Loading...
2002-04-24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 24, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY ALLAN BRYANT ROY URRICO PAUL HAYES JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT NORMAN HIMES CHARLES MC NULTY CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. STONE-Before I call the first application, I want to draw your attention to something that is happening on May 18 from 8:30 a.m. to noon, at the Scoville Learning Center at Adirondack Community College, there th will be a Queensbury Open Space public planning workshop, and the Town’s Community Development Department invites you to come and participate. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2002 TYPE: HAYES & HAYES PROPERTY OWNER: WEST MOUNTAIN LAND TRUST ARCHIE MESSENGER, TRUSTEE AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. LOCATION: WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD (WEST SIDE), SOUTH OF POTTER RD. ZONE: SR-1A & RR-3A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 12 DUPLEX TOWNHOUSES, 3 FOUR-PLEX TOWNHOUSES AND 5 ONE-ACRE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME SITE (TOTAL OF 41 UNITS). RELIEF IS REQUIRED FROM DENSITY REQUIREMENTS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 4/10/2002 OLD TAX MAP NO. 87-1-21 NEW TAX MAP NO. 300.00-1-19 LOT SIZE: 33.53 ACRES SECTION 179-15, 179-19 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MICKY HAYES, PRESENT MR. HAYES-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to recuse myself for fairly obvious reasons, for this application. MR. STONE-So excused. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 22-2002, Hayes & Hayes, Meeting Date: April 24, 2002 “Project Location: West Mountain Road (west side), south of Potter Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of 12 duplex townhouses, 3 four-plex townhouses and 5 one-acre single- family home sites (total of 41 units). Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the density requirements of the SR-1A zone, § 179-19. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired project. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a slightly lesser proposal. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: Lacking a complete and accurate density calculation, it is impossible to identify the exact relief requested. Given a conservative estimate by staff that would allow the applicant approximately 29 units, the relief requested may be interpreted as moderate (approximately 41%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: As a result of the proposed site cleanup, moderate positive aesthetic effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. As a result of the increased density proposed, minimal to moderate negative effects 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.): AV 52-2001: tabled 09/19/01; 98 unit townhouse project. Application discontinued in favor of current application. Staff comments: Staff has identified the accepted practice for density calculation used when determining the number of allowable units for a project such as this; total parcel area within zoning district minus unbuildable lands, lands for public use, roads and easements divided by the minimum lot size allowable for the district equals the maximum allowable units. The majority of this property has been zoned SR-1A and requires a minimum of one acre per dwelling unit. The total allowable units, based on conservative estimates by staff, equals 29 (including 1 for the 3.8 acres in the RR-3A Zone). Based on the 29 allowable units, minimal to moderate effects may be anticipated as a 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) result of this action, mainly due to the expected increase in traffic. However, how much should the moderate positive aesthetic effects on the neighborhood be considered when balanced against potential negative effects on the neighborhood? Another area of consideration is the length of the dead-end street (approximately 1220 feet to the cul-de-sac). §A-183-23 (14) of the Subdivision of Land allows for a maximum of 1000 feet for dead-end roads. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted” MR. STONE-County? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t see any. I think it was to approve. MR. STONE-There’s that, but that’s all we got? MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s all we got. MR. STONE-Just say what the County action was. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We don’t have the County thing, but it was submitted to the County for Area Variance 22-2002, Project Name: Hayes and Hayes, and their action was to approve the project. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with the applicant, Micky Hayes, Landscape Architect Jim Miller, and Project Engineer Tom Nace. MR. STONE-Let me just ask one question, or a couple of questions before you start. This is a new application? MR. LAPPER-Treat it however you’d like. MR. STONE-Well, you’ve made references to the old one, and yet I have been told this is supposed to be treated as a new application. MR. LAPPER-Well, I’m not sure if there’s a significance to that. We came in in August. We went to the Planning Board because Staff suggested that we get planning referral and we did, and that was positive, and we came back to the Zoning Board, and we listened to objections from the neighbors, and we kind of went back to the drawing board to come up with something that was less dense, but Micky had to find a way to be able to afford the clean up and that’s why we’re here to talk about it, with a smaller project, and so we view this as a continuation of the same process. It’s the same project, but because a few months have passed, Staff asked us to resubmit the application. This is all that’s on the table before you, but we certainly will reference in our discussion some of the things that happened and some of the things raised by the public in the fall. MR. STONE-Okay. Go. MR. LAPPER-I guess that said, I’d like to start with just the premise that for an Area Variance the test is balancing the interest of the applicant versus the interest of the neighborhood, and what we feel we’re doing here is something that is positive for the neighborhood, although apparently there are members of the neighborhood who are concerned. The former Ashton Cement Property site, which we’ve got a number of photographs of and I’m sure, I know that the Board has previously been to the site, and I assume that the Board has recently been there as well. The property was left in a dire state when it ceased being used for industrial use. The most egregious of which is an acre and a half field of concrete that was just dumped there when the trucks came back with their unused loads. It is great expense to clean this up, and that’s why many developers that I'm aware of have looked at the site over the past 20 some odd years and have not been willing to or just not been willing to undertake it, and that’s why it’s sat there, and it’s certainly an eyesore in its present condition, a hazardous nuisance that attracts kids and motorbikes, what have you, and Micky’s plan here is to develop it with a cluster and to essentially use some of the concrete on the site to recycle it, to use it as a road bed, to try and make it as affordable as he can to afford to develop the site, and we’ll explain that to you in a little more detail, but there can be clearly no argument that this site is an eyesore and is a problem for the Town, and that’s why it’s sat there, and we thin that the increase in density that we’re asking for to justify this is relatively modest. Certainly compared to the prior application it’s relatively modest, at 41. It’s modest because we’ve now included the single family uses along West Mountain Road to maintain the character of West Mountain Road, but at the same time remember, we’re not here asking for a Use Variance. The multifamily aspect, which are just twin town homes, is a permitted use in the zone. So that’s not something that we needed to come before you to ask for permission. It’s really just the number of units, and whether the number is 29 or 31, when you do the calculation, and there’s some discrepancy because the Code isn’t clear about how this subdivision calculation should work in this case, but then that really comes down to an easement which is subsurface should be subtracted from it, but regardless. Even if we’re the most conservative, like Staff mentioned, and we talk about 29 versus 41, rather than 31 versus 41, it doesn’t at all change the character of the project because the multifamily units are clustered in the center of the project with the single family in front and a large buffer around the edges. So passing by on West Mountain Road or 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) from any of the immediate neighbors, it’s very well buffered, but the benefit to the Town is that the eyesore that’s there and the danger that’s there gets cleaned up as a result of this, and we think that that certainly weighs in favor of the applicant, in terms of the balancing test. I’d like, at this point, to ask Micky to just walk you through some of the photographs, and we have some more recent ones that we’ll just hand up to you to take a look at, that just shows what’s there, in terms of the steel and concrete and abandon vehicles. We previously submitted, and the Staff referred to that in their notes, the $270,000 price for having somebody come in and haul everything away, and that’s real, and that’s with two different quotes, and that’s why we’re asking for the density variance to justify that cost. MR. HAYES-Hello, I’m Micky Hayes. I’ve got some photos. I don’t know if you can see the board. You can pass them around. Basically the changes we made from our last plan is that we basically tightened up the project more towards West Mountain, which keeps us away from the Glens Falls City water line, which we felt was going to cause us some difficulty, being the condition of that line is a little suspect, and we were a little nervous about crossing that line and potentially damaging it, even as careful as you can be, because some parts are in such disrepair, we felt maybe that that could be a real liability for us, being there could be tremendous damage done by vibrating equipment, and the cost for us to cross that, being the regulations that they would impose on us. So we tightened up the project. We kept as much as we could into the areas that are already cleared, which saves us quite a bit of money, being the trees are a very difficult thing to get rid of these days. So we only have to clear, less than 12% of the site has to be cleared. It’s already clear. The bigger problem is actually re-vegetating the site because it was stripped of soil vegetation. One of our biggest problems is getting enough topsoil back in here so we can actually have the grass so it will be more aesthetically pleasing, and we plan on, we looked into getting a tree spade to transfer a lot of the trees in the back, and put them in the front yard to give it a more green and more mature look, similar to what we’re going to try to do on Ridge Road with the project we’re doing right now. We’re trying to have a project that looks mature and looks like it’s been there a while. So it blends in, the grass is nice, and it has more of aesthetic feel to it. We also decided to put five lots on the front, to keep it more in character with the neighborhood, having single family homes in the front, and actually our property manager is hoping to build one lot there. My brother is considering building a house there, as well, and as of right now, there’s a hole, which the groundwater fills, which we call the pond. We’d like to shape that up, and make it an aesthetic plus instead of a swamp hole and a bug infested area that it is now. We’d like to have the people looking over the pond and using stone along the sides. So the stone gets wet instead of the mud and muck that’s currently there. We’d have to dredge it because there was quite a bit of cement dumped in it and there’s tires and barrels and parts of vehicles in there. We just feel that it’s a great use of the property, but we feel that we need a little increase in density to help defray some of the costs that, as you’ve probably walked the site, it’s amazing that it was left the way it was, but underneath it all, we believe it’s a beautiful piece of property, and most of these units are five to six hundred feet off the road, which we feel would be a really nice asset for the people who live there. It would be a nice rural setting for the people that decide to reside there, and the people with the homes here would be able to enjoy the use of the pond as well, and we decided to go with one entrance to the road, instead of a loop, partly because the neighbor, we’ve tried to keep the traffic as far away from this neighbor here, which is Kelly Carte. His house is right in this area approximately. So we tried to take everything into consideration when we designed the plan, and still make it make sense economically. The photos, you have some copies, but they’re all throughout here, we have basically we have an area that’s about an acre and a half, as just a concrete pad. They just poured the concrete over the years. Then there was the pit that they dumped over the side, which kind of looks like the surface of the moon. That goes around pretty much the perimeter of the pond, except for the left side. There’s building footings and pilings from their batch plants and their workshops. There’s 30 years of tires and inner tubes buried within the soils. There’s a few cement trucks up in the woods. The vegetation’s actually growing around it because they’ve been there quite a while. There’s office furniture. There’s just basically everything. It looks kind of like Mad Max out there, and it’s basically right now is a motor cross area, and kids ride motorbikes and four-wheelers and party. That’s basically what it is right now, and the owners of the property now are currently very nervous about their liability, being the action, being there was a Jeep stuck in the middle of the pond, a couple of days ago. A Jeep rolled over on the top on the trails because, as you’ve probably seen, there’s a pretty substantial trail system that goes up into the West Mountain area there. So it’s a kind of an uncontrollable thing, but we feel that it’ll be nice, and a lot of this can be cleaned up, and we’ve learned some things through our projects here, that we feel that we can recycle a lot of this concrete, instead of handling it two or three times. We can actually recycle it and use that on the site, as Item Four, which gives us our road beds and stuff, instead of handling that, hauling it away, dumping it. The previous plans that were actually tentatively approved for a subdivision, they planned on taking the pit area, which we call the pond, and dumping all the concrete in the pond. We see the pit become a pond and be a nice asset. So we feel that we can make it work but we just need some more density to help pay the tab. We feel that we’ve had a tremendous response in our Ridge Road property, which probably most of you are aware of, and we actually have a lot of people that would love to live here and build houses. So that’s what we’re looking for. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question? Did you deduct the recycling the cost of that concrete from that $270,000? MR. HAYES-The net result is probably, we figure to save about $29,000, you could take $29,000 off that. That’s our best guess, with how much they say we can do with a crusher in a day. We really don’t know, but 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) we feel pretty confident in that if the material turns out as good as we hope, it’s done a lot downstate, I guess, and towards the metropolitan areas because there’s so much waste concrete. MR. STONE-Since the question came up, I would like to, and Mr. Lapper did say that some of the information from the old application is applicable, in a letter dated August 28, 2001, from Mr. Lapper to me, it said, additionally Micky Hayes has prepared various pro forma analyses for a 30 unit clustering project, a 60 unit clustering project, an 80 unit clustering project and 110 unit, as well as 22 lot subdivision and a 40 lot subdivision. These pro forma’s show that even at an 80 unit clustering level, the project only provides a minimal return of the investment. Would you comment on that, please? MR. HAYES-Yes, sure. We feel that we’ve saved, not in clean up costs, but there’s also site costs. You have a clean up cost and you have site costs, as far as moving all the earth. As you can see, the embankment goes up quite a bit here. When you stop, you don’t have to move as much earth, there’s a substantial savings on engineering, infrastructure, that’s a huge savings, and as well the fact that we are unlocking some value from the lots in the front, whatever we net after we clean those up of $15, $18, $19, $20,000, that will help us pay the tab to get this corrected, and make it more of a single resident housing, what you see on that area, and we feel the savings with the Item Four, but that’s on clean up cost, and the fact that we’re not even, the clearing has become a huge expense because of the cost to get rid of trees, brush. It’s an unbelievable problem at this point, in this area. We’re actually pulling ourselves out of the area that needs to be cleared and plus saving on the cost of crossing that line, the easement line. You have to meet all the criteria to cross that line with a road and all the utilities, which is a very difficult thing, which is a substantial savings as well, and also, to be honest with you, the market for these town homes is fantastic, by our experience on Ridge Road, that we’re able to get a little more rent than we thought even six months ago. MR. STONE-That’s another question. Are these all rentals, ownership, or a combination? MR. HAYES-Well, the houses in front are going to be for sale. People will own them on their own, and the ones in the back will be long term rentals. We don’t allow anything under a three year lease. MR. STONE-Okay. So the 36 units will be long term rentals. MR. HAYES-Yes. We own quite a few residences. Our average stay for, in this level of rentals, is almost 7.8 years per residence, which is actually close to being what it is for people who own a house. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Please bear with me. I get confused at times, so you’ll have to help me out. The initial application that you folks submitted to us was a rather sizeable project. I think we could all agree to that. This new project, I’m assuming, is a result of hindsight, and the reason I say that is that when the project was initially presented to this Board, it was, my goodness gracious, if this project is not approved as we submitted it, we will lose money. Now you’re submitting to this Board about a 50% reduction in the project. Does that mean it’s going to be all pro bono to the Town? No profit? MR. HAYES-No profit to the Town? MR. ABBATE-No, no profit to you? MR. HAYES-We don’t do things pro bono. Some people pretend to. MR. LAPPER-Part of what Micky just explained, I want to back up a little bit. Usually for an Area Variance, we wouldn’t be submitting the financial hardship information which we did last time, but because the density increase was so dramatic last time, to 98 units, the Planning Staff felt that it would be appropriate, and that’s why we submitted the pro forma’s. In this case we’re looking for 10 or 12 units beyond what you could have, and I didn’t finish before I handed the mic over to Micky. The other reason why this is not a big impact on the neighborhood is that the average density here would be about eight tenths of an acre on this site, and that’s really more than many of the older subdivisions in the area that are closer to a half acre or less. So just in terms of whether it fits with the character, just the average density is really larger than what you’d have, but what Micky was just going through was his economic analysis of how, over these last few months, in redesigning the project, both the cost of the development, by pulling it forward and having less clearing, and the cost of recycling, by doing some of it themselves, rather than subbing it all out. So that’s really the answer to your question, the details that Micky just gave. MR. ABBATE-So even though, in spite of the fact this is about a 50% reduction, the corporation or the business, however you have aligned yourself, I don’t know what you’re called, will still be in the profit margin area? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-That’s remarkable. Thank you. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. STONE-Okay. We interrupted you, and we apologize. I did, but, go ahead. You’ve got more. MR. LAPPER-No. I think that’s probably it for our principal case, and we’ll listen to questions from the Board and react to the public. MR. STONE-Okay. Gentlemen? MR. ABBATE-May I, please? Well, you addressed the first concern about the 50%, in terms of still making a profit. Let me ask you my three other concerns, and the we can take it one at a time so that we don’t spend a lot of time on this. You refer to Paragraph 179-19A. 179-19A deals with, I think a different variance than what you’re basically looking for. Is that correct? Did you refer to the right one? Did you refer to the old or the new zoning laws? MR. LAPPER-We submitted under the old code. MR. STONE-We’re in the new. No, we’re on the old one. MR. ABBATE-We’re on the old one, okay, that takes care of that one. Because what the new one refers to is relief from commercial driveway standards. Now the other area that I’m concerned with is 1,220 feet cul de sac. Our Ordinances in the Town of Queensbury make quite clear 1,000, if I’m not mistaken, Bruce, help me out, is maximum. MR. FRANK-That is the old regulation also for length of a dead end road in a subdivision. MR. LAPPER-The answer there is that I believe that that requirement is when you’re going to dedicate a road to the Town, for a Town road, but this would be a private road. So I don’t think that that applies. MR. ABBATE-So it’s the position of Counsel that it doesn’t apply. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. ABBATE-And it’s my position that it does. MR. LAPPER-Okay. If that did apply, it would require a variance for the 200 feet on the length of the road. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. FRANK-Just for the record, I was instructed by the Zoning Administrator that’s a site plan issue anyway. So it’s not before the Board here as far as. MR. ABBATE-Right. Thank you, but I like these things cleared up in my mind, because I get confused. MR. URRICO-Is it your position that, in order to be profitable, you need more than 29 units? MR. LAPPER-Yes. That in this case the remediation costs, plus the land acquisition costs, and the development costs, that it can’t be done for the 29 or 31 units, but the fact that the property’s been on the market for 20 years and in a booming Queensbury residential period, should be some indication that, because the sign’s been up. It’s been marketed, that other people, although we don’t have them here to testify, that other developers have been looking at this, and that it is cost prohibitive. MR. URRICO-Because it’s a brown field site? MR. LAPPER-No. We have not found any indication that it’s, I mean, it may be brown field, but there’s nothing hazardous, but it’s certainly, just in terms of non-hazardous waste. MR. URRICO-So it’s not a brown field site. Because in the earlier application, you referred to, we have the numbers that refer to brown field. MR. LAPPER-Yes. As a term of art, it’s industrial waste, but it’s not hazardous waste. MR. STONE-It’s c & d, in other words. MR. LAPPER-Yes. It’s more like construction and demolition debris, which Micky was referring to in terms of the tree clearing. That’s gotten very expensive as well. MR. STONE-Would you comment on how wastewater is going to be handled? I mean, I looked on the thing, and there’s lots of. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. LAPPER-Since the engineer is here, we’ll let Mr. Nace respond. TOM NACE MR. NACE-Okay. Of course on the lots out front, it would be handled like any residential subdivision. Each individual house would have its own septic. On the remainder of the subdivision in back, there will be combined systems of two, two units going into a single septic system. Some of those will be located right beside the unit. Some of them may be located out in front of or even across the road, but the soils are good. They’re sandy soils. There’s plenty of depth of soil to groundwater, and there should be no problem with the individual septic systems. MR. STONE-And they will be maintained by the owners of the town houses? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. STONE-Namely Hayes and Hayes? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. STONE-I notice, again, I know a lot of these are site plan, but we’re dealing with a lot of questions here, and we’re going to hear a lot of things. So we can anticipate them. I see the drawing shows dual driveways on two pair of lots, and then one driveway off of the private road, which obviously will be handled with easements and all that sort of thing. Where do you envision, how long are these driveways going to be, these double ones? How long will they be double, and how far into the property will they go, just out of curiosity? JIM MILLER MR. MILLER-Obviously, that depends a lot on where people choose, the lots are fairly large, one acre lots, and it depends on how far back into the property people choose to put their homes, but the road, the property line to West Mountain Road is the normal distance to any streets. So if they located their house fairly close, we’re showing a driveway that would enter at the corner of the property and turn into the property, so it could be as little as 40 feet, or if they decided they wanted to be further back, they could extend it back as far as they wanted to. We’ve shown, basically we’d be looking at doing a six lot subdivision, and in this zone, to have a 150 foot wide lot, it requires a shared driveway on West Mountain Road. So that’s what we’ve shown is three driveways with the third driveway as you refer to being the boulevard entrance that would go to the multifamily units, and that lot adjacent to that entry would access by that boulevard driveway, and essentially the driveway would come in to the side of that lot, and again, that driveway may be as little as 40, 50 feet, or if they wanted to set back further, it could be 100 feet. MR. LAPPER-Obviously, the intention of the Code is to minimize curb cuts on one of the collector roads. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, I have another question. MR. STONE-Sure, go ahead. MR. ABBATE-Help me out on this, too, would you please? There’s been a lot of emphasis, on your part, and rightfully so, in terms of the character of the neighborhood, the health, safety and welfare of the community, which I understand, and you go on to say that the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community will be substantially improved as a result of this project. The dangerous, abandoned, concrete tire, steel and vehicles will be removed and remediated. Moreover, the site will be designed to provide substantial vegetative buffering while retaining the single family character along West Mountain Road. Admirable, but if the Town had enforced its local ordinances and required the owner of the property to do this, wouldn’t that enhance everything that you’re intending to do? MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess even if the clean up was taken care of, because you’ve got a 33 acre site that no one is living at, and therefore monitoring, it just becomes like the power line by Corinth Road where kids on bikes, on dirt bikes, are going to be using it, because it’s available to them, because there’s no one stopping them. So, the development itself here will help because it would be landscaped, because it will be developed. MR. ABBATE-The development itself will act also like an enforcement agency, is that what you’re suggesting? MR. LAPPER-Yes, it won’t be a big, open field. MR. ABBATE-But will you yield to the proposition that perhaps if the Town had enforced all of this, it probably would serve the same purpose as Paragraph Two of your application? MR. LAPPER-Well, when you say the Town enforce, I’m not sure if, when this was abandoned. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. ABBATE-Removal of steel, tires, vehicles, and any other junk that’s there. MR. LAPPER-I don’t know what the law was 20 or 25 years ago in the Town, but I can tell you it needs to be done. It certainly should have been done then. It needs to be done now. MR. ABBATE-Thank you for conceding, Counselor. MR. STONE-Any other questions? MR. BRYANT-Yes, one more question. When you talk about profitability, since the majority of these units are going to be rental units, the 29 units versus the 41 units, what you’re really saying is it’s going to take you longer, at the 29 units, to recoup your initial investment. Is that what you’re saying? MR. LAPPER-I think that’s fair. MR. BRYANT-We’re not talking about building a unit and then selling it? MR. HAYES-No. They’ll all be built relatively in a speedy fashion. They’ll be rented. The houses I can’t really say, depending on how they go. MR. BRYANT-So all we’re really saying is, instead of taking, recouping your initial investment in X number of years, it’ll take you X plus N to get? MR. HAYES-If it was 29 that it was, we wouldn’t attempt the project, because you need the density to make it work, to get to the numbers that make sense for us, and we think, because it’s been for sale for 20 years, that everybody else has come to the same conclusion. We’d like to get 10% return on our money, and that’s what we need to achieve that. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but if you have rentals that last seven and a half years or eight years, you’re going to achieve that over a period of time anyway. MR. LAPPER-Well, but it’s also a question of financing, of whether or not, you know, you’re going to get a lender to lend you the cost of doing the clean up and also doing the construction, and whether it works out, in terms of paying your interest and servicing your debt. It’s an expensive project to clear up a large area like that. MR. BRYANT-Sure it is, but in the same token, that area is ripe for high end, single family units. It’s just perfect for that condition. MR. LAPPER-I guess the answer to that is that the multifamily, the duplexes are a permitted use in this zone. So we’re not asking for that, you know, for any change there. MR. BRYANT-I’m only offering that as a suggestion. I’m not saying that that’s what you should do. MR. LAPPER-Micky did look at the numbers of doing it for single family, but with road construction, with the grade, remember , we’re doing a lot of clustering, rather than denuding the whole site, and this type of a project allows everything to be centered, rather than single family lots, which would be a lot bigger and a lot more road cost. MR. HAYES-To get a significant amount of lots, you’d have to utilize 80 to 90% of the land, going way up into the slopes, and into the forest, which is just, it’s too hard to do, dollar wise, and I agree with you. It would be a fantastic site for that. We hope to achieve that with the lots in the front. We feel they’re going to be nice, probably $175 to $185,000 houses in the front there, which seems to be, we have a lot of interest at this point, including my brother hopes to develop in there. MR. UNDERWOOD-I had a question about the property that you’re going to leave in the back there. What’s the acreage back there? MR. MILLER-Well, we didn’t measure it exactly, but I would assume, in looking at it, it’s probably 10, 12 acres. MR. UNDERWOOD-My concern would be what your intentions would be for that property back there. Are you going to leave it as green space, or grandfather, build on it later? MR. MILLER-No. MR. LAPPER-We’re using up all the density now. So that would be green space, in a cluster. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. UNDERWOOD-I was just wondering, because the parcel to the north, I know that’s been for sale for quite some time, too, hasn’t it? Just up the road there? MR. HAYES-We intend to use it. There is quite a bit of trail system there. We intend to enhance the trail system and encourage that on site, the recreation there for walking trails and stuff as part of our feature in the rental thing. It’s nice country up on top. MR. LAPPER-I guess to answer Jim’s question. The cluster subdivision, which we’d have to go through with the Planning Board, would require that the density would be used, and that that would be forever green. So that would never be developed, couldn’t. It would be a condition of the approval. MR. STONE-Any other questions before I open the public hearing and hear what other concerns there may be? We’ve certainly given a bunch of them. All right. Let me open the public hearing. Again, let me caution all of you who want to speak, please listen to the people who speak before you, so that we just don’t hear the same thing over and over again. I would appreciate you saying I agree or I disagree, and we can move forward at a reasonable pace. Having said that, anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of the application? Please come forward. State your name when you get up and speak into the microphone. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED HELEN DELANY MS. DELANY-My name is Helen Delany. As of February 1, I took residence at 862 Ridge Road, one of the st Hayes & Hayes duplexes. I was recently diagnosed with a stress disorder which causes seizures sometimes between 15 and 30 a day. Since I have moved to this new location, my seizures have gone down in number. I’m only having between five and eight a day. This place where I live is very peaceful, very quiet, and very well made. When we had this earthquake on Saturday, I was really afraid. This was new to me. I had never dealt with this, but when I looked at the makeup of the house, I knew I was safe. From where I came from, I lived in Glens Falls, and the housing there was just not what it should have been. It was not in the right area for me or my children. Now that I live where I do now, I’m very happy. It’s very satisfying. It’s very quiet, and the neighborhood excellent. I love Queensbury, and for me, I would never go back to where I came from before. MR. STONE-And you’re speaking in favor of this because you think, I don’t want to put words in your mouth. MS. DELANY-I’m in favor of this because, if they did what they did on Ridge Road, and made people that live there as happy as I am, they could do it again, and they could make the neighborhood a lot prettier and a lot nicer than what it is right now. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else in favor? DON KRUGER MR. KRUGER-My name is Don Kruger. My son and I own a concrete construction business, and I’ve looked at this project for a number of years. We tried to resurrect a ready mix concrete operation there, which was almost impossible. It didn’t meet any of the zoning. It didn’t meet any OSHA. It didn’t meet any environmental, and there were so many environmental concerns there because of the nature of the way the Ashton Concrete conducted themselves. What Micky referred to as the pond basically was a borrow area, when we first did the Aviation Mall, foundations and floors, they just simply dug up bank run dirt out of the ground, mixed it with cement and dumped it in a truck. We poured the floors and stuff out of that. Then it became a pond because it was a wet area, and each night, or whenever they had rejected concrete, they would come back and wash that out, and there’s far more of it than most people realize. As far as getting rid of the junk and that, that’s not too bad of a thing, but the concrete becomes a big operation, but if he was to crush that on site, down in the City, like in Jersey City, New Jersey, they set up crushing operations and people bring broken concrete and brick and asphalt in and they crush it and then they use that for fill, and I’ve had a chance to use some of that. It’s absolutely excellent material for sub-base material on the roads and what have you. I think that would be a very good project to do there. I’ve seen what he’s done out on Ridge Road, and it’s certainly nothing for anybody to be a shamed of, and I think one of the real positive things to that is the fact that it will be a tax ratable to the Town. Many of the apartments that we see going up today, those out on Meadowbrook Road, I assume they’re senior citizen apartments, so they have to be some kind of tax exempt, like Solomon Heights, some church owns it. They applied for tax exempt. They’re paying nothing. Micky, besides paying taxes on the, real estate taxes to the Town, he’d be paying sales tax on the material and the cost of construction. That’s why I’m in favor of this, as pro-business. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question. Mr. Kruger, you were going to develop the site to use as a concrete factory? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. KRUGER-We looked at it to develop ready mix concrete, and there was no way to justify it. The minute you close an operation like that for a period of time, you know, like Whitehall Plywood. They closed the plywood company up there. When you go back to the well, you find out that you don’t meet OSHA, you don’t meet health and regulations, you don’t meet zoning, you don’t meet ENCON, and the minute you apply for reinstatement for that, they come in and check for all of the various problems that you inherit. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I understand, but you weren’t going to make a residential subdivision? MR. KRUGER-Well, we tried it as a ready mix concrete and we tried it as a residential subdivision, building new houses there, and when you got done with the cost of that, because of, if you develop that and turn it over to the Town, the cost of cleaning that up, putting the water lines in, the roads to Town spec, and then dedicating the road to the Town, it just became cost wise prohibitive, but we did look at it for that. MR. BRYANT-Where do you live, what town do you live in? MR. KRUGER-I live in Queensbury. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. ABBATE-I’m going to follow up on the question, if I may, sir, Mr. Kruger. Do you live in the immediate vicinity of this potential project? MR. KRUGER-Not now. I used to live, up until about six months ago, I lived on Fuller Road, which is right around the corner. MR. ABBATE-But at the present time you do not? So this project will not have an impact on any of your property, negative or positive? MR. KRUGER-That’s correct, you’re correct. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. KRUGER-It will have an effect on my property in that, if somebody came in here for a tax exempt apartments to go in there, then my school taxes and whatever would escalate. So it does effect me in that, but, no, I am not a neighboring property to this. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. BRYANT-Don’t worry about it. Queensbury is not going to give you a refund. They’ll find a way to spend the money. MR. STONE-All right, gentlemen. We’re not into that at the moment. All right. Anybody else in favor? Please come on up here. CHARLES BAKER MR. BAKER-My name is Charles Baker. I live at 749 West Mountain Road. Up until December of 2001, I owned a property adjacent to the Ashton property. I hold a mortgage on that property now. It was for sale for five years, and no one would make an offer on the property. In order to sell it, I had to sell it at a substantial reduction to a relation, because of the Ashton property and the shape that it was in. I also am the one that dug this hole that everyone’s talking about. My father-in-law and I started a wash sand plant there in ’70, or thereabouts. We had a crusher. We washed sand and sold it to Dempsey Concrete Transit, or Concrete Blocks, Ashton Ready Mix, and several other businesses around the area. That’s how the hole got there originally. I dug that with a loader and a truck and drew it up into a crusher. Now, as far as pollution goes, I think I agree with the Hayes boys that it is a lot of stuff there, I don’t say it’s hazardous. It’s concrete. I agree with whatever they said about the material that’s there, and the other thing I agree with, with the man that just spoke, is the tax. Right now, the property is undeveloped and the Town doesn’t get any school tax or anything, or land tax. With these buildings there, with the Hayes boys paying the taxes, I would think it would be beneficial to the Town. It is, as it stands right now, it is a playground for kids, and Micky referred to the trails that’s going up there in the woods. Those trails are not supposed to be going up in there, but if it’s on his property, it’s all right. On the property I own, I have tried to keep them out of there, and you cannot keep kids, adults, anybody out of there. They go up there. They cut the trees down, and set fires. The mountain was on fire several times, because of their running up through there, and it’s all accessed from the Ashton property, and the trails that the snowmobile trails from the City of Glens Falls, which has nothing to do with this, but that’s why my property would not sell for five years. The other thing is, there was supposed to be a, not supposed be, but there was a group of people that were using it constantly, and a rifle range was in there. They were shooting guns into the bank. Unbeknownst that there was a City water main in there, and high powered rifles could puncture the water main going to the City of Glens Falls, and there’s been a lot of talk that it doesn’t bother the people that live in the neighborhood. Well, the people in the 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) neighborhood don’t really know what’s in there, and their kids, if they got hurt, would be the first ones to sue someone. MR. STONE-So you’re saying you think this would be a benefit because of taking this out of the circulation that you’re describing? MR. BAKER-Right. It’s a very bad playground. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BAKER-Also, I don’t know whether the people realize it, but the property on the Potter Road, as I understand it, has been sold, and there is a developer going in to that area. So as far as density, people, considering traffic, I don’t know how they’re going to stop it, because those building lots are going to be one acre lots or better, and there’s going to be a lot of them over there, on both sides of the Potter Road. I live directly across from that property. MR. STONE-Thank you. KEITH HARRIS MR. HARRIS-My name’s Keith Harris. I was born in the Town of Queensbury. I’ve lived here my whole life, and I’ve had the pleasure to work with the Hayes Group, and they’re very excellent business people, very fair people, employ a lot of people. I don’t know what they pay for taxes, but I think this project really, the people have got to look at what they have now, and what’s going to be there when they’re done. The Town is looking for open space to preserve, and I really don’t think this is a piece that, you know, should be left alone. It’s got to be cleaned up. It’s got to be developed. There’s third acre lots all through the neighborhood. It’s, you know, they’re not asking for a third acre density, and the Town, you know, they have to look at the pros and cons, and this is one project that, you know, I think it’s going to benefit the Town and the neighborhood. I’ve seen the site. I’ve given Micky estimates on the site, and it’s definitely a win/win situation when it’s done. They’re good guys, very fair, employ a lot of people. When the project’s all done, and you look at the economic value to this area, which they say we’re in a recession, a depression, I think we’ve really got to look at the jobs that they’re going to provide, and as far as, you know, the density of the project, I mean, they’ve cut the thing in half, and anybody that knows the cost of developing land and doing it, they’ve got to be able to make this thing, I mean, they don’t want to go bankrupt trying to put 29 lots in, with the clean up they’ve got to do. There’s a lot of clean up. I’m renting a machine right now crushing. It’s $20,000 a month, just for the machine, and he’s going to need way more than what I’ve got. It’s going to clean up the land. It’s going to make the whole neighborhood look better, and as far as, you know, the people worrying about what the end result is, it’s going to be a high class residential neighborhood, just like, you know, Queensbury is turning into a middle to high class residential place. I mean, everybody sees it all over. So it’s way better than, you know, there’s a lot of stuff going on there, the kids, the partying, and I think we’ll all benefit. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-I had two questions, sir. Do you reside in the immediate area of this potential project? MR. HARRIS-No, I don’t. I have, in the Town of Queensbury, I don’t know, roughly around 600 acres, approximately. I’ve lived here my whole life. I work through there all the time. I live right up the road here two and a half miles. MR. ABBATE-But this project would not impact your residence, immediate residence? MR. HARRIS-I guess if they all went to Lake George, like everybody enjoys the lake, they’d probably be going by my house, but I feel that it does. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and the second question I have, sir, is this. Are you currently doing business with Hayes and Hayes? MR. HARRIS-Yes, I have. I’ve done business with them for years, and they’re excellent people, very honest. They’re very stand up people, their word, you know, I’d put my life on. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor? Come up, please, sir. MICHAEL CANTIELLO MR. CANTIELLO-Good evening. My name’s Michael Cantiello, and I’m the Property Manager for Hayes and Hayes. I want to tell you a little bit about the organization, first of all. When someone comes to rent a townhouse from us, we sit down. We let the people pick out the entire interior of their unit, such as cabinets, wallpaper, carpet. From nuts to bolts, we let them pick it out because it’s a long term lease, three to five year 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) lease. So people feel they’re building their home. They stay, that’s why these tenants stay with us for seven to eight years. Second of all, I am building a home on this project if it goes through, because I want to be on the pond, okay. I plan on building a 2700 square foot central hall colonial. So it would affect me. Currently, we have a very strict screening process which we do to get our tenants in our units. Our units over here on Ridge Road have been completely rented for two and a half months. The starting rent, to give you an idea of what, the type of people we are enticing to our units, start at $800 and go up to $1100 a month, and basically I’m hoping that everything goes in accordance, because I’m planning on moving over there. MR. ABBATE-I have the same two questions. Will this project immediately impact your property at the present time? MR. CANTIELLO-Present time, no. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and do you have a vested interest in Hayes and Hayes? MR. CANTIELLO-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Come forward, please. BOB GOVER MR. GOVER-Hello. My name’s Bob Gover. I’m a real estate broker with Coldwell Banker, and I had the property listed for sale for about, almost two years. I sent out packets of information to every developer and contractor in a 50 mile radius for that two year period. Everyone that received the package was then followed up with a phone call, and several developers checked out the site, and no one was willing to make an offer even, and we had it listed at $195,000, I believe. So, I think it’s proof that no one over, I think it was 1997, when the property was listed at $235,000, and it’s come down to $195,000 as of 2001 when the Hayes’ entered into a contract to purchase at the purchase price. So I believe that what they’ve been saying, in terms of development costs, it must be true, because the Michaels Group, Schermerhorn, everyone else has turned it down, and as far as the neighborhood, that property is definitely a hazard to children. I know I see people going through there all the time with their bicycles and motorcycles, people shooting guns in there. I ride mountain bikes myself, and I go through that area every now and then, and there’s always someone in there doing something, and as far as effecting me, personally, I own a few properties in Queensbury. Nothing adjacent to that site. However, I do plan on discussing with the Hayes to have a house built for myself as well, and I guess that’s all I have to say. MR. ABBATE-I have the same two questions, sir. Will this project immediately impact your home? MR. GOVER-As I said, no. MR. ABBATE-Do you have a vested interest with Hayes and Hayes? MR. GOVER-I’m the real estate broker, therefore I have an interest. MR. ABBATE-Would you have a potential interest in this? MR. GOVER-No, other than having a house built possibly. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. GOVER-Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of? Come forward, sir. MICHAEL MANNING MR. MANNING-I’m Michael Manning, a building designer here in Queensbury. I do a lot of design work for the Hayes the last three years, Cool Beans project, the Ridge Road project. I think one of the things I want to point out is the type of structures that we’ve done so far I think are a little bit more eye appealing than some of the other townhouses and rental properties that you might see around the area, to try to keep everybody liking what, you know, the typical rental property. The project coming up on West Mountain is definitely obviously, anything’s better than that. I’ve kidded around with Mick about a piece of property on there, but I don’t think he realizes how serious I am about building a house there, but we’ll be talking about that a little bit more, but I think I’m going to plan on building one myself, at that place as well. As far as the impact of the rental property to that, I’m not too worried about it, obviously, if I’m going to plan on building a house there. I think, overall, the concept of the actual project with the pond and possibly walking path is a great idea, and I think the overall project would be a definite plus to the Town of Queensbury and to all the 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) people that live there. I do not have an immediate impact. I rent a place on Evergreen Estates, which is right down the road. A vested interest, the only thing I’ve got invested in them is my time in design time. MR. ABBATE-Explain that to me, please. MR. MANNING-I do a lot of their designing, their building designs. MR. ABBATE-You do it for Hayes and Hayes? MR. MANNING-Yes. MR. ABBATE-So you have a vested interest. MR. MANNING-Basically. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. MANNING-Thanks. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of? In favor of? All right. I’ll now hear opposed, and please, again, because of the size of the audience, listen to what’s said. Everybody will have a chance to speak if they want to speak, but I’d just ask you that we don’t hear everybody talk for too long. Who wants to go first? BOB RAYMOND MR. RAYMOND-My name is Bob Raymond. I live on Applehouse Lane. I am definitely, the answer to one of your questions, be impacted by the property being built here. I have no association with the Hayes & Hayes. I do think that the development of that property would be somewhat a benefit to the Town, but I have a question that I want to pose to the Board, I guess. Is this a new application? MR. STONE-This is considered a new application with a history, and you certainly can comment on the history. I mean, Mr. Lapper made that very clear, that anything, in that sense, is fair game. MR. RAYMOND-So my question, then, is what zoning rules do we go by, the old rules or the new rules? MR. STONE-This is being done under the current rules. The new rules will be in use next month, after they are accepted, I guess, by the State or wherever we stand, but we’ve arbitrarily, the Community Development Department has said that the new zoning rules will be used beginning next month for both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board. MR. FRANK-The current zoning is in effect right now, but when the application was applied for, the old zoning was in effect. So this is under the old zoning. MR. STONE-And everything we’re hearing tonight on other applications is under the old, if you want to call it that. MR. RAYMOND-Okay. I just wanted it for clarification. MR. STONE-Yes, that’s fine. MR. RAYMOND-And who’s responsibility is it to recoup the cost to develop, the Town’s, the people that live in the neighborhood, or the person that’s doing the developing? MR. STONE-No. It is, the applicant has merely said they would like to build 41 units. Why do they want to build 41 units, because it would be beneficial to them, in terms of being able to do it in a financially responsible way, as far as their own situation is concerned. The Town has no involvement, with the exception that, as some people have pointed out, obviously, a developed area in there will furnish more tax revenue that the current property, but we, as a Board, and we have said this many times, it is not our job to bail somebody out of a bad business decision. That certainly would apply here, too. MR. ABBATE-Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. MR. RAYMOND-I’m not saying that this is a bad business decision. MR. STONE-I’m not, either. MR. RAYMOND-I’m just saying that everything that I’ve heard so far tonight and in the first meeting that I was at, back six months ago or whenever it first came up, was cost factor. Am I correct? They have gone 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) from a 96 unit, the original plan was 96 units, down to now 41, of which five of those are going to be one acre lots that will sell for however much money it is, whatever a property is going to go for. I don’t have a problem developing the property as it’s zoned. There is no multifamily dwellings in that neighborhood, and now we’re going to go put multifamily dwellings in the neighborhood. I just think that’s not a. MR. STONE-I think, as Mr. Lapper said, they are an allowed use in that zone. MR. RAYMOND-I understand that, and I also think that within reason. MR. STONE-Fine. MR. URRICO-What would you consider within reason? I’m just curious. MR. RAYMOND-Well, definitely not 41 houses, of which they’re 41 rentals, and I do believe, even though the landlord, if you will, says that they will maintain it, it is still a rental. It may not necessarily be maintained as well as the rest of the houses in the neighborhood are concerned. I raised the issue the last time when we were here, as far as the amount of traffic that comes in the neighborhood. It’s a very busy thoroughfare as it is now. People avoiding going through Glens Falls. If, in fact, the dwellings are going to be built on the corners of West Mountain and Potter Road, as was mentioned earlier, that’s also going to have a tremendous impact on the neighborhood, and so on and so forth. So, with that, I will. MR. STONE-Just for the purposes of the record, and I know that Mr. Lapper and Mr. Hayes will say this eventually, but there will be 18, if I’m wrong, 18 separate buildings on this parcel, 12 duplex, 3-fourplex, and 5-one acre. That totals 20, I’m sorry. I can’t add. There’ll be actually 20 separate buildings, if the variance, as far as we’re concerned, is granted. Now remember, this is only one hurdle that they have. All we are going to say is yes or no on 41 units. The Planning Board will be all over this project, in their normal style, and with their charge, to make sure that, if, in fact, we grant 41, that that is done to their satisfaction and to the Town’s benefit. So, this is one step along the way. MR. RAYMOND-Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. Who’s next? RUSSELL HOWARD MR. HOWARD-Good evening. My name is Russell Howard. I reside at 794 West Mountain Road. The only concerns that I have with this project would be the traffic and the amount of people in one place. The density requirement, actually, I’m not too thrilled with the amount of traffic that we have on West Mountain Road as it is in the first place, and with the other land being sold on the corners, as the other gentleman said, there’s going to be plenty more houses and more traffic with single family homes there. For an apartment, if it was an average three to four people per an apartment, per townhouse, you’re talking 120 people there, and how many vehicles? And it’s pretty crazy there right now, actually, and I have two small children, and I’ve got nothing against Mick and Jamie. I went to school with them. If they want to build some single family homes, that’s fine with me, but I don’t think that they would want that clustered in their back yard either. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-One question, sir, please. Will this project have an impact on your home? MR. HOWARD-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. MR. STONE-Please come forward. CASEY CLARK MR. CLARK-My name is Casey Clark. I live on Applehouse Lane, the drive adjacent to this property. I’d like to make a couple of comments in response to what was said about the land being an eyesore. I just moved in to this house in the fall, and my wife and I looked a lot in the town of Glens Falls, and decided to choose the house that we bought mostly because it wasn’t really developed. It had a different feel to it than the ones downtown, and if it were as developed where it is, as is in downtown, I think we would have chosen to live in Glens Falls. We work at the hospital. We wanted a place close to the hospital that we could ride our bikes to work. This provided us with the proximity to the hospital, but it didn’t feel like we were right in the middle of town. MR. STONE-And therefore you think that? MR. CLARK-I don’t think it’s an eyesore. I think the term eyesore is very subjective. I think what may be an eyesore to one person is not an eyesore to someone else. I think an eyesore is maybe another development. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. STONE-Okay. MR. CLARK-The reason we bought our house was because it was more open. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-And the same question. Would this project have an impact on your home? MR. CLARK-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. MR. STONE-Please come forward. ISMAEL VELEZ MR. VELEZ-My name is Ismael Velez. I live on Applehouse Lane. I really knew nothing about this, exactly what was going on until today, but my concern is water. We have problems with water in that area. We’ve had water on Applehouse come down that road. We had some work done there years ago to divert the water, not this seasonal thing. It happens when we get bad winters. We get water down the road. A lot of it, for instance, the houses in front of me, which their backs face this property, water comes down from the mountains, and I’m wondering what effect this will have, their building up there, to the movement of the water. That so called pond or hole you have there, a lot of that water goes into there, that comes off the mountain, and I’m just wondering, and the ground really gets saturated at times. I’m wondering if they’re building houses up there, will it affect us in any way, or actually they’re building houses, will it affect the houses they’re going to build there anyway? Like earlier he said that it’s sandy. Yes, it’s sandy, but it really saturates that ground out there. I have a concern about the water table and the water coming into the, on the road there, and us having problems. MR. STONE-I sometimes hesitate to add enlightenment, because I don’t want to be perceived one way or the other, because quite frankly, I have not even come close to a decision on this thing, but one thing that the Planning Board will ensure, that every development is responsible for its own stormwater, and they will make sure, to the best of their ability, that water will not leave the property, even though new construction goes in. That’s one of the things that they’re concerned about. MR. VELEZ-I guess what I’m looking at is the point that the water has a place to go right now. If you build something there, the water’s going to go somewhere else, and the only way it’s going to go is towards us, because that’s the way the land goes, and I have questions on that. MR. STONE-And valid questions. MR. ABBATE-And would you answer one question, please. Would this project impact your private property? MR. VELEZ-Possibly, if it has to do with the water and that type of thing. I also think the point of what the other gentleman said before of the more vehicles and that. I have children also. I can see the one family homes being built there, but I just think it’s too many people in one area, and I’m opposed to it. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. MR. STONE-Anyone else? Come forward, sir. JESSE STOCKWELL MR. STOCKWELL-My name is Jesse Stockwell. I live on Sawn Road. I agree with Russ Howard and the gentleman here before me on the impact on the area. I’m totally against it. I’ve lived in that area since 1965, right after we got married. We moved to Queensbury because it was a nice, rural, country area where it was a good place to raise your children. Now with these new housing developments moving in, I’m sure there’s going to be a lot more children, a lot more teenagers, and there’s not enough entertainment in the area to support all these teenagers. I’ve seen some of these young people walking around. They actually scare me, all these piercings and tattoos and the way the parents really don’t care. Now I don’t care how much these units cost, these parents I can’t say will be controlling their teenagers. The traffic in the area right now, I leave every morning about quarter to five, it’s busy then. Now with a new development going in next to me, which I really didn’t know about, I’m sure the traffic’s going to be horrendous, and it is going to impact me in the sense that if I ever do decide to sell my house, I’m sure I’m not going to get the value I would at the present time. As far as Ashton’s area, like I said, I’ve lived there for, since 1965, Ashton’s was bad enough when they 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) were there, but that didn’t bother me as much as the fact that everybody’s worried that some kid’s going to get hurt over there. Like I said, since ’65 I haven’t heard of anybody getting hurt on that property. Grant you it’s posted. Grant you they go on it, but I haven’t heard of anybody being hurt on that property at all. That’s about all I’ve got to say. MR. ABBATE-Would you answer one question? It’s repetitive. Will this project have an impact on your private property? MR. STOCKWELL-At the present time, no, but when I want to sell it, I’m sure with all these extra buildings, especially with the one next door, my house is not going to be worth as much. MR. ABBATE-It’s your perception that it would then, possibly? MR. STOCKWELL-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, sir. KELLY CARTE MR. CARTE-I have some pictures to show here, also. I’ll let you take a look at them, and then I’ll tell you what they are. I’ve kind of tried to list this in some sort of order here. Let’s take density first. As it’s been stated by other people, but let me put it in some chronological order, by my investigation, the land in question here was zoned at 15,000 square foot in 1959, changed to 20,000 square feet, or half acre, in the 1970’s, and changed to one acre in 1988, 100 foot, 125 foot, 150 foot frontage on the lot for the various sizes, and it’s been reaffirmed in the current new zoning, and I question, you’re saying about the not applying, because it’s on the website as being adopted as of the first of April. So, anybody that’s looking at it assumes that that’s what you’re working with, as of the first of April. The surrounding zones, as has been stated, are some more SR-1A, LC-10A in the back, which is mine, Rural Residential Three Acre, which is Mr. Baker’s to the rear and north. Beyond that, immediately beyond the parcel that he owns, which is SR-1A, is Single Family Residential One Acre. So we’re like one lot removed from even more restrictive zoning, and then across the street is the watershed property, of course, which is Parkland Residential, I think they call it 10 Acre. So, not only has the thing been zoned more and more restrictive over the years, but all the land around this is zoned as restrictive, if not more restrictive, than this land. Changing this the way that the applicants are talking about is definitely a giant step backwards, from what the Town has apparently been trying to do for quite a few years now. The appearance, what I call appearance density, of the property all around, or the developed property around, is obviously all Single Family Residential. There are, in the initial information that they put out with the application for 90 units, or whatever it was there, that was mentioned that there were 10,000 square foot quarter acre lots to the south of this property. There are no 10,000 square foot lots. I looked. There’s no 10,000 square foot lots anywhere around this property. Third acre and larger is all I could find, and the minimum front footage for that is 100 feet frontage. The only property that looks like what the Hayes are proposing is two and a half miles away in Queen Victoria’s Grant, down on Peggy Ann Road, and that property was developed when there was no one down there. There were no other houses around that parcel when it was done. So, as I see the layout of the lots on this thing here, they are in approximately 40 foot wide lots. I mean, I scaled off the thing as being 80 foot centers between these townhouses here. So taking the middle of a house as one side, that residence is on a 40 foot wide lot. Instead of 150 foot is what the zone calls for. Being almost four times the appearance density of what the zone is specifying, or, you know, two and a half times, shall we say, as dense as what any of the existing residential subdivisions around are that have to have 100 foot frontage on them. The calculations that are being used to count how many units should be allowed, I’ve discussed with Staff, and I don’t know whether they gave you corrected figures or not, as to their calculations on it, but there are several things that I question having not been done here. Obviously the three acre zone is taken out as one unit, leaving 30.8 units more or less, but you have the water right of way. You have, according to the Town, the regulations for subtracting these things, you have slopes greater than 15%, which all the banks of the pond are greater than 15%, and I don’t know whether anything in the back is or not. I haven’t been able to calculate that from the drawing, and I wondered whether the engineer that did the drawing, or the surveyors that did it, would be able to indicate what areas they have taken out for 15% slope here, because I didn’t hear anything mentioned, and the street’s supposed to be deducted. Now, if you take clustered housing as a given, then the street is only 1200 feet long that you have to deduct from that, but why is it a given? It would seem to me that what you should deduct is you take one acre lots at 150 foot frontage, and you multiply that times 33 acres, and you have 4,000 feet of road that should be calculated as being deductible from this project. It’s not at all, in my mind, a given that clustering is appropriate here. If you do that, you end up with 21, 22, 23, something like this units allowable here. Now obviously it’s kind of a sliding scale, because the more you allow, the longer the road is. The less you allow, the shorter the road is, and it depends on how it’s laid out, but I would question the calculations. By my calculations, 26 units, and not 29 and not 41, certainly. The appearance of the land has been, you know, a big question here. The pictures that I show you are the appearance of the land. The one of them with the numbers on it is the appearance of the land from the road as you drive or walk down along the road. Which I did when I took those pictures. The other pictures are ones in the City watershed property, directly across the street, of trash and debris and whatever over there. If cleaning up the property, as has been discussed before, is a consideration, or a major consideration of this, Number One, it 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) should have been done a long time ago. Number Two, Ashton should have had to do it. Number Three, why isn’t anybody making any noise about all the stuff that’s in the watershed property and making the City clean up this stuff back here, because most of the items, as you can see from that, from my pictures along the road, most of the stuff that they’re pointing out as being on the property can only be seen if you’re trespassing on the property. They are not easily seen from the road, and I would say that virtually, you know, nine out of the ten people that drive by that road, drive by the property on the road would not even notice anything amiss over there, only the people that live in the area or are fairly familiar with the road. So, cleaning it up, allowing this kind of project to go on with the rationale that they’re going to clean it up is questionable, and it also is, it might be justified if everybody wanted it cleaned up, but as you have heard from these people, you will hear from more of them I know, you would hear from even more of them were they here, had this been given enough time for everybody to be able to meet this, by the way. The notices went out, and were delivered the week of school vacation, and about, I know of at least three people that did not get the message until they got back on Sunday and Tuesday of, you know, past here. MR. STONE-Since you’ve raised that question. Did the notices go out in a timely, legal fashion? MR. FRANK-The notices went out one week before tonight, which is more than is required by the law, from what I understand. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. CARTE-Okay. So be it. None of the neighbors who are not financially involved in this, as Mr. Kruger, Mr. Baker, the gentleman that’s the realtor, all have dollars in this situation here. So any of the rest of the neighbors here that are living around, I haven’t heard of any one of them that has spoken up in favor of this. So the big, overriding concern of cleaning this up does not seem to be something that is, should be really given much credence when you’re talking about allowing this density for appearance sake. As one of the neighbors on Applehouse Lane has stated, he’s bought a house with the thing there. I bought my house, which I forgot to mention, I don’t know whether the other members of the Board were here the last time. I’m the immediate property owner to the south. I have four and a half acres, and a house that’s worth over $200,000. I have 54 acres in the back. I knew what it was when I bought it. The people before me knew what it was. It was the same thing. They made a substantial investment. I made a substantial investment in it. Had it been a rental complex next door, would I have bought it? I would have thought a hell of a lot longer about it then I would, than what it is there now. It is undoubtedly going to impact the property values for me, and for the other neighbors, depending on how far away they live. Obviously, the further away you live from it, the less impact it’s going to have, as far as direct property values. The other things that have been pointed out are traffic and this type of thing, is certainly valid, but I would definitely say that, and I’ve talked to a couple of realtors about it, just to confirm this, and they say that there’s no way that my property is going to be worth the same as it was before this thing, if this thing goes through. Let’s not forget that this, we’re talking about residential property here, and even though this is allowed as, the multifamily or rental is allowed in the zone, this is a commercial enterprise. This is not a residence. This is not people that are building duplexes to live in one of them, or anything of that nature. This is a commercial enterprise by the Hayes brothers, and they are putting that commercial enterprise in next to my house, next to the other people’s houses, next to all the land that’s zoned for residential and has been developed as single family residential. So, let’s see. Clustering. I touched on it briefly, but, and I know this is not your, necessarily your thing, but I’d like a little bit of leeway here to discuss it, because that’s what they’re presenting. As I said, the clustering seems to be a given, in situations like this, as being something desirable, and in talking with the, I went and talked with Chris Round about this and asked him what the guidelines were for clustering, and he said basically, generally, maximize green space, maximize views, water frontage if it’s water property, shorter roads, and I guess of those ones that were generally put forward, the green space and the roads are the only thing that really impact on this property. Let’s take green space first. If you look at these things and say, is it better to have a bunch of houses shoehorned in on 80 foot wide lots, two living units per 80 foot of frontage here like this, and a whole bunch of green area in the back, which you can’t see from the road, or is it better to require these things to be built as zoned, which would be a duplex on every two acres of land? I guarantee that if you put a duplex on every two acres of land, and the roads involved in doing this, that you’d have a heck of a lot of green space. It would look like Bedford Close. It would look like other areas that have one and a half, two, two and a half, three acre lots, big, spacious, lots of green area. There is already green space around it, my land, LC-10 Acre can’t be really developed for anything that’s meaningful. Across the street, the watershed property won’t be developed for anything. So, to have green space in the back and shoehorn these things in on the front does not seem to be a real wise move. The other consideration is shorter roads. Well, the shorter roads and utilities aspect of this is predicated on public roads. Mr. Chris Round told me that, you know, the idea is to lessen the impact on the Town for having to maintain these roads, plow the roads, re-pave the roads, take care of the utilities. All this stuff is a reason why you’re looking for shorter roads in allowing clustering, but these aren’t public roads, and they’re not going to be public roads. This is a private driveway, and if I came to you and said, I’d like a variance from, you know, let’s say there was a zone where my house had to have a 100 foot setback, and I’d say I’d like a variance to 50 feet or to 25 foot setbacks so I didn’t have the expense of having to put a 100 foot driveway to my house. I don’t think you’d look very favorably on that, and that’s, in essence, what the applicants are talking about here. We’d like to cluster these houses so that we can maximize our dollars, minimize our cost. It’s not, I don’t believe, in the Town’s best interest, shall we say, or for lack of a better term here, to look at it that way. It’s a private road. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) If it takes, you know, three quarters of a mile of private road to do this as zoned, so be it. They’re going to maintain it. They’re going to put the utilities in. They’re going to do whatever it takes to put this in, or they’re not, and if it is not viable as zoned, then it’s not viable. We’ve heard a lot about the fact that this property hasn’t been sold for a long period of time, but nobody’s mentioned the fact that the asking price for the property way back then was about $300,000. As everything goes, the price comes down, the lot values are going up in Queensbury. At some point, it becomes profitable to develop this. Mr. Baker was indicating that his property was on the market for quite a while, and I understand, I could be wrong, but I understand from one realtor that was familiar with it that he did not want to break the property up. He wanted to sell it lump sum. Well, he’s got, or had, I don’t know, 10 or 12 acres in one acre, a bunch more in three acres, which was landlocked, so to speak, couldn’t be reached except through the one acre, and the balance as 10 acres. When you’re looking at something like that, obviously no developer wants, and aside from which, it’s up a mountain like this. Obviously, there’s no developers that are going to be interested in a situation like that. The asking price of this land has come down over the years to where now it is feasible for somebody to do something with it, but it is by no means outrageous when you factor in the price of the land and the cost of the clean up. Let me digress just a second here to, one of the, I knew there was something else I wanted to say as far as the road goes. Being a private road, the way that these lots are laid out along the front of the highway, with the shared driveways, is a permissible use of the lots, and on the arterial road with shared driveways. However, the Town guidelines state that access to arterial roads from individual lots is to be discouraged, and access to internal roads in a subdivision is to be encouraged whenever this situation is present. Now these folks are putting a road in to this property for access to the other ones. Why isn’t that road being directed around the rear of these lots, so that the access from these lots to the road would be in the rear, the way that the Town is requesting? I submit that they don’t want to do that because it’s another 1,000 feet of road or whatever, here like this, that would be servicing them. That’s not, shouldn’t really be a consideration in there. If they want to do it, they can do it the way that the Code calls for. Okay. Into the economics of it. The clean up costs are a main thing, as has been stated here, and in the very beginning, they were touted as being, I think the figure was $270,000 for cleaning up this property. The estimates that I saw, which were in the papers first filed, were for trucking away the stuff off of the property. Well, obviously, I don’t want to say that there was a mistake made. I mean, I don’t know what to call it. Let’s put it this way. Along with the property, along with the information that I got regarding this property, and the asking price and the history of it and that kind of stuff, was a letter from DEC stating that the vast majority of the junk on the property, the concrete, the macadam, this type of thing, the wood, could be buried on site. If it was construction debris, it could be buried there. No mention was made in the initial thing of burying it or doing anything other than trucking it away, and if you’ve ever had experience with trying to move concrete in slabs like that, breaking it up and loading it on the truck and hauling it away is a big job. It takes a lot of time. It’s not easy to do, but burying it, especially when you’re not going to be using a good portion of the thing, is not anywhere near that hard to do. In fact, all that big, flat area that’s shown as concrete could be come in here and start dumping truck loads of topsoil and fill over the top of the thing, and that would just disappear, because they’re not going to be using any of that. So the construction costs, now we’ve gotten down to where they’re talking about bringing a crusher in here to crush up the concrete and use it for Item Four, and this has been presented as a new development and a way of reducing the cost of the project. Well, Bill Threw, who I contacted way back when this thing started, indicated to me that he had discussed the clean up, giving a quote on the clean up of this project, and he had suggested that they bring in a crusher and crush the concrete and use it for road fill, that it couldn’t be buried easily. So let’s take the $270,000 with a big grain of salt here, as to what the costs are going to be. The cost of the land, as I understand it, by itself here, is about $175,000, $5,000 an acre. Because we haven’t had time to really prepare for this, I only found out about this thing a couple of weeks, or 10 days or so before here, before this meeting, and before that, I thought it was going to be done as zoned. I don’t have figures to back this up, but I think most everybody would have some fairly good ideas as to what land in Queensbury is worth and what one acre lots would be worth, and $5,000 an acre for acquisition costs would seem to be pretty inexpensive. Adding in a figure of $100,000 for clean up, and I don’t know, as I said, I haven’t had a chance to do this, but I think that’s a heck of a lot closer than $270,000, and dividing it by 26 units, which in my calculations for the number of them allowed, is $10,000 per unit, or per acre, for buildable acre. Now that’s the cost of the land, the cost of the clean up. Obviously, there’s a little bit more in there in putting in roads, and a few other things that have to be done before you could sell lots. However, if that’s $10,000 for lots that are selling for $25 to $30,000 an acre, that would seem to leave a lot of area there for profit. If you divide it by the 41 units that the applicants want to do, it’s $6700 per unit. That seems to be real reasonable to me, to be able to build a dwelling on land that’s $6700. In actuality, what they plan on doing, in selling the five lots along the road, I’ve just figured roughly $25,000 a lot, you’re talking $125,000 income from selling those five lots, with some clean up cost, but since there’s no, for those particular roads, you don’t, and the way that this is laid out, there’s no road to the back that drives to the back or anything like this. The basic clean up costs are getting rid of a little concrete that happens to be in the area of some of the lots, not all of them. That leaves a figure of $50,000 for 27.8 acres of land, or about $1800 an acre for the land to actual build the rental units on. If you allowed the 41 subdivision minus the five lots in front, that’s 36 units or $1400 per unit to build these things on. There’s a lot of room there, a lot more room than what is being indicated in the figures that have been presented. The last part of the economics, I say, of the thing is the rentals. If you look on the pro formas shown at the very beginning here for these rentals, all along, the figure that was being used was $650 a month. Now we’re hearing from the Hayes manager of the thing that the figures are $800 to $1100 a month for rental of these. I submit that there may have been a mistake or something else in the initial one, initial information given here, because I don’t think that in eight or nine months here now the rental rate has gone up from $650 to $950 average here, between $800 and $1100. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) Basically, I don’t think that the justification is there in the cost for cleaning this up. If it’s not economical to do it as zoned, then don’t do it. None of the neighbors want this project. If everybody was clamoring for this to be done, then there may be some justification for bending the rules and letting some increase in density into the equation here, but that’s not the case, and there’s no justification, in my mind, for the Town making this a viable, economic opportunity for a developer. It either is or it isn’t, on the face of it. One final thing about the water. It’s been said to me that the water, the pond is nothing more than a hole dug in the ground there, and it’s groundwater that’s there, and therefore it could be filled in if they wanted to do it. I’m not sure that the size of the pond has been taken out of the calculations in the allowable units here, because it is the developer’s opinion that this is not, that they don’t have to leave the pond here, that they could fill the pond in because it was nothing more than a groundwater hole. In the regulations for the Town, it states that, in considering, and this is, again, in the Planning Department, not your thing, but in considering applications, existing runoff, existing catch basins, existing water handling topography, more or less, has to be considered. I submit that, if the Ashton’s were trying to do this project, then they could fill it in. They dug it. They could fill it in. If these people are trying to do it, and they’re buying it, it is an existing water situation to them, and I don’t know how many, I don’t know if any of you folks are familiar with this, but the way that it’s shown on the map is about maybe an acre and a half or something like that. It’s hard to calculate on the thing, and I didn’t take the time, but if you look at the size of that, right now the pond is about the size of the largest measurement that’s on that map, but except for this year and last year, I’ve lived in the house here for four years. The first two years, that pond was anywhere from estimating between 50 to 100% larger than that when the runoff comes in the spring, and it is tremendous. I mean, the amount of water that goes in there is tremendous, and if anything is done to this, in building the units as shown, with any fill or anything like this, or interrupting any of the groundwater runoff here, it will end up in my yard, my basement, the neighbor’s yards, the neighbor’s basements, all the way down to Fuller Road, which is the first little pond there that the water runs into when it goes into Clendon Brook, and I would not think that the Town would want to, I would hope that the Town would look very close at this and not want to get into a potential situation like is on Peggy Ann Road with the water problem over there that was not adequately addressed when the developers put the houses in there. I guess that’s it. MR. STONE-I have two comments to make. I have a question. Listening to your dissertation, and this is not being judgmental, if you could buy that land for $175,000 and put 26 homes on there, would you do it? MR. CARTE-No. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but the acquisition, I think the acquisition they said is $95,000, not $125,000. I think they’re acquiring the land for $95,000, that’s what the real estate. MR. CARTE-I don’t believe so. MR. BRYANT-Isn’t that what the real estate? MR. STONE-$175,000. That’s what I thought I heard. I’m just listening to, now, the other thing I’m going to put the rest of you on notice, Mr. Carte made a very detailed presentation, and I made a lot of notes, and I don’t know how many things he didn’t cover, but there aren’t many. So, if you want to come up now, I would like you to very quickly agree or disagree with what he said. MR. CARTE-Can I give you just two sentences? MR. STONE-Two more. MR. CARTE-I had permission, as far as the people trespassing on the property, I had permission from Ashton’s estate to post this, to try to keep people off there and people off my property in the back, and I was making some headway, after a couple of years at it, but discontinued that when I found out that the Hayes brothers were in the process of buying it and doing whatever, because I didn’t feel that I would have the standing anymore to do that. So the fact that people see kids doing whatever, and the truck over there that got stuck in the pond wouldn’t have been there, had this not have been taking place here. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. URRICO-Sir, can you just point out your property as it relates to that, the yellow section? Is it just south of there? MR. CARTE-Sure. Right here, and here also, by the way, but not, this wraps around here. MR. URRICO-Thank you. MR. STONE-That gentleman over here, first. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) TIM OLESKY MR. OLESKY-My name is Tim Olesky. I live on 13 Applehouse Lane, and if my math is correct, we’ve sold four or five lots already at one acre that maybe we ought to leave as is, and the rest of them will sell one acre lots on high end, versus going through all this, because it was townhouses coming in that will greatly affect the value of my home. MR. STONE-Okay. This gentleman over here. Come right on up. JOE BRAYTON MR. BRAYTON-My name is Joe Brayton. I live at 231 Fuller Road. I have to agree with Kelly that the water is going to be a huge problem. My son owns property right behind Kelly, he has 10 acres. We have plenty of water out there as of now, and when we get all this development in there, it will be much worse. I drive by that road every day, and that Ashton ready mix doesn’t bother me or anyone else that lives in that area. You get houses in there, they say they’re going to put trails. We’ve already got trails. At least the kids are not riding up and down our road and everybody else’s road. They’re out in the field and in the woods. They talk about fires. They’re going to have a lot more of them, and secondly, one quarter acres, or whatever they’re talking, one third, my son had to buy 10 acres. He’s in the Adirondack Park which has to border that property somewhere along the back side there. It’s not a fair deal, and those homes are a disgrace to the whole area. They’re all over, and their cluster homes look terrible. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else? PIERRE CASTONGUAY MR. CASTONGUAY-Pierre Castonguay. I’m directly effected by the development. I’m against the density, the 41 density. I’m not against the development. Development’s a good thing. Yes, there is a tax base. In theory, the tax base should be a wash. The additional taxes would pay for the additional services that would be required by our Town of Queensbury. One good thing about showing up last is you can agree with lots of people. So I agree with pretty much everything that’s been said. Actually, I agree with everything that’s been said. MR. URRICO-Opposed or in favor of? MR. CASTONGUAY-I agree with what they said, which is opposed to the 41 density. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. STONE-You mean the last group of people, I think that’s what Mr. Urrico is asking. MR. CASTONGUAY-To Kelly, to Tim, to, yes. MR. ABBATE-Will this project have an impact on your private property? MR. CASTONGUAY-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. MR. CASTONGUAY-Just one quick comment. There was a comment made about a bad playground. If it’s a bad playground, then there are many other bad playgrounds in our area of Queensbury, and if this is a bad playground, because of the debris, then the current owner should clean it up, and I think that was brought up earlier. That’s all. MR. STONE-Mr. Salvador, and then the gentleman over here. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-I’ll accept your challenge, Mr. Stone. I would like to pick up on a comment that Mr. Carte made, and that deals with the use of this project. Essentially, you have here a six lot subdivision. You have the five lots bordering West Mountain Road are going to be typical residential subdivision, and then you’ve got the six lot. If that pond were on Lake George, we’d call that a cottage colony, and that leads to Mr. Carte’s comment that this is a commercial activity, and I think you’ve got to go further than just that a duplex facility is allowed in this zone. Is commercial activity allowed in this zone? This is what that operation is going to be. So I submit that I think they need a Use Variance as well. Thank you. MR. BRYANT-This property is not on the lake, Mr. Salvador. It’s not on the lake. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. SALVADOR-Just change the name. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. STONE-This gentleman over here. Sir? ADOLPH ARZBERGER MR. ARZBERGER-My name is Arzberger. I live at 50 Bronk Drive, right on the corner of West Mountain and Bronk. That’s directly, almost directly across from that property, and I believe there should be one dwelling as per zone for one acre, and I agree with Mr. Carte. Thank you. MR. STONE-Bruce, would you comment, there was a question raised that is Staff directed Use Variance commercial. I mean, I’m looking at the definition of commercial use, and it doesn’t apply to rental property, to residential. Would you agree? MR. FRANK-Again, the Zoning Administrator made a determination, this is what I was told, that this is an Area Variance. I wasn’t privy to any other discussions. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-We’ll discuss that, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Okay. I assume you’ve got a whole list of things you’re going to address, but go ahead. You’re on. KATHY GOMES MRS. GOMES-Kathy Gomes, 91 Tuthill Road. My property is not immediately adjacent to this property. It’s just out of the frame of view on the map up there. I’ve been before Queensbury Zoning and Planning Boards before, for the reason of opposing variances that allow a higher density than what is currently in the zoning. That’s why I’m here tonight. Not because it would have a direct impact on my property, but because I think any time a Queensbury Board grants a density variance, you impact everyone in the entire Town of Queensbury. You impact all of us who bought in Queensbury because we liked the larger zoning lots and we liked the more rural feel of the Town, particularly the area on the western edge of Queensbury. That’s why I bought over there, after a five year search for property, and relocation from another state, as did many of my neighbors. So I am here simply to say that I think the Board needs to consider very carefully any time you are thinking of granting this type of a variance, and consider very carefully the impact it has on the immediate neighbors. I feel that every time a variance of this type is granted, it weakens the existing zoning regulations. Those regulations are there for a purpose, and I think they need to be enforced consistently, not have variances granted consistently. I also would like to support the statement that if this area is such a danger the way it is and needs to be cleaned up, that the current owners should be made to do that and be held responsible, as we would hold responsible someone living more in the center of town if junk on their property was considered a hazard to the neighbors, and I’d like to know why the Town of Queensbury has not done that, and I do not believe this Board has a responsibility to make a development profitable for the developer. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak against? TOM DELLACOURT MR. DELLACOURT-My name’s Tom Dellacourt. I live at 25 Applehouse Lane. This development will impact my dwelling, and I agree with all the statements that have been made in opposition to this development. Thank you. MR. STONE-Good. Thank you. DEBBIE DAWE MS. DAWE-Hi. My name is Debbie Dawe, and I live at 271 Fuller Road, and although I do not object to the Hayes developing that property, or any other property, I do object to the variance in the density. We’ve heard a lot of testimony as to this property being an eyesore in its present condition, and we’ve had a number of people that are affiliated with the Hayes say it is an eyesore, and we’ve also heard, as I agree with, that it is not, we have heard from Mr. Carte, going by the property on West Mountain Road, it’s not an eyesore there, not an eyesore from Applehouse. I spend a lot of time walking around on the trails above that property. I didn’t even know there was any problem there until this issue came up. So it’s certainly not an eyesore, as I see it, from any direction, from the neighbors that live in the immediate vicinity, and, yes, it would affect the area that I live in. Thanks. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. STONE-Anybody else? MR. VELEZ-Once again. I’ve been up 16 years. MR. STONE-Name again. MR. VELEZ-Velez, Ismael Velez, Applehouse Lane. I’ve been living there 16 years. I originally came from a metropolitan area. One of the reasons I came up here was because of the lifestyle, okay. Yes, Staten Island. I almost moved to Staten Island, didn’t move to Staten Island like a lot of my friends didn’t because of density, and because of two dwelling homes and that type of thing, and I’ll guarantee you, I don’t care what price they put on it, what the rental is going to be, or isn’t going to be, it’s going to change the area, and it’s going to change it big time. You can dream all you want, but that’s what’s going to happen. I’ve seen that happen. I grew up in a metropolitan area, in the suburbs of New York City, and it happens all the time, and it’s going to ruin the area, like it or not. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. We’ve got a man in the back here. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Is this for or against? MR. STONE-We’re against. We’re on against. Well, we’ll get all those people out of the way, and then if you want to speak again, you may. LINDA MARCOT-TATAR MRS. MARCOT-TATAR-I’m Linda Marcot-Tatar. I live on Braeside Circle, which is off Fuller Road. I didn’t want to sit through all this without at least making my feelings known. I’m concerned because when I pull out of Fuller Road in the morning, there’s 55 mile an hour traffic. It’s very hard to make a left turn. That’s a school bus stop. I had the stop signs on Peggy Ann, I called the Town, it was made larger. I’m concerned about the quality of the Town. We relocated from one area to this area of Queensbury because it was more rural, and I’m concerned about the changes. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else? PAT LANSING MRS. LANSING-Hello. My name is Pat Lansing. I live at 623 West Mountain Road in Queensbury for over 30 years, and, yes, I will be affected by this. The traffic goes right by my house. The traffic now is horrendous, and I don’t see that it’s going to get any better with that type of a project and that type of density, but more than that, I have sat here and listened to them talk about how unsightly that site is. It’s not, and I dare say that they have never gotten one call from any neighbor in that area complaining about Ashton’s. We’re thrilled to have it. We’re thrilled to have a place where the kids can walk and ride their bikes and get off of West Mountain Road where the traffic goes flying through there at 60 miles an hour. I think that if anything that should be made into a park for the people there. There’s flora. There’s fauna. I mean, people laugh at me, but there’s deer. There’s birds. It’s a beautiful site. It’s just as beautiful to me as looking at Lake George or Glen Lake or any other site that we’re lucky enough to have in these mountains and in this area of Queensbury. It’s a beautiful area. Please don’t ruin it. If these guys have to develop, then let the Ashton’s clean it up, and let somebody go in there that’s willing to do it according to the zoning. Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else? DAVE SCHREKMER MR. SCHREKMER-My name’s Dave Schrekmer. I live on West Mountain Road. I don’t really have a problem with the development, but if we’ve got rules, now like the road, what’s to, if they build it to Town specs, what’s to keep them from, in two years, trying to give it over to the Town? MR. STONE-You’ve raised a good question. MR. SCHREKMER-They could get their 1200 feet when they’re only supposed to get 1,000. They build it to specs, then they want to give it to the Town. MR. FRANK-I also do not know that answer, but it’s a good question, and it’s going to be reviewed during site plan by those that are much more qualified to handle these type of questions. MR. SCHREKMER-And my only other question is, how many, under our current rules, how many houses can be built there? MR. STONE-Well, the Zoning Administrator has estimated in exactly 29. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. SCHREKMER-Shouldn’t we follow the rules? MR. STONE-That’s what we’re here for, to talk about 29 versus their requested 41. That’s what this whole evening has been so far. MR. ABBATE-Will this have an impact, this project impact your property? MR. SCHREKMER-It could, and it could either way, actually, because I live on West Mountain Road. It may bring my value up or down. I don’t know. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. It better be different, because I got down what you said. MR. CASTONGUAY-Pierre Castonguay, 24 Applehouse. I’m sure the, Mr. Hayes and Mr. Hayes are very good landlords, but it’s very possible they build this and two years from now they sell their interest, and who knows what the new landlords will keep the properties at. That’s it. MR. STONE-Come on up, sir. WALT WICKS MR. WICKS-My name is Walt Wicks. I live on 644 West Mountain Road. I think I’m one of the older ones. I guess Charlie Baker is older, but I’ve been there 38 years. I’ve seen this whole area develop, and I am very much opposed to giving a variance. It’s zoned for single family dwellings, and I think it should stay that way. Traffic wise, it’s horrendous. The Planning Board and the Town should really take a look at, I’ve talked to Rick Missita about it. The traffic going down through there, the speed limits, double solid lines. We’ve had fatalities on the corner, our neighbors. I think it’s just a real safety factor for the traffic coming on to that highway. Thank you. MR. STONE-You’re welcome. Anybody else? STAN PRITZKER MR. PRITZKER-Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Stan Pritzker, representing Kelly Carte, and I was also asked to represent an organization, unincorporated association, West Mountain Road Association. I met with them about this matter, and my office is in Hudson Falls. Before I get going, and I will be brief, I promise. MR. ABBATE-Before we start, Mr. Chairman, are you an attorney? MR. PRITZKER-Yes, sir. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. PRITZKER-I do have a submission, a written submission, that may help. MR. STONE-Good. MR. PRITZKER-I made copies for everybody. MR. ABBATE-And you have been retained by these folks? MR. PRITZKER-I was retained by Kelly Carte. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Mr. Pritzker, are you going to say things that your client didn’t say? MR. PRITZKER-Yes, absolutely. I’m going to focus on a legal analysis. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. PRITZKER-First off, I did put the written submission in just to help. I’d appreciate it if it could be reviewed. Preliminarily, I’d like to request, if the Board is inclined to grant a variance tonight, I would request that it be tabled. I have not had time to review the actual application. It’s my understanding, and correct me 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) if I’m wrong, that the application wasn’t in the last Wednesday of March? It wasn’t filed by then. Is that correct? MR. STONE-I believe that’s, parts of it weren’t. Is that correct? MR. FRANK-The only parts of the application that weren’t filed, and I guess it was an oversight, was just the cover page and the signature page, which was submitted before this meeting today. MR. PRITZKER-Because I was told by Mr. Carte that when he spoke to the Planning Department they told him that what was filed at that time was a map, and I wasn’t prepared, at that time, and just if you’re inclined to grant the variance, I would request a tabling. I’d like to present further proof, at a next meeting, if that’s possible. Having said that, I would like to make a couple of quick comments, and I do not mean to be presumptuous with these comments, nor tell you how to do your job or what your job is, but I would say that I don’t believe, and it’s my opinion that it’s not a Zoning Board of Appeals job to increase the tax base for the Town through Area Variances. That doesn’t make sense to me. Nor do I think it’s the Zoning Board of Appeals’ job to grant Area Variances to police a property where kids ride motorcycles on. Nor do I think it’s appropriate to grant an Area Variance to clean up a piece of property which in my opinion is part of the job of either the Town or DEC or whatever agency is supposed to do that. I don’t think those are relevant, and finally I certainly don’t think it’s the job to grant an Area Variance to make a project more profitable. I just don’t think that makes sense to me. Having said that, and I’ll just briefly summarize my submission. I don’t think this is an Area Variance application at all. I think it purports to be, but I think what it really is it’s a rezone. I think you’re looking to rezone that property. At some point, a request to reduce density becomes a rezoning, and the question is what point is that. Well, your Planning Department, on August 16, 2001, rendered a memorandum, and it was by a woman named Marilyn Ryba. Her conclusion was, at that time, by the way, this was a 98 unit, this was when it was at 98, the practical effect of a variance request is a rezoning. Since tripling the allowed density is a substantial difference from the existing zoning of SR-1A. So it was obvious to the Planning Department at that time that that was a rezoning, and of course the Zoning Board of Appeals can’t do rezoning. It has to go through the Town Board on a Petition. It’s a Type I Action, totally different thing than an Area Variance, and I’m sure this isn’t your typical Area Variance that you guys see every time you have meetings. The question is now whether the 41 unit request is also, in essence, a request to rezone. It’s my opinion that it is, and in my submission I address that in the first two pages. I have analyzed it this way, however, and I want to point this out. I calculated 27 units. Okay. So the way I looked at it was that the density was being increased by 51%. So that was the basis of my analysis. I don’t think I would have changed my legal opinion if I believed it was a 45% increase. I still would have said such a dramatic increase in density is tantamount to a rezoning, not an Area Variance. Now, I got authority for that by looking at what the Planning Department said, but I also found a case, and it’s cited in my submission. It’s called Bivona vs. Plattekill ZBA, and in that case, the Third Department Appellate Division, that’s where we sit, looked at a situation where an applicant requested to put four units on a two acre parcel. That’s it, four units on a two acre parcel. The zoning required about one acre per. It was 40,000 square feet. It was about one acre per. So they were looking to put, instead of four units on four, four units on two. The applicants asked for a variance, and the ZBA denied it. They commenced an Article 78 in Supreme Court, and the trial court granted the variance and said the ZBA was wrong. Well, the Third Department reversed and said the ZBA was right, and in reversing, they stated, and I quote, “the requested variance is undoubtedly substantial, nearly doubling the allowed density of the parcel – which the ZBA viewed to be tantamount to a rezoning of the property.” Now, again, in my opinion, that case is binding in the Third Department. It was decided in the Year 2000. I think the situation here is far more egregious than trying to put four units on a two acre parcel. The citation is there. I’m sure you could find the case. The next case I took a look at is Devore v. Cazalet, and that’s a Second Department case, but it’s a long time ago, and it was 1979. It involved a commercial application for an Area Variance, a “Area Variance”. This looked for increases in building area, height, parking, things like that. The Appellate Division found the request was in the nature of rezoning, which they added, and I quote “which boards of zoning appeals are not entitled to grant.” That’s on Page Two. So, it’s my opinion, and just my opinion, that the multiple Area Variances that are being requested here, and they certainly are multiple, are not, are tantamount to a rezoning and are not what they purport to be, an Area Variance. The second point I would like to make, and I’ll try to make it quickly, is that my review of Town Law 267B, governs the criteria which a Zoning Board of Appeals has to look at in deciding whether to grant an Area Variance, and that is, of course, assuming what you’re looking at is an Area Variance and not a rezoning. If it’s a rezoning, you don’t have any jurisdiction. If it’s an Area Variance, there’s five factors, and one of the, I haven’t heard an analysis of these five factors, but the first thing is whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to the nearby properties, and I think you’ve heard a great deal of testimony that says that this particular increase in density, will, in fact, create a detriment to nearby properties, and produce a change in the neighborhood character. Well, the second thing you have to look at is whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance. Well, the way I look at it is they can definitely pursue a different method. First and foremost they could have pursued a rezoning. Interestingly enough, Queensbury decided not to rezone this particular land, because they just changed, as I understand it, their zoning ordinance, but that wasn’t rezoned, and I think that gives people an idea as to where the Town is coming from, and I do not believe, by the way, and I may be wrong on this, that the Hayes put in a petition for a rezoning. I don’t believe that occurred. It could have occurred. It would have been okay for them to try to do that. The second one, of course, which I think is obvious to everybody, is 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) they could build within the rules of the game. They could put up, they don’t have to put up single family dwellings, because we know that’s not the only uses permitted in the zone, but they can do the same density, one acre. One acre density, and see if they can make a buck doing it, or they can request a much, much, much, much, much smaller variance, in which case I wouldn’t be up here arguing it’s a rezoning. Three, whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. I think it’s a lot more substantial. I think it’s a rezoning, and I don’t think you’ve seen too many requests for Area Variances that does things like this, at least that’s what I think. Four, whether the proposed variance will have adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Well, this aspect we dealt with before, and you’ve heard testimony on it. I don’t have extensive information about this issue right now. Some people think the area needs to be cleaned up. Some people think it’s the next thing to Eden. So it’s kind of hard to make, it sounds subjective to me. Five, whether the alleged difficulty is self-created, which consideration shall be relevant in the decision by the Board of Appeals. Now, I don’t think there’s any way you can argue around this one. These guys want to buy this land. They’re the ones seeking the variance. So, to that extent, clearly, if the hardship is the density, the one acre, it’s self-created in the sense that they have a contract that’s probably contingent upon them getting approval here. It probably goes by the wayside, if, in fact, they don’t get approval. So there’s probably a contingency there. To that extent, it’s clearly self-created by them. No, the cement wasn’t self- created. They didn’t do that, and I wouldn’t argue it was, but the density, the fact that they’re coming into an area, seeking to reduce the density, is self-created by them. It’s not that they bought some property and a law came in later that changed the rules of the game. Now that would not be self-created, and finally, what the Town law says is the variance should be the minimum necessary and adequate to address the problem, and I don’t think that at all has been proven here today, and I also think the credibility has to be questioned a little bit because of the fact that they went from an 80 lot subdivision, actually it was a 92, I think at one point, which they needed to be profitable, then they went to 80, now they’re at 41. That just doesn’t jive with me. I think, if we get enough financial input, which I do plan to get if you need that, I would be able to show that it is a feasible project to sell one acre lots. Of course it depends on what the lots sell for, what a single family lot will sell for in this area in Queensbury. So we would need proof on that issue. I just want to check if I need to make any more points here. One thing I would note quickly, I’ve heard a lot about clustering, that concept. Well, clustering can’t increase the number of lots. Clustering can’t increase the number of lots. If the number of lots is 28 or 29 or 27. Clustering doesn’t change that rule. It’s right in your Ordinance. So I’m not sure how that is involved here, but I think it’s almost a red herring. The fact is that they’re looking to greatly increase, greatly increase, the density here. It’s close to a 50% density increase, and I think the people that live around here in Queensbury, they pay a lot of taxes, I think they have the right to expect that the laws will be upheld and that they’ll be protected. I just think that’s fair. That’s all I have to say. MR. STONE-Thank you. You have not been before this Board very often, but what you did exactly is what we will do when we get through with the public hearing, because we take our job very seriously. We were given this as a variance application. We have no control about what’s on the agenda, and it is our job to rule on it, and we think you for your cogent comments. That’s very good. MR. ABBATE-It’s well presented, Counselor. Thank you. MR. PRITZKER-I appreciate it. MR. STONE-All right. Anybody else wishing to speak against? This gentleman would like to rebut, or at least say something, and then we have a couple of correspondence that we’ll read in, and we’ll give the applicant a chance to comment. MR. BAKER-Hi. My name is Charles Baker. I live on 749 West Mountain Road. There’s been a couple of statements made here tonight that I don’t believe are true. One, they said there was nothing happened on the Ashton property. I know of a rape that was down there. I know of two broken arms, because it’s private property, people go on it. Okay. A woman suggested that it be used for a playground. I don’t believe it can be made into a playground as it is, because when we got out of the business, when we had the business there, it said when that reverted back, it would revert back to residential. It didn’t say playground. It didn’t say, you know, public access or anything of the sort, and other people have stated that they’ve gone up on these trails. I wonder if they’ve ever seen the Posted signs up there. It’s all private property. They shouldn’t be up there, and there was another statement I believe, by Mr. Carte. He said that he had permission to oversee the property, Ashton property. I have here a letter dated April 23, 2002. “To Whom It May Concern: As a representative of the Ashton property on West Mountain Road, neither I nor any other representative of the property, including Archie Messenger, Trustee of the West Mountain Land Trust, have ever designated Kelly Carte as caretaker of the property. In addition, Kelly Carte has never been given permission to utilize the land for any recreation or any other purpose. Sincerely, Robert S. Ashton”. MR. STONE-Is that signed? MR. BAKER-It is signed. MR. STONE-Is it on letterhead? I would ask you to submit it, but I would kind of like to see it on letterhead, so that I know where it’s coming from. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. ABBATE-That’s absolutely right, on letterhead. MR. CARTE-I have the letter in writing from Archie Messenger, who is a trustee of Ashton’s property, giving permission to post the property there, to try to keep people off, and I can present it if you’d like. MR. STONE-I think you did, the last time we talked about this thing. I believe you did. MR. ABBATE-Yes, I think he did as well. You did. MR. STONE-Would you read the two letters, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. “To Whom It May Concern:” This one’s addressed 4/24/02, and it’s from Judy Howard, 794 West Mountain Road, Queensbury, re: the Area Variance No. 22-2002, Hayes and Hayes, “I am in total objection to the proposal above to construct 12 duplex townhouses and 3-four plex townhouses and 5 single family homes on the former Ashton Cement property. I have lived in this area 12 years now and feel there is enough traffic now on West Mountain Road. Plus, this is a residential area and we do not need townhouses in this area. Single family homes are fine but the townhouses should not be allowed. This would be 43 new families and usually you have 2 cars – at least – per household. That is, at a minimum, 86 additional vehicles traveling on a road that is already congested, not considering the hazard it may cause with the Potter Rd. intersection that is already congested with traffic. This figure doesn’t include visitors! This cannot be allowed to happen. We are trying to raise families here. We have enough problems with the traffic and vehicles flying by our home on West Mountain Rd. Please think about the families that are trying to keep our children safe. We do not need something like this in our back yard. Thank you. Sincerely, Judy M. Howard 794 West Mountain Rd. Queensbury, NY 12804” And the other one is dated 24 of April 2002, th “To Whom It May Concern: We oppose the construction of 12 duplex townhouses,” MR. STONE-Read the name, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Judith Bren, 11 Sawn Road, Queensbury, NY. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-“We oppose the construction of 12 duplex townhouses and 3 four-plex townhouses on West Mountain Rd., south of Potter Rd. The area consists of family homes, and so we have no problem with the proposed one-acre single-family home sites. There is already enough traffic in the area and on West Mountain Rd. and Potter Road, and we just do not need or want townhouses in the area. Sincerely, Judith Bren 11 Sawn Rd. Queensbury, NY Emma E. Howard 11 Sawn Rd. Queensbury, NY” MR. STONE-Anything else? I’m going to take the liberty, without prejudice, of leaving the public hearing open, only because, with all of the degree of comment we’ve had tonight, I anticipate we have more, and therefore, at least for the moment, I’m going to leave the public hearing open, but, Mr. Lapper and company, the floor is yours again. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. STONE-Also, I do want to thank everybody who has spoken. I think it really shows democracy in action, and I appreciate your patience, and I appreciate your comments, one and all. MR. LAPPER-I guess, not surprisingly, what we primarily heard were people who are happy with the status quo, that live in the area and view this property as some sort of an open space parcel because it’s not developed, and it could be that there’s a need in the Town for a park on the west side of the Northway, but this is a private property which is allowed to be zoned, and simply the only thing we’re talking about here is a difference between 31 and 41, or 29 and 41, and in terms of the impacts that everyone is so concerned about, and I know that Chuck was asking everyone whether they would be negatively impacted by this, I think that they have a perception that if anything is built there, they’re going to be negatively impacted, but I don’t think that that perception is correct. This also runs into the issue of use, and whether we’re asking for the correct relief, which I’m certain that we are. In the SR-1A zone, permitted uses, with site plan review, include multifamily dwelling project, and in the Town Code, the definition of multifamily dwelling is “Any building used or designed as a residence with two or more families living independently of each other and doing their own cooking therein, including but not limited to, apartment houses, townhouse developments, certain condominium developments, and the conversion of existing single family dwellings.” So apartment houses, and these are not apartment houses, but apartment houses with many residents would be considered a permitted use in this zone. So I think that the neighbors are concerned because it is primarily a single family area. They mentioned one of the older, Queen Victoria Grant, one of the older multifamily projects, but this is clearly a permitted use in the zone. So we’re not here trying to ask for something that is different or unique. This is just a permitted use. What we’re talking about is increasing the density, far less than what the Hayes came to this Board to talk about last year, because it was apparent there that the neighbors were so concerned that we thought that we would, by changing the project, and putting the single family dwellings on the road, it would keep the character the same, even though it is permissible, without coming to this Board, to 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) do a townhouse development right up to West Mountain Road. It just seemed, as a way to offer an olive branch to the neighbors, to keep single family along West Mountain Road, and to put the duplex and the few four-plexes in the back. You heard from many of the neighbors who said that they don’t think it’s an eyesore. They think the property is fine. If you look on the record last time when we were here, we were disagreeing about a number of things with the many people that were here, but the Board made it clear that you, or the members of the Board who were here last time, and I think that was more of you than are here tonight, have been to the site, and it was a pretty clear acknowledgement that this was a property that needed to be cleaned up. This was certainly not a project or not a property that the Hayes had anything to do with creating. They were young kids when this property was damaged in this way, and they’re trying to come up with a plan to remediate it and to do a nice development. They have a history and a reputation in the Town of doing quality projects, taking the Cool Beans property from a horrible used car lot and turning it into the lovely property that it is, is one example, but I think we’ve got to stay focused on the fact that we’re just talking about an increase of ten or twelve units that are all permitted. In terms of what Stan suggested, that this would need a rezoning, we’re asking for an increase in the area requirements, and that’s why we’re here for an Area Variance. This could not properly be done as a rezoning because there’s no other, it would be spot zoning, subject to a challenge for spot zoning because there’s not another zone in the vicinity that would accommodate what we’re asking for. Also, when you go for a rezoning, one of the questions is, this is like the Use Variance test, whether there’s something unique to this property, or whether it’s the whole district. If there’s a problem with the whole district, you go to have many properties rezoned, but here we’re talking about something that is specifically unique to this property, because we’ve got the expense of cleaning it up. Stan is right, that the issues of profitability are not something that’s properly before the Board for an Area Variance. We were trying to make, by analogy, making an even stronger case last time, that we could even justify the Use Variance standard because this property requires so much to clean up, again, not created by the applicants, but in terms of the Area Variance standards, balancing the burden on the neighborhood versus the benefit to the applicants, the benefit is to the neighborhood as well, because it is a problem whether the neighbors want to acknowledge it, whether some of the neighbors are happy having kids use the property as their playground. It’s dangerous and it needs to be cleaned up, whether it’s by the Hayes or by somebody else, it needs to be cleaned up, and the Board acknowledged that last time, but, in terms of the impact on the neighborhood, of the character of the neighborhood, people talked about what the zoning is there with the one acre zone, but what we’re talking about is what is actually there, because the neighborhood was developed prior to the current zoning, and many of the streets in the area, many of the neighbor’s lots are 15,000 square feet or half an acre. The density here would be eight tenths of an acre. To address some other issues that were raised, this is not a cluster subdivision because we’re not subdividing the six lot. It would be owned by the applicants. So that would not be subdivided. In terms of the density calculation, the street would not be, the road would be a private drive. It would not be a street. Just reading from the Code, from how you do calculation, this doesn’t, this is under 183-34F, this doesn’t actually apply, but the Planning Department, for the last year, has been applying it by analogy, and I’m not arguing with that, but from the total area of the property subdivided, the area to be occupied by the proposed streets rights of way, and none of this is a street right of way. It’s a private drive. It’s not going to be dedicated to the Town, and it can’t be dedicated to the Town if it’s not being built to Town specs. It’s being built as a private drive for a townhouse project. The area to be set aside for other public use, such as parkland, and none of that would be public, the area occupied by other public easements, rights of way across the property, such as major power or telephone lines, and I don’t believe that that applies to an underground waterline easement because it says across the property, and this would still count as green space, because it’s the land above the waterline that can still be traversed by people and used for other purposes, such as hiking trails, etc. So we believe that the correct number is 31, but again, in terms of the significance of the discussion, the impacts on the neighborhood, which would be probably the traffic generated by two extra units. It’s just not worth going into much of a discussion about whether it’s 29 or 31. I don’t believe that it’s a significant difference between 29 or 31 or 41. Our main point is that there is an expense. We can, we heard the neighbors. The immediate neighbor was speculating about how cheaply it could cost to clean it up. We have quotes from two different contractors. Micky has now tried to find a way to do it less expensively, to change the project. It’s not a credibility issue. It was clear that people were concerned last time, and by making it single family along the road, it just makes it in character with what’s already there, but again, it’s not necessary to do that because it would be perfectly permissible to build 29 or 31 townhouses under zoning without coming before this Board. I just don’t see that the level of concern here is justified by the project, except for the fact that people are concerned about what is permitted in the Zoning Ordinance, but that’s not something before this Board, but again, as you guys acknowledge, the Planning Board is very detailed in their site plan reviews, in terms of buffering, vegetation, landscaping, lighting, access issues. So all those would properly be site plan review issues, and getting through the Planning Board, the project may change. It might not be exactly what’s presented, but those are site plan issues. MR. STONE-Well, let me ask that question, because your familiarity with the Planning Board is more than mine. If we were to grant 41, could they reduce that number in site plan review? MR. LAPPER-If there was a site plan reason that required that, yes, they could, but we went to the Planning Board last time conceptually and there is, that’s why I think that, at a minimum, you have to annex the prior application to this, because all of that was intended. When I applied a month ago, I applied with a cover letter saying that this is, here’s the revised site plan, but we weren’t changing the application. We were going 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) on the other application and just minimizing the relief. We were asked to supply another application and we did. I was away for the vacation week. So it didn’t get signed, but it was the same application. MR. STONE-I think that’s one of the things that’s probably going to at least make me consider tabling this at some point, because a lot of materials have been bandied about and we really, I haven’t looked at them all in context because of the fact that I was told this was a new application, and some of the material wasn’t there, even though I did look, I think I quoted from a letter that you wrote back in August. MR. LAPPER-I would ask that it be tabled for that reason as well. Stan said that he didn’t get a chance to look at the application, and I certainly don’t want that to be a reason to challenge it. I would like the whole package to be available to anyone who wants to look at it, what we supplied last time, what we supplied this time, but the pro formas that were done last time are really not part of the standard, and not something that we need to spend much time on. So even though that would be part of the whole packet. MR. ABBATE-And Mr. Chairman, I might take an opposite view and say perhaps we should come to a judgment based on the material that has been submitted to us, rather than tabling it. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Quite frankly. How many times are we going to table something? MR. STONE-Okay. We can talk about it. MR. ABBATE-Please. MR. STONE-Absolutely, no problem. Anything else you want to add? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Micky’s prepared an analysis of the density of some of the adjacent neighborhoods and other neighborhoods in Town, and I’d just like to submit this to be part of the record, just to show that our density is less than adjacent neighborhoods. MR. STONE-One of the points that I want to make, I’ll make it now. Last week, we were asked to consider a new application which we are going to hear next, I hope, if all goes well, and whether a change in an application was significant. I certainly would submit that 10 or 12 units over the amount is significant. It’s not a small increase, and I think because it is significant, I think we have to look long and hard at some of the arguments that have been made. Mr. Pritzker made the comment, is it rezoning. I don’t know, but it’s certainly a big change. MR. ABBATE-Good point, Mr. Chairman. Point well made. MR. LAPPER-That’s a question properly presented to the Zoning Administrator to make a determination on whether this is appropriate. I believe he’s made that determination. MR. STONE-He has, by putting it on our agenda. MR. LAPPER-But there’s nothing wrong with you asking that question, but in terms of the significance issue, when you’re talking about the Area Variance, Stan properly quoted from Town law, it is a balancing test. So, in some context, if I had a one acre lot and I was coming to you to ask for 10 more units, of course that would be significant, but here, we’re saying that it’s a balancing test, and the balance includes what’s on the property that needs to be remediated. MR. ABBATE-And you’re right, Counselor. Of paramount interest, I wrote a note. Of paramount interest is the balancing act of the rights of the property owners as opposed to the requests of the applicant. So you’re right. MR. STONE-Well, do you have anything more? MR. ABBATE-If I may? A, B, C, D. A I’ve already mentioned, the balancing act, the right of property owner versus the requests of an applicant, and there’s been some suggestion made, rightfully or wrongfully, I haven’t had an opportunity to review any of these cases cited by Mr. Pritzker, and that’s of paramount interest to me. How does this project, or any project, impact property owners. B, two hours and forty-five minutes ago, you folks made an argument about cleaning up and how important it was, and I said, wait a minute. I get confused at my age. Clean up? Why doesn’t the Town require the individual who owns the property to clean up? I’m not sure I really understand this, but maybe it’s beyond me. C. I notice, with some troubling a little bit here, that three of the individuals in favor of the application had a vested interest, while 18 of the 19 opposed were concerned about the impact, the adverse impact, on their private property, and, D, Mr. Pritzker, I’m not going to comment on your case. I’ll only give its precedence, stated, rightly so, in addition, the ZBA is directed to, “grant the minimum variance that it shall deem necessary and adequate 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community”. Thank you, sir. MR. STONE-Any further comments? Mr. Nace, do you want to comment? MR. NACE-Sure. Two questions that were brought up. One is traffic. The 41 proposed units would generate approximately 40 to 42 trips per maximum hour, peak hour, okay. Now, it’s presently zoned that you could put either 29, let’s say 29 units there. So the difference is 12, the difference is going to be about 12 or 13 trips per hour, between granting a variance and not granting a variance. The existing average daily flow on that road, I’ve been told, is about 4800 cars per day. At peak hour, that’s going to equate to somewhere around eight or nine hundred cars per hour. I don’t have the exact count from the County on that, because they just had totals. So the 12 cars per hour versus eight or nine hundred cars per hour is a very small percentage. The second issue I wanted to address is this issue with stormwater runoff, groundwater, the pond. That pond presently receives water from two sources. One is from the groundwater from springs, and two is from surface rivulets, drainageways that come down off the mountain. The pond does not have any outlet. The only outlet for the pond is groundwater. So the level in the pond fluctuates with the groundwater in the area. Several people from over on Applehouse and Lester, I believe, is the adjacent street, have had problems for years with groundwater in their basements and around their lots, primarily the areas closest to the end of the streets and the adjacent hillside. In fact, I looked into that problem for the Town several years back. That is a groundwater problem with the groundwater pressure from the groundwater up on the mountain, and it comes out in springs, back in that area. Our pond, on this property, is far enough removed from that that there is virtually no effect. They’re primary effect back there is the water pressure, the hydrostatic water pressure from groundwater up on the mountain. Our pond simply floats on the groundwater. In dry years it’ll be low. In wet years it’ll be a little higher, and we’re going to maintain, with the proposed development, maintain that existing pond, so that it can still function the way it does now. It’ll simply fluctuate with the groundwater, and we will collect all runoff from the development and divert it into that pond, which is really what happens now. Any rain that falls on this area eventually finds its way down into the pond. There are a few areas to the north that runoff directly toward West Mountain, but the soils are permeable, and most of the water that falls on the ground gets its way into groundwater, which is what will happen once the property is developed. So there will be no effect on adjacent properties from what we’re doing. MR. LAPPER-I’d just like to point out that the neighbors are concerned because of the townhouse nature of part of this project, and I just want to point out that, sitting here where we are, a few hundred feet away is the Hiland development, where there’s a mix of single family homes, the $300,000 price point approximately, and a whole bunch of townhouse projects in the vicinity, and that hasn’t had a negative impact, because people, they’re building $300,000 homes right now, and they actually have been building more single family homes since the townhouses have been built. So there’s not something inherently wrong with having a mix of different residential lifestyles of single family and of multifamily, and that’s why the Town Zoning Code permits that as a permitted use. MR. STONE-Anything else? MR. LAPPER-Just, I have enough of a concern about what Stan suggested, about whether the record’s complete, that I think I would feel more comfortable not leaving this open to a procedural challenge, that it would probably make sense to put the record together, to make sure that that’s available to the public, and to table it, unfortunately, until the next meeting, so that we wouldn’t be open to a procedural attack, regardless of the decision. MR. STONE-Well, let me just, without putting you on the spot, Mr. Abbate, would you be adverse to that? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. STONE-You would? Okay. MR. ABBATE-I say we should judge this application on its appearance. If it’s been sloppy work done, so be it. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I just want to respond to the sloppy work. What’s happened is, again, I submitted this as a continuation of the existing application. I was away for the vacation week, and the Planning Office had asked my office to resubmit the application with a new signature, replacing my old signature, and that didn’t happen until today. So that’s, I don’t think that was sloppy. I think it was requested late and I was away. JAMIE HAYES MR. J. HAYES-Jamie Hayes, for the record. I’ve been on the Board for five years, and certainly we have these cases where there’s a lot of emotion involved with development of property next to existing properties, 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) and I think that that type of input has made for good decisions on this Board in the past and it will in the future. I would just like to address a couple of the economic issues, because I was particularly involved with that part of it. When we first investigated this property, I went to the attorney for the Trust. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Hayes, may I interrupt? I think that this presentation may have the appearance of impropriety, since this gentleman is on the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. STONE-He is one of the applicants. He is an applicant. MR. J. HAYES-I am a citizen of Queensbury, just as you are. You can cross examine me as you’ve cross examined the other witnesses after they were done. I guess I sat at the attorney’s office for the Trust of this case, and the file for this particular property was about six inches thick. The reason it was six inches thick is that, basically, six or seven developers took a crack at this with the best of their abilities, including some high powered developing groups within the Town, and they determined that it was not economically viable to do this property with 27 or 29 lots. It simply wasn’t, after thousands of dollars of engineering studies and lawyers and everything else, which are important, but still an expense for these people, they decided to back away. Being a believer in a free market society that we are, the only logical conclusion that I could come to with that is that it simply could not be done under that format, economically. Now Mr. Carte, who runs a furniture company here in Town, a very respectable furniture company here in Town, he is opposing, or has provided you with a viewpoint that this could be easily done, could be easily be profitable, and should not even be an issue. That goes exactly contrary to everything that this file indicated, to the people that make their livings in this business. My only submission to you is that, from a strictly economic theory, I’m not talking about the emotion of the development, but strictly from an economic theory perspective, that goes against people that are making their livings doing this exact thing. They’ve walked away. I saw names like the Western Reserve, Westwood, it was one dead file after another within that thing, and I’m just asking, when you consider the economics of it, to examine the market. This property’s been sold, been available for 20 years, it has not been sold. No matter what is presented as far as what could happen, it hasn’t happened. It’s not going to happen. I mean, it’s just not economically viable, and as far as paying the money back over time, or that type of return, I deal with the financial packages that we do in our company, every day, every year, and I can tell you that bankers are not the type of people you’d want to spend your afternoon with, because they’re not humorous. They don’t have any inclination to, we’d like to pay the money back a little slower, or it’s possible to pay it along or over time. The rate of return, the rate of amortization, these things are very definite. It all boils down, simply, to the numbers that are involved with the project, and we’re telling you, from a certain perspective, the numbers don’t work as it’s zoned, and other developers would tell you the same thing by their actions, by their deciding to pull away from this file. From a strictly economic perspective, from a banking perspective, there’s very little variance that you could imagine that these people tolerate. They would not accept the return that was in over a period of time, that would put them at risk for losing their money, and we, quite frankly, can’t accept it either. That’s the truth. I mean, we’re not saying that here, but I am saying it. If it took too long to amortize this property, it would be a bad investment. There could be changes in the market conditions, all kinds of things. So I’m just asking you, from an economic perspective, to consider what the empirical evidence of the market has indicated so far. No one’s bought the property. No one’s developed it, and there’s been no, and I think if we asked Mr. Gover, he doesn’t have anybody else that’s interested at this time. So, the facts, the market is what determines what works in a business environment and in a free market society, not idealistic pro formas. They just don’t float. So, thanks. MR. STONE-Thank you, Mr. Hayes. Anything else? Well, I would like to talk about it. I’m going to start with Jim. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, we have a comment here. MR. STONE-I’m sorry. MR. PRITZKER-I’m sorry. One brief comment. I just want to object, on behalf of my client, to the testimony of a ZBA member, concerning his own project. I think that is a clear conflict of interest. I don’t know Mr. Hayes at all. I’m not saying anything about him personally, but the last testimony, in my opinion, constitutes a conflict of interest. Just for the record. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, I’m not sure that’s on the record, because he didn’t have the microphone. If you’re going to speak, you need to be at a microphone. MR. STONE-Come up and say it. MR. PRITZKER-Just generally to repeat what I said, Stan Pritzker. I represent Kelly Carte, and the testimony that was just given by a member of the ZBA to the ZBA, in support of his own project before the ZBA, in my opinion, constitutes a conflict of interest, and I am going to object to it, just for the record. MR. STONE-Okay, and you may do so. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. LAPPER-Just to respond to that, it would be a conflict if Jamie was going to vote on this, but he’s recused himself from the matter, and, as he said, like any other citizen of the Town, he has the right to appear before this Board and request relief, but I think because ethics are important to Jamie, it would probably make sense to run that by the Town Attorney, just because it would be nice to have that on the record. MR. ABBATE-Well, and you’re right, but there’s a question of perception of impropriety. MR. STONE-And I am a very great believer in that, and I think, I see your hand, Mr. Salvador. I think it was straightforward. He is an applicant. The applicant is from Hayes and Hayes. He is one of the Hayes’. He made it very clear that he was speaking as the applicant. We have the right to yes or no whatever he’s saying. That’s our job. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fair enough. MR. STONE-I think it’s, I don’t think it is a conflict of interest, because he was very clear. The whole audience knows who he is, and the fact that he would normally be sitting here, and will be as soon as we get this thing done, but having, John, did you want to, Mr. Salvador, I’m sorry. I shouldn’t say John. MR. SALVADOR-With regard to the issue of the conflict of interest, I think more importantly, as Mr. Hayes is a developer in this Town, and sits on this Board, that constitutes an incompatibility. It is not sufficient that he recuse himself just because his application is before the Board, and the subject of incompatibility has been addressed by the Attorney General. There are many opinions on that subject. MR. STONE-Okay. I appreciate that, and we are appointed and serve at the pleasure of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, and we shall continue to serve at the pleasure of the Town Board, and you can bring it up to them if you think it’s wrong. Jim, what do you think? And I wish you, since Mr. Abbate is very definitely concerned about handling this tonight, I’d like you to comment on that as you make any comments, all of us. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’m a little bit torn asunder here, too, because I think that we have to think about what was originally proposed here, what’s in front of us tonight, and initially when I saw this thing last summer, when it was 98, I just kind of snickered to myself because I thought, too, it was way overboard and way over the top, and when we listened to the testimony last August, I think that we had a clear indication of what the neighborhood thought of the whole idea, and I think that’s been reflected here again this evening with the testimony that we’ve heard. It’s basically been verbatim what we heard last summer again, and I think that what we need to think about as a Board is that we are, in effect, as Mr. Pritzker commented, being asked to rezone this parcel here, and I don’t know if that’s really our domain to do that. I think that, if we take away the cement. If we take away the nastiness of the site as it presently exists, if we were looking at this site, strictly based as if it were an undeveloped parcel along West Mountain Road, we would be looking at the 29 units, and if someone came before us and were asking for 41 units on the same parcel, I don’t think that we’d be inclined to grant that proposal, but at the same time, I think we have to look at what’s there. It is a messy site. Certainly, it would indeed be in the favor of the community to clean it up, but I don’t know if that should be done so at the expense of changing the neighborhood, per se. You can rationalize that you need to have a financial return on what you’re proposing here, but I think that, you know, our community has a zoning code, and the zoning code has been, you know, is perceived by people to be in doing what’s in the interest of the long term benefits to the community, and I think that if we have primarily single family residential here, you do have the ability to put some duplexes on there. You could put 29 on there if you wanted to, and I don’t think anybody would argue that point with you, but I think that when we’re surrounded in the area with mostly single family residences, that people perceive that duplexes are a threat to their sovereignty in the neighborhood, so to speak, and I think that we, as a Board, have to also think about that also. I mean, certainly if I were living in that neighborhood, I would have concerns about it, and I think that, you know, in looking at this, I drove around Town trying to figure out what it would look like, and the only thing I could come up with that was reasonably close to it was down at Surrey Field, or just over across here, and it is much greater density than what you see in the neighborhood, and I think that if you’re going to have families living on this site, certainly, having these tiny little yards does have an impact on people’s lifestyle, and it forces people to seek their free reign elsewhere, whether that means they go across onto the watershed property lands or further up on the mountain to get their freedom, in a neighborhood, people walk those trails, it is posted property up there, but, you know, I think that’s a given. People respect it for what it is, and as a neighborhood, and as a long term resident of that area, I think the people have an interest in maintaining it as what it is, and I don’t think I would be in favor of granting the amount of relief that’s being requested, maybe something in between, you know, what might be more reasonable, but I think that you may have to think about your four-plexes and things like that. I think those are probably going to be your sticking points. MR. LAPPER-Thank you for acknowledging that some relief should be granted. MR. STONE-Allan? 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. BRYANT-Well, first off, I want to say that Mr. Abbate and Mr. Pritzker took a lot of wind out of my sails, out of the State ZBA handbook. I’m talking about the balancing concept statute provides that when granting Area Variances the Board of Appeals shall grant the minimum variance that it shall deem necessary and adequate, and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety and welfare of the community. I just want to make a couple of comments, relative to the fact that I’m a neighbor, okay. The density issue, I think, is a major issue here. When we talk about 12 cars an hour, I don’t know what that means, but I can tell you, it wasn’t too many years ago that a couple of neighbors of mine were coming back from a funeral, and the speed limit on West Mountain Road is 50 miles an hour, but not everybody goes 50 miles an hour, and as they were making a left turn onto that L-shaped drive, they were hit, right on the side, by a dump truck full of sand, which proceeded to dump all the sand into the vehicle, killing the driver instantly and seriously injuring the passenger, and I think Mr. Nace remembers that, Mr. Arzberger, many of my neighbors that are in this room remember that incident, and it was a little girl, and I think her last name was Missita, who held Mrs. Kilburn’s hand while the EMS people were digging her out of the sand. From a density issue, any more than the 29 units that are allowed on that property, I would never go along with, as long as I’m sitting on this Board, from that aspect alone. As to the tabling issue, I think it’s fair that the Hayes brothers know what the Board’s opinion is. Whether we act on this tonight or not is of no consequence, as far as I’m concerned, but I think we should be clear, as a Board, as to what our opinion is on this density issue, and how far we’ll go on this issue. Whether we vote or not tonight is. MR. STONE-Okay, but you would support a denial? MR. BRYANT-I wouldn’t support anything above what is allowed in that area. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I don’t want to repetitive, but I’ve said everything I have to say. I am dead set against this project, and will not support it. MR. STONE-Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-Birds fly. Fish swim. Developers build. Development in a community is not essentially bad. In fact, it is a sign that a community is healthy, even thriving. However it is important for a community and neighbors, neighborhoods, to keep a vigilante eye on development, to ensure that those neighborhoods are not sacrificed in the process. There are many beneficial aesthetic results that I see anticipated from this project, and I do want to note that just because an eyesore is covered in vegetation does not make it less of an aesthetic waste. However, this is a balancing test, and since it’s been brought up earlier tonight, I’m going to go through it. The benefit to the applicant, well, they would be permitted to develop the desired project. Feasible alternatives, here, I think the feasible alternatives are less of a project. It’s a project that seems reasonable, when you compare it to the first presentation, but it seems to me because that first presentation was so far over the top, that this seems reasonable compared to that, but I don’t think it’s a feasible alternative at this point. I’ll get more into that here. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? And this is where, I guess, the bone of contention is. I don’t know what constitutes allowable density, but I do feel 41 is in excess. I’m not even sure more than 29 is feasible at this point, and I know the townhouses are permitted there, but the impression is the townhouses make it even denser than it is. Perception means a lot, and even though it’s allowable and it still represents a unit, the unit has the impression of being over- development. Effects on the neighborhood or community is the fourth question we have, and here there’s going to be some positive aesthetic effects. I strongly believe that. I’ve walked the property. I’ve gone over there, but we’ve also heard the neighbors, the concerns, and the concerns are real. More cars. More traffic there, more people, school buses that are going to have to drop kids either off on West Mountain Road or go into the development. That’s going to make it even worse. And then the fifth element, is this difficulty self- created, and in my opinion it is, and as currently constituted, I would be against this project, but I would also be in favor, if a tabling motion were presented to reconsider the project as well. MR. LAPPER-You would be in favor of less relief? MR. URRICO-I’m not saying that. I’m saying I would think about it. MR. STONE-I’ve got a number of comments, some of which are directed to the applicant, some of which are directed to the detractors, if you will. I’m also concerned, Allan, I don’t want to put you on the spot, but you did say that you’re a neighbor, and it would have an impact on you, and I’m inclined to ask you if you would recuse yourself from, if we do have a vote right now, only because of your statement. I mean, we all have things in our head, but you did make a statement that you’re a neighbor and would be impacted. MR. BRYANT-No, I wouldn’t object to that, but I don’t see the, I’m not a neighbor, neighbor. I’m down the street. MR. STONE-You’re the one who said it. MR. BRYANT-I know. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. STONE-Anyway, having said that, a number of things, and certainly as I count the votes, there is no desire to approve this project as presented. I’ve heard, including Mr. Bryant, I’ve heard four people say they could not really support 41 units. I did hear one person say maybe something more than 29, but certainly not close to 41. I’m concerned about some of the things I’ve heard because, and I guess I will get on the soapbox for a couple of minutes. It’s my mic and I guess I can do it. I’m concerned of the condoning of the illegal use of land that I’ve heard. People are praising the kids for going up on somebody else’s property and playing. This is not right. Because if they got hurt, these kids would come screaming down and many people would say, you got my kid hurt on your property when they were playing illegally. I really worry about that when we condone these kind of things. I’ve heard a lot of statements lately about this unfortunate accident that happened in Greenwich. She was just drinking. The kids were drinking. Well, kids aren’t supposed to drink, and we do condone it in many cases, and I’ll get off that soapbox. The other thing, however, in defense of the application, this is an open piece of property, and eventually it will be built. I mean, we can only delay progress so long. It will be built. Someone will come along and find a way to build 29 units on it, and I’m sure we’re still going to hear people say it’s too many, but that’s what you could build, 29 units. So I think we have to keep that in mind. Somebody made the comment, or a number of people have made the comment that the land is not an eyesore. Well, I won’t call it an eyesore, but I know the first time I drove down that road, it was very obvious to me that it’s not a pretty piece of land. I mean, I’ve been in Town for 10 years, and I think the first time I drove down there probably nine years ago and thought, what is this. It wasn’t very attractive, but having said that, I’m certainly inclined to go along with the Board members who are voting. I think we do have to think about both the neighborhood and the community, and I just think the neighborhood has taken the time, and while, quite frankly, some of the stuff I have heard is not in my back yard, but that’s what we all do. That’s what human beings do, and we try to protect our own turf. I do think there’s enough of a concern among the people who live in the area, that they would like to postpone the inevitable at this time, because they can postpone the inevitable, because the applicant wants 41 units versus 29. I mean, it’s going to be 29 some day. Somebody’s going to find a way to go in there break this thing up and do it profitably, when land gets to be some ungodly, that’s Mr. Carte’s waiting for, I think. I don’t know whether, I’m not being fair, but I would have, therefore, having said, and listening to the strength of the conviction of the Board, I would like to ask for a motion to deny. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2002 HAYES & HAYES, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: West Mountain Road (west side), south of Potter Rd. For a number of reasons. In particular, there were at least 18 of 19 homeowners who felt that it would be an adverse impact on their property. I would also request denial based on the fact that this Board is only obligated to grant minimum relief and no more, and based upon other factors that were brought before this Board, to include questions, legal questions by Mr. Pritzker, I request that this application be denied. The applicant proposes the construction of 12 duplex townhouses, 3 four plex townhouses, and 5 one acre single family home sites, for a total of 41 units. Relief required, the applicant requests relief from the density requirements of the SR-1A zone, Section 179-19. The benefit to the applicant, obviously the applicant would be satisfied in the ability, if approved by this Board, to construct the desired project. However, I believe that there has been sufficient outcry of the community as to adverse effect on their property, as well as other legal questions that have arisen. Feasible alternatives may include a slightly lesser proposal, which I do not go along with, and I believe, sir, that this relief is substantial to the Ordinance, in that we are only required, the Zoning Board of Appeals, to grant minimum variances. The effect on the neighborhood, sir, as I indicated, as perceived by 18 or 19 folks who gave verbal testimony this evening, would be unfavorable. Is this difficulty self-created, I don’t believe there is anyone in this room that can deny that the difficulty can be interpreted as self-created, and based on that information, Mr. Chairman, I request that Area Variance No. 22-2002 be denied. Duly adopted this 24 day of April, 2002, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-All right. Questions about the motion? Do I hear a second? MR. UNDERWOOD-Second. MR. ABBATE-Did he say he seconded it? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I didn’t hear him. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Underwood? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-Yes. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Bryant? MR. BRYANT-Yes. MR. STONE-Not voting. MR. BRYANT-I’m not voting? MR. STONE-You said you would recuse yourself. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I’ll abstain. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Stone? MR. STONE-Yes. AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty MR. STONE-I’m sorry, gentlemen. Let’s take a five minute break. AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2002 TYPE II DONALD & LYNN KING PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. AND JIM MILLER LOCATION: 23 ANTIGUA ROAD ZONE: WR-3A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A FREESTANDING GARAGE WITH 700 SQ. FT. OF LIVING SPACE ABOVE. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 4/10/2002 OLD TAX MAP NO. 1-1-7 NEW TAX MAP NO. 239.17-1-7 LOT SIZE: 0.37 ACRES SECTION 179-16 JON LAPPER, JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DON KING, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 24-2002, Donald & Lynn King, Meeting Date: April 24, 2002 “Project Location: 23 Antigua Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of an existing 781 sq. ft. garage and a 159 sq. ft. cabin and construction of an 896 sq. ft. garage with 700 sq. ft. of living space above that does not include a kitchen. Relief Required: Applicant requests 14.75 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement and 6.9 feet of relief from the 16-foot maximum height restriction for a detached accessory structure per § 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 the desired structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives: include replacing the old garage with a new garage within the allowable 16-foot maximum height requirement. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 14.75 feet of relief from the 30-foot front setback requirement could be considered moderate to substantial relative to the Ordinance. 6.9 feet of relief from the 16-foot maximum height requirement could be considered moderate relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, as there are other feasible alternatives such as replacing the old garage with a new garage within the 16-foot maximum height allowed. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 24-2002: 04/17/02; application determined to be significantly different than that of denied AV 90-2001. AV 90-2001: denied 03/20/02; demolition of existing garage and cabin and construction of an 1121 sq. ft. garage with 945 sq. ft. of living space above. AV 90-2001: tabled 11/15/01 Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant could replace the old garage with a newer compliant garage. Setback relief would be the same as the existing garage. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-County? MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form April 10, 2002 Project Name: King, Donald & Lynn Owner: Donald & Lynn King ID Number: QBY-AV-24-2002 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) County Project#: Apr02-29 Current Zoning: WR-3A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicants propose replacement of existing carriage house and request relief from second principal residence on a lot less than 2 acres, permeability requirements and setback requirements. Site Location: 23 Antigua Road. Tax Map Number(s): 239.17-1-7 Staff Notes: Applicant proposes removal of an existing carriage house to construct a 984 sq. ft. building to be used for a garage and a secondary residence.” MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s an oldie. MR. LAPPER-Yes. That’s no longer the request for relief. MR. STONE-Yes. That’s the old. That’s not the relief. MR. LAPPER-It’s not a principal, they did approve it, last time, last week. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. “Relief is being requested for height of an accessory structure; required 16 feet, proposed 25 feet. Relief is being requested for front setback relief; required 30 feet, proposed 15 feet. See attached drawing. A unique situation occurs with the applicant’s request for a secondary residence. The applicant has an existing primary residence in the Town of Lake George and the existing garage/carriage house is in the Town of Queensbury. The Town of Queensbury treats this uniqueness as one lot for development. The height and setback relief requested will not have an impact on county resources. Staff recommends NCI with condition the property concur with the local ordinance of one principal dwelling per lot in the waterfront zone. This will minimize the impacts on Lake George as a county resource. History: The County Board previously saw a similar application from the applicant in Nov. 2001. The local board denied the application and the County recommended NCI. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 4/11/02. MR. LAPPER-This last time it was a discussion item. So after we talked about it, they recommended approval rather than No County Impact. MR. STONE-Would you comment, when you get there, on what height it’s going to be, because I’m seeing numbers, 22.9, 24.9. MR. LAPPER-Yes. It depends which side, from the roadside or from the lakeside. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, the applicant, Don King, and Jim Miller, Landscape Architect. This is an example of the applicant’s attempt to get to that minimal variance that this Board is comfortable with. After the Board denied the requested relief for the larger garage, we discussed coming back with a smaller application, and in fact, this is asking for no relief on the primary variance request, which was the size of the garage, and now this is a few feet under 900 square feet, and then on top of that, we’ve proposed eliminating this additional shed of 159 square feet. What is being proposed is very close to identical to what’s there, in terms of the carriage house, the design. It’s just a modern structure. What’s there now is not structurally sound. I hope you’ll see that the reduction in size to 900 square feet is very significant. You said that you did. You also see that it’s our attempt to satisfy the Board. At the same time, you’ve previously said that you didn’t have a problem with that side setback. In this case it’s considered a front setback because it’s from the road. It’s covered with trees. There’s no receptors. There’s nobody living there but regardless, it’s the farthest from the lake. So that’s probably preferable, since most receptors are in boats on the lake rather than on the quiet drive. I guess, in terms of the height, it’s really essentially what’s there now, and in fact, Jim feels that we can re-grade and make it a little smaller from the lake, but why don’t you talk about that. MR. MILLER-Okay. When I was here last week, we weren’t clear on the height of the existing building. We since have found out that the existing building that’s there, on the side towards the road, is 20 feet, and as the grade falls away toward the lake, it’s 23 feet. The proposed structure that we had showed a height of approximately 23 feet from the finished floor to the peak of the roof. The application, and the reason there’s been some variation, as to where we showed finished grade, we’ve since spoken to the architect in this case, and we could bring grade up to meet the finished floor elevation all around the building, by the way the perimeter of the building is treated. So that the height of the new building could be 23 feet, which is the height that the existing building is now facing the lake. So it would be a slight increase towards the road, but it would essentially match the existing height of the building. MR. LAPPER-I want to also address a question that came up last week. This is not an additional principal residence because it doesn’t have a bathroom. It’s just, it’s a bedroom because the house, the main house itself, which is architecturally significant, but small, it’s 1800 square feet, this is one of the larger lots in the area, not a huge lot, but one of the larger lots in the area, and this is just being added to have a guest cottage for a sleeping accommodations above the storage for a boat and cars, and that’s it, and it’s a much smaller application than we had last time, and we hope this is satisfactory to the Board. MR. STONE-Question. What color do you propose this garage to be? I have reason for asking. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. KING-Actually, we haven’t really discussed that. I mean, there’s been no resolution. MR. STONE-Okay. I viewed the current property, the current building from the lake, a week or so ago, when we had that summer weather, before winter came back again, and in its present color, it’s almost impossible to see from the lake. MR. KING-And the vegetation wasn’t on yet, when you viewed it. MR. STONE-Right. Yes. MR. KING-So when the vegetation comes out, it even is less visible. MR. STONE-Yes, but I go out on the lake when it’s cold out, but the present color is very good in combination with all of the vegetation on the property. It makes it almost impossible to see from the water, and I would like to think that that would be the situation, and I might even offer it as a condition, if we get to that point. It didn’t seem to be any real problem. MR. KING-Actually, the re-paint job of the existing that I had proposed was going to be an even darker green that’s more woody in color, and that would even blend in more, because what’s happened, if you’ve noticed, it’s bleached a little bit and the blues have come out, with the aging of the thing. So it’s more bluish green than it would be, and it would be much darker, more taupe-green. MR. STONE-Any questions? MR. ABBATE-No. The Chairman is to be congratulated on making these observations, because those of us senior citizens who are on fixed, limited incomes don’t have the ability to do that. MR. URRICO-What is the actual relief we’re seeking now on the height? MR. LAPPER-We’re comfortable with saying 23. So that would be no more than 23. MR. STONE-22.8. Okay. MR. BRYANT-So that’s seven feet? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-6.8, six feet, eight inches. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. STONE-Twenty-three. MR. ABBATE-So it is seven feet? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. STONE-Any questions? MR. ABBATE-No, just some comments, serious comment now. Mr. and Mrs. King, the attorney and the architect have really come before us a number of times, and in my opinion, each instance they’ve come before this Board, in my opinion they’ve not only acted in good faith, but they made an honest effort to fall into whatever compliance they could possibly fall into and still come up with the proposed project, and I think they’re to be congratulated for their patience. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else, before I open the public hearing? Then I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence? MR. UNDERWOOD-One letter. This is dated April 15, 2002, and it’s from David and Claudia Montana, to Charles McNulty, Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury, Warren County, New York “Dear Sir: We are the property owners just south of the Donald and Lynn King property on Antigua Road. We had the opportunity to review the blue prints of the new garage and we are completely in favor of it. We are very pleased with the proposal to demolish the garage, which has been in need of repair for many years, although their plans were always to rebuild it. The new construction would greatly enhance their property as 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) well as the entire neighborhood. We look forward to the start of construction. Sincerely, David and Claudia Montana” MR. STONE-Anything else? MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s it. MR. STONE-Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other comments, gentlemen? Well, let’s talk about it quickly. Allan? MR. BRYANT-I agree with what Mr. Abbate had to say, and also the fact that you’ve done a good job, actually, and we appreciate it. I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-Good. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Well, I’m in favor of it because he’s in favor of it, and because they did a pretty good job all the way along the line, and I’ve said what I had to say initially. So we’re trying to save time. It looks like we might be out by three. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m also in favor of the application. I didn’t have the luxury of being in a boat either, but from land it looks like it will be equally aesthetically pleasing. So I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jamie? MR. HAYES-I agree. It’s a balancing test, and certainly the benefit to the applicant has been demonstrated, and I don’t think there’s any negative impacts on the neighborhood or community whatsoever in this particular case. So I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’d go along with what everyone else has said. I think it’s a reasonable change from what they originally proposed. MR. STONE-I certainly agree. Mr. King has been more than willing to listen to us, and we have been pretty hard on him, but I think, when push comes to shove, you’re going to have pretty much what you want. I think we’re going to have pretty much what we want, and that’s what this whole thing is all about. Sometimes it works, and I think it’s working in this particular case, and I would call for a motion to approve with the condition that Mr. King is willing to stipulate to. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2002 DONALD & LYNN KING, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 23 Antigua Road. The applicant proposes demolition of an existing 781 square foot garage and a 159 square foot cabin, and the construction of an 896 square foot garage, with a 700 square foot living space above that does not include a kitchen. Specifically, the applicant requests 14.75 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement and 7 feet of relief from the 16 foot maximum height restriction for detached accessory structure per Section 179-16. The benefit to the applicant is that he would be permitted to demolish a building that is in need of repair and construct this new storage facility with living space. Feasible alternatives I believe have been explored in this particular case, as the applicant has provided what amounts to his third trip here with reduced plans to reduce the impact on the neighborhood. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I don’t believe that it is. I believe that the front setback dimensional relief that’s sought in this particular case has to do with what is considered to be the front of the property line. It is away from the lake, in this particular case. As far as the height, the 7 feet of relief from the 16 foot maximum height requirement, I also believe that this is very moderate considering it is highly mitigated by the fact that the proposed garage is set way back on the property, hardly visible from the lake, particularly when the current vegetation is in effect. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I don’t believe that there are any real negative impacts on the neighborhood or community in this particular case. The proposal has been downsized and is well hidden from any line of sight. Is the difficulty self-created? Only in the sense that Mr. King desires to have a new garage, which is certainly a natural thing to want to have, but that is his choice. He could replace the old garage with one exactly the same, but, on balance in this particular case, I think the test falls fully in favor of the applicant. I would add the contingency to the motion to approve that the applicant would paint the garage in similar colors that exist now, or a woody green earth tone, as he has described, that would significantly aid in the continued lack of visual impact of the garage from the lake or from surrounding properties. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) Duly adopted this 24 day of April, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty MR. LAPPER-Thank you, and good night. MR. STONE-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2002 TYPE II SCOTT & DEBRA KINGSLEY PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: N/A LOCATION: CORNER OF HILLMAN & CLEVERDALE ROADS ZONE: WR-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,272 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY OLD TAX MAP NO. 12-3-27.3 NEW TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1- 9.3 LOT SIZE: 2.11 ACRES SECTION 179-16 SCOTT KINGSLEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 23-2002, Scott & Debra Kingsley, Meeting Date: April 24, 2002 “Project Location: Corner of Hillman & Cleverdale Roads Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of 2,272 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10 inches of relief from the 28-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 the desired structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include constructing a structure at the maximum allowable height of 28 feet. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 2 feet 10 inches of relief from the 28-foot requirement may be interpreted as minimum, relative to the Ordinance (10.1%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action as the side that requires height relief faces the back of the lot. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty is self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. It doesn’t appear as though any visual impact will result should the variance be granted, being the North Side of the structure (rear elevation, Sheet #6) faces to the back of the lot. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Sir, identify yourself and tell us what you want. MR. KINGSLEY-My name is Scott Kingsley. What I’m looking for is height relief on a new home construction on the described lot. I would consider this to be a minimum request, as it is approximately a 10% relief over the 28 foot allowable height. I would also consider the effects to be minimal to the neighborhood, as the only side of the house requiring relief is on the rear of the lot. This side is also only visible from one neighbor, and his view is obstructed by his own pole barn. So he’s not even able to see that side of the house. MR. STONE-As I understand it the house is going near the end of the road, and the back part of the house is going to be down below the grade. MR. KINGSLEY-Towards the left of the photograph. MR. STONE-Towards the left a little bit. MR. KINGSLEY-That’s correct. MR. STONE-But the house, the offending dormer is going to be on the part of the house that slopes, not slopes away, but goes down a hill? MR. KINGSLEY-Correct. Part of this is created by the fact that it has a walkout basement, which is meeting the slope of the lot. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions, gentlemen? MR. BRYANT-The 30 foot 10 is to the peak of the roof? MR. KINGSLEY-That’s to the peak of the dormer. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. BRYANT-What’s the height of the roof? MR. KINGSLEY-I could scale that off for you. My understanding, from what was described to me from Craig Brown, is what’s measured is the vertical portion of the building on the side you’re seeking relief for. The peak is approximately 32 feet. Let’s see, 31 feet 6 inches. MR. STONE-Don’t say that. You’re going to get yourself into trouble. The relief is vertical along the whole house, and you’re telling me that this goes up. MR. KINGSLEY-No. MR. STONE-The land goes. MR. KINGSLEY-Down. MR. STONE-Down. I’m saying if we start in the back of the house. MR. KINGSLEY-Right. MR. STONE-Where you want the relief, the dormer is here, and that’s 30 feet. MR. KINGSLEY-Yes. MR. STONE-Then the land goes up. So this 28 foot goes up. MR. KINGSLEY-Correct. MR. STONE-And when it gets to that ridge line. MR. KINGSLEY-To the ridge line it’s approximately 24 feet 6 inches, on the end of that house. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I just wanted to understand. MR. KINGSLEY-Okay. MR. STONE-Yes, that’s the important thing. MR. KINGSLEY-Right. It’s measured vertically up along the grade of the lot. MR. STONE-Vertically everywhere. MR. KINGSLEY-Right. MR. STONE-Everywhere. MR. KINGSLEY-Right. MR. STONE-And it will be fixed to the new zoning, even though the drawing is wrong now. So it is only that small portion that’s hanging off the back, in a sense? MR. KINGSLEY-That’s correct, yes. MR. STONE-And obviously Staff agrees that that’s the correct measurement? MR. FRANK-That’s correct. That’s the way it was interpreted, even though that drawing that you’re referring to is. MR. STONE-Because I had that same question when I looked at it, and I went in and I did ask about it. Any other questions? Then I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Come forward. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LEIGH BEEMAN 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MRS. BEEMAN-My name is Leigh Beeman. I live at 7 Overlook Drive, Queensbury. I sold the property to Scott Kingsley and his wife Debbie, and I still maintain a residence a bit to the north of the property, and I have absolutely no problem with what he’s requesting. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else in favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. MR. STONE-I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any further questions, gentlemen? If not, let’s start with Chuck and go through it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. One thing in favor of Mr. Kingsley is that this is a proposal and not already constructed. MR. KINGSLEY-Correct. MR. ABBATE-I was initially, when I read this application, I didn’t know. I said, well, this doesn’t sound right, but your explanation and the comment by the Staff that minimal impact may be anticipated as a result of this action goes on to indicate that there doesn’t appear to be any adverse visual impact as a result of this thing pretty much convinced me that this is not an unreasonable request, and as such, I would favor your application. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m also in favor of it. I’ve reviewed your application and measured it against the criteria, and I think it falls in favor on all counts. MR. STONE-Jamie? MR. HAYES-I agree. I mean, it’s a balancing test that we’re charged with, and in this particular case, there’s a benefit to the applicant to maintain the design of his home, and I don’t see any real detriment to the neighborhood whatsoever. So I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. This is a very small amount of the house that’s going to protrude above the height that we allow, and I think it doesn’t really make that much difference. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-Normally, I’m opposed to height relief, but this building is 100 feet from any of the roads. The elevated portion is in the back. It’s not visible from any place on the planet. So I wouldn’t be opposed. MR. STONE-Well, I feel pretty much the same way. Obviously, all of our interest gets peaked in the Waterfront zoning One Acre, particularly on Cleverdale, Assembly Point or somewhere up there, but the way this house sits, the land that it sits on, the amount of relief, the fact that your immediate neighbor, who has already sold you the property, she’s not, it’s not contingent on getting the variance, I assume. Therefore, I would certainly be in favor of this minimal relief. I, also, like Allan, would usually make the same statement. Height is, on the lake, in lake areas is, but this is so minimal. So I need a motion to approve, gentleman. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2002 SCOTT & DEBORAH KINGSLEY, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Corner of Hillman and Cleverdale Roads. The applicant proposes construction of a 2,272 square foot single family dwelling. The relief required, the applicant requests 2 feet 10 inches of relief from the 28 foot maximum height requirement of the WR-1A zone, 179-16. The benefit to the applicant, the applicants would be permitted to construct the structure in this location. The feasible alternatives, feasible alternatives may include constructing a structure at the maximum allowable height of 28 feet. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Well, 2 feet 10 inches of relief from the 28 foot Ordinance comes out to 10.1%, but I want to point out that it’s only in one area along the back side, which is not in view from any other residence or from the road, or that’s the way it projects to be. Effects on the neighborhood or community is minimal, and is this difficulty self-created? It is self-created. I recommend we approve it. Duly adopted this 24 day of April, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty MR. KINGSLEY-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2002 TYPE II JOHN SALVADOR, JR. PROPERTY OWNER: AGENT: N/A LOCATION: 37 ALEXY ROAD ZONE: RR-3A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,310 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM PERMEABILITY, LOT SIZE, FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY OLD TAX MAP NO. 10-2-8 NEW TAX MAP NO. 252.00-1-75.2 LOT SIZE: 0.34 ACRES SECTION 179-15 JOHN & KATHLEEN SALVADOR, PRESENT MR. HAYES-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to excuse myself from this application, based on Mr. Salvador’s testimony and any possible implications. MR. SALVADOR-Let your conscience be your guide. MR. HAYES-Thank you, sir. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-2002, John Salvador, Jr., Meeting Date: April 24, 2002 “Project Location: 37 Alexy Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,310 sq. ft. single family dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests 20 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement, 6 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum side setback requirement (north side), and 4 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum side setback requirement (south side) of the RR- 3A Zone, § 179-15. The applicant also seeks relief from the minimum lot width and permeability requirements of the RR-3A Zone. However, the lot is pre-existing, which is not subject to the current minimum lot width requirements, 179-76A, and staff calculations determined the applicant has approximately 17% impermeable area, which is less than 25% maximum allowed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include the construction of a single family dwelling of a more narrow design in a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 20 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate (40%). 6 feet and 4 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum side setback requirements may be interpreted as minimal to moderate (20% and 13.3% respectively). 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 is self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None Staff comments: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. There appears to be ample area to construct a dwelling of comparable size, but of a more narrow design from that proposed in a compliant location. However, the proposed design is aesthetically pleasing, and if approved will be setback three feet further from the road than the dwelling on the neighboring parcel to the south. Apparently, the applicant has included the square footage areas associated with the proposed septic system on the property. This is inaccurate, as such areas, when installed below grade, are not considered impermeable, and no relief is necessary for those areas. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Mr. and Mrs. Salvador. MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. As you can see in our application, we’ve made application for variances from the setback requirement, the front yard setback and two side yard setbacks. This is a relatively small lot. You’ll see the neighboring property has a dwelling on it that is a little bit less than 30 feet from the road, and so we set ours about 30 feet from the road. This would give a suitable area in the rear yard for a septic system, and allow us to site the well in the front yard and have the proper separation distance for the well. So we’ve sort of positioned the dwelling on the lot with in a compatible fashion with the neighborhood. I would like to address this issue of permeability, because as I read the Code, the definition of permeable ground is ground surface through which water can percolate in a natural manner. Now, it’s not my understanding that the area above a leach field, that percolation can take place in a natural manner. We all know that evapo- transpiration takes place from a standard septic system, and we may be forced to put in an Elgin system which will entail flooding the field, and we will be forcing evapo-transpiration, and in no case should we rely on that area being permeable. That is percolation, it’s just. MR. BRYANT-Why do you address it when, according to Staff notes, it’s not even an issue? MR. SALVADOR-Well, I don’t agree with Staff. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. BRYANT-Well, that’s another issue all together. MR. STONE-One might say what else is new, but I would never say that. MR. ABBATE-But you have to understand Mr. Salvador. MR. BRYANT-I do. MR. ABBATE-He wants to make a point. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I can tell you, having discussed this subject at length, in various environmental meetings around Lake George, where it’s been concluded that you’re not allowed to include the area above the leach field as permeable. It’s just like you shouldn’t count it that way. You don’t want to saturate that area with rain water, stormwater. MR. STONE-It’s going to get wet, whether it’s counted or it’s not counted, sir. MR. ABBATE-Not counted, exactly. MR. SALVADOR-I understand, but when it come to calculating the permeability of the percentage of land that’s permeable on site, you should not include it, and it says so in the Code. Ground surface through which water can percolate in a natural manner. MR. STONE-Do you want to appeal the Administrator’s determination? MR. SALVADOR-No, I want your variance. I want a variance. MR. STONE-We have no variance before us, no application before us. MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Stone, I hate to take issue with you, but I filled out this application, and I asked for relief from the permeability requirements of the Code. Now if Staff wants to give me relief, fine. MR. STONE-I thought they did? MR. SALVADOR-Well, they’re not empowered to do that. You are. MR. ABBATE-That’s an excellent point. He’s right. MR. STONE-We’ll address it when it comes. Anything else you want to talk about? I do have a question. The tennis court of the property formerly owned by Dunham’s Bay Lodge, Inc., Salvador’s doing business as, where does the property line go in relationship to the court? At the net, or is it further off the court? MR. SALVADOR-The property boundary. MR. STONE-I mean, one of my colleagues measured, the property line goes to that tennis court. MR. SALVADOR-It goes to the tennis court, and it’s actually 29 feet from the rear fence. That would be 29 feet to the west of that rear fence, of the, the north, I’m sorry, the north. I can sketch it. MR. STONE-Yes, well, you’re talking the tennis courts in here somewhere, then, but that’s all I’m getting at, that it’s in here, right? MR. SALVADOR-Yes, the tennis court is here. Just in this back corner. This is on the edge of the, the fence is here. I’m sorry. The fence and the tennis court is like this, and then the court itself, the paving, that tag is right in the shoulder of the asphalt. So the fence is like this. MR. STONE-So you’re allowing encroachment on your property. MR. SALVADOR-Let me tell you how that came about, and it leads to this request that we’re asking relief on the lot size, also. This subdivision, that this lot is a part of, did not exist when we purchased Dunham’s Bay Lodge in 1973, and we built this tennis court in that area. We held title to this piece of land, and we built a, that little fence encroaches on this lot. Well, you’ll recall we did a subdivision of our property in 1999, and we exhumed this old subdivision that was never properly approved, and we were able to show that, in 1961, Mr. Alexy made application for the subdivision of these 10 lots, and through a very poor approval process, his representatives never got this subdivision filed, properly filed and approved. It wasn’t on file, and the four lots have been sold out of the subdivision, and basically illegally. So, anyway, when we came along in 1999 and exhumed this subdivision, we were able to create six additional lots, all 150 by 100 feet, which is about a third of an acre, in a three acre zone, and we did not get approval from the ZBA at that time for substandard 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) lot. It wasn’t deemed to be necessary, again. So I’m fearful that some day if we try to get title insurance on this whole parcel that we may have a problem. So I would like your variance approval from deviation from the three acre lot to this one third acre that we have. MR. STONE-Now you’re asking a lot, I think. MR. SALVADOR-Well, it’s an after the fact approval. MR. STONE-Now, you’re really asking for a lot, as you’ll hear later. Any questions, gentlemen? MR. UNDERWOOD-What are your intentions for the rest of them? MR. SALVADOR-We don’t own the other, we retain. MR. STONE-This is the only one you retain? MR. SALVADOR-This is the only one we retain. MR. STONE-Well, all right. The lot that you have, let’s forget the house. Is the lot a legal lot or not? MR. SALVADOR-We mapped it on a subdivision in 1999, as one third of an acre. MR. STONE-And it’s approved by the County and by the Town of Queensbury? MR. ABBATE-And it’s considered a pre-existing, is it not? Isn’t it considered pre-existing? MR. SALVADOR-This lot was not pre-existing until 1999. MR. ABBATE-But at the current time it is. MR. SALVADOR-At the current time, it’s existing. MR. ABBATE-So we can say as of now, as of tonight, it’s considered pre-existing. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. STONE-And again, that’s all we have here is the Staff notes, which tell us what kind of relief we’re talking about. MR. ABBATE-And we can leave it at that. MR. SALVADOR-These judges protect themselves. I want you to know that in 1961, Fred Alexy had two attorneys representing him in this subdivision, one of them was former Judge John G. Dyer, and the other was Mr. Richard Bartlett. Okay. He had the top of the list, and this subdivision never got filed. MR. ABBATE-That’s sloppy work. MR. SALVADOR-That is very sloppy work. MR. STONE-And how come is it, Mr. Salvador, being a little facetious, that this property came into your possession? He always gets these conflicted properties, like lake, land. MR. SALVADOR-I think you’ll find that there’s a lot of property like this. It’s a question of digging out the problems. Most people just gloss over them. MR. ABBATE-And Mr. Salvador thrives on adversity. MR. STONE-Let me just ask a question, Mr. Salvador. One of the things that this Board has, in the past, expressed concern about granting lots of relief on applications, and you’re asking for 20 foot, 6 foot, 4 feet, and you even want permeability, which we’re not even being asked to do. A lot of relief. Comment? MR. SALVADOR-But none of it substantial in its own. I mean, six feet of relief in thirty is not much. Four feet in thirty is not much. MR. BRYANT-Twenty and fifty is quite a bit. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. SALVADOR-Yes. However, I mentioned it’s, you’ll notice on the site plan it’s sort of compatible with the neighboring property and even the one across the street. It won’t look out of place. It won’t look out of place on that, and we need the depth in the rear for the septic system. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but it looks like you’re quite a distance away from your leach field, or septic system. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I need that, the well is the criteria. The water well is the limiting factor. MR. BRYANT-Is the well existing? MR. SALVADOR-No, no. We have to drill it. MR. STONE-But the well is in front. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Why can’t you drill it there, and leave the house? MR. STONE-You’re only 100 feet to that, that’s all that is? Okay. MR. ABBATE-If you look at the relief required, and I think if we stay within those parameters, I don’t see how we could get into any kind of trouble addressing this issue. If we go beyond this, and address some of the issues you raised earlier, we might get into some trouble. MR. SALVADOR-Who’s going to make trouble? MR. ABBATE-Mr. Adversity. MR. SALVADOR-I’m not making, unless you grant it to me. MR. ABBATE-Scratch that out. MR. UNDERWOOD-What is the impact, though, on the other lots, that the other owner owns, the other six? I mean, you’re just further down the road, down to where the pine trees are, right? MRS. SALVADOR-Yes. We’re actually the first lot. MR. SALVADOR-This is the lot we’re speaking of. MR. STONE-Right. MR. SALVADOR-This has a dwelling on it. MR. STONE-And is it owned by, it’s owned now by somebody? MR. SALVADOR-Someone else, yes. This lot is vacant and owned by the Perrys. This lot is vacant and owned by the Perrys, and this one is vacant. This one is vacant and this one is vacant. So they own five. This has a dwelling on it. This has a dwelling on it. This is owned by someone, but they. MR. STONE-Okay. You used the pronoun. What’s the antecedent, please. You said “they” own. Who? MR. SALVADOR-The owners of Dunham’s Bay Lodge. MR. STONE-Okay. They’re the Perrys. I’m sorry. I’d forgotten their name. MRS. SALVADOR-The Perrys. MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Perry was here earlier, but. MR. STONE-We tired him out. Okay. MR. SALVADOR-The tennis court, the fence of the tennis court encroaches in that corner back there. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then that peg is right off the course. Yes, okay. All right. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions of Mr. Salvador? Let me open the public hearing. I don’t want to get giddy, and we are getting a little tired, and we’ve got a few serious things to consider. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. SALVADOR-This isn’t serious? MR. STONE-Other, additional, I’m sorry. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, one letter. This one’s dated 4/24/02. It’s to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Area Variance No. 21-2002, it’s from Roger Howard 10 Dunham’s Bay Road. “I think the Board must consider the cumulative effect of this request if this request. If the other lots in this subdivision were similarly overdeveloped, the effect on Lake George and the nearby wetlands would be substantial. For this reason, I am opposed to this application. Roger Howard 10 Dunham’s Bay Road” MR. STONE-Anything else? MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s it. MR. STONE-Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any comments you wish to make? MR. SALVADOR-No. As I say, these 150 by 100 square foot lots were created in 1961. This subdivision was created as a vacation home sort of setting. That was the idea. MR. STONE-And you’re going to put a year round home on it. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. Unless we could stipulate that there’ll be no kitchen facilities, whatever that means. I really haven’t figured that out, the cooking facilities. MR. STONE-I have asked Staff to get a definition of that into the Code as soon as possible. Because it is a question. It’s a very serious question. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I have no idea. MR. STONE-We don’t know, either. That’s what we’re asking them to do, to formulate one. MR. ABBATE-Can run a Coleman stove. MR. SALVADOR-Carry a microwave. MR. STONE-Yes. All of those things, but it’s a very serious question, and I agree with you, and I have asked Staff, for my own edification and the Board’s edification, to get an answer to that, and I will ask again. Anyway, Roy, let’s talk. MR. URRICO-I’m honored to be first. The benefit to the applicant. The applicant would be permitted to construct this desired structure in the preferred location. I agree with that. Feasible alternatives may include the construction of a dwelling of a more narrow design in a compliant location. I agree with that as well. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I do agree that 20 feet of relief from the 50 foot front setback is bordering on excessive, but when you compare it to the home next door, it’s not, and six feet and four feet of relief from the thirty foot side setbacks I agree is fine. So I’m sort of balancing that a little bit, but I don’t feel there’s going to be, I think there’s going to be just minimal effects on the neighborhood, and as far as the difficulty being self-created, I think part of it’s due to the size of the lot, which is a pre-existing condition, and so, overall, I would be slightly in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don’t have any problem with the side setback relief requested. The road setback relief, to me, is a moot point. I mean, Alexy Road is not a major thoroughfare, and I think that that’s why it’s designated as 50 feet. I think that, due to the fact that it’s a dead end road, it’s not a problem. The only concerns I would have would be that, you know, if we start approving these things, you know, when the other ones come on, I mean, it’s a pre-approved subdivision. So I don’t know as if our hands are tied, as far as the other houses being built on the other adjacent lots that are still open, but I’d be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Allan? 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. BRYANT-I really don’t have any problem with the side relief. I would, I understand what you’re saying about the neighbors and the shack, I mean the cottage next to you. MR. SALVADOR-Is that a Freudian slip? MR. BRYANT-It’s getting late. So I would reluctantly approve it, but I really would prefer to see the house a little bit further back, so that it wouldn’t require so much relief. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Two things in favor of the applicant, one that this is only a proposal. It’s not constructed. The other, and on a serious note, that this is a pre-existing lot. Looking at the plans of the two bedroom, one and a half story design, in my opinion, I don’t believe this is over-development. I think it’s an aesthetically beautiful home. I think it will add to the neighborhood, and I don’t believe that the applicant’s request for relief in any of these areas are extreme, and based upon that, I would support the application. MR. STONE-Okay. I, too, have no real problem. I heard Mr. Howard’s comments. I’m not sure I totally understand that if every house was built up there what effect it would have on the lake, if they were constructed well. I do believe that part of the visibility from the lake is impaired, if you will, by one of the lodge buildings, is it not? Something on the corner there. MRS. SALVADOR-There’s absolutely no view of the lake. MR. SALVADOR-There’s no view of the lake. MRS. SALVADOR-None whatsoever. MR. STONE-So, I’m not concerned. I would be more concerned if we built a golf course back there, but that’s another story. MR. SALVADOR-That’s still in the wood. MR. STONE-No. I think it’s fine. I’m not totally enamored of the four pieces of relief that are necessary, but I think, if you put them all together, they are very little. The one thing I would ask of anybody who makes a motion, and I would ask you, Jim, because you phrased it very well, about the permeability. We can put a comment in there acknowledge that there is a difference. I don’t want to grant it, but I want to acknowledge it in the motion, that the applicant made the request. Staff did not think it was necessary. Something along that line. Do you want to try it? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2002 JOHN SALVADOR, JR., Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 37 Alexy Road. The applicant requests 20 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement, and that would be off of Alexy Road, and I think that we would be willing to grant that based upon the fact that Alexy Road is a dead end road and it doesn’t see substantial traffic, the 6 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum side setback on the north side and 4 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum side setback on the south side of the RR-3A zone, Section 179-15. It should be noted that this lot is a pre-existing subdivision that dates back to 1961, and that’s why the lots are substantially substandard under today’s standards, but at the same time, Staff calculated that the impermeable area that was requested was less than the 25% that was necessary and we would concur with Staff that your permeable area as you have it is substantial. Duly adopted this 24 day of April, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty MRS. SALVADOR-Thank you, gentlemen. AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2002 TYPE II RUSSELL HOWARD PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: N/A LOCATION: 794 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD ZONE: SFR-1A APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 160 SQ. FT. STORAGE SHED AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. OLD TAX MAP NO. 90-1-11 NEW TAX MAP NO. 301.05-1-8 LOT SIZE: 1.18 ACRES SECTION 179-20 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) RUSSELL HOWARD, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-This is a letter that was included with the application, dated 3/14/02. “Dear Sirs/Madames: As reviewed in my application for Zoning Requirements, I am requesting that said structure be allowed to remain in existing location. Only one setback is not in compliance with Code. I have spoken with my neighbor – Pete Merlow – and he offers no objections to location regarding his property. Mr. Merlow has graciously offered to write a letter stating same to the Board. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Russell Howard” MR. STONE-Mr. Hayes, are you going to recuse yourself because Mr. Howard spoke also? Well, would you come up and say it into the record, please. MR. HAYES-Mr. Chairman, I would like to recuse myself, based on the fact that Mr. Howard opposed my application tonight. MR. STONE-Thank you. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-2002, Russell Howard, Meeting Date: April 24, 2002 “Project Location: 794 West Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 160 sq. ft. storage shed and seeks relief from the setback requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 12 feet (east side) and 2 feet (north side) of relief from the 20-foot minimum rear setback requirement of the SFR-1A Zone; § 179-20. 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 160 sq. ft. storage shed in the current location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited, as the back wall of the shed is the stockade fence, which also supports the weight of the roof. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 12 feet of relief from the 20-foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. (60%) 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 2002-155: permit has been applied for; contingent upon ZBA action on AV 20-2002 for setback relief. BP 99-106: 04/05/99; two bedroom residential addition. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. According to the applicant, both of his neighbors are in favor of this application. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Mr. Howard. MR. HOWARD-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-Anything you want to add to your application? MR. HOWARD-No. I’d just ask that I believe, I know I handed in a letter from Mr. Merlow with my application, and I believe my other neighbor, Mr. Perry, was going to fax one. He’s out of town. MR. STONE-When we get to public hearing, we’ll bring that in. Anything else you want to add? MR. HOWARD-No, sir. I really, I don’t have anything to add. MR. STONE-Well, let me be the one to ask you, did you know you needed a building permit to build this? MR. HOWARD-No, I did not. MR. STONE-Okay. You know now that you needed a building permit. MR. HOWARD-Yes. MR. STONE-What’s the snow plow for? MR. HOWARD-What’s the snow plow for? To plow my driveway, my grandmother’s driveway. MR. STONE-Are you in business plowing? MR. HOWARD-No. MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, because this is an SFR, our most restrictive zone, where your house is, and businesses would not be allowed. Can he store? 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. FRANK-I don’t see why not. He’s not using it for his business. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s why I asked the question. I want to be sure, if it’s for personal use only, that’s fine. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask you a question? On this drawing that you provided, when you measure the setback, is that how you measured the setback, or did you measure it perpendicular to the line? MR. HOWARD-No. The setbacks are measured perpendicular from the line. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So it doesn’t go at that angle. MR. FRANK-For that record, I brought that up also to Mr. Howard, and when I visited his site, he happened to be there. We looked at it together. So I also deemed that to be eight feet to that, perpendicular to the line. MR. BRYANT-Perpendicular to the line. MR. STONE-Mr. Howard, you made this drawing that’s in here? MR. HOWARD-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-Did you look at your house when you made the drawing? You seem to have an indent where the house comes out. MR. HOWARD-I’d have to look at a drawing, sir. I don’t have one in front of me. MR. STONE-Would you guys agree that the garage is not sticking out in front of the house? MR. FRANK-I’m sorry. It won’t be in there. MR. HOWARD-What are you asking, Mr. Stone? MR. STONE-Your house. You’ve got an indent where the house actually comes forward of the garage. MR. HOWARD-No. There’s a recessed part there where my kitchen area is that was added on at one time or another. The garage actually comes out further than the little kitchen area right there. MR. STONE-Yes, but there’s house there. I thought I saw, I looked at it very closely. Anyway. MR. URRICO-Mr. Howard, I noticed a couple of doors down, a carpentry truck. Is that yours? A couple of doors down. MR. HOWARD-Yes. I’m doing an alteration at the neighbor’s house. MR. URRICO-Are you building a shed there? MR. HOWARD-No, it’s an interior alteration, and the permit’s already in place. Thank you. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. STONE-So you’re a carpenter. MR. HOWARD-Yes. MR. STONE-You know about building permits. MR. HOWARD-I do remodeling, yes. MR. STONE-And you get building permits. MR. HOWARD-Ninety percent of my work is usually not with a permit, just alterations, cosmetics. So, no, I was unaware that I needed a building permit to build a storage shed in my back yard, and I was definitely unaware that I had to be twenty feet from my neighbor’s line. I mean, only an eighth of a mile away in Pinewood Hollow like the sheds are about five feet away. So I wasn’t. MR. STONE-Well, it can be five feet away if it’s a 100 square foot shed. That’s the difference, right, Bruce? One hundred feet can be five feet from the line. MR. FRANK-I believe so. Because it was over the 100 square feet, it’s an accessory structure. 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. STONE-Yes. It’s a different category. That’s the problem. MR. HOWARD-Okay. Thank you. I was unaware. I’m sorry. MR. STONE-Any other questions, gentlemen? I’ll open the public hearing, then, because I know we have a couple of letters. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Letters, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-To the Queensbury, this is from Mr. and Mrs. Norman Perry, “Our property at 806 West Mountain Road is a neighboring lot to Mr. and Mrs. Russell Howard’s of 794 West Mountain Road. The shed that Mr. Howard has constructed in his back yard poses no problem with us or our property. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. Norman Perry” And the second one, dated March 13, 2002, is from Mr. Peter Merlow, 15 Stewart Rd., Queensbury “To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this letter regarding a shed that was built next to our property by Russell Howard. We don’t have any problems with it being there. Sincerely, Peter Merlow” MR. STONE-Anything else? Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Mr. Howard, that first letter, that was written by the man with the huge, my word, accessory structure with the lean-to outside it, right next to your property? MR. HOWARD-North of my property is Mr. Perry, the first letter. MR. STONE-Yes, that big, whatever that is. How would we classify that, Bruce, that structure to the north? MR. ABBATE-A miniature motel, perhaps. MR. STONE-That’s what I was thinking when I looked at it, yes. MR. FRANK-I did notice it myself. I didn’t comment on it. I don’t know if that was pre-existing before the. MR. HOWARD-That was built by the previous owner, before Mr. Perry bought the house. It was built by a Mr. William Trombley. I couldn’t really tell you. MR. STONE-Okay. It just struck me as. MR. FRANK-For the record, the Director of Building and Codes is the one that issued the citation, or a notice of violation to Mr. Howard. He came in right away, and filled out a building permit and a variance. Since he was on the site, Mr. Hatin was on the site, he would have said something about that, too, I would assume, if it was in violation, but since he didn’t. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. FRANK-I mean, how he could have missed that, I don’t know, if he saw Mr. Howard’s shed. MR. STONE-It certainly struck me. I don’t know about the rest of the Board. MR. FRANK-And that would be a question for Mr. Hatin. MR. STONE-And that’s the same zone, right, SFR? MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Would you ask Mr. Hatin? As the Chairman of the Zoning Board, would you ask Mr. Hatin? MR. FRANK-I will write a note to myself right now and I will do that. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anything else, gentlemen? Any other questions? MR. BRYANT-The two letters are for the neighbors that are adjacent to that shed? MR. HOWARD-Yes, Mr. Bryant. The one neighbor, Mr. Merlow, I seek the most relief from setback from his property line. 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. BRYANT-That’s the eight foot. MR. HOWARD-Yes. MR. BRYANT-And the other one. MR. HOWARD-And the two foot was Mr. Perry with the barn. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. STONE-Before I poll the Board, you are aware we could ask you to take it down? MR. HOWARD-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-I just want to be sure that you know that. All right. Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Jim again. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think it’s been constructed, and I think there was no intent on his part to build some structure that he knew he couldn’t do, but, you know, being that it’s already built and it’s attached to the fence, and his neighbors have no problem with it, I don’t really think it’s a big difficulty for us to grant this variance. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Allan? MR. BRYANT-Normally, the Board is opposed to this type of application when it’s been constructed before the fact, but. MR. HOWARD-I would just like to say that it’s been there since last October. MR. ABBATE-October of last year? MR. HOWARD-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-I think since both neighbors that are directly affected by the encroachment have, you know, stated that they don’t feel that it’s that bad, I would be reluctantly in favor of the variance. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Allan said it pretty well, Mr. Howard. Normally when something has been constructed, I go into third gear and start asking some rather pointed questions. However, in this instance, I do believe this was an honest mistake. I don’t believe you acted as malcontent. I don’t believe you did this to defy anything. I think it was just something that you did that perhaps you did know what incorrect, but that’s my opinion. I’ve been wrong before, but there has been no objections by your neighbors and what have you, and as the Chairman has indicated, we could ask you to remove it, but that would be a little unrealistic I do believe, and in this instance, Mr. Howard, I think it was an honest mistake, and I would reluctantly approve the application. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m afraid I’m going to have to come down on the negative side of this one. If this had been presented to us, clean from the start, I would not have been in favor of it, and that’s what we, many times, look at as a criteria for whether we would have approved it when it first came across, and I would not have, and also, because you are a carpenter, I think it’s something that it behooves you to make sure, especially on your own property. MR. HOWARD-I wasn’t aware you needed a permit to build a storage shed on your own property. Obviously, if it’s over 100 square feet, now I know you need a permit. MR. URRICO-I’d be against it. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I’m going to join the bulk of my colleagues, even though I hate when people come like this, and the reason I’m going to say yes is because of something I don’t like, your fence, but you have fenced it, and apparently it’s a legal fence, and you’ve gone to the expense of taking your whole yard and making it a bastion against the world, and that’s, you’re entitled to do that. I, for one, don’t like it, but that’s okay. You’re entitled to do it. It is a legal fence, Mr. Frank? MR. FRANK-It most definitely is a legal fence. 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. STONE-Yes. It’s just a lot of fence, but because it’s a lot of fence, the impact of this shed on the rest of the Town of Queensbury is obviously minimal. The two people most directly impacted are your two neighbors, both of whom have gone on record as saying they don’t have any concern with it, and I think, as we have shown earlier this evening, I think we do listen to neighbors, and I wish we didn’t have to do it after the fact, and I think people should be aware that we do have the power to make you tear it down, but having said that, I would reluctantly agree that it should stay up, and I would ask for a motion to grant this relief. MR. ABBATE-All right. I’ll take it, Mr. Chairman. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2002 RUSSELL HOWARD, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 794 West Mountain Road. Mr. Howard has constructed a 160 square foot storage shed and seeks relief from the setback requirements. Relief required, Mr. Howard goes forth and requests 12 feet east side and 2 feet of the north side of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the SFR-1A zone, Section 179-20. The benefit to the applicant, Mr. Howard would be permitted to maintain the 160 square foot storage shed in the current location, rather than remove it. Feasible alternatives, feasible alternatives appear to be limited as the back wall of the shed is the stockade fence which also supports the weight of the roof, in addition to the fact that we have discussed this matter after the fact. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 12 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate (60%). The effects on the neighborhood or community, Staff notes indicate minimum effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action, and as noted that we have two pieces of correspondence from both your neighbors who do not object to your shed. Is this difficulty self-created? Undoubtedly we could answer yes. However, in spite of this, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that this Board approve Area Variance No. 20-2002. Duly adopted this 24 day of April, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty MR. STONE-There you go. MR. HOWARD-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Go and sin no more, please. AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2002 TYPE II CHARLES & PATRICIA MOUZALAS PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: WAYNE F. VIELE LOCATION: 128 SUNNYSIDE NORTH ZONE: WR-1A APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 441.5 SQ. FT. DECK AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SHORELINE AND SIDELINE SETBACKS REQUIREMENTS. OLD TAX MAP NO. 50-1-83 NEW TAX MAP NO. 279-17-2-7 LOT SIZE: 0.22 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60 WAYNE VIELE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; CHARLES MOUZALAS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 19-2002, Charles & Patricia Mouzalas, Meeting Date: April 24, 2002 “Project Location: 128 Sunnyside North Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 441.5 sq. ft. deck. Relief Required: Applicant requests 33.8 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of the Shoreline and Wetland Regulations, § 179-60, and 14.3 feet from the 20- foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Also, the applicant seeks relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, § 179-79. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to keep the deck as built. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include removing the deck back to the section that existed during the site plan approval of 1988. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 33.8 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial, relative to the Ordinance (67.6%). 14.3 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement may also be interpreted as moderate to substantial, relative to the Ordinance (71.5%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate to substantial effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty is self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 89-50: 02/10/89; addition of a new second level with three bedrooms and a full bath. SP 48-88: 09/27/88; second level addition to dwelling. Staff comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) action. The applicant has constructed a new 441.5 sq. ft. deck. However, no record of any approval or a building permit was found for the new deck, which has a 16.2-foot setback. The approved site plan of 1988 and the elevation drawings submitted in 1989 for the building permit depict a 6-foot wide deck, which had a 31-foot shoreline setback. The applicant was informed by the Code Compliance Officer back in 2001 that the deck was in violation of the Town of Queensbury Code, and a variance and a building permit would be needed to keep the new construction. Feasible alternatives may include removing that portion of the deck back to the section that existed during the site plan approval of 1988, and construction of a new deck in a compliant location on the south side of the dwelling. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Gentlemen? MR. MOUZALAS-Hello. My name is Charles Mouzalas, and I’d like to say that I think there was an error on the size of the deck that was there. Part of the deck was six feet from the house out, and the other part of the deck was 12 feet from the house out, and just to show you that there was an error on the survey, I went to the survey office because there was a, they only had me down as having Lot 17, but I have Lot 17 and 18, and when they checked their records, they found that 18 belonged to my next door neighbor and 19, his property belonged to the neighbor next door to him. So now they’re going to run a check to find out where the error began, and I think that might have been the same problem with the deck. The front of the, the extra eight feet that I put on in the front just covers a very steep slope that’s not usable, and I’m afraid that the kids are going to hurt themselves running around in front of it. MR. STONE-I hear you saying that the ownership of the lots is in question, but the physical fact is that there’s a deck on this thing which is 16 feet from the lake. MR. MOUZALAS-Correct. MR. STONE-And you built that, you re-built it, or you built it new? MR. MOUZALAS-What happened was the old deck, the existing deck that was there, the boards started rotting. When they were removed, we found that one of the supports for the house was also rotted. So the deck had to come down to jack up the house and put new supports under the house. MR. STONE-Is it your position that the new deck which is obviously new, is no closer to the lake than the old deck? MR. MOUZALAS-No. It is much closer. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s the bone of contention that we have here, that it’s too close to the lake. You built it without a variance. MR. MOUZALAS-I didn’t know. See, when it all started out, it started out as replacing some rotted timber, and then we found that one of the main supports for the house in the front was also rotted, and that had to be replaced. That’s why the whole deck had to come down. MR. STONE-I understand, but you just said to us that the deck, at one time, was this far out. Then when you replaced all this, you went this far out. MR. MOUZALAS-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay, and that, without a building permit or without a variance. MR. MOUZALAS-Well, I didn’t know I needed all of this. MR. BRYANT-Well, in ’89, you applied for a building permit? MR. MOUZALAS-Yes, for the second level. MR. BRYANT-Okay, and you obviously have a sketch of the deck they’re talking about in the Staff notes? MR. MOUZALAS-No, I don’t. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. MOUZALAS-The only thing I have is a picture of some friends on part of the deck that shows that it’s larger. MR. BRYANT-You have that picture now? And then the other question I want to ask you is about the Code Compliance Officer talking to you in 2001, telling you that the deck was, but that doesn’t tell you how big the deck is. 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. MOUZALAS-No, I know, but it’s obviously larger than six feet on this end. This is the end, see, the deck was six feet on part of it, and then it went out to 12 feet. MR. STONE-Okay, but nevertheless, you said that you’re beyond that 12 feet. MR. BRYANT-Yes, you’re 20 feet now. MR. STONE-That’s the critical point. MR. MOUZALAS-Right. MR. STONE-You’re further out without benefit of a variance. You’re into a setback area without benefit of a variance, and without a building permit. MR. MOUZALAS-Right. What I’m saying is, the deck wasn’t six feet. The deck was 12 feet. MR. STONE-Okay, but that’s immaterial at the moment. MR. BRYANT-Let’s just, in 2001, the Compliance Officer spoke to you and said that this deck is not copasetic. MR. MOUZALAS-Right. MR. BRYANT-Okay, and then you went ahead and you built a deck that was bigger? MR. MOUZALAS-No. MR. BRYANT-Or are we talking about the same deck? MR. MOUZALAS-That’s the same deck. The Town got in touch with me and told me that the deck was built without a permit and a variance, and I’d have to apply for it. So I contacted Wayne Viele and asked him if he could take care of the necessary paperwork because he did the second story on the house. MR. STONE-Yes, but this is April 2002. MR. MOUZALAS-Right. MR. STONE-Well, this is our eighth meeting of the year, and you’re just on the agenda. MR. MOUZALAS-I had to get the property surveyed, and I don’t live here. I live in New York City. MR. ABBATE-That’s the question I was going to ask, if you reside here year round. MR. MOUZALAS-No. I don’t. I live in New York City. MR. STONE-You are aware of the wires down and all that, though? MR. MOUZALAS-Yes. Well, exactly. A tree came down, and took out the rail and all the wires, and so I came up and I tried to do a little bit of straightening up there, because when the weather gets a little warmer I’m going to come up and try and take care of the rail. MR. STONE-I think it strikes most of us, if you knew you needed a building permit to do something to the house, something should have said to you, well, if I’m doing something to the house in this Town of Queensbury, maybe I need a building permit. MR. MOUZALAS-I didn’t know you needed a building permit for the shed, and I was going to ask you about that after we were finished with this, because I want to put, I have an existing shed, but I guess you’ve seen it, the one up on the hill. MR. STONE-It’s pretty bad. MR. MOUZALAS-I want to, exactly. I want to take that down and put up a new shed. Now, do I need a building permit for that? MR. HAYES-When you put the second story on, did you put the deck on at that time? MR. VIELE-No, the deck was already pre-existing. 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. HAYES-And was it the six foot deck that was mentioned in the site plan? MR. VIELE-The sketch on that is inaccurate. That was just a sketch for the plot plan. I’m sorry. My name is Wayne Viele. Back when we did the second story, the deck that was there was the 12 foot, the section of the deck, the deck ran the full width of the house, portion of the deck was six foot wide, and then there was another portion that was 12 foot wide. MR. HAYES-So it was like L-shaped, then? MR. VIELE-Correct, and I think what we did was we re-built what was there. So I was even in question whether it needed a building permit, and the part of the deck that’s in question isn’t over 100 square feet. So, you know, I don’t think you need a building permit even, you know, only if you’re over 100 square feet. Correct? MR. STONE-But the important thing in this case is you have to be no more than 50 feet close to the lake. MR. VIELE-Well, how are you supposed to be aware of that? MR. STONE-It’s in the Code. MR. VIELE-Everybody knows the Code. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, they went through site plan review back in ’88. I have a copy of what was submitted. So you’re telling us that wrong information was submitted at that time, but they still went through the site plan review process back in 1988. MR. HAYES-And got a building permit based on a six foot deck. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. They had a second story addition added on to a single story structure, and the site plan map that I have here shows a six foot wide deck. MR. VIELE-The lake wasn’t in question at that time. Right? MR. STONE-The lake, actually, probably in those days was 75. MR. FRANK-It was more restrictive. MR. STONE-At least it was on Lake George, and I can only, I don’t know what the ’88 Code was, but it was certainly 75 on Lake George. MR. UNDERWOOD-When you added on the addition on the deck, and increased it closer to the lake there, did you take the trees down at that point in time? MR. MOUZALAS-There were no trees, no bushes in front. MR. UNDERWOOD-I just wondered. I saw some big stumps down there. MR. MOUZALAS-Those trees were taken down years ago. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, let me ask a question. MR. STONE-Go ahead. MR. ABBATE-I want to get this cleared up in my mind. This is a property of Frank, it says Rico on one side, property of Vincent Spero. Look at this for me, would you, please. Now this is your property right here, is t his not correct? MR. MOUZALAS-Lot 17 and 18. MR. ABBATE-And 18, okay. MR. MOUZALAS-This was Spero. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, when you submitted this, you were a total of, it was 37 feet to the dock from here, and 31 feet from the edge of the deck to the dock. Is that correct? MR. BRYANT-That leaves a six foot deck. Right. MR. ABBATE-Right. So that’s a six foot deck. 53 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. MOUZALAS-Well, this was measured from here. Well, look how far back this is, and look how far it is from this property line. MR. BRYANT-Well, that’s not the issue. We’re talking about the width of the deck. This here. MR. MOUZALAS-This part was left out. The part that was 12 feet out to here was left out. MR. BRYANT-Well, who left it out? MR. MOUZALAS-Whoever drew up the. MR. BRYANT-This is the drawing that you submitted to the Town. MR. ABBATE-Is that correct? MR. BRYANT-So the Town didn’t leave it out. MR. MOUZALAS-My contractor, Wayne Viele, (lost words) this. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Well, you were approved to build a six foot deck. Is that right? MR. MOUZALAS-No. The deck was there. It was the second story. MR. FRANK-The building permit back in 1989 was for a second story addition. They built a second story. MR. ABBATE-And it included this deck right here. Correct? MR. BRYANT-No. The deck was existing, right? MR. ABBATE-Existing. MR. FRANK-The deck was existing. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. FRANK-It showed a six foot wide deck. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So then you took this deck down, because of a number of reasons, and you extended the deck? MR. MOUZALAS-Well, this was out 12 feet. MR. ABBATE-Why wasn’t it on here? MR. VIELE-Because the deck wasn’t in question. They were more concerned about the second story. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-No, but you still need the drawing to show what all the setbacks. MR. ABBATE-So what you’re basically telling me is that when you submitted this, it wasn’t accurate. Is that what you’re saying? MR. VIELE-It’s a sketch. It’s not a. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but answer the question. When you submitted this, it wasn’t accurate? Because it was not six foot deck when you submitted it. It was really a 15 foot deck. Am I correct? MR. VIELE-Correct. MR. BRYANT-Twelve. MR. ABBATE-Or twelve, excuse me. Is my statement accurate? MR. VIELE-Correct, but at the time I didn’t think it was that important to show the deck accurate when we were going up. 54 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. ABBATE-Okay. So it was a conscious decision, okay. I understand what you’re saying. So this was a conscious decision to submit this drawing, this survey, whatever you wish to call it, to the Town, as representative of what your intentions were, correct? MR. MOUZALAS-My intention was to go up with a second story, not be concerned about how the deck configuration was. MR. ABBATE-When you went up with the second story, requesting a permit, was this deck six foot, or was it twenty foot or fifteen foot? MR. MOUZALAS-It had to have been the sixteen foot. MR. ABBATE-So then when you submitted this, you consciously submitted this to the Town knowing it was inaccurate. MR. VIELE-I didn’t think it was important at the time, because we were going straight up. MR. ABBATE-You don’t think setting forth specifications, as representative of your property, which are inaccurate is important? MR. VIELE-When you’re going up with a second story, that’s in concern. The deck is not in concern. MR. BRYANT-Yes, I understand what you’re saying. I agree with you, somewhat, but the purpose of that whole. MR. VIELE-It’s no more than this new drawing of the survey. I mean, do you think that that shed is within a foot? MR. BRYANT-No, but obviously here you go through the pains of showing all the setbacks, and you use that six foot dimension to show the setback, when that, in fact, was not accurate in 1989, and that’s the point that Mr. Abbate is trying to make. That setback that you’re showing, based on this six foot deck, is not accurate from the get go, and now we’re talking about a new structure that’s even less accurate. MR. VIELE-Well, I think we could pick every drawing that we have in this place apart like that. MR. BRYANT-Yes, we can do. MR. VIELE-If you do that. Look at the lakeshore. I mean, the lakeshore changes every day. MR. STONE-Sir, you’re not helping yourself by arguing. The problem is this was a site plan request. Site means from one end of the property to the other. We don’t selectively look at a site plan, at a piece on the property. We look at the whole property, and if you submitted a drawing, if a drawing was submitted, I’m not going to go into who, that was in error, then you submitted a fraudulent document. MR. VIELE-It’s not a drawing. It’s a sketch. MR. ABBATE-Let me ask a quick question. What is your occupation, sir? MR. VIELE-I’m a carpenter. MR. ABBATE-You’re a commercial carpenter? MR. VIELE-No, I work for people. MR. ABBATE-You work for people, private practice, and what is your occupation, sir? I’m asking for a reason. MR. MOUZALAS-I’m a retired heavy equipment mechanic. MR. ABBATE-So both of you folks are in some way or another related to, although maybe distance, construction. Right? Of some time. MR. MOUZALAS-No. I worked for the Port Authority in Kennedy Airport, and I just worked on heavy equipment. MR. ABBATE-I can forgive you for that. Well, okay. No sense in belaboring it. MR. STONE-I think the concern here is that, two things, one, that you have a deck for which you did not get a building permit, nor get a variance, which you would have been told to get, if, in fact, you went for the 55 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) building permit, but nevertheless, you built this deck which is 16 feet from the water’s edge of Lake Sunnyside, and that’s the point. Whether or not the, I mean, it’s compounded by the fact that the site plan drawing, sketch, whatever, was not accurate, did not depict the site, and that’s, well, that’s, to me, a fatal flaw, quite frankly, but, any other questions? I’ll open the public hearing, and we’ll see where we’re going. MR. ABBATE-Okay. One other question. This map that was submitted. MR. STONE-That’s a survey. MR. ABBATE-Survey, excuse me. Is this accurate, in your opinion? MR. VIELE-In my opinion? To a degree. MR. ABBATE-To a degree. MR. VIELE-I didn’t do the lot measuring. You’d have to talk to. MR. STONE-It is stamped and signed by, I assume, a licensed land surveyor. MR. VIELE-That’s correct. MR. STONE-I have a seal on mine. MR. ABBATE-Yes, so do I. So we have to assume that this is accurate. MR. STONE-This is accurate. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. STONE-Which shows that the deck is 16 feet from the water’s edge. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. STONE-Let me open the public hearing, because I think I know where we’re going, but let’s get there. Anybody in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-I have one letter. It’s dated April 22, 2002. It’s from the Doughers at 122 Sunnyside North. “We have no problem with the relief needed for the deck.” MR. STONE-Thank you. Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions before we talk about it? All right. Jamie, let’s start with you. MR. HAYES-Well, I think you’re probably going to hear from other Board members that, often when we’re dealt with a situation where we have a constructed condition that does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance, we try and view it, in our approval process or disapproval process, as if it wasn’t there, and would we approve it, and I can only speak for myself, but I feel quite certain that in this particular circumstance I wouldn’t approve that deck to be constructed in the fashion that it is. It clearly protrudes well into the Critical Environmental Area. I think the site, based on the history as I review the history of this site, you were granted a second level with three bedrooms and a full bath, and I think that’s okay. I mean, I wasn’t part of that process, but you were given additional living space to accommodate your needs at this camp, and I can understand that, but, having been given that relief, I think that that certainly, in my mind, reduces the necessity for you to gain additional square footage on your deck, versus what was permitted. I’ve been a part of this process before, and the site plan is an extensive process, and I’m sure what they approved took into consideration the whole property, you know, the amount of your deck, the amount of square footage you were gaining on top of your existing camp, all those things, the impact on your neighbors, all those things, and I’d have to defer to their judgment in this particular case, that if they approved a six foot wide deck, and a 31 foot shoreline setback, that that’s what you should have at this particular case, irregardless of any confusion as to what was there, what should be there, what the sketch says. I really don’t need to go into that type of in depth. I believe that you were granted some relief at that point. You were granted, by the Planning Board, some additional space, and it should be left at that. So, in my opinion, this variance fails. It’s certainly self-created. This type of action could definitely have a negative impact on the neighborhood or greater community. As has already been discussed by one of the Board members, Lake Sunnyside is, while a beautiful lake, has certainly developed with a very large density, very intense development there. Feasible alternatives, I believe that feasible alternatives really include what you were granted in your original site plan 56 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) back in ’88. I think that’s the alternative that we should be exploring in this particular case. I think the only part of the test that falls in your favor is the benefit to the applicant. So I would say, in my opinion, it substantially falls in favor of denying the variance. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would have to agree. I live on a lake, and when I re-built my house, they were very specific about how much deck I could put out in front of my house, and I think if I built a deck like this, that my head would actually be falling on my neck in doing so, but I think that in this case here that you, you know, your deck’s going to need to be cut back or something. I don’t know. I mean, to me, it intrudes way too far down into the shoreline, and irregardless of safety factors or whatever else you can do there, you can plant trees and bushes down there to keep people from falling down the bank onto the patio. I think the request is excessive and I wouldn’t be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-I, too, agree with what has been said. I know that the minimum shoreline requirement is 50 feet, and because of the position of the house you could never get 50 feet, and you are entitled to some deck, and back in ’89 when that site plan was given to the Town, and it showed a six foot deck, at that time they felt it was reasonable, and I think that that probably is reasonable, and as far as this variance is concerned, I would be opposed to it. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-I would agree with what has been said so far. I think we’re dealing with shoreline and wetland regulations, and that in itself should ring a bell, and this is merely a personal opinion, but I have difficulty understanding the nonchalant approach to this entire problem, and that’s the thing that really bothers me. Now, having said that, Mr. Chairman, I would not be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree with everybody else. I’m sorry, but if I were looking at this as a fresh application, there’d be no way that I would go along with it, and that’s the only way that I can feel that I can approach it fairly and, to me, it’s way over the line. I would not be in favor of it. MR. STONE-And I certainly concur with the rest of the Board, particularly Mr. Hayes, who did cite the criteria that we normally use, would we have granted it if you had come in with clean hands. This Board, and I will say to its credit, has been particularly zealous when it comes to our waterfront properties, whether they’re Lake George, Glen Lake, Lake Sunnyside or the Hudson River. We have a very tough Ordinance, as far as waterfront property is concerned, in terms of setback, height. You might have heard someone reference the height earlier this evening, but setback is one that we do not deviate very often. You were granted some relief by a previous Board, whether it was the Zoning Board or the Planning Board I don’t know, but I concur that this Board is not going to allow to grant this variance and what that means is that the Town will ask you to take it down, but that’s another issue, but I need a motion to deny this application. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2002 CHARLES & PATRICIA MOUZALAS, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 128 Sunnyside North. Mr. Mouzalas has constructed, without a permit, a 441.5 square foot deck. He is requesting 33.8 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirements in the area which is considered Shoreline and Wetland regulations in accord with Section 179-60, and 14.3 feet from the 20 foot minimum side setback required of waterfront, WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. Also, Mr. Mouzalas seeks relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, Section 179-79. The benefit to the applicant, obviously, Mr. Mouzalas would be permitted to keep the deck as it has been built, but based on what we have discussed tonight, it’s apparent that this Board is not going to allow that. Are there feasible alternatives? Feasible alternatives, according to Staff notes, may include removing the deck back to the section that existed during the site plan approval of 1988. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 33.8 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial relative to the Ordinance (67.6%), 14.3 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement may also be interpreted as moderate to substantial relative to the Ordinance (71.5%). The effects on the neighborhood or community, moderate to substantial effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. Is this difficulty self-created? Based on at least my conversation with the applicant and his supporter, the difficulty is definitely self-created, and based upon this, Mr. Chairman, I propose a motion that Area Variance No. 19-2002 be disapproved. Duly adopted this 24 day of April, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone 57 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty MR. STONE-Sorry, gentlemen, but this is an area that we’re very tough on. MR. MOUZALAS-Okay. How much time do I have to? MR. STONE-Take it up with the Code Enforcement Officer. MR. MOUZALAS-How much time do I have to take the deck down? Since I don’t live here, I’d like a little time. MR. ABBATE-That should be a discussion between you and him, not on the record of the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. STONE-During regular office hours. MR. ABBATE-Right. AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2002 TYPE II JOANN F. MILLER PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: MC PHILLIPS, FITZGERALD & CULLUM, L.L.P. LOCATION: 175 GURNEY LANE ZONE: RR-5A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,260 SQ. FT. STORAGE BUILDING FOR EQUIPMENT STORAGE AND 2 PERSONAL BOATS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ALLOWED. OLD TAX MAP NO. 32-1-37 NEW TAX MAP NO. 288.00-1-5 LOT SIZE: 24 ACRES SECTION 179-15 JOE NICHOLS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOANN , NELSON MILLER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 28-2002, Joann F. Miller, Meeting Date: April 24, 2002 “Project Location: 175 Gurney Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,260 sq. ft. storage building for equipment storage and two personal boats. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the number of accessory structures allowed per § 179-15. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include allowing a smaller second structure or adding on to the existing storage structure. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: Being the Ordinance allows for one storage structure, the request for an additional storage structure could be considered substantial relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects may be anticipated as a result of this action being the parcel is comprised of 24 acres, and the placement of the structure will not be visible from the neighboring parcels or the road. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, as the applicants already have an 864 sq. ft. storage structure in addition to a 2-car attached garage. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 91465: 07/02/91; 4242 sq. ft. single family dwelling and 24’ x 36’ storage structure. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant could construct an addition onto the existing storage structure. However, the parcel consists of 24 acres, and the proposed additional storage structure will not be visible from the neighboring parcels or the road because of the dense forest. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Lady and gentlemen. We apologize for the lateness of the hour, but we’re here. MR. NICHOLS-You’re all here. Good evening, gentlemen. My name is Joe Nichols. I’m representing the applicant in connection with this application. As you can see, this is simply an application to allow my client to construct on its property a 1,260 foot barn structure which will be simply for the purpose of storing some boats and equipment. Obviously, this is a large parcel of land. What was not indicated is that my clients also own a 15 acre adjoining parcel to the south. So together you’re talking about 40 acres of land running contiguous. They do have a need for some additional space. The way the house is configured and the way the existing additional structure are configured, it would not be feasible to attach another structure to these existing structures. In other words, if you were to look at the house, there really is no feasible alternative to place this structure anywhere adjacent to the house or adjoining the house, nor is there, the topography of the land is not such that it lends itself to the ability to construct this additional structure adjacent or adjoining to the other additional structure. So, therefore, the request is that the structure be placed on the property in a place where it would not be visible from any neighbor. There is no neighbor that could see this structure. In fact, the home itself is surrounded by dense forest land where my clients are planning to put this. It’s not visible from the road. It’s not visible from any other location. So, therefore, the impact on the neighborhood would be, I would respectfully submit that there would be no impact whatsoever because you can’t even see it where it would be. 58 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. STONE-What is that temporary structure that is visible from the road? MR. MILLER-It’s a tent. MR. STONE-I know. You want to get rid of that? MRS. MILLER-Yes. MR. MILLER-That has one of the pieces of equipment. MR. ABBATE-That would be removed, is what you’re saying? MR. NICHOLS-Right. So from an aesthetic standpoint, this would actually improve things. MR. ABBATE-Now correct me if I’m in error on this. 25. some acres, in addition to 15 acres, is that correct, am I right? MR. NICHOLS-Yes. MR. ABBATE-That’s 40 acres. In addition, if I’m not mistaken, the land also, the County of Warren borders your property. MR. STONE-Or is that your land? On this survey, the Lands of the County are yours? MRS. MILLER-It’s ours. MR. MILLER-Across Gurney Lane. MR. ABBATE-Well, I guess what I’m trying to say. MR. STONE-Identify yourself when you’re talk. That’s the only thing. MRS. MILLER-Do you have a map? MR. STONE-That’s the same one. MR. ABBATE-Yes, the same one as you have right there. MR. STONE-It says County of Warren. MR. ABBATE-Right. Do you see on the bottom, Lands of the County of Warren? MRS. MILLER-That was the Hunt property. You probably remember us. We had the illegal subdivision, it went all through, well, that’s the property that he had subdivided and I purchased. MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s not County land? MRS. MILLER-No. We go right out to Buckbee Road, our property. MR. STONE-Okay, but they’re not combined for tax purposes? MRS. MILLER-No, separate lots. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HAYES-What’s the underlying zoning of the property up there? MRS. MILLER-RR-5, 500 feet frontage for a. MR. ABBATE-I guess the point I was trying to make is this is massive acres, based upon even one acre is considerable today, sizeable. Forty acres is certainly considerable, sizeable. MR. STONE-Are there any buildings on the 15 acres? MRS. MILLER-No. MR. STONE-Just that tree house, or is that on the 25? MRS. MILLER-No, that’s ours. 59 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. STONE-I couldn’t help but notice that as I drove down. MR. BRYANT-When you say equipment, what kind of equipment are you talking about? MR. MILLER-My name is Nelson Miller. I have a tractor with a snow blower, and I have another tractor with a front loader, and I have a trailer that I use to take that tractor to our camp and transport it elsewhere, and we have a sailboat and a water ski boat. MR. STONE-What’s in the first structure? You’ve got a garage, an attached garage, legal, 900 square feet. I didn’t measure how many. What’s in the big building? MR. MILLER-In the winter the sailboat, and an automobile and the two tractors, and things sort of have to be juggled to get in and out of there, as it is. So if I want to take one tractor out, I have to move the other tractor, and in the winter, I have to move lots of things to get something out. MR. ABBATE-What do you use the tractor for? Not the front loader but the other tractor. MR. MILLER-To remove the snow from the driveway. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and what do you use the front loader for? MR. MILLER-Digging ditches and moving stones. MR. ABBATE-You’re not in commercial construction or anything like that? MR. MILLER-No. MR. ABBATE-And the vehicles, the equipment that you have right now is not used for commercial purposes? MR. MILLER-No. MR. NICHOLS-Right. I think a point I should have made is that part of the plan here is that they have a lot of equipment to maintain this acreage. MR. ABBATE-To maintain all this acreage. Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. STONE-It’s a Catch-22. You’ve got equipment to maintain acreage, so you have a lot of acres to maintain, so you need a lot of equipment, and on and on. What’s the origin of the name of the private road that leads up to your house? MRS. MILLER-You’ve never read, from the Lord of the Rings, End took care of the Forest. MR. STONE-I’ve read them years ago and hated them, but that’s another story. MR. MILLER-I guess the only other comment I would make is I think part of our purpose here is that we want to make it aesthetically pleasing. We’re planning to use the same cedar shakes that the house and the other structure, the same roof pitch, the same shingles, the same trim, and there really isn’t an aesthetic way to add on to the existing additional structure that would be satisfactory. MR. ABBATE-And this is a year round home? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. STONE-The only question that comes to mind, I mean, you’ve got a very oversized accessory building, and you’ve got a garage, and we have been, you’ve heard a little bit of it tonight, but we have been pretty tough on second garages, oversized garages, and my only concern, obviously you have a lot of property, no question about that. My only concern is, is someone going to know we did this, precedent is what I worry about because, yes, you have 25 acres, 40 acres, but somebody’s going to come in with five acres and say, well, I want a bigger building, I want another building, and then we grant that and then someone comes in, well, I have two acres. MR. HAYES-It’s still a case by case basis. MR. STONE-Yes, I know. Well, we have lawyers who appear, and they remember precedents. MR. ABBATE-You’re not counsel, are you? 60 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. NICHOLS-Yes. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. NICHOLS-I would just say that on balance, looking at the statute, that clearly weighing the equities here, they would be in favor of my clients being successful in this application, and as Mr. Hayes said correctly, that it’s a case by case basis. MR. STONE-It is. MR. ABBATE-I have to agree with Jamie. I think he’s right. MR. STONE-Well, we do worry about it occasionally. MR. ABBATE-We have to be concerned about it, no question about it, but there are mitigating circumstances. MR. BRYANT-I have one more question. Is this going to be the end of the accessory storage building venture? Or are we going to build another one because we buy a bigger tractor down the road? MR. MILLER-This should be the end. MR. BRYANT-This should be the end. MR. MILLER-That’s part of the reason that we wanted to make it large enough, to make sure that I wouldn’t. MR. ABBATE-Can we stipulate that? MR. MILLER-Certainly. MR. ABBATE-You wouldn’t object if we made that a stipulation, that there would be no further expansion of buildings? MR. NCHOLS-That’s up to you. I wouldn’t object, no. MR. ABBATE-I’m being facetious here. I’m trying to cover the bases. MRS. MILLER-I would accept that if we could say that at some point, if we decided ever to subdivide that property that then that changes, and we’d have the option. There is the potential of five lots on that property, and I would not want to, you know, some place down the road, say no other structures can go on the 25 acres. MR. STONE-No, we wouldn’t structure it that way obviously. MR. ABBATE-I would suggest that. MR. STONE-You’re not going to gerrymander this to have a line come up here to keep this on your five acres. MRS. MILLER-I mean, if you saw the house, you would have to understand that we don’t want something that looks really awful on our property. MR. STONE-No, you certainly don’t. MRS. MILLER-And we maintain it beautifully, and that’s how we will continue to do it. So I don’t think that you should have a fear. MR. ABBATE-I’m not even sure I’d put that stipulation in. It’s getting late, and you have to understand. MR. URRICO-The boats being stored would only be personal boats? MR. MILLER-That’s right. MR. STONE-Where’s your camp that you go to? MRS. MILLER-Schroon Lake. 61 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) MR. STONE-Schroon. Very nice. Okay. I’m going to open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of? Anybody opposed? Any letters? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any further questions? Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think we have to consider the large size of the parcel, and I think that, you know, given the fact that it’s a major estate, you’ve got to have power equipment to go out and clear trails or whatever you’re doing out there, and I don’t really have a problem with this request. I think it’s more than we usually grant, but, you know, you’ve stated a reason why you have the equipment. It needs to be under cover, and it’ll make your life easier. So I’d be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-I think this is another case that what you’re going to build is not going to be visible any place else on the planet. The reality is, and I think we should consider, as you said, this could be five lots, it could be houses with five garages. So what we’re asking is not really in excess, if you view it in those terms. So I’m totally in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-I agree with Allan, and a common sense approach to this thing, in my opinion, strictly in my opinion, would dictate approval of this application. Had this been one acre or two acres, that you’re requesting, then I would have been in third gear, but taking into consideration balance, taking into consideration a common sense approach, taking into consideration what is fair or unfair, in my opinion, I think we should support the application. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I agree. I think it’s such a large piece of property, that, unless somebody else comes with 40 acres and asks for an extra, accessory structure, I don’t think that they’re going to have a case, as far as precedent, but I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jamie? MR. HAYES-I agree. The applicant has demonstrated why they need this additional structure. I think part of the reason for the restriction on accessory structure is the mushroom farm type of effect, and, as I drove up on this property, there’s no danger of that. I mean, it’s beautiful, and I can tell that that is not a possibility. So I think, on balance, there really can’t be any real negative effects on the neighborhood or community because that is the neighborhood. So, I’m in favor. MR. STONE-And I certainly agree. You will stipulate that that temporary shed will come down, of course, and the last time I faced Mrs. Miller, she was asking for relief of her assessment, and your assessment will go up when you put this thing on here, as you know I’m sure, but, having said that, I think it’s a good project. There just aren’t many 25 acre developed, I mean, residential lots where people actually live. We’ve got a lot of people who own 25 acres, and they don’t really use them. I mean, they’re there because they buy land. So, having said that, I need a motion to approve this variance. MR. URRICO-I’ll take it, Mr. Chairman. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2002 JOANN F. MILLER, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 175 Gurney Lane. The applicant proposes construction of a 1,260 square foot storage building for equipment storage and two personal boats. The applicant requests relief from the number of accessory structures allowed per 179-15. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired structure in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives may include allowing a smaller structure or adding on to the existing storage structure, but that would not be conducive to the property design and the building design that is already there. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Being the Ordinance allows for one storage structure, the request does come across as being substantial, but when weighed against the total acreage of the property, and the way it sits back from any visible citizens or public driving by, I don’t think that’s an issue. Effects on the neighborhood or community, again, it’s minimal impact on the 62 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/24/02) community because of the parcel’s size, and is the difficulty self-created? It may be interpreted as self- created, as the applicant already has an 860 square foot storage structure in addition to a two car attached garage, but again, the acreage sort of mitigates that. I’d also like to make this contingent upon two things. One, that it only be used for personal property, personal boats, and that the temporary building be taken down, and to be used for no commercial purposes. Duly adopted this 24 day of April, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Himes MRS. MILLER-Thank you. MR. MILLER-Thank you. MR. STONE-I declare this meeting closed, gentlemen. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 63