Loading...
1996-06-12 SP '-.. --'ORIGINAL APPEA.LS QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 12, 1996 INDEX Area Variance No. 22-1996 Tax Map No. 6-1-2 Area Variance No. 38-1996 Tax Map No. 6-1-5 Notice of Appeal No. 3-96 Tax Map No. 73-1-4.1 Notice of Appeal No. 4-96 Tax Map No. 73-1-4.1 Use Variance No. 26-1996 Tax Map No. 109-3-12.2 Area Variance No. 27-1996 Tax Map No. 109-3-12.2 Area Variance No. 24-1996 Tax Map No. 8-5-14, 17 Area Variance No. 39-1996 Tax Map No. 13-3-19 Michael C. Chrys 1. John A. Shaffer 12. Maureen & Thomas McDonough 22. Steve Sutton D/B/A Sutton's Marketplace Michael & James Valenti 22. Steve Sutton D/B/A Sutton's Marketplace Glens Falls Tennis & Swim Club 31. Glens Falls Tennis & Swim Club 35. --- Joseph & Rita Laraia 36. John Brock 42. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. J .\ . f\ '1 , I ~ fí 0"-' .-.-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 12, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT FRED CARVIN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS THOMAS, SECRETARY WILLIAM GREEN ROBERT KARPELES DAVID MENTER BONNIE LAPHAM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CARVIN-The first order of business is some old business. Actually, there's a resolution first. I have. rece~ved correspondence from the Town Board regarding the Ind1.an R1.dge Planned Unit Development. I don't know if anybody else has received any of this. - MR. MARTIN-Yes. It was sent out to all the. MR. CARVIN-It was sent out. Okay. The Town Board is just asking to be lead agency for the SEQRA rèview, and having gone through this, I didn't see any real problems with it. Did everybody get the SEQRA review material? MR. GREEN-No. MR. MARTIN-It was sent to Fred as the Chairman. MR. CARVIN-Well, again, as I said, it's a normal course of events. I don't see a real challenge with letting the Town Board be the lead agency, as far as the SEQRA review is concerned, unless anybody is adamant on it. Okay. MR. MENTER-Give it a shot. MOTION THAT WE, THE QUEENS BURY TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, CONSENTS TO THE DESIGNATION OF THE TOWN OF QUEENS BURY TOWN BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY FOR THE INDIAN RIDGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT , RESOLUTION NO. 244.96 AND RESOLUTION NO. 245.96, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: Duly adopted this 12th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. CARVIN-Okay. They are the lead agency. OLD BUSINESS: RESOLUTION ONLY: AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-1996 TYPE II WR-1A MICHAEL C. CHRYS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LEFT SIDE OF ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPROX. 0.4 MILES NORTH OF INTERSECTION WITH NYS ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RELOCATE AND REPLACE A DOCK WHICH IS PARTIALLY ON ADJACENT NEIGHBORS PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM SHORELINE REGULATIONS OF SECTION 179-60(B) (5) (b) (5). CROSS REF. SPR 13 -16 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY - 1 - '-' --- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) PLANNING 4/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 6-1-2 SECTION 179-60 (B) (5) (b) (5) LOT SIZE: 0.31 ACRES MICHAEL CHRYS, PRESENT MR. CHRYS-I have a letter I wanted to read into the record, if that's possible. MR. CARVIN-Well, let me see where we are here. I think this was tabled back, when? MR. THOMAS-April 17th. MR. CARVIN-And I think we were waiting for an opinion with regard to how we should take a look at the property lines as they extend outward into the lake. Is that correct? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Could you read that into the record, Mr. Martin's response to that question. MR. THOMAS-I do believe it was read into the record in the --May meeting. MR. CARVIN-Should we read it in again? MR. THOMAS-I'll read it in again. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. THOMAS-A letter dated April 22, 1996, to the Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, regarding Michael Chrys, Area Variance No. 22-1996 "Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: At the April 17, 1996 meeting of the ZBA concerns were raised over how much relief would be needed in order for Mr. Chrys to move his dock to the point where the property line meets the shoreline on his lot. Mr. Chrys is seeking zero setback to move an existing dock onto his property. Section 179-60B [5] (b) [5] reads as follows: 'Every dock or wharf constructed shall have a minimum setback of twenty (20) feet from the adjacent property line extended into the lake on the same axis as the property line runs on-shore where it meets the lake or at a right angle to the mean high water mark, whichever results in the greater setback'. In the case of Mr. Chrys' property, if the lot line were drawn at a right angle to the mean high water mark, a dock could be located closer to the neighbors property than if the lots were extended into the water. Extending the lot lines would provide the greater setback from the property to the north. Therefore in order to provide for a zero setback variance the dock must completely clear the property line as it would be extended straight into the lake. If you have any questions about this matter, please feel free to contact me at 761- 8221. Sincerely, James M. Martin, AICP Executive Director Community Development" MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does the Board understand what Mr. Martin has determined, and how they look at that? Does the applicant understand what Mr. Martin has indicated? MR. CHRYS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. You had a comment you wanted to make. MR. CHRYS-Yes. I've got a couple of comments that I'd like to make. Again, just to refresh your memories, this is an existing dock that encroaches on a neighbor's property. It's been deemed that I, through the deed and everything else, that I own the entire dock and structure. What I'm trying to do is take it, since I have - 2 - '---- -' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) to rebuild the dock and move it so that it's right on the property line versus encroaching on her property, for benefit to the neighborhood, any purchasers, sellers and so on. I've tried, in fact, I spoke to Jim Martin this week, just to hear for myself what his interpretation was, and told him what the status of my work has been since, and he suggested that I bring it up to you that it may have some bearing. So, with that, I'd like to read a letter from the neighbor that she's given me, and she would like it to be entered into the record. She could not be here tonight, and I'd also like to give you the same information I gave Jim. So, bear with me a minute. The letter is from Jean Austin who is the next door neighbor who's property this encroaches on. It says, "Dear Zoning and Planning Board: I am the adjacent property owner of Mr. and Mrs. Chrys and have no objections to the plans and permit granted by the Lake George Park Commission. I feel the minimum relief requested by Mr. Chrys is a benefit to both parties and the neighbors. Sincerely, Jean Austin P.S. Please enter this letter into the record." MR. MARTIN-We would need that for the file. MR. CHRYS-Okay. I'll give you that. What she alluded to, I told Jim Martin also, is that because there are other governing bodies with respect to dock rebuilding on the lake, I went and applied, after I applied to the zoning commission to the Lake George Park Commission simultaneously. That was after the fact, and went through the same procedure, and they approved the dock and issued me a permit, as I requested, which'is on that property line, and based on the 90 degree extension of the property line, which would give me, which is more discriminatory, if you will. So they approved that, and I have the permit with me. In summary, really, my proposal is for minimum relief, and the benefit to me, as the applicant, certainly outweighs any detriment to the neighborhood. In fact, there's no detriment to the neighborhood. I think there's a benefit to the neighbor immediately adjacent to me and the neighborhood. That's the situation, really, in a nutshell, and I'm hoping that you see it the way that I do and you grant that kind of minimum relief, as I've requested. MR. CARVIN-Bill, I see by the minutes here that you were not at the meeting that this was originally heard. Are you familiar with this? j MR. GREEN-Not on the first one, but I was here when he came back and went through it the second time, and I picked up everything else that I needed from it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So you feel comfortable with this. MR. GREEN-I do have a question, though. Why are you so adamant about not moving it the additional six feet, or eight feet? MR. CHRYS-Well, first of all, and I brought this up before, I really don't have to move it at all. I don't think I have to tell anybody it's a great cost to move it to begin with. So, given the current situation, I can move the deck forever. It'll always be kind of a problem, and quite frankly, I brought this up before, in refinancing the property, or making the property bankable, that has been a bone of contention. It's going to be a bone of contention for the neighbors as well. The reason that I don't want to, or can't move it any farther is, One, I think it would start to become a problem, possibly, for the neighbor on the other side, because the lot is somewhat narrow, and secondly, it would prohibit and probably, not probably, would decrease the value of mY property because I would start to block all views of the lake from the premises, and if you look closely at the lot plan, it starts to become detrimental to the existing structure in the way it's situated, and that's the real reason, and I'm trying to do the - 3 - ~- ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) right thing, here, for the neighborhood, which in turn would be the right thing for myself, and any future owners of either of these two properties. It's a plus/plus all the way around. It's not just of benefit to me and detrimental to the neighbors. It's of benefit to both, and in fact the benefits, I think, certainly outweigh any kind of opposition to this. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions? Jim, what is your feeling on the Lake George? Is that 180 degrees from what your interpretation is, by the granting of that variance on a 90 degree? MR. MARTIN-Yes. They must have applied a different standard or looked at it differently. I think the Ordinance is very clear as to how you apply the property line in this instance. The thing to remember, people have been tossing around the phrase that this is infringing on "her property" or "my property". Really, that is the State of New York's property. I just want to make sure everybody understands that. The projection of this property line out into the lake is just a means to calculate the setback. In this section of the lake, and it's very rare. You've heard of a recent case where a property owner does own the underlying land under the water, in the Salvador fishing cabin, but that's the only one I've run across, where an upland property owner does own the land under the lake. In this case, this is the State of New York, and there's just a memorandum of understanding that allows property owners to place their docks out onto this property. MR. CARVIN-How does this differ from the Baertschi situation and the Shaffer? Because as far as X remember, this is identical. We would be creating an identical situation. MR. MARTIN-Right. As I understand it right now, the dock does cross over this line. He's seeking to make that better, but not so it's all the way on the other side of the line. Is that correct? MR. CARVIN-Yes. I mean, that's essentially correct, but I mean, I'm assuming that Lake George must have looked at that other dock and came to what appears to be a different conclusion. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I can't speak for the Park Commission, what their thinking was on either application. We just get the notices in the mail. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, who would have priority? MR. MARTIN-You mean, which agency? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Well, he needs both approvals or he can't go forward. It's not like the Adirondack Park Agency where they can overrule your determination, or you theirs. He needs both approvals to move forward. MR. CARVIN-Even though there's what appears to be two different standards being applied. MR. MARTIN-Right. I can't speak to, they're supposed to be the same, and I don't, I can't speak to why they applied the standard the way they did. I think our Ordinance is very clear. MR. CARVIN-Well, I can only be guided by our Ordinance, unless I'm superseded, right? MR. MARTIN-Right. The APA is the only one that X know of who has the ability to override your decision. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does everybody on the Board understand that? - 4 - '---- ,-",,' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) Okay. MR. CHRYS-I was going to add just a couple of comments. I know that when I went to apply to the Park Commission, they had quite a history on this situation, and they were very aware of which property that dock was associated with. There've been numerous letters, and I went back, and you can actually see the paYments that were made for that particular dock were made by the property that X own and that that dock was always part of the ownership of the property I'm associated with. So I think the assumption was the better situation getting much better and certainly acceptable, and since I own the dock, I guess in theory you have the use of (lost words) . MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's a better way to term it. MR. CHRYS-And the other thing that I think that I did in my studies, I tried to talk to a couple of State agencies, and they have their own methods of determining this. They have the Round Lake method, I don't know if you've seen that, and the Colonial method, the 90 degree method, and with the Colonial method, I'll make this simple. The Colonial method takes that 90 degree line, imaginary line, and then the property line, and what you've got is an angle for them, and then they bisect that angle to determine what the actual projected line would be as a result of this method called the Colonial method that the State utilizes in a lot of cases, and based on that method I'm also okay. It's the one method that becomes the problem. I need your help on this. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I believe I left the public hearing open, and I think the public hearing is still open. "Public hearing closed." I must have closed it the last meeting. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Well, then the public hearing is closed. I'm going to open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-No additional correspondence? MR. THOMAS-None. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How about you, Dave, I'll start with you. Any thoughts on this, any questions? MR. MENTER-Well, I'm just looking back through the minutes, and the information didn't change much. The one concern that was raised regarding the potentiality of another dock going on that other piece of property. MR. CHRYS-I've got the answer to that, and I went in search of that after it was raised. The property that, you're talking about the other property next door, the adjacent property? Legally, according to Park Commission law, or rules, and I believe your own, they need 4S feet to be able put a dock on their property, and they do meet the requirements to do that. They can put a single "I" dock on there, at some point if they ever chose to do so. So that answers the question. Yes, the neighbor can, whether I do or don' t do anything, they have that right. MR. MARTIN-The property next to you, that has no dock on it? - 5 - -.