Loading...
1993-10-20 - ORIGtNA\t QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 20TH. 1993 INDEX Area Variance No. 82-1993 Kelly Carte 1. Area Variance No. 69-1993 Charles Graves. Jr. 12. Area Variance No. 78-1993 Robert & Helen Carroll 17. Area Variance No. 52-1993 Ann C. & Erwin H. Johnson 25. Area Variance No. 77-1993 Randy and Mike Rivette 32. Area Variance No. 85-1993 Gary E. Richardson 36. Area Variance No. 88-1993 John S. Potter 41. Area Variance No. 87-1993 James R. Finnecy 53. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. -- QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 20TH. 1993 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER. CHAIRMAN JOYCE EGGLESTON. SECRETARY FRED CARVIN CHRIS THOMAS LINDA HAUSER ROBERT KARPELES THOMAS PHILO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLABRBR-SUSAN CIPPERLY STEROGRAPHBR-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSIRBSS. ARBA VARIA.CB RO. 82-1993 TYPB. UBLISTBD LC-leA KBLLY CARTB OWNBR, FLORBRCB !'ULLBR BORTH SIDB O!' !'ULLBR ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSBS TO CRBATB TWO (2) LOTS FROM AB BXISTIBG THIRTY-lIGHT ABD FIFTY-SBVBR HURDRBDTHS (38.57) ACRB LOT IR AR LC-10A ZORB. ORB (1) LOT WOULD BB OR. AND SIXTY-FIVE HURDRBDTHS (1.65) ACRBS AND WOULD SBPARATB AR BXISTIRG HOUSB FROM THB RBMAIRIRG THIRTY-SIX ARD RIRBTY-TWO HURDRBDTHS (36.92) ACRB LOT. APPLICANT IS SBBKIBG RBLIB!' OF BIGHT AND THIRTY-FIVE HURDRBDTHS (8.35) ACRBS FROM SBCTIOR 179-13A. WHICH ALLOWS OR. (1) PRINCIPAL BUILDING !'OR BACH TBR (10) ACRBS. SBCTIOR 179-13C RBQUIRBS A !'OUR HURDRBD (400) FOOT LOT WIDTH. THB SMALLBR LOT HAS AM AVERAGB LOT WIDTH OF THRBB HURDRBD SIXTY-SIX ARD SIXTY-SIX HURDRBDTHS (366.66) !'BBT. APPLICART IS SBBKIRG RBLIBF OF THIRTY-THRBB AND THIRTY-FOUR HURDRBDTHS (33.34) !'BBT. ADIRORDACK PARK AGBRCY TAX MAP RUMBBR, 123-1-5.1 LOT SIZB. 38 +/- ACRBS SBCTIOR 179-13A. 179-13C MR. TURNER-Some people weren't notified. and that's why they're back. The first thing we've got to do is rescind the resolution that we made before. MOTIOR TO WITHDRAW HOTIOR OR THB MEBTIRG OF SBPTBHBBR 15TH. 1993 WITH RBGARD TO ARBA VARIANCB RO. 82-1993 KBLLY CARTB. Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Theodore Turner: Duly adopted this 20th day of October. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Philo. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Eggleston STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 82-1993. Kelly Carte. Meeting Date: September 15. 1993 "ADDRBSS OF PROPBRTY, north side of Fuller Road SUMMARY OF PROJBCT. Applicant proposes to create two (2) lots from an existing thirty-eight and fifty-seven hundredths (38.57) acre lot in an LC-10A zone. One (1) lot would be one and sixty-five hundredths (1.65) acres and would separate an eXisting house from the remaining thirty-six and ninety-two hundredths (36.92) acre lot. COR!'ORHARCB WITH USB/AREA RBGULATIORS, Applicant is seeking relief of eight and thirty-five hundredths (8.35) acres from Section 179-13A. which allows one (1) principal building for each ten (10) acres. Section 179-13C requires a four - 1 - - hundred (400) foot lot width. The smaller lot has an average lot width of three hundred sixty-six and sixty-six hundredths feet. Applicant is seeking relief of thirty-three and thirty-four hundredths (33.34) feet. RBVIEW CRITERIA. 1. DBSCRIBB THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACBMENT OF A STRUCTURB WHICH MEBTS THB ZORIRG CODE. Applicant that the existing house is of minimal value and cannot be economically or practically subdivided on 10 acres without adversely affecting the value of the remaining land. Adequate bank financing cannot be obtained with present configuration. 2. IS THIS THE MIRIHUH VARIARCE RBCBSSARY TO ALLBVIATB THB SPBCIFIBD PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. OR IS THERB AMY OTHBR OPT lOR AVAILABLB WHICH WOULD RBQUIRE RO VARIARCB? It would appear that this proposal is seeking the minimum variance necessary to achieve the applicant's plans for the land. 3. WOULD THIS VARIARCB BB DBTRIMERTAL TO THE OTHBR PROPBRTIBS IR THE DISTRICT OR REIGHBORHOOD? It does not appear this variance would be detrimental to the district or neighborhood. 4. WHAT ARE THB BFFECTS 01' THE VARIANCB OR PUBLIC FACILITIBS UD SBRVICBS? It does not appear that this variance would not have an effect on public facilities and services. STAFF COHHBRTS ARD CORCERRS. This parcel is situated in an area where there is a mixture of lots less than two (2) acres and lots which conform to the current ten (10) acre zoning. so the proposed lot sizes are not unusual for the area. It appears that the applicant is planning to develop the larger parcel further. and this variance would allow him to secure necessary financing." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Carte. explain it allover again. MR. CARTE-A couple of the Board members weren't here when we went through this before. but essentially. I am in the process of purchasing the land from Mrs. Fuller. It's. as stated. 38 acres of land. The existing house is on it. and is in the middle of the frontage that's on Fuller Road. I plan on building another house. another residence. in the back. up on the side of the Mountain. in the future. near future. next year or the year after. As we went into before. there's a number of reasons. The value of the house is such that if it was subdivided on ten acres of land. the most economical thing for anybody to do would be to bulldoze down the house and put another house up on it. because the land would be worth more than the house. No one would be able to find financing for this structure that way. because the banks will not loan money readily on a house that has more than. where the land value is more than 25 percent of total purchase price on it. I'm running into that problem with the total package. I think I've got that solved. and in fact. I've unfortunately made commitments based on this. what I thought I had here for the approval of it from the last meeting. but the practical difficulty for me would be. in the future. to get financing to construct a house. if it was not allowed. if I'm not allowed to subdivide it this way. Leaving the house on the land. you're in the situation of having two houses on one piece of property and the banks don't look favorably on that either. So. I would incur great difficulty in trying to find one that would finance a construction loan for a second house on the same piece of property. As I stated in the application. the majority of the road. in fact. I think all the lots. the houses that are on the road going up to here are all on lots less than the ten acre zoning. There are two pieces of property that are on more than ten acres. that have accesses off the road. 50 foot wide or something like that. and then around behind the other houses. but physically the character of the street is all of smaller residential lots there. So. it would not be outside of the character of the neighborhood. I don't know what else to say. MR. TURNER-Lets see if we've got any questions. Any questions from anybody that wasn't here the last time? All right. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HBARIRG OPBRBD - 2 - MR. CATCHELL MR. CATCHELL-I'm Catchell. on the east side of this lot. I don't see how you can break up a ten acre plot into an acre and a half. in the Adirondack Park. By doing so. you'd be giving eight and a half acre in the back. which he could put three houses back there instead of two. I don't see how it's fair to do this. and I think if you did pass this. you'd have developers and everybody else coming in and wanting variances for just about anything up there. MR. TURNER-I have a map of this. Could you show me where you live. in reference to this property? MR. CATCHELL-On the east side. MR. TURNER-Yes. Which lot? MR. CATCHELL-The first lot. MR. TURNER-This one here? MR. CATCHELL-Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. PHILO-How long have you lived there? MR. CATCHELL-Twenty-two years. That's about all I've got to say about it. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition? JOE BRAYTON MR. BRAYTON-Joe Brayton. I realize a lot of these lots are 200 foot lots. They were sold and bought and purchased before this property ever went into Adirondack Park area. and since that time. the lots are supposed to be 10 acres. and there's plenty of land there for 10 acres. and it's not a very fair deal. My son an~ the doctor up the road. what's going to happen over on the Bailey property? He just sold that. They're going to come in there and say. well. gee. now I can buy an acre and get an acre and a half. build a lot. You're going to cause a lot of problems. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? JOHN STEWART MR. STEWART-John Stewart. I'd just like to ask for consistency in rulings. Two neighbors. one east. one west. have had to buy 10 acres to put their house there. I'd find it strange if we would change the lot right in the middle of those two and make a different ruling. So. I'd simply ask the Board to look at being consistent in their rulings on this kind of an issue. I think that would resolve the issue right there. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard? PUBLIC HBARIRG CLOSBD MR. CARTE-Mr. Turner. can I reply to a couple of those? MR. TURNER-Yes. Sure. MR. CARTE-Just a couple of things. I tried to talk to most of the neighbors that were immediately around the piece of property we're talking about. I didn't go out. first of all. I want to assure everyone that I was not the one that did not send the notices out for them. I was under the impression that everybody had gotten them. the same as you were. So. I had nothing to do with the fact - 3 - that other people weren't notified. as far as the meeting goes. from last time. I did talk to Mr. Catchell and Mrs. Catchell the night before the meeting. and I had explained myself. and they seemed to be satisfied with it at that point in time. but the main thing I guess I'm looking at is I'm not asking to divide the thing to build a house on. I'm asking for consideration because the house is already there. We went into the situation with Mrs. Fuller's daughter and the piece of property across the street that her aunt owns. and the requested subdivision of that piece of property. but in those situations you were talking about subdividing a piece of property so that someone could put a house on it. and you're taking a piece of property that is less than. in that particular one. less than the 10 acres. and further subdividing it into a smaller piece of property. so that someone can build on it. I'm in the situation where I have one that's plenty big enough for the zoning that we're talking about. I just want to make it economically viable. with the house on a piece of property that's suited to it. that doesn't ruin the rest of the value of what's left there. and although I could actually. by the zoning. put three houses. I guess. on 38 acres. there's no practical way of doing that. I have no intention of doing that. My idea in purchasing the thing in the first place was to keep as much of the acreage as I could for myself. and subdivide the least amount possible. In fact. I have no intention of selling. at this point in time. of selling or the land. I plan on renting it. so that I can keep control over who lives there. you know. what would be the entrance to my property. with the driveway and such. So if the stipulation is such that I couldn't subdivide the land into any more than the three lots that I was allowed to anyway. that's perfectly fine with me. I mean. I have no problem making that way. I'm certainly not doing it so that I can squeeze one more piece of property out of that land. because I have no intention of selling any more of the land. MR. CARVIN-Mr. Carte. could you review. for some of the members that weren't here. your financing arrangement with the bank. in other words. we're going through some of the minutes here. and I think I've got it straight. but I just want to make sure. In other words. the reason for this acre and a half lot is that you will put the mortgage on that? That is what the bank will take. in case of a default? MR. CARTE-Right. Well. yes. and no. At that point in time it was. I'm now talking to another bank on the property. The situation is essentially the same. except that they're not as firm about having to have the thing subdivided. but they also. they told me the same situation. in that when I go to get. if I need to borrow money for a construction loan to build another house. I'm going to have to do something with this other piece first. because it's going to be the situation of two pieces of property. or two houses on one piece of property. and they won't finance something like that. So. it's. they said if it was subdivided the same situation at the other one. the other bank. Glens Falls National. required this. This bank is not going to make their requirement of giving me the loan. but they'll make it a requirement if I have to go back and get money for construction on the new house. which I'm going to have to do in the future. MR. PHILO-How many total acres is there? MR. CARTE-There's the 30 plus or minus acres. MR. PHILO-Why can't you have a surveyor knock off whatever the requirement is for the 10 acres? MR. CARTE-Well. because the property. in order to subdivide it with the house. and have the house left on it. you take the most valuable part of the property.. all the 10 acres would be the lower. I don't know whether you have a copy of the tax map there that I gave them. If you take the lower 10 acres of land that's all the - 4 - level land. and then it starts up the hill. So you're knocking off the most valuable part of the land. the 10 acres. to put with this house. If someone goes to try and purchase that. if I. for some reason. have to sell it. the bank is not going to loan money based on that. because the value of the land is worth more than the house. and the banks won't loan money on land. They'll loan money on a house and land. but they won't loan it if the land is more than 25 percent of the value of what you're asking. and 10 acres of land up there is worth more than that house is worth. So it's a case of. I'm going to be left with trying to find somebody that has cash. purchase it. and then if they do it. they're going to bull doze down the house that's there. build another house on this piece of property. The second thing is. it leaves me with a corridor for access up to the rest of the land. which I have some pictures here I can show you. MR. PHILO-When did you purchase this property? MR. CARTE-I'm in the process of purchasing it right now. MR. PHILO-With the contingency. if this doesn't go through. you won't buy the property? MR. CARTE-Well. no. that wasn't a contingency. but I didn't make any commitments on it until after I had been before the Board last month. That's why I wanted to get in as soon as possible. Now I thought I had the variance on it. and I have since made commitments to the bank based on that. The land that's left is very steep for access to it to build. Going through the flat land on the bottom and up you can make a driveway that's useable. If I divided off ten acres. by gOing the hundred foot side yard setback from the eXisting house puts it so that when you start in from the road. you've got to go up like this. There's a spring there. and the land is quite steep at that point. and it makes it quite difficult to get a driveway or something up in there. MRS. EGGLESTOH-I can see these people's point. is my. I mean. you didn't have to buy the property if you couldn't make it work as it was. and you bought it hinging. you're going to get something that's. I'm sure if you'd talked to the people in that area. you would have known we've had a lot of problems up on that road. MR. CARTE-Well. it was brought up at the last meeting by some of the Board members of the problems there. but as I was. I found out about one of them when I was here. and the other one I knew about. wi th Mrs. Fuller's daughter and the aunt's property across the street. but as I said. I would hope that the individual cases of these people and their hardship. or lack thereof. should not be vested on me. as to what I'm looking for. I mean. each one of them should be taken as an individual case. MRS. EGGLESTON-That's true. but a sense of fairness. treat all alike. MR. CARTE-Well. I understand. I guess the situation is different on these other. I mean. I would look at it as different. Both of the lots we were talking about are lots that are nonconforming to begin with. and want to be built on. I'm not talking about a nonconforming lot. and I'm not talking about building on a nonconforming lot. I'm talking about making the most sensible economic use of what's there already. MRS. EGGLESTON-You could use the land as zoned. in all truthfulness. You could use it as it is. If you choose to buy it. you could use it as it is. I mean. you know when you buy it what's there. You could conceivably use it as it is. You're saying. now. that a bank. a new bank you're talking to very well could give you the loan without insisting on the subdivision. To me. this is a way of subdividing without going through all the process that other people do when they subdivide their land. - 5 - -- MR. CARTE-Well. they're not saying that it's. the first bank that I talked to said it was a necessity for purchase of the land. They wouldn't do it without this subdivision. and that's the reason I was here before. The second bank is not saying that it's a requirement of. that it be subdivided first. They're saying to me that it's a requirement that before I go to get any money to build another house on it. it would have to be subdivided. and it's not economical to do it the way that it is. that it has to be done there. with the old house and the 10 acres. I think one of the things that Mr. and Mrs. Catchell brought up the last time I talked to them was that they were concerned with having anything built closer to their house than what there is now. and I was telling them the only thing I'm going to have is the driveway around the old barn that's on the property. the left or right side of it. but I'm not going to be doing anything. If someone was to subdivide. I mean. if I was to subdivide into 10 acres and take the whole lower area. which is what it would be. 400 feet or something like that. 450 feet on the road. and all the way straight back to make the 10 acres. the house is not only going to be way over in the corner. but the house is not going to be worth anything. and somebody's going to bull doze the house down and build another house somewhere more towards the center of the piece of property. I mean. it's going to be chopped up. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. you're cutting the prime piece out. I mean. really. right in the very front. What are your intentions with that house? MR. CARTE-I'm going to rent the house. to keep control over who lives at the entrance to my property. I intended on doing that. and I have no intention. at this point in time. of selling it. I can't say. truthfully. that I might not in the future. because who knows what economic hardships or whatever might force somebody to do. but I don't intend on selling that house at the present time. MR. KARPELES-You said you'd be willing to have a stipulation in there that you could not subdivide that land any further. right. either parcel? MR. TURNER-You can't do that. He's got 10 acres. he can subdivide it. MR. CARTE-I would do it. I was thinking of. more. the case of three. I mean. I'm allowed by law. allowed to divide it into three. I have no intentions of doing it. but one of the people spoke and said that by doing it this way. I still have 35 acres. plus or minus. left and could still divide it into three again. so I would essentially get four lots out of it. You couldn't do it. because there's no way you could get the access to it that's required. the 40 foot on the road and the 400 foot average lot width. and the setbacks and all that kind of stuff. but since it's not my intention. I would make a stipulation that it would not be subdivided into anything more than the three that would be allowed at this point in time. Again. I have no problems with. I don't see any practical way of subdividing the property so that it's salable into anything more than what I'm doing now anyway. just two pieces. I mean. there's no way. unless somebody wants to buy a little tiny strip wandering around there. MR. CARVIN-Ted. are all of these little lots in here preexisting? MRS. EGGLESTON-Like the 10 acre doctor's lot next door. MR. CARTE-That was done about three years ago. I believe. when it was sold to the original buyer. and then it was sold to Doctor Sconzo about a year and a half ago. or something like that. to him. MRS. EGGLESTON-So that complied with the 10 acre. MR. CARVIH-I guess my question is. I know most of this is mountain - 6 - right here. I mean. this all sits right on the mountain. and almost all of it is unusable. but all of these little ones. now I think Mr. Stewart said that there was a couple of people on either side of you that had to buy. MR. STEWART-I said there was one east and one west. MR. CARTE-Doctor Sconzo is the one that's the 10 acres immediately to the west side of his property. and Joe Brayton. Jr. is the property that is to the northeast of the property. I've spoken to him about this. MR. CARVIN-But Dr. Sconzo. that was a 10 acre lot that he bought. MR. CARTE-It was. when he bought it. it was a 10 acre lot. yes. MR. CARVIN-So. he just bought the lot. I mean. it was already 10 acres. MR. CARTE-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. CARTE-He has no problem with this. about it. I mean. I talked to him MR. TURNER-The last time around. I feel that it's a self imposed hardship. because it's a deal that he's making with the bank. MR. KARPELES-Well. you know. we gave this guy. we told him he had a right to do this. and now all of a sudden he finds out he can't do it. We gave him approval. We voted on this last time. Now we approved it. and he went out and he took some action based on that. Now it seems to me like it's kind of back handed to renege on that agreement. after he already committed himself. I don't know what kind of commitments were made. but. MR. TURNER-When were you informed? How early were you informed after the last meeting that this was a nullity? MR. CARTE-When I talked to Joe Brayton. Jr. about three weeks. well. about a week. ten days ago. I saw him out there. I hadn't met the gentleman before. and I was driving on Fuller Road. and I saw him with the car that he was selling outside of the road. and I stopped and spoke to him. and he said that he hadn't been notified of it either. and then I got a call from the Town office. from the girl the next day. and she said that they had made a mistake and had not sent out most. I guess. of the notices on the property. and I had to come again. MR. TURNER-The next day being the day after the meeting? MR. CARTE-No. no. the day after I talked to Joe. Mr. Brayton. Jr. Yes. About two and a half to three weeks or so after the meeting. thereabouts. So since they've known about it for a week or ten days here. about the second meeting. MRS. EGGLESTON-Would you still have bought the property whether you got the zoning or not? MR. CARTE-If I could get the financing and stuff like that. yes. I would. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. So it wasn't contingent on your getting. MR. CARTE-I love the property. There's no doubt about. but it's. MRS. EGGLESTON-It wasn't contingent on your getting the. your buying the property was not contingent. - 7 - MR. CARTE-Well. yes and no. The only bank that I was talking to at the time that looked like it was. that they would finance it. it was contingent on. I mean. I didn't make the offer to Mrs. Fuller contingent upon that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. that's what I mean. MR. CARTE-But I was proceeding on that. because the only bank that I'd talked to that looked like they would do anything. I mean. I talked to about six of them. and nobody was interested. because they said. you've got a $50.000 house on a $150.000 piece of property. We're not interested. So. as it turns out. the Glens Falls National. which is the one I'm talking to. was not interested either. when it comes right down to it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. I think in answer to Mr. Karpeles. just because the Town made a mistake. I mean. they're correcting their error. and I think the people have a right to be heard. and we should work on their input as well. MR. CARTE-Well. I agree with you. ma'am. I mean. I can't disagree with that. I would say. though. that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Most of the time we're not fortunate enough to catch things in time to correct them. So I'm glad to see that we have corrected the situation. Normally. it's six months down the road and somebody's built the house. and you can't do anything. MR. CARTE-Right. I understand what you're saying. I would like to point out that I. physically. tried to talk to the people who were immediately adjacent to the parcel I'm talking about. not all the way around. you know. the 38 acres. Obviously. if you take in the 500 feet. I didn't know anything about the 500 foot rule of notifying people. All I had was the application to go by that said. we want the names and tax map numbers of the people who are immediately adjacent to your property. and those were the ones that I wrote down there. and then I talked to most of the people who would be. I mean. like Chris St. Andrews across the street. Dr. Sconzo. on the left side. I met with Mr. and Mrs. Catchell the night before the meeting. and they told me that they had not been notified of my thing. I talked with them for about a half an hour. forty-five minutes or so. I explained what I was going to do. I explained that the meeting was the next night. and if they had any questions or whatever. certainly. I mean. the fact that the Town didn't notify them. I was telling them that the meeting was the next night. and when I got here. and there was nobody opposing it. or whatever. I assumed that there was no opposition from people who would be immediately effected. Now. if the ruling is to go 500 feet down the street. obviously it takes into account more people. but I would have to say that as you go further and further away from it. there's got to be less and less direct impact on those people. and would be. I would think that their viewpoints would be counted somewhat less. MRS. EGGLESTON-But we have people here right beside you. though. We have people here tonight right beside you. MR. TURNER-Let me say this. Mr. Carte. In all fairness. I asked you. the last time. where' s the opposition. Because I know. previous to this application. that we've had other ones up there. and they were dead set against any subdivision. okay. MR. CARTE-Yes. I agree with you. You did. and I could not answer you. other than saying. well. MR. TURNER-Well. what I'm saying to you is that if you said you talked to them. you should have reiterated that right here to me. I don't know if you did or not. MR. CARTE-I believe I did. I believe I said I talked to everyone - 8 - -- that was. as I said. not within the 500 feet. because I didn't know that you had to go that far away. I talked to the people who's name I put down on the application as being the ones that were around there. and the ones that were the most immediately effected. as I said. had no opposition. or did not. if they did. didn't choose to show up or whatever. I'm just concerned somewhat by the fact that we keep coming back to the opposition for different people at different times. I mean. I can understand why. but the fact that Brenda Chapman. Mrs. Fuller's daughter. was not allowed to subdivide here aunt's piece of property to build a house on in the past. it's a different situation. It's a different. you know. and the fact that I don't know. Mrs. Eggleston. before. was given a hard time by the neighbors on a piece of property that was small. or whatever. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I did abstain from her. MR. CARTE-I had nothing to do with it. and the fact that Mrs. Fuller may have been one of the ones opposing it really should not have anything to do with the situation here either. because I did not make. I mean. she's not going to sell it or not sell it to me. based on the subdivision here. We didn't make that kind of an agreement. It was just. I agreed to purchase the thing. and now I'm going. because of the other practical difficulty. So. in effect. she's out of the picture. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I think really what I feel the worst about is that you're just buying it. and already you're trying to change what. you knew what was there when you bought it. and already you're trying to change the neighborhood in a way. I mean. if you like the property. why not leave it the way it is? You can legally subdivide. You've got 38 acres. You can legally do it without even coming here into three plots. Why not just do that? Why push and. I mean. if you can get the financing. why not just do that? MR. CARTE-Well. but the initial financing is only the purchase of the piece of property. The other financing is to be able to build a house on it. MRS. EGGLESTON-But sir that's a self imposed hardship. You know that when you buy the land. You know what's there when you buy it. You're not going to put that size of an investment. that doesn't come cheap. that piece of property. You're talking a sizeable investment. You're not going to do that without knowing what you can do with it before you buy it. MR. CARTE-I assumed. I mean. that's the reason why I came to the Board meeting last month. I hadn't made any commitments at that point in time. when I came here. I came to see if I could subdi vide it that way. because of the economic hardships and physical hardships that would be imposed by living up to the 10 acre zoning. MRS. EGGLESTON-But you did say whether you got it or not you would buy the property. MR. CARTE-I would try to buy the property. yes. I mean. I intended on it. Whether or not I could. at that point in time. I didn't believe I could. because as I said. the bank that I was talking to was not. would not look at it that way. It's. I don't know. I'm trying to think of another way of putting the thing here. but I didn't think that the use. the way that I wanted to subdivide off the house was not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. As I said. beyond this property. up the side of the mountain. I agree with you. it's already been subdivided into 10 acres or more. There are no small lots up there or anything. So this piece of property is. in effect. where the line should have been drawn for 10 acres in the first place. because all the rest of them that. you know. half way down that street. they're all smaller lots to begin with. and putting the 10 acre lot line back down - 9 - towards West Mountain Road was a foolish thing to do. in my estimation. but be that as it may. MR. TURNER-That was the APA that did that. anything to it. The Town never did MR. CARTE-Yes. I understand that. but I mean. I didn't think that what I was looking to do was going to harm the character of the neighborhood or anything like that. All it was going to do was be to solve an economic and physical hardship that I would incur in trying to purchase and build on this piece of property. MRS. EGGLESTON-But actually what we'd be doing is creating another nonconforming lot. which we already have so many problems with on that road. We've struggled over everyone that's come before us. and now you want us to create another one. MR. CARTE-Well. if I said to you. I want to do an acre and a half lot here so that I can build a house on this piece and then build another one over here. I would agree with you. that that's not an acceptable reason for a variance. but the house is there. I mean. that's the main thing I'm looking for. I'm not looking for a variance to subdivide to build on or to be able to sell it and make money on it or anything else. I'm just working with what's there. MRS. EGGLESTON-But you know how the circumstances change in the future. That could be your plan today. but I think. like you said a few minutes ago. your economic standing. whatever. could change, and that could. MR. CARTE-Well. as I said. I'm not saying that I might not sell that piece of property in the future. if I needed to get. I don't have the intention of doing it now. but I certainly am not talking about building on that piece of property. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else? Okay. Motion's in order. MR. CARVIN-Well. I've kind of gone over the minutes. here. and like usually. I was vacillating back then. It was two o'clock in the morning. So. I'm not going to make any excuses. but in light of the new fact that he has talked to another bank, which we did address at the last meeting. I guess I've got to stay with the 10 acres. and I think I'd have to agree with Mr. Turner and Mrs. Eggleston. Certainly a part of this could be a self created hardship. and I'd like to see him address the bank on the 10 acre basis. I mean. if he's going to subdivide. subdivide on a 10 acre basis. MR. TURNER-We asked him that the last time. MR. CARVIN-Yes. We did. MR. TURNER-To make your comments to the bank based on the 10 acres. MR. CARTE-If I was still dealing with the Glens Falls National Bank. it would not have made any difference. because the value of the 10 acres is still more. MR. TURNER-Okay. How about this bank you're dealing with now? MR. CARTE-This bank that I'm talking to. I don't know. I haven't talked to them about that aspect of it. and I thought I had everything taken care of. and I made my commitments based on the last meeting. and the variance. and so it wasn't necessary. The Glens Falls National or anybody else. as I said. if it was subdivided into 10 acres. and then I tried to sell it. it would not be. it still would not be a salable parcel to them. because the 10 acres of land is still more valuable than the house is. So they would not loan money to somebody to buy that house with the 10 acres of land. because the land value is more than 25 percent of - 10 - the total value of the house and land. It might be practical that I would have to subdivide it. but I wouldn't be able to sell it to anybody unless somebody had cash, for the whole. MR. TURNER-Okay. I guess that answers that. He could work out a deal with the bank. and he wouldn't have to come back here. but if he couldn't. he could come back and request. but I still feel strongly that. 38 acres there. Down the road. there's many things you can do with land today. You can subdivide that piece of property. I think you can make a reasonable return on it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. nonconforming lots. difficulties. I in don't think we an area where should creating we already have more great MR. PHILO-You're either going to sit with one standard in this Town. or you're going to change every week. MR. TURNER-Well. this goes to the APA. too. If you don't establish a good case right off the top. they're going to deny it. MR. PHILO-You made one up there with that nonconforming lot of Eggleston's. MR. TURNER-Okay. Who wants the motion? MRS. EGGLESTON-How do the rest of you people feel? MR. TURNER-I know Chris voted for it. You voted for it. MISS HAUSER-Yes. and I feel uncomfortable that he could then go and subdivide it and build three houses. I'd feel better if we could put the stipulation on that he could not further subdivide it. MR. TURNER-He's got the land. If he's got the land. you can't do it. MR. PHILO-They said the last time. when we looked at that Eggleston. we'd never do that again. The guy wants to buy it. and he has a good surveyor. he can get around that 10 acres. If he goes long on another one. you can split that up three ways. MR. CARVIN-I'll take a shot at it here. I guess. MOT lOR TO DBNY ARBA VARIARCB RO. 82-1993 KELLY CARTE. Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Where the applicant is seeking relief of 8.35 acres from Section 179-13A. which allows one principle building for each 10 acres. and Section 179-13C. which requires a 400 foot lot width. After further review. the applicant has not demonstrated that adequate bank financing cannot be obtained if this lot was to be subdivided into a 10 acre parcel. and it would appear that the relief being sought is a self-created hardship. It would also appear that if we granted this variance. that there would be an adverse effect in the neighborhood. and might be detrimental to the district. and upon proper notification of the residents in the area. there now is public opposition to this variance. Duly adopted this 20th day of October. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mrs. Eggleston. Hr. Turner NOES: Mr. Karpeles. Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Philo MR. TURNER-It's four to three. Okay. MRS. EGGLESTON-That means he gets it. - 11 - MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-The denial was denied. So the variance is granted. MR. TURNER-The variance is granted. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is there a question? Mr. Chairman. would you tell these people what happened. MR. TURNER-The vote was four to three in favor of granting the variance. He gets the variance. MR. CARVIN-The motion was to deny the variance. There was only three yes votes to deny. four to grant. A no vote. in this si tuation, was a yes vote for the variance, because it was a negative motion. 'My motion was to deny the application. in other words. that he should have the 10 acres. That motion was defeated by a four to three vote. So. by the fact that my motion was denied. that in essence grants the variance. MR. TURNER-It'll have to go to the APA. MR. MARTIN-And it'll also have to come to the Planning Board. too. MR. TURNER-Yes. and it goes to the Planning Board. Let me just say this. It goes to the Adirondack Park Agency for review if they want to review it. If they don't review it. then it comes back for subdivision approval. but if they deny it. then it's turned down. AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-1993 TYPE I WR-IA CEA CHARLES GRAVES. JR. OWNBR: SAME AS ABOVE FERNWOOD ROAD. GLEN LAKE APPLICART IS PROPOSING TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING (1) STORY. SIX HUNDRED AND FORTY- FOUR (644) SQUARE FOOT SEASONAL DWELLING AND CONSTRUCT A TWO (2) STORY. FIFTEEN HUNDRED AND SIXTY-FOUR (1.564) SQUARE FOOT YEAR ROUND SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FIVE HUNDRED AND NINETY-EIGHT (598) SQUARE FEET FROM SECTION 179-79A(2). WHICH STATES THAT NO .NLARGEHENT OR REBUILDING SHALL EXCEED AN AGGREGATE OF FIFTY (50) PERCENT OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OF SUCH SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING FOURTEEN HUNDREDTHS (.14) ACRE FOR THE LOT AREA AND IS SEEKIRG EIGHTY-SIX HURDREDTHS (.86) ACRE RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-16. WHICH REQUIRES ONE (1) ACRE HINIMUM LOT AREA. APPLICART IS PROPOSING FORTY-ORE (41) FEET FOR THE AVERAGE LOT WIDTH AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF ONE HUNDRED AND NINE (109) FEET FROM SECTIOR 179-16C WHICH REQUIRES ORE HUNDRED ARD FIFTY (150) FEET FOR THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THIRTY-FIVE (35) FEET FOR THE SHORELINE SETBACK ARD IS SEEKING FORTY (40) FEET RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-60B (1) (c). WHICH REQUIRES A SETBACK OF SEVENTY-FIVE (75) FEET. (WARREN COURTY PLARNING) DATE: 8/18/93 TAX MAP NUMBER: 43-2-5 LOT SIZE: .14 ACRES SEQRA BY PLANNING BOARD: 9/28/93 CHARLES GRAVES. JR.. PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-First. Ted, do we accept the SEQRA from? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-We accept the SEQRA from the Planning Board. MOTIOR TO ACCEPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATIOR ON THE SEQRA REVIEW REQUIRED UNDER THE CODE RESOLUTION RO. 69-1993 CHARLES GRAVES. JR. ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING BOARD THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER. 1993, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Joyce Eggleston: Duly adopted this 20th day of October. 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Philo, Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE - 12 - HRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. The Warren County Planning Board returned approved. without comments. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 69-1993. Charles Graves. Jr.. Meeting Date: October 20. 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Fernwood Road. Glen Lake SUMMARY OF PROJBCT, Applicant proposes to demolish an existing one (1) story. six hundred and forty-four (644) square foot seasonal dwelling and construct a two (2) story. fifteen hundred and sixty-four (1.564) square foot. year-round single family dwelling. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS. 1. Applicant seeks five hundred and ninety-eight (598) square feet relief from Section 179-79A(2) Nonconforming Structures and Uses. which states that no enlargement or rebuilding shall exceed an aggregate of fifty (50) percent of the gross floor area of such single family dwelling. Proposed expansion is ninety-two (92) percent of g. f. a. of original building. 2. Applicant proposes fourteen hundredths (.14) acre for the lot area and seeks eighty- six hundredths (.86) acre relief from Section 179-16C which requires one (1) acre minimum lot area. Applicant proposes average lot width of forty-one (41) feet and seeks one hundred and nine (109) feet average relief from Section 179-16C. which requires one hundred and fifty (150) feet average lot width. 4. Applicant proposes thirty-five (35) feet for the shoreline setback and seeks relief of forty (40) feet from Section 179-60 (B) ( 1) (c). which requires a minimum setback of seventy-five (75) feet from the mean- high water mark for all principle buildings and accessory structures. REVIEW CRITERIA. 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES ROT ALLOW PLACEM.NT OF A STRUCTURE WHICH MEETS THE ZONIIIG CODE. This preexisting nonconforming parcel (according to the Assessor's Office the camp was first built in 1945) is undersized for the current zoning requirements and as the proposed dwelling is designed. cannot meet the dimensional requirements or rebuilding limitations. 2. IS THIS THE MIIIIMUM VARIAIICE RBCBSSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. OR IS THERE AMY OTHER OPTIOII AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE 110 VARIANCE? Although the requested relief for the proposed project is forty-two (42) percent greater than the maximum permitted fifty (50) percent allowed for the rebuilding of the existing dwelling. and therefore cannot be considered the minimum relief. applicant believes that the relief requested is the minimum variance necessary to provide sufficient living space for a year round dwelling. and no other option is available which would require no variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMEIITAL TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? Although the applicant is proposing to enlarge the footprint of the existing seasonal dwelling by six (6) feet to the south and rear of the property and adding a second floor. it would appear that the only detriment to the neighborhood or district might be the visual impact of a two (2) story building from the lake and side road. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE VARIARCE 011 PUBLIC FACILITIES AIID SERVICES? It would appear that the variance would not effect public facilities or services. STAFF COHHEIITS AND CONCERNS. Attached is a letter from the applicant describing the project and the circumstances that has led him to propose said project. Additionally. a letter from IBS Septic and Drainage describes the septic as in good condition." MRS. EGGLESTON-And the letter from Charles Graves. Jr.. "I have just been divorced. and am now forced to sell my home on Reservoir Rd. in the Town of Moreau. Due to this unfortunate event. I am now forced to live with a friend. In the mean time. my Father, who is now 79 years of age and in ill health. has signed over property on Glen Lake in my name. hoping that I may have a place to build and live. Due to the condition and size of the camp on this property. it is totally impossible to live there year round. It is strictly a summer camp as there is no insulation. heat. shower. etc. I have chosen the smallest structure possible. to make this a livable home for one or two people. Other factors include the size and shape of - 13 - the property. The new structure will be a two story. 23' by 34'. consisting of a full cellar. a living room. kitchen with eating area. 1/2 bath and a den on the 1st floor. 1 bedroom. 2 walk-in closets. and a full bath on the 2nd floor. I have done everything in my power to make this as small as possible. yet liveable within my financial means. as I am retired from the RYS Dept. of Corrections. At this time I would like to thank you for your time and consideration." And from the IBS Septic and Drains. "Septic tank pump and tank found to be 750 gallon tank in good condition. Septic system is working good at this time." MR. TURNER-Any questions of the applicant at this point? MR. CARVIN-How old is the existing structure? Do you know when that was originally built? MR. GRAVES-1945. There's no possible way of rebuilding it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. TURNER-This today would be permitted to be built. except it's in a Critical Environmental Area. This would fall under the grandfather clause. it's a nonconforming lot. The camp that's on' each side of him. Miller's and Zemenick. were both granted variances for setbacks. MR. TURNER-Any questions of the applicant? Charlie. do you have any further thoughts? MR. GRAVES-Just what I presented to you. That's all I've got to say. MR. TURNER-All right. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPE.ED NO COHHBNT PUBLIC HEARIRG CLOSED MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't really see a problem with it. myself. I looked at it. There's not much room there. MR. GRAVES-I'm going just as small as I can get. because I will be living there by myself. Again. the way the property is. it goes from 50 foot to 32 in the back. and I can't go back any further. I've got to go up a story. to keep it as small as I can. and all the other houses in there are two story. MR. TURNER-Yes. They're all big houses. MR. GRAVES-In fact. there's one 2 story house in there that is a duplex house. rental property. MR. TURNER-Yes. Zemenick. Yes. MR. GRAVES-That's a rental property. MR. THOMAS-How about the distance from the well to the septic? Is that a problem. because it is an inside well? Does that make any difference? MR. TURNER-It's 34 feet. MISS HAUSER-How old's your septic system? MR. GRAVES-Ma'am. I really don't know. My father put it in there. It's less than 10 years. MR. TURNER-Mr. Graves, do you have a driven well, is it casing. or? - 14 - MR. GRAVES-It's a casing. MR. TURNER-Casing. Six inch casing. down what. how far? MR. GRAVES-I'm not sure. Now. a driven well. you mean? MR. TURRER-Not a point. MR. GRAVES-A point. yes. there's a point. MR. TURNER-You've got a point. or do you have a driven well with a six inch casing? They both have casing. How far down is your well? Is your pump in the house. or is it up? MR. GRAVES-It's in the cellar. MR. TURNER-It's in the cellar. Shallow well pump? MR. GRAVES-Yes. I believe there is a point. All I know is there's a pipe going down in through there. and there's a smaller pipe that goes down in through the inside of it. MR. TURNER-Jim. what's the Town's position on his well there? It's 34 feet from the septic to the well. MR. MARTIN-Thirty-four feet from the septic to the well. It's existing? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIR-I don't think that would. I don't think that's even allowed to occur if it's existing. but I'm not sure about that. MR. CARVIN-How close are the other houses to this structure? Do you have any idea? MRS. EGGLESTON-It's just right off this line. about a foot. It's not very far. Like five foot would you say. or is it even that much? MR. GRAVES-Well. to the houses. The houses themselves are probably 10 to 15 feet. but to the property line. on one side I would imagine maybe about five. six foot. The other side. five foot. MR. CARVIR-Are these full time residents on both sides? MR. TURNER-It's all full time residents through there. all but VanderWalker. which would be on. it's facing the lake. which would be on the left. He's there all summer. goes to Florida in the winter. MR. CARVIN-And they're all on leachfields. too. are they? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. GRAVES-Everything in there is full time. year round homes. MR. TURNER-Do you have any problems with it? MRS. EGGLESTON-I don't. MR. CARVIN-Well. again. I mean. I do and I don't. unfortunately. I just know it's a small lot. Now we're going to. you know. from a seasonal. it's one thing to have a seasonal out there where you don't have a whole lot of sewage and what not. but now all of a sudden all of these are full time. and they're dumping in the ground. and they wonder why the lake goes sour. and I mean. that's my problem with this. MR. GRAVES-These septic systems are. they're well over 100. close - 15 - to 200 foot back from the lake. MRS. EGGLESTON-You said one person was going to live there. just you yourself. MR. GRAVES-Just myself. MRS. EGGLESTON-But yet. aren't you putting two baths. and. 1500 square feet's a pretty good sized house. MR. GRAVES-I do have grandchildren that come up in the summer. and rather than put a bathroom upstairs. running in and out. upstairs. I figured a half a bath is not much on the first floor. MR. CARVIN-So one side of me says I don't like the idea of putting all these full times out there. but on the other hand. they're already there. So. I mean. how do you handle that? I guess it's a moral dilemma. MR. TURNER-Well. I think we handled it previously. we did grant variances for two or three of those houses right along the lake there in a row. MR. MARTIN-It's only 100 foot separation distance from the lake. MR. CARVIN-Yes. that's what I'm saying. which is fine if you go with that seasonal. MR. MARTIN-In the Waterfront Residential. the permitted use there is single family dwelling. It makes no difference between seasonal or year round. The permitted use is simply single family dwelling. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTIOR TO APPROVE AREA VARIARCE RO. 69-1993 CHARLES GRAVES. JR.. Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption. seconded by Theodore Turner: Grant the applicant relief in four different areas. beginning with Number One. relief from Section 179-79A(2). which states that no enlargement or rebuilding shall exceed an aggregate of 50 percent of the gross floor area of such single family dwelling. and the amount of the relief would be 42 percent. Number Two. this would grant relief from Section 179-16C. which requires one acre minimum lot area. and the amount of relief would be .86 acre. and the third relief would be from Section 179-16C. which requires 150 feet average lot width. and this would grant the applicant 109 feet average relief. and Number Four. it would grant relief of 40 feet from Section 179-60B(1)(c). which requires a minimum setback of 75 feet from the mean highwater mark of the lake. The practical difficulty is that this is a preexisting nonconforming parcel. and according to Town records. the lot has been in existence since 1945. and the lot is so undersized that under current zoning requirements. there is no way the applicant could meet the requirements for rebuilding limitations required by the current zoning. I don't believe there would be an adverse effect by the granting of this variance on public facilities and services. and I don't believe it would be detrimental or have an adverse effect on the rest of the parcels within the area. There's no neighborhood opposition. and it seems to be minimum relief in order to preserve the applicant's rights to update the old camp that now exists on the premises. Duly adopted this 20th day of October. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE - 16 - ABSENT: Mr. Philo AREA VARIARCZ RO. 78-1993 MR-5 MH OVERLAY ROBERT & HELER CARROLL OWRER, ARTHUR J. RIVERS CORRER OF CERTRAL & OHIO AVERUES APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PLACE A FOURTEEN BY SEVERTY (14 X 70) FOOT MOBILZ HOME OR A VACART PARCEL. APPLICABT IS PROPOSIRG FIFTEER (15) FEET FOR THE WEST FRONT YARD SETBACK. ARD SEEKIRG RELIEF OF FIFTEER (15) FEET FROM SECT lOR 179-18C. WHICH REQUIRES THIRTY (30) FEET FOR THE FRORT YARD SETBACK IR THE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDZRTIAL ZONE. TAX MAP NUMBER. 127-6-9 LOT SIZE. 60 FT. BY 100 FT. SECTIOR 179-18C ROBERT AND HELEN CARROLL. PRESENT MRS. EGGLESTON-This was tabled pending an investigation as to the well of the neighbor in relation to its distance from the septic field as proposed in application. Also look into what type fill is on the property. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 78-1993. Robert & Helen Carroll. Meeting Datel October 20. 1993 "This application was tabled at the September 15. 1993 Board meeting in order to investigate the concerns of a neighbor. Mrs. Staunches. over the location of the proposed septic in relation to her well. Subsequent investigation by staff found that an existing well used as a potable water source would normally preclude installation of a septic system within one hundred (100) feet. whether or not Town water was available. In this case. however. the existing well cannot be considered a potable water source because of its proximity to the Staunches own septic system. This system was gi ven a permit for alterations in May 1993. at which time the Staunches claimed Town water as their source of drinking water. The Building and Codes Department will advise the Staunches further concerning their well. Other concerns expressed at the September meeting related to sight distance relative to children boarding school buses. The proposed siting meets the clear vision zone requirements of Section 179-74E. which states that there shall be a clear-vision zone at all corners of intersecting roads or road junctions. consisting of a triangular area defined by the point of intersection of the right-of-way lines and the two (2) points extended along such lines for a distance of thirty-five (35) feet from any intersection. This clear-vision zone was shown on the sketch map accompanying the original staff notes (September 1993). This clear-vision zone was shown on the original staff notes (9/93)." MR. TURNER-Okay. How about the fill? You didn't address the fill? Did anybody find out what was in there? MR. MARTIN-There didn't appear to be any problems. MRS. CIPPERLY-I guess the concern was that there was a fire there. and that a building was bull dozed. but I guess I didn't look into that. I didn't appear that the building had been buried on site. JENNY STAUNCHES MRS. STAURCHES-No. it wasn't buried. I took the lumber away. because I was going to clean the lot up. when the woman's house burnt. MR. TURRER-Any further questions? MISS HAUSER-I thought the reason to find out what type of fill was to find out about the septic system situation. MR. TURNER-Yes. - 17 - MR. CARVIN-Yes. because I had a real concern. because there is a lot of rocks and rubble that appear to be breaking through the surface out there. and I have no idea what's in the ground. MRS. EGGLESTON-There's also a petition in the file. "To Whom This May Concern: We who sign here disagree with having a 70 by 14 foot trailer on a 60 by 100 square foot corner lot on the corner of Ohio and Central Avenue. We are disagreeing because of the safety of the children in the area. plus the trailer would block the view of oncoming traffic for children on their bicycles and on foot. as well as for motorists. Signed. Mr. and Mrs. Tom Staunches. Donald Ward. Jr.. Penny Ward. Audrey Trombley. Andrena Choppy. Wilfred Trombley. Harold Peque. Susan Fordrung. Mr. and Mrs. Robert Williams. David A. Ward. Sr.. Marian Ranado" MR. MARTIN-In terms of the fill. Ted. I think at the time of the building permit. when the inspection's made of the leachfield and the septic system and the footings and all that. for the slab under the trailer. that'll all be addressed at that time. if it's a viable site or not. and if it's not. it'll have to be corrected. MRS. CARROLL-We know that we have to put a cement slab there. so we know that's all going to be dozed over. MR. MARTIN-The other thing I'd like to say. also. we've been trying to get a hold of the Staunches several times concerning this well in their cellar. because that should not be used as a drinking supply. due to the proximity of their own septic system to that well. MRS. STAUNCHES-My septic was in a cement tank. and it goes out into the leachfield. MR. MARTIN-Yes. but your leachfield is too close to that drinking well supply. and Dave Hatin has made several attempts to get a hold of you. and before you leave tonight. I would like to have a firm time that you will be available for him to come see you and talk this over. MRS. STAUNCHES-Okay. MR. TURNER-Do you have anything further to add to your comments of before? MR. CARROLL-Yes. Robert Carroll. Being as how we thought the septic and well was taken care of. that situation. we did receive a letter written by. and I didn't make copies for the Board. I'm sorry. A letter penned by Mike Palmer. the Chief of West Glens Falls Fire Department. Mrs. Staunches concern about a fire. and I'd just like to read this to you. It's dated 10/20/93. and it says, "To Whom It May Concern: At the request of a homeowner. I visited the site at the corner of Ohio Avenue and Central Avenue. believed to be the River's property. A proposed mobile home may be placed on this site. Based on my observation of the site. and coupled with current status of fire protection for this area. I don't feel that any hazards not normally experienced by exposures in a residential area would be created if this project gains approval. Respectfully. Michael J. Palmer. Chief. West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Department" MR. TURNER-That's addressed to you? MR. CARROLL-Yes. Well. To Whom It May Concern. but it was me. the homeowner. MR. TURNER-Do you want to submit that for the record? MR. CARROLL-Yes. I do. MR. TURNER-Any further comment? - 18 - MR. CARROLL-None. MR. TURNER-Do you have any? MRS. CARROLL-None. MR. TURNER-Okay. I left the public hearing open the last time. because I think there's some neighbors here that want to speak. I'll open the public hearing. once again. PUBLIC HEARIRG OPEN PETER SMITH MR. SMITH-My name is Peter Smith. I live at southwest corner of Ohio and Central. I do not oppose putting this trailer here. maybe to solve a couple of problems that we have of kids always there hanging around the corner at night. which I have come to your Board before on another situation. about kids hanging around that corner. and fire wise. I feel that the West Glens Falls Fire can handle them. I'm a member there. It is equipped. efficient enouqh to take care of any problems we have. That's it. and I do have a 10 year old daughter that goes to school. and next year I have a five year old daughter going to school. and if I didn't think that corner was safe. I wouldn't let them go there. MR. TURNER-They get on the bus at that corner with the rest of the kids? MR. SMITH-My ten year old daughter does now. and next year my five year old daughter is going to. right on the same corner as Mr. Williams and Mrs. Staunches granddaughters and sons do. MR. TURNER-They get on the corner on your side. or on? MR. SMITH-No. Right on the corner where Carroll's are going to put the trailer. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. SMITH-But if they stand off the road. shoulders. I don't see any problems. because it doesn't make any difference what you do. there's stop signs on Ohio both ways. people don't understand what they mean anyway. So. I don't see how turning this application down has any effect on it. because you put a four way stop there. they still don't know what stop means. It doesn't make any difference. I don't feel. either way. I cleared that lot off where I put my pool. and before that was cleared off. there was solid woods there. and they still run that corner. So that's my opinion right there. MR. TURRER-Okay. Thank you. JENNY STAURCHES MRS. STAURCHES-My name is Jenny Staunches. and when Mrs. Crumb's house burnt there. Peter was the one that put the water line between the houses. and they're going to put it 12 feet from my property boundaries. and I don't think that's right. because it's closer to my property than it was before. and Peter was the one that put the water line through to keep my place from going up in smoke. and I'm telling you. you grant this. and if I lose my home, I'm suing Town of Queensbury. because I don't think there's enough property between the two places to put a trailer there. and I do have well water. and I do use my well water. My water goes into a cement tank. and it is. the leachfield's way out now. It's down on four other lots that I own. So it's not near my well water now. It used to be. but I've used that well water for years there. and I'm still using it. It tastes better than the Town water you get. There's too much damn chlorine in the Town water. - 19 - MR. TURNER-Okay. Staunches? Does anybody have any questions for Mrs. MR. MARTIN-Are you going to be home tomorrow? MRS. STAUNCHES-I should be there. I'm not sure. I may have a doctor's appointment. I'll have to check my calendar and I'll call you and let you know. because I have to go to the doctor's. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I'll give you my number. If I don't hear from you tomorrow. you'll hear from us. MRS. STAUNCHES-Okay. MR. TURRER-Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition? ROBERT WILLIAMS MR. WILLIAMS-My name is Robert Williams. and I think my mother has a legitimate fight on her hands. I mean. you buy a home. and you don't expect it's going to end up. like. being in a trailer park. because this is what's happening. Everything is getting so close together. There's no privacy. She's losing her privacy. If there was enough land on the lot there. that would be great. but I don't feel there is. I live on a 60 by 100 lot myself. in a trailer. okay. I've got a one car garage. and I'm looking for something bigger. I have three kids and a wife. and we all live there. and it's just too small. There's not enough room. I feel. and I don't have a road on each side of me. I just have one in front. and there's a property boundary on this side. and a property boundary on the other side. and everything that I own is right out to those property boundaries. from experience. I live on a 60 by 100 foot lot. and it's not that big. HR. TURNER-I agree with you. it's not that big. MR. WILLIAMS-And you've got a septic system. you've got a septic tank or a leach field. I don't know. I think my mother paid good money for the house. and I don't think she should feel like she's living in a trailer park. I mean. my property may not be worth a lot. but I'm trying to make the best of what I've got. and I don't need it going down in value either. That's all I have. MR. TURNER-All right. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any comment from the Board? MR. KARPELES-Can we hear again that letter that was written by various people? What were they objecting to? MRS. EGGLESTON-"We who sign here disagree with having a 70 by 14 foot trailer on a 60 by 100 square foot corner lot on the corner of Ohio and Central Avenue. We are disagreeing because of the safety of the children in the area. plus the trailer would block the view of oncoming traffic for children on their bicycles and on foot. as well as for motorists." MR. WILLIAMS-My mother also did try to purchase the property at one time for a garage. a small garage. MRS. STAUNCHES-That was years ago. though. They wanted too much money for it. MR. TURNER-Did Mr. Rivers own it then? MRS. STAUNCHES-No. Mrs. Crumb owned it. and I took care of it for seven years. and then I got. she wanted $5.000 for it. I cleaned the garbage and shit that was out there out. It was all full of - 20 - garbage and nothing but shit. and they buried garbage over there also. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any comment? It's an overlay zone. MR. CARVIN-I know it's approved for mobile home. but I just think she's got a valid point. I don't know if I'd want to have it sitting. you know. they're moving it three foot closer. There was a fire out there. Lord only knows what's in the ground. There appears to be some public opposition to the whole thing. MR. THOMAS-If this wasn't a corner lot. they wouldn't be here. would they? MRS. STAUNCHES-Probably not. MR. TURNER-Probably not. MR. THOMAS-Because it's 10 foot side. 10 foot rear. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. THOMAS-Thirty foot front. MR. TURNER-They front two streets. so they're stuck. MR. THOMAS-So just because it's a corner lot. they're here. MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. STAUNCHES-A girlfriend of mine tried to put a trailer on her lot. and she was denied. MR. SMITH-Mr. Turner. if you went down through the neighborhood, and you look on the opposite corner of Southwest Avenue and Ohio. you'll find out the same problem on the other side. MR. TURNER-I'll open the public hearing one more time. PUBLIC HEARING OPE. ROBERT WILLIAMS MR. WILLIAMS-There was one thing I forgot. I was so nervous. My name's Robert Williams. I'm back again. Okay. It may end the kids hanging out on that one corner, but we're also forgetting that Harold Peques has four lots just right the other side of your pool. and what's to stop the kids from hanging there? I mean. it's a valid point. They're just going to move from one corner to the next, and they're going to be right there on that corner. and I looked at their house tonight. where they live. I live on the same road. kitty corner from my mother. okay. right next to Harold Peque's. okay. and like I said. I have a 60 by 100. and everything I have is right out maxed. to both property lines. I went by their place tonight. Mr. and Mrs. Carroll. they have a lot that they. I don't know. they don't own it. but everything they have is right out to the property boundaries. So. we've got a road on each side of them now. Where are they going to put everything? MRS. STAUNCHES-Right along my fence. MR. WILLIAMS-That's it. MR. CARROLL-Mr. Carvin. in respect to your comments about the sight distance. all that. it has been measured by staff. MR. CARVIN-I don't have a question on the sight distance. I have a question on the sighting close to the property line. in other words. moving it back three feet closer to Mrs. Staunches. and I'm not sure. No. I don't have a problem with the site. I've been - 21 - down through there. and I see Staff Notes. and that's not where I'm having a problem here. I'd like to know what's in the ground. but I know Hr. Martin has indicated that that will be addressed. Again. I think a lot of it rests on if that ground will take a septic system out there. if there's not a whole lot of junk. MR. CARROLL-There is a septic system existing there. from the previous owner. MR. CARVIN-Well. I don't know. we have no idea if it's any good or not. There'd have to be a new one. MR. CARROLL-Well. we have to know that it was perced at one time. though. Is that your point? MR. CARVIR-What I'm saying is that there's an awful lot of fill in there. and I just don't know exactly what the perc is going to be. MR. CARROLL-When we're talking about fill. what we see is ª rock. There is one large rock near the road. Other than that. the only thing that's there is a pipe that comes through the ground that used to be the well. I assume. and the former foundation that was there. which I understand was only a few blocks deep. There was no cellar or anything. It's just the ground and a few blocks around it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well. again. as I said. that was my concern on the septic. and as I said. you can't move this around and. like. Chris says there. if this wasn't a corner lot. then they wouldn't be here. I have a question of the Carrolls. What kind of fuel source are you going to be using? Is it going to be oil or gas or? MR. CARROLL-Ratural gas. MR. CARVIR-Natural gas. There is natural gas down through there? MR. CARROLL-Yes. HR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. CARROLL-Natural gas. municipal water. MR. KARPELES-You don't own this lot yet? MR. CARROLL-Ro. but we are trying to buy it. pending this variance. MR. TURRER-Okay. Any further comment? Do you have anything else to add? JENNY STAUNCHES MRS. STAURCHES-Is there any way they can move it farther towards the road. and get it away from my property. instead of moving it closer to my property? HR. TURRER-They've got to be 30 feet from the road. MRS. STAURCHES-Yes. they've got to be 30 feet from the road. but what about ~ property? MR. WILLIAMS-How far are they supposed to be from the house? MR. TURRER-They've got to be 30 feet from each corner. MRS. STAURCHES-Yes. I know. and how are they going to do that. on a 60 foot lot with a 70 foot trailer? You figure that out. MR. TURNER-They're not going to. That's why they're here. MRS. STAUNCHES-Well. I don't think they should move it closer to ~ - 22 - house. when I almost lost my house before. MR. WILLIAMS-You won't give on the variance for the road. but you'll give to move it closer to somebody else's property. MR. TURNER-We haven't granted any variance yet. MR. WILLIAMS-That's what I'm saying. MRS. STAUNCHES-My house was built there. It was built on that lot. where it is. and I had nothing to do with it. It was there when I bought it. and it's closer to their line than on the further side of my property. and there's nothing I can do about it. I can't afford to move my house. MRS. EGGLESTON-Is it 10 feet from the septic minimum. Ted. it has to be? MR. TURNER-Yes. 10 feet to the distribution box. MR. CARVIN-Not being a sewer engineer. but is there a specific purpose for that? Is there a specific reason for that. in other words. why 10 feet? Could it be seven? MR. TURNER-They'd have to go to the Board of Health. which is the Town Board. MR. CARVIN-Well. as I said. the only real problem I have. don't know. if I was Mrs. Staunches. and having had experience there. whether I'd want to have the trailer towards her. I just a bad moving MR. TURNER-Well. you know. the minimum side setbacks are 10 feet. The rear is 10. The front is 30 feet. MR. CARVIN-Yes. but in the original. they were going to keep it at 13 feet. MR. TURHER-Yes. I've got the original. MR. CARVIN-Originally they applied for 15 on each side. and 13 in the back. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIH-And what they've done is that they've shifted it to the east. by five feet. So we've got 20 feet on the western portion. and 10 feet on the eastern portion. and I guess I would like to try to get that three feet back. Well. that's the other thing is the permeability. I mean. I just have no idea. I mean. I'm sure the ground is probably. and Jim says that that will be addressed at site plan. when they put the sewer in. but again. I'm not a sanitation en9ineer. So. I don't know. 10 feet or 7 feet. MR. MARTIN-Ted. the other option that could be looked at is shorten the separation distance between the tank and the trailer. HR. TURHER-Right. That's what I said. That's what we were talking about. MR. MARTIN-You'd have to get that from the Board of Public Health. which is the Town Board. MR. TURHER-Yes. That's what I said. MR. TURNER-And we've already asked the building inspectors about that. and the only reason for the 10 foot separation distance. normally. is if there's a foundation present. or something like that. but in this case. being a slab. MR. TURHER-There's not going to be one. If they were five feet - 23 - away. they'd be far enough. MR. CARVIH-Chris has got a very valid point. If it wasn't a corner lot. it would be a different story. MR. TURNER-Just one thought. in a mobile home park. the lots are 6500 square feet on a mobile home park. am I correct? MR. HARTIN-It's 6.000 square feet. with a minimum width of 55 feet. and the yard requirements are. front yard of 20. sides of 10 and 15 in the rear. HR. CARVIN-Okay. They're in a mobile home. They'd be able to do it. MR. TURNER-Yes. just about do it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. They'd probably have a sewer hook up. wouldn't they? They wouldn't be on a leach field. MR. TURHER-No. they'd be on a leach field. MR. CARVIN-There's no sewers? I guess there isn't. MR. TURHER-It would be on a leach field. but it's all sand up there. Okay. lets move it one way or the other. approve it or deny it. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. I'm going to abstain. so I can't make the motion. I wasn't here at the last meeting. so someone else is going to have to make the motion. MOTIOR '1'0 APPROVE AREA VARIARCE RO. 78-1993 ROBERT & HELEH CARROLL. Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Chris Thomas. That they be granted 10 feet of relief from Section 179-18C. which requires 30 feet for the front yard setback. on the western side. The practical difficulty is that there is no practical way to locate a mobile home on this corner parcel and maintain the required front yard setbacks. This does appear to be the minimum variance necessary to alleviate this practical difficulty. It would appear by granting this variance that it would not be detrimental to the other properties in the district or neighborhood. and there does not appear to be any adverse effect on public facilities or services. I would also suggest that the applicant meet with the Board of Health to seek relief from some of the minimum septic system requirements. which would allow them to place the mobile home as far as possible from the Staunches property. which is on the north side. The reasoning for this request is that the mobile home will be located on a slab and not on a foundation. Duly adopted this 20th day of October. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Miss Hauser. Hr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: NO HE ABSTAIHED. Mrs. Eggleston ABSEHT. Mr. Philo MRS. STAUNCHES-May I ask a question? Why can't they leave the trailers in the trailer park instead of degrading other people's homes with trailers? MR. TURHER-This is a mobile home overlay zone. They are allowed there. - 24 - MRS. STAUHCHES-I mean. we've lived there for years. Now we've got to have a mobile home right on top of us? I can't look out my window without looking in somebody else's livingroom or something? That's not fair. That's not right. It's not fair. OLD BUSINBSS. AREA VARIARCB RO. 52-1993 TYPE I WR-IA UN C. & ERWIR H. JOHIISOII OWRER. SAMB AS ABOVB HARRE FORD ROAD APPLICAN~ IS PROPOSIHG ~o CORSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMJ:LY DDLLIIIG UD AR ATTACHBD GUAGB OR A VACAR~ LOT. APPLICART IS PROPOSIIIG TWEN~Y-~WO HUNDRBD~HS (.22) ACRE FOR THE LOT AREA UD ORE HURDRBD (100) FEET AS THE LO~ WIDTH ARD IS SEEKING RBLIEF OF SEVER~Y-EIGHT HUNDREDTHS (.78) ACRE AND FIFTY (50) FEB~ RBSPBCTIVELY FROH SBC~ION 179-16C. WHICH REQUIRBS ORE (1) ACRB AS THE MINIMUM LO~ AREA AND ORB HURD RED UD FIFTY (150) FBET AS ~HB MINIMUM LO~ WID~H III ~HE WA~BRFROIIT RESIDENTIAL 1 ACRE ZONE. (WARRBII COURTY PLUIIIRG) DA~B: 7/14/93 TAX HAP RUMBER, 19-1-57.4 LOT SIZE. 0.22 ACRBS SEC~IOR 179-16C SBQRA BY PLUNIRG BOARD. 9/28/93 ERWIH JOHNSOH. PRESEHT MRS. EGGLESTON-Ted. do you want to accept the negative declaration on that first. this Johnson? Okay. HR. TURHER-Okay. This was sent for SEQRA Review by the Planning Board. and we have a Hegative Dec. Resolution No. 21-1993. for Area Variance No. 52-1993. Ann and Erwin Johnson. dated the 28th day of September. 1993. HO~IOR ~O ACCEPT THE REGATIVE DBC RESOLUTION RO. 21-1993 FOR UBA VARIUCB RO. 52-1993 UII & ERWIII JOHRSOR AS RBOUESTED FROH THE LEAD AGBNT. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Joyce Eggleston. Duly adopted this 20th day of October. 1993. by the following vote: AYES. Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Turner NOES. NOHE ABSENT: Mr. Philo MR. TURNER-Okay. With that taken care of. Sue. I have a note on here from Scott. Johnson's is going to have an engineer re-do his plans? MRS. CIPPERLY-That's old. MR. TURNER-That's old. Okay. That takes care of that. Okay. MRS. EGGLESTOH-And the Warren County Planning Board approved with the condition that the septic system definitely be a holding tank. due to the size of the property and the limitations and distances from the proposed well." STAFF IRPUT Notes from Staff. Area Variance No. 52-1993. Ann C. & Erwin H. Johnson. Meeting Date. July 21. 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPERTY. Hanneford Road SUMMARY OF PROJECT. Applicant is proposing to construct a single family dwelling and an attached garage beneath the dwelling on a vacant lot. CORFORHAIICE WITH USEIAREA REGULATIOIIS. 1. Applicant is proposing twenty-two hundredths (.22) acre for the lot area and seeking relief of seventy-eight hundredths (.78) acre from Section 179-16C which requires one (1) acre as the minimum lot area in the Waterfront Residential 1 Acre zone. 2. Applicant is proposing one hundred (100) feet as the lot width and is seeking relief of fifty (50) feet from Section 179-16C - 25 - which requires one hundred and fifty (150) feet as the minimum lot width in the Waterfront Residential 1 Acre zone. RZVIBW CRITZRIA. 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES ROT ALLOW PLACEMERT OF A STRUCTURB WHICH HBE~S ZORIRG REQUIREHER~S. Applicant's parcel is preexisting and nonconforming. and in a designated Critical Environmental Area which does not allow the parcel to be "grandfathered" regarding the parcel's lot area and lot width. 2. IS ~HIS THE HIRIMUM VARIANCB RECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE !'HE SPZCIFIC PRAC~ICAL DIFFICUL~Y OR IS THERE UY O~HER OPT lOR AVAILABLB WHICH WOULD RBQUIRB RO VARIUCB? It would appear that the minimum variance is necessary. for reasons stated above. and no other option is available which would require no variance. 3. WOULD ~HIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMERlfAL TO OTHER PROPERTIES IR If HE DISlfRIC~ OR RBIGHBORHOOD? It would appear that the variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood as the proposed project is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and district. 4. WHA~ ARE If HE EFFBCTS OF THB VARIUCE OR PUBLIC FACILITIES UD SERVICES? It would appear that the project would not effect public facilities or services. STAFF COHHBRTS UD CORCERRS. Staff has no other comments regarding this project." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Johnson. do you have anything to add? Any further comment from you. in relation to your project here? MR. JOHHSOH-I just want to make sure that everyone received the letter from Harold and Kelly Smith. dated July 27th. 1993. MR. TURHER-If we did. it would be in the file. MR. CARVIN-Ted. while Joyce is looking for that. do we have to address any of this SEQRA stuff here? MR. TURNER-It's an unlisted action. It went to SEQRA Review. MRS. EGGLESTOH-He' s talking about that. That was on our table tonight. Ted. Wasn't that given to us tonight? Ho. I got it in the mail. a couple of days ago. MR. TURNER-Yes. This is just for your review. MR. CARVIN-Just for our review? I mean. all of these questions. I'm assuming. have been answered? MR. TURNER-Yes. they've been answered. absent. Item 22. Information MR. CARVIH-I know. that's why. there was a lot of information that was absent. you know. not complete. MR. TURHER-Yes. but I think that closing statement right there kind of answers the major concern. the location of the septic system on his property. MR. CARVIH-Yes. but I think the key sentence is that the project feasibility is dependent upon using a sewage holding tank system. MR. TURHER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-That's not allowed according to the Town of Queensbury. right? MRS. EGGLESTOH-Well. Warren County said they had to have it. MR. TURNER-That's the only way they're going to get it. MR. KARPELES-They've got to get a variance from the Queensbury Town Board. MR. CARVIN-Board of Health. - 26 - - MR. TURNER-Jim. the holding tank going to have to go to the Board of Health? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. TURNER-So any decision we make tonight. MR. MARTIN-Is contingent upon that. MR. TURHER-Is contingent on their approval. MR. MARTIN-But I don't know. given the site. that there's any other options available. MRS. EGGLESTOM-I do have some letters. Ted. after the public hearing. The one he mentioned I do have. That's an old letter. MR. CARVIM-I have a question of the applicant. How big of a house are you planning to put there? Is that going to be a two story? MR. JOHNSON-It's a 24 by 36. You're only able to dig into the ground there. So it's going to be on a slab. The garage will be underneath it. and the second floor will be the living space. MR. CARVIN-Okay. sort of like a split ranch of some sort? MR. JOHNSOH-Yes. with a drive in. so the garage will be underneath. MR. TURNER-Water supply from lake. Is that what that statement is? MR. JOHHSOM-Well. we were unsure as to what would be the best way to go there. So we'll probably end up with a well on that corner. MR. CARVIN-How many trees. that's all forested right now. isn't it? MR. JOHNSOH-That's very small growth in there. MR. TURHER-Yes. MR. JOHNSON-There's a couple of big white pines. That's about it. MR. CARVIH-Okay. but that does look like a stream bed down through there. MR. JOHNSON-The spring runoff runs down through there. and it runs underneath Hanneford Road to a 12 inch culvert. In my conversations with the Highway Department. a fellow by the name of Bill Hughes. I had him up there one day. and he suggested I put a 15 inch culvert underneath my driveway to run from one side of my driveway to the other to feed into the 12 inch. He said that should certainly take care of it. MR. CARVIN-You're going to bring in fill are you? Obviously. it's going to probably require quite a bit. MR. JOHNSOH-Yes. To put in the driveway. will be. but in the back side. if you're looking at the layout that I have there. it's only. in the back side of the lot. it's only one foot below the road level. and in front of it it's two foot. So. it's only going to take one foot on the back portion of the lot. and the front will only be where the driveway goes through. MR. CARVIH-I assume that'll all become lawn. will it? I mean. will that be all seeded and all that sort of stuff? MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MR. TURNER-There won't be any ponding or anything farther back up. if that culvert happens to back uP. you're dumping a 15 inch culvert into a 12 inch culvert? - 27 - MR. JOHNSON-According to Bill Hughes. he didn't feel that that would be any problem at all. It's a very slow pitch in that whole land. and it feeds from way in the back in the spring and comes down across there. It's not like it's a four or five foot drop in land level. It's all very flat across there. MR. TURNER-Any questions? MR. MARTIN-Again. this is another APA application. have 30 days to review this after your action. MR. TURHER-Yes. Okay. Let me open the public hearing. So. they'll PUBLIC HEARIRG OPE.ED .0 COHHBRT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSBD CORRESPORDBRCB MRS. EGGLESTOH-Okay. We have three letters. Mr. Chairman. One is from Harold and Kelly Smith. "We've received and read the hearing notices regards the Zoning Variance you are seeking for your property across the street from us on Hanneford Road. This letter is to let you know. and anyone else this may concern. that we have no problem with your plans." And there's a letter from Edith Rooney. "Due to our unavailability to attend your variance meeting to be held on Wednesday July 21st. 1993. at 7.30 p.... we are taking this opportunity to object to the granting of a variance on the above because the property in question is subject to intermittent and seasonal flooding which directly flows onto our property. affecting our property and our basement. There is currently a Town of Queensbury maintained culvert pipe leading from the property in question. draining under Hanneford Road through our property. under our driveway. and again through our property. which in the spring is a rushing torrent of water. If this property is allowed to be built upon. and the level of the land is changed in any way whatsoever. we would request that we go on record as opposing it and stating that our property would certainly be adversely effected by extra flooding. We also at this time go on record and state that we feel three working day's notice is hardly an adequate amount of time for the average working person to be able to adjust their schedules to accommodate meeting dates and times set by you. Some of our neighbors are seasonal residents or working personnel. and we feel this type of notification is not in the best interests of the residents of Hanneford Road." And this was addressed to the Planning Board. It's fro. a Francis Koenig. Kingston. HY. and it was addressed to the Planning Board. "I am a property owner on Hanneford Rd.. said property being just North and to the West of the Johnson property. On Wednesday. July 21. 1993 I attended the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting but did not get an opportunity to speak. as the matter was referred to the Planning Board for a SEQRA Review. The purpose of this letter is to advise the Planning Board that I am opposed to the Town of Queensbury allowing the construction of a single family dwelling on the property in question. as said property is a ponding or holding area for an intermittent stream. I will not be opposed to this construction if the property owner or the Town of Queensbury can find a solution to the stream problem which will ensure that those property owners located along Pilot Knob Road who enter their homes and summer dwellings by way of Hanneford Road and its extension will not have their property flooded. damaged or destroyed. since in many cases these properties actually sit lower than Hanneford Road. I AM COHCERNED AS THIS STREAM GOES DIRECTLY UHDER OUR DWELLIHGII In filing the application for an area variance. the Johnson's property sketch shows in the upper right hand corner. "Spring Run-Off". Their application also includes a "Full Environmental Assessment Form" on which question 115. page 3 asks. "Streams within or contiguous to project area" and the question was - 28 - answered NO. In connecting the map of the Lake George Quadrangle. Hew York. 7.5 Minute Series with the map of the Putnam Mountain Quadrangle. 7.5 Minute Series (see attached). and lining up Washington and Warren Counties in the Hanneford Road area. a review shows an intermittent stream coming off the mountain to the East. The stream appears to be coming from "The Three Ponds" with drainage directly to the property in question and neighboring properties as well. A walk of the area shows that most of the property. includinG buildinG lots in WashinGton County and much of the vacant land abutting and to the Horth and South of the property in question serve as a ponding or holding area for the stream and are situated lower than Hanneford Road. I am not opposed to new construction and welcome it as it will help the town's tax base. but I must protect my legal rights. I would suggest the construction of a ponding area with a valve or gate to control the flow of the water----not just for this proposal. but in order to help develop other vacant property in the area thus increasing the towns tax base even more. If you would like to contact me. my home telephone number is 914-331-9470 and my work number is 518-266- 3051. Sincerely. Francis R. Koenig" MR. TURNER-Any discussion? MR. KARPELES-This first question Rist-Frost had. They say. "The project apparently involves filling the lot to redirect an existing runoff pattern. It is uncertain if the fill to adjoin lands of Tompkins will adversely effect drainage from the east." Everybody that's written a letter seems concerned about that. Has that been addressed by anybody. I wonder? HR. TURNER-That was my comment to him. is that is the 15 inch culvert going to create a ponding effect in the back when he gets the spring runoff. and I think it's gOing to. MR. KARPELES-Have you seen this letter from Rist-Frost? MR. JOHNSON-No. I have not. MR. KARPELES-That was their first comment. "Item 15. The project apparently involves filling the lot to redirect an existing runoff pattern. It is uncertain if the fill to adjoin lands of Tompkins will adversely affect drainage from the east." I would think that that would have to be addressed before we act on this. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think there's an awful lot of things in this Rist-Frost letter that really needs to be addressed before I feel comfortable with this application. MR. TURNER-Yes. MISS HAUSER-How long has this lot been in existence? MR. JOHNSOH-That was subdivided from a Charles Ward in 1958. MRS. EGGLESTOH-And how long have you owned it? MR. JOHNSOH-Since. I believe it was 1988. MR. CARVIH-I mean. everything that I'm reading here. there's some awful vague questions. and they're basically saying. the type of soil is not indicated. but it's guessed to be a Shaker fine sandy loam. shallow and poorly drained. I mean. there's all indication that we're gOing to have a drainage problem out there. I know. looking at that particular lot. I mean. it is a forest runoff. I mean. you can see where it's all gullied. and that whole area is. and I'm surprised that there's any houses out there that haven't washed into the lake. MR. JOHHSOH-I've got to address that first letter you read there. They said it flooded their basement. I believe that's what it said - 29 - in that letter. MRS. EGGLESTOH-I'm going to read the letter in the records. MR. CARVIH-Well. no. somebody said something about a flooding of their basement? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. I'm sorry. What was the date? MR. JOHHSON-The location of that property. where it is. it's impossible to put a basement there. because I used to own that property. MR. TURHER-Do you own any other property on that road? MR. JOHNSON-Not anymore. I did. I owned Smith's and I owned the one in back. Reed. next door. MR. TURNER-The one to the north? MR. JOHNSON-The one to the north. right. MR. TURHER-That's Reed? MR. JOHHSOH-That's Reed. The one's where Smith is now. and I believe it's this other. Rooney. I believe their name was. I owned that property. too. at one time. MR. CARVIN-We voted on the SEQRA. SO we accepted the SEQRA. right? MR. TURHER-Yes. HRS. EGGLESTOH-Okay. A letter dated September 21st. 1993 from Tom Yarmowich. Managing Project Engineer at Rist-Frost Associates. "The area variance application and accompanying full EAr data has been reviewed. Rist-Frost has the following comments I Area Variance AÞDlication. Item 15 - The project apparently involves filling the lot to redirect an existing runoff pattern. It is uncertain if the fill to adjoin lands of Tompkins will adversely affect drainage from the east. Queen.bury ZoninG Board of ADDeal. Checklist Item H - Adjoining sewage disposal systems within 100 feet from all property lines should be indicated. Adjoining water supplies within 100 feet from all property lines should be indicated. If they do not exist within 100 feet then this should be indicated. Item C - The type of driveway surface is not indicated. Item M - The size and type of existing and proposed culverts are not indicated. Full Environaental Assessaent Fora Part 1 - A. Site Description Item 3 - The soil type is not indicated. Warren County Soil Survey Maps indicate that the probable soil type is a Shaker fine sandy loam. shallow and poorly drained. This is consistent with other reported site features. Item 4 - If rock outcrops exist then the depth to bedrock should be reported as 0 inches minimum and unknown maximum. Item 5 - Hot complete. The assignment of slope areas should total 100\. Item 8 - Depth to the water table will be significantly less than the 200 feet reported. Depth to seasonal high groundwater is probably zero in the existing drainageway. Item 11 - The source of the applicant's information is not stated. Item 19 - The site is located in the CEA designated by the Lake George Park Co.mission. The Lake George CEA is established as all areas within 500 feet of Lake George and its wetlands. This variance will be a Type I action due to the CEA. Part 1 - B. Project Description Item 3 - It is presumed that all areas filled will be restored with a vegetative cover or structurally stabilized with driveway or building. Item 16 - The project will generate small amounts of solid waste. Item 22 - Information absent. Part 1 - C. Zoning and Planning Information Item 11 -The project is of residential nature and can be expected to create some demand for community services. which should be met by existing capacities. The proposed project does not appear to have the potential for adverse negative environmental impacts. - 38 - However. the project feasibility is dependent upon using a sewage holding tank system. Sewage holding tanks for this project are not acceptable according to the Queensbury Sewage Disposal Ordinance. A variance from the Local Board of Health (Town Board) would be required to construct a sewage holding tank system for this project. Very truly yours. Thomas M. Yaraowich. P.E. RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C." MR. TURBER-lred. you have a concern with the water runoff there? MR. CARVIH-Yes. I sure do. MR. TURHER-Yes. me. too. MRS. EGGLESTOH-See. Ted. I'm wondering how the Planning Board didn't pick up all this stuff that wasn't answered? I mean. we're relying on them to do a. MR. TURHER-They had to have that information. because this was received 9/21. and they heard it September 28th. HRS. EGGLESTOH-But they're saying their EAr Fora doesn't answer questions. which we have right here. HR. MARTIH-Mr. Johnson. were you there that night the SEQRA was done? HR. JOHHSOB-Yes. I was. I was not asked one question. MR. TURNER-Did they read this into the record? They didn't even read it. did they? MR. JOHHSOH-That was not read. MR. MARTIH-It wasn't a public hearing. Ted. It wasn't a public hearing. It was supplied for their information. MR. TURHER-Yes. I know. but I mean. they should address it. They sent it out to him. MR. MARTIH-I don't know. I wasn't there that night. We can get copies of the minutes of that meeting for you. MR. TURHER-I'd like some more information. MR. CARVIH-Is there a date on the Planning Board SEQRA Review? MR. MARTIH-9/28. It was a week later. They had it. MRS. EGGLESTOH-I mean. we're relying on the. for SEQRA. MR. TURHER-I'd like to table the application until we find out. MR. KARPELES-Right. until these questions are answered. HR. TURNER-Until these questions are answered. because I don't feel comfortable addressing anything here. on this application. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Yes. I agree with you. I don't know how we can. MR. CARVIB-Well. it's just such a touchy area up there. HR. THOMAS-I think the Planning Board should have that letter. If they addressed that. this would have been a lot different. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Yes. MR. TURNER-It would have been different. MR. JOHHSOH-I would have had an opportunity to correct that myself. - 31 - if there was any doubt. I didn't have access to it either. MRS. EGGLESTOH-And they received it in the Town office here 9/21. So they should have had it. MR. MARTIH-I'a sure they had it. Ted. if you could table it even until next week. I could get you the minutes by then. MR. TURHER-Yes. MR. MARTIH-Until your meeting next Wednesday. MR. TURHER-The 27th. yes. MR. JOHHSOH-You'll have to table it longer than that. I'. going out of town. I have to come 180 miles as it is. MR. MARTIH-AlI right. That's fine then. MR. TURHER-Okay. So give us a date. Can you give us a date? MR. JOHNSON-After Hovember 15th. MR. TURNER-Some time after Hoveaber 15th. MR. HARTIH-Both of your meetings are after that next month. MR. TURHER-Yes. okay. All right. "O.,IOR .,0 TABLB ARBA VARIAIICE RO. 52-1993 ARR C. & BRWIR H. JOBRSOR. Introduced by Theodore Turner who aoved for its adoption. seconded by Robert Karpelesl lor further information on the review by the Planning Board on the SEQRA request. Duly adopted this 20th day of October. 1993. by the following votel AYES: Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: HONE ABSENT: Mr. Philo MR. TURHER-You'll be notified as to when you're on the agenda. HR. JOHHSON-"fhanks. MR. "fURHER-Thank you. ARBA VARIARCE &0. 77-1993 TYPE I D-IA CEA RARDY UD HIKB RIVET.,. OWRERS. SAHB AS ABOVB SULLIVU PLACB. GLEN LAKE ROAD APPLICART IS PROPOSIRG TO BXPARD A YBAR-ROURD RORCORFORKIRG. SBVE. HURDRED SIX"Y-EIGHT (768) SQUARB FEET HOUSE BY RIRB-HURDRED UD .,WO (982) SQUARB FBB.,. SBC.,IOR RUHBER 179-79A ( 2) S.,A.,BS .,RA., RO ERLARGEHBR'f SHALL EXCEED U AGGREGA'fE OF FIF"Y (58) GROSS FLOOR AREA. SO APPLICAR'f IS SBBKIIIG RELIEF OF FIV. HUNDRED BIGH.,.BR (518) SQUARE FBBT. SEC.,IOR 179-16C RBQUIRBS A WROR., SB.,BACK OF THIRTY ( 38) FBET. APPLICART IS SB.ICING RELI.F 01' SBVER (7) FEn. (WARRE. COURTY PLARNIRG) DA.,B. 9/8/93 (WARRER COURTY PLANRING) DATE. 10/13/93 'fAX MAP RUHBBR. 38-1-4 LOT SIZE. 8.335 ACRBS SBC"fIO. 179-15C. 179-79A(2) SEQRA RBVIEW BY PLUNIRG BOARD. SEPlfEHBER 23. 1993 RAHDY RIVETTE. PRESEHT MRS. EGGLESTON-This application was before us on September 15th. and it was tabled for further information. - 32 - MRS. CIPPERLY-This one is where you said that the Zoning Board. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Yes. That didn't go for SEQRA. MR. TURHER-But it's on the application. It didn't go. It didn't go for the, reason I suggested it didn't go. because it just cuts off. there s one little corner of the lot that's the Critical Environmental Area. There's no environmental impact on that at all. So it's needless to send it there. MRS. EGGLESTOH-So we're starting just from scratch? MR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTON-The Warren County Planning Board approved. with the condition that all necessary separation distances from the septic and the well without any variances on either. be met." STAFF IRPU., Notes from Staff. Area Variance Ho. 77-1993. Randy & Mike Rivette. Meeting Date: October 20. 1993 "ADDRESS OF PROPER"Y: Sullivan Plan SUMMARY 01' PROJBCT: Applicant proposes to expand an existing year-round nonconforming residence by more than fifty (50) percent. The original structure contains two (2) bedrooms. the proposed structure will not cause an increase in the number of bedrooms. CORFORHARCB WITH USE/ARBA REGULA.,IORS. Section 179-79A(2) states that no enlargement of a nonconforming structure shall exceed an aggregate of fifty (50) percent gross floor area. so applicant is seeking relief of five hundred eighteen (518) square feet. (Existing s. f. - 768. allowed expansion - 384 s. f.. proposed expansion - 902 s.f.. relief needed · 518 s.f.) Section 179-15C requires a front setback of thirty (30) feet. applicant is seeking relief of seven (7) feet. RBVIEW CRITERIA. 1. DBSCRIBE THE PRAC.,ICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES ROT ALLOW PLACBHBR., OF A S.,RUCTURE WHICH MEB.,S .,HB ZORIRG CODE. In order to attach the proposed addition to the existing building. relief from the required frònt setbacks is needed. To create adequate living space the expansion is needed. 2. IS THIS THE MIRIIIUII VARIANCE RECBSSARY .,0 ALLEVIATE THB SPBCIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. OR IS THERB ANY O.,HBR OPTIOR AVAILABLB WHICH WOULD REQUIRE RO VARIARCB? It appears applicant is seeking the minimum variance necessary. There does not appear to be any other option that would not require a variance. 3. WOULD .,HIS VARIANCB BB DETRIMBNTAL .,0 THE O.,HB. PROPER.,IES I THE DISTRICT OR RBIGHBORHOOD? It does not appear that this variance would be detrimental to the district or neighborhood. 4. WHAT ARE THE EFrECTS OF THB VARIANCE OR PUBLIC FACILI.,IES AND SERVICES? Ho effect on public facilities and services is anticipated. STAFr COHMBRTS AND CONCBRRS. It appears that this project will have a minimal impact on the site. considering that the actual additional land involved measures just twenty-four (24) x twenty-four (24) feet. Existing septic and well will be utilized. There will be no increase in the number of bedrooms. A critical environmental area cuts across one corner of the parcel. but it does not appear it would be affected by the project." MR. TURHER-Do you have anything to add to what you put in here? HR. RIVETTE-The Planning Board. distance between the well and septic. I know the Town of Queensbury is 100 feet. and the septic holding tank is more than 100 feet. but the leachfield is closer to it. It's. like, 68 feet from the well casing. That's the only thing that I know that may concern you. I'm having the water tested now by the Town of Queensbury. but I don't have the results. MR. TURNER-Yes. HRS. EGGLESTOH-There is a letter in here. also. I might read in. that's by Sanitary Sewer Service. dated. it's not dated. "Toilet flushed and found in good working condition. No seepage odor or - 33 - - presence of dye found outside." MR. RIVETTE-That was when I bought the house. Since then I've had the septic puaped. Well. I had to find out where it was. No one I knew could do that. So I called somebody professionally. It was $132 to have them come down and show me. So they pumped it. too. So now I know I have a 300 qallon storage tank. and I know the pump house. and I put a new pump in the pump house and everything is workinq fine. MR. TURNER-Okay. Has anyone else got any questions? Okay. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HBARI.G OPERED RO COHHBRT PUBLIC HBARIRG CLOSBD MR. CARVIN-Mr. Rivette. is this gOing to be your primary residence? HR. RIVETTE-Yes. MR. CARVIH-Okay. Are you currently living there now? MR. RIVETTE-Yes. I'm living there now. MR. CARVIH-Okay. MR. TURNER-Any discussion on it? MR. CARVIN-I'm looking at the Warren County. It looks like they went back to Warren County. and they did approve it. HR. TURHER-Doesn' tit say no variance. separation of well and septic? MRS. EGGLESTOH-Septics. yes. It won't be moved back any further from the road. right? It's going to. the existing camp stays there. MR. RIVETTE-Yes. that's correct. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. TURHER-They approved it with conditions. MRS. EGGLESTOH-What does that do to that 68 feet? They're saying no if he can't meet the septic system requirements. and he can't do that. because he's only got 68 feet. MR. RIVETTE-My garden is like that. leach field's right there. That's my garden. and the MR. TURNER-His tank is here. and it's 68 feet from there to his well. MR. CARVIH-That's got to be 100. right? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. but that already exists. Doesn't that already exist? MR. TURNER-Yes. That's there. MRS. EGGLESTOH-That's what I mean. It isn't like he's going to install it less than the requirements. MR. MARTIN-I don't know what jurisdiction they have over that. We have our own Building Inspection Department. that we're not subject to Warren County Codes. - 34 - -- MRS. EGGLESTOH-It effects our vote. though. MR. MARTIH-Yes. MR. TURHER-It does effect the vote. MR. CARVIH-Well. the septic will be in compliance with the Town of Queensbury. is that correct? I mean. will we monitor that? MR. MARTIN-Yes. as an eXisting system. yes. If it fails. it has to be brought into compliance. but as long as it's working. MR. RIVETTE-It's fine. I know it all now. Now that I know where it is. MR. MARTIN-That's what happens at the lake with the. if we have a system up there. If it's an existing system and there's no failure present at the tiae of the work being done. the expansion being done. then it's allowed to continue. At the time it fails. then it has to be brought into conformance. MR. TURHER-Mr. Rivette. what's the tank now? composition of that tank? What is the MR. RIVETTE-It's a steel tank. 300 gallon steel tank is what. when they guy pumped it to him. it was. and when he did that. I put a new pressure treated top on it. So. it couldn't cave in. MRS. EGGLESTON-How long have you owned the property? HR. RIVETTE-I think it's going on five years now. HR. HARTIN-See. that factor in itself is not in coapliance with today's standards. If that fails. he'd have to replace it with a concrete tank. properly sized. with the bedrooas and all that. HRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURHER-That's your only source of water. correct? HR. RIVETTE-Correct. HR. CARVIH-Are you expanding the number of bathrooms? HR. RIVETTE-No. MR. CARVIH-So the bathrooms are going to stay the same? The bedrooms are going to stay the same. HR. RIVETTE-It's going to be a livingrooa. because that's what I need. I've got everything else. I just don't have any livingroom. MR. MARTIH-Yes. It's always the bedrooms that determine the design flow rate. It's not the bathrooms. MR. RIVETTE-It's going to stay two bedroom. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further discussion? MR. CARVIN-As long as the septic. from a County standpoint. HR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTIO. TO APPROVE ARBA VARIANCE RO. 77-1993 RUDY DD MIKE RIVBT7B. Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption. seconded by Theodore Turner. This would grant relief of 518 square feet from Section 179-79A(2). which states that no enlargement of a nonconforming structure shall exceed an aggregate of 50 percent gross floor area. We will also - 35 - - grant relief of seven feet from Section 179-15C. which requires a front setback of 30 feet. The practical difficulty is the position of the current building on the parcel. and the only way to do an addition is to add it to the existing building. which encroaches on the front setback. Therefore. the front setback relief is needed. It appears to be the minimum variance necessary. and there don't seem to be any other options available. There's no neighborhood opposition to this request. and it doesn't appear that the variance would be detrimental to the district or neighborhood. and there'd be no effect on public facilities and services. Also. this will greatly enhance the looks of the property. Therefore. a benefit to all the surrounding properties. Duly adopted this 20th day of October, 1993. by the following vote: AYES. Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Turner NOES. NO HE ASSEHT. Mr. Philo R8W BUSI.BSS. AREA VARIARCB RO. 85-1993 RR-3A YYPB I CBA GARY B. RICHARDSOR OnER. SAME AS ABOVE SOU1'H CORRER OF RIDGB ROAD AND KROLLS ROAD RORTH. APPLICA.,IOR PROPOSBS 70 SELL PREBXISTIIIG. IIORCORFORHIRG LOT IR A PLANRING BOARD APPROVED SUBDIVISIOR FOR A BUILDI.G LOY. THB LOT IS FIP1'Y-EIGHT HURDRBD1'HS (.58) ACRE. APPLICART IS SBEKI.G RBLIBF 01' TWO AND FORTY-7WO HURDRBDTHS (2.42) ACRES FROM SEC1'IOR 179-15A. WHICH RBQUIRES 1'HRBB (3) ACRBS PBR DWBLLIRG. (ADIRORDACK PARK AGBRCY) (WARRBR COUR7Y PLARRI.G) DATB. 10/13/93 LOT SIZB. .66 ACRBS SECTION 179-15A GARY RICHARDSOH. PRESEHT MRS. EGGLESTON-And the Warren County Planning Board returned. "No County Impact." STAFF IRPUT Hotes from Staff. Area Variance Ho. 85-1993. Gary E. Richardson. Meeting Date. October 20. 1993 "ADDRBSS 01' PROPERTY. southwest corner of Ridge Road and Knolls Road North intersection. SUHHARY 01' PROJBCT. Applicant proposes to sell existing nonconforming lot in a Planning Board approved subdivision as a building lot. CORFORMA.CB WITH USE/ARBA RBGULA7IORS. The lot is fifty-eight hundredths (.58) acre. Applicant seeks relief of two and forty-two hundredths (2.42) acres from Section 179-15A. which requires three (3) acres per dwelling under current zoning. RBYIaw CRIYBaIA. 1. DESCRIBE THE PRAC1'ICAL DIFFICULty WHICH DOES ROT ALLOW PLACBHBRT OF A S7RUCYURB WHICH HBETS THB ZORING CODE. No structure is proposed at this time. only the sale of the property as a bUilding lot. 2. IS THIS YHE HIRIHUH VARIARCB .BCBSSARY 1'0 ALLBVIA1'E THB SPECIFIC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY. OR IS YHBRB AMY OTHER OP1'IOR AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD RBQUIRB 110 VARIANCB? This is the minimum variance needed and no other options exist. 3. WOULD YHIS VARIANCE BB DBTRIHBR1'AL YO THB OYHBR PROPBRTIBS IR THB DISTRICT OR REIGHBORHOOD? No. Other parcels of the same size are common in this subdivision. 4. WHAY ARE THE BFFBC1'S or 7HB VARIANCE OR PUBLIC FACILI1'IBS ARD SERVICBS? There will be no effect on public facilities and services. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCBRRS. Staff has no concern with this variance." HR. TURNER-How long have you owned the property? MR. RICHARDSOH-Since 1982. MR. TURHER-It's a simple application. As it states. it's in a preexisting subdivision. and this is a condition that exists up there with many of those lots. We can get right through it quick. - 36 - PUBLIC HEARIRG OPERBD GERALD HEWLETT HR. HEWLETT-I'm Gerald Hewlett. and of course the Section 179-15A does require three acres. If we were talking about 10. 20 percent or something. but he wants an 80 and 2/3 percent differential on that relief. That's 105 to 115.000 square feet. and I think it would open up properties back in project that are now in compliance. It would give them the possibility of asking for this same relief. MR. TURNER-Well. let me say this. many of them that are up there have already asked for it and got it. in that subdivision. just because of the conditions that exist there. because they don't meet the area requirements. and they can't meet it, because it's already a pre-approved subdivision. They can't pick up anything else. MR. HEWLETT-That's an awful big relief. MR. TURHER-I know. It is. but it's just one of those unfortunate things. MR. HEWLETT-As I say. it's 80.67 percent less than what's called for. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Mr. Hewlett. are you in the same subdivision? MR. HEWLETT-I'm right across the street from this property. MRS. EGGLESTOH-So when you bought yours. was this laid out as a lot in the subdivision? MR. HEWLETT-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTOH-So it was pre-approved. and all. everything approved. so you knew at some time or other it was going to be a. someone was going to build there. probably. MR. HEWLETT-Well. no. It was already built when I bought. The house was already there. MR. TURNER-How big is your lot? MR. HEWLETT-.94 acres. I believe. MRS. EGGLESTON-This had the change of zoning and everything happen to it after this subdivision was approved. MR. TURNER-Yes. This is an old subdivision. See. it goes back to. when. what's the date on the subdivision out there? MR. HEWLETT-What is the date on the subdivision? MR. TURHER-Yes. MRS. CIPPERLY-May of 1969. their subdivision map was approved. MR. TURHER-When we up-sized the lots. that created the condition that exists there today. If your house hadn't been built. and you owned that lot. you would have had to come and get that same relief. and you would have got it. just like everybody else has got it in there. because those lots are already cut up. There's really nothing we can do about it. Under the Ordinance now. if that wasn't in the APA. he could build on it. without any. he could sell it to anybody. The only reason he's here is because he's in the APA. MR. HEWLETT-That's my story. - 37 - -- MR. TURHER-Anyone else? THOMAS MAHGIACASALE MR. MAHGIACASALE-Yes. My name is Thomas Mangiacasale. I live on Stevenson Road. and besides lIyself. I have two letters from my neighbors. both stating that they do not agree with this. would not like this to happen. If Hr. Richardson was planning on building himself. that's a totally different story. He owns the property. now he's looking to sell it to somebody else to build there. I think having three acres is a good idea. You do not want this to become Hew Jersey. Staten Island. and every other overcrowded place. It's a beautiful valley. The reason I'm living there is because I looked at the tax maps and it said three acres building. ten acres further up on the aountain. and it would stay that way. and if we do this. the property behind me. and other properties. great. lets just cut them up into little pies. We don't need three acres. Lets cut them into six. MR. TURKER-Do you have three acres? MR. MAHGIACASALE-Ho. I do not. It's preexisting. I live on Stevenson Road. The Stevenson's house I own. and that was there from over 40 years ago. MRS. EGGLESTOH-How close is that to this property? MR. MAHGIACASALE-I am maybe 100 feet away. 200 feet. MRS. EGGLESTOH-And when did you purchase your hOlle? MR. MANGIACASALE-Four years ago. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Four years ago. and again. I'll ask you this same question. and I know you're not sympathetic to it. but when you bought your land. that lot was laid out in the development. MR. MAHGIACASALE-And there was already a home on it existing. It was not a vacant lot. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Well. how can it be vacant now? HR. RICHARDSOH-I own lots nine and ten. okay. I'a selling one. My house is on the next lot. When I bought thell. I bought them that way. HRS. EGGLESTO.-Okay. So you do you understand there's not a house? MR. MAHGIACASALE-This is fine. I can see his point. and I can sympathize. because I was in the same situation with property I own somewhere else. and unfortunately things change. If he was going to build on it hillself. that's fine. He's grandfathered into it. but to say. I want to sell this piece of property. now. to somebody new. and have sOllebody come in and build on this very small lot. in an area where there's supposed to be three acres. you have to start putting your foot down and say. no. we're not doing this. HISS HAUSER-He's not grandfathered. the lot is grandfathered. HR. MAHGIACASALE-Well. whatever. HR. TURHER-It would be. if it wasn't in the APA. MISS HAUSER-Right. HR. MARGIACASALE-It's new people. you're just going. you're opening it up. MR. TURHER-Yes. but he bought two lots separate. two lots of deeded record. right? - 38 - ~ MR. RICHARDSOH-Yes. They're separate deeds. MR. MAHGIACASALE-When did he buy two lots? MRS. EGGLESTOH-In 1982 you purchased them? MR. RICHARDSOR-Yes. MR. MAHGIACASALB-Now when was it zoned to three acres? MRS. EGGLESTOH-1988. So he has the change of zone within that time also. HR. MANGIACASALB-Right. He owns it. though. I just feel that if he was bUilding for hiaself. that's a different story. but to sell it to soaebody else. to have them come in and build. they are now. I disagree with that. MRS. EGGLESTON-Aren't there a lot of vacant lots in there yet to be sold? MR. RICHARDSON-There are a handful of lots in there. and I know. even in the last couple of years. two or three lots just went through the saae thing. MRS. EGGLESTOH-And they're all going to go through that same thing. So, are you saying that none of those should be sold? I mean. what do you propose to do. sir? MR. MARGIACASALE-To come here and argue my point. that people have to get hurt. When there's change. somebody gets hurt. no doubt about it. Property I owned at the Jersey shore. the DEC came in and said. it's freshwater wetlands there. and I had a piece of property that was worth $15...... It went down to nothing. and that hurts. but that's what happens. The reason you zoned it to three acres was for a very good reason. maintain the way things are. not to overbuild. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Well. could I just say. isn't this project the same as Fox Road. I mean. it's where they all run right in together? HR. TURNER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTOM-Well. where were you with all the other ones we gave? MR. MAHGIACASALE-This is the first one I have ever received. MR. TURNER-It's only because he's near. The other ones were too far away. He never received notice. MRS. EGGLESTOH-We've done them throughout the whole development because it was a pre-approved subdivision. MR. MANGIACASALE-Right. Well. had I gotten these. I would have been here arguing this point. MRS. EGGLESTOH-And so since we've given them to all the others. I don't know how we could say no. honestly. I don't. because it makes all the lots in there the saae size. It's the saae size as yours. the saae size as your neighbor. It isn't like we're saying. well. yours can only be. MR. MAHGIACASALE-Well. my lot is almost a full acre. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Yes. HR. MARGIACASALE-And it's over 4. years old. the home that's on it. My only problem is. I don't want to see the land get sold by Stan Miller. who owns most of the property behind us and across the - 39 - street. It's sold to a developer. and he has all these cases. saying, hey. it's legal. we can change it. HRS. EGGLESTOK-That' s different. now. This is because this is already approved at one time. That was already approved. Those lots were all laid out and approved. HR. TURHER-How's he going to enlarge his lot? MR. MAKGIACASALE-Right. he's not going to enlarge the lot. correct. MR. TURNER-Okay. That's his difficulty right there. He can't get any aore property from any place else to aake it three acre. That's his problem. MR. MAHGIACASALE-I realize that. and like I said. somebody gets hurt. That happens. Soaebody's always going to get hurt when you make changes. no matter how good the change is, there's always going to be somebody somewhere that's going to get hurt by it. and my viewpoint is I don't want to see three acre lots being cut down to a half an acre. HR. TURHER-If these lots weren't already cut out. I aight think different. if these lots weren't already cut out. but they're already cut out. Where's he going to get anything any different than what he's got? MR. MAHGIACASALE-He's not. MR. TURHER-Okay. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Well. I hope. if we pass this variance here tonight. I hope you don't think that we're hurting you. because I don't think this will have an adverse effect on your property. MR. MAHGIACASALE-I understand it completely. My argument's just strictly. I don't want to see this happening everywhere down that road. and in the Harrisena Valley because it's so beautiful there. MRS. EGGLESTOK-It is beautiful there. You're right. I wish we had another answer. but. HR. MAHGIACASALE-Thank you. PUBLIC HBARIRG CLOSED MR. TURHER-You don't have any problem with it? MRS. EGGLESTOR-I don't. MR. TURKER-How can you? You can't. MOYIOR 10 APPROVE ARBA VARIANCB .0. 85-1993 GARY E. RICHARDSON. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Joyce Eggleston. This is relief from Section 179-15A. which requires three acres per dwelling unit. The practical difficulty with this lot is that it is a lot that was laid out in a preexisting subdivision dating back to 1969. Although the applicant might own two lots. he has a house on the lot that adjoins this lot. So this lot is a separate lot of record as indicated by testimony of the applicant. This variance would not be detrimental to other properties in the district or the neighborhood. This would not have an adverse effect on public facilities and services. Tbis is the ainimua relief needed to alleviate the practical difficulty. Duly adopted this 20th day of October, 1993. by the following vote. AYES. Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston, Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. - 48 - Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Turner ROES. HOHE ABSERT. Mr. Philo ARBA VARIAIICB RO. 88-1993 TYPB II LC-42A CBA JOHR S. POTt'ER O"BR. SUSAII CBCCIRI RIDGB KROLLS APPLICANt' PROPOSBS USIRG A PRBBZISTIRG. RONCORPORHIRG SUBDIVISIO. FOR A (2/3) ACRB LOT IR A PLAIIRIRG BOARD APPROVBD SUBDIVISIOR FOR A RBSIDBRTIAL BUILDIIIG LOt'. CUOB" ZO.I.G RBOUIUS FORt'Y-t'WO (42) ACRBS PBR DULLIRG. APPLICANT IS SBBXIRG RBLIBF 01' FORTY-ORB ARD ORB t'BIRD (41 1/3) ACRBS FROH SBCt'IOR 179-13C. APPLICAllt' IS ALSO SBBXIRG RBLIBF FROH SBCTIOR 179-67. RBQUIRBHBRt'S FOR SWIMMIRG POOL LOCATIOR. TAX MAP RUNBBR. 26-5-29 LOt' SIZB. 2/3 OF AR ACRE SECT lOR 179-13. 179- 678(2) JOHH POTTER. PRESEHT St'AFF IRPUT Hotes from Staff. Area Variance Mo. 88-1993. John S. Potter. Meeting Date. October 20. 1993 "ADDRESS 01' PROPERTY. northeast corner of intersection of Fox Road and Hunter Lane SUMMARY 01' PROJECt'. Applicant seeks to use subject parcel as a building lot. and requires relief of forty-one and one-third (41 1/3) acres from the current forty-two acre zoning. Parcel was approved previously as a building site under Area Variance Ho. 103-1989. which expired August 21. 1992. Applicant also seeks relief from requirements for swimming pool location. CO.FORHAIICE WITH USB/AREA RBGULATIORS. This lot. created as a part of a Planning Board approved subdivision. cannot conform with the subsequent forty-two (42) acre zoning. nor could any of the setbacks or permeability requirements be met. Applicant seeks relief from Section 179-67B. which addresses sWimming pool location. Paragraph (2) states that pools may be erected only in the rear yard. Paragraph (5), regarding siting pools on corner lots. would require placement of the pool on the north end of the lot. Applicant is proposing to locate a swimming pool at the side of his proposed house which. because of the corner lot location. would be considered a front yard. REVIEW CRITBRIA. 1. DBSCRIBB ftIII PRACt'ICAL DIFFICULt'Y WHICH DOBS NO'l ALLOW PLACBHB.t' OF A STRUCt'URB WHICH HBBt'S t'HE ZONIRG CODB. Lot size is too small to meet the current requirements. Applicant believes southern exposure would be preferable for sWimming pool location. 2. IS THIS THB HI.IHUH VARIARCa .BCBSSARY TO ALLBVIATB THE SPBCIFIC PRACt'ICAL DIFFICULt'Y, OR IS t'HERE AllY Ot'HER OPt' lOR AVAILABLB WHICH WOULD RBQUIRB RO VARIARCB? There is no al ternati ve regarding the lot size. and this application seeks minimum variance. There may be alternatives with respect to the swimming pool. but none could be done without a setback variance. 3. WOULD THIS VARIARCB BB DBftIHB.t'AL TO THB OHBR PROPBRt'IES IR THB DISt'RICT OR REIGHBORHOOD? It does not appear that this variance would be detrimental to other properties in the district or neighborhood. 4. WHAt' ARE t'HB EFFBCt'S OF t'HE VARIAIICE O. PUBLIC FACILIt'IBS AIID SBRVICBS? There would be no effects of this kind. STAFF COHHBRt'S A.D CORCaRRS. In terms of maximizing solar gain. the proposed location of the swimming pool would be preferable. If landscaped appropriately. visual impact could be minimized." MR. TURRER-I don't have a problem with your lot size. like we did the last one. We didn't have a problem with that one either. So I guess I do have a problem with the sWim.ing pool. Why can't we put it behind the house? MR. POTTER-It's the northeastern side of the house. It's not going to get any sun. and even as the sun moves from the south into the west. the house is going to block. the two story house is going to block the sun from getting to the pool. So it really defeats the purpose. - 41 - --._-~.._.__.- MR. TURHER-I guess. my comment to that is. when you swim on a cloudy day. and there's no sun. what happens then? MR. POTTER-Well. there's no sun. but it's not cloudy every day. and the sun certainly will warm it up, and you can use solar heating, covers to keep the heat in on those cloudy days. MR. TURHER-Yes. right. MRS. EGGLESTON-How close to the well are you saying that in-ground pool will be? MR. POTTER-How close to the well? MRS. EGGLESTOH-Yes. You don't have a measurement there. MR. POTTER-It's a diagonal measurement. but the well. the well can be moved anyway. I'd sacrifice the well for the in-ground pool. MRS. EGGLBSTOH-But what is the? MR. POTTER-It's at a diagonal. I don't have a scale with me. but it is one inch equals 30 feet. MR. CARVIN-In other words. the well is not drilled at this point? MR. POTTIR-Ho. There's no well there. There's no septic there. That was just proposed. Everything there is proposed. MRS. EGGLESTON-Okay. MR. POTTER-I'd be willing to move it anywhere I can to keep the pool. MRS. BGGLESTOH-Okay. MR. POTTER-Another reason why I wanted it on the south side rather than. I can put it back in that corner. but that is closer to the neighbor to the east of me. and that would be further away for sight and noise. and it is quite a distance away from the people to the south. which is across Fox Road. and they sit way back off the road. MR. CARVIN-How tall is your house going to be. approximately? MR. POTTER-Six. twelve pitch. probably twenty-four. twenty-six feet. twenty-eight feet. I'm planning on putting an attic truss in there so I can utilize the third floor as storage. So it's a two story. plus the attic truss is 30 feet wide. six twelve pitch. MR. CARVIH-What's the distance on the front lawn? Is it 30 feet. Ted? MR. TURNER-In that zone? MR. CARVIH-Yes. I mean off Hunter Lane. for example. MR. TURHER-It's 10e feet. MR. CARVIH-Ho. what I'm saying. in other words. if the house is 30 feet. for example. I think I see what you're saying. in other words. put the pool behind the house. MR. TURNER-Yes. HR. CARVIH-And I'll be honest with you. your sun goes. what. east to west. HR. POTTER-East to west. through the south. - 42 - -~-_._----'--- "-" MR. CARVIH-Yes. well. I have a pool. and I can pretty much tell you if you put it behind the house. I don't think you'd have a problem. HR. POTTER-My parents have a pool. and they have it in that location. and they are having a problem. MR. CARVIH-Are there trees on the south side of the property? MR. POTTER-There are some trees on the south side. but they are very young. and would be eliminated in the excavating. MR. CARVIR-I just think if you put it the long way in the back here. that you'd have plenty of room. and you'd still get the same amount of sun. except in the afternoon. I mean. that's why I was wondering how high your house was going to be. HR. POTTER-Well. that's. the morning sun. it's relatively cool in the morning. so I'm looking from 10 o'clock to 4 o'clock is where I'd like to get the most sun. MRS. EGGLESTON-How close. where it says the neighbor in back of your house. how close is their house to the lot line? MR. POTTER-My guess. it's tough. because it's all wooded in there. and part of his. according tQ the. MRS. EGGLESTOH-One hundred feet. though. a good distance? MR. POTTER-I would say. that would be pushing it. I'd say 100 feet is about the max. MRS. EGGLBSTOR-What were you proposing for a fence around your pool? MR. POTTER-As far as Queensbury' sit's a four foot fence. I certainly. I don't plan on flaunting my body as well as other people's body to the neighbors. So it would be well landscaped. I certainly want the privacy. I'm not putting it down there so that I can put on a show for the neighbors. See. my concern. too. was by putting it on the south side there. it does move it farther away from the neighbor to the east. which I thought would be beneficial to him. MR. MARTIN-There's a whole lot of things to be dealt here with. You've got to get the lot area to get by the sale of the lot. right. but you've got to get all sorts of setback variances for the house. and I don't know why we're looking at setback variances on the pool. before we even have the house set. MR. POTTER-Well. the setback variances that I have. what I've put in here now complies with the preexisting. which was. I think. 30. MRS. EGGLESTON-Well. you're not going to build it all at once. put the house and the pool in right along with it. You're going to build a home. and then once you've built the home. then maybe you would realize that the back yard maybe wouldn't be so bad. Are you saying the house is already built? MR. POTTER-Ho. There's nothing there. but what I wanted to do. I'm building the house myself. I would like to put the pool in. I would like to do everything all at once. That's what I would like to do. I've been up there. in the summer months. I've walked into the back. There's a mountain there. on the west side. 26 feet. 28 feet in the air. I mean. you're talking about putting that pool. 20 feet from the back of the house. It's not going to take much to get. to cast a shadow. It is the northeastern corner of the house. It's because it's a corner lot that I'. being penalized. HR. CARVIH-Ted. I'm assuming that this variance that they passed in 1989 was just a general variance? - 43 - , '-'~ MR. POTTER-Yes. just for setbacks. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Was it for you? MR. POT~ER-Ho. it was not. It was for Ceccini. The owner is out of town. MRS. EGGLESTON-Ho. but how long have they owned it? MR. POTTER-To my knowledge. it's two. three years. because they applied in '89. and it's now '93. They were planning on aoving up here on a transfer. and the transfer fell through so they applied for an extension. That's what I was told. and then the second try for a transfer up here failed. too. So they decided to sell. So the sale is pending the variance. MRS. EGGLES~OH-Just bear with me a minute. You're going to live in the house? MR. POT~ER-Yes. I'm going to live there the rest of my life. MRS. EGGLES~OH-But it's owned by Susan Ceccini. MR. POTTER-Susan and John. I think. Ceccini. MR. TURRER-They own it. MR. CARVIH-They own the lot. MR. PO~TER-They own the lot. I'm trying to buy the lot. but I didn't want to pay for the lot if I'm not going to get a variance. MR. CARVIN-My question is. the variance. 103-89. is this in that Ridge Knolls development? MRS. CIPPERLY-Yes. HR. POTTER-Yes. MR. CARVIH-So. I'm assuming that that variance was very similar in structure and nature to what we just did? MR. MART~.-Is there any way. I'm assuming the architectural front entrance of the house here is on Hunter Lane? MR. POTTER-Correct. HR. HARTIH-Is it that much of a difficulty for you. to just simply slip the pool in the rear yard? You're still getting all that southern exposure? MR. POTTER-Ho. I just figured it was closer to the guy next to me. So I figured I would move it forward. MR. MARTIH-Accordinq to the Ordinance. that's where it's called for to be on a corner lot. HR. POTTER-It's called to be in the northeastern part. which is behind the house. If you want ae to put. where the right hand side of the pool is. at the back of tbe house. if you'd like that to be the front edge. that's fine. too. because I'm still getting a southern exposure. Tbe problem is. it moves it closer to the guy to the eastern part of me. That's why I moved it the other way. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I grant you that. but if you did put it on the yard opposite your architectural front entrance. that would not require a variance. HR. POTTER-I know. but it would be on the northeastern side of the house. - 44 - MR. MARTIR-Yes. but you'd still get all that sun. as the sun moves from east to west during the day. you're going to get all that southern exposure. HR. POTTER-You're going to start to cast a shadow there about one o'clock in the afternoon. MRS. EGGLESTOK-I'd like to see the house built and then address the pool. MR. CARVIH-I was going to say. it does seem like we're putting the cart before the horse. HRS. EGGLESTON-It does. I mean. once that house is up there. it might not be all you expect. as to clouding the sun from the back yard. and we've done this for no reason. It could really go. MR. MARTIN-Well. I think adjustments can be made. too. on the front yard of the house. maybe. HR. TURNER-Yes. HR. CARVIH-That's what I'm saying. MRS. EGGLSSTOR-Yes. come forward a little bit. MR. CARVIH-That's why I was wondering how high the house was going to be. It's certainly about half the height of a good tree. MR. POTTER-I'm only going to gain another 11 feet. MR. THOMAS-How about if you fronted the house on Fox Road? MR. POTTSR-If I fronted the house on Fox Road. now I've got the whole house on the southern side. and with the way I'm planning on building the house. that exposes the whole back side to the north. which is. from a heating standpoint. not very economical. This way. I have the garage blocking the north side of. the coldest side of the house. MR. TURHSR-Yes. I know. but when you come here. you've got to think of some alternatives. HR. POT'l'ER-I understand. and I'd be willing to. because it's a corner lot. if it was not a corner lot. then I could put it on the back side. and the back side would extend all the way down. am I correct. down to Fox Road. if it was not a corner lot? If I were to just take that pool and just do a mirror image of it. flip it. then I would be in compliance with that. but that also moves it closer to the guy on the eastern side. and I figured. MRS. EGGLESTOR-But you said maybe 100 feet. or lets say. 75 feet. for the sake of argument. because you weren't sure about the 100. That's a pretty good distance between. MR. POTTER-Okay. Fine. I don't have a problem with that. I just figured the further away from him. the better off he'd. because it's not. this is probably the furthest point away from everybody there. That's why I picked there. If you just want me to flip it. side to side. that would be fine. I wouldn't have a problem. MR. MARTIH-Did you ever give any consideration to setting the house sort of like diagonally. on the corner of Hunter Lane and Fox Road? That gives you. then. plenty of depth to put the pool behind the house. and not. out of the shadow of the house? MR. POTTER-No, I never considered that. but again. that's still taking the back part of the house and facing it to the northeast. which is the coldest side of the house. - 45 - MR. MARTIN-Ho. You'd be facing. MR. POTTER-lot the back side. The back side is the northeast. MR. TURHER-The back side is the northeast. MR. MARTIH-Yes. MR. TURNER-I think it would be. just like I said. if he moves the house forward. 11 feet. give him 30 feet in the front. he could put the pool behind the architectural entrance to the house. HR. POTTER-But if I were to take this pool. and flip it on a horizontal axis as we look at it. if tha~ wasn't a corner lot. then would I be in compliance with the swimming pool standards. if I take this pool right here and I just do this. and it coaes over here. like so. because now I'm in the back yard. but because it's a corner lot. my back yard stops there. HR. MARTIH-No. Your problem is you're on a corner lot and you have two front yards. MR. POTTER-Exactly. HR. MARTIH-And those two front yards are defined by the building wall of the house. HR. POTTER-Exactly. and I'm saying if I wasn't on a corner lot. if I were to flip that. would that be considered my back yard? Because I'd be willing to just flip it. but as long as I'm on a corner lot. I'm being penalized again now for being on a corner lot. MRS. EGGLESTOH-But that would be your side yard. if you didn't go in back of the house. It wouldn't be your back yard unless it's in back of the house. MR. POTTER-So the back yard is only as long as the house? MRS. EGGLESTOH-In the back of the house. HR. TURHER-In the rear of the house. HR. EGGLESTOI-Yes. in the rear of the house. Otherwise. it would be your side yard. MR. MARTIN-There are no side yards on a corner lot. MRS. EGGLESTOI-Ro. but he was saying. if it was not a corner lot. would that be considered. does that answer your question on that? MR. POTTBR-So. if I make my house 150 feet long. then I've got 150 feet of back yard. I don't understand the logic. MR. MARTIN-The logic is that the street scape is to be maintained on a corner lot. So a house on a corner lot. when you look down either street scape. is aligned with the houses next to it. further down the street. That's the intent. MR. 'lURHER-Any further questions? Let me open the pUblic hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OP...D DAVID RYE MR. RYB-I'm for the building of the house. and against the pool. I'm David Rye. I live on the south side of the proposed house. across the street. To the east of them is a vacant lot. There's no one living there. a whole vacant lot. 300 feet. - 46 - --~----- - -------.------------- MRS. EGGLESTOH-To his back yard. you mean. where the pool would be? MR. RYE-It's a vacant lot to be sold. to the east. MR. CARVIN-So your mountains are on the west. MRS. EGGLESTOR-So it would be his back yard. if he put his pool in the back yard. MR. RYE-Yes. Right here. is where 25 is. Twenty-seven is a vacant lot. MRS. BGGLESTON-Okay. MR. POTTER-The .ap that I got fro. here says house written on it. on the lot next to me. that's why. MR. RYE-That's all wooded. 