal. MR. TURNER-Tax Sales they always go cheap. You know that. MR. ST. ANDREWS-I really don't know much about Tax Sales. I was ignorant to Tax Sales. If I'd have been a wiser man to Tax Sales, I wouldn't be here tonight. MR. TURNER-Yes, but isn't it true that you weren't in Town to? MR. ST. ANDREWS-That's correct. MR. TURNER-Oka y. MR. ST. ANDREWS-I never knew this piece of property was for sale. that. I never knew MR. DUSEK-Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. St. Andrews just a question. Do you have any idea or knowledge as to how this lot came about? I mean, it's an odd shaped lot for that area, apparently, from what you're saying. Do you have any idea how it got created? MR. ST. ANDREWS-Well, Mrs. Fuller, I went over to Mrs. Fuller's to talk to Mrs. Fuller last night, and she, I did not know until last night, but I think the name is Berg, Mr. Lester Berg, are the people that originally from the Fuller's and built a house back in the 60's, and Mr. Berg. MR. BRAYTON-Winslow. MR. ST. ANDREWS-I'm sorry. Winslow, bought this other piece of land from them to have a beauty parlor for his daughter some day. Is that right? FLORENCE FULLER MRS. FULLER-He bought it from Frank Morgan. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Frank Morgan, from Syl via Morgan's, see, the Morgans owned one side of the road, as I understand it, and the Fullers owned the other? 4 MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. ST. ANDREWS-And I guess he bought it from Frank Morgan and gave it to his daughter. MR. DUSEK-As a separate lot at that point? MR. ST. ANDREWS-Yes. MR. DUSEK-So then the lot itself came into existence some time during the 60's, is that the idea? MR. ST. ANDREWS-As I understand it, yes. MR. BRAYTON-Before the Adirondack Park came in. MR. DUSEK-So, it's been, basically, a small, nonconforming lot ever since the 1960's? MR. ST. ANDREWS-Right. MR. DUSEK-Okay. MR. TURNER-Oka y. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Thank you. MR. TURNER-Anyone else in opposition to the application that wants to be heard? MRS. FULLER-My name is Florence Fuller, and I own the land across the road from the st. Andrews, and we just sold, about three years ago we sold up across from her where she wants to build, and we had to sell 10 acres in order to get a house on there. We sold to Joe Bra yton, we had to gi ve 10 acres. Now, I don't think it's fair, and I don't think it's fair for the Planning Board to make a decision when the rest of us had to sell the 10 acres in the Park. Now, if that is what is going to be said, why not give us on Fuller Road the same chance to sell off our properties in the same manner, so we could profit from it? MR. TURNER-Anyone else in opposition? Okay. The public hearing's closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. JOYCE EGGLESTON-A letter from Raymond Bailey, "Please be advised that I am a property owner who's property is adjacent to that of Ms. Sandy Eggleston. I have no objection to her request to build a single family home, providing the building design and finish will not be degrading to the neighborhood, and meet all Codes as set forth by the Town." And a letter from Madelyn White, "To the Queensbury Zoning Board: I have lived on this hill for 13 years and you will never believe how much water goes down this hill, and it is all focused to this one area tha t Eggleston wants to build on. The st. Andrews side lot is al wa ys filled wi th sand, water, and debris that comes to this area after a rainstorm and after the spring mountain thaw. If allowed to build this area, where would all this runoff go. It is always wet, and the Queensbury crews are always working and cleaning up this area." And a petition, I'll read the petition first and then who signed it. "We as a group of neighbors submit this petition in opposition to Sandra Eggleston's request for relief from the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. We oppose a variance extension for construction of a single family dwelling which cannot meet setbacks. We respectfully request that you deny this project in its entirety. Mrs. Florence Fuller, 232 Fuller Road; Mrs. Sylvia Morgan, Box 231 Fuller Road; Rob~rt Stewart, RD2, Fuller Road; Wendy Stewart, RD2, Fuller Road; Sally st. Andrews Shoemaker, 223 Fuller Road; Charlie and Carmela Portal, Braeside Circle, Queensbury; Steve and Joanne Brown, 4 Braeside Circle; Shirley Chase, 235 Fuller Road; Rhonda Royal, Ron Royal, 229 Fuller Road; Made1yn white, Box 235 Fuller Road; John Shoemaker, Box 223, Queensbury, Fuller Road; Leona Brayton, 227 Fuller Road; Joseph Brayton, 227 Fuller Road; Beatrice Catchall, 230 Fuller Road; Robert Catchall, 230 Fuller Road; Jane and Chris st. Andrews, 233 Fuller Road; Kitty and John Sconso, Fuller Road; Joseph L. Brayton, 226 Fuller Road." We also have submitted tonight by Ms. Eggleston, a perc test done by Main Enterprises, Inc., "On september 17th, 1992, I observed one soil test pi t and performed a soil percola tion test. Listed below are my observations. TP#l, 0-9 inches topsoil, 9 to 23 inches stony, fine sandy loam; 23-32 inches, stony loamy, fine sand; 32-72 inches, gravelly, loamy sand. 5 Soils examined in the area of septic leachfie1d are glacial till. No evidence of a high groundwater percolation rate is 6 minutes per inch at this site." H. Main, Soil Scientist. deep, well drained, stony, table was observed. Soil And it's signed by Charles MR. BRAYTON-Could I mention one more thing about this City water line that runs right across that property, and isn't there a setback on the City water line? My son couldn't build within so many feet of that City water line. MR. TURNER-Where is the water line, Mr. Brayton? MR. BRAYTON-It runs right through that lot. MR. TURNER- It's not on this map, so I can't answer it. MR. BRAYTON-It is. MR. TURNER-No, it's not on thi s map. MR. BRAYTON-It's a 24 inch line coming right out of the reservoir, from the City of Glens Falls. MRS. FULLER-It goes right through my land. MR. BRAYTON-It's built right in through my son's property. MR. KRUGER-It is there and it has been addressed by the Building Department, and we meet all the setback requirements from it. MR. TURNER-Did you hear his comment? MR. BRAYTON-No, I didn't. MR. KRUGER-The Glens Falls water, the easement does go water line is in, and we've addressed that through Department, and it has been taken into consideration by are the surveyors of record in the Town, and we meet all criteria from that. Does that answer 90ur question? down through there. The the Queensbury Building VanDusen and Steves, who the setback requirements, MR. BRAYTON-I don't believe so, because I think the City has something to say about that, not the Town of Queensbury. MS. S. EGGLESTON-I already saw the City and they went and marked it for me and everything and said