---~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) MR. CHRYS-No. MR. MARTIN-And it's 45 feet wide? MR. CHRYS-Forty-seven, I believe. MR. MARTIN-Of lake frontage, width. Yes. That would accommodate one dock. To meet the setbacks of 20 feet, then it would obviously only be six or seven feet wide. MR. CARVIN-How would you interpret this dock? I mean the ownership is on another parcel. MR. MENTER-Is that true, given the present circumstances, I guess is what Fred's asking. MR. CARVIN-Yes. She has a dock now. MR. CHRYS-She does not, legally, have a dock, and according to the Park Commission, if she wanted to put an "I" dock out there right now, with the thing encroached the way it is, she still can. So this doesn't affect her property, her rights or benefit one way or the other. So she can do that, as it exists or as it changes.-- So either way, she has that right. MR. CARVIN-That's according to the Park Commission. MR. CHRYS-That's right, but they brought out the rule book and showed me about the number of feet and what the setbacks, and right now they have no dock. There's no registered dock, and I don't know what their intentions are. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and I'm going to refer to you again, Jim. I mean, how would YOU interpret that, if another dock was to be built out there tomorrow? MR. MARTIN-If they have had no past registration from a dock related to that parcel, I would say they're permitted the opportunity to build a dock. MR. CARVIN-In spite of the fact that there is a dock there existing? MR. MARTIN-Yes, and it's by virtue of the encroachment of this dock, is what you're saying? MR. CARVIN-I'm saying his dock is on her property, technically. MR. MARTIN-Right. I think, my interpretation would be, she's entitled to a separate dock. MR. CHRYS-That was the interpretation that I was. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions, Dave? MR. MENTER-No. That kind of just answered that question a little bit. I'm actually not even sure what relevancy of that to me is. I think there's an improvement. I'm not sure I'm totally clear on why not go the extra six feet or whatever the. MR. CHRYS-AII I can I do is tell you again that that is an enclosure, there's a little boathouse type enclosure there. It's really obvious if you're there that it would totally inhibit the beauty and the benefit of what I have, which is a detriment, in terms of re-sale. MR. MENTER-I guess I really don't have Primarily, you're improving the situation. a problem with it. That's the primary - 6 - '--- - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) concern. It's not going to affect, apparently, any future, you know, it's not going to contribute to any increase on the use of dock space there. MR. CARVIN-How about you, Chris? MR. THOMAS-I'm the one that asked for the interpretation letter from Mr. Martin, and, to me, if Mr. Chrys only moves that property, or that dock over to the property pin, or the entire boathouse to the property pin, we're granting him a setback of less than zero, because according to the Ordinance, that property line projects into the lake, and therefore, the dock would be still, legally, or according to the Zoning Ordinance, on the other side of· that property line. So, to me, I think in order to comply with the Ordinance, that the whole thing should be moved down, so that the corner, it would be the northwest corner of the dock, would be at the property line, and that would be the zero setback right there. MR. CHRYS-That body of water is owned by the State? MR. THOMAS-The Ordinance says that as the property line is projected into the lake. That's why I asked for that letter, because I was under the understanding that you go to the property line at the lake and then turn 90 degrees to it, and that way, if that was the way the Ordinance read, then it wouldn't have been any problem, but now, as it is projected into the lake, it's got to go down the seven feet in order to be a zero setback, because I don't see giving less than zero setback. I don't think we can do it. MR. CHRYS-Well, I don't think you're giving a less than zero, based on that interpretation, and that's why I spoke to Jim again myself, to get his indication, and I asked him if I could mention his name and tell the Board that I spoke with him. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's fine. We went through the requirements of what your tests that you have to apply for an Area Variance are, detriment to the neighborhood versus benefit to the applicant, and we went over minimum relief and all that. MR. CHRYS-What good would it do to leave it the way it is? MR. CARVIN-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM- I guess my own feeling is that he's improving a si tuation. Perfection doesn' t seem to be in the cards here. Maybe we should consider the fact that there is going to be improvement, even if it's not improvement enough to be in compliance. MR. CARVIN-Bill? MR. GREEN-I can't, I've got to go the extra six or seven feet. The neighbors have stated that it's not a problem now. The neighbor could have a dock now, as it sits. You've stated that there is enormous amounts of documentation to show that you own the dock as it is now. So I can't see where, you know, future sale would cause any problems, and I've got to agree with Chris. I can't give a less than zero setback variance. You can't do it. So you've either got to let it sit where it is, or go the extra six or seven feet. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bob? MR. KARPELES-I'd kind of like to be refreshed on the precedents we've got here. I remember that there was a similar case, but I don't remember the details. What was the other one? MR. CARVIN-Well, the only precedent that I know of, and I'm not even sure that's the right term, is that I think it was Mr. Shaffer - 7 - '-/ '--" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) and Baertschi, and this is going back about a year and a half or two years ago. I don't remember the exact time frame. MR. MARTIN-I don't think it was that long ago. MR. CARVIN-Maybe not, but we received a lot of correspondence from a nu~er of different lawyers, and in fact I think, and maybe the, I thlnk the Baertschi's are here tonight. Is Mr. Shaffer here? Yes. I think that this went to court, didn't it? MRS. BAERTSCHI-It's still pending. MR. CARVIN-It was bordering on, it was in the hands of the legal community, and as I remember it, the interpretation that came down from all of those parties was exactly to what Mr. Martin had indicated, that the line extends out into the lake, and as a result, I think that that dock had been there for 20 or some odd years, 26 years sticks in my mind. MRS. BAERTSCHI-Forty years. MR. CARVIN-Forty years. A long time, and that the end, five or six feet maybe was on Mr. Shaffer's property, and the interpretation- at that point was that the path of, and I'm using the term, the path of least resistance was to move the dock. They forced him to move the dock, and we granted relief. MR. KARPELES-So, we granted zero relief based upon the property line. MR. CARVIN-But they had to move the dock. MR. KARPELES-Yes. MR. CARVIN-And this is a situation that, although it may not be relevant today, remember when we grant a variance it goes with the land. So that we may be planting a landmine that may be years before it explodes. MR. CHRYS-What you're saying is my current situation. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but I didn't create the current situation. MR. CHRYS-I know you didn't. I understand. You've got to experience what it's like dealing with the banks, just for Mr. Green to understand how difficult it really is. Whether they're right or wrong, you've got to put up with it and deal with it. Even if I decided (lost words) common sense, which makes sense to me. Unfortunately, common sense doesn't always make sense in the real world, and it has been a problem, and it was a problem right fròm the beginning. The other thing is, the existing situation which has been a long track record, in reality says that I own that dock and as far as the State's concerned, I am allowed to use the water underneath it, and my interpretation of that is, if I move it one foot or two feet, I actually have another foot or two on the other side that they've allowed me to use anyway. MR. CARVIN-I don't have an answer for you. understand the question. MR. CHRYS-You're taking a bad situation and making it dramatically better, as far as hard land is concerned, which really seems to be what's governed by the community, and not the body of water itself. I'm asking for minimum relief, zero lot line clearance on that dry land. State issue, as I understand it, is that it's fine and not really a concern, based on the way it currently exists and what's there, and I totally agree if I was building a new structure or doing anything that was different, that I wouldn't need to be here. I'm not even sure I - 8 - '-../ ---/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) I would comply. In this particular case, it just seems to me that it's a benefit not a detriment. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bob, did that answer your question? MR. KARPELES-Yes. That answered my question. I think we've got to be somewhat consistent. I kind of agree with Chris. I don't see how we can grant anything less than zero setback. MR. CARVIN-I don't think we can legally. Can we? MR. CHRYS-You're saying less than zero, if you're determining that the water is not mine to use, as it currently exists. In'other words, I've got less than zero now, is what you're interpreting, what you're saying. MR. THOMAS-Yes. You have less than zero, and you're asking for less than zero, according to the Ordinance. MR. GREEN-You've got less than zero now, it's pre-existing, but I, personally, cannot grant less than zero under something new, according to our regulations. -- MR. CARVIN-Okay. motion. If there's no other comments, I'd ask for a MR. CHRYS-There's no bearing at all with the other government body? That's a moot point? MR. CARVIN-We're guided by our Ordinances, because they cannot supersede us, that we have to fall back to our Ordinances. It's sort of like going to the Elk's Club and getting a motion that it's okay to have an Eagle's Club. MR. CHRYS-Based on your determination, you're going to give me an interpretation of what I cannot do (lost words) minimum relief? MR. CARVIN-Essentially, it comes down to that I can't grant less than negative relief, and I've told you this before. My feeling was that we have to move it all into compliance, or leave it alone. Because it blocks your view to the lake is not a reason or sufficient enough reason for me to grant relief, because that's not minimum relief. I mean, in our criteria, that's just not. Your visibility is not a problem. MR. CHRYS-I guess my question to you, for lack of a better way of explaining it, is when I walk out of here tonight, I'm going to know what I can and can't do? MR. GREEN-Well, it's either move it the extra six feet or leave it alone. Essentially. MR. CHRYS-Yes, well, that answers my question. So, in other words, I could come back and go to site plan with a review, six feet over? I don't have to come back here? MR. MENTER-Well, actually, if we deny this, you would still require a variance, if it was moved that seven feet, because by the interpretation of this Board, where it comes out to zero at the northwest corner of the dock, out in the water, where it comes to the zero, that extension of that line, it still conflicts with the Ordinance. So you would still require a variance for that. MR. CHRYS-That's the point I'm trying to make. MR. CARVIN-Well, I guess my question is to you, are you willing to go and move it that extra six or seven feet? Or are you going to leave it? I mean, we can grant zero lot line, but it's going to - 9 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) put it eight feet off that pole, that stake, eight or nine feet, whatever it is. MR. MENTER-It's your call. MR. CHRYS-It's not my call, but in lieu of coming back here. MR. MENTER-You're certainly not tied to do anything, if the Board votes and says that you can't do what you're proposing here, but you could do this, and you can either do it or not do it, but at least you'd have that. MR. CHRYS-That's fine. I'd like to do that. You tell me what I can do. MR. GREEN-Just because we grant the variance doesn't mean you have to act on it. MR. CHRYS-I understand. MR. CARVIN-If somebody's going to make a motion, I want an understanding of what that motion is. -- MR. GREEN-I could go with that, with the zero, zero setback at that northwest corner. MR. CARVIN-To the property line. MR. GREEN-With the extended property line, yes. MR. CARVIN-Chris, have you got some kind of numbers on that, so Staff understands? Because you better be specific. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I know it. I don't have the Planning Department scale. MR. MENTER-Is there a number, that seven feet? MR. CARVIN-I don't think anybody's ever really determined. MR. KARPELES-I think it's up to Staff to determine, after we tell them we want zero setback. MR. CARVIN-I think it's up to the applicant to tell us where it is. MR. MARTIN-Well, if you term your resolution to grant zero relief, then it shifts back to him to submit a drawing that indicates that and build it to that standard. MR. GREEN-Right, and that can be supplied later. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That can be supplied later. That's not for you to calculate or draw tonight. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. CHRYS-I think what you're saying is that I've got to come to site plan review anyway. On site plan review, I've got to have that exact dimension in there. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. MARTIN-You've got to have a drawing for site plan. MR. CHRYS-That's right. So if you grant zero relief, it's up to me, with my application for site plan review, to have that dimension. - 10 - \"#f "- --./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) MR. MARTIN-That's correct, a scaled drawing that shows that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, do you want me to put it to the end, so somebody has some time to work on it? We've got a full boat here, folks, if you'll pardon the pun. Okay. We'll have a motion for you before the evening is done. MR. CHRYS-Do I have to be here for that? MR. CARVIN-It's up to you. You don't need to be. I mean, I don't know how it's going to come out, but I suspect that if it's zero, I don't have a problem with it. MR. MENTER-Yes. You know, let me give it a whack. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-1996 MICHAEL C. CHRYS, Introduced by David Menter who moved for its adoption, seconded by William Green: For re-Iocation of a dock, with a stipulation. Applicant requires to move dock south, resulting in a zero setback. Currently, the northern portion of the dock extends off adjoining property to his own, and he desires to re-locate the entire dock, so that ~t is entirely on his property. The line used to determine this zero setback will be the result of a line drawn, a line to continue from his property line straight out into the water, and the dock will be required to be on Mr. Chrys' side of that extension of the property line out into the water, as per the interpretation of Mr. Martin. This movement of the dock would result in a lessening of encroachment on the neighbor's property, and overall would be an improvement to both properties. It would have no negative effect on the health, safety or welfare of the community, and in fact would be an improvement there also. Feasible alternative would be to move the dock completely within compliance, but the detriment to the applicant would probably outweigh any other considerations. This zero setback is not substantial relative to the Ordinance, and this situation is not self created, as the applicant purchased the property in the current condition, and again, this would improve the present condition. Duly adopted this 12th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: MR. CARVIN-I have just one question on the motion. I want to make sure that I understand that no portion of the dock is to extend onto the neighbor's property, is that correct? MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Does Staff understand our interpretation? MR. KARPELES-I think maybe it would be better if you didn't mention the six or seven feet, because we don't know if it's six or seven feet. It may be eight or nine feet for all I know. MR. MENTER-Okay. I could just scratch that reference to any numbers there and just say they're substantially within the. MR. CHRYS-It was based on the letter that Mr. Martin used for an interpretation. MR. MENTER-Yes. I'm happy with it. I think it covers the bases. MR. CHRYS-You're scratching the number of feet, is that correct? MR. MENTER-Yes. AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Menter, Mr. Green, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin - 11 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. CARVIN-Okay. You have a zero lot line. AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-1996 TYPE II WR-1A CEA RESOLUTION ONLY JOHN A. SHAFFER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD, APPROX. 