27's still all wooded. That's a field with grown up potholes and stuff like that. MRS. EGGLBSTOI-Okay. MRS. CIPPERLY-To the east of his lot. there is a house. MR. RYB-There is a house, but it's on the other side of this vacant lot. I live right across the street. I know what I'm talking about. There's three lots. a corner lot. a vacant lot. and a gray house. MR. POTTER-Then what about the blue house? MR. RYE-There's a gray house. MR. POTTER-There's a blue house there. MR. RYE-It's light gray. MRS. CIPPERLY-Bluish gray. MR. POTTER-Okay. I want to listen. because I'm going to be his neighbor. The last thing I want to do is start off on the wrong foot. MR. RYE-How. across the street. to the west of you. which would be Lot 32. is a gray house. too. That's west. Okay. My objection is. it's in the front yard. what I consider the front yard. Everybody else in the development has their pool behind their house. Hoise is my biggest concern. MR. TURNER-I agree. He has an alternative here. He can adjust. MR. RYE-And I wasn't able to see the pictures you guys were drawing of what was going on. MR. POTTER-I wanted to just flip it here. because I thought this would be the back yard. MR. RYE-I still wouldn't be satisfied with that. MR. POTTER-What about up here. then? MR. RYE-In your back yard. yes. what I would consider your back yard is behind the house. MR. POTTER-All right. what if I were to move. now. my choice is. I can move my house as far down as I want to the south. and still. so what would happen here is. MR. RYE-Meeting their setbacks. - 47 - MR. POTTER-Right. which is 30 feet. MR. TURKER-Okay. You've got to meet 100 foot setbacks. all the way around. MR. POTTER-I can't do it. MR. TURHER-I know you can't. That's why you're here. MRS. EGGLESTOH-That's why you're here. MR. TURHER-Okay. We know that. but. MR. RYE-When I built. I had to meet their. I worked with you guys. MR. POTTER-Okay. MR. RYE-And I'm 50 feet off the road. MR. TURHER-Yes. MR. RYE-That's my biggest concern. is just the noise. Kids are kids. and I don't take anything away from them for having a good time. but if you can keep it just a little bit aore quiet behind the house. use the house as a buffer. MR. POTTER-It wouldn't be. my only point here is that it wouldn't be a buffer. the house would not be a buffer to him. because he's directly south. okay. and what I could have done. and because I was concerned about him. and I met his wife. and she was very nice. and because I want to try to make everybody happy. I wanted to put it where everybody would win. I moved the house as far north as I could. still complying with what was previous setbacks of 30 feet on the side. I can also go all the way down 30 feet from the road. 30 feet from Fox Road. and put it in there. and the pool would be probably 100 feet closer to his house than where it is right now. and because I did want to get it far away from him. but still have the southern exposure. I went as far north as I could. So that was my thinking. with concern for the Ryes which are directly south. I went as far north as I could with the house. MR. RYE-I think you went for the sun. MR. POTTER-I did. MR. RYE-Not for me. honestly. I do. MR. POTTER-Well. I went for both. The previous guy was in there. somebody's going to lose. and not in my opinion. I think. if it's done correctly. everybody can win. HR. RYE-You're right. HR. HARTIK-I still say if you position that house on the lot diagonally. everybody can win. because the house. then. will act as a noise buffer for him. the pool can be put enough in your rear yard so the shadow of the house has that effect that you get full sun all day. and it's not a problem. because you've essentially got a blank slate. because no aatter where you put that house on that lot. you're going to need a variance from this Board. So you've essentially got a blank slate to position that house in the most logical place. MR. POTTER-I would take his option before your option. want to put that house diagonally on that lot. I don't MR. HA.TIM-Because. if you do that. you're going to get. the front of the house is going to get. or two sides of the house. the front and one side. are going to get sun all day. and you'll have a huge rear yard. - 48 - --- MR. POTTER-But the back is going to get no sun. and that's my concern. MR. MARTIN-Ho. If you only put that' house 30 feet off Fox Road. and Hunter Lane, and position it diagonally. you're going to have a huge rear yard. enough space to position that pool back there out of the shadow of that house. MR. RYE-What he has to do now is figure out where the house's septic is going. for the future pool. HR. POTTER-Right. I have no problea coaing in here. I was instructed that. why coae back and pay another $50 for another variance? MR. MARTIH-You're going to have to for setbacks. MR. POTTER-Well. I'm here for setbacks. MRS. CIPPERLY-Your concern was whether you could have a pool there at all. for one thing. HR. POTTER-Right. MRS. CIPPERLY-And also then it became. well, it wasn't a legal part of your house buying. I think before you started siting the house. you wanted to know where you could possibly put the pool. HR. POTTER-Right. MRS. CIPPERLY-So you wanted that issue resolved. if possible. MR. POTTER-Because I didn't want to put the house soae place where it totally eliainated the possibility of putting in a pool later. I preferably would like to do everything at once. which is why I have it here that way. I understand. and I would agree with his concern. and if he wants ae to put it over there, then I'll put it over there. but I would rather keep my house centered on the lot. front to back. MR. CARVIN-Well. I was just going to say. if your intent was to find out whether you could have the pool or not. I think the answer there is yes. but. and I'a again a straw poll of the Board. MR. MARTIN-Well. I just heard you say something. understanding is you're here for setbacks? Your HR. POTTER-I'm here for three things. setback, permeability. and pool. that's wbat I intended to apply for. HR. HARTIH-I don't see where you're a problem with permeability. I don't know where that came in. Your lot area is not sufficient. and there's nothing indicating in your application that setbacks are needed. HR. CARVIH-Ho. just a pool. MR. MARTIH-Just a pool. and the lot area is the only thing we have. MR. TURNER-You're here for the size of your lot. and the pool. MRS. CIPPERLY-It was my understanding tbat your house design was just proposed. HR. POTTER-It is. MRS. CIPPERLY-Okay. MR. POTTER-So I have to coae back to go for setbacks. - 49 - MRS. CIPPERLY-You can table it. MR. TURHER-You've got to locate the house on the lot. MR. POTTER-It is. It's located there with all. MR. TURHER-Exactly where it is. MR. POTTER-That's exactly where I want it. MRS. EGGLESTOH-But it wasn't advertised that you're asking for. MR. TURHER-You have to go on what's advertised. MR. MARTIH-It's got to be re-advertised. MR. POTTER-So I have to go back and do this allover again? MR. MARTIN-Ho. You can leave it like it is. wasn't advertised for setbacks. It's just that it MRS. CIPPERLY-Okay. It was my understanding that this was not your final house design. and that you wanted to find out. possibly. if you could put the pool there. So. if that's my misunderstanding. that's. I guess. our fault. here. MR. POTTER-Well. I could care less about the pool right now. You're telling me that I'm. the people that own this land are expecting a phone call from me tomorrow to find out if I got a variance for setbacks. and apparently. I've done something wrong that you. this is not even about setbacks. MRS. CIPPERLY-But what you needed before you could buy the property was a variance for lot size. and that we did advertise for. and I thought that your location of the house and those setbacks would be dependent on whether you got the pool variance. MR. MARTIH-Because she was thinking if you didn't get the pool variance. then you were going to want to move your house. and therefore then the setbacks would have been void. MR. POTTER-The house. right now. is where I intend to put it. MR. MARTIH-Irregardless of what happens with the pool. you're going to leave the house right there? MR. POTTER-That's correct. The only thing that I would do is move it forward. HR. MARTIN-Yes. but if you do that. MR. POTTER-I understand. MR. TURHER-If you do that. you'll be back again. MR. POTTER-Right now. it appears to me I'm going to be back anyway. MR. TURHER-Yes. So why don't we do this. then. lets just take. and lets consider the lot size. MRS. IGGLESTOR-The lot size. We could give him a variance on that. So he could purchase it. and then you could figure out where you're going to put everythin9. MR. MARTIH-And we could save him some money and table the rest and re-advertise for setbacks so he doesn't have to pay an application fee. MR. RYE-Are you going to advertise for a pool again? - 58 - MR. POTTER-I won't put the pool. I don't want to disrupt the neighborhood. That's the last thing I want to do. I'll put the pool behind the house. If it doesn't go there. then I'll put it damn heater on it. I don't want. my intention is not to live in a neighborhood that everybody's mad at me because I put my pool 20 feet from a back yard. MR. TURBER-Let me ask you this. Do you want to withdraw the part of the relief for the requirement for the swimming pool also? HR. POTTER-Sure. I'll put it in the back yard. I mean. it would come down. if the Ryes are going to complain about it. which I tried to accommodate. but if he'd rather have it there. then that's fine. I'll put it over there. If I get shade back there. then I'll put a heater on the pool. MR. TURHER-Okay. Fine. So then we're only going to consider the lot size. MRS. CIPPERLY-As Jim just said. as far as the rest of his setbacks. to save him an additional fee. could you do a motion as far as the lot size. and then he can come back. table it. and then come back again with this. re-advertise the. MR. MARTIH-We'll re-advertise for setbacks. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. request for that. What are we going to table? There's no MR. MARTIH-All right. MRS. EGGLESTOR-I don't know how we could. MR. CARVIH-I think. in all fairness to him. he should probably consider about moving that house forward to give himself a little bit more room in the back yard. I mean. I'm just looking at. MR. POTTER-The only reason I would want to move it forward is to get sun for the pool. Otherwise. I would use the side yard for anything else. . MR. CARVIH-That's what I'm saying. You're going to have 46 feet here on your west side. MR. MARTIN-Yes. While you're at it. I mean. you might as well. you have an opportunity. now. to position the house exactly the way you want it. MR. POTTER-This is exactly the way I want it. MRS. EGGLESTON-And fit your pool in the back. MR. TURIER-It's not exactly the way you want it. because you just said if you have to adjust the house to meet your pool. then you're gOing to do it. HR. POTTER-Bo. I won't adjust the house. I'll leave the house there. and if the pool doesn't get sun. then I'll put a heater on it. I don't want to move the house for the stupid pool. I mean. I like the pool if the pool would go down here with no complaints. then that's fine. That's where I'd like to have it. I thought. my intentions were that everybody would win. and by putting it here. putting the house to the farthest point north. that would still give me southern exposure for the pool. That means I would have sun from the tiae it came up until the time it went down. and it would still be far enough from the Ryes. MRS. EGGLESTOH-If he withdraws his application. would he lose the $50? - 51 - MR. MARTIH-Yes. because the advertising was done. MR. TURHER-Yes. He's going to have to re-advertise anyway. MRS. EGGLESTON-We've got to re-advertise anyway. Yes. Okay. Are you going to buy the property if we give you the lot size? Is that going to help you buy the property? Because you know you can build on it. then you've just got to fit the house and the pool in conformance with everything. MR. MARTIH-He can just fit the pool in. as it's drawn. He has to be 10 feet from the house. The pool's 16 feet wide. and then 20 foot separation to the rear property line. You just fit. MR. TURHER-He just fits. MR. CARVIH-That's why I'. saying. I think. in all fairness to him. it would be advantageous to move the house forward 10 or 15 feet. to give hi. a little bit extra room. MR. POTTER-But I would rather have it back off the road than have the extra. 10 feet. in my opinion. isn't really going to help me too much in the pool. MR. TURRER-Okay. Lets move it. MRS. EGGLESTOH-We didn't close the public hearing. HR. TURRER-Anyone else wish to be heard? Okay. PUBLIC HEARIRG CLOSED MR. MARTIH-Be advised. this is the APA. so the variance is ineffective until 30 days from the date of the decision. HR. POTTER-Ineffective? MR. MARTIH-It's not effective until 30 days from the date of the decision. MR. POTTER-So I better not buy the land. MR. MARTIN-I would advise against it. for 30 days. HR. POTTER-What do you suspect the APA is going to do? MR. MARTIN-That's just the time period in which they have to. MR. TURHER-They have the right to review it. whether they want to or not. MR. MARTIH-The Ordinance says variances granted in the APA are not effective for 30 days. MR. POTTER-There hasn't been any APA problems down there. MR. HARTIN-No. I don't expect there will be. but I'm just saying. MR. POTTER-Yes. but I'. not buying anything until it's approved. MR. TURNER-So what's your position here? Do you want to act on this application. or don't you? MR. POTTER-I have no choice. do I? MR. TURNER-You just said you#re not buying anything. HR. POTTER-Well. I can't buy a piece of land if it's not approved by the APA. If you're going to approve the variance as far as the lot size. then. yes. that's what I'm here for. I guess that's all I can. Hy intention was to throw in the setbacks. too. - 52 - Apparently. because of lot size. I assume. considered setbacks. Obviously. I was wrong. MR. MARTIH-Ho. It refers to area only. MR. THOMAS-Yes. but it does say on the second page there. setbacks. on Humber 13. setback front and rear. MR. TURHER-Ho matter what you do. if you buy the lot. if we give you the area. you've still got to go to the APA. MR. POTTER-I understand. So what my comment was that I'm not going to say yes to this. I'm not going to tell them that my variance was approved. when in fact the APA has 30 days to deny it. It's approved by Queensbury. but if it's denied by APA. I'm sunk. MR. TURNER-I don't think it will be. MR. MARTIH-I don't think it will be. MR. TURNER-They haven't disapproved any of them in there yet. MR. POTTER-Do you have $30.000 you'd put on the line for it? MR. MARTIN-No. I agree with you. That's why I caution you against that. I'm just saying. it's not effective. We can't issue a building permit on that. MR. POTTER-I understand that. Yes. I want approval for whatever I can get approval for. MR. TUR.ER-Okay. That's what I wanted to know. HOTIOB TO APPROVB AREA VARIABCB BO. 88-1993 JOHR S. POT.,ER. Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Joyce Eggleston. Grant the applicant relief of 41 1/3 acres from the current 42 acre zoning. as outlined under Section 179-13C. This lot was created as part of a Planning Board approved subdivision and cannot conform with the subsequent 42 acre zoning. This is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate this particular difficulty. By granting this variance. it would not appear to be detrimental to any other properties in the district or neighborhood. There also will be no effect on any of the public facilities or services. Duly adopted this 20th day of October. 1993. by the following vote: AYES. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Eggleston. Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner HOES. HORE ABSEHT: Mr. Philo AREA VARIUCB .0. 87-1993 TYPB II ft-1A JAMBS R. FI..BCY O"BR. SAME AS ABOVB MASO. ROAD. CLBVERDALB APPLICART PROPOSBS TO COBS.,RUC., A T".IfY-FOUR BY "".TY-FOUR (24 Z 24) FOOT GARAGB TO REPLACB·AR BXIS.,I.G SaBD. SBC.,IOR 179-16C RBQUIRBS A TURTY (28) 1'00., R.AR S..,BACK ARD A HINIHUH 01' .,....,Y (28) P..T SIDB SB.,BACX. APPLICART SEBXS RBLIBF 01' SBVBR.,BBB UD THIRTY-SIX HURDRBD.,HS ( 17 . 36) 1'.." FOR THB OAR SB.,BACK UD SBVBRTBE. UD SBVB."Y -"WO HURDRBDTHS (17. 72) PE.., FOR .,HB SIDB SBBACK. .,U HAP .UH8BR. 13- 2-41.2. 43. 44 LOT SIZB. 8.31 ACRBS S.C.,IOB 179-16C JAMES FIHHICY. PRESEMT MRS. EGGLESTOH-And the Warren County Planning Board disapproved. with these comments. "Based on concern for density issues. The proposed garage is considerably larger in scale than the existing - 53 - that garage up? MR. FINHECY-I think it shows as 18 feet. HR. TURHER-Eighteen feet. MRS. EGGLESTOH-But see. the anqle of the property. HR. CARVIN-Here's your property line. right here. MRS. EGGLESTON-What is this angle on? MR. CARVIN-That's his current driveway. That's where the driveway's going. This is their property line right here. So. I mean. if you slide it up into here. you could bring it almost all the way over there. MRS. EGGLESTON-What's the object of doing that? MR. CARVIH-Just to get it up out of the back yard here. MR. TURNER-What are your cars. wbat size? MR. FINMECY-Pour door. MR. TURHER-Four door what? One's a Continental. right? What's the other car? MR. PIHHECY-A Hissan Ultima. HR. TURHER-I didn't see that one. I saw the Continental. MRS. EGGLESTOH-I know I looked to see if it would obstruct any views. I didn't feel it. it wouldn't because there's water over here and water over here. and it sets down in. So it wouldn't obstruct any views. I didn't feel. if the garage were there. MR. CARVIH-I sympathize with Warren County. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Actually. he doesn't have a lot of options of where to put it. to be truthful. MR. CARVIH-I know. when I looked at it. I thought the same thing as Warren County. HR. KARPELES-I thought it was pretty close to that bouse in back of there. MR. CARVIH-Yes. I did. too. MRS. FINHECY MRS. FINHECY-We qot a letter from that woman. HR. FIMHECY-I have a letter from her. which.· for the record. I'll give it to you. but I just got it a couple of days aqo. I'll read it to you. It's from Mrs.. from Mary A. Samler. I think you see it's really her property. "To Whom It May Concern. I live on Cleverdale Road from May to October. right behind Jim Pinnecy. and in Clifton Park the rest of the year. I will be unable to attend the public hearing on Wednesday. October 20th. However. I have no objection to Jim Pinnecy building a new garage. He is a good neighbor and needs a garage. as he lives in Cleverdale all year round. Sincerely. Mary Samler P.O. Box 1073 Clifton Park" MRS. EGGLESTOH-Would you know what the. you don't have the dimension on here of the garaqe from the rear lot line. What do you think that would be? MR. THOMAS-It's on there. - 55 - MRS. EGGLESTOH-Where is it? Up on the top part. Okay. I was thinking that went with the other property. something to do with them. Okay. MR. CARVIN-Yes. 2.6 and two and a half on the other. MRS. EGGLESTOM-Two and a half feet. MR. FIMMECY-If I move it forward much. I'm not sure any. depending upon the size. I run into the 10 foot variance from the deck. MR. TURNER-I'm not so concerned about the deck as I am the house. Could you bring it forward? I'd rather give you a little bit more relief there and bring it away from that rear line. MR. fIHHECY-Well. I don't know how much more forward I could bring it. I've already had a conversation with Mr. Lockwood. He has a very large hedge that runs the length of his property. He keeps it very neatly trim.ed. Mrs. Samler put up a fence recently across her back yard. She put a gate in for Mr. Lockwood to come through the gate with his ladder onto my property so he can trim his hedge. which is fine with me. I think that's fine. I said that I would leave. he asked for. and I said I would give hi. five feet from. to allow him to bring his ladder through her gate onto my property to tria his hedge. MR. TURNER-The dimension fro. the deck to the garage? MR. FIHHECY-That's on here. MR. TURNER-Ten feet off. no. you've got 13 feet from the house. MR. FIHHECY-Yes. but there's another dimension from the corner of the deck to the. MR. TURHER-To the property line. MR. FIHNECY-It's kind of a hard one to get to. MR. TURHER-I didn't see where you had it. MRS. EGGLESTOH-I can't see where be bas that many options. actually. and you need a garage in this kind of weather. MR. CARVIH-I looked at soae of the others out there. I didn't see that many garages. MRS. EGGLESTOR-Maybe tbey don't live there year round. How long have you owned this property? MR. fIHHECY-five years. but I've only lived here full time. now going through the second winter. After the first one I decided I needed a garage. MR. TURHER-After last year. MRS. EGGLESTOK-Yes. They're not all like that. hopefully. HR. FIHHECY-I think every house out there that is lived in all year round has a garage. I don't know of any that don't. MRS. FIHHECY-And we have looked for a garage even to rent. and there hasn't been any available. MR. THOMAS-Is that just a one story garage. or is it going to be a two story? HR. FINNECY-It's going to be a. MR. TURHER-Even if the deck is there. he could come forward another - 56 - three feet. and increase the setback on the rear lot line. maybe straighten that garage up just a little bit on the side lot line. MR. FIHHECY-The reason it's candid like that is to line up with the house. because the lots and the direction of the house are. MR. MARTIH-Aesthetically. I'd say. yes. it would be better to line up to line up with the houses. MRS. EGGLESTOH-And what did you say to Chris's question about? MR. FIHHECY-I didn't get a chance to answer that. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Okay. Will you do that now? MR. FIHHECY-It's going to be some storage area in the second. MR. THOMAS-Is it going to be a full second floor. or just where the roof comes up? MR. lIHHECY-Where the roof comes UP. not a full. MR. THOMAS-Because I see they're building one across the street there. MR. FIHNECY-Hot like that. MR. THOMAS-Hot like that? MR. FIHHECY-They walk up. down. This is going to have a little pull HRS. EGGLESTOH-I was wondering about that one. Is that in compliance. Chris? Wouldn't that need a variance. that garage they're building across the street? It sits right on the road almost. HR. THOMAS-It looks like it to me. but I see a building permit hanging there. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Was there one there? MR. THOMAS-Yes. It's over in the other driveway there. MRS. EGGLESTOH-They were quick to shoo me away. They didn't want me to see it. Well. if these people have to comply with certain things. so do the people across the street. I can't see where he can do much with this. MR. TURHER-My thought was. bring it up where the corner of the house is there. MRS. EGGLESTOH-But is it still going to leave the room for the guy to do his hedge thing in here? MR. TURHER-It'll leave hi. a lot of room. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Yes. because as this comes forward. it's going to come closer to the line. MR. FIHHECY-I believe it will be five feet. MRS. EGGLESTOH-If you move it forward? MR. FIHHECY-Well. it'll be. I can move it forward. five feet right now. It's almost MR. TURHER-Yes. MR. lIHHECY-So I'm going to give him what he needs. It may not - 57 - meet the 10 feet from the deck. but I'll give him his five feet. I own that. and I will give it to him. unless there's a major objection to that. but I'm really concerned. shocked about the too many structures. A house and a garage, and particularly a garage that replaces the shed. can't. in my humble opinion. be too many structures on the lot. particularly when all the full time residents in that area have a garage and a house. and almost every one of them is a detached garage. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Well. don't be shocked. because the Warren County Planning Board does crazy things sometimes. HR. MARTIH-What did they say? MRS. EGGLESTOH-"Based on concern for density issues. The proposed garage is considerably larger in scale than the existing shed. and too many large structures on one site." So I wonder if they even looked at the right house. I don't know. MR. FINHECY-See. by their doing that. that imposes an additional problem on me. with the vote from the Board. which I've already heard one agreement with the County. MR. TURHER-We don't always agree with them. Sometimes we do. but we don't always agree with them. MR. FIHNECY-But reason. Let me ask this. is it reasonable to say that a house and a garage on a property is. particularly when I'm replacing the shed? MR. CARVIH-It' s going to be unsightly. That's my own personal feeling. I mean. I think. when I drove out there. I looked at that. and I saw the shed. I saw the corner. and I tried to visualize it. almost a structure that's three times as large in that back corner. and I wrote down here. too large. and as I said. I was not prejudiced by Warren County notes. because I didn't get those until last night. and. I mean. I read the Warren County notes. and they pretty much stated what I felt. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think you're erroneous to think that they go out and look at these things. I would tend to guess that the Staff doesn't go out and look at these things. let alone. They've got members on that Board that come from Chestertown. and I can't fathom why somebody from Chestertown is bothered by this gentleman wanting to put a garage in his back yard. MR. CARVIH-'l'hen it's just a unique coincidence that I. who did visit that site. felt the same way. MRS. EGGLESTON-But let me say this. Now we had some little places up off Sherman Avenue. Ted. where every house in there needed a variance to have a garage. even though they were right tight to the house and the people on the Board felt you're entitled to a garage. So where else is this man going to put a garage? MR. 