it's fine. MR. TURNER-It shows it right here on the map. It just cuts across the corner of the property. MR. KRUGER-There's even a water tap on the property, Ted. MR. TURNER-Is there? MR. KRUGER-From the City of Glens Falls. MRS. FULLER-I'd like to say something. That water line runs right through my property, and my daughter wanted to build there, and they wouldn't let her build on account of that water line, and it had to be so many feet one way, and so many feet the other way, and that would put her out in the woods. MR. TURNER-Well, the Town can certainly clarify that, Mrs. Fuller, when it comes, if, whatever way this goes, the Town can certainly address that. Okay. Any questions of anybody? I'll tell you what I'd like to do with this application. There's two members, one is sick, and the other one is not here at this meeting tonight, so I would like to reserve decision on this application until those two members are back and we have a full Board to address the application. We have 60 days to make a decision anyway. Any thoughts on that? MR. SICARD-That's all right. MR. THOMAS-Fine. MR. CARVIN-I think that's fine. 6 MR. TURNER-I'd make that a motion, then. MR. DUSEK-Mr. Chairman, your Ordinance, right now, provides for 1.Q days. MR. TURNER-Thirt y, from the time the applica tion ' s submi tted, or 60 da ys from the time the application is? MR. DUSEK-Well, it probably would be about 60 days from the time of the application, but the way it reads is 30 days from the date of this hearing. So, I thought State Law might have said 60, but since we have a more restrictive time requirement, I would encourage the Board to adhere to making the decision within the 30 days. MR. TURNER-Oka y. MRS. JOYCE EGGLESTON-If we left the public hearing open, do we get 45? MR. DUSEK-Well, if you left the public hearing open, which you could do, but you'd have to re-notice it again. Whereas, if you close the public hearing, you don't have to re-notice it. You can just consider the matter at one of your next regular Board meetings. MR. TURNER-Well, I've already closed the public hearing. So, I think that we've heard all the testimony two or three times. MRS. EGGLESTON-Thirty days from tonight? MR. TURNER-Yes, 30 days. probably be the. We'll put it on the agenda for this next month. It'll MS. S. EGGLESTON-Is there anyway it could be any sooner? I mean, I'm holding up an excavator. I want to get this done before the frost comes, and I've got to see the Water Department. MR. TURNER-I know. We can do it our first regular meeting of October, which would be the third Wednesda y. We'll do it then. MR. CARVIN-Ted, I do have a couple of questions of Ms. Eggleston. One of the gentlemen here this evening asked, I was out there. I saw, there is a for sale sign, I believe, by owner. MS. S. EGGLESTON-It's way up on a tree, and I just haven't brought a ladder to get it down. MR. CARVIN-Is it for sale, or is it not? MS. S. EGGLESTON-No. It is not. Sandy Eggleston. He made it sound like I've had that property for sale forever and I haven't. I've tried going through Farmer's Home. MR. KRUGER-I think a practical difficulty that many of the neighbors aren't considering is economics. Sandy had a job with the Town of Queensbury in the Building Department for $17,300 a year, and she was trying to go through Farmer's Home, and it was not for sale at that point. Farmer's Home decided that they would not let anyone build anything in Queensbury, that's it, because we're all too wealthy to qualify for Farmer's Home. A person making $17,300 a year, that's a single parent supporting a child, doesn't have a lot of money to throw around. At the point she got denied that, she said, well, I owe money for the land, I should put it for sale. She did. It was offered to those nei ghbors, and I don't mean to be sarcastic, Mr. st. Andrews, but to me, when you're offered it, tha t ' s the time for put up or shut up. You didn't choose to do that. As a matter of fact, I believe his answer was that he didn't have the money. Well, why is it practical for him not to have the money, but not her, on $17,000 a year, that's not a lot of money. She did put it for sale. Now she's decided to go ahead. We're forced into a position to have to build on that land, because she's going to end up with her money tied up and not be able to do anything with the land, unless we get the right to do it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I think one of the concerns that has been expressed here is that the property will be sold to someone other than Ms. Eggleston, and I'm just trying to address that. At this point, that is not the case. 7 MR. KRUGER-She has applied for a building permit to the Town of Queensbury. She's paid an architect to draw blueprints for the house. She's paid a surveyor to come in and survey it. She's paid an excavator to do the perc test. She's paid an engineer to do the perc test. She's applied for the building permit and paid the fee, and it's in her name. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I have a question of Mrs. Fuller. You'd indicated that the Town forced you to sell 10 acre lots. MRS. FULLER-The Town and the Adirondack Park, which she's in, too. MR. CARVIN-All right. What portion of land do you own? In other words, did this consti tute? MR. TURNER-Open the public hearing. They're still talking about it. MR. CARVIN-Are they? MRS. EGGLESTON-We'll re-open the public hearing. MR. TURNER-As long as you still want to talk about it. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. CARVIN-My question, basically, is, how long have you owned the land, and did you have to go through subdivision on the 10? MRS. FULLER-My husband has owned it, he's 82 years old, and he must have owned it, what, all his life. MR. BRAYTON-His father had it before him. MRS. FULLER-And that's over 100 years. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but you had to go through subdivision to sell the 10 acres, did you? MRS. FULLER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Oka y, and when was that? MR. BRAYTON-Three or four years ago. MRS. FULLER-Three or four years ago. MR. BRAYTON-My son bought property from her six years ago. He had to buy 10 acres to build on. It's the idea of being in the Park. I don't believe the lot is legal to build on, because everybody else that buys land there has to have 10 acres. MR. TURNER-Can I explain something? All right. Let me try. That's Land Conservation 10 acres. In order to subdivide that, if you've got enough acreage, you have to divide it up into 10 acre zones. That's why she had to do what she did. She had to sell 10 acres. This lot is cut out of tha t pie, and it's a preexisting, nonconforming lot of record. You can't do an ything with it. She can't pick up any extra acreage. MR. BRAYTON-All right, then how about the land that Mrs. Morgan had, a five acre lot that her daughter wanted to build on, and she couldn't build on it because it wasn't large enough. MRS. FULLER-That's right. She even paid the surveyors. MR. TURNER-She wanted to divide her land up smaller than the zone that was required there. MR. BRAYTON-They can't build on five acres, but they can build on a 100 foot lot? MR. TURNER-This lot is cut out. She can't buy anything else. MR. ST. ANDREWS-Can I say something? Mr. Carvin, I think you had a good point. I don't know tha t you got an answer. I didn't hear Sandra sa y whether she was going to live there or not. Do you plan to make that your home? MR. CARVIN-I think the implication is that that is. 8 LADY IN THE AUDIENCE-I'm impartial. I don't live in that area. I've just been listening to what's going on, and I am familiar with the Farmer's Home, and this woman has to live in it. She cannot sell it. Well, she could sell it, but if she sells it, she makes no profit. She is not going to benefit by selling it. They take all the profi t from you. MR. TURNER-That's right. LADY IN THE AUDIENCE-And that I know for a fact. She will not benefit by selling it. MR. ST. ANDREWS-But she didn't get a Farmer's Home loan. What she'd be building this with, I don't know. LADY IN THE AUDIENCE-I understood it was Farmer's Home. I'm sure she's doing it to live in it. She is not trying to make money off it. MS. S. EGGLESTON-It was. MR. TURNER-Anyone else wish to talk? MRS. ST. ANDREWS MRS. ST. ANDREWS-I'm against, but I don't have a lot more to add, other than it's a very small piece of property. My name is Valerie St. Andrews-Shoemaker. I live on Fuller Road, and the property has been for sale. It is very small. I have watched the for sale sign up on that small piece of property, a third of an acre, since February. It is very small, and I'm opposed to it. MR. TURNER-An yone else? PLINEY TUCKER MR. TUCKER-Pliney Tucker, Councilmen, Ward 4. For the record, I'm not going to have anything to do with this building. I'm not going to be doing any building on it or anything else. You're postponing it 30 days, until you have a full Board. In 30 days, what if there's three people? What happens then? MR. DUSEK-Well, if they only have three, they couldn't act on the application. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. DUSEK-They need a quorum of at least four members. MR. TURNER-Right, a quorum. MR. TUCKER-All right. If you've got four members, are you going to vote then? Could they have the vote then? MR. DUSEK-The law gives them 30 days. MR. TUCKER-Thirty days, so at the end of thirty days, you have to vote anyway. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SICARD-Right. MR. TUCKER-Thank you. MR. KRUGER-I'm a little confused. Is the question of the size? We know the lot is preexisting and it's nonconforming. We know the size. Everybody in the room knows the size, but I get the impression that one of their big complaints is the size of the home. I'll put my money where my mouth is. If you want a bigger home, I'll buy the piece of property and give you $25,000 for it tonight. I want to put a 3,000 foot house up there. Would that make everybody happy? What you want her to do is eat this piece of property, and you feel that's reasonable? I think it's totally unreasonable. I was consulted to be a builder for Mrs. Fuller's son-in-law and daughter, and they wanted to build a house on the lot, on the other side of St. Andrews, but when we got down to pa ying for an engineer, perc test, excavator, variance fees, lawyers, they didn't want to do that, so they elected to go and get a home in a trailer park. That was their option. Sandy has already bought 9 this land based on good faith that she had the right to build on it. I mean, the woman worked in the Building Department of the Town of Queensbury. Everybody in the Department is in favor of her doing it. Now, all of a sudden, she not only does not have a job, she doesn't have the right to build on a piece of property she bought in good fai th. MR. BRAYTON-Fu1ler's owned that property for three generations of people. MR. ST. ANDREWS-I didn't really come here to get into an argument with you about where I put my money or my mouth, but again, as I understand it, she had a job for a year. She had a year to build on it. There was a for sale sign on it from at least February on. That sign was there, and it's still there. Whether you have a ladder or not, the sign is still there, and in that year, nothing was done to that land. We expected, when we came back from the first meeting, there would be a house there right away. There was nothing done until the denial from this Board at the last meeting. Nothing happened until that time. Then they cut some trees down and they did a perc test or whatever it is that they did, but there was no money spent on that land. That's when the survey was done was just last week. Everything happened within the two week period that you denied it at this Board. Nothing happened for a year, when you did have a job. Now everything's happening when you don't. So, I don't really understand that. MR. TURNER-Were you offered the lot? MR. ST. ANDREWS-Yes, I was. MR. TURNER-And you didn't want the lot, for what reason? MR. ST. ANDREWS-For $25,000? I thought maybe I could negotiate something better, but. MR. TURNER-Did you try? MR. ST. ANDREWS-Honestly? No, and I'm an honest man. I thought that was her set price. MR. TURNER-Oka y. MR. ST. ANDREWS-I would love to negotiate, right now. That seemed like a lot to make off it. I'm thinking now maybe something less would be something I could do. To buy a piece of property that's a third of an acre for $25,000, that you're just going to put into your yard is a lot of money, Ted, to me, and to you, and anybody else in this room. MR. TURNER-It probably is. Sure. was offered to you, wasn't it? I'm just saying, it was offered to you. It MR. ST. ANDREWS-Yes, it was offered to me. MR. TURNER-Oka y. MR. CARVIN-Can I ask you something, Mr. St. Andrews. You said you had done a little history, or had learned a little history of the property? It was owned by a Mr. Berg, was it, or Mr. Winslow? MR. ST. ANDREWS-Right. MRS. FULLER-Winslow. MR. CARVIN-Winslow, and his original intent was to put a beauty parlor there, was it? MR. ST. ANDREWS-For his daughter. I don't know an ythin g before tha t . I'm only going by what Mrs. Fuller told me. MR. CARVIN-Oka y. MR. ST. ANDREWS-It could have been a house. MR. CARVIN-It could have been a house. It could have been a beauty parlor. Do you think that we would have such public opposition if a beauty parlor, or if Mr. Berg or Mr. Winslow were building a house there? 