4/10 OF MILE UP ON LEFT FROM INTERSECTION WITH ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING DWELLING AND GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW DWELLING. THIS ACTION REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-16C. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/8/96 TAX MAP NO. 6-1-5 LOT SIZE: 0.32 ~CRES SECTION 179-16C JOHN SHAFFER, PRESENT MR. CARVIN-Do you want to read the tabling motion. MR. THOMAS-The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Meeting Date was May 23, 1996, Variance File No. 38- 1996 for An Area Variance was tabled. "MOTION TO TABLE -AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-1996 JOHN A. SHAFFER, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: For no more than 62 days, in order to get a full Board and for the other Board members to come up to speed on tonight's hearing. Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green" MR. CARVIN-Okay. I see we have Mrs. Lapham and Mr. Green. Have you had an opportunity to come up to speed with this particular application? MR. GREEN-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-I'm not as much as I would like to be, but I've read the minutes of the meeting. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does anybody have any questions of the applicant. Any questions, Chris? MR. THOMAS-No. I haven't got any questions right now. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I believe the public hearing is closed on this. Does anybody want to re-open the public hearing? MR. MENTER-I have no problem with it. MR. MARTIN-There was that photograph I gave you, too, Fred, at the beginning of the meeting. MR. CARVIN-We also had supplemental information submitted by the Baertschi's. This has been submitted to Staff. This is to show the proposed height of the house, in comparison to their view. I think we should refer that to the applicant, when the Board has had a chance. Did you have any questions of the applicant, Bonnie? Do you understand the application and what they're proposing? MRS. LAPHAM-I understand the proposal. - 12 - ---- --- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) MR. CARVIN-How about you, Bill? MR. GREEN-What was the height of the original building that's there. MR. SHAFFER-The original one was somewhat over 21, a little over 21. MR. CARVIN-Well, we're at a motion stage, I guess, I mean, if there's no questions of the applicant. I'm assuming everybody's up to speed. MR. THOMAS-Are you going to open the public hearing to read ~hese letters in? MR. CARVIN-That's why I asked. I mean, we could open up the public hearing. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. CARVIN-Why don't you read the correspondence in. MR. THOMAS-Okay. A letter dated June 10, 1996, regarding Vari~nce application for Shaffer, Area Variance No. 38-1996, "Dear Board Members: We have learned that the Board will next address this application for variance at your meeting on Wednesday, June 12, 1996. We also understand that this application presently only appears on the agenda as a 'resolution for motion', and no further public comment will be sought or accepted at this meeting. We are greatly distressed about this. Prior to the meeting on May 23, we had little knowledge of the applicant's proposal. Furthermore, limited information was presented by Mr. Shaffer at the May 23rd meeting. This afforded us little chance to adequately comment on the 23rd. Since then, we have had the opportunity to review the application for variance and the related documents available on file. Therefore, as Queensbury residents who are most affected by this proposal, we request that the Board please consider our following concerns. It is our understanding that the function of the Zoning Board of Appeals is to make decisions based on whether the benefits to the applicants outweigh the detriment to others affected by the applicant's request. In this case, the detriment to us is clearly greater than the benefit to the Shaffer's. The Shaffer's are requesting to build 3200 square foot structure on a .35 acre lot. This house is intended for two people. Is this not excessive? This is another example of the trend on Lake George to build oversized homes on small pieces of land. We are concerned about the impact of this trend on the environment as well the aesthetic affect of an overcrowded shoreline. We are not against the Shaffer's building a new house, but it should be proportional to the size of the lot. In addition, they are planning that the house will be 29 to 31 feet high. This is 8 to 10 feet higher than the existing house. Furthermore, it is unclear to us where the height of the new house will be measured from. will it be from the foundation and will the proposed foundation be at the same height as the existing foundation? Our view of the lake and mountains is already limited, but a house that is significantly higher than the existing house will totally obscure our view. We have a deep love and appreciation for the beauty of our surroundings and would like to continue to enjoy them from our front windows rather than to look out only to see a roof. Another issue that concerns us is the applicant's intent to use his home for office space for himself and his wife. If we recall correctly, the applicant rationalized at the May 23rd meeting that such a large house was needed because of their desire to have individual offices in the house. The applicant is reportedly an accountant and proposes to use his new home partially for business purposes. We would be interested in learning more about this. Will he be using this office space for meeting with clients? will these clients add additional traffic - 13 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) and parking demands on the area? We would like to know how commercial an enterprise this will be. In summary, we would like you to consider the environmental impact of an oversized structure as well as the personal affect it will have on us. We are lifelong residents of Lake George and find the looming threat to its natural beauty and resources very disheartening. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. Sincerely, Norma Baertschi Edward Baertschi" A letter dated June 8, 1996 "Dear Board Members: We have recently learned that the application submitted by John Shaffer will be further addressed at your next meeting scheduled for June 12, 1996. It is our understanding that no further public comment will be sought or accepted at this meeting. We find this disappointing since we only received notification of this application on the day of the last meeting and did not have adequate time or information to make appropriate comments. Therefore, we would like to present our concerns in this letter. We own the land immediately adjacent to Mr. Shaffer's property on the southern side as well as a parcel across the street. We are nearing retirement age and hope to build a retirement home on this land in the future. Therefore, we would be directly affected by the structure Mr. Shaffer is proposing. It is our understanding that the house he wishes to build is 3300 square feet and his lot is only .35 acres. We have noticed the trend of large houses being placed on small lots on Assembly Point and are deeply disturbed by this. The increasing overdevelopment of the shores of Lake George raises important environmental and aesthetic issues. A house the size Mr. Shaffer proposes on such a small lot is much too excessive. In addition, we are concerned that the increased height of the proposed house over the existing house will greatly obstruct the current view of the lake and mountains we enjoy from our property. Since we hope to eventually reside on our property, we certainly do not want to lose our view of the natural beauty of the area only to look at a roof. We appreciate the difficulty involved in making decisions to deny variances. We sincerely hope that you will consider our concerns regarding this particular variance request. Sincerely yours, Cheryl and Paul Lamparella" And that's it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Anyone else wishing to be heard? Okay. It appears the letters have raised a couple of issues. Number One, the item of the office. Is that going to be a full time office, is it? MR. SHAFFER-That's just my office, where I can do some work there at night. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So it's totally private? consultations or visitations anticipated? There's no MR. SHAFFER-No. I have offices other than that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other questions? MRS. LAPHAM-Just the terminology, like is this an office, an office with a study? MR. SHAFFER-Yes. My wife is a teacher. She'll have an office for her. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions? Any public comment at all? Yes, ma'am. If you'd come to the microphone. FLORENCE CONNOR MRS. CONNOR-I'm Florence Connor, and I have a question. When you have an office, is an office considered a bedroom or is it considered an office? It's a room in your house which you use as an office. Then you sell your house, and it becomes a bedroom. - 14 - '- ,..-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) How is it judged, is the question, for information. judged? Is it judged as an office, or it is judged as when you talk about moving your house, in relation systems, in relation to the number of people living in How is it a bedroom, to septic the house. MR. CARVIN-I believe it would be considered a bedroom. MRS. CONNOR-They will use it as a bedroom? MR. CARVIN-I believe. Is that correct, Jim? MR. MARTIN-If the building permit comes in, and it's a new structure and you have, like, three bedrooms and an offic~, the septic system is sized on three bedrooms. At some point in the future, should that office, whether by the current, that owner or a subsequent owner, be converted into a bedroom, then you, in fact, have four bedrooms. We, oftentimes, would have no knowledge of that, and that's just done, and there's no change in the septic system or anything like that. MRS. CONNOR-I find it to be, I guess I'm just concerned that in effect you're building a four bedroom house, yet you're only providing for a two bedroom house, because in the future, we-all know, I mean, we're not going to live forever. Somebody else is going to live in the house, and it becomes a four bedroom house, and I'm just saying, no one walks in and checks on this. MR. CARVIN-I find Mr. Martin's explanation somewhat disconcerting, from a personal standpoint, because I put an addition on my house for a storage room, and I was told that, even though it's a storage room, it had to be considered a bedroom, because it could be converted. So, that's interesting. MR. MARTIN-That's why I'm not a building inspector. MRS. CONNOR-Okay. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Thank you. JOHN FORTANGELO MR. FORTANGELO-My name is John Fortangelo, and I'm the son-in-law of the Baertschi's, and I'd like to just point out a couple of things about the proposal that's been circulating. When you take a look at it, I want you to just keep two things in mind. If you look above the house from a distance, you can see the mountains are clearly visible. Now, a tremendous amount of mountains are clearly visible above the house as it presently exists, and I believe it's marked up now, the proposed height of the house clearly obscures the house. I just wanted you to catch the view when you look at it. The other point I want to bring up is this is a picture that was obviously taken recently, and you can see that the foliage is fairly complete, but I do want you to keep in mind that that foliage is not always going to be there, and I think if it were possible to remove the foliage from this example, I think it really would show the kind of obstruction a house of this size would be, outside of the summer season, in the late fall, in the winter. When, the Baertschi's, for instance, live up there year round, and it would be disconcerting. Furthermore, as a side line, we have not known, in my experience, for the Shaffers to live on the (lost words). So it would be further disconcerting to have a structure into, possibly into the winter months and during the fall, and still have to deal with the construction. So I'd just like you to please consider that when you're looking at that photo, and thank you very much for your time. MR. CARVIN-Any other public comment? Other correspondence, Chris? - 15 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) MR. THOMAS-No, none. MR. CARVIN-Mr. Steves, Mr. Shaffer, would you care to rebut? MR. SHAFFER-For the benefit of the members of the Board that weren't here last time, we've looked at several plans for our home, and we decided to go up, rather than going out, and the reason that we've done that is because we're very concerned about the quality of the lake, and part of the problem with the lake is that you're getting a lot of homes built that are actually decreasing the permeability. So that our application and our proposed structure, by going up, actually increases the permeable soil. I really think that you have to go up. Another thing, we're upgrading the septic system. We're going to move that back toward the road. Our present septic system is (lost word) nearer than 100 feet to the water. It's more like probably 90 feet. It's an old oil tank that possibly could be leaking, and that's another problem with the lake is all these old septic systems that we've upgraded. So we've really looked at the quality of the lake, and what the lake means to everybody around there, not just our neighbors, but everybody. We really want to increase the quality of the water by decreasing our impact on it. That's why we've gone up with the structure, 28 and a half feet, which is not, I don't think, for a two story building, unusual. If we go out, we're going to decrease that permeable soil. We do not want to do that. Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Any other public comment MR. FORTANGELO-Again, my name is John Fortangelo. I just wanted to point out that the problems are not with the lake. The problems are with the people living on the lake, developing on the lake, not considering their present surroundings. There's no problem with the lake. We love the lake. We enjoy the lake. Secondly, the applicant is absolutely right. There's no problem whether the building is 28.5, 29, 31, whatever. There's no problem (lost words) he's absolutely right, but on a .35 acre lot, there is a problem. I think if you looked up there, and took a look at what he's proposing, on the size of the lot, I think you would agree. MR. CARVIN-Any public comment? public hear's closed. Hearing none, seeing none, the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Any questions of the applicant? comments? Bob, thoughts, MR. KARPELES-Well, I've kind of switched my opinion here. I think there's some good points raised in these letters, and I've given this a lot of thought since our last meeting, and I feel we've made a lot of mistakes as far as Cleverdale is concerned, and I'd hate to duplicate some of those mistakes out on Assembly Point. I agree. I think that's just too much house for that lot. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Dave? MR. MENTER-I just wanted to clarify something here. I can't quite seem to put my finger on it, but the actual side setbacks, 14.5 and 16.75, is that right? LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-Yes. That's to the projection of the second story overhang. At the ground floor, it would be 16.75. We are trying, with these plans, to minimize the applicant's request for variance, by making the building a little bit squattier, if you will, and going higher. If we make it the minimal size permitted by Code, we'd be 21 feet wide and 35 feet high. I think that wouldn't be - 16 - '~' ,..