Loading...
1998-10-28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 28, 1998 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN LEWIS STONE DANIEL STEC PAUL HAYES ROBERT MC NALLY MEMBERS ABSENT BONNIE LAPHAM BRIAN CUSTER CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER -CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-1998 TYPE II LI-1A GLENN BATEASE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN EXISTING VIOLATION OF BUFFER ZONE. CROSS REF. SPR 71-96 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8/12/98 TAX MAP NO. 135-2-2.2 LOT SIZE: 7.16 ACRES SECTION 179- 26, 179-72 GLENN BATEASE, PRESENT th MR. THOMAS-I do believe I left the public hearing open at the August 19 meeting. Do we have a tabling motion there you can read in? Just read the tabling motion. MR. BROWN-Glenn Batease, 71 Big Boom Road, Area Variance No. 52-1998, Motion to Extend the tabling of Area Variance No. 52-1998 Glenn Batease, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone. MR. THOMAS-Is there a tabling motion from before, for what we asked for? Well, if that was the August meeting, would it be the July meeting? MR. BROWN-No, the August meeting was the first meeting. MR. STONE-That was the first meeting. MR. BROWN-That’s when the original tabling was. It’s probably in the minutes. The additional information you asked for? MR. THOMAS-Yes, what additional information we asked for. MR. BROWN-There is a letter here from myself to Mr. Batease, dated August 20, 1998. The beginning of it I’ll skip through, and it says, “The Zoning Board of Appeals requests the following information at a minimum: Accurate location of the protected stream and the “year round” stream flow from your property along the easterly property line. Accurate topography of existing and proposed conditions for the areas to be disturbed. A plan depicting the slope and stability of the proposed fill. (Soil and Water Conservation District can aide with this plan) These items should be prepared and qualified by parties in order to avoid conflicts and irregularities in the future. I suggest that these items be submitted as possible. Expedient attention to this matter may allow you th to be placed on the September agenda.” And that was August 20. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Batease, you submitted this map here that has a line on it that says “existing conditions plan”. Do you have one for the proposed, like we asked for, where the stream is? 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. BATEASE-Well, this is the first time I’ve seen this map. When I went to the surveyor, I asked him to make up a map showing where the stream was, and I think Craig spoke with. MR. BROWN-I spoke to Matt Steves last Wednesday and he stated that he’d have the information prior to this meeting, but he’s not here with the information. MR. THOMAS-And he’s not here with the information. MR. THOMAS-No. MR. BATEASE-I put a call in to him today, and he never got back to me. MR. THOMAS-Yes. You understood what we were asking for, right? MR. BATEASE-Yes, and I told him exactly what I wanted, and this is what he came up with. MR. THOMAS-Yes, because this shows the existing conditions. MR. BATEASE-Because he surveyed O’Connor’s property not too long ago, and he said, yes, I have the information right where the stream is and what not. That’s not a problem. MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, it’s not on this map here, is it? MR. BATEASE-No. Like I say, this is the first time I’ve seen the map since it’s been done. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Because we have no measurements from the stream, we don’t know what the setback is to the stream or anything like that. MR. BATEASE-I’ve never pulled a tape off it, no. MR. THOMAS-Well, what’s the Board want to do? We can go ahead, well, we really can’t go ahead with this. MR. STONE-We can’t go ahead. MR. THOMAS-No, we can’t go ahead with this, because we don’t have the distances to the stream. It doesn’t show the stream on this map. MR. STONE-It doesn’t show what he wants to do, either. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It doesn’t show the proposed slopes or topography. So, do you want us to table it again for another month? MR. BATEASE-Okay, because hopefully he’ll have that other map done up for stream. I thought he’d have had it done by now, though. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I was hoping he’d have it done by now, too, because it was August we were talking about this. MR. BATEASE-I mean, it’s been in his hand for quite a while. So, there’s nothing really I can do. MR. THOMAS-No. Well, I did leave the public hearing open. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this application, in favor of? Anyone that would like to speak opposed? Opposed? I’ll hold off on the correspondence on it. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. THOMAS-Okay. We can just table this for another month. Do you think you’ll have it by the November meeting? If he said he was going to have it today, he should have it. MR. STONE-We’re only going to have one in November? MR. BROWN-Probably. There’s not a lot of stuff. MR. STONE-We don’t have one the day before Thanksgiving anyway, do we? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. THOMAS-No. We usually either go a Wednesday, Thursday, of the week before, or if there’s not that much, just one. th MR. BROWN-I would suggest November 18. That’s the first meeting. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STEC-Mr. Chairman, I have a question. So, at what point do we say, well, you know, we’ve asked for something. It’s been two months. It’s been four months. It’s been six months. At what point will we, how do you proceed from there? MR. THOMAS-Well, you know, I think after the next meeting, that’s it. We give the people as much of a chance as we can. This really isn’t impacting only Mr. Batease. That’s the only one it’s really impacting. So, you know, it’s up to him. He knew what we asked for, and he contacted the surveyor, and the surveyor didn’t come across as he requested, and as we requested of him. MR. STONE-That’s a good question. MR. THOMAS-Yes, we can’t keep delaying this thing forever and ever. MR. STONE-Right. MR. STEC-Status quo is just as good as approval in this case. MR. THOMAS-Right. Well, not really. MR. STONE-No, he wants to fill. MR. THOMAS-He wants to fill into the. MR. STEC-All right. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-1998 GLENN BATEASE , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: 71 Big Boom Road. Until the November 18, 1998 meeting. This means that any new information requested by the Board must be submitted by the filing date for that month. The applicant may appear on the agenda in the previous month if the filing deadline for that month can be met, which he can’t. The reason for this tabling is to provide the Zoning Board of Appeals with the correct maps that we asked for back in August. That all information requested by this Board must be submitted by November 6, 1998. th Duly adopted this 28 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, before you vote, perhaps you could put a date in there that the submission needs to be in. Today’s the deadline for next month, next Wednesday or. thth MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll amend the motion to, when did I say, the 18. So by November 13, should be enough time, because then we can have the maps. MR. BROWN-We need to have time to review it. So maybe the week before that. th MR. THOMAS-Okay. November 6. All right. I’ll amend the motion that all information requested by the Board must be submitted by November 6, 1998. AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer th MR. THOMAS-Okay. So hopefully Matt will get those things in to us by November 6, get it th reviewed, and we’ll have you on the 18. Okay. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. BATEASE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-All right. Thanks, Glenn. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO 74-1998 TYPE II UR-10 KATHLEEN A. HOELTZEL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 30 ZENAS DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 16 FT. BY 20 FT. ATTACHED GARAGE AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FROM THE UR-10 ZONE, SECTION 179-17. TAX MAP NO. 92-2-2.51 LOT SIZE: 0.26 ACRES SECTION 179-17 KATHLEEN HOELTZEL, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 74-1998, Kathleen A. Hoeltzel, Meeting Date: October 28, Description of Proposed Project: 1998 “Project Location: 30 Zenas Drive Applicant proposes Relief Required: construction of a 320 sf attached garage to an existing single family residence. Applicant requests 1.65 feet of front setback relief from the requirements of the UR-10 zone, Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Section 179-17. Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize a garage 2. Feasible alternatives: in the desired location. Feasible alternatives are limited due to existing 3. Is this conditions; the applicant wishes to maintain a window on the affected end of the home. relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:4. 1.65 feet of relief can be interpreted as minimal. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal if any effects on the neighborhood are 5. Is this difficulty anticipated as a result of this action. Neighborhood support has been noticed. self-created?Parcel History (construction/site The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments: BP 96-359 6/27/98 Above ground pool permit Minimal, if any impacts can be anticipated as a result of this action. Support from several neighbors is SEQR Status: noted. Type II” MR. THOMAS-All right. Mrs. Hoeltzel. MRS. HOELTZEL-Kathleen Hoeltzel. MR. THOMAS-Is there anything you want to add to it, tell us about, talk about? MRS. HOELTZEL-I think everything is here. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any questions for the applicant from any of the Board members? It’s pretty cut and dried. MR. STONE-Pretty cut and dried, particularly when we have four statements from neighbors here. MRS. HOELTZEL-Yes. There are neighbors on the two sides of my house and the two directly across the street. There are also two homes, the one directly across from my driveway and the one to my right, that have garages that extend beyond the home. So it’s a style that is already in the neighborhood. MR. STONE-That’s not our concern. It’s our concern from the road, not how far it extends. That’s the relief you’re getting, is from the setback of 30 feet. MRS. HOELTZEL-Well, it ends up being 28.35, instead of 30. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I noticed, in the UR-10 zone, on the front setback, or the average setback of the two adjoining principal buildings, whichever is greater. Those other ones were closer, weren’t they? MR. STEC-I don’t think they’re any further. They were really consistent. MRS. HOELTZEL-They’re in a direct line, very close. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. THOMAS-Okay. Well, if there’s no questions for the applicant, we’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Correspondence? MR. BROWN-There’s a statement that says, August 14, 1998 “I understand that Kathleen Hoeltzel has applied for a variance in order to extend the front wall of the driveway on the front of her house three and one half feet. I am NOT opposed to the structure as presented in the variance. Katherine Bethel; DiGregory; Donald Ogle; Scott Buntz” MR. THOMAS-And that’s it for the correspondence? MR. BROWN-I believe it is. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-We’ll talk about it. I’ll start with Lew. MR. STONE-As I wrote when I looked at the property, all variances should be this easy, particularly, it’s such a minimal amount of relief you’re asking, plus the fact that the neighbors, even though they have written support of the opposite, if you will, it’s really support for the building, which needs relief of 1.65, as you correctly stated. That certainly is a very important factor, as far as I’m concerned, and even if we didn’t have the support, in this case, it’s a very easy variance to grant. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jamie? MR. HAYES-I agree with Lew. I mean, an Area Variance is a balancing test, and you’re asking for very, very little, and all the rest of it clearly falls within your favor. I believe it would be consistent with the neighborhood. I think this is no problem at all. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-The relief’s insubstantial. Lew and Jamie are correct. I don’t have a problem with it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan? MR. STEC-Yes. I agree with all the other Board members. It’s a no brainer. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Like Jamie said, it’s a balancing act, as the benefit to the applicant with detriment to health, safety and welfare of the community. This application, asking for 1.65 feet of relief, would benefit to the applicant and I can’t see any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. So I have no problem with this application either. Would someone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-1998 KATHLEEN A. HOELTZEL , Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: That the Board approve the requested 1.65 feet of front setback relief from the requirements of UR-10 zone, Section 179-17 for Area Variance No. 74-1998 for Miss Hoeltzel. The applicant will benefit from construction of the garage in this location. There are no real feasible alternatives to move the garage without blocking an existing window on the home. 1.65 feet is very minimal. There’s community support, and I don’t see any problem with approving this minimal relief. th Duly adopted this 28 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer MR. THOMAS-There you go. Get your building permit. MRS. HOELTZEL-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-1998 TYPE II UR-10 KAREN FULTON-DEEB OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 354 DIXON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 250 SQ. FT. ADDITION AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE UR-10 ZONE, SECTION 179-17. TAX MAP NO. 92-1-1.10 LOT SIZE: 0.28 ACRES SECTION 179-17 KAREN FULTON-DEEB, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 75-1998, Karen Fulton-Deeb, Meeting Date: October 28, Description of Proposed Project: 1998 “Project Location: 354 Dixon Road Applicant Relief Required: proposes construction of a 250 sf addition to an existing single family residence. Applicant requests 6.5 feet of setback relief from requirements of the UR-10 zone, Section 179-17. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and inhabit the desired 2. Feasible alternatives:3. Is addition. Feasible alternatives may include a smaller addition. this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 6.5 feet of relief may be interpreted as 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: minimal to moderate. Minimal effects on the 5. Is this difficulty self-created? neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action. The Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, difficulty may be interpreted as self created. etc.):Staff comments: None applicable Minimal to moderate impacts can be anticipated as a result of this action. The neighboring residence is approximately on the same plane as the applicant’s home. While this addition will “only” be 10 feet closer to Dixon Road, the visual impact may be significant. An accurate location of the front property line may be considered. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. THOMAS-All right. Would you like to talk to us about, tell us anything more? MRS. FULTON-DEEB-The house is a raised ranch. You cannot tell that from the road, okay. My garage is attached to the house. So on either side of the house I don’t have enough room to add on to the side. The reason we didn’t go, we put a new kitchen in, and we were going to go to the back originally, but we didn’t because our septics that we would have had to dig up the whole septic system and move it out. So what we did, there was a dining area and a very small kitchen existing in the back of the house, and we made one large kitchen. At the time that we did this, we did not realize that we were going to need a variance, and the reason being is because the other houses that are on the road, not the one right next to me, but as you go across, where Colonial Court is, where you go up on Dixon, the houses are a lot closer. So I thought we had enough room, and I didn’t realize it. We put the new kitchen, and then I came down here to get a building permit, and that’s when I found out that I needed a variance. Before that I didn’t know, and the contractor that I had, Mr. Bartlett, he did not know what the Codes were in Queensbury, and he had not said anything at the time, because he put my new kitchen in. Obviously, he didn’t realize it either, that I was going to need a variance. MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there any questions for Mrs. Fulton-Deeb? MR. STONE-Well, did you say, Mrs. Fulton-Deeb, that you’ve cut the front projection to 13 feet rather than 13 and a half? MRS. FULTON-DEEB-Yes. MR. STONE-So you’re asking for six feet of relief? MRS. FULTON-DEEB-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-Where is the six feet from? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MRS. FULTON-DEEB-What it is is like I’m 43 feet from the road, but it says from the line. From the line I’m 37 and a half feet, from the house now, the existing house. MR. MC NALLY-On the drawing you submitted, it looks like there’s 23 feet from the fence to the new addition? MRS. FULTON-DEEB-Yes, 23 and a half, I believe it is. MR. MC NALLY-And then from the fence to the paved road, it’s six feet. MRS. FULTON-DEEB-Another six feet, that’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-So there’s 29 feet? MRS. FULTON-DEEB-29 and a half feet from the new addition to the road, yes. MR. STONE-But that’s not their land. MRS. FULTON-DEEB-But that’s not the line. It says from the line, correct? MR. MC NALLY-Where is the line on your drawing, though? MRS. FULTON-DEEB-Where the fence is. MR. MC NALLY-At the fence? MRS. FULTON-DEEB-Yes. That’s why I tried to show, so that you could see the difference of what my actual property is to what’s left between, where my property ends, and the Town’s property begins to the road, there’s six feet difference between the road and where my line starts. MR. HAYES-That six feet strip is owned by the Town? MRS. FULTON-DEEB-As far as we know it is, yes. MR. HAYES-Okay. MRS. FULTON-DEEB-The stakes are where my fence, on either side of my fence, because we put the fence up in between the stakes. MR. BROWN-Typically a road right of way is 50 feet from the line. MR. HAYES-All right. So it’s right of way. MR. BROWN-If the road is centered in the right of way, it’s 25 feet from the center, which is also subject to an accurate location. MR. MC NALLY-The idea that the fence is the property line is based on stakes you found in the ground? MRS. FULTON-DEEB-There’s two things with yellow caps on the top of where it had been surveyed, okay, and the fence is to this, to the inside of it. MR. STONE-Just inside by an inch. So you know that the fence is basically on the line? From the previous survey. MRS. FULTON-DEEB-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-A lot of comments, you answered one of my comments, why not in the back, if the septic system is, in fact, just 10 feet from the house? MRS. FULTON-DEEB-Yes. In order to put the addition up, we would have had to have moved it, and it would have cost us another $2500 to do that because of the expense, is why we didn’t, but 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) like I said, I know ignorance is no excuse, but we didn’t realize, and that was mainly because of the other houses that are up beyond us, that are closer to the road. MR. STONE-Have you, well, we haven’t had public hearing, so I’ll wait until the public hearing. MRS. FULTON-DEEB-I never have done this before, if that’s what you’re going to ask me. MR. STONE-No. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Is there any correspondence? MR. BROWN-No. MR. THOMAS-No correspondence, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Then I’ll ask my questions. I was curious how the neighbor at 350 feels about this? MRS. FULTON-DEEB-They’ve known about it for a year and they don’t have a problem with it, and the lady that lives up on the corner of Colonial Court and Dixon, she came down and gave us the paper and she said she thought it would be great because she knows we’re trying to not only better our house, but it betters the neighborhood. We’ve made a lot of improvements since we’ve been there. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about. Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, it’s always been my interpretation that one of the reasons for front setbacks is to maintain consistency in the neighborhood, to some degree, and I think often that’s why the Code mentions, in some circumstances, describes a certain number of feet or the average of the existing, and I think that’s what’s behind that. I don’t think that 30 feet is an overly generous setback to begin with. I think that’s pretty close. I’m going to be willing to listen to the other Board members, but in the balancing test that’s associated with an Area Variance, I’m not convinced at all that this won’t have a negative impact on the aesthetics of the neighborhood, being that it’s going to come out toward the road. It’s going to, essentially, limit the linear effect of Dixon Road there, and I’m also not totally convinced that the fact that it costs a little more eliminates the idea that feasible alternatives are there for you, in this particular circumstance. I know it costs you more and that certainly is. MRS. FULTON-DEEB-I can’t do that anymore, though. I’ve already put the new kitchen in. MR. HAYES-Right. MRS. FULTON-DEEB-We already had made that decision. We did not realize it at the time. I will say this, I understand what you’re saying, but one of the things is when you go up half of Colonial Court, those houses are much closer than I am. They’re only like 15 feet off the road. It would still be back further than what they would be. MR. HAYES-Yes, but we have a number of setback requirements in Queensbury, 30 feet is, it would be one of the more minimal ones to begin with, and Dixon Road is a fairly well traveled corridor there. So, I’m not saying that I’m going to vote either way. I’m going to certainly listen to my colleagues, but I’m saying that it definitely is a concern to me, in balancing, in this particular, using the test and balancing it, that those two things, I’m not carried on that yet, those two particular items. I think it will possibly have a negative impact on the neighborhood, from an aesthetics standpoint, but like I said, I’m willing to listen to what the other people on the Board have to say. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. MC NALLY-I’d have to look at this kind of mechanistically. The benefit to the applicant, certainly should be allowed to have a living room area which she could enjoy, space which she no longer has in the kitchen. There are feasible alternatives, though. I don’t know if any consideration was ever made to perhaps narrowing the addition, to make it perhaps a little bit longer than it currently is, so it wouldn’t encroach upon the front setback as much the proposal is. I would think, though, that the effects on the neighborhood, any way you do it, is going to be relatively minimal. I know it’s 10 feet out from the existing house, but it’s only a six foot of relief that they’re requesting. So off hand, I don’t think, on balance, that it’s going to have that great an effect on the neighborhood. I do find that the difficulty is self created, and if I add them up, there’s basically two against and three for. So I might be in favor of this. MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan? MR. STEC-Yes. I live on Heinrick Circle, and I work in Downtown Glens Falls. So every morning I drive by your house, and you’re right, toward the top of the hill on Dixon they’re a little closer. Certainly I think, and again, this is meeting Number Two, so I’ve got, as far as experience in my back pocket, of you know what I’ve seen before, I don’t think six feet is necessarily excessive, and I don’t think it’ll really hinder the appearance in the neighborhood. It certainly will benefit the applicant and add to the value of the home. So I think in that case, it’s good for the neighborhood. So I’m inclined to be for this. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, I’m going to listen myself and I’ll tell you where I come out when I get through talking, because I never really know. The 30 foot minimum setback on a road of Dixon Road’s nature is, in my mind, certainly minimal. I have to admit, I did not check the speed limit, but I do know that roads like that in the Town of Queensbury get driven on at relatively unsafe speeds, whatever the speed limit is. The fact that this is going to stick out, an extra 10 feet approximately, toward the road is disturbing to me. I listened, when Mr. McNally talked about making it longer and narrower. It strikes me that that might be a reasonable alternative. I understand the back. When I looked at the property, not knowing your situation with the kitchen, that’s the first thing I wrote down, why not use the back. You obviously have a lovely, very big back yard, and I guess I would like to see some compromise here. If you could possibly consider making this a little longer and a little narrower, I would be more inclined to go along with it. Because, while the benefit to you obviously is very great to be able to do what it is, I’m concerned that the community is going to be hurt by putting this much closer to the road, and therefore making it a “visual hazard”, not a terrible one, but never the less, a visual hazard, and I’d like to reduce that if possible. MRS. FULTON-DEEB-The reason we didn’t go with the longer, narrower, and I understand. I tried to think of everything before I even consulted a builder myself, okay, with what I had to work with. The way the house is in the front, I have two windows where the existing living room is now, and there’s a door, and then I have a bedroom on the other side of that, with a window. What we would do would be, I’d lose a window. I would have no window in that bedroom, if I go longer and narrower, because I would go in front of the window that’s there if I have to bring it out. I mean, that’s not a major thing, but usually it’s a little odd to have a room with no window in it. MR. STONE-Craig, do you want to comment to that, where you work. MR. MC NALLY-Is the window centered on the wall of that bedroom, or can you move the window? MRS. FULTON-DEEB-There’s not enough room to, (lost words) the smallest bedroom of the three that I have upstairs, okay, and the room is only like 10 feet wide. MR. MC NALLY-Is it centered? MRS. FULTON-DEEB-Yes, it is. There’s maybe two feet on each side of it. MR. STONE-I guess, going back to the question that I asked, one of the things I keep, whenever I meet somebody, when I’m out in the field looking at a piece of property, I always suggest to them that if people like what they’re doing, I like to hear it. It doesn’t have to be somebody coming here, but I like to have something that says the neighbors don’t object to this thing. Because I don’t want to create the impression that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury will grant every variance that comes along, but when the neighborhood and the neighbors say they have 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) no objection. They’ve considered it, it makes our job, my job, I can’t speak for the rest of the Board, but it makes my job a lot easier. We certainly get the negatives out. There’s no question that if it’s a controversial thing, we’ll fill the room with people who don’t like it. It’s nice to get people who do like it. I heard you say it, and I’m not denying that they have no problem with it, but I really like to get it on the record, but I’m still going to listen, to see what Chris says. MR. THOMAS-So you’re still hung up? MR. STONE-I’m still hung up. MR. THOMAS-All right. My observations out there, when I went by today, some of the Board members spoke to limiting the visibility on Dixon Road. This is right at the break of the hill. It’s a straight road, and it’s straight at that point, and it’s not near any of the intersections. It’s between Zenas and Colonial Court. So I don’t see any obstruction of view in any way, shape or form, plus the trees that are out on the property line to the east of that stick out farther than this addition will. The houses up and down Dixon Road on both sides are closer or have the same setback as Mrs. Fulton-Deeb is asking for. So if you look at, especially the houses on the north side are a lot closer, and I don’t see a problem. Why not bring it into, you know, because one of the balancing tests is an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties. Well, this wouldn’t be an undesirable change because it would be just like the rest of the houses. It would have nearly the same setback, and as Mrs. Fulton-Deeb said, that the limited rear expansion by the septic system that’s there, and I know no one likes to go through and dig up a perfectly good septic system for an expansion, because that septic system was put in to meet the setbacks at the time of the building of the house, and as Mrs. Fulton-Deeb also said, it would be difficult to re-arrange the interior of the house, especially with the new kitchen and with the bedroom there, of making the addition longer and narrower, and blocking off a window, making a room with no windows, I work in a place with no windows, and I know what it’s like. So, I would be in favor of this variance, because I can see where the, in the balancing act, the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. MRS. FULTON-DEEB-Is it all right if I say something? MR. THOMAS-Go ahead. MRS. FULTON-DEEB-What we’re doing this, not only am I putting the addition on, yes, I do need the living room, that’s true. Where the existing living room is now is going to be a dining room, because we had to make a bigger kitchen. We are going to re-side the house. It’s going to go from blue to gray. So we’re putting new vinyl on it. There’s going to be new shutters, naturally a new window in the front. The door entrance is going to be on the side, and that’s going to be, and then we’re putting on a new roof. So not only do I feel that it is improving my own value of the house, but I do feel that it will enhance the neighborhood by doing that, because it’s literally going to make it look like a brand new house. Doesn’t that benefit my neighbors? MR. STONE-I’ll make one further comment, Chris. In talking about where it sits, it’s not the fact that it sits closer to the road than the Ordinance, but that it’s the only one in that stretch of houses that does. In other words, if it were a wall of houses all at the same thing, it would be less intrusive, as far as the driver is concerned, but if it somehow catches somebody’s eye, they might think, who knows what they might think if they look over, because it is closer than every other house on that side, if they’re going to the west, for example, and that’s my concern, not that, if all the things were at 23 feet, I don’t think I would be as concerned as I am, and I still may not be concerned enough not to grant it, but it’s the fact that it’s a projection, compared to the other houses. That’s what I’m wrestling with here. MR. THOMAS-Well, let me help you with that. If you go up and down Dixon Road, you’ll see a lot of people have ornamentation out in front. There’s one place there that has a little well like structure out front. There’s the structure of the house that that was just sold that had the bears out in front there. MR. STONE-That’s true. A lot of houses do that. MR. THOMAS-To me, that would catch my eye quicker than a, you know, just a house. MR. HAYES-From a distraction standpoint. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. THOMAS-Yes, as a distraction, as Lew is wrestling with. So, to me, I don’t see where the addition will be a “distraction” for any traveler going up and down the road, and also at the same time, that hill breaks right there and starts going downhill. So if you’re not paying attention and watching out for Zenas Drive coming up, to see if somebody’s going to pull out in front of you, you know, if you’re looking at a house, you’re more or less going to have an accident right there coming down the hill. MR. STONE-Is that supposed to be pro or con, Mr. Chairman? That didn’t help me, that last bit. MR. THOMAS-Well, like I said, there’s a lot of ornamentation and decorations on a lot of the houses on the straight away of Dixon Road that would catch your eye, rather than a house that just has an addition on it, new siding, and it’ll look, more or less, like the rest of the houses right along in there. MR. STONE-Craig, our Ordinance doesn’t cover whirligigs and things like that on the lawn, does it? MR. HAYES-Thank God. MR. STONE-Like the Dunhams Bay sign there. It’s interesting that we don’t. I mean, we have the setback, and for a variety of reasons, and yet we do allow ornamental nuisances, if you will. MR. HAYES-We’d need a platoon of enforcement. MR. STONE-I agree. MR. THOMAS-How do you enforce out pink flamingos? Come on, you know. You can’t. MR. STONE-I didn’t suggest that. I’m only. MR. THOMAS-Well, that’s about what you’re saying. MR. STONE-No. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it’s close. All right. We’ve talked about it. We’ve got two of them up in the air. Are there any other questions that any of the Board members have for any of the other Board members or the applicant? Okay. If not, I’ll ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-1998 KAREN FULTON-DEEB , Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 354 Dixon Road. That the Board grant six feet of front setback relief from the requirements of the UR-10 zone, Section 179-17. The benefit to the applicant would be the expansion of the home. While there may be a perception of a feasible alternative to make it smaller or rear, that this may be a more optimal variance way to proceed. The six feet of relief is minimal. I think the improvement to the neighborhood and certainly to the applicant outweighs the granting of six feet of relief, and so I move that we approve this request. th Duly adopted this 28 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer MR. THOMAS-There you go. It was a little tough. MRS. FULTON-DEEB-I understand. MR. STONE-That’s why we talk them out. MRS. FULTON-DEEB-I realize that’s why there’s Codes and laws, and I am sorry if I caused you inconvenience, but I do appreciate this and yes I do feel it will benefit the neighborhood. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. STONE-And the record will show that it’s going to be 13 feet from the house, rather than 13.5, which is what we granted. MRS. FULTON-DEEB-Yes. MR. THOMAS-All right. Go down and see the Building Department and get your permit. MRS. FULTON-DEEB-All right, thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 76-1998 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-1A HOLLYWOOD VIDEO OWNER: JOHN NIGRO COMPANIES 735 STATE ROUTE 9 (UPPER GLEN STREET) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF OVER-SIZED SIGNS AND REQUESTS RELIEF FOR SIZE AND NUMBER OF SIGNS FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE, SECTION 140. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/14/98 TAX MAP NO. 102-1-3 LOT SIZE: 1.02 ACRES SECTION 140 THOMAS STANG, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 76-1998, Hollywood Video, Meeting Date: October 28, 1998 Description of Proposed Project: “Project Location: 735 State Route 9 (Upper Glen St.) Applicant proposes replacement of an existing 97 sf sign with a 315 sf sign and the construction of Relief Required: a second 819 sf sign. Applicant requests relief from the size and number requirements for signs, as required by the Sign Ordinance, Section 140-6, B. Specifically, 215 sf of relief is requested for the sign on the East facade and relief to allow a second wall sign is Criteria for considering an Sign Variance according requested for the sign on the North facade. to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to 2. Feasible alternatives: construct and utilize oversized signs. Feasible alternatives may include 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? downsizing of signs and no construction. 215 sf of relief from the 100 sf requirement, along with an 819 sf second sign may be interpreted 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: as substantial. Moderate to substantial effects 5. Is this difficulty self- on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. created?Parcel History (construction/site The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. plan/variance, etc.): SV 50-1995 - res. 8/16/95 second sign on side of building (denied) Sign Permit 98-3244 76.5 sf sign Sign Permit 98-3256 increase to a 978 sf sign Sign Permit 98-3257 Staff comments: freestanding sign Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as the proposed signs appear to be substantially over the requirements of the Sign Ordinance. Given that the neon “spotlights” are an integral part of the sign, they need to be included in the square footage calculations. A previous Sign Variance: SV50-1995, for an 11 sf “entrance” sign was denied. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted” MR. BROWN-“With respect to the Item Number QBY Sign Variance 76-1998, the applicant Hollywood Video, Warren County Planning Board recommendation to Disapprove”. It was held on the meeting October 14, 1998. MR. THOMAS-All right. Are you Mr. Stang? MR. STANG-Yes, I am. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anything you want to talk about, tell us about? MR. STANG-Well, one of the reasons why were here, we recently took over all the Blockbuster Videos in the area, and one of the things we came in originally is to just get a sign there on the front of the building, just to operate the business, and things like that. The one that’s there now, if I’m right, Craig, is a temporary sign that we applied for, right? And since we’ve been operating, we’ve turned over really quickly from Blockbusters to Hollywood Video. We’ve been now applying for our full (lost words), a little bit more than what our other store is just down the road here. I do have some photos of that if you’d like to see that one, but it’s down on the corner near Shop N’ Save, near Hannaford there. MR. THOMAS-We know it real well. MR. STONE-We know it well. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. STANG-Okay, but I do have a rendering here what we’re proposing and things. This is more our full look image and things. We do have a permit already for the front sign, which is the 97 square feet, and we always try to get, as everybody, as much as we can and things. We’re willing to work with the Board to, if you’d like us to reduce or whatever, we can do that. We’d like to get something done on that side of the building, since there’s no awnings there anymore, or anything like that that Blockbuster had. There’s nothing accenting that doorway on the side, just one long, barren wall. Basically, that’s what we’re trying to do on the side. MR. THOMAS-All right. Any questions for the applicant? MR. STEC-Yes. I have a question. The existing sign that’s on the pole, what’s the intention for the future of that sign? MR. STANG-That? To remain. MR. STEC-A grand total of three signs? MR. STANG-Yes, it would be a total of three. That was existing already, though, from Blockbuster, and we’ve got a separate permit on that one. MR. STONE-Did you get a permit for the canvas temporary sign? The one that says “We’re Going Hollywood”. MR. HAYES-On the north side. MR. STANG-I’m not sure, truthfully, I’m not sure. Knowing our people, these sign people that put it up there, I doubt it, but we can take that down. MR. STONE-I doubt it, too. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any other questions? MR. STONE-Well, the proposed look on the, this is a, you’re going to change the construction of the building? MR. STANG-No. We’re just going to repair the drivet or the stucco that’s on the outside of the building and just paint it, basically, and then add our letters that’s very similar to the channel of letters that’s on there now. MR. STONE-But there seems to be, is this picture here? It’s not the same building. MR. STANG-Here’s the rendering right down here that we’re, you know, all it is, is a painting on the building with neon lighting and things like that, that’s being added, a neon around the top of the mountain, and then. MR. STONE-Okay, but this is not the building that’s there? MR. STANG-No. This building that’s in the photos there is from down in Allentown, Pennsylvania area. I just photographed it to show what other sites look like. MR. MC NALLY-There is no street or corner that you’re on. This is a right of way that goes into that plaza? MR. STANG-Right. That goes back into, I believe, the CHP area and things like that. MR. HAYES-It’s part of that overall development. MR. STONE-And you asked if we were familiar with one, you do know that’s on a corner? MR. STANG-Yes. MR. STONE-And while we did allow two signs, because it is a corner. MR. STANG-Right. I understand that. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. HAYES-Well, it’s back significantly farther from the road than this, as well. MR. STONE-That’s true. MR. MC NALLY-Are you asserting that the existing signage is not sufficient to let people know where Hollywood Video is? MR. STANG-Yes, we are. I mean, just where the entrance way is at. I mean, Blockbuster had their awning that wrapped around three quarters of, or across the whole front and down the whole side that lit up everything, and even accented the front entrance way, where you have a photo there showing the side elevation, that really you don’t know where to go into the building. MR. STEC-Do you have any sales data that supports that claim? MR. STANG-No, not yet, because we’re just recently in there. MR. MC NALLY-Is it your sense that what you’re proposing is more of a directional type sign, to tell people where the entrance is? MR. STANG-Yes, and to draw more interest into the building from other parts of the parking lot further back and things like that. Again, the side of the building, as you’re heading south bound, is probably more visible to most people than the front of the building. MR. STONE-Then you’d be willing to take down the freestanding sign? Because obviously, that can be seen going south. MR. STANG-I guess. You got me on that one. MR. STEC-I’ve got a question for the Board, and maybe Craig can help us. What constitutes a sign? If they wanted to accent the door on the, I guess it’s the north face of the building, without putting the word “Hollywood Video” over the door, and they went with some sort of paint scheme, with a big blue zig zag, and if they went and did that, is that sign? MR. BROWN-Yes. Basically, by definition, a sign is anything that promotes advertisement, designed to attract attention, or painted. MR. STEC-So a pattern on the side of the building is sign? MR. BROWN-You could paint Hollywood Video on the side, and it would be considered a sign. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? MR. BROWN-No. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, we’ll talk about it. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-The benefit to the applicant would certainly be that they’d be permitted to construct signs, in addition to what’s allowed under the existing Ordinance, and they’d also be allowed to building signs that are fairly substantially larger than permitted under the Ordinance. The feasible alternatives are no construction, in accordance with other stores in the area who are also limited in having one freestanding sign, and a sign in the front of their store. If you look at the bank on the one side, if you look at the Dunkin’ Donuts, they all have a sign in the front, on the pole, and a sign on the storefront facing Glen Street. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I do think that the request is substantial, both in number, given the size of the store and it’s location, and the visibility of the existing site from the road. 215 square foot of relief from a 100 square foot requirement, along with a second sign, which is usually not permitted at all, of 819 square feet, would certainly be substantial. The effects on the neighborhood or community 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) would be moderate, but when I drive by the store, with all due respect, it’s obvious from a great distance, both north and south on Glen Street, that there’s a Hollywood Video store there. You can see it from a great distance away. I’m not sure that putting a sign on the side of the store would even be visible from the road, for any great distance, even on the north side. It simply wouldn’t be visible, given the bank’s right in front of them there. I also take into account the fact that every business would like to have as many signs as possible, as large a sign as possible, and as bright a sign as possible, and that’s not a bad thing from a commercial perspective, but the Town Board has decided that that’s not what’s appropriate for this Town. So, with all due respect, I don’t think I can support this application. I think the difficulty is self created, and I think it’s perfectly visible with the existing signage. MR. STANG-Now that existing one is temporary. It is being, you know, we already have a permit for a different sign on there that does have the mountain line on it, with some neon and things. It’s also a little bit smaller in size, and letters and stuff. Like say this, we came in here real quickly, within five days, Blockbuster took down their awning, and we put up this sign and stuff, just to get operating and things like that. The Town’s been great to help us out with that and things. I do have, you know, if you want to see what is approved already, if you’d like to see that. MR. MC NALLY-The existing sign is 97 square feet in the front? MR. STANG-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And the Town Ordinance is 100 square feet, within 100 feet of the road? MR. BROWN-That’s right. MR. MC NALLY-So it meets the Town Code, the one sign. I think I understood that. I don’t have a problem with the existing sign on the front. It’s the additional sign in the back I think. MR. STANG-Okay. The existing one that’s there now is temporary. That’s coming down no matter what, because it does not meet your sign requirement. That was just temporary. That one there is a little bit larger than what we have applied for, What we applied for was, we call it our “Option Five” sign, which has the mountain scenery and stuff on it. It’s not painted on the wall and things like that. So it is different than what’s in the photo and what’s on the building. MR. MC NALLY-I’m not sure what you’re saying. MR. HAYES-You’re saying you intend to put what’s on the rendition then, essentially? MR. STANG-Well, no. This is what we’re permitted right now. We have the permits in (lost word) and approved, that has the little old mountain and neon on it. It’s a lot smaller than exists here. MR. MC NALLY-Is what you’re asking for is permanent approval of that front sign, at 97 square feet? MR. STANG-Yes. Well, that one’s already approved by Craig and stuff. MR. MC NALLY-As I understood, the one on the rendition is larger and bigger than I would find acceptable. MR. STANG-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-That’s what I said. Maybe I’m wrong. MR. HAYES-This is Option Five or that’s Option Five? MR. STANG-No. That’s our Option Five sign MR. STONE-It says replacement of an existing 97 square foot sign, with a 315 square foot sign. MR. STANG-Right, which is what’s here on the rendering. MR. HAYES-The 315 is the whole front facade. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. STONE-The whole front of the building MR. STANG-The whole front of the building, yes. MR. STONE-Including all those slashes? MR. STANG-Yes, which represents search lights, things. MR. STONE-But you don’t have approval for that. You have approval for 97 square feet. MR. STANG-Right. MR. STONE-So what you’re rendering is what you’re asking us to do on the front, and you’re asking for a second sign, a huge sign, I’m sorry, that’s a prejudicial word, and another sign on the north face. Okay. MR. STANG-We’re willing to work with the Board on reducing it if you want a smaller, on the sign, if you’d allow us to have a smaller one on the side. We’re here as neighbors and want to be here for a long time. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t see this as the same circumstance as at the intersection of Bay and Quaker. It’s not a true intersection, where we were more than happy to give them relief. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-Well, I think Bob hits on several good points, with not being on a corner, as the one on Quaker. I can understand where the second sign on a building is inappropriate, I think, and I agree that you can see that stand alone sign out in the front lawn from a long distance either way. I understand the intent is conformity with the chain, and the chain recognition. I understand that that’s the intent. However, what’s good for Allentown, Pennsylvania isn’t always what’s appropriate in Queensbury, New York. I see your problem with the north face of the building. It is kind of plain and drab. I mean, there’s other alternatives to dress up that side of the building, and accent the door without creating a third sign, but I think Bob had a lot of good points, too, and that’s an awful lot of relief. It’s, in my opinion, a different ball of wax than a 1.6 foot variance or a 6 foot variance, and I think it’s asking for a lot, and again, like another Board member mentioned earlier, if we do this for Hollywood Video, every other store in, because the name of the game is advertising, and volume and advertising space sells. So, you know, before we know it we’re going to have a lot of businesses saying, me too. So, I’m not inclined to approve. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, my colleagues have already gone through the benefit to the applicant and the community. There are so many alternatives available to you, that I am not prepared to grant a variance at this time. One, as we just talked, you could take down the freestanding sign, and put one on either side. Two, you could leave the freestanding sign, and take the one down on Glen Street, put it on the north side, if you really think visibility from the north side, because people coming north on Glen are going to see your freestanding sign, and the size of them, I apologize for using the word “huge”, but gigantic is probably a better word, when it comes to the Queensbury Sign Ordinance. We’re very proud of our Sign Ordinance in Queensbury, and we take great pains to minimize the granting of relief from what we believe is a good Sign Ordinance to keep the Town as good looking as possible, when we have both a mix of old and new construction. Therefore, while it would certainly benefit Hollywood Video to have three signs, I think it would be much to the detriment of the community, and I would not be in favor of granting such a variance. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, my colleagues have pretty much touched all the bases. In this case, we’re applying a balancing test, and certainly interests of your business are important. I fully respect that, but cumulatively, I think that it’s a substantial amount of relief. I think it sets a dangerous precedent up and down Glen Street, in this particular circumstance, and in that very singular development, and, you know, our Sign Ordinance, we’ve protected it pretty heavily in the past, and I think, you know, one of the things that it’s trying to fight is a sign pollution of sorts. I think, respectfully, I think this borders on that, as far as the magnitude and stuff, particularly in our community, as we’ve done. So, if you had come with a proposal that was more reduced and you wanted to emphasize that side. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. STANG-I do have some options where we can reduce it, if you would tell us what you’re looking for. MR. HAYES-I would recommend that you attempt to do that, at least as far as I’m concerned. MR. STEC-I’d like to add, to contribute to what you just asked about, that Lew threw out a couple of options that I’d be more inclined to entertain, dropping the east facing sign all together and going with a reduced version on the north facing side. That would be, I think, more in line with what Jamie and the rest of the Board is talking about. MR. STANG-What, in square footage, would you allow us to have on the two facades, combined total? MR. HAYES-I really don’t think we do that, though. MR. STONE-The beginning thing is what the Ordinance says. That’s where we start. MR. STANG-Okay. MR. STONE-Right, Mr. Chairman? MR. THOMAS-Absolutely. MR. MC NALLY-It depends on the rationale that you can give us. I don’t know if a sign on the side like that, proposed, is rationale, given the needs of your business and the needs of the community. MR. THOMAS-Is that all you wanted to say, Jamie? MR. HAYES-It’s all been said. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it has all been said. In my opinion, this is an excessive request, that an 819 square foot sign on the side of the building, where a sign is not allowed, is extremely excessive, and a 315 square foot sign on the front of the building, where a 100 square foot sign is allowed, is excessive, plus they have an existing pylon sign that stands out, because of the colors and the shape of it. I can’t, in good conscience, grant a variance request for what the applicant has proposed. I would not even be in favor of any sign on the north face of the building, seeing that they have a, they are going to install a new 100 square foot sign, which meets the requirements. Plus, they have the pylon sign, which can be seen from both north and south on Glen Street, and because of the way it is shaped and colored, that it does stand out. So I would not be in favor of this variance. MR. STONE-What are the options, that he withdraw it? If we turn it down, what’s his option? MR. THOMAS-If we turn it down, it’s got to be substantially different. MR. STONE-Well, it would be substantially different, yes. MR. THOMAS-He can make modifications, right now, to it. MR. STEC-He can make modifications to the request right now, on the fly? MR. THOMAS-Yes. He can reduce the size of it, or the number. MR. STEC-Right, because, again, respecting a business’ attempt to operate a business, if he can quickly, if he has something in his back pocket that he wants to share, then we can, yes, get the business done and over with, rather than have him coming back every month. I mean, we understand that you’re trying to finish business here, and I understand what you’re talking about when you say that the existing sign is temporary, but I’d like to think that, after reading your own request, that you may have had a Plan B ready? MR. STANG-Yes. We come in, like we say, as neighbors, and we know this is excessive, like you were saying and stuff, and we try everywhere to get this, and some of the other communities, the other one that you haven’t seen on the front of that building, from Allentown, pops up four or five 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) feet above the facia panels, and the letters are four foot tall. So, they’re like four times larger than this layout. I knew it wouldn’t fly here. MR. HAYES-It looks like LA to me. MR. STONE-Hollywood Video comes to Allentown. MR. HAYES-Well, you said that the one that you have approved is Option Five? MR. STANG-Yes, and we have different sizes of that. MR. HAYES-Well, I guess you better go a little further than Option Four, then, or whatever. MR. STANG-I can go down to, the smallest we have in the Option Five is the 73 square feet, 73.79 square feet, 20 feet long and 3 and a half feet tall, just like the Option Five sign that we have there. It’s just shrunk down. MR. HAYES-For the front or side of the building? MR. STANG-The side of the building. MR. STEC-And for the front would you go with the approved one or still stick with this one? MR. STANG-Leave the approved one. MR. STEC-But we’re still talking about three signs? MR. STANG-If possible. MR. HAYES-This one’s 97? MR. THOMAS-No, that’s 100. MR. STANG-Well, we calculated it at 97, but we’re allowed to have 100. MR. THOMAS-You’re allowed to have 100, okay, but you’re still looking for that sign on the north face. Not being on a corner, I, in good conscience, again, can’t see it with the freestanding sign out front. So, you know, that’s where I’m coming from. Listening to the other Board members, if they can convince me. MR. STEC-Well, Mr. Chairman, just, to the applicant, if given a choice between the north face and the freestanding sign, which would you prefer to keep? MR. STANG-The freestanding. MR. STEC-So, if we said, we’ll give you two but not three, you’d want to keep the freestanding one? MR. STANG-Yes. MR. STEC-Which of the three signs, which is the one that you need the least, the one on the north face? MR. STANG-Probably, yes. MR. STEC-But that’s where your entrance is? MR. STANG-Yes. MR. STEC-And that’s where the difficulty is, is that the entrance is on that side. If the entrance was in the front of the building, it would be. MR. STANG-Due to the long, narrow building, it’s hard to have the entrance in front, especially with all the parking being on the side, too. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew and I were just talking about you would agree to have just the one on the north face, at 100 square feet, plus the pylon sign, and nothing on the east or the end of the building that faces Glen Street? You’re still looking for two signs, aren’t you? MR. STANG-Yes. MR. STEC-Well, I had just asked him that, he would least like the north facing sign. MR. STONE-But he could do what you just said, Chris, without a variance, now. If you could live with two, then maybe, and I’m only speak for myself, maybe we could live with a slightly bigger sign on the north face, to cover more of that bare space, but that’s, that would be open to conjecture, at this point in time, but certainly, I don’t see three signs. MR. HAYES-Right. I agree. MR. THOMAS-No, I don’t think anybody on the Board sees three signs. MR. STEC-No. I think we’re talking about two signs. The problem is the entrance is on the north face. So I can understand wanting to dress up that facade of the building, with something that represents Hollywood Video rather than, you know, ivy or brick or whatever, something indicating you’re walking into Hollywood Video. MR. STONE-Is the freestanding sign maximum for its distance, at the moment? MR. STANG-I believe so. MR. THOMAS-Yes, because that can only be 64. What about directional signs? He can have up to six square feet of directional signs? I think it’s six square feet. So if you had a sign that was three feet long, two feet wide that said “Entrance”, with an arrow under it, within that six square feet, that would point out where the entrance is, and where that’s located. MR. STANG-That’s going to be tough for locating, if it’s on a pedestal, rather than the parking lot entrance, where the drive lanes are. MR. STEC-Directional signs are limited to four square feet in area. Craig lent me his book. MR. THOMAS-It’s four square feet instead of six. So, are any of the compromises that any of the Board members have come up with? MR. STANG-I’m going to have to check with our people on that. One of my problems is I’m fairly new with the company. So, I don’t know everything that they’re looking for, but besides what we, the front one on the front of the building and then the pylon sign is always prime choice. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STEC-To me, it makes the most sense to drop the sign on the front side of the building, and to go with a l00 square foot sign over your door. To me, as a consumer, you know, looking at the building, what’s going to attract me. You need something saying this is the door. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would you like us to table this for our maximum tabling of 62 days, until you can come back with something different, with the okay from the corporation? MR. STANG-That sounds good. MR. THOMAS-Before I do that, this is an Unlisted Action, so we have to go through the Short Environmental Assessment Form. So, if everyone would look at Page Two of their Environmental Assessment Form attached. All right. We’ll go down through this. Part Two A. Does Action Exceed Any Type I Threshold of the 6NYCRR Part 617.4? And I would say not, nobody knowing what that is. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t know if that’s so. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Well, yes, you would know, wouldn’t you, Bob. MR. MC NALLY-I’ve even got a copy of it. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. THOMAS-Do you? Tell us what “NYCRR” stands for. MR. MC NALLY-New York Code of Rules and Regulations. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Part B. Will action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6NYCRR Part 617.6? Does everybody agree it’s going to be no? MR. MC NALLY-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Part C. C1. Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? MR. STONE-Well, they certainly hope there will be more traffic into the building, but no, I don’t think it’ll have any effect. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Does everybody agree to a no on the first one? MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. THOMAS-C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic or other natural or cultural resources or community or neighborhood character? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. STONE-That’s why we’re not granting it. MR. HAYES-That’s right, aesthetic and neighborhood character. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll go with a yes on that one. C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats or threatened or endangered species? MR. HAYES-No. MR. THOMAS-C4. A communities existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? MR. HAYES-No. MR. THOMAS-The key word here being “use”. MR. BROWN-Would that be a yes, it doesn’t conform with the Sign Ordinance? MR. STONE-That’s what I was wondering. Are those two separate statements? Certainly, it would be in violation of existing plans, but then a change in use. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s why I said “use”. MR. MC NALLY-It’s not a change in use, but it’s a change in plan or goal. MR. STONE-Yes. So it would have an effect. MR. THOMAS-We’ll have to go with a yes on that. C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? MR. STONE-Yes, it might, if we granted this one. MR. THOMAS-Well, this is what we’re talking about, is this application here. MR. MC NALLY-Is it any different than the Blockbuster Video that was there beforehand, as far as intensity of use? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. THOMAS-I don’t think it’s any more intense. MR. STONE-But you may have more signs. That’s what I’m thinking when I say that. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. STONE-I mean, if somebody sees that we were to grant two signs, three, it would be. They won’t see that, but we haven’t voted on that yet, though. MR. THOMAS-All right. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified in C1. through C5.? MR. MC NALLY-None. MR. THOMAS-Okay. C7. Other impacts including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy? MR. HAYES-No. MR. MC NALLY-Nothing significant. MR. THOMAS-The meter would spin a little faster. Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that cause the establishment of a CEA? No. MR. STONE-Not that parking lot. MR. THOMAS-Is there or is there likely to be a controversy related to potential environmental impacts? MR. MC NALLY-No. MR. THOMAS-Determination of Significance. Check this box if you have identified one or more potential large and significant adverse impacts which may occur and proceed directly to the Full EAF and/or prepare the positive dec. MR. MC NALLY-You’re saying that should be checked? MR. THOMAS-No, or the second one which says check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts and provide attachments as necessary for reasons supporting this determination. MR. HAYES-Well, this form doesn’t make a whole lot of sense because the Part C above asks if there’s any effects, and then down below they’re talking about significant effects. MR. STONE-That’s why we used to ignore it. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but we can’t anymore. MR. STONE-We can’t anymore. Our lawyer says we can’t. MR. THOMAS-So, would you like me to check the first box or the second box? MR. MC NALLY-I don’t see this as being, I mean, it has effects, that’s what Box C is about. There are effects. Are they ask, potentially large or significant? MR. STONE-No. MR. MC NALLY-I can’t honestly say that they are. MR. THOMAS-No, I can’t, either. So we’ll go with the second box. MR. MC NALLY-I think so. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. THOMAS-All right, and I’ll have to sign another one later. I’ll have to put some kind of explanation in there. All right. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: th Duly adopted this 28 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer MR. THOMAS-All right, and the tabling motion. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 76-1998 HOLLYWOOD VIDEO , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Until no later than the December meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. This means that any new information requested by the Board must be submitted by the filing deadline for that month. The applicant may appear on the agenda in the previous month if the filing deadline for that month can be met. The reason for this tabling is for the applicant to present alternate plans for his sign request. th Duly adopted this 28 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Ringer th MR. THOMAS-So, you have until the December 16. I’ve got to go talk to Chris about that. I rd don’t think a 23 meeting is really feasible, seeing that it’s two days before Christmas. If we need thth two meetings, I think I’ll go the 16 and 17 . MR. STANG-Should we decide to not go forward with this, would we just send a letter saying that we’re? MR. THOMAS-Yes, just withdrawing the application now, and if you want, you can file another one later. Okay. MR. STANG-Great. MR. THOMAS-All right. Thank you. MR. STANG-Thank you for your input. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-1998 TYPE II WR-1A CEA RICHARD MOZEL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 99 FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 3-CAR GARAGE (1,080 SQ. FT.) AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE SIZE REQUIREMENT FOR A GARAGE, SECTION 179-7 AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16. TAX MAP NO. 42-1-1.2, 8 LOT SIZE: 3.39 ACRES TOTAL SECTION 179-16, 179-7 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 77-1998, Richard Mozel, Meeting Date: October 28, 1998 Description of Proposed Project: “Project Location: 99 Fitzgerald Road Applicant proposes Relief Required: construction of a 1080 square foot detached garage. Applicant requests 180 sf of relief from the definition restricting a garage to 900 sf, Section 179-7. Additionally, the applicant is requesting 10 feet of relief from the 16 foot height restriction of the WR-1A zone, Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Section 179-16. Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize the 2. Feasible alternatives: desired garage. Feasible alternatives may include a downsized proposal 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: and no construction. 180 sf of relief 4. Effects on may be interpreted as moderate, while 10 feet of height relief may be substantial. the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood are 5. Is this difficulty self-created? anticipated as a result of this action. The difficulty may be Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): interpreted as self created. AV 1107 - res. 7/16/86 shoreline setback relief for deck AV 1428 - res. 2/15/89 shoreline setback relief for Staff comments: enlarged /enclosed deck SP 34-91 - res. 6/18/91 construction of a second dock Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. This building, although substantial in size is not immediately adjacent to any dwellings, however, will there be an adverse SEQR Status: visual impact on Glen Lake? Type II” MR. THOMAS-Okay, and there’s nothing from the County on this one, right? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. O’Connor. MR. O’CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, I’m Michael O’Connor from the firm of Little & O’Connor, representing the applicants. With me are Chris and Rich Mozal. Basically, I think many of you have been to the site, and I think that is really what dictates what we’re doing here. The Mozals have purchased an additional parcel of land. They stipulate that they will adjoin it to the existing parcel that they have their single family home on, so that it is all one parcel. They are desirous of having a garage for storage. Physically, they can’t attach that to their existing house. If you took a look at their existing house, immediately behind their house is a roadway to which the adjoining owner to the west has a right of way though. I suppose they could try and build some type of, I don’t know what they would build. They’d have to go further into the hill there, or whatever. They’d have to building something that wouldn’t. MR. STONE-You mean to the east. MR. O’CONNOR-To the east, I’m sorry. Marshal is to the east. You’re right. Okay. They can’t build this and attach it to their single family home. If they attached it to their single family home, the building that they propose, the only thing they would be here for is for the additional 180 square feet that they’re requesting in the garage itself. This building is 26 feet in height. It’s two feet less than what is permitted in that zone for single family residence. If it were attached to that residence, they would not be requesting a variance for it. The 180 foot difference is kind of like some of the other garages that you’ve seen. People, nowadays, with three cars are looking for a larger garage. I think, I’ve been here before you, with the Morse residence, where we had to combine two garages which were larger than the required. I think the house that the Kristiansen’s live in now, that was originally built by Don Maynard, had the larger garage which is just up the road from them. I think the Marshal house which was built, not too long ago, if you build a large home, you may want more than 900 square feet of garage area. I think we kind of threw out the baby with the bath water when we adopted that particular Section to our Ordinance. I think it was a reaction to the Harris property on Pickle Hill Road, where the guy built the large garage and then turned it into an automobile shop that forever plagued that neighborhood. Here, clearly there’s no intent to turn this into any commercial venture of any nature. Basically, they’re on a private road, around the lake. They need to have more than a one season car. They need to have different cars in the winter to get in there and live there, than they have in the summer time, to accommodate that, they need the larger garage. Basically, they’ve got a garage that they’re going to park their car at the end of the garage for their summer car, and they’re going to park their winter cars coming in the other way. A duck is a duck. If they called one stall a boat storage area, that’s not a garage, but I mean they’ve been very up front with the Board. They’ve been very up front with the Town and said they’re going to build a garage which has 1,080 square feet, as opposed to 900. The impact, I think, is very, very insignificant. If you can notice the difference of that from the outside because of the size of that square footage of that garage, I’m amazed. If you look at this, even from a completely different angle, if you will, it also has very little impact. I’ve indicated that they really don’t have an alternative, as far as attaching it to the house and making it then conform with 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) the height requirements. Even if attached to the house, they would require the square footage variance. The other way of looking at it is if they wanted to treat this three acre parcel as a separate lot, and they put a septic system into this place, or for this place, with a kitchen, what they’re proposing in height would be permitted, because again, they’re entitled to have a 28 foot high house. Add a bathroom, add a kitchen, or make part of the area that they wish to use for storage into a bathroom or a kitchen, and that height is permitted. So the height issue is really kind of misleading. There really is no impact here. They’re entitled to build a 28 foot high house on the three acre parcel. What they’re proposing to build is a 26 foot high garage, and I’m not sure even, if you looked at the trees that are on the site, even now with the leaves off the trees and what not, whether this is going to be totally visible from the lake. They left the trees in place. In fact, they’ve placed this back further from the lake than they’re required to place it. My understanding it’s an WR-1A. They are entitled to a 50 foot setback from the lake, and they have it at 75 feet, or approximately 75 feet, but the setbacks aren’t an issue at all, except for maybe as to intent and indication of the character of what they wish to propose. That, basically, is our story. We’re asking for two variances. On their face, they may seem to be significant, but if you actually look at what we are allowed to do in that zone, they aren’t significant. I’d be happy to answer any questions that you want. MR. THOMAS-All right. I have one question for Craig before we start. It seems to me that Chris Round, the Executive Director of Community Development, stated once that where there are stairs, that is not considered part of the garage area. That sticks in my mind for some strange reason. MR. BROWN-Yes. I think that’s correct. I think if it’s a separate enclosed staircase, it’s not considered part of the garage. MR. THOMAS-A separate enclosed staircase is not considered. MR. BROWN-Inside, frame it up and sheet rock it. MR. THOMAS-Frame it up and sheet rock it so it’s an enclosed stairway. That’s not considered part of the. MR. BROWN-The garage square footage. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and I don’t think the Mozals are going to do that to this one. They need the open stairway. It won’t be enclosed. CHRIS MOZAL MRS. MOZAL-It’s inside the garage. MR. THOMAS-So it won’t be enclosed with sheet rock and framing. MRS. MOZAL-Would that make a difference? MR. O’CONNOR-I think the point that we might say is that what impact would that have on the community or the adjoining properties if we put a sheet rock wall inside the building that you aren’t going to see which then you’re telling me we could discount that area. MR. THOMAS-You could discount that area and probably bring it down to 900 square feet. You wouldn’t need a variance for that, but it’s just a point that stuck in my mind, on another garage variance. MR. O’CONNOR-I think what it does is help with the argument that this is really minimum, as far as the relief that’s requested. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? MR. STEC-I’ve got a question. I want to be clear, Mr. O’Connor. We’re talking about a garage, and not a house? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, you are. Because the Certificate of Occupancy that will be issued will be as an accessory structure garage. MR. STEC-A garage defined as a garage, not defined as a house? 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. STEC-A garage. On one parcel, not two separate parcels with two houses. We’re talking about a garage and a house on one enlarged parcel? MR. O’CONNOR-Right. MR. STEC-For the purpose of the Code and the Variance request? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. HAYES-So you don’t have a problem stipulating that, then? MR. STONE-He did stipulate that. MR. O’CONNOR-No, we do not have a problem. If we were ever to separate the two parcels, we would then have to make this house conform to the residential requirements, or make this structure conform to the residential requirements. MR. STONE-Which it could easily do with. MR. O’CONNOR-Could easily do, just by putting in, by partitioning off the storage area and making it kitchen and bath in there. MR. STEC-Well, my point is just this. I don’t think that it’s appropriate to justify the variance by comparing a garage to what’s allowed for a house. A house is allowed to be larger than a garage because it’s presumed that people are going to live in a house, not in a garage, and that they would require more living space than their cars. MR. O’CONNOR-To a degree, I agree with you, okay, but I think what the element that gave us the quantitative measurements were visual impacts. I sat in on the discussions, particularly on the height issues on accessory buildings in and about Waterfront properties, and the idea there was that they would limit the accessory structures, so that you wouldn’t have, you know, more than one structure on a lot of the size of a typical house. MR. STEC-We’re talking about two structures roughly the size of a house on the same lot. MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, but we’re also talking about two permitted lots. We could build this structure. MR. STEC-I don’t think you can have it both ways. It’s either one lot or it’s two lots. You’re trying to have it both ways, is how I’m hearing you. MR. O’CONNOR-No. I’m using that as a point of argument as to why there is little impact upon the community or the neighbors. The neighbors are not impacted at all by what we’re proposing. We could do this, calling it a different color, but what we would then have to do is install the bath, kitchen, and a septic, and we then would have two separate septics that perhaps would have some influence on the lake. We actually are taking three acres of land, next to a body of water, and saying that we’re not going to use it for anything that would potentially offer septic to the lake. MR. STEC-Well, then that begs the next question, why are the Ordinances different? Why is the definition of what’s allowed for a garage different than what’s allowed for a house, if it’s just purely about aesthetics? MR. O’CONNOR-My understanding is that the argument, for the most part, was aesthetics, and other people sat through some of those discussions where we talked about limitation of accessory structures as opposed to housing, and maybe they have different impressions of it, but that was my understanding of it, on the height issue. The size issue I know comes out of the Harris problem. MR. STONE-But the fact of the matter is that the applicant wants to build a garage slightly, again I don’t want to use an adjective, bigger than the Ordinance calls for. MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, we do. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. STONE-The question that I have, speaking about accessory structures, are the structures directly across the road from the Mozal’s house. It was raining today. I was not able to really ascertain exactly what they are. There seemed to be one, two or maybe even three of them there. RICHARD MOZAL MR. MOZAL-I don’t understand. MR. STONE-The buildings, the sheds that you have there. MR. MOZAL-The sheds, yes. Those are directly behind our house, yes. MR. O’CONNOR-What do you use them for? MR. MOZAL-Lawn mowers, you know, the lawn furniture, snow blower. MRS. MOZAL-And wood. MR. STONE-How many are there? MRS. MOZAL-Three. MR. MOZAL-Three. DAN BARBER MR. BARBER-They’re only like four feet, eight. MR. STONE-I couldn’t tell. MR. O’CONNOR-Because of the closeness of the hill that’s behind there. MR. STONE-The other question, how sure are we, and Mr. Barber’s commenting over there, how sure are we that the hillside which came down is not going to come down and take this garage into Glen Lake? MR. BARBER-Did you walk behind the building? MR. STONE-I didn’t walk behind. MR. HAYES-Somebody would hear from Mr. O’Connor if it did, I’m sure. MR. BARBER-Well, that might have happened before, but it’s, we’ve got it so far back now, and we’re going to excavate, if you walk behind, you see those 16 foot high concrete walls, okay, and they’re engineered to hold anything, but we have an excavation behind that’s like 20 feet, or 25 feet. So, I mean, we’re going to taper that upper part, okay. We’ve got plenty of room. If it comes down, it’s going to drop in behind the building, okay, because that’s, all the gravel came forward, and also, the light gravel, I’m going to put a machine up in there next week and put more gravel toward the building, so it would pull the grade up higher, because the walls are cured, and so now we’re going to hit that 16 foot high business, and that’ll project the bank back further, okay. So we’ve got a good 20, by that time, 25 feet. So it’ll just drop right into the hole. MR. STONE-It is a yawning side. MR. BARBER-There’s an example like that, just down from them, to the west. MR. O’CONNOR-There was a problem with the wall further to the west, or the hill the same way to the west, and as they do plantings on those hills, it stabilizes them, and it eventually will have its own stabilization, to some degree, but I think when you talk about Area Variances, what you talk about is what is the impact on the community or on the neighboring properties. We have talked to both neighbors, to both sides of this property, and they have no objection to it. The Marshals on one side own the small house that’s actually to the west, that’s between the Mozal house on the lake, and this parcel, and we bought it from the people on the east, with the intention of what we were going to do, with the announced intention. Their actual residence is some distance to the east of ours, and it is a heavily wooded lot. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHARLES CARTER MR. CARTER-I’m Charles Carter. I live very close to the Mozals, and I have no problem with their construction whatsoever. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-You say close, where close? MR. CARTER-I’m two houses down on the lake, I’m two houses west. Okay. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of this variance? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? No more questions? We’ll talk about it. Dan? MR. STEC-I think I spoke a fair amount of my peace already. I’d add that, in addition to how the neighbors feel, or part of what we’re talking about is really what’s fair in the Town. I would hate to see my neighbors on Heinrick Circle start erecting 20 foot garages. So, I think you must consider not only what’s appropriate in the neighborhood, but what’s fair. People have gone before and have said, okay, the rule is 16 feet, and so I’m going to be a good citizen and follow the rule, and then to, I’d hate to yank the rug out from somebody that just constructed a 16 foot garage. That would say, well, if I would have known, I would have asked for a 20 foot garage. So I think there’s more to be said than just, you know, how do the other neighbors feel about it. I think you’ve got to be consistent across the Town, and that’s why we have a Code. So I’m not inclined here. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-If we consider the factors that we’re supposed to consider, the benefit to the applicant, feasible alternatives and all of that, I think, basically, it comes out positive. I think the location, in this particular garage, is, I hesitate to use the word “unique”, but in terms of the vast majority of the properties in the Town of Queensbury, it certainly is. It sits against a hill. The hill’s going to tower over it, and it’s going to be very hard pressed, most months of the year, when the lake is in use, to even see the garage because it’s going to blend into the hill, and you’ve got the trees in front of it and all that sort of stuff. It is substantial relief. There’s no question that we have an Ordinance which calls for 16 feet for a garage, and that is more than enough for most garages, even with the kind of pitch that we need here in the North Country. The 180 square foot of relief is minimal. I mean, it’s 20%, but it’s still, it’s a very small thing when you consider the location of this property at the end of a road. As I said to Mrs. Mozal today, the road can’t go through that wall, can it, and obviously it cannot go through that wall. It can’t go around it. It can’t go under it or it can’t go over it. So it definitely is the end of the road. The effect on the neighborhood is minimal, because there is nothing there now, and nobody goes to it. Nobody goes by it. The neighbor to the east, as I think you said, sold the property, the Mozals, obviously does not feel it’s going to encroach upon the value of his property or his visual aspect or anything like that. In listening to my fellow Board member, the height, yes it is a lot, but as I think, in this particular case, where it is, sitting under the brow of the hill like that, I am not really concerned by this particular variance, the size of this variance, because of the physical location, if you would. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, the application is for an Area Variance, and by definition, an Area Variance is a less intrusive variance to the Code than other ones that we measure, and I think also it’s more local. I think that the criteria for the Area Variance has to do more with the exact nature of that property and the surrounding neighbors, and in this particular circumstance, I think that falls pretty significantly in favor of the applicant. The garage that they’re proposing to build is not 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) immediately close to another or any other property in the area to consider a negative impact on adjacent properties. I think Dan brings up a valid point, but I think in this particular circumstance, because of the unique nature of the property, that this isn’t Heinrick Circle. That’s a long ways away from any neighbor that could really feel a negative impact, and I guess the single biggest thing that weighs in favor of the applicant in my opinion, is alternatively, they could legally go forward with a much more aggressive usage of the property, and that includes a full single family house with all the accessories and a full septic system, and in this particular circumstance, the Mozals are proposing something that’s more benign to the lake, more benign to the neighborhood. There has been no negative public commentary that’s come forward. The garage itself, while 10 feet above the height requirements for garages, has significant screening from both the lake and from behind. I mean, from behind, you couldn’t have more screening. You’ve literally got earth that’s coming toward the garage, and from the lake, there’s a lot of trees. So I would feel a very minimal impact as far aesthetics. It’s at the end of a road that’s not traveled a lot. As I look at the map, I see a lot of property here. The garage is proposed to be further back from the lake than it would even be required to. So when you do a balancing test, I mean, they’re not asking us to do more with the property they have. They’re a lot more property on the table here and they’re asking for a less aggressive use then they could actually legally apply for. So all those things considered, I think the test falls in favor of the applicant. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-The 180 square feet is nominal. I wouldn’t have a problem with that just about any place, provided it was done appropriately and placed appropriately. Ten feet of height relief requested is certainly substantial, but I agree with everyone else, that given the unique characteristics of this property, and the relative remoteness, together with the fact that they’re combining the lots in a relatively large sized lot, I don’t have a problem with it. MR. THOMAS-All right. I don’t have a problem with this application, either. The terrain of the land and the lack of storage in the residence, you know, asks for a second story on that garage. The Mozals did purchase additional land just to install this garage. They have stated that there will be no living accommodations in that second story. So that means no septic system will be installed. It is shaded from the lake. In fact, my brother went by in a boat, and he could barely see it from the lake, and that was the retaining wall, and I do believe that the color of the garage will be blended, so as to blend with the natural surroundings as their house is. There were no neighborhood objections. In fact, one neighbor spoke in favor of this variance. The height is really not a concern because of, like Bob said the terrain of the land, you know, it’s got the, and Jamie also, it has the dirt bank behind it, and the screening from the lake in front of it, and as always, every variance is decided on its own merit, and so I would be in favor of this variance. All right. It’s a Type II. MR. O’CONNOR-Mr. Thomas, just so there’s no question, and I pick up a little on your comments. I’d like to be clear the stipulation that we make on the joining of the lots, okay. We stipulate that the two lots are joined for the purposes of this application, and that the proposal that we have is for use of garage and storage in this structure only. We reserve the right, though, at a future time, to treat those two lots as separate lots, if at that time, we make the building comply in full conformance with all other requirements. I don’t think we need a holding tank here, but I mean, if we’ve got, we’ve got a legitimate single family home here, and then we’ve got a three acre parcel, and the only thing that says that this is not a separate house, full house is, as Mr. Hayes indicated, is the desire not to do it at this time. In the future, we reserve specifically the right that we can come back to the Board, or come back to the Building Department, and ask for a new Certificate of Occupancy, showing that we’ve put a kitchen in, that we’ve put a, I think you have to have a kitchen, a bath, and a septic system, and we have to have 900 square feet of living space, 800 square feet of living space. If we then comply, that would be a legitimate lot. We could do that today, and then that would not require any additional variances, but I mean, that’s probably, I’m not a builder, but that’s probably an additional $20,000, $30,000 that would be a waste to put all those fixtures and structures in there simply so we could use that space for storage. We really didn’t get into, the real need here is storage above the garage. That’s why the height is being required. They have no storage in their home. They have two drop stairways from the attic space right now, which actually defeats the insulation in the attic, because they have so much stuff stored up there, that they go up and down and whatever, they have constant leakage from that roof area because they aren’t, it’s not properly insulated because they use it as active storage. They do this thing here, they can put all their storage in the garage. They can seal that off, insulate their house, and not have a problem with their insulation, but I just didn’t want a question on stipulation and have to come back and argue later. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. THOMAS-Okay. Does everybody understand what Mr. O’Connor has just said? That he does reserve the right to come back and convert this into a single family dwelling unit, as long as he meets all the setbacks and septic regulations. MR. STONE-And this parcel would be, is over an acre? MR. O’CONNOR-It’s a three acre parcel. MR. STONE-A three acre from, that was acquired for the purpose of connecting the two properties. MR. O’CONNOR-Three acre, and even if we had to tag part of it back to the existing parcel, with the property line description, that parcel would then be one acre, to say this parcel would probably be two acre. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re obviously correct that you could build a house there right now, if you wanted to. MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, and I just don’t want to give up that right, or have some understanding that I gave up that right. MR. BROWN-I think once the parcels are combined, though, I think if you do want to create a principal dwelling on the property, you need to go through some sort of subdivision review, Administrative. MR. O’CONNOR-Okay, but under our regulations, I think you do by property line. My point is, regardless of the procedure which we have to follow, I don’t want some understanding here that we’ve given that up, but I’m not arguing procedure right now. I haven’t thoroughly thought that through. MR. STONE-I think you do have to combine them, because you can’t have an auxiliary structure on a lot that doesn’t have a primary structure. MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. STONE-So you’ve got to combine them, and you could always separate them. MR. O’CONNOR-I don’t have a problem with that, as long as we follow the proper procedure. I’m confusing, in the back of my mind, the ability of a person to combine lots for tax purposes, and not be bound by that, but we would follow the proper procedure in getting the proper lot configuration approved, but I just don’t want somebody to think that this is forever and ever going to be garage and storage. Some day the Mozals may decide to pick up and leave. MR. THOMAS-All right. Would someone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-1998 RICHARD MOZAL , Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 99 Fitzgerald Road. The proposed project is the construction of a 1,080 square foot detached garage. The applicant is seeking relief of 180 square feet from the definition restricting a garage to 900 square feet, Section 179-7. Additionally, the applicant is requesting 10 feet of relief from the 16 foot height restriction of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. In considering this variance, we acknowledge that the applicant would benefit by being permitted to construct and utilize the desired structure as a garage and storage building. We also recognize that there are feasible alternatives, namely a downsized proposal to make the garage conform, and reducing the height to 16 feet, and/or no construction. In considering the relief requested, 180 square feet may be interpreted as moderate, while a 10 foot of height relief may be substantial, but we believe that this is mitigated, the 10 foot, by the fact that it sits against a hillside, which is considerably higher than the 26 foot height of this building, and we do not think it will really be noticed from the lake, nor will it have any impact on other areas of the Town, because of its unique location and situation. The effects of the neighborhood that we have considered are minimal to moderate because both it does sit at the end of a road. No one would come down this road unless they had reason to be there. Secondly, neighbors have expressed approval of this particular request, and, yes, the difficulty may be considered self created, but in attempting to mitigate this thing and to build this thing, the applicant 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) has secured approximately three acres of land to make one continuous parcel, so that this accessory building, auxiliary building, can be considered as part of the one piece of property. th Duly adopted this 28 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. O’CONNOR-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. They have to go before the Planning Board, right, it’s in a CEA? MR. O’CONNOR-The structure is not in a CEA. The lot is. MR. STONE-The structure isn’t? MR. O’CONNOR-The structure’s not in a CEA. They were not told that they had to. AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-1998 TYPE II SR-1A DAVID & DAWN JUCKETT OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 838 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,020 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 720 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR A GARAGE, SECTION 179-19, 179-7. TAX MAP NO. 54-2-27 LOT SIZE: 6 ACRES SECTION 179-19, 179-7 DAVID & DAWN JUCKETT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 78-1998, David & Dawn Juckett, Meeting Date: October Description of Proposed Project: 28, 1998 “Project Location: 838 Ridge Road Applicant Relief Required: proposes construction of a 1020 sf addition to an existing 720 sf garage. Applicant requests 840 sf of relief from the definition restricting a garage to 900 sf, Section 179-7. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:2. Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired garage. Feasible alternatives:3. Is this relief Feasible alternatives may include a downsized proposal. substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 840 sf of relief from the 900 sf requirement may be 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: interpreted as substantial. Minimal effects on 5. Is this difficulty self-created? the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action. The Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, difficulty may be interpreted as self created. etc.):Staff comments: None applicable. Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed garage is a substantial structure well in excess of the requirements, but it SEQR Status: should not directly affect any adjoining properties. Type II” MR. THOMAS-And nothing from the County on that one. All right. MR. HAYES-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to excuse myself on this particular one. I own the property immediately to the north. So, I think it would be better if I didn’t participate. MR. THOMAS-All right. So noted. Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Juckett, is there anything else you’d like to say, talk about? MR. JUCKETT-I’d like to present three letters from the neighbors that are in support of the project. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Why don’t you just give them to Craig over there, because he’ll have to read them into the record. MR. JUCKETT-I did get to know my neighbors through this process, even tonight. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. THOMAS-There you go. Is there anything you want to add to it or tell us about the project? MR. JUCKETT-No. Actually, what we’re looking at, and I think the drawings will show this is just a mirror image of what’s there. There’s four elevations of the building, and the use of the building would be strictly automobile storage, lawn maintenance, items, garden tractors, the usual snow blowers, leaf blowers and so forth. That’s all that’s intended here is automobiles and those customary lawn care items. MR. THOMAS-May I ask how many cars you have to put in an 1800 square foot garage? MR. JUCKETT-Right now we have three, and one on the way. MR. STONE-Are these cars that you ordinarily use all the time? MR. JUCKETT-Yes. MR. STONE-And you’re not in the antique restoration business or anything like that? MR. JUCKETT-No. MR. STONE-Are you going to have garage doors on both ends of the building? MR. JUCKETT-The existing garage doors are shown on, I think you’d call it the west elevation. MR. STONE-The west elevation, yes. MR. JUCKETT-And there will be an additional double door on the opposite end that, again, would be a mirror image. MR. STONE-How are you going to get to those? MR. JUCKETT-How? MR. STONE-Yes. I mean, one side it looks like a very narrow lot, and then you’re going to go, are you going to get it paved? MR. JUCKETT-No. I actually figured the far end of the garage would be for a garden tractor, and, you know, lawn equipment, not automobile. MR. STEC-It’s not a pull through garage? It’s not a drive through? MR. JUCKETT-No, not automobiles running across the lawn, no. MR. STONE-Okay. What’s the building back there now? Is that where you’re storing some of these things? MR. JUCKETT-There’s a little storage shed back there now. MR. STONE-Would that go if you built this? MR. JUCKETT-I didn’t plan on it going, no. MR. STONE-What’s in it? MR. JUCKETT-What’s in it? There’s a tractor in it. MR. STONE-That’s going to go in the garage? MR. JUCKETT-That’s going to go in the garage. MR. STONE-What else is in there that might, you might not need it. MR. JUCKETT-Tables, chairs, bird feeders. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MRS. JUCKETT-The usual things. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, it sounds like that’s what you want to build this big building for. I’m wondering why you might need it. The screened in porch area, you’re going to have one on both ends of this building? MR. JUCKETT-No. MR. STONE-So it won’t be truly a mirror image. You’re not going to have. MR. JUCKETT-Not a true mirror image. The structure itself would be a mirror image. MR. STONE-Right. Now that screened in area, is that just a, for evening sitting? MR. JUCKETT-I guess so. Yes. MR. STONE-I mean, I know there’s lawn furniture in there. I took the liberty of walking over to it. MRS. JUCKETT-We eat out there sometimes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Can you tell me how many square feet that screened in area is? MR. JUCKETT-The screened in area is 200 square feet. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there walls in there? MR. JUCKETT-Yes. MR. THOMAS-I mean, between the, is this building built? MR. STONE-No. The front garage is. MR. THOMAS-I know the front garage is. MR. STONE-This is built. This part is here to here, is built, and there is a little screened in area. MR. THOMAS-Yes, okay, 200 square feet. Because I didn’t get a chance to get up there. Okay. I don’t know if I would consider that 200 square feet of screened in, you know, room, as part of the garage. I think I would consider it something else, like a gazebo would be. MR. JUCKETT-I think that’s been taken into consideration. MR. THOMAS-In the total square footage? MR. JUCKETT-In the total square footage, I believe that’s been excluded. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Because there’s no width measurement on these elevations, just the length of 60 feet. MR. JUCKETT-The width is 34 feet, and you should have a plan view there of the garage. MR. STONE-We just have 30 feet of length, nothing on width, at least nothing that I see. MR. THOMAS-Nothing that I’ve seen. MR. BROWN-These may be additional informations that weren’t. MR. JUCKETT-You should have a plan view of the garage. MR. BROWN-Sorry about that. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. STONE-That area is, can you get in the garage from that area, or is that totally sealed off from the garage? MR. JUCKETT-The screened in porch? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. JUCKETT-No. You can walk directly into the screened porch, take a quick right and walk into the garage. MR. STONE-Okay. I didn’t notice that. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there correspondence there? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BROWN-A letter from Edward J. Barrett, 10/16/98 “To Whom It May Concern: This is to advise anyone concerned that I have no objections in reference to Dave Juckett building a 30’ x 40’ garage on his property. Edward J. Barrett, 105 Chestnut Ridge Rd. Queensbury, NY 12804” Raymond VanGuilder, “To Whom It May Concern: Dave Juckett has my permission to put a 30’ x 34’ addition on his garage. Raymond E. VanGuilder 818 Ridge Rd. Queensbury, NY 12804” Fred Comstock, 827 Ridge Road, “To Whom It May Concern: Dave Juckett has my permission to build a 30’ x 34’ addition on his garage. Fred Comstock” MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-How high is the structure from grade to the peak, 16, it looks like probably 18 feet. MR. JUCKETT-I could offer you a plan, or a sectional view, through the building. MR. THOMAS-Does it have a height on it? MR. JUCKETT-I don’t remember. MR. STEC-I don’t think it was 16 feet. It didn’t look 16 feet to me. MR. STONE-I didn’t even think about it. I have to admit, when I looked at it. MR. JUCKETT-It would be much less than 16 feet. It’s a two scale drawing. MR. THOMAS-What’s that, about a four on twelve pitch. MR. JUCKETT-I believe. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. Lew, what do you think? MR. STONE-Well, having had this previous discussion in the applicant prior to you, I’m concerned. I’m concerned that we’re making a huge garage out of a normal sized one, with a house that, while very nice, is certainly not a large house. It is a large piece of property, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you need more garage space because you have a large piece of property. In the previous application, and we said, we consider each one of these on its merits, there were some mitigating circumstances, as far as I’m concerned, but here we’re talking an ordinary piece of land, albeit a big parcel, but a flat piece of land, on which we’re going to put a garage twice the size of that which is allowed, and I’m inclined not to do it, but I would certainly like to hear what the other three people have to say, but just by the fact that it is so big, I mean, it’s not 50% larger. It’s 100% larger. Well, it’s more than 100% larger, and even if you add 180 feet, you’re still doubling the size, the allowed size, and I’m concerned by that because now we’re dealing with a piece of property that I can’t say to someone else, well, look, we’ve got a big hill behind it. We’ve got this 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) and that. Here we’ve got a level piece of property with a huge garage on it, and while I understand the applicant’s desire, and the benefit that you’d receive, those are the zoning requirements of the Town of Queensbury, and I’m, at the moment, inclined to say no. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-Can I ask, what do you do for a living, Mr. Juckett? MR. JUCKETT-I’m an engineer. MR. MC NALLY-And you have three cars. MR. JUCKETT-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And you’re planning on a fourth. MR. JUCKETT-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And these are just ordinary cars that a person would use day to day? And you needed a garage of this size. I don’t understand. Do you work in the garage? What do you do? What was your thinking? MR. JUCKETT-No work is performed in the garage. I only change my oil in my lawn mower. MR. MC NALLY-I mean, but I’m trying to get an understanding, you know, why do you need a garage that big? I mean, I think the Town basically looks at a three car garage, 900 square feet, 300 foot a car. This is a building that’ll be about 2,000 square feet, if you take into account the 200 square foot porch. So it’s about 7, 840 square feet for three cars, maybe four. I just don’t understand the need for it. If I understood the need, then maybe I could understand, or justify the size, and that’s what I’m trying to get from you. MR. JUCKETT-It’s solely intended for motor vehicles, a garden tractor and various items that relate to, you know, lawn maintenance and care. It wouldn’t be seen by the road. You absolutely could not see it from the road. MR. MC NALLY-I agree with that. That’s a large lot in some sense, it takes a very small portion of your lot. MR. JUCKETT-It would be a very pleasing building, as the existing garage, I think, is a pleasing looking building. I think it would fit nicely with the surrounding terrain, and I really don’t see anything really objectionable about it. I think it would look appropriate. MR. MC NALLY-Your property owners to the south are who? MR. JUCKETT-Mr. Barrett. MR. MC NALLY-And they wrote us a letter? MR. JUCKETT-Yes. They inspected the property, inspected the drawings. In fact, he even thinks the garage ought to be bigger by his letter. MR. MC NALLY-The garage is what, maybe 15 feet from your line along his boundary? MR. JUCKETT-Yes, it is. MR. MC NALLY-And his house is about how far from that line? A fair distance. MR. JUCKETT-Boy, a long, long, long ways. MR. MC NALLY-So he’s not right on it at all. MR. JUCKETT-No, it’s 14 acres next to me, on the south. I’m not even sure that his house sits on that vacant, I understand it’s a vacant 14 acres to the south, but I believe he lives on Chestnut Ridge, way in back, which might adjoin me in the back, but it’s a long, long, long ways. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. MC NALLY-If I look at the factors, I think it would be a great benefit to him, though I’m still perplexed as to why you need a large garage like that. The feasible alternatives would include downsizing to be more on par with the current standards in the Town of Queensbury. The relief is substantial as relative to the Ordinance. They’re asking for 840 square feet of relief from the 900 square foot requirement. The effects on the neighborhood or community, though, are nominal or minimal. When I was up there, I couldn’t see how anyone would really object to this, looking at the property. MR. JUCKETT-No, it would be difficult to object, really. The houses are so, so far apart. MR. MC NALLY-The difficulty is self created, though. This is an option that the applicant has chosen to come to us with. I don’t see, though, on balancing, how it’s going to effect the adjoining properties of the Town of Queensbury, and since it’s to remain as a private, residential garage, while unusual, I’m going to come out in favor of it. MR. JUCKETT-I would agree to any stipulation you might want to include, as you said, purely an automobile type, never be anything other than an automobile garage. MR. STONE-There is a definition in our book about a private parking garage, that is a garage for private parking. “An accessory building or structure, attached or detached, used primarily to shelter no more than three (3) automobiles, provided that such garage may be used to shelter only one (1) commercial vehicle, ….. nine hundred (900) square feet.” So in a sense, by saying you want four vehicles, that’s, even if you had the large size, you’d need a variance, I would think, for four vehicles, if I read this definition correctly, and all 179-19 says “Private Garage” Private Garage says three cars. MR. MC NALLY-That’s a good point. What Section is that? MR. STONE-179-7, Page 17922.1. MR. JUCKETT-The point there is I would have a registered vehicle in every corner of my yard. You can’t regulate the number of registered motor vehicles I own. MR. STONE-I understand that. I’m only reading, again, to me, it says that if we were to grant this variance, we have to grant it also to allow four cars, because it says no more than three. Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to. MR. THOMAS-Well, it’s like the applicant said. We can’t tell him how many vehicles he can have, okay, but the gist of the definition of “Garage, Private Parking” is not to exceed 900 square feet. That’s it, you know, how many vehicles he can squeeze in there is up to him. You could probably fit three Lincoln Continentals in there, or probably seven Volkswagons. MR. STONE-I understand you have picked up on the last sentence in the definition, but the definition incorporates both of them, as far as I’m concerned. MR. THOMAS-Well, you know, I think the intent of the three automobiles is just a reference to 300 square foot per vehicle in a garage. MR. STEC-Right. I agree. I think that’s what that reference is, is that you’re talking about 900 square feet, it would be impossible to store four vehicles in 900 square feet. MR. THOMAS-Normal sized vehicles, like a Sport Utility Vehicle or something like that, but if you get a smaller car, there’s nothing that says you can’t cram them in there any way you want. Because like the applicant said, we can’t regulate how many vehicles they own. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. THOMAS-So, you know, I think that’s a minor flaw in the definition. MR. BROWN-But, just to support Mr. Stone’s point, without having the discussion and the intent of this definition, whether it be safety hazards, fire protection for more than three vehicles, whatever the determination was to come up with three, it does only address three vehicles, and I think if you do grant relief, you should include relief for more than three. MR. THOMAS-I’ll go along with it, just because that’s the way it’s printed in the book. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. STEC-How does it work? Can we grant relief for something that’s not requested for? MR. STONE-Well, that’s the question. Does it have to be advertised as seeking a variance for more than three automobiles? MR. BROWN-I think the relief that is requested was advertised as relief from Section 179-7, which is the definition of a garage. So it’s the entire definition. MR. STONE-Okay. Fine. MR. THOMAS-Is that it for you, Bob? MR. MC NALLY-That’s it for me. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Dan? MR. STEC-Well, while we consider each case on its merits, I think a strong argument must be made that we also have duty to be consistent and fair in everything that we do, and I don’t think I could look the Jucketts in the eye, after our previous application, for something nearly identical, and say no. With that said, talking about the merits of the case, it’s very sparsely populated there. We’re not talking about waterfront property with a lot of homes all crammed in against a water line, as Mr. Salvador likes to talk about, but we’re talking about houses that are spread out very evenly, and what further inclines me to be in favor, again, on the merits, and not necessarily on any precedent that we may have set tonight, is that the orientation of the garage is straight back away from the road. So even driving by, you’re only going to see the front facade of the garage. It is an unusual request. It is a tremendous amount of relief that’s requested, but I think we’ve demonstrated a willingness to grant that kind of relief tonight, and I don’t think it’s our, really, business to ask, you know, what was intended, you know, the particulars of the intended use. It’s a garage. I’d like to stipulate that it will be for non commercial use. He’s indicated a willingness to do that, and I think with that clearly stated, I’d have no problem with this. I didn’t have a problem with it before, regardless of the other case, but clearly I think it would be unfair and inconsistent to go ahead and go otherwise. MR. THOMAS-I can see your point, Dan. The last request, they asked for a 1,080 square foot garage, with a 1,080 square foot storage space above it. So actually it comes out 2160 square feet is really what they got. MR. STEC-They got two floors out of that garage. MR. THOMAS-Yes. They got two floors out of that one. MR. STEC-These are very similar, I think. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It is very similar, you know, because half of it is for vehicle storage and the other half is for storage. The only thing is they’re end to end rather than one over the other. So, even though each one is on its own merits, this one here we have to talk about on its own merit, and if you go down through the criteria for it, whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, well, like in the last one, we could ask them to make it a two story, but really that’s not feasible because it’s tough to put a lawn tractor up on a second floor. An undesirable change in the neighborhood? It can’t be seen from anywhere, even looking from the road. You only see it head on. You see the width of it, not the length of it. The request is substantial, but here again, we just gave one for a little, if the last one were the same size as this one, it would be larger, or if it was in the same configuration, it would be larger. The request will have any adverse physical or environmental effects? No, because I don’t believe they’re going to put any facilities out there, such as a cooking, bathrooms or anything like that. Whether the alleged difficulty is self created. Well, it is self created, but, you know, in this balancing test, we have to take into consideration the benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, and I do believe the new rulings, that we have to really look at the benefit to the applicant, and, you know, if it weighs 51% in his favor, 49% in against, I do believe we have to give him the variance. So I would be in favor of this, if it’s built as proposed. MR. STONE-Let me just ask the applicant a question. Obviously, this is not buying a vote, but you recognize that we have to have all four of us vote yes for you to get your variance tonight. Would you consider removing that shed, since you say there’s a tractor stored in there, you say, 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) that’s going to go in the garage, and whatever else there is, there should be room in this garage to put there, so that we at least relieve, I’m hearing the argument about the viewing from the road, and you really can’t see this long building, and I, that’s getting to me. There’s definitely a factor there, but I’m also, when I look up at the road, up at the garage, I can see that shed, or at least I think I can see that shed. MR. JUCKETT-You can’t view the shed from the road. MR. STONE-Well, it’s possible because it is lower down, yes, but I guess I would like to see that there is no need for the shed, and therefore, a willingness to not have it, because it’s only doing what this, you’re asking for with this new building. You’re asking for four cars, which certainly in this size building, you could easily get in. You’re talking a tractor, snow blower, all that. I would think that it could easily fit into the garage. MR. JUCKETT-I just don’t know what I’d do with the shed. I mean, it’s a quality shed. It’s made out of cedar. I’d hate to destroy it. MR. THOMAS-How many square feet is that shed? MR. JUCKETT-I’d say probably 10 by 12. MR. THOMAS-So it’s 120 square feet. MR. JUCKETT-Yes. I’d hate to destroy it, a perfectly good building. MR. THOMAS-The Ordinance says he can have 100 square feet without any permits. It’s like Mr. Juckett says, it is nice. MR. STONE-I think it’s a pretty building. It’s a very piece of property. I was very impressed. There’s no question that you care about your property. You care about being a good neighbor, and even the design of this building, by going the way you are, but I’m just hung up by the fact that it is a level piece of ground, and it’s a very big building, but, having said that, I suppose I would probably go along, in listening to my colleagues. Quite frankly, I think if there were five of us here, I probably would have said no, but I think that on listening to the merits of my colleagues, at least I would grant you what they think you deserve, and reserve my silent protest for another time. MR. THOMAS-All right. If there’s no more questions for the applicant, I will ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-1998 DAVID & DAWN JUCKETT , Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: 838 Ridge Road. I move that we approve the requested variance and grant 840 square feet of relief from the Definition restricting a garage, defined as Section 179-7. The benefit to the applicant is that they will be permitted to construct a large garage for the use of personal car storage and lawn and garden equipment. Feasible alternatives would be to go with the downsized proposal, but I think we’ve demonstrated that the proposal before us is, although large and significant in their request for relief, it is mitigated by the neighborhood support and also by its relative ruralness, in as far as the house density in the area. So, there is negligible effect on the neighborhood, and as long as we can stipulate that it’s for noncommercial use, just personal storage, and also I’ll go ahead and add to the amendment that they be allowed to store four vehicles in the garage to clear up any inconsistencies or vagueness there. I move that we accept this proposal. th Duly adopted this 28 day of October, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-You squeaked in, four. MR. JUCKETT-Okay. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-There you go. Thank you. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) AREA VARIANCE NO. 79-1998 TYPE II WR-1A SR-1A AUDREY KIERNAN-RUMPF JEFF RUMPF OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 155 BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,200 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DWELLING AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE, SECTION 179-16. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/14/98 TAX MAP NO. 143-1-1.2 LOT SIZE: 3.95 ACRES SECTION 179-16 AUDREY KIERNAN-RUMPF, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 79-1998, Audrey Kiernan-Rumpf Jeff Rumpf, Meeting Description of Proposed Date: October 28, 1998 “Project Location: 155 Big Bay Road Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1200 sf second story addition to an existing single Relief Required: family dwelling. Applicant requests 4.5 feet of relief from the 28 foot height Criteria for considering an Area Variance requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be 2. Feasible alternatives: permitted to construct the preferred addition. Feasible alternatives may 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: include a downsized proposal. 