Loading...
1995-03-15 '\ OR'*-.; "UINAl QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 15, 1995 INDEX Area Variance No. 71-1994 Jeffrey & Debra Godnic k 1- US!:; \j¡;n- ia nce No. 9-1995 Robert E. Orban, Jr. 23. Use Varia.nce I'....¡o. 10-1995 Edward S . & Roberta J. Barili 48. 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 i'1I I\lUTES . \-' --' QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 15, 1995 7:00 P.M. OF APPEALS MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY ROBERT KARPELES DAVID MENTER THOI"lAS FORD ANTHONY MARESCO PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-1994 TYPE II WR-IA CEA JEFFREY & DEBRA GODNICK OWNER: SAME SOUTH SIDE OF GLEN LAKE ROAD THIRD HOUSE EAST OF DOCKSIDER REST. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A RESIDENCE OF 4,378 SQ. FT. OF WHICH 3,000 SQ. FT. IS LIVING SPACE, PLUS A 900 SQ. FT. GARAGE, ON A 0.44 ACRE LOT. SECTION 179-60 REQUIRES A SEVENTY-FIVE (75) FOOT SHORELINE SETBACK, APPLICANT PROPOSES A FIFTY (50) FOOT SHORELINE SETBACK, SO SEEKS RELIEF FROM THIS SECTION. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 12/14/94 TAX MAP NO. 38-4-6 LOT SIZE: 0.44 ACRES SECTION 179-60 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-The Zoning Board of Appeals Record of Resolution "The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Meeting Date: February 22, 1995 Variance File #71- 1994 for an Area Variance, was tabled Motion to Table Area Variance No. 71-1994 Jeffrey & Debra Godnick, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Menter: At the request of the applicant, to the March meeting, so that he might submit additional information to the Board with regard to this variance." STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 71-1994, Jeffrey & Debra Godnick, Meeting Date: March 15, 1995 "APPLICANT: Godnick Revised application PROJECT LOCATION: Glen Lake Road PROPOSED ACTION: Applicant proposes to construct a residence of 4,378 square feet, of which 3,000 square feet is living space, the remainder of which is basement/utility area. In addition, a 900 square foot attached garage is proposed. Lot size is .44 acres. Proposed height at the maximum is 29 feet. CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: Section 179-60 requires a seventy-five (75) foot shoreline setback, applicant proposes a fifty (50) foot shoreline setback, so seeks relief of 25 feet. ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 267-b OF TOWN LAW, IN CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SHALL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED AS WEIGHED AGAINST THE DETRIMENT TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY BY SUCH GRANT. IN MAKING SUCH DETERMINATION THE BOARD SHALL ALSO CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL POINTS ENUMERATED BELOW. 1. Benefit to the applicant: On his application, the applicant stated the benefit as being his ability to continue living in Queensbury, although no information was given as to why that issue was dependent on this particular lot. At the January 18, 1995 Zoning Board meeting Mr. Godnick expressed dismay at being further from the shoreline than the existing houses on either side, which he appeared to find less than attractive, and an impairment to his view of the lake. 2. Feasible alternatives: - 1 - -.,/ If the existing house, set back 30 feet from the lake, is in a condition to be added on to, and meet current building codes, it could be expanded. Site Plan review would be required for any expansion, since it is in a Critical Environmental Area, and a variance would be required if the expansion was more than 50% of the existing gross floor area. Applicant could not remove the existing house and rebuild on the existing footprint. The proposed size of the deck is 12 x 40, plus a portion that wraps around the side. If the width were decreased, less relief would be needed. Further decreasing the size of the house could result in less setback relief required. Apparently, this is a 3,000 s.f., 2-bedroom house. Perhaps there is a way to downsize. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? This does appear to be a substantial amount of relief, considering the intent of the Ordinance to protect the visual character of the shoreline and consider the environmental concerns unique to the lake. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: While the applicant has mentioned that he will be further from the lake than his neighbors, it should be remembered that eventually those houses may be replaced as well, and the Godnick house could become the standard others point to. The long term impacts of shoreline setbacks should be considered when evaluating individual projects. Concerns about noise and visual impacts were expressed by one neighbor. The applicant has been known to park vehicles from his limousine service at his other Glen Lake property. So there was also a concern about a limousine service being operated from this property. 5. Is this difficulty self- created?: The desired size of the proposed house could be considered self-created. SEQR: This is a Type II action, no further SEQRA review required. Staff Comments and Concerns: No further comment." MR. THOMAS-A letter dated March 15, 1995, to the Zoning Board of Appeals, regarding Jeff Godnick Septic System Glen Lake Road "Dear Board Members: On today's date, I inspected an existing septic system located on the property for which Jeff Godnick proposes to place a new structure. I observed two eight by eight seepage pits connected to a D Box, and from the D Box, a line lead down to a pump station for the existing residence. Mr. Godnick is proposing to put a two bedroom home on his property which would require only one eight by ten drywell. He currently has two eight by eight drywells, which meet the standard for a three bedroom home. They are approximately 130 feet from the lake and, therefore, exceed the setback from the lake, which is only required to be 100 feet. The s)'ste.m as it stands right nOI¡.J is allowed to continue as is, even though it is nonconforming in relation to setback to neighboring wells, and M--r. Godnick should be able to provide a map to you at this meeting showing the setbacks to the three neighbor's wells. To clarif)' the Town Law regarding septic s)'stems as it stands before you, Mr. Godnick is allowed to maintain the s)'stem as long as it does not fail. If there is a failure of the system, then he would have to replace it with a conforming system, or apply to the Town Board of Health for variances to replace the system. It is my understanding that Mr. Godnick will replace the septic tank, which is now nonconforming, with a conforming septic tank, and also meet the setbacks to neighbor's wells and the lake when the new septic tank is installed. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me and I will make myself available to you at this meeting if need be. I have also been in contact with Jim Martin and discussed this situation with him so he understands the law as it applies to this s)'stem. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, David Hatin, Director, Building and Code" Town of Queensbury Planning Board resolution of Januar)' 17, 1995, regarding Jeffre)' & Debra Godnick, Area Variance No. 71-1994 Referral to the Planning Board from the Zoning Board of Appeals "MOTION FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-1994 JEFFREY & DEBRA GODNICK. REFERRED TO THE PLANNING BOARD BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. THAT THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION BE MADE, Int'r"oduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, - 2 - '- --" seconded by Roger Ruel: Item Number One, that the septic system be reviewed by the Building and Codes Department and the Board of Health; that Jim Martin will convey to each of these Boards the strong and detailed feelings of the Planning Board in regard to the acceptability of the present septic system to a home of this size. Item Number Two, Rist-Frost Engineering comments must be met to the satisfaction of Rist-Frost and the Staff. Permeability at the present time on this lot is 67 percent, 2 percent over allowable. The Board questions that this permeability will last in the event that any modifications in the form of additional buildings are added to this property. Item Number Four, the Planning board is making this recommendation without a public hearing, and feels that if they were to vote on something like this, that they would need the input from a public hearing, and recommends strongly that the Zoning Board of Appeals allow a complete public hearing on the subject." MR. CARVIN-How about this letter from Rist-Frost, William MacNamara. This one is dated March 15th, today. MR. THOMAS-Okay. A letter dated March 15, 1995, Mr. James Martin, Town of Queensbury Office Building, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, New York, regarding Area Variance No. 71-1994, Godnick "Dear Mr. Martin: Rist-Frost has reviewed the revised Site Plans - Proposed Variance drawing received March 13, 1995, with the following engineering comments: Adequate changes have been made addressing our earlier 01/10/95 concerns regarding erosion and sediment control during construction. The installation of the hay bales and filter fabric fence should follow the details found in the NY Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control Manual, and remain in place until site is stabilized. An oversized stormwater drywell is now shown and repositioned such that the drive area and a significant portion of roof runoff will be directed to it, an improvement from the initial size and location. Regarding the sanitary sewage disposal system, it appears the applicant is still investigating options. Discussions with the applicant's engineer indicate that they are attempting to confirm exactly what is presently installed, and if appropriate, continue with its use. If not, it appears the applicant may try to fit a conventional system on the site. (A conventional absorption system may be able to be installed, however, with the drive and building layout as proposed, it may be difficult to meet all required separation distances. The Town should review whatever system is eventually proposed.) If necessary, the applicant indicated they would consider installing a new holding tank system. Our check of the impermeable area indicates it just meets the 35% maximum (65% permeable) which included the deck and 2' eaves. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. William F. MacNamara, P.E. Project Engineer" MR. CARVIN-Okay. care to add? Mr. Lapper is there anything that you would MR. LAPPER-Yes. There's considerable issues I think we need to go over. I'm here for the first time on behalf of Jeff and Debbie Godnick, who are sitting behind me. Steve Jager, the architect, is sitting next to me. I think that there are two main areas that we need to address here. One is the justification for the Area Variance, and Two, are the myriad of site design issues, mostly the septic system, and to jump ahead for a second, we have a new plan, because after Bill MacNamara raised the issues on the septic system, we were able to do some additional investigating, which lead to discussions with Dave Hatin, and him generating that letter, and we'll go into that in detail, and I think that Bill will now have some different comments on the septic system after (lost word) investigate what system is in there now, but that's getting ahead of ourselves. - 3 - ......" To start off with, the justification for the variance itself, I don't think that Jeff has done a good job, to date, of explaining to the Board, and I think that the Planning Staff's comments indicate that, that it seems, from what's been presented so far, that this is just a case of someone who wants to get as close to the lake as they can and build as big a house as they can without tying it to the land, and I think where we have to start here is that we do have an existing camp that's in unlivable, uninhabitable shape, that's 30 feet from the lake, and although, as we've planned it, and actually, the house has now been moved back even farther than the last plan that was submitted to you, the house itself is 65 foot back, and there's a 12 foot deck in front of that, which is considerably farther back than the 30 feet that we have right now. The reason that the house can't be backed up any farther, in practical terms, is just because of the slope of the lot itself, which is severe, and to dig into the slope would really change the site considerably. It would be extremely expensive to move all the dirt. Also, it would affect the septic systems, because of the location of the septic tanks. The driveway, in order to get into the garage, if the house were moved back farther to Glen Lake Road, and right now, it's only a few feet from the 20 feet setback to Glen Lake Road. If the house were moved back farther, it wouldn't be possible to put the driveway in without being over the tank, which isn't permissible. Steve prepared a new plan, which, just today, in light of the septic issues, which he'll give you now, and I'd like you to just consider that as a modification of what you have~ steve can go through this and detail all of the changes that he's made since the last plan, but the most important issue, Qll.ê. of the most important issues, in terms of whether or not this is self-created or whether or not this is the minimum variance that can be granted, since the last time that they were here, the third floor was removed, and to the extent that the house is, from 75 feet up to 53. So it's 27 feet closer than it could be, my math is off, 22 feet closer than what it should be. They've removed the top floor which, in terms of visual impact, impact on the lake, and impact of neighbors, that's going to make a big difference. The other big issue here is that, as everybody knows, the ground floor here, which makes it seem like it's such a large house, with 3,000 square feet of living space, is really the basement, which has to do completely with the angle of the slope of the ground, and we're using the numbers which show what the maximum build-out could be. Right now, they don't have any plans to finish the basement. Although hopefully, eventually, they will. So we're here to talk about that, but in terms of comparing this to any other house, you wouldn't be, if it wasn't on a slope like this, you wouldn't be talking about the basement, because that would be completely enclosed, and here it's visible from the lake side, and that's why we're talking about it, but we don't really have a very large house, in terms of the living space on the top floor, which is where the living space would be. Downstairs, it's all concrete walls and on a slab. So even if that's finished, it's not going to be the same as the second floor of the house. Steve, if you could explain the changes. STEVE JAGER MR. JAGER-One of the reasons for the fresh off the press here is in investigating the septic system, we weren't convinced we had the correct information. I requested Mr. Godnick go out and (lost word) go out and excavate what was there and find out what exactly do we have, and the new plan locates exactly where the tanks are, that we didn't have. We said they used to have three 1,000 gallon tanks. There are two 1,000 gallon tanks, seepage tanks, plus the nonconforming septic tank, which is right next to the house, which doesn't meet any present laws. A couple of things we've added is the location of the three adjacent wells. If you look, as you face the plan, to the left, you'll have a house. You can see the word "well", which is actually underneath their porch. That is probably about 130, 140 feet from the - 4 - "- -- wells, which is significant at 100 foot. The house on the right also has a well in the lower right hand corner of the house. Again, that's approximately about 140 feet, which is again, 40 feet past the required distance. The well to the north, or across Glen Lake Road you see a line that says "well". That's actually the location of the well across the street. That one is 93 feet to the face of the (lost word). So we're seven feet shy of where that tank is located, but because that well is actually located upslope from the existing system, it doesn't have that much impact on what's happening across the street. So that's the, two present locations, there's two round dashed circles. Those are the locations of the two tanks. They meet the setback requirements for the site, the 10 foot side yards and basically everything else. The only one it doesn't is the well across the street, and again, that is not the critical distance, simply because it is down slope from that well. So we've shown the proposed layout. The other thing I've added, on the proposed site plan, if you look at that, is right at the lake, we've added two dimension lines. One is a 65 foot dimension, which is from the present sea wall that exists to the face of the house, the 65 feet, and the 53 foot line is actually to the base of the deck, which is approximately 12 feet off the (lost word). So we've improved it a couple of feet from where we had it before, and to push it back any further, we only have about five feet to play with, going toward the road, but because of the two foot overhang, you only have three feet. So we really can't move the house. It'll impede the one septic tank. The other thing we've had to do is, the previous plan, the driveway has been modified. The turnaround area, actually the green space between the two drives has increased, almost doubled what it previously was, once we found out the exact location of that septic tank. We haven't increased any paving or anything. We've just moved things over, probably decreased it, actually. So we've actually improved a number of things, and the existing septic tanks where they are, fully functioning system. The previous house was a five bedroom home. They didn't have any problems with that system for the 15 years that it was used. We will be including a new septic tank that will conform to all the requirements. There's no problem with that. We've also, on this plan, showed the erosion control plan, which is the hay bale (lost word) dotted line which pretty much goes right around the house toward the lake. It stays out of the 35 foot lake buffer, which is a no build zone. So we've tried to conform to everything. The house is down to probably the bare bones it can be for living space on the first floor. It's not overly generous. It's only 2189 square feet. Again, if this was just a normal house, with a normal basement, he'd actually be moving into a smaller house than he has now with the living space. The whole reason for buying this lot was to be able to have a little bit bigger house and larger living space. He currently doesn't have any storage space in the home he has now. In the section for the drywell, the other thing we've done is, one of the things that Rist-Frost pointed out is we've increased the capacity of the drywell. It takes so much of the water now, it's actually better than what was there prior. We've actually gone way overboard with the drywell. It's going to take a lot more runoff. That was previously designed, actually, a big improvement over even what's there. It's going to take that much water. We made a lot of improvements. We're going to meet all the setback requirements. We're looking for relief from that 75 foot rule. I think that's it for changes. I just want to point out one thing. Each of those two houses (lost word) the existing plan, the new, existing site plan. The house on the right, you'll see just up to the upper right hand corner is a dotted, large dashed line, and we've penciled in "absorption field" . That is the location of that leachf ield for that neighbor. He just makes the 100 foot rule. The house on the left, you'll see the absorption field is well within the requirement of 100 feet from the lake, and it's too close to its own well. That house has got more problems than anything around here, including the house next door. So this house is making an - 5 - '-/ improvement across the board, given the current requirements and the lot size that we have. zoning MR. LAPPER-Okay. If it's okay with you, I guess we'd like to ask if Bill MacNamara could confirm what we've done, in terms of these changes, and I know that he's had a little bit of time to look at the wells, now that we've determined what's on the site, and Dave Hatin is saying that it's sufficient, and I guess I'd like to see if Bill could agree with that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I just have a couple of questions. The housing schematics here, the frontage. Is the distance across the front the same? MR. JAGER-No. It's longer. MR. CARVIN-It is longer. MR. JAGER-Because we had to take the second floor off, and we had to put the bedroom back on the first floor. It increased by about 15 feet, it might be a little less. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, this footprint that we're looking at, the newest, the latest version, is that the accurate footprint? ¡VIR. JAGER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-So we're looking at about 65 feet across the front? Is that an accurate? MR. JAGER-Correct. I think the previous length of that two story, with a three story home was about 57 feet. MR. CARVIN-About 54 feet. Okay. The cost of knocking off that extra four and making it longer, is it going to come out to about the same as far as the house is concerned, or is there going to be any savings, cost of construction? MR. JAGER-It actually increases the cost of construction. The more you spread out a home, the costlier it gets. It's cheaper to build multiple floors than it is to spread it out. ¡VIR. Ct:¡RVIN-Okay. maybe using the bed,· ooms? Was a plan savings to developed on a 54 foot basis, and convert the downstairs into the MR. JAGER-They don't want to move into the basement and use that as prime living space. MR. CARVIN-Or a family room or living room. MR. JAGER-They prefer to live on one level. MR. LAPPER-Because the downstairs, in terms of insulation, because it's a year round house, it being on a slab. it's okay for recreation space for the summer, but in terms of year round, the bedrooms are upstairs, the kitchen, eating area, and a living room in the center. Upstairs, just in terms of heating, insulation, that's the standard home that we have in the northeast, rather than being on a slab. MR. CARVIN-I have a split ranch, and I live in it year round. MR. JAGER-Their preference is to live on one floor at this point. They weren't real thrilled about the idea of using the two story, but we were trying to keep the footprint of the house smaller to increase the permeability, the impact on the lake is only one small area on that three story house, as you look at it. You're actually going to have probably a greater impact with a longer house than you will in a two story house that we proposed - 6 - '-" --- ea,-l ie,- . one level live in a four lots lot. The reason for going for this and trying to hold to the of living is with the main residence is they currently multiple level house. They live on a severe slope, over. They currently walk up and down steps an awful MR. LAPPER-But it also seems that the comments of the Board were that people felt that it would be less of an impact visually if the third floor were eliminated, and that was the real reason to go back to the drawing board. MR. MENTER-What do the side setbacks become? MR. JAGER-The side setback was 22 on the right side and 30 plus on the left. MR. LAPPER-And that is conforming. MR. KARPELES-Well, these aren't right here, what's written on this map, right? The setbacks, proposed, is 20, 20, 30, 50. None of those are right? MR. LAPPER-No, they ~ right. MR. KARPELES-But he just said 22 somewhere. MR. JAGER-Well, that's to the face of the house. setback. I'm giving you the distance to the property line. We're two feet past the setback, Twenty foot is the absolute, from the right, and left hand setback. That's not the house from the on both sides. 30 feet is the MR. LAPPER-Mr. Karpeles is correct on the side setback. MR. KARPELES-There's a table down here that shows the setback. MR. LAPPER-You were showing you meet it, but actually you exceed it. MR. JAGER-The face of the house is 22 feet, but because we have a two foot overhang, it goes right to the edge of the setback. We have to include that. MR. CARVIN-That's the 22 feet here. MR. JAGER-That's why on the submission it says 20 feet. MR. CARVIN-Because it looks like they've shortened this up, because they've gone from 33 to 29. MR. JAGER-We've gone right to the setbacks. The spaces that we're creating within the house are marginally larger than what it currently has. The living room, for instance, in this existing house is 23 feet inside. The new house is going to be 24 feet. Talk about minimal increasing, in his living space that he has now. MR. MARESCO-Is any portion of that basement underground toward the road? MR. JAGER-Yes. In fact, just about what you see on the lake side, the right hand side, which is approximately 38 feet in length, would be exposed, which is the right side, and then the front will be exposed, and as you start to turn around, it slopes (lost word). MR. MARESCO-You cause it a slope of the property. that, then, is underground. So part of MR. JAGER-Most of the house, you'll see that one story. - 7 - '-- MR. MARESCO-Because as it comes up towards the lake, then it's all level. ¡VIR. JAGER-Right. MR. FORD-Could we address the east wall, up area? We're continuing to maintain 900 gar age? around the square feet garage in the MR. JAGER-Yes. That's going to be 900 square feet. MR. FORD-And yet that wall has been extended from, what, 22 to 34 feet. MR. JAGER-Right. We had originally had a 64 foot bump out on the front, if you will, as it faces Glen Lake Road. We've taken that, this same square footage, and squared off the house (lost word) of construction. We've taken the square footage, we didn't want to keep increasing the house. We took that same square footage, the 64 square feet, out of the front entrance of the house. That's actually more recessed than the previous plan. So you're kind of given one for one on the square footage, either increasing it or decreasing it. MR. FORD-How is it more recessed? Where is it more recessed? MR. JAGER-If you look at the very front entrance, the doorway actually sets back into the house. It used to be straight across. The porch used to extend much farther out into the front yard. MR. FORD-So that extension from 22 to 34 feet along that wall on what will be the back side, I believe, of the garage is not extending the garage? MR. JAGER-No. That's just going to be, this is the shop area. The garage will be 900 square feet. There's no change in that. MR. LAPPER-I think what Mr. Ford is asking is that if you moved it from the front of the garage to the back? I'm. JAGER-Right. MR. LAP PER-You didn't increase the size of the garage. changed the dimension. You just MR. JAGER-Correct, just changed the dimension. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I guess regarding the deck. I know pick up another few feet if your comments be to that? one other question that I have Staff has indicated that we could the deck were reduced. What would MR. JAGER-I think the issue of the deck, I just want to address something. In dealing with a lot of different residential developments over the years, a lot of towns have adopted different standards one of them is what they call a veranda line or deck line, because there is no impact to, basically, the front yard, the side yard or the rear. The deck is not, it's going to be an extension of the house. It's living space in the summer, in the good times, but reducing it two feet, the main house is, where I see the issue is not so much the deck. Two feet on the deck isn't going to mean much of anything, with a variance. It doesn't really improve anything. I think the actual construction of the house is where the interest should lie. MR. LAP PER-But also to address the question, a 12 foot not an overly wide deck. That's about the minimum. fairly standard. People like a 14, if they can get it, foot deck is starting to get a little bit narrow. deck is T ha t ' ~3 and a 10 - 8 - '-- ~ MS. CIPPERLY-Another thing about the deck, I believe on your rear elevation, you left off the part of the deck that goes around the corner. MR. JAGER-It should wrap around the corner. That was done prior to the one of the things, too, from the previous submission, we , . had a 45 foot setback to the deck. So we've actually lmproved that another four feet from the previous, eight feet from the previous submission. MR. KARPELES-Your originally proposal showed 35 feet height to the top of the chimney, I believe. MR. JAGER-Well, no. That's the 35 foot line that you're allowed by zoning. It doesn't have any relationship to the height of the house. MR. KARPELES-Okay. MR. JAGER-The original submission was actually even less. Normally, do not count chimneys, weathervanes. MR. KARPELES-So this 29 feet. MR. JAGER-Is to the roof of the house. MR. KARPELES-Okay. I see. MR. JAGER-So that one's probably 33 feet. We've dropped it a little bit. We haven't really reduced the width of the house. I dropped the roof slopes a little bit, to bring that down. We don't want to get the roof so flat that he's going to be up there shoveling snow, which is what happened last year. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now the figure of the 72% permeability, is that an accurate figure? MR. JAGER-That does not include the two foot overhang or the decks. Normally, we do not include the roof overhang because the water gets to the ground and the deck is not a solid deck. So the water goes right through it. MS. CIPPERLY-Our practice is to include the deck, and the eaves. MR. JAGER-Okay. In the Rist-Frost calculations, that was, his took that into account. We do meet that requirement. MR. FORD-What kind of floor is under the deck? MR. JAGER-Nothing, just ground. MR. CARVIN-Okay. percent. The figure that I've seen, basically, is 67 BILL MACNAMARA MR. MACNAMARA-Actually, the number that I came up with yesterday, I got his revised layout yesterday, not counting tonight's revised layout. I actually got exactly 65 percent permeable, 35 percent green, and that was including the deck, and I guess there are two foot eaves, and we confirmed that I was correct on the two foot eaves. MR. JAGER-Right. MR. MACNAMARA-It was an even 65. MR. CARVIN-Okay, because the permeability does concern me. driveway, I'm trying to get some more green space. You've kind of a circular driveway here. Has any consideration The got been - 9 - given to just having a single entrance, in other words, losing one of the entrances? MR. JAGER-That's a tough area to get out of right now. If what the owner proposes to do and what he wants to do is actually going to be, he's going to end up probably coming in the left hand drive and exiting out the right hand drive, which is a little bit better visibility. The left hand side of the site, there's kind of a knoll right there. MR. CARVIN-All right. Well, I'm also looking at, it looks like part of the driveway goes right over the piping for the, in other words, if I'm reading this correct, it goes right between the two 1,000 gallon holding tanks. MR. LAPPER-It goes over the pipe, but not over the tanks. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but is there any way that that portion could be closed off, so he still has a turn area, you know, down in the cor ne)-? MR. LAPPER-You mean cut off the western drive entrance? ¡VIR. CARVIN-Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, so he can still come in and make a wide turn theì-e. MR. CARVIN-So he can still come in and make a turn and then drive back out, and you'd pick up, I don't know what the square footage, but that would get you away from that 65 percent, because you're bordering, I think, right on the minimum. MR. JAGER-I haven't done another calculation, and Bill MacNamara hasn't either, because I've revised this. There's probably more green space and more permeable soils there now, that the driveway is actually reduced in size, somewhat. I'm not sure. We might get to 66%. MR. LAPPER-When they found where the location of the tank was today, the one that's in the center of the property, they increased that big green space area around it, because, previously where the driveway was, was proposed, would have been over the tank. So they added some green space, but it's probably, as Steve's saying, another percent. I think the issue, if anyone, members of the Board, went to the site, it drops off so steeply that it's really almost dangerous when you're pulling out onto Glen Lake Road, not so much at night, but during the day, and what Steve was saying about pulling in on one side and out on the other, Just really drops off, when you're pulling the car up, pretty steep, looking around, it's nice to have the two exits, but at the same time, we hear what you're saying about permeability, and if there's anything else that can be done. MR. JAGER-Well, on that note, permeability, he's basically maxed out the site, as the laws. You really can't add to the house, no mat te)- what. MR. CARVIN-Well, I know when L was out at the site, there was a Godnick truck. Is that being used for storage at this point? MR. LAPPER-That's for storage of Planning Staff mentioned that they on the side because it looked like that he'll take that down. construction materials. The didn't like the name Godnick a sign, and Jeff's assured me MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, that's, basically, my concern, at some point, the need for an outside storage shed for lawn mowers and so forth. - 10 - / -../' ~ MR. JAGER-That's all going to be handled inside. MR. LAPPER-In the basement. MR. JAGER-It's been area designated just for that purpose. MS. CIPPERLY-The other thing is, if you're right at 65 percent, and you build a walkway down to the lake, or any other path on t.he property. MR. CARVIN-You're right on the razor's edge, there, as far as that permeability is concerned. i"1R. LAPPER-Is shave (lost comfortable? there anything else, word) that would I'll ask make the age,i n, that Board feel would more MR. CARVIN-I know that's what the Planning Board, they addressed that issue, if you go through the minutes of the Planning Board, when they looked at it. That was one of their concerns, and that was 67, and now I'm hearing a revised figure of 65. I'm trying to work with you here on the driveway or something. I mean, I'm just looking at the driveway. That's really about, you know, just a reconfiguration of the driveway might pick up a few extra feet. MS. CIPPERLY-Are you going to read the letters? There's one telephone message, at least, in there, because some of those concerns were. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I've got it. MR. JAGER-So we're sort of between a rock and a hard place, the driveway. The only entrance and exit that makes sense is the left hand one. That'll give you room to get into the driveway or the garage, otherwise you have to back in every time. MR. JAGER-I could probably cut a little bit off the corner. One of the things we're trying to do, I know we're up against the permeability and stuff, we're maxing it out, is to create, to really create something out here. On the lake, as you know, most of these places are shacks. That's what some people call them. In fact, Mr. Godnick revised one them, and he called it Shack, and he's calling this one Shack Two, just because of the stigma. Most of the area, they're dated homes. There was never any planning involved. There's really no design. People just came up and built. what they could. This is the first opportunity to create something out here that's different, a little bit more unique, a little bit more in keeping with the goals of the Town's long term range plans. The idea of the circular drive is to create a sense of upper scale home, which is typical. Deleting that sort of takes away from the image of what we were trying to create here. MR. LAPPER-Steve, the Board is still concerned about permeability, which is a concern, and I'm just wondering, if we clip back of the driveway on the east side, what t.here and still make it possible to use it for saying that they're legitimate area of the corner on the could you pick up its function? MS. CIPPERLY-Can you shorten up the garage/workshop area and put the workshop in the basement? What kind of a workshop is it? MR. JAGER-It's just going to be, he's got. that are actually going to be locked in a needs it available to the garage. some expensive tools separate room. He MS. CIPPERLY-For fixing his car? MR. JAGER-Yes, for the car, just basic tools, you know, tool - 11 - '--- ---' chest and stuff, compressors, that he owns. square feet. That's only 64 MR. MACNAMARA-I just ran a quick check with my rough scale on how much green space was added by lengthening the driveway, and it was actually closer to two percent than it was one percent. So, I mean, if numbers are the issue, that's 67. It just seems to be the big issue. MR. CARVIN-We got it back where the Planning Board looked at it. MR. JAGER-In virtue of what there is, if you have a path to the lake, that's very much restricted in that 35 foot zone. I'm not sure how much you can actually put, you're only allowed 20 percent of the total frontage to be developed for any kind of access to the lake, in the present zoning, and typically that 35 foot zone there, you really can't think, it might be crushed stone, which, again, I don't know what the exact permeability of that would be. MR. CARVIN-Sue, the deck is part of the permeability computation. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. CARVIN-How much, if they took the deck off, would that, just as a quick. MS. CIPPERLY-I figured out the deck to be 664 square feet, just barely, roughly. MR. LAPPER-If you didn't have a deck, you'd want to have a patio, then, downstairs, and that would be completely impermeable, whereas the deck has got soil on the bottom, and just that it holds back the water on the top, and there's an argument that the deck shouldn't be counted as 100 percent impermeable. MR. CARVIN-Well, but until they change the Ordinance, Jonathan, I've got no choice. If we were in Bolton or some place else, I'd agree with you, but we're here in Queensbury. MS. CIPPERLY-I also, I don't know why the deck goes around the side of the house. MR. JAGER-It attaches to the garage, comes in the side door. MR. MENTER-And that eight foot? goes in flush on the east . ~ . t . Slue, 1 'S only MR. LAPPER-It's shown on the second page of the new elevation. MS. CIPPERLY-So there's a door missing on the elevation, also. MR. MENTER-But it only extends out as far as the house. MR. JAGER-I got one of them revised. I didn't have the other one. If you look at the left side elevation, you can see a railing that goes. MR. FORD-It goes all the way around to the shop, apparently. MR. JAGER-Correct, which he intends to put his gas grill and if he wants to use it, he pulls it out, it's protected. MR. CARVIN-Well, lose some of that. MR. JAGER-What we could do is, the width of the drive is presently 12 feet. I don't know if there's an Ordinance in the Town that has a minimum width drive, paved drive. MS. CIPPERLY-Twelve is kind of standard. It doesn't have to be - 12 - /- ~ ~ paved, but anything you put there is going to impermeability, but as far as fire safety. be considered MR. JAGER-I was thinking if you dropped that to ten foot in width, that would still, because they're only access drives, and they're not that long. If they were longer, I'd have a problem. MR. MACNAMARA-One other thing to consider, it's actually in your best interest, although Dave had said whatever's there is fine. If you are ever going to have trucks or having vehicles driving around in your yard, that is an old distribution box, depending on how deep it is, it would definitely be in your interest either to put a new one in that's certified as being a traffic (lost word) or not pave over it. I don't know how old that is. MR. JAGER-The distribution box is 12 by 2 feet. MR. MACNAMARA-It's a big D-box? Has it got a good solid cover on it? They're not meant to be driven over. MR. CARVIN-I'm not just going to sit here and redesign this at the expense of all these other folks, but I think the issue is permeability. So I think we're going to have to address that at some point. Any other questions of the applicant at this point? MR. FORD-I think there's more than permeability, but lets go on. MR. CARVIN-I mean, if you have any questions of the applicant, lets ask them, because otherwise I'll go to the public hearing. MR. MENTER-I'd just like to clarify one thing. here, of the building, the lower picture, then, east side of the house would not extend out past house. On your drawing, the deck on the this edge of the MR. LAPPER-The drawing's wrong, in what's proposed is that would extend out. MR. JAGER-About another four feet, just to get a walkway down that side. MS. CIPPERLY-It doesn't extend past the edge of what is the garage. MR. MENTER-It runs into the end of the house, it doesn't go past the return. MR. JAGER-Right. MR. MENTER-Okay. That was my question. MR. LAPPER-It shows on Page Two. MR. MENTER-Well, it shows a stopping there, but you can't really tell if it's out past it and then returns back into it. MR. LAPPER-To answer your question, it doesn't go farther than the house. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. FORD-How about the operation of the limo service from this area? MR. LAPPER-Jeff has a limo business from his Company in Rutland, Vermont and once in a while, if he's doing it himself, which he sometimes does, he might drive home with a limousine, but he absolutely doesn't operate out of the house. He would just take that home instead of his car that night, if that's the last vehicle that he's driving. So, overnight, he might have a limousine parked there, but it's not operating a business out of - 13 - ',,- the home. It's just having a limousine parked in his driveway. MR. JAGER-And it wouldn't be in the driveway. It would be in the garage. It would be out of sight. MR. MARESCO-The garage is big enough for a limo? MR. JAGER-Clost word) that larger vehicle could go in. could be seen. There would that. little extra footage in there, a So it wouldn't be something that be no advertising or anything like MR. MARESCO-That t.ruck isn't going t.o stay there, though, right, with the Godnick? MR. LAPPER-That'll be used for storing lumber. MR. MARESCO-And when construction is done, that will be off. W). CIPPERL Y-- I co\/er ed over ad\/ertisi ng. suggested that it be somehow, because covered up or that it's really off sign be premises MR. LAPPER-The letters are vinyl, and as soon as it warms up, he'll take them right off. MR. JAGER-He'll peel them off. They won't be there. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I think we kind of interrupted Mr. MacNamara. Were you going to add anything on the septic at this point? I kind of jumped in ahead of you there, or are you pretty satisfied with what you've written so far? MR. MACNAMARA-Well, our comments were certainly before the seepage pits were discovered, but I think as far as the whole septic is concerned, it was certainly a big discovery. I don't have anything to add. MR. CARVIN-At this point, I'd like to open up the public hearing for anyone wishing to speak in favor of the application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GENE CHOPPA MR. CHOPPA-My name is Gene Choppa, and I represent my wife and myself. I am one of the owners of the shacks that are next door to Jeff and Debbie. MR. MARESCO-Those are expensive "shacks", by the way, aren't they? MR. CHOPPA-Well, the Town calls them camps. My father built it in 1931 and he called it a camp, so we call it a camp, but if the architect wants to call it a shack, that's okay with us. What I want to say is, I haven't seen any plans or anything. I'm just sitting here for the first time listening. The traffic problem, at the top of that hill. We're the cottage to the west of the new Godnick home. The traffic on the corner of there, there's a hill in the corner, on the Glen Lake Road, it's absolutely abominable in the summer time, and sometimes during the winter time. So if you make him give up his westerly entrance and exit on the east, it's going to be a sad thing, because it's a blind corner. We have two entrances and exits on our property, also, and we hardly ever use our eastern most exit. Sometimes we use it to enter the property, but never to exit, because you're just taking your life in your hands. If he uses his western most entrance to exit, you're asking for some truck to come around there and take his life, and he's too young of a guy. So I don't think you should make him have one driveway entrance and exit, - 14 - '- -" even though I think it's a great idea. It just doesn't work in those kinds of cases. The other thing is, as one of the owners of the shacks, both my wife and I welcome something like he's going to do, or he's proposing to build, because it can only help to make the area much, much better for residential areas. We've had enough problems at Glen Lake over the last 55 years that I can remember, with all of these upscale, when I was a kid, there was only 40 cottages on the lake. Now there's probably ~40. We've had enough. We've had enough pollution. We've had enough lousy things happen. We've got enough shacks, and I agree, they are some. We now need some really nice places, and people to inhabit those places. So I think you shouldn't bend the law, but I think you should give the Godnick's every possible opportunity to do what they want to do, and I thank you. MR. CARVIN-Anyone else wishing application? Anyone wishing to application? to be heard be heard in in favor of opposition to the the PAUL DERBY MR. DERBY-Hi. My name's Paul Derby, and I'm not really in opposition to it. I just have some cautions for myself that I want to get resolved. In 1993, my wife and I bought a shack on Glen Lake, and we're trying to improve that, and I applaud anybody who comes on to Glen Lake and tries to do that. That's what we need there. That's great. I am also a member of the Glen Lake Association. I sit on the Environmental Committee, and I'm the Chair of the Milfoil Committee there, and everybody knows we have a problem with mil foil, and keeping the health of the lake, and what I'm concerned about the septic. I didn't really understand what happened, if it was resolved here or not. I have a few questions about that. Number One, you said you had two 1,000 gallon seepage tanks or holding tanks. Maybe you can just show me. MR. JAGER-They're as far away from (lost word) as possible. MR. DERBY-Are they seepage tanks or holding tanks? MR. JAGER-Seepage. MR. DERBY-Okay, and then there was a nonconforming system somewhe,-e? MR. LAPPER-A nonconforming tank. MR. JAGER-The existing nonconforming tank is actually ,-ight next to the camp. A new one is proposed which meets all the criteria. MR. DERBY-What is the setback from that? MR. JAGER-Fifty foot is the minimum from the lake. The tanks are going to be almost twice the distance required. MR. DERBY-I think septic is important, and if we're meeting the zoning requirement, that's great. That's a good thing, and we should be meeting all the requirements that can be met without putting people out. This absorption and 65 percent is an important issue also, and I just want to say that as people come onto the lake, that we should be updating these septics and getting these things done, getting the lake cleaned up. So, if we could satisfy that, I would be happy, and I think the Environmental Committee would, and try to meet all of the Zoning Ordinances. MR. FORD-How do you feel about the setback from the lake side? MR. DERBY-The 50 foot setback? - 15 - MR. FORD-As a part of the Environmental Committee for that lake. MR. DERBY-I can't speak for the Committee. I'm going to speak for myself, because I haven't met with them on the issue, but we have talked about it. I think any improvement to the home itself and what's sitting there right now is, basically, going to be torn down and something new put up, I think that's fine. The 50 foot's an improvement to the 35 foot, and it's not a very deep lot, if I remember. Personally, I have no problem with that. I have no problem with improving the neighborhood. I'm just concerned about the lake, the health of the lake, and meeting the these requirements in the environmentally critical zone. MR. KARPELES-Well, don't you think the setbacks have a lot to do with the health of the lake? MR. DERBY-Yes. I think they do. MR. KARPELES-Well, wouldn't you like to see them improved? MR. DERBY-I would like to see, if it were possible, to meet that 75 foot setback and get those septic systems in there. If that could be done, I think it would be the most desirable way to do i't. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How would you feel about sacrificing a 12 foot deck? That would move it back 12 feet. MR. DERBY-To 65 feet? MR. CARVIN~Actually, it would bring it back up almost to, what, 67 feet. MR. KARPELES-He's got 65 to the house. MR. CARVIN-Well, now it's 53 to the deck, and then the 12 foot deck, 65 to the house. MR. DERBY-I feel, in the long run, that it's important that we meet the setbacks, and if it can be done. MR. KARPELES-Well, you're never going to do it unless you start right now. MR. DERBY-I understand that, but also being in the position where it would improve the neighborhood and what's there now, but I feel that if we can meet those setbacks, then it should be done. MR. FORD-Well, you can meet that setback, but not putting that size structure on. Those setbacks can all be met. MR. DERBY-Without that size. Well, lets put it this way. When I looked at a house on Glen Lake, we looked at several camps, and one of the questions we had, when we went to one of those, was we called the Town and we asked them, well, what about the septic, and basically we were told that there's an existing septic there, that it's okay, and for me, personally, that wasn't good enough, because when we were looking at it, said, well, it's been there 40 years, and we never had a problem with it. Well that means it's probably running into the lake, because they never had it pumped either. So we looked further and ended up with a home that met all these requirements, and I think it's important that they're kept, and they're there for a reason. That's an environmentally critical zone, and that's the way it should be, and saying that the house next door doesn't meet those isn't really a reason not to do it yourself, because the time comes, when that comes up for sale, or somebody wants to build there, and they're going to have to meet the setbacks also. On the other hand, I'm all for improving the lake, and getting people that are concerned enough to build proper septics and worried - 16 - ""-' --- about the 65 percent absorption rate and things like that, and that's important also. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anything else? Anybody else, questions? Thank you, sir. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, before the Board votes, I'd like to just make a couple of comments in response, if that's okay. MR. CARVIN-Well, we've got a, I still have public hearing open. So I don't know if there's anybody else that cares to be heard. Anybody else wishing to speak in opposition? Okay. We've got some letters, phone calls, I believe. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Record of Telephone Conversation, dated 15 March 1995, conversation between Susan Popowski, Glen Lake Road and Susan Cipperly, Planning Staff, subject is the Godnick Residence "Ms. Popowski stated that 1. When she proposed adding on to her existing Glen Lake house, to the east of Godnick a couple of lots, she was allowed a 67' setback, which has caused some difficulties, but she considers it better for the lake. 2. She was required to put in a 5,000 gal holding tank for 6 bedrooms, seasonal use. Her major concerns are - septic. She hopes all issues regarding septic system are resolved before any approvals are issued, as she considers that the major lake issue. - Noise. If a deck this size, which appears entertainment oriented, is allowed 50 feet from the lake, noise will carry 'tremendously' and disturb neighborhood. This was the primary concern with the Docksider deck. She also expressed concern that the Godnick's limousine service would be operated out of this location, as limousines have been parked at his other residence." PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Just a couple of closing comments. 2189 square feet is certainly not a huge house, and what we all consider a house is what's above the foundation. I realize that, because of the slope, it looks like the whole thing's a house, and maybe some day they may finish part of the basement, but 2189 square feet is not, we're not talking about a large house. It's clear what the Board's saying. I mean, you're very concerned about the lake, and I think that if, what may not be clear to you is that the tanks that are in there, and I don't know if Bill finished his sentence, but I think that that issue has gone away because we've got a system that is an operating system that complies with the regulations, or will once we put in a new tank, but that the leaching tanks are as far from the lake as they possibly can be, on the property, and that's really what the Glen Lake Association, what the neighborhood is concerned with, and rightly so, as well as the oversized stormwater runoff, the drywell, that should also protect the lake. In terms of the deck, because the deck is the major plans for recreation in the summer, that doesn't mean that it's like a commercial deck like the Docksider, where there's going to be a noise impact, but that is important to the design of the house and to their enjoyment of the house. What I would propose is, if we cut off the whole access to the garage, to the shop area on the side, which is 64 square feet, Jeff and Debbie would propose to cut that off instead of taking away from them the right to put the deck on the front, but to take that whole side off, so it actually would look like what's drawn on the rear elevation of the first page, as a compromise. MR. JAGER-If we took off that deck, that's 200 square feet from the deck alone, and if you took off that that tool shed, that internal tool shed of 64 square feet, you'd be giving up 264 square feet, back to ground, which would, in the future, allow them to put a path or something down to the lake. - 17 - --' MR. LAPPER-We can stipulate that there won't be a path, if that's what you're concerned about. MR. CARVIN-I guess I'm not sure what this tool shed is all about. What tool shed are we talking about here? MR. JAGER-Well, it's not a tool shed. He's building a, call it a shop, but he's calling it, it's a tool (lost word). MR. LAPPER-I wasn't going to propose taking off the tool shed, I guess, but if the Board was comfortable, if we can save. 64 square feet's not a big deal, and the tool shed in back of the garage is important to store his tools. If we took off the whole deck along the side, that's 200 square feet, which is pretty significant, and we're already at 67 percent. MR. MARESCO-Is the tool shed built on to the back of the garage? MR. JAGER-It's just a room within the garage. It's going to be a locked room. MR. FORD-Is it a tool shed, or is it a shop? MR. JAGER-It's a storage room, is what it's going to be. MR. LAPPER-It's a storage closet in the back of the garage. It's within the footprint of what you see. MR. JAGER-You can't access it from the outside. The slope's too great. There's no way to get to it. MR. FORD-Unless you have that deck going to it. MR. LAPPER-Right, which we are now proposing to eliminate, if that pleases the Board. MR. KARPELES-I'm not clear on what you're eliminating. MR. CARVIN-Well, apparently, there's a deck, this here. All right. They're taking this off, and then, apparently, there's. MR. LAPPER-This whole area here, this would be eliminated. MR. KARPELES-So that helps the permeability, but that doesn't do anything for the setback. MR. JAGER-Correct. MR. CARVIN-Now there's a room. What would you do, just slope this roof down here? MR. JAGER-No. That wouldn't change. We don't want to effect the structure. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, Jeff's also indicated that to drop the deck from 12 feet to 10 feet is something he'd also offer. MS. CIPPERLY-You'd gain two feet on your shoreline setback, which would be 55 feet. MR. JAGER-Fifty-five feet instead of fifty feet. foot improvement over the last submission. That's a 10 MR. MARESCO-So how many feet are we going to be back, now? MR. JAGER-Fifty-five. MR. MARESCO-Fifty-five from the shoreline. MR. FORD-To the face of the deck and to the face of the - 18 - '- --' st,"uctu,"e? MR. JAGER-No. The face of the structure will be 65 feet. The face of the deck will be 55 feet. MR. LAPPER-There's some room to cut the driveway a little bit on the east side, just to cut the corner of it. MR. JAGER-We could soften it. Instead of having the hard angles, we could soften it a little bit. MR. CARVIN-Because, I mean, that's where you would pick up some of it, because part of the problem is it's a very large house on a small lot. The problem with permeability and down slope is that, obviously, as you lose permeability, you get more flow into the lake and, obviously, that has it's own inherent problems. I really don't have a problem with the septic. I think your septic system looks to be in pretty good shape, and you've made all the right overtures, as far as bringing it up to today's specs. So I really don't have a problem with the septic. I'm sure that that would be taken care of. MR. LAPPER-Well, we would be willing to take off some more. I think that, after talking about it, we could shave off, make the driveway a little bit narrower, and shave off some additional permeability, in addition to the two feet off the deck on one side and 200 feet on the other side, we can reduce the size of the driveway somewhat, but we think that, for safety, it's important to still have the two ingress and egress. MR. FORD-Why don't you shave enough off the house so that you don't even have to come in for a variance on this setback? MR. LAPPER-The problem in doing that, obviously, if that was practical, we would have avoided this, but, in truth, because the slope is so steep, that, I mean, you'd be pushing it all the way. MR. JAGER-You'd be building right on the street. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but that's just assuming that you don't want to live in the basement, you don't want to live on a slab. MR. JAGER-Right. MR. KARPELES-And that's something that, that's a preference. That's self-created. MR. LAPPER-But the only reason that it's exposed, it's a basement, it's only exposed because of the lot. MR. MENTER-That's not self-created. Nature did that for them. MR. KARPELES-If you used the basement area to live in, you could reduce the size of the house, and increase the setback. MR. JAGER-I understand that. MR. KARPELES-So if you do anything other than that, then it's self-created hardship. MR. JAGER-Well, he's trying to create a lifestyle here. MR. KARPELES-Well, we realize what he's trying to do, but we also realize what the setback requirements are. MR. LAPPER-But it's only an Area Variance and not a Use Variance. 50 in terms of hardship, we're only talking about burdens and benefits and practical difficulties. MR. KARPELE5-We're talking about precedents, too. - 19 - --/ MR. FORD-Yes. My concern is, this, now, becomes the standard setback for any new structure on Glen Lake, and I don't know how we can get away from that. MR. LAPPER-Don't forget, though, that we have the opportunity, or the alternative, if you will, to renovate the house that's there right now, stay on the same footprint that there's now, we could have 30, 35 feet, and even the Glen Lake Association acknowledges that this is a big improvement from what's there right now, and we're doing our best, as I think YOU can see, to try and give back as much permeability as we can, but also still create something that's worth living in. MR. JAGER-If you've had, previous homeowner down the street has gone with a 67 foot setback, we have just enough room, with the current layout and the plans, we've worked very hard to get to this point. The main house could be set at 65, or 67 feet, which would not impact the setback, the other three setbacks, or the septic or anything else. I could probably move it back two feet, so it would be consistent with the other house. I don't know if the other house has a deck in front of it, or a patio or what have you. MR. LAPPER-Okay. What Steve's saying is that if you look at the north line, the north property line, and there's a 20 foot setback along the north, that the whole house could be moved back two feet, so that, instead of the house being 65 feet from the lake, it would be 67 feet from the lake. So the house would conform with what the neighbor's phone call said, that the house would be 67 feet, and then the deck would be 57 feet. MR. FORD-I certainly appreciate that effort to get closer, but I rest my case on what I said before. When you issue this variance, that becomes the new standard. You have just gone to that previous standard that was established through variance. MR. LAPPER-I guess that would be tied to the slope and the configuration of the lot. So it's not just like opening the door and saying that anybody on Glen Lake on a flat lot or anything else can just have 67 feet. It's because of this unusually sloped lot. MR. FORD-Yes. I don't know other lot, whether they were what the parameters were for that sloping or flat. MR. JAGER-The house just to site. the east is basically almost a flat MR. LAPPER-The slope, here, is the issue that causes us so many problems in designing the house and putting the house here. MR. KARPELES-Well, I think it's more than the slope. If you're using the maximum setback on every side of the house, and you still can't meet the setback required from the lake, then it indicates to me that the house isn't designed right for the lot. MR. LAPPER-Well, it's a half acre lot, almost a half acre, which is one of the larger lots on the lake, and in terms of the overall square footage, I mean, you could build a bigger house within the setback. This is not the biggest house that can be built and meet the setbacks. MR. KARPELES-Right. So why don't you meet the setbacks, and build a bigger house if you want, but meet the setbacks? MR. LAPPER-Two main reasons. One is that, if we pushed it back so far, and there's a problem with the driveway, and driving over the existing septic tanks. MR. KARPELES-That's only if you're going to live on two, if you - 20 - ...../ '- don't want to live in the basement, or you don't want to live on a slab. If you want to live on a slab, you can do it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. entertain a motion. among the Board? Any other questions? I should say, are Okay. Then I would there any comments from MR. FORD-I applaud the efforts to "improve the neighborhood", and this structure, I'm sure, if it is at all similar to the Godnick's current home, it would be a fine improvement and it would look great. We've addressed permeability. I still have concerns about that. I have great concerns about issuing a variance from that setback, because as has already been demonstrated, this now becomes the new standard, and I think we have a standard for setbacks on Glen Lake, and I think they should be maintained. I believe that this is self-created, by placing too large a structure on the site. MR. MARESCO-I also applaud their effort. I think they've gone through great lengths to try to accommodate us here. I do disagree with Tom on, I don't think we're setting precedents. I think part of the Zoning Board of Appeals' job is to take each individual site that we have, and base our decisions on that. I would be comfortable with the house going back another two feet, and being 67 feet back from the lake. Like I said, I don't think we're setting precedent. I think we have to take each individual that IrJe have and go with that. That's!I!..:i. feeling. MR. CARVIN-When you say 67 feet, that's the house. MR. MARESCO-That's the house, the deck would be 57 then, right? MR. JAGER-Right. MR. MENTER-I think that plenty has been done to mitigate the effects on the site of this house. Certainly, the septic is, and the discovery of those two pits is, as somebody said, nice for everybody. It made that a lot simpler to deal with. I think the configuration of the lot is certainly unique, and the slope. Again, I know what the road is like there, also. I think that I would grant this, myself. MR. KARPELES-I guess everybody sees where I'm coming from. MR. CARVIN-There's no doubt about that. MR. THOMAS-I think the applicant has bent over backwards to do what we've asked him to do, since the last meeting in January, putting in the new septic system, installing a drywell for the runoff from the roof and the driveways, reconfiguring the house to get into the setbacks, increasing the permeability, right here tonight, by taking off 280 square feet of deck, and as far as this being the standard setback, or a setback standard, I think we gave a variance, last year, up on Glen Lake. I can't remember the road name, but I do remember the applicant's name, and I think we granted a 45 foot setback from the lake on that one, and like Tony says, every variance comes in on their own. I don't see where we can set up any "standard". I'd just like to say, again, that I think the applicant has bent over backward to appease us, and I think we should grant this variance as is. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I've given it a lot of thought, and I see the merits on both sides. I keep going over our criteria. The Zoning Board, in making its determination, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In making such determination, the Board shall also consider whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby - 21 - ---' properties will be created by granting the Area Variance, whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the Area Variance, whether the requested Area Variance is substantial, whether the proposed variance shall have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, and whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which considerations shall be relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the Area Variance. So I think that we have a little bit more latitude, when we look at Area Variances, as opposed to Use Variances, w~ich brings me right back to the benefit to the applicant as weighed against the detriment to the community. I think the applicant has demonstrated a significant willingness to come into compliance with that. I think that, I'm concerned about the permeability, and I made that an issue right up front. I'd like to have a number. I really would. I mean, as opposed to just granting. MR. LAPPER-We were at 67 percent, and then we gave 280 square feet, and then we're going to shave something off the driveway, as well. MR. JAGER-Say another 300 square feet, total. MR. CARVIN-If I had a number that I could shoot for, as far as the permeability is concerned, I think that that would give you some leeway as to the design of the driveway, or the decks and so forth. I don't know if we can. I agree with you. I mean, sometimes the decks are_ we probably should look at a special ordinance, I guess, for setbacks on decks, but I donJt want to get into that issue. I mean, I don't know if we can make the boards wider so that the permeability is enhanced in some fashion. I also know where my Board is coming from in the setbacks, but it is an unusual situation, because of the slope of the land. Much of it is self-created. So, I mean, I have a hard time addressing the self-created section. I think I would be in favor of, probably, granting the varlance, with some pretty strict guidelines. MR. MACNAMARA-An additional 300 feet is approximately 1.5 percent. You pick up about two percent, bringing the driveway radius. So that's about three and a half percent on top of 65. So that's about 68 and a half percent. Those are rough numbers. MR. JAGER-And actually, the 300, I even forget the fact that (lost word) that's another 90. So it's almost 400 square feet. The driveway got smaller as we pushed it back two more feet. MR. LAPPER-That's true. MR. JAGER-So it's probably almost two more percent. MR. CARVIN-If I said 69. MR. MACNAMARA-Sixty-nine's a fairly accurate number. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does anybody want to move this? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-1994 JEFFREY & DEBRA GODNICK, Introduced by David Menter who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: The applicant proposes to construct a residence of 4378 square feet, of which 3,000 square feet is living the space, the remainder of which is basement utility area. In addition a 900 square foot attached garage is proposed. The lot size is .44 acres. Section 179-60 requires a 75 foot shoreline setback, and applicant proposes a 57 foot setback, seeking relief of 18 feet. I would motion that we grant relief of 18 feet to the applicant. - 22 - -' "- The applicant has done what can be readily expected to mitigate any impact on the site. The proposed setback is a vast improvement over the existing building setback. The applicant has also decreased the height of the structure, also to mitigate impact. The applicant has also dealt with permeability. increasing permeability, in several concessions, to a total resulting in 69% of the property. and there appears to be no other detriments to the health, safety or welfare of the neighborhood. Because of the unique configuration of the property, which requires a certain amount of space for access and egress, it appears as though the relief granted would be the minimum relief to maintain a safety factor. The concessions regarding permeability include eliminating the deck extending down the east side of the building. which would eliminate some 200 square feet; decreasing the width of the southerly deck by two feet, as well as moving the house itself two feet back; alterations to the driveway to meet the 69% permeability. The above concessions. when added to the decrease in driveway size, would bring total permeability to 69% of the property. The applicant has agreed to abide by recommendations made by the Planning Board, regarding septic requirements. The height requirement from the rear elevation is maxed out at 29 feet. Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Menter, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Karpeles USE VARIANCE NO. 9-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-10 ROBERT E. ORBAN, JR. TYPE: UNLISTED OWNER: ROBERT LEFEBVRE 93 DIXON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE A CURRENTLY VACANT BUILDING FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USES, AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SECTION 179- 20, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, WHICH DOES NOT LIST PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AS AN ALLOWED USE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 2/8/95 TAX MAP NO. 101-1-14, 15 LOT SIZE: 20,550 SQ. FT. - LOT 14 11,250 SQ. FT. - LOT 15 SECTION 179-20 DR. AND MRS ORBAN, PRESENT MR. CARVIN-And I think this one was, again, a tabled application. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it was. "The Queensbm'y Zoning Board of Appeals as reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following. The meeting dated was February 22, 1995, Variance File No. 09-1995 for a Use Variance. Tabled Motion to Table Use Variance No. 9-1995 Robert E. Orban, Jr., Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Maresco: Pending no later than 60 days. This means that any new information requested by the Board must be submitted by the filing deadline for that month. The applicant may appear on the agenda in the previous month if the filing deadline for that month can be met." MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm assuming that our absent members from last meeting have read the minutes and are familiar with this particular case? MR. FORD-I have. MR. KARPELES-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. All right. I think you ought to read this letter into the record, dated March 5th. MR. THOMAS-What about all the other ones from all the realtors? MR. CARVIN-Yes. Why don't we do that now, because information that we requested. We'd requested quite information, and the applicant has provided much of it. that ~.¡as a bit of - 23 - '- '---' MS. CIPPERLY-A lot of information came in. MR. THOMAS-All right. Here we go. A letter dated March 5, 1995, to the Zoning Board of Appeals, regarding Variance File No. 09- 1995 uGentlemen: Please allow me to address the concerns expressed by the Board during the regular meeting of February 15, 1995. With regard to the issue of hardship or reasonable return, please refer to the included documentation regarding the marketability of this property as a residence; market value as it exists now / cost of renovations to consider the structure usable as a residence with market value of property after such renovations / cost of razing and disposal of the structure / market value of the property as a residential lot only. If sold for residential use, a reasonable return cannot be realized. With regard to the issue of potential rental space to be used as a beauty salon, and the related concerns of neighborhood residents as to a marked increase in local traffic as a result thereof, I am willing to have stricken the words 'licensed beautician or barber' from section 179-7, Article II, Definitions, of the zoning ordinance, pp. 17939. I am not seeking a commercial use variance, rather a professional occupation use variance, the term 'professional occupation' to be defined as in the above referenced section of the zoning ordinance, with the aforementioned exception. This wording rules out retail, industrial, or other commercial use of the property. The granting of a variance in more restrictive terms will make this venture economically unviable for me and probably for anyone approaching this property in a situation similar to mine. The Kensington School has a daily starting time of 8:25 AM. Peak traffic flow to my office occurs with arrival of staff, with a maximum of five to six vehicles, between 7:55 AM and 8:00 AM, well before any traffic congestion occurs at the school. My staff leaves between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM, well after school is out. Addressing the zoning board's request for formal site plan review materials, please note I have enclosed documentation including a new boundary and topographical survey of the property, along with drawings depicting proposed parking lot layout, ingress and egress patterns, proposed landscaping, proposed appearance of the building indicating proposed exterior renovations, as well as proposed sign placement. Addressing the issue of there being no other businesses between 93 Dixon Road and the Evergreen Professional Plaza, there are three. One is Adirondack Machine Corporation, a machine shop at the corner of Dixon Road and Old Forge Road. Adirondack Home Service is a carpet cleaning business at 188 Dixon, and Richard Sears Tree Experts at 1 Harold Harris Road. Mr. Carvin requested the exact amount of interior space to be used for rental and that to be used for my office be made known. The rental space is 1250 sq. ft. in size. My office space would occupy 2900 sq. ft. The present condition and appearance of the property in question arB obviously detrimental to the community. Furthermore, the property is not without hazard of personal injury. It has suffered repeated breaking and entering, as well as vandalism, leaving broken glass outside and inside the building, with significant damage to interior walls. It is not unlikely that illicit drug use and/or trafficking have occurred within this structure. Especially because of entry by unsupervised individuals, the property may be a fire hazard of itself and to neighboring residences. Sincerely, Robert Edward Orban, Jr., D.M.D." A letter dated March 8, 1995, to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, regarding 93 Dixon Road, Queensbury "In response to the request of the Board I submit the following: 1. The property consists of a 4450 SF building of a commercial design located on 2 lots totaling approximately 3/4 acre. The front portion of the building is divided into offices, the rear 2/3 of the building is in rougher shape- warehouse would be appropriate. The building has no value on the residential market now. I am enclosing a list of the houses that have sold through the Multiple Listing Service on Dixon Road during the last few years. The highest sale price is $118,500. That establishes the - 24 - '- ...,.r range of value for the location. The cost to renovate the existing building to some form of residential structure has been estimated to be between $110,000 and $170,000. That leaves the owner selling it for the cost of the renovation, or selling at a $60,000 cash loss. Either way it is questionable whether the resulting residence would actually be salable. There isn't much of a market for 4450 SF ranch on 3/4 acre lot on Dixon Road. The only possible use might be as a group home, and this property has already been presented to the Wilton Developmental Center for possible conversion to either a group home or a day care facility but they turned it down as requiring too much renovation. 2. The other possibility would be to tear down the existing structure, tear up the parking lot and sell the lot or divide it into 2 lots. I have enclosed data regarding lots that have sold in the Town of Queensbury. From the attached it would appear that the sale of the lots would net between $34,000 and $38,000. The cost to demolish the building and parking lot and haul away the debris has conservatively estimated at $38,500. Again we are looking at a net loss. 3. The current owner, Robert LeFebvre, has estimated that he has in excess of $200,000 invested in the building. Naturally, much of the cost involved his specialized needs - extensive power, heating, air conditioning, etc. The property has been on the market for several years and the price has gradually come down. The property had been assessed by the Town of Queensbury for more than $200,000 until Mr. LeFebvre grieved the taxes last year and had the assessment lowered. The lot with the building is now assessed for $150,000. The back lot is assessed for $13,000 for a total assessed value of $163,000. He now has accepted an offer of only $107,000 for the entire property. While the offer on the property will not recoup the current owners' investment it will be much less punitive than requiring that the property be returned to a residential use. The property was used for commercial purposes when Mr. LeFebvre and his partners bought it and a variance was granted for them to operate their business. The property is unsuitable for residential use now without great hardship. Respectfully submitted, Patricia A. Boyle Broker/Owner Century 21 Boyle Realty" A letter dated 8 March 1995, to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals "It is my opinion that the property at 93 Dixon Road is totally unsuitable to residential use. The structure was built for commercial use and was later used for professional office space. The only way the property could be turned into a residential situation would be to tear down the existing structure, tear up the parking lot and sell the lot. The value of the property would be destroyed. Robert H. Sears Prudential Blake Group Realtors" To the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals "The property at 93 Dixon Road, Queensbury, was built to be a grocery store and has been used first for commercial and then for professional use. The current structure is totally unsuitable for residential use and the property would take a great deal of expensive renovation to become residential. Because of the location on Dixon Road there would be a limited market for residential use. Mary Sue Raynor Broker/Owner Raynor - Knapp Realtors" A letter dated March 9, 1"195, addressed to Robert E. Orban, D.M.D. "Dear Bob: This letter shall confirm our discussion of last week regarding the possible financing of your purchase of the real estate at 93 Dixon Road in the Town of Queensbury. Based on the existing zoning of professional office space, financing would appear to be viable given the market value of the property under that zoning. It would not be viable to provide financing under the residential zoning as the costs to convert the property to a residence would not support an appraisal value required for such financing. The additional cost required to convert the existing structure into a residential structure would not add value to the property and therefore would not be reflected in the appraisal value required by the Bank. For this reason, financing of the property, if converted to residential zoning, would not be economically feasible. If you have any questions regarding the Bank's approach to this type of financing, please give me a call at any - 25 - ~ time. We are looking forward to helping you and Sandy in the financing of a new home for your oral surgery practice. Best of Luck. Sincerely, David S. DeMarco Vice President Glens Falls National Bank and Trust Company" MR. CARVIN-Dr. Orban, is there anything that you'd care to add? DR. ORBAN-Yes. There was an additional communication, I don't know if you've received, which gave the estimate of razing the property from a contractor. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Andrew Bombard? DR. OR8AN-I don't know if you'd want to read that into the record or not. I'll leave that at your own discretion. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Let the record estimate to demolish and remove utilities disconnected, etc., for $38,400, and that was from Andrew B. in Averill Park, New York. show that we do have a job a building from the site, a total estimated price of Bombard, General Contractor, DR. ORBAN-In addition, for the record, let me state that in providing these materials, effectively acting as Mr. LeFebvre's agent in this matter, and the plans submitted to you also are not final determinations, or final plans. They are the initial proposed plans. They are subject to alterations, although I would suggest to you that any alterations would probably be minimal, in the overall impact with regard to the (lost word), and that's all I have to add. MR. FORD-I do have one additional document, also from Andrew Bombard, for the conversion. DR. ORBAN-That document would be a separate appraisal of what it would minimally take to convert that building to a reasonable residence. MR. FORD-I just thought it should be part of the record. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Again we have a letter from Andrew 8. Bombard, General Contractor, Averill Park, to convert 5,000 feet of commercial building into a residential building, with an estimated price ranging between $90 to $110,000. Okay. Are there any other questions, at this point? MR. KARPELES-I was wondering, I wasn't here last week. Did you go over the floor plan and all, or is that something new? MR. CARVIN-No. That's something new that's been added. MR. KARPELES-AII right. Could you assume this is the area you intend to go over the floor plan? use. Is that right? I DR. ORBAN-The area that fronts Dixon Road is the area where you see actually rooms divided, is the area that will be my office space. MR. KARPELES-Well, okay. I've got a problem, because I don't know where Dixon Road is on this. It's ovel· 118)-e? Okay. So this is, okay, that's what I thought, and this part back here is what you're going to rent, the rear part? DR. ORBAN-Correct. MR. KARPELES-But as far as any renovations that you make, they'll be to the entire exterior, right, any improvements that you make? DR. ORBAN-To the entire exterior? - 26 - ~ -...../ MR. KARPELES-Exterior. DR. ORBAN-Aside from the rear wall, what I have is, yes, renovations for the entire exterior, as part of the drawing, the other drawings you have, which picture the building, which would involve continuing a batten board siding, which exists along the front one third only, posteriorly to the rear wall of the building on the east and west elevations, refurbishing the mansard, and the addition of two proposed doors at this point, and addition of a (lost word) replacing the (lost word) that are there. MR. CARVIN-How will that visually impact the lands of Michael and Nancy Choppa? I'm assuming that you're saying that you would fix these up, and this would remain? DR. ORBAN-Yes. The east and west elevations have batten board that goes about one third of the way to the front third of the building. The rest is white block wall, and then the rear part, actually, is metal white siding. All I propose to do is make it look contiguous, along the east and west elevations with what exists on the front, as far as the mansard wraps around, continue the batten board that's there, to make it look like it's, essentially, one home, one structure. MR. FORD-All the way around? DR. ORBAN-Except for the rear wall. MR. FORD-The rear wall, in other words, the wall that you were referring to, facing Choppa's? DR. ORBAN-Would have no change. MS. CIPPERLY-It seemed Choppa's concern was more with who was going to maintain the lawn. MR. CARVIN-Yes, with the vacant lot that's in between his property in the back there. DR. ORBAN-That will have no change, aside from whatever routine maintenance might be needed in the way of painting the trim, things like that. MR. CARVIN-I hate to be the permeability kid here today, but this is all blacktopped is it? DR. ORBAN-Yes. You can see what is there. JIM MILLER MR. MILLER-My name is Jim Miller. I'm the Landscape Architect who prepared the site plan. Currently, what is here now, this being the building and this is the covered walkway. Currently, this entire area, all the way to Dixon Road and Dixon Court and over to the property line, including some pavement actually is over the side property line, is entirely paved, and what we're proposing is maintaining that existing asphalt closest to the building for parking and removing an island of paving from the property line in, ranging from about 12 feet to 5 feet, and correct the condition along the side property line, and that would be a decrease of about 2500 square foot of asphalt that's the,-e nOVJ. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I'm assuming that you would, if you purchased the property, you're going to combine the two lots, because if I'm looking at that right, doesn't the building straddle the two? t1R. MILLER-Yes. - 27 - ~ DR. ORBAN-The property includes both lots now. MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Is it one single lot, or do we have two lots? MS. CIPPERLY-It has two separate tax numbers still, I believe. I think that upper lot there is important, as far as permeability goes, and also some of the parking. MR. MILLER-Yes. There's a couple of other things with that. The building actually is overlapping onto that back lot, and another thing that we found in doing the survey is Niagara Mohawk has a utility easement that cuts across the corner of the parking lot, and right across the middle of this back lot. So it really makes that, between the encroachment and that utility easement, really makes that rear lot unviable for a separate use. DR. ORBAN-If I could maybe fast forward ahead with regard to permeability considerations, what would remain of the existing asphalt, as is projected there, there, essentially, would be absolutely required to meet the Code for number of parking spaces, square footage. So I don't think to meet that Code, we couldn't remove any more at all. MR. MILLER-Also, there's existing drainage. There's two catch basins in Dixon Road. Right now, the way the site drains, there's a high point in the asphalt. It drains away from the building, but there's a high point along Dixon Court, and the water, based on the spot elevations that were obtained, drains to the rear into this grass area in here, and then from this area across the front drains to an inlet that's in the right-of-way on Dixon Road. So, this area, you know, the drainage patterns that happen there now will be, will not be modified at all. None of the elevations will change, just the removal of the pavement. There's also an existing inlet, right in the intersection, but it's actually higher than our property, and it collects some drainage from Dixon Road, but it doesn't really collect anything from our property. So as a result of this project, there will be no increase in any runoff, modifications to runoff patterns. MR. FORD-So you're not elevating or changing the elevations of those plantings? MR. MILLER-Well, that would be raised slightly, because one of our concerns here is going to be that they can be maintained, and not be destroyed from road salts and traffic. So we would want to mound that slightly, but because the high point in the asphalt is at a point here, it'll still tend to drain the way it does now. It drains along the edge of the road and it crosses the parking lot. MR. FORD-Are you going to be using timbers to elevate that, to change that elevation for the plantings, or how do you configure that? MR. MILLER-Well, we haven't really resolved that yet, and we're hoping, we've been talking about anything from curbing to the timbers. We'd like to try to have some definition of the inside of that island, but we"ve been looking at some different alternatives, and the prices for those before we made a final decision. MR. CARVIN-Are the number of parking spots, this is based on the total existing building, and not just your use, is that correct? DR. ORBAN-That's the square footage of the building, and we've projected in there what might even be, as well as rented space. MR. CARVIN-Yes, that's the maximum. In other words, if the back - 28 - '-- ......,,; portion parking were leased, you spaces? wou.ld not be adding any additional DR. ORBAN-Correct. MS. CIPPERLY-I think as far as, Jim did a little research on the parking, I believe, at the existing office, which was kind of a nice approach. MR. MILLER-Yes. The existing office that Dr. Orban is in, he shares a building with a dentist, and they have, they basically share the building equally, and there's a parking lot that I counted 14 spaces, and so he's got access to half of those now. So he's accessing seven spaces there, and we're projecting a maximum of 12. 50 there's actually more than what he has, and then there'd be seven additional, would be for the lease space. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions? MR. MARESCO-Nothing is going to be done with that back lot, other than just maintaining it, basically? MR. MILLER-Right. Right now, there's, Mr. Choppa has a screened fence along the back, and these are existing trees that are back here, and they would essentially just be maintained as lawn area. It's actually, this area is important to the drainage. There's a lot of drainage, including some drainage from the road, that goes into that low area and infiltrates. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions? MR. MARE5CO-I guess this would be directed to Dr. Orban. Is this going to be done in phases, or will this be done, as far as, lets take the landscaping first. Will the landscaping be done all at one time, or are you going to phase it in a little bit? DR. ORBAN-I'd prefer to do it all at once, and that's what I plan, and it looks like I would have (lost word). I've gotten one estimate given to me, as far as the costs. If there are any changes or other estimates when they finally come in from various landscaping service organizations, (lost word) then I may choose to phase it, but it's not really viable, I don't think, to phase in the main part of that, which is that, (lost word) part of the asphalt, and then putting, planting plants and shrubs in there, I don't see a way to phase that in. There's a proposed 80 foot fence along the east side between that and the other private property there, but as far as the main aspect there, how do you phase something like that, that area needs to be landscaped, I don't see a way to do it. I'm not planning on digging out, leaving it bare, and putting plants in two years later, no. MR. MARESCO-What about the exterior of the building? be done all at one time also? Will that DR. OR8AN-I hope to be done before we're in there, yes. MR. CARVIN-I just have a question with regard to the landscaping on a corner like that. Do they take into consideration the visual impacts of traffic coming out and looking up the street on that corner? In other words, I'm seeing a couple of trees there. Is that going to be a problem? MS. CIPPERLY-We had a discussion of that, too. I looked up, for instance, the fence requirements. You have to be 35 feet back from the corner, each way, and have a clear vision zone, which this plan does. I talked to Paul Naylor, the Highway Superintendent, about it, and he said as long as there was a, you actually pull up past some of that planting a little bit when you're coming out, and you can see down the road. I think he wanted 300 feet of visibility. Also, the type of plantings he - 29 - --- was putting in, I believe, were, what was it, they branch out about five feet up, the Bradford Pear. MR. MILLER-What we tried to do is, along the front, we've got Bradford Pears, which we would expect branch five to six feet high, and those are set back 50 feet from the corner. As Sue said, 35 is wh~t's required, and the planting itself was going to be lower shrubs that are probably going to be around three feet high or can be maintained at three feet high, more to give a visual separation and to screen headlights, but then would allow some visibility over the top. One of our concerns is we didn't want one area out there that's going to be hard to maintain. So some of this is actually going to be planted with like perennials, like day lilies, or something like that, that would die back in the winter time, when we have snow piles out there, and then will grow back. So they'll be very low. MS. CIPPERLY-The other thing that Paul Naylor mentioned is that there's actually a four foot wide paved lane that they sort of reserve for, it's for walking back, the kids walk back and forth to school, and so there's actually. MR. FORD-That's what I was going to ralse, and I wondered how these plantings will affect that? MR. MILLER-Well, all the plantings are within our property line. If you look, when we met with Paul, one of our concerns was, since it's all asphalt, where do we remove the pavement, and he wanted to keep the pavement all the way back. As you see here, I've extended a line down here, along Dixon Court, and another line connecting the existing edges of pavement, and across Dixon Court you have an area that's paved five feet wider along the front of Q..!dL prope)-ty than e;dsts anywhere else on th(3 adjoinirl9 properties, and it's more than that. It's close to 10 feet along Dixon Court. So that would more than, it would be more than adequate for walking space. MR. FORD-Okay. So none of these plantings, the branches or anything else, would impact youngsters walking along that route? MR. MILLER-No. MS. CIPPERLY-In fact, during the discussion, Jim had proposed, I think, taking some of the paving out and putting gravel in instead, and Paul said he'd prefer to keep it paved for the school children, and that's why it's so narrow, but I think it is important as a traffic separation, you know, to direct traffic on the site there. ~1R. MILLER-Actually, l!l.l::. concern is more one of the traffic driving over there than the walkway, and one of the things I was mentioning to Sue, that would be a good idea, if that was maybe stripped differently or something, so that, you have traffic there, the cars are going to drive right up to the edge. Our concern is that, we want to go along with the current zoning, as far as entrances and separation from parking from the roadways, but our concern is being able to maintain this island between the parking lot and the roadway. MR. MARESCO-Will they be entering on Dixon Road and exiting on Dixon Court? Is that the idea? MR. MILLER-We feel the main flow of traffic is going to be coming up on Dixon Road, and we put a one way entrance at this point. There'd be a sign here, and it would say, Enter Only, to have parking here. There's also another roadway here. I think it's Pershing Road. It's on the other side. So you've got two slightly off set intersections here, which is sort of a dangerous condition. So we didn't want to be exiting back on to Dixon Road. We proposed to come through the property and come back - 30 - '- ~ down and have it, this would be two way, at this point, but we figure it's going to be primarily an exit. Exit back onto Dixon Court where you come out. There's a stop sign at this point, where we have a traffic control before they enter back onto Dixon Road, and when we talked with Paul Naylor, he agreed that's probably the best way to do that. MR. FORD-I believe that would be much safer for those youngsters using that to go to and from Kensington Road school. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and a lot of these issues will be picked up at site plan if this is passed, is that correct? Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? Okay. I can't remember if I opened up the public hearing. I think 1 did. 1 don't remember if I left it open 0)- not. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes, you did. DR. ORBAN-You closed it. MR. CARVIN-Did I? Well, I will open it up. Anyone wishing to be heard in favor of the application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED HOWARD KRAI"HZ MR. KRANTZ-Mr. Chairman, I would like just to make a point. I'm Howard Krantz. I live on Helen Drive. So I'm interested in the project from a residential point of view. I just want to let the Board know that I represent Mr. LeFebvre, one of the owners. I believe that at last month's meeting, someone said the word, traffic as a concern. I've lived in Queensbury since 1972, for 23 years, and traffic has increased on Dixon Road. There's no question about that, but the increase of the use of Dixon Road is not because of the structures of residences on Dixon Road. What it's what it serves in the Westland part of Queensbury. The amount of traffic that Dr. Orban's practice is going to generate relative to the traffic flow is less than, probably one percent. That's not a concern. As far as the dollars and cents proof needed, I think the financial documentation in front of you that was submitted by Pat Boyle and others showing that you cannot get a reasonable return out of any of the allowable uses. So what, realistically, we're looking at is, what is a desirable use from a Use Variance point of view, and whether I'm a resident of the Town of Queensbury or I live closer by, I can't imagine a better use than a Professional Office such as Dr. Orban is proposing, compared to other applications that might come before you. You have a somewhat unusual structure here, in excess of 4,000 square feet, and common sense tells us all, you're not going to turn that in for residences and sell that at a profit. That would just be a considerable loss. No one's going to buy a 4,000 square foot plus building on Dixon Road. So when you consider that a Use Variance is qualified for here, the use proposed seems desirable. Also, I think it's a very reasonable use of the property, and it's the type of use, ideally, that we want to bring in to the Town of Queensbury. I'd like to see that employment of jobs in the Town of Queensbury, as opposed to other areas. We could certainly use it. I would also mention that since I've' been living on Helen Drive, right off of Dixon Road, and since I bought my home, there was the development of the small professional Evergreen Park there. That has been absolutely no problem for traffic at all, and that has got far more offices there than what Dr. Orban is proposing. There's been no problem at all with traffic there, and that's also taking into consideration some of the traffic that flows on Popular. There hasn't been any problems whatsoever. So I would urge you to approve this very desirable use. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. - 31 - --- 80B LEFEBVRE MR. LEFEBVRE-If I may say a few words. I'm the present owner. I'm Bob LeFebvre, and I think that, I've been trying to sell the building for about five years. The building has been broken into several times, and the first time, there was over $12,000 worth of damage. The last time, which really concerns me the most. We came in and, that was about three weeks ago. We noticed the inside, somebody broke the windows inside, for about the third time, and inside, scattered about, were (lost word), and some of them still had something in them, and what I'm concerned about right now, and I'm really considering boarding up the place, because I'm concerned about the fact that once you get a flow of teenagers or whoever it might be using the building, there's substance abuse, then it's very difficult to get that out, and the last, I called the sheriff three times. The window's been broken three times. I think you've noticed it. It isn't that we've neglected it. I have a gentleman that goes in at least once a week. We've replaced the window three times. We've never even left them boarded up because we thought it was detrimental to the area, but if I cannot sell the building now, we can't grant a variance to a Professional Use, then I have absolutely no idea. I've had three offers from supermarkets, and that would certainly not be acceptable. I had an offer from, again, the Wilton Developmental Center. I had the Glens Falls Hospital come to me once and suggest that they use it as some sort of rehabilitation center for mental health patients, that they could come in and get counseling, and I don't think that's acceptable to the neighborhood as well. I've had day care center come to me. So, really, I think in view of what has come, the way the property is today, I think, clearly, the use that is proposed right now is clearly, without a doubt, an improvement to the neighborhood and to the Town of Queensbury, and I would hope that you would consider it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. No further comments? hearing. I will close the public PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. Gentlemen, any questions? Any comments? MR. FORD-This might not be the structure that we would prefer to have on this site, but this is what we have and this is what we must deal with. It's been vacant for some years. I believe that residential use of this is virtually out of the question, from a practical standpoint. It has been previously used for commercial purposes, then professional, and I believe that the Use Variance should be granted, because the use appears to be compatible with the neighborhood, and I'm pleased to see that concern for the children going to and from the schools in the area, that issue has been addressed. MR. MARESCO-I'm pleased with what Dr. Orban had come back with us with the plans, and, basically, I agree with it. I have no problem with it. I have no concerns. MR. MENTER-I also don't see any uses that would fit as nicely as a professional use, such as this type, for the building, and the only questions that 1 may have had concerned the possible residential application of the property, and those, I think, have been answered, and I would vote to approve also. MR. KARPELES-Well, I agree with what everybody's saying. I'd much rather see a residence there, but I think it's impractical, and this would be the least obnoxious use that 1 could see. MR. THOMAS-I agree with all the other Board members, that this is probably the only practical application for this building. I can't see any way that that building could ever be turned into a - 32 - /' ""-" --..;' residence and I think the doctor has done a very good job in providing the information that we asked for in a very short period of time, the floor plans and the elevations, and the landscaping layout. So I have no problem whatsoever granting this variance. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I don't have a major problem granting the variance to Dr. Orban. However, the bearer of bad news, I do have a problem with a couple of issues that I think should be addressed in any motions. Number One, I think it should be pointed out that Dr. Orban is only going to be using roughly two- thiì-ds of the building, and I do have a pì-oblem granting a variance with a blank check. I don't have a problem specifying that the variance is referenced to Dr. Orban, but I would like to see a little bit more control over the vacant space. He has nobody lined up. I think that from the public hearing we had last time, that there was some concern expressed by the public, and I think that any additional use of that property should come back through this Board, and not just grant him a blank check, as far as a professional use is concerned. I also would like to stress the fact, I don't think it's a problem with Dr. Orban, is the signage. I think that we should make sure that we address any signage, that there's no freestanding signs out front. That the signage remain minimum, as to the side of the building. I don't think you've said that that was a problem. MR. MENTER-I think we discussed that, right? MR. CARVIN-I think we discussed that last time. DR. ORBAN-Signage was discussed, and I've indicated, there's a rough appro:< imation of where and what ki nd of signs might be placed on the one drawing, but those are certain subject to the design code. I can't expect a renter to come in there and say, I've got this place here you can rent, but, hey, you're going to have to go back to the Zoning Board to see if we're going to be okay. The way I've requested it absolutely rules out the concerns the community expressed at the last meeting, with regard to an auto parts store going in there, a retail business going in there, a salon, anything else along those lines, and I've defined Professional Occupancy use as it's in your Zoning Code. If I wanted to sell the building, five, ten years from now, and there's no dentist around to buy it, then somebody's going to have to come back through. MR. CARVIN-That's exactly the reason why I want to stipulate that this variance is only for the doctor, and that any additional variances would be for additional businesses, because once we grant a variance, it tends to go with the property, unless we caveat it. So if we allow a Professional Use in there, and you sell the building, then the public has no recourse to come back and examine that continued use. DR. ORBAN-But that would still be under the same, you know, by definition of your Code. It would not be, Professional Use does not imply retail of any kind. MR. CARVIN-I'm just saying that in a residential area, my personal feeling is, and I've been on the record. I have a very hard time putting professional uses in residential areas. Now I'm not opposed to, you've gone through all the loops and hoops here. You've satisfied, beyond any question, that this is a valid use, and I have no problem putting you in there, but I do have a problem just making it a blanket use variance. DR. ORBAN-It's not a blanket use. MR. CARVIN-It is a blanket use. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, the definition of Professional Occupation says - 33 - , ~ it's including but not limited to all members of the field of medicine, a lawyer, architect, engineer, surveyor. It says licensed beautician or barber, but you've agreed to not do that, real estate broker or accountant, and as a practical matter, I've been trying to think of traffic generated by any of those professional offices. MR. CARVIN-Okay, brokerage firm? I'm saying? but it says, not limited to. What about an insurance agent? What about a Do you know what MS. CIPPERLY-You have to be licensed, in general, licensed by the State. That's what all those have in common. MR. KARPELES-Well, if traffic is one of the big concerns, I would think a real estate office would be pretty objectionable. MR. CARVIN-Yes. There are other criteria, and that's my only objection to this thing, is that I have no problem with the doctor, but I do have a problem with the other 1200 square feet of just trying to fashion a blank check, and essentially that's what it is, whether it's professional or to the Codes. MS. CIPPERLY-Can you think of a way to have him your approval without going through the whole criteria again? Do you want them to come back? come back for Use Variance MR. CARVIN-I don't have a solution other than that. MS. CIPPERLY-Or do you want it to be a Planning Board? MR. CARVIN-As I sõid, I don't want to be the monkey wrench, because as I said, I do, but I have a very hard time. It's just too wide open. I mean, suppose we have something like t.he Woodsmen of the World, or something like that? MS. CIPPERLY-But that's a Fraternal Organization, and they're not, they wouldn't be allowed in as a professional. I mean, I think professional is really a pretty narrowly defined. MR. MENTER-It would certainly be, it would have nothing to do with the Planning Board and site plan review. I mean, it's strictly a zoning issue that we're talking about. So there's no control there. The only way to effectively do that would be to require them to come back through the variance procedure. MR. CARVIN-And that's the only way, I mean, in other words, I don't have a problem putting the doctor in there, and if he finds an applicant, that they apply for the Use Variance on that 1300 square feet. MR. THOMAS-I can't think of any way around it. MR. LEFEBVRE-I talked to Dr. Orban, and he said he would purchase the building (lost word) and the reason is, he said it really, at best, and I talked to Pat about this, at best, it makes it pretty impossible to rent 600 or 700 square feet. You end up with physicians or dentist or lawyer, in fact, I'm one of the ones that wants to rent some space. I have a payroll accounting service that I provide to area businesses, and I'm one of the ones that wants to rent some space. Space in the Town of Queensbury is plentiful, and to go to a realtor, you scare people. I know you don't intend to scare people, but to go to a guy who wants to rent 500, 600 square feet, and maybe pay $400 a month, and say, well maybe we can rent it to you, but what you're going to have to do is put together a plan and present your plan to the Zoning Board is not an experience that somebody wants to do. I think it would be, frankly, I would say, what profession that falls into this description is objectionable to you? Would it be objectionable, for example, to have another medical - 34 - ,/ '-"' --.-./ practice there? Surely I don't think you would care if there was a dentist there or a chiropractor. MR. CARVIN-Again, it depends. I mean, when you say, medical profession, you're opening up a wide open door. I mean, is an eye doctor or an eye glass manufacturer, I mean, Pearle Vision has a doctor. I mean, suppose a Pearle Vision were to go in there, which has a high traffic? t-1S. CIPPERLY-I think that's considered a commercial. MR. CARVIN-But they ha\le a docto)" , s office attached to it. t-1R. THOMi;S--Yes, bu't that's retail. MR. CARVIN-I'm just saying, it opens up, it's going to make an awful lot of criteria. DR. ORBAN-First, just to be completely above board, as I've asked for it, this needs to apply not just to that back space, but the entire building. If I need to sell this building in five years, I don't want to have to wait around for a dentist to sell it to, if there's not a dentist looking for a space like that to sell the building if I have to. So that I want that building to be salable in its entirety to another profession, not just the back. That is not appropriate for my interest. Secondly, part of your decisions don't have to be to sit there and look at me and judge me on what you think my honorability is as a man coming before you, and my intent to respect the residential wishes of my neighborhood, based on the little bit that you know me. That's the only thing that I'll request. If you want to go ahead and check around regarding my practice or what have you, I think that's perfectly fine. Also, I perfectly understand the Board's considerations and concerns with regard to this issue. We found it makes it an unviable venture to have the restrictions placed on it. MR. CARVIN-Unfortunately, that's part of the problem with the Use Variance, especially a Use Variance in a residential area. As I said, I fully appreciate where you're coming from, but that is the stumbling block. Now the rest of the Board may find that that's not a stumbling block, but ~ do. MR. FORD-You have a concern about opening up this rental space for other professional use? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. FORD-As defined and limited? MR. CARVIN-Yes, but we have, you know, the definitions can be interpreted pretty broadly, is mz feeling, I mean, unless \¡ole make it so, and then we get into putting so many restrictions on it that, and I know that there was neighborhood concern with regard to this. Now we have the whole issue, I don't know what other type of business is going to, you know, does a lawyer generate more traffic than a doctor? I don't know. MR. FORD-Was that not addressed by the elimination of the beautician and barber from the definition? MR. CARVIN-No, I said a doctor. I mean, does a doctor generate more business than a lawyer? MR. FORD-No. The concern in the neighborhood. I wasn't here for that meeting, so I don't know what the concern was, but was that addressed by eliminating that from the definition, the beautician and barber? MR. CARVIN-No. Well, the public opinion was that a beautician or - 35 - a barbershop would be more intensive, traffic wise, than what the doctor is. MR. MARESCO-Would generate more traffic. ¡VIR. FORD--Yes. MR. MENTER-In answer to your question, yes. To mitigate, to deal with it, we do have the ability to specifically include criteria. I mean, we could actually modify this to, as Mr. LeFebvre was getting at, list allowable uses for that additional space. Could "J6 not? MR. CARVIN-But then what's the difference, I mean, you still come back to the same spot that limits his market. MR. MENTER-Well, within that spectrum, he would be free to lease that space, as long as he knows he's in that spectrum, and he's at least given that much leeway. In other words, this is just a thought. I don't know. If you included in a motion wording to the effect that that space could be leased to anyone who was engaged in professional services, including and limited to members of the field of medicine, a lawyer, architect, engineer, surveyor, real estate broker or accountant, and just leave out beautician and barber, and so at least those people would necessarily be allowed to go in there without any further appearance before the Board. It would be limiting you, more than just the definition of professional here, but at least it would give some degree of protection to the community, and it's not a question of honor, okay, personal honor, because that really isn't an issue. DR. ORBAN-Well, for my ownership, I think it is. Somebody else later wants to try and wiggle arou~d within those guidelines, that may be true. MR. MENTER-Right, but that's something personal to you, and it's nothing that we can measure or take into consideration or deal "Jith. MR. LEFEBVRE-Six hundred square feet can't possible generate a lot of traffic. It isn't like we're going to generate a lot of traffic there, especially if you limit it to these particular practices. Obviously, it excludes retail establishments. I think the Code specifies specifically (lost word). MR. MENTER-Yes. I'm just looking, maybe, in terms of trying to work something out here, if that would make Fred would feel more comfortable, if you think that is something that is workable. DR. ORBAN-I'd prefer to see a list of exclusions rather than inclusions. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's what I'm saying. MR. MENTER-There's businesses that haven't even been invented yet, which may be here in two years. MR. LEFEBVRE-We're not talking about businesses. MR. MENTER-Well, they're all businesses. MR. LEFEBVRE-You're talking about a licensed professional office. MR. MENTER-I think exclusions would difficult to work with, to deal with. say, well what things couldn't we um-easonable. be just as, would be very To ask us to sit here and put in there, would be DR. ORBAN-Do you want to strike real estate firms? I might - 36 - /" '''-" ---- accept that. MS. CIPPERLY-Real estate realtors are licensed by the State. So that's part of the criteria that goes into that definition, but in looking at what's in the definition list, I would say the beauty parlors and the real estate probably would the larger traffic generators, and the rest of them are probably fairly low, just in terms of how the businesses operate. Surveyors, for example, go out and do their work somewhere else and come back and work in their office. Accountants, you know, how many people can you talk to at one time about their income taxes, and 600 square feet. MR. KRANTZ-I would also hazard a guess that any professional full use of that building, using all the square footage, will produce less traffic than it was when it was a grocery store. If it's anything like Sokol's, it would be minimal compared to a grocery store, and Dr. Orban isn't occupying, you know what use he's occupying. He asking the lion's share of the building. What you're left with is a minority use of the building, and as Bob Lefebvre said, the reality is, when someone wants to rent it and you say, well, gee, you've got to go through the zoning process, they're out of there. MS. CIPPERLY-Another, I guess, departure on this, we've been having some meetings with at least one Town Board member on a project that someone wants to do, that is a Planned Unit Development. It's a PUD with mixed uses in different levels of housing, and one thing that the Town Board members and the Town Staff were encouraging was a mixed use within this development, which proposed senior housing and that sort of thing, and putting professional office space into a neighborhood was being discussed as a desirable element. It wasn't saying, necessarily, you know, grocery stores and that sort of thing, but services that it would benefit or, you know, either the resident population or not be objectionable, but it brings a little bit more diversity, which, at least in current planning thinking, is desirable. So, personally, and as a Planner, I really wouldn't have a problem calling this a professional office building. If you want to exclude a couple of those people that are in the definition, I wouldn't find that, we also define beauty shop as a service. So I think, of the ones in there, I think beauty parlor is probably the least like the others, but as far as calling this a professional office building, I don't really see a problem with that. That's IJl.Z: opinion on it. MR. KRANTZ-Just another thought. You have a definition of Professional in your Zoning Ordinance, and your concern I heard expressed was, well, gee, if it's included but not limited to, you're really worried more about, it seems to me, the "not limited to", what might come along. If somebody proposes to go in there, in the future, and you feel, or the Zoning Administrator feels, gee, I don't think that comes in under Professional, all right, who is the only body that can make that decision, interpret that Zoning Ordinance? MR. CARVIN-Yes, but you're putting the cart before the that. I mean, the Zoning Department can't be checking the stuff all the time. What zone is this? Is this Family Residence? Is this 179-20? ho)"se on on all of a Single MS. CIPPERLY-Single Family Residential is 179-20. MR. THOMAS-But if the Doctor sold that business, the only thing that could go in there would be a Single Family Residential, and there's nothing else that could go in there without coming before the Zoning Board. MR. CARVIN-So Just because you go in there, you can't sell that to another doctor, for example, or an accountant. - 37 - --- MR. THOMAS-Without coming back here. DR. ORBAN-Yes. That's t.he end of the discussion, unless you can change that. i'1fL CARVIN-Well, no. That's what I'm saying. I'm not going to change that. MRS. ORBAN-I don't even think the bank would even look at this. MR. CARVIN-First of all, the letter from the Bank is wrong, because they're saying that this is a commercial zone, and it is not. It's a single family residence. We're looking at this, and the only permitted use, obviously, is the single family, and that's what you're asking a Use Variance from. Now, just because we grant you a Use Variance, if you decide to sell to an accountant, that does not transfer automatically to him. DR. ORBAN-If the variance is stated in the terms that I've asked for, it would. Would it not? MR. THOI'1AS-No. MR. CARVIN-Yes, it would, if we opened it up to a Professional. DR. ORBAN-That's what I've asked for is a Professional Use. MR. CARVIN-And that's what I'm saying. We're re-zoning that to a Professional by doing that, is my feeling. DR. ORBAN-You're not changing the zoning. use. You're changing the MR. CARVIN-Well, no. That's why I'm not going to do that. That's a Single Family Residential. That is zoned as a residential area. That was a preexisting nonconforming use that expired after the 18 months, because that use expirdd prior to the zone, but once that left, that reverts to a single family residence, and if we give you a Use Variance that is only applicable to you. MR. LEFEBVRE-What do you mean, lapse? How did it lapse? MR. CARVIN-Because it was discontinued for a period longer than 18 months. MR. LEFEBVRE-I still use it. That's why I want to rent that piece from the doctor. I still use it. I have telephone service there. I have electric there. I have water service from the Town. MR. MARESCO-But, technically, you're not supposed to. MR. LEFEBVRE-Why? It's been an uninterrupted use. MR. CARVIN-Well, we're under the impression here that this, according to our records and minutes, that this is discontinued and it has been discontinued for longer than 18 months. MRS. ORBAN-So what you're saying is, no matter what, even if we agreed to go in there, just for dental, no matter what, if, in five years, something happens, he became disabled, we wanted to :~;,:d 1 1 t . MR. CARVIN-To another business? MRS. ORBAN-We wanted to sell it to another business. DR. ORBAN-As defined in however we're going to word the Use 'v'ar ia nce . - 38 - .' ,.-"..- '"-" -- MR. CARVIN-That's correct. I mean, assuming that, well, first of all, as I said, I would be adamantly opposed, but, yes. DR. ORBAN-I understand you're opposed. MR. CARVIN-But if, under normal circumstances, if we grant a Use Variance in a residential area, that's only for as long as you use the building. MRS. ORBAN-We have spent a lot of time and money. MR. CARVIN-Am I incorrect on that? MS. CIPPERLY-I'm not certain that think of other examples. The only are things that were preexisting had applications for expansion on. that's correct. I'm trying to ones I can think of right now and continuing, and that we've MRS. ORBAN-So what you're saying, even here, Mr. LeFebvre, he has to bring matter who he wants, even barring this everybody to this Board? without the 18 month thing no matter who it is, no 18 months, he has to bring MR. CARVIN-Any use other than a residential. MR. MARESCO-Than a residential house, he'd have to bring anybody bac k here. MR. KARPELES-Where does it say that? Does it say that somewhere? MR. CARVIN-It's zoned as residential. These are the permitted uses, Single Family dwelling, accessory private garage, shed. You can put a church out there, a church or synagogue or school. MR. LEFEBVRE-That's not Professional Office. MR. CARVIN-Site Plan Review Type II. In other words, with Site Plan Review, you could sell it t.o a school, a church, or a synagogue, place of worship, including cemetery. MR. LEFEBVRE-We're talking about a Use Variance. MR. CARVIN-No. I'm just saying that that's the only approved use in there. So that if you got the Use Variance, and you decided to sell that, you could put a church in there, and they would just have to go through Site Plan Review. MR. KARPELES-Where does it say that he can continue, sell it to a doctor, another doctor? MR. CARVIN-Because it's not zoned for that. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but we're doctor, for doctor's offices. giving him a variance to put It goes with the property. a MR. CARVIN-Not the use, because the use changes. MR. KARPELES-Not if it's another doctor. MR. CARVIN-If it's another dentist, fine. MR. KARPELES-Another dentist. MR. CARVIN-But suppose he sells it to an accountant? MS. CIPPERLY-That's why he's asking for professional use. MR. CARVIN-I agree. I mean, if he sells it to another dentist, but professional, no. - 39 - '- - MR. LEFEBVRE-Is that what the law says, or is not be willing to? that what YOU would MR. CARVIN-No. That's what the law says, is that it has to be the same profession, the same occupation. In other words, he could sell it to another dentist. We're giving it, actually, we've done it where we've given it Just specifically to the people. MR. KRANTZ-I don't think Mr. LeFebvre was asking that. He was asking, does this Board, which the answer is yes, have the authority to grant the variance in the terms that Dr. Orban has requested, which you do. MR. CARVIN-We probably could. MR. KRANTZ-I think that's what the question was. MR. LEFEBVRE-The next question is, does that continue with the sale of the property? MR~ CARVIN-Sure, because at that point, we've opened up the door. I mean, any professional organization, it goes, because we've opened up the door. So, in essence, we would have changed the zone. MS. CIPPERLY-I believe what would happen, if you granted a variance here for a professional office and Dr. Orban was, say his practice blossomed and he needed a huge building, and if he came into our office and said, I'd like to sell this to one of the other people listed in professional occupation, we would say, yes, that's something you can do, as long as it hasn't lapsed for more than 18 months. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but what are you basing that on? It's still not zoned for professional. MR. MENTER-Well, she's basing it on the fact that, she prefaced that by saying that if we approved the use of the professional. MR. CARVIN-If we did. MR. MENTER-That's the crux of the whole question. MR. LEFEBVRE-That is what we're asking, because that would be the only condition in which (lost word). MR. CARVIN-And I think that is grossly unfair to do that to the residents out t.here, because that is a residence. That lS a residential area, and to open that up. I'm not saying that the doctor hasn't met all the criteria for us granting a Use Variance, but what if he sells it to just another profession? MR. MENTER-Well, I think we've got a problem here, because I think it's a gross unfairness of not allowing anything to happen to that building, because that's going to be a real detriment, as it stands. MR. CAF<VIN-We're allowing the dentist, but the dentist wants to have a blank check for 1200 or 1300 square feet, which does not come under public scrutiny. DR. ORBAN-No. I don't want a blank check. What I want, though, is for the entire building, not for the 12 or 1300 square feet, but I don't want a blank check. Also, if you refer back to the minutes, and the concerns that were expressed by the public there, they, you probably will find in there that they said, an accountant would be okay, or Mickey Choppa mentioned that it's fine. He said he knew many friends in professions, licensed professions, that have been looking at this, but found it too - 40 - '---- , --.../ expensive to buy. So that the the record, doesn't literally stating it, anyway. community, I think, doesn't, by have that objection, as you're MR. CARVIN-That's even worse, because if we grant it for the dentist, and he wants to put an accountant in there, I still think they've got to come back for a Use Variance, unless you p,"eface it. MR. KARPELES-It all depends on how we write it. MR. LEFEBVRE-The other issue is the fairness. In fairness, I mean, I'm a resident of this area too, and in fairness, I bought a building that was there before the zoning. I didn't put something in the back. So, I mean, someone ought consider fairness to me. If I cannot sell this building, this is a tremendous financial hardship, and if I can't do it, the building gets boarded up. There's nothing else I can do, and what we're asking for is not a blank check. What we're asking for is someone who is a licensed professional, as defined by the State of New York, and those classifications are well defined, I think, in the zoning right now. We're talking about a doctor. We're not talking about a guy who sells glasses. We're talking about a physician. We're talking about a dentist. We're talking about a lawyer. We're talking an accounting firm. We're talking about those kinds of firms which I don't think anybody can argue with, they are professional, and that's what we're really trying to do, and to limit the building to any other, it causes enormous problems, to people who want to rent or sell or anything. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but again, I'm going to come back in that you've addressed this. I mean, we're willing to grant, I think, Dr~ O,"ban a variance. It eliminat(3s you,' p,·oblem. Howe\/e,", L.Je've had other situations where the residence all of a sudden changed. We had LaCabana, for one, where a restaurant was continued. The owner sold the restaurant. The new owners went in with a lot of praise, but it soured, and I want to tell you, the neighbors were up in arms when it lapsed and another restaurant wanted to go in there. I think some of you folks were on the Board for that. MR. LEFEBVRE-Is that fair to Dr. Orban who has put several hundred thousand dollars into it, as a medical building, and what you're saying is, there's a possibility. MR. CARVIN-But is it fair to the residents, who bought homes in a residential area, to have an ongoing business? MR. LEFEBVRE-They didn't buy homes in a residential area. MR. CARVIN-It is a residential. It's zoned as residential. MR. LEFEBVRE-This building was there prior to the residences. MR. CARVIN-As best we can discontinued. determine, that use has been MR. LEFEBVRE-True, but they bought their homes knowing that it was existing. It isn't like we snuck the building in. MR. U-ìRVIN-I' m not saying that, but what I'm say i ng is that the use of that building ceased, and therefore it reverts back to the zoning, because the folks in that area wanted, to the residential zone. MR. LEFEBVRE-And that's what we're addressing here today. How do we zone it now to protect the community, and I agree, we should protect the community, but we also have to protect this guy, who's going to put several hundred thousand dollars into the place. We've got to say (lost word). I mean, if the man became disabled tomorrow, maybe there's not another dentist that wants - 41 - to buy it. Maybe it's an accounting firm that wants to use it, and perhaps somebody from the neighborhood now marches in and puts in a lot of heat and there's a different Board, and somebody says, I don't want an accounting firm. Is that, I don't believe that's fair. I just don't believe it. MR. KARPELES-Well~ maybe if we could agree upon who we want in there, or who we're all willing to see go in there, we could word something so that we. DR. ORBAN-I think that's an appropriate comment. I don't know whether that can get really resolved tonight. What I would like to see is, then, a list of what other profession, what other professions, what other licensed professions in the State of New York? Maybe there is one. Maybe there are ten. I really don't kno\,,¡. Once again, fì-om !:!l.Z. peì-spective, while continuing with th() overall idea that we want to keep this community happy, I don't want to restrict myself any more than need be. So while that, if there were some big firm to go in there, if a doctor with an optician were to move in there, fine, I'll restrict it, but if there is something else that we don't have tonight, that we can't see, that everybody would feel would be appropriate, along the same lines as accountant, psychologist, whatever, that we don't know, I would not want that eliminated. MR. KARPELES-Would it be too restrictive if we said limited to all members of the field of medicine, a lawyer, architect, engineer, surveyor, accountant? Would that be too restrictive, as far as you're concerned? DR. ORBAN-I don't have the information to answer that. Once again, I think what I'm looking for is professional space. Can I think of anything else along that same vein right now in professions that I would want to say, well, lets include this? No, I can't. Also, you folks don't know what might be out there in the way of licensed professions that might be along the lines of a hairdresser. MR. CARVIN-My understanding of, it used to be that there was only three "licensed professions". There were doctors, teachers, and pharmacists. Now those were, traditionally, the only three licensed professionals. DR. ORBAN-But that's what I'm saying. We can debate this on and on. Can we agree? Lets see a list of what the licensed professions are, because that's the way your Ordinance. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but I think that that's, you're re-zoning the zone is what you're doing. You're not granting a variance. You're re-zoning, is what you're doing when you start to do that. When you start down that path, you're going down, it leads to anarcly/ . MR. MARESCO-Well, are we re-zoning the zone, or are we just granting this one particular variance? MR. Cr-",RVH1-This gentleman has proved, as far as .L:..l!Lconcerned, all the criteria to allow us to give him a Use Variance, but it's only for him. It is still a residential area. All right. Now he's ineJicated a problem, and maybe this is unav.Jareness, t.hat if he wants to sell it to an accountant, I'm saying that he can't do that, because that is a change of use, and it's a nonconforming use, basically, in a residential area, and just because we grant it, I mean, you're going t.o open the door up, and when you start putting professionals, you could have that without any public input from any of those neighbors out. there, forever, because it just gets passed from one profession to another. MR. KARPELES-I don't see how this is ever going to be occupied, unless you do come up with something like this. - 42 - ''"---' --.../ MR. CARVIN-I'm saying that we've gone through the loops and hoops. The doctor can occupy it, but he's got to understand that that's just not. He's looking to put another profession in there to subsidize his cost, and I can appreciate where he's coming from, but that's not our problem. MR. MARESCO-But it's really restricting him when you say that only the doctor can move in there. MR. CARVIN-No. He can use the whole building. Suppose he were to hire other folks? Suppose he were to put a dental clinic in there? I'm just saying that the only reason that he's looking to Tent to another portion, and correct me if I'm wrong, is to help subsidize his expenses. MR. MARESCO-A cost, naturally. MR. CARVIN-But that's not our problem. We have to, we're more concerned with the zoning, not the financing. MS. CIPPERLY-The previous variance that was granted on this property allowed for a computer service and it allowed renting of additional office space. So, it's not unusual, especially with that size building, to say, okay, here's this, and you can do this for, you know, rent out, I think it was that same area. He was allowed to rent out as office space. So it wouldn't be the first time, even on this one property, where this had happened. I think you could probably limit it to two professional offices on this one, you know, in the front and one in the back, so you wouldn't have four or five, you know, if somebody wanted to divide this up into five or six, someday, it would cause more traffic, and I can see that being a problem, but I think you can limit it to. you know, two sections of the building, and professional offices. MR. CARVIN-I still think you're excluding the public on that. They may be perfectly satisfied to have the doctor in there, but suppose he decides to sell, or somebody else decides to sell, and another profession goes in there and doesn't keep the property up? MS. CIPPERLY-Well, that's not because they're a profession. MR. CARVIN-Sure it is. MR. KRANTZ-Can I make a suggestion? It's just a suggestion. Could we just see what the sentiment of the Board is by someone making a motion, the way Dr. Orban has proposed it, as defined as professional, just see what the sentiment of the Board is, and we'll go from there. It could very well be just a clear majority that agrees with Dr. Orban's application. We could be arguing about this until midnight. DR. ORBAN-There's also the matter, too, of whether that, if that were to be the case, does that variance continue on afterwards, or Mr. Carvin seems to think that, legally, regardless of when there's a sale of this building, that regardless of what kind of variance is granted now, how broad or how narrowly, it has to revert back here. MR. MARESCO-No, it doesn't. worded. It all depends how it would be DR. ORBAN--O kay . MS. CIPPERLY-Because when your inquiry came into our office, what we looked at is what it had a variance for before, and if it had had a variance for a dentist's office or a professional office, it was actually not a professional office before. It was kind of a combination of commercial and office. I mean, you had some - 43 - '~ - display area for something, as I recall. I don't have the file with me, but if it had said professional office, we would have said, yes, a dentist can go in there, and you can buy that property and use it for that. So, it is up to the Board, how they want to word it, and if the use continues and doesn't lapse for 18 months, he should be able to put some other professional offices, narrowly or widely defined as you want to make it, and if you want to define how many or what kind of space. MR. FORD-Could I offer a suggestion? And I ramifications of this, but if we were, definition, to include, for professional occupation being one who is engaged in including and limited to those professions of New York. don't know all of the as a part of this use, and professional professional services licensed by the State MR. MARESCO-Yes, but how do we know what types of. MR. CARVIN-Yes. A masseuse could be licensed by the State of New York as a profession, and I don't know if the neighbors would want a massage parlor out there. MR. KRANTZ-Here's another thought. When you said before, sir, that, well, you said there's ample proof that this man's entitled to a variance, and it's really the second part of the question, the smaller part of the question. The threshold, really is do the circumstances of this property qualify for a Use Variance, by law? Can he get a reasonable return from any of the allowable uses in the zone? That's the threshold question, because if you find no to that, then you don't, you're not supposed to grant an/' Use Variance, but once you find that you do, and I think you have, before you said yes, that it's realistic that we're not going to get a residential use out of this property, then it qualifies for a Use Variance. Then the only issue is, what's a reasonable use of the property? And I'm trying to imagine circumstances, realistically, that would be more reasonable than a professional use of the building. MR. MENTER-We're talking about going beyond giving Dr. Orban a Use Va," iance. MR. KRANTZ-That's my point, but if the property, for example, lets say that someone else were to come in. Unless something remarkable happens in the Town of Queensbury in that neighborhood, that structure is not going to go to residential use. For all intents and purposes, it's always going to qualify for a Use Variance. So what you're going to be doing each time is looking at this profession or that profession, and if I were Dr. Orban, I wouldn't blame him for his attitude that he's going to be buying into something, every time someone wants to come in, they're going to have to go through the process again? MR. CARVIN-That's the whole reason for zoning. Otherwise, we'll end up with the Mooring Post all the time. I mean, you know, we've got businesses, professional or nonprofessional or commercial, in the heart of these residential areas, and, as I said, that's one of my objections to it right along. DR. ORBAN-As you expressed in the first case this evening, as a Board, that's what the Zoning Board of Appeals is all about, to look at the merits and weigh the issues in each individual case. I'm not expressing my views just because I think this is just what I want. I'm looking. (Lost word) from the point of view of this property, and, as you said, for any profession, just as an owner of this property. If it's not, if it's going to be restricted for sale or rental by continued variances, or Use Variances, it makes the whole proposition unviable, and I think certain been your Board's prerogative to judge whether this, my request, is appropriate, given the circumstances of this property. - 44 - '---' --../ MR. CARVIN-Doctor, 90 percent of your request is very adequate. It's just that that other 10 percent I have a hard problem with. You have demonstrated, as far as I'm concerned, all the criteria for a Use Variance, with the exception of the continuance issue. I mean, grant you a variance, fine. You can go in there, but I still think you're going to have a hard time, when you go to sell that property at some point, to someone other than a dentist, that it's going to come right back here, that you're still going to have the same issues. DR. ORBAN-Not if you word from everybody else, not if unnecessary. the variance, from the Board v.Jords what I understand the variance, it's MR. CARVIN-Yes, and I'm just saying that I think if the Board moves, and that's they're prerogative, that they're just going to open up a can of worms. I don't think you can define, to the Nth degree, something that's going to happen in the future. MR. MENTER-There's two issues. There's the issue, Number One, of him turning over the building to an unknown professional use, as well as him leasing the back spaces to unknown professional uses. MR. CARVIN-And I'm just saying that, you know, the public has the right to scrutiny in this, because it's a residential area. It's not a commercial area. If it was a commercial area, you know, then there's criteria for that. MR. FORD-Commercial area really isn't the issue. professional area? Is it a MR. CARVIN-No. I don't think it is a professional area. I mean, the building may have had a professional history, but the area is definitely residential. DR. ORBAN-There are other commercial enterprises within, well, I don't know that they fall within the same tax map zone, but they aTe there and commercial. MR. KARPELES-I don't think we're serving the residents well by letter that place sit there and fall apart. I think that's the whole purpose of zoning, is to improve the area. MR. CARVIN-Yes, and again, I'm not arguing that, Bob. I'm saying that, fine, he's met the criteria. I mean, it could be, you know, his use is probably adequate, but I think you've got to be very careful when you move beyond that. MR. KARPELES-,We 11, I thi n k ~'.Je ª-.:!:.Q. be i ng ca)- efu 1 . ~Je 'r e say i ng , how are we going to get around this. How are we going to please everybody, and maybe it can be worded such that it will please eve)- ybody . M<:: ...> . CIPPERLY-Do you want to try doing a motion, Bob? MR. KARPELES-I wouldn't. I doubt if I would word it right. MR. MARESCO-Give it a shot, Bob. MR. KARPELES-Okay. DR. ORBAN-You might want to just look, just referring to the letter of March 5th that I wrote, with regard to how you might want to word this. MR. KARPELES-~~o. I wa nt to IrJOr d it ffiL ~'Jay. DR. ORBAN-Right. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 9-1995 ROBERT E. ORBAN, JR., - 45 - ---' Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for its adoption, seconded by The applicant has demonstrated, and I think to everybody's satisfaction, that a reasonable return cannot be provided if that continues as a residential area, and he has come up with a way to utilize that property that will give a return. I think that, as far as altering the character of the neighborhood, it's going to be an improvement upon the character of the neighborhood, to have that property well maintained, rather than sitting there falling apart, and I don't, in any way, see how this hardship has been self-created. The property was purchased before the zoning went into effect, and so I can't see where there's any self-creation. MR. LEFEBVRE-I said the property was built as a commercial property before the zoning went into effect. It's a preexisting structure. It's a preexisting nonconforming structure. MR. CARVIN-I'd be very careful with that, too. MR. LEFEBVRE-I've owned it 15 years. MR. CARVIN-It's not a preexisting nonconforming use, as far as we can tell. All indications is that 18 months has gone by. I would propose that we allow the building to be used for one who is engaged in professional services including and limited to all members of the field of medicine, a lawyer, an architect, an engineer, a surveyor, and an accountant. MR. MARESCO-So we're limiting to what you just said? MR. CARVIN-Accountants or CPA's? MR. KARPELES-An accountant. satisfactory to him. I don't know if that would be MR. MARESCO-Are you satisfied with what? DR. ORBAN-No. MR. MARESCO-That's what I thought. DR. ORBAN-No. I think that I might be unfair to not only myself, in all honest, and on the other hand, I don't want to dissatisfy the Board and say that I can put anything in there I want. I don't know, in the spirit of those professional occupations, I don't know really many others that would carry the same spirit with regard to the community, that might have an unviable economic impact. MR. MARESCO-That's why didn't think you would. on that? I asked you All right. that Well, question, because I are we going to vote MR. KARPELES-Well, it hasn't been seconded. I don't see much sense in seconding it if it's not going to be acceptable to him. MR. MARESCO-Exactly. MR. FORD-What about that broad definition that I stated before, relative to those professions licensed by the State of New York? What's your reaction to that? DR. ORBAN-I believe that has essentially the, let me check and see how that, that really comes up with what I have proposed MRS. ORBAN-Then because they're you're (lost licensed. word) beautician and barber, too, - 46 - '--"" -.../ DR. ORBAN-Well, I'd be willing to strike conditionally accept that, on further review. I have all the information that I can honestly may be acceptable to me. I cannot give you a tonight. MR. CARVIN-Do you folks want to maybe table this to reference this to the Town Attorney, to find out what we can and can't do here? I think you guys may be going in an area that we don't want to get involved with. I don't know. I mean, do you want to mull this over and table this? that. I vJould I don't know that answer that. That yes or a no answer MS. CIPPERLY-You could even possibly bring it back next week, if we can get a notice. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'm just saying, it work up, as I said, I don't have Variance to the dentist, but I think that becomes a self created situation might give you a chance to a problem granting a Use that anything beyond that, on his part. MRS. ORBAN-The Bank and our attorneys have really advised us, the Bank won't even look at this. MR. CARVIN-I know. The that this is a commercial Bank is, they're under the zone, and it's not. assumption MRS. ORBAN-Well, they this commercial thing wrote it wrong, but, no he's is, no, he's very adamant. not. Again, MR. LEFEBVRE-Could we at least vote on a resolution that is at least close to what Dr. Orban would accept, if not, in research, you find it's not acceptable, then he's not going to offer and he's not going to buy the building, that's all, and everything is null and void, but at least we can leave here today, because the gentleman has a deadline as well. At least we can leave here today by saying, the issue has been resolved. We voted, and under these circumstances, yOU would grant the variance. He can go back and check the list of licensed people and professions that are licensed by the State of New York, to see if that's acceptable to him. MR. MARESCO-Suppose it's not acceptable to Id.ê. though? know what the list is going to be. We don't MR. FORD-That's my concern. MR. MAF~ESCO-How do ~ know what the I ist is goi ng to be? DR. ORBAN-Can we possibly generate the list and bring it back in one week? MR. MARESCO-Well, if we table it, you can do that. MR. FORD-I would recommend that we table this until. DR. ORBAN-Next month is not going to be real good. Next week would be okay though. MR. FORD-Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we table this, when we can determine whether for one week or two weeks, to allow the Doctor to do the research that he needs, and for us to touch base with the appropriate attorneys and town officials, to make sure that we all understand exactly what we're approving, and for what duration. MS. CIPPERLY-In fact, Paul Dusek, I imagine, will be at the meeting next week. MR. CARVH{-Next week. Yes, it's a good bet. MS. CIPPERLY-So you have closed the public hearing on this, and - 47 - '- all that remains is the vote. MR. CARVIN-Yes. We're through all theoretically. All right. I don't for, what, two weeks. the mechanics hav'e a prob lern on this, tabling it. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, next week is our. MR. CARVIN-Next week. Do you want t.o table it until next weeK? MR. KARPELES~Next week's pretty full, isn't it? MS. CIPPERLY-We don't have a meeting on the 29th. MR. MARESCO-I thought we had three? MR. KARPELES-I thought we had three. MS. CIPPERLY-We had some people cancel. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Is that the Board's opinion? MR. MARESCO-That's fine wit.h me. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So we'll table it until next week. I'll put it on next week's agenda. Okay. I think, Tom, you've made a motion to table? MR. FORD-For one week. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 9-1995 ROBERT E. ORBAN, JR., Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adopt.ion, seconded by Anthony Maresco: For one week. Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karp~les, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE MR. CARVIN-Okay. So probably be at the end. we'll table it until next week. So bring a sleeping bag. It'll MS. CIPPERLY-Maybe we could do that, actually, up front" rather than have them sit there. MR. MENTER-Yes, I think so, too. MS. CIPPERLY-I think t.hat would be, you know, half an hour. MR. CARVIN-We'll work on it. NEW BUSINESS: USE VARIANCE NO. 10-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A EDWARD S. & ROBERTA J. BARILI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT PART OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RENTAL HOUSE TO SEPARATE LIVING SPACE FOR HER PARENTS, RESULTING IN A DUPLEX STRUCTURE. SECTION 179-15 DOES NOT ALLOW DUPLEX STRUCTURES IN THIS ZONE, SO APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THIS SECTION. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 3/8/95 TAX MAP NO. 48-1-18 LOT SIZE: 18.5 ACRES ROBERTA BARILI, PRESENT STAFF INPUT - 48 - ',--, ....-" Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 10-1995, Edward S. & Roberta J. Barili, Meeting Date: March 15, 1995 "APPLICANT: Edward and Roberta Barili ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Walkup Road SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant proposes to convert part of an existing single family rental house to separate living space for her parents, resulting in a duplex structure. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: Section 179-15 does not allow duplex structures, so applicant seeks relief from this section. The house is on 18.5 acres in a Rural Residential 3-acre zone, so technically could support six (6) residences. REVIEW CRITERIA, BASED ON SECTION 267-b OF TOWN LAW: 1. IS A REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? The owners are receiving a return on this parcel, as it is currently rented to a family member. A return could also be created by creating building lots and six (6) houses, but that is not the applicants' plan for the land, which they value more as undeveloped space. 2. IS THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY UNIQUE, OR DOES IT ALSO APPLY TO SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? The hardship relates to the applicants' need for housing for elderly parents, and their need for someone to oversee their property. The RR-3A zone covers the entire road and beyond. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? It does not appear that allowing division of an existing structure into two units would have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. This is a corner parcel, and the applicants are the neighbors to the west. No comment from the neighborhood has been received to date. 4. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP PROVEN BY THE APPLICANT AND AT THE SAME TIME PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY? It appears to be. PARCEL HISTORY: Assessor's Office records indicate that this parcel is 18.73 acres, that the house was built in 1935, and the square footage of living area is 1985. To the west, the applicant owns a landlocked 6.53 acre vacant parcel (48-1-17.3), which could not be built on as long as its landlocked status exists. This parcel does abut 48-1-17.2, which is a 1.57 acre parcel with a 1,626 square foot house, residence of the applicant, which was built in 1975. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: The need for living arrangements for parents or other relatives has been a recurrent issue before the Board. In this case, where the density created by a duplex is much less than the potential build-out of the applicants' property, and they indicate a desire to maintain their property as undeveloped land, the considerations may be different than other cases reviewed by the Board. It may be possible to limit a variance to the lifetime of the parents, if the Board finds the duplex concept acceptable. A practical concern may be the capacity of the current septic system to accommodate the additional use. No Building Department records pertaining to this system were found as of this writing, indicating that the system may be as old as the house (1935). SECR: Unlisted- S¡-wrt Form EAF needs revieIrJ." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on 8th day of March 1995, the above application for a Use Variance to add one bath and one small Kitchen are to make 1/2 for a rental unit and 1/2 for aging parents to act as property managers/overseers. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Signed by Thomas Haley, Chairperson MR. CARVIN-It looks like the Short Environmental Assessment Form is attached, and it shows a Negative Declaration. Okay. Mrs. Barili, is there anything that you care to add? MRS. BARILI-I apologize for the hour of the evening, and the fact that I have (lost words). I'm not requesting to do this in order to be able to have a duplex to rent. That is not the purpose. That was never the purpose, when we purchased the property. We purchased it for the protection of our current residence and the - 49 - '- property that we have there, and to help preserve the rural atmosphere of the neighborhood. What we are finding is, when the two children are gone, t.hat maintaining 25 and a half acres, the house, barn, fences and all of that, and working full time, is a little bit more than we can handle as well as we would like to. The timing of all this and the situation that's involved seems to present a reasonable solution to us. All we need to do, really, is make accommodations in the house to be able to have my parents occupy part of it, and continue to have a rental, but as far as the septic system is concerned, I'd anticipated that that might be a question. I don't know all the details that you get into, as far as percolation and all of that, but I do know that previously to the current residence, I had rented the house to a family with two children, and (lost word) was not a problem with them, nor is a problem with my daughter, whom I might add washes continually, seems to do a load of wash every day. It seems very adequate for all of that, and I think if you look at two elderly people, and as you look at the floor plan, you see that it's not going to be set up so that we would have large families in there. That seems to be adequate. MR. CARVIN-Okay. As far as you know, that system has never failed? You've never had to dig it up or pump it out or anything like that? MRS. BARILI-We haven't, and the gentleman that owned it before us owned it for many, many years, long before we came up. As a matter of fact, he had it put in, 15, 20 years ago (lost word) leach field and drainage system put in. MR. FORD-If I understand this correctly, if this were approved, there would be no change in the outward appearance of the structure, is that correct? MRS. BARILI-That is correct, Tom. It would not be necessary to make another entrance or to alter the facade of the house. The only thing that we might have to do, because of my mother, is put a ramp out the back. The steps are such out the back door (lost word). That would be the only change. MR. CARVIN-Is that area currently being used as a garage by any chance? Is there a garage? MRS. BAF<ILI-The garage is on the other end of the house. The garage is on the west end of the house, and it's down under the house. They built that kind of into a (lost word). t'1R. tl''',e CARVIN-Okay. gE\,( age? So the living space, actually, ~'JOU Id be o\/er MRS. BARILI-One of the living spaces would be over the garage. That's currently closed off, but it's all finished off. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Which area are your parents going to occupy, the front portion or the back portion? MRS. BARILI-At the current time, my inclination is that they would be in the east side of the house, depending on who ended up renting. I would kind of like a buffer between whomever moves into the house as a renter, and the area where I keep the horses, just for a safety factor. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do you know what the approximate measurement, square footage wise, the western portion that you're proposing? MRS. BARILI-That I believe would come out to be approximately 850 to 900 and some square feet. The eastern area, the section that I'm talking about where my parents come in is slightly larger than that by maybe 150 feet. So there would be about 950 square feE!t.... K - 50 - '-- -- MR. CARVIN-Sue, is there any problem with those square footages, as far as residential or living space? MS. CIPPERLY-They're both over 800? MRS. BARIL I --Yes. MS. CIPPERLY-That's not a problem. MR. CARVIN-That's not a problem? Okay. MR. FORD-The house is currently occupied? MRS. BARILI-Yes. My daughter has been renting the house. Before that, it was a lady and her fiance. My daughter's moving to Aì- izona . MR. CARVIN-Would you have a problem if we limited this variance, if it was granted, just to the lifetime of your parents, so that that ceases to be a duplex situation? MRS. BARILI-It's not my purpose to turn the house into a duplex so that I can then sell it or even rent it as a duplex. It is my purpose to try to accommodate some of my parents needs. So I have no problem with that. MR. Oka/ . favor to the CARVIN-Okay. All right. Any other questions, gentlemen? I'll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in of the application? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-One letter, dated March 12, 1995, with regard to Use Variance No. 10-1995, E & Barili, "This is to notify the Board of Zoning Appeals that I speak for my husband, Dr. Russell Taft, and myself, in favoring the granting of the zoning variance. Signed by Sally Millman Taft" PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-I will open the discussion for the Board. Any additional questions or comments? MR. THOMAS-No. This seems to be pretty cut and dried. it to the lifetime of the parents is a good idea, and objection in granting this variance whatsoever. Limiting I have no MR. KARPELES-No problem. MR. MENTER-I love it. MR. MARESCO-I have no problem with it. MR. FORD-I'm fully in support of it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then I will entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 10-1995 EDWARD S. & ROBERTA J. BARILI, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: The applicant is proposing to convert part of an existing single family residence into two separate living spaces, one for her parents and one will result in an additional rental property, or what is commonly and affectionately known as a duplex structure. Section 179-15 does not allow duplex structures. So the applicant is seeking relief from this Section. The applicant actually could receive more of a return on the property if they - 51 - -...." were to create building lots, and could actually have up to six additional houses, but that is not the applicant's plan for the land. The alleged hardship relating to this property is unique, as that their need for housing for their elderly parents, and their need for someone to oversee their property, by seeking this relief, would satisfy those two situations. By granting this variance, there would not be any adverse effect on the essential character of the neighborhood, because there is going to be no additional building out of the property. There has been no negative neighborhood comment, and that this appears to be the minimum variance necessary to address the unnecessary hardship proven by the applicant. It also should be noted that this duplex situation will only exist and is limited to the lifetime of the Mrs. Barili's parents, Mr. and Mrs. William Leary. At the death or moving of Mr. and Mrs. William Leary, this variance becomes null and void. This variance also ceases on the sale of the indicated house. The Short EAF was reviewed and there was a negative declaration. Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr: Carvin NOES :: !'IONE MS. CIPPERLY-As far as the meeting on the 29th, do you want to reserve that for some reason, like if something from next week needs to go to that, or do you want to? MR. CARVIN-I don't know. shifting the agenda? Can we do that without republicizing, MS. CIPPERLY-If the public hearings are closed, and it's only a vote. Also, if you say at that meeting that it will be the following, I just, as far as people's schedules go. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I'm going to try to get a hold of Paul this week to find out if we can somehow limit any of the discussions to midnight, and then move it, what our standing in law is, as far as that is concerned, as far as advertising, because I think anything after midnight becomes self-defeating. MS. CIPPERLY-Right. This one here, Orban, is probably gOIng to be, I figure, 20 minutes to half an hour. MR. CAF<VIN-I would hope not. MS. CIPPERLY-And Bleibtrey's should be pretty quick. That's why I was thinking maybe we could put them both at the beginning. MR. MENTER-That's a good idea. MR. CARVIN-Because Hodgkins' may get bogged down because we're hearing the Appeal and the house. MS, CIPPERLY-That was your idea. MR. CARVIN-I know that's my idea, and I still think it's the better idea, and then we've got the baseball field, right, which, God only kno~'~s what can of worms that might be. Okay. Minutes. CORRECTION OF MINUTES December 14, 1994: Page 22, bottom, Mrs. Savalle-Kraft speaking, I don't know if there's any of you that are familiar with circular stairways, but this couple that lives there are, sib e .1 de ì- 1 y MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14. 1994 AS AMENDED, - 52 - ',,--, ¡....../ Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Ford, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE December 21, 1994: Page 5, motion, the applicant is proposing to divide a 1.46 acre L-shaped lot creating a .46 acre lot and a one acre lot MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 21. 1994 AS AMENDED, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Ford, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE December 28, 1994: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 28. 1994 AS AMENDED, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Menter, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Ford, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE January 4, 1995: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 4. 1995 AS AMENDED, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Rc)bert Karpeles: Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Menter, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE January 10, 1995: Page 6, motion, that the interpretation by the Zoning Administrator, as far as, should take everything out as far as "the need of a Use Variance", some redundant words in the," e MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 10. 1995 AS AMENDED, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: !'-IONE January 18, 1995: Page 12, Mr. Karpeles, I think we've been pretty, sib consistent, with not allowing mobile homes; Page 6, Mr. Carvin, down top third of page, you would be willing to, sib - 53 - ':~- comply with today's standards MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 18. 1995 AS AMENDED, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Da\/ id l'1enter: Duly adopted this 15th day of March, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Ford, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE MR. KARPELES-Did you have an Executive Session after the last rneetinø? MR. CARVIN-I believe so. MR. KARPELES-How do we There are no minutes. Executive Session. get filled in I don't know on Executive Sessions? what happened in that MR. CARVIN-Is there anything going on with that situation with Mr. Brock? MS. CIPPERLY-I haven't heard anything new. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MS. CIPPERLY-He came in yesterday and Jim suggested that he talk to the neighbors, and see if they could come to any kind of compromise on the building. MR. CARVIN-Okay. The only thing I have that I maybe want to comment is that next week we do have a full agenda. For those of you who are, or were not at the last meeting, I would appreciate making sure that you are fully versed as far as the minutes and making any site visitations on these particular cases, because I think they will require some due diligence on our part. So, having said that, as long as everybody is up to speed on that, we should be in good shape. MR. KARPELES-Can we get in this garage if we go up there? How do you get in, knock on the door? MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. Mrs. Hodgkins son lives locally here. He said he would be willing to take anyone in there. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred Carvin, Chairman - 54 -