10 MR. BRAYTON-Certainly you would, today you would, because the property has changed, the zoning has changed. Twenty years ago when it was bought, or thirty years ago, when winslow owned it, well, they might have gotten away with it, because you weren't in the Park. You didn't have to have all these variances. MR. TURNER-That zoning up there was not changed in , 82, and that was never changed, the last time around. , 88. That zoning was in in They left that right alone. MR. BRAYTON-I realize that, but that was long before that, when Winslow and them owned it. MR. TURNER-Because it was in the APA. MR. CARVIN-Do you think we'd have this kind of problem if Mr. Winslow still owned the property? MR. ST. ANDREWS-I mentioned this at the last meeting. I'll mention it again. What makes common sense to me, right or wrong to the law, or whatever, if the Bergs or the Wins10ws, whoever had that property back then, if she came back from California or wherever she went to, and she owned that piece of land and she came to you and she wanted to build on it, and she had it since ' 64, I think she's the only person in the world that would have the right to build on it, but then after that, I don't think anybody should have a right to build on it. I think it should be a worthless piece of property, and that's the way it was picked up in the Tax Sale. She should be the only person that should have the right. After that, I don't reall y understand why the law causes such turmoil. Does that answer your question? MR. CARVIN-Yes. I guess I'd like to address a question to Mr. Dusek. I mean, this is a preexisting nonconforming building lot. Is that correct? I mean, there's no question that somebody, the owner of that property can build on that? MR. DUSEK-Well, maybe to answer both the questions that were just raised. Mr. St. Andrews asked why the law does what it does, in terms of, I guess, putting everybody through this, is that the lot, as it stands, is not buildable. That's the problem. If they come in for a building permit, which is what they attempted to do, they could not get a building permit because it doesn't comply with the criteria. The law, though, also provides a mechanism for the matter to be heard before this Board to balance the criteria that the law gives, to hear from everybody in order to do that, and make the decision. So, if you will, this is the way that due process is carried out, hopefully justice in the end, and this Board will decide, based on criteria they're given, whether or not the variance should be granted or not. So, it's really a proper type of thing to do, because the Town stops the building so you can't build. This gives Ms. Eggleston a right to come before the Board and say, it's not fair. It gives the neighbors a right to come before the Board and say, well, it's not fair to grant it to her, and then this Board, as I indicated when we first started, will have the job of balancing all of these criteria against one another and coming up with a decision. MRS. FULLER-I would like to set Mr. Kruger straight that when my daughter wanted to build over across, it wasn't for the lack of the money or to go with it. It was, they had it surveyed, and they told her that it was out of the question, and I'm sure if she was here tonight she'd tell you the same thing. MR. ST. ANDREWS-My wife just reminded me of something that I'd forgotten in the conversation that I had with Sandra about buying the piece of property. She mentioned to me in the phone conversation that she had already had an offer of $22,500 and turned it down, when she talked to me about sellin g it for $25,000. So that was what I was basing my judgement on her not being very flexible with the price. I had forgotten. MR. TURNER-Oka y. CARA BEAMES MRS. BEAMES-Can I say something? I'm impartial, here, but I've got to say something. Can I do that? My name is Cara Beames. First of all, I'd like to say, I live on TutHill Road, and I know most of the Fuller people that live on Fuller Road, and you're all wonderful. Believe it or not, they are all wonderful people on Fuller Road. The thing, here, is though, she is a wonderful, and would be a wonderful neighbor. You guys are really messing up here. She bought the land in good faith. If you bought land in good faith, and then all of a sudden this came up, I mean, 11 -...-/ put yourself in their shoes, now. I bought land up on TutHill Road 15 years ago. I had to buy 10 acres. Well, shoot me down now. You can only, it's full up there because everybody's buying five acres. So, it changes all the time. That's not ~ fa ul t. Tha t ' s not the people, my nei ghbor' s fa ul t who bought land and put up their house with five acres. The law changes, and unfortunately we're stuck with it. Fortuna tel y, we're here to gi ve our opinion. It's too bad tha t everybody's got to go through all this, because I know these people are wonderful. She's wonderful. She's not going to do anything. God forbid if she does sell it and you do get some scum bucket to live next door in this little house that doesn't take care of it. The fact is, she bought it in good. It's her land. It's her lot. She's going to follow the regulations. God knows she has to follow the Queensbury Regulations. They are not flimsy, and they're up there all the time checking. She's not going to get away with anything. I don't know where the problem stands here. It seems to be cut right down, and I just feel bad that you guys are putting, love thy neighbor is shot right out the window. I mean, you haven't even gi ven her a chance, and it's not her fa u1 t . It's not her fa ul t . MRS. FULLER-We're not against her. It's against the land, the portion of the land. MRS. BEAMES-She bought the land like you could have bought the land. MRS. FULLER-I had to get 10 acres. MR. BRAYTON-She should have checked the land before she bought it. MR. TURNER-You don't understand. it's zoned 10 acres up there. yoU just missed everything. I just told you MRS. FULLER-I've got 38 acres. MR. TURNER-That's fine. you're fortunate you've got 38 acres, Mrs. Fuller, but you've got 38 acres. you can divide that up into three parcels of 10 acres piece and sell them off. She bought a lot that's preexisting nonconforming, since probably 1960. She can't buy anymore land. She's stuck with what she's got. MR. BRAYTON-How many years ago did she buy the land? MR. TURNER-That has nothing to do with it. The other guy could have done the same thing that she wants to do, if he came here and got a variance. MR. KRUGER-Sandy has a letter in her file that says the APA has no concerns. MR. TURNER-They have no concerns. I have I did get a letter from the APA that said had no concerns over the lot whatsoever. closing the public hearing. the same letter. I can vouch for that. that they had no review over it and they So, if there's no further comment, I'm PUBLIC HEARING CLOSBD MR. TURNER-Any further questions? Any comments from the Board? move to decide it the first meeting in October. I still