The URL can be used to link to this page

2001-07-18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 18, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PAUL HAYES, ACTING CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY ROBERT MC NALLY NORMAN HIMES CHARLES ABBATE JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT LEWIS STONE ALLAN BRYANT CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HAYES-I’d like to open the July 18, 2001 Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting tonight. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2001 TYPE II JOAN AND MIKE DONNELLY PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. ZONE: 10 WATERS EDGE DRIVE, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 884 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. ALSO, THE APPLICANT REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 6-1994 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 5/9/01 OLD TAX MAP NO. 16-1-13, NEW TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-30 LOT SIZE: 0.37 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60, 179-67 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. MC NULTY-Okay. “Motion to Table Area Variance No. 31-2001 Joan & Mike Donnelly, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: So that the applicants can prepare an amended application to reflect the need for side setback relief, dimensional relief, and that this application be re-advertised, neighbors re-notified, or notified of the changes, and that this appear on the first meeting in July. This motion is referring to the plan showing either the kitty corner one or the furthest one back from the lake three feet from the line, both at 728 square feet, and no height relief necessary. Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McNally” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 31-2001, Joan and Mike Donnelly, Meeting Date: June 20, 2001 “Project Location: 10 Waters Edge Drive, Cleverdale Description of Proposed Project: Applicant originally proposed construction of an 884 sf detached garage and sought setback relief as well as height relief. At the direction of this Board, the applicant has altered the size of the proposed garage and offered alternate locations as well. Relief Required: Each of the three alternatives submitted by the applicant requests relief from various combinations of the shoreline setback requirement, sideline setback, the 16 foot maximum height requirement and the 10 foot minimum separation distance requirement of § 179-67, Accessory Structures and Uses and the Shoreline and Wetland Regulations, § 179-60. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired garage in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation to a more compliant location. 3. Is the relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The cumulative requests for relief may be interpreted as moderate to significant, relative to the ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Neighborhood opposition has been noted. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? A portion of the difficulty may be attributed to location 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) of the exiting house as it appears as though any addition to the house or construction close to the house would require relief. However, there appears to be area available for more compliant construction. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 107-1993 withdrawn by applicant, similar request, more relief AV 6-1994 res. 2/16/94 same as current proposal BP 94- 036 issued 3/25/94 several renewals, current stop work order Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. There still appears to be area available for more compliant construction. Previous approval granted 45 feet of relief from the then 75 foot shoreline setback requirement. The height relief referenced in these notes was scaled from the applicant’s drawings. The application references a 17 foot tall proposed structure. Staff considers the proposed construction to be a detached garage as there is no interior connection between the house and garage. The proposal nearest to the originally approved footprint appears to be the most desirable. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. HAYES-Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, and Mike and Joan Donnelly are here to answer any questions the Board may have. Very quickly I guess, because we went through this in great detail at the last meeting, we were instructed to come back. Really the reason the Board didn’t vote last time was because of the issue of notice and whether or not the alternate locations were noticed, and it was felt that it was best to wait the month, just to make sure that the notice was clear and that the neighbors were aware. At that time we were looking at one entrance at the two locations, which are different than the original one next to the house. One which is at the north side of the house and one near the road. We were also instructed, and also felt that it was appropriate, to get together with the neighbors, and to get their input to see what they would prefer, and lo and behold, after a very pleasant conversation between the neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. End reported to Mike Donnelly that they really prefer what was the proposal to make it attached to the house. The reason why we proposed that to begin with was because by merging the garage and the house, in terms of blocking the view, the house is already there, and the garage, therefore, juts out from the house the least amount possible, because eight feet of the garage is encompassed by what’s already the house, and I guess after considering all the alternatives, the Ends, my understanding is they sent you a letter to that effect also, but they concur now that that would be the minimal impact, as far as their view and their house. This drawing that Mike submitted is a reduction even from what we had discussed last time. We were at, I believe, 721, which is a reduction from the original variance, and now we’re at 24 by 24, which is 576, which is far less than the variance that was approved in ’94. So, in terms of the Donnelley’s, it’s preferable to have it attached, merely because of convenience in the winter and having the entrance from the garage, from the house to the garage, from the existing doorway, which would be eight feet back into the house. The Donnelley’s will accept any of the locations that the Board desires, but that would be their preference, and the fact that that’s now the neighbor’s preference, you know, certainly would make everybody happy in the neighborhood, but it’s the Board’s discretion. MR. HAYES-Is that it? Thank you. Does any Board member have any additional questions for the applicant or his agent in this case? MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Lapper, just so I understand. The setback from the lake is what? MR. LAPPER-In which proposal? MR. MC NALLY-The one that you’re proposing right now. MR. LAPPER-The house is 45, attached to the house was 45 feet from the lake, the one that was approved last time, and this would be 8 feet closer to the lake from that. So, 37. MR. MC NALLY-Thirty-seven feet from the lake? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And the side setback to the nearest neighbor is what? MR. LAPPER-I don’t have that. It’s 24 to the, it’s actually more than that, because that’s to the location that’s away from the house. So that would be 27 feet from the property line. MR. MC NALLY-You’re proposing the plan not in red that’s highlighted, but the one that’s closest to the lake and attached directly to the house? MR. LAPPER-Right, what’s labeled as Number Two on the latest drawing. MR. ABBATE-And that, Mr. Lapper, is 27 feet from the boundary line? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. ABBATE-And what is the distance from the shoreline to the? MR. LAPPER-Thirty-seven. MR. ABBATE-Thirty-seven. All right. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-It can’t be 37. MR. BROWN-I’ve got a drawing that shows 20, Jon. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s got to be more like 27. MR. BROWN-I’ve got a drawing that shows 20, if you want to take a look at this one. MR. LAPPER-Let me just check what was, I can tell you from what happened last time, from the one that was approved. MR. HAYES-Is Number Two the one that was approved, Jon, or was Number One the one that was originally approved? MR. LAPPER-The one that was approved was actually the corners touched. So it was three feet closer to that. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. LAPPER-Craig’s right, because you have to measure it from the nearest point, which is from the seawall, and from the seawall it would be 20 feet. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-It’s 20 feet from the seawall? MR. HAYES-For Number Two. MR. ABBATE-For Number Two. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HAYES-And Number One is how many feet? MR. LAPPER-Twenty-three feet, from the seawall. MR. BROWN-Number One would be an additional 11 feet. MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry, 11 feet. So it would be 31 feet. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Lapper, let me make sure I’m right now. So the dimensions on Item Number Two would be 27 feet from the boundary, and 11 feet to the seawall? MR. LAPPER-No, 20 feet to the seawall. MR. ABBATE-Twenty feet to the seawall, okay, and Number One would be 37 feet? MR. LAPPER-Yes, 31 feet. MR. ABBATE-Thirty-one feet, excuse me. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any further questions for the applicant on this file? MR. URRICO-The original approval granted 30 feet of relief, 45 feet of relief? MR. LAPPER-Thirty feet of relief from the then 75 foot setback, which is now a 50 foot setback. That’s changed. MR. MC NALLY-And I understand there’s no request for height relief, or is there still? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) MR. LAPPER-Well, after hearing a discussion that you had at the last meeting, where my recollection is that for architectural reasons, you did allow somebody to have the pitch of the roof match the pitch of the house. The difference here would be 16 feet versus 17 feet, and it probably would be more attractive at 17, but again, whatever the Board feels, I mean, they would prefer the 17. It would probably look better, but whatever the Board wants. MR. HAYES-Did we advertise for height relief? MR. BROWN-I think so. MR. HAYES-Just make sure. MR. MC NALLY-I know we did originally. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-It’s kind of inconsequential in some sense. MR. BROWN-Just in case. MR. HAYES-Okay. If there’s no further questions of the applicant at this time, I’ll open the public hearing. Would anyone that is in favor of this application like to step forward and speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BOB & PATRICIA END MR. END-My name is Bob End and my wife Trisha, and we are the neighbors directly to the south. MR. HAYES-Welcome back. MR. END-You look surprised that we’re in favor. Thank you. Let me just start off by saying, this has been a very difficult situation for all of us, and it’s been difficult for Mike and Joan. It’s been difficult for us, and we have spent the better part of the last two months trying to come up with some kind of solution here, and I think, we had a conversation with Mike and Joan about two weeks ago. We looked at a number of alternatives. We did come to the conclusion, at least from our point of view, that the alternative that Mike and Joan had talked about, and I think the Board had talked about the last time, which was the location to the north, would be the worst of all the alternatives that we’ve kicked around. It does absolutely block our entire view to the north, which represents probably three fifths of the windows of our house, and for those who have seen the location, I think you probably all have, the location of our house and the way it is laid out on the lot, our primary view from most of the house is to the north, and I know it’s a little unusual, but that’s the way it is. So that location would deprive us of a pretty spectacular view up the lake, and we had a conversation with Mike and Joan, and I think we have at least come to the conclusion that the best alternative here would be the one that adjoins the house, moves the garage closer to the water, and I know that that’s a sensitive issue, but at the same time with a house that is as nonconforming as this house is, the fact that it is right on the water, I believe that the alternative that would have the least impact, definitely to us, and I also believe has the least impact to everybody, is to put this garage as close to the house as possible, and that’s the alternative that actually overlaps the house by I believe seven feet, eight feet. We have not seen the sketches that you were referring to, so I may be a little at a loss, but the location is the garage would actually overlap by seven or eight feet. It would provide the Donnelly’s with a direct access to the house, direct entrance way. It would have the least impact on our view, and frankly, from the lake, I think it also would have the least impact because it is as close to their house as can be. We very much appreciate Mike and Joan shrinking the size of the garage, reducing the height. We have tried to reconstruct our relationship here, which I hope we can, and we would strongly advocate this solution. This is a very, very difficult lot to build on. We stated in our first meeting, it is not our intent to try to deprive the Donnelly’s of a garage, and I would absolutely suggest that this is the best alternative. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak, or are there any questions for the Donnelly’s in this particular circumstance? They seem to be the most effected neighbor. MR. URRICO-The Ends? MR. HAYES-The Ends, excuse me, yes. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the application? Anyone that would like to speak opposed? Okay. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) MR. MC NULTY-We’ve got two letters, or actually a phone message and a letter. One’s a phone message from Phillip Moynihan. He says okay by him to be set on southern end of property, to afford the Ends maximum view, and close to shore as possible. The other is a letter from Robert and Patricia End that says, “In regards to the above-referenced garage application, we are the neighbors to the south who will have the greatest negative impact should a garage be constructed. As their home is located on the tip of a point of land on only .37 acres, the placement of the garage anywhere other than the back of the lot with a walkway to the house would eliminate any view north from our home. Because of the way our house is situated, the only view from two thirds of the house is north. This affects all five windows on the north side of our house, which includes the kitchen, dining room and three in the living room area. Our home is long and narrow so these are primary windows. The Donnelly’s have expressed that a garage on the back of the lot would not allow them to drive up to the house, as the septic would preclude such. We understand that this would be inconvenient but still a better alternative than no garage. Unfortunately, some lots do not warrant a garage and we continue to have reservations as to whether or not this lot does. We understand that the Donnelly’s are considering several alternatives including a garage located between Phil Moynihan’s and the Donnelly’s. From our perspective, this is the absolute worst location as it cuts off our only view from our kitchen and dining room. The other alternative of locating a smaller garage (24 ft. by 24 ft.) offset from the southwest corner of their house is also not an acceptable alternative from our perspective. Because of the unusual and non-conforming location of the Donnelly’s house, our views of the lake are already substantially restricted by their house. A garage anywhere other than the back of their lot will only make the situation worse. We have spent hours discussing among ourselves how to resolve this matter. It is not easy. We do appreciate the Donnelly’s reducing the size of the garage to a more reasonable 24 by 24 size and believe it could be reduced even further while still providing adequate space. We do not understand why a height variance is still needed in light of the reduced planned height of 16 feet. We have lived next door to the Donnelly’s for eight summers and have become close friends. Our intention has never been to deny the Donnelly’s a garage. However, up until the Stop Work Order was served and the Donnelly’s retained an attorney, their house had been listed for sale for almost one year. Mrs. Donnelly had mentioned to Mrs. End that the one problem potential buyers had was that there was not a garage. Consequently, one of our major concerns is that the Donnelly’s are constructing a garage to increase the value and sale ability of their home at the expense of our view and home value. We are well aware of their love of the lake and would hope that they are now planning to stay. However, when questioning the Donnelly’s on this, they have said that they can’t answer that now. We hope to live in our current home a large portion of each year upon our retirement. We continue to question whether we are supporting a garage for the Donnelly’s use or simply enhancing the market value of their house at our expense. In lieu of the above, we feel the only feasible alternative would be the garage attached to the house. This requires the greatest set back relief from the lake; however, it provides the least impact to the neighbors because of the substantial nonconforming location of their existing structure. With the location of their house right on the water, we also believe it would have a minimal impact on the appearance from the lake. An attached overlapping garage would provide the most coordinated, natural-looking setting. Therefore, we are reluctantly supporting the attached 24 by 24 ft., 16 ft. tall structure as a reasonable compromise to this unpleasant situation. Sincerely, Bob End Trisha End” MR. HAYES-Thank you. Okay, at this time I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-I guess it’s time to talk about this. