Loading...
2005-11-23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 23, 2005 INDEX Area Variance No. 75-2005 Randy Rivette 1. Tax Map No. 289.9-1-63 Area Variance No. 73-2005 Case Prime 2. Tax Map No. 290.10-1-5 Notice of Appeal No. 6-2005 Brian Granger 2. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-60 Area Variance No. 83-2005 Sean Fitzpatrick 11. Tax Map No. 303.20-1-21 Area Variance No. 84-2005 Leo Bruce 16. Tax Map No. 316.6-1-12 Area Variance No. 85-2005 Martin J. Barrington & Mary P. Devine 21. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-21 NOMINATIONS - 2006 ZBA Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary 37. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 23, 2005 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY ALLAN BRYANT CHARLES MC NULTY ROY URRICO LEO RIGBY, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT LEWIS STONE JOYCE HUNT ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN LAND USE ADMINISTRATOR-SUSAN BARDEN TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-2005 SEQRA TYPE II RANDY RIVETTE OWNER(S): RANDY RIVETTE ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 57 SULLIVAN PLACE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 900 SQ. FT. 2-CAR GARAGE WITH ABOVE STORAGE AREA. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT YARD SETBACK AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP 98-519 SEPTIC ALT., BP 93-477 2-STORY ADD. WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.36 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.9-1-63 SECTION 179-4-030 MR. UNDERWOOD-The Town requested additional information from Mr. Rivette, and that has not been forthcoming. So I think that a letter has been sent to Mr. Rivette postponing it for up to 60 more days. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-2005 RANDY RIVETTE, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 57 Sullivan Place. Tabled for a period up to 62 days. Duly adopted this 23 day of November, 2005, by the following vote: rd MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rivette has been in, and he is in the process of submitting information for the December 15 deadline for the January meeting. So, in all likelihood, it th will have information submitted for January. MR. ABBATE-So you’re suggesting that it be scheduled for the meeting in January? MR. BROWN-I think if we pick the first January meeting that would be fine. MR. ABBATE-We can do that. Sure. If that’s fair to all of the individuals that are involved. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) MR. BROWN-I’m being corrected here. I believe he brought the information. MR. ABBATE-Should I keep it as it remains, 62 days? MR. BROWN-You may be seeing him in December. He’s more recently submitted stuff than I thought. MR. ABBATE-So up to 62 days would be appropriate. Okay. MR. BROWN-You’ll see it in December, that’s all. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. Bryant ABSENT: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone MR. ABBATE-The vote is five in favor, one against. Area Variance No. 75-2005 is tabled for a period up to 62 days. AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2005 SEQRA TYPE II CASE PRIME AGENT(S): CHAZEN COMPANIES OWNER(S): CASE PRIME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION ROCKWELL RD. & HILAND DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 4-LOT SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR TWO OF THE LOTS. CROSS REF. SUBDIVISION NO. 16-2005 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE: 16.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.10-1-5 SECTION 179-4-090 MR. UNDERWOOD-Case Prime appeared before us last month, and he’s being represented by Chazen Companies. The Town received a letter on November 2, 2005 from Stuart Mesinger, who is representing him, from Chazen, and this was a request to table the variance for Case Prime until the January 2006 meeting, and it didn’t specify which one. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2005 CASE PRIME, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Leo Rigby: Rockwell Rd. & Hiland Drive. For the January 2006 hearings. Duly adopted this 23 day of November, 2005, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Rigby, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone MR. ABBATE-The vote is six in favor, no negative. Area Variance No. 73-2005, Case Prime, is tabled until January 2006. NEW BUSINESS: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 6-2005 SEQRA TYPE II BRIAN GRANGER OWNER(S): BRIAN GRANGER ZONING MU LOCATION 20 NEWCOMB STREET APPELLANT, MR. GRANGER, IS APPEALING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DETERMINATION IN HIS LETTER DATED AUGUST 31, 2005 RELATIVE TO PERMITTED USES IN THE MIX USE (MU) ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY AT 20 NEWCOMB STREET. SPECIFICALLY, THE APPELLANT WISHES TO UTILIZE THIS PROPERTY AS A BASE OF OPERATIONS FOR A REPOSSESSION BUSINESS. A DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE THAT THIS USE IS TO BE CONSIDERED AN AUTOMOBILE USE AND THEREFORE NOT ALLOWABLE IN THE MIXED USE DISTRICT WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A USE VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REF. BP 2005-494, PARTIAL DEMO OF GARAGE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NO LOT SIZE 0.16 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-60 SECTION 179-16-050 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) BRIAN GRANGER, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-There are numerous letters, and I don’t know if you want those read in or, you know, we’ve all read them. MR. GRANGER-Can I have an opportunity to see them and review them? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I mean the submittals that you guys have made. Do you want those read in? Okay. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Would the petitioner or counsel please come to the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself and your place of residence. MR. GRANGER-My name is Brian Granger, residence at 63 Wincoma Lane in Queensbury. I’m the applicant. MR. ABBATE-Proceed, Mr. Granger. MR. GRANGER-Before I purchased the property, I checked with the Town of Queensbury and thought I was set on this issue, and, not being familiar with the Town of Queensbury and the Planning, everything to do with it, because I don’t deal with it on a daily basis, I inquired to the Town of Queensbury before I purchased the property and went over what I intended to use the property for, someone here, by phone, and they faxed me a table of uses, and that’s where I came up with buying the property. After I bought the property and did improvements to it, I received the letter from Mr. Brown saying not allowed it was automobile use. I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I read under the table of uses, basically I have a professional office and a parking lot. I don’t repair cars. I don’t sell them. I don’t service them. I don’t do anything with the automobiles themselves except pick them up and hold on to them for a few days, and that’s where we’re at. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So that we’re all reading, if you will, from the same sheet of music, you claim that “the closest to my business is a professional office parking area”, and as I went through all of the documentation that’s contained in the record this evening, I have failed to find a real definition of what repossession services encompass. Could you help us out, please, and give me a definition. MR. GRANGER-Absolutely. My business, I repossess approximately 150 to 200 units per month. However, more than half those units are not even showing up in my office, because they’re shipped directly to an auction. So they don’t even come back here. As a professional office, we’re not open to the public. We don’t hang a sign, but I do have a couple of employees, obviously fax machines, computers. So I have to have an office. Approximately at any given time, I have on hand 20 to 30 cars, or light trucks, nothing too big, and they stay there for an average of five days, either the debtor redeems or they’re immediately scheduled to be picked up by an auction house. So at any given time I have approximately 20 cars in my yard. MR. ABBATE-You still haven’t answered my question. I’d like a definition of what’s meant by repossession services, please. MR. GRANGER-A bank or lender has someone who is defaulting on a loan and they hire somebody to go pick up the car, or the unit, that’s me. MR. ABBATE-That’s you. Okay, but wouldn’t it be fair to say that there are two types of repossession, one is called a voluntary possession and the other is called an involuntary possession, and in the involuntary possession, you have been granted, a tremendous, you, the service, have been granted a tremendous amount of flexibility, such as repossessions, such as whether the individual is present or not. You, a lender, may hot wire a car, use a duplicate key, even remove the key from an open garage or carport. Isn’t this basically? MR. GRANGER-That’s not true. MR. ABBATE-Really? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) MR. GRANGER-It’s illegal to go into a garage or carport to repossess a car. MR. ABBATE-Well, I’m reading from United States Government Department of Navy JAG, and that happens to be their description. Are they wrong? If they are, I’ll send them an e- mail. MR. GRANGER-I think you should, because you can’t enter a closed facility. The law states Non Breech of Peace, which means if I can obtain the car peaceable, but you cannot go into a structure. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. GRANGER-You can go on their property, but you can’t go into a structure. MR. ABBATE-Just a couple of more things and then I’ll go to my fellow Board members. I’ve got to get this cleared up. MR. GRANGER-None of that takes place at this premise. MR. ABBATE-I see. You claim that you’re not a storage yard for long term storage of vehicles. What is long term storage, as opposed to short term storage? I’m not quite sure I understand. MR. GRANGER-You’ve got to rely back from the Town what they consider that. Long term storage I would think would be, you know, a longer period of time. I’m saying short term our parking, because the average is three to five days that they’re there. MR. ABBATE-What’s the definition of a couple of days? MR. GRANGER-Within five days at the most, meaning if we picked up a car on a Friday, by the following Wednesday it’s gone. It’s already gone. MR. ABBATE-All right. With the 10 cars on the lot, how many of those cars are usually redeemed within a day or two? MR. GRANGER-Not very many, one out of thirty. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, how many of the ten cars that you quoted remain in storage beyond two days? MR. GRANGER-Beyond two days? MR. ABBATE-Beyond two days, yes. MR. GRANGER-Most, but less than five. MR. ABBATE-All right. Now you also cite the Court of Appeals Case No. 440 East 102nd Street Corporation versus Murdock, 285 New York, as well as the New York Real Property Practice 4 Edition by Patricia E. Salkin, but for some reason, I fail to find that in the th evidence here, and quite frankly, when I went on the Internet, I had a difficult time finding it as well. Do you have copies of it, so we could refresh our memories? MR. GRANGER-No, I don’t. I’d have to consult back to an attorney who gave me that information. Apparently the Board went over this with Essential Towing at 19 Newcomb Street. You guys went through the last year. The Town of Queensbury went through this with 19 Newcomb Street, with Essential Towing, about whether it was in the same zone? MR. ABBATE-We’re just discussing Appeal No. 6-2005, and as such, the burden of responsibility to convince us falls squarely on the shoulders of the appellant, that’s you. MR. GRANGER-I’m sorry. I don’t have that. MR. ABBATE-Well, then I’m going to disregard it. Gentlemen, ladies. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, a couple of questions. When you repossess these vehicles, how do you bring them to that location? MR. GRANGER-Ninety percent of the time we drive them. I have a key machine. We make copies of the keys. MR. BRYANT-Okay, and you mention that, at any given time, you may have 20 to 30 vehicles on the property, and do you receive storage fees for those vehicles? MR. GRANGER-No. MR. BRYANT-No. So if the vehicle is there five days, and it’s turned over to, let’s say the dealer, you don’t receive any money for that time at the? Okay. MR. GRANGER-The repossession business, probably like the tire business, where you used to pay for valves stems mounting and balancing separately. We don’t get storage anymore, either. It went away. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So you have 30 cars that are stored on the site for a short period of time. How do you reconcile that with an office building? I mean, a standard office building, the purpose of which is to have offices in it and people working in it, and whether it’s an attorney’s office an accountant’s office, people park, go into the office, do their business, come out, and then they leave. So how do you reconcile storing 30 cars on a lot as being anywhere equivalent to an office? MR. GRANGER-In the Mix Use zone it says parking garage/parking facility, and then you go to the definition of parking and storage. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but parking in my mind, parking is a voluntary situation, and parking, in your case, is not necessarily real parking. You’ve taken the property and you’re storing. MR. GRANGER-There’s no definition in the Town for a repossession business. So we’re trying to fit in where could go. Automobile use is zoned, automobile and automobile repair shop, you could be in a Highway Commercial. I really don’t want to be on Quaker Road with my business. I kind of want to be low key and out of the way. So there’s really no definition in the Town for a repossession business. So we’re trying to pick an area that we’re kind of low key, low profile, out of sight, out of mind. We don’t hang a sign. We don’t advertise our address in the phone book. We don’t even advertise our phone number in the phone book. We’re trying to be some place that was low key. I did want to be next to, close to Exit 18, for convenience, going to get them. That’s why I picked the area I did. That’s why I asked the Town before I purchased the property. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Well, gentlemen? MR. UNDERWOOD-I had a question regarding when they pick up the vehicles, do they come with big capacity vehicles to pick them up, like car carrier trucks or how does that work? MR. GRANGER-Transfer we hired has a four carrier straight truck, and the driveway is big enough so they can get back off. That’s why the fence was set back, so they could get back off the road and not interfere with the traffic, and I have a three car carrier for transport. So we take them ourselves, so it’s not interfering with the street. MR. RIGBY-You said ninety percent of the vehicles you drive in. The other 10 percent are towed in? MR. GRANGER-Yes. I do not have conventional tow trucks. I have pick up trucks with special equipment for doing repossession. So it’s not trucks with flashing lights coming in. MR. RIGBY-Are they flat bed trucks? MR. GRANGER-No. We don’t have any flat beds. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) MR. RIGBY-So they’re traditional tow trucks? MR. GRANGER-No, not traditional tow trucks. It’s a pick up truck with specialized equipment on it, and it’s a one ton dual wheel, but it doesn’t look like a tow truck and it doesn’t have yellow flashing lights on it. MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen? MR. BRYANT-One more question, please. MR. ABBATE-Go ahead. MR. BRYANT-You made reference to the fact that before you started doing something on the garage, you had gone to the Town, and you spoke with Mr. Hatin about, or Craig, or whoever, about the use and so forth and so on, and yet there’s a letter in our package dated August 29 from Dave Hatin, where he indicates that you never discussed this particular use th for the property in that discussion. MR. GRANGER-That’s correct. I’ve got my fax here that I got from Susan Barden on May 17 about when I talked about the use of the property. Dave Hatin, I understand, is the th Building Inspector, not the, in Planning, and I have that here. MR. BRYANT-Okay. We don’t have that in our package, do we, that fax? MR. ABBATE-I have no fax. MR. BRYANT-Can I see it, please? MR. GRANGER-Yes, sir. MR. ABBATE-While he’s reading the fax, this letter that Mr. Hatin wrote to you, dated August 29, 2005, he states, in Paragraph Three, at no time did you and I discuss any commercial occupancy of this structure or property. It was my understanding that this was going to be used as a single family residence to be rented out. And then in Paragraph Five, he says, If you are desiring to turn this single family home into a commercial office building, then please contact me as we will need to have drawings submitted showing the layout of the structure, to make sure that it complies with the Building Code. Do you have a copy of that? MR. GRANGER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Did you comply with his request? MR. GRANGER-Not as of yet. We’re waiting to see what the outcome was here. MR. BRYANT-Just for the record, I just want to say, this fax only contains the use tables and has nothing to do with a discussion that you may or may not have had with a Town official early on, indicating that you were going to use it for this particular type of business. Just for the record. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? If there are no other questions, what I’m going to do, I’m going to open a public hearing, and to meet the obligation of the Public Officers Law Sec: 3 for a fair and open process the public hearing is open for Appeal No .6- 2005. In the interest of time, please be crisp, organized, and limit your comments to only the facts and information given this evening. Would those wishing to be heard please come up to the table, speak into the microphone and identify yourself. You will be limited to five minutes. Ms. G., monitor the time. Now, do we have any folks in the audience who would like to come up and comment on Appeal No. 6-2005. Would you raise your hand and be recognized. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE- I see no hands raised, so I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, was there any written public comment? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have nothing. MR. ABBATE-No public comments. MR. GRANGER-I have written public comments. I went to the neighbors today to ask for their support. MR. ABBATE-Number One, this Board will not accept, under certain circumstances, last minute information, to expect us to absorb this. Now, if you want to introduce that into the record, I can’t deny it. I’ll certainly accept it, but I’ll say to you, that we will then delay our decision after this hearing this evening for a period of up to 62 days. MR. GRANGER-I’m sorry. I’m not familiar with this proceedings, sir. MR. ABBATE-The burden of responsibility to understand the procedures falls directly on the shoulders, we’re a quasi-judicial Board, it falls on the shoulders of the applicant. You have a responsibility to determine what the rules and regulations are before you appear before this Board. MR. GRANGER-I’d like to table this and get more advice, before I come back, and be more prepared then. MR. UNDERWOOD-The only thing I would interject is that if it’s letters, comments from the neighbors, that might be considered public comment. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I don’t think, if this were a Use Variance or an Area Variance then it would be appropriate, but in this particular case, the only thing that we have to make this decision are the documents and the Town Code and the State Statutes. Whether the neighbors like the situation or not is of no consequence when it comes to an appeal. MR. ABBATE-Tell me what that contains. MR. GRANGER-Well, since we’re in the area and we’ve been a neighbor of these, it contains just comments of the neighbors surrounding us. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’ll tell you what. To ensure a fair and unbiased hearing, I’ll allow it to be entered into the record this evening. Mr. Secretary, would you be kind enough to read that into the record, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. It looks like a form letter that was typed up, and then they asked for comments. It’s dated November 23, 2005. “Dear Neighbor: As you may already be aware, there is a meeting scheduled with Town of Queensbury Zoning Board on 11/23/05 to discuss zoning approval for 20 Newcomb Street. In order for me to get a better understanding of my neighbors’ views on the zoning of 20 Newcomb Street, I would like to offer you the opportunity to state your feelings on my occupancy and whether you approve or disapprove of my business existing at 20 Newcomb Street. I welcome any comments you may have, good or bad. We want to ensure we are not creating any hardship or inconveniences for our neighbors. Therefore, if you have any concerns at this time, I would address them immediately and take action to resolve them. Thanks for your time and consideration. Brian E. Granger” I’ll just go through them quickly. The first one is Lindsay Carruthers at 18 ½ Newcomb St. “No complaints, looks good” The next one is Kim LaTour, 18 Newcomb Street, “It has been very quiet, and they have been very polite”. The next one is Kelly Dwyer, 16 Newcomb Street, “Looks good”. The next one is Triumph Auto Glass, 19 Newcomb Street, “Grounds look much better than before. Good business activity, no complaints. Good neighbor” Steve Reynolds. The next one is Ken Wheeler, 16 Richardson Street, “I also own “15 Newcomb St. and I am pleased that Mr. Granger has improved the property which is directly across from my #15 Newcomb St. property. I hope this will be infectious. Please approve.” The next one is from Holly Wheeler, 16 Richardson St., Queensbury also owner of 15 Newcomb St., Queensbury. “Brian’s business does not have any adverse impact on the neighborhood. He has cleaned up and improved the property.” The next one is from John Davis, 17 Newcomb St. “I live across the street. It has been very quiet and no noise. Very nice guys.” The next one is from Wendy Taylor, 13 Newcomb St., Queensbury, “Looks nice, neat, clean, quiet.” The next one is from Brenda Tanner, 12 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) Newcomb, “No problems at all, very nice people.” The next one is from Peter Fish, 6 Newcomb St., “Greatly improved appearance of property.” And that’s it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Now, I closed the public hearing. MR. URRICO-Can I ask a question of Staff or Counsel? MR. ABBATE-Please do. MR. URRICO-Is there any type of use, I mean, is this a question of the applicant applying for the right use for the wrong reasons. Rather than asking for an auto use, would there be something else under Mixed Use that might be more appropriate, or is this one of those definitions that it doesn’t apply to because we don’t have one for it? MR. BROWN-Yes, there’s a little speculation in there about, you know, how we would classify the use. The way I’ve classified it, as an auto use, I think to answer your question, where it would be, where it would fit in the Code would be in either Highway Commercial zone, which allows all kinds of auto uses, or Light Industrial zone which allows storage facilities, self-storage units, bus storage facilities, where you store things. So one of those two zones would probably be the more appropriate zone for this, and they are zones that allow those types of use where the Mixed Use zone doesn’t allow those. MR. URRICO-But a parking garage facility would be allowed under Mixed Use. MR. BROWN-Public parking garage, correct. MR. URRICO-Public parking garage. A gasoline station would need a Special Use Permit. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. BRYANT-Another question for Staff. The applicant has the recourse, in the case that the appeal is denied, he still has, he could have the opportunity to apply for a Use Variance. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Any other questions before we begin? All right. I would now request ZBA members to offer their commentary, and I respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the record to support our conclusions, and the evidence relied upon should be specifically stated. This is necessary in the event of a judicial review, and I would like to with Mr. McNulty. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is a difficult one. I’m always bothered when we see this conflict of applicants coming in and saying, I talked with Town Staff and I didn’t realize this or I didn’t realize that, and I’m not sure where the problem is. Obviously there’s still a communication problem, but I think that is separate from the issue tonight. The real question is whether this use is appropriately classified by the Staff as being an automotive use, and it certainly is a fence sitter. The comments from the neighbors, as I’ve said before, in public hearing or public comments are not there to make the decision. They’re there to provide information. The information that I get from those, the one favorable thing is apparently they all feel that the property’s been improved, and they don’t have a problem with the way it’s functioning, but at the same time, I’m inclined to think that the Staff has probably made a correct decision that this is an automotive use, the distinction being that if it were a parking facility, as mentioned by somebody else, it would be more of a voluntary thing, where different people would park their own cars in the parking lot or in a parking garage, and in this case it strikes me it’s more akin to a dealership, even though you’re not selling cars, it’s parking cars that are going to be re-sold at some other place. So maybe the closest thing would be a wholesale parking lot, rather than a public parking lot. I guess looking at it that way, on one hand I would like to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt, and tell them to go ahead, but on the other hand, I think following the Ordinance, I’m inclined to believe that the Staff has made a correct decision, and I think while very difficult, the applicant still does have the opportunity to come back for a Use Variance, if he fails with this appeal. So, reluctantly, I’m going to side with the Staff. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Underwood, please. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m kind of torn between what to do on this case here also. Previously we’ve talked about towing uses in the immediate vicinity of this project also, and we were specific that that was not an allowed use there, and in this instance here, I think that what we’re looking at is, you know, as described by the applicant, the cars are going to be coming on-site. They are going to be sitting there for considerable lengths of time, three to five days on average. There will be some removal of vehicles, but it will be occurring on that .16 acre lot there. At the same time, you know, it’s a little bit different. I don’t think we can confuse it with a parking garage, because obviously it’s not that. If the lot itself were a blank lot and cars were parked there during the daytime while people were pursuing their jobs in the vicinity, I think that none of us probably would have a problem with that. I’m going to sit on the fence on this one, because I’m actually leaning towards the applicant in this case. I think that the Zoning Administrator has been correct in his interpretation, regarding what we have here, but I think that, in this instance here, you’re not going to have the public coming on site to pick up their cars. It’s going to be specific towing companies coming to remove them from the site, and I think it’s a little bit different. So I’m going to wait and see what everybody else says on this one. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-We have a problem here, obviously. We have a business that is undefined, in our Code. We don’t have a definition for this type of business or anything reasonably close to it. So basically we’re left to examine uses that are somewhat near it, but maybe not necessarily exactly the same. I mean, like Mr. Underwood, I’m having a hard time distinguishing this type of business from an office building, perhaps. We have something called a personal service business on our Code, which calls for site plan review as well. I don’t know if, I don’t know where this falls. It’s a retail business. I mean, we’re sort of trying to fit this in, and the Code doesn’t allow for it, and I have a hard time believing Staff would direct somebody to establish a business here if they had gone to the Staff and asked them for help. On the other hand, I could see where a business might want to place themselves here as well, but as it stands right now, I’m leaning in favor of the applicant. I think the problem is with the Code, not with the Staff and not with the applicant, but I’m leaning towards the applicant. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mr. Rigby, please. MR. RIGBY-I think, without a question, the applicant’s business is centered around automobiles. There’s no question about that. You wouldn’t be in business if you weren’t working with automobiles, and I think the definition’s pretty clear. It says automotive, auto or motor vehicle, any use pertaining to motor vehicles and any other heavy machinery. So I have to support the Zoning Administrator in his decision, because it’s pretty clear to me, the way it’s laid out, but I think, I agree with Mr. Urrico in that we don’t have a definition within the Zoning Code for your type of business, and that’s really what the gap is here, and that’s what we’ve got to address. I think the more appropriate venue for you to take would be for a Use Variance, and possibly discuss this matter and resolve it in that form, but I have to side with the Zoning Administrator to say that he’s correct in his decision, based upon the way the Code’s written right now. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Rigby. Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to agree with Mr. Rigby. Mr. Urrico mentioned that there is no clear cut definition for a repossession business in our Code, and he’s correct, and we’ve run across this periodically, a number of times in the last six months or so, and, yes, everything’s not defined in the Code, but there are ways to determine or to make judgments as to what things are. To reconcile this type of business with an office complex or a parking lot, in my view, doesn’t wash, and what Mr. Rigby points out in Definitions, right in our Code Book, first line, Any use pertaining, any use pertaining to motor vehicles, period, okay. There’s no extrapolation at that point. That’s it. So, I’m going to have to side with the Zoning Administrator, and the reason I asked the question earlier about your options, I think the proper avenue would be to apply for a Use Variance, and that’s where you would introduce all your neighbor’s comments and that sort of thing. So at this particular junction, I’m going to have to go with the Code Enforcement Officer. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. It’s up to me now. Well, I agree with everything that’s been said this evening. There is a degree of confusion and the Town, in the Codes, and the Town is currently addressing that. Nonetheless, we are obligated to make a decision based 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) upon the evidence that’s contained in the record, and in the record, under Section 179-2-010, Definitions, Automotive, Auto, etc., any use pertaining to motor vehicles and other heavy machinery, auto or automotive may be used to describe an auto body repair shop, automobile service station, etc. It is not unreasonable or irrational to conclude that an automobile repossession use fits the definition. Auto uses are specifically called out as allowable uses in other zoning districts. You’re not prohibited from using it, but only in this district, and it goes on. Finally, the determination in question here is that the proposed auto repossession business is an auto use and therefore not allowed in the MU zone. Now, in addition to everything that’s been said, what hasn’t been said is this. While there may be weaknesses, if you will, in the wording of the Code, nonetheless, there is another important element that I take into consideration, and that is called intent. What is the intent, what was the intent, what is the intent of the current Code, and in my interpretation, the current intent of the Code is that what you are suggesting is not going to be allowed, and as such, I would have to support the Zoning Administrator. Now, Mr. Granger, you wanted to make a comment. I didn’t want you to interrupt my procedures. Now that we’ve finished this portion, if you want to continue with the comment, you may. MR. GRANGER-Well, it wasn’t my intent to do anything wrong or go against the Town. I’m looking at a place to place my business, where it wouldn’t interfere with the Town or look unsightly. I’ve owned other businesses in the Town. I’ve owned other property in the Town, and I take pride in where we’re at, and I thought where I was going was a good spot for it, close to the Northway, but out of the way where people wouldn’t see it. That’s why I asked the Town ahead of time. Parking area, parking garage facility, that’s defined in your Zoning Ordinance. It says parking or storing three or more vehicles. It’s under the parking area of the Code, and that’s where I looked as well. The part on the automobile use, we don’t fix them, we don’t repair them, we don’t sell them, we don’t work on them, and that’s why I don’t think the business would fit in the Highway Commercial part of the Town. I don’t think it would fit in an Enclosed Shopping Center. MR. ABBATE-Well, now this is not a statement. You are re-arguing your initial case. I thought you had a comment. You concluded, then, what you had to say. Okay. Is there a motion for Appeal No. 6-2005? What I’m suggesting is basically this. I need a motion to either support the appellant’s challenge to the Zoning Administrator’s decision, or to defend the Zoning Administrator’s decision. MOTION THAT THE BOARD SUPPORT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ON THIS APPEAL AND DENY THE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 6-2005 BRIAN GRANGER, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 20 Newcomb Street. The appellant’s appealing the Zoning Administrator’s decision relative to an August 31, 2005 decision, that the proposed auto use, auto repossession at 20 Newcomb Street, is not an allowable use in the Mixed District. As we’ve discussed tonight, I think that Section 179-2-010 in the Definitions says that Automotive, Auto or Motor Vehicle is any use pertaining to motor vehicles or other heavy machinery, and as we’ve discussed tonight, the described repossession operation seems to fit more closely with auto use than it does with public parking or office building, and on that basis I submit that the Zoning Administrator has made the correct decision, and I move that we support him. Duly adopted this 23 day of November, 2005, by the following vote: rd MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I think that the proper venue should be to deny the appeal, that should be the motion, rather than to support the Zoning Administrator. MR. ABBATE-Well, we can word it that way, but it basically comes out the same way. Either we defend it. MR. BRYANT-Yes, it does, but Counsel is here. MR. ABBATE-All right. Counsel, let’s give us some advice. MS. RADNER-The motion was made as it was made. I believe it was two parts. When Mr. McNulty spoke, he said that he would support the Zoning Administrator’s decision and deny the appeal. That’s the motion that’s being seconded. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Counsel. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) AYES: Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone MR. ABBATE-The vote is four to two to uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision. MR. GRANGER-Thank you. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, before you go to the next case, could I just make a follow-up comment on the communication issue that was raised by Mr. McNulty. I didn’t want to talk about it during the appeal, but, just so you know what our process is, we get countless phone calls every day from perspective applicants speculating, what can I do, what are allowed uses in the zone. Typically what we do is we direct them to either our website, where these use tables are listed. We send them a use table. They come in and we discuss options with them if they’re serious about a project. If there’s a project that’s specific that a caller inquires about, we always ask for a letter that describes exactly what the project is, what it’s going to entail, what the details of the project are, so we can render a determination letter, so an applicant or an appellant, such as Mr. Granger, can have something in hand to use as a decision rendered by the Town. I believe the initial conversation that Mr. Granger had with the Town was, what can I do in the Mixed Use zone, and I don’t want to speak for Mrs. Barden, but the answer was, I’ll send you a list of the use tables that will define what uses are allowable in the zone. I don’t know if there was a specific discussion about repossession business. I know there wasn’t with me until the letter that I responded to was submitted by Mr. Granger. So there really isn’t a communication issue. We try and document everything, just to avoid these types of situations. Just so you know the process we deal with. MR. ABBATE-Am I on firm ground to assume that the Staff, in fact, did everything in its power to advise properly? MR. BROWN-Well, again, I don’t know the conversation that Mr. Granger had with Mrs. Barden, but they may have talked about it. I don’t know if they gave any specific details, but I know we didn’t talk about the Newcomb Street property and repossession business. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-Let me explain a little bit, if I may, where I’m coming from. There’s been some times where I’ve made a comment like that where I’ve really felt, okay, Staff didn’t do the job that they should have. That wasn’t really what I was driving at tonight. I was more just expressing a frustration that obviously there is a problem here. I’m not sure if it’s anybody’s fault, and I just wish there was a way we could solve it so that we don’t have this kind of a problem, but I have no idea, like you say, of what conversations went on, and I’m not sure there is a solution, but I wish there were, so that we didn’t have frustrated applicants. It would be much nicer for them to get this no answer before they bought the property or before they moved ahead. MR. BROWN-I agree. MR. ABBATE-And to make the record abundantly clear, there was no implication or suggestion by any member of the ZBA to suggest that someone simply wasn’t doing their job. I just want to make that clear. MR. BROWN-No, I understand. I just wanted to give you some background, that’s all. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is the applicant still able to go for a Use Variance, though, on that same use? MR. BROWN-Absolutely. MR. GRANGER-I thank you on that part. I just wanted to let you know, I thought I was doing the right thing. I wasn’t trying to avert the Town in any way. I’ll go for a Use 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) Variance. That’s okay. I don’t come before the Board. I don’t do a lot of projects in the Town of Queensbury. So it was my ignorance and I’m paying for that. I can live with that. MR. ABBATE-I have a suggestion for you. What I would suggest you do is this. Make every effort possible to go down, in person, not over the phone, not faxes, not e-mails, but to go down in person and say, hey, Mr. Zoning Administrator, you were at that meeting, and I need some help. This is what I would like to do. Would you please tell me exactly what I have to do to meet these requirements. So when I go before those nasty people, the ZBA Board, I’ll have my ducks in order. That’s what I would suggest you do. MR. GRANGER-Not at all. I was trying to fit my business where I thought it would be best in the Town, because I don’t think being in a Highway Commercial zone is the best spot for it in the Town. You want to be low key, out of the way, where no one sees you. I don’t want anybody to know I’m in business. I don’t want anybody to know my name is associated with repossession. So it’s just one of those things, like I said, we don’t even put our name in the phone book or our address in the phone book. We know how to contact our clients, and the rest of the time we’re flying low and under the radar. MR. ABBATE-Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 83-2005 SEQRA TYPE II SEAN FITZPATRICK AGENT(S): SEAN FITZPATRICK OWNER(S): TERRY & JOANN MONROE ZONING UR-10 LOCATION 32 BOULEVARD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING 480 SQ. FT. 2- CAR GARAGE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 672 SQ. FT. 2-CAR GARAGE WITH ATTIC SPACE ABOVE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 9, 2005 LOT SIZE 0.19 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.20-1-21 SECTION 179-4-030 TERRY MONROE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 83-2005, Sean Fitzpatrick, Meeting Date: November 23, 2005 “Project Location: 32 Boulevard Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes demolition of an existing 480 sq. ft. (20’ x 24’) detached 2-car garage, and construction of a new 672 sq. ft. (24’ x 28’) detached 2-car garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests 4-feet of side setback relief from the 10-foot minimum, and 9-feet of rear setback relief from the 10-foot minimum, both per §179-4-030 for the UR-10 zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None Staff comments: The applicant proposes replacement of an existing garage with one that is 192 sq. ft. larger (672 sq. ft.) and 5-feet higher (20-feet). The existing garage is located along the rear property line, the new garage, as proposed, would be 1-foot from same. The applicants indicate on their submitted plot plan that the proposed garage would abut a ROW in the rear of 15-feet. From the back of the house to the rear property line is 70-feet. It may be possible with this depth to improve the rear setback by locating the garage closer to the house.” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 9, 2005 Project Name: Fitzpatrick, Sean Owner(s): Terry & Joann Monroe ID Number: QBY-05-AV-83 County Project#: Nov05-27 Current Zoning: UR-10 Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes demolition of the existing 480 sq. ft. 2-car garage and construction of a new 672 sq. ft. 2-car garage with attic space above. Relief requested from side and rear yard setback requirements. Site Location: 32 Boulevard Tax Map Number(s): 303.20-1-21 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes demolition of the existing 480 sq. ft. 2-car garage to construct a new 672 sq. ft. 2-car garage with attic space above. The new garage is to be located 6 ft. from the side property 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) line where 10 ft. is required, 1 ft. from the rear yard setback where 10 ft. is required, and the height is to be 20 ft. where 15 ft. is the max allowed. The information submitted shows the location of the existing and proposed garage. The application indicated that the existing garage is in disrepair and was a noncompliant garage in regards to setbacks. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. Warren County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 11/16/05. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 83-2005 please come to the table, speak into the microphone, identify yourself and place of residence, please. MR. MONROE-Hello. My name is Terry Monroe, and I’m the resident at 32 Boulevard in Queensbury, who’s looking to replace the structure. The present structure that’s there has been in existence for 103 years, in that location. So I really don’t see where it would be much of an impact to use the same footprint on the new structure. MR. ABBATE-Can I start from the beginning again. What is your last name, please? MR. MONROE-Monroe. MR. ABBATE-Monroe. Okay. I’ve got it, okay. That’s fine. Is there anything else you think you’d like to add? If not, any time during the meeting, if there’s something else you think that is pertinent to your case, raise your hand, I’ll acknowledge you, you can say whatever you wish. MR. MONROE-Okay. Well, the only other thing, they said it was a 70 foot setback. My measurements this evening came out to 65 feet to my sidewalk, leading into the back of my dwelling, and as you move the structure forward, being that the lot is only 50 foot wide, you start to impact my leach field for my septic, since we don’t have a sewer there. So I’d like to minimize that effect. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Do any members of the Board have any questions? MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, you mentioned your leach field. You’ve got a survey here. It doesn’t show any leach field. I can’t see it. Maybe it’s my glasses. MR. MONROE-That probably is a survey done in 1903 with the proposed Greenville Avenue. I’m sure that’s what they’re using. MR. BRYANT-So how can we tell how close it is to the leach field? MR. MONROE-That’s a good question. I have a septic tank with a top near the house. So it leaches backwards toward the garage. MR. BRYANT-The reason I ask the question, okay, you’re looking for nine feet of rear setback from the minimum 10 foot, and we’re only looking for nine feet. So if, you know, if your leach field is much closer to the house, than it wouldn’t impact if you move the garage. That’s my point. That’s why I’m asking the question. MR. MONROE-Well, the leach field is north of my septic tank, and I know where the septic tank is. So that’s all I’m going by. I’m just trying to maintain as large an area as possible. MR. BRYANT-Now how much room do you have? MR. MONROE-From the back of the house where my sidewalk is. MR. BRYANT-From where your garage is going to, where your proposed location of the garage is, how much room to your leach field? You can’t move that garage nine feet so that we can say goodnight and you can go home? MR. MONROE-Well, nine more feet also impacts the parking and the turn radius of three cars that park there as well. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) MR. BRYANT-So what you’re saying is it’s impossible to move? It has to be there or nowhere, is that what you’re saying? MR. MONROE-It would be most convenient to have it there, and since there’s very little impact on the community, I was hoping that we could use the existing footprint of the old structure. MR. ABBATE-In all fairness to the applicant, I do believe in the package is a survey, but it’s dated 1982. So a survey has been submitted, but it’s rather dated, 1982. Any Board members have any other questions? MR. RIGBY-The other thing I didn’t see in the packet was a design for the new garage. Did you have any plans for? MR. MONROE-I thought Sean had submitted it. It’s basically going to look pretty much like the old structure in size and roof pitch. It’ll be a package from Curtis Lumber, with two doors on it. MR. RIGBY-And following up on Mr. Bryant’s question a little bit, too. You’re looking for four feet of side setback relief. Could you shift the garage over four feet as well? MR. MONROE-We quite possibly could. Let’s see. Well, the garage is going to be 24 feet. It pretty much, it makes it more difficult for me to pass into my back lots. MR. RIGBY-I think the point that we’re kind of driving at is that there’s really not enough information here for us to be able to make a decision. My thinking is that maybe we can shift it over, maybe we can’t. We don’t have a new design for the new garage. There’s a lot of questions that are still outstanding. I think I need, as an individual, a little bit more information to make a decision. MR. MONROE-Well, as it stands, 24 by 28 garage. MR. BRYANT-To take that one step further, without the location of the leach field or the septic system, and a little bit more detail as to the way the driveway is and how you turn your car, I mean, in my mind, as I’m looking at it, the feasible alternative is to put the garage in a compliant location. Because you don’t have an evidence to show that that’s not possible. Do you follow what I’m saying? Just to follow up on what Mr. Rigby was saying. MR. MC NULTY-A comment along these lines. As I think’s kind of been indicated, what we’re hoping is maybe there’s a more compliant location or something closer to compliant that could be used, but also in fairness to the applicant, unless he digs up his yard, he may never know where that leach field is. If that’s an old leach field, there’s virtually no way of figuring out where it is. Somebody that’s used to installing septic systems could look at it and make somewhat of an informed judgment, say it’s probably here or there, but you’re probably never going to know. On the other hand, normally you don’t want to put a driveway or a garage or a building over the top of a leach field, but you’ve already got a driveway there. MR. MONROE-Correct. That’s why I’m hoping to re-use the existing, this system, my septic system, everything has worked well for 103 years, and I’m just hoping to re-use basically the same driveway, the same footprint, the same everything, rather than try to impact my septic system, try to change the driveways into a position that might impact that. It really, other than that, affects no one. I own the lots behind the building as well. MR. RIGBY-There’s also a right of way behind the garage. There’s a right of way to, I guess it would be the south side of the garage, correct, where the road is. Is that, who owns that? MR. MONROE-Peter is here. I think he’ll probably want to speak on that. We seem to be in contention about something. So I’m sure he’ll be speaking on that. MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other questions from members of the Board? If not, I’m going to open up the public hearing, and would those wishing to be heard please come to the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself and place of residence. Do we have any folks in the audience? Yes, sir. Please. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PETER LA CROSS MR. LA CROSS-Hi. My name is Peter LaCross, and I’m opposed to them getting a variance for their garage. It’ll affect my property value. They can achieve it in other methods, and it’s self-inflicted circumstances, really. They own three lots behind their property where they could easily put this garage and have plenty of room, without looking for a variance or imposing on our property. MR. BRYANT-Where is your property in relation? MR. LA CROSS-Our property is, actually I own what was once going to be Rainville Avenue and on the tax map, which I’ve got a tax map here. MR. BRYANT-So that’s to the west of his property? MR. LA CROSS-Actually, both sides of that garage. He’s within like five to six feet of the property line. That is actually a road. MR. BRYANT-In this area here you’re talking? So the side that he was requiring the variance is your property. MR. LA CROSS-Both sides, and the alleyway, too. MR. BRYANT-Is your property. MR. LA CROSS-I’ve got a tax map here. It’s got the tax numbers on it and stuff. MR. ABBATE-Would you like to read that into the record? MR. BRYANT-It’s a tax map. MR. LA CROSS-Well, I could show it to you. That is considered a piece of property, and I really don’t see where they meet any of the criteria for a variance. MR. ABBATE-All right. Is there anything else you’d like to say? MR. LA CROSS-That’s about it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the audience, the public, who wishes to comment on Area Variance No. 83-2005? Would you raise your hand so I can recognize you, please. There does not appear to be anyone else in the audience wanting to comment on Area Variance No. 83-2005. So now I’m going to ask the members to please offer their comments. Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Well, Mr. Chairman, in all fairness to the applicant, I agree with Mr. Rigby’s comments earlier, that unless you can show us that you can’t put the garage in a compliant location, or a more compliant location, then it’s impossible to make an intelligent decision. Because you’re basing it on convenience rather than facts, and I would, frankly, hope that you would table this until you could come up with some kind of definitive information that could sway me one way or another. If you come back and you show your leach field is, you know, three feet away from the garage, that’s something else, but to just say that you don’t, we want it to be convenient, is not sufficient. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Bryant. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Yes. I sort of agree with Mr. Bryant. I also want to point out that by demolishing the garage you don’t have the right to the footprint automatically anymore. It’s a new build. So, in that case, we’re looking for something that’s more compliant, and you haven’t demonstrated that with what you’ve presented to us so far. So I would be in agreement that, if I were to vote on this tonight, I would not vote in favor of it. I would vote against it. I would need more information. Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mr. McNulty, please 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) MR. MC NULTY-I come down about the same place. On the one hand, the garage that you’ve got there now has been there for a while. So think there’s some valid points to, what’s the difference if you put up a new garage in the same place. On the other hand, we’re charged with granting the least relief necessary, and I think that’s what we’re kind of groping for is what really is the least relief. Is it really what you’re asking, or could that garage be moved left to right to make it a little more compliant with the side line setbacks? Could it be moved forward toward the street a little bit to make it a little better. I think it’s pretty clear probably it’s not going to be able to be built in a totally compliant location, but we need a little more information, you know, what happens if you move it sideways one way or the other, and maybe going to a little bit of expense to have somebody that is used to installing septic systems at least come take a look at where your tank is and make an educated judgment as to where the leach field might be, so that you can come back and tell us, you know, and as I’ve said, if it’s going to be right up to within three feet of the garage, then that answers that question. If it looks like there’s a little more room, then we know we’ve got something to play with, but I’d like to have more information if I could get it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it’s important for us to reflect upon what is and what isn’t here. This is an Urban Residential area. It’s one of the older areas of Town, and for us to superimpose the suburban model on it, it seems a little ridiculous to me at this point in time. The applicant has come in and he’s proposed a building that’s four wider and four feet longer than what’s previously existing there, and as he has mentioned, it’s been there for 100 years. So, I don’t think that there’s any real impact here. I think that we have to keep in mind that Urban Residential lots, as these were designed, at the turn of the century, reflect a lot of urban areas like in metropolitan areas where you had lanes built behind the places where you could drive your car in and park your car, and you still had a little bit of a lawn between your house and the garage and for us to move this garage closer to the house would be ludicrous to me at this point in time. I don’t think it’s any great stretch of the imagination to think that it would be an improvement to have a new garage back there, and I think that you guys are making mountains out of mole hills over this whole project. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. Rigby, please. MR. RIGBY-I agree with most of what my fellow Board members have said. The only thing I’d like to see is I’d like to see more information. I’d like to see where the septic system is. I’d like to see the new design of the garage before being able to make a decision. So I just think we need more information in order to make a decision. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rigby. I, basically, feel what the majority feels. I think, in order for this Board to make an intelligent decision, it definitely requires more information, and the more information has been indicated, the type of information has been indicated by a number of members of the Board, and perhaps you might wish to even consider a new survey as well. Now, I would like you to listen very carefully to what I’m about to say, because you’re going to have to make a decision, okay. It appears that you do not have support for your appeal, and to provide you with every opportunity for a fair and impartial hearing, I’m going to suggest you consider one of three options. You can request this Board to table your application for the next available date. You can either withdraw your appeal, or you can request that we continue to hear your appeal, in which case we will vote. Now, I want you to understand that the choice is yours and only yours to decide. You have the right to reject any of the suggestions I have just made without any prejudice. Now for the record, do you understand what I have just stated? MR. MONROE-Yes, I do. MR. ABBATE-Now, I’d like to have a decision. Would you like to request this Board to table this application to the next available date, or, do you wish to withdraw your application, or do you wish us to continue to hear your application, which we will do, and we will come to a decision. SEAN FITZPATRICK MR. FITZPATRICK-Can I ask a question real quick? I’m Sean Fitzpatrick. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) MR. MONROE-He’s my contractor. MR. ABBATE-Why are you late? MR. FITZPATRICK-I’m sorry, I had a family situation. Nonetheless, can you bring to my attention what are we lacking here? I went through this with Sue Barden a few times, and she gave me the impression that we were pretty well all set here for just making sure that everybody was clear on every fact, as far as the border lines were concerned, the property lines. MR. ABBATE-When was the last time you had contact with you client? MR. FITZPATRICK-About a month ago. MR. ABBATE-Did you receive a copy of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals agenda? MR. FITZPATRICK-Yes. MR. ABBATE-You did. So then you knew precisely when we were going to hear this case. MR. FITZPATRICK-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And yet you were late because of particular problems, correct? MR. FITZPATRICK-Absolutely. MR. ABBATE-Now, if this was a court of law, and I were a judge, I would say, too bad. MR. FITZPATRICK-Well, I did go to the last one, and I was said, see you later after three hours of sitting there. Nobody made me aware that it was no big deal if County impact. All I’m asking is what the problems are that we’re looking at. We’re trying to build a garage. MR. ABBATE-Then I would suggest you read the minutes of the meeting. Now, so I don’t appear to be harsh, and Thanksgiving is around the corner, I’ll leave it up to my Board members. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I can give him a, I think, my only concerns related to the fact that Mr. Monroe had indicated that he couldn’t move his garage in a more compliant location because of the leach fields and a possible conflict with his sewer system there. That was one of the indication, and I think if some of the other Board members asked if he could conceivably move the garage in a more central location, centered on the lot, to alleviate the side setback required. So basically we’re asking the question, can this structure be put in a more compliant location. MR. FITZPATRICK-True, it’s in a unique situation. MR. BRYANT-What makes it unique? MR. FITZPATRICK-Well, right now it’s on a footprint that’s on the border, and like he says, he does have a situation with his leach field. MR. BRYANT-Well, you were not here when Mr. Urrico said clearly and correctly that once that garage comes down, there’s no footprint regulation in the Town of Queensbury. It’s anything goes at that point. So, regardless of what the current footprint is, why can’t it be in a more compliant location, either vertically or horizontally? MR. FITZPATRICK-Well, first of all, you’d need enough room, entering from the side, to enter the garage, and as it is, right now, we’ve got 30 feet or so to the house, where the garage should be standing, and any car length is 19 to 20 feet, and you would need at least that to turn into the garage. I mean, just that alone, that reason. You can’t enter it from the side because then you’d be going over grounds that’s not his. MR. ABBATE-There’s no reason to have to re-argue this thing again. It’s all a matter of record, and plus we have other cases we have to hear. So I’m going to move on. Now, sir, I’m going to request that you make a decision. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) MR. MONROE-I think what I’m going to do is temporarily I’m going to withdraw my appeal here, because I think the existing garage in its condition best suits the property values of my neighbor and the community, and I think I shall kind of keep it as such. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So then you are suggesting to this Board that it is your desire to withdraw your application? MR. MONROE-Yes, absolutely. MR. ABBATE-Your application is then withdrawn. Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 84-2005 SEQRA TYPE II LEO BRUCE AGENT(S): BRUCE G. CARR, ESQ. OWNER(S): LEO BRUCE ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 7 ARBERGER DRIVE APPLICANT HAS BEGUN CONSTRUCTION OF A 252 SQ. FT. CARPORT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP 94-243 SFD WARREN CO. PLANNING NOVEMBER 9, 2005 LOT SIZE 0.37 TAX MAP NO. 316.6- 1-12 SECTION 179-4-030; 179-5-020 BRUCE CARR, REPRESENT APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 84-2005 Leo Bruce, Meeting Date: November 23, 2005 “Project Location: 7 Arberger Drive Description of Proposed Project: The applicant has begun construction of a 252 sq. ft. carport. Relief Required: The applicant requests 8-feet of side setback relief from the minimum 20-feet required in the WR-1A, per §179-4-030. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 94-243: Issued 6/6/94, for a single-family dwelling and attached 2-car garage. Staff comments: The applicant currently has a 2-car garage and two sheds on-site. The proposed carport would be an additional accessory structure. Would the applicant consider removal of one of the sheds in favor of the carport? Only one storage shed and one garage is permitted per lot, per §179-5-020.” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 9, 2005 Project Name: Bruce, Leo Owner(s): Leo Bruce ID Number: QBY-05- AV-84 County Project#: Nov05-25 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant has begun construction of a 252 sq. ft. carport. Relief requested from side yard setback requirements. Site Location: 7 Arberger Drive Tax Map Number(s): 316.6-1-12 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant requests relief from an under construction carport attached to a garage. The carport is located 12 ft. from the side property line where 20 ft. is required. The information submitted shows the location of the carport. The applicant has indicated the carport would provide protection for the storage of a boat. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. Warren County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 11/16/05. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 84-2005, please come to the table, speak into the microphone and for the record identify yourself and your place of residence. MR. ABBATE-Good evening. MR. CARR-Good evening. My name is Bruce Carr. I’m the agent. Mr. Bruce was here briefly. He does apologize. He’s been taking care of a terminally ill member of his family who 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) has taken a turn for the worse tonight. So he stopped in briefly and asked if he could be excused. I said of course. MR. ABBATE-By all means, no problem. MR. CARR-I think we can answer any questions you may have. As you can see, he started to build it and didn’t realize he needed a building permit, nor, in this case, a variance for this. How it came about that the Town learned about it, or that he learned about that he needed to appear here was he came to the Town to apply for a pool permit that he was going to put in his back yard, and when the (lost word) showed up, they said, well, what’s this, and he explained to him, and they said you need a building permit for this. So he stopped work immediately and began this process. As you can also see, it is for the storage of that boat, that you can see the bow of sticking out, and the Staff had asked, would he be willing to give up one of the sheds, and he said absolutely. In fact, that is one of the purposes. He doesn’t like those sheds, and he wants to utilize this and get rid of one of those out back. So, to answer that question, most certainly. The relief requested is basically he has 12 feet to his side line setback. So it’s an eight foot relief requested from the 20 foot setback. The reason it’s 20 foot in this zone is because he has substantial frontage, like 150 feet along Arberger Drive. If it was less than 75 he’d only need 15 feet on the side, or something like that, but in any case, he does need a variance. It does, there’s only one house that he borders before you get to Big Boom Road. That’s the corner lot as you can see to the left of the screen, and the house that sits there is substantially, it doesn’t sit, you know, on the side line setback. It’s further toward Big Boom. So it does have a good distance between his lot line and say the building structure of the other neighbor. I believe that’s owned by the State of New York, because I think it’s a group home. I think that’s the nearest neighbor. As to, could he build it on the other side of his house, I don’t think it would look right. Obviously, this is the side that the garage is on, and he just wants to kind of blend in with the existing structure and its, you know, and its siding and everything like that. The last thing I think he said, I think he did paint it, because he didn’t, he’s been waiting for the meeting. He didn’t want the neighbors to have to at least look at a half built structure. So he slapped a coat of paint on it just to make it look better, until we can get a determination here, but I think that’s it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I apologize, Mr. Carr, you are an attorney, counsel. MR. CARR-Yes, I am. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. I should have recognized that and I did not and I apologize for that. MR. CARR-That’s perfectly okay. MR. ABBATE-Do any of the Board members have any questions. MR. BRYANT-Actually, I have a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Yes, please. MR. BRYANT-The two sheds in the back, when you filled out your site development data in the application, and you indicate that you have accessory structures totaling 200 square feet, is that the total of the two sheds, is that what that is? MR. CARR-Yes, they were there when he bought the place. MR. BRYANT-Okay. How long ago was that? MR. CARR-Let me look at his deed. I think that’s attached here. A year ago, 2004, December of 2004. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So I have a couple of questions for Staff, a simple one and then a very difficult one. Help me on the, on a detached garage, the allowable square footage is 900 square feet. Is there any restriction an attached garage that you know of, as to the square footage? That’s the first question. The second question, which is a little bit more difficult, since the applicant bought the property in 2004, under the current zoning regulations, which allows only one shed, a total, I think, of 120 square feet, the property is in violation. Should we even be hearing this application? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) MR. CARR-Well, we don’t know when those sheds were put in place, whether it was under the current zoning or under prior zoning. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now see that raises the question, good question. We don’t have the history of this parcel, such as if we knew if the sheds were grandfathered in, it would make our position a heck of a lot easier. MS. RADNER-Correct, yes, a pre-existing, nonconforming use is allowed to continue, but it’s generally the burden on the applicant to demonstrate that it is a pre-existing, nonconforming use. MR. ABBATE-Counsel, then, is supporting my argument earlier this evening when I thought I was being harsh by saying that the burden of proof falls squarely on the shoulders of the applicant to present evidence to this Board, and such evidence has not been forthcoming, nor in the record, Counselor. MR. CARR-No, that’s true, but, I mean, we’ve owned the property for a year. It was existing. I guess we could go back and find out if the prior owners, when they built those, if you find that is a necessary for the current application. MR. URRICO-Did you say that the applicant is willing those to dismantle those sheds, both of them? MR. CARR-He said one. The Staff had asked for one in their notes, and he had said he’d certainly do that. MR. URRICO-You had indicated he didn’t like either one of them. MR. CARR-Yes, I don’t think he does, but. MR. BRYANT-What is the size of the shed that he’s willing to keep? MR. CARR-I think they’re both like 10 by 10’s, or 8 by 8’s. MS. RADNER-To answer your other question, Mr. Bryant, whether attached or detached, a garage shall not exceed 900 square feet under the definition of Garage, Private Parking, under the Code. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I thought it was only detached. Thank you. The drawings really don’t give me a clear picture as to what the square footage of the existing garage is, because a carport, now this is another question, probably for you, a carport is the same as a garage. We’ve made that ruling a number of times on a number of cases. So therefore what he’s really doing, instead of building a new structure, he’s expanding the garage. So my question is, now, does that square footage, with the carport and the existing garage, exceed the 900 square feet? MRS. BARDEN-No. MR. BRYANT-How do you know that? MRS. BARDEN-Because we scaled it out. MR. BRYANT-How much is it? MR. UNDERWOOD-Twenty-one by twenty-one, or twenty-one by twenty-two MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s what it is. MRS. BARDEN-That’s less than 700 square feet. MR. CARR-It’s only 400 and the carport’s only 200. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) MRS. BARDEN-Right. That’s what I mean, four hundred plus the two hundred and fifty- two square feet for the carport, and I think, to clarify the Zoning Administrator has deemed that that is an expansion of the garage. So it’s not two garages. MR. BRYANT-Yes, it’s an expansion of the garage. I agree with that. I just wanted to clarify, on the square footage, that we’re not exceeding that, and another. MR. CARR-If I may, Mr. Bryant, would that answer the question? If it’s an expansion of the garage, then we are allowed one accessory shed. So that’s why they’ve asked for one to be removed. MRS. BARDEN-That’s right. MR. BRYANT-My question, though, was, if, indeed, one of these sheds was within this certain period of time that we’ve established this zoning, then the property would be in violation and it wouldn’t be appropriate to consider this application, and that was the point that I was making. MR. CARR-But if we come into compliance, because of their request, then, I mean, I don’t think we should hold up the application because they were in violation when we didn’t know they were in violation, but now we’re willing to come into compliance. MR. URRICO-So if they remove the shed, do we need to pass the variance? MRS. BARDEN-You still need the side setback, yes. MR. ABBATE-Any other Board members have any questions concerning Area Variance No. 84-2005? Okay. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 84-2005 and those wishing to be heard, please come to the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself. Do we have anyone from the public who wishes to comment on Area Variance No. 84-2005? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I see no one. I’m going to now ask members of the Board to offer their commentary on 84-2005, and I’m going to respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the record to support our conclusions. May I please start with Mr. Rigby. MR. RIGBY-The thing I’m most interested in is hearing feedback from the neighbor to the west, but there’s no feedback, so I’m going to have to assume that they’ve been notified and that they, are they in agreement with the structure or did they say? MR. CARR-It’s hearsay, but Mr. Bruce actually works for the organization that owns that building, okay, the State. They will not publicly comment on a variance, although they’ve told him they have no problem with it, and again, that’s hearsay. MR. RIGBY-So I guess the way I have to look at this is we’ve said that they’re going to remove one of the accessory structures, and so what we’re really looking at here is a variance for eight feet of side setback. That’s all we’re looking at. The garage, otherwise, is in compliance. It’s about 400 square feet. So, you know, I guess my thought is, looking at the property, seeing the property, I don’t see any other feasible alternative to expand the garage. I mean, you certainly wouldn’t want to go out the back of the garage. So I think it’s really the only feasible alternative in this case. So I think I’d be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Rigby. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement. The only problem I would have had was not removing one of the sheds, but as long as that’s going to be included as part of this variance, then I would have no objection to it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we can consider it an expansion of the garage. It’s going to be within, you know, reasonably close to the guidelines and the 900 square foot borderline range 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) there, and I think removal of that other shed makes it so I don’t have a problem with this at all. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-I can basically say ditto on this. I think the adjacent house is far enough away from the lot line that I don’t see this infringing on anything to do with that house, and I think as long as there’s a condition there that one of the two sheds be removed, then I think it’s reasonable. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want clarification on one thing before I comment. The removal of the shed. You’ve already got a carport, and you’re going to have a variance. What’s the timetable for the removal of the shed? MR. CARR-Well, I would say as soon as possible. MR. BRYANT-Could we be more specific? Say 60 days? MR. CARR-That would be fine. I think, I mean, yes, that would be fine. MR. BRYANT-Okay, that being said, and as long as that’s one of the conditions, I would be in favor of the application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. I, too, would agree with the majority of the Board members. I don’t think it’s an unreasonable request. I think also it’s reasonable that we place a condition on our approval, and as such, I will go to, I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And then what I’m going to do, Counselor, and I’d like you to listen to me carefully on this, because it’s a condition, before I go to a motion, before I solicit a motion, I’m going to remind you that this approval is with conditions, and I’m going to bring to your attention your agreement to accept the conditions as stated in the record, as a condition of approval. Final approval plans in compliance with this variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits, are dependent on receipt. Please be cognizant of the fact that this approval is permitted with the stipulation you comply with all conditions and stipulations as outlined in the minutes of this hearing, and, I’m going to repeat, contravention of conditions or stipulations contained in this approval may result in immediate revocation of this variance. Staff, would you please be kind enough to notice the Code Enforcement Officer and the building permit department of the conditions agreed to by the appellant. In addition, it is requested that the Zoning Administrator immediately notify the Chairman of this Board of any contravention of conditions brought to his attention in Area Variance No. 84-2005. Now, Counselor, for the record, do you comprehend these conditions? MR. CARR-I do. MR. ABBATE-Now I’m going for a motion, and before I solicit a motion, I’m going to respectfully remind the Board members again, the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, as well as the fact that State statutes spell out five statutory criteria that must be carefully considered in deciding whether to grant an area variance. Having said that, is there a motion for Area Variance No. 84-2005? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 84-2005 LEO BRUCE, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 7 Arberger Drive. The applicant has begun construction of a 252 square foot carport, and it seems to be the inclination of the Board that we would consider this to be an expansion of the existing two car garage. I agreeing to allow this project to remain as built, the applicant is requesting eight feet of side setback relief from the 20 foot minimum. So he’s actually going to be at a 12 foot setback, I believe, from the property line. In addition, he will be removing 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) one of the two sheds that are there, and I think they’re both equal in size, so it will be up to him and he’ll have up to 60 days to remove that shed from the site. There doesn’t seem to be any neighborhood opposition to this. It doesn’t seem to have any environmental or other effects on the neighborhood, and in general we would approve it. Duly adopted this 23 day of November, 2005, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 84-2005 is six in favor, zero no. If there’s no challenge to the tally, then Area Variance No. 84-2005, Counselor, is approved. MR. CARR-Thank you very much. MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 85-2005 SEQRA TYPE II MARTIN J. BARRINGTON & MARY P. DEVINE AGENT(S): THOMAS R. FROST, JR., FROST ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S): MARTIN J. BARRINGTON & MARY P. DEVINE ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 84 BAY PARKWAY, ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES TO TEAR DOWN EXISTING 1,490 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND 440 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 2,435 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT, SIDE, AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, AS WELL AS FROM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP 85-715, SPR 66-2005 WARREN CO. PLANNING NOVEMBER 9, 2005 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-21 SECTION 179-4-030 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 85-2005, Martin J. Barrington & Mary P. Devine, Meeting Date: November 23, 2005 “Project Location: 84 Bay Parkway, Assembly Point Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes a 2,435 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with attached garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Front setback relief of 9.5-feet, where 30-feet is the minimum. Shoreline setback relief of 8-feet, where 50-feet is the minimum. Side setback relief of 15-feet for the N. side, where 20-feet is the minimum. Height relief of 1-foot, where 28-feet is the maximum. Floor Area Ratio relief of 10%, where 22% is the minimum. All area and dimensional relief, per §179-4-030 for the WR zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 66-2005: Pending (12/05), development within 50-feet of the shoreline. BP 1985-715: Issued 6/1/85, for addition and interior renovations to existing SFD. Staff comments: This proposal is to remove an existing 1490 sq. ft. single-family residence with 440 sq. ft. detached garage, and rebuild a 2,435 sq. ft. residence, including attached garage. A new septic system is also proposed. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) Substantial relief is sought relative to the ordinance. It appears that with the total redevelopment of the site, the house could be located squarely on the lot, to meet both side setbacks. It also seems reasonable that the shoreline setback and the maximum height requirements can be met. Due to the fact that this is a total redevelopment project, the new development should be designed to be as compliant as possible.” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 9, 2005 Project Name: Barrington, Martin J. & Devine, Mary P. Owner(s): Martin J. Barrington & Mary P. Devine ID Number: QBY-05-AV-85 County Project#: Nov05-23 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to tear down existing 1,490 sq. ft. single-family dwelling and 440 sq. ft. detached garage and construct a new 2,435 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with an attached garage. Relief requested from front, side, and shoreline setback requirements as well as from height requirements as well as from height restrictions and Floor Area Ratio requirements. Site Location: 84 Bay Parkway, Assembly Point Tax Map Number(s): 226.15-1-21 Staff notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to tear down an existing 1,490 sq. ft. single- family dwelling and 440 sq. ft. detached garage to construct a new 2,435 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with an attached garage. Relief requested from front, side, and shoreline setback requirements as well as from height restrictions and Floor Area Ratio requirements. The information submitted shows the location of the existing and proposed structure on the site. The new home is to be located in a similar location to the existing home where the existing home is already a noncompliant in regards to setback requirements. The plans also show the landscaping that is to remain and installation of a new septic system. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with Stipulation The Warren County Planning Board recommend No County Impact with the conditions that the applicants try to significantly reduce the Floor Area Ratio to approach the 22% relief as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance for the Town of Queensbury and to explore increasing the shoreline setbacks to be more compliant with the code requirement.” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 11/16/05. MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, I believe my Staff notes were in error when I talked about the relief that was required. Specifically height relief, 28 feet minimum, should be maximum, and Floor Area Ratio should be maximum as well. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you so much. Before we start, Mr. Barrington and Ms. Devine, is that correct? MARY DEVINE MS. DEVINE-Mr. Barrington is not here. MR. ABBATE-And you are Ms. Devine? MS. DEVINE-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Mr. O’Connor, before you start, I do have a question for Staff that’s pertinent to this whole thing, which I’m not understanding. If this thing is pending for a site plan review, relative to the 50 foot structure, you know, the 50 foot setback, why are we hearing this if it hasn’t been resolved with the Planning Board yet, when it’s clear in the Code, Section 179-6-16, Paragraph Two, E4, that before, that no building, you know, no hardsurfacing to be permitted within 50 feet of the lake, except by site plan approval of the Planning Board. So isn’t that required before we hear this? MRS. BARDEN-It’s not required before. They have made application to the Planning Board, and they are on the agenda for a December meeting, but procedurally what we do is they come to you first, for a variance. MR. BRYANT-That’s not what the Code says. The Code says that. MS. RADNER-They can’t go forward, though, if you don’t give them the relief they’re looking for. There’s no point in them going to the Planning Board for site plan review if you won’t grant them the relief they would need in order to go forward with the project. So we require applicants to come first to the Zoning Board to the waivers. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Typically, the very opposite is true, that the Zoning Board won’t entertain an application if we need a variance and have, or the Planning Board won’t entertain an application for site plan if we need a variance and haven’t obtained the variance, and I’m not sure if I’ve ever checked out in the Code, but every Planning Board I’ve gone to has taken that position. We have to show that we’re Code compliant before we can go to them. You’re the Board that gives us relief if we’re not Code compliant. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I’m aware of that, but just logically, if the Planning Board is not going to approve the project, then aren’t we spinning our wheels? And that’s the only reason I ask the question. MR. ABBATE-Well, in my opinion, the application is in order, in that any individual has a right to appear before this Board, and I don’t see any devastating effects, and Counselor can correct me, if we were to hear this application this evening. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I asked for Mr. O’Connor’s and the Town Counsel’s opinion, not for your opinion. MR. ABBATE-Well, but I’m Chairman, and I determine the procedures, not Counsel, not that Counsel. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s Mr. Bryant’s humor. MR. ABBATE-I’m sorry. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and I’m representing the applicants tonight. Mary Devine is with us, and Tom Frost, the architect for the project, and Denise from his office is also here with us. I think I would begin in sort of an apology. Applications for variances are, in my mind, a matter of arriving at a compromise or a balance between what the applicant wants and what the community wants, and in this particular case, the applicant has been listening to the various Boards and the various neighbors that that she spoke to. So I think that we are going to compromise, and I’m probably going to violate one of your major rules. I’m going to tell you that we are willing to amend what has been submitted to you to eliminate some of the variance request and make the application more compliant, and maybe get this along a little bit further than what you would otherwise normally get it, because it is, it’s new construction, demolition and new construction, and it has a lot of different elements to it, but we’ve tried to make it as compliant as we can. The applicants have been working on this since this summer. We’ve made many, many changes, and I think we’ve got them to the point where they’ve changed to as far as they dare go or can go and still have a house they can live with, and hopefully it’s something that the Board will approve. We’ve had some very good conversations with some of the neighbors tonight that I think came with something else in their mind, but when they’ve seen what has been done, we think that we’ve got a good project, and I’d like to also maybe provide a little background as to why the house is located where it is, and that has to do with the desires and the goals of the applicant, and her attachment to the lake and her attachment to what she’s trying to accomplish. So, Mary, why don’t you say that yourself. MS. DEVINE-I’m Mary Devine and I am the applicant, and I will be very brief, because I know you’ve had a long evening. There are really three things that I would ask you to keep in mind, three factors that are not, they don’t appear anywhere in the application, but I think they’re pertinent to your deliberations, and I think they’ll help you in evaluating how we got to where we are now, and why we feel we need these variances. First of all, I’d like to point out that my husband and I are not new to the area. We’re both born and raised in Albany. We’ve spent a lot of time in Lake George growing up. My family even had a place on Lake George, over on the other side when I was a child and we summered up here. We’ve been away from the area for over 20 years now, but we come back every year. I think we’ve rented every house that’s rentable on Assembly Point at some point during that 20 years, but my husband and I love Lake George, and our children have grown to love Lake George, and this area is dear to us. Our families are here. Both of our parents are here, all our siblings, nieces, nephews. This is where we want to be. During that 20 years that we were away from the area, we spent a lot of time looking for property. We’ve always wanted to buy. This was, when we purchased in 2001, this was not a speculative purchase. We’re not looking to 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) renovate and re-sell. We’re looking to build a house that we intend to retire to, that we will live in, and it’s important to us to get this house right. The final factor that I want to point out, and I think it should be very clear, we do not want, for lack of a better term, a Mc Mansion on Lake George. We bought this particular lot for a reason. It’s very small. We think it’s very pretty. It’s got a lot of green space. The prior owner, I think if you look at the photographs you’ll see it. The prior owner took a lot of pride in building gardens and planting big trees it really is very pretty, and one of the reasons we want the variance to keep the house essentially where it is, actually the primary reason, is we want to retain that. We think it’s a distinctive piece of property on Assembly Point, and we don’t want to change that. The current configuration with the buildings on the north and the green space on the south give an illusion of a bigger lot. They retain the privacy for our neighbors, and that’s what we want to keep. Finally, I think it’s important to note that the way this lot is currently configured, and the way we want to configure it, it’s better for us, but I think it’s also better for the neighborhood. Our lot is one of the few in the neighborhood, I think, that looks as nice from the street as it does from the lake, and we want to retain that. We think that’s very important as well, and I guess finally I just want to say, we’re trying to build a home that will accommodate ourselves and our families, but we don’t want to change the fundamental nature of the property. That’s never been our intent. Okay. Thank you very much. MR. ABBATE-Thank you so much. MR. O'CONNOR-You look at your Staff notes, I’ll try and go through those and give you where we’ve made some changes. In the first sentence, the applicant proposes a 2435 square foot single-family dwelling. That is the first floor dimensions, as I talked to Susan. They have been reduced to 2136 square feet, and the relief requested or required, it states front setback relief of 9.5 feet, where 30 feet is the minimum. Actually there we are asking for 10 feet, and you’ll see a site plan that we have in front of you, that Tom will go through. We will have 20 feet of driveway in front of the garage, and then there’s about a 10 foot strip that goes to the pavement. So, in effect, it’ll still be 30 feet back from the pavement, but it will require a 10 foot variance. The present garage is some place around five or six feet from the pavement. So we actually are making an improvement over what is there presently. The side setback relief of 15 feet for the north side, that is the Morse side of the property, and we have changed that. The maximum relief that we will require is 10 feet, and again, we’ll show you on the site plan. Presently right now there’s a garage that’s 4.96 feet from the Morse property, and that’s toward the road. The reconstructed or the new garage will be 10 feet from the property line. So it actually will be an improvement of five feet at that particular point. That garage is a single story structure. It’s not a two story structure, and as you come toward the lake or go toward the lake, they’ve made this room here smaller, and they’ve set it back in two feet, so this part of the house will be 12 feet. So we would need eight feet relief here, but I think your terminology for your variance is relief of 10 feet, unless you want to specify each part of the building as we go along. The next part of the house they’ve set back even further to be 16 feet, so that we would only need 4 feet of relief for that portion of the house, and the last part of the house is, again, back at 12 feet. We would need eight feet of relief except for the chimney. MR. BRYANT-What’s the maximum amount of relief, separating the building into sectors? MR. O'CONNOR-Ten feet. MR. BRYANT-Ten feet, okay. That’s the side setback you’re talking about? MR. O'CONNOR-That’s the side setback. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-We were cognizant of Mr. Morse’s concern about building at a five foot separation from his property line. That is as far south as they could push the property, and still keep the gardens that are there, and also keep and maintain the area for the septic system. Part of moving that requires a variance that we won’t ask this Board for, but in order to push the house south, we will now be about 16 feet away from the septic system as we established it, and what they’ve done is, instead of having a full basement in that portion of the house, they will have a partial basement, a crawl space, and we will go to the Town Board and ask for the separation distance on the septic system, so that that’s permissible. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) MR. ABBATE-Counselor, let me just start from the beginning, just to make sure I have it right. So the front setback relief now, instead of 9.5 is going to be 10? MR. O'CONNOR-Ten. MR. ABBATE-Okay. The shoreline setback relief of eight feet remains the same? MR. O'CONNOR-No, it doesn’t. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m sorry if we skipped that. We understand that there’s been concern about that, and we’ve shrunk the house, and we are now 52 feet back from the lake. MR. BRYANT-So you require no relief. MR. ABBATE-So you require no relief at all. Okay. Get rid of that, and the side setback relief of the 50 feet no longer, it’s now 10, for the north side? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but let me go back to the shoreline. The present existing house, and we’ll show it to you on the plan, and you’ll see a broken line on the plan, is actually 42 feet. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-So we’ve brought the house back 10 feet from the existing structure, which I think is a significant improvement. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-The side setback, as you’ve said, on the north side is going to be 10 feet. MR. ABBATE-Now 10 feet, and the height relief still one foot? MR. O'CONNOR-No, we’ve changed the height. We’ve eliminated that, and the house will be 27 feet. MR. ABBATE-And the house, okay, will be 27 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-So we’ll be in full compliance, one foot less than what. MR. ABBATE-And the Floor Area Ratio? MR. O'CONNOR-Floor Area Ratio, as we submitted it, was 31.7 feet, and we have reduced that because we have shrunk the house to 27%. MR. BRYANT-You only need five percent relief. MR. O'CONNOR-Five percent relief. MR. ABBATE-So you only need five percent relief for Floor Area Ratio. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Great. Continue, please. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Tom, why don’t you walk the Board through, and I have a set of plans that maybe you want to have in front of you to follow, that shows you all this, rather than me trying to narratively give it to you. MR. ABBATE-Yes, why not. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. ABBATE-We’ll follow him through, make it easier. Thank you. TOM FROST MR. FROST-My name is Tom Frost, and I’m an architect from Saratoga Springs. You have a copy of the site plan that you see here, same size, and actually this is the same scale as the floor plans that you have in front of you, too. So it’s pretty easy to relate the two. The yellow is the floor of the proposed building, and it would be the first floor portion of the floor ratio figuring. So it includes an entry porch. It includes an enclosed porch here. It includes the attached garage which is here. On your plan, you can’t see it from where you’re sitting, but if you look at the plan, there is a finely dotted line that outlines and it’s labeled, it outlines the existing building, the footprint of the existing building. It shows, although this floor plan is larger, it’s very much in the same location as the existing building is. The process that we went through is a standard one where we meet with the owner, we get the program of what they want to do, and that’s a list of the spaces they want. Usually there’s a budget number that goes with that. We talk about the site, what they want to achieve on the site. So all of that goes into the mix of designing the building, and we took that and designed the building and made application to your Board, with the materials that you had tonight, and it’s since that time we realized that we’re probably asking, I think Mike O’Connor’s comment was this is a heavy lift. So, we’ve made a real effort to reduce the variances that we are asking for. I went to the County Planning Board, and you see their concerns. Let’s see if we can get the FAR down closer to 22 and let’s see if we can pull it back a bit from the water. So we’ve done a series of things. The major one is reducing the size of the building. We’ve, although it’s three bedrooms and an office on the second floor, reduced the size of those bedrooms. We took a bathroom out of the second floor, on the first floor, reduced the size of the living rooms. We’ve gone through the whole house and trimmed it, and that’s how we got the FAR down to the 27, and the footprint size I think we’ve reduced by about 300 square feet, and the second floor size we’ve also reduced, but our concern is, as Mary, I think, outlined it. To try to keep as much as this south of the property open space as we can. We’ve impinged a little bit on it from where the existing building is, and what doesn’t show here is that when you combine especially when you look at it from the water, the neighboring property down here, the Bodner’s property is set back a bit from their property line. So you end up with a fairly decent green space. It’s one of the few areas where you drive along Bay Parkway, you can actually see the water in this swath through here. So it’s been very important for us to try to keep the building as far to the north as we can. We started out saying, well, the existing building is five feet from the property, so we’ll stay with that. Well, the existing building, the part of it that was five feet from the property, was a freestanding single story garage. So, the existing house is slightly angled down to the south, and its closes corner to the Morse property line was, I think, twelve feet away, and the furthest corner was about 15 feet away, and in addition that corner was about 41 feet from the water. However, the existing structure has roof overhangs of almost three feet. So we really, the ten feet is what we’re asking, and of course the major part of the building is further away than that, and about the same distance away, or maybe even more than the infringement of the existing structure. The building is, you know, we’ve tried everything to keep this from looking like a large scale building. So we do have a model here, some elevations, but I think it’s somewhat helpful to get an idea how this is broken up. That would be the view from the lake, and the dark line that you see on the model, if you can see it, is actually the floor level, and in this area there’s a patio, which is what got us in to the Planning Board. The patio is about the level of the bottom of the model, but when you go around the building, the floor raises a foot and the grade will be well up around where that black line is. So the house itself is not too immense looking, and we’ve really tried to keep the scale of it down by breaking it up into all these sort of pieces here, rather than just have one large block. I think that covers how we got here. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. FROST-We appreciate your allowing us to show these changes to you. MR. O'CONNOR-I did an analysis of (lost words) neighborhood just to see as to what would be the arguments about we’re changing the character of the neighborhood and I think I can argue that we are not. This is a copy of the tax map, and I looked at the properties from the Stewart property, which is this property on the point, over to this property, which I think is the Bentley property, and I may have confused that one there, but this is the property that 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) Mary Devine has that we’re hoping to develop, that we’re talking about a 27% Floor Area Ratio. The property immediately to the north of it, although it’s much larger in size, their actual floor ratio is 29%, and the property immediately north of that, their Floor Area Ratio is also 27%. Two properties to the south, one is, I think, 35% and the other is, I think it’s 29 on that. I also compared the size of our lot compared to the other lots, and there are a few large lots. There’s one that’s .96. There’s one that’s 1.45, and that’s 1.48, but of the other 10 parcels, 10 of them are pretty comparable to the size of this parcel. There are a couple that are smaller. There’s a couple that are a little bit larger. It’s around 3.5, 3.6. There’s a couple in the low .4 figure. I also compared some of the other houses, just to give you an idea. Our first floor is going to be 2136 square feet. One of them is 2779 square feet, one is 8,000, which is obviously the Morse property. Another is 1896, another is 1796, another is 1865. I think you all saw the article in the newspaper, I think last Sunday or the Sunday before, where they’re talking about size of houses and how they’ve increased a little bit, and those sizes that they gave in that article I think were pretty much in cookie cutter subdivisions, as opposed to somebody who makes an investment for the land that you have to make in order to be on the lake. So I would submit to you that what’s being proposed is not unreasonable. It’s not going to be obtrusive. It’s not going to change the character of what’s there. It’s going to improve the existing site because it’s going to bring the building in compliance with the shoreline setback. It’s going to improve the side setback. It’s going to give you a new septic system. It’s going to give you stormwater controls that you don’t presently necessarily have. Because when they lot was developed they weren’t necessary. That’s basically it. I did pass a picture along. That picture is of the north side of the existing structure, to show you what Mr. Frost was talking about. The existing building, the corner of the building, is perhaps 12 feet away, but when you look at the overhangs. There are substantial overhangs there, closer than the 10 feet that we propose when we’re all said and done, and I show that particularly because I think Mr. Morse had some concern about what effect it would have, if any, on trees that were along his boundary. We’re not going to impact him. We’re going to be as far away from his trees, if not further away from his trees, than what the present improvements are. Any questions that we haven’t answered? MR. ABBATE-No, but I’ll tell you what I’ll do, if you have concluded, temporarily, your argument. MR. O'CONNOR-I have. MR. ABBATE-Then let me go on to ask the Board members if, indeed, they do have any questions concerning this Area Variance. MR. URRICO-I just want to review where we are. You’re currently seeking three variances, one for a front setback relief of 10 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. URRICO-One for a side setback relief of 10 feet, and one floor area ratio relief of five percent? MR. O'CONNOR-Correct. MR. URRICO-And the side setback relief of 10 feet. Prior to this, the existing setback was 4.96. MR. O'CONNOR-The garage was 4.96. MR. URRICO-And now that would be 10 feet? MR. O'CONNOR-That would now be 10 feet. MR. URRICO-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-All right. Any other members have any other questions concerning this variance? Okay. If there are no questions concerning this variance from the ZBA members at this time, I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 85-2005, and would those wishing to be heard please come to the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself. Do we have any folks in the audience this evening who wish to comment on Area Variance 85-2005? 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAN STEWART MR. STEWART-Hi. I’m Dan Stewart, 100 Revere Road in Queensbury, on behalf of my mother who lives on the tip of Assembly Point. Well, we came here, I guess, with the intent of objecting to the number of variances that were being requested. It was a concern to my mother and myself, and we’re very happy to see that especially the variance with regard to the setback from the lake is no longer being required and the height setback is no longer being required. So we’re satisfied about the changes that have been made, and obviously the floor area ratio is your bailiwick, so I’ll let you deal with that. All right. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you so very much. I believe this gentlemen is next. Would you please be kind enough to come to the table speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself and your place of residence. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I’m a resident in North Queensbury, on Dunham Bay. Procedurally, Mr. Chairman, these last minute submissions, I think, are a violation of your own rules. MR. ABBATE-What last minute submissions? MR. SALVADOR-The applicant has brought in a new plan, requiring a different set of variances. This is not as it’s been advertised. This is not as we inspected the project, in the period coming up to this hearing, and I just, I have heard you deny these last minute submissions of other applicants. Did I understand correctly that the relief sought for the shoreline setback is 10 feet? MR. BRYANT-That’s been eliminated. MR. ABBATE-That has been eliminated. MR. BRYANT-The shoreline setback has been totally eliminated. MR. SALVADOR-It has been totally eliminated? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. In that regard, it is 50 feet now is the requirement. You should appreciate that until a short time ago, in the late 1990’s, the shoreline setback on Lake George was 75 feet, and that was changed to 50 feet. So little by little we’re nibbling away at the parameters, and allowing development to encroach upon the lakeshore. One thing I think has been overlooked in this whole process is the fact that this parcel of land, and this development, is located in a State agency designated Critical Environmental Area, and that’s where the 50 feet came in. At the time that the Town was considering changing that parameter from 75 feet to 50 feet, the Lake George Park Commission had put a Critical Environmental Area in place, along the shoreline of Lake George, that went back 500 feet from the lake, and a Critical Environmental Area finds its definition in the SEQRA law, and Critical Environmental Area means a specific geographic area designated by a state or local agency having exceptional and unique environmental characteristics, and these characteristics we’re trying to protect, gentlemen. The Town Planning Board is the only Board that can address the issues of SEQRA and the Critical Environmental Area, and that seems to have been eliminated in this case. Also the character of the neighborhood is not your concern. It’s the concern of the Planning Board, and that’s not to take place here. With regard to the septic system, that’s another issue that I think the whole project should be subject to site plan review, and the septic system be a part of that review. Water drainage from the site, stormwater, all of that, should all be considered in one ball of wax. Over the last few years, this is the condition of the shore area in Lake George. MR. ABBATE-I’m sorry, I won’t accept this late time any documentation. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) MR. SALVADOR-I don’t want you to accept it. I just want you to look at it. See that. Okay. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. MR. BRYANT-That’s why I don’t swim in lakes. MR. SALVADOR-I don’t think anyone is swimming in Lake George anymore also, but in any case, I think you should take a serious look at this project and the relief that’s being requested. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Well, you know, your comments are well made, Mr. Salvador, and I appreciate everything you’ve said. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Do we have anyone else? Yes, ma’am, please. KATHLEEN SALVADOR MRS. SALVADOR-Kathleen Salvador, North Queensbury. I just have one question. I have not heard one number, this evening, that I’ve been listening for. She proposes a 2,435 square foot single-family dwelling with attached garage. Is the garage in that number, or is the garage in addition to the 2435 single-family dwelling? MR. ABBATE-That is an excellent question. Counselor, would you care to come to the table and respond to that, please. Because I don’t feel I should speak for Counsel. MR. O'CONNOR-The garage and covered porches are included in the calculation that was made for floor area ratio. MR. ABBATE-Of the 2136 square feet? MR. O'CONNOR-No, they’re not within the 21. They’re separately stated. Porches and decks are 529. I’m sorry. As it presently exists, when you look at the square footage of the house, because it’s a detached garage, it’s not included in it, but because this is a, it’s built within the, it’s not a detached garage. It’s part of the house. That garage is included in the 2136. Okay. MRS. SALVADOR-The garage is included in the 2136. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. BRYANT-That’s the square foot of the footprint? MR. O’CONNOR-That’s the square foot of the first floor footprint. MRS. SALVADOR-Okay, and the rest of the 2435 is the second floor of the house then? MR. ABBATE-No, that’s been reduced. MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. BRYANT-That’s been reduced. MR. ABBATE-Yes. What the applicant has done, Mrs. Salvador, instead of proposing a 2,435 square foot single family dwelling, they have now reduced it, in an attempt to be more compliant, to 2136 square feet. MR. BRYANT-Let me try to clarify it for you, Mrs. Salvador. The first floor is 2136. The second floor is 1428. There are additional covered and enclosed porches of 413, for a total, well, you’ve got to add it up. I don’t add very well. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s 3977. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) MR. BRYANT-There it is, 3977 for a total square footage. MRS. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. BRYANT-Four thousand square feet, for all intents and purposes. MRS. SALVADOR-So instead of a 2435 square foot single family dwelling, it is now a 3,977 square foot dwelling, including porches, decks and garage. Gotcha. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other members of the public who wish to comment on Area Variance 85-2005? All right, Counselor, would you be kind enough to come back to the table, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ve got some letters that were received. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Secretary, would you please read those into the record. MR. UNDERWOOD-This one was received on November 18. It was from Georgianna th Bodner at 78 Bay Parkway. “To Whom It May Concern: As the immediate neighbor on the south side, I have spoken to the Barrington’s about their building project. With the information I have, I don’t have an objection. I am sure that they will be in keeping with the beauty of the property. Georgianna Bodner” The second letter was received on November 22. This is from Phillip Morse. I guess he’s the neighbor to the north there. Phillip H. and nd Susan K. Morse have the highest regard for our neighbors Martin J. Barrington and Mary P. Devine at 84 Bay Parkway, Assembly Point. We realize they have issues in trying to maintain a side yard, however, we are not in favor of the proposed new residence being 5 feet or less from our property line. A two-story home only 4.96’ or closer from our adjoining property will have an adverse impact on a stand of 75 year old trees. We feel the home would be a beautiful addition to our neighborhood and suggest “flipping” the plans to the south side of the property. We are more than willing to throw our support to that solution. Please contact us with any questions. Sincerely, Phillip H. Morse” The last letter was received on November 23, and that was from the LGA. “Dear Mr. Abbate and Members of the Board: rd This application, to replace a 2090 sq. ft. single-family dwelling on 0.33 acres with a home that is 4150 sq. ft. within 42 ft. of Lake George, is a variance request that warrants an objective conclusion. Assembly Point, a densely developed peninsula, is problematic at best, with its lawns that extend to the water’s edge and homes that are built too close to the lake. The required minimum 50 ft. shoreline setback for this zone does not adequately permit pollutant-carrying runoff, including phosphorus, to beneficially infiltrate the land before flowing into the lake. The total allowable floor area for this proposed home exceeds the maximum allowable by 1425 sq. ft., with a floor area ratio (FAR) of 32%. A 10% requested relief is very substantial when considering that the maximum allowable FAR is 22%. To compound this situation, the new construction will be one ft. higher than the maximum allowable height. I conclusion, the proposed new single-family dwelling is too large for this site. As an alternative, this lot could adequately accommodate a home that would satisfy the FAR calculation and also the shoreline setback requirement by locating the home closer to Bay Parkway Road. A rear yard setback variance should be approved in lieu of a shoreline setback variance for this proposed construction. Each mitigating action that is imposed by the Board cumulatively impacts the quality of Lake George’s drinking water. This application for new construction does not satisfy four of the five area variance criteria necessary to grant a variance, as the benefit can be achieved by other means, the request is substantial, the request will have adverse environmental effects and the alleged difficulty is self- created. It is not unreasonable to expect that the construction of this large home could be built with an adequate shoreline setback and sized more appropriately to fit the confines of this environmentally sensitive site. Thank you for your careful consideration of this variance request. Sincerely, Kathleen S. Lindberg Bozony land Use Management Coordinator” MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Counselor, do you wish to respond to the letters? MR. O'CONNOR-I think we have responded to Mr. Morse’s comment. He basically didn’t have a problem with the size of the house or with the design of the house. He wanted us to move it to the south boundary and encroach on that boundary, as opposed to maybe encroaching on his boundary. I think there’s reasonable justification trying to maintain the trees that are there, maintain the landscaping that is there, and take advantage of the fact that there is some type of spacing in place already with the way that the houses were developed. The Morse property is not going to be further developed. He has a blank spot 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) from his southerly line to the house, and it would appear as though you have your typical separation from the houses. I mean, he’s in excess of 39% Floor