The URL can be used to link to this page

1995-01-18 í ' '-"', ORIGINAL , I, ' QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OFAPP'~AL$, FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 18, 1995 INDEX Area Variance No. 71-1994 Jeffrey & Debra Godnick Sign Variance No. 1-1995 Ben Franklin Crafts Area Variance No. 2-1995 Mc Donald's Corporation Area Variance No. 3-1995 Charles R. Barber Use Variance No. 4-1995 William Threw 1. 10. 13. 13. 30. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO ßOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. MONTHS MINUTES (IF MINUTES. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL, ;.oF SAID ¡ 'I , ; , I , I " 1 I;: 'I·; ¡ ¡ f' :1.; , I .' ~ ' I " , i, : ¡ I I. ~ :1· ¡! : i , , , 11 " ,'j! ' d'!: " . ~ ~ QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MÈE-r'INGi i \, ¡ JANUARY 18, 1995 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY FRED CARVIN THOMAS FORD ANTHONY MARESCO ROBERT KARPELES MEMBERS ABSENT DAVID MENTER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. TURNER-If anyone is here for the McDonald's Corporation application, the application has been tabled until February, by the applicant. MR. MARTIN-It'll be re-notified. MR. TURNER-Yes. It'll be re-notified. notice. Everybody will get a new OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-1994 TYPE I WR-1A CEA JEFFREY & DEBRA GODNICK OWNER: SAME SOUTH SIDE OF GLEN LAKE ROAD THIRD HOUSE EAST OF DOCKSIDER REST. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A PRE- EXISTING NONCONFORMING TWO-STORY CAMP AND CONSTRUCT A NEW TWO- STORY HOUSE ON THE PRE-EXISTING, NONCONFORMING LOT. SECTION 179- 60, REQUIRES A SEVENTY-FIVE (75) FOOT SHORELINE SETBACK, APPLICANT IS PROPOSING FORTY-FIVE (45) FEET. SECTION 179-7 LIMITS GARAGE SIZE TO NINE HUNDRED (900) SQUARE FEET, APPLICANT IS PROPOSING NINE HUNDRED SIXTY-FOUR (964) SQUARE FEET. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 12/14/94 TAX MAP NO. 38-4-6 LOT SIZE: 0.44 ACRES SECTION 179-7, 179-60 JEFFREY & DEBRA GODNICK, PRESENT MR. TURNER-Do you want to read the tabling? MR. THOMAS-liThe Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Variance File # 71-1994, TABLED MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-1994 JEfFREY & DEBRA GODNICK, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: To move the application to the Planning Board and table it until we hear back from them. We would like them to look at the on site drainage, permeability, visibility from the lake. get input from them and have it come back to the ZBA. Duly adopted this 21st day of December, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford. Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas. Mr. Turner NOES: NONE - 1 - '.....- '",/ ABSENT: Mr. Ford" MR. MARTIN-Ted, I wanted to read the Staff Notes into the record, if' ! could / fT'om Scott Hsr 1 icker . MR. TURNER-Sure. MR. MARTIN-I think these are indicative of the new Staff position since we've gotten the information with the site plan information that came in, 'as well as the desl~n of the house has bee'n changed and increased si ncethe last set were WYi tten. "This project is currently before the Zoning Board of Appeals for vayiances to shoreline setback and garage size. It was referred to the (Planning) Board for input regard1~~ drainage, ~eimeability and visibility. The engineering concerns, drainage, sewage and permeability are addressed in the Rist-Frost letter dated 1/10/95. Because of the building's height, approximately 35 feet, and bulk, apþroxi~ately 5,900 ¡~quare feet, the hoUse will have an adverse visual impact when seen from the lake and adjacent propertIes. The' structure~s'proximity to the lake, 45 feet, and the removal of a number of large trees will magnify the visual impact. When viewed from the lakè~ the house will appear as a three story 35 foot high structure that is 55 feet wide. RECOMMENDATION: The proposed ':' house is completely out of character with the neighboring properties, and will dwarf any house aló'J'Igthat part 'Of the lake t. Some alternative designs that would reduce the height and bulk of the proposed house~ so that the negative visual impacts would be reduced, should be presented~1I MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. Godnick, you heard the Staff comment. Do you have any commént? MR. GODNICK-The only comments ~ had was I tfied to ~eet every request that your Board and the Board prior has made. We've downsized the garage to meet Your 900 square foot. The septic, the other Board recommended a ~ew system, which we've 'agreed to, if that's the route they want to go. I mentioned to the other Board that we've talked to Dave Hatin, the Building Inspector, and h~J tecomme~ded that we leave t~e existing system in. The house was used beforé, as part' of the Glenmore Lodge. It was rented out as a five bedroom, kind of a bed and breakfast type deal, and we'd upgrade the sewer to accommodate the extra bedrooms and bath'~ He said 'the system ~as fine, more than bapable of doing the three bedroom, but If0~!got no þroblem. I'd just as soon do, when we're excavating, þutting i~ a new'system. MR~ TURNER-Yes. It would be better to do it now tha~ it would later on. MR. GODNICK-Yes, three or four years down the road. MR. TURNER-Becausèyou're going tó' Have to do it anyway. MR. GODNICK-Exactly. The other, the permeability, my architect, we thought the meeting was next 'week, a'T'ld I'm sorry he can't attend tonight, but his figö~e~ don't agree with Rist-Frost's. They're, like, 1,000 square feet off. He thought he was 'under it. If that's the case, we've got no problem, that little jog that we had talked about last time, o~ the garage, if that's the case, we could knock that off. I've got no objection to that, but he was going to talk to Rié;t"'F'ro~;t;'ànd see why his figures don't agree. He thinks they~te taking thè whole house into consideration, rather than the footprint of it, but he didn't have the data in'front of hi~ to comþare it. MR. TURNER-Well, as far that the house is too acre. You're squeezing lot. That's too big. as my own position, big fot the lot. almost 6,000 square It's t6tally out my position is this, You've got'; J44 of an feet of house on that bf character for the - 2 - """ -...../ neighborhood. It like Staff says. will create a visual impact That's too big a house. on the lake, just MR. GODNICK-I don't agree. It's only 55 feet wide, or 54 feet wide. There's actually only about 3,000 square feet of actual living space. I'm not counting the garage and the basement. It's built on a hill. I mean, the basement, you have to have a foundation under the house. MR. TURNER-Yes, but you're going to convert it to That still becomes another story. You've got everything, glas~ and sliders. living space. sliders and MR. GODNICK-Future use downstairs. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. GODNICK-For now it wouldn't have anything. MR. TURNER-The elevation's taken from the ground. MR. GODNICK-It's no higher than the house next door. MR. TURNER-It's too big a house. Way too big. MR. GODNICK-We're meeting all requirements by the State. I don't understand. MR. TURNER-I know, proposes to remove a construct a new nonconforming lot. but you came here and you said, applicant preexisting nonconforming two-story camp and two-story house o~ the pre-existing, Now you're going with a three story house. MR. GODNICK-We meet all the setbacks and the height setback. I don't understand. MR. TURNER-It's too big. As far as I'm concerned, it's way too big. MRS. GODNICK-We could gQ lower, but by keeping have to have a bigger foundation (lost word). around as best we could. it lower, we'd We juggled it MR. TURNER-Yes, but you look at it from the lake, it's, an enormous house. It's 54 feet wide, 35 feet high. Just visualize it. It's a big, big house. MR. GODNICK-I could show you dozens on the lake. I mean, that's, all your newer homes have been done that way. The lake is on a hi 11 . MR. TURNER-I can tell you right now that we've made one other applicant come back and downsize the house because it was too big for the lot. I'll tell you right now. Right up front. MR. GODNICK-The Zoning Regulations, by requiring bigger lots, they're trying to get nicer houses. They're trying to do away with the shacks. MR. TURNER-You've got 19,560 feet of. MR. GODNICK-(lost word) shack with a nice home that's going to increase everybody's value around the lake. MR. TURNER-You've got 19,560 square feet of lot. you've got. That's all MR. GODNICK-It's still one of the biggest lots on the lake. MR. TURNER-It might be, but it's too big a house for the lot. - 3 - ./' '.,/ MR. GODNICK-There's bigger houses on the,lak~ on smaller lots. MR. TURNER-It's just too big, as far as l.:m. concerned. I couldn't support your appl ication, and I won't support it. MRS. GODN1CK-"What would you consider?; ¡ MR. TURNER-He should replace it in kind, like what,you just said, two-story house with a two-story house. That's plenty big èñocrgh . MRS. GODNICK-In order to build into the hillside, you're losing a lot of th~ basement, because you can't put bedroom$ :'and such agalhst that wall because the . Windows (lost word) fire. There wouldn't be any way to get out.' MR. TURNER-Yes, but you're saying you cén't ~et out now, but you're proposing to get out, b~cause' you're going to put a slider in the front, so that leavès YOU' access out of th~' basement, to get but of therè. MR. GODNICK-We don't w.nt to use th~ b~sement for living area. MR. TURNER-You said you did, the last time you were here. I thought you told us that you were going to use it? MR. GODNICK-For a family room, fot access fr~m the lake. , MR. TURNER-That's living area. It still counts as a floor. MR: GúDN1CK-It's ~ot our actual living area for every day use. That was our whole purpose in buying the lot~ MR. CARVIN-The thing that l.:m. looking at, it looks to me like it's a three story building. MR. TURNER-It is. ¡,r MR. GODNICK..i.The only thing on the third floor is the master bedroom. MR. CARVIN-Wel'l, is this an accuratèbetrayal of the landscaping, here? MR. GODNICK~Yes, it is. MR. CARVIN-So, none of this is going to be in the ground? You're going to have a door here? I mean, I carr agrèe that this is partially buried. MRS. GODN!CK-There's nothing back there anyway~ word) garage now. That's (lost MR. GODNICK-It actually depends a lót on the neighbor'~ lot and how it's go i ng to be 9r aded. ¡ It's' probab 1 y go i ng to be a 1 it tIe higher than that. ·1 ... . MR. CARVIN-Yes, but I'm looking at, even àn the right side, rough estimate, 70 percent of the living space is exposed as a three story, to the left and right, the front, very definite. I mean, that is .bbut as fancy of a storage shèd as I've ever' seen, or storage/garage ~nt'l'"ance, ahd I ¿án appreciate the architectural, but, I've lòokèd at this and, believe m'e, I ;know where you're coming from, but I'm looking ~t athreé stori structure? here, not a two story. MR. GODNlèK-Well, why is there a height n9st'l'"iction if you can't butldto t~e height? MR. CARVIN~Well, I think it has more to do 'with the'size of the - 4 - '''' \'>. ---- house, the square footage necessarily the height. it's like a 5,000 square quite a bit of house on a on the lot, more than it does the, not I mean, that's a lot of, as Ted says, foot house, and not a 3,000. So it's very, very small lot. MR. GODNICK-I guess I just don't understand. We meet all the requirements, all setbacks, except for the lake setback and the height setback. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think you have to take a look at the character of the neighborhood. MR. MARTIN-That was the other issue that came up, in terms of the setbacks, is there's, if you'll notice, there's road frontage here, as well, and the shoreline frontage, and I'll call your attention to the definition of "Shoreline", which is always considered to be the front yard, and we have a 75 foot setback there. On the road side yard, alsQ, there, typically, is 30 feet, because that's typically thought of as the front yard. So, I think in this particular case, we may have two front yards here, and there's a 30 foot requirement. If that were the case, it would be 30 feet from ~he road side lot line. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I just spent half an hour going through the minutes, here. It looks like the Planning Board had a real tough time with this whole thing last night, too. MR. GODNICK-They were split. I don't remember the count. I think it was four to two. Four of them saw no problem with the size of it, and the impact. They thought that it would benefit the rest of the neighborhood. MR. CARVIN-I think there was quite a bit of conversation on the size and the impact. I know Betty Monahan made an appeal to the Board to consider that. "When you looked at this site, and we have a purpose for our Waterfront Residential. Do you know the purpose in our Ordinance? Did you consider that the neighbors on the other side of the road and their view shed, and what is going to happen to their aesthetics of the lake?" "I'm talking about, not on the lake side, but the side across the road. Did you visualize yourself in their livingroom, as to what the effect would be?" I know that there's other comments all the way through here indicating, I know Mr. Brewer had quite a time, and Mr. Paling, "Three bedrooms, that's a big house for three bedrooms. I think we're all struggling with the size of the house relative to the size of the lot in the neighborhood" and "Do you have any alternative plans, or are you considering anything?" I know Mr. Brewer expressed similar concerns. I think there was a lot of concern about the size of the house on the lot. MR. GODNICK-From the roadside, it's not a three story home. I think it's a story and a half, most of it. MR. CARVIN-Mr. Martin, I think what we were looking for were some hard engineerin~ numbers as far as the permeability, the aesthetics and everything else. MR. MARTIN-They came up with 67 percent, as permeable, but that was on the footprint, and the numbers being that fine, if you were to consider the overhang or eaves on the house, it might kick that over, because we only have two percent there to work with, and two percent of a 19,000 square foot lot only amounts to 380 square feet. So, even if the Rist-Frost number is accurate, and apparently now the architect is questioning that, that leaves very little leeway, in the event that, even if somebody wanted to place a storage shed or a gazebo or something like that on this lot, it would kick it over. Permeability is very tight. - 5 - -- -..,/' MR. tARVIN-Just as a matter of information, Jim, how in-depth does the Plannins Board·get with visual impact and things like that, 0-(' would that be more in this bailiwick? ' MR. MARTIN-I have seen where they will explore visual impact from the standpoint of angles of view of neighbor i ng , properties. Apþlicants have pr~sented data on site lines, visuålly on plot plans. I've! even seen informðtion'presented where people will, or applicants will try and project ,the size of a proposed structure in a photograph, and then they'll show that from terta i n angles', depending on the nature 'of the application . It cari get that detailed. MR. CARVIN-Although the minutes don't reflect it, do you have any feel for what that Boa~d's feeling was? MR. MARTIN-I was there last night, and I would get the impression that there was, at least ön the part 'of seveyal membe~s,' 'great concern over visual 'impact, and there were 'a couple of other members who thought;', that the house was an improvement, but 'there weYe certainly concerns expressed, that the visual i~pact would 'be a concern. MR. CARVIN-I guess, Mr. Godnick,what you're saying is that the septi6 system is not a problem, a~'far as you're cohcerned1 "rl, MR. GODNICK-Not at all. MR. CARVIN-You would be willing to? MR. MARTIN-I think if you read in the early part of the minutes, too, Scott 'also tead as part of the Staff not~s' the :purpos~ of the Waterfront Residential zOne, and I thin~ that's important to bear inm~nd, here. "The purpose of the Waterfront Residential Zorle is I to' pr'otect the del icate ecological balance "Of' all the lakes and the Hudson River, while providfngadequate opportunities for development that would not be detrimental to the visual character of the ~h'oreline", and h~ncef6rth, that's why the 75 foot setb,ack is there., The other practical reason for that is to ~llow adequate permeability between hard sdŸfaces and the lake, so that any stormwater runoff is infiltrated 'b~fofe it gets to the lake itself. MR. TURNER-Do you have any other design that's an alternative to this, that would compliment what you wanttó do ther'é ,'to reduce the height? MR. GODNICK-No. We've taken 'àll the data, the 'recommendations we've g'otten, and that'~ the plan we came up with that best suits the lot. We spent a lot of mOney 'getting all the drawings done for you folks, so you could see what it would look like. MRS. GODNICK-It ' s ki nd of di ff icul t bei ~:j 'the:fe~Jt' bit:kau~e now (lost word) storage, because of permeability, we can't put in out buildings without losing that, so we thought we'tejtY9in~ to incorporate storage in the basement, plus (lost word) mechanical. We've done the best we could trying to 'get" ¡evrêlry:thi~fIg"1¡4¡;11t:here and still have it liveable. It's kind of shortsighted to build something 'now' that, down the road, should we eveY wa'nt' to "sell it, with the amount we have to get for lakeshore property, we don"t want to spend that for sométhing, for a small ¡house (lost ; word) . As I unders'ta'nd the zoni n9 laws, try i ng to upgrade the buildings that will be put o~there, ;we might not be in the charactir of the nei~hboYhood now, its~ems like (lost word) first of whåt we mIght' intend it to be in the future. ' MR. TURNER-My ow~ feeling' is, I hope that, down the these höme~'that are buiít ~n the lake are ~ased on the lot, and in proportion to t~e lot, and that size the hei'ght be reduced, the size of the house on the road, that the size of be reduced, property be - 6 - "" ~ reduced to fit the lot that's already there. If you have two acres, that's fine. That's different. You've only got 19,000 square feet, and you're putting 6,000 square feet of house on it. That's a pretty enormous house. MRS. GODNICK-If you want us to take a floor down, then cutting out half a space (lost word) and we can't go any with the foundation, and we want to comply at this time, it's not going to be (lost word) with those that are there you're bigger but if now. MR. TURNER-That's the whole problem with the lakes. The lakes are being destroyed by over-building on the shoreline, runoff and everything. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think that's the important thing to bear in mind here. I mean, we're not trying to single people out. We're not trying to be unfair. These Ordinances were developed after a community wide look through the master planning process. This was a conscious decision on the part of the Town and the community as a whole to set these standards for a Waterfront Residential zone. I mean, this was not done willy nilly, or, you know, just throwing a number at a wall and whatever sticks is the number. These numbers were developed after careful consideration to the development pressures along the lake. It's not ~ numbers. It's not the Soard's numbers. This is reflected under the master plan and the community as a whole. MR. TURNER-Any thoughts? Any questions? MR. KARPELES-Are we having a public hearing? MR. TURNER-Well, no. You can question the applicant, if you want, or you can address any issue with the applicant you want. MR. KARPELES-I'd just as soon reserve my comment until after we have the public hearing. MR. MARTIN-I think it was opened. MR. TURNER-Yes. I don't think I closed it, though. think we ever got to a public hearing. I don't MR. CARVIN-It doesn't look it. Wait a minute. MR. TURNER-Yes. Public hearing's closed. Well, I can open it again. That's no problem. I think, in respect to the public hearing, I think the other thing that you, maybe some people not coming in was the fact that this was advertised as only a two- story house and a garage. Since then, I think there's been comments, and you've heard them, size, height, visual impact. I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Okay. Do you have any questions of the applicant? MR. KARPELES-I agree with you. I think it's kind of big for the lot. However, I don't see where we have any control over the height of it. He's meeting the requirements as far aS"I feel I was duped a little bit because it said it was a two-story house, but, obviously, it's a three story house, but I still don't see where you have much control over that, because it's within the height limitations. However, we do have some control over the setback, and I think that should be met. I hope we're being consistent, because I'm thinking of times in the past that we have not required people to meet that setback. I think we've got - 7 - -/ to make up our minds, we're either going to do it or: we:'re not going to do it. MR. TURNER-Yes, you're right, but we had a similar house, down at the other end of the lake, on the same side they're on. It was an enormous house for the size of the lot. The lot was real narrow in the front, they wanted it right up clos~ to the lake. So they did reduce the aize of it. MR. KARPELES-And if he met the setbacks and, all the setbacks and square footage, I don't see where we'd have anything to say about it. MR. GODNICK-Could I just add one thing? When we submitted the application in question, one (lost words) and we called the Building Department and asked them specific, and the best we could come up with is a basement is a basement, whether it's walk out or not. MR. KARPELES-I can'u~derstand it, but still, yoti öa~ seè my feeling whén' I see this after being ad.J.ertised as two-story. MR. GODNICK-It was written up as two-story with a walk out basement. We had questioned how to write it up. MR. FORD-Has this re'ar elevation been modified si nce our previous meeting? MR. GODNICK-I don't know if that's the one. MR. TURNER-We took and outlined this in red, all right. That's the square footage in there. ~e can build the house back there and meet all the setbacks. Hdwwould you sell that house if you built it, if you were going to sell it, two story or three? MR. GObNICKJ.A realtor" would say a two story with a walk out basement, because I'm putting ~ house on the market the same way as it is right now. MR. FORD-I'm glad we have these visual representations tonight, because the last time we met, we w~re concerned about the size and whether it was two, two and a half, or three stories, and I recall, and the minutes indicate my asking the question, I was wondering if your design, at three stories, would allow for that to be a part of the living space, and Mr. Jager said, they may bui Id a"fami ly room or somethi ng else downstairs. ' Currentl y , it's going to be basically open space, and I asked the questions, just a sealed wall, and the response was, yes. That is far from a sealed Wall in the basement ar~a. MR. MARESCO~MY feeling is, also, pretty much, that the size of the house is a little bit too big for the lot. I think you folks are really trying, though. I think as you said you'would ~eet the septic. I think we have to be con¢ernéd with all the other applicants that we get. We can't say yes to you, and then when somebody els~ comes in, who has¢ome i~ previously, and say no to them. MR. TURNER-I guess the other thing to consider, also, we've never done it before, but you want to consider the road as a second front. That changes the setback of 30 feet instead of 20. It's not considered a resr, the front being the lake. MR. CARVIN-I don't think we've ever used that criteria in the past. MR. TURNER-No, we haven't. MR. CARVIN-I don't see where 'we can, I don't see where we can impose that situation. - 8 - 'v -...-/ MR. TURNER-No. I don't think we should impose it. MR. KARPELES-I think we make it almost impossible for him to use the lot if we did that. MR. TURNER-The comment came up, so I threw it out there. Did you guys see this? What we did today is we sketched this all in. You could put that house in there and meet every setback, and you don't need any variance. There's 5,062 square feet, and you meet every setback. MR. MARESCO-This is for a smaller house, though, than they're proposing? MR. TURNER-Well, that's what I'm saying. It's a two story. They advertise it as two story. MR. MARESCO-This is 75 from the shoreline. MR. TURNER-And you meet the side setback here. They have to have a total of 50 feet, the sum of 50 and a minimum of 20 on one side. MR. FORD-That is not fitting this. MR. TURNER-That's how much room they've got to work with, right there. MR. FORD-And that 5,062 square feet. MR. TURNER-Within that area. MR. FORD-And that is counting how many stories? MR. TURNER-Didn't elaborate on that. They could put it in there. They could put a house in there and meet all the setbacks, a house. MR. CARVIN-Does that take into consideration septic, Ted? MR. TURNER-Yes. They could get the septic in there. MR. GODNICK-Yes, but why should L be required to build in back of everybody else? MR. TURNER-I'll tell you why, because if this guy down the road comes and says, I want a new one, he's going to have to move his back, because that's the purpose of the Ordinance. It used to be 50 feet. Now it's 75. We want to get them away from the lake. MR. GODNICK-Yes, but that's penalizing me. money for the lake property. I pay my taxes, build in back of everybody else and look at they remodel? That's not fair. I mean, I pay good and now I've got to their shacks, until MR. TURNER-That's 75 foot. That's what's required. MR. GODNICK-I disagree. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. GODNICK-If that's the case, I'd like to ask that the meeting be tabled so I can get my attorney. MR. TURNER-If that's what you want. MR. GODNICK-That's what I'd like to do. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll make a motion. - 9 - '"-, -- MOTIONI '10':!Tf%BLE, AREAJ'VAfÜAN€e· NO'. 71-1994 JEFFREY & DEBRA iORNICK, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its ~doption, seconded by Fred Carvin: , ' App1î¿alß'è hå~~f n9qû~~'ted £8 tâble the application until he can refer to counsel. Duly adopted this 18th day of J~nuary, 1995, by the following vote: ~R. KARPELES-I don't see why we should table this. MR. TURN~R-He's tabling it. He's asking to table it. He wants to get counsel: MR. KARPELES-Well, he can appeal it after we make a decision, can't he? MR. TURNER-He could. MR.'CARVIN.....He could. MR. KARPELES~If he wanted counsel, he should have brought him with him. No, I vote no. MR. CARVIN-You brought up a real good point. MR. TURNER-He did. MR. CARVIN-I'm not quite sure what counsel is going to do, but I'll, if he wants counsel, I'll vote yes. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Karpeles ABSENT: Mr. Menter NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-1A BEN FRANKLIN CRAFTS OWNER: NORTHWAY PLAZA ASSOCIATES; NORTHWAY 'ÞLAZA, 'SITE 5F UPPER GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL THREE (3) WALL SIGNS ÌN ADDITION TO ITS EXISTING WALL $IGN~' :ÄND SEEKS RELIEF FROM, $ECTION 140~6, WHICH ALLOWS ONE WALL SIGN PER OCCUPANT "OF A BUSINE$S COMPLEX. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 1/11/95 TAX MAP NO. 72-7-4 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION 140-6 JOEL BOVAIR, SIGNTECH, REPRESËNTINè APPLICANT, PRESENt STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 1-1995, Ben Franklin Crafts, Meeting Date: January 18, 1995 "APPLIC~~T: Ben Franklin Crafts PROJECT LOCATION: Northway Plaza,' Queensbury PROÞòSÊÖ"ACTION: Applicant Þropóse~ to install three (3) wall signs in addition to its existin!¡;Jwall sign.' CÖNFORMANCe:WITH THE, ORDINANCE: Aþplicant seè~s relief from Se¿tion 140-6, which allows one wal sign per occupant of a business complex. REASON FOR VARIANCE REQUEST AND BENEFIT TO APPLICANT: Applicant believes the signs would m~k~ the storefront more visible to customers, and advertise the type of merchandise sold within. FEASIBLE ~LTERNATIVES: If the applicant believes the store is not being 'seen, perhaps it'can be adverti~ed on the freestanding sign, as ailowed. IS'THISRELIEF SÚBSTANTIAL RE~ATIVE TOTH~:ORDINANCE? The applicant is asking for 3 more signs than allowed (total square footage 37.8 square feet). The existing sign is red, illûminated, and 147.5 square feet. EFFf;CTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY: The additional signage would have the effect of visual clutter, particularly if this route were followed by - 10 - -- --..../ others in the plaza. IS THISDIFFIÇU4TY SE4F-C8EAT~D? ,The desire for more signage is self-created. There does not ,appear to be a site-related difficulty in seeing this store. PARCEL HISTORY: This store is part of Northway Plaza, one of the older shopping plazas in the area. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: No further comments. S~QR: Unlisted. Short Form EAF should be reviewed. " MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 11th day of January 1995, the above application for a Sign Variance to install three wall signs in addition to its existing wall sign was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Disapprove Comments: The Warren County Planning Board has always tried to conform with the Queensbury Sign Ordinance and the existing sign is more than sufficient." Signed by Thomas Haley, Chairperson. MR. TURNER-Okay. Would you care to add any further comments to your application? MR. BOVAIR-It states that I'm adding signs to there, but the signs already exist. All we want to do is put copy on the face of it, to tell people that pull in the Plaza to know what type of store it is. Right now, the Plaza is, that storefront is over 400 feet from the road. You really don't notice that (lost word) from the road (lost word) channel letters higher up on the building. So I don't think it's going to have an adverse effect on the area. You've got Queensbury Plaza that's filled up over the last two years, and there's a lot of competition around. All I can say is it's hardly noticeable until you're in the parking lot, for potential customers. MR. TURNER-Well, the store isn't "hardly noticeable", because I looked at it today, and you can drive right down the Lake George Road and you can see it. Those big, bold red letters stick r,ight out. MR. BOVAIR-Right, the store, but. MR. TURNER-As far as what they carry. MR. BOVAIR-Right~ the products. . , . '"1· j "; .' MR. TURNER.-But th~Y're only allowed one sign:on:the wall. it,. To grant YOl!- a var i~nce on this would,op~n aT) P~npora's" Box. Ste.inbach's has come in here, and they'ye theirs changed. ')! That's awful wanted MR. BOVAIR-Steinbach's is the only store in there that's allowed a sign on the building and a spot on the pylon sign. MR. MARESCO-Steinbach's only has one sign, don't they? don't have any others. They MR. MARTIN-Yes, but it should be pointed out that that's not the Town'~ fault that that's the case with the pylon sign. It's not Aµr Tegulations that prohibit that. It may be a private lease agreement in the' Plaza, 'but that's not our problem, to be quite blunt. MR. BOVAIR-So any store in that Plaza, with the agreement of the own~rs of that Plaza can add to that pylon sign? MR. MARTIN-I don't know. I've heard that said before that St~inbach~~ is the only one permitted on that pylon sign. That's not a part of this Code. MR. TURNER-;No. on there? They're not allowed on there. How did they get - 11 - ......' MR. MARTIN-They're allowed, with the change that was last done, the Business Complex. MR. TURNER-Okay. "I! ¡,'¡¡-it, '] ~'I .' ["Ii, I \', ¡: "j ¡ I MS. CIPPERLY-Wit.hin square footage requir~~ents. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. MARËSCO-I don't think there's any way to possibly miss that store. 1 mean, I've driven up and down that 1,000 tiMes, and that store is ~xtre~ély visible. I doh't think you'd have to worry about competition. I think Benjamin Franklin is goirig to put the other people out of business. Peoþle that shop in Benjamin Franklin know what they carry. They know it's a craft store. They're well aware of what's there, I'm sure. MR. BOVAIR-There are potential customers that have not ever been to Ben Franklin. MR. MARESCO-But you can't miss the sign. visible. I mean, it~s extremely MR. BOVAIR-Right, but you don't know what they sell there. Before I got this job from Ben Franklin, I'd'never 'been in that store. I've got Ames right up the roªd, the new K-Mart down the r'()~d,. ,"1 " , ! ,; 1,' ¡ "¡,' " " " ' , i : II '¡,.: " j '.'¡ j) ¡ .' ! ' ¡ " i ~ !~. ( , M~. ", MARESbb-Ybu also'Ravè word' ôf!mouth'adJértisi 1'''9, ,1~i' :, 'þeople 'that are' outsrdé the!" area th~t, ddM~t :'k110W 'W11ât "â "Benjami n ""Frankl'In: 'is, but.)most'þèoP'lê T wHo' ðre fnto¡~râif:t~ kt1ow<:tbout that , name. It;s'a êh~'in'~: i~Tr!\ti'it?!~:;That·s 'not'thefÖMÏ!y 'srt8Y~? L '~ ~ r-;~'>lrt,,'I~'1 r>j:ft,¡, ¡' i..,j' .' ;,::1,' ¡;..--~:"~)'.' MR. CARV:ItìI.lT 'know ttl'eT Stlflday'1!yer has thê' 'BeniPra'nkïi n ' stuff. So, I mean, there's plenty of other advertising media besides the three signs on the building. I' know my wife knows what Ben Franklin is. I didn't know what it was, but she promptly informed me what it was. MR. FORD-I believe that the existing sidnage is sufficient. MR. TURNER-It's more than adequate. MR. MARESCO-You're not going to lose any business, believe me, because of not having those threesi~ns. ,.!. "¡,,-~. Jd/1,.-j¡.J!r~-: '~- .-, ,~k¡ '0":./;" ,- .'-'It". /-,' . MR. KARPELES-I think we've been pretty consist ~it~~ot .llowing multiple signs. MR. TURNER-Unless there's a real good reason, hardship, whatever. Okay. I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MR. THOMAS-One letter. "A r:ecord of telephone ,conversation, dated:JandlfOY 16, 1993, bètweiêh'M<:iry' 'Bodenw'rser'/ 'owner of- the Alpén'haus MoteI'bn Route': cy; and .susan CipÞer 1 ý,{l€)¥, ,the Pl!ëi1'1'ni ng Depa'r'tmênt ~':, I J'ª3b~e¿t: ,,1åQii 'phhiklih' " C-faft: !,1s1~n' Variance ,¡~pplicatf?n';',caï~Jfbr",.i n~ßY!ry~~'H~,~",~e~~+9~ ~s.;'J~f'ò~¿~~~,..,þ ~i~n:.1':, She l~ already âble to' seè 'the Be'nt'tt"ranRl¡ns:tgn fro\'òJacro~s RoU't'ê 9, esp'€kiaiiy (át nlgfh:.,and belie0ès:' "th'at oT"le'~ï'ªYtr p~~' s~'6~é is enough. 'othéfwifse; thek'Pl~za' 'and' ':'ar'Jð i n ge11~ri:il wi 11 "ntYt look . ^,'- '<0 _ . '. ,,". : _,-' _." ,_"_, - . " -I" . j', -i' ,:,,> - .. good. : The call'er>is unable' to atte'nd the meet'irlg'ånd :would like her concerns as summar ized here to be read' i n'to tKê" m'i nut'es. " '- 12 - '-- --.-/ And it's signed Sue Cipperly. MR. TURNER-Okay, a motion's in order. MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1-1995 BEN FRANKL¡N CRAFTS, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: The applicant's sign that exists on the building now is more thanf adequate and visible from the roadways that encompass this shopping center. The approval of this Variance would open a Pa~dora's Box and would put a further burden on the community as to the signage and would overburden the Sign Ordinance, with the excessive signage. It would have a detrimental effect on the communi ty. Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-1995 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A MC DONALD'S CORPORATION OWNER: EDWIN D. KING QUAKER ROAD, DIX AVE., HIGHLAND AVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A CURB CUT FOR A FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT THIRTY-SEVEN (37) FEET FROM AN EXISTING CURB CUT, CLOSER THAN ALLOWED BY SECTION 179-66B(4), WHICH REQUIRES ONE HUNDRED FIFTY, (150) FEET BETWEEN ADJOINING ACCESS POINTS FOR COMMERCIAL USES. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 1/11/95 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-3.3 LOT SIZE: 1.833 ACRES SECTION 179-66B(4) MR. TURNER-We have a letter from McDonald's Corporation, in respect to their application. MR. MARTIN-Regarding Area Variance request, McDonald's Corporation "Dear Mr. Martin, It is requested that our application for an area variance be tabled until the February 15th meeting. Sincerely, Edward J. Bealer Project Manager" MR. TURNER-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-1995 MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: At the request of the applicant, until February. Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thom~s", Mr. Ford, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-1995 TYPE, II SFR-1A CHARLES R. BARBER OWNER: CHARLES R. BARBER APPROX. 2,000 FT. NORTH OF INTERSECTION OF BAY AND BLIND ROCK ROADS APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT ONE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ,ON A FIVE (5) ACRE LOT WHICH WOULD HAVE 16.24 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON BAY ROAD. RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM SECTION 179-70, WHICH STATES THAT FORTY (40) FEET OF ROAD FRONTAGE IS REQUIRED FOR ONE (1) PRINCIPAL BUILDING. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 1/11/95 TAX MAP NO. 48-3-43 LOT SIZE: 3 ACRES SECTION 179-70 - 13 - --- TIM BARBER AND RIC~ARD BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 3-1995, Charles R. Barber, Meeting Date: January 18, 1995 "APP~IÇANT:. Charles R. Barber PROJECT LOCATION: Bay Róad, north of Blind Ro¿kRoad PROPOSED ACTION: Applicant proposes to build one single-family home on a 5-acre parcèl, which is currently landlocl<e'd'. CONFÖRMANCEWITH ORDINANCE: The applicant has arranged to modify the parcel so that access to Bay 'Road is available. However, it was only possible to secure 16.24 feet of road frontage from adjoining landowners. Applicant seeks relief from Section 179-70, which requires 40 feet of frontage on a Town road for one principal building. BEASON FOR VARIANCE REQUEST. AND BENEFiT TO APPLICANT: The applicant would be able to build a home, and utilize an other wise unusable parcel. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES: There may be alternatives. Information regarding an adjoining~ubdivision is provided per reque~tby . Ted Turn~r. I§ THIS RELIEF SUBSTANTIAL RELATIVE TO THE ORDINANCE? The reliêf sought is approximately 60% of the requirement. EFfECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY: Other than the road frontage issue~ this is a complying lot and would only generate traffic from one single- family home. No comment 'from the neighb6rhöod has been received as of this writing. IS THIS DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED?: The di ff icul ty seems to be an ex isti ng landlocked parcel' plus the apparent unavailability of any additional land to increase the road frontage. PARCEL HISTORY: Thi~'parcel was created prid~ to 1977, according to Assessór's records. Tax map showing existing situation is attached. ,SIAFF COMM~NTS ~NQ CONCERNS: According to the apþIicant, thesé'twó lots w~fe' part of a 'proposed subdivision development plan. That plan has been abandoned at this time. SEOR: Type II, no further action required." MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 11th day of January 1995, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a single family home on a five acre lot which would have 16.24' of frontage on Bay Road was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact". Signed by ThomasHal~y, Chairperson. MR. TURNER-Anythi~g? MR. T. BARBER~I'd like What we're proposing foot road and make are consolidating, to subMit another documeni t~ th~ Board. to do there is take the existing sixteen it the entrance to 'Lots 44 and 43, which we and it's going to be a: sin~le famil~ d~elling. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. T. BARBER-And the article I just gave ,you was the deed to that 16 foot road. MR. TURNER-All tight. See the subdivision right here? This is Dallek's subdivision. See this road right here? That was dedicated as a road system to this property. MR. T. BARBER-Okay. MR. TURNER-Did a~ybody e~Þlore the thought of going 'out this way? Can we get? It's a whole lot shorter. MR. T. BARB~R-The thing is, Ted, it's not oOr land.' MR. TURNER-I know it isn't. MR. T. BARBER-And secondly, we really do want to make use of that 16 foot drive, becaUse that will b~ owned by Richard, and he's going to put in an eight fòot drive there. We didn't explore that, and we don't really want to explore that as an option: If , J - 14 - '-- --'" we don't utilize the 16 foot strip of land there, it's really going to become useless. MR. CARVIN-Do you own that? Is that a right-of-way, or is this ownership? MR. T. BARBER-No. That is an owned parcel of Ipnd~ MR. TVRNER-It's an owned parcel. The Dalleks own it. MR. T. BARBER-That's been a farm road for 31 years or so. MR. TURNER-This one here. MR. T. BARBER-Yes. , , .j MR. CARVIN-So we're not talki~g a right-of-way. MR. T" :BARBER-No. parcel of property. It is not a right-of~way. It is an owned The deed that Ipre.ented to you shows that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. KARPELES-It would sure make a lot more sense, it seems. MR. CARVIN-It would. MR. FORD-What efforts have been made to purchase sufficient property on either side of that 16 foot section? MR. T. BARBER-On both sides of that, there's homes and there would be no options. MR. FORD-No. That wasn't the question. made to secure that land? What efforts have been MR. T. BARBER-There has been none. There has been no effort. I believe it's not an option. The houses are pretty close. MR. MARESCO-Is there a business on the other side, right? MR. T. BARBER-No. There's residential housing on both sides. MR. MARTIN-It also should be pointed out, in terms of purchase of property of either of the adjoining lots would require a variance also, because you would be increasing the nonconformity of the adjoining lots, because they're nonconforming as well. MR. TURNER-Right. MR. CARVIN-How do you address the tree? There's a pretty large pine tree right at the end of that road. MR. T. BARBER-We've always dealt with it. obstacle, trucks and tractors. It has not been a MR. CARVIN-Well, it doesn't look like it's used that frequently, at this point. MR. T. BARBER-It's used, it's the only entrance right now, other than a rough mountain road (lost word) Glen Lake. MR. CARVIN-But how many times is it used in the course .of a month? MR. T. BARBER-Maybe 10, 10, 15. MR. CARVIN-Because it certainly doesn't look it. I was out there the other day, and it doesn't look like there's been anything up there in quite a while. - 15 - --" MR. TURNER-$omebody was in there tðday.' Because I looked at it today. I 'don't know who was in there. MR. T. BARBER-I would say 10. 