Loading...
1995-07-26 (,,- ORfGINA , QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUL Y 26, 1995 INDEX Area Variance No. 35-1995 Joseph D. & Diane M. Frazier Area Va,' iance No. 38'-1995 Don & Kathy Maynard Area Variance No. 39-1995 Bruce & Linda Breault Area Variance No. 40--1995 Richard Hard.in9 Area Variance No. 47-1995 William Keis 1. 8. 23. 32. 49. 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. ----........'"........,...-_.._---,------ - -- -",i QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 26, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY THOI'1AS FORD ROBERT KARPELES WILLIAM GREEN MEMBERS ABSENT DAVID MENTER PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-1995 TYPE: II WR-1A CEA JOSEPH D. & DIANE M. FRAZIER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROUTE 9L TO LEFT ON CLEVERDALE ROAD, LEFT ON HILLMAN ROAD, LEFT AT FORK (TAKUNDEWIDE) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 768 SQUARE FOOT CABIN AND REPLACE IT WITH A 1.5 STORY, 1,438 SQUARE FOOT CABIN, MAINTAINING THE EXISTING SETBACKS EXCEPT WHERE A HANDICAPPED RAMP IS TO BE ADDED. RELIEF IS NEEDED FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16C, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 7/12/95 TAX MAP NO. 11-1-1.29 LOT SIZE: 0.052 ACRES SECTION 179-16C KELLY FRAZIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 35-1995, Joseph D. & Diane M. Frazier, Meeting Date: July 26, 1995 "Project Location: Route 9L, to left on Cleverdale Road, left on Hillman Road, left at fork (Takundewide) PROPOSED PROJECT: Applicant proposes to remove an existing 768 sq. ft. cabin, and replace it with a 1.5 story, 1,438 sq. ft. cabin. The new house would stay within the existing footprint. A handicapped ramp would be added on one side. Height would be approximately 23 feet. CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Section 179-16C requires a front setback of thirty feet, side setbacks totalling 50 feet, and a rear setback of twenty feet. Relief is needed as follows: Proposed Regui req. Relief Requested Front 9 30 21 Rear 8 20 12 Side 7.9 min, 20, total 12.3 ( out of 20 ) Side 3 of 50 27 ( out of 30 ) Total= 39 ft. 3 in. relief Permeability 59% 65% 6% (These figures include 768 for house, 168 for ramp.) CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE, ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267, TOWN LAW. 1. BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT: Larger cabin with updated systems and winterization. 2. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: There is no alternative other than doing nothing. 3. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? Yes. 4. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY? It does not appear that this project would have an adverse effect on the community. A similar project exists a short distance away, and does not seem to present a problem. It appears to be the policy of Takundewide to - 1 - allow upward expansion, Judging from the brochure provided. 5. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED? The difficulty stems from the creation of individual lots for the cabins, with community space and septic systems outside of the individual ownership. This is similar to a condominium situation. PARCEL HISTORY: Takundewide originated as a rental colony and was converted to the ownership concept in 1984. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: In view of the fact that this ownership system was created to allow upward expansion, and that there is community space which provides room between buildings and provides for permeability, there does not seem to be a problem with granting this variance. This unit, in particular, has the advantage of being set apart somewhat from the other cabins, so would have less impact. SEOR: Unlisted, in CEA yields a Type I. Zoning Board of Appeals is the only involved agency, so can proceed with SECR determination at t his t 1. me . " MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12th day of July, 1995, the above application for an Area Variance to remove existing cabin and construct a new cabin. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: Concur with local conditions." Signed by C. Powel South, Vice Chairperson MR. CARVIN-Okay. MS. FRAZIER-I'm Kelly Frazier. engineer and our builder. This is Todd Stewart he's our MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there anything that you'd care to add? MS. FRAZIER-Not at the time, unless you have other questions. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Gentlemen, any questions? MR. KARPELES-There were some pictures mentioned. MS. FRAZIER-I have pictures if you want to see them. MR. CARVIN-Actually, I would like to see the brochures that, do you have copies of those brochures? MS. FRAZIER-This is a copy similar, that's what it will different pictures of the same of the kind of cabin where our look like, and then these are all project. MR. KARPELES-Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Do you have a copy of the brochure? MS. CIPPERLY-One page of it is in the application. MR. FORD-I have a question, Sue. How did you arrive at the square footage of the new structure? MS. CIPPERLY-It was on the application, but, you know, it's two stories now, isn't it. So the footprint actually is 768,which lS what we were really looking for on this sheet, because we're trying to figure permeability, but the actual square footage would be double that, right? TODD STEWART MR. STEWART-Right. The living space will be 768, plus, it's not exactly double. The footprint will remain the same, 768. MR. FORD-I understand about that, 768 could come in at saying that it's 1438? the footprint, but if over 1500 square feet, you double and we're - 2 - -- MR. STEWART-Correct. It's a dormered situation. So you're not using the full two stories of living space. There's some places where the roof comes down to sharp to (lost words) to be considered habitable space. The living space is to the outside walls, and the second floor, as well. MS. FRAZIER-Some of those are before and after pictures. The pictures that you see of the cabin that already has dormers is a cabin very close to ours, just up the hill, right, where similar work has already been done. MR. CARVIN-Sue, this house here, was this done by variance was it? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And when was that? MS. CIPPERL Yo-That I don't know. MS. FRAZIER-In '92. MS. CIPPERLY-Was it '92? Yes, the really only difference between those is one of these is inside the Critical Environmental Area line, and the other one is, that one was outside of it, but otherwise, it looks like a very similar. MR. CARVIN-But this one was done by variance. MS. CIPPERLY-By variance. Apparently, the reason that these lots were designed the way they were was to prevent horizontal spread of these cabins, but they did acknowledge, apparently, that the people might want to go upward, to have a little more bedrooms or whatever. So it's a kind of a unique ownership situation, there. I guess Takundewide has its own beach and dock. You get a dock, too, with, you buy one of these lots and you get a dock space, and a lot of community area. MR. FORD-A lot of community land. MS. FRAZIER-Mr. Mason explained to me, he was the original owner, or one of the original owners, explained to me that when they were originally divided for sale, that the setbacks were 10 feet on each side. I asked him why they didn't design them or sell them with the proper setback. He said at the time they did, and then the setbacks changed. So all the cabins now are nonconforming. MS. CIPPERLY-They did undergo a site plan review procedure that was done in 1988, and the setbacks weren't that much different. I think the Planning Board may have treated it as a different kind of project, somewhat maybe like a commercial. I looked up to see whether, there wasn't a, there was not a formal subdivision application, which sometimes will have a map when you've divided this many properties, but, apparently, it's still under Takundewide community, whatever. I look at it as very similar to a condominium or a townhouse situation, where a lot of those have 0 lot line setbacks, because of a community wallar they just happen to be cabins. MR. FORD-Because she mentioned there was a Long Environmental Form that was received. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, you should have. MR. KARPELES-We got it. They handed it to us tonight. MS. CIPPERLY-And as I said in my notes, the only reason this is needed is because of the addition of the ramp, makes permeability an issue. Permeability is an Unlisted Action under SEQRA. I - 3 - didn't really realize this until last Thursday, I think, faxed down a form and it was faxed back, and what the Board to do is start on Page Six of these forms, and answer questions. The applicant fills out the first five Usually, the Planning Board does this for you, but they're involved agency this time. So you need to go through That's just the first part. and I needs these pages. not an those. MR. CARVIN-Are you on a well? MR. STEWART-No, it's a public, within the community, it's a public water system, pump system by the lake. MR. FORD-Are you going to do some pruning on that large tree right by the existing structure? MR. STEWART-Only if it's near enough to the roof to enable the kids to get on the roof. MR. FORD-But it shouldn't impede the upward expansion of the structure? MR. STEWART-It shouldn't. MR. FORD-You have community water there you just indicated. What is the sewer arrangement? MR. STEWART-The sewer are private septic systems that are on common lands. In this case, it's a 1,000 gallon septic tank. The length of the leachfield I haven't been able to ascertain. We don't really want to rip up the land, at this point. At the time of construction, we'll determine, you know, we'll excavation the Distribution Box and determine how many laterals are running under that and probably add on a couple. MS. CIPPERLY-There is a letter with the application about the plans for the septic system. I don't know if it's worth reading it into the record. MR. CARVIN-What is the definition of aesthetic resources? MR. STEWART-I believe what they're referring to is views from other cabins or from the subject cabin. MR. CARVIN-I guess that's the one that I have a problem with. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, the other thing is you can do this form after you've seen if there's any public comment, and that question may be answered. MR. CARVIN-Does anybody have anything of note? Does anybody else have any questions of the applicant? MR. GREEN-Not right now, no. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-We do have this one letter. Do you want that read in, about the septic? MS. CIPPERLY-Only if, it's part of the application, and I thought it answered Tom's question, maybe, but he was just confirming something. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Why don't you read it in. MR. THOMAS-Okay. A letter dated June 27, 1995, the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Regarding the Frazier residence septic - 4 - -.....{ system design "To Whom It May Concern: Considering the following factors, we would like to defer the investigation of the septic system to determine the feasibility of possible future use & expansion until such time as construction is scheduled to begin on the residence: 1. Investigation of the system will require the unearthing of the septic tank, distribution box and the lines serving each, which would leave the lawn in disrepair during the peak of summer rentals. The management of Takundewide Inc., has expressed that they would like us to wait. 2. The septic system is located on the common lands of Takundewide Inc., with the homeowner having an easement for construction and repair, not on the subject property itself, and therefore does not have a bearing on the location of the proposed residence on the lot. On or around October 15th, 1995, the engineering department of Stewart Construction Inc. shall evaluate the existing septic system and present a design for expansion to the building department on the site plan. Any required expansion shall then be installed. The design shall include a new PVC baffle system for the septic tank. All disturbed areas shall be regraded and seeded. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Todd B. Stewart, VP Stewart Construction Inc." PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any discussion or questions, gentlemen? MR. GREEN-I have one question. Do you need any sort of permit or approval from Takundewide itself? MS. FRAZIER-Yes. We have already gotten Takundewide Homeowners Association Board of project. approval Directors on from the MR. FORD-Did they give you a written approval of the plan? MS. FRAZIER-I haven't been able, I am a friend of one of the members of the Board, and we talked to her and she said that they had approved it, but I haven't received anything. The meeting wasn't that long ago, though. MR. THOMAS-Do you plan on installing a foundation under this, a full foundation, half foundation, crawl space? MR. STEWART-Full foundation. MR. CARVIN-Are there any other people out there that you know of that are planning to do something along a similar? MS. FRAZIER-I don't know of any other parties that are planning, in the future. There are seven cabins that have added foundations for winterization, and the other cabin that you saw the picture of, that added a full second story. There's another cabin that made use of the (lost word) without demolishing the cabin, but I haven't heard anything. ' MR. KARPELES-I guess I didn't understand this. I thought you were just going to add an upper half a story, but you're not. You're going to demolish the cabin completely, are you? MR. STEWART-That's right. MR. KARPELES-And has it got a foundation at all now? MR. STEWART-No. MS. FRAZIER-It's up on pylons. MR. KARPELES-But you're going to keep the same foundation exactly? - 5 - MS. FRAZIER-That's one of the requirements of the Takundewide, that the outer appearance remain the same, and the shutters have to be the same, the windows have to be in the same place. MR. FORD-Well, the outward appearance cannot really remain the same if you're going to put this structure up higher. MR. STEWART-No. I think what they meant was the character of the neighborhood. MR. CARVIN-You can't put stone siding on or something like that. It has to be. MR. STEWART-It has to be the same. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions or comments, gentlemen? MR. GREEN-You said you weren't going to start this until the fall? MR. STEWART-That's right. MR. CARVIN-You don't know what type soil is out there? MR. STEWART-We haven't done pondinQ or retention on site. any excavation. There's no I assume it's well drained. water MR. GREEN-Sue, did everyone of these surrounding cabins get a notice? MS. CIPPERLY-Every one within 500 feet gets a notice. Plus, I believe there's an Association up there. I don't know how good their communication system is, but usually on Cleverdale they work pretty well~ MR. GREEN-Okay. MS. FRAZIER-Many of the cabins are not privately owned. So the Association is notified, and they would notify any of the members who owned cabins. MR. FORD-That's what I wanted to find out, if the Association itself is notified. MS. FRAZIER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. To expand upon that, would it be unusual for the owners to be subrenting to other folks, so that the occupants there may not necessarily be the owners? MS. FRAZIER-The cabins are rented on a weekly or monthly basis to tourists. It's a summer resort area, and some of the owners own two cabins and rent, just rent to people who come through for the summer, but those people would not be interested parties. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I guess that's my question. Would it be possible that we have a number of absentee owners at this point? MS. FRAZIER-Absentee owners? No, not that I know of. MR. CARVIN-Where information might be mailed up there and not actually be delivered? MS. CIPPERLY-No. goes to. So if goes to wherever back. We mail it to the address that the tax bill it's in New Jersey, that's where it goes. It the tax bill goes to. If it's wrong, they come MR. THOMAS-I don't have any back in the folder. - 6 - -./ MR. FORD-When did they go out, Sue? What I'm trying to determine is if somebody is up there for $ two week stay, and it went to their home, they conceivably did not receive it. MS. CIPPERLY-This notice is dated July 19th. People are supposed to get them at least five days before the meeting. You've got a list of the addresses. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Right. I'm looking right at them. MS. CIPPERLY-There's somebody in Texas, some in Connecticut, Saratoga Springs, Japan, Troy, Latham. It's not like they're. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Sue, the permeability is being affected just by the ramp, is that correct? MS. CIPPERLY-Right. necessary. That's what made the Environmental form MR. FORD-I can't see where this neighborhood or the environment. features for this family. is going to adversely impact the It certainly has some positive MR. KARPELES-I have no problem with it. I think it's a step in the right direction. MR. GREEN-No. It seems that even the Association itself approves of this sort of thing. So I don't have any problem with it. MR. THOMAS-I'm pleased as punch with it. MR. CARVIN-Then I would entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-1995 JOSEPH D. & DIANE M. FRAZIER, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: In the matter of the application of Joseph & Diane Frazier of Menands, New York, for Area Variance No. 35-1995, the applicant proposes to remove an existing 768 square foot cabin at 27 Hillman Road in Cleverdale, and construct a new, two story, 1438 square foot cottage on the existing footprint. Maximum height would be approximately 23 feet. A handicapped ramp would also be added on one side. Relief is sought from Section 179-16C, which requires a front setback of 30 feet, side setbacks totalling 50 feet, and a rear setback of 20 feet. Relief would be 21 feet on the front, 12 feet on the rear, 12.3 feet out of 20 on one side, and relief of 27 feet out of 30 on the other side. These figures including 168 square feet for the handicapped ramp. This parcel is part of Takundewide which originated as a rental colony and was converted to ownership concept in 1984. The difficulty stems from the creation of individual lots for cabins, with community space and septic systems outside individual ownership. I move to approve the proposed relief on the basis that the relief sought would be of benefit to the applicant by updating systems, winterizing and making it handicapped accessible. It would not interfere with the character of the neighborhood, nor would it negatively impact the health, safety or welfare of the community. No adverse comments have been received. There are no feasible alternatives, other than to do nothing. The requested relief is substantial. However, the community space between this and other buildings provides for permeability and open space. This open space lessens the impact of the relief on the neighbors. The new structure will not encroach any further on surrounding property than the existing one. The proposed variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. Distance to the shoreline is approximately 234 feet. The difficulty is less self-created and more a function of the history of the Takundewide parcel, with cabins on small lots Joined by community land. Upward expansion - 7 - is permitted by the Homeowners Association. This is an Unlisted Action under SEQRA with the ZBA being the only involved agency, and a Long Environmental Form has been completed and reviewed, and small or little environmental impact found. Granting six percent relief on permeability. Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 1995, by the following vote: MR. CARVIN-I also think that I would; question on the En~irQnmental Impac~, Item Number 18j "The proposed action will set an importa~t precedent for future projects." I think that that has a potentially large impact. I indicated that on mine. Does anybody? MR. THOMAS-I don't think it's a large impact. I think the Homeowners Association and the Takundewide, Inc. have stated that the only expansion can be upward. They can only put a second story on it and stay within the same footprint. So, I don't see where it would be any major future impact on, even any of the other cabins that are there. MR. FORD-I think it was anticipated, when this arrangement was set up. MR. CARVIN-Okay. As long as it stays within the footprints. MR. THOMAS-As long as it stays within the footprint, and I think that's part of Takundewide's prospectus. MR. CARVIN-Well, I don't know about the prospectus, but the deed restrictions. MS. CIPPERLY-Another point on that issue is that the height of this, the new structure, would be built 23 feet, which is well within the 35 that's allowed in the zone. Even if all of those went to 23 feet, you probably wouldn't have a big impact. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then the feeling is that it would be a small to moderate impact on that proposed action? MR. THOMAS-That's what I think it is. MR. CARVIN-Okay. AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-1995 TYPE II WR-IA CEA DON & KATHY MAYNARD OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE FITZGERALD ROAD, LOT 54 GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES A SHORELINE SETBACK OF FIFTY (50) FEET, SO SEEKS RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-60, WHICH REQUIRES A SHORELINE SETBACK OF 75 FEET. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 7/12/95 TAX MAP NO. 41-1-18, 19, 20 LOT SIZE: 0.68 ACRES SECTION 179-60 CHARLES JOHNSON & JAMES CULLEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 38-1995, Don & Kathy Maynard, Meeting Date: July 26, 1995 "PROJECT LOCATION: Fitzgerald Road, Lot 54, Glen Lake PROPOSED PROJECT: Applicant proposes to remove an existing camp and construct a year-round residence with a new septic system. CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Section 179-60 requires a shoreline setback of 75 feet. Applicant proposes a setback of 50 feet, so seeks relief of 25 feet. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE, ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267, TOWN LAW. 1. BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT: Applicant could - 8 - -' replace the existing seasonal camp with a year-round house. 2. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: There is an elevation change of 60 feet from the lake to the road, a distance of less than 200 feet. Considering this steepness, it may be that alternatives would create more disturbance than using the existing building area, and require more trees to be cut. Moving the house further back would result in an increase in elevation, making it more visible from both the lake and the road. 3. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? This relief is 33% of the requirement. 4. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY? There are no apparent adverse impacts on the lake or community or the immediate neighbors. No comments have been received to date. 5. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED? The desire to replace the seasonal camp with a year-round house could be considered self- created, but not unique. PARCEL HISTORY: The property is comprised of three separate lots. The existing camp was built in 1930. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: It should be pointed out that there are three separate lots involved, with plans to construct only one house on them. There is the possibility, though, it is not the applicant's intent, that three houses could be built here. If relief is granted, perhaps there should be a condition that the lots be merged. In general, this proposal seems reasonable to staff. It seems it would be preferable to rebuild in a location that has already been subject to development, rather than force disturbance of the steeper wooded areas. There is also an access consideration involved. The driveway is steep, and cannot be easily shifted on the site. In summary, it seems the benefit of this project to the community would be having one house where three would be possible, a decrease in the nonconformity, as the existing house is closer to the lake than the proposed, and the updating of the septic system. The current system may be non-existent or minimal -- in either case is close to the lake. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 12th day of July 1995, the above application for an Area Variance to remove existing seasonal camp structure and construct a new year round residence. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Return Comments: No action could be taken on this application, since a majority vote could not be achieved." Signed C. Powel South, Vice Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-You should have a new set of maps that came in yesterday. MR. KARPELES-Yes. We've got them. MR. JOHNSON-I'm Charles Johnson Architect with Paradise Design Architects. I'd also like to present the client's attorney, James Cullen. MR. CARV¡N-Okay. I'd like to get an Agent application, then, on file. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. MR. CARVIN-I don't have one. MS. CIPPERLY-I can write one up. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anything you'd care to add? MR. JOHNSON-Well, I'd like to introduce James Cullen, the applicant's attorney. I'll be available for technical questions. MR. CARVIN-Okay. - 9 - MR. CULLEN-Good evening. I'm with the law firm of McPhillips, Fitzgerald & Meyer, in Glens Falls. We represent Don and Kathy Maynard in this application. When the Maynards, as you know, purchased this lot with the camp on it, I have a photograph that I'd like to give to you. This is for your occasional look at, and point out what is shown on the diagrams, here. I think you received an uncolored version of this in the last couple of days. This is the floor plan and site plan. The existing camp is shown here in the darker colors, and obviously the lake is down here. The shaded area is not the floor plan of this area. It is the outside, maximum outside lines that they would expect to go when some building is finalized. That would be the maximum distance in all directions. It wouldn't be this big. The floor plan of this house that's presently proposed, it hasn't been finalized because it's expensive to finalize a house before approval, but this is 2300 square feet, plus the garage, plus this porch here, but it's a 2300 square feet two bedroom house. That's what the Maynards are proposing. This is a sketch of it. Obviously, Don Maynard has built several houses. If you've seen some of his work in Bedford Close, or Orchard Drive, or if you've seen the conversion of the Villa Nova to an office building on Bay Street, you know that he does high quality work. It's going to fit in over, to the greatest extent possible, the existing garage and the existing camp. The existing camp, as the papers show, is 35 feet from the lake. The Maynards are proposing to go back to 50 feet, 15 feet further away from the lake. The Ordinance is 75 feet. The unusual part about this application is that, for the most part, there are no losers. For any part, there are no losers. Everybody seems to benefit by it. On the other side of this board, if you'd like to see it at any time, is the survey of the existing camp, and a diagram showing the elevations for the present site, the proposed Maynard approach, and what would happen if the Zoning Ordinance were complied with in totality. The Zoning Ordinance itself, of course, states that a variance can be granted when there is a hardship (lost word) that is inconsistent with the general zoning objectives, and we can show both of those things, Number One, that there is a hardship here, and Number Two, that not to grant this variance would be inconsistent with the zoning objectives of the Town, talking about the hardship. The problem with all of this is the steepness. It's the grade that causes the problem. It runs approximately 62 feet vertically from the road up here to the lake. That's very steep grade, maybe 30 percent slope. So the problem is with the slope. This is unlike a lot of areas, if you haven't seen it, it's unlike a lot of areas around Glen Lake where it's flat and no steep slope behind the house, and the major part of this slope, or a good part of it, is behind the existing structure up in here. If you look at the photograph, you'll see that there aren't too many trees döwn in here. It's open to the lake, but once you get back in here, that's where all the trees are, and there's a steep bank back there. Thus, the dr iveway has to come down that vJay. By the way, this is the property line here. This area up here is not owned by the Maynards. So any excavation work would be from here down. The movement of the house back to the 75 foot setback would create several problems. First of all, as mentioned in the papers, the house would have to be razed. When you go back on that hill, you've got to go up. You go back 75 feet, it would result in this house being 17 feet, vertically, higher than that camp you're looking at there. It would sit right up in the air. In addition to that, besides being so conspicuous, by it's height, these trees back here would have to be removed. It's fair to say that almost all of the trees would have to be removed, to put this building back there. So what you'd look at, from the lake, would be just an open swathe through there, with this house sitting up on top. The trees that would have to be removed consist of at least 10 healthy, large beautiful trees, plus numerous small ones, it would just be disastrous. Perhaps the worst part about it is the access problem. Remember, this is what the Maynards propose, if this went back another 25 feet, - 10 - , ~- -~ this road here would have to be moved up in here, where the new septic system is proposed, by the way. It will be a new system. That road will have to go back up in there to make a little more gradual, but, still, you're talking about an extremely steep hill, probably 20 to 25 percent slope. That would make it, in the best of things dangerous, and at worst, unusable, and it would certainly create a problem with emergency vehicles. I'm told that, Don inspected the roadway today, and if that building is forced back to the 75 foot place, that this road right here will be right even, the eaves will be almost touching the road, the eaves of the building. So, that steepness on getting access to the property creates a serious hardship to the Maynards. In addition, there would be some excavation that would be substantial. Maybe I should turn this over and let you look at the elevations again. What would happen is that, if this is the way it is now, and this is the way the Zoning Ordinance would require it, there'd be a great big cut right through here of excavating in order to place that building back there. It'd be an enormous amount of work, in addition all of the trees that are there would be gone. The cost, although the cost of the excavation and tree removal is not the deciding factor, I don't think, in deciding what would be a hardship. There is, in fact, a statement here from Crandall Excavating for $10,846 for the removal of the trees and doing the excavation work. I suppose that is a hardship, but the real hardship is that you can't put a price on those trees. There just isn't any way that you can finger that. MR. FORD-Excuse me. Is that based on the 75 foot setback? MR. CULLEN-Yes, it is. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. CULLEN-It should be noted that the next door neighbors are, on both sides, in front of the rotation proposed by the Maynards. Again, we don't think that that is the crucial factor here, but it is a factor. It isn't as though he is going to be ahead or closer to the lake than his neighbors who will, in fact, be behind them. It's also noteworthy, we believe, that there has been no objection, and, in fact, Mr. Maynard showed the plans to his neighbors on both sides, Dr. Petrosky's on one side, who owns a substantial amount of land, and he has no objection, and on the other side, the next nine houses or so, the next nine camps, signed their consents to this also. So, it's clear that, as far as the Zoning criteria's concerned, there is a substantial hardship, practical difficulty, for the Maynards, a correction that is not opposed by anyone in the neighborhood. The other part of the Zoning Ordinance which is pertinent here is that part of it that says that variances are allowed where there's no inconsistency with the general objectives and purposes of the Ordinance. Those purposes, as I'm sure you're aware, are set forth in your Ordinance in detail. A couple of them, in Section 179-2, deal with insuring the optimum use of land. This Board has the duty to insure the optimum use of land and development of land in Town, and also to protect the aesthetics of the property, and they are the two things we're talking about here. Aesthetics is what zoning is all about for a great part, and what we're talking about in asking for this variance is aesthetics. If you are out on that lake, and look up at that bank and those trees are gone and that house is sitting up there, the aesthetics have taken a beating. I'm sure the neighbors would agree with that. I'm sure everyone around Glen Lake would agree with that, and it would seem to me that it's in the best interest of the Town not to let that happen. So, in meeting those criteria, the aesthetics control the difficulty the Maynard controls, and I point out also that some of the things you've read here tonight are directly taken as criteria from the New York Town Law . Your Zoning Ordinance refers to the Town Law as to what the criterion are. If you look at Section 2678 of the Town Law, and apply it - 11 - to this application, you'll find that everyone of those criteria has been satisfied. For example, does this change the character of the neighborhood. That would be Number One, and of course it doesn't. If anything, this is going to do more to keep the character of the neighborhood as it was. Keeping those trees there is important. You can go through each onè of these. Environmental Impact. One of the problems with the existing site, we guess, is that we don't know if there's a septic system or not up there, but there will be a new one, for the main house. So each one of those considerations are satisfied by the facts and the proposal made by Mr. Maynard. This is a situation where the best thing that can happen is to move this house back 15 feet from where it is now, to give it greater compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, but no so far back that it's going to rip the soil up and rip the trees out, and give him reasonable access to the property. It's a benefit to the Town at large, as well as the local, the neighborhood of Glen Lake, and as well as to the Maynards, if you carried out the Town objectives and the Zoning Ordinance, to grant this variance, and the Maynards would be able to carry out their objectives, which are nearly identical to yours. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions, gentlemen? MR. KARPELES-Yes. This plot plan that we're looking at, there's a mention of three separate lots. Is this the three lots combined in this plot plan we're looking at? MR. JOHNSON-Yes, they are. MR. KARPELES-And this area between Fitzgerald Road and this lot, is there a right-of-way across there? MR. JOHNSON-That's currently Town property. Fitzge)-ald Road used to run. That's where MR. KARPELE5-50 it was mentioned here that you'd be willing to combine this and make this all one lot. Is that right? DON MAYNARD MR. MAYNARD-Yes, definitely. MR. FORD-Sue, I have a question for you, relative to the required frontage on the Town road. MR. CARVIN-He's got 40 feet. MR. FORD-No. It's nowhere near 40 feet. MR. CARVIN-He's got all of this. MR. FORD-No. Fitzgerald Does that apparent area of accurate. Does that now compliance? Road is well out from the driveway. where the road used to run, that's constitute the, does that come into MR. JOHNSON-I don't mean to interrupt you. We've checked with the surveyor on that exact point this afternoon, and he talked about the road frontage requirement being met, it's Town property, whether the road's 10 feet or 20 feet, it's Town property (lost words). MR. FORD-Thank you. Could I get our Attorney's opinion? PAUL DUSEK, TOWN ATTORNEY MR. DUSEK-I think, what we don't know, of course, from this information, unless somebody knows this, is whether Fitzgerald Road is a Town road by deed, or is it by use? Do you know that? - 12 - -"'" MR. CULLEN-I don't know. I know we checked the ownership of all of the other neighboring properties, I think Johnson was mentioned to us, and no one owns record title to that parcel. So the only thing that makes sense is what Mr. Maynard was told today, and that is that that was the site of the old road, and when the road changed it just became in limbo that it belongs to the Town. MR. DUSEK-Well, the reason why I asked the question is because, if it was deeded to the Town, actually, as I think about it, it really doesn't make, probably, any difference either way, but if it was deeded to the Town, then there's obviously no problem, because it's all Town property and it'd only be used for a road, obviously, in that area, that you can't deny them access to Fitzgerald Road. There's no question about that. If it's not deeded, if it's a road by use, what would happen in this situation is that the property, if the road is used and it's a road by use, meaning no deed into the Town, that extra property goes back to the underlying owner, upon the Town's abandonment of that particular area of the road, in which case, regardless of who it goes to, here again, these folks would have to have a right-of-way and easement over that to gain access to that road. There's no way anybody could deny that, because you can't prevent access to a parcel under these circumstances. So if you're concerned about access to the road, there's no question, I think, that they have access, and they'll continue to have access from one, looking at the map, but also I went up to the site and actually saw the road area. As far as actual frontage along the road, I suppose the only issue that you could possibly come into there is if it was a right-of-way only, or road by use, and the underlying property owner was not these folks, but rather somebody on the other side, then there might be an issue as to whether they have that full, that they fully line up against the road, but what I'm hearing is that you can't find title to that par cel . MR. CULLEN-No, and it isn't in any of the other. MR. DUSEK-It isn't in any of the other owners. MR. CULLEN-I believe that a title company insured title to the property, which included access to, I'm not 100 percent sure, I think. MS. CIPPERLY-Also in the tax map skinny triangular piece here, just property, that, where this is, straightened the road out. it is just this, there's a mainly in front of the Maynard because they seem to have MR. DUSEK-This is something, if you felt it was important, we could certainly check the Town's records on the road. It would be easy enough to ascertain what the Town feels about the situation by just simply going through the Clerk's records. Unfortunately, I just don't know without doing that. MR. FORD-We've just gone through a lot of hoops just down the road to make sure that someone with that property had the 40 feet needed for frontage. MR. CULLEN-You could search for a long time and not find anything on this, and that's what we did, and that leads to the explanation that is the basis of the old Town road, it became in limbo when the road was moved, because it is not owned by anyone else, and that would give the Maynards frontage, and if it's Town property, no matter how they got it, the Maynards front on, they don't have to front on the pavement. They can front on Town property. MR. DUSEK-That last part's a true statement. I would agree with that. They don't actually have to front on the pavement. The - 13 - -...... """'" question is, is that Town property. issue here. I think that's the real MR. FORD-I understand that. MR. CARVIN-This camp is seasonal now. Is that correct? MR. MAYNARD-Yes, it is. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and you're proposing to turn it into a full time? MR. CULLEN-Year round. MR. CARVIN-Year round. I guess I have a problem with driveway. Have you tried that driveway in the winter time? you going to have a major problem there? that Are MR. CULLEN-If there's a problem, there'll be a much worse problem if we have to go back the 75 feet up the road. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's what I'm wondering. that is not a viable driveway, do we, in next altered because you've piled your car up neighbor's back yard. I don't know. If year, see the plan in the next door MR. JOHNSON-Well, right now the driveway is, probably I would say the maximum you'd want to have in terms of steepness. It's about 20 percent. With a 20 percent grade driveway you'd need a platform at the bottom and a platform (lost words) to both start and stop your vehicle before you turn onto the road or come into your garage. That's what we've got at 50 feet. We're maxed with the driveway being useable. MR. CARVIN-Under the present configuration? MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. CULLEN-No. That isn't the present configuration, that's the proposed configuration. MR. CARVIN--Is the proposed pretty close to the present? MR. CULLEN-Correct, pretty close. MR. CARVIN-So, I mean, there isn't a significant change, because I have made visitations up in that area in the winter time, and I want to tell you, it's a one way street, and I have a real concern about that, I think. Again, what I'm saying is, are we going to be looking a year down the line, going out there and seeing a new configuration of the driveway into the back of the house? I don't know. MR. CULLEN-I don't think that would require any action by this Board. MR. CARVIN-I know, I mean, but if we move it back 75 feet and make the reconfiguration now, I mean, we would be in compliance with the 75 feet. MR. JOHNSON-If there were a reconfiguration available now, we'd be doing it. The property that's available to try and reconfigure a driveway on is unsuitable right now, to make a driveway out of it or on it. From that property line down to where the driveway is now is a 30 foot drop in elevation. So it's just a steep bank. So that the driveway, as you've probably noticed as you go out onto the site backs right up against that bank. So to try and remove that in any substantial way to lessen the steepness or make an approach any different than what it is is almost out of the question. So if we could improve it, we - 14 - '-- '- would, as part of this 50 foot setback. see us, a year or two years or whenever, make a driveway So I don't think you'll coming back wanting to MR. CARVIN-Okay. Has any consideration been given to putting a garage up on the upper portion? MR. CULLEN-We have. It's inconvenient. When you have a year round house, you want to be able to drive down to your home, and be able to walk in your front door. MR. CARVIN-I have no doubts you'll be able to drive down it in the winter time. Coming out may be a different story. MR. FORD-We're really not sure of the structure that's going to go on there, are we? MR. CULLEN-We've given you an intent, an idea. The final exact form is not going to change substantially from that. That's the characteristics of it. MR. FORD-Did I see some place that this was a single story dwelling? MR. CULLEN-A single story with an exposed basement. So, it'll look, it appears, in that sketch, as a two story home from the lake? MR. FORD-Yes, it does. MR. CULLEN-Right. It's a walkout basement. MR. CARVIN-Well, it seems to me we went through this before, didn't we? MR. FORD-It sounds familiar. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-Is there basement, like a family living l' oom? space intended in the walkout MR. CULLEN-There'll be some activities from lake front, maybe they'll come up and get swimsuits, things like that, but it's not going to be finished off as living space. MR. FORD-And it's not counted in that 2300 square feet? MR. CULLEN-Right. MR. THOMAS-Is the porch and garage counted in that 2300 square feet? MR. CULLEN-No. MR. THOMAS-How many square feet aTe they combined? MR. CULLEN-Another 1700. MR. THOMAS-So we're talking a 4,000 square foot first floor. MR. CULLEN-Basically. MR. FORD-What's the size of the garage? MR. JOHNSON-It's approximately 900 square feet. MR. FORD-Approximately. MS. CIPPERLY-He's very aware of the garage issue. - 15 - MR. CARVIN-And what's the basement area? MR. CULLEN-The basement area will be the 2300 square feet. We're only going to have a basement area (lost words) living space. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So you're going to have 2300 that's not part of the living space at this point? MR. CULLEN-In the basement, correct, is not considered. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Would it be incorrect we're looking at a total of around 6,000 adds up, all total? for me to say, then, or 6200, whatever that MR. CULLEN-If you wanted to say 4600. You're not going portions that are included outline. We're never going they're. say potential heating space, I would to use the garage for living or the as part of our setback building to use those. I'm not sure what MR. CARVIN-Well, we're looking at 2300 basement, I guess, for lack of a better term, and then 2300 for living. MR. CULLEN-Then the 1700 for porches and garages. MR. CARVIN-So that's about 6300 total area, between two stories. MR. JOHNSON-I think if you were to take a typical 2400 square foot (lost word) colonial you might find in a subdivision, added its basement and its garage, you're going to come close to the same kind of a number. We're not trying to build something that's the Taj Mahal. MR. CARVIN-What's the lake front height approximately, from ground to peak? going to be, MR. JOHNSON-It'll approximately be, from grade to eave, about 20 feet, plus the roof. The roof is going to be eight to ten feet. MR. CARVIN-What's the current camp, do you know right off hand? MR. JOHNSON-It's 25 to 28 feet. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions, gentlemen? If not, I'm going to open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARVIN-Any correspondence? MR. THOMAS-One letter submitted by the applicant to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, regarding application for variance by Don F. Maynard and catherine Maynard, on Glen Lake, Town of Queensbury "Dear Sir/Madam: The undersigned have reviewed the survey with elevations dated July 6, 1995, a site plan dated June 27, 1995, and a proposed house design in connection with the above variance application. We have no objection to the granting of such variance so that a residence may be placed 50 feet from the shoreline of Glen Lake." And it's signed by 10 property owners, adjoining. MR. CARVIN-Can you read the names. MR. THOMAS-Petrosky, Petrosky, Kane, Dollus, Kristensen, Kristensen, and the guess. Is that Dineen? Gordon Dineen. Kane, Jarvis, Jarvis, last one is anybody's PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay, gentlemen, any comments or questions? - 16 - MR. THOMAS-I think 6,300 square feet is way too much square footage for a house on a 30,000 square foot lot. I think that the applicant could reduce the size somehow and I think by reducing the size he could move it back a little bit, how much determines upon the design. That's the only concern I have. MR. GREEN-Is the actual square footage the concern? I mean, not from an aesthetic point of view, but from a legal point of view, a variance point of view? If he were to meet the 75 feet, he could build this house. MR. CARVIN-Well, the question is, can he meet the 75 square feet? MR. GREEN-According to his own plan, he can. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but not without interfering with this road coming down. By his own admission, the edge of his road would be on his eaves. MR. FORD-With a house of this particular configuration. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. FORD-Set at that angle. MR. CARVIN-What are you suggesting, a different angle, turning it sideways and moving it back? You could pick up another five, ten, fifteen feet? MR. FORD-Sure. There are any number of ways of building and setting this, and I don't know how wed they are to this configuration for the house. Maybe this is their dream house. MR. JOHNSON-You're exactly right. We can shift and move and change the size and shape. However, the whole point of why we're here tonight is to try to preserve the character and the existing terrain of the property. To do anything other than what we're proposing, increases the development, increases the disturbance of the site. So that the lot will certainly support a house~ but the reason that we're here is to preserve the characteristics of the site. MR. FORD-With a house that is yet to be determined. MR. MAYNARD-It's really unfair to use the basement as square footage. I mean, when you have subdivisions through Queensbury that require 2400 square foot house, plus a 1200 square foot house and say (lost word) basement, now you've got 2400. So it's unfair to characterize this project as being 6,000 feet. MR. CULLEN-On the other side of this house, it's a ranch house. The basement doesn't show from the other side. This is a one story house, and there's a large porch, would look beautiful in the area. It is not a 6,000 square foot house by any stretch of the imagination. It's a two bedroom house. MR. KARPELES-These sections confuse me. What have we got below there? Is this the basement that shows below the 280 foot? MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MR. KARPELES-So the car actually comes in on the first floor level, on the living floor level. MR. JOHNSON-As it exists right now, the car drives in at roof level, and you walk down from the driveway to the first floor. MR. KARPELES-Maybe you can show us on here. MR. GREEN-Is the garage on there? - 17 - -"- MR. KARPELES-Where is the garage? MR. JOHNSON-This is the garage right here. MR. KARPELES-No, no. I'm talking about the new garage. MR. FORD-On the proposed one. MR. KARPELES-No, on the elevation. MR. FORD-On the elevation, where's the garage? MR. CULLEN-It's going to be right here. MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. FORD-To the right of that structure, or part of that structure? MR. JOHNSON-No, part of it. Part of that structure. MR. FORD-So there's going to be a basement under the garage? MR. JOHNSON-I mean, these shapes here are diagrammatic. They represent a 48 foot wide house. As you can see in our plan, here, this garage is right over the existing one. So going back to this drawing, this is where that existing garage is now. So this is where the new garage would be. It's just simply not drawn, to get the point across of the terrain of this lot. These are diagrammatic houses, okay. The actual garage would be placed behind this diagrammatic house, to give you a better feel for what's going on. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but still, it's on the living floor level. MR. JOHNSON-That's right. It's on that level. MR. KARPELES-So the basement is below the garage floor. MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. GREEN-But not directly under it. MR. CULLEN-Correct. MR. KARPELES-No. Okay. I think he's got a real problem with the site to do any better than he's doing. I think that what they're saying about the minimum disturbance to the existing lot is true, and he's got a problem with the driveway, but that's a problem he's going to have to live with. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. FORD-I have a little difficulty in voting for approval of a structure that I'm not really sure of and no one else is either. Lets assume that we took this footprint as it exists, however, in the proposal. My concern is that when we raze an existing structure, we then have an opportunity to come into compliance, and I certainly agree with you that to place this structure on this property at that angle, it's virtually out of the question to go back the 75 feet. If you were bent on that configuration for the structure, the new one, is it possible to go back, say, another 12 feet or so which would then not still interfere with the gravel drive and would get us in closer to compliance. MR. JOHNSON-There really, no, and I'll use this diagram. The driveway, as it comes down right now, drops 30 feet from the road to garage. So right here, this part of the driveway is already 10 feet above the floor of the garage. So to come back any closer, we just keep pushing that driveway farther and farther - 18 - ~ away. We can't have the house directly adjacent to our driveway that's 10 feet up the hill. We've got to allow some room between this new house and the existing drive to preserve the drive. We can't really push this drive back anymore or we would be doing that already. MR. FORD-I was up there, and I looked at the drive, and leaving that alone, I just thought that there appeared to be that kind of space that would still not butt up against the road, but you disagree with that. MR. JOHNSON-If you could take half of that existing garage, and add it to the end of the garage, that's how much space we're going to be proposing here. That'll give you a visual feel for the amount we're talking. You walk up this driveway, and you look over the top of the garage already. So, again, just trying to inch that closer to the garage, it's just not going to work by the existing grades. MR. CULLEN-In addition to that, you're going to have, even using 12 feet or something like that, an enormous number of trees that have to go, and there's some big ones. MR. KARPELES-Some of them have already come down. MR. CULLEN-The ones that are still standing are very strong. There would be a lot of trees that would have to be removed, even in that smaller area. MR. GREEN-How wide is this master bedroom and master bath, front to rear? MR. JOHNSON-I think it's about 16 from lake to road. MR. GREEN-We need 20 on one side and 30 on the other, basically, or 20 and 20 with a total of 50 for side setbacks? MR. CARVIN-That sounds about right. MR. GREEN-I didn't know if there was any way to reconfigure the house to take those and put them on the sides rather than in the front, do you follow what I'm saying, and not get any deeper, but longer. MR. JOHNSON-Correct, and if we get longer, we take down more trees. If we get longer, we'd have to excavate more. So anything else that we do, we shoved this house in over the existing house, in over existing excavations on the site, around the cabin, to minimize tree removal and excavation. So anything else that we're going to do, move, shift, whatever, changes the existing tree cover, changes dramatically the existing terrain, and that's why this house developed in the shape that it developed. Number One, access from the driveway, that's why the garage is tucked in the back corner. Number Two, fitting the house in around the existing cabin and open area. That was what the drove the design that you see today. MR. CULLEN-You were right, earlier, Mr. Green, in what you said about, if a variance isn't granted, anything can be put up in there. There's no limit, as long as the rear and side setbacks are adhered to. You could put a castle in there, there's no control, no regulation over that by anybody. The terrain itself is mandating that the Maynards (lost word) their desire for an aesthetic, to keep this downsized, and that's why it's configured the way it is. MR. CARVIN-Any other comments? MR. FORD-I have a question for Mr. Maynard. You were on site this afternoon, did you look at that as a possibility, the 10, 12 - 19 - ---- - feet? MR. MAYNARD-I did, and what I determined was that if I were to take the garage in section, push it in the 12 feet, it would almost line the eaves of the existing garage, which is a simple eight foot high typical garage roof. The eaves would almost be right in line with the road. So, essentially, if you were to lose control of your car, whatever, which we hope wouldn't happen, but I mean you could actually drive it over the roof of your garage because it would push it right back into the road. It would enable people to come walking down the driveway and walk right up the roof of your house. There's just no division there. The other thing that I would like to mention, too, is that I know there's some talk about turning the house the other way, so we could push it back. This configuration that sits right over these two existing buildings maximizes the privacy between the other two neighbors who are well within the now nonconforming setbacks. Dr. Kristensen's camp I would dare say is, I'll say seven or five feet to my line it appears. So if we were to turn things around, we're going to put our house right in his side yard, which he isn't looking for. Also, we'd reflect the same thing with Dr. Petrosky's camp, which may be 15 feet or so off the line. They're both very close. So keeping it oblong this way appears to be the most reasonable way to get into the site and still provide the neighbors with the same privacy that they had before. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other comments, gentlemen? We've got kind of an unmanageable situation here. I mean, it is unique. MR. THOMAS-Well, we with the same, right went through this, what, back last over across the lake. winter, MR. CARVIN-Yes, but I don't think it was quite as bad as this slope is. MR. THOMAS-Well, we were counting the, they were saying they were going to put an unfinished basement. It's just that I'm trying to be consistent around the lake. MR. CARVIN-Well, I agree with you. I mean, I'd like to see them back the 75 feet, and I do think that there's going to be a problem with that driveway, on a full time basis, and I don't have an alternative for the garage. MR. MAYNARD-That's why, the driveway works the way it is right now, and that's probably why that garage is where it is. MR. CARVIN-Have you ever been down in there in the winter, though? I mean, have you actually tried it in the winter. MR. JOHNSON-I know that the previous owners have gone in. I'm not, personally, concerned about it, as we've proposed it, because we both, my wife and I have four wheel drive vehicles, but I would be concerned if that house were back 75 feet, pushing that whole driveway, and potentially putting a house right at the very end of a steep driveway. I don't think it's a good design. I wouldn't design it for someone else if I was building a house. I really wouldn't want that design. It sits right in a little cove where there are not a lot of trees right now. Because there's a house and a garage in there, we're going to excavate maybe 10 feet past the retaining wall that sits behind the existing building in to get our foundation in. If we go back the 75 feet, we estimate to excavate 35 feet back into that bank, to get the cellar in, which means that's 35 feet more trees and all that dirt has to be removed and hauled away, and that's part of that bid that I furnished. It doesn't really, I know you're concerned about the setbacks and precedents and things like that, but this particular site, I think, needs to be reviewed on its own merit, and not compared to anybody else's flat site or - 20 - I --- whatever. We've seen other sites that have been developed around the lake recently that are flat and are three stories up. We aren't proposing to infringe on anything other than to tuck this house into its original clearing almost that's there now. You can make numbers sound anyway you like, 2400, now we've doubled, basically we've got 48. We don't have a 7,000 square foot house. MR. CARVIN-Sue, if they keep that 30, 35 feet under current, would you have a feel for what that's going to look like from the lake? I mean, I know, in the other case, planning was pretty much opposed to having this type of situation, in other words, they just thought the aesthetics, I think, were going to be dramatically altered, and I'm just wondering what your feel is for this one, as compared to that other one. MS. CIPPERLY-For one thing, this has a lot more trees, and I think trying to save them is commendable. This one's 30. The other one was proposed was 35. The other one that we were talking about had a lot more, like, the flat side of the house was toward the lake. Here you've really got just a couple of roof peaks, really, if this is what the design ends up being. The other one was definitely three stories of glass, and I found that one objectionable. I also didn't think that the site was that difficult, but I've been in this position now for almost two years, and I'd say this particular site is probably the most difficult to build on that I've seen in the two years. I think it's the best case for relief based on the topography, and I think we've got to, first of all, take that into consideration, and also putting it back will put it higher, and I think you've got a good situation here, in terms of, you know, an architectural design and a person who happens to also be a builder and able to work with the site and absorb some of that development cost, that somebody else may not be able to, but as I said, I think it's the site in the last two years, it's the site most likely, to me, to have a, be able to prove a difficulty based on the site conditions, and as I said in my note, I'd much rather see somebody disturb the existing disturbed area than go up into that hill between the driveway and the garage and start excavating up there. As far as the view from the lake, I think pushing it back automatically makes it higher, and they could go 35 feet tall. MR. CARVIN-That's ground to basement, right? MS. CIPPERLY-Right. That's measured, the grade, the lowest point to the highest point. MR. CARVIN-And that's going lakefront? I mean, isn't it point? to be lowered, is it, proposed to be lowered, on the at some MS. CIPPERLY-To 28. MR. CARVIN-Twenty-eight feet. Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-One question, what is the actual, like, if you took the first floor of the camp, now, and the basement? MR. JOHNSON-It was 24 by 22, what's that 850 square feet, roughly. MS. CIPPERLY-That's 1008, is that what you said? basement, that would be twice. And the MR. JOHNSON-Is there a full basement? MR. MAYNARD-That portion that's boarded in front in the picture, if you have it there, is an area that says mechanical area, hot water heater. It's not winterized. It goes back into the bank maybe half way. - 21 - MS. CIPPERLY-I was just trying to get a comparison. It sounds big to say 4,000 square feet, but you've probably got at least 1500 just in the camp. MR. JOHNSON-Well, then, plus we're adding the garage for your figures, you've got to add our garage on the existing. There's another 320, 300 feet. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, comments, gentlemen? MR. FORD-Is it anticipated that the garage will be single story, no storage overhead? MR. MAYNARD-Right. MS. CIPPERLY-No guest quarters? MR. MAYNARD-No. We're trying to keep the profile in keeping with the site. I have no intentions of modifying. There's only two of us. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I don't know what else to do. I mean, we granted relief on the other one. We didn't get a full 75 feet there. I think this one is probably extremely difficult to get a full 75 feet. I think, as Jim has pointed out, that we have the sort of win/win situation. The Town wins and the applicant wins, and he's moving back away from the lake, and nobody else out there, at this point, they're all further, so he's moving in the right direction, which is what ~'Je ~..¡ant. My only hesitation Ü:; that, at some point in the near future, there's another accessory structure out there, because I think the driveway is going to be unmanageable. I think that whether Mr. Maynard or his predecessors, but I think we will be s~eing this again for an accessory structure, but that's not part of the plan right now. I'd like to get 55 feet. I'd like to get 60 feet. I mean, I'd like to get every foot back away from the lake that I 6an get, but I guess my main feeling is that if 50 feet is all we can get, comfortably, then I would say, Ipts m00~ it. MR. THOMAS-I'm still tossing it. I'll tell you, those trees that are left there, I work for Niagara Mohawk, and last week I worked a lot of over time on a storm up in Loon Lake, and I talked to a lot of tree people up there, and they say the trees that are left standing should be cut down, because the foundations and the root systems have been rocked, and if it didn't go over this time, either the next time or the time after that, those trees are going to go over, and when I was up in the site today, I saw the top of two oak trees snapped out, and the large pine from next door on the Petrosky property come over onto that property. As far as the removal of those trees, if you don't take them down now, I've got a real funny feeling within five years they're going to have to come down, just from the damage from the storm last week. So that's the only comment I have about the trees, and I've seen devastation before, but last Saturday, last week was total devastation. My point is that the remaining trees, I think he can reconfigure. Because I don't think the remaining trees are going to be there for much longer. That's my opinion and those that I've talked to in the profession. MR. CARVIN-Okay. All right. I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-1995 Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved seconded by Fred Carvin: DON & KATHY MAYNARD, for its adoption, Applicant proposes to remove an existing camp and construct a year round residence with a new septic system. Section 179-60 requires a shoreline setback of 75 feet, and applicant is proposing a setback of 50 feet. So a relief of 25 feet is necessary. The benefit to the applicant is that he can replace - 22 - ...- an existing seasonal camp with a year round house. There doesn't appear to be any feasible alternative to the proposal that he has before us. There is an elevation change of 60 feet from the lake to the road, which is a distance of less than 200 feet. Considering this elevation change, it would appear that any alternative would create more disturbance than using the existing building area and would require more trees be cut down. Moving the house further back would result in an increase in elevation, making it more visible from both the lake and the road. This relief is substantial. It's 33 percent of the requirement, but there are mitigating circumstances. There are no apparent adverse impacts on the lake community or the immediate neighbors. No neighbors have been here to object to this, and we have a letter from the immediate neighbors saying that they approve of this. The property is comprised of three separate lots, and the applicant has said that he would be willing to combine these three lots to make it so that no one else could build on here, other than this one camp. This is contingent that these three lots be combined. It would seem that it would be preferable to rebuild in the location that has already been disturbed, rather than disturb a new area. The height will not exceed, from the grade elevation to the peak of the roof, will not exceed 30 feet. Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-1995 TYPE II MR-5 BRUCE & LINDA BREAULT MOBILE HOME SINGLE SITING OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 64 MINNESOTA AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 24-FOOT DIAMETER ABOVE GROUND POOL AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-67, WHICH REQUIRES A SETBACK OF 20 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND 10 FEET FROM THE SIDE LOT LINE AND ANY PRINCIPAL OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE THE POOL APPROXIMATELY TWO FEET FROM THE SIDE LOT LINE AND THREE FEET FROM THE HOUSE. TAX MAP NO. 127-1-14 LOT SIZE: 0.16 ACRES SECTION 179-67 BRUCE BREAULT, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-There is no action from the Warren County Planning Board. It was not required. MR. FORD-Is there anything you wish to add? MR. BREAULT-No. MR. FORD-Are you Mr. Breault? MR. BREAULT-Yes. MR. FORD-Nothing you wish to add? MR. BREAULT-Other than that's about the only spot that I have to put it, really. If I move it from where I'm asking the pool to be, then I'm going to set it right directly over a septic system. This way here, it's partially over it, but if I move it out in the backyard any other place, it would be right over part of the septic system. MR. FORD-Won't it, in fact, be over it now? MR. BREAULT-Partially, yes, yes it will. MR. FORD-Covering approximately 50 percent or so of the septic ta n k? - 23 - MR. BREAULT-Well, that drawing that they show there, they show the pipe coming out into the center of the tank, and actually, if you were to go into the basement or the house, the pipe is right against a (lost word) wall. When it comes out, I believe that the pool will be probably be over maybe a third, instead of right over the middle of it. MR. KARPELES-What do you do if you have to have that septic tank pumped. You'll have to take down the pool, I guess. MR. BREAULT-No. I believe where the opening is to dig, to have it pumped out (lost word) away from the pool. Where the cover is on the tank itself would be on the opposite side of where the pool is at. MR. CARVIN-Is the pool partially built right now, is it? MR. BREAULT-I set up the framework, and then the side wall was up, but there's no, it's not really set up, as far as the pool itself. MR. FORD-Is that a new pool? MR. BREAULT-No. I bought it used. MR. CARVIN-There appeared to be a shed or partially? MR. BREAULT-That has been there for a long time. What I did was tore the siding and stuff off it to redo it. It was really bad. The floor was rotted out and everything. So I just tore it apart. Now I just throw a tarp over it and throw a lawn mower and what not under it, in the winter time. MR. CARVIN-Okay. There was a camper. MR. BREAULT-That's mine. In the side yard? MR. CARVIN-Yes. Is that occupied? MR. BREAULT-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. FORD-Mr. Breault, the reason I asked the question about whether or not it was new or used, it appeared to be used, have you had any experience in taking down a used, above ground pool and reinstalling it on a separate site? MR. BREAULT-No. This is the first time for me. MR. FORD-It would just seem to be fraught with all kinds of potential disastrous results, in terms of fittings and getting it sealed properly. MR. BREAULT-There's no sealing to those. pattern that runs up the center of them. it. There's a (lost word) That's all there is to MR. FORD-You've got a liner? MR. BREAULT-Yes. old ones back in. time they stretch just put in a new You have to We ll, I and they I i ne1' . buy a new liner. You can't put the guess you can try, but most of the rip easy enough. So what I do is I MR. CARVIN-Do you plan putting a deck around it by any chance? MR. BREAULT-No. As a matter of fact, I have a small back porch there. That there is going to be, I want (lost word) bottom and put a screen on the top so they don't have access to the pool - 24 - ~ from there. MR. FORD-So that ladder that you have there now will be the only access to and from the pool? MR. BREAULT-Yes. MR. CARVIt\ --There just is not much room on this lot, is there? MR. BREAULT-No. It's rather small. MR. CARVIN-Sue, what's that going to do, well, I guess that doesn't run into a permeability or anything like that, right, the poo I ? MS. CIPPERLY-Well, that's considered impermeable. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but I mean, how much is left of the lot, after the pool? Do you have a rough figure or idea? Because he's got a, I guess a partial shed there, too, right, that's not shown on the map. MS. CIPPERLY-With what was on the drawing, he measured to have 84 percent left, and as I said, I didn't get a chance to get out to the site. So, I don't know what else was there. MR. CARVIN-He has to have a fence around an above ground or no? MS. CIPPERLY-If it's more than four feet. If it's four feet or more, he does not. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and this will be more than four feet, will it? MR. BREAULT-Deep, you mean? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. BREAULT-No. It's a four foot pool. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I mean, if it's four feet or more, you don't need to have a fence. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other comments, gentlemen? MR. GREEN-I'm not very familiar with above ground pools. Is this considered a large pool or a small pool? MR. BREAULT-It's large for an above ground. It's a 24 footer. MS. CIPPERLY-The one that people Mountain Road was 15 by 24. That wanted to install was an oval pool. out on West MR. GREEN-So that's about the same as this one? MS. CIPPERLY-This one is 24. MR. BREAULT-Diameter, ,'es. MR. GREEN-This is just round? MR. CARVIN-Twenty-four round. This is a sta nda.r d . MR. GREEN-It looked a little oval when I was looking at it the other day. MR. BREAULT-Yes. It does right now, because it's hard to keep the walls up unless you put the pool up and put all the top and everything on it. With the storm the other day, it just, so I said, well, it's going to sit there until I find out. - 25 - I"" , ) 'd MR. GREEN-So it is just round then? It's not oval? MR. BREAULT-Yes. MR. GREEN-It would be sort of like a two car garage. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions? If not, I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay, guys. Any thoughts, comments? MR. KARPELES-Well, it's awfully big for that size lot, but it's over the septic tank. I don't see where there's any choice, if he's going to have a pool. It almost has to go there. MR. GREEN-I have to agree fully, if that's the pool that wants to go in, there isn't any place else to put it, but if we got it used at a good price, that would be one thing. If we were buying new, I probably would have recommended something smaller. MR. BREAULT-If I had bought new, I would have gotten smaller. MR. GREEN-I have to kind of agree with Mr. Ford, though, that I hope it stands up for you. You might end up buying a new one anyway, but I guess there isn't any alternative. MR. THOMAS-No. The only alternative L could see would be to put it in the side yard, but I don't think the applicant wants to put it in the side yard. I think he'd rather have it in the rear yard. I don't see any problem putting it in the rear yard, but, you know, if it were me in that situation, I would have gotten a smaller one, but it's not me. MR. FORD-I have nothing to add I haven't already said. I, basically, concur with the observations of the others. MR. CARVIN-Well, I don't know. It's an awful lot very small lot, again. That partial structure, is or coming down? What's the status of that? of stuff on a that going up MR. BREAULT-It's been there for about two years now. I just, like I say, throw a tarp over it, and in the winter put lawn mowers or anything from the yard, chairs and what not in there. It was a full shed at one time. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Do you know what the dimensions on that are? MR. BREAULT-It almost seems like it was eight by fourteen, odd ball, something like that. MR. CARVIN-And that sets right in the back here. MR. BREAULT-There was a Smith's slab under it, and it's been tl'''¡ere forever. MR. CARVIN-But does that also come over the septic? MR. BREAULT-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I think if we grant this, I suggest that we stipulate that there be no decking or any additional building around that pool. MR. FORD-And that the rear porch area be screened, or whatever, - 26 - ~ to prevent access to the pool from that, because it's going to be close enough so that an individual could jump from one to the other. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I mean, you might have a better map than I do, but that is real close. I mean, it is just real close. What are we talking, here? We're talking a couple three feet? MR. FORD-How far off youf back porch here, a couple of feet? MR. BREAULT-Yes. Yes, it's close. MR. GREEN-You could step right in there if you wanted. MR. FORD-Yes, we've got a, like you say, if we're going to grant it, we've got to find some way of denying them access to the pool from that back area. I'm afraid, just in the small confined area here, to begin with, I'm afraid for the safety aspect of it. MR. CARVIN-Sometimes we are just confronted with a situation we can't, we just can't move ahead, and I almost think that this is one of them. We've got a swimming pool right over a septic tank. We've got no viable alternative. We're coming two feet off the back of a house. We're coming probably two feet off a property line, if that. You have a shed in the back. MR. BREAULT-As far as the close that off, so there's back porch, that's simple enough no access. I mean, that's not. to MR. CARVIN-Well, it would be an enforcement issue. don't think that there's any way we can enforce it. want somebody coming around checking to make sure my was locked. I mean, I I wouldn't back porch MR. FORD-The septic is a real potential for either drainage or been put together, taken apart give loose. concern. I think you have the leakage or the structure having and put back together again may MR. CARVIN-I don't know what the weight of a 24 foot pool, but you're talking. MR. BREAULT-I don't see where putting a structure together and taking it apart, it's made of steel, put together, and it is only a liner that is permanent, they are made to be taken apart and put together. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but what's the weight? MR. BREAULT-I have no idea. MR. CARVIN-You're putting it right on top of a septic. MS. CIPPERLY-You don't have any idea how many gallons? MR. BREAULT-No. MS. CIPPERLY-We figured out the area of the circle here one day. We figured the pool was 452 square feet, times four. MR. CARVIN-Well, I've got to believe probably six, eight thousand gallons anyway, four feet. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, 452 times 4 feet tall, so that's 1800, and a gallon of water weighs 8 pounds. MR. CARVIN-That's a small car sitting right on top of the septic tank. I hate to say no, but. MR. KARPELES-We might be creating a real dangerous situation - 27 - there, both for the septic tank, the possibility of somebody walking off that porch. I mean, if somebody got hurt, then we've created that, then. MR. BREAULT-I see an in-ground pool that's no more than two feet off the house in our neighborhood. MR. CARVIN-But it's not sitting That's the problem I'm having, right on top of a septic tank. over a septic tank, I suspect. is that you're putting a pool MR. BREAULT-I could see if it was covering the whole thing, but I can't see it on a, it's not covering the whole thing. I would say, yes, if all the water weight was distributed over it, yes, but this is not. The majority of it is on, over the ground itself. You're not talking about putting all the weight directly, straight directly over the top of the septic system. MR. CARVIN-And these are seepage pits? field, right? This is not a leach MR. BREAULT-No. MR. CARVIN-Seepage pits. MR. BREAULT-No. I have a leach field, too. yard. It's in the back MR. FORD-Could you show that to us on the map here? MR. BREAULT-You've got the septic system, and here's a tank here and here's a tank over here. MR. CARVIN-Where's your leach field? MR. BREAULT-That comes out, lets see, I believe it runs back in here, some place. When this was done, this was shown, and this is a holding tank here. This is (lost word) to it. MR. CARVIN-This is, what, '93? MR. BREAULT-What, when this was done? No. This is back either 12 or 13 years ago. MR. THOMAS-December 1982. MR. CARVIN-[..Jell, I guess I've said !:l!.Z peace. I don't kno/,oJ. Has anybody got any questions, or I'd entertain a motion, if you want to move it, if somebody wants to move it. MR. GREEN-Is there a fence that runs along this northerly lins? I can't remember. MR. BREAULT-No. There's no fence on the lines at all. There's none at all. Well, no, I take that back. There is one small, it's a wire fence. It's been there ever since I've been there, but that's on the opposite side. MR. CARVIN-Now you say, I guess I'm not totally familiar with an above ground, but do you drain an above ground, or do you just throw something in it, like an inner tube or whatever? MR. BREAULT-Yes. You have to drain them somewhat, down below your filter line, and then they usually (lost words). MR. FORD-And your procedure for draining that, Mr. Breault? MR. BREAULT-I don't really think I'd have any problem draining off what little bit of water it'll take to get it down to the level, because if you're familiar with Queensbury at all, it's - 28 - -".. nothing but sand. MR. FORD-So you would just drain it out into your back yard? MR. BREAULT-Well, yes, I probably could do that, or right there where my neighbor and them are. All of us are good neighbors. MR. CARVIN-So you think there's a leach field there in addition to the seepage pits? MR. BREAULT-It seems to me like, I really don't remember, when they put it in, I wasn't there at the house at the time that they put it in. I know they guaranteed it for like 20 years, or something like that. MR. CARVIN-When did YOU buy the house? It looks like '82? MR. BREAULT-No, that's when, this was done just for the septic system, to show you where the layout is, what the house was in the septic. MR. CARVIN-Okay. When did you buy the house? MR. BREAULT-I don't remember what year the house was purchased. MR. FORD-But the septic system was good for 20 years? MR. BREAULT-That was upgraded in '82. Before that, all it was was, whoever put it in, was nothing but a huge metal tank that somebody had put in on their own. Where they got it, I don't know. It looked like an old huge gas tank somebody had dropped in the lawn for a septic system. MR. CARVIN-Well, Chris, you're, are we going to have problem putting it over a septic? MR. THOMAS-I don't think it'll be a problem, because just one part of it's going over the septic, it's over the tank itself, which is probably made of cement, which will structurally hold it. If the whole pool was sitting over the top, then I think it would be a problem. MR. CARVIN-Are you comfortable with it? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. FORD-Too many red flags here for me. MR. GREEN-I guess I don't have a serious problem with it, at this poi nt . MR. KARPELES-I hate to say it, because I would sure love to see them be able to have a pool, but I just think the lot is too small for that pool, and there just isn't a decent place to put it. I'm afraid that if you put it over that septic tank, that the septic tank might settle and you're going to get leakage in the pipes, where they come into the tank. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm uncomfortable with it. I think what I'd like to do is, because I'm sensing a nonconsensus, here, I'd like to, I think I'd like to have Staff really go out and look at this, and I'd like to really try to nail down where that septic is. What do you guys think about that? Can we table this? MR. THOMAS-You want to put it on the table? problem doing that. I don't have a MR. CARVIN-I'd like to, I guess, get a little more feel for how much is going to be over the septic, whether there's a leachfield there, whether we're talking septic. - 29 - MR. FORD-Yes, there are some questions. MR. CARVIN-I mean, if we're going to plop a 24 foot pool right on top of a septic system, I want to be somewhat comfortable that it's not going to cause problems down the line. MR. FORD-I know in previous applications we've been particular concerned with draining it, whether it's down a flood or draining a path or whatever. MR. CARVIN-I don't ever remember, and I may be wrong, ever remember putting a pool over a septic. In fact, we've gone out of our way to avoid septic systems. I don't I think MR. FORD-Part of it should be a drainage system that doesn't, in any way, infringe on the neighbors or get into these other pits that are right out there on two sides of the pool. MR. CARVIN-Because, at this point, we only have five, here's my dilemma. We have five members. You need four votes to approve, to deny. MR. BREAULT-I understand. You're talking about draining it. I mean, how do you drain a septic system? You call a truck. They come in. They'll pump it out. I mean, is there such a problem that you couldn't call a truck to have a pool pumped out? MR. FORD-All I asked was what your plan was, and you said you were going to drain it out into the sand. MR. BREAULT-No. You asked me if that's what I could do, and I said that was an option that I could do. I mean, I don't have to do that. It's not necessary. MR. CARVIN-But I suspect that, at this point, we've got a three, two Board and seeing as how we don't have our sixth member and the seventh member has resigned, a three, two vote, basically, is a no action which means that you don't have your pool. My feeling is, when I have a three, two situation like this, is that I would rather table it until we can get a consensus or additional information, and in this particular case, I think additional information, my area of concern is that, Number One, I think it's real close to the house, and I don't know if there's any alternatives that can be done, or what can be done to mitigate some of those circumstances. I also am very reluctant to put a pool, whether it's partially or fully over a septic system. As I said, this Board, in the past, has always gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid doing just that. Sue, you have not visited this site. Is that correct? MS. CIPPERLY-That's correct. MR. CARVIN-Okay. We seem to have a three, two situation here. What I think I'd like to do is maybe table this, have you go out and take a look and try to identify what or where this septic system is, and how that might be a factor, if that's going to be a problem, and also if there's anything that can be done about the closeness to the house. In other words, there is concern here that it's real close to the house, and again, I don't know if there's anything that can be done to mitigate that. I don't know if there's any room that can be picked up, if he's got a storage shed that's not on here. Maybe it can be moved back, or maybe there's another location that it can be comfortably moved, where it won't interfere as much with the septic. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. As you've been talking, I'll also talk to Dave Hatin, the Building Inspector, about positioning the pool over a septic tank. Because even if you approved it, he may not be able to get a building permit to put it there. So, I'll check on that also. - 30 - ---" MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are we comfortable with that? Is that a, as I said, I don't think we're going to be able to move it. I really don't. MR. FORD-I'd like more information. MR. CARVIN-Our tabling procedure is that we normally will table for 60 days. We can try to get this on the August agenda. We will try to get you on the first meeting, August 16th. If you would check with Sue to work out some of the mechanics on this, so that we get it all advertised or whatever has to be done. MS. CIPPERLY-If you've tabled it, we don't have to re-advertise it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-1995 BRUCE & LINDA BREAULT, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: I'd like to table this for additional information as to the actual siting of the pool over the septic system, and also allow Staff an opportunity to go out and visit the site and see if there are any viable alternatives, or feasible alternatives, to the siting of this pool, and also, if there's any feasible alternatives or suggestions about placing the pool approximately three feet from the rear of the house, with emphasis on the septic. Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 1995, by the following vote: MS. CIPPERLY-I don't know that I would be able to determine where the septic system is. The drawing that you have is what was submitted for the septic permit when it was installed, and if that wasn't how it was put in, we don't necessarily have any way of, other than digging it up, knowing. MR. BREAULT-Well, I would have to contact you, right, to be able get together with you when you come. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. The other thing you could do is, whoever pumps it out may have a good idea. MR. BREAULT-It's never been pumped, since we put it in. I will, on there, as I showed you, where the pipe comes out of the wall, we measured it, it shows you it's over so many feet. I can show you, in the cellar way, that it's a whole lot closer to the side wall than what it shows on there, to the center of the tank, and if I have to dig it, I mean, it's not that far down to the top of the tank, I probably could dig it to give you a rough estimate. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Again, before L would be comfortable with this, I want to make sure we're not going to have a problem. It's never been the policy of the Board to put things over septic systems, if we can help it. MR. BREAULT-I mean, if I, personally, thought it was going to be a problem, I'm not going to put a pool over my septic system and ruin $2400 worth of septic system for a swimming pool. MR. CARVIN-Yes, I hear you, but again, because Staff hasn't really looked at this, I think I'd like to have their input. AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter - 31 - MR. CARVIN-Okay. It's tabled for 60 days anyway, but we'll get you on the August agenda. Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-1995 TYPE II CR-15 RICHARD HARDING OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 1 NEWCOMB STREET APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM SECTION 179-24 FOR DECK INSTALLED 1.5 FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, WHERE A SETBACK OF TWENTY FEET IS REQUIRED. TAX MAP NO. 130-2-28 LOT SIZE: 0.19 ACRES SECTION 179-24 RICHARD & JANET HARDING, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-There is no correspondence from the Warren County Planning Board. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Mr. Harding, is there anything that you'd care to add? MR. HARDING-No. MR. CARVIN-Any questions, gentlemen? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I have a question. Is this deck replacing, exactly, what was there, exactly the porch that was there? MR. HARDING-Well, it was 46 something, the old one, and we want to go a little bit more, about 50. MR. THOMAS-Okay. line before? Was it one and a half feet off the property MR. HARDING-The old cement thing is there, where the old one was. MR. THOMAS-Okay. now sit on the ground? So the four by fours that old supports, on the cement are standing there that was in the MR. FORD-It extends out. MR. HARDING-No, one. MR. CARVIN-Okay. The deck is built, is that correct? MR. HARDING-Yes, it is. MR. CARVIN-And when did you build it? MR. HARDING-Just last month. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. He's, this is here as a result of a Compliance Officer visit. It didn't have a building permit. So then it was found that he needed a variance in order to reconstruct it. MR. CARVIN-It was completed by the time you picked it up? MS. CIPPERLY-Apparently. Compliance Officer. I didn't do the visit. We have a MR. CARVIN-No. I just was wondering whether a work stop should have been, or if it was complete. It was complete you think? MS. CIPPERLY-I believe it was already complete. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Because I see apparently, you submitted this to built prior to that? June 19th is the date that, Town. So it must have been MR. HARDING-I had the guy come to the house, and I told him I wanted a little bit better porch, because that one there was no good, and my back porch was all gone. So I want everything done, and I also asked him, you'll get a permit to do that, right, and - 32 - -- he said, yes, we will. I left it up to him. MR. FORD-And when did this occur, this conversation? MR. HARDING-I was talking to him about putting siding on the hou.se . MR. FORD-May, June? MR. HARDING-May. MR. KARPELES-So it replaced an existing deck, right? MR. HARDING-We tore the old one down and put a new one u.p, yes. MR. FORD-And enlarged it. MR. KARPELES-And how much bigger is it than the old one, do you know? MRS. HARDING-It's about 10 feet long. MR. HARDING-It's the same length this way, but it's a little bit longer this ~Jay. MR. FORD-So the walkway underneath does not give the footprint, that was not as wide as the previous deck was? MRS. HARDING-Yes. It was eight feet wide, but it was longer. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So the width remained the same. So if the width remained the same, then what you're indicating, then, is it was roughly one and a half feet off the property line, the old deck. MRS. HARDING-On the old deck, it was like cut off at an angle. MR. FORD-On the front, facing the street? MRS. HARDING-No, on the back, facing the back yard, and they just brought it out and made it a little bit longer than what it was. MR. FORD-Brought it out? MRS. HARDING-Instead of putting it off, it was just squared off. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How long was the old deck on? When was that constructed? MRS. HARDING-It was about 46 feet, the old deck was. MR. CARVIN-No. When was the old deck put on? How old was it? MRS. HARDING-It was there when we bought the house, seven years ago, and it was pretty well rotted out then. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So you bought the house roughly seven years ago and it was there then. Okay. MR. THOMAS-You said your contractor was going to take care of all the permits? MRS. HARDING-Yes. MR. HARDING-That's what he said to me. MR. THOMAS-Your contractor isn't a local contractor? MRS. I'-IARDING-No. - 33 - " MR. KARPELES-Have you paid him? MR. HARDING-Yes. MR. THOMAS-The contractor is the Siding and Window Warehouse, Plank Road, Clifton Park, NY. MR. GREEN-They did your siding also? MR. HARDING-Yes, they did. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and were they aware of the Ordinances, do you know? MRS. HARDING-No, because when we talked to didn't know anything about, you know, having to them, he said he bu i ld in so far. MR. HARDING-That's why I brought it up to him, I think you have to have a permit to build a porch on and all that stuff. He says, I'll take care of it, and so I don't know if he did take care of it. MR. FORD-Okay, but I heard that you brought it to his attention before construction. MRS. HARDING-No, it was after construction. MR. FORD-That he said that he would get the necessary permits. MR. HARDING-Yes, it was. MR. FORD-At what point did you have the conversation with him where he said he didn't know about setbacks, and that sort of thing? MRS. HARDING-That was maybe June 18th, the day before he came up to get the papers. MR. FORD-After construction. MRS. HARDING-Yes. We found out about it. MR. CARVIN-And how did you find out about it? MRS. HARDING-One of the neighbors came over and told me about it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So, in other words, and then the Town showed up? Is that what you're saying? MRS. HARDING-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MRS. HARDING-We have letters from three different neighbors right heì·e. MR. CARVIN-That's a single family house is it, or is there? MRS. HARDING-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions, gentlemen? Anything else? MR. GREEN-The building right there on that side, where the deck is, refresh my memory, is that a garage, or is that a home? MRS. HARDING-The house is up over the garage. MR. GREEN-Not your home, bu't. the bui ldi ng right next to, on the other side, on the side deck, what is that? - 34 - ---- MRS. HARDING-That's a garage. MR. GREEN-And there's no living quarters on that side? MRS. HARDII\IG-No. MR. CARVIN-I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RAY WOOD MR. WOOD-I'm Ray Wood, the adjoining property owner to the variance. The deck is too close, and what I don't like about this is it was laid in my lap. I wasn't told that this was going to happen. I was told that nothing was going to happen. I was told that it was going to be built back in where it was, but they were going to square the end off. They didn't say anything to me about coming closer to me, and they also didn't tell the lady next door. She went over twice, two different times, and asked the contractors, and they said, no, it's just going back on the same spot. So, I'm getting ready to go to work on Monday morning, I look, and the stairs are being built over by the door, and I happened to notice there's more of the siding cut out for the deck. I go to work. I call the Building Department to have them check it out and see, something didn't look right. So they went down to check it out, I guess, and told them they had a permit, but apparently they told the Building Department they were just building back in the same spot. I called three o'clock, that's what the Building Department told me. I go home at 5:30 and the guys are working late. The deck's up. They poured cement and the posts and everything, and it was a done deal. I just had no say in it. I was conned. MR. CARVIN-When did this take place, approximately? MR. WOOD-June 18th. I called in the morning and the Building Department must have gone down and told them they had to have a permit. I called the Building Department to see if they could stop, so this wouldn't happen, because the deck wasn't built when I left at 8 o'clock. I called the Building Department at 9. The stairs were still in place over there. Now the stairs are down on the end. I don't know if they were put on the end so it wouldn't be torn down or whatever. I don't, usually I get along pretty good, but I asked him about a variance, and the garage next door, the garage that you were talking about right there, they had to get a variance to build it. He signed off on it. He knew that he had to have a variance for that stuff. He just told me that he forgot. MR. HARDING-I really didn't know. MR. WOOD-You signed off on it. I just feel that it was slapped in my face, and I had no sayan it. MR. HARDING-How many homeowners know about property lines and all this and that? I don't know too much about that. MR. WOOD-Well, why didn't you tell me you were going to make it longer? You could have told me that. The angle is 10 feet away from me in one spot, by the house, and your almost 12 foot on the other. I come home and find it 18 inches from the line. MR. FORD-In other words, it actually is wider than the original one that was taken down? MR. WOOD-Not wider, it's longer, but I own four foot more than the lady next door. That puts my property line closer to him. MR. KARPELES-Could you show us ~Jhere, on the sketch maybe, show - 35 - us where the old one was? MR. CARVIN-Okay. We just have a graph map here. MR. KARPELES-Just approximately, what did the old one look like? An angle off this way? MR. FORD-Where's your property, sir? MR. WOOD-My property's right here. MR. FORD-Okay. So that's your garage? MR. I,.JOOD-No, no. I'm over here. That garage is Mrs. Finches right next door. MR. KARPELES-So how does this angle, or did it angle? MR. WOOD-It angled back here to just about beyond the steps right now. Like I say, when I measured, I think it was almost 11 or 12 foot from my line to this footing, and I know it's 10 foot to the last. The last one right now is underneath the bottom step of the porch. MR. KARPELES-So there weren't any steps before? MR. WOOD-No. The steps were up in the front here before. So they had a direct thing to the door. Now the steps are down here, and then back to the door. When I left to go to work that morning, the steps were right here, being built by the door. That's why, you know, it looked like that's where they were going to go, and when I came home from work that night, everything's there, and I went and I told him. MR. KARPELES-But you don't have any objection to the way it was? MR. WOOD-No, no. I don't have objection to him squaring it off. It's just the 18 inches, well, really it's less than that now, because that's the post. MR. KARPELES-So you're saying if it looked like this you wouldn't have any objection to it? MR. WOOD-Right, as long as it's back. MR. KARPELES-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Where's your property line? MR. CARVIN-I was going to say. Is there a property line that runs this way? MR. WOOD-Right here. MR. GREEN-It's right off that back post almost? MR. FORD-Almost on that line right there? MR. WOOD-Yes. I'm just about where the post is right there, and then there's a jog four foot, because when Finches sold them the house, they gave them four foot, just so they could walk around the deck, but I'm still here. Like when George built it, he stayed 10 feet away, and I'm this corner right here. So I'm over here, but like I say, when they built that garage right there, they went around and they asked everybody if they had any objections so they could build it. Like I said, what I don't like here is just it was just plopped on me. Like over here, they changed that. I saw them changing that. I didn't pay any attention. Stairs used to go down here. They brought them in and brought them around the back. They were putting siding on - 36 - -' it. It was looking nice over there. We've had some little problems over on my property. I've asked them a few times to stay away from it and respect my property, is what I've asked them to do. She's had a little problem, they parked their car on the property last year. I didn't like the way it came down. MR. CARVIN-Sue, do we have a tax map that gives us a little bit better indication of what these lines look like, by any chance? MS. CIPPERLY-Not with me. MR. CARVIN-Okay. You said that old deck ~ in compliance, or you felt it was in compliance with the 10 foot? MS. CIPPERLY-It may, if it were built before 1967 or so, that was before zoning, but you never would have had a one foot or two foot setbac k . MR. WOOD-No, that wasn't. It was 10 or 12 foot, the one they tore down. It was 10 or 12 foot back when the house was built, and I thought that's what it was. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. A 10 foot sounds reasonable. MR. CARVIN-I'm just wondering, what the old deck would have looked like. MR. KARPELES-Yes, me too. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. We wouldn't really have any record of that. MR. FORD-We have on here a line showing the line of old deck, from that point to that point. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. FORD-It's not the same place that Mr. Wood placed it. See, on this map, the one we perceiv'ed, it goes from that to that. It says, line of old deck. MR. GREEN-How much longer did you say the new deck is, 10 feet? MR. WOOD-As far as I know, the whole footings are right there. They were still there, unless they dug them up. MR. GREEN-That would make sense, because if you're saying you originally had 10 or 12 feet, and now they're up at 18 inches, and they're saying they added 10 feet to the deck, then it was back 10 feet, no matter what the picture looks like. They've added 10 feet on their deck, and they've gone from 10 feet off his line to 18 inches off his line. MR. WOOD-On the side of the house, the board and batten they took off, I think it was five or six feet, they come at the angle, to a window. MR. HARDING-Where the old porch was, how much more do I go out this way to my line, from these people? MR. CARVIN-Well, we don't know where your line is. MR. WOOD-It's four foot back onto mine along that garage, the side line, about four foot past where the old posts were. MR. GREEN-So there's about 12 feet from the edge of your house to the line? MR. HARDING'-Yes. MR. GREEN-And you've got an eight foot deck on there. So how - 37 - come we come up with a foot and a half setback. MR. WOOD-On my side, I'm four foot closer, between his garage and my line is nine something. I'-1R. GREEN-So to the front, this foot and a half really doesn't run all the way it only runs to your corner? MRS. HARDING-Just the corner of the deck. MR. GREEN-At that point, it actually jogs out another four feet. so we actually have like five and a half feet of setback there? Or not? MR. HARDING-It's Just four. MR. GREEN-Well. plus the existing foot and a half. MRS. HARDING-The only part of the deck that is a foot and a half away is the corner posts. the very back corner posts. MR. GREEN-And the rest of it's actually five and a half off the line that runs along that garage? MR. HARDING-Yes, right. MR. FORD-Mr. Harding, who did this design drawing for you? Did you do that yourself? MR. HARDING-No, I didn't. I went downstairs and had the guy help me. MS. CIPPERLY-Probably John Goralski, Officer. who's the Compliance MR. HARDING-Yes. MR. FORD-Who wrote this in here, line of old deck. indicating from which point to which point? MR. HARDING-I don't know. MR. FORD-Well, did you tell him where it was, the old deck? MR. HARDING-I showed him where it was. MR. FORD-And is this, in fact, accurate on this drawing? Did the old deck, in fact, run from this point, by the stairs, to this point over here? MR. HARDING-See, my stairs are way over in here. MR. FORD-No, no. where they are now? MR. HARDING-No. MR. FORD-Didn't you say that you extended this? MRS. HARDING-Yes. MR. FORD-How many feet did you extend this? MRS. HARDING-Ten feet back. MR. KARPELES-Ten feet from where, from the angle? MRS. HARDING-From the point of the angle, yes. MR. FORD-Where it touched the house? - 38 - ~ MRS. HARDING-Yes. MR. FORD-So it went 10 feet back from where it touched the house? MRS. HARDING-Yes. MR. GREEN-So the far side of the deck was actually longer, more addition? MRS. HARDING-Yes. MR. FORD-Okay. Is this spot the same spot, now, as the old deck, right here? MR. HARDING-Right here, yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So that this line has always been constant? MR. HARDING--Yes. MR. CARVIN-And then it angled back? This is what we're trying to establish. This is the point, this point has not changed. MRS. HAF<DING-Yes. MR. CARVIN-That point has changed? MRS. HARDING-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. FORD-So, in fact, this is not an accurate drawing? MR. GREEN-No. MR. CARVIN-And then, from this point, did the deck angle back? MRS. HARDING-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So what, in essence, is that the old deck was roughly herø? MRS. HARDING-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And that all of this is the new part? MRS. HARDING-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And it's this part that is infringing upon yours, is it, Ray? ~1R. WOOD-Right. MR. CARVIN-All right. up through høre, or perpendicular? Now, do you own all of this property line is there a property line that comes MRS. HARDING-Right section is his, see, here at the corner, and out here. from the corner, this MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I guess, in other words, there's a stake here, and your property runs this way? MRS. HARDING-Yes. Like I say, this whole corner, out this way and down this way. This is just a cornør post. It's a foot and a half from his on this corner post. The rest of this is owned by thø lady nøxt door. It's still four feet beyond our deck. MR. CARVIN-In other words, Ray, your stake is right here, one and a half feet off, or approximately? - 39 - MR. WOOD-Right. I painted it red and everything, so when they started this, they'd know where it is. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. WOOD-It didn't do any good. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but I guess I'm still, does your property line run this way? MR. WOOD-Yes, out to Luzerne Road. MR. CARVIN-Out to Luzerne Road. MR. WOOD-And I run 90 feet along the back here. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but you're in this section. i'1F~. WOOD-Right. MR. CARVIN-All right, and I guess my question is, I'm not quite sure I'm following the four and a half feet. Is it like this? MR. WOOD-This house belonged to these people here. When they sold the house, instead of going with their same property line, they went, they moved it over four foot to get the people. MR. FORD-They moved it all the way out to here. MR. WOOD-All the way out to the road. MR. CARVIN-Well, then I guess my question is, is this the property line? MR. GREEN-No. MR. CARVIN-Then that's not a property line. MR. GREEN-No, just back here. MR. CARVIN-Only back here. Okay. So that the actual property line, you're actually five feet off this line here. Okay. Then that's a straight line. Okay. All right. MR. KARPELES-Now where's the property line again? MR. CARVIN-Well, the actual property line runs somewhere in here, about five feet from the edge of the deck. MR. KARPELES-Okay, and it ends here, and goes this way. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but Ray, Mr. Wood here, he owns this piece here, okay. MR. KARPELES-Okay. MR. CARVIN-So, in other words, this is his. So, when it was down here, he didn't have a problem with it, because they weren't anYl.oJher e near. MR. FORD-Now they've squared it off and brought it within a foot and a half of his property. MR. KAF<PELES-I see. MR. FORD-So what you submitted here was not an accurate representation, signifying that that was the line of the old deck. That is not where the line of the old deck was, right? MR. CARVIN-So that this is approximately 10 feet? - 40 - --- MRS. HARDING-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Or is this the 10 feet? MR. WOOD-I think, from the window, I think there's only about six feet here, but it's a diagonal, so it's 10 foot from me, on the diagonal. I think they've only gone about five feet, six feet here at the most, but the front is the one that brought it right over to the, when they squared it off. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So what you're saying is that this would be the 10 feet from where your stake? MR. WOOD-Right, the way it was, originally. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and even if they squared it off, at this point, it still would be 10 feet. MR. WOOD-No, it would be back this way. I think it's about 12 feet, or 11 or 12 to the old footing that was there, just a rough guess. I don't have any problem if they could just get it back some, so that they're not dumping their snow and everything right off the deck into my yard. MR. HARDING-No. That's why I've got a snow blower, to take care of that. MR. WOOD-See, Dick, you've told me a lot of things, but you haven't come through on a lot of them. MR. HARDING-I try to get along with everybody. MRS. HARDING-There's letters from three of the neighbors, and he is one of them. MR. WOOD-That was before, I think in my letter it explains that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Are you submitting these for the record? Okay, then we will read those into the record. MR. HARDING-One problem we had with the old one is I was walking out in back in the winter time, I was walking out like this, and a beam came right out like that. I'm not expert at it, but where it was in down there, when it rains or, you know, it pushes the dirt and everything right out onto my back. So I see it as unsafe. So we put it back the same way. MR. CARVIN-Well, it's not the same deck. I mean, obviously. MR. WOOD-I have no objections to them squaring the deck off, but they just keep it back so they have some room to throw their snow and stuff. I have (lost word) over there. If he's throwing heavy snow from 10 to 12 feet up, it's going to take care of all that stuff. MRS. HARDING-We don't have any intentions of throwing it out there. We've always thrown it out in the front. MR. WOOD-You just told me the other day that you had no choice. MR. HARDING-I said I had a choice. I could go this way with it or I could go out in back with it, on the other side, where they were. MR. WOOD-I think if the Town put a stop to this, when it was going on, we wouldn't have this problem, right now, but they didn't stop. So there it is. Now we're fighting. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I'm going to maintain order here. Okay. We have the public hearing. I'm going to defer to Mr. Wood here. - 41 - Is there any additional comments that you'd care to make? MR. WOOD-Only that, what's the requirement, 20 foot or something? I don't want them to, I'm not requesting for them to keep it 20 feet away or something, but if I could come to some compromise or something, come up with something. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyone else wishing to be heard in opposition? Any correspondence? MR. THOMAS-Yes, we have four letters. Just a note, at the bottom of the public hearing notice, "This is all right with me, and I have no objection." Signed by Richard Finch, 4 Newcomb Street. A noted dated 6/21/95, "To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised, I have no objection to the adjoining property owner, Richard Harding, Newcomb Street, Queensbury, having a revised deck that is not meeting the zoning regulations." Signed by Bertha Finch, 40 Luzerne Road, Queensbury, NY. Another note, dated 6/21/95, "Please be advised that we have no objection to the adjoining property owner, Richard Harding, Newcomb Street, Queensbury, having a revised deck that does not meet the zoning regulations." Signed by Ray and Sandra Wood, 36 Luzerne Road, Queensbury, NY. I have a letter dated July 26, 1995, today, to the Zoning Board of Appeals, "Dear Board Members: This letter is in regards to a zoning violation at the residence of Richard Harding, located at 1 Newcomb Street. My property adjoins the Harding property and I object to their deck being built 1.5 feet away from my property line. Originally I was informed by Mr. Harding that the deck was to be rebuilt in the same location but without the angle. With the angle the deck was 10 and 12 feet away from my property. Mrs. Finch (another adjoining neighbor) was also informed by Mr. Harding and the contractor on two different occasions that the deck was to be rebuilt in the same location. At that time I had no problem. Monday morning as I left for work I noticed more work being done than what I was told. I called the building department to ask them to look into this because it appeared to me that a zoning violation was taking place. I was told by the department that someone would be sent to the location. Later, at 3:30 pm I called the department again and was told that Mr. Harding was in the office applying for a building permit to replace the deck back on the same footings. When I arrived home at 5:30 pm the contractors were still at Mr. Hardings cementing in the deck only 18 inches away from my property line. They had changed their plans without getting a variance. I was extremely upset that this was allowed to happen even though I had called about this. I would not have agreed to the deck being built so close to my property. That evening Mr. Harding contacted me to say that the contractors were going to pull off the job until August because I had called the town about the violation. I agreed at that time to not object to the work being done only because I did not want to cause any financial difficulties for Mr. Harding or friction between neighbors. The next day the contractors were back. r don't believe now that they ever threatened to pull off the job. Also after giving Mr. Harding my written consent his attitude seemed to change. He also told me at that time the contractor told him they do not get permits or variances first. They build first and get these later. Recently I spoke to Mr. Harding and when I asked him what he was going to do with the snow on his deck in the winter he informed me he had to throw it in my yard since he is so close. r told him I did not want this. r have a tree and bushes in that area and I do not want them destroyed. I am requesting at this time that if a variance is approved it is with the condition that he is not to use my property in any way. I don't want his snow thrown in my yard, his dog, etc. There are other incidents with Mr. Harding recently that do not pertain to the deck but let me know I can not go by Hr Harding's word alone. He says one thing and does another. We have never had any problems in the many years we have been neighbors and I want it to stay that way. Thank you, Raymond Wood" That does it, that's the four. - 42 - MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any public comment? MR. WOOD-When I called the Building Department today to ask them, when I went in there, first they told me that they had already given them a building permit, but it turns out that they had told me the wrong thing, but they also told me that Mr. Hatin was the one who went down there, the day I called, and they told them right then and there that they were still building it on the same footing. So I come back home two hours later. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other public comment? MRS. HARDING-Yes. As far as he said they were going to pull off the job. Now they were going to stop doing it, up until he gave us that paper, stating that, he told us, on the phone the next day, that they were, that he would let us do it. MR. WOOD-They had worked a day before that. Thursday. MRS. HARDING-You said that you had no problems with it. MR. WOOD-Because you told me they were pulling off the job, but I went and talked to John Goralski, the next day. I told you I wouldn't sign anything until I talked to him. I came home that day, they were still working. MRS. HARDING-It was that night that you signed it. MR. WOOD-No. That's why I'm so upset because you conned me. MR. HARDING-I didn't con anybody. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm going to ask for decorum here, please. Any other public comment? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-All right, gentlemen, any questions? MR. FORD-I have a question of Ray. I want to make sure that I get the time sequence down. The deck, apparently, was built on or around June 18th, and you came home that night, and saw that it was just a foot and a half off your property line? MR. WOOD-Right. I called the Town 9 o'clock that morning. MR. FORD-That morning. MR. WOOD-It looked like it was going to be extended. MR. FORD-Okay, and, in fact, that night it was. MR. WOOD-Right. MR. FORD-You found it that night. On the next day, the 19th of June, Mr. Harding, you completed this application, because it's received in the Building Department, Town of Queensbury, on June 19th. Ray, then, why, on the 21st, did you write the letter indicating your permission, and you had no problem with it, when, in fact, at that point, it was a foot and a half off your property line? MR. WOOD-Right. I was telling them I could live with it because I didn't want to, you know, he was crying that it was going to cost him a lot of money for them to come back in August and all this. I didn't want him to have to pay extra money, but then we had a couple of other problems about being too close. We had another problem, he said he wanted to be a good neighbor, and the dog comes over on my side and is digging holes four foot in my side. I told his son to go up and tell him, and he went up on his deck, - 43 - I could hear his son saying. you know, he's complaining that the dog's digging holes in his yard. to take care of it. over there I want him MR. FORD-So there's more to this than this deck. MR. WOOD-Yes, but protection here. complained. what I'm afraid of now is I Now that they're made at don't have any me because I MR. CARVIN-Well, just for the record, the 19th is a Monday, and t the 21st is a Wednesday. So I'm assuming that the deck, Sue, was there or wasn't there a building permit on this? MS. CIPPERLY-There was not a building permit when it was constructed, and this paper, apparently, was done by John Goralski, although it's not to scale, which is surprising, because he knows better. That commenced our review through the zoning system. Then it was determined that he needed a variance in order to even reconstruct it that close to the line, if he's taking the deck off. MR. CARVIN-Okay. a record of Mr. like that? Do you have any idea when Mr. Wood, do you have Wood calling the office? Do you keep records MS. CIPPERLY-John Goralski would. He's the Compliance Officer. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I guess it's safe to assume built somewhere along the week of the 19th. assumption? that the deck was Is that a fair MS. CIPPERLY-If the 19th is a Monday. MR. FORD-It had to have been built before that. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. FORD-So the deck was built before then? MR. WOOD-Well, they had some of it up Friday. That's thought the stairs were going by the door, at that time. left Monday morning, the stairs were over by the door. ~..¡Iw I When I MS. CIPPERLY-It may have because, as he said, the out the building permit. the afternoon. even been the 19th when Mr. Wood called, person was in in the afternoon filling So this may be received June 19th in MR. WOOD-Mr. Hatin went down. MRS. HARDING-But he said there was no building permit? MS. CIPPERLY-At the time that it was built, I don't believe that there was a building permit, and that's why somebody went out. MRS. HARDING-Because we asked the contractor, and he said, yes, he did have a building permit. MR. FORD-Did he show that to you? MR. HARDING-No, he didn't. MRS. HARDING-No, he didn't. MS. CIPPERLY-You should have had a fluorescent green sign on your house, if there was a building permit. MR. CARVIN-What is your occupation, Mr. Harding? - 44 - MR. HARDING-I work at the (lost word) Chemical plant. MR. CARVIN-Mr. Wood, your occupation? MR. WOOD-Carpenter. MR. GREEN-I just want to go through these dates one more time, like Mr. Ford did. I'm still a little confused. Friday they started the deck, Friday the 16th of June. Monday morning you left, the 19th of June, and it did not appear as it originally had planned. It seemed to be longer to you. You called, had the inspector come. MR. WOOD-Right. They were only about halfway down Monday morning, from the front to the back. MR. GREEN-All right. out that he needs a applies for one. You long, or it is now too The 19th permit or come home long. you find out, Mr. Harding finds a variance. He comes in and on the 19th and it's still too MR. WOOD-It is built now. MR. GREEN-Built too long, and it is completed. MR. WOOD-I called the Building Department at 3 o'clock and they told me. MR. GREEN-Okay. That's not where I'm going, here. On the 21st, though, you agreed to accept it as built. MR. L-JOOD--Right. MR. GREEN-What happened between the 21st and now to change your mind? MR. WOOD-Well, a couple of little problems, but then I got thinking about the snow and that stuff there, and now they're talking about putting a roof over it. Their son said eventually they want to put a roof over it, and I was thinking of the overhang for the roof is going to bring it over close. MR. HARDING-That's what my son said. We are not. MR. WOOD-Well, like I'm saying, I could live with it being there if there could be some conditions that they won't do something to my property. MR. HARDING-I told you I won't. I've got the snow blower. That's what I've got it for, so I can take the snow away. So I can walk down through there. MR. WOOD-The same night that I signed the paper for them and I gave it to them, right afterwards, he tells me something about a fence there, that I have to keep it over four foot. MR. HARDING-That's what somebody told me. MR. WOOD-I called the Town, and they said no way they told you that. MR. HARDING-I don't know if Sue or who. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. WOOD-If the Town put a stop work on this, it probably wouldn't have happened. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, any other comments, gentlemen? This is a unique situation. - 45 - MR. THOMAS-I don't know. The first thing is, why was this deck built without a building permit? I mean, that's the first thing, and especially with an out of town contractor, comes in and says, we'll get the permits and then says, no, we're not going to get the permits. It's something like that, but it's ultimately the property owner's responsibility to obtain the permits and no permits were gotten in this case. MR. CARVIN-Yes, I think if proper procedure had been followed on this. MR. THOMAS-Yes, we wouldn't be in this problem. MR. CARVIN-No. We wouldn't even have this, chances are. MR. THOMAS-But the case now is, the deck is built, and they still don't have a building permit. MS. CIPPERLY-Because we can't give a building permit. MR. THOMAS-That's right, without a variance. MR. KARPELES-Well, I agree with Chris. I don't like that he agreed to let the deck stay the way it was changed his mind, but I really think that's neither there. I think that, the obvious solution, I think it go back the way it was. the fact and then here nor ought to MR. CARVIN-I agree. MR. KARPELES-If anybody knows the way it was. MR. GREEN-Well, I'm certain, if that was the route we were going to go, if in fact the contractor did not have the appropriate permits in the first place, I am certain that he would correct the deck, probably at no charge to, well, I can't say that, but he would hopefully be willing to correct it to make sure that he comes in compliance and get the proper, I don't know if there's any sort of legal action that can be taken against the contractor for not doing it properly in the first place, but I think, I really hate to have it torn down, but I think that's the only solution, and I think you would have every right to make the contractor fix it. That's my opinion as far as that's concerned, but I think we should get it moved back, at least to the original point. MR. FORD-Well, I'm not into refereeing neighborhood squabbles, and we've got a lot more going on here than this deck, but I think that's what we're about, is dealing with the deck and setbacks and variances and so forth, and in as much as a structure now exists, I feel that it should be modified, and I would like to see the owner come in with a modified plan that would call for some of that to be taken off, and that we could then grant a variance that would be retroactive, and still leave a majority of that structure in place, but something that would be an improvement over what existed before, and at the same time, get, him further away from Mr. Wood's property line, because that is a bone of contention right now, and I don't see where that's going to get any better as long as they're a foot and a half apart. MR. CARVIN-Well, I've got to go right back to the Area Variance. In other words, if this had been a normal, under normal circumstances, our criteria basically is, if granted, is their benefit to the applicant weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. That's kind of a toss up, if, by granting the Area Variance, do we create an undesirable change to the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. I think that, according to Mr. Wood, he feels that there would be a detriment to his property, - 46 - -- which certainly qualifies as nearby. Benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by another feasible method, and I think that we had another feasible method here. I think that's what you're saying, Tom, is, and certainly, if the deck had been built along the same lines as it had been originally built, that's a feasible method. Is it substantial? I suppose you could take a look at the foot and a half as being a substantial relief. An adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, again, I don't know if that one is totally relevant, other than Mr. Wood's property. Is this self- created? I think that's self-evident. I think this is a situation that was created, and is this the minimum variance to adequately preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community? It wouldn't appear so. I mean, if I'm just going down the criteria for the granting of an Area Variance, I've got a majority, certainly, weighing on the negative side, and I think that we really have to base on decisions on these criteria. Having said that, any other discussion? So I guess ~ solution is that I'd like to see the deck, either another solution, as Mr. Green has indicated, having the deck reconstructed to the original format. Any comments or questions? MR. THOMAS-I would say, go back to the original format. I think that would make the neighbors happy. It would be more conforming to the Ordinance. MR. CARVIN-Well, here's our options. We can, A., grant an Area Variance conditioned, in other words, that the deck be brought into better alignment, B., we can deny the application, in which case the applicant, I guess would either have to tear it all off or come up with another plan, and come back. MS. CIPPERLY-With a new variance. MR. CARVIN-With a new application. C woµld be the tabling. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I don't see any need to table it, at this point. MS. CIPPERLY-The advantage to tabling, I guess, would be if he could come back, it would save in fees and advertising. It would save a fee for him and advertising for us, if he came back with an alternative. If he's got to come back anyway, tabling would be preferable, but if you think you can condition a variance. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm wondering if Mr. Wood and Mr. Harding can work together and come up with a viable solution on this, or if we have to send the sheriff out to get you off each other's necks. I mean, I could table this and have you gentlemen come to an agreement and bring us back the acceptable plan. I don't think the deck, as built, is going to stand. I mean, that is just a straw polled vote on ~ part, but my suggestion to Mr. Harding is you're going to lose part of the deck. Now if you want to call up your contractor to find out what your legal stance is, I would suggest that you might explore that, but I think that the two of you gentlemen should sit down and work out an amiable solution here. MR. FORD-That's the plan I think that we should act upon. MR. CARVIN-I mean, because I don't want to design this thing. So I can't really grant it, I mean, even conditioned. I mean, we could say, build it, I don't know what it would look like. MR. GREEN-Can we, if they're going to come back with a new variance, can we table this one, or does it have to be a new one? MR. CARVIN-We can table this one. What I'm saying is I'm not - 47 - ,- quite sure I could actually come up with a giving him all the dimensions. In other words, designing the deck. granting motion, we would end up MR. GREEN-I don't know if I would be more comfortable just, granted we have the advertising and that sort of thing, but I don't know if I would be more comfortable just denying this one and making a process fresh, rather than making alterations to this application. MS. CIPPERLY-That's your prerogative, too. MR. THOMAS-No. I think we should let them go out there, the two of them go out there, design the deck, and then come back and present it. table this one. Just table it right now, let them come back with a new drawing. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Remember, it's only tabled for 60 days. So if they go beyond the 60 days, he's back at Square One, because this application is down the tubes. MR. THOMAS-Like Fred says, we're not in the design business. MR. GREEN-No, and that was why I was saying that it may, I would tend to be ~ossibly more comfortable having a fresh start, whether the deck is there or not. MR. THOMAS-Well; this would be more or less a fresh start with a new drawing. MR. GREEN-Okay. MR. CARVIN-I think, as Tom has indicated, I think there's more to the story than meets the eye, because I thi nk if I ~.Jas Mr. Harding, my first phone call tomorrow morning would be to my contractor, because I think by his shortcutting, he's put you into a lot of hot water here. I mean, that's ffiZ feeling, and I think you're going to have to bring the contractor in here because I think he's going to have to redesign this thing, and I think that, you know, if the three of you sit down and get this deck straightened out, so that everybody's on the same page, and then bring it back to us, I think we can move on it. MS. CIPPERLY-This is similar to what you did with the Lynch situation, where they did eventually come in with a solution. MR. FORD-Right. They worked it out. The one difference here is that this, in fact, will require a variance. There's no way that they can come up with something that, unless they get rid of the dec k a 1 together . ~ MS. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. CARVIN-I would also ask that if in 60 days, that the Town will take I mean, because we have a violation. the opportunity in the world to try Does that sound fair and reasonable? we don't hear anything on it enforcement actions. right? So, I want to give you all to get this thing resolved. MR. HARDING-I'll contact him again. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everybody think that the tabling is the better way to go? MR. GREEN-Okay. I just wanted to ask. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-1995 RICHARD HARDING, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: - 48 - -.,. I would ask Mr. Harding to sit down with Mr. Wood to develop and design a deck that will allow this Board, or give this Board more information to make a determination on an Area Variance. We should bear in mind the detriment to nearby properties. He should explore other feasible methods of bringing the deck into compliance, and bear in mind that the Board can only grant minimum relief. Tabled for a maximum of 60 days. If, at the end of 60 days, we have a no action, this particular variance will be considered void, and I would ask the Town Zoning Administrator to proceed with any enforcement actions deemed necessary. Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter MR. CARVIN-Okay. It's tabled for 60 days. So hopefully you can work something out here. AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-1995 TYPE II WR-IA CEA WILLIAM KEIS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CLEVERDALE ROAD, SIXTH HOUSE ON RIGHT PAST MASON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING STORAGE SHED AND CONSTRUCT A ONE-CAR, ONE-STORY GARAGE, WITH A SIDE SETBACK OF TWO FEET. SECTION 179-16C, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL, REQUIRES A TWENTY-FOOT MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK, SO APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THAT SECTION. SECTION 179-67 STATES THAT NO ACCESSORY STRUCTURE MAY BE LOCATED CLOSER TO A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE THAN TEN FEET. APPLICANT PROPOSES APPROXIMATELY SIX FEET BETWEEN THE GARAGE AND HOUSE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 7/12/95 TAX MAP NO. 13-3-25 LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES SECTION 179-16C, 179-67 PETER CARR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 47-1995, William Keis, Meeting Date: July 26, 1995 "APPLICANT: William Keis PROJECT LOCATION: Cleverdale Road PROPOSED PROJECT: Applicant proposes to remove existing 8' x 10' shed, and build a 15' x 26' garage. CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Applicant proposes a setback of 2 feet on the north side. The setback on the south side is 72' feet. Section 179-16C requires a minimum of 20 feet on one side and a total of 50 feet and a separation of 10' from the house. Section 179-67 states that no accessory structure may be located closer to the principal structure than 10 feet. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE, ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267, TOWN LAW 1. BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT: Applicant would be able to construct a one car garage. 2. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: Due to the fact that the lot is 90 feet wide, the existing house is 47, and the proposed garage is 15, there is no alternative except seeking a variance, if the garage is to be built on this parcel. The applicant also owns land on the west side of Cleverdale Road, so construction of this garage could take place there, instead of on the lakefront lot. 3. IS THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? This does not appear to be substantial relief. 4. EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY? There could be an undesirable impact on the community in the sense that this lot would have virtually lot line to lot line coverage. If this type of relief were granted, it could set a precedent, and Cleverdale could look like Rockhurst, where it is virtually impossible to see the lake from the road. There have been comments from the neighborhood relative to this issue, plus concern over the height of the building, its potential conversion to a 2-story building, and its potential usage as living space. 5. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED? When the applicant purchased this property in 1981, the house was considerably smaller. It was extended and enlarged in 1988, so that it was within 24 feet of the northern - 49 - lot line and 18.5 feet of the southern line. In this sense, the situation is self-created. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: One additional issue that has been raised is that of a drain which historically has carried water from the west side of the Cleverdale Road through this property, into Lake George. Further research into whether there is a Town easement involved, etc., will be undertaken, but cannot be conclusive at this time. SEQR: Type II, No further action required." MR. THOMAS-HAt a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 12th day of July, 1995, the above application for an Area Variance to remove existing storage shed an add a single car garage attached to house was reviewed and the following action was taken, Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by C. Powel South, Vice Chairman." MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is there anything that you'd care to add? MR. CARR-A couple of things. The size of the house, in 1986 or '87, I believe the Keis' added approximately seven feet to the north side of the house, and the rest of the footprint was as it was when they purchased it. The drain that runs through the property, according to Paul Nail, who did the survey work in 1987, there was no easement on record in the deed for that, and from the time that Mr. and Mrs. Keis have owned the property, the Town of Queensbury has not performed any maintenance or done any work on that drain. The last time the Town of Queensbury was there was, I believe it was last summer when there was a rabid raccoon living in it, and I believe the entrance to that pipe was closed off on the Cleverdale Road end of it. The proposed, well, I'll step back, as you all know, I was here last month for the storage shed, and at that time, I told you I'd be back, because in discussions, it was recommended or suggested to the Keis' that it might be more feasible to put a garage there rather than a storage shed, since they have no garage for their car. So, since we were unable to amend the application for last month, I refiled for this month. The height of the garage, I put 15 feet on there. The road side of it, I'm coming up with approximately 13.2 for the height, excuse me, 13 foot 4 inches. I had put 15 feet in the application, to allow for the grade as you slope down toward the lake. One of the problems with this lot which we talked briefly about last month is it's one of the few properties on Cleverdale that has met the 75 foot setback. Everything has been kept back from the lake, and, consequently, when the addition was put on in 1987, the Keis' were discouraged by the Town of Queensbury to try to apply to get a variance to go forward, because they said that they would probably not get it, that's why they added the extra seven foot in width, which has created a problem as far as maintaining the 10 foot separation between the house and the garage. As far as the attachment that's noted on the application, that would most likely be deleted. The Building Department, yesterday, told me that if I were within the 10 feet, they would just require a three quarter an hour fire rating on the wall between the wall toward the house of that garage. So that's no problem, just with the fire code sheetrock on that wall. Other than that, do you have any questions? MR. FORD-Okay. So is it, the plan, I've seen it both ways, attached and detached. MR. CARR-It wouldn't be attached. MR. FORD-So the way that you have it laid out up there now, with the line, is the configuration that you're suggesting? MR. CARR-Right" The reason for the attachment was more or less to comply with the fire code aspect. The fire code is what dictates the separation between the buildings. - 50 - - MS. CIPPERLY-In the case of the Building Code. MR. CARR-Right. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I guess I'm missing something here. You can't attach it to the house, or why can't attach it to the house? MR. CARR-Basically, to have a path to walk through between the house and the garage. MR. FORD-So it's their modification in the plan? Do they know whether they want it attached or detached at this point? MR. CARR-The only reason for the attachment was nothing more than like a lattice work. MR. CARVIN-I'll tell you what I'd like to see here, I guess, is I went out and I looked at that side there, and again, is there any practical reason why that cannot be attached, in other words, and still bring that in somewhere, if my math is correct, about eight and a half to nine feet off the property line, and eliminate the shed? MR. CARR-I think the only reason was that particular end is their diningroom. They didn't want to lose the window in their diningroom, and the width of the house from the garage through the diningroom. That's the main reason. MR. CARVIN-I have a hard time, we seem to have taken an eight by ten wood shed and turned it into a monstrosity, the very thing that we have been trying to avoid out there. It keeps getting bigger, two feet or two and a half feet from the property line. So that goes without saying. So what you're saying is that the reason that they won't attach it, or feel that they can't attach it, is that that's their diningroom? MR. CARR-They didn't want to lose the light into the diningroom, and on the windows there. Plus, if you do attach it, it makes one bigger single structure. Whereas, if you leave a little bit of separation between them, it's not one big long. MR. FORD-What has changed from the time that the application was submitted, saying an attached garage? MR. CARR-I think if you note on location of the garage does not line connecting the two of them. the plan, the plot plan, the change. There's a heavy dark MS. CIPPERLY-I could probably clarify that. Pete came in, and we were discussing, there's a difference between building code requirements and definitions of attached versus the Zoning Ordinance, and Jim Martin basically said in his opinion was, unless this connection here had a roof over it, like a breezeway or something like that, he would not consider just attaching this with a trellis to be an attached structure. He would consider that to be a detached garage. In the building code, as Pete said, the main concern is the fire protection. If you have an attached garage, you have to provide a certain amount of fire sheetrock between the living space and the garage, which I guess, because it's less than 10 feet, he's going to have to do that anyway but then there's the Zoning Ordinance requires 10 foot separation between a principal building and an accessory one, which I think is more of a spacial thing than a, six feet gets down pretty, another thing that's going on here, between the, you asked if he could attach it, and I mentioned in my notes the question of the drain, which I really couldn't tell you one way or the other. I've heard that it's been blocked off, and I've heard that it's been moved, and when, the dashed line there on the map was where the property line used to be, and then I think it was the people before the Keis' purchased half of the - 51 - adjoining property, and the neighbor to the north also purchased half. So they took a 60 foot wide lot and split it between them. So that dashed line used to be the property line, and that, apparently was approximately where there was a drain line running down to the lake, and what we haven't resolved yet, I talked to Paul Dusek about it this afternoon, this was Just brought to my attention yesterday, that there was even this possibility. So Paul, before he would say anything about it, would like some more information on whether the Town really has any easements or not. Apparently, a surveyor that did some looking into it says that there isn't, but there's some kind of a pipe that people saw going into the ground that went around this addition. I don't know if that was a cellar drain or if that was the drain back out to the lake. That's another reason for not attaching it to the house, because that drain may be, whatever that drain is, could be jeopardized, but I will be looking more into the. MR. CARR-There was an old eight or ten inch iron pipe that runs down somewhere in the vicinity of that dotted line, and that switches over closer to the northerly property line down by the lake. When that seven foot addition was added on, in 1987, the contractor that did that had taken plastic corrugated pipe and skirted it around that addition, because that line ran right next to the foundation line. I had dug up the end toward Keis' bilco doors because the joint was not done exceptionally well. So everything that drained into it from Cleverdale Road ended up in their basement, and I wrapped it with plastic and cleaned out around it and poured concrete around the joint. I'd heard that he still wasn't happy with it, and that the line was plugged up across the road. We had some major flooding problems up there the last couple of years. As the points get more developed, we get more water and it's getting more difficult to deal with. When I built the house to the south of Keis', it was almost impossible to get grass to grow back on that lot, just because of the volume of water. We had films of water this deep coming off Cleverdale Road running down there, and it's a real problem. I believe Jim and the stormwater commission are trying to address the problems and work something out. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant at this point? MR. THOMAS-Someone said that the Keis' own a lot across the road? MP. CARR-Yes. MR. THOMAS-How big of a lot is that? DIANE KURUC MRS. KURUC-It's the same as our lot, which is 100 by 180. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. This is Mrs. Kuruc who was in for a variance last year. It's 100 by 180, you said? MRS. KURUC-Give or take. MR. THOMAS-Is there any reason you couldn't build a garage across the street? MR. CARR-Two things. Number One, Mr. Keis is in his seventies, and he'd rather pull into the garage and walk into the house rather than cross the street. As the neighborhood changes and things become more developed, it would probably be an economic hardship to use that lot for a garage. The Kurucs built a nice home on that property, the adjoining property, and it may not be the best use for that particular parcel of property. The other thing is, in years past, the Town of Queensbury has discouraged building garages with no principal structure on residential lots. - 52 - --- MS. CIPPERLY-Although, in the Adirondack Park you have a different situation where adjoining lots, I was just reading the section here, it says, and it refers to where you have, it says, in the event that a lot located within either a Critical Environmental Area, which this is, or the Adirondack Park, which it also is, if it does not comply with the minimum lot area or lot width requirements, and adjoins other lots in the same ownership, the lots will be treated together as one lot for zoning purposes. We have used that same principal, this has nothing to do with lot dimensions, but the same principal has been applied on other places in Cleverdale where people wanted to build a boat storage building or have their septic system across the road because they couldn't get it on their lakefront lot, that has been done, because they are, you know, both under the same ownership, and it's quite common up there to have your garage across the street from your lakefront house. MR. CARR-I believe, in this instance, the deeds are in separate names, and they are not contiguous pieces of property, because of the road dividing them. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Have you got any questions? Okay. I will open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOAN ROBERTSON MRS. ROBERTSON-I'm Joan Robertson. I live in Cleverdale. I've lived there for near 40 years and I have watched this area develop. Some of it's been good. Some of it's not been so good, because it is congested area right now, and it's becoming more congested with the rebuilding of houses, and that's not to say that they are good or bad, but it is becoming more congested. Now I'm opposed to this, and I did send a note that I wrote this afternoon. I'm opposed to it because it's asking for two variances, before this was out, just as the house stands now, Mr. Keis does not meet the total 50 side setbacks. He only has 43. So that he's not in conformance right now, and I don't believe that it's in the best interest to grant variances that would make the property more nonconforming, and you're going to have probably a whole wall, almost the total frontage of this land, is going to be, you know, a structure. I don't think that this helps visual aspects, the aesthetic aspects of Cleverdale, and it seems to me that it's not suitable, that it is, it's just, I think, kind of selfish to have a whole lot and to ask for more than you're entitled to when you already are nonconforming, and as I said, I did find out about the drainage problems, because as I said, I've lived there. We had a really serious storm today, and the whole road is flooded, and I understand it's going over M'f. Keis' propert)/. It didn't u.sed to go over his. The Niagara Falls was up on Cushings' and the Clemente's properties. That's where we had the Niagara Falls. It goes down the sidewalks, but it has been a serious problem, and, historically, becau.se I go out in my canoe a lot, the water has drained down on this, where it's 30 feet in, the previous property line. You could see where the water would drain out, because it would come out of this old sand beach, and this was quite obvious. This has not occurred for the last couple of years, so I would say, yes, it has been blocked off, and I go around with my shovel and I dig out these little basins and stuff, so that I don't have to put my rubber boots on to get into my garage, but again, I do feel, mostly, that we should not make a property more nonconforming. So I would ask that you not grant these variances. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Thank you. opposition? Anyone else wishing to be heard in DIANE KURUC - 53 - MRS. KURUC-Hi. My name is Diane Kuruc, and as Sue mentioned earlier, we were before the Board last year requesting, not really a variance, because we are conforming, but we were moving the house five feet shy on one side so that we had slightly less on one side than the other. The variance was granted in any event. We built what we think is an attractive contemporary on what's considered second tier, with the idea that, hopefully, other properties on that side of Cleverdale, I'm speaking on the non lake side, would also upgrade and improve. There are some, as I'm sure you're aware, some very tired looking older camps, whatever, and we've had some people say to us that they'd be very interested. They're thinking about knocking down an old camp. Thinking about building something new. When we bought the property which, by the way, certainly was relatively expensive considering it was not lake front, we were told and understood that, or thought we understood, that what was a footprint was what was allowed to be built upon. That there were certain restrictions that people could not build lot to lot. We purchased the lot with the idea that we had a relatively clear view of the lake. Now, that may not be important to you, but on the other hand, as I sit here and look at my property, now that I've invested and currently am a tax payer in your Town, I'm looking at it and saying, if you wall to wall the lake, you've created a situation where, first of all, it's certainly going to impact ffiL. property, which I'm not going to be happy about, but the building lot that Mr. Carr spoke about becomes even less desirable, and every other lot, as you wall to wall Cleverdale Road, those second tier lots, will never be built. It will never, whatever, and I do also agree with Joan in that, as you close off everything and you make something more nonconforming than it was before, and build an entire wall down Cleverdale Road, I guess my question to the Board would be, would it be your intention to build a wall around Lake George? Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Thank you. Correspondence? Anyone else in opposition? Okay. Any MR. THOMAS-Yes. A record of phone conversation, dated 7/25/95, at 3:25 p.m. between Maria and Chris Dittus, Cleverdale Road, Subject: Area Variance No. 47-1995 William Keis, they have no problem with this variance. Another note, "Notes for the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on Wed. July 26, 1995 Joan Robertson In reference to the application of William Keis, who is asking for a variance from side setback, Sec. 179-16C and for a variance from location of accessory structure closer than 10 feet from principal structure, Sec 179-67. I am opposed to the granting of these variances for the following reasons: 1. Mr. Keis has already added a sizable section on to the building that existed when he purchased property. He used the allowable front footage at that point and should not be permitted to build an additional structure that will increase the visual congestion for neighbors. It will, in essence be a solid wall for nearly all of the 90 foot frontage of this lot. 2. Mr. Keis was granted a variance at a very recent Zoning Board meeting to enlarge a shed to be used for storage. Asking for additional variances is neither fair nor reasonable, especially when neighbors specifically stated that the storage shed would be okay, but they would not be in favor of a full garage. 3. There are serious drainage problems along this section of the Cleverdale Road. A storm drainage line that runs through the Keis property is in the location of the proposed building. It would be damaging to neighbors and hazardous to persons traveling along the Cleverdale Road if this drainage is compromised in any way. 4. Mr. Keis owns property across the road that would be suitable for the construction of a garage. He would not need to ask for a variance to build at this site. I repeat my request that these variances not be granted. Signed Joan A. Robertson" MS. CIPPERLY-I have a record of a telephone conversation with Mr. Kuruc. Did you cover, do you think, the points that he made? - 54 - .,... MRS. KURUC-I expect, unless you see something else. MS. CIPPERLY-Okay. One thing that he did mention was if this were granted, he would like the height of the building limited to something like 14 feet and maybe they could work with the neighbors on that, that the structure be limited to one story, forever, and not allowed to go upwards, and that it not, there was a concern that it could eventually be used for living space. So that was a telephone conversation, 7/25/95, with Steve Kuruc. MRS. KURUC-I would just add one thing, and I don't think that we are intending to insinuate that the Keis' would add a second story, necessarily, but that perhaps another property owner may come along, in the future, and another Board may look at this and say, well, it's already got it, so what difference does it make, and then you're into, you know, changes and changes and changes, until you have a lot of the problems that we're currently seeing on Cleverdale. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. Anything else, Chris? MR. THOMAS-No, that's all we've got. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other public comment? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any questions or comments or thoughts? MR. FORD-I do. We, last month, granted a variance, and as far as I'm concerned, that's it. I have no intentions of going beyond that, and I see no reason for congesting this area even more and building a garage there. Particularly when there is obvious access to plenty of space for the building, a garage. MR. CARVIN-Well, a feasible alternative anyway. MR. FORD--Yes. MR. THOMAS-I agree with Tom that the applicant has a feasible alternative, building a garage across the street, even though it is on a buildable lot, and I don't like the idea of starting to wall off the lake. There's a lake over Rockhurst. I mean, you can't even see the lake from that road, the structures are built so close together, and I think it starts taking away from the lake and like Mrs. Robertson said, that it affects the drainage along that road, too, and that road can become a flood, really quick, like with the rain we had today, and I think this garage will impede the flow of water to the lake. MR. KARPELES-I agree with everything that's been said, and I don't have anything new to add. MR. GREEN-I think with the lot across the road, there's a lot more opportunity, the need to place it here along the side of the hou.se. MR. CARVIN-At first, I thought of adding it to the house, but it looks like that's going to create more problems than it's going to solve, and I have to concur with everything else that's been said. I think that we've started out with, as I said before, an eight by ten wood shed, and I had some reservations about expanding that, but now we've gone to a fifteen by twenty-six garage, and this is just exactly the thing that I think, I know ¡ have been very uncomfortable doing in the past, plus the fact that there does appear to be a viable alternative across the street. I have a hard time with this variance. If there are no other questions or comments, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-1995 WILLIAM KEIS, - 55 - Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: The applicant proposes to remove an existing 8 by 10 shed and build a 15 by 26 foot garage. In order to accomplish this, the applicant would need relief from Section 179-16C, which requires a minimum of 20 feet on one side, and a total of 50 feet, and a separation of six feet from the house, and also Section 179-67, which states that no accessory structure may be located closer to the principal structure than 10 feet. The benefit to the applicant would be that the applicant would be able to construct a one car garage. However, there are feasible alternatives. The applicant has ownership, or would have the opportunity to build a garage on a lot across the street from this particular parcel. I think if we granted this variance we would be granting substantial relief from the Ordinance. As has been noted in public comment and Board discussion, that we would, in effect, be walling this particular section of Cleverdale. I also feel that if we granted this variance, that there would be an undesirable impact on the neighborhood and the community, in the sense that this lot would have almost lot to lot coverage, and there also is a question as to whether the proposed location of this garage may impact drainage to the lake. This difficulty is self-created, in that the applicant has extended and enlarged the house already in 1988, and perhaps the issue of a garage should have been addressed then. So with all these facts in mind, I would not grant this variance. Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter MR. CARVIN-Okay. Gentlemen, before you all scoot, a couple of items. We are, again, meeting tomorrow night. Please be here. In your packet you will find, we actually have, is Passarelli on tomorrow night? What's the status of that? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. ,. ev i sed. Because I didn't see it on your new and MS. CIPPERLY-Sue may have sent those out before that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-I asked her to call and make sure, they knew about the change from last time. They originally were on the first meeti ng . MR. CARVIN-Okay. So we will be entertaining a discussion with regard to, I guess, Passarelli. I would ask you all to read the minutes, because I think one of the first orders of business tomorrow night will be this Canape situation, and I think we're going to have to address the issue, if this is the same variance that has come back again, because there was a Use Variance applied for in May of '93, which is a little over two years ago. MR. FORD-So every other year it comes back? MR. CARVIN-Yes. Well, A., if you feel that there is significant enough change, in other words, after reading the minutes and looking at what he is proposing, if you feel that there is a significant number of changes, then we can move ahead on the variance. - 56 - .....- MS. CIPPERLY-And that has to be a unanimous vote of the Board. MR. CARVIN-That it's a significant change. I don't know. MR. KARPELES-What he's proposing is in our packets? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. FORD-And we have two sets of minutes from previous years, showing a historical perspective. MR. CARVIN-Yes. This will be the third time, essentially. In 1991, apparently, they wanted to convert a residential dwelling into a beauty shop, and then in 1993, they wanted to convert a single family residence into professional offices, and now I guess they are proposing to have a partial professional office and second floor living space. MS. CIPPERLY-You can expect a lot of people. MR. CARVIN-There is probably some public controversy with regard to this. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN'-In order, I think, not to hear it would need to be a unanimous vote? MS. CIPPERLY-It's called a vote to re-hear. When we've done that before, it had to be a unanimous vote. MR. CARVIN-Well, no, if it's the ~ application, but if we feel that, I've got to believe if we feel that there is a significant difference, then I would think a simple majority vote. MS. CIPPERLY-I could ask Paul. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Well, again, the only reason for my conversation tonight is to have you, in your spaTe time, kind of plow through the minutes, because as I said, that one may be. MR. KARPELES-What's a unanimous vote? A unanimous vote of those that are here, if there's five people here? MS. CARVIN-I think if it's the same, it has to be unanimous? MR. KARPELES-Yes, but what's unanimous? That's just the number of people that are here? MS. CIPPERLY-It can't be seven, because you don't have a seventh member. MR. CARVIN-Yes, and I don't know how an abstention factors. MR. GREEN-If he abstains, I don't think he could vote either for or agai nst. MR. CARVIN-All right. Well, I'll try to get that squared away at some point tomorrow. MR. FORD-On that issue would you need to abstain, Chris, on whether or not there's a significant change? MR. THOMAS-Yes. There is a conflict in there with this whole thing, and I'd rather not get in the middle of it. MR. CARVIN-If you feel that there's a conflict, then I would say stay away from it. MR. THOMAS-There's a definite conflict in there. - 57 - MR. CARVIN-Other than that, I think we've got something on an interpretation on Psychological Counseling. Okay. MR. THOMAS-Passarelli's coming back tomorrow? ~1R. CARVIN-Yes. MR. THOMAS-What's he doing, going to plead his case? MR. CARVIN-No. Actually, I've had a conversation with Bob Paling on the Planning Board, and he expressed concern that, in some incidences, where the Planning Board has approved plans and what not that people are trying to circumvent some of these situations by coming back to the Zoning Board, and so we will probably be addressing that issue at some point in the very near future. In our Staff meetings, that's coming up on August whatever, he's going to see if we can get a joint meeting of both Boards, Planning and Zoning, to sit down and perhaps address this particular issue. I suspect that if that comes about, it may be some time in August, to try to maybe work out a format here. There's also a couple of other issues, as far as SEQRA, too. I mean, some of these SEQRA situations where the Planning Board has been uncomfortable, in other words, we refer a SEQRA, if we get an application that comes in here, we don't do anything because we refer it to the Planning Board for Lead Agency status, and they are uncomfortable picking that up without a public hearing, and this is an anomaly of the State law. It's not anything that ~'~e c"eate, because it's 13 Catch-22 situation. MS. CIPPERLY-They can't act on a site plan until you've granted a variance, but you can't grant a variance until they do the SEQRA. MR. CARVIN-Until they've had a public hearing. So it is, quite literally, a Catch-22, and I suspect what will probably happen in the future is that when we have a case like this, that I will open up the public hearing on the SEQRA, so that if anybody has any questions or comments regarding the SEQRA, then that will be part of Q1!L minutes, which will be refen-ed over to the Planning, so that the Planning will have a sense of a public hearing. So it's kind of a, you know, so we're going to try to work with them with regard to that. So that way we don't play ping pong with some of these applicants as they come in and out. MS. CIPPERLY-It could hold somebody up another 30 days when it's unnecessary. When only the Zoning Board and Planning Board are involved, we should be able to work something out. MR. CARVIN-Other than that, I don't think there's anything happening with our signs. So I don't think Jon Lapper's come back, as far as Taco Bell. So I guess there's nothing burning there. MS. CIPPERLY-I talked to him and they said they were coming up with another proposal, but I think, we did get about 15 new variance applications in today. MR. GREEN-I do have something I'd like to add, just for the record, relative to the Red Lobster last week. I mentioned this to Mr. Ford when we spoke on the phone. I drove down that back road again, myself, just to double check my own piece of mind, and Mr. Ford was correct. You can see that "B" sign prior to seeing the area that the "C" sign is in. I don't think it ~>Jould have made any difference in the outcome, but I just wanted to state a correction of my own opinion. I was pretty adamant last time that I ~.Jas not seeing that, but I ~.Jas incon-ect. MR. CARVIN-In that case, having no other business, I would move for adjournment. On motion meeting was adjourned. - 58 - - RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred Carvin, Chairman - 59 -