4.5 feet 4. Effects on of relief from the 28 foot requirement may be intepreted as minimal to moderate. the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result 5. Is this difficulty self-created? of this action. The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 98-553 9/30/98 second story Staff comments: addition, pending variance approval BP 97-132 4/14/98 septic alteration Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed second story addition is not increasing the footprint of the existing home and should not directly impact SEQR Status: adjoining properties or the Hudson River. Type II” th MR. BROWN-And at the October 14 meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, in relation to Item Number QBY-AV-79-1998 Audrey Kiernan Rumpf and Jeffrey Rumpf, there was No County Impact. MR. THOMAS-All right. Looks like you got elected. Is there anything you’d like to add, talk about, tell us about, comment on? MRS. KIERNAN-RUMPF-No. We’re basically asking for a four and a half foot variance to go the 32 and a half feet. MR. THOMAS-When I was up there today, you told me you were going to take off the existing second story, because it’s mostly an attic, and it’s not in great shape, and it’s inhabited by animals other than what you’d want. MR. STONE-Varmints. MR. THOMAS-Varmints, yes. Could you tell me how high the existing first story is? PETER IMPERIAL MR. IMPERIAL-It’s two story. MR. THOMAS-It’s two story, yes, but the second story is coming off. MR. IMPERIAL-Peter Imperial Contracting. MR. THOMAS-Okay. The existing first story is how high, to the, well, to the ceiling rafters? MR. IMPERIAL-Probably about 13 feet. She’s only got like a four/twelve pitch on it. It’s pretty shallow. MR. THOMAS-Then we know the second story is coming off. MR. IMPERIAL-Right. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. THOMAS-And you’re going to completely flatten, right down to the first story, and go up from there. MR. IMPERIAL-On top of the first story. MR. THOMAS-On top of the existing first story. Okay. MR. STONE-But it’s going to have an attic area. MR. IMPERIAL-Yes. MR. STONE-With a window. So, what’s the definition of a “story” I guess. You have a full attic up there. Isn’t that a story? MR. IMPERIAL-It’s not really a full attic. I mean, it is, it’s already got a like a seven foot ceiling height. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. IMPERIAL-That wouldn’t be considered a full. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-Is your question, is it habitable living space? MR. STONE-I guess. MR. BROWN-Yes. According to the New York State Building Code, there’s certain requirements that meet the (lost word) for being habitable space. Some of those are height, light ventilation, before it’s considered. MR. IMPERIAL-I think it’s seven foot six for habitable. You can’t live there. You can go in there, but that’s about it. MR. STONE-Okay, but the top of the roof is going to be 32 feet six inches. MR. IMPERIAL-Right. We’re four feet higher than what’s required. MR. STEC-I have a question, for the Board or maybe Craig. Chimneys. How do they work into this height requirement? MR. STONE-They don’t. MR. BROWN-Historically, I guess, chimneys haven’t been incorporated into the determination of the height of the building. The Code requirement requires them to be a certain dimension taller than the peak of the building, for proper ventilation and drafting. I think, historically (lost words). MR. IMPERIAL-It’s two feet higher than originally. MR. STEC-So the Code, though. MR. BROWN-Doesn’t address it. MR. STEC-Does not address it, and so it’s, by past practice, that we talk about the height of the roof and we discount the. MR. BROWN-The Zoning Ordinance doesn’t address it. The Building Code addresses that it needs to be a certain height above. MR. STEC-Above, but the Zoning Code does not say you count the chimney. It doesn’t talk about the chimney, the Zoning Code doesn’t, and in the past when we talk about heights of buildings, we’re talking about the top of the roof, not the chimney. MR. STONE-Okay. Does the Building Code call for a maximum height above the roof? 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. IMPERIAL-No, it’s two feet, according to the Fire Marshal, it’s two feet above the ridge line. MR. STONE-If you want to make it five, you can? MR. IMPERIAL-You can go five feet if you wanted to, if you want them to dress it up. I don’t think you’d want to, but the minimum Code is two feet above ridge. MR. STONE-Two feet above ridge, okay. MR. STEC-So what I’m thinking is, not in this case, you know, not to hassle the applicant, but what I’m talking about is, later on down the road, and again, I’m just trying to learn my new job, we have a situation where a view is involved, and somebody says, I don’t like the neighbor that’s got the view. I’m going to build a 10 foot chimney. We’ve established that, we don’t talk about chimneys. We’ve gone down that road. We’ve chosen that path already, that we don’t talk about, chimneys are not part of the zoning. If you’ve got a problem with somebody’s chimney blocking your view, you’re out of luck. MR. BROWN-Well, I think at any time in any application before the Board you can address any issue that you choose to. If a 10 foot chimney is going to play more than the required two foot above the ridge line, you can address it, sure. MR. HAYES-Reasonable condition. MR. BROWN-Reasonable condition, sure. There are certain reasonable conditions you can put on any application. MR. STONE-We can put the condition on, but it doesn’t come into the variance. MR. STEC-Anyone can go and build a house, and as long as it’s below 28 feet, they can put any height chimney on there that their foundation will support, and we won’t get into that? MR. STONE-It’s not even covered in the Definitions, a chimney. MR. STEC-And again, I don’t think it really applies in this case. I’m just trying to. MR. IMPERIAL-There’s height requirements, it’s on the Hudson River, though, the ridge lines. If you put a house on a different parcel of land, I think you should be able to, you could probably go up higher than 28 feet, or 32 feet. MR. STONE-SR-1A, you could go 40, for example. MR. IMPERIAL-Right. That’s what I’m saying. MR. STEC-Okay. That was my question. Thanks. It just jogged my memory. I see the chimney is on the drawing here. MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BROWN-Yes. From Robert J. LaPann, owner of vacant property on Big Bay in the Town of Queensbury which adjoins the Kiernan-Rumpf property, To: Audrey Kiernan-Rumpf and Jeff Rumpf, owners of property at Tax Map No. 143-1-1.2, “Applicant”, dated October 26, 1998 “I hereby notify the Town of Queensbury that I have no objection to the construction of a 1,200 square foot second story addition to the existing dwelling as requested by the Applicant. I require no further notice of the application. To: Town of Queensbury Zoning Board J. Robert LaPann 2220 Meadowbrook Road Queensbury, NY 12804” MR. THOMAS-What was the address? MR. BROWN-2220 Meadowbrook Road. I think he owns vacant property. MRS. KIERNAN-RUMPF-He owns the lot right next door to me. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. STONE-Can you tell me a little bit about the other improvements on the property? MRS. KIERNAN-RUMPF-We put up a pole barn, a cold storage pole barn a couple of years ago. The main house has a new furnace, Town water. MR. STONE-But you have a little, it looks like a little cottage there? MRS. KIERNAN-RUMPF-Yes, that was there when I bought it. MR. STONE-Okay. What’s it used for? MRS. KIERNAN-RUMPF-Basically, it’s just a cottage, and occasionally, I have a friend whose daughter comes up here to take classes. So she might stay in there, but it’s not used all the time. MR. STONE-It’s not heated? MRS. KIERNAN-RUMPF-It has a monitor heater in it. MR. STONE-Okay. Are all the vehicles on the property registered? MRS. KIERNAN-RUMPF-Yes. I just want to add something. There’s a few more today, because I had dropped somebody off at the airport, and two of them left their car at my house. I was looking around thinking, my God, when you came today, I was going, man, it looks like there just cars everywhere here today, but, yes, they are. MR. STONE-I noticed one when I was there yesterday. There was a truck with its hood up. It looked like the hood was up, right in front of that cottage. MRS. KIERNAN-RUMPF-Maybe Rumpfy was checking his oil or something. I don’t know. MR. STONE-Okay. I saw nobody around. Nobody stopped me. MRS. KIERNAN-RUMPF-He might have been inside with the little one. MR. THOMAS-Did you look through the records, Craig, to find out what the original size of this building was? Because I think there’s three additions on to it, because I’m looking at Section 179- 79, greater than 50% expansion. That’s not on the notes. MR. BROWN-Yes, 179-79 is for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Currently, this is a conforming structure, all the setback requirements, floor to area ratio requirements for the zone. This variance is to create a nonconforming structure. So if they were to add onto it after this variance, if it’s granted, then it would be nonconforming. Currently, it’s a conforming structure. MR. STONE-It’s a chicken and egg, what came first. MR. THOMAS-Well, I’m looking at this, a single family building or mobile home may be enlarged or rebuilt as follows. Okay, so if it was nonconforming. Right now, it’s conforming. MR. BROWN-Right now it’s conforming. It doesn’t have the addition of the 32 and a half feet. MR. THOMAS-Right, and it’s also over the, and it’s bigger than the minimum. Yes, okay. I just wanted to make sure we got that straight. Okay. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-I guess it’s time to talk about it. Jamie, I’ll start with you. MR. HAYES-Well, the benefit to the applicant is pretty self evident, just trying to solve a number of personal living accommodation problems, and I can certainly associate with that. The feasible alternatives, I think are fairly limited. If you’re going to do this job, it makes economic sense, probably more than anything else, to do it properly and do it in a way that’s going to completely meet your needs, if you’re going to do it whatsoever. So, I can understand the nature of the proposal. Is the relief substantial according to the Ordinance? In this particular case, I think it’s moderate. As was pointed out earlier, I think by your contractor, that if this was in another zoning 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) area, you could be higher, and the fact that you’re in the Waterfront Residential is where the 28 feet kicks in. So I think I could live with that. There’s a lot of screening toward the river, and certainly that’s an important thing to protect, the aesthetic value of the properties that are viewed from the river, but in this particular circumstance, there’s a lot of land here, and I don’t think that, aesthetically, there would be a great damage to the image of that end of the river, per se, and the difficulty is self created, but it’s only self created in the extent that you’re trying to improve your own living environment, your own quarters, and I guess I can’t see, taking everything on balance, I can’t see a reason why 4.5 feet is a big leap. So I would probably come out in favor of the variance. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I agree. The only real factor to look at is the substantial nature of the relief versus the effect on the neighborhood. Four and a half feet, if you come down to it, isn’t that substantial. It’s moderate at most. If we look at the property, it’s got side setbacks of about 100 feet. It’s got about 125 feet to the water. The purpose of the WR-1A zone is to protect the water and they could have a 50 foot setback and have a 28 foot ceiling height, roof height, at 125 feet, it’s going to have no effect. You have no neighbors. It’s well screened, not going to have any effect on the neighborhood whatsoever. I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Dan? MR. STEC-I don’t think I could have said it any better myself. I agree 100% with Jamie and Bob. I don’t see any problem at all with this. Looking at the site, you essentially have no neighbors, and you’re well off all the setbacks, and I don’t think four and a half feet is a big deal, either. So, I’m in favor. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, as one of the protectors of the Waterfront zoning, this is not, doesn’t really come into play. You are far enough back from the river. It’s totally well screened. The only concern I have is what happens if you get into this house, and you find that you can’t do what you want to do, and you have to tear it down and start all over again. MR. IMPERIAL-It’ll be done to what, the right height. We can always raise the grade in the back, if we have to, if it comes to that. MR. STONE-I’m not really concerned. As I say, you are far enough back, I’m only concerned of the total picture of, you know, we’re granting a variance for this particular re-construction, if you will. We’re not talking about new construction, but certainly being back that far from the river, and the particular location of the lot, and where the house is on the lot, I would always prefer not to do this to waterfront zoning, but I don’t think it’s a problem here. MR. THOMAS-All right. I agree with the other Board members. I don’t see a big problem with this one. Four and a half feet is, in this particular case where it can’t be seen, really, from any other property around it, is minimal. This property not only has SFR zoning on it, but it’s also surrounding by it, where a 40 foot height would be permissible. So it’s not like it would be any different than any other house on that road, or, that’s not in the Waterfront Residential zone. The feasible alternative would be just to cut down on the roof or cut down on the pitch of the roof to bring it into compliance, but because of the shape of the existing first floor, I don’t think that would be feasible, especially with the snow loading around it in this area, and here again, with the criteria, the benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, I think on this one here, the benefit to the applicant comes out way ahead of the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. So I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-We do have this note, Mr. Imperial, that you wrote about the septic system. Is it in compliance? MR. IMPERIAL-It will be contingent on my CO, because we have to see how many feet of leach field we have now. MR. STONE-Okay. So you still haven’t done that. That’s not our call, I recognize that, but there are people who say that we should at least ask the question. MR. IMPERIAL-That’s fine. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. STONE-And it’s never had a problem? MR. IMPERIAL-No. MR. STONE-But we are putting more square footage, or another bathroom, too. Do we need? MR. THOMAS-Well, that’s between him and the Building Department? MR. STONE-That’s between the Building Department. I’m not arguing that point. MR. MC NALLY-They’ll have to update the system. MR. IMPERIAL-If it needs to be updated, we’re updating it. MR. STONE-If it needs to be, it needs to be. MR. THOMAS-Yes. They’ll have to update it according to the Ordinance. So, having said that, if there’s no other questions for the applicant or the Planning Department, I would ask someone to make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 79-1998 AUDREY KIERNAN-RUMPF JEFF RUMPF , Introduced by Daniel Stec who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 155 Big Bay Road. I move, Mr. Chairman, that we approve the requested four and a half feet of relief from the 28 foot height requirement, in the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. The benefit to the applicant is obvious, that it’ll allow for the reconstruction of the second story. Feasible alternatives, could possibly hold a downsized proposal, however, the relief is not very significant and the effects on the neighborhood and community are very minimal due to the location on the large lot of the home. So, I move to approve the request. th Duly adopted this 28 day of October, 1998 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer MR. THOMAS-There you go. MRS. KIERNAN-RUMPF-Thank you. MR. IMPERIAL-Thanks for your time. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Under “Other Business”, Mr. Salvador has approached me and asked that he speak for a few minutes. I said that was no problem whatsoever. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but my wife has requested a couple of minutes of my time. KATHLEEN SALVADOR MRS. SALVADOR-With your indulgence. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lets have it. MRS. SALVADOR-Now, I have to give the Board half bravo for your decision this evening not to approve the Sign Variance for Hollywood Video. The Town of Queensbury, especially the Route 9 corridor, from the Glens Falls City line to Route 149, has become a disaster, and I know that whoever worked on the Sign Ordinance and all worked long and hard on it, and I really think we should adhere to it. I have to give a full bravo to Dan, this evening on that regard. As they say, the apples don’t fall far from the tree. Twenty years ago, his dad took Dunhams Bay Lodge to 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) court, as a conservation officer, for some violations, sign violations, that we had at the lodge. If any of you, or all of you, are familiar with the lodge, even back then, 20 years ago, we didn’t have that many signs, today, of course, we don’t have any advertising signs. Dan’s dad said, back then, if you’re good in business, you don’t need to advertise. We do not have an advertising sign today. MR. STONE-You have a very attractive sign. MRS. SALVADOR-We have a location sign. It tells people where they are. From our sign, you wouldn’t know that a portion of our business is renting PWC’s on Lake George. Thank you. MR. STONE-Yes, you would, if you drive by this summer. MRS. SALVADOR-Not by the sign. MR. STEC-I’ll pass those sentiments on to my father. Thank you. Thank you for the compliment. MR. SALVADOR-The reason I asked to speak to you tonight is my concern over the fact that, as of late, you have been granting more and more variances for things called additions, re-modeling, renovation, these sort of things, and my work in this area started last year about this time, when this Board granted a number of variances for the Morse project up on Assembly Point, and you recall, that was billed as a renovation, and the reason I see the problem is that different agencies use these terms interchangeably, and different agencies have different interpretations of them, and likewise, the people who work for those agencies have different boundaries within which they operate and make decisions. This is conflicting, and I think it’s causing serious problems. This manifests in subject of wastewater. I was so concerned about this that in March I wrote a letter to Mr. Champagne, and in it I say I have great concern that the residential development taking place on Tax Parcel 9-1-19, that’s the Philip and Susan Morse property, has evaded review and approval according to the regulations promulgated as Title 9, State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code, of which Section 1231.3C is an integral part. 1231.3 deals with alterations and repairs, and it reads in relevant part that when alteration costs, including additions and repairs, exceeds 50% of the replacement cost of a building, the entire existing building shall conform to part 1232 of this Title. So, just alone, from what is being done on that property, and I mean, you don’t have to be a real rocket scientist to calculate this, truly the finished structure will represent more than a 50% cost increase to that property. I mean, that’s not hard to imagine, at today’s construction costs, what’s going on there. Just from a square footage point of view, we’ve exceeded that limit, to where this can no longer