15 times. Not in the winter time. obviously. There's been no traffic in there. that l k~ow of. in the last month or two because of the weather and snow. MR. CARVIN-I assume then. because there's so much traffic up through there. that's the reason why, that the children's play area is all fenced off? MR. T. BARBER-In that particular atéa? I don-t know. That fence has always been there. You have clear view coming out both sides. MR. CARVIN-No. I disagree with you there. That pine tree sits right smack dab in the middle. MR. T. BARBER-Did you happen to pull into the lot? MR. CARVIN-Yes. I've been there, and that tree,sits coming up and down. in through there. around there, by right'in the visual linø of impact MR. T. BARBER-Well. maybe it needs pruning. MR. CARVIN-That's a real challenging driveway you have there, with that tree sitting there. MR. T. BARBER-I don't think the tree should be a problem. could be either removed, pruned. That '.:i ~'-.; ",; , : -~, : ,1,-1, ' '.. " MR. CARVIN-It probably wouldn't unless somebody was coming down the Bay Road at 100 miles an hour, and then youwóuld have a problem, a very serious one. MR. T. BARBER-Yes. you're right. MR. TURNER-Does that tree belong to you? MR. T. BARBER-Yes, I believe it's qn the property'. d; MR. CARVIN-Well, there's a very largè tree that sits right in this corner. right he~e, and I Would reall~ want to get the ownership of that tree straightened away. MR. TURNER-I parked right in froDt and I walked in there. and like you said, that fence is right up to the roád. .J ~ , MR. CARVIN-That fence is right Q.D. the' r'oad. MR. TURNER-I know, it might even be on l:Q.YL property. MR. T~ BARBER-It may be on the' property. that fence has been there .1nce I can remember as a little kid~ They used to h~ve a garden in that entir~ area. I do~~t<know what they have in there right now. I haven't paid much attent~on t~ it. MR. TURNER-Yes. n,ow. It looks like a place for kids to play, right , MR. CARVIN-wéll, there's a swing set. MR. 'Tt,JRNER-A swing set and everything else in there. . MR. CARVIN-I'm assumi n9 that the'rê's kiids that gO with tha;t. MR. TURNER-Any other questions. anybody? , MR. T. BARBER-Maybe the one thing that should be considered, - 16 - '- --.,/ also, on that five family residence. split the parcel entire five acres reqrquadrant. acre lot, there's only going to be one single We're not going to put another home, or try to at a later date. We're going to take that and utilize it and put the house towards the MR. TURNER-Where, back here? MR. T. BARBER-Yes. Approximately where the 43, 44 lot line merge, or I guess the west, south corner. MR. FORD-That's where the hedgerow is now? MR. T. BARBER-Yes, it is. MR. TURNER-See, with the proposed that subdivision is right there, that's down the road. subdivision, and the road for and that's that white house MR. T. BARBER-That's that (lost word) style house there. Up the road a few parcels from there, I'm trying to see where it is here on the map, there's a cedar home that was built behind the front lots there, with a similar type situation. MR. TURNER-Yes, you're right. Anything else? MR. T. BARBER-I believe that's it. MR. TURNER-Okay. Let me open the public hearing, then. I'll now open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN MCPHEE MR. MCPHEE-My name is John McPhee. I live in that cedar house in the back. My point of being here is a matter of principal. Mr. Barber has applied to have an existing road, Code of 40 foot frontage on Bay Road reduced to 16 feet. This is taking advantage of the 16 foot farm road going 551 feet into the property he wants to build on. As to my involvement, I own 161 feet of that 551 feet of the farm road. In 1988, I applied to subdivide four acres of land with an existing house on it. I wanted to build a house on the back with other property behind the existing home. I was told I needed 30 feet of frontage on Bay Road. I had the property surveyed to reflect this. Six months later, when I was ready to go ahead with the building, I was told I needed 40 feet on Bay Road. They had a special meeting on this in the Town, to see if the 30 feet could be kept. The reply was, no. I had to go with 40 feet. I had to re-survey the property at my own expense, change the driveway, and change the house layout. As to the farm road, a friend wanted to purchase a parcel of land on Susan Place, next to that 25 foot piece of road there. They also wanted to buy a piece of [!)Y land and put them together. This is when we found out about the farm road, meaning we couldn't put the two pieces together. We went to the Warren County Center to investigate the fa'"m road. As it turned out, the County had no record of anyone owning it, nor did it have any record of anyone paying taxes on it. This, of course, meant the thought of joining the two pieces of property was out. In fact, this 16 foot right-of-way, or farm road, if it's proven to belong to Mr. Barber, why should he be given a variance of 16 feet when I had to use 40, with this being on my own subdivision? Also I believe the five acres in question adjoins another fifty acres owned by the same person, with other means of access. In closing, I believe that going from the required 40 feet of frontage to 16 feet of frontage is a bit extreme. MR. KARPELES-Can I ask you a question? I don't know which lot - 17 - '-" --" you're located on, which one's yours? MR. MCPHEE-Forty-one. MR. KARPELES-Forty-one. Okay. MR. TURNER-You alluded to the fact you own, how muc~,121 feet? MR. MCPHEE-I own 161 foot of frontage, a19ng the Farm to Market road, the farm road. MR. TURNER-One hundred and sixty one, and that goes from your back corner toward the road, is that correct? MR. MCPHEE-Yes. MR. TURNER-This '1 i ne right here, Mr. McPheé",";r ight from that corne, to there? MR. MCPHEE-Yes, and I have had to go from jo to 40 here to put this in, and I had to move all the b,oundar ies on this one, and moving the hOl,lse back to giVé' me ~nough space between th¡is line and my house. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So you're conten~ing that you own the (lost word) point up here? MR. TURNER-This is your side yard? MR. MCPHEE~That's my side' yard. MR. TURNER-Yes. You own to that, and that's it. You don't own the right~of-way? MR. MCPHEE-No. MR. TURNER-You onl y own, abut "that right-of-way'? MR. MCPHEE-We went to the county. They couldn't prove who owned it. MR. TURNER-Did you want to see this? MR. CARVIN-The deed from 1971. MR. MCPHEE-The bottom of the one I ~ave is datede~rlier than that. There's also granting and conveying to the party of the second part, a right~of-way for áll purposes ovér a 16 foot farm road adjacent to the said parcel.. The way I read this, it was just to go in the back and farm, cut the hay. Now what becomes of that 55 acres of hay back there, how they're going to get in to farm there? Is it just going to die? And it is also part of 50 other acres belong to the same people, and there are other ways in there. MR. CARVIN-See, I'm not sure this is ownership, Ted. MR. TURNER-For the sum of a dollar, and he just conveyed it to him. MR. MCPHEE-As 'of right now, if you go in the back of that parcel, of that farm road, you're not driving on the 16 foot they're talking about. You're driving on somebody else's property, because from my property line, my stake, 16 feet out is in the middle of the tire tracks. They are driving over somebody else's property right now. ' , MR. CARVIN-I'd ~ant a clarificátion, tf that's ownêrship, or if that's just conveying the right-of-way: - 18 - ',-, '-"" MR. FORD-I would agree with the need for that clarification. MR. CARVIN-I mean, am I reading it wrong? MR. FORD-No, the way L read it, any interest he may have in the right-of-way. MR. CARVIN-In the right-of-way. MR. TURNER-Okay. Who else wishes to be heard on this matter? JOAN METRAW MS. METRAW-My name is Joan Metraw, and I live at 16 Susan Place. I'm opposed to this variance. The back yard of my property runs along this farm road. My house is 25 feet from this road. I will have no privacy in my back yard. I bought my land because the land is beautiful and quiet. This will now all change. I will have noise from vehicles. I'll have car lights coming in the back of my house. The land is clay soil out on that roadway. When it rains in the spring and the fall, it's one big mess. Even if it was graveled, I'd have stones thrown in my yard. We have no fire hydrants in this area. What if there was a fire up in their house? The water has to be trucked in by tankers. No way can two tankers meet on that 16 and three quarter foot road and meet each other and pass each other without going onto somebody's property. There's a danger for children playing in the back yard. I have nieces and nephews that spend weekends with me. I'm 25 feet out, like I'm out there, but there are vehicles going up and down that road. What happens if a vehicle goes off the road and goes on my property and there's an accident? I can't afford this liability. I have no protection, unless I put up a fence, and I don't want to do that, because that will spoil the beautiful landscape out there. What happens to the re-sale value of my property? Would any of you like to live with a street in front of your house and another roadway, with active traffic 25 feet from the back of your house? And I would like to add, they are correct. They are traveling over ~ property on that roadway. The hedgerow has grown up so far that when they go over, they are on my land. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Excuse me. Could you point out which parcel? MR. TURNER-Right here, Fred. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So that's this one right here. MR. TURNER-Yours is the light blue house? MS. METRAW-Yes. MR. CARVIN-If this is a deeded road, she's going to have a road up through the side there. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. You are aware of that road? MS. METRAW-Between my house and the, yes, I knew that when I bought the property. Yes, I was well aware of that. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. METRAW-This is where they turn. My property, my home is right in the middle, and as they come out of this corner, the car lights are going to shine right into the back of my house, plus being 25 feet from (lost word). - 19 - ,-- MR. CARVIN~Yes, but you wouldn't have a problem if this was developed? MS~ METRAW-No, I wouldn't. MR. FORD-What's the status of that property right now? MR. CARVIN-That's a deeded road. That's a road. ðllocated.to be access to this property, apparently. MS. METRAW-That's what I was under tne bought, that that wa~ be a road to a future and I bought my property knowing that, but bought my property knoWing a road was going It was understanding when I development out back, I would not have ever in there. MR. KARPELES-I drove in there yesterday. I almoét got stuck, wi th four wheel dr ive. '" MR. TURNER-Who wishes to be heard next? GAY JARVIS MRS. JARVIS-My name is Gay Jarvis, and,I live at One Susan Place, which is the adjoining subdivi.ion to the f~rm ro~~. I'd like to say that I am opposed to this, for several reasons. When my husband and I first bought the proPért~in 1984, we bought it from Mr. and Mrs. Dallek, and they shci~ed us how it was subdivided, what homes would gO in. We Were the onl~ bnes there with woods ând a dirt road, and there we were standing ih the middle looking where things would be before we' put our money down, and we asked a ~uestion.What haþ,pens to the fields next door? I~ there going to be a circumstance whøn the~e's øoing to be . a build up? And they said, possibly so. " That's why we need to give the Town access to ~hose parcels of property through the middle of Susan Place. If you'll look on your map, you'll see Alice Drive tees in to Susan Place, but if you continue ~traight, that now is grass and bushes grown up, but that is the legal access road to that property that's being talked about today here. I don't have my (lo~t word) with me, but that was how it Was explained to us. MR. TURNER-It's right here. MRS. JARVIS-Yes. Right straight through there. So there is an alternate access to that, and that is a very short little access to me, compared to cutting in another road from Bay Road.' It seems that we have so much development going on in Queensbury. To keep it picturesque and' somewhat' country~ish should be considered. Also, about the farm road and its use, its present use, I have a son five years old, ~nd a daughter eight. Needless to say, they are children who like to play outside and who are outside a lot, and I, of coùrse, have been outside with them a lot over the past eight years that we've lived there, and, as far as use of that farm road goes, very rarely do I ever see anything on the farm road~ As a matter of fact, when a tract~r did come up to the farm road, there was a,car that followed it, a~d my children were all excited, look at thi~, here's â car. I mean, it was like the first time we'd ever seen a car on the road. The farmer does come off, and I don't know what they do, hay it or there might be something that the~ take care of in the back, but as far as it being an accessible road, I don't know if can put my four wheel vehicle on it. You said you saw it yourself. You were up there yourself. I think that'~.ll I had to~ay, and I did have a note that I'd like read, from my husband. He couldn't be here tonight. " MR. TURNER-Okay. Sure. heard next? Thank you, Next? Wryo wishes to be DOROTHY KEECH - 20 - "-- ...