Loading...
2001-03-28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 28, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN ROBERT MC NALLY CHARLES ABBATE PAUL HAYES CHARLES MC NULTY JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ALAN BRYANT NORMAN HIMES CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2001 TYPE: II DENNIS DAVIS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: 7 ALGONQUIN DRIVE, LAND O’ PINES SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A POOL CABANA AND SEEKS RELIEF FOR A 2 ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY. ZONE: SR-1A ND OLD TAX MAP NO. 121-1-16.47 NEW TAX MAP NO. 301.17-2-25 LOT SIZE: 0.55 ACRES SECTION: 179-19, 179-67 DENNIS DAVIS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 17-2001, Dennis Davis, Meeting Date: March 28, 2001 “Project Location: 7 Algonquin Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a pool cabana and seeks relief for a 2 accessory structure on the property. Relief nd Required: Applicant requests relief from the requirements of the SR-1A zone, § 179-19 in order to construct a second accessory structure on the property. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize a pool cabana. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a larger shed to accommodate both accessory uses. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: A second shed, where only one is allowed, may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 99-214 issued 5/4/99 septic alteration Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed cabana appears to be located directly behind the existing home on the property. No setback or size relief is requested. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Go. MR. DAVIS-I’m Dennis Davis, 7 Algonquin Drive. I’m going to put an in-ground swimming pool in in the spring, and I’d like to build the proposed pool cabana on the property. MR. STONE-That’s it? MR. DAVIS-Yes. MR. STONE-You’re aware, obviously aware, of the zoning that? MR. DAVIS-Yes. MR. STONE-Do you want to talk to that at all? 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) MR. DAVIS-Well, I’ve, you know, spoken to Craig about it, at length down in the Building Department, and, you know, there were, the alternatives to it are, I know you’re only allowed to have one accessory structure on the property. I could either remove the shed that I had, the storage shed from the property, that I have, or I could turn the pool around, add on to that and basically build anything I want to, as long as it was added on to, you know, the shed that’s there, but it’s my feeling that, you know, this pool cabana would fit into the neighborhood and look better than building a bigger structure to incorporate a storage shed, pool cabana, and I probably would build a shop at the same time in it, if I’m going through all the aggravation of building the building. Because I’ve been told as long as I stay 10 feet from the side and 20 feet from the back, there is no size limit on what I could build. MR. STONE-That’s correct. I notice in the design, you have a toilet in there, a bathroom in there. MR. DAVIS-Yes. MR. STONE-How many other bathrooms are in the house? MR. DAVIS-Just one on the main stair. MR. STONE-I mean, on the property, including the house. MR. DAVIS-There’s one in the basement, one on the main floor of the house, and then the third would be in the pool cabana. MR. STONE-So there would be three. MR. DAVIS-Yes. MR. STONE-And the size of the septic system? MR. DAVIS-That was all re-done two years ago, because we anticipated putting the pool in, and that’s why I believe it was in ’98 or ’99 we re-did the septic and put in the 250 feet of leach field and updated all of that. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions of Board members? MR. ABBATE-With a third bathroom going in on the outside, in this proposal, is any kind of environmental assessment required? I don’t know. I guess it’s a question. MR. BROWN-The answer would be no. MR. ABBATE-The answer is no, okay. Thank you. MR. MC NALLY-Are you going to fence this property, Mr. Davis? MR. DAVIS-I’m going to fence the pool with chain link fence, but the whole property isn’t going to be. MR. MC NALLY-That’s what you’re intending to use, chain link? MR. DAVIS-Yes, white vinyl coated. MR. STONE-And this accessory building will be inside the fence, or the fence will come up to the building? MR. DAVIS-The fence will come up to the corners of the building. MR. STONE-So it’ll be essentially inside these other? MR. DAVIS-Yes, to the front corners facing the pool, the back corners will be outside the fence. MR. STONE-And, I mean, there’s no other door someone could get through? MR. DAVIS-No. It’s either windows or just a sliding glass door that I’m putting facing the pool MR. MC NALLY-Have you spoken to your neighbors about this? MR. DAVIS-I’ve gotten three phone calls from the neighbors, and none of them, they’re all just, go for it. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) MR. MC NALLY-Which neighbors? MR. DAVIS-Ed Trombley, which would be two doors towards Sherman Avenue to me, and Pat Fiore, which is my direct next door neighbor. MR. MC NALLY-Further from Sherman? MR. DAVIS-No, towards Tyneswood. MR. MC NALLY-Right. MR. STONE-Any other questions of Mr. Davis? If not, I will open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Anybody else have any questions? MR. MC NALLY-Just one more thing. In addition to combining the two sheds, did you ever think of putting the cabana adjacent to the house, or attach it to the house? MR. DAVIS-Well, I’ve got a “T” shaped house because of the family room on the back, and originally I was possibly thinking of doing that, but I just, I wanted the pool more exposed in the back yard from the house. I didn’t really want any part of it attached to the house. MR. MC NALLY-The cabana, you mean? MR. DAVIS-Right. MR. STONE-Mr. Davis, why do you, do you have any thoughts on why our zoning only calls for one accessory structure? MR. DAVIS-Well, you know, I’m sure it’s because you don’t want pieces of property looking like mushroom farms, and I can totally understand that. I also am a builder. So I am quite aware of the situation with accessory structures and so on. It’s just, you know, I’m just going back to the same thing, if, indeed, you know, this is not granted, I can totally understand that, but what I will probably, more than likely, end up doing, if this is not granted, I think this pool shed is going to fit into the community better up there, because I will build the shop and add the storage shed to it and the cabana all in one building. MR. STONE-You mentioned that. What do you mean by “shop”? Since you just said, listen to my thinking, you’re a contractor, and a shop, and I’m, careful now. MR. DAVIS-Right, and I’ve always contemplated building a building out there that I could keep some of my equipment and so on, because right now it’s stored at my mother’s property, and I’ve always said, gee, I wish I had a building here that I could store the stuff in, and I have been told by the people in the Building Department that as long as it didn’t have overhead doors on it, you know, where you could put vehicles in it, it was totally acceptable, but because I have a garage attached to the house, it couldn’t have overhead doors on it, that a vehicle could be stored in, because I have vehicle storage on the property with my two car garage, but they said other than that, I basically, if I met the setbacks, could build anything and there was no size limitation to it. MR. URRICO-Mr. Davis, you have two sheds there now, or one? MR. DAVIS-One, just the 12 by 12, well, and my son’s rabbit cage, which is 3 by 3. MR. STONE-And is that a wood box, also, on the edge of the patio? MR. DAVIS-What’s that? MR. STONE-On the edge of the patio near the house there’s another structure this high. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) MR. DAVIS-That’s just one of those plastic, my son stores his outside toys in there in the summertime. It’s one of those plastic, flip up the top things. That gets moved. MR. HAYES-Like Rubbermaid or whatever? MR. DAVIS-Yes, Rubbermaid. That gets moved out in the yard during the summer for him to keep his baseball bats and stuff in. MR. ABBATE-You mentioned that you would use this for storage as well, for some of your what? What would you put in there. MR. DAVIS-The pool cabana? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. DAVIS-Nothing. That would be, but what I’m saying is if I can’t build it, because I’ve got the storage shed on the property right now, I’ll just add on to the storage shed and build a bigger storage shed and add the cabana to it. MR. ABBATE-What do you have, equipment at your mother’s house or something? MR. DAVIS-Yes, cement mixers. MR. ABBATE-And you’d store that on your property if this wasn’t approved, build a shed and store that on your property? MR. DAVIS-Yes, I would bring all my equipment, I’ve got ladder wrecks and. MR. ABBATE-Commercial equipment? MR. DAVIS-Yes, right. MR. HAYES-On this cabana, what are you proposing for like exterior? MR. DAVIS-It’s going to be sided just like the house is, vinyl siding, vinyl soffits, aluminum facia. MR. HAYES-You’re willing to stipulate that? MR. DAVIS-Sure. I’ve got Anderson windows that have been left over from jobs that I intend to put in it. MR. STONE-Craig, question. The matter of storage of equipment, I believe, is okay. If I have something, I can store it, but if it gets moved in and out frequently, does it become a business, if they’re used for the business? MR. BROWN-That’s kind of a gray issue, I guess. If there’s employees that are coming there, and he’s, delegates, we’re going to go here today, there today. We’re going to dispatch employees from there, that’s a business, but if he’s got his own personal equipment that he uses on a day to day business, I don’t think that constitutes a business. MR. STONE-Personal equipment, but that’s. MR. ABBATE-We’re talking about commercial equipment. MR. STONE-We’re talking about commercial equipment, I heard Mr. Davis say. MR. BROWN-Yes, it’s for your personal business, right? MR. DAVIS-Yes. MR. STONE-So it’s not home occupation. It’s personal business. MR. ABBATE-It’s still commercial, whether it’s personal business or not. MR. BROWN-Well, it may be something you could call a home occupation. I mean, he doesn’t do the work there, he takes his equipment and goes to the site and does the work and comes back there. I don’t know. That’s not really what we’re talking about right now. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) MR. HAYES-That’s not what he has on his application. It’s hypothetical. MR. STONE-That’s true. I’m only listening to what he said to us. Well, let’s talk about it. Bob, do you want to start? MR. MC NALLY-All right. I was impressed, when visiting the property, that it’s a fairly decent sized lot, and certainly is not going to be any congestion on the site, that mushrooms Mr. Davis referred to sprouting up all over the place might otherwise cause me some concern. The applicant’s property looks like it’s well maintained, kept up, and I don’t have any doubt that it would be built to a fairly nice degree, and that he would be able to use that structure to have some wonderful summertime parties with his pool. He could build a larger shed. I always get a kick when people say, if you don’t do this, this is what I’m going to do. I don’t know if that’s the strongest argument in the world, but it’s okay. I don’t find that the relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance. Although, having a kitchen facility with a refrigerator and a bathroom and a separate structure on a lot, I don’t think I would allow it to be used for anything accept for the pool, and you’re not asking for that, are you? MR. DAVIS-No. There’ll be no heat in it. It’s going to be a slab on grade, no foundation under it. MR. MC NALLY-I would make sure that there was a contingency that it couldn’t be used for residential usage, other than for usage for the pool. I don’t see there’s any effect on the neighborhood. Mr. Davis said the one neighbor was in favor of it, and Mr. DeLorenzo has said nothing. I was able to speak to a Jennifer Casale when I visited. She’s in favor of it, from across the street. I don’t really see a problem with this. It’s unusual having two accessory structures, but it’s no big deal. That’s how I see it. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Bob pretty well addressed all the areas I was going to discuss. I’m not so sure I’m as comfortable with this as Bob is, but I’m sure that Mr. Davis, if this is constructed, will do a satisfactory job in blending what he’s going to construct with this current home, etc., etc., and it would be a nice structure. There’s nothing, right now, that I could definitely point at and say, no, no, I don’t think I could support this. I’m willing to listen to what the other Board members say. At this point, I’m a little uneasy. I’ll leave it at that. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I somewhat agree with Bob and Chuck on this. On the weight of the test that we’re given, I would say that I’m satisfied that the majority of them are being met with. I would also like to hear the contingency that Bob suggested, and the one that Jamie hinted at, about the blending, be included, and I would support it under those circumstances. MR. STONE-Jamie? MR. HAYES-I agree, I mean, essentially, I think that in this particular case the property itself is well maintained. I think there’s a genuine effort here or result that should follow with those contingencies, that it will match the property, and be an extension thereof. So, on balance, I think in this particular case, particularly considering there was no neighbor presenting on not wanting to do it, I certainly would have considered that highly, but they’re not here tonight, and I don’t hear any objections. So, I’m in favor, on balance. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I guess, on balance, I’m in favor, too. I do think that it is a substantial relief. You’re allowed one and he wants two. That’s a 100% increase, but, as the other Board members pointed out, the cabana is going to be behind the house. I don’t think it’s going to be visible very much from the road. At the moment, there’s nobody behind the house in the development, although I’m not sure what will happen in future years, but nevertheless, I think the overall result is going to be an attractive set up. So I don’t have any objection. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem with this. I think the lot width, I think, to some degree, alleviates any of the problems that we would have with multiple buildings back there on the back part of the property, and at the same time, I think the way he has the pool set up, it keeps it closer to the house. It’s not like it’s, you know, jogged the other way facing back toward the end of the lot, so I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-I guess I have the same kinds of feeling the rest of the Board does. I happen to think that one versus two is a substantial amount of relief. I’m concerned that if we start granting many of 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) these things, then you end up with the mushroom thing, but I think in this particular case, I think, as Chuck said, it’s supposed to be behind the house, and I have a question of Staff when I get through, and the fact that there is nothing behind it at the moment, and anybody deciding to build by or build back there is going to see what is there, and that’s what’s going to be there, and they can make their own decision at that particular point in time. So, on balance, and it’s definitely on balance, because I do think the relief is substantial, but I think, in terms of numbers, but I think in terms of what we’re actually doing I don’t think so. So I would be in favor of it. I have one question of Staff. In an accessory structure like this, would there automatically be an as-built survey, or should we put that into our motion? MR. BROWN-There isn’t automatically an as-built survey, but in this case, the applicant’s not requesting setback relief. MR. STONE-I understand that, but. MR. BROWN-Right. It’s not automatic. New single family construction, it’s automatic, but with this it’s typically not required. MR. STONE-But we could require it, just to be sure that when he goes to build it, it doesn’t happen to get further back. This is not an indictment of you, sir, and there’s a lot of room back there, but you may find out, if the pool is not there, you could almost put the pool anywhere within the current setback. So I would like, whoever makes the motion, to put in that stipulation, and, Bob, since you talked about the contingency, would you make the motion, please? Are you in favor of it? MR. MC NALLY-I’d be happy to. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-Is that a problem getting an as-built survey? MR. DAVIS-No. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2001 DENNIS DAVIS, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 7 Algonquin Drive. The applicant proposes the construction of a pool cabana and seeks relief for a second accessory structure on the property. Specifically, Mr. Davis requests relief from the requirements of the SR-1A zone, requirements under Section 179-19, to construct the cabana, a secondary accessory structure. I move the approval for the following reasons. First, the applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize the pool cabana. Second, while there are feasible alternatives, each of them would result in the construction of either an oversized shed or a shed that would be attached to the house, or some other alternative which effectively is no better or worse than what the applicant has proposed. While there is some concern on the Board that the relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance, in my opinion, this lot is a substantial parcel and it certainly could accommodate a relatively modest second accessory structure such as this one. The effects on the neighborhood and community are minimal. We are told that two of the neighbors have consented to it. The other one has made no comment. The property is located such that the cabana would be directly behind the existing house and not seen from the road, in large part, and while the difficulty is self-created, in large part, on balance, the variance should be approved. That being said, I make this motion contingent upon the following conditions. First, that Mr. Davis has agreed he will provide the Town with an as built survey showing the location of the cabana when it is completed. Also, as Mr. Davis indicated earlier, the exterior siding is going to be the same as on the existing house, or at least comparable so that it would match, and there would be coordination of the colors and the scheme and that type of siding, that kind of thing, and just to make sure, in the future, that it is not converted, this is not to be used for residential living quarters. It is to be used for temporary purposes associated with the swimming pool, solely and exclusively, and it’s not to be converted to like an extra bedroom with a bathroom and a little kitchen some time in the future. Duly adopted this 28 day of March, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNally, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes MR. STONE-There you go. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) MR. DAVIS-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2001 TYPE: II JAMES P. POLUNCI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: 74 ASH DRIVE, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY GARAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE HEIGHT AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ZONE: WR-1A OLD TAX MAP NO. 39- 1-55 NEW TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-16 LOT SIZE: 0.32 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 JAMES POLUNCI, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 18-2001, James P. Polunci, Meeting Date: March 28, 2001 “Project Location: 74 Ash Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a two-story freestanding garage and seeks setback and height relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 2 feet of relief from the 12 foot minimum side setback requirement, and 4 feet of relief from the 16 foot maximum height requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct a garage for vehicular storage and storage of personal items. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include construction of a garage with limited storage at a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The combination of 2 feet of relief from the 12 foot setback requirement and 4 feet of relief from the 16 foot height limit may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 98-114 issued 4/13/98 240 sf deck BP 97-346 issued 6/25/97 Sun porch addition AV 14-98 res. 5/20/98 Sun porch addition SP24-97 res. 7/22/97 Sun porch addition Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. There appear to be feasible alternatives to both the setback and height issues. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Mr. Polunci, do you want us to read this note in that you wrote, or are you intending to read it in? “To Whom It May Concern: We currently own a….”? MR. POLUNCI-You can read it. MR. STONE-Why don’t you read that one in. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. “To Whom It May Concern: We currently own a small home on Glen Lake. The home is 700 square feet and it has two porches attached to it. One porch is 312 square feet and the other is 300 square feet. There is a 200 square feet screen house located 15 feet from the lake. We have a 200 square feet pre-manufactured storage shed which is located 6 feet from our neighbor’s property line and 120 feet from Ash Drive. Our lot is 50 feet wide and 300 feet from the lake to the road. We would like to remove the 200 square feet shed and replace it with a 24 ft. x 30 ft. two story building. The first floor would be used as a garage. The second floor would be used for storage as our house does not have a basement. We would like to locate this building 10 feet from our property line and 110 feet from Ash Drive. Our neighbors (Mr. and Mrs. Perkins) have a similar structure located 6 feet from their property line in the area that we want to locate our building. The two buildings would be 16 feet apart. The reason that we want to place this new structure in the affore mentioned location is that we plan to replace our present septic system with a new one and the placement of the building will allow enough room on our property for the placement of the tank, lines, and drywells. The location and specifications for the new structure are attached. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, James P. Polunci” MR. STONE-Mr. Polunci, go. Anything more you want to add? MR. POLUNCI-Nothing, but when I retire I’m probably going to run for Town Supervisor, but I hope that doesn’t affect your decision. MR. STONE-That’s perfectly fine with me. MR. POLUNCI-I’m currently Superintendent of the Schools out in Central New York, in the Cooper’s Town area, and we purchased this place seven or eight years ago, and we plan to retire in another year and a half. I also have a background in construction. When I had taught school for 16 years in Argyle Central School, I contracted and built houses. So I plan on building this structure myself, and following all of the Codes within the Town, but I don’t plan on building houses when I retire. MR. STONE-Are you saying Argyle didn’t pay very much? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) MR. POLUNCI-I could have been retired there if I was still there. MR. STONE-Why, we have two requirements in the Town of Queensbury, in terms of garages, besides the setback. We all know that. Nine hundred square feet is the maximum square footage on the ground. I have to admit when I looked at your thing, and you have 1440, I said what’s he trying to do with no variance, but then I realized there were two floors there, and so it’s well within the 900, but we also have another constraint, namely the 16 feet high. Why do you want to go 20? MR. POLUNCI-Well, if you look at, I want to have a garage with at least a seven and a half foot clearance there, and then an area upstairs with at least seven and a half foot, and then the 4/12 pitch there, and I figure it’s a minimum of 20 feet there. I have a lot of possessions, which I’ve accumulated in 33 years of marriage, and I need a lot of storage for the items that I have, because of the house is relatively small, that we’re in. It’s a little over 700 square feet. So I need additional storage for those items. What’s the altitude or the distance above the lake at the bottom on the ground where this would go? Do you have any idea, how far above the lake are you? MR. POLUNCI-I would guess that I’m, if you were to draw a plane from the ground to the lake, it drops off about 12 feet, I would guess, 10 to 12 feet. MR. STONE-I would have thought more, but I didn’t. MR. POLUNCI-Maybe a little bit more. It’s just, the grade. MR. STONE-What I’m getting at is you’ve got 12 foot down to the lake, let’s say, and you’ve got 620 feet above, it becomes a fairly imposing, it might become a fairly imposing structure, as far as visibility from the lake is concerned, which is one of the things, in our Waterfront Zoning, that we concern ourselves with. It’s going to be way above your house. Is it not? MR. POLUNCI-I would say that my, well, my house from the grade to the top, probably runs about 14 feet, 15 feet from grade, just to the peak, and this would be approximately four or five feet above the peak on the house, but it sets back, the building sets back about 130, 140 feet from the lake. So, if you’re looking at, you know, a view from the lake, I would say, I would not say that it would be imposing from the lake, based upon any angle of elevation. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you anticipate any kind of re-do on your home there? MR. POLUNCI-Yes. I’m going to, essentially, remodel the inside of the house, in a year and a half, and re-insulate it, put new doors and windows in it, re-wire it, and all that, without expanding the dimensions of the house whatsoever. I’m going to put a substantial amount of money in re- modeling it, a new septic system in, new bathroom, kitchen, so on and so forth. MR. STONE-Is the house structurally sound, do you know? Because many people have tried to do what you hope to do, on lake property, and end up with a brand new home. Because when they get into it, we’ve had people appear before us. MR. POLUNCI-Well, as I said, I was a contractor and built houses, and in my opinion, the house is structurally sound. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. POLUNCI-And I’m going to do the work myself. MR. STONE-This is only a caution to you. It has nothing to do with our decision, but we’ve seen an awful lot of them. In fact, I was talking to a builder this afternoon who’s working next door to me, and he’s had his share of those kinds of things. MR. POLUNCI-Yes. No, I can, I’ve done an estimate on what it will cost, and how long it’ll take on that, and I can build for sixty cents on the dollar myself. MR. MC NALLY-And as you sit here, you don’t expect to come back in a year and a half time and ask for an Area Variance or some other relief from this Board? You’re just going to be remodeling it as it exists? MR. POLUNCI-Yes, that’s what I plan on doing, and because the house is a little bit on the small side, I need more room for storage, and it’s just going to be my wife and I that live there. MR. MC NALLY-As I understand your garage that you’re proposing, the gable end is facing the lake? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) MR. POLUNCI-The gable end is facing the lake. The gable end, as is the gable end of the house. MR. MC NALLY-Why do you need seven and a half feet of ceiling height on the second floor for storage space? MR. POLUNCI-When I get done, it’ll probably be closer to seven than seven and a half, when you figure eight foot in the garage area and then a foot for the second floor area and seven feet for the second floor, and then a 4/12 pitch, based on a 24 foot building, so another four, it works out to just about 20 feet. MR. MC NALLY-I understand what you’re saying, but a lot of people, for storage, are willing to accept a smaller ceiling height on the second floor level. Is there some particular reason that you need a seven, seven and a half foot height on that second floor level? MR. POLUNCI-Yes. My son is six foot five, and he would hit his head on the ceiling if it was any, no, I just thought it would be a nice height to have up there, to store. MR. ABBATE-Do you plan on using this storage in the future for occupancy? MR. POLUNCI-No. MR. ABBATE-Would you go along with a stipulation, in the event that it was approved? MR. POLUNCI-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And you indicated that this is going to be your retirement home? MR. POLUNCI-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And also, in your garage, I see Staff notes use vehicular storage, which is singular, but your garage indicates that there will be two garages for two vehicles. Is that correct? MR. POLUNCI-Well, I have two vehicles. MR. ABBATE-So we’re talking about a garage that would house two vehicles? MR. POLUNCI-Yes. I would say two, yes, we’ll always have two vehicles. MR. ABBATE-Two vehicles. You seem skeptical. MR. POLUNCI-I’m not skeptical. I have two vehicles, I’m down to two. I used to have four. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. POLUNCI-Another thing, there’s an area for me to have a workshop there to do home improvement type things. So I would have a work bench and my tool bench there. MR. ABBATE-Home improvement in your home? MR. POLUNCI-Home improvement in my own home only. MR. MC NALLY-Is this on the first floor of the garage? MR. POLUNCI-First floor. MR. ABBATE-My other question was this. Have you contacted any of your neighbors in regards, the Chairman made a point of indicating that 16 feet versus 20 feet. MR. POLUNCI-At one time, when I was contemplating building the building, I spoke to my neighbor Mr. Perkins, who’s next door, who has the garage located six feet from the line, and I was questioning him about setbacks and things, and he had said that he had requested a setback, that he was six feet from the line, and I told him at that time that I was planning on putting a building up, and it located about the same area his building was, and with about a similar setback, and I had that conversation with him last summer. Other than that, I did not talk to the neighbor on the other side, because there’s a structure there, which, as I said, was inhabitable. It has no running water. It has no electric. MR. STONE-You mean, uninhabitable. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) MR. POLUNCI-Uninhabitable, excuse me. It has no running water. It has no electricity, and I don’t know what the septic system is, but it’s at the point, it has a tarp over the roof because the roof is caving in. MR. ABBATE-When you spoke to this gentleman, I’m sure, in detail, you made it clear to him that the height of your structure would be 20 foot? And he did not object to that. MR. POLUNCI-I did not make, I told him that I was putting a, I did not tell him it would be 20 foot. I told him I was putting a structure off the setback. At the time, I did not realize that the height requirement was 16. I was under the assumption it was 25, but that is for attached structures. So I did not say that to him. Because I thought it would be within that requirement, but the building inspector straightened me out on that. MR. ABBATE-So at this point, we can assume that none of the neighbors are aware of the fact that it will be 20 feet high? MR. POLUNCI-You can assume that. MR. ABBATE-Yes, and the reason I’m focusing in on this is because the Chairman made an excellent point. Twenty foot imposing, you know, it may be nothing, it may be something. We don’t have any. MR. STONE-Well, we haven’t had the public hearing yet, either. We don’t know if anybody in the r room is. MR. ABBATE-That’s true. Let me just get off of that, and just say I’m finished. MR. URRICO-Can you move the structure to 12 feet, with the minimum setback, and still have room for a septic? MR. POLUNCI-I don’t know. I’d have to ask the building inspector on that, whether I could or not. I think it would be crowding it pretty good. Because it gives me, the lot is 50 feet wide, and a 24 foot building on there, gives me 26 feet on either side to put things on, and so by offsetting it by two feet, I think, based on my conversations with Mr. Brown here, I felt more comfortable with that extra two feet. MR. MC NULTY-As I remember from visiting the site, the place where you’re proposing to put the garage is about the high point on the property, if I remember right, kind of a mound? MR. POLUNCI-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-Have you considered, at all, cutting it into the ground some and maybe like four feet of the garage being below ground level? MR. POLUNCI-I’d consider it, but I’m concerned about the drainage and water coming in the thing and everything else. I’ve seen those types of structures, and I’ve never seen a dry structure resulting from that. So I’m concerned about mold, mildew, it draining down in the garage and things like this. MR. STONE-But therefore it’s possible that if you went to build this garage, per your request, that you might have to raise the ground a little bit, before you put the. MR. POLUNCI-I don’t think so, based upon the location and the grade. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. POLUNCI-Again, it’s just my opinion. MR. STONE-Any other questions before I open the public hearing? MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, I just had one question. The applicant talked about a pitch of the garage, a four/twelve pitch. The application references a three/twelve pitch, three/twelve is flatter than a four/twelve. MR. POLUNCI-Did I put that down there? MR. BROWN-Yes. Just for accuracy, I think when all is said and done, you guys are going to approve a height and not a pitch to the roof, to try and avoid a previous garage on Glen Lake that 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) the pitch changed and they were back in front of the Board. So, just so the applicant’s clear, if you get the height, you might have to lose some of the head room upstairs. MR. STONE-We’re talking to the high point of the building. You’re asking us to go to 20 feet, the top most point of the building? MR. POLUNCI-Yes. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. POLUNCI-Right where the venter ridge is. MR. STONE-Yes, right. You build them, I just look at them. All right. Any other questions? I’m going to open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAUL DERBY MR. DERBY-I just have questions. My name is Paul Derby. I live at 86 Ash Drive, just up the street, and really I had more of a series of questions than anything. So I don’t really know if I’m for or against it. MR. STONE-Okay. Why don’t you state your questions. MR. DERBY-Okay. Here’s my question. Actually, I’m familiar with that because, right before they bought that property, I actually looked at it and considered buying it myself. It is odd, and it is relatively flat. So it’s not one that goes up like mine, but anyway, my question was, and I think he’s answered that already, why two story garage instead of a one story that most of us have. I had a question about the placement on the property and that still sort of is a question for me, where it’s going to be placed. I know where that little shed is now, and one of my questions is, how wide is that property? It’s 50 feet wide? And my understanding is that is has a shared driveway coming in. Is that correct? MR. POLUNCI-It’s shared. If you look at the driveway as you enter it now, the first half of the driveway belongs to the neighbor. It’s kind of like a, not a mid cut, but a diagonal cut. The first half of the driveway belongs to the neighbor, and he’s got, half way up the driveway, the rest of the driveway is mine, and one of the things I want to do is move the (lost words) obviously. MR. DERBY-Yes, I was just curious about that, because I was thinking of a similar thing that shared driveway, you could move it over to the left, I suppose, and then come in off that way. All right. That was a question. Now for some of the lake questions, I don’t know if this affects the permeability of the property, the amount of square footage and permeability, I know it’s back more than 100 feet from the lake. MR. STONE-I assume, Mr. Brown, that there’s enough permeable area. This is a dirt driveway. It’s not impermeable driveway at the moment. MR. DERBY-Right. MR. MC NALLY-Is the 22% still there? MR. STONE-Well, no, that’s building area, but permeability in the zone is, what, 60, 65, but right now it’s a dirt driveway. If Mr. Polunci were to put gravel down, then we would have to, the Code Enforcement Officer would have to revisit it, and decide, but right now, it’s not a concern. It’s a very long lot. MR. DERBY-It is very long. All our lots are pretty much the same. That’s a long, skinny one. I came in with a question about septic, and he’s showing me the septic plans, and basically my feeling is any time we improve a septic system on Glen Lake, that’s a good thing. So if the plan is to improve the septic, I’m all for it. I guess my only, I have a question about the Town because you said it may have moderate effect on the neighborhood, and I wondered what you meant by a moderate effect. That came from your notes. MR. BROWN-Yes. I mean, the construction of a two story garage, you know, it’s in a highly, well, I don’t want to say highly visible, but moderately visible site. I mean, you can see it from my understanding is the properties to the left, if you’re looking at the lake, are lower than this property. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) So it’s going to be placed on top of that property, visible from at least two or three properties to the left. I mean, that might have a moderate visual impact. MR. DERBY-Okay. Yes. The septic seems to be a good plan. My only concern and, you know, I don’t know what 20 feet is because I’m not a builder, and it’s hard for me to imagine what it’s going to look like there. I can imagine from the road it’s going to be bigger than the house. MR. STONE-It’s going to be bigger than the house. It’ll be the first thing and the only, as you drive up the driveway, it will stick out and you will not see the house. MR. DERBY-Right. MR. STONE-I mean, if you, it’s going to hit you, it’s a big building. MR. DERBY-I know what you mean. I think your question about, from the lakeside, I can’t imagine it’s going to be imposing from the lakeside, because actually it’s down at the inlet, where you kind of swing, and looking up, it is a relatively flat lot. It has a small slope to it. So, I don’t know if it would be that imposing from that side. So, what am I saying? It’s not going to have a bathroom. It’s not going to be occupied. I don’t really have a problem with it, except, if it is going to be a huge structure, and I don’t know without looking at a plan or some kind of relative scale for that. MR. STONE-It’s going to be 760 square feet, on the ground, footprint. MR. DERBY-Okay. MR. STONE-And then it’s going to go up to the crown of the roof, or to the very top it’s going to be 20 feet, with a roof sliding off at an angle. MR. DERBY-Okay. It looks big. That’s my impression. MR. STONE-All right. That’s a perfectly valid comment, and one that you should, if you think, is it too big, big enough, too small? MR. DERBY-My comment is that it’s big. It may be ought of character with the neighborhood, but I also understand that is a very small home, because I looked at it myself, and I’m sure he does need storage room, but that is my concern, is it going to fit in. So I’ll leave it at that. MR. STONE-That’s fine. MR. DERBY-Okay. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak, in favor or in opposition to this particular application? PETER CHRISTIAN MR. CHRISTIAN-I have some questions. MR. STONE-Please, come up. State your name and ask the questions. MR. CHRISTIAN-My name is Peter Christian, and I’m a neighbor also, right next door to Mr. Polunci. I’m right next to Mr. Perkins. MR. STONE-So you’re one lot removed? MR. CHRISTIAN-One lot removed. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. CHRISTIAN-Sometimes I feel I’m not one lot removed. There are quite a few buildings there now. I’m not here exactly in opposition to this. I don’t know Mr. Polunci. Ever since he’s been there, I just have never met him, and I don’t think he knows me very much either. I agree with some of the things, I have some questions, myself, the height, but first I will, I’d like to, rather, say the things more or less in favor of Mr. Polunci’s plans. I’ve been in his home before, years ago, before he bought it. It’s very small. He does need room. I didn’t even know that he didn’t have a basement. That makes it rougher. I know because I have my property and I know what it takes. I also know that in this North Country it’s nice to have a garage. It really is, it is. It’s important, up here, to have your vehicles in, if you can have them. The building itself, I haven’t really, I can’t quite imagine myself, as I’m not a builder, exactly what it’s going to look like. The height of the building, it seemed to me to be more residential in height. The view, I think I’ve submitted some pictures that, 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) from my side porch looking to where I think, and I’m not really sure exactly where this is going to be, would certainly, from my side porch, would, it should, if this is in the right spot, I wouldn’t be able to view any of the mountain range beyond the watershed area, the trees, etc., or anything else like that. That would be gone, from my side porch where, you know, we’re out there occasionally. We eat out there occasionally, cook there and etc. We’ve been at our residence probably longer than anybody along that whole strip. We’ve been there for 40 years. We’ve had people come and people go. People add and then they leave, and etc. This has been going on, and we’ve asked, been asked for variances before. We’ve gone along with them, sometimes been surprised in the end that the structure may have been a lot more than we thought, cutting down on view and bringing more traffic, etc. However, valid points that Mr. Polunci has, he mentioned that he has some neighbors there that has a rather uninhabitable looking structure, and he’s certainly correct. Now, I would be probably more in favor of the distance variance if it probably would, from my place, hide that view. That would probably please me more than having an extended area of buildings because we are at the lake, and I realize he’s coming from the City. People are bringing the City to the lake all the time, and it’s getting, everybody’s got lights and black top and it’s becoming less and less and less of the lake than it used to be, and, coming into driveways, all you see are buildings, and from previously, my neighbor, a good neighbor, Mr. Perkins that he’s mentioned, put his garage up and then he’d have children come, and then they’d have like mobile home type things for the summer and from inside all you could see was a vehicle and a building and another building, just buildings. It was like driving down an alley, almost like that. So I was concerned about the height and what room that would take up, exactly where this building is placed, and I’m not sure what he means, like you’re talking 12 or 14 feet from, where? From his house? MR. STONE-What the drawing that Mr. Polunci. MR. CHRISTIAN-Yes. I was hoping to see, he could show me, probably, on here. MR. STONE-He could show you, that it’s supposed to be right lined up with the other garage. MR. CHRISTIAN-Where is your building right now? Where is the little building? MR. POLUNCI-The little building is pretty much right there. MR. CHRISTIAN-Right here? MR. POLUNCI-Yes. MR. CHRISTIAN-It’s back more this way. You’re not going to put it up this way so much? MR. POLUNCI-No. If anything, it’s probably going to be where the little building is, and maybe a little bit, about where the little building is. MR. CHRISTIAN-But you can see my point, what I’m saying. You know where I am. You’ve seen my porch, and I look right over through here, and I want to be able to see. MR. STONE-Well, Mr. Polunci, are you saying, the drawing that you submitted here, you’re showing the front, the lakeside of the garage is parallel or contiguous, not contiguous, but on the same line as the other garage. MR. POLUNCI-Yes, but the only problem is, and I’ll say this, is my property goes up from Mr. Perkins’. There’s a grade that goes up, I’m guessing maybe six feet or so. MR. STONE-But the two buildings are going to line up like this? MR. POLUNCI-Yes. MR. STONE-So what it’s also saying is that it’s going to be further, closer to the lake than the current shed, if I believe your drawing. MR. POLUNCI-No, I don’t think so. MR. STONE-Well, you’ve got the shed inside your footprint here. MR. POLUNCI-Well, if the shed, no, it’s going to line up with Mr. Perkins’ garage building, but I don’t think that the scale here is quite exact. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re saying, just to answer the question, that the two structures are going to line up? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) MR. POLUNCI-Pretty close, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. On the lakeside. MR. POLUNCI-And that’ll be well over the, the 140 or 150 feet from the lake. That’s why the view from the lake, being lower and farther away, I don’t think it’s going to be imposing. MR. STONE-What else do you have, sir? MR. CHRISTIAN-I have an agreement with what Mr. Derby said before. Now Mr. Derby mentioned that anything that will improve any of the septic systems, we all have them, and anybody that’s willing to work on their septic systems, again, I’m for that. MR. STONE-Nothing has been done, Craig, to trigger an upgrade yet? The porch did not trigger an upgrade. This would not trigger an upgrade. MR. BROWN-I don’t know about the porch. I’m not familiar with that application. This definitely doesn’t. MR. CHRISTIAN-Are you talking about an upgrade in the septic system? MR. HAYES-Right. It’s been proposed, but it’s into part of this application. MR. CHRISTIAN-That has nothing to do with me. He just mentioned that he was thinking of doing something. MR. STONE-No, I know that, but sometimes modifications to homes trigger the need to upgrade the septic system automatically. MR. HAYES-Nonconforming. MR. STONE-Nonconforming. MR. CHRISTIAN-I see what you’re talking about. That’s why we mentioned about the garage, if it was used as a residence, is it going to be that way, and, yes, it’s going to be high. It does sit up quite a ways, and with the extra height, it certainly goes up in the air. It wouldn’t be something that I would like, myself, you know, from my point of view, but it’s not my property. I think everyone has, gosh, we have to have some rights, you know, and he does not live there. He plans on coming there. How long they’ll stay when they get it finished, I have no idea, but, nevertheless, a person does need comfort. He has a family. He’s certainly got a large son. He’s going to need some room, and some help, and certainly, from what I’ve seen of these people, and I have never spoken a word with them at once, they’re decent. I think they take, what I see, they take good care of their property. I’m certain that anything that they did they would probably do right. I have very little to say, from the lake in particular, and I know a lot about this lake. I’ve taken many pictures of it from outside, and what the structures look like, such as you all have done, and maybe you will see it, but it’s no, it’s certainly not going to be an eyesore, more than some of the structures that are on lakeside, that look worse, that’s for sure, around the lake, and I think he’s got his hands full, if he’s going to improve that property and he has his hands full with his neighbor right there. I think what goes on there, I think this man certainly should be given some leeway, and I don’t really want to stand in his way. My only thing is the exact placement of the garage, just so it doesn’t, one more time, I’m not capitulating, because I have many times, for neighbors, and so that I can’t see this mountain range anymore. That’s probably the only thing, and if it had to be moved a little bit toward the road, but I don’t know the exact. I wish I had spoken with Mr. Polunci before. We probably could have settled this a little bit better. I would have had more in my mind about it. That’s the only thing I have. If we can settle some of that, just to ease my mind, it would be okay. In general, I’m really not opposed. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak on this matter? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. We have two letters. The first one is from Mr. Peter Christian. “Please accept this memorandum of opposition to the appeal by Mr. James P. Polunci’s request for proposed construction of a two-story garage and relief from the height and setback requirements at 74 Ash Drive, Glen Lake, N.Y. At least in part. Old Tax Map No. 39-1-55 New Tax Map No. 289.17-1-16 Zone: WR-1A Lot size: 0.32 acres 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) Area Variance No. 18-2001 Type 2 A hearing is scheduled for this Wednesday, March 28, 2001, between 7:00 and 11:00 p.m., at the Queensbury Activity Center on Bay Road. Perchance I cannot make this meeting in person, as I am away at the moment, I advance the fact that having lived next door to my fairly new neighbor for a short time and I, having been at my residence for 40 years, seeing neighbors come and go, remodel, construct, reconstruct, always changing the area that slowly erodes our view of both the lake and the mountains and watershed area behind the Great Escape, I now stand fast. Trees have been cut continually from around us, road waste dumped illegally into Glen Lake by the ton after ton, aesthetics eschew on supposedly ‘living quarters’, within eyeshot, and more buildings that will house people as well as be of storage etc. may just make our view such as looking at buildings in an alley. The Polunci’s may be fine people; we have never spoken once in the years they have been residents there, the other neighbors, yes. THEY are retired or retiring and speaking of selling and moving elsewhere, leaving us with just our past capitulation such as confront us once again. I would hope to be at the public hearing, though not without difficulty. And may I ask, are we able to approach the board face to face, or do we have to give our case in loud tones from our seats, airing our laundry to others there for their own cases of just curiosity? Here’s to resolving this issue in a gentlemanly and objective fashion. Photos enclosed. Sincerely, Peter Christian Resident” And I’ll pass this down so that the Board can see the photos, and we have a fax, from Captain Michael F. Miller, who’s address is 4600 Rocky Point Way, Stewart, FL. “Dear Zoning Board: This is in response to your notice of a hearing regarding property directly next to property which I own. Your notice indicates that James P. Polunci plans to build onto his property a two story garage which requires a variance to the town’s existing codes. Let it be known that I object to this new construction. James P. Polunci already has several code variances on his existing property. A storage shed nearly twenty feet from shore directly in front of this residence which blocks the view of the lake not only from his home but from my property as well. He has requested and was granted a variance to extend his front porch out towards the lake, wider and higher than existing. Notice 14-1998, I objected to this due to the restriction of my view and in concern of the setback which is to protect the lake from runoff and living space to septic tank proportions. If you inspect this new addition you will note that a plate has been added to the front of the enclosed room where he plans to add a deck. James P. Polunci has mentioned this past summer that he intends to build this garage for the sole purpose of having an apartment on the second story in which to create additional living space. The property barely has enough room as it is only 50 feet wide. His property has an easement granted that both property owners share a driveway which runs along his western line. The existence of this easement would change his set back requirements from the easement rather than his property line, would they not? I am concerned that the over development of many of the small lots around the lake will add unnecessary living spaces causing harm to the quality of the water from septic tank usage. I am unable to attend this hearing, and I have not been able to review these plans. However, my property sets back from the lake farther than Mr. Polunci’s. His property blocks my view of lake. Every variance you grant against height and setback towards the lake greatly effects my property. The value of any lake front property is related to the view. When you granted his variance to build out towards the lake and enclosed the front of his home, you took a great deal of my view of the lake away. If you grant a two story building, again, you will take away parts of my view as the view is also behind his home being that my property is set back behind his. My intention is to build a home on my property. Please do not de- value the surrounding property by granting un-necessary variances, these codes were established to protect against this overbuilding. In consideration of his request, the shed down by the waters edge could be removed and a one story garage could enhance his property. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, Captain Michael Miller PS. The location on each of these notices (No. 14-1998 and 18-2001) is different where the tax nos. are the same: one states 17 Ash Drive and the other states 74 Ash Drive, I may have viewed these notices as not pertaining directly to my property.” MR. STONE-Can you help me? This is Captain Miller. Which property is this? MR. POLUNCI-The inhabitable building. MR. STONE-Uninhabitable. MR. POLUNCI-Uninhabitable building. MR. STONE-So the one to your west. MR. POLUNCI-The one to my west. MR. STONE-With the boats and everything. MR. POLUNCI-Can I make some comments about that piece of property? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) MR. STONE-Sure, just a second. Is that it? MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-And now you can go ahead. MR. POLUNCI-That piece of property has a structure that should be burned down. I think it is a fire hazard. It’s uninhabitable. He has a brother who comes up there and goes out on the boat every day, and rents dock space out, puts a bunch of makeshift docks across the property, and rents out about five or six slips to people. He’s basically running a boat marina in there. Large trucks come in, with sand and stone, that I think they get from the Town or some place. They come in. They’re back-filling the property. They’re back-filling the lake. ENCON showed up and told them they couldn’t do it any longer because they’re putting pollutants in the lake. The backfill contains salt, other things like this. The trucks come up. They back in. I’ve had my phone lines torn down. as a result of the trucks coming in. I’ve had my phone lines repaired as a result of it. No one lives there. There’s very often five or six cars parked there because they’re renting boat space, which I don’t know is legal or not. I don’t know whether docks are legal or not. They’re just kind of thrown in. They’re made from makeshift. There’s several, four or five boats in the yard, that people are storing there. There’s boats that have been sitting there for years that will not float. This is the situation that my neighbor, I’m a patient man, but that’s basically what I’ve dealt with. The screen house down by the lake has probably been there 40 or 50 years. It’s a structure which is seven foot wide and about 35 foot long and obviously it’s grandfathered under anything else. It’s down by the lake, about 15 or 20 feet from the lake. I’ve never met this man either. I’ve met his brother, who seems to be unemployed. He comes up every day and rides around in his boat all day, and tends to want to help you when you’re constructing anything, but I have some reservations about liability and stuff like that. I get along with him, but that’s basically what we’re dealing with. They’re back-filling that property, and in my estimation, they are in violation of ENCON, in the type of material that they’re back-filling and putting into the lake. ENCON has been there already and told them to stop doing it, but there seems to be a continuation. MR. STONE-Are you aware of this, Craig? MR. POLUNCI-I’m not sure how this fits in with your authority, but. MR. STONE-Well, he is a neighbor. He has a right to comment. He was notified and he has a right to comment. MR. POLUNCI-Sure. I understand that. MR. STONE-Craig, are you aware, just as an aside here? MR. BROWN-I’m not aware of the boat dock rental issue. I’ve heard rumblings about filling in the lake. I was unaware it was this property, but. MR. POLUNCI-Well, they were using my dock, and I had to literally threaten to call the police to get the boat off the dock because they were using my dock, with one of the people, because the other dock, the docks weren’t put in as of yet. MR. STONE-Do you have any comments about, Mr. Christian, any comments about his questions or anything? MR. POLUNCI-No. They’re legitimate, and he’s a nice man. I haven’t really met him or talked to him, but I’m sure he’s sincere in all of his comments, and I’d be concerned about blocking his view or taking away from his enjoyment of his property. MR. STONE-One of the drawings you submitted is obviously some kind of plot plan for neighboring houses. Have you seen this, Mr. Christian? Would you just come up and take a look at it? Because I want to be sure, because you made a comment, in terms of how you’re looking to the west. This is your house here? MR. CHRISTIAN-Yes. MR. STONE-It’s the second lot over. This is the one you were talking about sitting on the porch? MR. CHRISTIAN-Yes. The porch is right here, and I look right out this way. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) MR. STONE-Okay. MR. CHRISTIAN-So I’d see this right here. MR. STONE-All right. So you have a view, it’s blocked off a little bit to the rear, but it’s not going to change to the front. Would you acknowledge that? MR. CHRISTIAN-Pardon me. Say that one more time? MR. STONE-Your view here is not going to change, it’s going to change slightly, to the rear of the property, looking to the north, if you’re here, right? MR. CHRISTIAN-It’s going to change here, if he builds past this, this way. This is what I have to see over. MR. STONE-Okay. So you normally look over the top of his house? Is that what you’re saying? MR. CHRISTIAN-No. I usually look between. I usually look between their house. Their on quite a hill. MR. STONE-Okay. It’s going to have an impact on your view, from where you are. MR. CHRISTIAN-What he just mentioned, though, is a very pertinent fact. Things that, I guess, we haven’t talked about. I’m very surprised, excuse me. This gentleman is? MR. STONE-Craig Brown. MR. CHRISTIAN-And he is? MR. STONE-Our Code Enforcement Officer. Our staff person. MR. BROWN-Are you going to open the public hearing back up? MR. STONE-Yes. Let me do that. Let’s go back and I’ll open the public hearing. Thanks, Craig. Yes, let me re-open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED PETER CHRISTIAN MR. CHRISTIAN-My name is Peter Christian and I live at 80 Ash Drive. Okay. Where were we? MR. STONE-I was showing you where, just making sure your house on this drawing is correctly located, and you had earlier commented that you thought this might interfere with your view to the, what I will loosely call, to the west. MR. CHRISTIAN-Yes. He is on my west, and the view would be more impaired, would be sort of southwest, I would say, it might be, because I’d be looking in that direction. Yes, and now I remember where I was when we broke this off a few minutes ago, in asking what this gentleman’s name was and what his position is. MR. STONE-Code Enforcement Officer. MR. CHRISTIAN-Code Enforcement Officer, and I understand, and who’s here? MR. POLUNCI-I have first hand knowledge. MR. CHRISTIAN-Wasn’t there a, that it was looked at and investigated and there was a citation and a fine paid on that, and yet the proceedings still continued. Didn’t it? MR. STONE-You’re talking the property to the? MR. CHRISTIAN-We’re talking about the property up on the hill, the people that are complaining about his, they’re complaining about him. MR. ABBATE-Is this the dumping you’re referring to, or the landfilling? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) MR. CHRISTIAN-That’s right, and so somebody had to look at that property before. If it wasn’t this gentleman, who was it? The EPA, we understand, and he was issued a citation, and paid, I don’t know if he even paid a fine or not, and everything went on more briskly than usual. Business as usual, and we’re talking some serious fill. We’re not just talking dirt and things. We’re talking all right now what’s coming up right now, every scraping off every road in this whole Town, with all the oil, with the antifreeze, leakage from cars and the salt and blacktop, chunks, everything else. MR. STONE-Are you saying that the Town of Queensbury is putting stuff there? MR. CHRISTIAN-They’re not putting it in. They’re putting it on his property, because it’s free stuff, and knocked down his phone lines on the way in, and that’s a fact, too, and yes, nobody has said anything about that, because it’s his thing. MR. STONE-What kind of trucks are bringing this material? MR. CHRISTIAN-Well, I would say they came in at least 20 yards. MR. STONE-What do they say on the side? MR. CHRISTIAN-I can’t remember now. MR. STONE-I mean, this, to me, is very serious, Craig. MR. BROWN-They are very serious issues, but I’m not sure how they reflect on the project at hand. It’s a garage variance we’re talking about. MR. UNDERWOOD-Craig, I can comment on what happened. MR. BROWN-I don’t know how it reflects on this application. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m a resident on the lake. I live on the other side, and my interpretation of it was I myself have spoken with this brother, not the guy who wrote the letter, but this is his brother who’s doing this. MR. CHRISTIAN-The one that rides up and down the lake. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. The lake association basically, they asked me, one evening, if I would speak to him. So I tried to constructively say something to him, and I said, well, I paddle the lake almost every single night in my canoe or kayak, whatever it happens to be, and I stopped and spoke with him, and I told him that, you know, my understanding, in talking to the DEC people, was that he had been basically told if he does anything more, he’s going to be facing substantial fines for doing this, and this was an ongoing thing that was going on for many years, many times, lots of the neighbors complained about it to the DEC, and of course, as usual, not much happened as a result of that, but the lake time he was cited by the Conservation Officers, and basically given an ultimatum, but he did do a substantial amount of filling, and also, off the side the house, where he dumped that load of rocks into the inlet there. So there’s two substantial places. MR. POLUNCI-He’s also figured out if you plant a tree out into the lake, you can fill up to the tree. MR. CHRISTIAN-That’s right. MR. POLUNCI-So last fall they planted about a dozen trees out in the inlet. MR. STONE-Okay. So we’re dealing with a very bad citizen, but it isn’t germane. I think we’ve got it on the record, and I think Craig will, I would ask Craig to look into it, to the extent of his authority, but let’s get back to. MR. CHRISTIAN-Well, okay. We can get back to that right now, and then I’ll sit down. I’ll take my leave of this, but I will defend Mr. Polunci’s thought that when someone complains that his house is obstructing the view from that structure on that hill, there’s no way. Anything they look at has got to be an improvement over what we’ve been looking at, and have to every day, because what’s there really is just a very large outhouse. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Did you want to offer anything else? It’s got to be on the variance that we’re talking about. MR. DERBY-It’s not. It’s just, it’s a clarification on who was called about the dumping. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) MR. STONE-Okay. You can talk to Craig off the record. Okay. I’m going to close the public hearing again. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant? MR. URRICO-I have a question of Mr. Christian. MR. STONE-Go ahead, ask him. MR. URRICO-Your letter seems to indicate a more strenuous objection to the procedure taking place tonight than you do in person. MR. CHRISTIAN-Yes. MR. URRICO-Have your concerns been mitigated by what you’ve heard here tonight? MR. CHRISTIAN-They have somewhat. I was wondering whether there would be a looking into this, first, and then a continuation of this at another time. Because, first of all, I’ve never met Mr. Polunci, only what I see. I mean, they have a dog that barks and everything else up there, but pretty much under control. They keep, you know, hey, dogs bark. MR. URRICO-We don’t deal with barking dogs. MR. STONE-We don’t deal with barking dogs. MR. CHRISTIAN-No. I’m trying to give you, I hope, without knowing these people, a good character reference, that they take care of most things like that, and I don’t know them. I was hoping that this would help me somewhat. My letter, I was in the dark. All I know is what I, when I went up there and took pictures. MR. STONE-All right. Thank you. Any other comments anybody wants to make before we talk about it? All right, Chuck, let’s start with you, Mr. Abbate. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I am, after listening to what these folks had to say, the neighbors, and having the secretary read into the record correspondence that was received, and my personal observation and evaluation, I have great concerns. One of my major concerns is the height of the garage. Twenty feet, based on the small community, in my opinion, and again, it’s all perception, in my opinion, it would indeed change, somewhat, the look of the property and the lake and if I were to place myself in the position of being a neighbor, or neighbors, etc., etc., I think I would also be concerned. At this particular point, unless other Board members could convince me, I think I would probably recommend or suggest that the application not be approved. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. On the five criteria, I see four in which I, would sway me against this application. I think there is a feasible alternative. The substantial relief, relative to the Ordinance, I can probably live with the two feet from the side setback, but the height requirement, extending beyond the four feet that we require is a little bit too much for my liking, and I think there would be moderate effects on the neighborhood, as a result. If you can bring that down to conform with the height requirement, I would approve it at that point, even with the two foot setback. That would be where I stand right now. MR. STONE-Jamie? MR. HAYES-I think I essentially agree. On this particular application, I think there’s growing concern, on these type of lots, that additional living space, one way or the other, is created or obtained through two story garages, and I think the point has been made that everybody needs garage, in this climate, is very well taken, and I have no problem with that. I think I would approve it in a second. MR. POLUNCI-And storage. I didn’t mention, and storage. MR. HAYES-Right, but in this particular case, the side setback relief, I don’t have any, as Roy has pointed out, two feet is very minimal, and actually probably balances the site, in my opinion, but in this particular case, I think 20 feet would be a very high building. It would almost be stark to some extent, in its height, and even its impact, visually, from a number of perspectives. So, if you really want storage, I’m not saying that I couldn’t go for something slightly over 16 feet or a little relief, but 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) I think the second story needs to be just that, storage, which can be done through roof trusses and some height there, but not 20 feet. I think that that, in my opinion, is a stretch. In this case, it makes the balancing of interest that this test requires probably against the applicant. I’m not saying that I wouldn’t be able to go a little bit above 16 feet, but not 20 feet. I think it’s too much. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I basically agree. The side setback, in this particular situation, I don’t have much of a problem with. I think I could live with that, and especially considering it’s intended to provide room to improve septic at a later date, but the height bothers me. It’s on, basically, the height part of the property, I think it’s going to look really big, and I don’t, I just can’t come to make myself agree to any kind of a variance on the height. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that one possibility you might have is using a knee wall on that second story. I would agree to, you know, the height is of concern, and if you had a four foot knee wall in there, you’d still have plenty of headroom in there, if you put a regular cathedral ceiling in there, on the second floor, too. Likewise, I think, too, that we have to consider the fact of where the other house is and what the ultimate, end result is. I mean, you’re talking about a re-do of this, but, I mean, maybe it’s something to consider, you know, maybe doing a complete makeover of the whole property that includes the garage, as part of the house design or something, if you get to that point, but right now I wouldn’t be in favor of it, as is. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I kind of agree with Roy, that when you consider the five factors, pretty much four of them weigh against the applicant, unfortunately. It’s always nice to convert a camp to a full time residence, and I can understand why it may be necessary to have additional storage space, but one of the feasible alternatives is to build a garage that meets the height requirements. You would still have storage, but you wouldn’t have a full, second floor living area with full height ceiling requirements. I think the relief is substantial with respect to the height. I do feel, like the other Board members, that the two feet of side setback relief is not substantial, but by the same token, I don’t know why you can’t set it back 12 feet. I don’t know if the symmetry would be set off with the garage next to it where it is, but I’m willing to open my ears as to that aspect of it. The effects on the neighborhood, I think are pretty straightforward. It’s going to result in further congestion. I agree with the other Board members, it would be kind of a massive garage, compared to the size of the house on the lot. It would be too high, stark. The drawings show a full two story building with windows all around, and that’s really not what our Code allows. With all due respect, it is a self created hardship. MR. STONE-Well, I basically agree with everybody. The two feet doesn’t bother me, and I would be prepared to vote for a variance that would grant the two feet of relief to the property line, but I cannot see any good reason, based upon the criteria with which we have to work, to grant any relief from the height. I think, within 16 feet, it’s a well thought out number. There certainly can be storage space up there, and it certain precludes or mitigates one of the concerns that Mr. Hayes had, and we all have, about additional living space. So, I think, we can grant partial relief. MR. BROWN-I think if the applicant’s willing to amend his application, you could consider that, yes. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. POLUNCI-May I speak? MR. STONE-Yes. Let me just say what the alternatives, as I see them, are. We can turn down the request, your application, for this project, which means that we grant no relief for the side setback, and no relief to the height. If you are willing to modify your application, it would seem to me that with at least six of us, that would be bringing it down to conformity at 16 feet. We can approve a variance for the two feet, or we can just vote the whole thing down. We’re not going to approve it, certainly on the basis of the survey we just did. MR. POLUNCI-Well, two options. I can bring it down to 16 feet, or make the building a little bit longer, and include my storage downstairs, you know, but I’ll be within conformance of the 16 feet height. I’ll be within conformance of the space versus property size. The only thing that would not be in conformance is the setback. So, if I could request relief from the setback, and then re-submit a set of plans to the building inspector. I’m not quite sure whether I want to go with a 16 foot building with not that much room up there or just more room downstairs. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) MR. STONE-First of all, you can build, well, if we grant relief, let’s say he wanted to go 900 square feet and we were willing to grant two feet of relief for the building, does he have to come back to us, Craig? MR. MC NALLY-Without a plan, how do we know what he’s going to build? MR. BROWN-Right. I think you may want to see a plan to be comfortable with what the outcome is going to be. MR. POLUNCI-I can go 900 square feet on one story? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-But if we grant him two feet of relief, he could do something that’s 10 feet wide and 19 feet long. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BROWN-So, I think rather than just say, okay, do 900 square feet. MR. POLUNCI-Yes. I can build a 24 by 36 foot building. MR. BROWN-We’d like to see the plans before you do that. MR. STONE-If you’re willing to say that you are going to go to 16 feet, we would table this motion until we see a plan, recognizing that we are inclined to grant two feet of relief on the side setback, but we would like to see where this 900 square foot building, that you’re allowed to build, is going to be, along the whole property line. MR. POLUNCI-Okay. Now, just clarify this. If I was to build a 900 square foot building that was 12 foot from the line and less than 16 feet high, I would not need to be here discussing this matter. MR. STONE-You would not be here. MR. POLUNCI-Right. I would just need a building permit. I would request a building permit. MR. STONE-That is correct. It’s your choice. Do you want us to table it? Do you want to withdraw the application? MR. POLUNCI-I’m just concerned about the septic, and having enough room. That’s all. MR. STONE-Well, then I would suggest that we ought to table it. You come back with a plan that shows us where you want to put this, whatever size building, up to 900 square feet, where you want to put it. recognizing that there was an inclination to grant two feet of relief, and we’d like to see where the septic. Certainly, you need to know where the septic system’s going to be. MR. BROWN-Yes. At this point, I don’t know how much weight I’d put on a new septic system, because that’s a whole other set of criteria, soils and setbacks, that may not even work without a septic variance. So, the fact that the applicant’s acknowledged that he wants to upgrade it, he might have 10 other things he needs to do before he can do that. MR. STONE-No, I wasn’t making it contingent upon that, Craig, but letting us see where it might go, at least a thought of where it could possibly fit in, or where it is now is more important. MR.. POLUNCI-Essentially, it’s going to be right where it’s at now, except it’s probably going to extend toward the road, it’s going to extend toward the road six foot farther because it’ll be a 24 by 36 building. MR. STONE-Okay. Again, we have two choices. We can table it pending your coming back with where you want to put this, assuming you want some relief. If you don’t want any relief, then we don’t have any, you don’t belong here, but if you want some relief, like the two feet, then we’ll table it, recognizing. MR. POLUNCI-May I ask the building inspector a question? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. BROWN-Well, I’m not a building inspector. You can ask me a question. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) MR. STONE-He’s not the building inspector. He’s the Code Enforcement Officer. MR. POLUNCI-Code Enforcement Officer, whatever. If I was 12 foot off the line, and built a 24 foot wide building, which would put me 36 foot in the way of about 13, maybe 14 feet from the other property line. Would I have enough from, in that area, 13, maybe 14 feet from the property line, to put a septic system down through that side, and have, not be in violation of anything else with my uninhabitable neighbor’s property? MR. HAYES-You’ve got to be 10 feet from the property line. MR. BROWN-Yes. I don’t know the answer to that question. There’s too many variables, what kind of soils are there. MR. HAYES-Your leach lines would have to be. MR. STONE-Be 10 feet from the property line. MR. HAYES-Yes. You’d only have three foot to put your leach lines, by that criteria. MR. BROWN-Based on the drawing that’s submitted with the application, the septic system is proposed closer to the road than the garage. There may be an area there for the septic system. I think, by the looks of your drawing, you’re concerned with, can you get the effluent lines to a septic tank out in that area? MR. POLUNCI-Yes. MR. BROWN-I don’t know. I mean, it’s going to depend on site conditions and, like I said, soils, setbacks, wells. There’s a lot of criteria. MR. STONE-I would suggest that we table it, and that you get in consultation with Mr. Brown, and anybody else in the Building Department who might be able to give you some more guidance and that you come back to us within 60 days. MR. POLUNCI-My only concern is actually the time requirement. As you all know tabling it does put me into, present a problem. MR. STONE-Well, you certainly have the right to build this 10 feet from the line, and 900 square feet. MR. BROWN-Twelve feet from the line. MR. STONE-I mean, 12 feet from the line, excuse me, and 900 square feet, and then you have to determine, along with the Town, whether or not you can get your laterals through there without violating septic setbacks. MR. MC NALLY-You may want to consult your own engineer. MR. STONE-Yes, that’s what I’m. MR. POLUNCI-All right. Thank you. MR. STONE-Do you want us to table it? MR. POLUNCI-I suppose you could table it, and if I should decide differently, I’ll just follow the other route and then just. MR. HAYES-You can always withdraw it. MR. STONE-You can always withdraw it. It doesn’t cost you anything for us to table it. Just time. All right. Having said that, I move that we table. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2001 JAMES P. POLUNCI, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 74 Ash Drive, Glen Lake. For up to 62 days, so the applicant can prepare a desired setting for a garage, which may require a variance. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) Duly adopted this 28 day of March, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes MR. CHRISTIAN-My question is, do we need to come back? Do they send out another notice of another hearing? That’s what I want to ask. MR. BROWN-The public hearing has been closed, if it’s tabled, and the applicant decides to follow up on it, in order to figure out when it is, if you want to be notified, you can contact the Department. We can notify you, but typically, notifications don’t go out for tabled applications, but if you want to be, I can certainly make a note and we can do that, if we put them back on. MR. STONE-Okay. Moving on. AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2001 TYPE II MICHAEL S. HAYES PAUL J. HAYES OWNERS: HAYES AND HAYES, LLC LOCATION: 280 QUAKER ROAD, COOL BEANS II APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A COVERED STEEL STAIRWAY TO THE SECOND FLOOR. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. AV 106-1999 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING ZONE: HC-1A OLD TAX MAP NO. 107-1-1 NEW TAX MAP NO. 302.08-1-36 LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES SECTION 179-23 STEVE KELLY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; P. & M. HAYES, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 19-2001, Michael S. Hayes Paul J. Hayes, Meeting Date: March 28, 2001 “Project Location: 280 Quaker Road, Cool Beans II Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a covered steel stairway to the second floor and seeks additional rear setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 24.5 feet of relief from the 25 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the HC-1A zone, § 179-23. Previous area variance; AV 106- 99 granted the applicant a 3.6 foot rear setback. The current request is for an additional 3.1 feet of relief. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the existing stairway structure in the current location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the stairway to above the cooler area, property line adjustments and internal access to the second floor. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 24.5 feet of relief from the 25 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2000-311 issued 5/11/00 2448 sf Cool Beans AV106-99 res. 12/15/99 setback and parking relief – Cool Beans SP 66-99 res. 12/28/99 Cool Beans SP 66-99 res. 6/20/00 modification – 2 story – Cool Beans Staff comments: Moderate nd impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Consideration may be given to the impacts that a near zero property line setback may have on the adjoining property owner. No comment has been received to date. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 14, 2001 Project Name: Hayes, Michael S. & Paul J. Owner: Michael S. & Paul J. Hayes ID Number: QBY-AV-19-2001 County Project#: Mar01-30 Current Zoning: HC-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicants propose an addition of a covered steel stairway to the second floor. Relief is requested from setback requirements. Site Location: 280 Quaker Road. Cool Beans II. Tax Map Number(s): 302.08-1-36 Staff Notes: The applicants received a setback variance for the building in 2000, but need an additional setback variance for the type of stairs that the Town building department is requiring. The applicant has provided a copy of a large site plan that is on file at the Warren County Planning Board and will be available for review at the meeting. Though the setback deficiency is significant, the stairs only slightly worsen a setback deficiency which the Board recommended for approval when the project was originally reviewed. Staff does not identify any impact to State or County resources. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing has been set for March 21, 2001. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Thomas E. Haley 3/15/01. MR. STONE-I’m sitting here figuring I should say something. Namely the fact that this is difficult for me, and I assume for the rest of the Board. One of the applicant’s here is a treasured and valuable member of this Board, and I would feel less constrained if this were a simple request for a 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) variance, because that we handle and that’s not a problem, but we are faced with a constructed situation that is in violation of the existing Code, and we all know where we stand on that. So it’s just difficult. I feel confident. I just want everybody, I hope everybody feels confident and comfortable in sitting on this particular thing, and having said that, I will turn it over to you guys. MR. P. HAYES-Okay, and, Mr. Stone, we certainly understand that. For the record, I’m Paul Hayes. This is Mickie Hayes, Michael Hayes, and that’s Steve Kelly. He was the general contractor or contractor on this application. We really feel that this is more of a compliant noncompliance, if you will, in this particular circumstance. The Cool Beans project has not one, but two site plan reviews to account for the second story, in which there was steps to the upstairs portion of the project. In the ongoing process of construction, which Mr. Hatin was dramatically involved with, always is, for better and for worse, and I guess you could argue that later, it was determined that the treated wood steps that we had applied for, in our original application, were not adequate. This was dramatically bad new for us, being that the expense associated with that dramatically increased, and Mr. Kelly can, we’ve brought him here tonight to kind of quantify that and to clarify that, in this particular case, but we were faced, in this circumstance, with non-complying with the Town Building Inspector saying that these steps needed to be longer, had to be wider, had to be covered, and had to be steel. We had no choice. It wasn’t, this is not a self created difficulty, you know, in this circumstance. He said, this is what you’re going to do if you want to, ultimately, get a CO. That changed everything. It lengthened the steps so they’re closer to the property line, and, you know, obviously, it’s not what we envisioned when we did the property, but that bottom line was we weren’t going to get use of the second floor without complying with Code, as Mr. Hatin saw it, and we could have debated that with him, I suppose, but in this particular case, I don’t think that’s a winning battle. I mean, I think when the Code Compliance Officer tells you that’s what you’re going to do, then that’s what you do, and. MR. STONE-The Building Inspector. MR. P. HAYES-Yes, the Building Inspector. Craig wasn’t there for that one, but in this particular case, you know, this building has been very well received in the community, as far as the impact on the neighborhood or immediate community there, we’ve had nothing but compliments on the impact of this property, and we’ve tried to comply with everything, in the regulations, that we’ve had to, including trying to make it handicap accessible for our employees and the future, and meet our fire codes, and at times that’s been an expensive proposition, I can tell you that, but, you know, in the long term, as far as benefits to us, those are benefits to us, as far as having a quality building, and a building that complies. So, I guess that’s kind of the long and short of it, as we’re concerned. I can tell you, from an entrepreneurial standpoint, if I had made decisions like this, to do this on my own, not ask to do it, I’d be serving fries somewhere at McDonalds or something, because this is, basically, Steve can comment on, but it’s my understanding that this cost us an additional $7500, at a minimum, for those steps, versus treated lumber steps, which we still would have preferred to put in, but the rules are the rules. I think Mr. Brown, if he’s asked, even on the site plan, there were certain parts of the site plan that were not necessarily exactly what we were granted, and we’ve been rectifying those, as we’ve been asked to, in the same fashion, and that’s, I think if you live in this Town, and particularly when you’re on a Board, like the Zoning Board of Appeals, if you’re asked to change something, you comply. When you’re part of enforcing rules, you know, you live by the rules, and that’s why we’re here. MR. STONE-One question that I would ask, Mr. Hayes, is timing. I mean, because, obviously, you were told at some point, that these stairs had to go in, and when you look at the plan, Mr. Kelly looked at the plans and measured it out, it was obvious that you were going to encroach into the area for which you did not have a variance. Was there not time to get a variance before they were constructed? MR. P. HAYES-I think well, we can comment on that, but I think in the middle of construction of the building, those steps provided access to the upstairs and, you know, finish the roof and things like that, when you’re in the middle of that project, to necessarily take six weeks to come and say, listen, we’re going to be, these steps are going to be a little closer to the side setback because Dave Hatin’s asking us to do this, in the building process. I think that would be a burden that would be tough to justify, in this particular case, considering that, again, it was not a self-created, it was not an action that we took for the benefit of ourselves. It was an action that was taken based on a compliance. MR. STONE-Well, I understand, but obviously you knew that to comply with Mr. Hatin, you were going to be in violation of the setback. MR. P. HAYES-I don’t think we knew that for sure. I mean, obviously, the steps were longer, you know, how they were going to fall exactly to that, there’s a great deal of confusion involved with that property line. I don’t know if you’re aware of that, because if you look at the shrub line and stuff like that, that’s not the property line. There’s a different property line there. So that wasn’t so clear as to where that was actually going to fall in the end. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) MR. STONE-Okay. I’m just trying to find reason that you proceeded. Mr. Hayes, Michael, do you want to say something? MR. M. HAYES-Yes. Our understanding is there’s a little gray area what, if steps or stoops are included in the setbacks, which, I had a conversation with Craig about it, and I don’t know where that, when we first constructed, we weren’t sure, because on the building permit, we showed stairs, I believe, and the question is, lots of times, stoops/stairs that aren’t substantial, that aren’t covered, aren’t counted in the setback. MR. STONE-Almost anything is counted in the setback. MR. BROWN-I think, in this case, and I can go through the file if you want to, the plans, the building plans may have reflected a set of stairs. A lot of times, I don’t review the plans themselves. I look at the plot plan that’s associated with the building permit to ensure that it meets setbacks. The plot plan didn’t depict a set of stairs. So I didn’t pick up on it at that point, and I didn’t, you know, read through any of Dave’s letters that he may have issued before the permit was issued, that may have talked about those things. So, was it overlooked? Possibly, but I think, at this point, everybody’s acknowledged that it does need a setback relief. That’s why we’re here. So, whether it’s counted or not, that’s what we’re talking about tonight. MR. STONE-We’re talking about some happenstance situation. MR. P. HAYES-Sure, and the steps, you know, even as far as the unforeseeable changes that are requested of us, the steps were one of many. I mean, as the building process continued, there was a lot of things that happened, a lot of requests that were made for handicapped accessibility improvements and stuff, and we complied. MR. STONE-Can you help me. Are you guys done with your presentation? MR. P. HAYES-Essentially, unless you have any other questions. MR. STONE-Okay. Now, can you tell me about these lines on this thing which seem to be, not another property line, but, what are they? Are they just asphalt or? There are lines on the drawing that seem to go all over the place. This stuff here. Is this? MR. BROWN-It’s probably the limits of the pavement. MR. STONE-It’s the limits of the paving? MR. BROWN-I would guess. MR. M. HAYES-At one time, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. M. HAYES-As there was a lot of pavement removed from that part of (lost words) gravel and pavement (lost words). MR. STONE-I was just looking at it today. Just out of curiosity, who are the Rosses? MR. P. HAYES-The Rosses is Tom Ross, he’s an accountant that’s behind there. He would be like a second neighbor removed. There’s a pain and relief center directly behind Cool Beans, and then the next parcel behind that is Tom Ross. He’s a CPA, and he owns the right of way that goes between. MR. STONE-Okay. Because I see it going out to the Quaker Road. MR. P. HAYES-Right. He’s the legal owner of that. So that’s his involvement. MR. URRICO-Between the liquor store and? MR. P. HAYES-Yes. That’s a right of way that’s owned by Ross. MR. STONE-So nobody owns anything in there. MR. P. HAYES-No. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) MR. URRICO-In terms of timing, date wise, how did this all evolve? Where were you in the building process when you were notified that this would have to be changed, that these steps would be changed? MR. M. HAYES-I’d say about 70 or 80% through construction. MR. URRICO-When did you open, September, October? MR. M. HAYES-No. We opened in January. MR. URRICO-January. So six weeks would have put you into February/March. MR. M. HAYES-And we looked at saying, because of the steel stairs, about, their comments it could have been put over the cooler. We looked at that, but if we put the stairs from access over the cooler into the building, where the deliveries would come and you’d bring the products would go up stairs, where storage you’d have to park in the handicap parking on the left of the building. MR. STONE-In other words, deliveries are to the left, and that would have put it to the east. MR. P. HAYES-That’s where the bulk of the parking lot is, essentially. MR. STONE-Right. Any other questions of the applicant? MR. ABBATE-I’m still not sure I understand the timing, the timeframe on this thing. When were you notified that you had to make this modification? MR. KELLY-As far as steel stairs? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. KELLY-My name is Steve Kelly from Kelly Construction. We were actually in the process of building them, and then I called Dave Hatin to come over and to show us exactly how he wanted them, and that was, probably, I would say 2/3’s into the building of the. rd MR. ABBATE-When was this? I need a date. MR. KELLY-I would say August or September, around that time. MR. ABBATE-Of 2000, obviously. MR. KELLY-Correct. The building was up, everything was completed, and we were just doing the stairs and then, it would probably show on his record. We called him just about every day to make sure we were in compliance to what he wanted. MR. ABBATE-So it was brought to your attention in August/September of 2000 that the stairs would have to be converted to metal, steel, or whatever the case might be. MR. KELLY-Correct. MR. ABBATE-This is March of 2001. MR. KELLY-Correct. MR. ABBATE-Why are you just coming to the ZBA now asking for a variance? MR. P. HAYES-Basically because the final CO, the contingencies on the final CO is having a plan that meets all the criteria, including the site plan review, and Craig Brown has pointed out some of the things that needed to be finished for us to get our CO, and that’s what we’re here for. We’re here, in effect, this application and our parcel, as far as the Town’s concerned, it was, we were asked to cut some paving away, just the things that you do before you get a final CO, and that’s how the Town maintains enforcement, essentially. You’re not going to get it until everything’s kosher. MR. STONE-Well, when did you get your CO? MR. P. HAYES-We haven’t. MR. ABBATE-You have not received it? MR. P. HAYES-Not our final CO, no. This is a variance. They’re not going to. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) MR. STONE-Okay. So, but we have a policy that says without a CO you can still occupy the building? MR. P. HAYES-We could get a temporary CO to finish the work and perfect a plan. Even in the winter time, there was no possible way for Craig to inspect, you know, plantings and those type of things. So they don’t hold up a businessman or their operation, when there’s substantial compliance, from opening. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HAYES-Ultimately, I can tell you from an entrepreneurial standpoint, without a final CO, there’s no financing on the building. There’s no salability of the building in the long term. All those important things are in reserve (lost words). MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-And that’s not something that’s unconventional. We do that for residential, commercial, any type of construction. MR. STONE-It’s new to a lot of us here. It’s nice to know. That’s all. MR. BROWN-Temporary certificates are issued every day. MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else before I open the public hearing? Having said that, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of it? Anybody wishing to speak opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. STONE-Is there any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-So we have nothing from the offended neighbor, so to speak? MR. ABBATE-Have they been notified? MR. STONE-They’ve been notified, certainly. MR. BROWN-There should be a list in the file. MR. STONE-There’s nothing there. MR. BROWN-Well, there should be a list of people who were notified in the file. MR. STONE-I’m sure. Well, if he wasn’t, then it’s a real oversight. Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-It’s very telling, to me, that the offended neighbor, as I would call it, doesn’t say yes or no. Any other comments you want to make before we go around and talk about it? MR. ABBATE-Why is it telling to you, very telling to you? MR. STONE-Well, we rely heavily on comments of neighbors, and, in this case, the person who is most immediately affected, with the exception of the Town of Queensbury, which is why we’re here, of course, has no comment. MR. ABBATE-I agree. Is he incarcerated or something that he can’t be here? MR. P. HAYES-We intend to be neighbors for a long time. So we’ve worked with all, we’ve posted signs behind Cool Beans. MR. STONE-Yes, I’ve seen the signs. I saw the signs today. MR. P. HAYES-Anything that they’ve requested, wanted, we’ve got a vested interest. They’re customers. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) MR. STONE-Have you talked to Dr. Hoffman? Have you talked to him at all? MR. P. HAYES-During the building process, we talked to him every day. MR. M. HAYES-His wife comes in for coffee every day. MR. ABBATE-Let me ask you this, very fundamental. Is he aware of the fact that there’s going to be a near zero property line setback? He’s aware of that? MR. M. HAYES-I think so, and he was notified by mail. MR. ABBATE-Well, you said you talked to him. Did you bring this to his attention? MR. P. HAYES-Actually, if you look at that survey, part of their paving is on our property. MR. STONE-And who put the shrubs in? MR. M. HAYES-I think they that was the property line at one time. His, part of his parking lot is on our. MR. STONE-I know that, but did he put the shrubs in? MR. P. HAYES-No. They were there when he got it. MR. STONE-They were there for a long time. MR. P. HAYES-I guess what I’m saying is, as far as the zero setback, he has one with us as well. I mean, cars park actually on our property, and we don’t. MR. URRICO-A negative setback. MR. P. HAYES-Exactly. MR. STONE-Okay. Having said that, Roy, let’s start with you. What do you think? MR. URRICO-This is one of those situations, I don’t have the experience some of you have here. This is one of those situations where the facts don’t necessarily correlate to common sense, and I look at the property back there, and I just see one big black top common area that makes it accessible to get there from either the liquor store, from Aviation Road. I never go to the liquor store, by the way, and also, Dr. Hoffman there, he treats maybe two or three people at a time. It’s not like he’s going to have an overflowing parking lot, and I just don’t see a problem granting this relief. I think they’ve done, obviously tried to comply with everything that’s been asked of them, and that they’re seeking some help here, and I don’t see this as being much different than what they’ve requested before. They were obviously put into a bad situation, whether unknowingly or knowingly. It doesn’t matter at this point. I think the back side there is not going to be hindered in any way, by having the staircase there. I think there’s plenty of room, and I would approve it. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I can agree with most of what was just said, as far as attractiveness, practicality, and all of that, but I am bothered that it’s another, we’ve built it. Now give us the variance set up. I understand it might be very expensive to put the stairs in a different location, but I guess I end up on the negative side for two reasons. One is I think if it was any other applicant, I would be against it, and I would be against it if anybody else came in with this, without having asked first, and had at least explained or talked to us more about why the stairs couldn’t go on another part of the building. I just can’t get around, if it was any other applicant, I would say no, so I’m going to say no this time. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-In looking at it, you know, I think it’s obvious we could say, take the stairs down, move them over to some other corner of the building or something, but I really don’t see that that’s going to really, that the stairs where they presently are, are any grand detriment to the community or the neighborhood there. As Roy pointed out, it’s all black top back there, and it’s not like you’re intruding into some person’s back yard or some, you know, private property, so to speak, but at the same time, you know, the stairs were built where they were, and it’s a matter of, you know, Dave Hatin’s call. I mean, I don’t know if Dave’s mentioned where they should go at any point in time, you know, when you were putting them up, but I assume that the fact that the other stairs were approved to go in that area, you know, and at the same time, you mentioned the fact that the stairs 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) extended a little bit further from where they were. The stairs don’t follow the property line. So it’s not like they’re continuously following that property line. So I think they’re set back far enough, and I’d be in favor of approving it as is. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I’m in favor of approving it. I agree with Chuck that, under many circumstances, this amount of relief is kind of unusual, but we did approve it beforehand, for the limited purpose of having the stairway, at its one corner, get very close to the property line. The amount of relief, in addition to the astronomical amount we’ve already granted, is not that much different, and if I remember the car place that was there before them, it was basically one paved parking lot with a building similar in location to where this one is, and with, in my opinion, more congestion than what was there before. So this is certainly an improvement. It’s one of those things that happened during construction. I can see Mr. Hatin doing something like this and the Town requiring something like this, and perhaps there should have been a variance, but in the middle of these things, in the middle of construction, you don’t stop everything and lay people off in order to get a variance. So, I’m okay for it. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-I listened to Chuck down there, and I always like to listen to the other Board members, particularly on difficulty cases. I like to keep my options open, and until I heard Bob speak, I was ready to side with Chuck and say, absolutely not. However, Bob makes some rather interesting comments, which are accurate. I don’t think that the applicant did this on purpose, and says let’s challenge the Town. I don’t think it was one of those things, but until I heard the justification by Bob, I was ready to say no. Based upon the comments of Bob and several other members, I would say that, reluctantly, I would be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-I agree with the majority of the Board members for, basically, the same reasons. I am, however, concerned with the timing. I mean, I heard August/September from Mr. Kelly. I heard opening in January, and I know this to be the end of March. It seems to me somewhere along the line we should have been asked or at least put on notice, that this was happening, and then part of me says, well, the person who should be here is the building inspector. He should be the one seeking the variance. It doesn’t work that way, I recognize, but, again, if we fall back on something that Bob said and something we have said before, what would I do if this came before us, without it being built, and considering the fact that we allowed up to three and a half feet from the property line, when this thing first came up, going another three feet is not a huge amount, particularly when you look at the convoluted nature of this particular piece of property, or these properties and their entanglements, and who owns what and who doesn’t. So, having said that, I would, again, reluctantly, I think, as Mr. Abbate said, I would reluctantly go along, and having said that, I need a motion to approve this variance. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2001 MICHAEL S. HAYES PAUL J. HAYES, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 280 Quaker Road. The applicant has constructed a covered steel stairway to the second floor and they seek additional rear setback relief. The applicant is now requesting 24.5 feet of relief from the 25 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the HC-1A zone, Section 179-23. Previous Area Variance AV 106-1999 was granted the applicant a 3.6 foot rear setback. The current request is for an additional 3.1 feet of relief. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant will be permitted to maintain the existing stairway structure in the current location, and, based upon the comments of the applicant, in terms of cost and what have you, I believe that the approval would be in their best interest. Two, the feasible alternatives, well, the feasible alternatives may include relocation of the stairway to above the cooler area, property line adjustment, and internal access to the second floor. I don’t think this is practical, in view of the current set up. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 24.5 feet of relief from the 25 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial. However, as several members have pointed out, the additional 3.1 foot is not really in excess of what we already previously granted. The effects on the neighborhood or community, moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action, and, as far as I can determine, I’ve heard this evening, I did not hear any letters or individuals objecting, during the public meeting, to this proposal. So, in view of that information, I would propose that we approve Area Variance No. 19-2001. Duly adopted this 28 day of March, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNally, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNulty 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes MR. STONE-Okay. MR. P. HAYES-Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. We have a few minutes to approve. It says the 24 last month, of January. I th don’t have 24. Does somebody have them? Thank you. th CORRECTION OF MINUTES January 24, 2001: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 24, 2001 MEETING, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 28 day of March, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McNally ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes MR. STONE-Okay. 2/21, now I wasn’t here. Mr. Hayes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood. So we have six of the seven. Now, Mr. Bryant wasn’t here. Everybody else is here. MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 21, 2001 MEETING OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 28 day of March, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNally NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Stone ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes MR. STONE-I’ve got the 28. Is everybody comfortable with the 28? The diatribes. Mr. Hayes, thth Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Underwood and Urrico. So we have, yes. MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 28, 2001 MEETING OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 28 day of March, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNally, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Stone ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes MR. BROWN-Further business. There’s one application I gave you. There’s going to be two. The applicants have submitted variances that have been denied. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-They’d like to know if they’re suitable for re-hearing. One is the End garage application, up on Seeley Road. They want it closer to Seeley Road, septic. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) MR. HAYES-That’s right. The one that was on like the corner there? Kind of where the road snakes like that. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HAYES-Could you give us the cliff notes on this, though? MR. BROWN-This was brought in this afternoon. I haven’t even looked at it. Nor have I looked at this one. MR. STONE-Well, what’s the difference? MR. BROWN-I’ll have to look at it. MR. ABBATE-So we’re waiting for you to do an evaluation. MR. STONE-Well, we have to do an evaluation. MR. ABBATE-We need Staff notes. MR. BROWN-I can’t give you Staff notes if you don’t put it on the agenda. MR. ABBATE-I see. MR. STONE-End zoning variance, I like it. What did we do here? Let’s look back on the application. MR. MC NALLY-He wrote me a letter, this guy. MR. ABBATE-Yes, I received a letter, as well. MR. HAYES-This Miller was the one that was like a neighborhood battle. There was a lot of like. MR. STONE-Yes, the Miller one we’ve got here. MR. BROWN-What they did before is they had it way over in the corner, I think two feet from this line, two feet from this line, and five feet from this line. MR. STONE-Correct. MR. BROWN-They’ve pushed it back about 20 feet here, about 6 feet there, and about 7 feet there. MR. STONE-Well, what kind of relief do they need now? MR. BROWN-They need. MR. STONE-The second garage. MR. BROWN-Side setback relief, and setback relief here. MR. STONE-And still second garage, though. MR. BROWN-And front, because the front is supposed to be 30. MR. STONE-And it’s still the second garage. MR. BROWN-Is that what it was before? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BROWN-Okay. Yes, the second garage, because there’s an attached garage on the house. MR. STONE-Right. MR. ABBATE-That’s one of the reasons we disapproved it. MR. STONE-We need unanimous, right? Let’s talk about it. It’s still got a second garage. MR. MC NALLY-Are we discussing the End variance? 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) MR. STONE-We’re discussing the End. They still want a second garage. We have this application before us. They have moved this, but they still want a second garage. I am inclined to, since we don’t like second garages or I don’t like second garages, I don’t think it’s significantly different. It’s not where it’s placed. It’s what it is. In my mind. MR. ABBATE-I agree with you. Nothing has really changed. MR. HAYES-The location has changed, but they still want a second garage. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BROWN-It was my recollection from the last meeting that the location was so close to the property line and the corner, I don’t remember a second garage being a big deal, but if that’s why you don’t think it’s a significant change, that’s your decision. MR. MC NALLY-Well, Mr. Stone, do I see this current application as there’s still an attached garage? MR. STONE-They still have an attached garage. MR. MC NALLY-All right. That building is still going to stay there with the brick steps? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And that new garage in the southwest corner of the property, as depicted, that’s what they’re saying? MR. UNDERWOOD-There is an existing one. MR. MC NALLY-Right. They’re just going to adjust it and move it around. MR. STONE-Yes. The one with the brick steps is still here. They’ve moved this, it looks to me, a little bit out of this kitty corner area. MR. HAYES-The one question, are they doing this to protect their septic? MR. BROWN-That was the question that was raised the last time. MR. HAYES-That may be why they’re moving the existing garage. That’s the only thing. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. HAYES-This is new. MR. ABBATE-Here’s a letter that addresses that issue right there. MR. STONE-What does it say? MR. BROWN-I don’t think the septic system has failed and it’s required to be replaced, but their desire is to upgrade it. MR. ABBATE-They talk about drinking and recreation water quality, etc., etc., being forced to place a leach field in the middle of the property. MR. MC NALLY-When we did this last time, was the septic system proposed just south of the garage? MR. BROWN-It was proposed between, in a similar area to where it is now. MR. MC NALLY-But didn’t we discuss the possibility of there being alternative places for it? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And that was one of the reasons it was denied. Because there was a suitable other location. MR. BROWN-I believe it was, yes. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) MR. HAYES-I think, if I remember correctly, though, one of the biggest things was they had, one of the setbacks was like two feet from the road. I mean, where they propose to put it, and everybody was like that’s. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. URRICO-So he moved it back to eight feet. MR. HAYES-Right. Now whether that’s a big enough change is the question. MR. BROWN-I think it was proposed about two feet from that private drive, about five feet from the neighboring property line, and whatever that left, I think three feet to Seeley Road setback. So it was jammed right up in the corner there. MR. MC NALLY-Now we’re eight feet from that crushed stone road? MR. BROWN-From the property line, yes. MR. STONE-I wish we had the other. MR. BROWN-I just got it this afternoon. MR. STONE-Well, you got it this afternoon. Just because you got it this afternoon doesn’t mean we have to act on it tonight, quite frankly. MR. ABBATE-Yes. I agree. I’d rather go over the previous information. MR. STONE-I mean, we have to determine whether this is significantly different, and I’ve got to know what is significantly. MR. ABBATE-And I can’t determine it from just this. MR. STONE-So please tell them that when we have it in a timely fashion, we will consider it. MR. ABBATE-I agree. MR. STONE-I think we have to do it that way. Everybody agree? MR. ABBATE-Yes, absolutely. MR. STONE-All right. I move that, I don’t have to move anything, do I? MR. BROWN-I’m just going to look through this real quick and see if they reference anything from the other application. MR. STONE-Well, it was going to be four feet from one place, but I, hey, you know. MR. ABBATE-It seems to me we have other concerns, too. MR. STONE-Yes. I’d like to see the minutes. MR. BROWN-The resolution is here to deny it. MR. STONE-Yes, but I’d like to see the minutes. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. STONE-Which you know we don’t keep. MR. BROWN-January 24. th MR. STONE-We just looked at January 24. No, I didn’t have it. Where’s January 24? thth MR. URRICO-I just threw it out. MR. ABBATE-We had made a motion to disapprove it. MR. URRICO-Right. It was based on the location of it, so close to the road. I mean, there were other objections, but that was. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) MR. ABBATE-I seconded it. I remember that, but there were other things we were discussing, as well. MR. URRICO-There were feasible alternatives. MR. BROWN-Their answer to the criteria questions, the first one talks about the first variance was submitted. MR. STONE-Remember, that was the one where Tom Jarrett said they didn’t have to do anything to get an acceptable leachfield in there. MR. UNDERWOOD-There was room on the side. MR. STONE-There was room on the side. Tom said, I asked him, “Okay, and that brings up a question, is it possible to get a sufficiently large leach field in where the old one is, 100 feet from the lake”, Mr. Jarrett said “Yes”, without doing anything, I asked, when you say without doing anything, without removing or moving structures, yes, that’s correct. MR. ABBATE-I remember that. MR. STONE-So they didn’t have to do anything to get the leachfield in. So, by moving the garage it’s something they want to do, not because they have to do it to make a better thing. Let’s see what you guys said here. We’ve got Mr. Underwood: “Given the fact it can be relocated without moving the building, you know, I see this as maybe a sideways attempt to create a new garage there on the property, and I, you know, I would be opposed to that, given the fact that it’s going to require such shorter setbacks from the property lines and the road”. Norm Himes said, “My sentiments are, I agree with what Jim has just said. I think the existing garage is already too close to the road, dangerously close, and to put it where it’s proposed would add to possible problems on Seeley Road…I would not be in favor”. Mr. Abbate says, “Well, Mr. Salvador makes a good point”. MR. ABBATE-Well, you know, you have to call it like it is sometimes. MR. STONE-“I’m not an engineer. That’s originally why I said why aren’t the original applicants here. Because I’d like to know, you know, where the leach field is located, specifically, and Mr. Salvador made a point, well, you could pump water into it”. MR. ABBATE-And he was right. MR. STONE-All right, and then Roy talked about the five things, not hearing from the community. He didn’t think it was a good idea. Jamie, looking at it the same way Roy did. “I think if you go by the parts of the test, I think that there’s no doubt that there’s feasible alternatives”. So we didn’t really look, from what I can see, with the second garage. Well, anyway, no, Bob talks about it. He says, after a few things, “We have to look at it, first it’s torn down, and then we talk about the relief requested from the new structure, and if this were a new application coming in, somebody wanted to build a second garage on this lot, I would say, no, there’s a garage on it already, and there’s no justification for a second garage. So I’m on the negative side, too.” And I concurred with everybody. It’s great being last. I think we’ve got to see where it, unless you guys feel that just by having a second garage, since they’ve got to rebuild it. MR. URRICO-That wasn’t the condition we denied it. MR. STONE-We denied it. The motion to deny says, “Propose to relocate a reconstruction of a 550 square foot garage….Further, since the residence on the property currently has an attached garage, relief is requested for the construction of a second garage. I recommend we deny this application, based on the following criteria….The cumulative request for relief may be interpreted as substantial.” So the garage was considered in there, not specifically spelled out, but that was part of the cumulative effect. MR. BROWN-Not to argue for the applicant, but they’re not here to, a vote to rehear doesn’t mean you like it any more. It just means that you vote that it’s different, and you can deny it again if you want to. MR. STONE-We understand. MR. URRICO-Well, six feet further from two feet is substantial. It may not be enough, but. MR. BROWN-Right. It still may not be enough to satisfy your desires when you review it, but is it different from the last one. I think that’s. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) MR. MC NALLY-I’m not satisfied that it’s substantially different. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. HAYES-I agree. MR. STONE-I’m sorry. What did you agree? MR. HAYES-I don’t think it’s substantially different enough. MR. STONE-Okay. I don’t think so, either. MR. BROWN-Okay. That’s fine with me. MR. ABBATE-And this is based upon the fact that it’s merely moving, what is it, what feet to six feet? MR. URRICO-Two to six. MR. ABBATE-Two to six. MR. URRICO-Two to eight. MR. ABBATE-Two to eight. MR. URRICO-Six feet difference. MR. ABBATE-Six feet difference, two to eight. MR. HAYES-Some of the other setbacks may have increased them more than that, but that’s the closest one. MR. STONE-Okay. MOTION THAT WE AGREE THAT THERE IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO THE PROJECT REQUESTED OF ROBERT & PATRICIA END AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2001 AND THAT WE WILL NOT RE-HEAR THE APPLICATION AS PROPOSED, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 28 day of March, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNally, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes MR. STONE-Was there another one? MR. BROWN-There’s another one. Steve Miller, a little more recent, Marley Way, Glen Lake. MR. HAYES-This is the guy with two sheds and had one too close to the property line. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. He’s the guy that I had the letter from. MR. BROWN-And I just looked at the proposal here, and I’ve spoken to him on the phone, a couple of times. The differences are the smaller, I think it was a red shed, is proposed to be removed. That was discussed last time. He’s increased the property line setback from a foot and a half to three feet, and still wants to maintain, I think, the four foot setback to his carport. MR. HAYES-So he’s made it two and a half feet, then. MR. BROWN-He’s moved it a foot and a half. MR. HAYES-And he still wants two sheds? MRS. BROWN-No. He wants to take that red shed out of there. If you look at the drawing, the red shed’s not on there. He’s removed that. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) MR. STONE-The shed proposed, gray original. Where is this? I wasn’t here I know. MR. BROWN-Birdsall Road, Marley Way. MR. STONE-This was on Birdsall. This is the one we got the letter on. Where there were innuendoes flying back and forth that property lines were here and there. MR. ABBATE-But wasn’t there a stipulation that if it were approved, he would remove that? It seems to me? No, there was not? MR. HAYES-He talked about that. No, you were on the right track. We talked about it, because that was part of the, we were saying you’ve got two sheds as it is. MR. ABBATE-Right. Well, I remember talking about that saying, you know, just make sure that one shed is removed, but he is removing it, right, Craig? MR. BROWN-His plan, his proposal shows the removal of the smaller shed, relocation of the larger shed to three feet from the property line, and still, I think it was four feet to the carport. MR. ABBATE-Where does it say removal, what page are you on? MR. BROWN-The map. MR. ABBATE-The map, but we don’t have anything in writing saying. MR. MC NALLY-You don’t have any motions? MR. STONE-I’ve got the motion. Do you want the motion? I’ll give you the motion. MR. ABBATE-Yes, please. MR. STONE-All right, Motion to Deny Variance, by Mr. McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. McNulty, “29 Marley Way. The applicant has relocated two accessory structures on the property and seeks relief from the setback requirements. Specifically, Mr. Miller requests four feet of relief from the five foot minimum side setback requirement of accessory structures and uses regulations, that is Section 179-67 of the Town Zoning Ordinance. Also, the applicant seeks relief from the 10 foot minimum separation distance for accessory structures under that same ordinance. although a very close question, and I sympathize with Mr. Miller, the variance should be denied for the following reasons. First, there are feasible alternatives on the lot as it currently exists, for the construction of a storage structure of some kind that would be compliant with the Town Zoning Ordinance. Feasible alternatives also would include removal of one or more of the sheds, or actual relocation of them to a more compliant location. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? In my opinion four feet of relief from the five foot requirement, which the Chairman has indicated is a relatively minimal requirement for a setback, is substantial. I think the relief is substantial. The effects on the neighborhood are demonstrated by the comments of the neighbors throughout the area, to the effect that this is something that they do not want, and particularly from the comments of the Bartis’, with respect to the impact it will have on their property, being so close to their line. The difficulty was self-created. The applicant has substantial storage structures on the plot, including a garage, which was constructed and necessitated moving of the shed, the covered concrete slab, and two separate accessory storage buildings. These were set on the line where they are now, in or about 1996, and there should have been some anticipation of what the setback requirements were. For all these reasons, I move the denial of the application.” MR. BROWN-Also I think last time you suggested that, if he moved the shed to the five foot setback, you’d be more comfortable giving him setback relief from his own house, rather than from the property line. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. MC NALLY-So now he wants to keep both, one of the sheds. MR. BROWN-Keep the biggest shed. MR. MC NALLY-Move it three and a half feet from the line. MR. BROWN-Move it to be three feet from the line. MR. MC NALLY-And four feet from the house. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/28/01) MR. BROWN-Four feet from the house. MR. STONE-You need to re-apply with an application that is different than this one, or, Mr. Brown said, or relocate the shed to a compliant location, and Mr. Hayes says, or relocate the shed, one or the other. MR. HAYES-I mean, that’s how I felt. I felt that he was asking for both ends of the deal, and that was, to me, that was too much. MR. MC NALLY-So it’s a change of how many feet? MR. HAYES-A foot and a half. MR. BROWN-A foot and a half. MR. MC NALLY-And that’s the change that’s proposed in this plan? MR. STONE-A foot and a half change? MR. BROWN-I think he proposed a foot and a half last time, and he wants to move it to three, and he’s removed the small shed. MR. URRICO-He proposed a foot before. MR. BROWN-He proposed a foot before? So he’s moving it two feet. MR. STONE-Well, I wasn’t here. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s not a substantial change. MR. HAYES-It doesn’t seem like it, to me. He didn’t hear what you were saying, it doesn’t sound like to me. MR. URRICO-We were discussing this, when he was sitting there, after we had made the vote. He said, can’t we compromise, can’t I just move it a couple of feet? So this seems like an extension of what he was trying to do, but that part of the session was already closed. MR. STONE-And you don’t think it’s substantially different? So, why don’t you make the motion, Jamie. MOTION THAT THE CHANGED APPLICATION BY MR. STEVE MILLER AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2001 29 MARLEY WAY DOES NOT REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH DIFFERENCE FROM HIS ORIGINAL APPLICATION TO MERIT A RE- HEARING BASED ON OUR STANDARDS, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 28 day of March, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes MR. HAYES-Do you want both these back, Craig? MR. STONE-Okay. I move we adjourn. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 37