-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) beneficial to the neighborhood at all, but it would be to Code. What he's trying to do is have a meeting of the two extremes, and have a lot that is useful to him, and a house that is the proper width and height. MR. MENTER-Well, I tend to think along those lines also. I mean, you're decreasing the side setbacks, increasing the side setbacks. You're increasing the shoreline setback. I'm not so sure that there couldn't be a worse situation within the Code. He's going up to 28 and a half feet. I'm not really sure that, you're the one who lives there and you're the one who has that view that you have, but he's also decreasing the width of the house, and you're going to be increased to the south side of it. I'm just not /!Jure, myself, how much weight is in the loss of that along the top edge of the house. I would tend to say that the benefit to the applicant and the decrease in impact this house would have, versus what is there now, in certain areas, may just outweigh the loss of view, the impact on yourselves. Because as I said, you're going to be gaining, you know, lateral view. You're going to lose that piece of view straight above the house, but you are going to be gaining some view to the side. Again, when that foliage is gone, that's going to increase it. That would be my comment. -- MR. CARVIN-How about you, Bill? MR. GREEN-I don't think I could have said it much better than Mr. Menter. I this is a very well thought out plan. We could end up with something very skinny and 35 feet high and still meet the Code, and these people wouldn't even have to be here. So increased septic and better shoreline and better side setbacks, and the height isn't even causing a problem at this point. He could go 35 if he wanted to, and not even need the variance. MR. CARVIN-That's not quite correct, in any event. MR. GREEN-Well, as it is, I don't have a problem with it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-Before I comment, I just wanted to ask a question. I'm not quite sure, what is the height of the house? Because I saw in the picture it was 21 now. You're proposing 29, but in here, I thought I read 26? MR. SHAFFER-It's 29. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. It's going to be 29. It goes from a little over 21 to 29 feet. MR. CARVIN-That's to the roof line, and then that little peak addition will be another few feet above that. So to the peak, it's 31. MRS. LAPHAM-I really think I agree with Mr. Green and Mr. Menter, because we are having an improvement, particularly the septic. MR. CARVIN-Chris? MR. THOMAS-To me, this is, like one of the other Board members mentioned, getting big houses on small lots, and it seems to be another one of those cases, and you go out on the boat and you ride around and look, I mean, all you're seeing is buildings anYmore, and it's not like back when. You're losing the aesthetic value of the Adirondacks. It's being replaced by houses and structures, glass, and to me, this is just too big a house. It's too high for this size lot. I would like to see this house go on this lot, but to me, it's just too big. It's too high, and there is a detriment to the neighbors, that they're going to lose their view. In that - 17 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) picture, it shows they can see about the top 50 feet of the mountain. Now they won't be able to see anything because not only won't they be able to see over the top of it, they won't be able to see down the side of it either, because of the bushes and the vegetation in there. MR. SHAFFER-One thing on the side, we are pulling in the side variance for a lot. One is nine feet, and we're going to make that 16 feet. So there'd be a better view down that side. We're trying to pull in that. MR. CARVIN-Well, I'd have to agree with Mr. Thomas and Mr. Karpeles, in that, I had written down some figures, that the'house itself is, we're looking at somewhere between a 36 to 40% expansion, as far as floor plan. Even though the footprint is only a minor increase, the expansion upwards is, I think, pretty significant. I think it's also significant from both sides. I think because of the way that land is situated, that that house is pretty much on the crown, and when you put a 29 to 31 foot house there, it's going to be extremely magnified from the lake, because it sits up on that crest, and I just have a real hard time, and I think this size house on a little bit more than a third of an acre is pretty significant. So, I have a real hard time with this,~this particular application. So, if I'm reading a straw poll right, I see a three, three. So I think we either want to thrash this out, and try to come to either a consensus one side or the other. MR. STEVES-Jim, perhaps you better help us out a little bit. There's proposal before the Town Board at the present time, addressing just this condition, addressing the percentage of the floor space that can be put on a lot, the side setback, as well as the height. MR. MARTIN-That's correct. MR. STEVES-Could you share that with us? MR. MARTIN-The proposal as submitted was reduction of the height to 28 feet, a 22% floor area ratio, and I don't think the side setback in this particular case, this lot is how wide? MR. SHAFFER-74. MR. MARTIN-Yes. The setback would still be the same, because the proposal was only to provide a little more adjustment on lots 60 feet or less in width. So those were the two areas, and the 50 foot shoreline setback was also proposed. So those were the things. MR. STEVES-Okay. If we had a 50 foot setback, we would also be lower, which would then diminish the effect of the height of the building. You would gain there. Twenty-two percent floor space, I think we'd be right at that. Less than that. MR. SHAFFER-There's 17,000 square feet on that property, 22% of that is 3500. MR. MARTIN-Is there an exposed basement wall with this? MR. SHAFFER-No. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is there a finished basement? MR. SHAFFER-No. We could actually, the new rule (lost word) only 3500? MR. MARTIN-That was the proposal, 22%, but. - 18 - ~' '-~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) MR. CARVIN-Yes. That's a proposal, and it should not have a direct bearing on this. MR. STEVES-It is a consideration being proposed, just as the present Code says 35 foot héight. MR. CARVIN-Again, I'm going to leave it to the Board to discuss this. Is there any other? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I have one question for Leon. If that house is moved to 50 feet, rather than 75 from the lake, how much lower in grade would it be from where it sits now? It seems to me it drops off pretty good, but it isn't a real steep drop. MR. STEVES-No, but the house is presently about 232 in elevation on the floor elevation, as opposed to the shore of 320. So we've got a 12 foot rise in the 75 foot. So if we moved ahead a third of that. MR. THOMAS-You'd drop down four feet. MR. STEVES-Yes. --- MR. THOMAS-Four feet from the 29 would be 25. MR. STEVES-That's splitting the difference between the 21 and the 29. MRS. LAPHAM-But that's putting it closer to the lake. MR. STEVES-Yes, it is. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but that's the proposed change to the Ordinance, is to move it from 75 feet. MR. CARVIN-I'm cautioning this Board not to be guided by something that's not on the books. MR. THOMAS-No, I know that. MRS. LAPHAM-I was thinking along the lines, I'd rather see it back the 75 feet than the 50, and if that proposed Ordinance does go through, they might not even be here? MR. CARVIN-Well, no. I think what Mr. Martin is saying, the side yard setbacks. MR. MARTIN-The side yard setbacks would still be an issue. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay, but there'd be a lot more leniency now. could go home and come back with something more lenient. They MR. STEVES-We'd still be back for the side line setbacks. MRS. LAPHAM-But we'd be more lenient with height, and we'd be closer to the lake. MR. CARVIN-No. The height, I think they're talking 28 feet, right? So, I mean, if they moved it forward and went to a 28 feet, then you'd only be looking at maybe an increase of around three to four feet, but again, I'm cautioning the Board that that's not what we have today. MRS. LAPHAM-We have to deal with what we have now. MR. CARVIN-We have to base our decision on our Area Variance criteria, and Number One on that is, by the granting of an Area Variance, is the granting would create an undesirable change to the - 19 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. So I would refer you back to your criteria for an Area Variance. MR. CARVIN-Well, Dave, you moved first. I hate to carry it over. I mean, our schedule does not get any lighter, and I don't know when Mr. Ford will be back, if ever. MR. MARTIN-He should be back next month, but from a Staff point of view, I really wish you'd start dealing with this Old Business, because the agendas are starting to back up. MR. STEVES-The applicant has to apply for relief, no matter what he does, he has to apply for relief. There is no way that he can do anything with that property at all without relief. He can't put a second story addition onto it without relief. MR. KARPELES-Which tends to mean that the lot is too small to build on. MR. STEVES-Well, no. If he takes the existing building and goes up with it, which he's permitted by height, the violation now is the side line setbacks. So he'd have to get a continuation of the nonconforming setback to do that. So he's in a Catch-22. He's-got to get a variance of some sort. MR. KARPELES-Well, I think that's exactly why zoning is put in in the first place. MR. STEVES-The zoning is put in for compliance, yes, but the Board is created for granting variances. MR. KARPELES-Yes, but that doesn't mean that every variance is going to be granted. MR. STEVES-No, that's correct. You have to weight that. You have to look at that. MR. CARVIN-And that's why I'm referring you back to your criteria for granting of relief on this. I come down to, all right, our criteria, if granted, benefit to the applicant weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. Number One, the granting creates an undesirable change to the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by another feasible method. Is it substantial? An adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Is it self created, and the other one, item number two, is minimum variance necessary to adequately preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. I mean, that is the criteria you should be weighing. Now this is different. I believe an Area Variance, as opposed to a Use Variance, is that the Use Variance criteria, you have to answer all of them. If you can't answer or are not comfortable with one part of a Use Variance, then you're supposed to turn it down. However, with an Area Variance, you do have, I believe, some flexibility. So it's a little bit more of a weighing aspect. Again, I'll reiterate my, I've got problems with, obviously, I think it will be detrimental to nearby properties. I think the size of the house, in relation, is fairly substantial, and, obviously, it's self created. I don't know if there's other alternatives, lower houses or thinner houses or what have you, but those are the ones that I'm having the most difficulty climbing over. I don't mean to push the Board, but I think we're going to have to either come to some kind of decision, or put this over until we get a full seven member Board. Has your position changed at all? MR. THOMAS-No. - 20 - ---,,~ --..,..' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) MR. KARPELES-I'm not going to change. MR. MENTER-At this point, I'm afraid not. MR. GREEN-No. I have to stick by my original determination. MRS. LAPHAM-I can see, on one hand, the detriment to the neighbors, but I do see an upgrading on the piece of property itself. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I don't want you to vote against your conscience. I want you to make this decision based upon your criteria in relation to the Area Variance, and again, if it's a locked Board, we have 30 days. So, I mean, it's not something that we have to decide now. MRS. LAPHAM-I'd probably stick with my original determination. MR. CARVIN-Okay. We're going to have to put this over, Jim. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Are you going to close the public hearing? Yes. I did close the public hearing. So I will table this application. We have 30 days to reach a decision. .-- MR. MARTIN-I think it's 45. MR. CARVIN-We've got to get a full Board. That's all there is to it. MR. MARTIN-Has Tom Ford been here for any of this deliberation? MR. MENTER-I think he was here for one. Wasn't he? MR. STEVES-Mr. Chairman, we don't have any problems with putting it over, and the time frame, probably, we won't have a problem with that either. We understand your dilemma. MR. CARVIN-I'm sorry, believe me. MR. STEVES-No, no. We understand your dilemma, and it can only be overcome, perhaps, by. MR. CARVIN-The seventh member. MR. STEVES-Yes. So we're not trying to burden you with any more problems, either. MR. CARVIN-Well, I know Mr. Ford is probably not going to be available much before July, and I know that the rest of this month is locked. I mean, there is no way that we can get it in on June. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-1996 JOHN A. SHAFFER, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Until July, the first opportunity, to allow Mr. Ford to be brought up to speed, and this Board can review all of the pertinent facts to render a decision at some point in July. Duly adopted this 12th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: MR. CARVIN-I would ask any of the participants in this not to poll the Board. The public hearing is closed. At this point, I think everybody here understands where this Board is coming from. I mean, it is a very, very split Board. AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Carvin - 21 - -- ( Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) NQES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. MARTIN-And that first meeting is July 17th, if that's, in fact, the first time we can. MR. CARVIN-I want to make sure that Mr. Ford is up to speed, because it won't do us any good if he doesn't have the minutes and is not on line. So, also remember, folks, we need four votes one way or the other. I'd like to clear it. I really would. MR. STEVES-I don't think that that's necessarily so. We don't need four votes one way or the other. If you vote tonight, and have a three, three tie. MR. CARVIN-That's no action. MR. STEVES-No action on this Board within 45 days grants the relief, does it not? MR. CARVIN-No. No action is just that, no action. -- MR. MARTIN-You're thinking of, like, a Planning Board site plan review, or something like that. It's not the same as a variance. MR. CARVIN-There is no default here. MR. STEVES-That's why we had no objection to it. MR. MENTER-In effect, it's a denial. MR. STEVES-Good night. MR. CARVIN-Okay. The next item of business is Herb Heineman? MR. MARTIN-He was withdrawn, I think. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I was going to say. I thought that that was a dead issue. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So you're satisfied with that? Okay. Well, this is for resolution only. RESOLUTION ONLY: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-96 MAUREEN & THOMAS MCDONOUGH STEVE SUTTON D/B/A SUTTON'S MARKETPLACE OWNER OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: KEN ERMIGER APPLICANTS ARE APPEALING A DETERMINATION MADE BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR IN A LETTER DATED APRIL 2, 1996 CONCERNING PROPERTY OWNED BY KEN ERMIGER. THE APPLICANTS ARE APPEALING THE DETERMINATION THAT A PROPOSED GO-KART TRACK IS NOT A BUILDING THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE APPROPRIATE STREET SETBACK. THE DEFINITIONS OF BUILDING & SETBACK IN SECTION 179-7B AS DETERMINED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ARE ALSO BEING APPEALED. LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF ROUTE 9, JUST NORTH OF AGWAY. TAX MAP NO. 73-1-4.1 IN A HC-1A ZONE. RESOLUTION ONLY: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 4-96 MICHAEL & JAMES VALENTI STEVE SUTTON D/B/A SUTTON'S MARKETPLACE OWNER OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: KEN ERMIGER APPLICANTS ARE APPEALING A DETERMINATION MADE BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR IN A LETTER DATED APRIL 2, 1996 CONCERNING PROPERTY OWNED BY KEN ERMIGER. THE APPLICANTS ARE APPEALING THE DETERMINATION THAT A PROPOSED GO-KART TRACK IS NOT A BUILDING THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE APPROPRIATE STREET SETBACK. THE DEFINITIONS OF BUILDING & SETBACK IN SECTION 179-7B AS DETERMINED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ARE ALSO BEING APPEALED. LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF ROUTE 9, JUST NORTH OF AGWAY. TAX MAP NO. 73-1-4.1 IN - 22 - '-' '-"" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) A HC-1A ZONE. MR. CARVIN-If the applicants are still amenable, I would like to review both of these together? MARTIN AUFFREDOU MR. AUFFREDOU-Certainly, yes. We would recommend that. Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. No problem? Okay. Now. Who wasn't here for this? Okay. Are you comfortable that you're versed with all the issues? MR. MENTER-Yes. I'm real comfortable with it. I'm going to abstain from voting on this, though, because of the proximity to my own business, but I'm going to reserve the right to speak to the residents. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, all right. We are at a resolution stage. So everybody else was here for that application. Is that correct? All right. Does anybody have any questions of the applicants? MR; THOMAS-No. I don't have any questions of the applicant~at this point, but we were handed two fairly thick pieces of paper tonight, and, I don't know, do they both state about the same thing? Mr. Lemery sent one, this was sent in today, and Mr. McDonough handed us one tonight, and do they say about the same thing? TOM MCDONOUGH MR. MCDONOUGH-Substantially, except I've even added some to it. I've listened to the, there was an issue when we closed last hearing, as to whether or not there was a requirement to comply with setback on the other go kart. The file, according to Mr. Martin, was quiet on it. They didn't have any information on it. I found, in the County file, specific reference to applying the front setback to the other go kart application. In addition, they could not find the Queensbury file, but yesterday afternoon we located the actual tapes of the minutes of the hearing, at which the front setback requirements were applied to the other go kart. At the last variance, Mr. Schachner mentioned to you it would be important if we had precedents with respect to this, and that you ought to look at it. Well, there was precedent. They did apply for front setback for the other go kart. Yesterday afternoon they still could not find the Queensbury file. This morning they found the Queensbury file, and I went to that and I found the secretary's minutes, and they're in those papers I submitted, showing specifically that they referred to the setback with respect to the go kart. So there's unquestionably a precedent for applying the front setback to the go kart, and that's, particularly with respect to the issue which (lost words). That's why I've submitted this so late, because we only got it yesterday afternoon and this morning. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but you're point is that it just is in reference to a precedent. Is that correct, in 1987 or '88? MR. MCDONOUGH-That's in reference to a precedent that they applied the setback, and I also spoke with Mr. Ferraro on the application that was made by him with respect to variances, and on the application that was made for him for variances, the way he submitted it is not the way it's found in the file. The reason I say that is the application that he submitted, and it said was for a rollerskating rink and a go kart track, and somebody wrote in, requires side and rear setback variances. In the discussions in the Zoning Board of Appeals and the hearing, they discussed and heard Mr. Ferraro, Mr. Nealon, with respect to front setback for the go kart, and that was applied according to Mr. Ferraro. I put - 23 - - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) it in an affidavit form because I was the one who listened to the tape. Mr. Ferraro was told by the then Building Department's Mr. Messinger that, because the go kart was a structure, he had to comply with the front setback requirement, and that was the issue with respect to this particular go kart, where Mr. Martin says that the front setback is not required. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and I'm just going to refer this correspondence, because it was so voluminous, I'm not going to have it read in. I'm going to refer this correspondence to be put into the file, with relation to this particular application. Does anyone have any questions of the applicants? Does anyone have any determinations or motions or thoughts, comments? MR. THOMAS-I have a question of Mr. Martin. With all this information that's come in, what's your thoughts on this? MR. MARTIN-I take an exact opposite view of the outcome of that go kart application for Ferraro, and you have a memo of mine to that effect, and my determination remains unchanged. MR. THOMAS-Okay, even though they found the application for a variance? --- MR. MARTIN-The application, I don't know who wrote that, but it does say, side and rear setback variance only, and the approving resolution refers only to the water slide. MR. MCDONOUGH-It does not say side and rear only. It says, whoever wrote it on there. MR. MARTIN-I don't know who wrote it on there. MR. CARVIN-Hold on. Right here. MR. MCDONOUGH-The applicant I spoke to, and I said specifically in my affidavit, that the applicant did not write it there and it was not put there with his consent. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I think the point is, I don't want to hear a case in 1987. I've got enough of them right here. Tonight. MR. MCDONOUGH-The point is, though, the Board specifically addressed it. The minutes reflect it. The tapes of the hearing reflect it. So they did hear and they did decide on the front setback, back in, with respect to go karts. MR. MARTIN-And again, I will caution, you know, these individuals who are bringing this case do not have to live with this interpretation, as a Zoning Administrator, from this point forward, but I have to live with this, now, month in and month out, and I'm going to force to subject structures of this type to the setback, allover town, and potentially on clients that they may be representing in the future, and I do not want to hear, then, that it's unreasonable for a parking lot, now, to be subject to the setback, and I'm going to have little tolerance for the onerous, unfriendly business environment in the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, because this is the type of thing that creates that, and I just want that said and stated. MR. CARVIN-Hold it right now. Everybody calm down. Lets sit down, please. I'm going to maintain control here. Okay. I'm going to refer it back to the Board. Does the Board have any questions, specific, of the applicants? You've all received the information, all the packets. You've sat through all the testimony. Chris, your question was good. You have Mr. Martin's response, that he still stands by his original decision. I'm going to focus this on this application, and this application only. - 24 - '-' ----- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) MR. MARTIN-If there's some plausible way to differentiate between this structure and structures of similar type and similar relationship to the use on this property, and you can find that in the Ordinance, and ground it, that's fine, but I am concerned, from my aspect, like I said, the far reaching implications of such a determination on this. I realize the interests that are related to this particular appeal will be served, but I have to live with it, from that point on, and all the other future applications and projects in this town have to abide by it. I'll just point that out. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. I have an opinion that I will read, and I will leave it for the Board to discuss. The issue is not as simple as to give a definition of Building or Structure, but relates to the uniqueness of the use of the land. I would ask everyone to get out their zoning books, please, because I'm going to be referring to two or three sections. The first Section I refer to is Section 179-23D(l) , which indicates that all uses and accessory uses in the HC zones will be subject to site plan review. Section 179-23(3) (b) (4) indicates an amusement center, under Type II, indicates amusement center is an allowed use. Amusement Center is defined as "An indoor or outdoor facility, which may include structures and buildings, where there are various devices...--for entertainment, including rides and booths for the conduct of games and buildings for shows and entertainment." So that the first test that we have to face is a go kart, and I'm using the term "facility", in the hopes that it's a neutral term, is an allowed use. Now, I feel that it does meet the criteria, in that these are devices for entertainment, and could be considered or construed as a ride, but I do not believe that they are a ride in the traditional sense, as these devices are normally individually self operated and are not permanently located to a single spot and are very mobile. So if the use is allowed under Section 179- 23(3) (b) (4), we also find under Section 179-23D(3) that accessory uses and accessory use structures incidental to a permitted use are also allowed. Does everybody have that Section? 179-23D (3). Page 17978, Accessory Uses. No, that's not right, D(2). "Customary accessory uses and accessory use structures incidental to a permitted use or an existing nonconforming residential use." I believe that the proposed track that the go karts are slated to traverse meet the definition of "Accessory Use Structure". Now, if you take a look under the definition of "Accessory Use Structure", and I believe it says is "Any building or structure affixed to land or a portion of a main structure," and I dropped out the main section, "and is incidental and subordinate to and associated with a permitted principal use." Now accessory use structure makes no distinction between buildings or structures. It indicates both, and can be considered as accessory use structures. Now, if you go to Section 179-12B(1) and B(2), it states "No building or structure or land shall hereafter be used or occupied and no building or structure or part thereof shall be erected, moved or altered unless in conformity with the regulations herein specified for the districts in which it is to be located." Number Two says, "No building or structure that is hereinafter allowed for the district in which such building or structure is located shall hereafter be erected or altered which will exceed the height or bulk; accommodate or house a greater number of families; occupy a greater percentage of lot area; or have narrower or smaller front yards, rear yards or side yards than is allowed in the particular district." Now, if you also take a look at Section 179-12C(4) , it says, Accessory Use or Use structures. "An accessory use or accessory structure shall be permitted if the use to which it is accessory is a lawful use pursuant to the terms of this chapter and' for which a permit has been issued if required pursuant to the term of Article XIV hereof, so long as said accessory use or structure does not result in or increase any violation of the provisions of Article IV and § 179-67." Now, if you go to Section 179-67, and I draw particular attention to Item A(c) (3) that states, "Accessory - 25 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) structures in other zones", which this falls under. "Accessory structures shall comply with the front and side yard requirements for the principal structure to which they are accessory and shall not be closer than ten (10) feet to any rear property line or buffer zone, if required, or closer than fifty (50) feet to another building. " Now, what does this all mean in english? As I interpret it, unless this facility is pre-existing, and if the use that is applied for and the accessory structure is approved, than both the buildings and structures must be in compliance with the setback requirements. Now, this does not invalidate a previous Zoning Board of Appeals determination with regard to structure heights, as the height requirement under the 179-23 is very specific to buildings only, but it's only in relation to height. So, by going through this convoluted process where it does say that accessory structures have to meet the setbacks, I feel that our Zoning Administrator is incorrect, as far as the setbacks are concerned. However, we would agree with our Zoning Administrator with regard to Section 179-28A and C in that that Section specifically refers to buildings and does not relate to structures. Now that is in relation to this 75 foot setback. So I think Mr. Martin is absolutely correct that the accessory use structure does not have to meet the 75 feet, but I feel that it does have to meet the 50 feet. Now the question of parking has been raised.~Now there's a couple of ways I can tackle this. Number One, it's not an issue. Unless somebody challenges the Zoning Administrator's decision, his decisions so far have been correct as far as parking. However, my feeling is that if somebody does challenge the parking, that parking lots may not be accessory use structures. They might be required, but they may not necessarily be associated with the principal use of the structure or the building. Now what does that mean? It means it's like plumbing. We require plumbing, but a toilet may not necessarily be in direct relationship to the business. It may be mandated and regulated, but it's just not associated, and may not be associated, with principal use or facilitate the use of the land. Does everybody on this Board understand where I'm coming from? And do you have any questions as to how I arrived at this decision? MR. KARPELES-You got me confused with 50 and 75 foot setbacks. MR. CARVIN-Okay. The item, as it relates, in other words, what these gentlemen are questioning is that Mr. Martin has indicated that the accessory structure, the go kart track, and I'm making reference to the track, does not have to comply with, because this is an overlay zone. It's the Highway Commercial and the Highway Commercial needs a 75 foot setback, but it also, according to the, if it's under the Section 179-23, it's an Amusement Center, the Amusement Center says that it requires a 50 foot setback. What the applicants are suggesting and proposing is that, because the go kart track is in the Highway Commercial, that it has to meet a 75 foot setback as well as a 50. Obviously, Mr. Martin is saying it does not have to require either. I am saying he is correct on the 75 foot, because that particular section, and I think it was 179- 28A and C, is very specific in buildings. It does not say structures. It says buildings. Very specific. However, Section 179-23, the only reference to buildings is under the height category, and as I said, if it falls back to, is this an allowed use, you have to ask yourself first, is a go kart track an allowed use under the definition of Amusement Center. Now, you have to read that definition of Amusement Center. Now, it is pretty vague and ambiguous, but I don't think anybody can argue that a go kart is a device for entertainment. Now you may have some argument as to whether it is a ride. It also may fall under that, but I don't think that it, at least in illY mind, I do believe they are devices. Then, if that is an allowed use, what are the accessory use structures? Well, obviously, I think the go kart track is an accessory use structure to the go kart facility. Now, the go kart track could also be used for other things, but in relation to what - 26 - ......../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) is being proposed there, it's not being proposed as a bikeway. It's not being proposed as a walkway. It's not being proposed as a runway. It is being proposed as an accessory use structure to the go kart facility. Now, whenever you have an allowed use, according to, and I'm going through this again, as to how I got to it, you go to the Section, that Article IV, which basically says that any allowed use has to be in compliance with the particular requirements in the zone. That's very specific. If it's an allowed use, that does not mean that they can violate the setbacks. They have to be in compliance. That's why we're here, folks. If it's an allowed use and they can't meet the setbacks, they come here for a variance. So, if it's an allowed use, according to those Sections, and then as I said, it refers back, specifically, to accessory use structures, and that's that Section 179-67, that is ~ specific. I mean, there is no cloudiness, in my mind, that it's specific to both, accessory use structures. So the thing that you have to ask yourself, is the track the accessory use structure, or is it something else, and now again in mY mind, it's very specific. So I think that the track, as well as the go karts, have to meet the setback, because if the go karts were to travel right on the property line without the accessory use structure, they'd be in violation of the setback, because it's not a traditional situation. So, in any event, if that go kart facility, I mean, there has to be at least whatever the setbacks, front and side, to run those go karts. Does anybody have any questions? I mean, is this clear? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I have one question. I was with you right up to the point you said the track would have to meet the 50 foot setback, and this Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, which this is. MR. CARVIN-Right, says 75. MR. THOMAS-Right. It says 75, but you stated that. MR. CARVIN-To a building. MR. THOMAS-To a building, and you referred to 179-67A(3). It states there, Accessory structures in other zones, other than the ones listed in Two, accessory structures shall comply with the front and side yard requirements for the principal structure to which they are accessory. To me, that means that track would have to be back 75, in this particular instance, in this particular zone, in this particular Travel Corridor Overlay. MR. CARVIN-It's as written. I understand where you're coming from. MR. THOMAS-But to me, like I said, I was with you right up to that point, when you said the track would have to be 50. I read this thing as saying the track would have to be 75 because it has to be, "Accessory structures shall comply with the front and side yard requirements for the principal structure to which they are accessory and shall not be closer than ten (10) feet to any rear property line or buffer zone." To me, that means that track would have to be back 75 feet. MR. CARVIN-So you're saying that they have to comply with both? MR. THOMAS-With both, yes, because it says the accessory structure shall comply with the front and side yard requirements for the principal structure to which they are accessory. So instead of that track being 50 feet, which is the requirement in a Highway Commercial zone, in a non Travel Corridor area, that this would have to be 75 feet back. MR. CARVIN-Can't fault your logic. Does everybody understand what Chris is saying? - 27 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) MR. KARPELES-Yes. I agree with him. I think you've got to go take a look at the purpose of this, and the purpose is in order to maintain the rural character along these roadways and/or to allow widening of these roadways in the future, increased setbacks for new construction has been established along the major regional arterials in the Town, and I think it's just splitting hairs, between a building and a structure. I think that the intent of it is to have the structure also be 75 feet back. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now as I said, I don't want to make the parking lots an issue, but is my logic flawed there? MR. GREEN-As to? MR. CARVIN-Are parking lots accessory use structures, or are they just incidentals like plumbing and electric and water? MR. MENTER-I think they need to be, incidental, in your words. MR. CARVIN-I mean, we have not had to define that, but that is my feeling on a parking lot. As I said, it's not an issue. Nobody has brought an issue to us, but I think Mr. Martin is correct. I mean, when we make this, we render a decision, he has to be guided by that, and what I'm trying to tell him is that I don't have a problem with his interpretation of parking lots at this point. Do you have any questions, Jim? MR. MARTIN-I would like that clarified, if that is your, when you hand down this decision, because I want to know how to act the next time an application comes in for siting a parking lot. I want to know, is that going to be subject to the 75 foot setback in the commercial zones. MR. CARVIN-And I'm saying that, at this point, nobody has asked for an opinion, and your opinions have held sway at this point. So unless somebody brings it to this Board, I mean, that's the coward's way out, but. MR. MENTER-I think as a Board on this what you need to do is just differentiate between. MR. CARVIN-It's not part of, they're asking us on the setbacks. They're not asking us about parking. They want a definition on buildings and structures, and I'm saying, we can't, it's just not that simple. MR. MENTER-Right, but I think I'm agreeing with you that you don't need to address the parking issue specifically. You can deal with this issue without addressing that, and muddying that up. MR. KARPELES-Except that we aren't giving Jim much guidance as to what he does on in the future. I feel that if a parking lot, a business depends upon that parking lot, and that parking lot falls entirely within that 75 feet, and they are going to widen the road some day, and they're going to lose that parking lot and lose the business, that should never have been granted, that parking lot. MR. CARVIN-I'm keeping this application related to accessory use structures, because that's what, this is pretty clear in my mind. The parking lot, I think, is still a cloudy issue, but in my mind, that issue is resolved by the fact that a parking lot is not, in all cases, necessarily, related to the use of the structure. A parking lot is a convenience, because you can, even though the Town nlandates parking lots, theoretically and technically, I think you could conduct a business without a parking lot. If the Town did not have an Ordinance as far as parking lots were concerned, I don't think that would prevent people from doing business, and that's what I'm looking at. - 28 - ',----, ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) MR. MENTER-I agree. I think the key is that you relate this structure, accessory structure, in the way that you outlined. You need to make that relationship clear. This specific use is related to that, and you don't need to address the parking lot. MR. CARVIN-Any questions, Chris? MR. MENTER-Because there's no indication, right now, that parking areas are accessory uses. We're not talking about a parking lot. MR. CARVIN-Not at this point. Not until I figure out where this Board, what this Board wants to do. Any thoughts? MR. GREEN-I think you've done a very good job of differentiating between the two different types of macadam that's used as part of a business, as the principal part of the business versus a parking lot. I don't consider it part of the business. I think it should be the setbacks. I haven't figured out the differences between the 50 and the 75. MR. CARVIN-Again, as I said, I think Chris' point is well made. It's a decision of this Board. -- MR. GREEN-I would have to tend to agree with you, Fred, I think part of that setback is to keep the buildings back, since the track itself has no elevation, in theory, you're going to be able to see through that. As long as the building setback is 75, I wouldn't have a problem with the track being back the 50. Because you're going to be able to see, you know, through that track back to the 75. MR. CARVIN-Okay. What are you saying, it should be or shouldn't be? MR. GREEN-No, 50 on the track is fine. MR. CARVIN-Bonnie, any thoughts? MRS. LAPHAM-Basically, I picked up on what Bob was saying about part of the purpose of (lost words) zoning and that type of zoning was to keep the rural character of the community along the major arteries. I don't think the parking lot comes into this at all. It allows an accessory structure, because the parking lot is only an accessory structure if you are operating a parking lot as a business and charging so much for parking spaces. So, that issue could be shelved for another time, but I think you've made this very specific and very clear. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Do the applicants have any questions or comments? It appears that the Board is coming to a consensus. MR. AUFFREDOU-Just a very brief comment, maybe to assist you. 179- 67, I think that Section A(1) (3) seems to reference only accessory structures. I'm not sure that a parking lot fits into the definition of accessory structure. It may fit into the definition of accessory use. If that's the case, it doesn't seem to me that the parking lot would fall into the confines of accessory structures in other zones, under your analysis. I just wanted to add that. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Jim, any comments? Are you clear? MR. MARTIN-As long as I have some guidance on parking lots and driveways, because I'm not going to be the bad guy. MR. GREEN-That's our job. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Should I read this in? - 29 - '-- '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) MR. THOMAS-Yes, you may as well. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Are you going to make that into a motion? MR. CARVIN-Yes, I guess. The only thing that I have to change, really, is just the determination, that we disagree with our Zoning Administrator on both issues. He has to meet both the 75 and the 50. MR. THOMAS-Yes, the 50 in a non Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, 75 in a Travel Corridor Overlay Zone. MR. CARVIN-I think this is where this is. MR. THOMAS-Yes. This is a Travel Corridor Overlay Zone. MR. CARVIN-So he's made two determinations. So that, if I'm interpreting this Board correct, you're saying he has to meet both the 75 and the 50 in this particular case. MR. GREEN-No. I'm saying it's only going to be for the 50. -- MR. CARVIN-Only the 50. MR. GREEN-The buildinqs have to meet the 75, but not the track. MR. CARVIN-Chris says that the buildings, according to 179-67. MR. THOMAS-179-67. MR. CARVIN-Says the principal structure. MR. THOMAS-A(1) (3) Accessory Structures, as we've determined this track to be, shall comply with the front and side yard requirements for the principal structure to which they are accessory, and shall not be closer than 10 feet to any rear property line or buffer zone. So, if the principal structure has to be 75 feet, the accessory structure has to be 75 feet. Because this is in the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, this particular piece that we are talking about, but there are Highway Commercial properties that are not in the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, and the setbacks on those are 50 feet. MR. GREEN-What is the principal structure? MR. THOMAS-The principal structure would be the building that they put up to house these, take tickets. There's going to be some kind of building there, I would imagine. I don't think it's just going to be a flat piece of ribbon, blacktop ribbon, running around that property. They're going to have to have some kind of building there, to maintain these machines, devices. I'm sorry. MR. GREEN-Well, according to that Code, then it does have to meet the 75. MR. THOMAS-Yes, on this particular piece of property, yes. MR. GREEN-Okay. All right. I would agree to that. MR. CARVIN-Does anybody else have any questions, challenge? MR. CARVIN-Based upon the previous discussion, I would move: MOTION WITH REGARD TO NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-96 MAUREEN & THOMAS MCDONOUGH STEVE SUTTON D/B/A SUTTON'S MARKETPLACE & NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 4-96 MICHAEL & JAMES VALENTI STEVE SUTTON D/B/A - 30 - '---/ -.J (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) SUTTON'S MARKETPLACE THAT THE ISSUE IS NOT AS SIMPLY AS TO GIVE A DEFINITION OF BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES, IN THAT AFTER REFERENCING SECTIONS 179-23 (3) (B) (4), 179-23D(2) (a), AND WITH REFERENCES TO SECTION 179-12B(1) B(2), SECTION 179-12C(4) AND SECTION 179-67A(3), AND ALSO REFERENCE TO OUR DEFINITION UNDER ARTICLE II, 179-7 FOR ACCESSORY USE STRUCTURE AND AMUSEMENT CENTER, I FIND THAT OUR ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S INTERPRETATION WITH REGARD TO THE PROPOSED GO KART FACILITY THAT IS CURRENTLY OWNED AND BEING PLANNED BY KEN ERMIGER, IS INCORRECT. THAT THE GO KART DEVICES AND ACCESSORY USE STRUCTURES DO HAVE TO MEET THE FRONT, SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS AS OUTLINED BY SECTION 179-23, AND ALSO THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY GUIDELINES AS OUTLINED BY SECTION 179 - 2 8., Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas': Duly adopted this 12th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: MR. CARVIN-Is that clear, Jim, or do you want something additional? MR. MARTIN-No. I understand that parking lots and driveways are not included. MR. CARVIN-That's correct. --- AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Menter ABSENT: Mr. Ford USE VARIANCE NO. 26-1996 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-1A RESOLUTION TO TABLE UNTIL JULY '96 GLENS FALLS TENNIS & SWIM CLUB OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE QUAKER ROAD TO SANFORD STREET, FIRST DRIVEWAY ON THE RIGHT APPLICANT PROPOSES TO LOCATE 2 PLATFORM TENNIS COURTS AND WARMING HUT ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THIS ACTION REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE USES LISTED IN SECTION 179-20(D). WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 109-3-12.2 LOT SIZE: 2.60 ACRES SECTION 179-20(D) JOHN BUECKING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. CARVIN-I'd like to, if this is okay, I have not had a chance to read the minutes yet. So I am not totally, in fact, this is the first time that I've seen the minutes. Now, I was not at the meeting. Who else was not at that meeting? Was everybody else there? MR. MENTER-I wasn't at the meeting. I didn't get a chance to look at that. MR. CARVIN-All right. I'd like to take a five minute recess, just to read the minutes, so I can bring myself up to speed on this. Okay. I have read the minutes. I have reviewed the application, or applications. I feel that I am comfortable and familiar with what the applicant is requesting and proposing. Was somebody else not here at that meeting? Am I the only one? MR. MENTER-No. I was not here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How about you, Dave, do you feel comfortable? MR. MENTER-Yes, I do. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Going through the minutes, I notice that there were a couple of issues, and I see this was tabled for additional information. I think they wanted something from the DEC, which I understand has been submitted, and also I think a revised plan. - 31 - '- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) Did everybody receive that information? minute and review that for the Board, you've submitted. John, if you could take a the new information that MR. BUECKING-There' s not much more I can say. The revised driveway plan for ENCON's approval, it's all pretty self-explanatory. MR. CARVIN-Does anybody have any questions of the applicant? MR. THOMAS-I had one question. I asked Mr. Lapham the last time. I asked him why he couldn't move it back next to the existing courts. It would be in the southwestern corner, I guess, west of the existing courts, in the back, behind the swimming pool, 'up in that area. MR. KARPELES-Isn't it northwest? MR. CARVIN-You mean up by the Clubhouse? MR. THOMAS-Yes, up behind the Clubhouse there. Could you tell me why you couldn't move it up there? MR. BUECKING-This is the best site for it. -- MR. THOMAS-Can you tell me why this is the best site for it? MR. BUECKING-This is largely a cool weather sport, exclusively a cool weather sport. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. BUECKING-And cool weather brings snow, and the plan is to not isolate these sports any place away from the road. We're wanting to come in here and keep this area cloud, put these things back in some northwest corner, for some reason. It's not clear why. It would be much more difficult to (lost word) in the winter time (lost word) clouds and snowblowers. Also, this location is the farthest away from any of the contiguous neighbors. MR. CARVIN-I was going to say, where were you referring, Chris, up behind the Clubhouse here, up in here? MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, next to Courts 9 and 10. MR. CARVIN-Way up in the back corner here? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. BUECKING-That area, also, is unacceptable for any particular building of anything. There is a substantial gully that comes in and crosses southwest to the northeast across that corner there, and where it isn't gully it's swale, bedrock. MR. CARVIN-Okay. You say this is primarily a winter sport or a fall sport. I noticed, again going through the minutes, there was some discussion about hours, and the lighting. MR. BUECKING-The membership would be using these platform tennis courts probably on weekends and in the evening. These are lighted platform tennis courts. The light is coming directly down on to the platform tennis courts. I wish I'd had the presence of mind to bring in from the car a sample of the court decking as well as one of the back. There's one of the paddle that is used. It's slightly bigger than your hand, but the hours are when people have free time, during the weekend and sometimes in the evening hours. - 32 - '----" ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay. I guess my question is, the Tennis Club, at this point, is closed primarily during the winter months? MR. BUECKING-Correct. MR. CARVIN-So this would be something to extend that on. I'm assuming that, because the sun goes down much earlier in the later months, that this will be lighted, and is there any problem of limiting that to, we'll say, it looks like, I see in the minutes, 9:30 to 10 o'clock, that no use of these courts can be after 10 o'clock? MR. BUECKING-As a practical matter, you're not going to see anybody out there at 10 o'clock at night. MR. CARVIN-So you wouldn't have a problem if this was to be conditioned. MR. BUECKING-This is something that somebody is going to come over and do after dinner, seven o'clock at night, play for an hour, hour and a half, two hours max. You get an awful lot of exercise in two hours. Again, these platform tennis courts, given the winter scene over there, are going to be isolated. I mean, there's not going~to be another thing around except this house over here, in that development to the west. MR. CARVIN-Any other questions? You left the public hearing open, I believe? Let me see. I'm going to open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARVIN-Any additional correspondence? MR. THOMAS-No, there was no additional correspondence, other than the two letters that were read into the record. MR. CARVIN-Okay, and those were both in support? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. BUECKING-Mr. Chairman, I contacted the, we went around to the contiguous neighbors. The Henels, who conduct a clinic in a house that's in board of our courts were all for it, as well as Dick Burke who lives down the street and across, west on Sanford Street on the north side of the road. Julie and Joe Bow, who would be most effected, live right here, more or less, to the west, outlet of the driveway, and they live here on the south side of Sanford Street. These platform tennis courts are not visible from their house, even though they sit up on a hill, and therefore Julie and Joe Bow are for it, the tennis courts anyway. The Kirschners, Tom and Beth Haviland, who would be the next property owners to the west of the Tennis and Swim Club's property there's a vacant lot, and then (lost word) farm, and they're all for it, and Dan O'Keefe, who is a member of the Tennis and Swim Club is for it, as well as Joanna Crockwell, who's property this would abut, and is the surviving heir of the Crockwell estate. I interviewed her a couple of times by phone. She's up in Essex, Vermont, but she has no objections to it. MR. CARVIN-Okay. If there's no other public comment, the public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-All right. Any questions? What do you think, Bonnie? - 33 - ,--,' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) MRS. LAPHAM-I don't have a problem. MR. GREEN-My only real concern, I guess, was the lighting, and the more we look at it, I've been out there a couple more times, I guess there really isn't anybody else around there for the light to really bother. MR. CARVIN-Well, if we turn it off at 10 o'clock. MR. GREEN-Yes. I think that's fine. MRS. LAPHAM-It's really isolated out there. MR. MENTER-Yes. that location. I don't see much impact, or potential impact at MR. KARPELES-I have no problem. The neighbors don't seem to mind. MR. THOMAS-No, I have no problem, as long as the neighbors don't mind. MR. CARVIN-I would ask for a motion then. -- MR. MARTIN-Remember, the Use Variance portion is SEQRA. SO you should address that in your resolution. The Area Variance is Type II. There was a Short Form I saw attached. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM INDICATES A NEGATIVE CONDITION AND NO IMPACT, AND THAT WE ACCEPT THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 12th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. CARVIN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 26-1996 GLENS FALLS TENNIS & SWIM CLUB, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by William Green: The applicant is proposing to construct two platform tennis courts and a warming hut. The warming hut to be 12 by 18. Relief is required from a permitted use, Section 179-20D. The land is currently zoned Single Family Residence One Acre. However, the current use of the property is the Glens Falls Tennis & Swim Club, and by the granting of this variance, I feel that the construction of the platform tennis courts is in keeping with the current use, and that the character of the neighborhood will not be affected if this use is as proposed to expand. This appears to be the minimum relief necessary to address the hardship that's been proven by the applicant and at the same time protect the health, character, safety and welfare of the community, as the applicant has demonstrated that siting of these platform tennis courts in other spots would not be practical. I would condition this variance that the tennis courts, which will be lighted, that all operation or use of these courts is not to extend past 10 p.m., seven days a week. All lighting should be turned off at that point. The applicant has provided a site plan and also a permit issued by the Department of Environmental Conservation indicating that they don't have a real - 34 - ''-.--- ' ---./ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) problem with the siting of this court. Duly adopted this 12th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: MR. CARVIN-What is the size of the warming hut? MR. BUECKING-The warming hut will be approximately 12 feet by 18 feet. That dimension was selected for minimum size, just for that, just to get warm. It's not for parties. It's not to put anything else in. It's just to get warm, and that would allow an 18 foot (lost word) on to the proposed court, 12 feet deep. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does Staff have any problems with an accessory structure there? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE --- ABSENT: Mr. Ford AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-1996 TYPE II SFR-1A RESOLUTION TO TABLE UNTIL JULY '96 GLENS FALLS TENNIS & SWIM CLUB OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE QUAKER ROAD TO SANFORD STREET, FIRST DRIVEWAY ON THE RIGHT APPLICANT PROPOSES TO LOCATE 2 PLATFORM TENNIS COURTS AND WARMING HUT ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS IN SECTION 179-20(C). WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 109-3-12.2 LOT SIZE: 2.60 ACRES SECTION 179-20(C) JOHN BUECKING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 27-1996, Glens Falls Tennis & Swim Club, Meeting Date: June 12, 1996 "APPLICANT: Glens Falls Tennis & Swim Club PROJECT LOCATION: Sanford St. Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: Applicant is proposing to construct a warming hut and 2 platform tennis courts on the east side of the property. Relief is needed from the side setbacks listed in Section 179-20C. Cri teria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: This would allow the applicant to build two tennis courts and a warming hut on their property. 2. Feasible alternatives: The applicant may have the ability to locate the hut and tennis courts to the rear of the property. By doing this there would be no need for side setback relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The relief being sought is 100%. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? This proposal could have an effect on the home which is located on Sanford St. Glare and noise could be negative effects if the new courts were built in this location. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The applicant has usable land further back on this property. That area could be used for tennis courts and still meet the required setbacks. Staff Comments & Concerns: Staff feels that the location of these proposed additions can be changed. If the new courts were located to the rear of the property the impact to the home on Sanford St. would be minimized. If these courts are to be lighted, the additional glare would be better placed at the rear of the property. Staff is also concerned with closing up the access point at the eastern portion of this property. Turning movements, ingress and egress could be effected by this proposal. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." - 35 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) MR. THOMAS-"At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 10th day of April 1996, the above application for Area Variance to locate 2 platform tennis courts and warming hut on the east side of the property was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve" Signed by Linda Bassarab, Vice Chairperson. MR. CARVIN-Okay. I believe that we've answered all the questions that Staff has brought up in the previous dialogue. Does anybody have any questions of the applicant in regard to this application? MR. THOMAS-The courts will be sitting right on the property ~ine. Is that right? Because I didn't see anything in here. MR. CARVIN-I believe the existing tennis courts, in the diagram, must be sitting right on the property line, also. MR. THOMAS-Yes. That's the only question X had. MR. CARVIN-I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING --- NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Any questions? I'm ready for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-1996 GLENS FALLS TENNIS & SWIM CLUB, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: The applicant is proposing to construct a warming hut and two platform tennis courts on the east side of the property. Relief is needed from Section 179-20C. I would grant 100% side setback relief from the side property line. The property borders a DEC wet area to which the applicant has a permit. The benefit to the applicant, it would allow the applicant to build two platform tennis courts and a warming hut on their property. The feasible alternatives, there is a feasible alternative to the rear, but the applicant has stated that due to soil conditions and distance from parking that this would not be feasible. It is a substantial relief from the Ordinance, being 100%. There does not appear to be any effects on the neighborhood or community. We have statements concerning the fact that residents are in favor of this. The difficulty is self-created, but it has been mitigated by the fact that there are no neighborhood objections. The SEQRA's a Type II. No further action required. Duly adopted this 12th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. BUECKING-I must say, this is my first Zoning meeting that I've ever sat in on, and I'm very, very impressed by the amount of work and diligence. I would never have dreamed that this goes on. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-1996 TYPE II WR-1A JOSEPH & RITA LARAIA OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LEFT SIDE OF ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD, NORTH OF - 36 - ---../' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) SUNSET LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A PRIMARY RESIDENCE ON AN EXISTING LOT. RELIEF IS REQUIRED FROM THE SETBACKS IN SECTION 179-16(C) AND THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16(A). ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 8-5-14, 17 LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES, 0.29 ACRES SECTION 179- 16(C), 179-16(A) RITA LARAIA, PRESENT MR. CARVIN-Okay. majority situation. I think when last we met, Is that correct? we have a super MR. THOMAS-Yes. We need a super majority because Warren County disapproved it on the 10th day of April. MR. CARVIN-Okay. This was tabled back in April. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I have the tabling motion. MR. CARVIN-Why don't you read the tabling motion. MR. THOMAS-The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved-the following. The meeting date was April 17, 1996, Variance File No. 24-1996 for an Area Variance was tabled. "MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-1996 JOSEPH & RITA LARAIA, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: For additional information from the applicant regarding the septic and we would certainly like a more definitive architectural design with probably some pictures. Duly adopted this 17th day of April, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Ford, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Green" MR. CARVIN-Okay. Bill, have you had a chance to read the minutes and bring yourself up to speed? MR. GREEN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-You feel comfortable? MR. GREEN-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now, as I remember this, this was turned down by Warren County because they thought there was a density issue. I think Mr. Ford wanted some visuals on the house, which I believe have been provided to all the Board, and I think we've got septic information. I think you had indicated 85. MRS. LARAIA-We have the septic information. We have the visuals. I understood it was turned down by Warren County because there was a question, and I did not know I was supposed to go to that meeting. I wasn't notified. MR. CARVIN-They're not public meetings. MR. LARAIA-I see. MR. THOMAS-I'll read you exactly what they said. MR. CARVIN-I think they had a density. - 37 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) MR. THOMAS-Yes. "Based on density, which the Warren County believes that there is an overcrowding of the area and the fact that the septic system is not specifically up to Code yet. It seems like an awful increase in the size of the structure for the size of the parcel." MR. CARVIN-Okay. MRS. LARAIA-The camp that's there now is only 550 square feet, and I was told by a lady from the Building Department that you require 800 now, and what we want, the bottom floor would only be 1100 feet, and the top floor is (lost word). The whole thing here was the side variance that we were asking for. MR. CARVIN-Yes. In going through the minutes and searching my memory, it seems to me that this is on a, there's two lots here that are being considered as one. There's a second smaller residence. MRS. LARAIA- I was told that. I have separate deeds and pay separate tax bills. How can they consider it one lot? MR. CARVIN-I understand. The setback, I think you had indicated that you could center that house a little bit more to the center. Is that correct? MRS. LARAIA-It was proposed to be 10 feet from Mr. Woodruff's property, which is the property to the north. The lot is 67 and a half feet wide. The proposed house is 28 feet wide. So that's 38 feet. That only gives you 39 feet for the driveway, or whatever. MR. KARPELES-I thought it said 32 