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I read the minutes of the second meeting. I was here at the first, and I don’t think it’s any secret I wasn’t terribly in favor of the project, but I look at the five factors, and the benefit certainly would be that the Donnelly’s would have a garage, which I think in some Board members’, it’s their opinion that it’s almost mandated in the North Country. It’s hard, in the winter, not to have a garage. So I certainly think that factor weighs in favor of the Donnelly’s. Whether there are feasible alternatives is a factor that weighs against them, in my opinion, though. I know that trying to mask the structure by placing the new construction adjacent to and only 20 feet from the lake is going to try to cluster the nonconformity. It certainly is, in my mind an application that we’ve not granted in too many other cases beforehand. There are some lots, and the one neighbor that did comment on that. It’s true, there are some lots which are not really suited for garages adjacent to a house, and in this case, I’m not convinced that you can’t build a garage elsewhere to the west, behind the houses on either side. It may involve or impact the septic system, but that’s a cost that someone living on the lake, if they want to build a garage, may have to bear. I think that’s a feasible alternative given the prices up there, and the cost of construction. The alternative also would be not to have any garage, hard as that may be, but the Donnelly’s have lived there a long time already, and that house has been there for many, many, many years, without a garage. The relief I think is substantial. It’s 20 feet from the lake, and a 50 foot setback. Maybe seven years ago it was a lot different, but seven years ago the application wasn’t as close as it could be. The effect on the neighborhood or 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) community is the construction of a further encumbrance at the tip of a peninsula on the lake, which is just going to add to the congestion and make a bad situation worse. I think it’s self created. There’s been several people that have testified to the effect that this is an addition planned in order to make the house more marketable, as a year round residence. So in that sense I think it is a self created situation. The house that Mr. Lapper has proposed, excuse me, the garage that you’ve proposed, I have to say is the best of all the bad alternatives, but with all due respect, I don’t think that I can support a garage this close to the lake. MR. HAYES-Roy? MR. URRICO-It certainly has been a long process, and I understand where Bob is coming from on this. I’m looking at the criteria a little differently, though, and I see definitely a benefit to the applicant, almost a necessary one, in this part of the Country, because of the tough winters and being able to get, to shield cars. I do agree with Bob on the feasible alternatives. I don’t necessarily think this is the best of the three. Given that they’re all going to create a problem, though, I think the garage is further back than the house is from the water, and so we’re not encumbering, in my opinion, we’re not encumbering the lake any more than it is already. So, I am bothered by it, but not enough. The relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance. I think we all agree on that. The effects on the neighborhood or the community, I think the fact that the ends have changed their opinion on this I think weighs very heavily in the Donnelly’s effort to comply, and I believe they’ve made a great effort and sacrifice waiting this long, leaving an open pit there, and is it self created? Yes, it’s self created, but a lot of that’s attributed to the location of the house and how it appears. So on the weight of the evidence, I think I’m going to swing in favor of the application. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Yes, thank you. I’m not going to go through the criteria because it’s already been gone through. Number One, in my opinion, the Donnelly’s have acted in good faith and have appeared before us on three separate occasions, and, quite frankly, if we’re going to discuss the probability or improbability of a garage, living up in this area, in my opinion, a garage is absolutely mandated. Now, I would like to address the benefit to the applicant. It’s my opinion, and I want to stress this, it’s my opinion only, that marketable considerations, in this instance, is the property owner’s right, an inherent right, to improve property, and I think property, this kind of consideration, in terms of marketability, is not the subject, or should be the subject of this Board, but it’s the property owner’s inherent right to improve their property, in my opinion. Impact on the neighbors, well, three of their neighbors obviously approve at least one of the two options, and after all, who am I to say no, if they are the individuals who are more impacted than I, and quite frankly, at this juncture here, I think I would support this application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. At the very beginning of all this, I think I had mentioned that while this is a one acre zone, the lot is four tenths of an acre, or something along that line, I felt that sometimes, although the zoning for one acre would say okay for a garage, when you’ve got something so small, well, maybe it just isn’t to be. At the second, or last meeting, I do agree that they need a garage in this climate and all to protect the vehicles, an attached garage especially. Once you get detached, then, now, last meeting, there was the alternative of the garage being placed back, further back on the lot, right up close to the line, to the End’s line, and I voiced at the last meeting that that was my favorite of the alternatives, if we decided that we were going to pick one or the other of them, and I think Bob referred to it, but I still feel, myself, that that would be my preference, and I would go along with that. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t think the issue is that they can’t have a garage. It’s just where you put it. MR. HIMES-Right. MR. MC NALLY-And I think that a westerly situation is much more preferred, away from the lake. MR. HIMES-Yes, well, that’s what I am saying, too. So, the matter of the garage, yes. Where it’s going to be, what most of us I think, (lost words) only one variance, aside from setback, the height, no, I think that was a matter of, well. So, that’s it for me. Thank. MR. HAYES-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would have to agree with Bob and Norm, too. When I first received this latest update here, I was a little bit miffed that we did not include the one that was most westerly and closest to the End’s property line, and I think that we have to reflect upon several things, that is that it would be easy to say, put the thing down by the lake, but I think that we have to reflect upon the fact that out here on the lake we have so many places that are built too close to the water, and that 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) for us to allow a garage that’s only 20 feet from the lake, I think is really detrimental to the lake, irregardless of what everybody else says, and I think that we have to look at the rest of the neighborhood, too. I mean, if you go all along down Seeley Road, down that way, a lot of these places we’ve approved a lot of garages down that way. They’re all set back from the lake, and it’s part of the process, and you may have to walk to get to your garage. I don’t have a problem with you putting a garage, as long as it’s set back the proper distance from the lake, but a garage is not a, it’s not a necessity that it be right next to your house or that close to the water, and I think that we also have to reflect upon the future use of this property. With the large turnovers going on on property on the lake, I think that we should consider that if someone buys this property and wants to build a new home, this is an older home, even though it’s well kept up, but it’s way over what’s really permitted, and I think that a new house would have to be set back the minimum 50 foot distance, and to build this garage there would preclude, you know, the design of that house being properly sited on that lot, as it is right now. So, unless you’re going to considerably move the garage further back, at least near the 50 foot mark, it may mean that you, the Ends lose their view, but I think that we have to consider the lake as paramount. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I have to echo the recent views. I can understand the desire to build the garage attached to the house. It makes all the sense in the world to me, as far as utility and design, but I think it just places it too close to the lake. Like the other Board members, I just don’t think that we can properly approve something that close to the lake. It’s a difficult piece of property. Like the other Board members, too, I would entertain something that’s at the very westerly end of the property, even though it would require a lot of setback relief from property lines. I think to put a garage on this piece of property, that’s about the only place that we could consider placing it. So I’m going to be opposed. MR. HAYES-Well, this has been a very difficult application, and that’s why you’ve been back three times, and certainly, in this case, I think we’ve explored all the alternatives, and I don’t think there’s anyone that’s been a part of this that has felt like there hasn’t been an explanation or input from the immediate neighbors. Everyone has had their input on this application. As far as I’m concerned, in this particular case, no matter what direction we go, there’s going to be some party that’s not going to be entirely satisfied, and that makes it difficult, and yet a decision does have to be made. I, as I spoke in the last meeting, am concerned about some kind of historical consistency with this Board. There was a prior approved application, and I know that that doesn’t necessarily mean that we should approve it ourselves. We view every case individually under a new set of facts, and a new circumstance, but I think that there has to be some credence applied to the fact that there was an expectation involved here with the prior approved application by this very Board. Having said that, it seems to me that we still need to protect the lake, in every circumstance that we can, and my colleagues have pointed that out very adequately in this case, that that garage as proposed, Number Two, is very close to the lake, and that’s certainly my impression as well, but fortunately we have to contrast that with the fact that the most affected neighbors, the Ends, want it there, by their express and testimony today. My particular feeling is that, as the Staff notes indicated, that I feel the best site for the garage, which I do feel is needed, would be the closest to the originally approved footprint, which would be Number One on our sheets. I believe that in this case that that represents the optimal combination of consistency with prior decisions, a fair amount of lake protection, and also some of the expressed desire of the immediate neighbor, who are substantially affected by where this garage is constructed. So, in my opinion, as far as feasible alternatives, which is an important part of our test, I believe that they’ve been explored, extensively, and I believe that Number One represents the best possible location for the garage, in my particular circumstance. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I think that it is in this case, even with Number One, but I believe that 37 feet away from the lake, or is it 31 feet? MR. LAPPER-Thirty-one feet. MR. HAYES-Thirty-one feet is a compromise between protecting the lake and allowing the Donnelly’s to have a well needed garage that I can live with, in this particular circumstance. The height relief of one foot, which has not been discussed by anybody else on the Board, I’m not troubled by that. One foot of relief really is inconsequential. Effects on the neighborhood or community? I think that this will be the smallest effect on the neighborhood or community that can be derived at in this particular circumstance, even though I believe there is an effect on the neighborhood, whether slightly negative, and is the difficulty self-created, we certainly have a difficult lot to build a garage on here, but we have an older home that’s already by the lake, and I believe that, while self created, it’s understandable the necessity for a garage. So I would not be in favor of Number Two, which is the detached, or the attached garage. I would be in favor of the garage in Location Number One. Having said that, we still have a wide range of opinions as to where the garage could be, and I guess we may need to discuss this to arrive at some direction for a motion. The single biggest block, for lack of a better word, of votes seems to be for the westerly location of the garage, but I’d like to have a discussion about that. So, in brief, I’ll go right down, with 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) everybody having heard everybody else’s opinion. I’ll start with Bob, and give me the Reader’s Digest version of your position. MR. MC NALLY-I’m not saying that Position Number One is the westerly position I’m talking about. MR. LAPPER-We know that. MR. MC NALLY-All right, when I visited the site, I had a sense that the neighbors were willing to go with Plan Number Two, if you had to have a garage, that was the best one there, but the druthers of I think everyone was, don’t put it as close to the lake, if you can avoid it. It’s just that if you assume that you have to have a garage and you’re going to have a garage, that is the best place, and I would agree with you, that, of the three that you proposed, but when I go up and down Seeley Road, a lot of the garages are to the rear of the property, and this is a long parcel, and at the westerly end of the property, it’s behind the neighbors, the garage. So in that sense, there’s not a lot of, you don’t block any views, or as many views if you put it 20 feet from the lake. I think that there’s a cost there. I know there’s a cost there, because there is a septic system drainage field, at least in part. I’d be more than willing to grant a variance to the side setback or the rear setback, but to the lake it is a little bit different. So I think that, you know, that would be the best place, in my opinion, to put this garage, that balances the effect on the lake versus the benefit to this applicant. MR. LAPPER-Joan Donnelly has just indicated to me, if they take up their parking area, that’s something significant over on the western side, and of course for them, at their age, the distance, which is specific to them, but it would be more convenient where it is, but I just want to point out that the variance that was granted by the other Board was 28 by 34, and the fact that they’ve, in terms of compromise, which Bob just mentioned, 24 by 24 is something that we’ve never presented to the Board before. It was certainly not where they wanted to end up, but that’s really a minimal garage. So I just would ask that you would consider, in terms of all the compromise that they, instead of going to court and arguing that the variance that they had was valid, they came to the Board to ask for it again, and that if you at least grant Number One, while it’s not attached, it’s a small garage. It’s far less than what they were granted last time, as a compromise. Would you like to add anything? MR. HAYES-So, Bob, I guess to consolidate the discussion here, I guess I’m going to refer to your proposal as Number Three, which is a westward moving, okay. Does everybody understand what I’m talking about, as far as Number Three? MR. LAPPER-Number Four. MR. MC NULTY-Number Four, because there is a Three in here. MR. HAYES-Okay. Yes, all right. We’ll make that Four. I guess everybody’s, we’ve kind of ruled out three as one of the alternatives. So it’s One, Two, or Four. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. My position’s unchanged from before. MR. HAYES-You’re in favor of Two? MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of Two. I’m in favor of One also. I’m actually more in favor of Two. MR. HAYES-Okay. One or Two then. Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Yes. My position has not changed. I would be in favor of Number One or Number Two. MR. HAYES-Norm? MR. HIMES-No, I’m still with Number Four. MR. HAYES-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m still with Number Four. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’m still with Number Four, and I’d point out that Number One may not be acceptable to the Ends. Because that’s the back out. So I think it’s going to effectively block their view as well as Number Three would, but I’m staying with Four. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) MR. HAYES-You’re with Four. I guess my understanding is that a westerly move of the garage is what, you oppose that, then, from what you said? That would be moving it closer to the property line and back. That’s what you propose? JOAN DONNELLY MRS. DONNELLY-May I say something? MR. HAYES-Sure. Then I’ll give the Ends a chance. Sure. MRS. DONNELLY-We have a very narrow driveway, and if you put it there, we will have no driveway, no parking. I’ll have to carry groceries from the very end of the driveway all the way in, and we’re in our senior years. We’re, the whole point of the garage was to make our life easier, not more difficult, and we are year round residents. Again, the Ends are here nine to ten weeks a year. The garages that you see in our neighborhood that are detached and far away, these are not year round residents. The ones that are year round have garages attached to their houses, but we’re an elderly couple, and for us to walk from the very end of the driveway, which would eliminate our entire driveway, and parking, I think that you’re asking an awful lot, because carrying groceries, packages, not having any parking for company, you really, it’s destroying what we have already. MR. HAYES-That’s certainly understandable. You understand, though, that we have a balancing test here that has to do with balancing your interests and the neighborhood’s interests and the lake’s interests, and I’m not saying you’re right or wrong. It’s just that it is a balancing test, and I think that the Board is trying, you know, in the very fact that they think you need a garage, to understand that. MR. LAPPER-I’d also like to just point out that when we were here last time, it seemed that there was a consensus that we could either go with Number Four or Number Three. The Board really was ready to vote to approve Number Three, except for the notice, and the only reason we came back to talk about Number Two, or Number One, was because that’s what the neighbors wanted, and I guess I would just ask you to seriously take into account that the precedent difference here that you’re worried about for the future is that this was a case where you had an existing variance from ’94 that was granted that was for more relief, but if the neighbors feel strongly that they want Number Two attached to the house, and they’re the ones that would be most affected, I feel that that’s really important, and just in terms of the distance from the lake, I mean, in terms of how it would be viewed from someone boating on the lake, what changes here, if you look at the map, if you look at the Number Three site, and the Number One and the Number Two site, is that the line of the lake changes, but in terms of how it relates to the back of the house, it’s really almost in the same location. So I’m not sure that, visually, it’s really going to make a difference if you’re out on a boat if it’s in the Three location of the Number One or the Number Two. So I would just argue that if the neighbors feel strongly about Number Two, even though that may not be an easy decision for the Board, but if it makes the neighbors happy, it’s a smaller garage than they could have had last time, I would just ask you to seriously consider that. MR. HAYES-Okay. Has anyone changed their mind at all, and I’m not asking you to, but if everyone’s solid with their positions, it appears, right now, that there’s four votes for Number Four, and three votes for a position of One or Two. I’m for Number Two, so that would make three votes for Number Two. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion in this particular case. MR. MC NALLY-I think the applicant, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, Mr. Lapper, you’re asking us for approval of Number Two? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Alternative Number Two. So if I were to make a motion, my motion would be to deny the application, not to permit Number Four. If they want to come back and submit an application in that regard, then certainly. MR. LAPPER-Well, this application, the application includes all of these alternatives, because that’s what we were instructed to do last time. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. LAPPER-The reason that we chose Number Three rather than Number Four was because last time we were instructed by the Board that either of those was acceptable. I know that you weren’t here. So they chose Number Three because it’s closer to their house. So, I think if you read the minutes of the last meeting. MR. ABBATE-Counsel, let me clear this up for myself anyway. So your position, at this point then, is this. You and your client would be happy if this Board approved either Three or Four? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) MR. HAYES-No, Three or Two. MR. LAPPER-Three or Two, or One. MR. MC NALLY-He will take any of the three that he’s proposed. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Is that your position, any of the three? Okay. In that case, I’d be flexible in any of the three. MR. HAYES-Okay. Well, we’re in a position where we need to make a decision. We’ve followed the procedure of the meeting and we need to get a motion to approve, deny, table. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are we considering Number Three still, or not? Or is that out? MR. MC NALLY-Apparently he’s placed it on the table. My understanding was you were looking at Number Two. Number Three doesn’t, well, I’d listen to my other Board members, but. MR. HAYES-Well, they’ve suffered the expense and time of coming to three meetings. So why don’t we discuss Number Three. I think we need to make a ruling on this application tonight, one way or the other. MR. ABBATE-Agreed. MR. HAYES-So I’ll quickly poll the Board members as far as application number three, or, excuse me, as far as position number three, which is a position that is further to the north, essentially, than the other two. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-It’s further to the north and further from the lake, due to the contour of the lake frontage, and that is a benefit certainly, but it still has the detriment, though, of blocking all the neighbor’s views, because effectively it’s adjacent to the rear of the property, just on the opposite side of the house. So to try to give these people what they want, yet at the same time keep the community and the neighbors satisfied with their needs and expectations, I have to say Four still. MR. HAYES-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Well, in my opinion this changes things a little bit, Number Three. The weight of the neighbors comes as a play in my opinion now, and although I think the setbacks are improved in terms of the sea, the water setback, I’m not convinced that this is the best of the three alternatives for the neighbor, but I do feel the Donnelly’s have made a great effort to try to accommodate everybody in this, and I would be in favor of Number Three, rather than disapproving all together. MR. HAYES-It was from the old, in the original application. We have our depiction of Number Four. MR. MC NALLY-Is this the original application seven years ago? MR. LAPPER-That was last month. MR. HAYES-Last month. That was when they went into alternatives versus the original. MR. ABBATE-That was the June meeting. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. MC NALLY-That’s not the (lost word) I’m thinking of, but I understand what you’re saying by that proposal. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I agree with Jamie that this should be decided this evening. We can talk about balancing. We can talk about satisfying the criteria of everyone concerned, but we’re talking about an impossibility. There is never a situation that you are going to satisfy all parties without compromise. Having said that, I would be in favor of Number Three, without any problems at all. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm? 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) MR. HIMES-Thank you. Yes. I think Three, in some respects, is better than One and Two, it would appear, from the aspect of parking and so forth, but I think that still requires relief from the lake, I believe, although I don’t see any distance on the drawing here. MR. LAPPER-It’s 44 from the lake, probably 45, actually. MR. HIMES-Okay. So it would still require two variances, one here and one here. MR. HAYES-Number Three is 45 feet from the lake. So that would be five feet of relief, essentially. MR. BROWN-Is it 45? MR. HAYES-While we’re talking, why don’t you double check that, to make sure we can get the actual measurements. MR. HIMES-Okay. Again, I think that, as much as I sympathize with the need and the plea for having the garage close to the house, circumstances are such that I’ve still got to stick with Number Four. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I want to just correct the record. I think it’s really 50 feet, but that does comply, Number Three, in terms of the lake setback. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fifty feet? MR. HAYES-All right. We’ll keep discussing this. The relief is going to be minimal for Number Three. It may not be at all, but we need to keep this flowing here. So, Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, I would think that I would go with Number Three, in lieu of Number Four, that’s totally unpalatable, but I think Number Three is a much better compromise than Number Two or Number One. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’m going to stay with Bob’s view. Number Three is less relief from the lake, certainly. It meets some of the Donnelly’s requirements of at least being close to the house, but it bothers me that it’s going to block the End’s view, and I keep coming back to the basic idea that while we can all say that anybody with a year round residence really ought to have the right to have a garage, I’m not sure that’s true on any lot. I think there is room to put it at the far end of the lot, the west end. I understand that means a long walk to the house, but at this point in time, having considered everything, I think that’s the only location I could approve is something that was at the west end of the lot, and I think as Mr. McNally pointed out, that’s not necessarily the original Number Four position, but maybe something even that’s a little further west. MR. LAPPER-If I could just make two quick points. In terms of whether the garage is appropriate on the lot, remember, usually people are here, or I’m here, talking about the 22% Floor Area Ratio, and we’re not. So this is not a case where you’re jamming too much stuff on the lot. It’s just because it’s a narrow lot. It’s not a Floor Area Ratio variance. So under the Town Code, you can build this much square foot, and that was even with a much larger garage. Now we’re talking about 24 by 24, but in terms of Number Three, I just forgot from last week, it’s 50 feet from the lake. So there’s no lake setback at all, and the only reason there’s any side setback, it’s just in that corner where it’s 16 feet rather than 20 feet, and that’s just to sort of cock it in the right way, so that it’s easy to make the turn. So the Donnelly’s could, but would not want to, reposition Number Three to turn it so that it would be 20 feet, and then it would be conforming and they wouldn’t need a variance. The reason why they’re not proposing that is because the angle of turning into the garage would be difficult, and I think that the reason we got to the Ends asking for Number Two is because they’re now looking at Number Three saying, hey, they could have Three, either as of right, because they just turned it a little bit, or because the Board grants four feet of relief from the side setback, which is rather minimal, at least I would argue that it’s rather minimal, and the Ends are saying, hey, rather than that which will block their northern view, that if you put it together with the house, they’d rather see Two. So I would just lobby, for the four of you that don’t, that aren’t comfortable with Number Two, that if the Ends feel that it’s better than Three, and the Donnelly’s can do Three, with or without relief, maybe you just should give more weight to the Ends, just because they’re the ones that would be most impacted, even though I realize it’s a difficult case for everybody. MR. MC NALLY-If you go with Three, and you twist it, aren’t you still going to need the 10 foot building separation variance? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) MR. HAYES-Well, there’s some room there. It’s going to be like six feet or seven feet, or something like that. MR. MC NALLY-Whichever way you go, you’re going to need a variance, except perhaps, well, just about anywhere. MR. LAPPER-We’re not 10 feet. So you’re right about that, but my point is still that there may be a way that wouldn’t be optimal for them, but that it would fit. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, if I could, and I don’t want to speak out of turn here, I think this is where you’re going, maybe we could have the applicant pick which one he wants you to vote on first. If you approve it, great, they get their first choice. Pick a second choice, if you approve it. Rather than have the Board pick which one is the best one, let the applicant say which one they’d prefer. MR. ABBATE-I think Craig makes an excellent point. It’s not up to this Board to make a selection for the applicant. It’s up to the applicant to submit his request to the Board. So I think it’s appropriate, Counselor, that you tell us what you prefer, and then we will vote based upon your preferences, in my opinion. MR. LAPPER-Two, in terms of both the convenience to the Donnelly’s and also pleasing the neighbors. MR. MC NALLY-Well, I can draft a motion. MR. ABBATE-Go ahead, Bob. MR. MC NALLY-I can do a motion for all three, all right. Someone had a comment. MR. HAYES-The public hearing is closed, but I will allow you to speak, I guess, we’ve heard this through enough. Please. MR. END-Do you want me to come up? MR. HAYES-Sure. Please be as brief as you can, though. MR. END-Mr. Lapper, you’re giving me more credit than I deserve. Our objection to Number Three has nothing to do with whether or not they can relocate it and effectively do away with the setback from the side lot line. The only thing I want to point out is, I think in our discussions with Phil Moynihan, and I think this is consistent with his telephone call, Phil is opposed to Number Three, and we are strongly opposed to Number Three. So I just, you’ve got neighbors on either side strongly opposing Number Three, and again, you know, the Board needs to consider everything, but that’s got to be, you’re asking for a side lot line variance and the immediate neighbor is opposing it and we are opposing it on the other side for different reasons. I would hope you would consider that. Again, our strong preference, as I said, this is very complicated. If you were to ask us what our preference is, it would be no garage, but we’re past that, and our compromise that we worked out with Mike and Joan was the attached garage. We did not spend a lot of time talking about the furthest west location because Mike and Joan really didn’t want it. So we tried to, in the spirit of compromise, focus on Number Two. Obviously, Number Four is far preferable to us of any of them. So if you’re asking for our position of ranking these, that is the best one, from our vantage point. Three is absolutely the worst one. One isn’t great, but Two I still think is the best choice. MR. HAYES-Do we have any recollection of what Mr. Moynihan did say, or did he send, I mean, we have his letter, but I don’t believe he took a position on the alternatives. MR. MC NULTY-He didn’t take a position on Number Three. He was going on the premise, I think, that we were going to be discussing Number Two. MR. HAYES-Could you read that again? It’s only a two sentence thing. MR. MC NULTY-It just says it’s okay by him to be set on southern end of property to afford the Ends maximum view to the north, close to shore as possible. MR. HAYES-Okay. Bob, why don’t you proceed with a motion that’s going to allow us to make resolution by vote, and we can have some resolution of this tonight. MR. MC NALLY-All right. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2001 JOAN AND MIKE DONNELLY, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: 10 Waters Edge Drive. The applicant has proposed the construction of a 576 square foot garage, 24 by 24, in three locations, designated One, Two, and Three, on a drawing that they’ve submitted, and they have sought setback relief as well as height relief. The three alternatives submitted by the applicant request relief from various combinations of the shoreline setback requirement, the side line setback, the 16 foot maximum height requirement, and the 10 foot minimum separation distance requirement of accessory structures, Section 179-67 of the Town zoning law, and the shoreline and wetlands regulations, Section 179-60, and those specific setbacks were discussed this evening and are in the record. I move the denial of this application for the following reasons: First, while there is a benefit to the applicant, in that they have a garage, and certainly I would agree that that is a benefit to any homeowner in this area, the other factors weigh against the applicant. The feasible alternatives including having no garage, as the property has existed for many years. Feasible alternatives also include the construction of a garage which would allow a storage of vehicles and lake front type recreational equipment and what not, albeit close to the entrance of their driveway along the westerly portion of the property, or behind the adjacent property owners, which would thereby not interfere with their views. It would also be possible, I presume, to have it in other places, but certainly the three proposed are not the only three alternatives. The relief, in my opinion, is substantial. While I understand that seven years ago these applicants got a variance, the variance that they got was 30 feet from a 75 foot setback, in other words, 45 feet from the lake. Tonight’s application, particularly the one that they’ve requested specifically, is only 20 feet from the lake, and in the interim seven years, we have had a change in the zoning code, so that the Town Board has designated the importance of lake front property by reducing the setback from 75 to 50 feet. So, the proposals, any of them tonight, are substantial, and certainly when you go up to Seeley Road and you drive around that circle, you can see how open the views are into the lake and you can see what effect a garage so close to the lake is going to have on the community and particularly on the neighbors. This is the tip of the Point, in some sense of the word. It will cut off views and add congestion to the lake, where there is none existing. I understand that the existing house has no setback. It’s exactly on the lake, and we would never permit that now, but by making a bad situation worse, I don’t think that we’re contributing to the well being of this community. Is it is a self created situation? With all due respect, I think that it is. We had comments from several people regarding the need for a garage in order to sell the house. I understand that, but I think that this is a self created hardship, in the sense that a lot of these summer homes are being made into year round residences, and while the current standards are to have a garage, this is an undersized lot with a nonconforming, extremely nonconforming, house on the lake and that we don’t do the community any benefit by adding to that problem. So, with all due respect to the Donnelly’s, and I understand their need for a garage, I can’t support it, and therefore I move the denial of their application. Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, the resolution that the Board passed, when Mr. McNally wasn’t here, instructed us to come back with three, and that that would be something that the Board supported and it was only because of the notice. I think that the Board needs to look at that resolution before voting on this. MR. ABBATE-And Counsel is absolutely correct, that we’re changing the rules in the middle of the game. The applicant came before us. We said absolutely no, go back and reconsider this and do this. He did exactly what we asked him to do, and now we’re going to penalize him? MR. HAYES-Well, I think that we followed the procedure tonight that we establish before the meeting, and that we’ve used historically. So as a matter of consistency, I don’t think tonight’s Board has the exact people that were on it, and that’s part of having a, you know, substitutes on the Board, in this particular case, or alternates. So, if we follow procedure, we have a motion that’s been made and seconded, and I think we need to take a vote on that. AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-The application is denied. MR. LAPPER-So that was a denial of One, Two, and Three? MR. HAYES-That’s correct. MR. LAPPER-What about Number Four? That was still? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) MR. MC NALLY-I understood you’re saying you had a proposal of One, Two, and Three on the table. You discussed Four. MR. LAPPER-Well, we were told last time Three and Four were acceptable, and we can make our choice. So we did what the Board told us to do. Three was acceptable last week, and it’s not acceptable tonight. MR. HAYES-I think, in this particular case, the application has been denied, as submitted. I think if the Donnelly’s would like to make an application for Number Four, at this point, based on the polls that I’ve received, I think it would be well received by this Board, but I’m not sure how we can go forward and approve an application without any specifics as to the relief that’s being requested. MR. LAPPER-Well, we had an application for Four pending last time. MR. HAYES-Do we have enough information on Four to make a determination as to the exact relief? MR. BROWN-You have my copy of the drawing. I’m not sure what Mr. Lapper has. Were there setbacks requested on there? MR. MC NALLY-Well, I think we can, they’re not indicated on the drawing, but I’m sure they could be scaled. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-I think that we can make a motion, also, with respect to this alternative. MR. HAYES-Well, I guess we’re trying to get resolution of this tonight. I know this has been very difficult, and I apologize to the people that are here for other files, but I guess at this time, I’m going to take a very quick poll to whether people are comfortable with entertaining location number four. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I understand Number Four is adjacent to the homeowner’s garage? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Immediately to the south. So essentially right next to each other. Do I know that is going to block any neighbors views or destroy any use of the property to the neighbors. Do the neighbors care, Mr. End? MR. END-Is there a drawing? MR. URRICO-Craig, how was this advertised? MR. HAYES-For all. MR. URRICO-For all three, or all four? MR. BROWN-It was a generic advertisement for setback, height and separation, because there were so many proposals. MR. HAYES-Which that was the proper way to do it. I mean, as I read through the minutes there, it appeared that we had asked them to, we were going to take up Three and Four. MR. ABBATE-That’s right, Jamie. MR. BROWN-It’s my recollection that the Ends didn’t prefer, or preferred Number Four not at all. They didn’t want Number Four at all, right next to their property line. MR. HAYES-That’s my recollection as well. I guess, could you summarize the Ends position as to Four and Three? MR. MC NALLY-I can summarize what I know, all right. Number Four of the applicant is different from my fourth proposal, which is to the west of the property, all right. It is. The Ends say that their home is adjacent to this garage, not their garage. So that would be up against their property line, and it is going to block their views. It’s going to be right up against their windows, okay. MR. HAYES-So Four is lowest on the list, then, essentially. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) MR. MC NALLY-So Four in the Ends is not acceptable to them, and that goes back furthest west from the position that was talked about earlier, the only place that they can put a garage on this property that’s going to not violate the lake setback yet not have significant problems with the neighbors. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Unfortunately, the answer is probably just to modify Three so it doesn’t need a variance, and I don’t know if that’s what everybody here prefers, and it’s certainly not what the neighbors prefer, but it’s probably the best choice for the Donnelly’s. So I’m not sure this was a great result, but that’s how it goes. MR. HAYES-Okay. So I guess you’re not interested in pursuing option number four then at this time? MR. LAPPER-They’re not. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2001 TYPE II OMNI HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY OWNER: RICHARD SCHERMERHORN AGENT: L. SIPPERLY & ASSOCIATES ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: LOT 15, BAYBROOK PROFESSIONAL PARK; BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEVELOPMENT OF A 13.63 ACRE PARCEL FOR 80 SENIOR CITIZEN INDEPENDENT LIVING APARTMENTS AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 24-2001 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING – SEND TO WARREN COUNTY MEETING: 7/11/01 OLD TAX MAP NO. 60-2-4 NEW TAX MAP NO. 296.12-1-24 LOT SIZE: 13.63 ACRES SECTION 179-18, 179-66 LYNN SIPPERLY & DUNCAN BARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 38-2001, Omni Housing Development, Meeting Date: July 18, 2001 “Project Location: Lot 15, Baybrook Professional Park Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes development of an 80 unit housing project and seeks relief from the Off Street parking requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the requirements of the Off Street Parking & Loading regulations; § 179-66. The applicant proposes the construction of 112 parking spaces with the potential for 36 additional spaces not to be constructed at this time. § 179- 66 requires 2 spaces for each dwelling unit or 160 spaces for this proposed development. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to reduce the number of parking spaces constructed on the site. 2. Feasible alternatives: It appears as though a reconfiguration of the site would allow for the additional spaces needed. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: Relief of 48 spaces from the 160 space requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial, (30%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the proposed community may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created as there appears to be ample room for a compliant number of spaces. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Subdivision 9-2000 res. 3/20/01 Baybrook Professional Park (not yet filled) Site Plan 24-2001 pending 80 unit senior independent living facility Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Staff comment: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. There appears to be ample room for the construction of the required number of spaces. The Planning Board, per § 179- 66,B., (6) has the authority to allow for the construction of fewer than the required number of spaces, so long as the applicant can demonstrate that the necessary number of spaces could be constructed, if needed. Minor revisions to this plan would eliminate the need for a variance. The Planning Board decides upon the number of spaces actually constructed. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-And we have a “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form July 11, 2001 Project Name: Omni Housing Development Project Owner: Richard Schermerhorn ID Number: QBY-AV-38-2001 County Project#: Jul01-27 Current Zoning: MR-5 Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes development of a 13.63 acre parcel for 80 senior citizen independent living apartments and seeks relief from the parking requirements. Site Location: Lot 15, Baybrook Professional Park. Tax Map Number(s): 296.12-1- 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) 24 Staff Notes: The applicant is required to have 2 parking spaces for each dwelling unit and is requesting 1.4 spaces. Also see agenda item #26. Discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve with condition that sufficient land to meet the parking requirements be kept in reserve.” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 7/16/01. MR. HAYES-Would you please state your name for the record? MR. SIPPERLY-Yes, Mr. Chairman, my name is Lynn Sipperly with the firm of Sipperly and Associates. We are the site engineers for Omni Development company for their project proposed here in the Town of Queensbury. With me this evening is Duncan Barrett, Vice President of Omni Development company. We appear before you to request a relief from the requirement for off-street parking. Our request is made in sincere belief, through our experience, that the 112 spaces that are proposed are adequate, and more than adequate, for the type of use proposed for this project. This project is an 80 unit senior citizen independent living community, in a building of 40 units and in eight cottages of four units each. The typical age of someone who would occupy this facility is 68 to 70 years old, before people tend to look at a facility like this for living. The project is restricted, it’s age restricted in the sense that the earliest age or youngest age that would be available for this site would be 60 years old. From our experience on other projects which have been completed, we feel, and have demonstrated, that 1.4 parking spaces is ample for the needs of the residents of this type of facility. The dwellings or the tenants here do not have two cars, typically. A lot of the tenants do not have any cars. We have prepared a parking analysis of some other projects that we have worked on, that Omni has developed, and I don’t know if the Board has those. MR. HAYES-Yes, we were given a copy, I was. MR. SIPPERLY-Okay. These are the projects that have been completed. They are in very similar settings, suburban community settings, and we feel that they very realistically reflect the conditions that we can expect here, this project as proposed in the Town of Queensbury. Certainly, this is a self created request, in the sense that the site does have adequate space to provide 160 parking spaces. In fact, the plan does show, in dashed areas, some additional 35 parking spaces, and we could expand that to 48, if required, but really our purpose of appearing before this Board is to request a variance because we sincerely feel that the requirement to build or even to provide 160 parking spaces is probably far in excess of the needs that this project will ever see. The construction of 160 parking spaces will add more pavement, impervious area, will affect stormwater runoff. Basically, our request is really based on more of what we have identified through experience, through developed projects, completed projects, projects which are occupied, that confirm that two spaces per unit for a senior citizen independent living type of community is really not required. This includes also visitor parking, parking that would be required for visitors also. We feel that 1.4 spaces per unit, or something in that