Loading...
1994-01-19 O~~'G'N¡\l QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 19TH. 1994 INDEX Use Variance No. 2-1994 Charles E. & Barbara D. Seeley 1. Area Variance No. 52-1993 Ann C. & Erwin H. Johnson 1. Area Variance No. 1-1994 Richard D. Schermerhorn 10. Area Variance No. 4-1994 Brian Granger 20. Area Variance No. 110-1993 Robert S. Dawson 20. Discussion on rehearing 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 JANUARY 19TH. 1994 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER. CHAIRMAN LINDA HAUSER FRED CARVIN CHRIS THOMAS DAVID MENTER ROBERT KARPELES EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TURNER-Before we get started. for anybody who's here on the application of Use Variance No. 2-1994. Charles and Barbara Seeley. that's off the agenda. That had to go to the Warren County Planning Board. and it hasn't been submitted. and I'm taking the application off of the agenda until it's so submitted. MOTION THAT USE VARIANCE NO. 2-1994 CHARLES E. & BARBARA D. SEELEY IS OFF THE AGENDA. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: It had to go to Warren County Planning Board. and it hasn't been submitted. Taken off by the Chairman until it's so submitted. Duly adopted this 19th day of January. 1994. by the following vote: MR. CARVIN-Is this a move to table? MR. TURNER-No. Warren County. It's got to be re-advertised. It didn't go. It's got to go to AYES: Mr. Menter. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-1993 TYPE I WR-1A ANN C. & ERWIN H. JOHNSON OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE HANNEFORD ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND AN ATTACHED GARAGE ON A VACANT LOT. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWENTY-TWO HUNDREDTHS (.22) ACRE FOR THE LOT AREA AND ONE HUNDRED (100) FEET AS THE LOT WIDTH AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF SEVENTY-EIGHT HUNDREDTHS (.78) ACRE AND FIFTY (50) FEET RESPECTIVELY FROM SECTION 179-16C. WHICH REQUIRES ONE (1) ACRE AS THE MINIMUM LOT AREA AND ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY (150) FEET AS THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IN THE WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL 1 ACRE ZONE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) DATE: 7/14/93 TAX MAP NUMBER: 19-1-57.4 LOT SIZE: 0.22 ACRES SECTION 179-16C SEQRA BY PLANNING BOARD: 9/28/93 ERWIN JOHNSON. PRESENT MR. MARTIN-It should be noted. Ted. on this particular application. the change in the Ordinance now. it's a conforming lot. It has its preexisting status. MR. TURNER-Okay. The request for the study that we wanted was done by Tom Yarmowich. and we have a letter from him. Do you want to read it. read his comments related to the application. - 1 - MISS HAUSER-Okay. It says. "Dear Mr. Martin: The Area Variance application and the applicant's 8/20/93 Site Map has been reviewed. We have the following comments: 1. Sewage holding tanks are not permitted for new permanent uses (136-11A). A variance from the local Board of Health would be required. 2. The proposed driveway must not be raised to the extent that it could act as a dam which could divert surface water over Hanneford Road should the proposed 15" culvert become plugged. 3. Drainage from the proposed building roof should be managed to prevent increased runoff. 4. Because the lot is an undersized lot located in a designated Cri tica.1 Environmental Area. and the lot serves as an existing drainageway. any development should be thoughtfully planned and monitored during construction. Residential development considerations in this instance include drainage. sewage disposal. water supply. stormwater management and grading. Very truly yours. RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES. P.C. Thomas M. Yarmowich. P.E. Managing Project Engineer" MR. TURNER-There's another letter in the file. objecting to this. from a neighbor across the street. There's a letter from a neighbor across the street that's against the variance. MISS HAUSER-Okay. This is a letter dated August 4. 1993. MR. TURNER-I'm not sure it's in the record. but we'll read it again anyway. MISS HAUSER-Okay. It's to the "Town of Queensbury Planning Board Members: 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 insure 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 CONCERNED AS THIS STREAM GOES DIRECTLY UNDER OUR DWELLING!! In filing the application for an area variance. the Johnson's sketch shows in the upper right hand corner. "Spring Run-off". Their application also includes a "Full Environmental Assessment Form" on which question #15. page 3. asks. "Streams within or contiguous to project area" and the question was answered NO. In connecting the map of the Lake George Quadrangle. New York 7.5 Minute Series with the map of the Putnam Mountain Quadrangle. New York 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. includinq buildinq lots in Washinqton County and much of the vacant land abutting and to the North 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 water-------not just for this proposal. but in order to help develop other vacant property in the area thus increasing the town's 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. Kingston. New York." This is from Erwin & Ann Johnson. to James Martin. - 2 - Susan Cipperly. Ted Turner. and all Board members "We are writing in regards to our area variance application in hope of a full approval by the Board so that we can go on with our long delayed project. We started the process to use this lot in 1989 with an Adirondack Park Agency Jurisdiction Determination (See file letter dated July 13. 1989). Listed below are the facts that we would like all concerned to be aware of: Fact 1: After three (3) unsuccessful attempts to sell this lot. each party forfeited their down payment because they told us they did not want to go through the variance procedures with the Town of Queensbury. We then decided to apply for a variance and build ourselves. after we received the letter from the Town of Queensbury dated March 26. 1992(See attached). Fact 2: Warren County Planning Board approved this project this year with the use of holding tanks only. Fact 3: Negative declaration for SEQRA Review was received. Fact 4: During 1993 we received a notice that our assessment for Hanneford Road Lot was increased from $13.500 to $15.100. A second notice was received increasing the assessment from $15.100 to $20.000(Copies enclosed). Do you agree that this property is of no value if it cannot be built on? Perhaps the Town of Queensbury would like to purchase this property. Fact 5: A letter. read at the October 20. 1993 meeting. from one Edith Rooney. was very misleading. We owned this property from 1962 to 1969. We sold to John VanZandt in 1969. A fire destroyed the residence. Mr. VanZandt rebuilt the residence and also added a two car garage. Please note that extensive filling was done on that property by adding the garage and increasing the driveway size. Also. the residence was built on rock ledge and only has a very small usable basement on the lake side. not a full basement. Flooding was always possible any springtime or thaw. We had to use salt to keep open the cuI verts on this property during some winters. Please note that we are not changing the 12 inch culvert pipe under Hanneford Road. Therefore. there will be no increase in the volume of water flow on the Rooney property. Fact 6: The letter from Frances Koenig sounds like he never knew about the springtime stream. He said "I am concerned as this stream goes directly under our dwelling." This dwelling was built over the stream many years ago. Again. keep in mind we are not changing the size of the 12 inch culvert pipe going under Hanneford Road nor the pipe going under the Rooney's driveway. Therefore. there will be no change of volume of water flowing through these properties. Fact 7: On January 7. 1994 we received a FAX from the planning office containing a letter from Tom Yarmowich of Rist-Frost dated December 13. 1993. On the same day we received the FAX. I had a phone conversation with Mr. Yarmowich on each of the four points he made and here is our answer to each point: 1) We are waiting for necessary forms from the planning office to apply for the holding tanks. 2) Proposed driveway will not extend higher than Hanneford Road to divert any surface water over Hanneford Road should the culvert pipe become blocked. 3) Drainage from the roof will be guttered and directed into tanks for seepage. 4) This proj ect will take all areas in question with careful planning and moni toring. because we are good caretakers of our properties. Thank-you for your time and consideration. Sincerely. Erwin H. Johnson Ann C. Johnson" MR. TURNER-Since this application has been in limbo for quite a while. I'll open the public hearing for anyone that wishes to be heard in support of the application. or opposed to the application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. TURNER-Do you have any concern with Mr. Yarmowich's Number Four statement? MR. JOHNSON-After my discussion with him. no. I don't. MR. CARVIN-Will this be a full-time residence for you. or will this be a summer? - 3 - MR. JOHNSON-This will be a full-time. MR. CARVIN-It will be a full-time residence? MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MR. TURNER-You'll have to go to the Board of Health. which is the Town Board. if this gets approved. for the. MR. JOHNSON-That's right. submit it. I have the application. and I will MR. TURNER-Okay. Anything else? MR. CARVIN-Well. I guess the staff notes have just got me kind of wondering. here. Concerns have been expressed by the neighboring land owners with regards to the water management. according to a December 13. letter from the Town project engineering. This should not be a problem. and I think this is the part that it's contingent upon. is if the driveway is designed properly and the drainage resulting from the new structure is managed. that the construction be carefully planned and monitored. and I guess that's where I'm having a hard time with this. If you're wrong. what are you going to do? Do you come back and tell them to tear the house down. or move out? As I said. suppose it's not carefully monitored? Because we're in a very touchy area right there. MR. TURNER-Yes. well. if it's not. then it becomes a legal problem. MR. CARVIN-Who's legal problem. I guess? MR. TURNER-Theirs. and they turn around and maybe come after us. or the Town. There were some concerns that. questions there that weren't answered last time. MR. CARVIN-Well. I mean. I think there still is some concern there. Just looking at the property. you can tell. Of course this winter is going to be a qreat test. MR. TURNER-The spring will be a great test for it. MR. JOHNSON-I'm not new to that area. there. I've spent seven winters MR. TURNER-I know. MR. JOHNSON-I see it as there's no problem there. myself. after living there. It's hard to believe that people have addressed this issue and see it as a problem. As I see it right here. they're very misleading in what they've said. The Rooney letter and the Koenig letter. they're both misleading. We're not changing that culvert pipe going underneath the road. It's still 12 inch. The water is still going to flow down through that property line. It's very flat. It's not going to change the flow of that water one iota. MR. TURNER-I think the biggest concern. the last time. was the ponding back up in the property. That was a concern. MR. JOHNSON-That's allowed for in my plans. as to where the areas. and there'll still be holding there. I mean. even the assessment on that property. $13.500 to $20.000 in one year. I thought that was kind of. MR. TURNER-Did you grieve it? MR. JOHNSON-No. Because I wasn't building. MR. CARVIN-Unfortunately. I think everybody's property. vacant lot - 4 - assessments went way show you my scars. valuation. at least down $48. up. I have a couple of vacant lots. and I can too. Except that it looks like your tax according to the material you gave us. went MR. TURNER-Yes. it did. You're right. Total taxes would be approximately $176. estimated net decrease $48. MR. CARVIN-Does this have to go to Lake George? MR. TURNER-APA? No. MR. JOHNSON-No. Association. ~here's no involvement in the Lake George Park MR. CARVIN-No. I mean APA. MR. JOHNSON-And the APA has already made a determination. in 1989. The jurisdictional determination. come back to the Town of Queensbury. and the Lake George Park Commission is not involved. MR. TURNER-No. They're not involved. MR. TURNER-Jim. is this going to go to the APA? MR. MARTIN-Yes. It has to. MR. TURNER-I thought so. Any application up there goes to the APA. So. if it goes to them. they have 30 days to review it. They might well turn it down. based on some of the information that's here. If we don't have our facts right. it might go anyway. MR. CARVIN-Jim. because you're going to be the one that's moni toring this. I guess. have you got any suggestions here? Because all the staff notes say it just has to be monitored real close, but it doesn't say anything specific. MR. MARTIN-I'd like to see. in these cases. to the extent possible, that gutters be installed on the house. and to the extent that the runoff from the roof and things can be managed on site it should be. If this were to go to site plan. that would be a requirement. that stormwater created on site is retained on site. and it's an option of the Board. too, that you could make this go to site plan if you wanted. but that's your option. MR. TURNER-Yes. I think it ought to. MR. CARVIN-I still have a couple of hurdles. He's got to get by APA. and he's got to get. at least approval. I don't think we can pass anything here without being contingent upon the holding tanks. right? So he's still got to get approval for that. MR. MARTIN-Right. That's a given. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-The effect of our monitoring of any conditions placed on the application for this to be built in a particular way would be followed up through the building inspection process. MR. TURNER-Do you want to move it or? MR. CARVIN-The fifty feet doesn't bother me. but it's just all the rest of it, right where it is. MR. TURNER-Well. I think the thing to do is, if you feel comfortable with passing it. is incorporate the holding tank issue. the driveway issue. the drainage from the roof, and make it go to site plan. - 5 - MR. CARVIN-It is a Critical Environmental Area. MR. TURNER-It is. and with the history of the lot being a drainageway. MR. CARVIN-It's definitely a drainageway. MR. TURNER-It even imposes more of a hardship on the lot. So I think it ought to at least go through those hurdles there anyway. if you feel comfortable with it. MR. CARVIN-Well. like I said. I just am afraid that if there isn't some kind of site plan or overview on this. that suppose it's built wrong or you've got some big dam up there? MR. TURNER-That's right. MR. CARVIN-It may not go over the road. but it'll end up in your house. one way or the other. It's got to go some place. MISS HAUSER-I was wondering. in this letter from one of his neighbors. where they said that. in the Full Environmental Assessment Form. where he answered no. if there is a stream present. if that would effect their. you know. they gave us a negative declaration. Would his answering that Question 15 No. then influence the results of that? MR. MENTER-You mean. would that change the negative declaration? Possibly. MISS HAUSER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I've got just the Short Form. Form. I never saw the Long MR. TURNER-We've got it right here. Which one were you referring to. Item 15. Page 3? MISS HAUSER-Yes. MR. TURNER-Yes. He answered it no. It's not a designated stream on any of the maps. I wouldn't think. MR. CARVIN-I think that's what the letter was referring to. that it was a designated. MR. TURNER-It is. isn't it? MR. CARVIN-It indicates a stream. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KARPELES-What are you saying. there's some wrong information? MR. TURNER-Yes. on the Long EAF. There's an answer. No. when there should have been. yes. MISS HAUSER-I know the APA recognizes intermittent streams. MR. TURNER-Yes. MISS HAUSER-I think it will make a difference to them. MR. TURNER-Yes. Jim. he's got on here. Question 15. Page 3 on his Long Form. he's got. streams within or contiguous to the project area. and he's got none. He's got no. actually. but there is a stream there. intermittent stream. MR. MARTIN-Well. I know the Planning Board visited the site. prior to their going through the Assessment Form. - 6 - MR. JOHNSON-The stream comes down through Shultz's property. and runs out the old Charlie Ward's property. MR. TURNER-That's the one that comes down by Charlie Ward's. MR. JOHNSON-Yes. It does run down through there. MR. CARVIN-It looks like wetlands through here. on the one side. but that's on the lower side. This is where Di Palma lives. This is up in here. I just don't know if they did their homework on this. MR. TURNER-I don't think they did either. MR. CARVIN-He is going to be moving some trees. They answered no. MR. TURNER-There's the culvert pipe right there. MR. CARVIN-What do ~ think. Bob? I'd say that the Long Form is. I think we brought that out before. that we're not really happy with that assessment. MR. TURNER-We did. Jim. on a couple of pages here where the Planning Board did their part. on the Long Form. they've got. will the proposed action alter flow or patterns or surface water runoff. and they marked yes. and they don't have any comment. other than that. then over on the next page. under other impacts. they've got small to moderate. they checked that off. but they don't indicate anything. This is the problem we had with this thing before. We said they didn't do their homework. They just went down through and. bing. bing. bing. MR. MARTIN-I can't speak for the Board. MR. TURNER-Then they've got construction on land where the depth to water table is less than three feet. and they marked small to moderate impact. Lets move it. one way or the other. Do you feel comfortable with this right here? They're already taking that up there. They've got the papers for that. They've already indicated the driveway. MR. CARVIN-Yes. but you're saying the height. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. TURNER-Drainage from the roof will be guttered and directed into the tanks for seepage. and the project will take all the areas into question with careful planning and monitoring. because we are good caretakers of our property. MR. CARVIN-Again. I guess that's what I have a problem. Suppose we're wrong. Suppose we're wrong. I mean. what is careful moni toring? That's the part that I have the hard time with. because the lot is an undersized lot. located in designated Critical Environmental Area. The lot serves as an existing drainageway. Any development should be thoughtfully planned. which I don't think the Planning Board has given much thought to the environmental. and monitored during the construction. MR. KARPELES-I agree. MR. MENTER-Well. it just seems like monitoring is less important than planning. I haven't had a map of the property. and I haven't seen the property. from the sound of it. planning is the key here. Whatever can be incorporated has to be. MR. THOMAS-I'll go along with Dave. but as far as the applicant - 7 - saying that if he can keep the driveway at or below Hanneford Road, so that the water doesn't run over the driveway into the road, if that culvert does block, I mean, you've got to give the guy the benefit of the doubt here. I mean, he's trying to do his best. He's bent over backwards for us, and I think he's addressed all of our concerns. Just because it says on the Long Form that there was a stream yes or no, and he marked no, and it's yes, and it's an intermittent stream, really. It's not a "full-time" stream. MR. TURNER-That might be one heck of an intermittent stream come spring time this year. MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, but in the last few years, though, it's probably dryas a bone in the spring. MR. TURNER-What did it do last year? MR. JOHNSON-Go up there in July, you'll find out there's no water there. MR. TURNER-I know. MR. THOMAS-But I think Mr. Johnson has, like I said, bent backwards to try and comply to everything we've asked for, would give the guy the benefit of the doubt, and let him go it. over so I with MS. CIPPERLY-One additional comment that Mr. Yarmowich made to me on the phone was that, conceivably, with this culvert under the driveway, in the winter, could freeze and actually release the water in a slower fashion, so it might actually work out pretty well. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but what's the height? What are we talking? In other words, it's not so much the culvert. Lets say the culvert gets plugged, all right. How much water are we talking it will pull before it does run over the road? MS. CIPPERLY-It would run over his driveway before it would run over the road. That's why he was concerned about having the driveway lower than the road. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but by how much, one foot, six inches, two feet? MR. JOHNSON-It's about a foot below Hanneford Road. MR. CARVIN-About a foot. Has it ever been blocked down at this existing culvert pipe, do you know? MR. JOHNSON-I don't recall at any time when I was there. That always seeped through there and onto the property that the Rooney's own now, that I used to own, and I had a problem with that culvert on that property, in the winter time, and they really shortened that up in there. The whole driveway is a lot wider. They've also got a two car garage that's got water running off that roof there all the time, too. MR. CARVIN-See, because we're going to be building a dam right here, for all intents and purposes, because this is all going to be filled, right. He's got to bring this up. This is going to be on a slab. So you'll lose some of the permeability. I know this is all woods around it, but if it dams up, it's going to dam up right here, because this is going to be the smaller culvert. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I just don't have a problem with the 50 feet. I mean, that's, it's just that. MR. TURNER-Again, this is just me. I'm real uncomfortable looking - 8 - at building a dam right there, with this here. This is the area that I'm concerned with. How much tolerance are we going to have here, a foot? I've see the water down here at the Queensbury High School, in the parking lot there. I mean, they had a picture of a kid diving in it here the other day. So, I mean, a foot can be piled up pretty quick. MR. JOHNSON-Do you have the drawing of the setback on the house, 35 feet or 50 feet? MR. TURNER-Thirty feet. MR. CARVIN-I've got a couple of different maps here. MR. JOHNSON-That's been updated. That's one of the problems I've had all along. These things don't get passed along to everybody. The setback, after we reviewed the property up there, I changed the setback to 50 feet, because when it was 35, it was set more in the way of where that water was flowing. MR. TURNER-I know. Okay. MR. CARVIN-I've got one here from 50 feet, too, I guess, but it's not real clear. It's kind of a poor copy. MR. THOMAS-I've got a 50 foot setback. MR. TURNER-All right. He's moved it back 20 feet, then. MR. CARVIN-Again, that's all fill, and it's still the same principal. MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-Another aspect of this is if you required a site plan review of the construction, it would have to also go through the SEQRA process again, at that point. MR. CARVIN-We're going to want site plan, right, no matter what. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-It's just the careful monitoring. word that into a motion? I mean, how do you MR. TURNER-I don't think we can even word it in there. MR. CARVIN-I don't think you can, either. MR. TURNER-We're just going to grant them relief from lot width, and indicate the concerns that we have. I think what we ought to do is make it go to site plan, and make them, indicate to them what we want, include it in their review, drainage from the roof, be guttered, driveway will not extend higher than Hanneford Road. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-1993 ANN C. & ERWIN H. JOHNSON, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner: The applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-16C, which requires 150 feet lot width. The applicant is proposing a lot width of only 100 feet, seeking relief of 50 feet. However, this variance is contingent and subject to site plan review because this lot is an undersized lot, located in a designated Critical Environmental Area, and any development on this lot should be thoughtfully planned and monitored during construction, with special considerations given to drainage, sewage disposal, water supply, stormwater management and grading. This motion is also contingent on the applicant seeking a variance allowing a sewage holding tank, which are not permitted in the Town of Queensbury for full time use. The practical difficulty is the lot size. There - 9 - are no other alternatives for the applicant without this variance. By subjecting this to site plan review. we hope to address some of the concerns that have been expressed the neighboring land owners. If proper planning is taken here. there should be no impact or effects on the neighborhood and community. There does not appear to be any impact on public facilities or services. Duly adopted this 19th day of January. 1994. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Menter. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-1994 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-1A RICHARD D. SCHERMERHORN OWNER: RICHARD E. MACDONALD CORNER OF MEADOWBROOK & CRONIN ROADS APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO SUBDIVIDE A FIVE AND SIXTY-THREE HUNDREDTHS (5.63) ACRE PARCEL IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE ZONE INTO EIGHT (8) LOTS. RANGING IN SIZE FROM THREE-TENTHS (.3) ACRE TO THREE AND THIRTY-TWO HUNDREDTHS (3.32) ACRES. PROPOSED LOT WIDTHS RANGE FROM EIGHTY-NINE AND NINETY-FIVE HUNDREDTHS (89.95) FEET TO EIGHT HUNDRED FEET. SECTION 179-20C REQUIRES LOT SIZE OF ONE (1) ACRE. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM SEVEN TENTHS (.7) TO FIFTY-SEVEN HUNDREDTHS (.57) ACRE FOR SEVEN (7) OF THE LOTS. SECTION 179-20C ALSO REQUIRES AVERAGE LOT WIDTHS OF ONE HUNDRED FIFTY (150) FEET. SECTION 179-30 REQUIRES DOUBLE THE AVERAGE LOT WIDTH FOR COLLECTOR ROADS. CRONIN AND MEADOWBROOK ROADS ARE COLLECTOR ROADS. SO REQUIRED LOT WIDTH IS THREE HUNDRED (300) FEET. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM ONE HUNDRED SIXTY- EIGHT (168) TO TWO HUNDRED TEN AND FIVE HUNDREDTHS (210.05) FEET AVERAGE LOT WIDTH FOR SEVEN OF THE LOTS. TAX HAP NUMBER: 60-2-7.1 LOT SIZE: 5.63 ACRES SECTION 179-20C. 179-30 MATT STEVES. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Note s from Staff. Area Variance No. 1-1994. Richard D. Schermerhorn. Meeting Date: January 19. 1994 "APPLICANT: Richard Schermerhorn PROJECT LOCATION: Meadowbrook Road and Cronin Road PROPOSED ACTION: Applicant proposes to create eight (8) lots. seven of which are .43 acres or less in size. and have widths ranging from 89.95 feet to 126 feet. The eighth lot is 3.32 acres in size. 800 feet in width. and encompasses a pond and DEC flagged wetland. In conversations with staff. the applicant has expressed a desire to utilize the 3.32 acre lot to meet the requirement of donating land to the Town for recreation purposes when creating a subdivision. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Section 179- 20C requires lot size of one (1) acre. Applicant seeks relief ranging from seven tenths (.7) acre to fifty-seven hundredths (.57) acre for seven (7) of the lots. Section 179-20C also requires average lot widths of one hundred fifty (150) feet. Section 179-30 requires double the average lot width for collector roads. Cronin and Meadowbrook Roads are collector roads. so required lot width is three hundred (300) feet. Applicant is seeking relief ranging from one hundred sixty-eight (168) to two hundred ten and five hundredths (210.05) feet average lot width for seven of the lots. PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY: The applicant proposes that cost effectiveness of smaller lots to match the small homes planned for the lots constitutes a practical difficulty. Site-related difficul ties include the fact that in order to meet the double requirements for lot width on a collector road. the applicant would need 1.500 feet of lot width even for the five one-acre lots allowed by Section 179-20C. The subject parcel does have 758 feet of road frontage. which would be adequate for lot widths in an SFR- 1A zone absent the collector road designation. It would be - 10 - difficult. because of the wetland. to access the proposed lots from the rear rather than Meadowbrook Road. ALTERNATIVES: It would be possible to create three lots with 150 feet of width along Meadowbrook. which would comply with SFR-1A zoning. and would increase the lot size to .5 acre. Proposed lots 1 and 2 could be combined and reduce the amount of relief required significantly. This would mean the addition of only one driveway instead of two on Cronin Road. where visibility. proximity to the intersection. and the curvature of the road would seem to dictate creation of as few curb cuts as possible. EFFECTS ON NEIGHBORHOOD/COMMUNITY OR PUBLIC SERVICES: Parcels of less than one acre are common in this area of Meadowbrook. due primarily to lots which preexist zoning. Frontages in the immediate vicinity of this lot range in size from 75 to 240 feet. A copy of the tax map is attached. The applicant claims that a greater number of lots would be of benefit to the sewer district. as it would mean more users. Concerns which could arise with the project as proposed are increased traffic and the number of new driveways accessing Cronin and Meadowbrook directly. PARCEL INFORMATION: Parcel 60-2-7.1 is 5.32 acres. and has always been zoned some form of residential classification. There is an adjoining lot. Parcel 60-2-7.3. which is under the same ownership. but is not a part of this proposal. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: It appears that the applicant is seeking considerable relief as regards lot size and lot width. It may be helpful to refer this application to the Planning Board for input on possible al ternati ves before attempting to make a decision on the relief requested." MR. STEVES-Good evening. As far as the discussion from Staff. as far as the Planning Board. we have been to the Planning Board with this before. I believe maybe a couple of people here were at that meeting. and that the proposal then was for multi-family units. and they have decided. as well as the neighboring landowners. that they would rather see some kind of residential subdivision. and that's what we are back here with now. and I do have comments from that meeting. which was. I believe. September 28th. 1993. and the staff comment says that a more appropriate rezoning would be Suburban Residential. somewhere around SR-15. These zones allow mul ti- family projects at a less dense level. At that time. we were looking for an MR-5 zone. which would allow us to put in multi- family dwelling units. MR. TURNER-A better proposal for that whole area is Single Family Residential. not SR. There is Single Family on the other side of the road. It's always been there. It was there from Day One. Behind that proposal there is 91 units. on the Golf Course. all right. and when you went with that one. you wanted 47 units. I think. MR. STEVES-Forty-six. forty-seven. correct. MR. TURNER-That's just too much density. There's no relief for the neighbors at all. MR. STEVES-Right. That's why at the Planning Board. which it went in front of before. and they had the same type of feeling. that they would rather see it come back as a residential subdivision. which we have. MR. TURNER-That's fine. but you're maximizing the whole thing. again. because you can put three units on that lot and still be legal. MR. STEVES-That's correct. I can put two lots. one on Meadowbrook Road and one on Cronin. MR. TURNER-Yes. and you're seeking substantial relief from every Section of the Ordinance. That's not minimum relief. MR. STEVES-Well. the feeling we had. we had told you. for economic - 11 - reasons that it's not beneficial for three lots. and to conform with the rest of the community in that area. which are smaller lots than we are proposing. and directly adjacent to our property. and that there was the feeling of the public. the adjoining landowners and of the Planning Board at that time. which I'm sure that there's some notes that reflect that. that we basically stated that with a subdivision of about seven to eight lots. would that be something they would be receptive to. and they all said yes. and it is definitely keeping in characteristic of the neighborhood. and that we would offer up Lot Eight as in lieu of recreation fees. and as far as any other concerns. there would be no septic. as you all know. because it's in the sewer district. Most of these would be smaller houses built on slabs. MR. TURNER-Seven houses aren't going to make a dent in the sewer district. I'll tell you that right now. MR. STEVES-Well. no houses is not making a dent in the sewer district either. sir. So. my client proposes to add some usage to the sewer district. What was the sewer district put in for. if it wasn't to accommodate the houses. MR. TURNER-That's fine. but. MR. MENTER-The question we need to answer is what was the zoning put in for. LEON STEVES MR. L. STEVES-This is true. but zoning has also been pressured by the development itself. which is pressured by the cost of the sewer lines put in there. and the assessment on each of the owners and fees as well. and sewer fees isn't something an owner can deduct from his taxes. but something he has to pay. and the Town itself has had a considerable amount of expense. which one of the Town Board members can attest to. His assessment over there on Glenwood Avenue is just ridiculous. and I think he told me once he's pay $7. øøø a year on fees for sewer. That puts an awful lot of pressure on an individual to develop. You can't let the land stand still. and then not do anything. MR. TURNER-Nobody's saying it's going to stand still. but you know you're asking for major. major relief on everything here. collector road. lot width. lot size. everything. MR. L. STEVES-As a concerned citizen across the street. are you going to excuse yourself from the voting tonight? MR. TURNER-No. I'm not. I don't have a nickel in the project. MR. L. STEVES-And you do have an interest. MR. TURNER-Only that you're going to develop. the criteria that you've submitted here as it relates to the Ordinance. period. all right. MR. KARPELES-Could you explain more why it's not cost effective to divide it up into three lots? MR. L. STEVES-How are you going to get three lots out of there? MR. KARPELES-I thought you said. somebody told us how we were going to get three lots. MR. TURNER-He can only get one on Meadowbrook. MR. L. STEVES-The Zoning Administrator said that we're going to have to have three hundred feet per lot. MR. M. STEVES-That's two lots. one on Meadowbrook and one on Cronin Road. - 12 - MR. L. STEVES-So we've got a two lot subdivision here. period. MR. KARPELES-Well. there would be more of a minimum variance to grant you relief from that. MR. CARVIN-For three lots. as opposed to eight. You've got one on Cronin Road and two on Meadowbrook. MR. KARPELES-You haven't answered my question. Assuming you could get three lots. MR. M. STEVES-Well. we met with. as I said. the proposed. we went into the Planning Board with the neighbors here. I believe Mr. Turner was involved at that meeting. as part of the neighboring landowners. MR. TURNER-Yes. against the apartments. MR. M. STEVES-Against the apartments. and correct me if I'm wrong. but I believe the consensus of opinion at that meeting. especially from the Planning Board. was to come back in with some kind of residential subdivision. Mike 0' Connor was here with us at the time. We agreed to do it. and we were talking some kind of numbers at that time. and everybody. including the neighbors. were very receptive to seven to eight lots at that time. and now I come back in with seven to eight lots. as I was asked to do. which has cost my client money to do this. and then you ask for. how is it going to be cost effective. He's already spent considerable amount of money to do this. MR. KARPELES-Well. you've got a statement in here. it says. describe the practical difficulty which does not allow placement of a structure which meets the zoning requirements. It is not cost effective for small homes with no basements on large lots. That doesn't make any sense to me. Can you explain it? MR. M. STEVES-If you cut it into two lots. as the cost of the property to develop. and to go through the planning process and pay the fees and so on and so on. and to put up a little tiny 25. around 1500 square foot home. maximum. and then have to get recoup costs. you'd have to sell them for $200.000. RICHARD SCHERMERHORN MR. SCHERMERHORN-And the people are also required to get flood insurance. because we are in the 100 year flood zone. and I know from experience with my Meadowbrook apartments. flood insurance is very expensive. and even though we put the floor height above floodplain elevations. anybody that gets a mortgage through a bank. as most people do. they have to have it. That's another expense. and so that's another. MR. TURNER-How much are you going to pay for a lot. for five acres? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well. first of all. everybody's experience. I think. in this area. I have no problem with homes on slabs. build apartments on slabs. crawl spaces are fine. You can't have full basements in this area. I build houses for a living. To build large homes. you say put large homes on here. try and sell a 2.000. 