Area Ratio. His house was built before you had your definition of Floor Area Ratio or your constraints of Floor Area Ratio. On the south side of the property, the owner on that side also has their house located on the south side of their lot. So by combining the two side yards, you have a much more meaningful green space, a much more open space from the lake and the appearance of the lake. As to the LGA’s letter, I’m sorry that I didn’t know that they were looking at it. I would have tried to speak to them and tell them how much we’ve modified the application. There was a great deal of effort that was done to move the house back to make it compliant with the lakeshore. There was a lot done to make the house more compliant with the Morse line, and actually they just sacrificed the height and changed the pitches of the roof to bring it within the height limitations. So I think that we have done everything that we can do, gone as far as we can. As I began my presentation, I said I realize that this is a compromise or a balancing thing between the applicant and the Town restrictions, and the good to the Town, the good to the applicant. The applicant has taken a position that in order to have a house that would accommodate her family needs, or their family needs, this is the type of living space that she needs, and she’s tried to be reasonable. I mean, we’ve got a five bedroom house on the property right now, given that some of the bedrooms are very small. We end up with a three bedroom house. We don’t have, as she has termed it, the Mc Mansion type of house. They have two baths upstairs for the three bedrooms. They have one bath downstairs. They’ve made their storage areas relatively small. The main variance that you’re probably talking about, I would think, from your point of view, is the Floor Area Ratio, and when they really had drawn the plans that they wanted, they were looking for relief for 1425 square feet. That’s how they got up to the 32% that the LGA objected to. Right now the relief that they’re looking for is 732 feet, and it wasn’t, and I’ll seriously tell you, it was not a matter of asking for a lot with the idea that we’d come in and say we’re good guys because we’re asking for less. It was taking a look at this floor area, the spaces. Take a look at the enclosed porch that’s on the front. That’s a good part of that 1732 feet, but they happen to have some furniture that that’s what they need, that size dimensions of the room if they’re going to have that type of thing. I mean, we’ve crunched down every room in the house as much as we can, to get it as close to this Floor Area Ratio, and that’s why we’re asking for the five percent relief. So as to Mr. Salvador’s comments, I don’t necessarily, I hate to say I don’t necessarily disagree with them, because that might give him some credibility, and I sometimes have problems. We understand that we’ve got to do a full septic review. We understand that we’ve got to do stormwater management, and we’ll do that before the Planning Board. It is your job to look at character. That’s two of the tests that you have, do we effect the character of the neighborhood. That’s why I went through the analysis of what other lots are there. I wasn’t at the County Planning Board meeting, but the County Planning Staff or Board actually said because this is in a Critical Environmental Area, we want you to become more compliant. We wouldn’t be worried about it if you weren’t, and we think that we’ve made a real good faith effort to do that. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-And the other point, technically, for the record, the question was whether or not you could entertain our application this evening. We have diminished every variance that we’re looking for, or eliminated some of the variances that we’re looking for. So we would not have violated any of your advertising requirements. MR. BRYANT-Mr. O’Connor, that’s why I asked that question before you proposed the downsized thing. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. BRYANT-So once you proposed to downsize, it was a moot point. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. MR. URRICO-I have one question for Mr. O’Connor. The side setback relief of 10 feet, does that include the overhang, or does that account for the overhang? MR. O'CONNOR-As we calculate setbacks, we go to the building, we allow up to a foot of overhang, or is it a foot and a half of overhang? 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) MR. BRYANT-Eighteen inches, I think it is. MR. O'CONNOR-Eighteen inches without it being counted. Queensbury does not, I get confused between the Towns, but Queensbury goes to the building, outside measurements of the building I think is the definition. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Anyone else have any questions? Before I ask the members of the Board to comment, I would think it’s appropriate for me to respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates that we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the record to support any conclusions, and the evidence that we relied upon should be specifically stated. Additionally, I do believe that any position that we take must be based on regulatory review criteria of our laws, and not simply on subjective preferences or not liking a particular project. However, having said that, I would like to ask members of the Board to offer their comments, and if I may start with Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-In regards to the submittals, I think it’s a great improvement over what was initially submitted to us. I think that the original plan was very excessive at the Floor Area Ratio that was requested. However, I think that, in lieu of that, I think that there’s still a need for some continued modification of what’s been proposed here. It’s nice to assume that people are going to follow the plan and stick to the plan, but, when I’m looking at the garage and I’m seeing that it’s 20 feet high and it’s going to be storage space up there, I’m looking at a library. I’m looking at an office and things like that. It really seems to me that this is quite a Mc Mansion, when compared to what’s currently there on the site, and I think that, you know, to a degree it’s the pot calling the kettle black, with the neighbors to the north there complaining about the size of the dwelling, but it’s something that should be subject to a little bit more modification. I think that one of the things that could be suggested would be the elimination of that covered porch area on the front side that’s near to the lake there. That’s a 17 by 19 foot area, and that would significantly lower the size of the footprint down and get you down below the 22, I believe, if you eliminated that part of the house. So, I think that you have made an honest effort to accommodate the realities that should be there, but I think there still are concerns about the size of this project as proposed. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, can I just respond to that? MR. ABBATE-If you wish, go ahead. MR. O'CONNOR-Just so you understand, this, and this is not in any way, I just want you to understand the seriousness of the thought that went into it. If that is the determination of this Board, this will not be built. MR. BRYANT-Why are we entertaining discussion during this interchange? This is not what we normally do. MR. ABBATE-I can’t deny the applicant or the public an opportunity to speak. MR. BRYANT-Well, you can until the end of this process. MR. ABBATE-Well, Counselor, would you mind waiting, please, until after? Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-I would look at this, too, as, one, looking at the compromises that the applicant’s made already, anticipating questions, and I think they certainly have made a real effort to scale down what they really wanted to something that is closer to what might possibly be accepted, and I applaud that effort. Looking from the other side, I’ve tried to look at this in view of, what if they came in with the proposal that they presented to us tonight, ignoring the fact that they’ve compromised, but they just came in and said we want 27% instead of 22% Floor Area Ratio and these setbacks, and I think I still end up with a problem with the Floor Area Ratio. The Floor Area Ratio was put there for a reason, to control the size of buildings on a lot. This is a relatively small lot. I could go along, I think, with most of the other setbacks, the side setback and the road setback. The Floor Area Ratio does bother me. It’s one of those, again, that I get torn on, because I, on one hand, would like to tell the applicant, yes, go ahead, you’ve made a real good effort here, and also comparing it 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) to what else is in that immediate neighborhood as far as Floor Area Ratio, as Counsel has pointed out, but an existing wrong condition doesn’t make an additional wrong condition right. So I guess I’m at the point now where, as was stated earlier, I think I’d like to see something more done. I don’t know if something more can be done, but at the moment I’m going to be reluctantly opposed. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m going to use Mr. McNulty’s patented phrase, I’m on the fence, although I am leaning toward the applicant at this point. I’m impressed by the work that you’ve done to downsize the project, eliminating two of the critical relief requirements, that being the shoreline and the height, which this Board frowns upon, in any case, and I am impressed you did a lot of work. The only thing that falls on the negative side is the Floor Area Ratio. You’ve improved, the new building improves the existing setback situation from the lake and from the side. So that’s a good point, but the Floor Area Ratio has increased from 20% to 27%. So to me that’s a negative factor. I do want to comment on something someone in the public hearing said relative to the normal procedures of this Board about accepting excessive material, you know, at the meetings, and you have to agree that this is a completely new application in my view, because, after viewing the initial information, you’ve actually eliminated two of the requests and then changed a couple of others. There’s a lot of information to absorb, and I would prefer that, it’s fine for us to conclude the hearing, but I would prefer that we not give our judgment for a period of up to 62 days, if that’s what we’re going to do. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Boy, for a guy on the fence, you sure said a lot. MR. BRYANT-I’m sorry. MR. URRICO-I guess I understand some of the objections, but, as far as our balancing test, I think the applicant has satisfied, to me anyway, that the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the community. I think the applicant, to me, has demonstrated a benefit that could be achieved by other feasible means, but those means might mean a negative effect on the property, and as a result a negative effect on the neighborhood. I don’t think there will be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, and whereas the request was substantial, perhaps, to begin with, we probably arrived at where we would be if you had submitted the application with no modifications, ahead of time, this is probably something we would have asked you to compromise on, and probably gotten to a point now where it’s probably better than we would have gotten had we asked for some changes. So I feel satisfied that this project, as put together, is a great representation of where we might have been, and I think that’s where we are, and therefore I don’t think there’ll be any adverse physical or environmental effects. I think moving the, not only moving the shoreline setback back from your plan, but moving it back from where it was is an improvement, and so therefore I think it will have a positive environmental effect, compared to where it was before, and I do think the difficulty is self-created, but I understand why. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mr. Rigby, please. MR. RIGBY-I think the Floor Area Ratio seems to be the issue, and the analysis that Mr. O’Connor did on the Floor Area Ratio for the different properties in the area looked like 29%, 35%, 29%, 27%, and in this case, you know, we’re talking about 27% right now. I’d like to hear what Warren County has to say about that. I mean, when they suggested you reduce the Floor Area Ratio, and you did, you cut it from, you’re asking for half the variance now, as opposed to the variance before. So I’d like to hear what they would have to say about it. What you’re proposing here is kind of interesting. I mean, there’s a lot of talk going on about conservation subdivisions right now, and how to cluster, you know, housing so you have more open space, and that’s really what you’ve done here. You’ve taken a house and you’ve put it on a property and you left a lot of open space. So I think it’s an interesting point, and our Zoning Code should probably take that into play as we go forward and revitalize our Zoning Code, too. So I think the neighbor to the south certainly is in favor of the green space. It sounds like the Morse’s would be in favor of it as well. I think they asked you for not less than five feet of space between the property line and their property line. You’ve gone up to 10 feet. So I think that’s probably a positive. I’d probably like to hear what they have to say, the Morse’s have to say about that as well, too. It sounds like we’ve probably got, you 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) know, a couple of things to resolve here before this goes forward. So I think I’d probably be in favor of tabling it at this point, to see what type of feedback we get. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rigby. Mr. Bryant, can I come back to you? MR. BRYANT-Sure. What would you like me to say? Actually, I don’t want to see the thing tabled. I think, you know, based on our discussion tonight, and we’ve heard from the public, I think it’s sufficient to assume that once we digest the information that was handed out, that we should be able to render a decision within the allowable 62 days. We don’t have to make a decision tonight, but I would like some more time just to look at the plans carefully and review the new figures and go through some of the notes, the minutes and so forth and so on, and then actually vote. So, if you want to vote tonight, Mr. Chairman, if you’re asking me how I’d vote, I’m going to vote against it. However, I would like to have the opportunity to render a decision in 62 days. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. I believe that the applicant has made an honest effort to comply, to do more with compliance, as suggested by the County. I believe that the research submitted by Counsel, comparing this project with other projects, was a reasonable approach, and you pointed out to me that it would not be out of character. I also believe that we have to have a fair and impartial hearing as well. Unfortunately, Counsel, let me tell you where we stand and then you can make your comments that you wanted to do. It would appear right now that there will not be any support for the application, and I have a couple of options, but certainly you have, feel free to start making your comments that you started to make earlier. MR. O'CONNOR-I understand Mr. Bryant’s concern, I do. There are a lot of figures here. I tried to present it. I’ve done charts. I’ve done charts all day, making sure that my charts were right with what we have, and I think I understand what you’re saying. We’ve done this in an hour, hour and a half, and maybe if it would improve our chances of consideration, I have no problem with the application being tabled, and I would use the word tabled as opposed to simply, you’re going to close the public hearing, or you’ve closed the public hearing. Well, I don’t know if you are or you aren’t, but I use the word tabling in the sense that I would go back to, if it’s going to help Mr. Rigby, I’d go back to the County Planning Board and see if they’re satisfied or if I can get some favorable, more, they actually said No County Impact. I have no idea what this No County Impact with stipulation means. I think that’s something that they’ve invented. You either approve or disapprove. I’m not sure what that means. MR. ABBATE-Well, if we table it, I will not close the public hearing. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The same thing, even, with the LGA. I think that they wrote their letter based on a different application, and if it would improve the record, I’d go to them as well. MR. BRYANT-Yes, it also might be beneficial to talk to Mr. Morse and get him to revise his letter, or something of that nature, because that’s the kind of input I think that Mr. Rigby is looking for, is that correct? He’s going to be directly effected. You’ve improved his situation on his property line. So his attitude may have changed, and I think those are the things, besides having an opportunity to look over the figures. MR. O'CONNOR-I have no problem, if you want, I would request that it be tabled. MR. ABBATE-Okay, Counselor. So you’re requesting this Board to table Area Variance No. 85-2005 for a period of up to 62 days? MRS. BARDEN-Do you want to table it to a specific date in December? MR. O'CONNOR-I would like to have it tabled to a specific date, if we can. MR. ABBATE-I’d be more than happy to do that for you. MRS. BARDEN-December too soon? MR. O'CONNOR-No. I’d like to outline what I’m thinking I’m tasking myself with. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) MR. ABBATE-Would you like that now? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. You can do it or I’ll tell you what I think I’m going to bring back to you. MR. ABBATE-Sure, go ahead. MRS. BARDEN-First or second meeting, just to table. MR. ABBATE-December we’re meeting twice, on December the 21, and December the 28. stth MR. O'CONNOR-Either one. With apologies, Mary has indicated she will not be back in December, and it’s not out of disrespect to the Board. She has other commitments that will take her out of the country for a period. MR. BRYANT-I have other commitments, too. MR. ABBATE-We’re meeting January the 18 and January the 25 of 2006. thth MR. O'CONNOR-I think I’ll present this, if you don’t mind, I’ve done it before with people not present. She’s indicated to you on record what her intentions are and what her goals are with the property. I would do it one of your meetings in December. MR. ABBATE-December, your choice, Counselor, 21 or 28. stth MR. O'CONNOR-Whatever your agenda shows. MR. ABBATE-Why don’t we make it the 21. st MR. O'CONNOR-The 21. st MR. ABBATE-Okay. The 21. All right. st MR. SALVADOR-In this period, can we map, on your plan, the mean high water mark of Lake George, 320.2 feet above mean sea level? That is the line from which we measure the setback. That, they should get a surveyor on the property, and with spray paint locate that line, so we all know where it is. MR. ABBATE-Do you have a color in mind? MR. SALVADOR-They use yellow. They use red. Whatever. MR. ABBATE-Okay. You know what, your comments are well noted. They are in the record. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Counsel, you heard his comments. MR. O'CONNOR-Do you want me to respond to them? MR. ABBATE-If you wish. MR. O'CONNOR-I’ll respond to the Board. I won’t respond to Mr. Salvador. MR. ABBATE-Please, respond to the Board. MR. O'CONNOR-We have a survey that shows that the existing house is 41.8 feet setback from what they show as being the shoreline. I understand the argument, but I think it has very little relevancy to what we’re talking about here. Mr. Salvador, I heard you up in Lake George the other night arguing the same thing. I’m not getting into that discussion. My survey shows that we will be 52 feet back the shoreline. If I were trying to locate a dock, we would have the Park Commission or somebody help us, and we would locate the mean high water mark. It has never been that material an issue on what we’re talking about here. If the 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) Board thinks it’s that material an issue, I can get somebody to do it, and I’ll follow the Board’s direction. MR. ABBATE-Does anybody on the Board wish to comment concerning that? MR. FROST-We followed the direction of the Lake George Commission on identifying the height of the mean high water, and it is on the other side of that retaining wall. It doesn’t get to the top of that retaining wall. Typically along the whole shoreline of the property. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. That’s fine. I’m going to move that Area Variance. MRS. SALVADOR-I just want to clarify something. Kathleen Salvador. I just have one question. I’m not clear on this 3977 as opposed to the 2435. Now, the 2435 was the number that was advertised on this paper, and now I’m hearing, no, that’s not the correct number. When you get all the numbers together, it’s 3977. Now, the information that the Warren County Planning Board got was 2435, not 3977. Would that have made their determination any different? Does the 3977 play into this Floor Area Ratio? I’m not sure. I’m not an engineer. I’m not an architect, but I’ve been in enough of these meetings to hear these things bandied back and forth. So I don’t know. MR. ABBATE-That is a valid question. Counsel can respond to the Board. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The application as submitted had a breakdown of the different elements of the structure, and the element for the first floor elevation was 2435. The total for the structure, as it was submitted, was 4683 square feet. We’ve reduced all different aspects of it so that the first floor has been reduced to 2136, and the total square footage of the whole project is 3977 square feet. MRS. SALVADOR-Okay. So still, to answer my question, project description, applicant proposes to tear down existing 1,490 sq. ft. single-family dwelling and 440 sq. ft. detached garage and construct a 2,435 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with an attached garage. Nothing there says it’s 3977. Should that be in there? MR. O'CONNOR-No, no. It wasn’t, if they follow the same course that they have, Queensbury is the only one that uses this Floor Area Ratio that I’m aware of, in this whole area. Everybody looks at this project, in any of the other towns that I do business in, they look at it as the footprint of the first floor, and that’s the size house that they charge you with. Queensbury double dips or triple dips. We talk about general setbacks that you have on every lot, whether in a cookie cutter subdivision or you’re on the lake. You talk about an overlay for shoreline if you’re on the lake. You talk about a height requirement, different if you’re on the lake than if you’re in a cookie cutter subdivision, and then on top of all that, you talk about Floor Area Ratio where you don’t talk about Floor Area Ratio as to density or lot coverage in a cookie cutter subdivision. MR. BRYANT-That being said, if that chain of thought is correct, then shouldn’t the advertisement say 3977 square foot? MR. O'CONNOR-The Town did the advertisement. MR. MC NULTY-I think this is a good point, though, that comes up, that perhaps if we’re going to use the 2,000 whatever figure, that kind of figure in the future, it should say footprint, because if I were to list this house for sale, I would say it was a 4,000 square foot house. I wouldn’t say it was a 2,600 square foot house. MR. O'CONNOR-In that industry they use the total square footage. MR. MC NULTY-Total square footage, and that’s what, I think, a lot of people, when they read an advertisement, are going to picture. They’re going to picture a 2,600 square foot ranch or something like that. MR. O'CONNOR-With due respect, even though we’ve said, and I’ll confuse it a little further, but I think everybody’s trying to figure out, the County uses the same language because we’re the only town that does this other business. I asked Susan this morning, why did she use 2435. I would have used 4683, as of this morning, and she said basically we describe it as being the first floor footprint, and that’s how we do our ads. I said, fine, but you wouldn’t list 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) this house, now, my sheet now shows, your sheet shows 3977. You wouldn’t list it as that, because included in that is 413 feet of covered porches, and we have just a different, and I also don’t know if you include the built in garage when you advertise it, but that’s a different thing entirely. MR. MC NULTY-It’s a different thing, but it probably would be living space, which would count second floor and first floor. MR. O'CONNOR-Which would be less than this. MR. MC NULTY-Would be between the two figures that you’d use. MRS. SALVADOR-So the 413 square foot porch, covered porch, is living space. MR. O'CONNOR-No, by Code. MR. ABBATE-He’s right, not by Code. They’re not living there, per se. MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. ABBATE-But, you know, your point is well made, and Counselor’s point is well made, and I suspect that perhaps it should have been shown, with Counselor’s wishes, as the 4,000 something square feet, and it would have avoided all this confusion this evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Four thousand six hundred and eighty-three square feet. MR. ABBATE-Whatever the number is. MR. BRYANT-Or clarify that that figure was the floor. MR. ABBATE-It would have clarified a lot of things this evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, maybe, I honestly hope that this core group, or whatever we call this group, will do something about this Floor Area Ratio. It creates more problems than, you’re already restricting people on their setbacks. You’re restricting them on the shoreline, and you’re restricting them on the height. How many different ways are you going to squeeze the box? MR. ABBATE-I’m going to answer your question. Make yourself available for the first or second week of January, and I’m going to extend to you a personal invitation to attend a joint workshop of the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. O'CONNOR-I’d be happy to do it. MR. ABBATE-Wonderful, and we will be looking for public input. Mr. Salvador, that goes for you as well, that meeting. MR. O'CONNOR-You’re talking about development and you’re talking about preservation of green space and all this, the hills and what not, we have recognized, at least, that we now give a discount on assessments if it’s wetlands, but if you look at the Subdivision Regulations, you discount greatly density on lots where there’s sloping. If there’s sloping over 15%, it’s discounted in a cluster subdivision, and in a conventional subdivision it’s discounted if it’s over 25%. You still assess that discounted land as though it were prime developable land. You don’t give anybody any bonus for preserving green space, and even this application here, this is somebody that looked at a neighborhood and said, I put this house right square in the middle of this lot, it’s going to look like a box. I put it over to the side of the lot, and preserve what the people on the south have done and preserve and utilize what the people on the north have done. Mr. Rigby did say that it’s something that he applauds. This is planning. I could get on a soap box here. I apologize, because I usually get my clients in trouble when I get on a soap box. Have a nice Thanksgiving folks. MR. ABBATE-Don’t go away. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 85-2005 MARTIN J. BARRINGTON & MARY P. DEVINE, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: 84 Bay Parkway, Assembly Point. For the December 21, 2005 meeting. Duly adopted this 23 day of November, 2005, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone MR. ABBATE-The vote to table Area Variance No. 85-2005 is six in favor, zero against. The motion is carried. If there’s no challenge to the tally, then Area Variance No. 85-2005 is tabled for the hearing on the 21 of December 2005, and that invitation goes to everyone in st this room, by the way, to attend that joint meeting. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you for your patience. MR. ABBATE-Sure. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. We have an administrative thing to do this evening, ladies and gentlemen. I’m going to open up nominations for officers for the Year 2006. The reason we’re doing it this evening, it has been suggested that the Planning Board and the ZBA provide the current Town Board, and/or a new Town Board, an opportunity to decide who they wish to support. By submitting this application now, it gives the current officials in the Town of Queensbury an opportunity to make a decision either to support this or to pass it on to the new Board. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? MR. ABBATE-You certainly may. MR. BRYANT-Is the purpose of this, then, to afford the Board, the Town Board, to review the suggest or the recommendation, act upon it, and then the new officers will take their place in 2006? This is not an instantaneous thing, right? MR. ABBATE-You are absolutely correct. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. ABBATE-You’re absolutely correct. So I will open up nominations for Chairman. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, although we’ve had a couple of disputes here tonight, so I don’t know if I want to even do this, but I’d like to nominate Charles Abbate for Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the ensuing year. Under Chairman Abbate’s leadership, we have participated in a training workshop that’s resulted in improved procedures, and have scheduled an unprecedented joint workshop with the Planning Board, adopted a set of procedures that are outlined in New York State Statutes Town Law 267, rendering the Board more effective, improved working relationships with Staff, as well as Planning Board, increased effectiveness of the Board by providing positive input, and provided a fair and balanced atmosphere for the applicant, while preserving the intent of the Town’s Zoning Code. Finally, when the Board decided to change leadership at the beginning of the year, it was with the understanding that the Chairmanship should be rotated among qualified Board members. Chairman Abbate has only served six months at the helm, and should be re-elected to complete the programs and procedures he started, and those are the reasons I place Chairman Abbate’s name in nomination. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Bryant. Do we have a second for the nomination for Mr. Abbate for Chairman? 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll second it. MR. ABBATE-It’s been seconded by Mr. Underwood. Are there any other nominations for Chairman? MR. BRYANT-I move that the nominations be closed, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-All right. If there are no other nominations for Chairman, it is closed. MR. BRYANT-Are we going to vote? MR. URRICO-Are we voting for you for six months, so you can complete your year? MR. ABBATE-No. For the entire year. Ms. G., would you do a vote, please. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. McNulty. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Rigby? MR. RIGBY-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Bryant? MR. BRYANT-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Underwood? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Yes, I’m embarrassed, but, yes, okay. The vote is six to zero in favor of moving Mr. Abbate for Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Year 2006. I’m opening now the nominations for Vice Chair for 2006. Do we have a nomination? MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to nominate Mr. James Underwood for Vice Chairman for the ensuing year. I have nothing nice to say about him, other than he’s been a good Secretary. MR. ABBATE-Okay. There has been a nomination for Mr. Underwood to be Vice Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Year 2006. Do we have a second on that? I need a second, gentlemen. If there are no seconds, then I’m going to move that the nominations remain open, and ask if there are nominations for other individuals to serve as Vice Chair of the ZBA for the Year 2006? Do we have a nomination? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll nominate Chuck McNulty as Vice Chairman. MR. ABBATE-All right. Okay. Mr. McNulty has been nominated by Mr. Underwood for Vice Chair for the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Year 2006. Is there a second? MR. RIGBY-I’ll second. MR. ABBATE-Okay. It’s been seconded by Mr. Rigby, and would you please do a vote. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Underwood? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Bryant? 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) MR. BRYANT-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. McNulty. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Rigby? MR. RIGBY-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Yes. Okay. The vote is six in favor, zero against. Mr. McNulty, in spite of the fact that I really beat him up at the last meeting when he wasn’t here, has been elected for Vice Chairman for the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Year 2006. Now we have open the nominations for Secretary. MR. URRICO-I nominate James Underwood. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. MR. RIGBY-Second. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Underwood has been nominated for Secretary for the ZBA for the Year 2006. Is there a second? MR. RIGBY-I seconded it. MR. ABBATE-I think Mr. Rigby has seconded the motion. MR. BRYANT-Nominations are still open, right? MR. ABBATE-If you wish. MR. BRYANT-I’d like to nominate Joyce Hunt. MR. ABBATE-Fine, okay. Mrs. Hunt has been nominated as Secretary for the ZBA for the Year 2006. Do we have a second? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll second it. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Underwood has seconded the motion for Mrs. Hunt. MR. BRYANT-That really speaks to Mr. Underwood’s candidacy here. Okay. Please do a vote for Mrs. Hunt. MR. BRYANT-No, we’ve got to vote for Jim first. MR. ABBATE-We’re voting for Jim first. Mr. Urrico has nominated. MR. BRYANT-The way the vote is taken, Mr. Chairman, it’s possible to elect them both, because if you vote. MR. URRICO-Let’s just vote and worry about it then. MR. BRYANT-No, no, if you vote yes for both of them, well then obviously they can both be elected. So what do you then? MR. ABBATE-Here’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to vote for Mr. Underwood as Secretary for the ZBA for 2006. It was seconded by Mr. Rigby. Ms. G., do a vote, please. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Bryant? MR. BRYANT-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Rigby? MR. RIGBY-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Underwood? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Yes. Okay. Now, before we leave, now, the nominations, unless there’s a challenge to it, the nominations are being submitted to the Town Board. MR. BRYANT-We haven’t finished. We have to vote for Mrs. Hunt. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let’s just do it. Mrs. Hunt has also been nominated for Secretary for the ZBA for 2006. Is there a second? MR. BRYANT-We already have a second? MR. ABBATE-Who seconded it? MR. BRYANT-Mr. Underwood. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Underwood. Now, Ms. G., would you be kind enough to do a vote for Mrs. Hunt to be Secretary. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-I’ll abstain. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-No. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Rigby? MR. RIGBY-Abstained. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Underwood? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Bryant? MR. BRYANT-Yes. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Abbate? MR. BRYANT-It’s easy. Mr. Underwood was elected. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/23/05) MR. ABBATE-I’m going to abstain, and as a result, we have a conflict, we don’t have a majority. The vote was yes, two, no, one, it’s not a majority. So consequently Mrs. Hunt’s recommendation for Secretary for the ZBA has not been approved. All right. So the nominations submitted to the Town Board, then, are as follows: Mr. Abbate for Chairman, Mr. McNulty for Vice Chairman and Mr. Underwood for Secretary. If there are no objections, then the nominations are closed. I have a couple of other things, gentlemen. At the last debriefing that I had with Staff, there were a couple of recommendations, valid recommendations, that were made. The first recommendation was that a number of members of the Board simply are not speaking into the microphone and as a result the recorder is having a very difficult time, at times, to make words that are in effect accurate for the record. So I’m going to request that members of the Board please speak pay attention and speak into the microphone. The other comment that was made by the recorder was the fact that there are times when we are going through a procedure when several members of the Board are speaking simultaneously, and that also makes it difficult for the recorder. So, gentlemen, ladies, please abide by that as well. I have no other thing. MR. BRYANT-I have one other comment, and I know it’s late, but when I was in the Planning Office this afternoon to deliver the disk, and thank you very much, I had asked Mrs. Barden a question relative to our procedures, and it’s a simple question. The Town Board, when they meet, they start their meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance, and I’m just curious as to why neither the Planning Board nor the Zoning Board of Appeals start their meetings with the Pledge. MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen, you tell me what you want me to do, and I’ll be more than delighted to do it. Would you like to do the Pledge of Allegiance? I don’t have a problem. MR. BRYANT-I think it’s only appropriate. I mean, any kind of body, State, Legislature, they all start with the Pledge of Allegiance. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let’s go right down the line. Mr. Underwood, would you object to starting out our meetings with the Pledge of Allegiance? MR. UNDERWOOD-Certainly not? MR. ABBATE-Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-I’m not going on record as against it. MR. ABBATE-Mr. McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-I’m not sure it’s necessary, but I don’t object to it. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Rigby? MR. RIGBY-I’d like to have Counsel look into it. MR. BRYANT-I don’t think it’s a question for Counsel. MR. ABBATE-I don’t have a problem with it. I’ll do whatever the majority wants to do. I don’t have a problem with it. That concludes our meeting. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Charles Abbate, Chairman 44