-' MRS. KEECH-We are the neighbors of this farm road, whatever it is, Harold and Dorothy Keech. We live at 562 Bay Road, just south of the road. We're opposed to it for these reasons. It would create a situation with driveways in too close proximity, and there's (lost word) on one side of our property. This would become a driveway which is adjacent to the other side, and the next door neighbor that's on the other side, both houses up above and through almost directly across from the entrance to this. You probably have seen there is another house with a driveway, and they have to back there to get (lost word) out of that driveway. It's, you know, jogged a little, but it's almost across from it, and then there's the barn that would be (lost word) with their lot, trailer lot, going in and out of that a good deal. So there are already all of these driveways within a very short distance and also traffic is sometimes heavy and fast on that road and coming down over the top of the hill a very short distance that it's visible from the road. Also, a variance, as I have been told, is only meant to be granted in circumstances of extreme need or hardship, which does not appear to be the case here. There being other lots, other places that could be obtained for building. The access road, which is different places is called a right-of-way or a farm road. On our deed, it calls it a right-of-way, a 15 foot right-of-way, and it was created solely to access the land for farm and garden work. It runs between established properties which could suffer damage, defacement and drastically reduced value if a lane or driveway is constructed and use of the roadway changed. We believe it would create serious problems for all concerned, the people (lost word) to use it as a driveway, as well as the people on either side of it. We see it as a detriment to, a definite way we are going to be hurt. Certainly the value of the property would be reduced considerably, and so we asked that the rights of the adjacent property owners be seriously considered. MR. TURNER-Mrs. Keech, could I ask yoU, your deed has the ,-ight- of-way in it also? MRS. KEECH-It calls it a right-of-way, not that we own it, but it refers to it, because our property comes up against it. So when surveying it, they used it to define our property line. MR. TURNER-Yes. It's bounded. way. It says bounded by the right-of- MRS. KEECH-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So her boundary comes to the right-of-way? MR. TURNER-Right-of-way. She doesn't have it. MRS. KEECH-Our lot fronts the main road. back. It's about 400 feet MR. TURNER-A point was raised. Jim brought it to our attention. There's no line. There's no break in here. So since that's been surveyed, they own that right-of-way MR. T. BARBER-It's a surveyed right-of-way. MR. TURNER-Yes. There's no break in the boundary line here. MRS. KEECH-I'm not disputing that. MR. TURNER-No. I'm just pointing it out. there. So they do own that right-of-way. There's no break MR. MCPHEE-Why weren't the taxes paid on it? never been paid on it over the years? Why have taxes MR. T. BARBER-Taxes have been paid for all the years. - 21 - "-'"' ,/ MR. MCPHEE-The County doesn't have it. The County has no record of ownership or the taxes. CAROLINE BARBER MRS. BARBER-Who did yOu speak with at the County? MR. MCPHEE-1988. MRS. BARBER-Weil; I was up the,re the to Dr. BarberJs 'l~nd. I wcisin the day. other day. I got the deed Re6eiver's Offic~ the other MR. MCPHEE-Regardless of who owns the land, 40 feet, after they told me I need 30 feet. go in there with 16 feet? I was told I needed Now wè~re going to MR. TURNER-No. Are you done, Mrs. the rebuttal in a few minutes. turn. This gentleman right here. Keech? Okay. We'll 'get to Let othe~ speakers have their BRIAN MURPHY MR. MURþHY-Hi. I'm Brian Murphy, and I live on 8?j Bay Road, and I'm the One with the fence everybody's t~lking about. I'm opposing this, and theYe's a mUltiple of factors on this, I'll just state a few at this point. One of them 'is, yes, this is a dangerous entrance on her&. Th~re is ~ tree on thére. There is a large Spruce t~ee, and I bèlieve,if I look ~t ~y ~urveY~ that belongs on my property. I don't want to cut it down.' I don't want it moved. I don't want it trimmed, pruned, or anything. One of the other 'thi t.gs also is it's a very active road. If you do look, t~e tree has got a b~g chunk of bark taken out of it from a while back, from an accident that o'ccurred :there, 'and the entrance and exit there, as one of the Bo~rd m~mber~ pointed out, is coming oUt of there, people ¿oming over the top of that hill at 40 miles an hour, 50 miles an hour sometimes. It's very dangerous. It's just a very dangerous entrance on there, and that's One of the oppositions on that. One of the other ones is, I have two children. One's two yearg old and one's three and a half years b1d, and they play out in the yard all the time, and the reason we put a fence up there i~ to contain the~ inside the yard there. What I'm worried about, if ~ road it put' down through here, if Tor some r~asOn,'God forbid, a car goes out of control or a truck goes out of control,' comes'acroas, crashing through that fence and into the playground there, you know, I don't want to ~ee one of my children hurt. ThatJa cine of the factors, major factors, right there, is the welfare of my chi Idren. The other factor' is 1 iabi 1 i ty . If anythi ng does happen on there, whether it be Mr. Barber or another party, they get hurt, am I liable? I, don't want to take that into consideration on that. A cou~le of other things I do wa~t to point out is, in the sprins time, there is standins water right in the middle of that ~oadright there, and I thi~k if a road is built on top of there with crUshed stQne, it is goi~g to push the water back on ~ property. That's something I don't need. One of the other factors Jnside that also'is my septic system is very close to there, a~dbyputting the road there, and the water drainage would still come back on to it. I'm afraid my septic syst~m is going to, or my leachfield is not going to be able to percolate enough in order to do whatever, the operation, whatever the leachfield does. That's one of the factors on that. One of the other things I'm worrièd about als0 is, ,in Queensbury, you have, like, NiMo has to basicallY bury the cable. Where are they going to bury the cable underneath the road? I do not know, on something like that. Snow removal's another factorJwhere the snow's going to go. It's probably going to be pushed, you know, you push it forward, it's going to be pushed on Bay Ro~d. If you push it back, where's it gOing to ~o? It's almost 550 feet pushing that back on a straight away. It's got to be pushed on - 22 - -- -- someone's property there. I don't want it on ~ property. That's one of the factors. The other factor is, when you go to construct a home, there are going to be large trucks in there, cement trucks, building trucks, things of that nature. They're going to cause massive ruts, and if these things go off their path and cause property damage, I don't need that, only to go out and sand, re-seed, things of that nature. One of the other things, too, is I've been living there for almost a whole seven years now. The Keechs are my neighbors. One of the factors that I bought the house was, it was a quiet neighborhood. The other thing that I was told, when I bought the house, that it was a farm road, specifically used for a farm road, and that was about it, and that's about it at this time. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. MURPHY-One of my major concerns is my children and the fence being that close. MR. TURNER-Who wishes to be next? Anyone else? RICHARD DALLEK MR. DALLEK-My name's Richard Dallek. I live at 833 Bay Road. I have a parcel I own that is against that road in question, Number Three on the subdivision on Susan Place. I really don't have much to add to what the people here have said. I think you've gotten some pretty good points, and I will just reiterate them. I think that, I agree with the majority of what's been said, and I'd like to oppose it. MR. TURNER-Anyone else? Any response right now? MR. T. BARBER-I think the biggest problem, with all these concerns that were brought up, is that we're hearing what former owners have told them about the property. We're basing it on all hearsay. They've enjoyed the property, ridden snowmobiles on the property, for years and years and years. I think we have a situation where, you know, it's obvious they're going to flat out hate to see anything go back there. They're enjoying the fields, the streams. They're children are safe. I have two little children. All road front properties and property owners have to face these things. Fire trucks, if there's ever a fire, they're going to get back there. If we have to put fences on both sides of the property, if that has to be a stipulation of the permit, we can do that. Snow removal is not a problem. I'd also like to mention that I noticed here on the tax map that Mr. John McPhee only has 38.95 feet, not 40 foot, right-of-way that he claims to have a variance for, or in conformance with. I don't know how that got by. Other than what I just said, I just think that all these people are objecting to this because they've enjoyed the property, and they don't want the true owners of the property to start enjoying the property for themselves. It is a surveyed parcel of property. We've been paying taxes on it for three decades. Judge Dyer looked at the deed and said it was owned and is owned by my grandfather, and it's a piece of the property. That's why we want to make use of it. It's for a single family residence, one driveway. We're not talking about extension of the Northway, here. I think it's getting a little bit blown up in that sense. Also, the danger of coming out that driveway, Mr. Murphy's driveway is 20 feet away from this driveway. He's got to have the same dangers that we're going to have. I don't see where he validates that statement. As far as the NiMo cable, we'll install that and it will go under the roadway. That's all I have. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. MCPHEE-My name is John McPhee. He states I have 39 foot for a driveway. I had a choice of 157 feet of frontage to pick from. - 23 - "-" '..... Why would I pick 39, when they told me surveyor's map right here which says 40. know, if I was go~ng to, wanted to put 39, to choose from, ~hy would I pick? I had 40? I have a So whether it's, you and I've got 157 feet MR. TURNER-I 'don't even really think that's an issue right now. MR. MCPHEE-Well, he brought it up. MR; TURNER-It's not really an issue because you're already th.re. Aren't you? MR. MCPHEE-Beside the point, he mentioned that I had 39. Why would I bother with 39? MR. TURNER-I know, but it's not really pertinent, because you're there. So, if you weren't allowed to be~ther~, you wou,ld have had to come and get a variance just like they do. MRS. JARVIS~I just wanted to reiterate the fact that ~qcess off Susan Place is not hearsay, it's factual. It's o~ th~ map in front of you. The Town intended that as an access to that property. That's how it was written up and accepted ,when the parce Is were divided up. That's how it went across' the Town's legal books. That's a fact, and that's where it stands on that map, and we understood, from the very first day we mbved into that home, that that property would be developed, and that would be the access. That was our understandi~g from tHe Town' of Queensbury. MR. TURNER~Jim, in response to that? MR. MARTIN"""AlI I know is !!ll.. direct exper ienc~' with this' property in the back was there was a sketch plan subdivision submitted for this, I think about a year 'ago or so, and it was a Staff comment that that access be opened up, and it was the overwhelming input of the neighborhood that they did not want that access through Susan Place used, and that they wanted the access for the then proposed subdivision strictly off of Bay Road, and I think if you look at the sketch provided for this aþplication tonight and substantially, I think, that subdivision, you'll see that no access was proposed through that Susa~ Place, and it was a Staff comment, because we'd prefer alternate access points for emergency vehicles and so on. MR. TURNER-All right, but when they initiated t~e subdivision on Susan Place, that road became, did that road become? MR. MARTIN-I think, as it's set Up, it,obv~busIY, was reserved for that. OtherWise,they ~oul~ have incorþorated it into a building lot. MR. TURNER-I mea~, you can't bUild on it. It's not big enough to build on. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARVIN-I think this lóoks like something that we did up on Clendon Ridge there, that Phase II, where we, with the Miner property. MR. MARTIN-Exactly. It's the exact same thing. MR. CARVIN-We extended the road. It's not built, but it~s on the plan that if the Miners should ever develop that piece of property, that that road be access point. MR. MARTIN-Exactly. MR. CARVIN-That's what that looked like to me, is that particular - 24 - '-' --- situation. MR. MARTIN-And we have gotten a little bit smarter with these as time has gone by. If you notice in the Clendon Ridge example that you cite, the developer of that Phase of it was required to run the road right up to the edge of the property line. So it could be picked up. In this case here, the road, it's an open grassed or treed area. MR. CARVIN-Well, it's pretty obvious where the road is intended to be, if you go out on that. MR. TURNER-Yes. If you go out on Susan Place, you can spot it. MR. CARVIN-There's a definite dead piece of property there. MR. MARTIN-Well, we subdivision that you design, not done. were going to re-open that with this see on that overall plan, and it was by MR. TURNER-There's no road, hasn't been dedicated to the Town. So who's the owner of that road? MR. THOMAS-The owner is Alice Dallek. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Alice Dallek owns that piece of property. MR. T. BARBER-The problem with that right-of-way we're all talking about, I don't know if it's a right-of-way or it's a skinny lot or forever wild or what, but Alice Dallek owns this. I think she would have to say if that can be a road. MR. TURNER-I know, but have you approached her? MR. T. BARBER-No. We're not looking at that option. We have the land. We have an access that's always been an access. That's what we're looking at to obtain, to use that access as a relatively quiet runway. MRS. JARVIS-Can I say something in response to what he said? MR. TURNER-Sure. MRS. JARVIS-When we were kind of pacing out what would be our property and where our house would be set and so on, the Dalleks made clear to us that the Town acquired a certain amount of property from Center Line road out, and I recall him saying they had to comply with three inch ditches and this kind of thing, and it was their parcel of land to start with, and they had, to turn over, develop it, whatever, and then turn it over to the Town in agreement for putting that subdivision there, and then that little right-of-way was part of that. So, in ~ understanding, the Town has every right and owns it right now. That's like saying that Mrs. Dallek owns Susan Place, the paved Susan Place. She does not. My understanding was, the Town took over so much footage, I guess it looks like (lost word). MR. TURNER-No. They didn't take it over. dedicated it for the roadway. It's never been built on. The Town MRS. JARVIS-I'm sorry. They didn't take it over. of words, but that was the intentions from intentions. Wrong choice the start, the MR. TURNER-Yes, I agree. That's a 50 foot wide strip that's proposed to be a right-of-way for those lots in the back. MR. MARTIN-That's the other thing we're doing differently now is - 25 - ---- - that we do, in fact, take ownership to the property. So this type of thing is not a problem in the future, that there'~ not an ownership concern, like in the Miner case. The Town owns that strip up to the Miner property. MR. TURNER~Yes. If this was done in that fashion, there wouldn't be a próblem with this lot now. They could go right out there, boom. MR. FORD-Is there a problem with it now? Has anyone apprbached this owner? MR. T. BARBER-In the past, there's been objection, as Jim has said, to using that right-of-way or chunk of land for developing the back property. MRS. JARVIS-Well, who did that? I live there. I've lived there. I was the first one to live there. This is the first time I've ever even heard of opposition. I'd like to know who we're talking about. MR. TURNER-Right at the end, Timmy, the long' house at the end.. MR. MARTIN-I can go back to when that subdivision was submitted and pull those minutes and look that up. MRS. JA~VIS-We were the only ones then one other house was built. people who are on Country Colony not Susan Place.' there for years and years, and Now maybe you're referring to Road, perhaps, which is nearby, MR. MARTIN-Well, Tim, am I miss, you were on the Soard, also. TIM BREWER MR. BREW~R-Exactly. There was opposition when 6a~ Barber was in to subdi~ide that próperty. There was opposition to him using that. I can picture the piece of property you're talking about. There was opposition to it. I don't recall who they were, but the neighbors you're tal ki ng about, ,I thi nk; were the neighbors in question. I haven't looked at the map, but I presume the subdivision is up further on BaY,RQad, where Danny's was? MR. MARTIN-It's ac~ually a piece of it. That actually is a piece of what was to be a larger sUbdivision. MR. TURNER-Yes, the subdivision to the south, the south of this. MR. MARTIN-It only went as far as sketch plan, 'and then it was. MR. MCPHEE-That five acres is part of fifty acres, at one 'time it was fifty-five. There is access for it. Right now, there.'s a house on the property. It'~ owned by Mr. Barber. At any time, the people live in that rent it, and àny time he 'wants to develop that, he just has to take the barn down and develop it. MR. TURNER-He doesn't own it. MR. T. BARBER-That's owned by a different Barber. MR. TURNER-That's owned by a different Barber. Dan Barber owns the house in the front~ Charles Barbér, Sr. owns the 'land in the back. That's his father. MR. MCPHEE-Well, the reason they (lost word) there's 25 feet of access. MR. TURNER-He boUght that for that access. That's what he did. MR. MCPHEE-That's what I mean. - 26 - '-- ~ MR. TURNER-Yes, but. MR. MCPHEE-So it's available to go into the back. Why would he divide the whole lot for nothing? MR. TURNER-It's not a subdivision. He bought it hoping that he was going to subdivide the property in the back, get the right to subdivide the property in the back, and it's withdrawn. So it's a dead issue now. He owns the house and the land that fronts Bay Road, and that's it. MR. MCPHEE-That, right now, is a dead issue. subdivision going in there? There's no MR. TURNER-Yes, no subdivision. MR. T. BARBER-Can I say something? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. T. BARBER-I'd like to just mention to the Board that the biggest problem we have with this road is, if we were to get denied on that owned piece of parcel coming through there, we'd have. no choice but to go to Mrs. Dallek and say, listen, this is our only option, to buy your piece of property, enter our land. What's that going to do to the value of that little piece of land cost to us? It could exceed, you know, it could be a lot of money. MR. FORD-Excuse me. Lets pursue that for a moment. the Town accept responsibility for that? Would not MR. T. BARBER-Could I finish something here? What I'd like to propose, if the owner of that property, and both adjoining neighbors were in agreeance to giving us that right-of-way for that one single lot, make that a stipulation of this road, we would forfeit the ownership and use of that farm road, but if she won't. MR. TURNER-I guess I'd almost say to you, why don't you explore the option and then come back. MR. KARPELES-Yes. That's what 1 think, too. MR. have this. T. BARBER-I don't know if that's the support of the surrounding good, because we need to neighbors that don't want MR. TURNER-I think someday down the road they've got to realize that if that road and that property does develop, there's going to be some roadways in there some place. MR. T. BARBER-Exactly. It's just not going to be pretty hayfields. We don't have them anymore, I don't believe. MR. TURNER-No. MS. METRAW-I bought my land. When I bought it, this proposed roadway, Joan Metraw, this proposed roadway between my house and my neighbor's was in all the plans. I knew about it. I knew about it buying my lot, and I knew some day there would be a road, and I'd be on a corner lot. I have never objected to this, and I dOD't object to it. I have no reason they can't go through there with a road. It's a shorter way, much shorter. It doesn't bother any of the neighbors. In fact, when I had the plans made to my house, my garage was on the other end of my house, and I asked them to reverse my plans and they wanted to know why, I said because there is a proposed road going in there and some day there will be a road and the cars coming down Alice Drive, the lights will shine into my house. So I reversed my house so the - 27 - '-- -.-/ garage would be on the other end, for that purpose, for cars coming down the road going into another road out onto the back lot. I'd never have an objection to that being there used, and I know my neighbor was sick tonight. She couldn't come. I know she'd never have an objection. She knew, too. MR. CARVIN-So this is not a surprise situation? MRS. METRAW-No, but I've lived there four y~ars. I built four years ago, anq I knew the day I built that house that that proposed road was right there. MR. CARVIN":'My' biggest fear, when I went around there , was that I was going to find lawns over the roadway, and that was not the case. It look~ like the neighbors are aware. MR. TURNER-It's clearly defined. MR . MARTIN-Tim, I cal) tell you , if you were to get, ov.p;ership of that piece, it àppears to be 51 feet wide on the sùrvey there, then you could build as a matter of right, and would not need any action from the Board. You'd have a conforming lot, then~ MR. T. BARBER-I don't know if that's in Richard's budget, though. He's buying the one piece of parcel. It's another mon~tary issue that he's going to have to. MR. TURNER-Yes, but the land itself is of no value to the Dalleks because they can't build on it anyway. Nobody can build On it, only as an access. MR. T. BARBER-Right. MR. TURNER-And that might be the key that. MR. T. BARBER-Right, and you know, 'inc~rt~in c~ses, ~hen there's a great desire and need for certain things, pribescan go up. MR. TURNER-The prices go up. MR. CARVIN-If I might interject, I think it would be of benefit for you to pursue that, beca~~e I have a very hard time'~Yanting a variance on a 16 foot strip of property. I think that the detriment to the community and the safety and the wel~~~e of the community is in great jeopardy ~f we were to grant a variance of, I think it's maximum va,"iance. 'So I think, I'm speaking for myself, I know that I have a very, very difficult t,ime granting that ki nd of var iance Qn a str ip of property.' SÒ, I thi nk !:!:!..l:.. suggestion to ypu would be to exþlore that possïbi1ity and convince the owner to come ~þ with a reasonable prIce, if that's, indeed, the case. I don't know if ~ can explore it, whether that has actually been dedicat~d to the Tqwn. MR. MARr::¡:N-I wOI,lldn,'t take very long to go back and pull the subdivision that was done for Susan Place and see. MR. CARVIN-~.s. I mean, it may be the case that it's on pUblic record that éhe has acknowled~ed that that 1s to be used for a road. MR. T. BARBER-We're tryirié to get a hold of that þarty right now, to see if that is the case. HopefUlly, we'll be successful. MR. KARPELES-Why don't we table this. MR. FORD-I. agre'é that this in favor of a variance on 16 not been explored. This may be a much shorter access and should be pursued. I could not vote feet, when these other optIons have fall into place beautifully for you, much better for everybody. - 28 - ',-, --../ MR. TURNER-Yes. Certainly the cost of running underground cable in there and upgrading the road is going to be an enormous expense, in lieu of maybe getting this right here. This may well, the difference between this and this may well make it affordable. MR. MARTIN-I can tell you, personal experience is you're going to have to put in a transformer with NiMo to run power that distance, and that's not a cheap affair. MR. T. BARBER-I've got the same obstacle in my home. MR. TURNER-I'd like to have you table it, request tabled, and pursue that avenue on that right-of-way to have it right there. MR. T. BARBER-I'd like to possibly talk with the adjoining homeowners that are here tonight, on the possibilities of maybe convincing this lady to make a deeded right-of-way. MR. CARVIN-You may find that you don't have the problem that you think you have. MR. TURNER-It's no good for anything, other than just a block development. MR. T. BARBER-No, it's not, that's right. MR. FORD-If it's on the plan as access to that area, I don't think she's going to have a problem with it. MR. MARTIN-I want to make sure you understand, we're talking about ownership, not deeded right-of-way. MR. TURNER-Not deeded right-of-way, ownership. MR. MCPHEE-I don't know if he's aware of it. ~ had to do it. If he's going to bring electric in there, he's going to have to have a pole in his property to bring that electric from the east side of the road over Bay Road. So that pole is going to be buried in 16 feet somewhere, to cut the size of that 16 feet down. Even if they bury the electrical all the way in the back, they still have to have a pole on this side of the road. MR. TURNER-Yes. I know that. MR. MCPHEE-So that's part of that 16 foot. MR. TURNER-Okay. Does statements? Okay. I'll they're going to explore that one letter? anyone else want to make any further leave the public hearing open, because that avenue, and do you want to read MR. THOMAS-Yes. I have one letter, "Dear Sirs: I'm opposed to the Variance No. 3-1995. I feel it would hurt the character of the neighborhood. Sincerely, David Jarvis". It's dated 1/18/95. MR. TURNER-Okay. So you're making a request of the Board to table the application so you can explore the other alternatives to? MR. T. BARBER-Yes. I just need to understand that I have support from both the corner lot owners, they would be corner lot owners if we do receive that. I just, I believe they're both here tonight. MR. TURNER-Yes. No, one is. Metraw, Joan Metraw, is here. you do. Thomas is the other one. Ms. So, that's what I'd like to have MR. T. BARBER-I agree. - 29 - '/ MR. TURNER-Okay. I really think that if you can make ð deal with them, the expenditure of making' that driveway Is going to well come above the ¢ost of that little str ip of property. !', MR. CARVIN-And if he resolves it. MR. TURNER-He won't even have to come back, if he resolves it. Okay. So I'll move to table. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Introduced by Theodore Turner seconded by Robert Karpeles: NO. 3-1995 who moved CHARLES for its R. BARBER, adoption, FOr the applicant to explore other alternatives in respect to gaining ingress and egress from the property. Duly adopted this vote: l$th day of January, 1995, , I by the following AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Mares¢o, Mr. Karpeles~ Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter MR. TURNER-The tabling proceduTe is 60 daYs. extension, notify the PlanningOffi¢e, with Board will consider the extension. So if yoÚ a letter, need an and the MR. T. BARBER-Okay. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thànk you. USE VARIANCE NO. 4-1995 TYPE I WR-1A/CEA WILLIAM THREW OWNER: JEFFREY THREW EAGAN ROAD, WEST OF BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE A PARCEL IN A WATERFRONT 'RESIDENTIAL ZONE ON THE HUDSON RIVER FOR A CONSTRUCTION, AND DEMOLITION ¡DEBRIS LANDFILL. LANDFILL IS NOT AN ALLOWED USE IN A WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE, AS STATED IN SECTION 179-16, SO A USE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT. (WARREN COUNTY P~ANNING) 2/8/95 TAX MAP NO. 137-2- 9.8 LOT SIZE: 7.02 ACRES SECTION 179-16 MR. TURNER-And this is just to establish Lead Agency because this is. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I just would advise that the resolution should reference this as being é Type I Actiòn~ and you'ré referring it on to the other involved agencies for their consent, for the Zoning Board to be Lead Agent. MR. TURNER-Yes. we'rf?,:t,?e L~~d! A~ÿnqi>; qn this. ~ ' ,':: - " ¡ , ';, ¡ . ¡"\ _ ',: .", " !,' ~ _ ' , ' , ,j ,"; '.. j ·t'" 1 ' ",' : ~ i MR. MARTIN-RiQ~t.' ·YQU'~. ~,k+~g~fo~¡~~eit corise~t to' you. being Lead Agent. A couple of agençtesthat wIll be Involved wIll be DEC, as they are a'~ermitti~ga~~~a9~'ov~r landfills of this type, and also the Town Board. MR. TURNER-Okay. You have that resolution right there? MR. THOMAS-I've Planning Board. got one for the Town 8oðrd' and one I don't have one for the Zoning Board. for the MR. TURNER-Well, the Pl~nning Board, just insert the néîme of the Zoning Board. MR. MARTIN-It's the same type of. MR. TURNER-The same thing. - 30 - -- -- MR. MARTIN-There's usually a statutory 30 day period here. Sometimes we hear before that from the involved agencies. It's just a matter of establishing Lead Agent at this point, and then go through the Environmental Assessment after the public hearing, probably. There's also a matter of getting the consent from the other agencies. The other agencies may want to take Lead Agent status. MEMBER OF AUDIENCE-When you say "other agencies", do you mean the ,Town Board? MR. MARTIN-Or DEC. MEMBER OF AUDIENCE-DEC has already issued a permit at one time. MR. TURNER-That was 1989. MR. MARTIN-Well, the permit, I just called to the Warrensburg office. The permit expired December 12th, I believe, of last year. It was a one year permit, and that was for a C & D Landfill. Since the issuance of that permit, the standards have changed, for treatment of a C & D Landfill. It was explained to me that should this come back again, it would not be a situation of a renewal, but DEC would likely require a new application, as they would like to see a liner installed with a C & D Landfill. The other option here, quite frankly, is that this could be what is referred to as a stump dump, placement of organic materials such as stumps and so on. DEC's requirements for that are less stringent. It was explained to me, by DEC, that it's basically a registration process. So those are the two treatments of landfills of those types. MR. TURNER-So they're real lenient on a stump dump? ,MR. MARTIN-Well, I should say they're less stringent. It would be m~ impression.Î talked to Jerry ~arris. He is the ,DEC contact up at Warrensburg. MEHsER, OF AUDIENCE-That would mean a new apÞtication though, correct? MR. MARTIN-Yes, but as it st~nds right now, there is no DEC permit on this landfill. MEMBER OF AUDIENCE-There would still be a variance required? MR. MARTIN-Yes. That doesn't affect our local process, and also a Town Board permit is also required. There's a two step process, so to speak here, at the local level. MR. TURNER-Yes. RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO BE LEAD AGENT IN THE REVIEW OF USE VARIANCE NO. 4-1995 RESOLUTION NO.; 4-1995 MOTION BY: Theodore Turner WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Fred Carvin WHEREAS, William E. Threw has submitted an application for a Use Variance No. 4-1995, in connection with a project known as or described as a commercial landfill; and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals - 31 - '- desires to commence a coordinated review process as pyovided under the DEC Regulations adopted in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act; ; _;:~OW ,}:~E~F;:FOR~ t'1~§} T , , , , ""I ; j' r " RESOLVED, that the Town of oueèn~buryzdni1"lg Boàrd~ of Appeals hereby determines that the action proposed by the applicant constitutes a Typci I actioh under SEQRA; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals hereby indicates its desire to be lead agent for the purposes of the SEORA review process, and hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies that: 1. an application has been made by William E. Threw, for Use Variance No. 4-1995 2. a coordlnatedSEQRA review is desired 3. a lead, agency for purposes of SEQRA review must, therefore, be agreed to among the involved agencies within 30 days; and 4.' the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Apþeals desires to þe the lead agent foy the purposes of SEQRA review; and " BE IT FURTHER, that when notifying the other involved the Executive Director shall also mail a explanation, together' with copies resolution, the ap¢li6atión, ahd the EAF I completed by ,the projéct sponèor, apprópriate, the Draft EIS. Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 1995, by the following vote: RESOLVED, agencies, letter of of this with Part or where AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Karpelè~, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE' ABSENT: Mr. Menter MR. TURNER-Okay. We've got one other it~m.of þusiness. We have to elect a Secretary and a Vice Chairman for the new year. Nominations are open for ViceChairma~. MR. KARPELES-Why don't We continue the way we are. Fred Carvin. I nominate MOTION TO NOMINATE FRED ÇARVINAS VICECHAIR~~NOF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BO~RD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 1995, by thê following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Maresco, Mr. Karpeles, 'Mr. Thomaè, M1". TUr'ne1" NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter - 32 - ~ MR. TURNER-Nominations are open for Secretary. MR. CARVIN-I'd like to nominate Mr. Thomas, because he's got that nice, deep melodic voice. MOTION TO NOMINATE CHRIS THOMAS AS SECRETARY OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by: Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Maresco, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Ford, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Menter BETTY MONAHAN MRS. MONAHAN-Sometimes I think that one arm of government doesn't know what the other arm is doing. So I thought maybe you'd like to know some of the things we're doing on the Town Board. Last spring, because of the concern we have about some of our water bodies, we're starting to take some active steps, and we appointed a Technical Advisory Committee for the Glen Lake Watershed area, and this Technical Committee has got a lot of people with good professional expertise on it. They applied to the Glen Lake Association and the Town for grants to the Open Space Institute and were turned down. So the Town, at that time, put almost $5,000 dollars in, set aside~ to start water testing in Glen Lake. As of December, another, or I shouldn't say as of December. Another grant was applied for, and I'm delighted to tell you that as of December 1, the Open Space Institute sent a letter to me and said, I am delighted to inform you that in response to you,- application to the Rural New York Grant Program, a grant of $5,000 has been approved to provide partial funding for water sampling and analysis leading to identification of point and non-point sources of water pollution. A check is enclosed, and the money we've put aside will be a matching grant, which is an indication of a concern the Town has of what's happening to the Lake. We also just received a grant, Jim, I hope I've got the right organization, the Lake George Park Commission, for $10,000 to hire an engineer to start looking into the causes of some of the problems in the North Queensbury watershed district, which, of course, will be the Lake George basin. So we're well aware, on the Board, that our water is a precious resource to us, and it's having a lot of sources of pollution. I don't have my copy, because I've lent two or three of my copies out of the Master Plan of 1988, which is kind of the Bible for Planning and Zoning, but if you check it or ask Staff to check it, I think you will find there a concern was voiced by that advisory board of the size of the houses that were being built on the small lots around the lake, and I just thought maybe that '$, some information I should share with yoU, to let,you know where we are coming f'rom, on the Town Board, and the effort that we're making to correct and keep our lakes in good condition, because if our lakes go down the tubes, we're going to have a lot of economic backlash around here. MR. MARTIN-Just to echo those thoughts, I think what you heard tonight was a little bit more strong statement than maybe has been done in the past by Staff, in terms of Area Variances on the lake, and that is in light of, we just concluded a series of public meetings around the Town, as we're updating our Comprehensive Plan right now, and, certainly, an overwhelming comment from the lake communities, meaning North Queensbury and - 33 - -- around Glen Lake was the concern over the conversions, or the upgrades of structures along the lakeshores, and that continues to be a concern, and I think it's going to result in either further, even more restrictive components to the Ordinance, in regards to these areas. As a matter of fact, I'~ going to advance, in the next week or so to the Town Board, change to the Ordinance on the height from 35 down to 28 feet. MR. TU~NER-TheY're just too enormous. because the lots are too sma 11. MR. MARTIN-It's creating a lot of problems, and relatively simple change to make that'll, at least in term, address one of the concerns. that's a the short MR. CARVIN-Yes. I think that this is a situation that is getting extremely out of hand. What I'd like to maybe get a little feedback to the Town Board, and again, I don't know what the mechanics are here, but we have some pretty stringent Use Variances for businesses, in other words, if businesèes want to expand and so forth~ and what I'm observing is a situation on the lake where we are having summer residences actually being converted to full time residences, which, as far as I'm concerned, it's no,different than a business. I mean, if you're going to go fYom a part time residence to a fulltime on a small lot, then it should have some kind of review from a Use situation, and I think that we should 'have some teeth there. MRS. MONAHAN-If it's the same building, and it's the conversion of the ,same building, I know we were, checking that in the Ordinance, and now I forgot, because it didn't'apply to this project we were working on. What are the requirements, when you change the very same structure to a conversion? MR. MARTIN-Oftentimes that will kick in th~ need for an Area Variance from this Board, and that will, by definition in the Ordinance, require a Site Plan Review from the Planning Board. Depending on the nature of the project, it likely does ,equire an Area Variance, but it does need Site Plan Review as well. MR. CARVIN-Because I think the comments that were voiced for the applicant tonight is a comment that we hear quite frequently, you know, you guys are picking on me. Why do 1 have to comply? MR. MARTIN-Well, that's what Lwas trying to say. We're not singling anybody out. We're not trying to be unfair or impose undue expense. It's ju~t tha~ these Ordinances are a reflection of the overall community input that was developed after a very extensive þrocedure in '88 to update the Master Plan, and we're going through that again right now, ándif anything, the only change is that the concerns are more intense than they were six years ago, or $even yea,s ago. MR. CARVIN-Well, it would certainly have a cumulative effect situation. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. KARPELES-I'm glad to hear ,that other people feel the same way I feel, but I think, in the past, we have been very, very generous in giving people the right to build on these little dinky lots, and now all of a sudden, it looks like we're changing, and we better get the word oqt, because I think people are buying these lots with the thought that they're going to build all year round houses. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think if you ~ant to see the practical impact of one of these is go up and look at the Dittus residence on Cleverdale. - 34 - --../ ',,-, MR. KARPELES-Yes. I know, I agree with you. MRS. MONAHAN-Well, what about McCall's? MR. MARTIN-Well, McCall, that met the requirements. there was not. I mean, MRS. MONAHAN-Well, not really, because he didn't come in with a lot of stuff he was supposed to. He started in, Jim, ahead of time. He did an awful lot of pollution and sedimentation and all that. I mean, I've got pictures of that running right into Lake George. MR. MARTIN-Well, he had violations. Yes. Those are violations that enforcement actions have been taken. MR. TURNER-Again, I really think what's got to happen is you've got to take the size of the lot, and you've got to proportion the house to the size of the lot, and you've got to drop that height down from 35 feet. No doubt about it, but if a guy has a bigger lot, maybe he can have a little bigger house, but if he's got a small lot, like this one here, and trying to put 6,000 square feet of house on it, that's just. MR. CARVIN-You may even want to look at it from a Use Variance. I mean, like an expansion. I mean, anything over, if he's going from a, I don't know what he's got there. If he's got 1,000 square feet, I mean, we've had a number of cases where they've gone from 1,000 or 1,200 to 3 or 4,000. MRS. MONAHAN-The old structure there, because I did check it, was a little under 1400 square feet on that lot. MR. CARVIN-So we're more than doubling it, almost tripling it, actually. So, I mean, if it was a business that had a 50 percent expansion, they'd have to have a variance. MR. MARTIN-Well, the provision that could be in the Ordinance, and it's relatively common in Ordinance, is a floor to area ,-atio. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-A floor to area ratio. In other words, you ratio between the square footage of the floor within a floor area, and the area of the lot. have a house, MR. KARPELES-I think you've got to do something about all year round house versus a summer camp. I mean, an all year round house, there's no comparison to the amount of pollution that that puts out to a summer camp. You've got an all year round house. You've got a dishwasher. You've got a washing machine. You've got showers. You've got people living there all the while, and a summer camp, and you're not only getting this, but you're getting them in-depth around the lake. They used to be just on the shore. Now they go way back. MR. CARVIN-Yes. Absolutely. MR. TURNER-That's the whole trouble with Cleverdale/Assembly Point/Rockhurst/Glen Lake, everyone of them. MRS. MONAHAN-That's why we're having all the stormwater problems up there. You go up there last summer in those big rainstorms. MR. MARTIN-Well, those are cases where those are extremely unique environmental settings, very narrow peninsulas. MR. KARPELES-So, even if you keep the same footprint, with take these summer camps, and you an all year round house, you're - 35 - - - increasing to be done completely. pollution 10 fold. ,So, I don't know, something's got about it, or we're going to' lose these lakes MRS. MONAHAN-You know, like p~¿ple say, well, it's always been done, and, fine, but, you know, that's like saying you do~'i use the new knowledge that you have, and that's what happened in '88. We had the new knowledge of the impact on the lake. We ha~ the knowledge of the impact of year round houses, and that's why we said, when the houses that are removed on these lake areas, and lets go back that many feet so'that that has a cha~ce to cleanse everything before it gets to the lake. It would be just like saying, all right, we used to allow roads like the road that goes up to Rockhurst, that you have to back out of practically when you get up there, in, we don't permit that any more because we know, today, you can't get the fire trucks up, and you can't get the kind of vehicles tha~ are up today. So we said, yes, we have to change those standards, and 'that's ~hat planning is. It's acknowledging how communities change, and how what you use change and you have to change your regulations to acknowledge that. MR. TURNER-You have to adopt to the times. MRS. MONAHAN-That's right. That's why about every five years, so that you what's happening in your community. we do a new Master Plan take into consideration MR. TURNER-Well, you can see exactly what's happening around the lakes. Every time we've come heYe, there's a variance for something on Lake George, Glen' Lake, or wherever. MRS. MONAHAN-And talk to the people who have lived on any of those lakes, that includes the lake that I'm so familiar with, Sunnyside. The water quality is much, much different today than it was when I was growing up. MR. FORD-And I also think there's some way we need to address this ratio, because no one is going in, tearing down a place, and building a smaller one. So, we can antiç:1pate more and more of these coming before us, I believe, and I like that idea of ratio, between the square footage and the comparison of that and the siie of your lot. MR. MARTIN-That's very standard in some Ordinance's approach to density. MRS. MONAHAN-Well, I know that we have a gentleman on the Master Plan Advisory Committee now who is from the Lake George area, and he's asked Jim, could theY please look at that area as one of the first area because he knows the problems that are up there. MR. MARTIN-Well, the other unique aspect to the lakèshores, in terms of this Town is that, from a land use standpoint, they are strictly residential. There's no, commercial conce~ns, really. It's strictly residential, and I, think that that's a positive, in that you can, it's very easy to ke~p a handle on it. MRS. MONAHAN-That's not true on Lake George, though, Jim. That's not true on Lake George. MR. MARTIN-No. I'm talking about the zoning, Betty. strictly residential. It's MRS. MONAHAN-Yes. MR. KARPELES-What are you sayin~, Jim? I'm not with you. MR. MARTIN-Well, 'what I'm saying is our particular lakeshores, like in the case of Lake George, we're not like a Village of Lake George or Bolton or something like that, where they have a lot of - 36 - ',-, ,-.-/ commercial uses to grapple with as well. Ours is strictly a residential standpoint. So, therefore, I think it's a lot easier to keep a handle on that. MR. KARPELES-How about the boathouse? How about the Mooring Post that we're fighting about now? MRS. MONAHAN-I think what Jim is saying, they're nonconforming. Those are nonconforming. MR. MARTIN-They have commercial uses allowed as a matter of right. MR. THOMAS-I'll tell you, when I was a member of the Zoning Board in Lake George, we used to wrestle with a lot of those, when I was on the Board, it was back in, well, between '87, and that's when the big building boom was going on George, big resurgence. Every week there was always motel in there for a variance. because '83 and in Lake another MR. MARTIN-The other thing, even the residence, it's strictly single family. It's not even multifamily. MR. CARVIN-That's something else that I think has addressed, because we're getting a lot of these rental situations. to be types of MR. MARTIN-Well, the problem ~ see is we're getting, there's a couple. I think we've got to start looking at boathouses that permit decks on top of the boathouse. I think we've got to look at these semi, quasi dwellings or living areas that occur in garages and things like that. People are looking, they're finding any way they can to get living space on those lots along the lake. MRS. MONAHAN-Or actual rental space, I believe. MR. MARTIN-Well, yes, that's why it's got to be really buttoned down, that we're confining this to one principal dwelling, and not these questionable things that we're seeing now. MR. MARESCO-I'm in full agreement with everybody, too. There's nobody probably more than me, I'd love to see the lake saved as much as possible, but on the other hand, these people are paying real good money for these lots, and, talk about the smaller homes that were built in the 30's and 40's, I think, too, we have to look at progress. I think certain stipulations, and I like your idea about the height. I think 28 feet is really a good idea, but like Mr. Godnick, when he came in, you know, we're not talking about the 30's. We are talking about the '90's, and Queensbury has changed. The whole Town has changed, but I'd like to meet somewhere in the middle. MRS. MONAHAN-But don't forget, somebody owned it before 1988, know what I mean, but anybody knew exactly the setbacks that within. people buy those lots, and if they're getting caught. Do you that buys those lots after 1988 they had to design a house to be MR. MARESCO-Sure. MRS. MONAHAN-So it isn't like we've changed anything in the middle of the stream, except for the people who've owned them for a long time. MR. KARPELES-Yes, except we haven't been enforcing the setbacks. MRS. MONAHAN-And they're going to face the same thing. If they want to take their houses down, they're going to have to meet the setback, even if people have owned them for 50 years. - 37 - "-'"' -- MR. KARPELES-But if we start enforcing the setbacks, then we are changing something in the middle of the stream. I'm not saying we shouldn't do it. I say we should. I think we should be enforcing it, but I think that a lot of people are buying these lots thinking that they're going to get'wnat they want. MR. TURNER-You're exactly right, Bob. MR. FORD-There's a history there that says we can apply and we'll get it. MRS. MONAHAN-And I think you have to The land on these lakes is taxed comparison, than thê houses. So if you get the big house on it. look at something else, too. very high, more highly, in you buy a small lot, and if MR. MARESCO-So you can't blame a fellow like Mr. Godnick for coming in and saYing that. MRS. MONAHAN-But what is going to happen when this ~eeps going, and you send that lake down the tubes, and you've wrêbked the lake for everybody that's been on there. MR. THOMAS-We have an example of thàt'right the 80;s, you couldn't give away a lot on they put that sewer system arou~d there. turn around. You couldn't give à lot away at Saratoga Lake. In Saratoga Lake, until Now it's starting to on Saratoga. MRS. MONAHAN-Well, I want to tell you, we èven Iookêd at putting water around Glen Lake, and the cost was going to be extremely high, and sewers would be, I wouldn't evèn ~~nt to think. You couldn't afford to live on there unless you were a millionaire. MR. THOMAS-I would think you'd put sewers in before you put water in. MRS. MONAHAN-The only reason is because the water was cheaper to do, and at least we cquldgive them pure water, and, make sure they weren't getting drinking water that they shouldn't. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. MARTIN-I'll say this, in terms of sewe~s. Do a little exercise. If you see a proje¿tèd'cost at this timè:for the North Queensbury Sewer on, Lake George'in the paper, cliþ that out and save it, and save it until the final price tag is paid for. MRS. MONAHAN-And triple it, right, Jim? MR. MARTIN-You just wait and you see. MR. TURNER-Well, you can see it right with the Queensbury Central Sewer District. It was budgeted at seven million dollars. It went two and a half million dollars over budget. MRS. MONAHAN-Thirty percent cost overrun on that sewer system. MR. MARTIN-By the time you get done going through all that ledge up there and running, you think about all the toads that have got to be covered up there, Mason Road, Rockhurst, Cleverdale, all those little roads, and all the chanQes in terrain,. MR. MARESCO-You won't be able to live. You'd have to be pretty wealthy to pay those taxes. MR. TURNER-Tony, in response to your remark about the people buying those lots, if a guy pays that kind of money for that kind of a lot, and he knows up front what the conditions are, he's got no excuse at all, as far as I...:m. concerned. He bought himself a hardship, not in that sense, in the sense that it cost him a lot - 38 - '--'" '"--' of money for the lot, but he knew what he could put on there, and when a guy comes before this Board and says, I want 6,000 square feet of building. MR. MARESCO-I agree with you. It was way too big for that. MR. MARTIN-My advice is if you strictly apply the Area Variance test as mandated in the law, you'll never go wrong. That'll guide you through every time. MR. CARVIN-The biggest problem that I have with this Godnick is that there was no public opposition. MRS. MONAHAN-I was talking with some people in the back of the room who are neighbors within 500 feet that never got their notice, and in fact, I talked to some of the people from Glen Lake during the 149 public meeting we had here, and I said, I'm surprised nobody's called me, and they said, about what, and they had no idea about it. MR. MARTIN-They're on our mailing list. It was sent off. MR. CARVIN-I went through, I agree with you, Jim. We've got some pretty good criteria, but I went through that, and, I don't know, of the four or five, I think he's got, I mean, I think he could have a legitimate argument on that, and the biggest one is that there was no detriment to the community, other than what this Board feels is a detriment, because there wasn't one public comment on that, in two meetings. MR. FORD-And what the Planning Board feels. MR. MARESCO-But the Planning Board was split, though. MR. CARVIN-But they wanted a public hearing, and we had a public hearing, not only tonight. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but community, is, okay, terms of your public expressed in here and the other factor to apply, as you assess yes, you have the obvious which comes in hearing, but you also have the community is in your master plan. MR. CARVIN-I'm not arguing that this Board may feel that there's a detriment there. but I think it carries more credence and weight when we have public, if it goes, because if he comes back with counsel, and that seems to be the indication, the direction he's going, that's what they're going to, they're going to go for our jugular on that. MR. TURNER-That's fine, but he hasn't presented any alternative plan. He's just said, this is what I want. Give me a variance on it. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but again. according to our Ordinance. MRS. MONAHAN-If there's a variance required, it requires the least, minimum. MR. TURNER-Minimum. MR. CARVIN-And I would also caution that we, this meeting, and I'm not quite sure, we're discussing a shouldn't really be talking about this. is a public tabled. We MR. TURNER-We shouldn't even talk about it. MR. CARVIN-Not about specifics. MR. MARESCO-He agreed to do everything other than the setback, too. I mean, the height restriction was there, the 35 feet. So, - 39 - ..,-' :/' the one thing l had a little trouble with, what difference does it make how many stories, as long as it's meeting the 35 feet? It does~'t matter if you have eight stories. MR. CARVIN-Again. I think we should refrain from continuing an ongoing conversation. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I agree. MR. CARVIN-But I think, I'm glad to hear that the Town is moving in that direction. MRS. MONAHAN-I wanted you to know that we were looking at that. MR. TURNER-I guess, since you're here, I want to just tell you one other thing. Look at Suburban Residential zone, duplexes and multifamily dwelling projects. A lot of the residential areas that are SR zones are, Chestnut Ridge Road, Meadowbrook Road. MRS. MONAHAN-Jim, put that in your notes for the Advisory Commi t tee. MR. TURNER-I think the multi dwelling units should come right out of there. I don't mind duplexes. MR. MARTIN-Agricultural uses are in there, too. uses are permitted, too. Agricultural MR. TURNER-Yes, but I can see a real case of somebody putting in a development that people have got huge investments in a nice residential home, just the equity in their house. MR. MARTIN-I can guarantee you, somebody's going to have a neighborhood dispute, and they're going to fix their neighbor by putting pigs right in their corne,-. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's got to come out of there. MR. CARVIN-Jim, is there any movement towards a better definition of garages and storage sheds? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I know we've hassled that for quite a while. MRS. MONAHAN-By the way, any definitions, and I know there's a lot of them in here that aren't good. So if you think of them, would you start to give Jim a list of them, because there are a lot of definitions. MR. CARVIN-We bump into them all the time, all the time. MR. MARTIN-Is there anything you want to make as individuals, or as Board members? By all means, submit them, even if it's in the record. I can just take a copy of the minutes. MR. CARVIN-Well, I know we've had this conversation many times. I mean, the applicants sit there and they can come up with about four dozen ways of ducking through loopholes. MRS. MONAHAN-Well, we've done these same things and we've tried to research them, and we say, really, what does this mean, the way they've got it written. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's a pitfall with Ordinance writing. I mean, you try and foresee. MR. MARESCO-It's almost impossible to cover everything. MRS. MONAHAN-No, but at least the ones we know are a problem we -40- '", "-i could at least change those. So anything, any comments that you have on anything in the Ordinance certainly should go right to Jim now, so the Advisory Committee can start putting that in. I thank you. MR. TURNER-Okay. Thank you. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman - 41 -