feet wide? Does it say 32 feet wide? Didn't you say 28 feet wide? MRS. LARAIA-Yes. MR. KARPELES-It says 32 on this print. MRS. LARAIA-The four feet is for the overhang by the front door. MR. CARVIN-I'm looking at a side yard setback of 10 feet on one side and 25 on the other. MRS. LARAIA-Yes. MR. CARVIN - Correct me if I'm wrong, Board, wasn't there some discussion about maybe centering it a little bit more on the lot? MR. MENTER-I think so. MR. CARVIN-Did we have any feeling on that? MR. THOMAS-We wanted to move it five feet. MR. CARVIN-It seems to me there was something in the minutes. MRS. LARAIA- I brought this picture I'd like to show you. The reason why I would like to keep it 10 feet is because this yellow house back here is a year round house on Honeysuckle Lane, and Phil and Bonnie have been our good neighbors for 25 years. They have a screened eating porch there, and they can view the lake, when you talk about views from the other camp. If we would move that over, it's going to practically eliminate the whole view of the lake, and I hate to do that to them because they're nice people. MR. THOMAS-Is that the place right there in front of the truck in this picture? - 38 - ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) MRS. LARAIA-Here, see this one? MR. THOMAS-Okay. Yes, it is this one right here. Okay. MR. CARVIN-Also, there's a tree there. I have a tree or something. MRS. LARAIA-That picture is taken at an angle. The 28 feet was coming back to where that pine tree is, and then if we bring it over another five, we're going to hide the whole eating porch, and my name is going to be mud. MR. GREEN-Do we have any idea how close you are to the other houses on the lots, on the lots to either side? MRS. LARAIA-The camp, now, is 10 feet at one point, and 5.9 at the other, because I had a survey done in the fall, and on the other side, we are at least 100 feet from the other neighbors, because they have a very large lot. MR. CARVIN-That's the Cartes? MRS. LARAIA-The Cartes, yes. I think they have 150 feet. -- MR. CARVIN-Yes. I was going to say, the way it's set up right now, I think it probably doesn't, it's really not a bad set up, because the Cartes are quite a ways over, and Woodruff, they're actually moving back off the Woodruff line. MR. MENTER-Right. MR. CARVIN-So, I'm looking at this. I don't have a problem with 25 feet on one side and 10 on the other. MR. GREEN-No. MR. CARVIN-The only question I had is the height of the house, of the new proposed house. I didn't see the height. MRS. LARAIA-I don't know. I don't think this plan shows the height of the house. It's just that upstairs there was to be one bedroom. That was the original one. Do you not have one of these, because he sent? MR. CARVIN-I think that was Mr. Ford's concern. MR. MENTER-There's a scale on this, one eighth equals a foot. MR. THOMAS-One eighth, lets see. That's three and a quarter inches. That's 26 feet. The very peak, the highest point is 26 feet. MR. MENTER-From that elevation. MR. CARVIN-Well, if we limit it to 26, it's going to be from the ground. So we'll just have to make it come in. MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Twenty-six feet high. It doesn't appear to have any walkouts. The deck's in the front. Does anybody else have any questions? I'll open up the public hearing, or did we close the public hearing? MR. THOMAS-It was closed. MR. CARVIN-Any other correspondence? MR. THOMAS-Yes. We have one letter. - 39 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) MR. CARVIN-Then I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. THOMAS-A letter dated 4/19/96, addressed to George Hilton, "Dear Mr. Hilton: Reference to public hearing for Joseph & Rita Laraia for a variance on property line north/ south of Laraia property next to my property, I recommend variance be set back 15 ft. from left front corner of new structure. Property line runs on an angle of approximately 7 ft. from front of property to rear of property. Sincerely yours, George Woodruff" MRS. LARAIA-I think Mr. Woodruff is a little bit off on his ·seven feet, because I had the property surveyed, and it didn't show the seven feet difference from the stake in the back and the stake in the road. There was two feet. That's one reason why I wanted to have it survey done so I could tell. MR. KARPELES-What is he recommending again? MR. THOMAS-" I recommend variance be set back 15 ft. from left front corner of new structure. Property line runs on an angle of approximately 7 ft. from front of property to rear of property." MR. KARPELES-I don't really understand what he's saying. MR. MENTER-That doesn't tell you much. MR. KARPELES-Is he saying this 10 foot dimension ought to be 15 feet? MR. THOMAS-Yes, that's what he's saying. MRS. LARAIA-I have a copy of the survey here that was done by Charles.Nacy from Hudson Falls. If anybody wanted to look at it, they'd be welcome to. MR. CARVIN-Who's Mr. Johnson? MR. THOMAS-Charles Johnson. He's an architect in Saratoga. Paradox Designs. Yes. He was the guy that was here. MRS. LARAIA-He represented me the first time. I contacted him in the fall, and he said that he would, but then he didn't know. I had told him about the new septic system, but I guess there was some mis-communication or something missing. So here is the survey that was done. Here's Assembly Point Road, and here's our property. Now, George says it goes at an angle. If it does, why would they show these lines, that's the point that I can't understand. MR. CARVIN-Well, I think in any event, you're moving the house back farther off this property line anyway. MRS. LARAIA-See, this is 5 foot 9, and this is the 10, and this is what we propose, and he was up Sunday, and he said your new house isn't 15 feet off the line, because if I wanted to re-build, I'd have to have another variance. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but his property looks wider than yours. Yes. His would be 100 feet wide, whereas yours is only 67. MRS. LARAIA-No. George is not 100 feet wide. The 100 feet goes over here to here. This is our back up here. This original lot was 150 feet, and Mr. Woodruff sold half of it to Mr. Vonneger back in '50, and this camp was built, I think, in '51. So, they each have 67 and a half feet. He does and we do. This is our camp on Honeysuckle Lane, back here. That's 100 square feet. See, this is - 40 - ',--" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) where the two pieces of property abut, and that's why they were trying to say that it was one piece of property. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MRS. LARAIA-So, I mean, if it has to be 15, it'll be 15, but I was trying to keep some view for my neighbor, if I possibly could. MR. THOMAS-There's a bunch of wires down there. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Any other correspondence, Chris? MR. THOMAS-No, that's the only one I've got, the only letter. MR. CARVIN-The public hearing's closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARVIN-Okay. What's your feeling, Board? How about you, Bob? MR. KARPELES-Well, I don't really feel that the square footage is excessive, and I guess I don't have any problem. -- MR. CARVIN-Dave? MR. MENTER-Was Mr. Woodruff here? MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. MENTER-Mr. Woodruff was here, the first time. MRS. LARAIA-He was here the first time. MR. CARVIN-He was concerned about the driveway being on his side. MR. MENTER-But that was it. He didn't express any. MR. CARVIN-Not then, but apparently a couple of days later he did write a letter. MR. MENTER-Yes. Overall, I don't have a problem. The situation of it, the physical situation of it, the 15 foot setback versus the 10 foot setback. I don't know if the rest of the Board has an opinion on that or not. I really haven't considered it too much. I sort of, I thought Mr. Woodruff was pretty happy with it, originally. I thought he was satisfied with it anyway. I think at this point I would go with a proposal to do either, either at the current 10 feet or at the 15 foot, move it a little bit. MR. CARVIN-You don't have any other questions or problems with it? MR. MENTER-No. MR. CARVIN-Okay. How about you, Bill? MR. GREEN-No, I don't have any real concern at all. It seems to be a nice size house for a lot, 10 feet or 15. Did the people in the back ever come and voice an opinion about moving in front of their screened room? MRS. LARAIA-Bill said Sunday, he just asked if we were going to build in front of the driveway, and I said no because the driveway looks right into their livingroom window, and that's all open. So they can see the lake, and I was just trying to keep it over, so that when they sat out here and had their supper in the evening, they could enjoy their view of the lake. MR. GREEN-And the people to the closer side there, to the north, - 41 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) apparently, have never voiced any? MR. CARVIN-No. They're quite a ways away. MR. GREEN-I'd leave it at the 10 feet, then. MR. CARVIN-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I'd leave it at the 10. I think it's very nice, because the close neighbors wouldn't have their view obstructed. MR. CARVIN-Chris? MR. THOMAS-No problem, the 10 feet's fine. MR. CARVIN-I have no problems with this application, especially if it's going to stay at 26 feet. So, I'd ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-1996 JOSEPH & RITA LARAIA, Introduced by David Menter who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred Carvin: On Assembly Point Road. The applicant is proposing to removß an existing dwelling and construct a new one, 1706 square feet. Relief would be required from side yard setbacks. The new setbacks to be 10 foot on the north side and 25 feet on the south. At 1700 square feet, the structure would be appropriate for the size of the lot. There do not appear to be feasible alternatives to the location and type of structure. The applicant has expressed concern as to the effect on neighbors, and has given that consideration in design of the home. It does not appear that there would be any negative effects on the overall community or neighborhood. It needs relief of 10 foot from the side setback on the one side, and it needs relief of 15 foot from the overall 50 foot requirement for the sum of the two side setbacks. Given the parcel and the proposed project, the relief does not seem substantial relative to the Ordinance, and given the substandard size of the current structure, the difficulty would not appear to be self-created. The stipulation would be that the new structure would be limited to a height of 26 feet. Duly adopted this 12th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. MARTIN-You've got the Brock resolution there, too, to move on again. MR. CARVIN-Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-1996 RE-DO RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL: TYPE II WR-1A CEA JOHN BROCK CLEVERDALE ROAD, ONE MILE ON LEFT FROM INTERSECTION WITH ROUTE 9L APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A 30 SQ. FT. GAS HOUSE ON AN EXISTING DOCK. RELIEF IS NEEDED FROM THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-67A, 1. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/8/96 TAX MAP NO. 13-3-19 LOT SIZE: 0.65 ACRES SECTION 179-67A, 1 MR. CARVIN-I think, Bob, who made the Brock resolution? I don't even remember. MR. MARTIN-See, we don't have the tape. That's why we're re-doing this. The tape machine, that's the night I was here by myself. - 42 - '- / '--' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then I will, I don't have any of the materials on it. MR. THOMAS-The file isn't even in here. MR. MARTIN-All you have to do is reference the. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-1996 JOHN BROCK, Introduced by Fred Carvin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Applicant is proposing to construct a 30 foot gas house on an existing dock and relief is needed from the accessory structure setbacks Sections listed in 179-67A. A public hearing was held on May 22, 1996. The applicant demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the variance was required and needed, and met all of the criteria for the Area Variance at that time. This motion is being made in substantiation of the granting of that variance due to the destruction of the original tape. Duly adopted this 12th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Green, Mr. Menter, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Lapham, Mr~ Carvin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. CARVIN-Okay. The letter that I'm reading into the record is dated today, June 12th, and it's addressed to Fred Champagne, Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury. "Dear Mr. Champagne: It is with deep regret that I notify you of my decision not to continue as a member and Chairman of the Town Zoning Board of Appeals after my term expires September 14, 1996. Hopefully, this will allow the Town Board sufficient time to find a replacement for my position. I have enjoyed working with all the members of the Town, the Planning Staff, and my fellow members of the Board. I have found all the individuals to be extremely dedicated and caring about the Town of Queensbury. I have truly had the pleasure of working with an outstanding Board. They have given me tremendous support and approached every application with a professionalism which is unmatched anywhere. Unfortunately, due to the ever increasing constraints on my time, I find it necessary to cede this position to others. I feel confident that all of the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals are fully capable of guiding the Board and will give the Town of Queensbury 100%. I would like to close by thanking everyone that I've worked with for the opportunity to contribute in my small way to the total betterment of our community. Again, thank you. Very truly yours, Fred Carvin, Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals." This was reached after a lot of soul searching. I truly believe that you folks have been an outstanding Board. I have had tremendous support from Staff. I think that we have accomplished a lot. I think that whoever replaces me will continue the good work, and you folks give whoever my predecessor is the same support and develop the new members as they come along. The 'rown of Queensbury is in really good shape. So, I would ask you to, that means that my meetings will be through June, July and August. I don't know if Mr. Champagne has received this yet, but, you know, certainly if a predecessor is found prior, you know, I can vacate sooner, as it were. MR. MARTIN-I think he has received, he mentioned it to me this morning. So I know he's read it. MR. CARVIN-And again, like I said, it was a lot of soul searching, - 43 - ~~ "'----""" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/12/96) but if this was the only thing I had to do, it would be a lot. MR. KARPELES-You're resigning from both the Board and? MR. CARVIN-Yes. My term ends on September the 14th. So I have decided that I'm not going to continue, and again, it's not a reflection on anyone. It's just that it takes an awful lot of, not only this, but work and everything else, and I know you folks have done a tremendous job. We have a tremendous schedule. I'm going to state for the record, I did not set this schedule up, and the 19th meeting is brutal. There's no two ways about it. I would be very surprised if we finish by 11 o'clock. I think it's probably going to run quite a while. I may be pleasantly surprised, 'but I think anyone of those may trip us up considerably, because we've got some very, very tough issues on that evening. I don't think the 26th is any lighter, but we have back logged. I mean, there was just a tremendous amount of applications this month. MR. MARTIN-I mean, this entire meeting tonight was just Old Business. There was not one new item. MR. CARVIN-So, if you haven't been in the habit of making motions, or what not. -- MRS. LAPHAM-I better start practicing. MR. THOMAS-Can we deny this letter? MR. KARPELES-I think you've done a heck of a job, Fred. I don't blame you, because it must take you an awful lot of time. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Well, I'm going to move for adjournment at this point. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Fred A. Carvin, Chairman - 44 -