3.000 square foot house with a slab. it's just not going to happen. People have a bad taste in their mouth. They say that they're cold. I don't believe they are if they're insulated well. but try and convince a person to spend money on a large home with a slab or a crawl space. You just. I don't know of any in this area. I know of some. but it's not a desirable area to put large homes. I believe I'm staying in character with what's built there. I think it's going to he lp everybody's resale. I don't think I'm doing anything out of the ordinary. As a matter of fact. my lots are larger than the ones that are there. I'm not saying that I have. I'd like seven or eight. This Lot Eight. which I outlined here in - 13 - red. I talked to Jim Martin about it. and we proposed giving it to the Town in lieu of rec fees. and to help protect Halfway Brook. because there is a 99 lot townhouse project going in back there. Maybe Cronin. if you're concerned with the driveways. we could put them both in the lot line. or make that one lot. and just go down to maybe four lots over here. but to do just two lots or three lots. based on the cost of the land. and the expense of what I've got into it with surveys and everything else. it just wouldn't be cost effective to make the project work. that's all. MR. TURNER-What's the purchase price of the property? MR. SCHERMERHORN-The purchase price of the property? Well. I think that's kind of irrelevant. MR. TURNER-No. it isn't irrelevant. MR. SCHERMERHORN-The purchase price of the property is $30.000. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay. Now. surveying and legal fees. I've probably got $6.000 into it right now. I don't recoup those. but the thing is. as well. you know. fill's got to be brought in to make these done properly. to bring them up to where they needed to be. MR. L. STEVES-Sewer fees are probably right out of line here. because of the size of the property. assessment and fees. right out of line. It's also inconsistent with the neighborhood. The neighborhood lots are all about a half acre to a third acre in size. MR. TURNER-Do you know why they're like that? Because we can't buy anymore land at this point. MR. L. STEVES-But that's all you wanted when you bought. right? MR. TURNER-No. no. I wanted more. but we can't buy it. It's not available. not at this point. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Everybody has their concerns with the project behind me. and the project I've heard mentioned. the 200 lot down the road from me. Well. what guarantee that this Bay Meadows Golf Course is going to develop? MR. TURNER-Nothing guarantees anything. anything. There's no guarantee on MR. SCHERMERHORN-There's no guarantee. It may sit there for 20 years. but all I keep hearing is. every time I bring something in. well. we've got 200 down here. We've got 99 here. Well. that all sounds great. but what if it never does develop? We've got all this vacant land in the Town of Queensbury. We've got a sewer district that's never getting utilized. I know Passarelli wants to use the sewer district. Now you say mine's not going to make a dent at all. but it certainly. it's not going to help if we don't apply something towards it. I don't see what negative impact I'm having on anybody. Other than the traffic study. I guess. with the Cronin. which I agree. we could make that one drive instead of two. it's not out of character with anybody in that neighborhood. I just don't see the concern. I mean. it would be nice to have forever wild land around. but I believe I'm leaving quite a bit vacant. I'm leaving it to the Town for Halfway Brook. They have access on the 50 foot strip to service that. They can use that for recreation or. MR. CARVIN-I just am curious. where's the adjoining lot. 60-2-7? Is that over here? - 14 - MR. M. STEVES-Right on the corner of Meadowbrook and Cronin. which is a separate parcel. It's under the same ownership. but it's a separate parcel. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MacDonald? In other words. it says lands of Richard MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. M. STEVES-Correct. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. TURNER-Any comments? Okay. Let me hear what the public has to say. I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED OSCAR SUNDBERG MR. SUNDBERG-Oscar Sundberg. I used to live up there on Meadowbrook Road. All these people are asking for is what everybody up there has already. A lot across the road is 7500 square feet. These people want. I think they're. what. 13.400? Ted's lot is 10.000. MR. TURNER-I'd buy more if I could get more. MR. SUNDBERG-He says he'd buy more. but where's he going to buy it? Is he going to have a railroad lot? What is that going to do on the road frontage? You're still going to. if you want to have a four acre lot with 100 foot frontage. what good is that going to do you. as far as road frontage is concerned? What these people have got here is more than what's already there on the opposite side of the road. and it's made for the sewer district. MR. TURNER-That may be. but those aren't the issues that are in front of us right now. There's Sections of the Ordinance that require. MR. SUNDBERG-The issue. Ted. is that these people want relief from an unfair zoning. and that's what this is for. They want what you people have already got. and that's all they're asking for. You've got yours. They would like some of theirs. MR. TURNER-I've got mine. I'd like more. but Okay. Anyone else wish to be heard in support? I can't get it. Opposed? JANE POTTER MRS. POTTER-My name's Jane Potter. and I live right across from where this is on Meadowbrook Road. A couple of things. when they came to the Planning Board. we did not agree to seven or eight houses. We agreed to single family homes. maxing at five. and the cost effectiveness. if they're only paying $30.000 for this property. that's what one lot goes for in the Town of Queensbury. one. one acre lot. So. it's easy to put two lots on this property and still get their money back. When you bring fill in. it displaces the water. We already have a water table problem in that area. All of this was brought up in the Planning Board meeting when we opposed all of the apartments. As far as the sewer system. septic system. whatever. sewer district. all of the property beyond this. that's already developed on Meadowbrook Road. is zoned for multi-family. If they want to build multi-family. they can move down there. Two or three houses on this property would be on this property would be adequate. but not eight. seven whatever. The one over on Cronin and a couple over on Meadowbrook. he's still going to make money. and that's the only reason he's there. He's not there for the community. Also Mr. Schermerhorn. of all the houses I've been able to find. that he's built. are all very large. - 15 - colonial type houses. Our neighborhood is all small ranches and capes. and no matter what the number of homes. he's allowed to put on there. we would like them to be kept small. to conform to the rest of the houses. The neighbors have all talked about this. I have a question. How many days notice are we supposed to have for a public hearing? MR. TURNER-Five. MRS. POTTER-Is that all? Okay. We thought it was ten. We only got seven. Sewer fees. they're high. but we're coping. We've gotten used to it. We don't like it. but just because you build seven more houses. it's not going to help us out much. We don't want that many houses in there. We will go to residential. if you keep them down to capes and ranches. and down to a max of five. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else wish to be heard in opposition? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KARPELES-I just don't think this is a minimum variance. minimum relief. MR. TURNER-It's not. No. MR. SUNDBERG-Ted. could I ask one question? It has to do with the Ordinance. Oscar Sundberg. I was just wondering. where do they come up with this collector road business. 150 feet double width? Why is that? MR. TURNER-That was to stop the curb cuts. all the unnecessary curb cuts. It was to internalize the development and only have one curb cut. MR. SUNDBERG-What do you mean by curb cut? MR. TURNER-Driveways. MR. CARVIN-See. right now we'd have one. two. three. four. five. six. seven driveways. MR. TURNER-Seven driveways. MR. SUNDBERG-We've got five. now. on the opposite side. and that's no problem. MR. TURNER-It is a problem now. Oscar. It is a problem now trying to get out of there. MR. SUNDBERG-Why has it got to be double. though? MR. TURNER-Because that's the Ordinance. It's allover. Luzerne Road. It's Sherman Avenue. It's allover. It's MR. SUNDBERG-In the City we don't have that kind of a deal. MR. TURNER-Yes. but the City doesn't have the kind of land the Town has. The Town's 72 square miles. The City's only 15. MR. SUNDBERG-Yes. but you still have to drive into a driveway in the City. and the houses are 50 foot apart. Everyone has a driveway. Why has it got to be so much in the country? MR. TURNER-I just told you. When a developer comes in. and they want to develop a piece of land like this. the Town wants them to internalize their development and have one curb cut. MR. SUNDBERG-I know what the Town wants. but I mean. why is. it doesn't sound reasonable. - 16 - MR. TURNER-That's what it was for. to internalize them. MR. SUNDBERG-Okay. MR. KARPELES-I have a question on this Lot Number Eight. Has the Town agreed to assume the responsibility for that lot? MR. MARTIN-No. No. we have to get beyond this process before that can even be entertained. MR. KARPELES-So they might very well turn it down. MR. MARTIN-That's up. it begins with the Planning Board and it's passed on to the Recreation Commission. and Town Board for comment. The Planning Board makes the decision on it. then it goes back to the Town Board. ultimate I y. for acceptance or denial of the property. MR. MENTER-Jim. briefly. what's the wording of that requirement. for a subdivision. donating property? Is that a requirement? MR. MARTIN-Yes. a Recreation Law. a Recreation Fee Law. The first instance. or opportunity is to dedicate land. If land is not offered. then in lieu of that. a fee is assessed of $500 per assessable lot. MR. TURNER-So that's $3500. Okay. Any comment? MR. THOMAS-It seems to me it's maximum relief. and in the past. any subdivision along collector roads has been shot right down. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-As long as I've been on this Board. anything along a collector road had to be the 300 feet. MR. TURNER-Well. I live across the street. and I'll tell now. the traffic is horrendous on that road. It's immensely. You don't have to ask me. Ask Mrs. Potter. right down the street from me. Every day. you right increased She lives MR. L. STEVES-I was going to suggest. before any action is taken tonight. that we obtain the minutes of that Planning Board meeting to see exactly what did take place. what is a matter of record. Before we all believe that we know what we said. lets find out what we said. MR. KARPELES-We've got minutes. MR. L. STEVES-If we were told at that Board meeting that the application for seven or eight lots would be supported. and then we get here and it's shot down. I don't call that support. MR. MENTER-It's possible. I find it hard to believe they said that the Zoning Board would support that. MR. L. STEVES-That's what I said. minutes. Lets see what they said. Don't believe me. Read the MR. MENTER-That would have no bearing on the integrity of our decision anyway. MR. TURNER-No. it can't. MR. MENTER-It would stand either way. and I understand your statement. MR. L. STEVES-No. I don't think applicant make his statement. too. you do. but I I thank you. will let the - 17 - MR. SCHERMERHORN-I'm sorry it's ended up this way. I appreciate Jane Potter's concerned, and they'd like to see five lots. I wish Mr. Piper, Jim Piper, I believe his name is, was here. He told me, if I recall, at the last meeting, he said, I don't care if you do twelve lots, he said, I just want to see residential, more or less put the thing to rest, and forget this. I don't want eight lots. I don't want seven. I want what the people want. They're saying that five would be adequate. MR. TURNER-I talked to Jim Sunday in reference to your comment about him. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I have a real concern with Mr. Turner, okay. We sat back there with Mike O'Connor, who is a reputable attorney. I spent a lot of money on this project so far, and the last conversation we had, at the last Planning Board meeting was that residential would be fine. We said, well. would you like to see seven or eight lots proposed? Nobody had any comments, if that would be somewhat supported. Now all of a sudden I get here, and just everything's shot out the window. I just don't see the concern here. Stormwater can be managed no problem. I just built eighteen units down the road eight hundred feet. I addressed all those issues with the Planning Board, as far as storm management there. So there's no concern there. There's no concern with sewer, no concern with water. I just don't see where the five lots would be any concern. I wish that Mr. Turner you'd expressed this interest before this meeting. Maybe I could arrange to give you a piece of land if you wanted it that bad. It's just, I'm caught off guard. ,." , MR. TURNER-You tried to call me, and you ~lled and got a hold of my wife, but you didn't call back. I haven't heard from you. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I called National Welding today. wife tonight. I called your MR. TURNER-I'm not there during the day. MR. SCHERMERHORN-That's irrelevant. I wanted to meet with you. MR. TURNER-If you wanted to meet with me bad enough, you would have gotten around and saw me, because I'm right there, and your apartments are right down the road and you could come right up and see me. I'm right there. I was there Sunday all day. MR. M. STEVES-I was also at that Planning Turner, and I remember vividly everybody, saying that seven to eight residential lots. Board meeting, Mr. including yourself, MR. TURNER-Residential. MR. M. STEVES-Residential lots. We're talking residential lots. MR. TURNER-I said. lets see your plan. MR. M. STEVES-And here's the plan, but now you're coming and saying. MR. TURNER-I'm not saying anything. MR. M. STEVES-You're saying seven to eight lots is totally. MR. TURNER-I'm not saying it alone. MR. M. STEVES-Then why did you ask me to come in with a plan for my client showing the seven to eight lots, and then I get in here and you do not like it at all. You're the one that asked me to come in with seven to eight lots. I did that. If you're going to lead me down the garden path, next time let me know. - 18 - MR. TURNER-I'm not leading you down any garden path. MR. M. STEVES-You did. too. MR. TURNER-No. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Jim Piper. you know. I've got a good rapport with him. We've done everything he's wanted over there. He himself said before he left. he says. I don't care if you do twelve residential lots. I just don't want multi-family. and I appreciate that concern. I'd like to clarify something. She said there's other multi-family land that can be bought. I'm not looking for multi-family land. I'm looking for. to do residential right there. It's just. I don't see the concern here. MR. TURNER-The concern is from the Sections of the Ordinance that you want relief from. That's the concern. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay. then that's a separate issue. have addressed that when we were here last time. You should MR. TURNER-You didn't have a plan. How could I address anything. you didn't even have a plan. MR. SCHERMERHORN-We asked for seven to eight residential Where else could you put them? It's all flagged in the back. love to have one curb cut go in and do it. but you just can't it. It won't work. Would you be willing to accept five? lots. I'd do MR. TURNER-I don't know what the Board's going to accept. They're going to rule on your petition here. That's what they're going to rule on. You can't change your plan in mid-stream. You submitted a plan that's been advertised. MR. SCHERMERHORN-All I'm trying to do is do things the correct way. I came the first time. MR. CARVIN-There's five other members here that are listening to this conversation. Now whatever conversation you had with Mr. Turner may not hold beans or water with any of the rest of us. MR. SCHERMERHORN-It certainly should. because it's a conflict of interest. The guy lives across the street. MR. TURNER-I don't have a conflict of interest. nickel in your project. I don't have a MR. CARVIN-First of all. I was not at the Planning Board. I'm going on the information when I was out there. I'm going with the information that is submitted here. and based upon that. it looks like that this is maximum relief. which is one of our criteria. Your practical difficulty is that. and I think Bob. here. pointed it out. is cost effectiveness. and we have to weigh that against the detriment or benefit to the rest of the community. Now. as I said. I think you folks have gotten bogged down into that. gee whiz. maybe Mr. Turner can do something here that there was an agreement made between the residents and everything else. but I don't think that that's what the Board's position is going to be. MR. TURNER-No. MR. MENTER-I hear support for you on the Board. to an extent. MR. L. STEVES-As it stands right now. we'd like to withdraw our application. MR. TURNER-Okay. Let the record show that the applicant has withdrawn the application. - 19 - AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-1994 TYPE II LI-1A BRIAN GRANGER OWNER: EAST END ENTERPRISES 96 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO BUILD A ONE HUNDRED FIFTY (150) SQUARE FOOT STORAGE SHED THREE (3) FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. SECTION 179-26C REQUIRES A SIDE SETBACK OF THIRTY (30) FEET. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWENTY-SEVEN (27) FEET. TAX MAP NO. 93-2-13.2 LOT SIZE: 2.75 ACRES SECTION 179- 26C MR. TURNER-Jim. did Mrs. Granger call back and say she was coming in place of Brian? MR. MARTIN-I've heard nothing. MR. TURNER-He called today and said he couldn't make it because he had to work tonight. MR. MARTIN-You could postpone it until next week. if nobody's here to represent him. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-We'll notify him tomorrow. MR. TURNER-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-1994 BRIAN GRANGER. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Robert Karpeles: Until our next meeting. Duly adopted this 19th day of January. 1994. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Menter. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston MR. TURNER-Okay. We have a letter from Mr. Dawson. MISS HAUSER-This letter is dated January 10th. 1994. "Dear Mr. Dawson: You have requested that your application for an Area Variance. approved with conditions at the December 15. 1993 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. be reheard at a meeting where a full Board is in attendance. Since only five of the seven members were at the December 15 meeting. you feel your application was ini tially denied as presented based on number of members in attendance rather than content of your application. Your request is on the agenda of the January 19. 1994 meeting as a discussion item. I have conferred with Paul Dusek. Town Attorney. on this matter. and have been advised that in order to be reheard. a unanimous vote of members present must be achieved. In addition. if the Board agrees to rehear your application. whatever action the Board takes must be by unanimous vote of members present. In any event. your December 15. 1993 approval would still be available to you. If the Board agrees to rehear your application. it can be placed on the February agenda. If you have any questions regarding this matter. please give me a call. Sincerely. DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEV. Susan H. Cipperly Assistant Planner" MR. DAWSON-Are we going to rehear it? MR. TURNER-No. I don't think so. MR. MENTER-I think there's a couple of things that are important. though. First of all. if it's reheard. it has to be a unanimous vote by the whole Board. - 20 - MR. TURNER-Yes, even the decision. MR. MENTER-The decision. MR. DAWSON-I thought the rehearing, the decision for rehearing was unanimous. MR. TURNER-No, it's the whole thing. MR. MENTER-No, to vote on it. When we vote, in order to change the vote, it would have to be unanimous. The fact that there really have been no changes in it at all, right? MR. TURNER-None at all. MR. MENTER-And if there were, it would have to be a resubmission. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm looking at our motion, and even if you had a whole Board, there were five yes votes and no, no votes. So even if you had the two, I guess I don't see where the problem is, because we were unanimous on that decision. MR. DAWSON-Where the problem was. was when I first proposed my garage. I proposed it as a garage in addition to my existing garage. without a conversion. and I had a three yes. a two no on that, and that's where I felt that I was just violated, because the two vacancies that were on the Board were considered no votes, and I don't see how that possibly could have been a decision to a no favor when three people on the Board that night said yes and two people said no. MR. TURNER-But it could have gone four, one, too. MR. DAWSON-Okay, but you gave the two people that were vacant no votes. MR. TURNER-No. What it is. is the Board is a seven member Board. So every vote counts on it. MR. DAWSON-So then those two should cancel out each other. MR. TURNER-No. MR. DAWSON-Well, why wouldn't that? I don't understand. MR. TURNER-It has to be a majority vote, either way. MR. DAWSON-Okay. but the majority ruled yes that night. MR. KARPELES-It has to be four. It's a seven member Board. MR. TURNER-Yes. It's a seven member Board. MR. KARPELES-So you have to have four positive votes, four votes. MR. CARVIN-Out of the seven. MR. DAWSON-Yes, but there wasn't seven people there. MR. KARPELES-You'd still need four votes. MR. CARVIN-But there was a majority. There was a quorum. were six folks there. There was only one missing. There MR. MENTER-See, the fact is, Bob, that just logistic, logically, logistically, three people would have to change their vote between then and now. because it would need to be unanimous at this point. There just have been no changes. So that would make it futile. I understand what you're saying about the three. two, but at this point, even if we said, yes. that doesn't seem right. and we did - 21 - it. since there' ve been no changes. the odds of three people feeling bad and changing their mind don't exist. MR. DAWSON-Well. where does it say that the two people here. or the two people vacant were considered no votes? Where does it say that? I mean. you're saying that the three people that say yes. that are saying yes against the two people. that it doesn't count. It needed to be four people against one person. That's what you're saying. Where does it say that? MR. CARVIN-It's a majority of the Board. it's a majority out of the Board. You have to have four positive votes. MR. TURNER-Four positive votes. MR. CARVIN-There were five people here. You needed four out of the five. MR. KARPELES-It's all predicated on a seven member Board. four is a majority. You've got two people missing. you still need four votes. MR. DAWSON-Four people out of the one. okay. that's a majority. okay. Three people out of five. that's a majority. Doesn't that make sense? MR. TURNER-No. not a seven member Board. MR. DAWSON-No. but seven members aren't here. MR. TURNER-That's beside the point. That's the law. MR. CARVIN-I think the point is that the motion failed because there was not a majority vote and the motion was re-introduced. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. CARVIN-And you had plenty of. in other words. if you didn't like the motion. it should have been addressed at that point. MR. DAWSON-At that point in time. MR. CARVIN-And the second motion. which ~ passed. was a unanimous vote. MR. DAWSON-Right. MR. CARVIN-So there's no logical reason for us to rehear this. based on that particular motion. because it was unanimous. In other words. the first motion. we could have made motions all night long until we got at least four positive votes. or a four negative vote. MR. MENTER-And a Board member not voting is not necessarily a no. It could be a yes. if it's a negative proposal. if that makes sense. MR. CARVIN-See. we're obligated to come to some kind of decision. and we need four votes on one side of the fence or the other before it's a positive or negative decision. and we could have gone all night writing motions. and if it came out to three. two. we still wouldn't have gone anywhere. So we would have had to write another motion. until we finally got a consensus on the Board. of the Board. MR. DAWSON-Okay. It just doesn't seem fair that four out of the. say four people said yes and one person said no. then I've got (lost words). MR. CARVIN-The reason was that there was still two members of the - 22 - original motion that were uncomfortable with it. So when the motion was resubmitted or rewritten. we finally got everybody on the same side of the fence. is essentially what happened. MR. DAWSON-Okay. but if you were in a family. right. and you had a family of five people. and three of the people said. well. I want turkey for dinner. and two of the people said. I want pizza. You're going to go with the three people. MR. CARVIN-Okay. but if your rules say that you have to have four on one side or the other. then you keep voting until somebody gives in to turkey or pizza. Do you see what I'm saying? The three. two. fine. then we'll all starve to death because we can't come to. eventually somebody will get hungry and say. well. pizza isn't probably too bad. and that's what happened there. is that we had a locked decision. It didn't go anywhere. MR. DAWSON-Only because you're basing it on a seven member Board. MR. CARVIN-Right. If you take a look at the minutes. there was. the initial. I was going to go for a negative motion. in other words. to deny the application. but after further discussion. that motion was never made. because we kicked it around. and as a result. we came up with a whole new application in regards to that application. MR. TURNER-That's when Mr. Muller indicated that you would change the front to habitable area. and you would go with the garage in the back. MR. DAWSON-Right. MR. CARVIN-See. as I said. the reached a consensus. then. fine. page and the vote went forward. discussion continued until we Now everybody was on the same MR. DAWSON-Okay. The only thing I want to discuss and have reheard was that I felt real uncomfortable with the way the decision was made with the five members that were here. okay. because I felt when I was here that a majority with those five people being here. regardless of the two people that were gone. there's going to be three people saying yes. To me. that was a majority. okay. MR. CARVIN-Yes. but it wasn't a denial either. See. what it said. it was just a no vote. That application just didn't go anywhere. MR. DAWSON-Yes. right. Okay. but when I was first here. that's what I wanted. that's the application that I wanted to work. MR. CARVIN-Yes. and as I said. because we couldn't come to a consensus of at least four votes saying yes. or four votes saying no. MR. DAWSON-Okay. that's the part that I have a hard time following. and where is that? Where is that law? MR. TURNER-It's right in the rules of the Zoning Board. MR. MARTIN-It's a matter of Town Law. MR. TURNER-It's a matter of Town Law. too. yes. MR. MARTIN-Because this has come up many times in the past. and case law and all that. I can show you in several different books where it speaks to this. MR. DAWSON-Okay. MR. MARTIN-It's a majority of the membership of the Board. not the members present that night at the meeting. - 23 - MR. DAWSON-Okay. because I looked at the footnotes of the trials that were the same type of a position that I was in. and I researched into that a little bit. and on the basis of that person not having a full member Board. he was able to have a re-trial. He was able to be reheard because of that information. because the Board members weren't here. I'm in the Zoning Book. here. After you go through all the zoning rules. on the bottom. there are footnotes of trials. that are basically the same. well. they're not basically the same as what I had. but you can go through the files and find one that is basically the same as mine. and with the two members missing. that was enough of a change to have are-trial. MR. CARVIN-Again. there might have been extenuating circumstances we're not familiar with. so we can't address that. In this case. all the procedures were followed. MR. DAWSON-What I'm saying is that here you are. you're saying that what I'm proposing to be reheard. there was no change. so you can't rehear it. but if you look through the trials. they reheard those trials on the same basis of two people missing. MR. CARVIN-I'm not saying that we can't rehear it. In other words. if there is significant enough change. if something has come up that is totally new. MR. DAWSON-Well. according to what they've got written down. there is significant change. Here it says that I'm asking relief for setbacks. and I'm not. I'm not asking for any relief for any setback. I have enough property to put a garage on my property without coming anywhere close to these setbacks. MR. CARVIN- "Grant relief of 52 square feet from Section 179-7. Definition of a Garage. by allowing the construction of a detached garage of 952 square feet. This is conditioned upon the conversion of the applicant's existing garage to inhabitable space and non use as a garage. and the written exception by Mr. Daniel Valente. Valente Builders. Inc.. of the deed restrictions concerning the establishment of detached garages when a detached garage is an outside storage. The practical difficulty is due to the number of vehicles currently owned by the applicant and the deed restrictions imposed would make this the minimum relief necessary. This would be the minimum relief necessary to eliminate the practical difficul ty. There does not appear to be any effect on the neighborhood or community. and there does not appear to be any effect on public services or facilities." So it has nothing to do with side yard setbacks. MR. DAWSON-Okay. Well. on here it does. MR. TURNER-What have you got. an application? MR. DAWSON-On the agenda sheet for tonight it does. MR. CARVIN-Well. that has nothing to do with the motion. MR. DAWSON-Well. the motion's already made. I understand that. but what I was asking for was to be reheard. and you said it has to have a substantial change. Now. according to this right here. what's written in front of me. I do have a substantial change. That's another thing that sits a little uneasy with me. too. about the garages. In the Zoning book. it says a qaraqe may not exceed nine hundred square feet. right? MR. CARVIN-I won't address that because you're opening up an issue. MR. DAWSON-Well. I mean. it's something that's probably going to be brought up again. My sister is an Administration Counselor at Bryant and she says. yes. that says ª garage. It doesn't say anything about two garages. and that's what I was proposing that - 24 - night, and I was wanting to, I was asking for a 52 square foot variance on a garage. MR. CARVIN-That's what you got was a 52 square foot variance on ª garage. MR. DAWSON-Yes, but if you considered my first garage, in addition to the proposed garage, the square footage. MR. CARVIN-That's why this motion was contingent. In other words, you will be in compliance with the Town Ordinance. We granted you 52 square feet on ª garage, because it's contingent upon the fact that you give up the garage in the house. MR. DAWSON-Okay, but I don't see why I should have to do that, because in the book it says, ª garage, okay, and you combined my garages. You shouldn't have done that. MR. CARVIN-Again, we went through this the night of the application, and we gave you 52 square feet of relief from Section 179, contingent upon ª garage. MR. DAWSON-Exactly, okay, but you combined, when I was first asking for it. MR. CARVIN-I'm saying that you got, you can have 952 square feet of garage, of ª garage, a singular garage. Now you can take the living space, in other words, if you want to add the difference there, the 300 and some odd feet, up until. MR. DAWSON-I could add that onto that garage, too. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm not even going to get into it. MR. DAWSON-Well, that's what this is all about. MR. TURNER-What it says, That's all it says. It garage. accessory use, private garage, doesn't say garages, it says, period. private MR. DAWSON-Right, garage, singular. MR. TURNER-Wait a minute, now. Yes, singular, one garage. MR. DAWSON-Right, that's for the 900 square feet, ª garage. Jim, are you going to find that, about where that rule is? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I don't have the books here with me tonight. MR. DAWSON-I'll stop in. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Town Law, relating to quorum. MR. DAWSON-It clearly says you have to have four people out of five? MR. TURNER-Yes, that's the law. MS. CIPPERLY-Four out of seven members. MR. TURNER-Four out of seven. MR. DAWSON-Four out of seven. Okay. MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-Even if not all the seven were present. MR. DAWSON-What if you only had three? - 25 - MR. TURNER-You wouldn't have a meeting. MR. MARTIN-You don't have a quorum. You can't conduct business. MR. DAWSON-What's the minimum? MR. TURNER-Four, out of the seven. MR. MARTIN-You need four to have a meeting, and then you need, if you only have four present, you have to have a unanimous vote. MR. DAWSON-And then it has to be a unanimous vote if there's only four people? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I was on the Planning Board, before coming to this position, and there were some nights in the summer where we only had four members there, and we got through it, but you had to have a unanimous vote every time to do it. MR. DAWSON-Because you're considering the three people that aren't there no automatically. MR. MENTER-Well, it's not an issue that we can resolve right now. That's for sure. MR. CARVIN-Yes. No, it has nothing to do with whether we're going to rehear it or not. MR. TURNER-All right, but his request is to rehear it. So we've got to have a motion to either deny it, the request to rehear, or approve the request to rehear. So, I'll make a motion. MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST TO RE-HEAR AREA VARIANCE NO. 110-1993 ROBERT S. DAWSON, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: Based on no change in the application. Duly adopted this 19th day of January, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Miss Hauser, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Thomas ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston MR. TURNER-Okay. We've got one thing of business we've got to do. We've have to have election of Officers. We have to have election of Vice-Chairman and Secretary. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. TURNER-I will nominate Mr. Carvin to be the Vice-Chairman. MR. THOMAS-I'll second the nomination. MOTION TO MAKE FRED CARVIN VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 19th day of January, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Carvin ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston - 26 - MR. TURNER-Mr. Carvin's the Vice-Chairman. nominations for Secretary. Now, we have to have MR. THOMAS-I'll nominate Linda Hauser. MR. KARPELES-I'll second that. MR. TURNER-Is there any other nominations? Joyce is the current Secretary. I don't know how you feel. MR. CARVIN-I nominate Joyce Eggleston. MR. KARPELES-Is she going to be on the Board? MR. TURNER-Yes. She's going to be here in April. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but she's not here all year round, that's the problem. Whereas, when she worked, she was here year round. MR. TURNER-Yes. MISS HAUSER-I can do it when she's not here. MR. TURNER-Okay. You nominated Joyce? MR. CARVIN-I'll nominate Joyce, for lack of a second. MR. TURNER-All right. I'll second it. Nothing against Linda. She did a good job, but I think Joyce has done a good job. Linda's done a good job, but Joyce has always been a good member. She's a good student of the Zoning Ordinance. MR. CARVIN-I'm saying, is there any reason why we can't continue like we've been doing? MR. TURNER-No. MR. CARVIN-In other words, have Linda Secretary Pro-tern or something? MISS HAUSER-That's fine with me. MR. TURNER-We can have a Vice-Secretary, if you want. MR. KARPELES-I don't even think it's good for a member to be absent that much, let alone a Secretary. I mean, I think she's great when she's here. I admire her tremendously, but I just don't think it's fair to the people who come here, to not have a seven member Board. MR. THOMAS-That's right. You just saw an example of that. MR. TURNER-Well, I don't think that would have changed that one anyway. MR. THOMAS-It may not have changed that one, but there are others it could have changed. MR. TURNER-It might have changed something. We don't know. It's just hypothetical. MR. CARVIN-Well, we operated quite a while with Tom, there, being sick. MR. TURNER-Yes. There's always a chance that somebody's going to get sick. and. MR. KARPELES-Then you're down to a five member Board. MR. TURNER-Okay. No further nominations? We have two. Linda and Joyce. All right. Call the roll for Miss Hauser. - 27 - MOTION TO MAKE LINDA HAUSER SECRETARY OF THE OUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption. seconded by Robert Karpeles: Duly adopted this 19th day of January. 1994. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter. Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. Turner ABSTAINED: Miss Hauser ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston MR. TURNER-It's nothing. like I said. against Linda, but I think we owe some allegiance to Joyce. in a sense. Okay. New Secretary. MR. MARTIN-Did you do the Chairman yet? MR. TURNER-The Chairman's appointed by the Town Board. MR. MARTIN-Isn't it like the Planning Board, where you elect one and they approve it? MR. TURNER-That's different. They have to do that. The Planning Board has to do that. MS. CIPPERLY-This is a draft of a standard resolution that I've been working on, and I just gave a copy to Paul Dusek to review. also. He suggested the format. I tried to sort of make ita combination of a motion and resolution. A lot of it we could pretype in. as far as description of the project and things. Some of the changes along the way in the meeting. you can always change it. but it's constructed so that, depending on whether you want to approve or deny it. you essentially can circle one of those. The first word is always what you would say if you were going to approve it. The ones in parentheses. say. like in A down here. it says, relief sought would be of benefit to the applicant. If you were going to approve it, you would circle all the first choices. okay, where it says. and would preserve. protect the character. If you were going to deny it. you could say. relief sought would benefi t the applicant. but would not preserve the. see. so the first choices would always be. if you were approving it. the first choice would be. you can take a look at that. He suggested having the criteria right there at the bottom of the application. and up here. in findings of fact. you would be listing what you had. like your reasons. but they should relate to those criteria that I listed at the bottom. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Didn't you leave space in there. Sue. for conditions? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. on the second page. conditions placed on the approval. MR. TURNER-The biggest thing is trying to get everything put in the right place. MR. MARTIN-Right. This would do it every time for you. and then you could just. essentially. fill in the blanks. What we're looking to do is get your comments. next week. on this. give you a week to look at it. and then we'll implement this in the February meetings. MR. CARVIN-I'm going to raise an issue here on a previous motion, with regards to Mr. DiPalma, who was the gentleman up on Ridge Road. Looking at the minutes. I'm not positive that we followed. it may be just a technical thing. but this one was a situation where we voted down his application on a two for, four against - 28 - ~--- basis. I believe it was. MR. MARTIN-It was a motion to approve? MR. CARVIN-It was a motion to approve that had four negative votes. So. in essence. it was denied. and at the end of the meeting. Mr. O'Connor came back and we had quite a lengthy discussion. and I still am uncertain as to some of the issues that were raised during that conversation. as far as the necessary need to submit a denial motion. because I think that by the fact that we had four negative votes. indicated that they disagreed with the reasoning for the approval. MS. CIPPERLY-We did ask Paul Dusek about that. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I asked Paul about that. and that does constitute a denial. You don't have to have a denial resolution. That does constitute a denial. MR. CARVIN-That's what I thought. MS. CIPPERLY-He said that it's better. MR. MARTIN-That you do follow up with a denying resolution. but it's not required. MR. CARVIN-Yes. If we only had three votes. like this garage situation. then I can see where we have to really thrash it out. but in that particular case. we did have four negative votes. MS. CIPPERLY-He said it would be better if you did one. MR. MARTIN-It would close the loop. so to speak. but it's not required. MR. CARVIN-Which raises the issue that if that was a good denial. that we went through and re-heard the application without going through proper format. In other words. Ted had indicated that we should have voted unanimously to re-hear that particular application. We did not do that. There was a conversation. but there was never any vote. and the same motion was re-introduced. resulting in. this time. four positive votes for approval. which is inconsistent now that Mr. DiPalma has applied to the Planning Board for a Bed & Breakfast. because we had conditioned this as a residence. MR. MARTIN-Well. the way I view this. though. is he submitted evidence to this Board that in 1984 he started a business there as a Guide. essentially a Bed & Breakfast. He was providing meals and lodging to weekend guests. so to speak. MR. KARPELES-That depends on when you were listening. MR. CARVIN-That's correct. which story he was telling at what point. MR. MARTIN-Agreed. Now that use continued through the date of adoption of the Ordinance. He. therefore. has a preexisting status. and in the new Ordinance. it's an allowed use with site plan review. and that's why now he's required to submit a site plan review application. Because it is an allowed use. It's not like it's just an outright nonconforming use. It's allowed with site plan review and approval by the Planning Board. So that's why he's where he's at. So it's not like you were expanding a nonconforming use. MR. CARVIN-But that was mY argument during the whole thing. is that we ~ expanding a nonconforming use by the addition of that room. and that was my argument during the whole situation. in that by adding that bedroom. it does expand that business. and that I still - 29 - -,- ~~ firmly believe that that motion should have been denied on that basis. So. I'm throwing this out to the Board's discretion. I don't know what to do here. MR. THOMAS-I'd leave it alone. I wouldn't touch it. MR. CARVIN-I think we have a situation. technically. that the whole thing was handled improperly that evening. and I think we should have probably addressed this before now. MR. THOMAS-Well. I don't see how anyone could not be confused the way he was tap dancing around here. He was telling us what we wanted to hear. He'd change his story mid-sentence. MR. CARVIN-Yes, well, with the fact that he's going. I still have some concerns, because during the reading of the minutes, I mean. there is some health issues that I think should be addressed. as far as the Bed & Breakfast is concerned. because he has no potable water. It is all brought in in jugs. I mean, his water is not safe. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I did mention that to Scott, too. MR. CARVIN-And I don't know whether this Board should pass this findings on. that there may be a glitch to the Planning Board, because I think the hearing. he's sitting for the hearing fairly quickly. MR. TURNER-Yes. next week. MR. MARTIN-Next week. MR. CARVIN-That we may have a question on our variance. our Area Variance. MR. MARTIN-You certainly have that discretion. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And I'm not positive if it should also be a Use Variance in there. In other words, that if by addressing as a Use Variance. or just to have him come right back here and start allover again. Well. we have a denial and the guy's building an illegal room. Technically. it's an illegal room. MR. MARTIN-That's certainly within your discretion. and that's a decision for this Board. MR. TURNER-Has he applied for a building permit? he? He hasn't, has MR. MARTIN-No. He's got the foundation dug over that, but that's it. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I don't think he could do anything because of the weather. MS. CIPPERLY-He's been to Warren County three times now, too. MR. TURNER-He's been there three times? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. He came for the variance. He came for site plan. and he came for a Bed & Breakfast, the commercial. The Bed & Breakfast. he's there tonight. MR. CARVIN-Well, it's open for discussion. That's my case. MR. MARTIN-It's certainly within your discretion. Whatever you do. I will certainly enforce. - 30 - - MISS HAUSER-I thought that was for his daughter. when she visited. that room. MR. CARVIN-Well. I'm just telling you that he is on the docket for a Bed & Breakfast. which is an approved use up there. but. as I said. the way I read our motion. we made that motion contingent on site plan review. So. I mean. the Planning Board can override our motion. but. in essence. they become the Zoning Board. Do they? MR. THOMAS-They'd have to send it back to us. MR. CARVIN-Well. the motion says. MR. MARTIN-See. that's my only point. though. If he is a Bed & Breakfast. that is an allowed use. It's not a nonconforming use in an LC zone. It's a use that's permitted only with site plan review and approval. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. MARTIN-It's not like he's trying to put a retail business in there. MR. CARVIN-But he's expanded that. That's my point. I still think he's expanded that business. MR. MARTIN-It's a chicken and egg question. MS. CIPPERLY-But what 0' Connor was saying that night about you having to do a second motion wasn't necessarily true. MR. MARTIN-That only and you don't get approved. You have reverse is not true. works one way. If you have a motion to deny. a majority. then that's not automatically to actually pass a motion to approve. The MR. CARVIN-Okay. The motion is on Page 46 of the minutes of November the 17th. Grant him relief from Section 179-13C of the Zoning Ordinance. I further move that we grant setbacks on the southeast corner of 62 feet 1 inch. on the northeast corner of 61 feet 8 inches. The practical difficulty in this matter is that there is no other location on the property to place the addition without encountering a lot of difficulty. The applicant does have letters of support for his project. I do not see any detriment effects on the district or neighborhood. and there are no effects on public facilities and services. That the proposed addition be used strictly for residential use. unless changed by Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. Now that was the motion that was denied and passed. because it was an identical motion. There was no change to the motion. MS. CIPPERLY-The last part said. unless changed by the Planning Board? MR. CARVIN-That the proposed addition is to be used strictly for residential. unless changed by Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. MR. MARTIN-And that's what he's coming for. MR. TURNER-We gave him an option. MS. CIPPERLY-Because any of those uses that are allowed there would require site plan review. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Because my view of that. then. as Zoning Administrator. is that he can build that addition. but the structure can only be used as a residence until he gets site plan approval. - 31 - MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-He cannot use that. in any way. shape or form & Breakfast until he gets that site plan approval. because permitted use in that zone is a single family dwelling. like a Bed & Breakfast would require site plan review. as a Bed the only Anything MR. CARVIN-Okay. but is his business a preexisting business? Was that ever determined? MR. MARTIN-Yes. but even as preexisting. even in the old Ordinance. the ' 82 Ordinance. that use required site plan review. and he should have gotten it. even in '84. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say. and he's never. as far as you know. been to site plan review? MR. MARTIN-Right. That's a nonconformity. That has to be brought up by site plan review or that can't continue until it is brought to the Planning Board. MR. CARVIN-Well. as I said. I can see at least two issues. The one issue is the negative. the first motion that was denied. MR. MARTIN-That's a technical issue as to whether you should have formally voted to re-hear the application that night. before you actually did. because I think you're right. You did have a. what was a denied resolution. or a denial. MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-So. really. O'Connor was incorrect in saying that you really. MR. CARVIN-Well. his point was. according to. and this is what I took exception to. was that his argument that there was no motion finally determining this application. You have a motion that was made to approve. and the vote was two for. and four against denying that motion. The application. in honesty. is still on the table. and that's the part that I take exception to. MR. MARTIN-Based on my discussion I had with Paul Dusek. I don't think that's true. MR. CARVIN-The motion is in reference to the application. and that by denying the motion. we were in essence denying the application. MR. MARTIN-It is a denial. MR. CARVIN-It is a denial. MR. MARTIN-Like I said. only the reverse is true. If you have a motion to deny. and there's not a majority vote. two to four. then that does not automatically mean an approval. You have to then. in turn. actually have an approval resolution. MR. CARVIN-Yes. See. his feeling was that we were arbitrary and capricious. and that we had to state our reasons for denial. and I think by the simple fact of denying the motion. we were telling him. MS. CIPPERLY-Paul said it's better if you can turn around and list reasons for a denial. but it's not required. MR. MARTIN-It puts him in a more defensible position. should it be challenged. MR. CARVIN-Well. again. I think we had it defensible. because the only reason that Joyce indicated that she changed was that she didn't want to get bogged down all evening in this. - 32 - -- MR. MARTIN-I'm less concerned about the conformity of the Bed & Breakfast. given the fact that he does have a site plan application in for that. but I'm more concerned about the technical issue of. there's no motion made by this Board to re-hear it. because I think you did have a denying resolution. and that was the end of the process. MR. CARVIN-Which leads to an arbitrary question. if that. we need a majority vote and somebody votes no to the re-hearing. does that kick it back to the original motion? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-In which case. somebody will have to tell Mr. DiPalma that the motion was denied. MS. CIPPERLY-Well. in the case of Dawson. here. MR. CARVIN-Well. Dawson is a clear cut. MR. MARTIN-Why does he have two applications in with the Planning Board? MS. CIPPERLY-Who? MR. MARTIN-DiPalma. MS. CIPPERLY-Because he came in. after he came to the Zoning Board. he came in with a residential site plan to the Planning Board. MR. MARTIN-That's right. MS. CIPPERLY-Then O'Connor advised him. I guess. that he really ought to go for the Bed & Breakfast and define himself as something. which is what you wanted. MR. MARTIN-Well. then the one can still move. the one defining the use. Bed & Breakfast. but he can't get. maybe the one that has to get held up is the site plan for expansion of the nonconforming structure. MS. CIPPERLY-Because it was denied. really. MR. MARTIN-His variance may be void. MR. TURNER-Yes. It might well be. MS. CIPPERLY-What would you like us to do? Would you like us to ask Paul about that? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Maybe if we could have a resolution out of the Board. instructing the Town Attorney to research this matter. I think that might be the best route. MR. TURNER-That's the best way to approach it. MR. CARVIN-I think this ought to get into Paul's lap. because this guy is allover the road. and I don't mind if he gives us the straight skinny here. MS. CIPPERLY-He commented to me afterwards. He said. you know. I realized what I was doing. He said. I've been in court enough to know when people are doing that. After I thought about it. I did the same thing that people were doing in court. was wanting to give you the right answer. MR. KARPELES-He wanted to give us what we wanted to hear. - 33 - -" MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. So. he realized that he did that. partly because he was nervous and wanted this thing to happen and everything. but he's not denying that he was evasive. or vague. MR. CARVIN-Well. Mike O'Connor said he was evasive. That's in the minutes. too. Well. Mr. Chairman. I'd like to move that we forward the DiPalma Variance. 94-1993. to Paul Dusek for review and opinion. MOTION THAT WE FORWARD THE DIPALMA VARIANCE. 94-1993. TO PAUL DUSEK FOR REVIEW AND OPINION. A COPY OF ALL THE MINUTES WITH REGARDS TO THAT. AND GET AN OPINION FROM MR. DUSEK AS TO WHETHER THAT MOTION ACTUALLY WAS DENIED. AND IF THE PROPER FORMAT WAS FOLLOWED IN RE- HEARING. Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Theodore Turner: Duly adopted this 19th day of January. 1994. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter. Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston MR. MARTIN-And I will. of the two site plans that are before the Planning Board. we have one for site plan review of the structure Bed & Breakfast. and then we have another site plan review application for expansion of a nonconforming structure. a residential site plan review. I think. until we get this matter cleared up. the one on the expansion of the structure should be held up until this is straightened out. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Well. I don't know how quickly Paul can move on this. but I don't know if that's going to knock him off the agenda for next week or not. MR. MARTIN-Well. I'm saying. there's two separate applications for the Board. I think the one is okay. MR. TURNER-Two different actions. yes. They can do the one on the site plan for the Bed & Breakfast. They can't do the one on this one. MR. MARTIN-Right. until this is cleared up. MR. TURNER-Until this is cleared up. MS. CIPPERLY-So. if he gets the Bed & Breakfast. does that negate the residential one anyway? MR. TURNER-Well. that's what he's going to have to determine. MR. MARTIN-He can have still have the Bed & Breakfast there without that 14 by 16 addition. but I'd like to get that cleared up. That should be rectified. because it's been all these years. MS. CIPPERLY-So if he gets the Bed & Breakfast. MR. TURNER-The addition doesn't go with the. MR. MARTIN-He can have that as it is. but the addition. MR. TURNER-The addition that he's proposed doesn't go with the site plan review. MS. CIPPERLY-The addition would require site plan review? - 34 - - MR. MARTIN-Yes. because it's expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-But would it require it as a Bed & Breakfast? MR. MARTIN-It's the structure. structure. It's not the use. It's the MR. TURNER-All right. Are we done with that one? Sonny Spahn. did you write him that letter and tell him? Any response? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. No. In fact. he's at the Warren County Board tonight. I talked to Wayne LaMothe up there. He said. how many signs is he allowed anyway? And I said. well. MR. MARTIN-There was some. I got a letter from him today. but I didn't get a chance to read it. I just got my mail at 4:30. and I didn't read the letter. but there was something from him there. MS. CIPPERLY-From who. Sonny? MR. MARTIN-Sonny Spahn. MS. CIPPERLY-Anyway. I did write him. and I said that unless he got his stuff together. he would not be reviewed. I said he needed the elevations. MR. TURNER-You should have seen his application. It was a mess. no measurements. no nothing. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I haven't read it yet. right out the window. Well. then. we should. MR. TURNER-I told her. write him a letter and tell him we're not going to review it until he submits it properly. MS. CIPPERLY-That's what I did. and I told him. also. Wayne said. tell him the same thing on behalf of Warren County. MR. MARTIN-We're going to make an effort to tighten up the completeness review of these applications. As staff. we're going to look at it from the standpoint of whether something's there or not. We're going to not look at the quality of the information. I think that's for the purview of the Board. but I don't want to be. as staff. people looking at us as judging somebody's quality of information. but if it's there or not. MS. CIPPERLY-If it says you need a map to scale. they're going to have to have a map to scale. MR. MARTIN-If the map's not there to scale. then we simply. MR. TURNER-Because it just makes them running back and forth. It makes us too busy. and we don't need to be. and it makes you too busy when you don't need to be. MR. MARTIN-Right. You get into some of these applications. she spends a lot of time holding people's hands through the. MR. KARPELES-The quality of the information. the quality of how to find the place has to be right. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KARPELES-I mean. that's something you should review. and make darn sure that the describe how to find the place correctly. MR. MARTIN-Right. Well. has the florescent pink? - 35 - -- MR. CARVIN-Up until this. I only saw one this time. In the past, and I don't know if that's just because of the weather or not, but I think that has been a step in the right direction. MR. TURNER-Yes, it is. It is, for people who are not familiar with the Town. MR. THOMAS-I think on those applications, too, neatness does count when they write these, and they hand write these things. Sometimes you can't even read the damn things. You don't know what they're trying to say. MR. MARTIN-Well, that would be another thing, if it's legible or not. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-That's why sometimes you see my handwriting on these, because somebody comes in and their hand's shaking when they're trying to write, and between just sort of humanitarian. MR. THOMAS-They're just making out a variance. They're not making out a mortgage. MR. MARTIN-They get pretty nervous. MS. CIPPERLY-Especially older people. MR. TURNER-Is Harris Bay coming? Jim, Site Plan, Harris Bay, will they get through their SEQRA review next week? MR. TURNER-I don't know about that. MR. MARTIN-They mayor may not. I'm not going to say. MR. TURNER-That's Tuesday night. So when will we know? Because there won't be any meeting. Only for Brian Granger. MR. CARVIN-We've got the sign there. MR. TURNER-And the sign. MR. MARTIN-You've got Sonny Spahn and Brian Granger now. MR. CARVIN-Well, no, you've got the other one. MR. TURNER-Log Jam. MS. CIPPERLY-Willey Creek is on the agenda for next week. MR. TURNER-Yes, they'll be here. MR. MARTIN-But Harris Bay, it's going to come right off the bat. They're going to dispute my determination that a Use Variance is needed in that regard, and that's going to be the first thing they're going to ask you. MR. TURNER-Yes. They've already asked that in a letter. Did everybody get a copy of the letter? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. MARTIN-And my response back. right off the bat. They're going to dispute that MS. CIPPERLY-One thing to think about, Ted, considering that that's a really lengthy ad for Harris Bay, Pam Whiting suggested in that case you might want to open the public hearing and then table it, I mean, if it comes to tabling it. - 36 - -..' MR. MARTIN-Because we have to re-print that. It's very expensive. MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-So. that's an idea. happen with the Planning Board. I don't know what's going to MR. TURNER-Well. I think. regardless of what the outcome is. like you say. if it's advertised. and they come. we'll do the public hearing and get it over with. MR. MARTIN-And leave it open. then. MR. TURNER-Yes. and we'll just leave it open. MR. MARTIN-And then we can renotify people via the telephone. when it comes up for review again. if it does. MR. TURNER-Yes. Okay. All right. MR. KARPELES-Are we going to do the minutes? MR. TURNER-Yes. I guess so. CORRECTION OF MINUTES October 27. 1993: Page 11. second Mr. Carvin from bottom. I hate to say that. but I'm looking at what they're sIb "saying"; Page 24. Mrs. Eggleston. in the middle. but we're talking about the legality of the advertising. just to be sure our hides are covered; Page 34. Mr. Thomas. third one down from the top. I read it as an MR-5 zone. They can have a beauty shop; Page 49. Ms. Cipperly from the bottom. it seemed like you were saying you wouldn't modify the front until you found out whether the State will buy the property; last Ms. Cipperly. okay. so right now you're not proposing to remodel; MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27. 1993 AS CORRECTED. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: Duly adopted this 19th day of January. 1994. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles. Mr. Carvin. Miss Hauser. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Menter ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston November 17. 1993: Page 5. Mr. Turner. up from the bottom. it's not a permitted use. It's an expansion of a preexisting business; Page 22. second Mr. Turner up from the bottom. at the end of the sentence. how long have you owned the house? Okay. cross out okay; Page 38. Ms. Hauser. saying no. then agreeing to something that I couldn't agree to one hundred percent. take out second. agree to one hundred percent; Page 37. Mrs. Eggleston up from the bottom. he's already told us it's going to be his trophy room or something. or his play room where he's going to keep his sIb mementos; Page 43. it says. Mr. O'Connor. but it sIb Mr. Karpeles; Page 45. Mr. Martin. up from the bottom. it says. I can't look into this gentleman's house. I'm just saying when I look at these plans that come in. I have to take people at their word; and up at the top. Mr. Carvin. well. let me ask you this. Ted. lets say that he rents the. sIb house MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 17TH. 1993 AS CORRECTED. Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption. seconded by Fred Carvin: - 37 - --~, --- ...- Duly adopted this 19th day of January, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Miss Hauser, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Menter ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman - 38 -