be termed either an alteration or a repair. Now you recall that the Queensbury Town Local Board of Health granted a variance for the septic system on that property, a variance allowing them to use holding tanks, and they predicated the approval of holding tanks on New York State Health Department approval of that scheme. I questioned, at that very meeting, I questioned that the Health Department would approve the use of a holding tank for a year round residential use. They simply don’t do that, and so when Mike O’Connor called the Health Department, he, and this is the way I hear it, okay, he flippantly asked Brian Fear, I’ve got a renovation up on Assembly Point. I need your approval for an alternate septic system, and Brian Fear came right back and said, we’re non-jurisdictional, which is true. For an alteration, on Assembly Point, non-jurisdictional. So, Mike O’Connor comes back to the Town of Queensbury and he lets that be known and, bingo, he gets a building permit. Now, I will go on here. Part 1232 says “any new work, such as alterations and additions, shall comply with SubChapter B, except that minor alterations may be allowed”. Minor alterations may be allowed. So if you don’t have minor alterations, everything has to be in accordance with SubChapter B. SubChapter B are the standards for new construction. So, as far as the New York State Uniform Building Code is concerned, we only have two types of construction. We had new construction, and we had minor alterations. That’s the only two terms they use. Those terms are carried over in the public health code. They’re not necessarily carried over in our Ordinance. We use different terms. Tonight you heard your list here, you know, an addition, an alteration, and all. Gentlemen, I’ll read you the criteria for minor construction, and none of this fits. Everything you’ve listened to tonight is new construction, and new construction has a different review criteria, especially in a CEA. In a CEA, Glen Lake is a CEA. You didn’t address that tonight. The environmental review that you should go through in that, with respect to the septic system, at least, is being evaded, simply because we’re calling it an alteration or an addition. Now, Part 1231.3 defines alterations and repairs, and it says here that alterations shall comply with SubChapter B, that’s the Uniform Building Code, except that minor alterations are permitted to be made in buildings. The word “in” is used, in buildings with like or similar materials to those existing. “In” buildings, when you exceed the envelope of an existing building, no way can you be in the alteration, renovation, remodeling, addition business. You are in the business of new construction. Now, it says minor alterations shall not include, these are the things that shall not be included in minor alterations. Removal, cutting or modification of 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) any structural support. The Takundewide property, they’re putting a cellar in. They’re putting a new cellar in. That was billed as a modification, okay. A cellar has supporting walls, foundation walls are structures. “The removal, change or closing of any means of egress, any change or arrangement effecting loading, exit requirements, or equipment requirements, any addition, alteration or rearrangement of fire protection equipment, any addition, alteration or rearrangement of water distribution or drainage piping”. Do you know what “drainage piping” refers to? MR. THOMAS-Septic. MR. SALVADOR-Septic system. The Morse property has had its existing septic system removed. You can’t touch that system without calling it new construction. You can’t touch it, and they have an approval from our Building Department, a Building Permit, where the New York State Health Department said, we’re non-jurisdictional because it was billed as a renovation. Direct conflict with New York State Building Code. “The addition, alteration, rearrangement of electrical distribution equipment”. So we had these inconsistencies, and I think projects, these add-ons, these, whatever you want to call them, are evading the review that’s required, primarily in the area of sanitary waste. Now, we have an Ordinance that’s the Sewer and Sewage Disposal Ordinance. Now this is what it says here that the Code Enforcement Officer, this is the gentleman who’s issuing the building permits and doing the septic permits, he has the duty to enforce and administer the provisions of Part I. The provisions of Part I are these particular Code I’m referring to, and they refer to the New York State Building and Fire Prevention Code, and they refer to the Department of Health requirements. It says here, “Disposal System Building Permits” This is the on-site waste disposal system. “It shall be unlawful for any person to construct, alter, repair or extend an individual sewage disposal system within the town unless a disposal system building permit has been issued”. Before Mr. Hatin can issue a building permit, he must do the following. We must first identify the elevation of the seasonal high groundwater. Now there is a method spelled out in our Ordinance for how you do that. There’s a specification that tells you when you do it. If it’s not possible to do it within the time period specified, Mr. Hatin is obligated to, it says here “if such a determination is made”, that is the high seasonal groundwater level, at times other than March, April, May or June or six weeks after the frost has left the ground, the high groundwater shall be evaluated and certified by a qualified person, approved by the Local Board of Health. Now I believe our Town Board, Local Board of Health, has approved three professional engineers in this Town, or Soil Scientists, to make this determination. Okay. They are, I submit that Mr. Hatin is not qualified, Mr. Hatin cannot certify this data. He cannot. He does not possess the credentials to do that, nor the license to do that. The percolation tests. “All tests shall be made within the area of the proposed sewage disposal system”. Now I would think that you’d have a sewage disposal system that consists of a septic tank, sometimes a distribution box, and then an infiltration device called a drain field or a leach field. It says the percolation test shall be made. As best as I can understand it, okay, the Takundewide property, no percolation test has been made. No attempt has been made to establish the high seasonal groundwater on the site where the septic system will be located. I think they’re relying on the fact that they did some tests in the area on that parcel, some time ago, and that’s sufficient. We know the lay of the land up there. I submit that Mr. Hatin is not qualified to do this. He’s not certified to do this. Now if you want to get a guy with a P.E. to certify that, fine. Lets do it, but then his license is on the line. Okay. That’s the difference. None of this is being done, because all of this is billed as renovation, and we’re driving a Mack truck through this small interpretation of the law. We’re driving a Mack truck through it. I’ll tell you, when you read the Uniform Building Code, you could hardly replace one of those windows and call it a renovation, or a repair, let alone framing, let alone a foundation for a nd cellar, let alone a roof. A roof is a structure. Okay. So, I wrote to Mr. Champagne, on March 2. th I didn’t get an answer. I wrote to Chris Round on September 14. I haven’t gotten an answer yet, and the same letter, I’m asking for an answer to the same letter. Meanwhile the construction is moving ahead, and meanwhile you folks continue, continue to grant variances based on expansion, renovation, repair, addition, not recognizing and not realizing and understanding that it’s all new construction, and the criteria for new construction applies. New construction, in a CEA. That’s what you’re talking about. So, I will persist and I will continue to try to get answers to these questions, but I just don’t like what’s going on in the Town. I think we have public officials who are reaching beyond their authority, and some day we’ll get it. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-All right. One more thing I’d like to talk to the Board about, seeing that we had two garage variances tonight. Does anyone feel that the 900 square feet should be changed to something a little more? Thinking back, the Board members that have been here for a while, the number of garage variances that have been applied for, do you think it’s maybe time to go ask the Town Board to modify that 900 square feet to a larger? 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. STONE-Well, a couple of the ones we’ve had, Chris, have been for extra garages. Mr. Salvador mentioned the Morse property. They wanted two garages, both enclosed. Mr. Garvey wanted a detached second garage that we talked about. Tonight we had two very different circumstances. It’s a valid point to raise, but I’m not sure we have as many of the same, just people saying, I need a 1,000 square foot garage. We did have one on Ridge. MR. HAYES-But it’s definitely coming at us. I mean, people are, even the area that we live in is conducive to people having, you know, Mozal, he wanted to, the reason he wanted a garage, he puts his Corvette, I mean, they all put them up. You put yours up. MR. THOMAS-I put mine up. I have three cars, and I live by myself. MR. STONE-Well, certainly, we have gone from a society with, in my lifetime, and even these two gentlemen back here, John I know, of no cars, to one to two to three, and certainly in a family with a couple of teenagers, four and five maybe. MR. HAYES-Well, it’s just, do we want to be tying up valuable time with something, even with these new builds, people are putting three car garages on their houses and stuff. I mean, it’s just definitely. MR. STONE-It’s three all the time. MR. THOMAS-And then plus, it’s not only garage, but it’s extra storage, too, that they’re asking. That’s part of their reason for asking for a bigger garage, is for storage. MR. STONE-Well, throw away some junk, but you’re right. MR. HAYES-You’re better off with a reasonable limitation, than enforcing it, like the same thing with some of the set offs, than having something where everybody’s pushing the envelope, and you end up with these constant 100 to 200 feet. MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, you know, I’ve been thinking back, and a lot of these have been, you know, for like anywhere between 950 to probably 1200 square foot variances because of extra vehicles, extra storage, I want to put the tractor, the lawn mower. MR. STONE-Certainly the tractors and the lawn mowers. MR. THOMAS-As things get better and the economy gets better, they throw away the push mower. Now they’ve got this 18 horsepower John Deer riding around with a 42 inch mower deck and it doesn’t fit in the same space in the garage that the push mower does. MR. HAYES-None of us were here for that Harris, I mean, is that essential, is that fairly accurate? I mean, that was their reaction to that, to some degree? MR. SALVADOR-Well, it was going on at that time. This won’t happen again. MR. STONE-I mean, if 300 square foot per car isn’t the norm. MR. THOMAS-Thirty by ten. MR. BROWN-Parking spaces are at 180 square feet minimum. MR. HAYES-You mean regular car spots like in a plaza or something. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-So 300 is on the high side. The problem is we build them to have doors, and one here and one here, and the space in between is not wasted, but it’s. MR. THOMAS-People are running out of storage space in that in between, and you look at some of these houses that are being built, right here in the Hiland Golf Course. MR. STONE-Well, particularly people who build on a slab. MR. HAYES-It doesn’t even look proportionate with the size of the houses that are being built. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. THOMAS-You look at some of these 4,000 square foot houses, with a 900 square foot garage. MR. STONE-What would we do, procedurally wise? We would propose a local, a change to the Board? MR. THOMAS-Yes, just like we did before with the setbacks. MR. STONE-Right. MR. THOMAS-Just write a letter to the Board asking if they would consider it. That’s something I would do, like we did the last one, and show it to you guys before it went over. MR. MC NALLY-It’s not unreasonable. MR. STONE-No, it’s not. MR. BROWN-I think, at the same time, some consideration would be given to the number of building permits that have been issued for single family homes and garages far outweigh the number of variance requests for garage increases. Just to argue the existing Code, the 900 square foot is a pretty reasonable benchmark to keep the control on density of garages. Do you want all garages to be 1200 square feet? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. STONE-But they will be. MR. BROWN-Do you want to allow people to go up to 1200 square feet? Yes, maybe, but do you want them all to be 1200 square feet? At least a 900 square foot benchmark, you’ve got the ability to give them that relief to go over. MR. STONE-Why don’t we think about it, Chris? MR. THOMAS-Yes, just think about it. Kick it around. MR. STEC-That’s 30 by 30. That’s a big space. MR. STONE-It’s a big space, I agree. MR. HAYES-Or you could have something possibly like the bigger houses, where they seem to come into play. MR. STONE-It may be a percentage of the house. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. BROWN-A percentage of the land. MR. THOMAS-A sliding scale. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Well, like I say, just kick it around, and think about it, because like I say, you know, we average probably one garage variance a month, one garage variance a meeting. Sometimes we get two and three at a meeting, and then we’ll go for a stretch. MR. HAYES-What’s the deal on what Mike said like if you called one of it boat storage and then you could still have, essentially, a garage that was bigger. I mean, was he correct in that? I mean, don’t put a garage door there or something. MR. THOMAS-Well, you can have a boat storage as a separate building. MR. MC NALLY-But accessory structures are limited in size, too, though, aren’t they? 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) MR. THOMAS-I don’t think there’s any accessory or any structure size limitation on boat storage. MR. BROWN-(lost words) garage and accessory boat storage. MR. THOMAS-Yes. You can put as big, as long as it meets the setbacks. You could throw in a 60 by 100, as long as it’s not for commercial purposes. It’s like cars now, a lot of people have two boats. MR. STONE-Yes, well, these covered sheds like we’ve ruled on Cleverdale, they can be pretty big, with boats in them for the winter. While we’re talking, and I don’t want to address John’s thing directly, but it doesn’t seem to me that it makes any difference, when I look at a variance, whether it’s new or old construction. That’s not what we’re asked to do, not as far as our Code is concerned, not as far as our view is concerned. MR. STEC-That was a question that I was having, that I almost asked John, is that where’s that for the Zoning Board to consider? MR. STONE-Yes. I mean, you have a good point, John. MR. STEC-Right. I agree with your point, but is that our jurisdiction? MR. SALVADOR-That’s even a bigger problem I see in the Town. We have three Boards of review. We have a public health board, we have a Zoning Board of Appeals, and we have a Planning Board, and to me, it’s nothing more than a segmentation of the project. MR. STONE-We have a Town Board, too. They get involved, John. They give variances for mobile homes, before we even get a chance to look at them. MR. SALVADOR-All right. To me, it represents a gross segmentation of the project, because, you know, well, we got this permit, now we’ve just got to get through this one, and, you know, you kind of put the blinders on, and I just don’t think that gives a comprehensive look at the project. Somebody’s got to take a comprehensive look. MR. STONE-John, I agree with you, but I don’t think it’s in our purview. MR. SALVADOR-But that’s why I come to you tonight is that I see this piecemeal salami attack, I don’t think the job is getting done. MR. STONE-That may very well be. I mean, I know I, personally, bug Craig and Chris on little things that I see around town, as I drive around, but you’re right. There is no, well, I guess there isn’t one person, at the final end, signing off on everybody else’s signatures, and making sure all the T’s are crossed and the I’s are dotted. MR. SALVADOR-Well, one thing that I think would help a great deal, is if all these applicants, if they have to go to the Planning Board, that’s the first Board they go to, the Planning Board, and that sort of, that’s sort of like the broader view of the project is at the Planning Board, and I don’t think their decision should be predicated on the fact, well, they already got the variance for this. MR. STONE-Well, but John, their decision, on the other hand, for a lot of the things that we do, we’re talking five feet of relief from a setback. The Planning Board doesn’t get into that. I mean, we have a very narrow job to do in some cases. We’re administering a Code, which doesn’t talk about septic systems, except that you have to have them if you’re not on a sewer, and all we make sure is that the existing system is offset by the proper amount, when we look at the variance. MR. SALVADOR-This Section 136, it’s entitled “Sewers and Sewage Disposal”, it’s nothing but a Zoning Ordinance. It’s not a sanitary ordinance, it’s a Zoning Ordinance. We still have a sanitary ordinance in place in this Town. We just don’t pay any attention to it. We’ve got this one we’ve brought in place. That’s a Zoning Ordinance. MR. STONE-Yes, but we make sure that wherever it is, that they don’t encroach upon it, per our Code. We don’t get into whether it’s a good system or a bad system. I wish we could, but we don’t. That’s not our job. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I think with a little bit of, you know, if this is brought to the Town Board’s attention, you know, we’re going to have a public hearing on a Comprehensive Plan that 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/98) th we’ve prepared on the 9 of November, and I really think these are greater problems than the verbiage in the Comprehensive Plan. These are, I think, problems we have to address. There’s no sense having a very onerous Zoning Ordinance and then everybody gets relief, because you can’t enforce it, because it’s not realistic. Can we limit the number of cars a person can own? Directly, you can’t, but defacto you can, when you limit the size of the garage, if, in fact, they want to put their cars in a garage. So there’s your limiting. It’s a de facto control, and so you have to be able to enforce it to make it work. MR. STONE-Everything we do, John, has to be enforced. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, but if you can’t, if you don’t feel you can, without being arbitrary and capricious, then the whole thing falls apart. That’s all. MR. STONE-You have a very excellent point, and I’ve been saying that, and that’s one of the reasons I ran for office, is that I think we need to be enforced. It’s a tough job. MR. SALVADOR-I mean, I’ll be honest with you. The wastewater in North Queensbury is going to blow up in our face some day like something you can’t imagine. Those soils, that topography, there is no way we can continue to use those small lots at the density we’re using them, meet the codes, with on-site systems. You can’t do it. The only way we can do it is continue to issue variances, continue to issue variances, and then ultimately holding tanks, and holding tanks, I’m telling you, is against public policy. That comes from Albany, and we can’t change that. We can play around with it. MR. STONE-Yes, but John, you use the term, we don’t issue variances against septic systems. The Town Board may. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I’m saying, we have a. MR. STONE-John, I’m sympathetic to what you’re saying, you know that, but the problem is, how do we it’s not in our job description, unfortunately. MR. SALVADOR-Well, come join me. MR. THOMAS-All right. I make a motion we adjourn. MR MC NALLY-Second. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 49