would MR. THŒAS-When's that scheduled for? MR. TURNER-The third wednesda y. MR. THŒAS-The third Wednesda y? MR. TURNER-Yes. two members. All it will be is they'll have to review the record, the other MRS. JOYCE EGGLESTON-What is the third Wednesday? MR. TURNER-The 21st. MR. DUSEK-When the Board reviews this matter, could I encourage the Board to look at not only your criteria that's in our current Ordinance, but also look at the criteria that is in the new State Law now. I think you should consider both, and you should make, when you make your decisions, make references to, if you feel, after reviewing both, I would rely primarily on the State criteria at this point, but make references back to our own Ordinance, as well, as y:>u make your decision. If you have any questions in that regard, if you need copies of it, my office can furnish you copies of the State Law. 12 MR. TURNER-Oka y. I would make tha t a motion, then. lIOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-1991. SANDRA BGGLESTON, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: Tabled to get a full Board to address this matter. Tabled until the first regular meeting in October, October 21st, 1992. Duly adopted this 1st day of October, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Eggleston ABSENT: Mrs. Paling, Mr. Philo (7:56 p.m.) NBW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCB NO. 93-1992 '.tYPB II fiR-1.A ROBERT L. AND CllElaL EVANS atllBR: SAlIB AS ABOVE NASON ROAD, CLBTlBRDALB FOR A NODIFICATION OF AN BXISTIq¡¡G VARIMCB, TO CHANGE THE CONDITIONS OF THE APPROVAL AND RliBCNB A STIPULATION. TO 'ItDRN TlIB GARAGE, fiHICH FACES NASal ROAD, TO FACE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY. SllB AREA VARIMCB NO. 81-1.992 APPROVED 011 JULY 22, 1.992. (JlARRDf CODlft'Y PLAllNIIIG) I"AX MAP lIJO. 13-1-1.8 LOT SIZE: 20,505 SO. FT. SECTION 179-60, 179-16 BOB STEWART, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7: 56 p.m.) MR. TURNER-Mr. Stewart? MR. STEWART-Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is Bob Stewart. I'm a lawyer in Glens Falls, and I'm here tonight to represent Cheryl and Bob Evans. First of all, Mr. and Mrs. Evans have asked me to apologize to the Board for having to come back for a second night of your time to look at something that you thought you had put to rest at an earlier meeting. They were not present at that meeting. They should have been, and discussions they had wi th their builder, and he made a stipulation that you accepted in good faith, and I have that both Mr. Turner and Mr. Sicard asked him, do you want to go back and consult with your client before, and he felt that he knew how his clients felt and he was safe in the agreement that he entered into, and I'm sure he was acting in good faith. The problem is tha t once he went back and reported, it was not acceptable to the client, and in fact it was a real heart-breaker, and to very quickly give you an illustration of what the problem was, and then I'll go to the suggestions that we have for solving it, here is a rendering of the house showing the garage. Did you have that from before? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. STEWART-No. This one. MR. TURNER-Yes, I've got that one. MR. STEWART-Now, if you look at that, you can see that it is possible to put in some sort of headers, I'm sure for your builder, and put overhead doors facing directly onto Mason Road and enter the garage from that side, but from an appearance point of view, it's pretty well going to destroy the appearance. What you have in front of you is an architect's rendering of the house, and particularly the garage as they had originally asked for it. The stipulation would make the entrance, the overhead doors to the garage would go directly in from Mason Road, and completely change the appearance of the house. The other problem that you have, from the point of view of Mr. and Mrs. Evans, and also, I think, from the neighbors is if you looked at it, you're going to have a straight stretch of driveway going in and meeting two big overhead doors, and that's the face and the appearance that the house is going to present to the neighborhood. They would like to get your consent to change that stipulation. They've met with an architect, and they have come up with three different proposals, and Mr. Turner, I don't know if anyone has this or not. I have an extra copy, also. This gives Driveway Plan A, B, and C. C is the stipulation that was entered into at the earlier meeting, coming straight in from Mason Road, putting the overhead doors at the end, and driving into the garage. Plan B is to bring the driveway in what I would say is the middle of the 13 lot, curving and going in. That would allow the doorwa ys to be as they show in your rendering. Plan A, which is the preference, is to come in and curve and sweep down to the south and go in tha t direction. Tha t would allow this entire area to stay green. It could be landscaped so that the driveway itself is hidden from the view of the person walking or driving down the road, except this end here, where they could look through and see straight down to the lake. It would leave the overhead door arrangement as it's shown on the thing. It would save this tree, which would have to be cut down, if we followed the stipulation, came straight in, and would allow the landscaping. This would be the preference, B would be their second preference, and, of course, if you feel strongly, we could live with C, but it's unfortunate. Now, the numbers are relatively minor. The architect has computed it. The stipulation involves 11,074 square feet of driveway, if we came straight in and redesigned the house. Plan B is 11,087, almost exactly the same, and A, the one we prefer, it 1326 square feet. So, there's about two percent difference of driveway between the three various plans. It is pretty minimal. I'm not sure exactly what the Board had in its mind, but when you talk about driveway, two things occur to you. One is appearance, of course, and the second is permeability. Now, technically, they're well within the permeable limits of the Ordinance, but nevertheless this Board has the right to impose whatever conditions on a variance you want. If appearance is your concern, I think curving the driveway in and landscaping it, as it's shown on this plan, and really blending it out of sight might be the best appearance. Of course, appearance is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. Permeability, they would be perfectly willing to agree that a crushed stone type of a surface be used on the driveway, rather than blacktop, if that is an area of concern. I, personally, have done that at my own house. I tore up the blacktop. I think it looks nicer with the crushed stone. Snow removal is a bit more of a problem, but what you