'l'URNER-I don't say that he can't have a garage. MR. CARVIH-Yes. I'm not saying that either. I mean. I'm not sure a 24 x 24. I realize it's a two car. but. I mean. that's why I'm. I'm not being argumentative. here. I'm just looking for alternatives. MRS. EGGLESTOH-So. I asked you. would moving it forward be an acceptable. MR. FIHHECY-May I make another comment? MR. 'l'URHER-Yes. go ahead. MR. FIHNBCY-I'm not. I bought the property in 1987. and I lived - 58 - -- elsewhere. A couple of years after I bought the property. I made an application to put. it was. when I bought it. a one bedroom residence. I made an application to put. MR. TURNER-Was it an old camp? MR. FINNECY-It's a residence. MR. TURHER-I know it is now. but was it a residence? MR. FIHHECY-It was a residence. It was winterized. Camp means a lot of things to a lot of people. I guess. It was a residence. and it was a camp. I made an application to put some more. two more rooms in it. and I don't know what Board it was that I made the application to. I wasn't living here at the time. and I was very naive in modus operandi of the Town and other things. I built five houses in a lot of different locations. and I never. never. ever had any problems in building. and I made this application. and the builder who was going to build it for me attended the meeting. and it was tabled. and then he attended the next meeting. and it was turned down. for some vague reason. It was kind of. I guess. we're in the boat. lets pull the ladders up. You guys. you can't do this. It met all the requirements. So I don't like to deal with lawyers. but I was advised that the only way you're going to get your addition if you want it is to hire a lawyer. Well. several thousand dollars later. it came back to another Board. I don't know which Board it was. but it went back to a Board. after the attorney that I hired. I was still not living here. talked to the Town Attorney. and they finally agreed. MR. MARTIH-What year was this? MR. FINHECY-I don't know. '89. '90. I don't know. I don't remember. and they finally said. yes. I guess if you would take us to court. we'd probably lose. so somehow or other they agreed then to give me an approval to build the addition. Well. a lot of things were happening at that time. So I tabled. I decided not to go ahead and do it. I retired from my job. after 37 long years. a little over a year ago. decided to move up here. and this reactivated the addition proposal. came before a Board last year. and I was given. because I modified slightly. the look. not what I was going to build the two rooms. and I got the approval to put the addition on. and a lot of pain. a lot of agony. a lot of concern. Now I'm back again with what ~ thought was a fairly simple zoning. admittedly. have to get a variance. but it seems fairly straightforward. I have two cars. I need a two car garage. and if you're going to have a garage on a lot that has a house on it. you have to have. you have to have two structures. I have no basement in the house. a crawl space. PUBLIC HEARI.G OPB.BD MRS. FIHHECY-Can I add something? MR. FIHNECY-This is my wife. MRS. FIHHECY-I'm sorry. Bob and I were just married in May. but before he retired. I live in Washington. D.C.. and am moving up here November 23rd full time. but before we got married. for a year or two. we looked allover the United States. We could have moved anywhere we wanted. and Bob had this property here. and we made the decision that we wanted to make our home here. and kind of make a contribution. whatever small our talents might be. to you people in this area. and to this community. and we're really sincere in that. but we have two cars. and we know the weather. I've never lived north of the Mason/Dixon Line. and this is going to be a real experience anyway. and we really would love to have a garage. and to your point. Mr. Carvin. I guess we're just selfish enough that we've taken a great deal of care to design this garage. because. candidly. we do need some storage space. and with the two of us. - 59 - now. living up here. and we don't have an attic. and we don't have a basement. So. I guess we appeal to you. There are no objections from our neighbors. and we are shocked by Warren County. but we think we've improved the property a great deal. and we plan to continue to try to improve. although Cleverdale is beautiful and it doesn't need it. but we'll do our part to try and make it as pretty as we can. MR. TURHER-Any further comment from anyone? PUBLIC HBARIRG CLOSBD MR. TURHER-Any further discussion? MRS. EGGLESTOH-Well. he's willing to move it up a little bit. if that would make you feel better. MR. CARVIH-Yes. but the neighborhood will change. and the garage will still be there. That's the problem. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. TURNER-The biggest concern I have is the size. I'm not begging the issue they shouldn't have a garage. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I don't want to begrudge anybody a garage. I've lived up here a number of years. and the winters do get brutal. I just don't know if we could move it forward. and. whether a 20 foot garage moved up would still be the. it would still be a two car garage. right? MRS. EGGLESTOH-With the storage space over the top. MR. CARVIH-With the storage space over the top. Move it up closer either to the house or even abut it to the house. I don't know. I mean. I put down two alternatives. I mean. I just don't throw folks out the door. I try to come up with some. as I said. I don't know if it's possible up here. or even behind here. In other words. to bring it up here. because I guess you've got. in here. probably a good 20 to 22 feet to the property line. MR. FINNECY-See. now you're taking the. you bring it up there. now the house that's there is completely shut off. MRS. EGGLESTON-There's no access to the side. MR. CARVIN-How about back here? In other words. you might lose the deck. but you'd gain the garage. In other words. you'd have your turn area coming in here. MR. FIHHECY-Well. you've got windows here. MR. CARVIN-See. I don't know what the measurements are. As I said. I just was looking for alternatives. because. and again. I don't want to be the devil's advocate. but. and I certainly. I don't know how much smaller you could make the garage and still make it a two car garage. I mean. 24 by 24 is a pretty good size garage. HR. FIHNECY-Adaittedly. that's pretty much the standard for a two car. The one across the street. is 26 by 28. I think most of the garages out there are that size. At least that's kind of where I came from. when I was doing that. MR. CARVIH-Well. okay. I guess. I don't know. MR. TURHER-Okay. Motion's in order. MR. CARVIH-Well. I think the Warren County's ClJoing to make it tough. We have to have five out of the seven. - 60 - MRS. EGGLESTON-There's only six of us. MR. CARVIN-Yes. but it's still five out of seven. MR. TURNER-Seven member Board. five out of seven. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Well. lets see. were we going to move it up a little bit. or leave it where it is? MR. CARVIH-Well. I'd like to resolve that question. I guess. MR. TURHER-I think there's two issues here. as far as I'm concerned. downsize the garage and move it up. MR. CARVIH-I'd be more comfortable with a downsized garage. and moved up. I mean. as it's proposed right now. I have a hard time with it. I'm not mincing any words. MISS HAUSER-I don't think it's out of character in the neighborhood to have a 24 by 24. MR. THOMAS-What's the standard. how wide is a standard parking space in this Town? What is it. 9 feet or 10 feet? MRS. CIPPERLY-Standard is 9 by 12. MR. MARTIN-Just reduced down from 10. It's 9. MR. THOMAS-Hine by twenty. MR. HARTIN-I will offer this. Inspiration Park has been trying to fit garages in out there. without having to come for a variance. because some of the houses. when the as built surveys came in. were not as envisioned. So Tom Hace had to really scramble the engineer to get 23 foot wide two car garages. and that's. you know. one double door. and no storage room in between cars that are along the side walls. MR. THOMAS-And that's only 23 foot? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. THOMAS-So you're talking another foot here. which is. this is only. what. 18. six feet wider than two parking spaces in a shopping mall. You've got to be able to get in and out of the car and stuff like that. So I don't think 24 is out of line. MRS. EGGLESTON-Neither do I. MR. THOMAS-Twenty feet. and you're talking two feet more than two standard parking places at the mall. you're going to have a difficult time getting in and out. especially if one's a Continental and the other one's a. I grant you it's a little smaller, but it's still a pretty big car. So. 24 by 24. I don't think is that far out of line. MRS. EGGLESTOH-I don't see where it could effect any views. and the neighbor in back doesn't object. If we made a motion. should it be on moving it up? Then that changes what they need for setbacks. MRS. CIPPERLY-What would be accomplished by moving it forward five feet. other than? MR. TURNER-It just increases the setback from the rear. that's all. MRS. EGGLESTON-It wouldn't be so close to the line in back. That's the only thing it would accomplish. really. MR. THOMAS-And nobody cares about the line in the back. You've got two letters stating that they don't care that it's that close. - 61 - MRS. EGGLESTOH-Yes. MR. THOMAS-As long as the guy can get through the gate with his ladder. HRS. BGGLESTOH-Yes. I'll make a motion. Mr. Chairman. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE RO. 87-1993 JAMES R. FIRRECY. Introduced by Joyce Eggleston who moved for its adoption. seconded by Chris Thomas. This would grant relief from Section 179-16C in the amount of 17.36 feet for the rear setback. and 17.72 feet for the side setback. The Section of the Ordinance requires that the rear setback be 20 feet. and a minimum of 20 feet on a side yard setback. The practical difficulty is the size of the lot to begin with. and the location of the house on the premises. and because of the septic system location. there is really no other alternative place to put the garage. There is no neighborhood opposition to this project. and the applicant has certainly demonstrated his desires to cooperate with his neighbors. and also there would be no effect on public facilities or services. and would not have a detrimental impact on other properties in the district or neighborhood. This is also a request for minimum relief. Duly adopted this 20th day of October. 1993. by the following vote. AYES. Mrs. Eggleston. Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Turner HOES. Mr. Carvin' ABSENT. Mr. Philo MR. MARTIH-Did everybody get a chance to look at that letter we sent around. regarding Warren County review of items? Is everybody in agreement with that idea? MRS. EGGLESTOH-I thought it was great. MR. TURNBR-Some of it I was. some of it I wasn't. MRS. EGGLESTON-Just so long as the next time they want to put a cement plant within 500 feet of the Adirondack Horthway. it comes under scrutiny of the Warren County Planning Board. which it didn't the first time. MR. MARTIN-Is everybody in agreement with the idea of it? MRS. EGGLESTOH-The letter. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I think it's a good idea. MRS. EGGLESTON-Are you in agreement with the letter? MR. CARVIH-Pretty much so. MRS. EGGLESTON-I have a letter from our Chairman to read. it's to Dennis Philips to Paul Dusek. and it's regarding Lucas Wilson Variance application. I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated September 24th. 1993. concerning the above referenced matter. I have some difficulties with your underlying assumption that the issuance of a building permit is normally an administerial function. My research has indicated that the issuance of a building permit is a discretionary function. see Rock Camp Versus Young. 21 A.D. 2D 373 AFFD15NY2D831. In light of the foregoing. my research indicates that Ralph vs. Village of Faulkener. 62HY2D884 would have more of a bearing on this case than what might initially appear. Also. Rock Camp would appear to stand for the proposition that in the matter at hand there is no basis for liability or a - 62 - claim of damages against the town regardless of the Zoning Board's decision. Although it is unfortunate that a disagreement apparently exists among property owners in the area which is the subject of the variance application. it would seem that the Zoning Board must address the narrow issue of whether the record demonstrates adequate criteria for relief from the Zoning Ordinance by way of variance. Neither the Zoning Ordinance nor an inherent power of the Board would seem to require or even allow a determination as to who has what legal rights in the property. It would seem that the Board can only react to the information that it has. and that even if it should grant a variance. this is of course strictly the Board's decision and this is meant as a what if scenario. the rights obtained by Mr. Wilson would only be to the extent that he need not comply with a particular Section of the Ordinance to the extent of his variance. Whatever other authorization he might need from neighbors or even other governmental agencies would not seem to be something that the Zoning Board should be concerned with." It's from Paul Dusek to Dennis Philips. HR. MARTIN-He's going to be in attendance next Wednesday. MR. TURHER-I think this is in reference to the issue over the Town Law said we'd be liable if we didn't. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Yes. where he said we could be liable. MR. CARVIH-I think we should have a get together with Paul Dusek before we have that meeting. anyway. just to find out what our legal grounds are. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Doesn't he tell you in that letter? MR. TURNER-Yes. he does. MRS. EGGLESTOH-He just says address the issues given. MR. MARTIN-To get together as a Board. you've got to advertise the meeting. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Yes. We're going to do minutes next time. you guys? MR. TURHER-Yes. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Okay. relate? Do you have any news for us you want to MR. MARTIH-I checked on the trailers. The one of them's gone. MRS. EGGLESTON-When? MR. MARTIH-It's gone. MRS. EGGLESTON-It was there only a few days ago. MR. MARTIN-It's gone. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Okay. MR. CARVIN-How about the garage issue? MR. MARTIH-I looked up that. The Daniels garage. the variance request only was for the size of the garage. It was never for the number. two garages on the site as opposed to one or anything like that. There was never a discussion of there being two garages there being the issue. There was the size. and then it came up as the deed restriction. That was it. MR. TURHER-There was an issue about the two garages. - 63 - MRS. EGGLESTON-What does that have to do with the time of day anyway? MR. HARTIH-I'. not so sure. based on what I've seen in past building permits. and there's numerous ones. that it's ever been an interpretation of anybody that a private garage. as in singular meaning only one per lot. MR. TURHER-What else does it mean? MR. MARTIH-I don't think that's the way it's been interpreted. MR. TURNER-It doesn't have to be interpreted. It says garage. That's singular. Just one. It doesn't say garages. It says garage. MR. MARTIN-That's pretty stiff. MR. TURHER-No. that's not stiff. MR. MARTIN-In Rural Residential. Ted. with three acres. you're going to say one accessory building? MR. TURHER-No. They can have a 900 square foot garage. MR. MARTIH-Yes. but you're saying barns. then. and everything? MR. TURNER-I'm not saying a barn. A barn is not a garage. A barn is a barn. MR. MARTIH-I'm telling you. I could see in SR-1A or something like that. but Rural Residential says the same thing. private garage. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Singular. MR. TURHER-Singular. MRS. EGGLESTON-A private garage. MRS. CIPPERLY-So if somebody has four vehicles. like two cars and two trucks. they should build. MR. TURHER-They can build a garage up to 900 square feet. MR. MARTIH-The other question I've got. just so I'm sure. like somebody has a two story garage. like a gambrow roof. like a barn? MR. TURHER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-You're going to calculate both stories in the square footage. it's not just the foot print? MR. TURNER-Why not? It's the same as a house. MRS. EGGLESTOH-I mean. you count the second floor in a house. MR. MARTIN-That's also not a way it's ever been interpreted in the past. I know that for a fact. MR. TURHER-Why. have you got a request for one? MR. MARTIN-I've seen the.. and I've seen them old files. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Well. maybe that accounts for why some people come in here and say. my neighbor got a permit for a garage over 940 square feet. and here I am to get one. MR. MARTIN-I'. just saying. as a practical matter. you guys are going to have a lot of meetings. You're going to have a lot of things on the agenda with those two interpretations. - 64 - MR. TURHER-Why? MR. MARTIN-A lot of people want two garages. and a lot of garages have come through with second stories on them. MR. TURNER-I still say it says in there garage. MR. MARTIH-You determine. If that's the interpretation. MR. TURHER-When we did the Ordinance over. we never said. when we did the Ordinance over. we knew that there was going to be requests for larger garages. because a lot of people had three cars. So we said. okay. lets increase the size of the garage that they can have. square footage. 900 square feet. We didn't discuss anything about two garages. MR. MARTIN-I mean. if that's the case. then. we've got to go ask Mr. Daniels to tear his garage down. HR. CARVIH-I don't think he has to tear it down. We could grant a variance on that. but he has to get the covenants changed. I mean. there is a solution to Daniels. I mean. that's up to the Board if they want to say to him. tear down the garage. See. his problem is that it's in the covenants that he can't have that. MR. MARTIN-I agree with that. That's plainly there. MR. CARVIN-So if he wants to apply for a variance and comes in and presents 51 percent of the neighbors out there said it's fine for him to have a 27 car garage. I mean. what's the Board going to do? MR. TURNER-Well. you're going to set an awful precedent when you start letting them have garages that are not garages anymore. that become. MR. MARTIH-It's a civil matter. MR. CARVIH-Technically . it's a civil matter. The homeowners association. if there is one. normally takes the offender. MR. MARTIN-That's why. you know. sharpey attorneys. they stand up there and say. well. we've got covenants and restrictions that. it happens more with the Planning Board than with this Board. as a solution to a problem. As a practical matter. they're really not very effective. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Well. it seems every time we get a new zoning director. they have a different version of the rules. So we played by one rules for one set of people. then the next few years we play wi th another set of rules for those people. then the next five years we'll do it with somebody different. I hope you stay on this job for 40 years. MR. MARTIH-I'm just reporting to you what I see as an historical accounting of. in this case. garage. I haven't seen that many of them. to be quite honest. MR. TURNER-It's not position to interpret the Ordinance. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Have you seen any? Have you seen any. given permits for them. that you know of? MR. MARTIN-I can't think of any. no. but I've come across them in older building permit files. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Yes. That's why people are in here complaining to us. They would want a four car garage or an additional garage. and they'd say. my neighbor's already got one, and he didn't even ask. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say. we had a whole slew of them at one time. with all these antique car guys. - 65 - MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. MR. MARTIH-Yes. Batiste and all those. MRS. EGGLESTOH-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And we knocked out three quarters of them. Then they'd go out and build them anyway. MRS. EGGLESTOH-They had one guy came in with pictures of where they had allowed a four car garage. and it was more than the 900 square feet. over in lox Hollow. I believe it was Noble. and the guy had gotten a permit for it. and then the guy came back for a variance. MR. TURHER-Because Pat gave the guy the permit for the garage. with no variance. MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. That's when they came out with that. where you could call it a storage shed. MR. TURNER-That's the problem right there. There's one of the problems right there. In the duties of your job it says you cannot interpret the Ordinance. right in there. and that's the argument we had with her over here interpretation of the Ordinance. If it says in there. in black and white. it says garage. one garage. that's what it means. one garage. MRS. EGGLESTOH-If you did it for everybody. I could understand it. but it seemed like we got some. and some didn't. That's what made it so hard to deal with. Some people they gave a permit to. but others they'd say. no. yçu've got to get a variance. So. it was difficult. HISS HAUSER-That's why people get upset. HR. TURHER-Absolutely. and I don't blame them for getting upset. but what she's saying is right. What's good for one is good for the other. MR. MARTIN-I have no problem with that. administerial. My job's easy. I'm MRS. EGGLESTON-Did you look at the fences on Corinth Road? MR. MARTIN-Ho. not yet. Monday night. MR. TURHER-It's passed already. right on the property line. in the front yard? Changes to the Fence Ordinance passed MR. HARTIN-Not in the front yard. but. on the property line. MRS. EGGLESTON-How about on a corner? MR. MARTIH-On a corner. HR. TURNER-They can come out to their property line? MR. MARTIN-I'll get you copies of it. MR. TURNER-They can come right out to their property line on the front yard. put the fence right there? MR. MARTIN-In the one front yard. Hot in the architectural front yard. Now it defines an architectural front yard. MR. TURHER-The liability's the same. The liability's the same. if that's a 50 foot road. If the Town widens that road and then all of a sudden they start plowing. and that snow hits that fence and knocks that fence down. the Town is liable. That's why I'm saying - 66 - '- --- put it back five feet. so it gives tbe guy a cbance to work around it. On motion aeeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Theodore Turner. Chair.an - 67 -