area, has been proven to be adequate, and more than adequate for this type of land use. MR. BARRETT-We’ve developed nearly 1,000 units of senior citizen housing in the Capital District over the last 12 years, and we’re really making this request not because it is, in fact, a hardship, but because we think it’s good site planning, and if it’s denied, we’ll just go on and ask the Planning Board for relief there, but I would note, for the record, that the typical parking load in these projects, Lynn was a little optimistic. Our move-in age, our typical move-in age now is 73, and we have a 93 year old who moved into a project we completed early this spring, and these are people that are functioning independently. They are living on their own. They take care of themselves. Some of them have cars that they don’t use. Some of them drive regularly, and many people move in without cars. Our typical parking load, that is the tenant registered cars, is about 65% of the occupancy, a single car. Very few occupants have two cars, but some do. We do need parking spaces for visitors, both service providers during the day and typically family in the evening, and so that’s accommodated in this. There are other, there are towns with larger senior housing complexes and a more developed experience that have actually reduced their parking requirements for senior housing in an overlay zone approach to 1.0. So I just would note that for the record. We’d be glad to answer questions and discuss it. MR. HIMES-One question. The reserving of the land, and I think basically the idea of adding more green to the parking lot is certainly appealing, but how do you, it says, if needed. Who’s going to say, we need more parking now? I mean, how is the Town, as far as the Code, going to say, it is adequate or it isn’t in a year or two or three from now? What mechanism is there, or isn’t there any? MR. BARRETT-Well, I can speak to one mechanism, and possibly Lynn can speak to the enforcement mechanism, but part of this is simply market driven. That is, we have to sell this product in the marketplace, and even though it’s age restricted and it’s therefore desirable to a specific component of the market, which we believe is under served or unserved, really, in this community, at this point, if we provide inadequate parking, people won’t come. It’s not a Rite Aid, but there are similar, and in fact I, in front of another Planning Board, used exactly that analysis. We don’t want to look like a Rite Aid. We don’t want more paving than is functional and necessary, but 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) if it becomes necessary, we would have to, out of our own economic interest, pave it. How the Town enforces a condition, I don’t know. Either the planner or Lynn could speak to that. MR. SIPPERLY-I’m not sure of the mechanism or how the Town would enforce it, but I kind of would reiterate what Duncan has mentioned, that this is really a competitive project in the marketplace. To attract tenants, adequate parking has to be provided. If we find that what we have provided is not adequate, it really behooves the sponsor or the developer to increase the parking so that he can provide for the tenants. MR. BARRETT-And our tenants have adequate time to complain if we don’t provide the services they need. MR. HIMES-I know. It’s just interesting because if people don’t come, you aren’t going to need the parking. MR. BARRETT-Right, that’s true. MR. HIMES-So it’s just curious to me as, for example, whether it’s by trial or error or what, the other larger institution referred has reduced it’s ratio to 1.0. MR. BARRETT-It is by trial and error, and land conservation, desires to conserve green space and historical observation of existing complexes. MR. ABBATE-Let me address, if I may. Your approach, and your statistics, in terms of number of automobiles for folks retiring between 68 and 70 is quite accurate, by the way. The statistics that I have seen, not on this subject of Omni but other things that I’ve been reading, confirms the fact that folks who are getting ready to retire between the ages of, I think they said 65 and 76, or something like this, is one automobile, for a lot of reasons, for a lot of logical reasons. So your position that, based upon the fact that there are, I think 32 housing units there. Is that correct? MR. SIPPERLY-Thirty-two cottage units. MR. ABBATE-Right. So having the request for 112 parking spots would, in my opinion, support the statistics that I’ve read, as being adequate. MR. UNDERWOOD-My only questions were I was a little bit concerned with, I mean, if this is going to be 70 to 80 year old people, as you’re saying the aging population, these cars are all going to be parked outside, you know, in the wintertime, and I don’t know what kinds of things you have built in, as far as snow removal. I guess that’s a Planning Board issue, but at the same time I would think, looking at your parking that you have now, like on your four unit, one story cottages, you’ve only got nine parking places there, and I’m just wondering what’s going to happen on a weekend when everybody comes to visit grandma, because it’s going to be wholly inadequate with that amount of parking there, you know, and with the large building in the middle of the 48 units, too, I mean, and I know you guys like to put these things up because they’re easy to do, but at the same time, I don’t know if there’s any consideration for underground parking or anything like that, as a consideration. It adds a lot of cost to the project, but at the same time it’s convenient for those people. If they’re 70 years old, I can’t believe they’re going to want to walk outside and shovel out their car every time we have one of our big dumps of snow that we get locally here. I think that’s a consideration to think about, too. MR. BARRETT-If I could address that. We own and manage the property. We develop. We’re not merchant developers, and we’re our own builders, and we have to live with what we build, typically, for 30 years. So we’re conscious of these things. What exists on other properties, we just have not found an economically feasible way to, and we’ve actually designed a project with underground parking. We just couldn’t ever afford to build it, and we’ve looked at garages, but they take up a lot of land. It becomes, for us, a maintenance problem. We end up shoveling out and sweeping off people’s cars, but we have no other really feasible or practical solution at this point. MR. URRICO-Are these units solely going to be used for housing? Are there going to be any other businesses there? MR. BARRETT-No commercial uses whatsoever. MR. URRICO-Doctors, day care or anything like that? MR. BARRETT-No. The owner of the real property, the landowner, is developing, as you know, other commercial uses on the Bay Road side of the site, some of which we think are very supportive, or compatible to senior citizen housing, even the day care one. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) MR. HAYES-Symbiotic. MR. BARRETT-Exactly, but this site would only be residential use. MR. URRICO-Now, you say you maintain everything there. How much of a staff do you maintain? MR. BARRETT-Our maintenance staff is 115 people. MR. URRICO-Are they there at the same time? MR. BARRETT-At this site? I’m sorry. I thought you meant company wide. This site would probably have two or two and a half full time people. MR. URRICO-Okay, and in terms of, you said many of the senior citizens don’t have their cars. Is there a shuttle service that takes them around? MR. BARRETT-There’s some limited shuttle service provided by the Department of the Aging, and we provide some limited shuttle service as well. MR. URRICO-And they park on site as well? I don’t see them, I see parking spaces allotted for a shuttle van or something? MR. BARRETT-We haven’t specifically shown that on the site plan, but we would as a matter of practice, yes. MR. URRICO-And Jim alluded to the snow removal. Is that removed from site or do you pile it in a certain corner of the parking lot that reduces the number of spaces that are available? MR. BARRETT-We will store it on site, but not in the parking areas. MR. URRICO-Thank you. MR. HIMES-Just a comment, since we talked underground parking, the question I had is one for Staff, just as a reference here, Craig, in the Code, the 179-66B, you know, it talks about anything that’s 150 parking spaces or more, and then it goes on for about a page and a half of the requirements that must be met, unless it’s an Enclosed Shopping Center. In the event that this, that we went along with this thing, would that negate the application of anything that might be applicable in this part of the Code? In other words, if you had 160 parking places, you’d have all this stuff in here, none of which I can remember, but. MR. BROWN-No. I think if you look at, it’s Paragraph Three under B, it says, any parking area or parking field that has more than, 150 or more parking spaces has to effectively be divided so it’s not just a field. There’s got to be landscaped islands. I think in this case you don’t have that. You may potentially have 150 spaces or 160 spaces on the site, if they don’t get their variance, but the way they’re spaced out around the site, I think that takes care of the intent of this section, of not having a parking field. They’re spaced around the site in a way that, I don’t think that there’s a parking field that has more than a dozen spaces in it at any one place. MR. BARRETT-And that’s intentional. MR. HIMES-So we don’t need to worry about (lost words) by not worrying about the aspect of that, if there were a requirement of parking spaces, some things might apply in here that would not, if we go with the reduction? MR. BROWN-I think that the way that this site is laid out, it takes care of the intent of that section. MR. HIMES-All right. Thank you. MR. HAYES-And I’d just like to add that the Planning Board is still going to review this file and some of the things that have been discussed, they’re important, but they’re really, you know, the Planning Board is charged with handling all those things. Right now we’ve really just got to focus on this Area Variance, and the five parts of that test and apply them. I don’t know if anybody has any further questions at all? Okay. Then at this point I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that is in favor of the application? Anyone opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-I was just handed one thing. This is correspondence from Marilyn Ryba, Senior Planner, comments about the parking variance, “Concerning the parking variance, the following 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) information may be helpful to the ZBA: The applicant is requesting 1.4 parking spaces per dwelling unit. The current zoning requires 2 spaces per unit. The proposed zoning will require 1.5 spaces per unit. Elderly housing typically utilizes fewer parking spaces than other multi-family development due to the need for fewer vehicles per household. The range of parking spaces based on ordinances from across the nation is 0.6 to 1.5 parking spaces per elderly housing unit (“Off-street Parking Requirements”, American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service, Report No. 432, May 1991). Other land use aspects to consider are provisions for public transport (bus, ride programs); distance to needed facilities (shopping, doctors, recreation); and pedestrian pathways connecting any such facilities. This proposal will be restricted to persons age 55 or older as required through their funding sources (NYS Dept. of Housing and Community Revitalization, NYS Housing Trust Fund) and via a deed restriction (non-competitive clause with the seller of the property).” MR. ABBATE-Chuck, did you say that memo said 55 or older? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. It says that the proposal is going to be restricted to persons age 55 or older. MR. HAYES-That’s probably a mistake, because I’m sure they’re aware, it’s their product. I feel very confident that they’re going to represent that accurately in this particular case. So that was, the Zoning Ordinance is going to change to 1.5 parking spots? MR. BROWN-That’s proposed, yes. MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant? I guess, at this point, if there’s nothing else, I can close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-And we can talk about the application. I’ll start with Roy this time. MR. URRICO-Okay. I’m going to go with the five criteria that we use to test whether a variance should be considered acceptable or not, and the benefit to the applicant, it’s obvious. The applicant would be permitted to reduce the number of spaces, and I could see why they would want to do that. Feasible alternatives, it appears there are, there’s room for additional spaces, and I have to admit, I’m uncomfortable just considering it as a senior dwelling, because the zoning code doesn’t specify senior, it just says dwelling, and I don’t know that it matters who’s going to be living there. If at some point this project is abandoned and it becomes regular apartments, all of a sudden two doesn’t sound as bad as 1.4. So I think the feasible alternatives are there for a reason. As far as relief substantial, I think 48 spaces is substantial. I think in the winter this could be a big problem, but, again, going by what the zoning code asks us to do, two for each, it is substantial. The effects of the neighborhood or community, I think, again, we’re talking about neighborhood or community meaning other apartments, other dwellings that come forth from here on in, if variances are given, this could have a substantial effect on it. I know one of my compatriots here will use the Irongate example as a place that at one point had adequate parking, but now if you go there it’s kind of tough to find a parking space. We don’t know what’s going to be there in the future, but I think that’s what the zoning code gives us is enough for future expansion, and is it self created? Yes, I do think it’s self created. So, on the weight of the evidence, I would be against it. MR. HAYES-Thank you, Roy. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Roy has raised an interesting subject. His position is interesting. When I initially read this, and listened to the presentation, I thoiught it was reasonable, and I still think it’s reasonable. I think your stats on folks 68 to 70 are accurate, one car, in all probability. In some cases zero, and Roy raised an interesting position. What happens if all of a sudden this is no longer a senior citizen project? His point is well made, but I’m not so sure we should consider what ifs. The applicant has come before us, and has presented some specific requests and requirements, based on the plans submitted and what have you, and I think we should judge the application, the position on the application, and anything not enclosed in the application shouldn’t be considered. I would support the application at this point. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm? MR. HIMES-Thank you. Yes, I, in short, also feel very sympathetic with what Roy has outlined, and tend to agree quite a bit with what he has said. I might add, too, that I’ve kind of gone along with, you know, I like the looks of the thing, and I think that some place like that is needed, and the aspect of whether there is space for additional parking, and I have an idea where it might be, but I don’t know if we have anything in the record that really points to where these additional parking places are going to be, just for the record. I think from looking at it here, the map that’s in front of me here, we should have some confirmation of that, but in any event I tend to go along with Roy, and I’m a little skeptical at this point. That’s it. Thank you. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I, too, have to go along with Roy and Norm. I’m a little bit skeptical. I still think that the winter issue is one that the Planning Board is probably going to visit with you people, and I think that you need to consider that you’re pretty much out in the open there, as to wide open areas of Queensbury on the east side here, and the wind blows, and I think that over on Meadowbrook they’re going to run into the same problem is the wind, and a lot of these 80 year old ladies are going to spend one winter there and they’re’ going to say, I want out, and I think that you have to look at the inevitability of it. If it doesn’t work out for elderly people, you’re right near the College. This may become College housing at some point in the future. Who knows? I mean, it’s not before us now, but I think at the same time you’re, I think your explanation of what your needs are for parking is very good, as far as coming from your side, but I think you have to consider the fact that there are going to be times when it’s not going to be adequate, and I think it’ll be frustrating for people to live there if they come in and you’re 70 years old and you’ve got to park way down at the other end of the lot and walk clear across the whole thing to find, to get back to your place. So I wouldn’t be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, my first reaction when I first saw this application was no, put in the required number of spaces, but, thinking about it, I do like the idea of more green space and less blacktop, and I think there is some validity to the argument that a lot of these older people are going to have one car or no cars, rather than two. So I’m inclined to agree that perhaps the applicant is probably ballpark right on their guess as to what they’re going to need for parking places. At the same time, even though there are funding restrictions on this and what not for future building, there is the what if. I would be comfortable approving this, provided that the additional parking places were designated to the satisfaction of Staff. So that, should it turn out that more spaces were needed, it would indeed be planned into this plan, and they’d be where they could be readily activated. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I just wanted to ask, Staff says 1.5 is in the new Ordinance? MR. BROWN-That’s what’s going to be proposed. MR. MC NALLY-I’ve been impressed, from time to time, with how the Town of Queensbury does tend to require a lot of parking spaces, and I would normally think that if this were a regular rental housing, that you would certainly need a lot more parking spaces, because with the kids and the kid’s cars and what not. That’s just the way it happens. This applicant has said 1.4 spaces. It appears our Staff said that, nationwide it’s 0.6 to 1.5, and the proposed ordinance says 1.5. So certainly the applicant is within the realm of what appears to be the national standard, and what will soon be the Town standard if it gets approved. So I’m comfortable with the level of parking spaces, but I do like the idea that there has to be something to ensure that this is always going to be limited to elderly housing. I’m sure the financing program has its own limitations within it, but perhaps if we approve this, subject to a condition that they would have to comply in the event that the housing changed to anything but senior citizen, elderly housing as it currently exists, to take care of anything that might happen, however remotely, in the future. The effects on the neighborhood or community, well, if these people can’t find a place to park, and if their relatives can’t park on the property, I should think that’s going to be a telling sale point on your community. So I think that’s a self correcting problem. How would we bank 36 parking spaces in the future, if they ever wanted it? Do you have any suggestions, Craig? MR. BROWN-Well, I think on their plan they have 36 places in reserve, depicted. They’re probably dotted or dashed, or maybe they’re light enough where you can’t see it. MR. BARRETT-That’s correct, yes. MR. BROWN-But they are on the plan, and I think if they propose 112 and they keep 36 or 48, if they keep 48 in reserve, they don’t need a variance. They’re showing you that they can get all the spots. MR. SIPPERLY-There’s a parking area right here, opposite this (lost words) eight spaces in this location here, and five spaces here. It’s very convenient to walkways (lost words) and there’s another parking area proposed in this area right here. So they’re really distributed around the building. That location is convenient to the entrances, also. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) MR. BARRETT-With those reserved spaces, we’d get to 1.8 spaces per dwelling unit. We don’t think they would be utilized, but as a safety factor, I’d point out to the Board that the seller has required a deed restriction. MR. HAYES-Mr. Schermerhorn not to compete with his own apartments. MR. BARRETT-Precisely. It was a long drawn out discussion, but beyond that, the State has an enforceable lean on the property, through the financing that requires that it only be used for senior citizen housing, and so really any other use of the facility would have to, if you granted a variance, or if it was a condition of the Planning Board approval, which is not untypical, because this is a different use than family housing. We absolutely agree. If we were coming here to propose family housing, we would want more spaces because we would need them, as a practical matter, to market it and operate it, but if it failed as a senior housing project in the marketplace, because everybody in Queensbury dies at 59, then any subsequent use of the property for some other purpose would have to come back through the planning process, it seems to me, potentially including the Zoning Board, but I’m not sure about that, but the State would restrict the use anyway to that purpose. MR. ABBATE-Isn’t there built in restrictions, in terms of State and Federal funding, on that? MR. BARRETT-Absolutely, yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. BARRETT-That’s what I’m saying. The State records a 30 year covenant that runs with the land, that says it can only be used. Now, just to clarify one point, because Marilyn was not completely incorrect in her memorandum to you. The Federal Fair Housing Law defines elderly housing as 55 years or older, and if you don’t meet that test, then you can’t, under that law, discriminate against families with children, which we need to do to operate these things successfully. The State, however, has selected the 60, and we’ve selected the 60, because we don’t get anybody even 60 moving in. We get people older than that, typically, and they’re just more comfortable with their own age. MR. MC NALLY-I take it the demand is what triggers the conversion of the potential spaces to existing paved parking areas? MR. BARRETT-Yes, and, frankly, we operate a number of facilities that are one to one, and I’d say those are tight because of visitors, not because of, I mean, you’ve correctly identified what the issues are. MR. UNDERWOOD-What I would suggest is that on full occupation, that within a year of that, that some kind of a survey be sent to those people, whether the parking was adequate, and that’s something the Town could make up a form and send out. I don’t know, or hire some kid to knock on doors and do it. MR. ABBATE-Isn’t that an issue for the Planning Board? MR. HAYES-Yes, I think it could be. I just think in this particular case this is an Area Variance, so I think we’ve got to balance, you know, certainly any reasonable contingencies can be applied. That just sounds like, while a good idea, may be one of those things that could be hard to define in the future, and, you know, we get into having them determine if it’s necessary. I’m not sure that’s clean cut enough for a contingency in this particular case, but as far as I’m concerned, in this particular case, it’s my understanding that within the Town zoning department there’s been an effort to reduce some unnecessary parking in certain circumstances. Everyone is well aware of the Wal-Mart situation and a few other situations where the parking to meet Code at times actually is a detriment to the overall aesthetic beauty of a development or that neighborhood in this circumstance. I think the applicants, in this particular case, are not trying to pinch over development into a lot, or an area in this case. I think that, as I foresee the drawing, the parking, if they had chose to pave that, the parking would work there, and it would be functional and they could do it. I think, having said that kind of in my mind, alleviating any motivation to short the parking, I think that in this particular case, the applicant is really here just to provide the parking that’s necessary and not too much, and thereby provide an overall increase in green space on this parcel. I agree with Chuck and Bob on that. The Town is proposing 1.5 parking spots per unit, and this development is calculated on 1.4, you said, gentlemen? MR. SIPPERLY-Yes. MR. BARRETT-Yes. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) MR. HAYES-And when you couple that with the idea that there’s clearly Staff and statistical support that seniors are going to typically use less parking spots, that tenth of a parking spot per unit does not seem like a very big leap of faith to me in this particular case, and, finally, having been involved with developments myself, apartment developments and the like, there certainly, in this case, going to be an economic motivation for the applicant to provide adequate parking. They’re going to have to market this product to new tenants, year after year, because unfortunately people will pass away or move away, and they’re going to have to, if this does not have adequate parking or people are parking on grass, it’s going to be a negative to their goal of having full tenancy. So I think that there’s plenty of motivation for them to provide whatever is going to be necessary in the future, and I don’t think that it will exceed 112 units, but, so, based on a balancing test, which this is, an Area Variance, I think that the feasible alternatives have been well explored here and that the fact that there’s parking available in the future is a good alternative, if necessary, in this particular case. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I don’t believe that it is, being that the 30% that’s being requested here is based on two units, and we have Staff input that tells me that there’s two proposed of 1.5, which means in essence, from where our Zoning Ordinance is going, I think that the relief is going to be minimal, compared to the new statutes that are going to be put into effect. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe that reducing pavement, in and when there’s no detriment to the overall traffic, in a project, is actually a benefit for the neighborhood and the community in this particular circumstance. The more green and permeable area that can be provided for is certainly a benefit, and is the difficult self created? Certainly the difficulty is self created because by their own admission the number of compliant spaces could be arrived at, but in this particular case, is that what we want to encourage or promote? I don’t think that it is. So I think this is a straightforward application, and I would be in favor. Having said that, is there anyone that would like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2001 OMNI HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Lot 15, Baybrook Professional Park, Bay Road. The applicant’s proposing development of an 80 unit housing project and seeks relief from the off street parking requirements. Specifically, the applicant requests relief from the Off Street Parking and Loading regulations, Section 179-66. The applicant proposes the construction of 112 parking places, with a potential for 36 additional spaces not to be constructed at this time. Section 179-66 requires two spaces for each dwelling unit or 160 spaces for this proposed development. In considering approval of this application, we considered the benefit to the applicant, which the applicant would be permitted to reduce the number of parking places constructed on the site, and, conversely, being able to increase the amount of green space. Feasible alternatives include reconfiguring and building the required number of spaces, initially. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Relief of 48 spaces from the 160 space requirement certainly could be considered to be moderate to substantial. However, given that the applicant is proposing to earmark space for 36 additional spaces that could be constructed, should the need be proven, I think the actual relief is probably minimal to moderate. The effects on the neighborhood or community, given the statistics that we have heard about the need for parking for this type of community, I believe that the effects on the proposed community will be minimal, and considering whether this difficulty is self-created, the difficulty certainly is self-created, since there is room to build the compliant number of spaces, but as I’ve stated, I believe that the benefit to have more green space, at present, outweighs the benefit of having more blacktop, and for that reason I move we approve this proposal. We should have the contingency that the land spaces that the applicant has designated for the additional spaces that are not to be built at this time should be permanently set aside for that purpose, as depicted on their current site plan. Also, this motion is contingent upon the property being used exclusively for housing the elderly, as it currently has been proposed, with the applicant or their successors to comply with whatever then existing parking requirements for any different use the property may be put to. Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-You’re all set. MR. SIPPERLY-Thank you very much. MR. BARRETT-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. MC NALLY-Thank you. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) USE VARIANCE NO. 50-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED BAY RIDGE VOLUNTEER FIRE CO. AGENT: DAVID HATIN FOR BAY RIDGE VOL. FIRE CO. OWNER OF PROPERTY: TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONE: LC-10A LOCATION: RIDGE ROAD LANDFILL, 1396 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RELOCATION AND PLACEMENT OF A 60 FT. TOWER WITH A 20 FT. ANTENNA TO BE USED FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES FOR THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY AND SURROUNDING AREAS. CROSS REFERENCE SPR 29-2001 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 7/11/01 OLD TAX MAP NO. 52-2-16, 17 NEW TAX MAP NO. 279.00-1-14; 279.00-1-13 LOT SIZE: 48.80 ACRES; 21.40 ACRES SECTION 179-13 DAVID HATIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 50-2001, Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Co., Meeting Date: July 18, 2001 “Project Location: Ridge Road Landfill, 1396 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 60-foot tall wireless communications tower with an attached 20 foot tall emergency services antenna. Total height of the proposed structure is 80 feet. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the allowable uses as outlined in the Land Conservation, LC-10A zone; § 179-13. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Town Landfill – closed/capped Town Transfer station – current Staff comments: There have been several Court decisions addressing the standards by which a “public utility” is to be reviewed when considering a Use Variance. The ability of the “utility” to provide reliable and “adequate” service is a concern. Moreover the burden upon the applicant to demonstrate the proposal to be of public necessity, could, arguably, be the most difficult test. It could be argued that the emergency services to be provided by the proposed antennae are necessary and the proposed tower is needed to provide reliable and adequate service to the public by covering a significant portion of the Town of Queensbury including several “dead spots” therein. The proposed tower appears to address four significant “dead spots”, where reception/transmission is difficult. Apparently, the proposed tower relocation will help to eliminate these areas. No public comment has been noted. Several recommendations are made, in the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, to minimize adverse visual impacts throughout the town. the purpose of § 179-73.1; Telecommunications Towers, is to provide telecommunications throughout the town while protecting the natural features and aesthetic character of the town. The photos submitted with the application appear to depict a limited adverse visual impact. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form July 11, 2001 Project Name: Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Co. Project Owner: Town of Queensbury ID Number: QBY-UV-50-2001 County Project#: Jul01-21 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes placement of a 60 ft. tower with 20 ft. tower with a 20 ft. antenna to be used for emergency services for the Town of Queensbury and surrounding areas. Site Location: Ridge Road Landfill, 1396 Ridge Road Tax Map Number(s): 279-1-13, 14 Staff Notes: see agenda item 20 County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed by Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 7/16/01. MR. HAYES-Thank you. I have two questions here. One, there seems to be some status on the last application as far as SEQRA. Did we need to do a SEQRA on the last application? I have a Full Environmental Assessment Form in front of me, and I’m not sure what the? MR. MC NULTY-Staff called it a Type II, which would say no. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. BROWN-No, I don’t think so, not for the last one. It’s, that’s probably going to be for the site plan. They submitted identical information for both site plan and variance. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. BROWN-This one you do need to do a SEQRA on. MR. HAYES-Okay. I don’t have that book in front of me, but I guess I can just make the motion that there’s no significant, we have a negative declaration as far as this file. MR. BROWN-At some point after you do your discussion. MR. HAYES-You do that after then? MR. BROWN-Before you make a motion. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) MR. HAYES-Okay. Mr. Hatin, fire away. MR. HATIN-Good evening. My name is David Hatin. I’m Assistant Chief of the Bay Ridge Fire Department. For the record, I am also Director of Building and Code Enforcement for the Town of Queensbury, but I’m not here in that capacity this evening. The proposal you have before you is to relocate an existing tower which is currently located at our Station One, which is to be sold to the Town of Queensbury for a storage building, and that is under contract now with the Town Board to be sold. This project originally came about when we were having problems with our repeater in certain areas of the Town identified on the map which you have before you. We approached the Town Landfill Superintendent for a possible location, realizing that it was probably the highest point in the Town. Since then we have done some visual photographs for you that you currently have in the Town. Staff has the color photos which are a little more visible. I apologize for the black and white photos, and we feel that this is the best location, given the four dead spots, and also to improve communications throughout the Town, as well as the neighboring emergency services in Queensbury. We have tried to put this where it will have the minimal visual impacts, as you drive around. However, if you were to drive up Ridge Road, you probably would not even notice this tower unless you were specifically looking at this building on the landfill. This particular building sets back about 300 to 400 feet from the road. The tower will be placed to the rear of the building, as it shows on the map that we provided you and a 6 x 8 equipment building to house the radio equipment and associated equipment with that will be located next to it where it should not be visible from the street. If there’s any other specific questions, I’ll be happy to answer them. MR. HIMES-The present tower that you have, how high is that? MR. HATIN-That is 60 feet, with a 20 foot antenna. MR. HIMES-The same thing. MR. HATIN-We’ll be relocating exactly what is at our Station One. MR. HIMES-Yes, and out to the Landfill, which seems like it would be a logical place to go, but has there been any tests done to insure that it will reach the dead spot? MR. HATIN-Well, it’s hard to do that, because we have nothing that we can get 80 feet in the air, but we did, and Craig has confirmed this, and we also did it with GPS. We are approximately, we thought it was between 80 and 100, but with the GPS, we figured it about 100 feet higher, which will definitely improve our capabilities and also, if you were to stand at the Scotty McLaughlin old construction and demolition debris landfill, you’re standing on the cap of that, you can actually get a full view of the southern half of Queensbury, which is where we have a dead spot now, when you get around by the Water Treatment plant. MR. HIMES-There isn’t any way that can be confirmed that, yes, this is likely to satisfy your needs? MR. HATIN-Other than we know that height does add to improved communications, that’s been pretty evident with most Stations. Our Station Two, which is located in a dip on Glen Lake Road, has poor transmissions to the east and to the north, and because it’s located down in a dip, where our Station One will actually broadcast about 15 miles away. So, we do know that elevation does improve that capability. MR. HIMES-So, you folks and the rescue squads and all are going to? MR. HATIN-Right. All the emergency services in the Town of Queensbury right now utilize this repeater. It is owned by Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company, but it is utilized by several departments within the Town as well as several departments outside of the Town. MR. HIMES-So the existing tower will be taken down? MR. HATIN-Yes. Basically what we would do is put a new base in behind this building at the Landfill. MR. HIMES-Thank you. MR. URRICO-Will this be solely for the repeater station? Would it also be possibly used for a cell tower, a cell company? MR. HATIN-No. We have no interest nor have had any conversations with any cell towers. No. If they will approach us, I can’t speak to that, but we’ve had no interest or no expressions of interest, 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) and it was not done with that purpose in mind either. This property is actually owned by the Town. So that would not be our purview to allow use of that tower anyway. MR. URRICO-Is this going to be a new tower, or are you moving the other one? MR. HATIN-The existing tower will be moved. MR. MC NALLY-If I’m not mistaken, the existing tower is not lit? MR. HATIN-No, it’s not required to be. MR. MC NALLY-And you have no plans to have any lights on this tower? MR. HATIN-No. I don’t believe it’ll meet the FAA requirements, and this actually, if you look at the photos, and the color shows it actually better, this’ll basically be right about treetop level. So it won’t be any, if it’s any higher than the trees, it’ll be minimal. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? MR. ABBATE-Not really. Well, these aren’t questions. I do have some comments, some personal thoughts. I guess I’m pretty biased on this thing. Number One, I support volunteer fire companies. I think they perform a marvelous service, particularly when they’re all volunteers, and Number Two, I’m convinced that you do, in fact, require what you are requesting to provide better service. Number Three, I’m in the area in which you service, so that makes me somewhat biased, you know, but those were just my comments, and from that you can assume that I will support this. MR. HATIN-Just to answer one question for you. This repeater has been in service for about five years now. MR. ABBATE-And it’s located on Town property. MR. HATIN-Yes, well, actually, it’s located on Fire Department property now. It will be moved to Town property. MR. ABBATE-Right, well, I meant it will be moved. So, that’s all I had to say. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Are there any questions for the applicant at this time? Then I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of the application? Anyone opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HAYES-Okay. Since this is an Unlisted Action, in this case. MR. BROWN-You can do it now or you can do that before you make a motion to approve or deny. MR. HAYES-Why don’t we do it now and just get it behind us. MR. BROWN-Okay. MOTION THAT AFTER REVIEWING THE CRITERIA IDENTIFIED ON THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT WAS MADE, IN THIS CASE, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant MR. HAYES-Okay. I guess at this time, then, we need to talk about it. Chuck, we’ll start with you, even though I have a good idea of what your response will be. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) MR. ABBATE-Well, I have to be perfectly honest with you. Actually, this is a rather unique situation, when you say you need a Use Variance. Staff comments have appropriately pointed out that this is a public utility. MR. HAYES-I just want to close the public hearing, as a matter of procedure. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-That’s my fault. MR. ABBATE-No problem. I’m having intellectual overload here. Where was I? This is a rather unique application. It is a Use Variance, and we have some very specific guidelines under the Otto rules for Use Variances. However, having said that, this is more or less a public utility. MR. HATIN-I wouldn’t categorize it as a public utility. We’re a public service. MR. ABBATE-I’ll rephrase that, then. It’s a public service, with public necessity. How’s that? And as such, it’s my opinion that we can almost eliminate certain considerations, such as a reasonable return, which is a requirement, such as unnecessary hardship, which is a requirement of a Use Variance. So, having said that, and taking into consideration the services that are performed, which are a public necessity and are emergency services, I would be obviously, from my previous comments, I would be in favor of this application. MR. HATIN-If I can address one concern and maybe answer some other questions Board members may have, before we applied for this Use Variance, we did consult Town Counsel on this, and as it’s put in the Staff comments, there is a limited, I guess assessment of this application that you can use because we are not a public utility. Some of those criteria do not, basically, govern this application. MR. ABBATE-Point well made. Thank you, Jamie. MR. HAYES-So you’re a yes, then. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. HAYES-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I feel that certainly the public safety, public good benefits very greatly from this, and technically speaking, whether it’s a public utility, but public service corporations tend to provide services, as do public utilities. So, to me, it seems synonymous. So I agree with what Chuck said, in terms of how we look at the Use Variance, but the location where it is couldn’t be better from all points of view, and I’ve not been a champion of cell towers around Town, or anywhere else for that matter. They look like rude gestures to me, but in this case, I don’t feel that way. I think photographs, certainly you’ve prepared a good case here, and I feel that, from an aesthetic standpoint, that it’s acceptable to me, and I live out that way, too, and public need is something I don’t see can be argued with, so I am in favor of the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’m going to have to agree with both my fellow Board members. I think that it’s, anything that’s going to help your response time in emergency situations is going to be good for the Town, and the effect on the neighborhood up there is minimal because there’s nothing up there but the transfer station, and I think it’s not really going to be seen by anybody or be detrimental in that respect. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I agree with the rest of the Board members. I don’t think it’s going to have any real impact on neighbors, and I think the need for additional coverage is fairly obvious, thereby justifying this. So I’d be in favor. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-Well, I’m not sure it’s a public utility, but it is used for the public as a landfill, and there’s an existing tower, and there’s going to be another existing tower. It’s the same tower. It’s not going to be lit. It’s being moved from a more residential area to a less residential area, and I take Mr. Hatin’s comments that it’s going to be very little above the tree line at face value. It probably will be. I might consider it for approval in another way, but I agree with the other Board members generally, and I’m in favor of the project. So I would vote for it. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-I find myself in an awkward position, actually being in the majority opinion, first time tonight, and I think this is as close to a slam dunk as we’ve seen. I think it’s a perfect use for something that doesn’t really have a use right now, a capped landfill. So I think it’s a good spot. It’s going to help us out. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, I’m in agreement with the other Board members in this case. The very fact that the tower is going to be located on Town land is going to severely limit the idea that this could eventually run away from us or become a detriment to the community, because I don’t think anybody on the Town Board would put their name on that idea. So in this particular case clearly the benefit to the Town, in the overall sense of improved response time or even any response time in those dead zones has to be a powerful thing in the applicant’s favor. This is a Use Variance, but we, as the applicant has pointed out, we’re put forth as a test that has a reduced responsibility by the applicant to this Board to demonstrate certain things, mainly the public necessity, and I think that’s been demonstrated in this particular case. So, as Bob pointed out, the tower’s being moved from a semi-residential area to really, to Town land and less residential, and I can’t see how that same tower, moved in that capacity, could be interpreted as anything but a positive. So I’m in favor of the application, and, having said that, is there anyone that would like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 50-2001 BAY RIDGE VOLUNTEER FIRE CO., Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: Ridge Road Landfill, 1396 Ridge Road. The applicant proposes the construction of a 60 foot tall wireless communications tower with an attached 20 foot tall emergency service antenna. The total height of the proposed structure is 80 feet. The relief required, the applicant requests relief from the allowable uses as outlined in the Land Conservation, LC-10A, zone, Section 179-13. At this point, I propose that we eliminate the reasonable return, unique circumstances, and unnecessary hardship in this case. I move that this application be approved. Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone MR. HATIN-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. HAYES-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2001 TYPE II PETER SLUCK, PRECISION CONSTRUCTION AGENT: PETER SLUCK, PRECISION CONSTRUCTION OWNER OF PROPERTY: TOM VALENTI ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 117 BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REBUILD PREEXISTING NONCONFORMING DECK, PATIO AND RETAINING WALL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. OLD TAX MAP NO. 40-1-26 NEW TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-41 LOT SIZE: 0.30 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60 PETER SLUCK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 49-2001, Peter Sluck, Precision Construction, Meeting Date: July 18, 2001 “Project Location: 117 Birdsall Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes reconstruction of a 500 square foot deck. Relief Required: Applicant requests 36 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement and 8.5 feet of relief from the 12 foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Simultaneously, the applicant seeks relief from the identical 50 foot shoreline requirement of the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations, § 179-60. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to reconstruct the deck. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include more compliant construction. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The relief requested may be interpreted as moderate to substantial, relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the pre-existing non-conforming nature of the deck. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2000-148 issued 4/7/00 dock Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed reconstruction is for the identical structure. No neighborhood opposition has been noted to date. Repair and maintenance of the structure would be allowed by building permit, however, this proposal calls for a complete rebuild, thus the variance request. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. HAYES-Okay, and no County input on it? MR. MC NULTY-No. MR. HAYES-Okay. Please introduce yourself for the record. MR. SLUCK-Peter Sluck. MR. HAYES-Was there anything you’d like to add to the application or clarify for the Board? MR. SLUCK-Nothing has changed, as far as I’m aware of, what we stated there, other than our deck needs more urgent repair now than it probably did when I bought it. So we need to do something. MR. HAYES-Okay. Is there any questions for the applicant at this time? MR. ABBATE-Yes. Mr. Sluck, would you please do me a favor and clear something up for me. In your section one, as to how would you benefit from the granting of this Area Variance, and you indicate have a safe, new deck, same size that exists now, which indicates to me nothing’s going to change. The size will remain the same? MR. SLUCK-Exactly. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then in paragraph four, will the variance have an adverse effect, impact on the environment, physical or environmental characteristics of the neighborhood or district. Now, are you suggesting, both of these comments, that you currently have a 36 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback? In other words, are you saying that the relief required is exactly as you have your deck right now? Am I correct? MR. SLUCK-Yes, but we are not changing, growing, making our deck larger, in any way, shape or form. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. SLUCK-It’s going in exactly the same footprint it is now. MR. ABBATE-Okay. That answers my question. The same identical footprint as you have right now. MR. SLUCK-Yes. MR. HAYES-Is there a cement pad directly below it there, I mean, essentially? MR. SLUCK-There’s a cement patio with a retaining wall, with a cement block retaining wall, which the patio sits on, and currently that’s being used to hold up, as footings, that acts as our six by six, that are going to sit directly on top of that where they sit now. MR. ABBATE-And that’s your footprint, and you’re just going to remove whatever you have to remove and bang, put up a new one in the identical same spot? MR. SLUCK-Exactly. MR. HAYES-So you’re saying the six by six’s instead of four by four’s, then, that are there now, or whatever? MR. SLUCK-Right. MR. ABBATE-So you’re really going to improve it. MR. SLUCK-Yes. MR. ABBATE-The structure. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) MR. SLUCK-Exactly. MR. ABBATE-All right. I just wanted to make sure that you really, right now, weren’t asking for 36 feet of relief from the minimum because you already have it. MR. SLUCK-No, we are not. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. MR. MC NALLY-I just need a couple of things clarified. Did you do that drawing? MR. SLUCK-Yes, I did. MR. MC NALLY-I looked at the top one. I see stairs coming down from the left. I look at the bottom one, I see stairs coming down from the right (lost words). What are your plans? MR. SLUCK-Spin that around for me, please. MR. MC NALLY-The stairs are on the right, as I look now, and there’s a concrete set on the left that doesn’t go to the patio. What are your plans? MR. SLUCK-That’s the side, that is the side elevation. So you’re looking at those stairs coming down from the side, in the bottom picture. MR. MC NALLY-Correct, but you’re looking at it, if you’re looking at the house from the lake, the bottom picture seems to say the stairs coming down the right side. MR. SLUCK-They are coming down from the right side, looking at it from the lake. MR. MC NALLY-And that’s what they are now? MR. SLUCK-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Yet on this frontal elevation from the lake, you’ve got stairs on that side. MR. SLUCK-No. Those stairs are not getting touched. Those are, that’s another set. MR. MC NALLY-Those are the concrete stairs over there? MR. SLUCK-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-So those don’t go up to the deck? That’s what I just wanted to clear up. MR. SLUCK-No. Those go from the upper level ground surface. MR. MC NALLY-They’re not connected at all? MR. SLUCK-Those are not going to move. MR. MC NALLY-And you’re not planning on changing them or modifying them in any way? MR. SLUCK-No, we are not. MR. MC NALLY-The other thing I noticed is, you say, I just want clarification. I looked at the deck that’s above the concrete patio, the elevated wooden deck that’s there now. MR. SLUCK-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-It’s like two foot in from each side of the house, in other words, it doesn’t go to the ends of the house. MR. SLUCK-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-About two foot on each side. MR. SLUCK-That’s correct. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) MR. MC NALLY-And if I look at the front of it, it doesn’t go all the way out to the end of the retaining wall, maybe a foot or two closer to the house than the end of the retaining wall. You’re going to keep those dimensions the same? In other words, it’s not going to go out to the concrete? MR. SLUCK-When I measured what we had there, I pulled, we pulled 12 feet. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. Well, my question maybe is this, then. Is it 12 feet from the house to the end of the retaining wall or is it 12 feet from the house to the end of the deck on top of that? MR. SLUCK-End of the deck. MR. MC NALLY-And the retaining wall goes out a little bit further, I think, right? MR. SLUCK-I believe so. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. So you don’t plan on extending it further, is all I’m saying. MR. SLUCK-And that’s correct, because we can’t, we’re not cantilevering this deck at all. Where those posts fall now is right where we’re going to be. MR. HAYES-At the end of the deck. MR. SLUCK-Yes. Originally, our intent was to go, to cantilever two feet, but we’ve now are happy with what we presently have, and we’re not going after two more foot. MR. HAYES-That’s probably a good thought. MR. MC NALLY-And the materials are just changing, that’s all you’re doing is just changing the materials of this deck? MR. SLUCK-Yes. The present deck has been there for 15 years. MR. MC NALLY-I understand. MR. SLUCK-Okay. It’s on four by fours. MR. HAYES-Lucky for you. MR. HIMES-Just one thing, not to beat a dead horse, but there will be absolutely no excavation? MR. SLUCK-No. MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you. MR. SLUCK-Are there any other questions by the Board? At this time, I’d like to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the application? Anyone opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. SLUCK-Before we continue, can we present to the Board a petition that we had from the neighbors? MR. HAYES-We’ll read that right at the end, with the other correspondence. So, if you could grab a seat there and let these people come forward, I would appreciate it. STEVE MILLER MR. MILLER-Hi. I’m Steve Miller, a neighbor in the neighborhood, and I did fax him a letter to what I’ll just state right here for the record. I don’t know why it was not read into the record, but basically I’m a full time resident, and I was unclear on what the variance request was for, and if it truly is just remodeling, rebuilding, improving, then every homeowner has the right to do that, but I would also ask that the Valenti’s had just recently put in a deck with a dock attached to it in the back yard, and to my knowledge, as Mr. Valenti explained to me, the dock was actually installed before the permit was issued, and the deck was put on the dock in noncompliance with the permit that was issued, and I just think that would need review before this should continue, and also the camp has been added to over the years, and there was an addition that was put on that basically exits right on the property line, which this deck I believe is attached to, and it is a high traffic area, and I know there’s been some damage done to the neighboring house along the west side of the property, and I’m sure the property owners would attest to that damage, but, seeing that it is a difficult 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) neighborhood to live in, they’ve decided to sell their property, never to return to the community, but I just think the property needs some review to check and make sure that some of the existing structures have been properly permitted and any relief granted, and, you know, and if this truly is just a remodeling structure, then, you know, it’s probably a good idea, and I would also ask that if it is a deck, of load bearing significance, has a professional engineer reviewed the project and given his stamp of approval? Because there are some safety aspects to this also, and thanks for your time. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak opposed to the application? Is there any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-We do have correspondence, one’s a phone comment from Elizabeth Merritt and it looks like also William Merritt, Sr. and William Merritt, Jr. They have no objection to Tom Valenti’s variance request. She owns property next to Valenti’s on Birdsall Road, and then there’s the letter that Steve Miller referred to, and that was addressed to us and faxed, and reads, “I am a full time resident of this community and strongly oppose the variance for relief to further modify the camp located at 117 Birdsall Road. The camp is already within a couple of feet of the property line. The Valenti’s just added a dock with a deck attached to it. As Mr. Valenti explained to me, the dock was completed before the permit was issued. He also stated that during construction of the dock, a deck area was added to it which exceeded the dimensions on the permit. He also admitted knowing that a permit and a variance was required before construction but didn’t care. To further modify this camp would not be a benefit to the neighborhood. I oppose any further construction on this property and hope that previous construction be reviewed and brought into compliance.” MR. HAYES-Would you like to bring your petition up to be read into the record, please. MR. MC NULTY-And we have a petition, “We, the undersigned, living within 500 feet of the Valenti property located on 117 Birdsall Road support their request to replace their existing deck and urge the Board to grant the setback variance request before you.” It’s signed by Linda Whittle, Cathy Gwinup, Jane Bartis, William Merritt, Colleen Beadleston, Donald Beadleston, Susan Moosebrugger, John Moosebrugger, Russell Pittenger, Kate Hersch, Kate and Wally Hersch, and Dan Gwinup. MR. HAYES-Okay. Are you Mrs. Valenti? MRS. VALENTI-Yes, I am. MR. HAYES-Okay. Before we talk about this, I just want to narrow the discussion, in that some of the things that were brought up by Mr. Miller are, in fact, Code Enforcement issues, and that Mr. Brown is now on notice and he can look into that, but that’s really not our area to examine, I don’t believe. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. All those things will be addressed during the building permit process, the structural aspects of it, and as far as the other Code Enforcement issues, we were on site today, actually met with Mr. Miller and we discussed those very things. So they’re under review right now. MR. HAYES-Okay. So we can put those off to the side and strictly examine the relief that’s requested. There’s no other further questions for the applicant now? Okay. Let’s talk about it. Norm, you’re first. MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I’ll lead off with being in favor of this application. It’s, as we determined with the questions to the applicant previously here, it’s an exact replacement, we’re told. It’s got a very, very substantial concrete patio/slab upon which it’s going to rest. The matter of the existing dock, although it doesn’t look bad, evidently, it does need to be repaired. So there’s health and safety issues involved, and I think to spite of the fact that if you read the variances and so forth, it seems shocking. However, it’s just a replacement of what is, and I don’t think that that’s something that I would deny. So, I’m in favor of the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you, Norm. MR. HIMES-You’re welcome. MR. HAYES-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think we have to look at the benefit to the applicant. It’s unfortunate that a lot of these houses on Glen Lake are located so close to the water, but I think that we have to consider the fact that you’re not going to pick up and move the house back 50 feet, or further if you want a deck out front. So, in this case, I think that we have an antiquated deck that really needs to be repaired, so they can make good use of it, and in this instance, I think that we can grant the relief, as requested. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) MR. HAYES-Thank you, Jim. Bob? MR. ABBATE-Okay. I echo the sentiments of my two previous Board members. I would also like to add that this would probably be an improvement, if we’re talking in terms of safety and what have you, it certainly would improve the safety of the situation, and I am in favor of the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I, too, am in favor, I think, in this case, as long as it’s just an exact replacement, so it’s essentially a repair. I have no objection. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I agree with the other Board members. I’m in favor of the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. I essentially agree as well. I know myself that, in this particular case, I hate to (lost word) like a fraud on the Code by encouraging some kind of creeping replacement of the deck, which Staff has already pointed out could happen legally, to some extent, under the name of repairs, kind of like an ongoing complete repair, and I think there’s some legitimate safety issues. I don’t think we want to encourage citizens to have to, when they’re doing exact replacements, not encroaching on the lake any further, to try and force them to use a deck that may not be safe for their children or themselves for that matter. So I think it passes, this easily meets the test in this particular case, largely, as the other Board members have pointed out, because you’re not asking for an inch of relief closer to the lake. So, having said that, would somebody like to make a motion? MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, just one more time, I guess I’ve been informed that the public hearing may still be open. MR. HAYES-Yes. I seem to be missing that tonight. So, at this time, I’d like to close the public hearing, officially. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2001 PETER SLUCK, PRECISION CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 117 Birdsall Road. The applicant proposes the reconstruction of a 500 square foot deck. Relief required, the applicant requests 36 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement and 8.5 feet of relief from the 12 foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, 179-16. Simultaneously, the applicant seeks relief from the identical 50 foot shoreline requirement of the shoreline and wetland regulations, 179-60. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be allowed to replace the existing deck. Feasible alternatives, more compliant construction. However, it’s really kind of just an argument, in terms of where would the thing be placed where it’s in its best location under the circumstances at the present time. So it’s a replacement. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The relief requested may be interpreted as moderate to substantial, relative to the Ordinance. Certainly the existing conditions are what is reflected with the relief’s that are required, rather than the matter that you’re proposing to do. It does not increase anything. It doesn’t change anything that isn’t already in existence. It’s an exact replacement. Effects on the neighborhood or community, the effects on the neighborhood are nil. I think that in connection with the community, actually your family, the health and welfare of their safety, in connection with the deteriorating part of the structure is going to be remedied and taken care of. For that reason, I move that we approve the application as submitted. Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-There you go. MRS. VALENTI-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thanks for coming. Did everyone get a chance to review the June 20, 2001 minutes? We’ve got a chance to approve them. We have the people here that are necessary. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/18/01) CORRECTION OF MINUTES June 20, 2001: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 20, 2001, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McNally, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant MS. GAGLIARDI-And I think you also have May 16 and May 23. thrd May 16, 2001: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 16, 2001, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant May 23, 2001: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 23, 2001, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 18 day of July, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Bryant MR. HAYES-Having no further business, I make a motion that we adjourn today’s meeting. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Paul Hayes, Acting Chairman 33