were shown, unfortunately, was a plan that showed the ~ driveway, the old driveway continuing out the way it was, and it looked like there was going to be a huge semi circle of driveway, plus a leg leading into the garage, so that the whole backyard looked like it was going to be driveway. MR. TURNER-There's what we have, right there and like that. The existing driveway area is 650 square feet. The new driveway area is 1667 square feet. MR. STEWART-Right or wrong, it's my understanding from the client, they never intended to keep this. That never should have been shown to you, but once you saw it, the red flags went up, because now you're all driveway, and that is a problem. I certainly never would have agreed to it, but this is considerably more modest. Now, let me, if you would, see, all you saw was blacktop, and I can understand your concern. This is on a rendering by the architect of what it would look like if Plan A was adopted. He's taken out these two so you can see the appearance. Now, one thing desperately trying to curry all the favor I can with the Board, it's not an issue, but I want you to know that in working with the architect, the house has been shrunken somewhat in size, as a result of which it's not going to be 55 feet back from the lakefront, which is what your variance allowed, and what the existing house is. It's going to be another eight feet, about 63 feet back. So, that's not an issue, but I thought you should know that they're not trying to squeeze everything they can into the lot. They're trying to work wi th it. Here's the 55 foot setback and the variance allowed to build, but the house is going to be back about another eight feet. MR. TURNER-Eight feet. MR. STEWART-The only thing that shows out here is just a low flat flagstone terrace, and under your rules, that does not measure in terms of setback, if you measure back to the actual house. This shows it, then, with only the preferred driveway, Plan A, curving in, and it takes this out, leaving this entire area to be landscaped and hedged so that you can hide that driveway, and once it makes it's turn, it should go out of sight, if appearance is the issue. As you know, the septic system is going to be completely off the lot on the other side. MR. TURNER-All right. The Wetherbee's driveway is on a diagonal, their garage. MR. STEWART-Sort of slants in this way. MR. TURNER-Yes, and I think that blacktop comes pretty close the line right here. MR. STEWART-Incidentally, I have here tonight a petition signed by the neighbors in which they say they have reviewed the three driveway alternatives and that they would prefer Plan A. 14 MR. TURNER-Can we get the doctor up here, can we have Mr. Evans up here. Mr. Evans, maybe you can answer it. The Wetherbee's driveway is kind of like that, and their garage sits like that. Does that come pretty close to here? ROBERT EVANS DR. EVANS-It does. His driveway probably starts about here. and it goes over here. It comes in here, MR. TURNER-Isn't there a little line of trees or something right here? DR. EVANS-Tha t' s correct. There's some trees here. MR. TURNER-Do you intend to leave them? DR. EVANS-Those trees will all sta y. The trees are, one's on mine. Another one's on his, and we're going to leave all the trees. MR. STEWART-You'll see here, also, that coming in at an angle we can save these two trees here. The only one that does have to go, and that's because of the house, not the driveway, is that one right back to the wall. MRS. EGGLESTON-Doctor, let me ask you a quick question. The Wetherbee house is far enough towards the lake. So, were you to back your cars in here, your headlights wouldn't be forever in their house. DR. EVANS-Tha t ' s correct. MRS. EGGLESTON-Which is something that you really wouldn't want to do. MR. TURNER-Yes. DR. EVANS-They're closer to the lake than we are, and these two trees are huge. So, they shouldn't see a thing, and that could even be landscaped. This building will be removed. MR. STEWART-You'll also notice, there shouldn't be, it may be an unusual situation, but there shouldn't be a reason to ba ck in to the gara ge , beca use you drive in, you back into this lot, and then you drive out. That's the reason for this little. I would, for the record, like to offer this petition signed by the neighbors, indicating they have looked at that tree driveway alternative layout and prefer A, for whatever weight that carries. I'm done. I'll answer any questions. MR. SICARD-Bob, if I may add to what you said, you forgot a couple of little things that are quite important. In the first place, the applicant volunteering to put the septic system on the other side of the road. He didn't have to, and he spoiled a very good lot over there, which I wish he'd give to me, because I'd build a big cottage on it. The other thing is, coming into that from the south, I don't know if you noticed the hedge right along the property line, and I watched up there today for quite a while. I didn't have much to do, and the cars were going through there pretty fast, and I think that giving you a little more chance to get by that hedge would give him a little more chance to get out of the way. I didn't know whether g::¡u wanted to bring that up or not. MR. STEWART-I appreciate that comment. The turn, if you come out Driveway C, the one that they stipulated to at the last meeting, brings g::¡u into a pretty bad corner blocked by that hedge. That could be a pretty nasty way to get out of that driveway. While if we could move back to A, we'd have a much better line of vision to get out of there. you've got a hedge, and if you envision some snowbanks in the winter time, coming out this end does put us close to a corner. As to the septic system, I didn't mention it because it was part of the original application, but we have three alternatives, I saw it in the file today, from Mr. Scudder, and he begs us not to go over across the street. He says he can put it on two different ways on site, because the cost of going across the street is going to be sky high compared to the others, and of course, we're losing a valuable piece of land across the street that could be used for other purposes, but in spite of that engineering advice, the expense, they have agreed, and there isn't any question about that, that the septic system will go on the lot across the street, whatever the expense may be, and that's the way that's going to go, and that's not any condition to what we're here talking about tonight, nor, incidentally, is the setback on the house. I don't want to leave the impression that if you give us Driveway A, we'll move the house back. We're going to move the house back, period. It has nothing to do with A, B, and C. 15 MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions? None? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COlIlIENrr PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. EGGLESTON-A petition signed, lets see. "The undersigned being neighbors of Robert and Cheryl Evans on Mason Road, C1everda1e, New York, having viewed the site plan dated September 8th, 1992, request that the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals accept Driveway Plan A, which the undersigned feels is preferable under all of the circumstances. Peter Lewis, Mason Road; Judy Wetherbee, Mason Road; J. Rye, Mason Road; Lucian Lew, Mason Road; Barbara Haladen, Mason Road; Joseph Haraden, Mason Road; Edward Kenney, Mason Road; Margaret and John Bullard, Mason Road." MR. TURNER-Okay. I made the motion last time, so, does anybody have any comment before we do it? MR. SICARD-What's that shoreline relief now? It comes less than 20 feet, since they're moving the house back. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, another eight. MR. SICARD-What is it now? MR. TURNER-It would be 63. It was 55. It would be 63. MRS. EGGLESTON-No, relief, Ted. MR. TURNER-All right. I'm sorry. It would be 12. He's going to be 63 feet from the lake. He's 55 now. MR. SICARD-Twelve feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-Oka y. MR. STEWART-I scaled that off. Don't hold me to the foot. I think it's 63. It could be 62, but it's right about there. MR. TURNER-Does anyone have a problem with the proposal? MRS. EGGLESTON-No. MR. SICARD-No. MR. TURNER-Oka y. I would make a motion. llOTION TO 1l0DIFY AREA VARIANCE NO. 81.-1.992 (93-1992) Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its Eggleston: ROBERT L. AND CHERYL L. EVANS, adoption, seconded by Joyce Modification is for relief from the stipulation in the previous motion that the garage would face Mason Road, to the proposal presented as indicated on the drawing, Plan A to indicate the garage faces north and driveway will exit to the north boundary line. The concern of the Board was the amount of blacktop as indicated on the application. This modification does relieve some of those concerns. The septic system will be on the adjoining lot across the road. Duly adopted this 1st day of October, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Paling, Mr. Philo (8:16 p.m.) 16 AREA VARIANCE NO. 97-1992 TYPE II RR-SA CLARENCE J. III AND CARA D. BEAllES ONNER: SAKE AS ABOVE TUTHILL ROAD APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROII THE OUEENSBURY ZONING ORDINANCE PER SECTION 179-67 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES; SECTION l79-67(B)(2). TO PLACE AN IN-GROUND SfiIllJlING POOL IN THE SIDE YARD IN LIEU OF THE REOUIRED PLJJCE1ŒNT IN THE REAR YARD. TAX MAP NO. 123-1-40.31 LOT SIZE: 5.2 ACRES SECTION 179-67 (B){ 2 ) CARA BEAMES, PRESENT (8:16 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 97-1992, Clarence J. III and Cara Beames, Meeting Date: October 1, 1992 "The applicant is seeking a variance to allow the placement of an in-ground pool on the side yard of their residence. Ordinance Section l79-67(B)(2) requires that pools be erected only in the rear yard of a principal building. 1. Describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets zoning requirements. The applicant's argument is that the slope and presence of a brook prohibit the placement of an in-ground pool in the rear yard of the residence, but diagram does not indicate the pervasiveness of the slope or how close the brook is to the back of the residence. 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? Applicant eliminates any options for placement of pool within Ordinance requirements without defending his argument with sufficient evidence, i.e., degree of slope and distance from back of house. 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? Applicant does not explain his position that placement of the pool in his side yard would not be detrimental to his neighbors or neighborhood (i .e., visually detrimental) and doesn't address the issue of his project being in conflict with the Town's Ordinance restricting pools to rear yards. 4. Is this request the minimum relief necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty? Applicant considers the request the minimum relief necessary to implement the project, but the Board will need to determine if the natural impediments (brook and slope) are sufficient enough to rule out any options that would comply with the Ordinance regulations." MRS. BEAMES-I'm Cara Beames. I have pictures, first of all. I want to mention that we had several people, professionals, pool professionals, come up and place where the best spot was for the pool. When I went to the Planning Department, they had said that, I had told him that I wasn't sure. He told me I had to have it a certain, put certainly on the map and have it scaled and in great detail. After he looked at it, the same day, Dave Hatin had said that there was going to be no problem, but that he would come up and help me out. So he came up to the property and checked it out, said that that was a good spot for the pool. He did all the scaling on the map that I think you all have copies of, on our land, brought it back, set it on the desk. Scott looked at it, read the book, in black and white, and said, no. He never came up. He never looked at it, and I'm for all the Ordinances, and I think it should be looked at, but I think that this ~s written for the majority of the people who live in Queensbury, but I think there should be a clause in there. There are many of us that live on the Mountain, and we cannot put it in the rear of our house. If you do look at the pictures, on one of the pictures you can see that if you stand in my front yard and you look where the pool is going to be, it is in the back yard. It just sets off to the side. If you put a fence, a sort of fence around my house, and you stand in the front yard, that pool does line up. It is in back of my back door. It just sets off of a deck that we had put on, and depending on how you're looking at it, if you go up and look at it, it is in the back yard, or it's on the side in the back yard. you can't see it from the road. you can't see it from the adjoining lots, which one I own. I just think that maybe there should be a clause written in this Ordinance so that we don't have to go through this, and if you have somebody in a supervising position, he comes up, he checks it out and he thinks it's okay. I think that he should have the ability to make the judgement call on if the pool is all right or in the back yard, and that's somebody who's never seen it before. I cannot put it in my backyard, as you can see by the slope, and there's a brook, if you look at the map, there's just no feasible way that I could put it directly behind my house. MR. TURNER-Well, you know, unfortunately the Ordinance doesn't address every issue that's in front of us, and it can't. So, this is your avenue of relief right here. MRS. BEAMES-We1l, why am I being punished? MR. TURNER-You're not being punished. 17 MRS. BEAMES-It's punishment, I'm telling you, for us to take the time to pay the extra $50 to come up here and have to waste you time to show you pictures, and after what Dave Hatin had already said, I mean, he came up. He took his time. He came up. He checked it out, and he oka yed it. I thought tha t was hi s job. It was in black and whi te. He looked at it. He had a doubt. He came up and he looked at it, and he approved it. He approved it. He accepted my $35 application fee, and then he gave it to somebody else and they said, no. It says black and white in this book, in the rear yard. Dave explained to him, he figured depending on if he went by the angle, it would be in her rear yard. It's just on the side of her deck, because if you drive in the other way, it's in between my garage and my, and it doesn't even angle towards the road. It angles towards the woods. So, the whole angle is tota11 y behind my back door, which if you're standing in the front of my house, it's in the back of my house, because my house is at an an gl e . MRS. EGGLESTON-Mrs. Beames, to address some of the issues that Staff has, can you just, for the record, tell us. I know, I looked at the site, and there is a drop off in back of your house, and so I really don't feel you could put the pool back there. How far, how much flat land do you have in back of your house? I couldn't measure it. It wasn't very much. MRS. BEAMES-I don't have a backyard. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well, I'm talking about the back of your house. right from the house. It doesn't drop MRS. BEAMES-Yes, it does. MR. CARVIN-It's a pretty steep drop there. MRS. BEAMES-Were you up there earlier today? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MRS. BEAMES-Wel1, then you saw, right from the back, it does drop right off. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes, but there must be five foot or something. asking. That's ~at I'm MRS. BEAMES-We have a septic right in the back, like, in the middle of our home. We have a septic there, but we really do not have a backyard. MRS. EGGLESTON-I know that, but I'm trying to get on the record that you don't have a backyard. DAVE STEWART MR. STEWART-Probably the widest place, from the back of their foundation to where it truly drops off, would be 15 feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's ~at I'm trying to get, for the record here. MR. TURNER-All right. Does anyone have any further questions? MR. SICARD-I was just wondering, have you made plans for the fence? MRS. BEAMES-Yes. We have a six foot chain link fence that's goin g to go around, that was another reason why we didn't want to move it back any farther, because then we have the brook, and we'd be putting a fence right up on the brook, right on the border line of the brook. So, that was another reason for keeping it up right next to the, we have a six foot chain link fence to surround it. MR. THCMAS-Didn't we go through this last week, about fences? How high they can be? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. STEWART-They told us four to six. MR. CARVIN-Yes, for a pool. MR. TURNER-A pool is four feet. 18 MR. THOMAS-A pool is four? MR. TURNER-Yes. That's mandated by the Health Department. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is that chain link, though? MR. TURNER-Anything. Everything. A fence is four feet high. MR. SICARD-Teddy, isn't there something concerning putting the fence in the rear of the building, that it can be higher? MR. TURNER-If it's behind the building, it's six. MR. SICARD-It is. MR. TURNER-No, it's not. It's off to the side. MR. SICARD-You k€ren't standing in the right place. MRS. BEAMES-That' s it. I agree with this gentleman. I mean, even if you, on one of the pictures, I think it's Number Two, I'm standing on the front. MR. TURNER-Tell me where the front of your house is, right there from that drawing. MRS. BEAMES-Actua1ly, there's a decline. So, if you're standing up on the top, it ma y be even 10k€r, if you're standin 9 in my front yard, but there's no pool there yet. So, I'll worr y about it if you let me put my pool in. MR. TURNER-Any further comments? If not, I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARILYN SMITH MRS. SMITH-Marilyn Smith. We bought 60 acres in the Town of Queensbury on Tuthill Road in ' 77 and nobody lived up there but us. We've watched the neighborhood grow into a beautiful neighborhood. Everybody takes pride in their property. As far as Cara' s house is, you can't even see it from the road. Her house is on the back of her property, and we feel it's an improvement, and I'm very proud of where I live, especially after the first, the beginning of this evening. I'm very proud of my neighbors, too. I'm glad I live in the neighborhood I do. So, I'm all for it. DAVE STEWART MR. STEWART-I'm Dave Stewart, and I live over on Clendon Brook Road, and I border their back line, and I'm very familiar with their property. I see no other place to put it, unless you put it right in front there, and as far as being proud of where someone lives, Butch and Cara probably take better care of their property than anybody I can think of on the Mountain. I can't see where anybody would object to it, the way this will sit, or I know the way it's going to look when they finish wi th it. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else wish to be heard? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-An Y further questions? All ri ght. Motion's in order. IIOTIOlI TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 97-1.992 CIARBNCB J. III AND CARA D. BBAllBS, Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Sicard: And grant them relief from Section l79-67(B)(2) and allow them to place an in-ground swimming pool in the side yard in lieu of the required placement in the rear yard. From a personal observation of the premises there is no room in back of the house to place a pool due to the severe slope and this is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the specific practical difficulty. The variance would not be a detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or any part of the community. The applicant's property as k€ll as the pool is not visible from the road, so it would not be a detriment to any neighbors and I don't believe the request is in conflict with the Town's intent. There would be no effect on public services. 19 /"'- -- Duly adopted this 1st day of October, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Thomas, Mr. Sicard, Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Paling, Mr. Philo (8:35 p.m.) On motion meeting keS adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman 20