Loading...
2006-03-15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 15, 2006 INDEX Use Variance No. 69-2005 Linda C. Casse d/b/a Sojourn Gift Shop 1. Tax Map No. 303.5-1-62 Area Variance No. 8-2006 David R. Kelly, MD & Sally N. Kelly 2. Tax Map No. 239.15-1-3 Area Variance No. 85-2005 Martin J. Barrington & Mary P. Devine 10. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-21 Area Variance No. 71-2005 Chris Germain & Diane Beatrice 23. Tax Map No. 279.17-2-7 Area Variance No. 1-2006 Gary & Linda Long 29. Tax Map No. 226.16-1-45; 226.16-1-28 Area Variance No. 12-2006 Paul E. Sherman, Jr. 39. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-5 Area Variance No. 13-2006 Martin P. Dion 44. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-54 Area Variance No. 17-2006 Lehigh NE Cement Co. 47. Tax Map No. 310.7-1-1 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 3/15/06) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 15, 2006 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT ROY URRICO CHARLES MC NULTY LEWIS STONE RICHARD GARRAND, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ALLAN BRYANT LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY USE VARIANCE NO. 69-2005 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED LINDA C. CASSE D/B/A SOJOURN GIFT SHOP AGENT(S): HOWARD I. KRANTZ, ESQ. OWNER(S): LINDA C. CASSE ZONING: SFR-20 LOCATION: 318 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE EXISTING BUILDING FOR A RETAIL-GIFT BOUTIQUE AREA. RETAIL USES ARE NOT PERMITTED USES IN THE SFR ZONE. CROSS REF.: BP 2005-151, PENDING; BP 2003-536 C/O; BP 2003-384, SIGN; BP 97-3156 FREEST. SIGN; BP 95-1774, WALL SIGN; BP 93-083 C/O WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.74 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-62 SECTION 179-4-020 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. ABBATE-Actually, before we start, I have a tabling. I believe we have received correspondence from Counsel for Use Variance No. 69-2005. Would you read that into the record, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Dear Chairman Abbate: On behalf of the applicant I hereby request that the use variance hearing scheduled for this evening’s Zoning Board of Appeals meeting be adjourned. The staff notes which were recently generated by the Town Planning Department require the submission of additional documentation. This additional documentation will be obtained and submitted immediately. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Jonathan C. Lapper” MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Lapper, you are here this evening. Would you mind coming up, because I’m going to open up the public hearing, and for those of you who are here for the Casse application, I’m going to move to that 17 of May, so you don’t th have to wait until the end of the hearing. So, Counsel, would you introduce yourself, please. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Lapper has sent the correspondence to us requesting that we adjourn this to the 17 of May. So what I’m going to do is open up the public hearing for Use th Variance No. 69-2005. Do we have any folks in the audience who would like to address Use Variance No. 69-2005? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised. Hearing none, I’m going to move that we table. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 69-2005 LINDA C. CASSE D/B/A SOJOURN GIFT SHOP, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: 318 Ridge Road. Tabled to the 17 of May 2006. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The vote is seven yes, zero no to table Use Variance No. 69-2005 to the 17 of th May hearing. Counselor, I’m going to request that you please provide all new information to the Community Development Department no later than the 17 of April please, since the 15 thth of April is on a Saturday. Thank you, sir. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II DAVID R. KELLY, MD & SALLY N. KELLY AGENT(S): JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S): DAVID R. KELLY & SALLY N. KELLY ZONING: WR-3A LOCATION: 8 ROCKY SHORE DRIVE APPLICANTS PROPOSE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING 1,892 SQ. FT. TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND TO REBUILD A 2,662 TWO AND ONE-HALF STORY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP 2002-854 DEMOLITION; BP 2002-855 DOCK; BP 2004-094 BOATHOUSE; SPR 57-2002; AV 8-2003; SPR 9-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: FEBRUARY 8, 2006 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.89 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-3 SECTION: 179-4-030 JON LAPPER & CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-We had previously addressed this at a meeting on February 22 of this nd year. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 8-2006, David R. Kelly & Sally N. Kelly, Meeting Date: March 15, 2006 “Project Location: 8 Rocky Shore Drive Description of Proposed Project: The applicants propose demolition of the existing 1,892 sq. ft. two-story (22’4” high) single- family dwelling and build a 2,662 sq. ft. 2½-story (28’ high) single-family dwelling. Relief Required: The applicant requests shoreline setback relief of 53-feet, where 75-feet is the minimum, per §179-4-030 for the WR-3A zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 9-2003: Approved 3/25/03, for 945 sq. ft. boathouse. AV 8-2003: Approved 2/19/03, for side setback relief for boathouse. Staff comments: As you will recall, this application was tabled on February 22, to notice an accurate description of the project. The existing house sits 17-feet from the shoreline, while the proposed is 22-feet from same. This variance request should be considered substantial because the applicant is seeking 70% of relief (53-feet) from the required 75-foot minimum shoreline setback. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) The application shows an existing front setback of 280-feet and proposed at 265-feet. It is also identified that a feasible alternative is to locate the residence further from the shoreline on the steep slope. It appears that there are other areas other than the steep slope that the new house could be sited. To date, a building permit for a septic alteration has not been applied for nor issued by the Town. The Warren County Planning Board did review this project and recommended “No County Impact” on February 8, however because the project description listed with their review was also erroneous, we have asked that it be reviewed again and a new recommendation or reissue same be made.” MR. ABBATE-I see that Counsel and his party is at the table. Would you be kind enough, please, to introduce yourself. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with the applicant David Kelly, and the project architect, Curt Dybas. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Counselor, proceed. MR. LAPPER-Our goal tonight is to establish and hopefully convince the Board that while it appears that 22 feet from the 75 foot requirement, not of relief, but a 22 foot setback where 75 is required, while that may appear significant, that under all the circumstances, when you take into account the size of the house that’s proposed, and most importantly the topography of the site, that that is a very responsible way to re-develop this property, and we hope we can get you there. In general, the most important thing about this site is that it is a cliff, and to locate a house 75 feet from the shore would be to do a lot more damage to the existing property, to blast and chop rock and knock down a whole bunch of trees that while, technically, it would be 75 feet from the shoreline, it would be a worse development, much more visible from the lake. When you look at all of the neighboring homes, some of which have been rebuilt, they’re all along the lakeshore. If you put a house in the middle of the lot, hanging on the side of the hill, connected to the rock, is it physically possible to do that? Possibly, but the damage that would be wrought to do that, to take down all the trees and to blast the side of the hill, is going to make it much more visible from the lake, and we would argue much more of an impact on the neighborhood. Part of the benefit to the neighborhood of this project is that the septic is going to be pumped up the hill to an area which has suitable soils. The soil tests show that there’s at least three feet of separation between groundwater and existing grade. So we have an area on the site, up the hill, that can support a conforming septic system. The trees that would have to be removed for that septic system are located behind other existing trees, which would remain. So from the lake, you’re going to see the trees that would shield that area where there has to be some clearing for the septic system, but in terms of impact on the lake, you’re going to be pumping the septic away from the lake, and that’s conforming, and that’s a significant improvement. At the same time, Curt has designed a stormwater management system which currently doesn’t exist, so that the stormwater will be treated. Right now there’s no stormwater management system to speak of. In terms of the house itself, the size of the addition, if you will, the change from the existing to the new, 1892 existing to 2662 is under 800 square feet of change. What’s there now is certainly old and needs to be replaced, but an 800 square foot addition is not the kind of thing that you’ve been seeing lately. This is not some monster house. Yes, it’s larger, but what’s there is inadequate. 2662, including the loft, doesn’t have a basement, that’s using the bottom floor, we would argue that that’s still a modest size house. Nowhere near the Floor Area Ratio. If you were going to build into the mountain, if you wanted to do that, you could build a 6,000 square foot house and conform with the Floor Area Ratio. So you could build a big house on the cliff, if that’s what you wanted to do. It would be expensive and we think it would be destructive, but just in terms of, I know the LGA letter talked about a 41% increase in the size of the structure, if you compare it to what’s there now, you know, yes, it’s an increase, but it’s only going to 2662 square feet, and it’s nowhere near the Floor Area Ratio, which is the one number that is important in Town of Queensbury zoning, in terms of how big a house can be. So there’s plenty of room on the site to build a bigger house, but it would be, it wouldn’t be the right thing to do for the environment to blast that mountain and take down a lot of trees. It would be very difficult and costly, and by allowing the house to be rebuilt, modestly larger, it conforms to the neighbors houses, and for that reason we have letters in the file from last month, when we didn’t have the public hearing, where the 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) neighbors said that they support this, and I know at least one of the neighbors is here also to support the project. So based upon sewer, stormwater, septic stormwater, the fact that the house is at least five feet back from where it was, we believe this is a very good application. I’d like to ask Curt to explain why the house couldn’t be built back any further because of the topographic features and why he came up with this design. MR. DYBAS-When we started this project, we realized the difficulties of the site, and the footprint of the existing building was basically a little bit larger than the footprint of the main portion of this house, and we did not move the house east or west. We slid it back the five feet directly holding the two side lines. Also, in establishing grades, we used the existing, call it basement, lower level grade to establish where we’d set the house so we did not have to disturb anything at the existing grade that’s in front of the house, and then built up from there. The main floor level, the existing house, as you can see, the door, the entry door there, is lower than the parking lot, and by establishing this lower level and doing a standard 10 foot floor to floor, we’re hitting grade now at the parking level grade, and then the loft, of course, is nine feet above that. So that’s how we established where we were going to site it. The limit of five feet, pushing it backwards, in looking at the site, there is a very precipitous rock, used to be, I think a lose rock ledge that they cut back and they built the stone wall. Back this thing up to maintain an access way and around that end of the house and also access for canoes and everything else. If we cannot get through there, we block off one whole side of the house. We had some thought about backing it right against that ledge, and then I also thought about the drainage, the possible drainage problems of anything, you know, drainage coming down that rock ledge, particularly with some of the rains that we’ve experienced in the past six months. So basically that’s how it was sited, and the heights are driven, of course, by the current zoning. As Jon said, we think it’s a good proposal for this particular parcel. MR. ABBATE-Any other comments, Counsel? MR. LAPPER-We’ll answer questions and respond to the public. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let me continue on, then. I’m going to ask members of the Board if they have any questions concerning Area Variance No. 8-2006. Board members? Any questions? MR. URRICO-There is no other way that you can move that house back? MR. LAPPER-You’d have to chop down, you could move it a few feet back, and as Curt said, you’d have the drainage coming right down the hill if you didn’t change the hill, but if you were going to blast out the hill, you’d be building a huge retaining wall. MR. URRICO-What about repositioning the house? MR. LAPPER-Let’s talk about the alternatives. MR. DYBAS-I thought, several times, about this same question. There is about a six foot, as I said, there is about a six foot wall against this slope, and as soon as you’re to the top of the slope, it rises up at approximately a 12 on 12 pitch. Any excavation back in there, I’m up to 12 feet high real quick, and I don’t know what I’m into as far as substrate at that point. It gets very expensive to start building 12 foot high retaining walls to hold back rock. MR. LAPPER-And what would the impact be on the site? MR. DYBAS-The impact on the site is, once I start going, once up above starts going, there’s no way of stopping it. I mean, where do you, right now it’s there, it’s holding. There’s no signs of movement. Why disturb something and start asking for trouble, is basically the position. MR. LAPPER-The other constraint is that the septic location which, theoretically, could support a house, but then, A, you’d be taking down a lot more trees to fit the house there, but also you wouldn’t have the one location on the site that can support a septic system. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other questions from the Board members? Okay. If not, what I’m going to do is open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 8-2006, and ask that if we have any members of the public who wish to comment on this, if you’d raise your hands, I’d 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) be more than happy to recognize you. Any members of the public who wish to be heard on Area Variance No. 8-2006? Yes, sir, please. Would you please come to the table, speak into the microphone and for the record identify yourself and your place of residence, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN MATTHEWS MR. MATTHEWS-My name is John Matthews. I’m a neighbor, Town of Queensbury. I think their plan and attack at this is on track. I have some particular interest in the property as that when I was a teenager my parents bought the property as raw land. We spent a couple of years playing on the land, trying to figure out how we were going to get our summer cottage positioned on the lot, and be able to have access to the lake. In doing so, we had to actually get a right of way from the neighbors so that we could make the road so that we would actually drive down the driveway, and then we found that in excavating and starting to clear a little site at the bottom of the hill, which at that time there was no zoning. There was no reason to be thinking about putting a house at the top of the hill, as all of the existing houses at that point in time were lakeside residences or camps at that time. We did minimal clearing to the lot. Since we were there the 40 years until my parents died, several of the trees that were marginal fell down in the woods, but as of right now, there’s still mostly all the existing trees that were there. We tried to preserve as much of the hillside as it was possible. Curt is correct in his explanation of the bank and the steepness of the rock behind the house. I had a big part in building the walls and excavating that area of the driveway so that we could have enough room to turn around and park company and what not, and that little stone wall, the base of it, is right up against the solid rock ledge, directly behind it, about a foot or so. The base of the foundation itself is sitting right on ledge. So any movement that they make with the house is going to gradually step it up the ledge, and decrease the amount of space behind the building. My feelings, as a neighbor, with this site, is that as it is now, it lends itself to the neighborhood. To see that piece of property with a bare, open chunk of land right along the lakeside, and try and envision a house up on the rocks or towards the rear of the lot, it would really be not in keeping with the rest of the shoreline. It would kind of be like a house burned down and they didn’t rebuild it. So I think Dave’s plan is very good, and as a neighbor I would be very happy with this. MR. ABBATE-Then you support his application, sir? MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, I do. MR. ABBATE-Thank you so much. Do we have anyone else in the audience who would like to comment on Area Variance No. 8-2006? Yes, sir. Please come to the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself and your place of residence. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. I submitted a letter. I’d just like to address a couple of those items. The first item was the application proposes to construct a new residence and increase the shoreline setback for the residence from 17 to 22 feet, which will remain non-compliant. Overall the application is proposing to increase impervious coverage within the 50 foot shoreline setback. This proposal will have impacts to Lake George through increased impervious coverage, within the shoreline setback through increased runoff and lack of vegetation vital for infiltration and pollutant removal. It appears the application could be modified to provide a more compliant structure and reduce the substantiality of the variance requested. My next two items, two and three, again, address areas where I do not feel that the Town of Queensbury is consistent with the APA rules and regulations. Item Two, proposed project proposes to reconstruct the patio within the 50 foot setback to Lake George. Section 575.4B of the Adirondack Park Agency rules and regulations states porches, decks and other structures attached to single family dwellings or to other structures subject to build setback restrictions, shall be considered part of the structure for applying the setback restriction. Since the patio is not flush with the existing grades, it appears that the shoreline setback dimension should be applied to the patio, and it should be determined if a variance is required through the APA for the patio. This also applies, and my third item, to the retaining wall for the patio. Section 575.4F of the APA rules and regulations states a retaining wall which is constructed of dried laid stone or untreated natural logs, smaller than 200 square feet in size and does not exceed two feet in height above the mean high water mark shall not be subject to the applicable shoreline requirements and 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) variances. According to the drawings, I estimate that the drawings, I estimate that the wall is three feet high and approximately 400 square feet, and again, it should be determined if a variance is required from the APA. Fourth item, it is encouraging the applicant is proposing a new septic system for the site. However, it appears a couple of areas do not comply with the Town of Queensbury Code. 136-10B(1) states there must be at least three feet of natural occurring soils over the impervious layer of seasonably high groundwater within 1,000 feet of Lake George. The depth to seasonal high groundwater is three feet, and it appears the system will require three feet of fill and it does not appear that that’s provided on the grades. Section 136-10B(2) states the maximum allowable existing natural ground slope for a built up system, which is proposed, shall be 10%, and I estimate that that slope is 12%. My last point, item five, the Zoning Board of Appeals, under 179-14-020, may, quote, may impose conditions similar to those provided for site plan review usage to protect the best interest of the surrounding property. They’ve mentioned that there will be a new stormwater system. I wasn’t sure the extent of that, but if the relief requested is granted, I request the Board to consider the condition to have the entire redeveloped site be required to manage stormwater in accordance with the standards for new construction, meaning the driveway which leads right down to the lake. I don’t know if it’s simply the new building that’s proposed and leaving the remaining impervious surface not managed. That’s all I have. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have any other folks in the audience who would like to address Area Variance No. 8-2006? Yes, ma’am, please. Would you be kind enough to approach the table, speak into the microphone, identify yourself and your place of residence, please, ma’am. KATHY BOZONY MS. BOZONY-Thank you. Kathy Bozony from the Lake George Association. I agree with the architect, Mr. Dybas, that to move that house back further and tuck it closer to that large rock face would be very difficult. I support that you need to keep clearing around the house so you can get air and move things around. I did look at the site, and I would propose that the front of the building on the lakeside, if somehow they could get that so that there’s more impervious surfaces, whether they could plant a buffer strip or do something like that, in lieu of concrete sidewalks or patios. The house, to me, looks like it has a little bit of room to move further back on that site into that parking area. If you rearrange the house a little bit, again, not encroaching against the north side, but rearranged it a little bit, you still might be able to get a parking space with a turnaround for loading and unloading, and still get the house back further into that flat, level area, and somehow put some sort of a buffer there on the lakeside. It is a difficult site, unfortunately. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have any other folks who’d like to address Area Variance No. 8-2006? I don’t see any other hands raised. Counselor, would you and your client please come back to the table. I’d like the Secretary to read into the record some correspondence, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Both Mr. Navitsky and Ms. Bozony submitted letters, but they essentially covered what was in those. We did receive one other public comment. That was from John Salvador, Jr. It was received via fax on the 14. “Please refer to Area Variance th application 8-2006 for the replacement of a single family structure. Presumably, this replacement involves the permitting of a new construction within the meaning of the Building Code of New York State. As such, if the existing structure is to be demolished, it will require a demolition permit. In addition, every element of the new structure will require a building permit, based upon the minimum requirements of the Building Code. Please take particular note of Town Code Chapter 179, Sec. 179-4-090 Titled Frontage – Frontage on public streets. The preamble to Sec. 179-4-090 reads, quote, “Every principle building shall be built upon a lot with frontage upon a public street improved to meet the standards of the Town of Queensbury.” Further, Sub Paragraphs A & B both speak to the frontage as being at least 40’ or the “width of a private collector street”. AND that the purpose of the minimum frontage is to provide actual physical access for the ingress and egress to either the lot (Sec 179-4-090A) or the principle building (Sec 179-4-090B) by emergency vehicles such as fire trucks and ambulances. Emphasis added! The project description of AV 8-2006 shows that David and Sally Kelly are intent on locating their new replacement home at 8 Rocky Shore Drive. Rocky Shore Drive is a private road (driveway) as laid out on Lake George Park Commission map showing among other things, street and roads within the Lake George park. A section is attached for your information and use. Town Code Chapter 88 (Fire Prevention and Building Construction) Sec. 88-7B reads in relevant part – “Fire Marshal. Except as 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) otherwise provided by law, ordinance or rule or regulation, the Fire Marshal shall administer and enforce all laws, codes, ordinances, rules, regulations and orders applicable to fire prevention and fire/life safety.” Rocky Shore Drive is known to be a rather steep, narrow, difficult to traverse “roadway”. The Town Code Chapter 179 is devoid of any and all reference as to what is understood to be, “A Public Street built to Town standards of the Town of Queensbury” Nevertheless, Rocky Shore Drive should be measured against the standards the Town Fire Marshal is responsible to enforce. If Rocky Shore Drive fails to meet the minimum standards required, then a variance application covering any deviation from the applicable regulations which are known to protect property from fire safety and persons from life safety should be submitted by the applicant. Ciao – John Salvador” MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Any other correspondence? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Great. Counselor, a couple of items you may want to address, please. MR. LAPPER-Yes. There were also letters of support. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think previously. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that we didn’t have the hearing, so they didn’t get read in. MR. UNDERWOOD-You want those read in? MR. LAPPER-Yes, it would be nice to. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. I have one received on February 21. It’s addressed to st Chairman Abbate. “Sally and David Kelly have been excellent neighbors. They have made appropriate and pleasing improvements to their lake property since they bought it. We support their new project at 8 Rocky Shore Drive knowing it will tastefully conform to the Adirondack shoreline and will be well maintained. The new septic and stormwater construction will be beneficial to the lake, neighbors and lakeside property owners. The Kelly’s proposed re-development will have a positive impact on the neighborhood. We are in favor of their proposal. Sincerely, Diane and John Matthews 18 Cedar Point, Lake George” “We are in receipt of plans and description of the above referenced project. What a wonderful improvement to the area this would be. The design and appearance of the new construction will do nothing but enhance the Kelly’s and the surrounding neighborhood. Be advised that we, as adjacent neighbors, enthusiastically embrace and support this proposal. Sincerely, David and Mary Carol White” That’s it. MR. LAPPER-Okay. In response to the public comments I guess first of all, I’d like to point out that Kathy, it sounds like her position was softened when she went to look at the lot and see, in terms of the hill that was there, from her original letter, her comments tonight were very gracious. MR. ABBATE-Excuse me, Counselor. Who is Kathy? MR. LAPPER-Kathy Bozony from the Lake George Association. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-That she recognized, when she went to the site, the constraints of the site, and so we appreciate that, and in response to what she suggested, certainly some of the patio on the lakeside could be replaced with some vegetation if that would make the Board happy, that would be possible. Just briefly, Mr. Salvador, the issue of the private drive is just a pre- existing lot that has a private drive, and there’s nothing that John quoted that means that it can’t be redeveloped or everyone in that area has a private drive, and that’s just how it is. That doesn’t require a variance, and if it did, the Planning Staff would have so indicated, but that’s just a private drive at a time when there were a lot of private drives built. In terms of Chris’ comments, and we have a lot of respect for Chris, but we just differ with him, factually, on some of the issues here. I think that, Curt will go through the design issues, but he was alleging that there’s an increase in impervious surfaces and that’s not how it was designed, and we believe that that’s incorrect, and Curt will talk about that. Reconstructing the patio within 50 feet of Lake George, the map clearly stated that the retaining walls and the patio 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) were existing and would remain, and the retaining wall, he made an issue about the retaining wall under the APA standards, and that also was all pre-existing, and it’s possible that he couldn’t tell on the plan that it was pre-existing, but it is, and it is labeled, and the area of the septic system, the area that Curt picked for the septic system, is at 10% grade. So we don’t believe that that requires a variance from APA, but that’s certainly, it’s not a Town issue. It wouldn’t require a variance from the Town. We believe that that’s an existing 10% grade. Let me hand it over to Curt. MR. DYBAS-The question regarding impervious surface, we can, the lower patio is currently concrete and there is, we’re pushing the building back, right now, what’s about that five feet we’re pushing back as roof, and we’re pushing the building back into the parking area which also happens to be an impervious surface. So I think it’s a net gain situation. I mean, roof hard surface is the same thing. I think more interesting is the point brought up about the lower patio, our intent was leaving it, but, I mean, without speaking to David, we could take the concrete out and make it grass, or some surface that would absorb water. I mean, that’s not an issue. We just thought it was just best to leave it and not disturb it, but if the Board would so like, we’ll change it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other comments you folks would like to make at the present time? MR. DYBAS-I have one other question I’ll raise, as far as Chris brought up on stormwater management. Part of this application, after the initial application, there was a stormwater management plan that I submitted, and on that I addressed the existing roof runoff, and part of those calculations is based on a 25 year Type II storm, which a 24 hour period is 4.2 inches of rain. The system that I’ve designed on the property has four times the capacity to handle the roof. So, I mean, can we address the parking area that’s in the rear of the building and the driveway? I believe so. I mean, I have the capacity in the system. It’s just a matter of grading to be able to collect and run it in. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other comments, gentlemen, before we proceed here? None? Okay. MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, I have a question of Staff. MR. ABBATE-Yes, please. MR. STONE-Just to reassure myself. We’re talking about the APA, and we’re sort of dismissing it. It’s my understanding that the APA sees every variance that we grant within the Park. MRS. BARDEN-That’s right. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-All right. Good. Before I ask members to offer their comments, I’d like to inform the public that the comments that the members are about to offer are directed to the Chairman only, and comments expressed by Board members to the Chairman are not open to debate. I’m now going to ask members to please offer their comments on Area Variance No. 8-2006, and may I respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates that 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 for an intelligent Judicial review. Additionally, any position you may take must be based on the regulatory review criteria of our laws and not simply on subjective preferences or not liking a project, due process guarantees that the government ensure a fair and open process and Board members must make decisions on reliable evidence contained in the record of the Board’s deliberations. Now, in the event any Board member wishes any motion to approve to include conditions, would you please clearly spell those out so that the member introducing the motion may include your condition with clarity. Now, may I please start with Mr. McNulty. Please. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is a difficulty one. In a sense it’s new construction, because it’s a teardown and start over. If it were genuinely new construction on an untouched lot, then I would say absolutely no, put the place where it’s compliant, even though it might cost more to put it uphill. I will acknowledge that doing that now, putting it completely in the compliant location, would leave a scar or a wound on their property where the current place is 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) and the environmental damage that will be done by doing that might at least counteract the benefit of moving it all the way back. At the same time, though, it strikes me that there may be more of an opportunity to move the new construction back further than what’s being proposed at this point. As I remember when I drove down in there, last month, there was ample room to turn my car around before I started back up, and that says to me there’s room to move that place back more than five feet, and still not have it jam packed against the next ledge that’s there. So I guess where I’m at right now, it’s as it’s proposed, I would be opposed. I’d like to see a little more modification of plans to bring the house back a little further. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Well, I agree with Mr. McNulty in some ways, but I also realize that there’ve been some cogent reasons for placing the house where they have suggested, and I don’t think that another five feet would make that much difference. I do, however, think that the patio should be removed and the grass area put there, and those conditions, if the patio were removed, I would be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. May I move on to Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think if everybody focuses in on the picture up there, as Mr. McNulty suggested, I see no reason why this building couldn’t be constructed at the margins of that parking lot, as far back, as close to the ledge as is possible. I think that in this instance here, we have an opportunity to better the setbacks from the lake as they presently exist. Certainly new construction is new construction. Many new dwellings have been created up in the Lake George basin on much more difficult sites than this one, and if it demands that the house has to do a little blasting in order to accomplish that, that’s probably something that’s going to have to happen. It can be done in an ecological way that doesn’t destroy the forest around it as it occurs, but I think in this instance here, I think that the house could be moved back to the margins, and a new turnaround could be created above that site where the current driveway now exists there, with the removal of a few trees there. That can be done minimally also. So I wouldn’t, at this time, be ready to approve this. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. Stone, please. MR. STONE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I share the thoughts that everybody’s had. I’m certainly, this is a difficult one. This is very close to the lake. I mean, we can argue that the first one should never have been that close to the lake. Mr. Matthews was telling us why it was, because that’s the way it was 40 years ago, but this isn’t 40 years ago. We’re very conscious of the need to protect Lake George, and any other lake in our jurisdiction. Having said that, I am concerned with the closeness to the lake. I do think, as Mr. Underwood just said, I think there is an opportunity to go back a little bit, even go off to the side, go off to the west. I would be more willing to consider a side setback if that works out from a land standpoint. I don’t have any idea what the neighbor on that side might say, but if you go that way, it seems to me that you can go back up the hill a little bit or back into the flat area. I mean, I am pleased that the front setback will be removed. I’m also pleased that there’ll be a new septic system. I also applaud Mr. Kelly’s willingness to remove the impervious patio in the front. I think that will help the project, too, but when you take it all together, I think I need to see some more willingness to compromise. Obviously I can’t sit here and say that it should be back at 75 feet. Although we sometimes forget the fact that some lots are unbuildable, according to our Code, but having said that, I would just like to see further compromise, even if we have to sit here and play tinker toys and move thing around a little bit. So, right now I could not approve it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m basically in agreement with Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, and Mr. Stone. I think there is some room. I think there is room for compromise. I certainly don’t want to see the slope blasted away in order to make the setback from the lake greater, but I think there is room, and I’d like to see that taken advantage of. I don’t think we’re taking full advantage of the property, in terms of being able to move this back further. I think five feet is a good gain, but I think I’d like to see some more gain. Other than that, I think there are some good aspects of this plan, as Mr. Stone has mentioned, but at this point, I would like to see some further compromise. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-I think Mr. Stone has some very valid points. The topography of the property doesn’t lend itself to moving the house back far enough for a 50 foot setback or a 75 foot setback. I think there should be some compromise there. There is a very steep slope there, and it doesn’t lend itself to building a house on it. I think blasting would do more environmental damage than anything else, and I applaud Mr. Kelly for putting forward permeability instead of a concrete pad. So, at this point, I’d have to be against the variance for this at this point. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and I, too, would probably agree with most of the comments that were made, that perhaps the patio could be moved. Perhaps we could consider more than a five foot modification, concern about closeness to the lake itself. There may be a little room for compromise there, some compromise perhaps with setback requirements, perhaps some room for a couple of compromises that were made. So I guess the point basically is this. At the present time, folks, I’m going to suggest to you that there does not appear to be, based upon what you have proposed this evening, support for your application. Now, as you know, you have a number of things that could be done. You can ask for a tabling, or, you could address those issues and come up with an appropriate compromise or you can ask for time. It’s entirely up to you. DAVE KELLY DR. KELLY-I challenged my architect from Day One to move this back as far as possible against that ledge, and time and time again he’s gone back to his bag of tricks and tried to figure out how to do that, and it’s been a difficult challenge for him, but I’m inclined to give him another shot, but I don’t know how much more we could do and still possibly get a car down there for maintenance of the house and that sort of thing. If you recall, there is a bump out for the, you know, for the entrance way, and I’ve posted boulders down there so that hopefully you would realize that when you went down to look at it, and with them where they are, at the proposed setback, you know, it’s marginal. MR. DYBAS-I just want to give you some insight of what I’m up against. Right now, the way the siding is proposed, I’m doing no re-grading on either side of this house. As I push it backwards, I’m not touching any of the existing grading. So I’m not into that. If I go back farther, the basement floor starts coming up, and has to because of what I’m facing, which means there’s going to be more disruption to the front of the site. The other thing is I heard someone about where is the building. As proposed, the back of the building is right at the edge of the parking lot. The back area that Dr. Kelly referred to is stepped out into about here on the site, as is shown here. Dotted on the site plan shows where the back of the existing house is currently. Can I gain another foot or two? Yes. Can I gain five feet? No. I mean, it’s just not, this site does not have it in there. I have been sitting here looking at it and you can see on the site plan it says existing rear wall. You can see how far back I’ve already moved it, and still be able to get a car down there. We have to get down, and there’s about 16 feet from the bottom of the driveway to that corner of the house as it’s proposed, and that’s about as tight as I can make it and still swing into that parking area. I’ll give it a try, but I mean basically we’re going to have to go back to the drawing board and redesign. MR. ABBATE-Let me be a little more specific, then, based upon what you just stated. As I indicated earlier, it appears that you may not have support for your appeal, but I will provide you with an opportunity, a fair and impartial opportunity, to offer you a request for a tabling, if that’s what you wish. The decision is entirely yours. We can continue on with your application this evening and come to some sort of a conclusion. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, the decision is that we would like to table. Dave has just said that, as he said on the record, that he wants to try and accommodate the Board and see what more he can give. We’re already offering to eliminate the lower patio and make that grass, pervious surfaces, and we’ll come back with whatever we can. It’s not going to be 10 feet, but we’ll come back with whatever we can to try ad move the house closer to the back without having to blast the hill, and we’re hopeful that the Board will support the modified application. MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, before we move to table, just one comment. If I’m around when this comes back, there are a number of houses on Lake George that cannot get a vehicle 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) next to the house. So that’s one thing I will be looking at is justification why it’s absolutely necessary to have a vehicle next to the house. It’s certainly convenient. MR. LAPPER-Here the issue is that it’s so steep to walk down that hill with packages, groceries, what have you. MR. MC NULTY-Well, there’s a bunch of houses that have stairs and what not. So it certainly is convenient to do it to get groceries in and supplies in. MR. LAPPER-We’ll look at everything possible. MR. MC NULTY-But that’s one question I’ll be looking at. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. All right. So what I’m going to do, then, I’m going to honor your request and I’m going to move that Area Variance No. 8-2006 be tabled. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2006 DAVID R. KELLY & SALLY N. KELLY, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 8 Rocky Shore Drive. Tabled to the 24 of May, 2006. th Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The vote to table Area Variance No. 8-2006 is seven yes, zero no. The motion is carried. Area Variance No. 8-2006 is tabled for the 24 of May hearing. Counselor I have a th request, please. Would you be kind enough, please, to ensure that any modifications that you make are presented to the Community Development Department by the 15 of April, please. th Thank you very much. MR. LAPPER-Seventeenth. MR. ABBATE-That’s good. 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 APPLICANTS PROPOSE CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,419 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING INCLUDING ATTACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR-1A ZONE. CROSS REF. BP 85-715, SPR 66-2005 WARREN CO. PLANNING DECEMBER 14, 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 MR. UNDERWOOD-We previously heard this on November 23 and December 21 of last rdst year. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 85-2003, Martin J. Barrington & Mary P. Devine, Meeting Date: March 15, 2006 “Project Location: 84 Bay Parkway, Assembly Point Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes demolition of the existing 2,493 sq. ft. single-family dwelling and 352 sq. ft. detached garage, and build a 3,419 sq. ft. single- family dwelling with attached garage. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Front setback relief of 5.67-feet, where 30-feet is the minimum. Side setback relief of 10-feet for the N. side, where 20-feet is the minimum. Floor Area Ratio relief of 1.18%, totaling 23.18%, where 22% is the maximum. All area and dimensional relief, per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 66-2005: Pending, 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 application was reviewed and tabled on November 23 and December 21, 2005 (see resolutions and minutes). With this plan, the amount of relief requested has been reduced further. The Board indicated at the latter meeting that the relief sought from the required minimum front and side setbacks were reasonable. However, it was felt that the requested FAR relief was still substantial (5% of relief, totaling 27%). With this plan, the total square footage of the residence has been reduced (from 3,977 to 3,419), and with that, the FAR has been reduced to 23.18%. The applicant’s agent stated that the applicant would have no objection to making the patio out of a permeable material. This should be specified in any motion as a recommendation to the Planning Board, who will be reviewing the portion of the project within 50-feet of the shoreline. That Board will also consider the proposed stormwater management plan for the site. Additionally, the applicant’s agent stated that a septic variance would be sought from the Town Board; however this is no longer necessary. It was stated at the December meeting that the system would be designed for 5-bedrooms and it is designed for 4.” MR. ABBATE-I see that Counsel and his clients are at the table. Would you be kind enough, please, to speak into the microphone and for the record identify yourself. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and with me at the table is Tom Frost who is the architect for the project, and probably more importantly Mary Devine, who, with her husband Martin Barrington, are the applicants, and I think also we have Denise Platt, who is going to try and run a Power Point presentation that we have for you. So that we make our presentation as clear as we can, as to the issues that we have. We have been here twice before. We were here in November and we were here in December, although I think Mr. Garrand was not on the Board then. I’m not sure if Mr. Garrand was in the audience when we made our presentation. So I’ll try and go back a little bit over what we’re talking about. Basically this is a teardown of an existing house, and new construction of a permanent residence. The existing house that’s going to be torn down has been called a three generation camp, with three different additions to it. Much of that camp probably would not meet the Building Code now for habitable space. The family room and the adjoining lakeside enclosed porch has a finished ceiling of seven foot one inch, and there are beams that cross that, so that it comes down to six and a half feet. The three upstairs bedrooms right now have similarly low ceilings, all of which are probably, or not probably, do not qualify for habitable space at this point. We’ve tried to listen to what the Board has suggested. We’ve tried to minimize the variances that we have requested, and although there are a number of variances, I think if you look at them individually and then you look at them in total, you will see that we have done a pretty good job on trying to minimize what we are asking for. I do not believe that this is a request, even cumulatively, for a substantial variance from the existing Ordinance. I know the last time much of the discussion didn’t seem to be, let me say this, there didn’t seem to be much discussion on any of the requested variances for the sideline or the setbacks, because basically we’re improving on all of those setbacks. On the front or the road setback 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) right now, there is an existing setback of 6.3 feet. We had proposed, or are now proposing, 24.33 feet. So we do need relief. We need 5.67 feet of relief, but we’ve actually multiplied the existing setback by four, with what we’re proposing. The north sideline setback right now is 4.96 feet, and what we’re proposing ranges from 10 to 17 feet. So we do need some relief there. There is a shed on the north side of the building that we are going to remove from the site, and that’s even closer, probably, than the 4.96 feet. On the shoreline, we are not asking for a variance request. We, in fact, are going to be 52 feet as opposed to the 50 feet required. The present structure is 41.02 feet from the shoreline. So we’re going to improve that and bring it into compliance. The height we have amended from the initial plans so that we are not asking for a variance on the height. Probably trying to bring this all together, I’d ask Tom Frost to run through the Power Point presentation. TOM FROST MR. FROST-Thanks, Mike. The fact that you said we were going to try to run through a Power Point is probably more of a point. Just as a brief introduction, we approached this project the way we’d approach any project when we first started out. We met with Marty Barrington and Mary Devine and we found out what their program requirements were for the house. We started with a renovation, a serious renovation, of the existing building. We very soon realized that it made absolutely no sense. It was trying to turn a very marginal structure into a full-time permanent home, and we came to the conclusion that we had to remove that building and start from scratch. Nothing else made any sense, and we designed the building around their requirements, which is a family of four living there full-time. It’s their only house that they’ll have in this Country. They’re from the area originally. They like the lake. They’ve owned the property for, what, four years, something like that, and we realized, as we got into it, that we were bucking some of the Zoning Ordinances, in terms of setbacks and the mysterious FAR. As he mentioned, this is our third presentation of this. Talk about going back to the drawing board. We’ve done that. We’ve done that seriously, to try to get this as close as we possibly can to the requirements of the zoning in that area. So Denise is going to hopefully figure out how to run this thing. We’re just starting out with a location map, that’s a tax map, and that’s the, if you look at this, that is Phil Morse’s house right there. That’s the property. That’s the neighbor to the south. Bodnar’s the name to the south, and this is the existing property, the lake obviously on the right, Bay Parkway on the left. The lands of Morse to the north and the lands of Bodnar to the south. The dotted square in the middle of the property is the buildable area, given the required setbacks. You can see that the garage is well out of that area. The residence also is not only out of the area to the north, but it’s approximately 10 feet out of the area towards the lake. Okay. Just going to try to run through this quickly. These charts represent the requirements, which are in yellow, and the existing conditions before we started redesigning this building. The existing house is in orange. So the front yard, this front yard is supposed to be 30 feet and it’s 6.77 feet, required. Shoreline setback is 50, and it is currently 41.02. Side yard to the north, as Mike said, is supposed to be 20 and it’s 4.96. That’s the distance of the garage to the Morse’s property line, and the side yard to the south is in compliance. It needs to be 20 and it’s 51.96 at this point. The second set of graphs here just kind of walks you through, very quickly, where we started with this new building and now where we are. So the front yard started at 20.5 feet. We’ve got it up to 24.33. It still requires a variance. The shoreline setback started at 41.02 and we’ve gotten it to 52. At the same time, I might point out, we’re increasing the setback on the other side of the house from the street. The side yard from the north started at 4.96. Our first run through we had it about the same distance away and now we’ve increased that distance to 10 feet, and the side yard to the south started at 51.69. The last run through we did we were at 44, and in the process of redesigning, we’ve really compacted the building even further. So now we’re at 48.5 feet from the south. The next deals with the building height and the FAR. The building height requirement’s 28. The current building is 21.66, and as you all know, the FAR is 22%, and the current building is 17%, and going through this, the building height we had at 29 when we started out. We got rid of that required variance so we’re at 28, and the FAR, which is the hardest one to get our hands around, I feel as an architect, we’re not used to dealing with this type of a restriction. This deals, I think primarily, I think the reason for this, rather than a straight percentage of lot coverage, is an attempt to address the issue of the building’s mass, the three dimensional size of the building, not just its footprint. We started out with 31%, and we were, I think, almost scoffed at by the County and by this Board, but we went back and redesigned it, took a lot of things out of this that we felt we could reduce, got it down to 27%, were advised that we probably would be wise to try to go further. So it was tabled and we’ve now got it down to 23.18%, which is, I have to watch the semantics here, but 1.18 percentage point above what’s the maximum. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) MR. STONE-You meant 23.18, I believe, sir, you said 22.18. MR. FROST-I’m sorry, 23.18. We’re 1.18 above what we’re supposed to be. MR. STONE-Right. MR. FROST-Thank you. Okay. This is a graphic very similar to the one we just showed you where the existing residence and garage is in yellow, and this is a graphic of the proposed residence and the garage. This little cut out right there is an entrance to the house. It’s actually a covered over area, but you can see now that the house fits better into the buildable lot area than the existing does, and I think if you go to the next one, what I tried to do here was show the comparison between the existing and the proposed. The point of this is that it’s easy to go to the lot and see the existing house. It’s hard to look at a set of drawings, a site plan, and understand, at least I think, how that proposed house is going to compare with the existing one. What we’ve done here is the yellow that you see here is the garage. This is the east part facing the lake. The red parts are the proposed building, and where the two of them overlay is in orange, and the point of this that you can see that if you take the yellow pieces, and fit them into what’s red, you can do that. In other words, the footprint of the existing house is actually slightly smaller than the footprint, I’m sorry, the footprint of the proposed building is slightly smaller by, I don’t know, 30 square feet or something, than the existing one, and where the FAR is a problem is the second floor. The second floor of the proposed house is about 600 square feet larger than the second floor of the existing house. So that’s how the FAR gets jumped up from the 17%, but the footprint, which is an important part of what we’re doing, and I think what the Board should be looking at, is essentially the same. However, it’s been improved, in my mind, because we’ve consolidated the building or buildings to an area that takes up less of the lot. Even though the footprints are the same, we’re actually taking up less of the lot. We don’t have this thing over here. We don’t have that piece there. We’ve actually eased things a little bit from the Morse property. So that’s the point of this slide. We just want to run you very quickly through the floor plans. The lake is over to the right here, Bay Parkway. So it’s oriented the same way as the site plans. We have a full basement here and a crawl space under the rest of the living space on the first floor. The first floor area includes, the yellow is basically interior living space. This is garage out here. This is the entry, which this is one of the things we did since the last time we came is take the entry was a little porch here, which you’d expect to see on the front of the house. We tucked the entry into the garage space, removing some garage space, thereby decreasing the amount of floor area, and decreasing the FAR. This is a library on the first floor, which we’ve been very upfront about, and some day, we assume it will be a bedroom on the first floor. So that as the owners age, they will be able to get to their bedroom, won’t have to climb the stairs, but to start out with, it’s a library. The septic system is designed for that to be a bedroom some day. We’ve stepped the floor plan down a foot and a half or so, and that helps us get the part of the building that’s closest to the lake down further, so it’s not sticking up above the grade as much as the existing house does, and this an enclosed, it’s a screened porch at this point, probably or some day may be a three season porch, but it will always essentially be a porch, and then one of the things that we’ll go before the Planning Board with is we have a patio out in the front here, which is that location right there. Second floor, the garage will have an attic for storage, with a ceiling access from the garage. We have the three bedrooms, one, two, three master bedroom looks out over the water. We have three full baths upstairs, and an office space, and I don’t remember how many square feet the second floor is, but that’s what gets the FAR up above the 17, primarily, is the living space up there, 1246, thank you. Okay. This is an attempt, and it’s not very dramatic, unfortunately, but this is an attempt to address the issue of our north setback, which is 10 feet instead of 20 feet. That’s the proposed house. That’s a the Morse, or a small piece of the Morse residence. That’s the Bodnar residence. These little black lines here, here, and here represent the property lines between those buildings. We have kept the house as far north as we feel we can. The space between the Morse house and this house is primarily, you can see it on this model here, not from where you’re sitting, but it’s back in here, and it’s heavily wooded, and it has a large diesel generator that Phil owns there. It’s not a yard, basically, and what’s very important to my client is the yard to the south of their house. They use it extensively now. They want to retain that. If we were to move the house to the south, and make it compliant with that side yard setback, we’d be essentially removing usable yard that they now have, increasing the north yard to something that would be, yes, larger, but not usable either, and I think more importantly, as a planning approach, this makes more sense than this does. Here we have a house, a house, a house, equally separated, green space, not very usable green space, not very usable for each house. Here, at least, if we cluster them slightly, we get more green space between these houses, which is not only usable, but I think more importantly is a 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) better appearing from the lake, that if you cluster the houses, thereby increasing the green space, that’s a plus. So I think, although I realize that the north setback has not been too contentious, as far as the Board’s concerned, I think that’s an explanation for why we want it where it is. This is the existing house, as seen from, pretty much in line with the property line, maybe a little bit to the north of their property line, and that’s the proposed house. Now the proposed house is taller by five feet or so. It is set back 10 more feet, and as such, it, from this angle, it actually gets hidden a little bit by the vegetation that’s in here, that comes out towards the shore. So that’s the screened porch and then the two story front. That’s a view of the existing house, and that’s what the whole thing looks like from the lake. So this is the green space I’m talking about, which you can read it fairly well from the water, if this house were moved over to be right behind the boathouse, that way we’d be in compliance, but I don’t think it’s an asset as far as the lake view shed is concerned. So just in summary, front yard setback relief of 5.67 feet, side yard setback of 10 feet where it’s supposed to be 20, and the Floor Area Ratio at 23.18% where it’s supposed to be 22%, and then the final slide, I think it’s the final one. This is just a sketch we’ve done of what the elevation of the house will look like from the water. It’s not a massive house. It’s not a McMansion. It’s got a cottage style to it, maybe a slightly Victorian cottage style to it, surrounded by very large trees. I don’t think it has a tremendous impact, visually, on the lake. Thanks. MR. O'CONNOR-One point that we were trying to show you, at least by slide, was if you go back to the two pictures of the house as it presently exists and the house as it’s superimposed as we propose it, you really can’t tell an awful lot of difference. It is a little taller, but it’s set back further from the lake, and I think that’s a fair depiction of what impact, if any impact, it will have. The other point that I would make, just to emphasize Tom’s comment, he says relief requested on the north side line is 10 feet. That’s only for the garage portion and if, you’ve all got full sets of the plans. As you go back from the garage towards the house, the next portion of the house is 14.6 feet from the property line. So then you’re talking about 5.6 feet relief, and then you go back in to even a further inset that I think is 18 feet, so we’re asking for two feet, and then if you go out toward the lake itself, you actually have a setback that’s, again, further than 10 feet. I don’t have it right on this map. What we’re proposing, or requesting the relief as shown on the plot plan that’s submitted to you for the north line. We’re not asking for a straight ten foot line. The existing house right now, the garage is 4.6 from the north line. If you actually look at the house, I think they have like three foot eaves on the existing house. That house is a straight line of 10 feet, and that was an issue that Phil and Sue Morse had that they wanted us to be sure not to infringe upon the row of trees that were along the north side of the house. So we’ve moved it back further than the existing house, all the way along that, as well as moving it back further than the existing garage, and the other point is, what we’re also trying to preserve, and I think Tom hit upon this, but I think Mary Devine spoke of it more in detail, is that there are some significant trees to the south side of the house, and there’s a significant garden and landscaping there, and we’re trying to preserve it, and it’s part of this idea of maybe we are clustering toward the north line, but by doing that, we’re giving the appearance of more open space between our house and the Bodnar house which is on the south side, and even the Morse house, which is on the north side. On his south end of the line, he has a small building for a generator, I think. His boathouse is out toward the lake, but he has a pretty good tree growth on the south end of his house. So we’re taking advantage of that tree growth, advantage of the existing growth that’s on our existing lot, and making it look like it’s more of an open space, more trees would be preserved. The other point, and maybe I’ll make it another time, but we are increasing the permeability on this site, from 65% to 79.7%. So we’re increasing the permeability on this site to a total of 15, or by 15%, and I’m not sure, we’ve since agreed to make the surface of this patio permeable, and that might even be a further increase in the permeability that we have on this site. You have received some letters. You had some letters before, and I think since the last meeting you received a letter from Georgiana Bodnar who is the neighbor immediately to the south of this property, and she’s been supportive to, actually of all versions that we have submitted to you, and I’ll summarize it. I don’t know if Mr. Underwood is going to read it into the record, if you are, okay, and it’s not a form letter. So I would ask you to read it. We also received I think an e-mail, I’m not sure, a fax, whatever, we have a letter from John Salvador, who I often don’t agree with, and he was rather vocal at the last meeting, and I won’t try to summarize his three pages, and his notes that he put on it, but on point, as to the Floor Area Ratio, he offered, and I’ve not seen this in any of our Codes, Susan, that you had talked about minimum, moderate, substantial or not acceptable, and maybe this is something that you would throw out there. Minimum would be one to ten percent. Moderate would be ten to twenty-five percent. Substantial would be twenty-five to fifty percent, and over fifty percent would be unacceptable. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) MR. STONE-Are you talking an increase over the twenty-two? MR. O'CONNOR-No. I think he, remember, he went on and on about the fact that you can’t say this is 1.18% increase. The 1.18% increase, he actually equates mathematically to a five percent, five point three six. MR. STONE-Yes, I’ve made that argument over the years. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I don’t disagree with that part of his argument. I don’t disagree with his next statement either. Actually, your FAR calculates to .24, which we haven’t figured out yet how he got to that, which is only two percent, two points, over the maximum of .22. We’re only nine percent out of conformance. A variance at ten percent should be considered minimal. Accordingly, your efforts to reduce should be complimented providing, and he goes on to a whole bunch of other points. He isn’t convinced about the Eljen system, and he isn’t convinced about a lot of things. We did get a second letter. You had an early letter, I think, in November, from Phil Morse, and this is by e-mail. I’ll give you a copy of this. I did bring some copies, and it was directly to Mary. We tried to include the neighbors in this process. Between the last time we were here and the time, or tonight, we did send a packet out to many of the people that spoke at the last meeting, and sent them a complete set of the plans that we are presenting to you tonight, and this was March 13. “Dear Mary: I th certainly appreciate the extent of your efforts in trying to bring the Morse’ up to date on your project. So to speak, I have no idea what you were told our concerns were, but let me assure you, Sue and I support your project. The only concern I ever expressed was that the tree line on your north side and our south side would not be destroyed with the new construction. If somehow those trees could be not be destroyed with the new construction. If somehow those trees could be left relatively unharmed, we really have no objections to anything you wanted to do. If we can be of help in any way with the Town, please do not hesitate to ask. Best regards and good luck, Phil and Sue” We’ve got copies of that for you, and then today I did receive a public comment by the Lake George Association by Kathy Bozony. She, and I’m not sure where she is going, but she somehow is arguing that we should include the basement area. MR. URRICO-Are we arguing this out of sequence? Shouldn’t we hear what the letter is first before we argue against it? I’m just wondering. MR. ABBATE-You’re going to read that into the record anyway, are you not? Well, Counselor, why don’t you let us read the, we have a copy of it, let us read. MR. UNDERWOOD-Open the public hearing first. MR. ABBATE-Yes. Why don’t we do that. Let’s make it easier that way for everybody. MR. O'CONNOR-All right. I don’t mean to be repetitious. MR. ABBATE-What I’m going to do is open the public hearing, for Area Variance No. 85- 2005, and then we can continue once I open it up, and our Secretary will read that into the record. MR. O'CONNOR-Do you want the Morse letter now? MR. ABBATE-Yes, it would be nice. All right. The public hearing will be open for Area Variance No. 85-2005, and would those wishing to be heard, please raise your hand, and then I’ll recognize you and ask you to approach the table, speak into the microphone, and please identify yourself and place of residence. Would anyone in the public like to address Area Variance No. 85-2005? Yes, ma’am, please. Thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MAGGIE STEWART MS. STEWART-Maggie Stewart, Assembly Point. I’m a neighbor of Mary’s. First of all, I’d like to applaud the Board for doing a very difficult job. Because I know tonight you have five more lakefront variance applications before you, but I think that Mary has done a good job in downsizing, and I’m not going to object to these present plans. I still think each house 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) built around the lake in the last five years is way too big, and hope that we can keep things in perspective. Thanks. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, ma’am. Do we have anyone else? Yes, sir, please. Would you approach the table, speak into the microphone and identify yourself, please. GEORGE LANGFORD MR. LANGFORD-My name’s George Langford. I live on Assembly Point. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, they’ve done some things to improve the project. I certainly don’t have any problems with the side setbacks, or any of the setbacks, as long as the neighbors don’t have a problem with that, but on the other hand, and also there are less onerous things that have been allowed on the lake, but on the other hand, I don’t see any valid reason for exceeding the 22% area requirement, especially in the fragile Lake George shoreline. It shouldn’t be exceeded without a very compelling reason. In this case, capping the size at 22% would still allow a house in excess of 3200 square feet. It’s not obvious to me why this would not be sufficient for a family of four. When you look at the plans, it looks like there’s possible expansion for perhaps not the Devine but for somebody in the future. The proposed plan shows three bedrooms, which they’ve said is really four. It has three and a half baths, but there also is an office, or a library, which could be used for some future project or owner as a bedroom. There’s also an area over the garage which could very easily be modified to have access from the house, which some future owner could do. I believe that the Board should take hard fast line on the 22%, and I don’t see why that would be a big problem to designing of this project. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else? Yes, ma’am, please. Approach the table, speak into the microphone and identify yourself, please. KATHY BOZONY MS. BOZONY-Kathy Bozony from the Lake George Association. I will speak before Mr. O’Connor, knowing what he was going to say, and he’s welcome to voice his opinion afterwards. He is questioning my letter and the fact that I am saying that that basement, not the crawl space, but the basement, should be included in the Floor Area Ratio. The Floor Area Ratio on Queensbury’s zoning says all floors of the primary structure and covered porches, as measured from outside walls, including the basement, when at least three feet in height of one wall is exposed, and the spaces meets requirements for living per the New York State Building Code. This basement has two egresses, a Bilco that goes outside, and a stairwell that goes up into the living quarters. I am not going to spend all my time and energy talking in the Town of Queensbury about these basements not being included in the FAR calculation. I have been trying to get a ruling from the Code officer on how he is calculating these. Two egresses, artificial lighting does suffice for natural lighting, which is one of the Building Codes. I took the liberty of printing up a lot of bilco’s and I will just pass them to you and you can throw them away. A bilco is more than three feet exposed, and it does, in my mind, and I don’t have a ruling from the Planning Department, but in my mind, it is at least three feet in height of one wall exposed in the basement. The FAR calculation is intended for living space. A covered porch isn’t really a living space. A basement for storage or workshop isn’t really a living space as we would think of a bedroom, but nevertheless, it is part of what the regulations in the Town of Queensbury have identified as what should be included in the FAR calculation, and, you know, there are quite a few different applications you’ll see even later tonight. These basements are being left out of the calculation, yet per your Code, they appear to be that they should be in the calculation. MR. ABBATE-Before you leave, let me address that. I raised the issue today, concerning that, and from what I could read, that the basement as it’s currently constructed does not fall under the Floor Area Ratio, in accordance with the New York State Residential Code, because one of the prerequisites, in order for a basement to fall under the New York State Residential Code, is that it must have a second way out, and currently, I don’t see anything in the plans that indicates it has a second way out. MS. BOZONY-It has the bilco going to the outside and it has the stairwell from the inside. So that second way out is that bilco that goes outside to the north side, I believe. MR. ABBATE-That’s not how I discussed that with the Code Enforcement Officer today. So, just for your information. This is not an argument. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) MS. BOZONY-Okay. So that second ingress, I don’t understand why it doesn’t count as a. MR. ABBATE-Basically, this is how it was explained to me, and I did read the New York State Residential Code. Basically, there are a number of requirements, but the case that we’re referring to this evening, as it is currently constructed, and someone, if I’m wrong, please bring it to my attention, does not fall under the Floor Area Ratio, in accordance with Queensbury and also, they refer to New York State Residential Code, and the New York State Residential Code is quite clear that there are a number of prerequisites in order for a basement to be considered in the FAR, and one of the major considerations to be considered for the FAR is that it must contain a second way out, and currently the basement, as it is constructed, does not have a second way out. So consequently the Floor Area Ratio in the basement can’t be considered. That’s my interpretation. MS. BOZONY-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Now, of course, you know, that’s how I read the law, but I could be wrong. MS. BOZONY-No, you’re correct on reading the law that way. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MS. BOZONY-There are two ways out, the way I see it per this building, and that’s the only difference. You’re right, in the Building Code it does say that, but we do have two ways out on this, at least what I saw on the plans. MR. MC NULTY-It may be that the two ways out are meant to mean two direct ways out of the basement, not up into the house. MR. ABBATE-Yes, that’s correct, two ways out of the basement. Thank you. MR. MC NULTY-So that would mean two bilcos or an exposed wall and a bilco. MR. ABBATE-Yes, that’s correct, but thank you for raising the issue because it’s important. Unless Staff tells me I’m wrong. MRS. BARDEN-No. I think you’re right. The egress is one element of habitable space. There are others, ventilation, light. You’re correct that the Zoning Administrator deemed that this is not part of the FAR calculation as presented. If anything were to change when they submitted for their building permit, they’d have to come back for Floor Area Ratio. MR. ABBATE-Absolutely. If it changes, they must come before us again. You’re absolutely correct. Okay, folks. Do we have anyone else in the audience who would like to address Area Variance No. 85-2005? Yes, sir, please. Would you be kind enough to come to the table, identify yourself, sir. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. I would also like to start out by recognizing the difficulty and the time that the applicant has put in to modify the application, to address your concerns and the public’s. I did submit a letter, and I must clarify and retract some of those statements. My first statement was, again, addressing the concept of the patio, patio raised above grade and the APA setback requirements. I was correct on, that there were stairs to the patio. However, the stairs do not go up. They go down, and the patio is recessed below grade. I did receive plans. I did not get the elevations on that. So my first statement does not apply to this. It is below grade, and the patio will be permeable, and that addresses my concerns on the impervious coverage within the setback to the lake. My second point has already been discussed. Again, I had questions about the basement being considered in the Floor Area Ratio. The clarification, I like to contact the Town and find out about these issues prior to, but sometimes we don’t always receive feedback from the Town, and sometimes our questions are not able to be answered before we have to put in letters. So I did question about the basement, whether it should be considered as living space, and the second means of access is in the interior, and that clarifies my point. So I have no other points to bring up on this application. Thank you. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Do we have any other folks who would like to address Area Variance No. 85-2005? Yes, sir, please. Come to the table, speak into the microphone, and identify yourself, please. PETER BROTHERS MR. BROTHERS-I’m Peter Brothers. I’ve spoken before. As I mentioned before, one of my main concerns is really the affects of a project like this on assessed valuation throughout the area, in this case North Queensbury, and certainly this has an impact throughout the lake basin, and unfortunately, with the State law the way it is, unfortunately, neighbors are forced to subsidize these improvements, the cost incurred, so to speak, that are going to be put forth through higher assessed valuation, higher taxes, and I think you’re having the specific Floor Area Ratio there for a reason, I think that like Mr. Langford said before, unless there is a compelling reason for exceeding that, I think it should be adhered to. Now, I don’t want to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their own parcel. They spent a fair amount of money to buy that parcel, as anybody, especially on the lake. At the same time, unfortunately, whenever the building project is proposed, unfortunately that has an impact on the home values throughout the basin, and I would ask that you again take my previous comments as well as what I’ve said to you this evening into consideration, and appreciate your time. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir, I appreciate it. MR. BROTHERS-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other folks. Yes, ma’am, please. Would you come to the table, speak into the microphone and identify yourself, please. BEVERLY POSIE MS. POSIE-Good evening. I’m Beverly Posie. I live at Bay Parkway on Assembly Point, and after diligent review of the proposed architectural plans for the proposed Barrington home, I’d like to commend them on their efforts to design the home which meets their wants and comes within the relative five percent of meeting the established FAR requirements, that being 22%, and the proposed residence being 23.18. With the talented Frost Architectural firm, why could the 22% not be met? Is there a hardship unseen in the presentation making it unreasonable to comply with the FAR? Should the variance be granted without a hardship, what happens with subsequent applications exceeding the FAR, once this precedent is set, and if we consider the next 20 applications on or near the lake within the Zoning Board’s jurisdiction, asking for the five percent on a cumulative basis, now we’ve got 100% variance. The application isn’t solely about the Barrington request, but also about the future of this fragile area. As we stated at the December 21 meeting, we’ve seen the st deterioration of the water quality and felt it necessary to install a water filtration system in 2002, and I was informed only last Saturday that Lake George is a Class A Reservoir used for drinking water, which we do. We believe that the lake front area can’t support large homes, especially since the area’s ground is predominantly clay, and this peninsula, planned back it the early 1900’s for camps, thus we have the small lot sizes. The future of this area is in the Board’s hands. It’s a grave responsibility, and not an enviable one, and I would not want to be in your shoes. I ask that you seriously consider this variance and what message it carries for future development, should you see fit to grant it. I have a couple of other questions, but I think they’ve been satisfied through Mr. Langford and Ms. Bozony, but the one thing that I cannot compute is the garage size. As it’s stated in the plan, 22 by 25 is 550 square feet. The entryway is included with a screened in porch, and the screened in porch alone equates to 240 square feet versus the 298. Is there a flip flop of feet between the garage measurement and the screened in porch? Could we have an accurate explanation of those two areas of the house? And I thank you for your time, and, Mr. Abbate, is it appropriate to give you copies of my comments at this time? MR. ABBATE-Yes, ma’am, it certainly is. We’d be more than happy to enter them in the record. While that’s being done, do we have any other folks who would like to address Area Variance No. 85-2005? Do I see any other hands? Any other folks? I don’t see any other hands being raised. So, Counselor, would you and your client please be kind enough to come back to the table, and address some of the issues that were raised, sir, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I had two pieces of correspondence to read. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) MR. ABBATE-Yes, would you please read those into the record, Mr. Secretary. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Dear Mr. Abbate and Members of the Board: On November 2005, I wrote to you in support of the above referenced application of my neighbors for a variance to rebuild on their property in order to create a permanent residence. The Barrington are good neighbors. They would have liked a larger home to accommodate their large extended families and friends, but they have listened to their neighbors. Since November, the Barringtons have significantly revised their plans in recognition of the concerns of the neighbors and Board. It is my firm belief that the current plans create no detriment to the neighbors, the neighborhood or the lake environment. In fact, I believe the plans currently before you represent a significant improvement. It would be virtually impossible to create a permanent home for a family of four on that lot which strictly adheres to the FAR restrictions. Their plans come as close as possible creating a Code compliant year round home that they can use and enjoy, while at the same time improving the lake and road side setbacks, upgrading the septic and stormwater systems, and preserving the naturalized gardens and trees which make that lot so beautiful. I look forward to having the Barringtons as permanent next door neighbors. Please look favorably upon this application. Georgiana Bodnar” MR. ABBATE-That’s it? Okay. Good. Counselor, would you do me a favor, please. Would you be kind enough to give copies of this to the young lady back there from the Lake George Association, Ms. Bozony. Just so we make sure we have a fair and unbiased hearing. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I think, I’m not going to make, necessarily, the presentation I was going to make. I’ll try and be brief. Our Ordinance is not that complicated, and I think it requires a commonsense, understanding and interpretation when you look at it. When you look at the definition out of our Code for what is included in the Floor Area Ratio, and then you look at the plans that were submitted, I think you clearly see that that basement area, and this is for the record, is not something that you would include. There are two elements that say when you include basements. First is when at least three feet in height and one wall is exposed. I take that to be like a walkout basement, maybe sliding glass doors or something of that nature. In this particular application, the basement is the back end of the house, just before the garage. It’s roughly, we have a sketch of it, I think one of your plans, 18 by about maybe 32. It’s this portion here, and this is all crawl space in the front part of the camp. This is part of your package. No part of the perimeter of that is exposed as a walk out basement. I think that was the intention of trying to include this language in there. Even the area where the bilco door is is not an exposed area. That has a door at the bottom of the bilco, like all bilcos do. You have to open the upper part of the bilco and you have to open the bottom part of the bilco. The only reason for putting a bilco in there is for them to have easy access to the basement to put all their summer stuff in storage. If you take a look at what we’re talking about here, they’re going to have a patio. They’re going to have stuff that you typically have around a lake home, and that’ll give them direct access to the basement from the outside, as opposed to carrying the stuff through the house, that’s the purpose of that. I don’t have any problem with defending that. I think that that is the commonsense interpretation of the first provision. The second provision is very complicated, and I won’t try to answer it. The Chairman has spoken to our Code Enforcement Officer. MR. ABBATE-Zoning Administrator, be more specific. MR. O'CONNOR-And I tried to talk to Susan today, and I know Tom’s interpretation of it. I’ve got sections of the Building and Construction Code. It doesn’t meet those requirements. Down the road, that’s something that the core group is going to have to look at. Because those requirements are also changing. MR. STONE-That’s one of the things that started our participation in that, Mr. O’Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I spoke about this at the core group meeting. MR. STONE-Yes, you did. MR. O'CONNOR-That it doesn’t work but if you take a look at those two sections, as they were written at the time that this provision was adopted, we don’t qualify for either lighting, ventilation or access, and those are just three of the points. I understand that the State will 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) accept artificial lighting, but I don’t think it would accept the access that we had that Mr. McNulty said that one of the accesses is into the house. That’s not considered a separate access. The other question, and I think that was, the other comment I would make on the Lake George Association letter is that this is not a five bedroom house. It is a three bedroom house, but we acknowledge that the configuration of it is such that you may want to call it a four bedroom house, because one of the rooms has a bedroom, or bathroom adjacent to it. The library, Mr. Langford, I’m not sure if he understood that we are including that library as the bedroom in our calculations for construction of the septic system, which we can build without any variances, and we actually have done test pits for that. We show that we have good soils for a septic system of the size that’s required on this particular lot. We did not run into clay. I’m sure that when we submit the building permit they’re going to review that in- depth, as they do with each one. The other question that was raised by Chris Navitsky’s letter, I think, has been answered. If you read the full section of the APA Code, Section 575.4 does start out saying that decks and patios which are attached to another structure are subject to the building setback restrictions if they exceed 100 square feet, but the second part of that provision says, unless flush with natural ground level without raised elements such as railings or walls, and I spoke to somebody at the APA today what they said their concern was the visual impact that you either have a patio or deck that sticks up right at the shoreline or within the shoreline setback, and that’s not something that they want. We did get a letter from them, and in the conclusion, they basically repeated this Section, and basically said therefore the proposed patio is not subject to the Agency’s building setback restrictions. So I think that answered his questions, and we had discussions with Chris. I think he’s satisfied as to the Town’s position of the inclusion of the basement or not the inclusion of the basement in the FAR. The one question was asked whether we can be entitled to this variance on the basis of hardship. This is an Area Variance. It’s not a Use Variance, and what we look at are the five tests of the Area Variance, and the balancing between the potential impact upon the Town, the community, the neighborhood, or upon the applicant, and I think if you’ve listened to our presentation, you will see that there’s very little potential impact, particularly if you looked at the slide presentation or the overhead presentation. We’re talking about one, and I don’t presume to beg the question, so I’ll touch on the setbacks. I think the setbacks are all an improvement, and the neighbor that’s most affected has said that he supports our plan, Mr. Morse. I think there’s a real planning reason for keeping the setbacks as we propose them, so that we have the open space atmosphere. As to the Floor Area Ratio, I went through the plans that we’ve had, and the plans that we are presenting tonight, and if you go through and you take a look at them, almost every room has been downsized. They’ve done what they can. They’ve eliminated closets. They’re eliminated different areas. They’ve moved the entranceway so that it takes up part of the floor area of the garage, so that the garage is not as big as what we had proposed it, but again, when you go to the balancing of the application as opposed to the impact, on the Floor Area Ratio you’re talking 174 square feet. You can bring it right down to basic square feet. That’s what you’re talking about. I could probably cut the garage in half and get rid of that 174 square feet, but what difference of neighborhood or community impact is that going to have? If you take a look at the site plan, that garage is not even visible from the lake, being behind the house. There is no real impact by that 174 feet. Statistically, it’s a request for a variance, but you take a look at that and you take a look at everything else that we’re doing, we’re increasing the permeability on the site. We’re putting in an up to date septic system on the site, as opposed to what’s there. We are improving most of the setbacks, particularly the lake side setback. We are putting in a complete stormwater plan for this site. Somebody some place in one of these letters, I don’t think it was for this month, suggested that we make the patio a permeable area, and we will do that. I’ve talked briefly, I think it was to Chris Navitsky today. We’re going to talk about blue stone for that patio. We’re going to have one inch spacing. We’re going to have stone or some type of pea gravel between it. We will put some type of fabric, filter fabric underneath it. So I don’t know what else you want the applicant to do. The character of the neighborhood is not going to be impacted. I think if you go back in your minutes, we talked about the Morse house, which is immediately to the north. That has a 29% Floor Area Ratio. The house to the, the second house to the south, I think, has a 27. The house above the Morse’ has a 26, or 25, and as Tom has said, this is not a McMansion as somebody quoted it once before. This is not that big a house. So I don’t think we have any impact upon the character of the neighborhood. I don’t think we have any impact in a negative sense as to the environment. In fact we’re going to improve the environment by bringing in the septic system, bringing in the stormwater, by having a more compliant lakeshore setback. Is this self-created? Partially yes and partially no. Somebody talked about us increasing their assessment by what we’re doing. I don’t follow that. Mr. Stone, you sat on the Assessment Board. So I don’t know if you want to answer that or question me on that, but my improving my property, I don’t think improves somebody else’s, or affects their assessment, but right 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) now this property is assessed at a fairly good price, and I think people should be able to reasonably expect that they can build a reasonable house on it. The living space of this house is not that dramatic. You take out the covered porch. You take out the 500 foot garage, you’re not talking about that big of a house for a permanent residence, and that’s what these people are talking about. So the lot size is not something they created. I think the lot size was created a long time before the Floor Area Ratio was developed. So I don’t know if you can really hold that this is totally self-created because we stand in the same position as prior lot owners would. So I don’t know the negative of it, and as far as the precedent, I think you look upon, and you’ve told me 100 times, you look at each application on its own merits. You don’t say, okay, I gave this one this percentage, I’m going to give the next one that percentage. If this were somebody trying to make a fast buck and maybe build a cookie cutter type house, not architecturally pleasing, not something that fits into the neighborhood, you might have something to argue about, but if you take a look at the planning that’s gone into this house to try and make it fit in, I think you’ve got to applaud their efforts and not criticize it. So basically I think that’s my comments. Tom or Mary? Okay. Does anybody have questions of us? We’d be glad to try and respond, if you think I didn’t answer some question that was raised in the public hearing. MR. ABBATE-All right. I’m going to ask members to offer their comments, and again, I’d like to advise everyone here, the public as well, that the comments that are going to be offered by the Board members are directed to the Chairman only and comments expressed by the Board members to the Chairman are not open to debate. I would now ask members to please offer their comments on the information we’ve heard this evening on Area Variance No. 85- 2005, and again, may 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 for an intelligent Judicial review. Additionally, any position you may take must be based on the regulatory review criteria of our laws and not simply on subjective preferences or not liking a project, and due process guarantees that government ensures a fair and open process and Board members must make decisions on reliable evidence contained in the record of the Board’s deliberations, and in the event you wish any motion to approve to include any particular conditions, please, I beg you to clearly spell out those conditions so that the member introducing the motion may include your condition with clarity. Having said that, this is a tough one. So I’m going to ask for a volunteer first, rather than select someone. Do we have a volunteer who wishes to go first? MR. MC NULTY-I’ll go, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Would you please, thank you. MR. MC NULTY-Sure. My first reaction in looking at the initial re-plans was still, big house, ought to comply with the Floor Area Ratio, but looking at this now, the size, as far as the setbacks, I guess, let’s talk about that first. It strikes me that they aren’t that great. Yes, the house could be moved, and, even with its existing shape, almost be made to meet the setbacks, but the side setback to the Morse property, I don’t think, is going to affect anybody. It’s going to be a benefit to the applicant, and I think, as the applicant pointed out, in some ways, it’s going to be more aesthetic looked at from the lake because of the way it’s sitting. So I have no problem with the side setback. I think they’ve improved the situation with the garage from what currently exists immensely. I’m not going to compare this proposal with our previous proposals. I’m looking at this strictly as how it matches up to current criteria. So setbacks really don’t bother me. I think their setback from the road is insignificant as far as its affect on the neighborhood or anybody there around. That leaves us with a Floor Area Ratio. I think as we’ve discussed, the basement area probably does not qualify as living space now, and unless somebody does some grading later on, another owner or something, I don’t think it ever is going to. I think, as Counsel’s pointed out, the idea of three feet in height of a wall being exposed, I think the intent is the entire length of that wall being exposed, and two ways in and out would mean a door and a window exposed. So you could open a window and crawl out if you had to, and those two conditions don’t exist there. So I think what’s being presented as the Floor Area Ratio at this point is a valid one. It would be nice if it was 22%. You can argue that, if it’s such a minor amount, as the applicant’s arguing, they could trim that out, but I think there’s, again, we’re in a balancing act, the benefit to the applicant versus detriment to the community, and I think that that extra 1.18% Floor Area Ratio is not going to be a detriment to the community. We consider applications, each one individually, so it doesn’t set a precedent. Certainly there’s some concern to be voiced about turning yet another seasonal place into a permanent place, and 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) that’s an issue for the entire lake, but I don’t think it’s an issue for this particular applicant or one that’s fair to put on this particular applicant. So having said all that, it strikes me that the minor setback variances and the minor Floor Area Ratio variance is more than countered by benefit to the applicant, and for this proposal, I’d be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Well, the last time you came, I was against the setback reliefs, but I have changed my mind, and find it acceptable, and I have to agree with Mr. McNulty, I don’t see a 1.18% increase in the Floor Area Ratio as excessive, and I think you’ve done a great job in coming down, and I would be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. May I turn to Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Yes. I think my main concern last time was what was with the Floor Area Ratio, and we came from 31% to 27% down to 23.18%, and I think that’s the right direction. I think at this point, this project appears to me to be the best possible project for this site. I think the benefit achieved by the applicant is feasible. I believe the change in the neighborhood will not be out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. I think the , we’ve seen properties in that area with 27%, 32% Floor Area Ratio, and I think this is a much better project, and does bring it more in line with what we’re looking for. As far as requests being substantial, we don’t have a definition for substantial, but, to me, this doesn’t seem substantial, and as far as difficulty being self-created, I think it was self-created. It was self-created at 31%, self-created at 27%, and now we’re down to 23.18%, and to me that’s livable, and I’d be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mr. Stone, please. MR. STONE-I think what this whole thing shows is that the process works, and I’m very proud to be part of it, because obviously we started with a project that the majority of us, maybe all of us, didn’t like. We thought it was too much. The applicant listening and her agents have decided that they can live with something else, and hindsight, well, it appears that we can, too, and I think that’s the most important thing. I do want to correct something Mr. McNulty said. The previous house was not seasonal. It was a year round home, just to get that on the record. It’s changed from an adapted, I guess, seasonal home, but it was lived in year round. Certainly the setbacks, just to cover it quickly, I have no problem with. In terms of the neighbor to the north saying he can live with it, they can live with it, so can I. The road one, this is not as close to the road as it was before. We’re not impinging on the lake. We’re impinging on the lake less than the previous thing then, and that’s very good. In addition, the increase in impermeability and the willingness to make the patio permeable is certainly commendable. The Floor Area Ratio, obviously, is the only thing that has stuck in all of our craws, but I think the applicant has made a determined effort to reduce that to a bare minimum. There are certain things that a family with that kind of property needs, and I think the architect, along with the applicant, have done a great job in reducing that to minimal. Just for the record, Mr. O’Connor, Mr. Brothers and I don’t always agree on whatever point that he made. So I’m not going to comment any further, except that we don’t agree, but I certainly can vote for this project, in good conscience. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’d be in agreement with what everyone else has said here this evening. I think that the setback from the road is not a problem. The setback on the north side is greatly mitigated by the heavy tree growth that is apparently there in the pictures. Also, as far as the Floor Area Ratio goes, I’m confident that the seller’s not going to be used as living space as it exists, with the bilco doors as the only access point, other than coming down through the house, and I think that the Floor Area Ratio is a great improvement over what you initially started out with. We have to keep in mind each individual lot that the house is proposed upon, and this one here, if you look at it, you know, this is a relatively wide lot for the size of the house that you want to create. It’s set back at a maximum distance from the lake at 50 feet setback, which is not normally the case up on the lake there, and I think that, you know, we can probably live with the slight increase in Floor Area Ratio. So I have no problem with it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. Garrand, please. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) MR. GARRAND-I’d have to agree with the other Board members. I think this project doesn’t create an undesirable change in the neighborhood. I also don’t think that the FAR increase of 1.18% is substantial, and I also like the fact that it’s moving farther away from the lake, and it a more compliant structure with that respect. Will it have adverse environmental effects? I kind of think just the opposite. I think an upgraded septic system is what’s needed. So I’d be in favor of this project. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. I’m not so sure there’s anything much more left to be said. I heartily agree with every comment made by each of the Board members this evening. Mr. Stone said it well. The process works. This Board has a reputation, I would hope, to be fair and unbiased, and we put you through the ringer, guys, and you came back you attempted, in good faith, to come up with some sort of compromises, and I think you’ve done just that. Having said that, I’m going to ask for a motion, but before I ask for a motion, I’m going to respectfully remind, I’m going to close the public hearing on Area Variance No. 85- 2005. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to respectfully remind the members, as Counsel has brought it out, that we have 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. I’m going to ask for a motion, and again, I’m going to beg the motion maker, if you will, to please introduce your motion with clarity. MR. O'CONNOR-Area variances for setbacks for single family residences are Type II. I couldn’t find where Floor Area Ratio was a specific exemption. MR. ABBATE-All right. Are we clear on that issue? MRS. BARDEN-It’s a Type II. MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, this is not a condition. I think the motion should recognize the applicant’s willingness to remove the patio or to make it permeable. MR. ABBATE-I’ve got it, Mr. Stone, ready to roll. MR. STONE-Good. MR. ABBATE-Yes, I have it right here, as a matter of fact in yellow. So thank you very much. So I’m going to seek the motion. Again, I’m going to request that you please make your motion with clarity and there is a condition, and if the person making the motion could merely say something like this, that the applicant has agreed, and has no objection to making the patio out of permeable material, please, and I’ll be happy to repeat it again, but let me continue. In the event that a member does not understand the motion as stated, please advise me and I will request that the motion be repeated for the second time. The motion itself is not subject to debate. Any member not favoring the motion may exercise the right to vote no, and or introduce a motion to deny. Having said that, please include in your motion the conditions as I stated. Is there a motion for Area Variance No. 85-2005? MRS. HUNT-Mr. Chairman, I’ll give it a try. MR. ABBATE-Would you please, Mrs. Hunt. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 85-2005 MARTIN J. BARRINGTON & MARY P. DEVINE, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 84 Bay Parkway, Assembly Point. The applicant proposes demolition of an existing 2,493 square foot single family dwelling and 352 square foot detached garage and build a 3,419 square foot single-family dwelling with attached garage. The applicant requests the following relief: Front setback relief of 5.67 feet where 30 feet is the minimum, side setback relief of 10 feet for the north side where 20 feet is the minimum. Floor Area Ratio relief of 1.18%, totaling 23.18%, where 22% is the maximum. All area and dimensional relief per Section 179-4-030 for the Waterfront Residential 1A zone. Whether the benefit could be achieved by 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) other means. The applicant has been very forthcoming in adjusting their requests as per the suggestions by the Board the times they came before. I do not think an undesirable change to the character or nearby properties will be affected. In fact, I think it will be a positive effect. Whether the request is substantial. I think the request is minimum. I don’t think it is substantial. They have come down quite a bit in their request. I do not think it will have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or the area, and whether the difficulty is self-created. It’s because the applicants wish to rebuild their home. I also wish to state that the applicant’s agent has stated that the applicant would have no objection to making the patio out of permeable material. I therefore ask that we pass Area Variance No. 85-2005. Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 85-2005 is seven yes, zero no. For the record, does the appellant understand and accept the conditions as stated? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, we do, and we thank you. MR. ABBATE-Let the record show that the appellant has acknowledged conditions as part of the motion to approve. As such, Area Variance No. 85-2005 is approved. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. We also thank members of the public that did come and give their comments, which I thought were, in general, supportive. I would ask Staff if they might check with the Zoning Administrator. If we make that patio permeable, is that something that is going to be considered putting hard fill within the shoreline setback, which would trigger the Planning Board. MR. ABBATE-Counsel, that’s between you and Staff. We have made our decision. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m trying to get a jump on it, that’s all. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You bet. AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-2005 SEQRA TYPE II CHRIS GERMAINE & DIANE BEATRICE OWNER(S): CHRIS GERMAIN & DIANE BEATRICE ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 128 LAKE SUNNYSIDE NORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 192 SQ. FT. DECK ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP 2002-476 DECK, BP 89-050 ADDITION WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.26 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.17-2-7 SECTION 179-4-030 CHRIS GERMAIN, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-We previously heard this application on October 26 December 21. thst Since that time, they have modified their plan. There was a letter submitted to us by the applicants, and I will read that before I read the Staff notes. This was on 2/15/06. “Dear Members of the Zoning Board: Since we last met with you in December 2005 we have been putting much thought into submitting a fair compromise with you on your request to enlarge our deck. We had originally requested enlarging the deck by 215 s.f. We have now scaled that back to a 192 s.f. addition. The new proposed deck addition is 24’ x 8’. At your suggestion during we the December meeting we propose to remove two sections of 12’ x 11.5’ and 12’ x 4.5’ of the concrete patio portion down below the current deck. This impermeable area will become green space. The narrower deck addition will result in a planting bed two feet wider between the proposed deck and the patio below. We will landscape this area to screen the portion of the deck below floor level. As per the suggestion of one of the board members at the December meeting the 192 s.f. of concrete patio will be removed and the resulting patio will be approximately as wide as the dwelling. The area between the concrete patio and the lake is a raised planting bed (approximately 8’ high). This area is more than 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) adequate to keep rainfall on the patio from sheet flowing into the lake. Our neighbor to the south has sent a letter of support, as has the neighbor to the north. You have both letters in your possession. In addition, the neighbor to the north has a dwelling that is well above the existing deck. Essentially, no ones view will be obstructed by the deck addition if the relief is granted. Last, but not least I (Christine Germain) have had two total knee replacements within the past three years, due to somewhat advance arthritis. As a result of the condition it is difficult to go up and down the stairs to the patio. If the deck was wider as proposed it would be so much easier to entertain guests at small, quiet get togethers. The dining area just inside the sliding doors to the deck is very small and seats only four comfortably. Please feel free to take a look inside the doors at your convenience. The above information reflects a desire on our part to work with you and take your past suggestions seriously. Thank you. Christine Germain” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 71-2005, Chris Germaine & Diane Beatrice, Meeting Date: March 15, 2006 “Project Location: 128 Lake Sunnyside North Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes a 192 sq. ft. addition to the existing 215 sq. ft. deck, totaling 407 sq. ft. of deck area on the lakeside of the property. Relief Required: The applicant requests 27.5-feet of shoreline setback relief, where the minimum is 50-feet, and 13-feet of relief from the side yard setback, where the minimum is 20-feet. Setback relief is per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Additional relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure is required, per §179-13-010, “In no case shall any increase or expansion violate or increase noncompliance with the minimum setback requirements of the shoreline restrictions.” Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2002-476: Issued 6/11/02, for a 214 sq. ft. deck. AV 19-2002: Denied 4/22/02, for a 441.5 sq. ft. deck. Staff comments: As you will recall, the application was tabled on October 26, 2005 (see resolution and minutes), for more precise dimensions of the proposed deck and the distance to the shoreline and side property line from the proposed. In response, the applicant submitted a revised plot plan and elevation drawings, requesting 29.5-feet of shoreline setback relief and 13-feet of side yard setback relief for a 240 sq. ft. deck addition (totaling a 455 sq. ft. deck), this request was tabled at the December 21, 2005 meeting (see resolution and minutes). The latter justification for tabling was Board concerns regarding the concrete patio and the size of the deck, with that the amount of shoreline relief requested. The Chairman suggested that the applicant, “reconsider the size and reconsider the patio”. Upon the position of the Board, the applicant returns with a proposal for a 192 sq. ft. deck addition, 48 sq. ft. less deck area (totaling a 407 sq. ft. deck), and 27.5-feet of setback relief requested. Additionally, the applicant proposes to remove the same amount (192 sq. ft.) of concrete patio area and replace with landscaped area. The existing deck is located 5.7-feet from the side property line, and is an existing condition, the new portion is proposed at 7.2-feet from same. The existing shoreline setback is 30.5-feet, and the proposed is 22.5-feet. The proposal is for the deck to be open construction (wood slats) and earth toned.” MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I see we have the petitioner at the table. Would you be kind enough, ma’am, to please speak into the microphone and for the record identify yourself. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) MS. GERMAIN-My name is Chris Germain. I’m here to discuss the property at 128 Sunnyside North. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MS. GERMAIN-I think it’s pretty self-explanatory, everything you’ve just read. Just, in trying to work with the Board and have some compromise, we have scaled back the plan somewhat, obviously, and have agreed to remove the concrete area below the deck area, so as to create more permeable green area. I have a few photos that I would like to show you of the area, which might make it a little bit easier to sort of get a grasp of the whole thing. Sue, could we have Number Seven, please. This first photo will just kind of give you an area of the current deck as it exists. It’s quite small. It’s up at the top there. You can see that, but as you come down the steps, that is the concrete area before you get to that buffer zone, before the lake. That concrete area is where we would be removing the 192 square foot, it would be on each end, and then that would bring that area back into the size, it would be about the same width as the house is currently. Could we see Number Eight, please. I wanted to show you the raised planting bed, approximately eight foot high. It’s very adequate to keep water from sheeting, rainfall from sheeting into the lake, especially once we remove that concrete area, and fill that in, landscape that somewhat. I wanted to add also that our neighbor to the north and to the south, neither one has an objection to this, and both have sent letters of support which you’ve read at the previous meetings, but I wanted to show you their property as well, so that you could see it from their point of view. Could we see Number 18, please. Now this is the neighbor to the north, and you can see their holding wall there. They’re elevated in relation to us. You can just see, down a little bit, I wanted to show you a picture of their deck, which is right over the water. There we go. You can see their deck right down, there’s a little white here, and it’s kind of like right behind that. There is their deck, and ours is only a few feet wide. So it’s only going to come out eight more feet with this new proposal. So we’re much further away from the water and the neighbor, and we certainly won’t obstruct their view in any way. Could we see 15 and then 16, please, and the neighbor on the other side, you can get a look at, you know, from his point of view looking at our deck area. You’ll see also that his view won’t be obstructed. Number Sixteen, wait a minute. I’m sorry, Number Four. So this is the neighbor to the south. So as you look up, even by only coming out eight feet more with our deck, there certainly won’t be any obstruction to his lake view, and also we had discussed before about bringing the deck toward him, as opposed to out toward the lake, but there’s a cluster of trees, mature trees, and green there that we really don’t want to disturb. We’d like to keep the environment as it is. So this is our proposal at this point. We’re hoping that this will fly. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, feel free that, any time during the hearing, if there’s anything else you feel you want to inform us that would help your case, raise your hand and I’d be more than happy to say go right ahead, and also, if there’s anything, during this hearing, you don’t understand, stop us, and we’ll be more than happy to explain it to you, okay. MS. GERMAIN-Okay. MR. ABBATE-All right, now, I’ll continue. Do any of the Board members have any questions for Area Variance No. 71-2005? Any Board members have any questions? MR. STONE-Just to confirm. You’re taking out the two ends of the concrete patio and leaving the middle portion? MS. GERMAIN-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MS. GERMAIN-That was suggested by one of the Board members at the last meeting. MR. STONE-Yes. That’s what it says here. I just want to confirm, that’s all. MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s a good point. Let me pursue that, because when we have a motion, whatever the motion might be, I want to make it clear that you’ve made, you volunteered to do a number of things. Make sure I’m correct. You volunteered to reduce the deck to 192 square foot. You also volunteered to remove two sections, the 12 by 11.5 and the 12 by 4.5 for green space, correct? 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) MS. GERMAIN-Right. MR. ABBATE-And you also agreed that the concrete patio, 192 square foot, will be removed. You agreed to that, correct? MS. GERMAIN-That’s right. MR. ABBATE-And you also agreed that the approximately as wide as the house, is that correct? MS. GERMAIN-That’s right. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Good, because I wanted to make that clear so in the event we have a motion, it will be part of the conditions. All right. Thank you. Let me continue. Any other Board members have questions? MRS. HUNT-I have a question. MR. ABBATE-Yes, ma’am. Go ahead. MRS. HUNT-What will be the width of the deck when it’s finished? MS. GERMAIN-Twenty-four feet. MRS. HUNT-That’s the length. The width. MS. GERMAIN-Eight. MRS. HUNT-Eight. Eight together. I thought you were saying eight more than what you had. MS. GERMAIN-No, eight foot depth. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Any other Board members have any questions? MR. STONE-Just to confirm, it is coming out from where that railing is, you’re, in a sense, moving the railing out eight feet with support underneath. MS. GERMAIN-Yes. Exactly. MRS. HUNT-I have another question. You said the railing is going to go out eight feet more, so that? MS. GERMAIN-The railing will stay where it is. From the top of the railing, the deck will come out eight feet towards the, from the existing deck, from the end of the existing deck, toward the lake, it will come out another eight feet. MRS. HUNT-So what will be the width of the deck, then? MS. GERMAIN-Twenty-four feet, is what the width will be. MR. MC NULTY-How about the depth from the house? MR. STONE-The depth is 14 feet. MS. GERMAIN-The depth from the existing. MRS. HUNT-The total width of the deck, from the house to the railing. MS. GERMAIN-That would be eight plus the six. The existing deck is six foot. We will come out another eight. So we will be a total of 14 feet. MRS. HUNT-Okay. MR. STONE-I’m reading the plan and is says 14 feet, eight and six, or six plus the new eight. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) MR. ABBATE-Any other Board members have any questions? Okay. If not, I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 71-2005, and do we have anyone in the audience who would like to comment on this Area Variance, please. Do I see any hands raised? I do not see any hands raised. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. ABBATE-We’re going to continue. Before, again, I ask members to offer their comments, I would like to inform the public that the comments by members of the Board are directed to the Chairman only, and comments expressed by Board members to the Chairman are not open to debate. I’m going to ask members, now, to offer their comments on Area Variance No. 71-2005, and again, I respectfully remind all the members prior to this that we concern ourselves with the evidence appearing on the record, etc., and if then if we’re going to have a motion, please, I beg of you to include that in your condition and please be clear and spell out those conditions so that members introducing the motion may include your condition with clarity. Having said that, I think I’ll just take and throw in our new member, and let him get a little wet. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-I like the idea of removing the concrete patio area, to increase permeability of the area, because that’s what the area seems to need. Basically, it doesn’t seem to be any undesirable change in the neighborhood by increasing the size of this deck. It seems as though your neighbors have basically done the same thing. Will the request have adverse physical or environmental effects, I don’t believe so. I believe that increasing the permeability of the area can only have a positive effect on the area. Whether the benefits can be achieved by other means, as far as, from what I’ve heard from the notes, there’s a knee injury that prohibits going up and down from one floor to another. MS. GERMAIN-It’s difficult. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MS. GERMAIN-There are a lot of stairs from the top of the road to down by the water, essentially. MR. GARRAND-Okay, and that doesn’t appear to be self-created. MS. GERMAIN-No. MR. GARRAND-Basically I’d have to say I’d support this application for Area Variance No. 71-2005. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Garrand. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-I’m really on the fence on this one. I can understand the justification that the applicant’s offering. I’m a little reluctant to place a lot of weight on the current physical difficulties, simply because a variance goes with the land, it doesn’t go with the applicant. So I have to think beyond the current applicant somewhat in considering this. Certainly the offer to reduce the size of the cement patio area beneath it is a plus. Just because the adjacent properties have decks out further, I don’t believe necessarily justifies putting another deck out further. I guess where I’m coming down is that’s still pretty close to the lake, and I’m not sure, thinking of the entire area as the neighborhood, that the detriment to the neighborhood is less than the benefit to the applicant. As I say, I’m kind of on the fence, but at this point, I think I’m inclined to oppose the application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. McNulty. May I move to Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-The last time you came in, I think you were asking for 10 feet more of deck out front there, and I was the one that suggested removing the patio down underneath there, and I think that that suggestion, you know, you took that to heart. I’ve never been opposed to your project. I think it’s reasonable to assume that people want to have a deck that’s usable, and the current one that you have there is basically useless. It’s an entryway to your house. That’s about all it can ever be. I think by adding on this extra amount of deck that you’re proposing, it’s going to have a minimal, if any, effect on the future of Lake Sunnyside over there, and I think that your proposal for more green space down below or 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) removing that impermeable area is going to be a plus. So, I would still be in support of your application. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with Mr. Garrand and Mr. Underwood. You’ve reduced the size of the deck, and I think the plus is removing the concrete patio to equal the amount of addition of the deck, and I would be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Stone, please. MR. STONE-I think Ms. Germain is to be congratulated again in listening. Whether she listened enough is still in the eyes of all of us, but I think she’s listened. I, for one, think she’s listened enough, because one of the things that we talk about are the effect on the neighborhood, and the Town and everything else. Well, this neighborhood is a very crowded neighborhood. As you point out in your presentation, the neighbor is practically got a structure over the lake. This is something, clearly, that we don’t like. The other thing that I would borrow from Mr. O’Connor’s presentation previously, is that we are talking the ins and outs of the lake, and the particular relief happens to be at by far the closest point to your particular piece of property, namely that point where it’s 22 and a half feet. The rest of it is not quite that far. So we always have to base the variance on the worst case scenario. If I had my druthers, I certainly would like you to be back 50 feet. Well that’s, of course, impossible. On the other hand, you have a piece of property that you’d like to use, not because you’re injured. I think as Mr. McNulty points out, that really doesn’t figure into the equation. We may be humanitarians, but we have a Zoning Code to uphold, but having said that, I do think that you have made a valiant attempt to minimize the impact, the willingness to take out a lot of the concrete patio, to increase the amount of permeable surface so that there’s less runoff into the lake, makes me willing to accept and to vote yes on your variance. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-I think this was worth the wait. I think the project, as it stands now, is a good project. I think, when you look back to 2002, the previous owner submitted an application for a 441 and a half foot square deck, and now we’re down to a much more reasonable deck, and I think the applicant has made it something that I could accept. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Urrico. I, too, would agree with the majority of the Board members. I think you made an honest effort, and you have committed to four conditions for approval, and I think this is an honest effort , and you have listened, and we’ve come to what I believe is a reasonable compromise, if you will, and I, too, will support the application. Having said that, I’m going to now close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 71-2005. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to request a motion, with conditions. Do we have a volunteer? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Take it, Mr. Stone. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-2005 CHRIS GERMAIN & DIANE BEATRICE, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: 128 Lake Sunnyside North. The applicant proposes 192 square foot addition to the existing 215 square foot deck, totaling 407 square foot of deck area on the lakeside of the property. The applicant requests 27 and a half feet of shoreline setback relief, where the minimum is 50 feet, and 13 feet of relief from the side yard setback where the minimum is 20 feet. In considering this application, the Board takes note of the willingness and the stated intention of Ms. Germain to take out two sections of concrete patio which currently lie between the existing deck and the lake, taking out a total of 192 square feet, in two sections, one on the north and one on the south. In considering this variance, we make note that the affect on the neighborhood is minimal when you consider both the neighbors to the north and the south, 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) and the position of their various structures closer to the lake than the subject property. As I said, the benefit to the applicant far outweighs any detriment to the community, which is already in a state very similar to the current property, and very few conforming properties to our current Code. It is obvious that the situation is self-created. The applicant certainly bought the piece of property with an existing deck, and is desiring to make it bigger, and that is their choice, if you will. The applicant has shown a willingness to listen to the Board and to make changes from the initial request, and I believe that the current project is, in fact, a good one, and should be approved. Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2006, by the following vote: th MR. ABBATE-She agreed to reduce the patio to 192 square feet, is that not correct? MR. STONE-Well, that has nothing to do with the motion. The motion is she wants a patio of a certain size and requires certain variance. I mean, I’m saying the applicant did listen to the Board, I put that in the motion. MR. ABBATE-All right. MR. STONE-But the specifics aren’t germane. MR. ABBATE-Okay. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 71-2005 is six yes, one no. For the record, does the appellant accept and understand the conditions as explained by Mr. Stone? MS. GERMAIN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Let the record show that the appellant has acknowledged the conditions as part of the motion to approve. As such, Area Variance No. 71-2005 is approved with conditions. Thank you, ma’am. MS. GERMAIN-Thank you very much. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. MS. GERMAIN-Thank you, Susan, and Sue. MR. ABBATE-Yes. AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II GARY & LINDA LONG AGENT(S): J. LAPPER, ESQ. & T. HUTCHINS, P.E. OWNER(S): GARY & LINDA LONG ZONING: WR- 1A LOCATION: 268 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGE. APPLICANTS PROPOSE CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,148 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING INCLUDING ATTACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SPR 71-05 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JANUARY 11, 2006 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.16-1-45; 226.16-1-28 SECTION: 179-4-030 JON LAPPER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-We previously heard this application on January 18, and it was tabled th at that time. Since that time, the applicant’s submitted a letter and also submitted basically what amounts to a whole new plan. STAFF INPUT 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 1-2006, Gary & Linda Long, Meeting Date: March 15, 2006 “Project Location: 268 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of the existing 2,694 sq. ft. single-family residence and 451 sq. ft. detached garage. And rebuild a 4,148 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with attached garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 7-feet of relief from the 15-foot minimum side setback (N. side), per §179- 4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 71-2005: Site plan for this project, specifically, for hardsurfacing within 50-feet of the shoreline. May not be required, but has not been withdrawn by the applicant. Staff comments: The applicants have purchased a vacant .23-acre parcel across Cleverdale Road, which they intend to consolidate with their lakefront parcel of the same size, resulting in a total .46-acre. The proposal is to concentrate all the development on the lakeside lot with the leachfield for the septic system across the road. With this recent proposal the 155 sq. ft. shed has been relocated across the road too. This plan eliminates 451 sq. ft. of total building area by removing the detached garage previously to remain. The 155 sq. ft. shed is added back in to the total floor area. The result is a decrease of 296 sq. ft. from the original request, totaling 4,404 sq. ft. of building floor area, and a 22% FAR.” MR. ABBATE-Okay. Counselor, you’re at the table with your client. Would you please identify yourself. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, with the project engineer, Tom Hutchins, and the project architect, Bob Flansburg. Our client did not come into Town tonight for the meeting, but he did listen to the Board last time, and we were here with a whole slew of variances, which Tom will go through, and we’ve substantially changed the plan to eliminate all but the side setback variance, so that we could save that maple tree. My recollection is the Board was supportive of that aspect of it last time. It’s a pretty nice tree. What is ironic here is that the neighbor to the south, who has sent in correspondence, that he is opposed to the variance, is the neighbor that would be most benefited, because that’s where the tree is, and as we stated in the cover letter, the house could be re-located to the center of the lot, not require a variance, and then that tree comes down and we can go home and apply for a building permit tomorrow to Dave Hatin because he doesn’t need any relief. The client obviously had to come to terms with the idea that some of what he had first requested he wasn’t going to get. For his own personal reasons, he wanted to keep that other garage, and that was also nonconforming as to setbacks. Tom will go through all the changes, but by moving the house back from the lake, getting rid of that garage, we feel we made some pretty substantial concessions, at the Board’s request, and we feel we’re really only here talking about a tree tonight, and it’s the neighbor on the north that would be impacted, and that neighbor is supportive. So we think after everything that’s changed, this is pretty simple, but let me hand it over to Tom Hutchins, and he can go through some details. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. What I’d like to do is summarize the changes we have made from the application that was presented in January. First of all, we have relocated the proposed house 18 feet further from the lake, which puts us at 58.2 feet from the lake, and we’ve eliminated the request for the shoreline setback variance. We’ve also decided to demolish the existing garage that the client had wanted to keep as part of this proposal. That amounts in a net reduction in project floor area of approximately 300 square feet when you consider he does want to keep a small shed for outdoor tool storage and the like. What that does is eliminates our request for a Floor Area Ratio variance because it puts us under the maximum 22%. These two changes, themselves, also, when we implement them in the plan, they reduce the amount of impervious area that we’d be creating with this project by approximately 1,000 square feet, which is a significant reduction in hard surface. The primary portion of that is in moving the house back away from the lake, closer to Cleverdale Road, the majority of a large portion of asphalt that was no longer necessary because the house is closer to the lake, I’m 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) sorry, closer to the road, and that asphalt is again replaced with green space between the house and the lake. As I’ve said, that impervious reduction is approximately 1,000 square feet. We do still request the seven foot north side, or the seven foot of relief from the north side setback, and that, again, allows us to attempt to save a large tree and we are managing stormwater in excess of that required. With this revised proposal, we’re only increasing the impervious area from present by approximately 560 square feet. With that increase, we’re required to retain 111 cubic feet for stormwater. The stormwater plan that I have done, it did not get submitted, but we’ve provided approximately five times what’s required in stormwater management area. So we think we’ve made significant strides forward in response to the comments received last time. MR. LAPPER-I want to add that the Board had asked about combining the lots, and we did, combine both lots on one deed, and we filed it in the County Clerk’s Office, and submitted a copy to Susan in the Planning Staff. So that’s now been accomplished. MR. ABBATE-Okay. That was my requirement for this hearing going forward tonight, that Counsel present to this Board just what he claims he submitted to you. Do you have a copy of it? MRS. BARDEN-It came today. It should be in the file. MR. ABBATE-And you have a copy of it? You’ve verified that it’s? MRS. BARDEN-I’ll check. MR. LAPPER-We sent the filing receipt from the County Clerk’s Office as well. MRS. BARDEN-I believe it just came in today. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it’s in there. MR. ABBATE-We can also condition it on, if it hasn’t been done. MR. LAPPER-It’s done, and we did send it in. MR. ABBATE-All right. You have indicated on the record it’s a done deal. Staff has indicated that it’s a done deal. So that satisfies me. All right. So do you have anything else you want to say before we move on? MR. LAPPER-No, but if there are any questions for the architect or the engineer, they’re here. MR. ABBATE-We’re going to start right now. I’m going to ask that if any of the Board members have any questions about Area Variance No. 1-2006, please. MR. URRICO-I have a question for Staff. MR. ABBATE-Yes, by all means. MR. URRICO-What is the limit as far as consolidation? Can somebody buy a piece of property across Town and say we want to consolidate it? I mean, what exactly is the limitation? Is there any? MRS. BARDEN-Well, ideally they would be contiguous lots, and I believe because this is across the street directly, that that constitutes a contiguous lot. They have a shared property line across the lot. MR. URRICO-But it’s across the road. The water lines are running underneath the road. It’s Cleverdale Road. It’s not a small street. MR. LAPPER-I can tell you what the rule is with the County Clerk, the Real Property Tax Service, that you’re allowed to hook two parcels if they are indeed contiguous. If they’re diagonal and no part is directly across the road, you can’t connect them, but this one qualifies because it is directly across. This was a lot that otherwise could have been developed and now it’s going to be used for the septic system away from the lake. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) MR. URRICO-I guess my definition of contiguous and their definition is different. MR. LAPPER-There are plenty of parcels that are hooked across a road. It is permitted. MR. ABBATE-You’re right, Roy. The key word is “contiguous”. I believe it’s a Town road, if I’m not mistaken. Am I correct? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Yes. Okay. Good question. Anyone else have any questions concerning 1- 2006? MR. STONE-I have a continuing concern. Obviously, Staff does not share my concern, but I still am not sure where we’re measuring the height from. I mean, as I look at the guide, it’s from immediate grade and not a manufactured grade, like a patio. I’m just concerned, and obviously Staff does not think it needs a variance. I do. I’ll tell you that right now. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-I know that the Zoning Administrator looked at this and considered that upper terrace, because it is a sidewalk that goes around the structure, is considered final grade. MR. STONE-Well, I can’t tell that from the drawing. Is there a view from space? There it is. Okay. I see the view from space. Okay. MR. ABBATE-For the record, I really would like Counsel or the appellant to address that issue, please. MR. LAPPER-Sure. BOB FLANSBURG MR. FLANSBURG-Mr. Stone, on the first floor plan, included with the building plans, it’s on there. MR. STONE-I see it. I did not appreciate that from the elevations. MR. FLANSBURG-From the elevations. Yes, there’s only so much you can show in a 2-D elevation. MR. STONE-I agree. Okay. I take my reservation away. I have other ones, but I haven’t gotten to that one. MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other Board members who have questions concerning 1- 2006? We do not. Okay. Let’s move on, then. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 1-2006. I’m going to request that those folks in the public who wish to be heard, if they would please be kind enough to approach the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself. Do we have members of the public who wish to be heard? Please raise your hands for me. Yes, sir, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Hello. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. I had submitted a letter. I’d like to go over a couple of those points. The first point, again, I address the issue of the basement and whether that should be considered as living space. I had tried to get a clarification, did not receive a call back on that. Again, I feel that the basement can be utilized as living space with the windows that are provided along the lake side, and that there is two means of access, and I feel that this structure continues to be too much building for the minimal acreage available. Second point goes along with what Mr. Stone had just referenced. I was confused on the building heights. I did not get a call back on that either. My calculations from the lake, it will still appear that that building is 33 feet 3 inches above 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) grade, whether it’s to patios or whatever. That is what the building and structures will appear. Third point, the Zoning Board of Appeals, under 179-14-020, quote, may impose conditions similar to those provided for site plan review usage to protect the best interests of the surrounding property. Mr. Hutchins just stated that he had five times the volume required of stormwater management. I thought I read in the application letter from Mr. Lapper that it was 2.5 times, but it appears that it’s only for the net increase in the impervious coverage, but does not address all the impervious coverage of the site, meaning the impervious coverage that was existing. If the relief is granted, and to my understanding there will be no site plan review by the Planning Board, I request the Board to consider the condition to have the entire redeveloped site, including all existing impervious surfaces, be required to manage stormwater in accordance with the standards for new construction. My fourth point, again, since it does not appear there’ll be site plan review, the project proposes on-site wastewater treatment system designed to treat wastewater from a total of five bedrooms. Now the proposed residence will also include a study with a sofa bed and full bath, a craft room on the second floor as well as a Jacuzzi. On-site wastewater systems should be sized for the potential of the conversion of these rooms to a bedroom as well as the Jacuzzi. New York State Department of Health Standards requires that Jacuzzis or spas are equivalent to a bedroom for sizing septic tanks. So those are my comments. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Do we have other members of the public who would like to address Area Variance No. 1-2006? May I see a hand please? Apparently there are no other members of the public who wish to be heard. Counselor, would you and your client please come forward and address the issues that were just raised. MR. UNDERWOOD-I have many pieces of correspondence regarding this project, which will need to be read into the record. MR. ABBATE-Yes, why don’t we do that first, Mr. Secretary, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-The first letter was received on March 3. It’s addressed to Charles rd Abbate. “We are writing you in support of Gary and Linda Long’s revised proposed site development on Cleverdale Road. We are the closest neighbor to the north of the Long property. After having carefully reviewed the revisions for their proposed new home, we would strongly recommend expeditious approval for the building of their new home. Thank you. Yours truly, June and Neil Haverly” The next letter was received on, it’s hard to read the date on it, it looks like the 6 of March. This one is addressed to the Town of Queensbury. th “Gentlemen: My wife and I own a lakeside residence at 278 Cleverdale Road, which is the third parcel north of the Applicants’ lakeside lot. On January 23, 2006, I personally reviewed the complete file for the Applicants’ proposal to demolish their existing residence (and all or a portion of other existing detached structures) and construct a new single-family residence. Their requests for variance relief included side setback, shoreline setback and coverage ratio. Their application and all calculations are based on combining their 60-foot wide lakeside lot which contains 10,288 square feet, with a second lot across Cleverdale Road having a similar area. My comments address four issues: combining two residential lots that are separated by a public (Town) road, the Applicant’s requests for multiple variance relief, the wastewater disposal system and an alternate proposal. Combining Two Residential Lots The proposal to combine two lots that are separated by a public road appears to be contrary to existing laws and codes that regulate development within the Town of Queensbury, and is clearly contrary to appropriate development practices that were developed to maintain the character of a neighborhood and protect the environment within any area of the Town, but especially for lots adjacent to Lake George. If, in fact, two such lots can be combined under existing laws, codes and regulations, then I strongly urge the Town Board to prohibit such a practice in the future. The concept is flawed and will result in over-development of the primary lot, thereby allowing the construction of “mega-houses”, when compared to existing neighboring residences. An example of this can be found on the parcel adjacent to the Applicants’ north property line, where a “mega-house” was allowed to be built several years ago. It is by far the largest residence on a 60-foot wide lot in all of Cleverdale, clearly does not fit the predominant character of the neighborhood and literally dominates the Sandy Bay landscape. If misery loves company, building another “mega-house” next door will further deteriorate the character of the neighborhood and begin the process of building huge homes that will dominate the landscape of Sandy Bay and Harris Bay. Additionally, allowing such high- intensity development on a lakeside lot will contribute to the long term degradation of Lake George (the proposed construction would result in over 50% of the lakeside lot being impermeable). Clearly, the zoning regulations for waterfront lots are intended to protect Lake George, from both a water quality and visual perspective. The proposed combining of two 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) lots would result in an unacceptably high impermeable area for the lakeside lot. Stated simply, allowing the combining of two lots that are separated by a public road is bad for the neighborhood, and bad for Lake George. It is the Town Board’s duty to act so that such a practice is prohibited in the Town of Queensbury. Applicants’ Proposal As stated earlier in this letter, the Applicants are requesting relief for side setback, shoreline setback, and coverage ratio, even after including the lot across Cleverdale Road, which doubles the “allowable” coverage ratio. My review indicates that the height requirement is also being exceeded, and the actual living space area may be higher than calculated by the Applicants’ builder (or architect). It is interesting to note that the bi-level patio has been designed to accomplish two objectives: 1) To reduce the height of the exposed basement wall to less than three feet, and 2) To allow 28 feet of structure height above the highest patio level. If the patio was not in the plan, almost all of the basement wall would be exposed and the roof peak would be about 33 feet from actual ground level. The basement wall exposure without considering the patio would result in the inclusion of all or a portion of the basement in the living space calculation, and the height to the roof peak would result in having to lower the height of the house by about five feet. The Town should base its review of the total living space and building height based on the existing natural ground surface, and disallow the inclusion of the patio to establish living space and height values, since the patio would be a man-made structure built on top of existing ground. Given the distinct benefits that the Applicants would gain from the combining of two separated lots, the Board should strictly interpret the zoning and building requirements in evaluating the Applicants’ proposal, to wit: 1) Ignore the patio structure for purposes of calculating the height of the building and the living space. 2) Allow no relief for variances – zero tolerance. This means that the easterly edge of the patio, or any portion of any man-made structure must be at least 50 feet from the shoreline, no side setback relief (the tree has to go, but it will die some day, and the house will still be there), no road setback relief, no height variance, and no coverage ratio variance. Wastewater Disposal System The proposed house contains two rooms which should be classified as bedrooms for the design of the wastewater disposal system: the room identified as the “craft room” on the second floor and the room identified as the “study” on the first floor. It is also noted that a full bathroom is located in close proximity to the “study” on the first floor, and both rooms have sufficient space to be classified as bedrooms. The system should be re-designed to accommodate these two additional rooms. Also, the toe of the disposal mound should be set back the required ten feet from the side property lines. The potential for wastewater escaping from the mound along the mound/ground interface is significant. I have no objection to the separate lot being used for water disposal, nor would I object to a structure (shop, garage, etc.) being constructed on the lot to reduce the extent of development on the lakeside lot. Alternate Proposal If the Applicants would remove their request to combine the two separate lots, then a proposal to build a new house could be based on replacing the total square footage of all the existing buildings on the lakeside lot. This would allow the applicants to build a home having a significant amount of living space, when the square footage of the two existing detached buildings is added to the square footage of the existing house. The shop could be built across the road, for example. Under these circumstances, relief could be granted for shoreline setback (no new man-made structure, including a patio, closer than any existing structure on the lot), side setback and living space (provided the new total square footage on the lakeside lot does not exceed the sum cited above). Any proposal for the development of this lakeside lot should “make sense”, not result in a structure that dominates the neighborhood and Lake landscape, and provide the Applicants with a home they can enjoy. Thank you for this opportunity to present my comments. Please incorporate this letter into the record. Very Truly Yours, Peter C. Johnson” This one is addressed to Susan Barden, Land Use Planner. This is from Hammond and June Robertson. “To the Zoning Board of Appeals Please note that I am unable to attend due to an unexpected and serious illness. Nevertheless, I wish to comment on this proposal. From reading the brief description in the legal notice, it would appear that the size of the house has not changed substantially. As I previously stated, the visual impact of a structure of this size – length, width, height, is grossly inappropriate on a 60 foot lot. As was discovered at the January hearing it is apparent that this building has 3 floors of living space, even if the lowest level is not completely finished off and decorated. Since the building is to be demolished, there is no excuse or reason for granting a variance. If the structure does not conform to the lot size and setbacks, it should be constructed on a smaller footprint that does meet Code. Cleverdale is a small historic community of summer homes for the most part. We have very few residents who remain for most of the 12 months. It does not seem fair/equitable to allow these monstrous structures that will completely change our neighborhood. In reducing the permeability of the lake shore lot with such a large structure, the storm water run-off will flow on to the neighbors, without question. I understand their plan is to move the rough shed to the other side of the road. Will this gradually become 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) another cottage? – which I believe is against Code, since the Interior lots are not of sufficient size for building. What assurances will there be that a septic system serving such a large structure will be able to carry the load? There is standing water on that lot most of the year. How will this impact the immediate neighbors? Please consider these comments carefully with the certainty that if this one is approved there will be a substantial increase in proposals for other lake front properties that have been or will be presented to you for equally large structures. Large homes should be built on large lots!!! Thank you for your consideration. Joan Ahr Robertson, 286 Cleverdale Road” I’m not going to re-read Mr. Navitsky’s letter, because I think he covered that. I have another note here. This one is to “Dear Chairman Charles Abbate: I am writing concerning the applicants’, Gary and Linda Long. I am opposed to the construction of the single-family dwelling including the attached garage because it is too large for the lot. A big deal, I understand the garage will be smaller, and why should the applicants request a minimum side setback requirement. Cleverdale is a ghost town in the winter, and why does the Town of Queensbury feel it is fair to have a public hearing notice at this time. Why can’t there be some changes made in the regulations so that the people it affects are present and can be heard. Jean T. Meyer 245 Cleverdale” This one’s addressed to Charles Abbate also. “We are writing to reiterate our concerns regarding the over-sized dwelling proposed for the Long property located at 268 Cleverdale Road. We reviewed the plans and although only a side yard variance is being sought, it is our belief the proposed house is more than 28 feet in height from finished grade and thus requires a height variance. Computing the height of the house from the six feet above grade terrace rather than the existing grade should not be permitted. Based on this theory we would be able to add another story to our house using the raised deck as grade. Serious consideration needs to be given to granting any variance combining non-contiguous lots into one lot and we are confident that you will do so. Many lakefront home owners also own vacant lots across the street. The neighbors adjoining us to the south own a double lot across the street from their lakefront property. Can you imagine the size house they would be able to build should they combine all three lots into one? This would be setting a dangerous precedent. While we currently do not have water in our garage or basement we have serious concerns about the run off from the Long property and what it will do to our property. Although Mr. Long feels the run off has been addressed we do not share his optimism. We are against any increase in elevation to the Long property. We should all be concerned with the environment and keeping the waters of Lake George pristine as this is our household water supply. Combining two non-contiguous lots does not increase the size of the lot the proposed house would be built on. It is all well and good to combine the lots on paper, however, it does not change the size of the lot the proposed house will be built on to the detriment of the neighboring properties and lake in general. It is our position that a house of this magnitude has no place on a lot size 60 x 200. We strongly feel the size of the house should be reduced to more appropriately fit the lot size. Sincerely, Albert Chanese Martha Chanese 266 Cleverdale Road” I have one from the LGA, addressed to Mr. Charles Abbate. “The proposed 7-bedroom home has a total building square footage of 6341 sq. ft., not the 4404 sq. ft. identified in the application. The applicant has now stated that “….the Ground Floor Elevation is not to be included in the floor area ratio (FAR) calculation per a Zoning Administrator and Director of Building and Codes determination that it did not meet the requirements to be included in FAR….”My request for an explanation of this determination was answered with the statement that “The removal of the stairway to the outside and the limited window sizes in the current proposal remove the basement from the FAR calcs”. I am unable to understand this statement, as there is no proposed outside stairway, and no additional information was offered. In the interior of the home off of the kitchen, a stairway descends to the ground level entering a living space that has 12 windows, six of which face the lake. In addition, there is another set of stairs to the First Floor Elevation from the workshop entering into the garage, therefore two egresses from the basement. This space should be considered livable square footage and therefore included in the FAR calculation. The FAR calculation should include only the land that the house structure resides on (exclusive of the additional non-contiguous land across the road purchased for the septic system’s leach field). The calculation for the FAR is 6341 sq. ft. divided by 10,288 sq. ft. lot with a net result of 61.6% FAR, or a 40% relief requested from the allowable FAR. To further define the substantial nature of this application, a calculated 61.6% FAR equates to a 180% variance requested over the allowable FAR. If the FAR calculation included the combined lots for a total of 20,214 sq. ft. of land (which cannot be the intent of the Town of Queensbury Zoning floor area ratio as this regulation addresses building density on shore front parcels, not inclusive of purchased non-contiguous land), the FAR calculation is actually 31.4%, requiring a 9.6% FAR relief request. To have the applicant state that the total non-permeable surface area is 22.32% is again, not the intent of the Town of Queensbury Zoning, as permeability is a function of what the land can do with runoff and the effectiveness of infiltration. 10,288 sq. ft. is the only parcel that is involved in the 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) permeability of the shorefront building lot, and therefore the non-permeable surface on this lot is 42.4%. Non-contiguous land should not be used to calculate the total non-permeable surface area. Please note that the new septic tanks are located under the driveway leading to the garage. In conclusion, even though the application states that the amount of relief requested is not substantial, the calculations do not support this statement. A small parcel of land that is only a quarter of an acre was never intended to support a 6341 sq. ft. 7-bedroom home only 56 feet from the lake. In addition, the height of the building appears to be greater than 28 ft. from finished grade on the East side based on the South Elevation drawings. In conclusion, the house is too large for this lot and should not be permitted as it is currently proposed. Thank you for understanding the importance of infiltration as a means to control sediment and pollution from entering Lake George. Sincerely, Kathleen S. Bozony Land Use Management Coordinator” I guess that’s it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I think what I’d like to do is have you address those issues, then I’ll open up the public hearing, because the public may also want to address those issues as well. So would you like to address the issues as they were raised? MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, first I would like to amend my remarks earlier. I’m still not sure about the height. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Mr. Stone. Why don’t you address some of the concerns that were raised. MR. LAPPER-Sure. Since we appeared last time and made all these changes, the two gentlemen sitting with me have spent considerable time with Dave Hatin and Craig Brown working through this and making changes, eliminating outdoor steps, changing windows, moving the house back from the lake obviously. One of the lengthy letters was based upon the former application that was looking for all that relief, and also a lot of what Jim read was dealing with that. We don’t believe, based upon their determinations, Craig and Dave, that any of the building issues apply at this point. That’s why we’re here, and so even though, you know, some people think that this is sneaky to include the lots, that the neighbors are obviously alleging that, but in terms of protecting the lake, moving the septic system to the lot away from the lake is obviously a good thing, and Floor Area Ratio deals with the entire holdings that you have, how much is going to be developed and how much is going to be left green, and all that is in compliance. So this is an attempt to work within the rules, not to get around them, but again, if I could just re-focus you. We’ll address some of the other design issues in a minute, but what this is about, the only variance that we’re asking for, is whether the house should be centered on the lot and then that nice maple tree comes down, or whether we get the variance for the north side, and Bob Flansburg, who designed the house, just pointed out to me that the width of the house that is proposed is the same width of the house that’s existing. So it’s essentially what’s there when you look at it from the road. It’ll just be a more attractive house. I’ll ask Tom and Bob to address the basement, the building height, the stormwater management, size of the septic system, just so it’s on the record. MR. HUTCHINS-Regarding stormwater, we’ve heard a number of comments. The stormwater system which is designed was not submitted as part of this package because it’s not required to be part of this package. It was designed in accordance with Town of Queensbury criteria for minor stormwater projects, which states that the net increase of impermeable area will be the basis for development of stormwater control measure sizes. In addition to that, because there was space available and it just made sense in this situation, I’ve enlarged those by about five times what’s required under that criteria. It’s a much, much better situation than is currently the case. The stormwater practices, they’re split proportionally from the runoff areas on the site, and I’m very comfortable with it. I enlarged it, well beyond what’s required, and somewhat beyond what even my client wanted to go, but I’m very comfortable with it, and I think it’s well in excess of the requirements, and to look at this as a new lot is simply not what the regulations require. Regarding the wastewater system, there is, the parcel that we’re talking about for the wastewater system is as far away from the lake as we can get on this property. It is adequate to support a wastewater system for this size residence, or even for more. There’s more room beyond what we have used for a wastewater system, and the owner has really no other intent for that parcel except to support a wastewater system for years to come for this parcel. It’s designed in accordance with the Codes, and it’s fully capable of supporting a wastewater system for this residence. MR. UNDERWOOD-What’s the distance of that wastewater system leach field from the water source of the property? 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) MR. HUTCHINS-From the lake? It’s over 200 feet. I don’t know if I dimensioned it. Can I give you an approximate answer? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. This is 170 feet here. We’ve got another 25 here, there’s 200. Plus it’s another, it’s about 300 feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. ABBATE-I would like to make a point, before we go any further, that the only subject we address this evening is the relief required, and the applicant is requesting seven feet of relief from the fifteen foot minimum side setbacks. Do you have anything else you want to add before I open up the public hearing? MR. FLANSBURG-Just real briefly, Mr. Chairman, again, Bob Flansburg, architect for the project. Speaking to, there’s been a lot of comment about the basement windows, and the fact that the basement would be living space. The basement, I’ve spent a lot of time with Craig Brown and Dave Hatin over all of the above. We entertained changing the existing windows on the lakeside to, quote unquote normal basement windows that we all have in our basements now. The largest ones that Anderson makes for a basement window is about two feet in depth, and I can’t remember exactly the width. They’re roughly 30 inches wide or 32 inches wide. It was an aesthetic issue to leave the windows as drawn, because we’ve spent considerable time, from an architectural perspective, putting the windows and choosing the glazing, the glass and the lakeside elevation. As you noticed looking at the elevations, the windows below them, the basement windows are in direct alignment and they stack, and that was an aesthetic concern. So I went back to Craig Brown and Dave Hatin and they do not meet the light and vent requirements. The windows do not meet the light and vent requirements for that basement space to be habitable space under the current Building Code. They’re not large enough. They don’t meet the egress requirements. There’s no way, in case of fire, somebody could get out of those windows. They’re purely an aesthetic choice. Yes, they add light to the basement and that’s their intent. There are no longer any windows on the north side, which the applicant had tried to add last time, last application. There’s no need for windows on that north side. The windows shown are on the lakeside and on the south side. So the removal of that staircase that was once there from the landing coming in from the lake and down, with the other staircase that was mentioned in one of the letters read, which is the normal staircase we have to get down into any basement from any house, everybody has to have one. Having both staircases would have made that space, according to Dave Hatin, habitable space, or it could have been construed to be habitable space, two means of egress in that sense. That’s his interpretation. It wasn’t a big decision. The applicant took the staircase out from the lake. It would have been nice to have it. It’s not habitable space. It’s not allowed to be habitable space. So the window is more, does that make sense? I’m just trying to clarify that issue. The size of the windows and the quantity of light and ventilation they provide are not adequate for that to be considered habitable space. Nor is the amount of exposed wall. As far as the building height, it is 28 feet from that established terrace as it was called around the side. That terrace, by the way, extends from the driveway all the way around the lakeside elevation, and again, as Mr. Lapper pointed out, as you look at this photo, it kind of tells a tale. That house as it exists is 26 feet wide. The new house is 26 feet wide. The garage I believe is 28. There’s a two foot jog. From the lake side of the house is still 26 foot wide, and from an engineering standpoint, not to steal Tom’s thunder, but that currently has a seepage pit for a septic system. It’s been there for years, and that house used to be my father-in-law’s house. My wife, they spent their summers there. So that’s going back, before the Longs owned it, that house was in my wife’s family. My father-in-law is very similar with the seepage pit, and one of the best things that could happen to this property is getting that thing gone and putting in an acceptable septic system. So I’ll leave it at that. MR. ABBATE-Okay. No other comments? I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 1-2006, and I’m going to request if there are any folks in the audience who would like to be heard, would you please raise your hand so I can recognize you. MS. HEMINGWAY-You already opened it. MR. ABBATE-Did I? Okay. Thank you. Then we’ll continue on. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) MR. FLANSBURG-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to add just one comment. MR. ABBATE-Sure. MR. FLANSBURG-As was outlined earlier, the garage, the existing garage which you kind of see in the shadow to the right here, there’s plenty of green space. In all seriousness, the garage to the right is being removed. The house is being located similar to where it is now on the lot. It’s 26 wide. What ultimately happens is as you drive down Cleverdale Road, without that garage being there, you see a lot more lake view than you currently see. If you look at the lot now, you see garage, house, shed, and there’s very little visible lake view as you drive past this property on Cleverdale Road. By the removal of this garage, one added benefit, the shed is gone also, is you see a lot more lake. So it actually gives the appearance of that lot being a lot more open, and you can see in this picture the maple tree we’ve been talking about tonight. That’s all. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. I’m going to ask the Board members, again, to offer their comments and again, any of the comments made by the Board members are directed to the Chairman and the comments expressed by the Board members to the Chairman are not open to debate. Now I’m going to ask members to please offer their comments on Area Variance No. 1-2006, and recall earlier that I indicated that precedent mandates that we concern ourselves with the evidence, and I’d like to again express the fact that the relief required this evening is the applicant is requesting seven feet of relief from the fifteen foot minimum side setback north side, per Section 179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, do we have a written determination by the Zoning Administrator as to his definitions of living space and height determinations? Or are we doing it by omission? MR. ABBATE-There are two parts to your question. The first part I can answer. The determination, in terms of living space, Floor Area Ratio, was based upon New York State residential areas, and it makes it quite clear, and a number of folks have brought it out, that there has to be two exits, etc. The second part, I can’t answer your question in terms of height. I can’t, because I never addressed that. Maybe Staff can. MRS. BARDEN-I know that there is a determination letter in the file regarding whether or not that lot across the road can be used for a Floor Area Ratio, for the Floor Area Ratio calculation, but I think that’s the only thing that’s addressed in that letter. MR. STONE-Okay. So that’s appealable, if a member of the public wants to appeal it. MR. ABBATE-Absolutely, Mr. Stone. You’re absolutely correct. MRS. BARDEN-It is in writing, and I did ask him on this cover sheet from the applicant about this statement that the Zoning Administrator and Director of Building and Codes has determined that the revised proposed basement design does not meet the requirement of having to include such in the Floor Area Ratio calculations, and he did say that that is correct as well. Again, as these plans are before you. If it comes back, the Zoning Administrator and the Director of Building and Codes will look at it again, at the building permit stage, and re-evaluate that. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Good. So we’ve reached that point now where I’m going to ask individuals to please comment on Area Variance No. 1-2006, and I’m looking for a volunteer. Does anyone want to start it out? MR. STONE-I’ll start. MR. ABBATE-Would you please. MR. STONE-I recognize, as you said, Mr. Chairman, that before us, as determined by Staff, is a very narrow variance determination, namely side setback on the north side, and I will state categorically I have no problem with that, but there are an awful lot of questions in my mind that I couldn’t, in good conscience, go forward at this time, personally, without knowing more 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) about everything I have heard you and your associates state. I would like to see it in writing. I would like to be able to examine it and make my own determination, because even though we are a verbal Board, there are things I’d like to see, and therefore I would have to vote, at this time, I would have to vote no on any variance application. MR. ABBATE-Okay, Mr. Stone. Thank you very much. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would echo Mr. Stone’s comments here. I think that the Community Development office is grossly in error, and I would say that on the record that they’re grossly in error in their judgment about the combining of these two parcels and what’s buildable and what’s not buildable. I think that the determining factor for the available build out on this lot should be based upon the Waterfront lot as it exists. It has nothing to do with the lot on the other side of the road. I think that Mr. Stone living out there, you know, recognizes the significance of our, if we ignore this fact, it’s going to open up a huge Pandora’s Box for every single lot that has, you know, say a garage on the other side of the road or a non-contiguous lot with it on the other side of the street. I think that it would set a precedent that would be opening up a Pandora’s Box that would ultimately result in the destruction of Lake George on all those waterfront properties that are similarly adjoined. I don’t think at this point in time, it would be in our interest to act on this proposal. I think that the Town legal representation should take a look at this, and I think if you want to go to court about this case, this would be the time to go do that right now and get a real determination made, because I think that our acting on this at this point in time would be ludicrous. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. As Chairman I have a responsibility to remind the Board members that any position you may take must be based upon regulatory review criteria of our laws, and not simply on subjective preferences or not liking a project, because this violates due process and it causes a problem for an intelligent judicial review. Having said that, are there any other Board member volunteers? Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-The applicant made the comment that the width of the house is the same as the previous house, or the one that’s there now, but you’re not being compared to the previous house. You’re being compared to what the law asks for. I’ve been pretty consistent about this. Fifteen feet is what the side setback is required. You’re asking for relief of seven feet. That’s almost 50%. To me that’s too much. I think the benefit could be achieved by other means, which means a smaller house perhaps. I think, in a crowded neighborhood, this is an undesirable change in the neighborhood, and I think it’s substantial. As far as adverse physical or environmental effects, I think it would have an adverse effect. It’s a change in the neighborhood. Wider house than maybe that lot requires. That’s why we have that side setback, and I think it’s definitely self-created. So I would be against the application. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Well, I was concerned the last time about combining the two lots and the size of the house, but we’re really being asked to address one issue here, and that is the setback relief, seven feet of relief from the fifteen foot minimum setback. Now the applicant has said that they could move the house or move the tree, move the house and then they wouldn’t need any variance, but the way the variance is written now, I would be against it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Well, roughly, from what I can see, is they’re asking for about 47% relief on the north side setback. That does seem a little excessive and substantial. Based on that, I’d have to say no. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Garrand. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’m going to live up to my reputation and be contrary. Anyway, this is a difficult issue. There are a lot of things that come into play here that end up being outside what’s really being asked, but I don’t see the problem with combining these two lots. As has been explained, if the second lot was on Quaker Road, you couldn’t combine it. It’s got to be a lot that’s across the street from the existing lot. So the only difference is there happens to be a macadam road between the two pieces. If that road wasn’t there, and these two parcels were combined, then they’d be one parcel clearly, and there’s a lot of parcels like that, all around our Town, and up in the Adirondacks, where there’s 100 feet on the road and 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) 500 feet back because the size requires that square footage, but the way they get all the houses on the road is to have long, narrow lots, and in a sense, this is what’s happening here. As far as the size of the house, certainly Floor Area Ratio comes into play to control a little bit of the size. The other thing that comes into play are the side setbacks. If this house needed relief on the north side and was up to the line on the south side, I would have a problem with it, but in this case, this is a house that would be compliant to setbacks if it were centered on the lot. The applicant wants to save a tree, perhaps have a little more grass on one side than the other, which is similar to an application we considered earlier tonight. So the fact that they just want to set this house over to the side a little bit, but keep its width, as is proposed, doesn’t bother me a great deal. I guess the other factor that influences me here is while we would all like to see nice wide one acre lots on Lake George, with a little house on each one of them, that’s not what exists. That’s not what will ever exist probably. Therefore we’ve got to consider some of these things perhaps like cluster zoning. You’re going to have more houses on the lake. Maybe we can get a tradeoff as we are here. By combining the lot on the other side, that means nothing will be built on the other side, other than the shed that’s being proposed, because if they add something else, like another small cabin or something at some point, they’re going to be over the Floor Area Ratio, and at this point they’d have to do a subdivision if they were going to be able to do that. So I think you’ve got to look at the pluses and the minuses. Given all that, as I say, the side setback doesn’t bother me. I’d be inclined to approve, providing there was a condition that said the house would not be wider than 26 feet, so that we’re not allowing them a mega-house in there. Likewise, the height, regardless of what people would like, I think a lot of the comments we’ve heard about concern about the height should be measured from existing ground level, not from manufactured ground level. Those concerns belong in the PORC Committee. They’re not something we can consider here. We can’t change what the zoning is. The zoning says from the finished grade. If we grant just the side setback and the applicant makes a mistake and builds this so that it’s 30 feet or 35 feet above finished grade, then I think if he comes back the Board can say, no, take a chainsaw to it. We’ve got that option to stand our ground at this point and say, no, fix it, we didn’t approve that. So, given all that, short answer is I have no problem with the side setback. I would approve. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. McNulty. I concur wholeheartedly with Mr. McNulty’s comments. I’m going to go one step further. I mentioned several times that the only concern we should address this evening is the relief required, and that’s seven feet of relief from the fifteen foot minimum side setback. The applicant is working well within the law, in terms of consolidation, because the land is considered contiguous. Number One, I also believe that we must, I will, address the regulatory review criteria of our laws, and I’m not going to address this issue simply on subjective preferences or not liking a project. That, to me, violates due process. I agree with Mr. McNulty. However, Counselor, let me advise you of the following. It appears that you may not have support for your appeal, and you know what the three options are. Would you like me to go over them again? MR. LAPPER-No, we understand. The applicant said he wanted a decision. So we’ll ask for a vote and. MR. ABBATE-You want us to continue? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-That is your privilege, and I will honor that. I did close the public hearing? All right. The public hearing for Area Variance No. 1-2006 is now closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-I’m going to ask for a motion, and I’m going to respectfully remind the members that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact of 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, and please, introduce your motion with clarity. In the event a member doesn’t understand the motion as stated, please advise me and I will request that the motion be repeated a second time, and please recall, the motion itself is not going to be subject to debate. Any member not favoring the motion may exercise the right to vote no, and/or introduce another motion. Is there a motion for Area Variance No. 1-2006? 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2006 GARY & LINDA LONG, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: 268 Cleverdale Road. The applicant has proposed demolition of an existing 2,694 square foot single family residence, and a 451 square foot detached garage, and a re-build of a 4,148 square foot single family dwelling with attached garage. In doing so, the applicant has requested seven feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum side setback on the north side, per 179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. In asking for this denial, I’m citing the test, and the test criteria includes whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. I claim that they can. I believe there were will be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties as a result of this variance. The request is 47%, which I think is substantial. The physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood can be addressed by the crowding of the house with other nearby properties, therefore creating a physical detriment to the view of the lake, and as far as being self-created, I believe this is self-created. Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate ABSTAINED: Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 1-2006 is three yes, three no, one abstention. Unfortunately, based upon this, there is a denial by default. Area Variance No. 1-2006 has been disapproved. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II PAUL E. SHERMAN, JR. OWNER(S): PAUL E. & STEPHANIE SHERMAN, JR. ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 30 SUNSET LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVEYANCE OF A 2,456 SQ. FT. PORTION OF HIS LOT TO HIS NEIGHBOR. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF: BP 2005-762 SEPTIC ALT; BP 2005-637 RES. ADD.; BP 5583 ADDITION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 8, 2006 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.70 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-5 SECTION: 179-4-030 PAUL SHERMAN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 12-2006, Paul E. Sherman, Jr., Meeting Date: March 15, 2006 “Project Location: 30 Sunset Lane Description of Proposed Project: The applicant has consolidated three adjacent parcels, totaling .91-acres (.22, .23 and .25). Subsequently, the applicant proposes to transfer .06-acre of the total .91 to his neighbor to the East. Relief Required: The applicant requests 6,534 sq. ft. of relief from the minimum lot size requirement, per §179- 4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2005-762: Issued 10/4/05, for residential septic alteration. BP 2005-637: Issued 9/2/05, for residential addition. Staff comments: The applicant has consolidated 3 adjoining parcels, which total .91-acre. With that, he would like to convey a 20’ x 122.81’ (2,456.2) sq. ft. strip on the Eastside to his neighbor. While this 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) proposal will make the applicant’s lot more nonconforming, it will make his neighbor’s lot more conforming, both with the minimum lot size requirement of 1-acre in the WR zone. The existing residence on the property and the new addition will still meet all the setback requirements of the zone. A copy of the consolidation of deeds request to Warren County is attached.” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 8, 2006 Project Name: Sherman, Paul E., Jr. Owner(s): Paul E. & Stephanie Sherman, Jr. ID Number: QBY-06-AV-12 County Project#: Mar06-39 Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes conveyance of 2,456 sq. ft. portion of his lot to his neighbor. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements. Site Location: 30 Sunset Lane Tax Map Number(s): 226.19-1-5 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to transfer 2,456 sq. ft. of an existing 30,321.75 sq. ft. lot to the adjoining neighbors lot that measures 8.712 sq. ft. The properties are located in the Waterfront Residential zone requiring one acre per lot. The information submitted shows the proposed lot line adjustment. The applicant explains the transfer of property makes the neighboring property more conforming and the neighboring property will provide additional landscaping to the new property. 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” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 3/10/06. MR. ABBATE-Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 12-2006 please approach the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record, identify yourself, sir. MR. SHERMAN-Good evening, Chairman. I’m P. Sherman. I’m here on behalf of myself, of course, and my wife Stephanie, and I’m the applicant. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, here’s what I’d like you to do. Just explain to us in your own words why you feel we should grant the Area Variance, and if there’s anything you don’t understand, during the course of our hearing, stop us and we’ll be more than happy to explain it. MR. SHERMAN-From sitting here listening to some of the proposals that came before me, I do not believe this will adversely effect the character of the neighborhood, and does not request a substantial variation from the current rules and regulations by this body. That’s it. I can’t think of anything else. MR. ABBATE-Well, if you can think of anything else during the course of the hearing, stop us. If you have information that you think might be important to your position, stop us and let us know, please. MR. SHERMAN-Yes, sir, I will. MR. ABBATE-All right. I’m going to move on to that and ask if any of the Board members have any questions for Area Variance No. 12-2006. MR. STONE-My basic question is why? MR. UNDERWOOD-Maybe I should read that letter from the neighbor who’s going to be. MR. STONE-Yes, if we’ve got one. MR. UNDERWOOD-The parcel that he’s going to be gifting the land to or selling it, we don’t really know what that is, it’s the Molinaro’s next door. The letter says, “Dear Peter: Rita and I will be so glad to be able to add 20 feet of frontage from your lot to the rear of our lot. Our camp was built very close to the rear property line, but within the allowable zoning. Our lot measures one fifth of an acre, and this additional 20 feet will increase it to one quarter of an acre. It is still a small lot, but it is all we could buy from Vedders Shore Colony Association back in 1964. This will permit us to have a bit more space for flowers and landscaping. We are very much looking forward to this acquisition. Thank you so much. Very Best Regards, Rita and Angelo” 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Any questions from any Board members concerning Area Variance No. 12-2006. MR. STONE-I’m showing my ignorance and I apologize. This is behind you. MR. SHERMAN-When he said the rear of his lot. It’s really the side of his lot. MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, it’s on Sunset? MR. SHERMAN-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-Good. I thought I had really missed something. MR. SHERMAN-No. His cabin, it’s a log cabin, is actually, the front of it is facing down toward the lake, and so he considers that the back of his lot. It’s really, it’s actually his side yard that we’re adding to. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-All right. Any other questions for Mr. Sherman from Board members? MR. STONE-You’re building something on your property? MR. SHERMAN-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-Is that conforming to side setback? MR. SHERMAN-Absolutely. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. SHERMAN-He asked me about this about a year ago, but I asked him to wait and see how we would proceed with our project. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. SHERMAN-We have plenty of space, even after, if this conveyance would go through, we’d still have 52 feet on that side. MR. STONE-Okay. I just wanted to be sure that was the case. Okay. MRS. BARDEN-That was stated on your site plan, too, existing and proposed side setback from that portion that will be deeded to his neighbor. MR. STONE-Yes, no, that’s fine. It’s just that I saw the construction when I drove up there. MR. ABBATE-All right. Any other questions from the Board members? If not, I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 12-2006. Do we have any folks in the audience who’d like to be heard? Would you please raise your hands. Yes, sir, please. Speak into the microphone and for the record identify yourself, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. I just had a couple of clarifications. It appears the application is based on a land conveyance, based off of the tax map information. I just didn’t know if the application should be based on an actual certified land survey. The sketch of the site plan did not show the on site wastewater treatment system location on Mr. Sherman’s property. I just want to make sure that that would remain compliant, and then again the intent, which I think Mr. Stone had addressed was the other question, whether there was going to be a plan for the neighbor to re-develop it, and if that was going to result in any need of the setbacks would be met with that, and again, wastewater treatment setback. So that was really my concerns, where existing planning was 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) and what would be planned in the future, and what exactly the property was, based on the certified survey. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. Would anyone else in the public like to be heard? Mr. Sherman, would you care to address those issues, please. MR. SHERMAN-Is he asking me what my neighbor’s going to do with the property? MR. STONE-No. He wanted to make sure it didn’t affect your septic system, I believe. MR. NAVITSKY-I did see the sketch location of the septic system for Mr. Sherman on his conveyance plan that was there. I just didn’t know if it was on that side of the property or? MR. SHERMAN-I don’t believe the requirement was there in the application package. If it was there I would have put it there, certainly. MRS. BARDEN-I did check it, though, and it’s fine. It’s more northwest location. So I did make sure that it was okay. MR. SHERMAN-It’s at the rear of the cabin. It’s not on that side. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-Again, that building permit was just issued on October 4. th MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Staff. I appreciate that. MR. SHERMAN-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do you have anything else, at this point, that you’d like to mention? MR. SHERMAN-No, sir. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, you’ll have plenty of opportunity. I’m going to ask, now, the Board members to offer their comments on Area Variance No. 12-2006, and would anyone like to start out? Let’s start with Mr. Garrand. MR. GARRAND-I think it’s terribly generous of you to donate the property. MR. SHERMAN-I’m not going to donate it. There’s going to be some consideration, but we are neighbors. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR. SHERMAN-And that’s why I’m doing it. MR. STONE-Just by saying that, you’ve gotten our vote. He is your neighbor and you’re being nice. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let’s give Mr. Garrand an opportunity to offer his comments. MR. GARRAND-To begin with, can benefit be achieved by other means? I don’t believe so in this case. You’d prefer to convey the land to him. You can do it, it’s entirely your choice. MR. SHERMAN-There is no choice. MR. GARRAND-Will it result in an undesirable change in the neighborhood? I don’t believe it will either. At the very least, it will make his property more compliant. Yours marginally. The request is not substantial, and I don’t think it’ll have any adverse, given the location of the septic. I don’t think it’s going to have any adverse physical or environmental effects. I don’t think it’s going to change stormwater or anything else, and is the difficulty self-created? I don’t believe so. I support your application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Garrand. Mr. McNulty, please. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) MR. MC NULTY-I can agree with what’s been said, that this is a case where it’s basically a lot line adjustment. It’s going to make one lot a little less conforming, the other a little bit more conforming. It’s not going to make either one conforming. It’s not going to make either one ridiculously small. So I think it’s basically a wash, no detriments anywhere. So I’d be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Yes. I would be in favor of the application. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I think this is pretty straightforward. I would be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, ma’am. Mr. Stone, please. MR. STONE-I agree. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’d be in agreement, too. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, and I concur with my fellow Board members. I concur with what Mr. Garrand had to say, and, having said that, I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 12-2006. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to ask that there be a motion introduced, and again, I’d like to respectfully remind the members, we have 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. So, is there a motion for Area Variance No. 12-2006? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MR. ABBATE-Yes, ma’am. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-2006 PAUL E. SHERMAN, JR., Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 30 Sunset Lane. The applicant has consolidated three adjacent parcels totaling .91 acres. They were .22, .23 and .25. Subsequently, the applicant proposes to transfer .06 acres of the total .91 to his neighbor to the east. The applicant requests 6,534 square feet of relief from the minimum lot size requirement per Section 179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Whether the benefit could be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant. I don’t see how. It’s pretty straightforward. I do not believe there will be an undesirable change to the neighborhood character or to neighborhood properties. I do not consider the request substantial. The request will not have any physical or environmental effects, and it is not really self-created. So I move that we approve Area Variance No. 12-2006. Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 12-2006 is seven yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 12-2006 is approved. Mr. Sherman, have a good night. MR. SHERMAN-Thank you very much. MR. ABBATE-You bet. 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II MARTIN P. DION OWNER(S): MARTIN DION AND YVONNE KONIOWKA ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 131 SEELYE ROAD, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 310 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION ONTO EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SPR 6-2006; BP 2006-023 RES. ALT; BP 2004-122 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 8, 2006 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.32 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17- 1-54 SECTION: 179-4-030 MARTIN DION, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 13-2006, Martin P. Dion, Meeting Date: March 15, 2006 “Project Location: 131 Seelye Road, Cleverdale Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a total 310 sq. ft. addition to the footprint of the existing single-family dwelling (roadside), including a new entranceway/stairs and storage area/kayak storage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 4.9-feet of relief from the 15-foot minimum side setback (N. side), per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 6-2006: Pending 3/21/06 PB mtg., site plan review for this project, specifically for expansion of a nonconforming structure. BP 2006-23: Pending approvals, building permit for residential construction. BP 2004-122: Issued 3/26/04, for residential septic alteration. BOH 43, 2003: Approved 12/16/03, septic variance for relief from the required separation distance to well and required depth of usable soil to bedrock. Staff comments: The applicant seeks a variance from the North property line (of 4.9-feet), to locate the new entranceway and stairs 10.10-feet from same. The existing house sits approximately 4-feet from the North-side property line, thus the addition will not encroach any further into the already nonconforming setback. By reviewing the submitted elevation drawings, specifically, the difference between the existing and the new lakeside elevations, at least a portion of the 1,040 sq. ft. shown as existing square footage on the FAR worksheet (basement living space) is proposed. This does not change the variance requested, but is mentioned here as a clarification on the actual extent of the total project, with that, the project is still under the maximum 22% FAR. A copy of the BOH resolution approving the requested septic variance (BOH 43, 2003) on December 16, 2003 has been attached for reference. The location of the approved system is shown on the plan. Site plan review is required for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA, per §179- 13-010.” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 8, 2006 Project Name: Dion, Martin P. Owner(s): Martin Dion and Yvonne Koniowka ID Number: QBY-06-AV-13 County Project#: Mar06-30 Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 310 sq. ft. residential addition onto existing single-family dwelling. Relief requested from side setback requirements. Site Location: 131 Seelye Road, Cleverdale Tax Map Number(s): 227.17-1-54 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes construction of a 310 sq. ft. residential addition onto existing single-family dwelling. The addition is to be located 10 ft. from the north property line where 15 ft. is the required setback. The information submitted shows the location of the existing house with the addition. The plans show the addition is to replace a stairway entry to the home on the Seelye Road side. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 3/10/06. MR. ABBATE-Would the petitioner, who is at the table, apparently, speak into the microphone and for the record, identify yourself? MR. DION-My name is Martin Dion. I’m one of the owners of the property. My sister is Yvonne Koniowka. She’s the other owner. I’m also an architect. So that’s why I’m speaking on my own behalf. The first thing I want to say is I must commend you people. I’ve been to plenty of Zoning Board meetings, and 11:30 at night, God love you. Anyway, I hope this is a little easier for you than what I’ve been watching go on, and you’re very thorough, and I’m sure you will be with this one. What we’ve tried to do, my mother bought this property many years ago, and we built the house that you see in 1971. My mother lived there full time, until she deceased. My niece lived with her. My niece now, with her husband, live in the house year round, but it is our summer home when we go up. So the present floor plan has two bedrooms. My sister and my niece, you can kind of get the picture that there’s a number of people that are there, my nephew and so on. So what we’ve decided to do, we looked at it a lot of different ways. I first thought, well, we’ll just go up and do a second floor, and then I said, well, no, that first it’s very expensive. Secondly, I don’t think you’d buy it. So then we looked down and we said we have this full basement, and the lakeside is completely out of the ground. What more natural place to go. So that’s what we decided to do, and in fact we have a building permit for that. We’re adding a single bedroom down there. We’re adding a bathroom and an Adirondack room. It’s going to create another living space for the multitude of people that are in the house. Now, the reason that we want to add the addition is two-fold. One is that the present stairs are in the lakeside of the house. Upstairs and downstairs it’s in what I call valuable real estate. It takes up a good portion of what is considered the living room on the first floor and then on the basement level would be the Adirondack room. So, in that spirit, we said, well, okay, let’s see what we can do, and I looked at a lot of different ways to handle this, and we found that the best way was to try to bring it out the back, put another stairway, which would have a second effect, which would give us a barrier from the weather and so on. So that’s what we decided we were going to do. We decided to approach it, and well, let me say this. The corner on the left of the picture is the corner that is closest to the property line. The property line goes at an angle as you can see on the site plan. When we pull the addition out, it doesn’t get any closer, obviously, but it’s still 10. something feet away from the property line. So this is going to be hard to see because you’re at a distance, but that’s a colored representation of, the blue is the existing house. This is the deck in the front, and this is the addition right here. All along this side, as you can see from the photograph, is a tree line and brush line that separates Mr. Guerra’s second property, because he owns two properties, right next to each other, this one he rents most of the time, but that separates the two, and in fact where our addition is and where that corner is, this is his driveway that runs down right along that tree line. His house is actually way down here. So the effect that I see, you know, with my neighbor, is minimal to zero, and he’s, in fact, stated that to me. I didn’t ask him to write a letter because I didn’t think this was going to be a big event, but we shall see. I know better. I’ve been to plenty of these things. So at any rate, the house itself, I’m looking for no variance other than the side, because it’s a much smaller project than any of the ones you’ve looked at. Even if I include the downstairs, we’re at about 2200 square feet. The FAR ratio then is around 16%. I just calculated it sitting over there, listening to all this go on. My setback from the road is pretty appreciable. It’s probably 60, 70 feet or so. From the lake, it’s in excess of 120, 130 feet. Our septic system, we put in a brand new septic system about two years ago because we were sick and tired of having to pump out the one that was there, and because I love the lake so much, I wanted to make sure that we had something that was going to be substantial, and in thinking about what we were going to do, and also that’s an older photograph. That’s actually when they were doing the septic system, because you can see the backhoe on the right hand side. We have re-sided two thirds of the house, or three-quarters of the house. The back portion we didn’t re-side yet because we were hoping to do this addition, and then I just wanted to color this up. Now, you may say to me, well, we see where your addition is, can you move it over. If you look at that photograph, the window to the right of the door is the kitchen. There is another window in the kitchen on the other side of the house. I would like to be able to retain that cross ventilation. Hence the stair addition goes between the one window and the other window, which is represented by this drawing that you see down here. Also, what happens with this, it makes it a symmetrical piece. There’s some symmetry to it. By moving it over, two things happen. One is you lose the symmetry. Three things happen. The second thing is, the window from the kitchen actually ends up inside the stair piece. That doesn’t bother me so much, but you kind of like to have that cross ventilation at any rate. 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) The third thing that happens is that this outside storage area, which we’ve now created a condition for ourselves, admittedly, by making the basement level now living space with a small storage area, to a point where we had hardly any storage area. So where do the kayaks go? Where does the lawnmower go? And things like that, and that’s what the intent of this area is. By doing this we’d end up with about 60, 70 square feet less of storage space. My neighbor to the south, Mr. Bogart, is, he said if I wanted him to write a letter, he’d write one, that he sees no problem at all with this. We’re very good neighbors to each other. I think that’s about all I have to say about it right now. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, if you have any questions or want to raise any other issues during the course of this hearing, raise your hand and we’ll recognize you. MR. DION-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do the members of the Board have any questions concerning Area Variance No. 13-2006? I do. What did you say the percentage was of your request, or did you? MR. DION-Do you mean the FAR? MR. ABBATE-Yes, the relief that you’re requiring. MR. UNDERWOOD-No relief is needed. MR. DION-No relief. I was just pointing out that my FAR is like far away from what you need. It’s 16%. This is a small house. If I get that addition and everything else, we’re at 2390 square feet, that’s including the basement level, I might add, which I absolutely agree should be taken into the numbers. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. DION-Especially if your lakeside is open. MR. ABBATE-All right. That’s where I was going next. Thank you so very much. MR. DION-I don’t buy into that either. MR. ABBATE-Anybody else on the Board have any questions concerning 13-2006? Any members of the public wish to address this issue, 13-2006? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised. So what I’m going to do, I’m going to open up the public hearing for 13-2006, and there are no hands being raised, so I’m going to move on, and I’m going to ask the Board members to offer their comments concerning what they’ve heard on Area Variance 13-2006. Do we have any volunteers? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, I’ll go first. MR. ABBATE-Please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think he presented us with a feasible alternative, but I think he fully explained why he would like to see it built it as he has proposed it here and as he is requesting this evening. It seems a very modest proposal that we’re considering here, and I think it is in keeping with the character of the lake up there. It’s refreshing to see something modest. MR. ABBATE-Good. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-I can basically say ditto. I think it’s a reasonable request, and the preferred choice is obviously better than the alternative, and I see no reason to impose the alternative on the applicant. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Urrico, please. 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement. This is a modest proposal, and I would be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to agree with my fellow Board members. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Stone, please. MR. STONE-This is the kind to have at 11:30 at night. MR. DION-I was hoping that. MR. STONE-No, and that’s not why we’re saying it. Because we stay alert to the last possible minute. I think it’s a fine project and not a problem at all. MR. DION-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Garrand, you’re next. MR. GARRAND-I agree with the fellow Board members. I think this project is a good project. MR. ABBATE-Well, I agree with all my fellow Board members. Their comments are well noted, and it was well thought out. So from there I’m going to move on to a motion for Area Variance No. 13-2006. Do we have one? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2006 MARTIN P. DION, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 131 Seelye Road, Cleverdale. He’s proposing a total 310 square foot addition to the footprint of the existing family dwelling. As he explained to us, there were feasible alternatives, but his request this evening, we are going to honor with our bequest of our yes votes, it looks like, unanimously. There won’t be any real impact on the neighborhood. As he has said, to the north side there, there is a significant vegetative barrier between his property line and even though he’s within, doesn’t quite meet the setbacks there, he’s requesting a minimum of 4.9 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum side setback on that north side there, for the project as he envisions it. Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2006, by the following vote: th MR. ABBATE-Would you allow me to mention the fact, sir, that you are going to have to have a site plan review by the Planning Board? You understand that? MR. DION-Next week. MR. ABBATE-Great. Thank you. AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 13-2006 is seven yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 13-2006 is approved. MR. DION-Thank you very much. MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II LEHIGH NE CEMENT CO. AGENT(S): NORTH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, P.C.; MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR, ESQ. OWNER(S): LEHIGH NE CEMENT CO. ZONING: HI LOCATION: 313 LOWER WARREN STREET 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 18 FT. BY 24 FT. HYDRAULIC EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION INCLUDING A 20 FT. BY 32 FT. ENCLOSURE AROUND BANK 2 SWITCHGEAR. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SPR 7-2006; BP 2004-469 STORAGE BUILDING; BP 2001-213 COM’L BLDG; BP 95-670 ADDITION; BP 95-484 EQUIP. BLDG; BP 95-147 ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 8, 2006 LOT SIZE: 46.97 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 310.7-1-1 SECTION: 179-4-030 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 17-2006, Lehigh NE Cement Co., Meeting Date: March 15, 2006 “Project Location: 313 Lower Warren Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 432 sq. ft. hydraulic equipment enclosure and a 640 sq. ft. addition to the electrical substation. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10-feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum rear setback for the bank 2 switchgear, per §179-4-030 for the HI-3A zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 7-2006: Pending 3/28/06 PB mtg., site plan review for this project, specifically for modifications to a site plan review use. BP 2004-469: Issued 10/25/04, for a 600 sq. ft. storage building. BP 2001-213: Issued 5/15/02, for a 792 sq. ft. new industrial building. SP 10-89: Approved 2/28/89, for construction of a bridge w/ conveyor belt across Hudson River. Staff comments: The applicant seeks a variance from the rear property line (of 10-feet), to locate the bank 2 switchgear enclosure 40-feet from same. The FAR worksheet was not completed by the applicant, however, if the data given on the site development data sheet is correct (total square footages for all buildings and accessory structures and the buildings are all one-story), than the site is under the maximum 30% FAR for the HI-3A zone, and is compliant with this requirement. Site plan review by the Planning Board is required for modification to a site plan review use, per §179-4-020.” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 8, 2006 Project Name: Lehigh NE Cement Co. Owner(s): Lehigh NE Cement Co. ID Number: QBY-06-AV-17 County Project#: Mar06-35 Zoning: HI Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of an 18 ft. by 24 ft. hydraulic equipment enclosure and improvements to the electrical substation including a 20 ft. by 32 ft. enclosure around bank 2 switchgear. Relief requested from rear yard setback requirements. Site Location: 313 Lower Warren Street Tax Map Number(s): 310.7-1-1 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct two structures one being an 18 ft. by 24 ft. for the hydraulic equipment and a second being 20 ft. by 32 ft. for the electrical substation. They hydraulic building is located 73 ft. from the property line where 100 ft. is required and the substation is located 40 ft. from the property line where 100 ft. is required. The information submitted shows the location of the new structures and the existing structures on the site. The applicant explains due to the nature of the facility no additional lighting, landscaping, grading or storm water improvements are proposed. 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” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 3/10/06. MR. ABBATE-Staff, would you like to comment? MRS. BARDEN-Sure. 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MRS. BARDEN-I just want to clarify, under Staff comments, in the second paragraph, if the data given on the site development data sheet is correct. That I did the Floor Area Ratio worksheet myself and I didn’t want to say it was compliant by doing it myself, and I wasn’t really sure by adding up all of the building footprints, if they were all included. So I didn’t want that to be misconstrued that the information wasn’t correct. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, Staff, I appreciate that. I have one other administrative thing. One of our Board members has requested to make a statement. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-I’d just like to abstain from this vote. I have a personal relationship with management and employees of Glens Falls Lehigh Cement. So, I’m abstaining. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Garrand. I appreciate that. Okay. Counselor is at the table with his clients. Would you please be kind enough to speak into the microphone and identify yourself. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m Mike O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent NE Lehigh, who is the applicant. With me is Ed Kakowski, who is the Plant Engineer, and David Klein, from North Country Engineering, who is the project engineer for this project. The Board and Staff have said more than I need to say, I think. This is a 20 by 32 foot building. That’s the only building that’s the only building that’s before you. The 10 foot setback variance is from the railroad, and probably in the 1880’s some robber baron took a strip of land from Fort Edward to the falls and that happens to run through lands that were then owned by, I think, Augustus Sherman, who owned Jointa Lime Company, which was one of the early predecessors to Glens Falls Lehigh, or Lehigh NE, and the line still runs there. It runs to Finch Pruyn. That’s what we’re encroaching upon. It’s this little building right here that we’re talking about. It’s 40 feet from the railroad property line, as opposed to the required 50 feet. It actually is further away than the existing transmission station, or transformer substation. So the substation is between us and the railroad and we’re building behind it, as an enclosure to improve the existing substation. This is something that maybe the PORC Committee wants to look at. Getting us to send 15 copies here and 15 copies to the Planning Board for a 620 foot building. MR. STONE-I can only say thank you for the site plan so I could find my way back there. I mean, I did go back there. MR. O'CONNOR-I hope you had a hard hat and hard shoes. MR. STONE-I stayed in the car, never got out of the car. I had the hard car. MR. O'CONNOR-We don’t want to get in trouble. We are monitored by OSHA, MIPSHA and half the world. MR. STONE-That’s a good point. That’s why I didn’t get out. Also it’s muddy, too. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. There’s no impact on anybody. We’re about 700 feet from the river. We’re probably, this is Warren Street up here. We’re probably close to six, seven hundred feet from there. The Town line is here. Most of the manufacturing, just for your curiosity, most of the manufacturing process at Glens Falls Lehigh, I keep calling it Glens Falls Lehigh. It’s recently change it’s name to Lehigh NE, is in the Town of Queensbury. The engineering building and the Shipping Department and the old office building are in the City of Glens Falls. The quarry is across the river. The bridge across the quarry is one of two private bridges across the Hudson River. The other is up near the beginning of the Hudson River, owned by Finch Pruyn, on some part of their lands. There are only two private bridges across that river. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any of the Board members have any questions? MR. STONE-It’s an interesting revelation to go back there. That’s all. MR. URRICO-The whole length of the river? 53 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) MR. O'CONNOR-The private bridges. There are public bridges, but they’re the only two private. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other Board members wish to address 17-2006? MR. STONE-Not at all. MR. ABBATE-Not at all. Okay. Fine. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 17-2006. Do we have any folks in the audience who would like to be heard? Yes, sir. What you have to do, sir, is come up to the table, speak into the microphone, identify yourself, and then we will be more than happy to listen to what you have to say. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOE WALKUP MR. WALKUP-My name’s Joe Walkup. I own Fork and Beers. I’m across the street from them. I just want to know if it’s going to affect my business. That’s all. I put my property up for sale, and that’s what I’m concerned about at this point. If it’s far back, it’s not going to affect it, I have no problems with it. I’m right over here. MR. URRICO-There’s an aerial photograph here, a satellite photograph. MR. ABBATE-And then speak into the microphone so we can get it on the record, please. MR. WALKUP-You guys are building way back here? All right. Then that was my question. I just wanted to know if it was being built up here. Okay. ED KAKOWSKI MR. KAKOWSKI-No, right down here by the railroad. MR. WALKUP-Okay. That’s it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much for your comments. Anyone else in the public wish to be heard? Apparently there’s no one else in the public. So I’m going to ask Board members to offer their commentary on 17-2006, and we are aware, now, I said about five times, about our conclusions and evidence and what have you. So, do we have a volunteer to address, initially, Area Variance No. 17-2006? MR. STONE-This is a technical variance because of, as Mr. O’Connor says, because of something that was done 100 years ago. The railroad goes through there, infrequently, going to Finch Pruyn, and in going to your facility. This is certainly not going to interfere with a freight car going by or a tank car going by. There is absolutely no reason not to grant this variance. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-I’m in agreement with Mr. Stone. I’d like to point out that this is the only heavy industrial area that we have in the Town. So we should be happy that there is business there, and we should support it where we can. MR. ABBATE-So noted, Mr. Urrico. Thank you very much. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Yes, thank you. I’m in agreement with my two fellow Board members. I would approve it. MR. ABBATE-Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Ditto. I don’t see any reason not to grant this. MR. ABBATE-All right. Mr. Underwood, please. 54 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/15/06) MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think you would have our iron clad guarantee that we’re going to vote yes on this. MR. ABBATE-I concur with my fellow Board members. I believe that there’s really no tremendous impact, and of course you recognize it must go to a site plan review. Okay. I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 17-2006. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to ask members for a motion, and remember the balancing benefit of the variance against the impact and the five statutory criteria. So, do I have a motion for Area Variance No. 17-2006? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2006 LEHIGH NE CEMENT CO., Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: 313 Lower Warren Street. The applicant is proposing a 432 square foot hydraulic equipment enclosure and a 640 square foot addition to the electrical substation, and they are requesting 10 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum rear setback for the bank 2 switchgear building. As mentioned, that’s basically due to the fact that the railroad right of way passes through the middle of the yard, and that’s the only reason that they’re here. No one seems to feel that this is going to have any negative impact on the railroad because they’re a major benefitter of the plant. So I would move for its approval. Duly adopted this 15 day of March, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Garrand ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 17-2006 is six yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 17-2006 is approved. MR. O'CONNOR-And you’ll note for the record that Mr. Garrand abstained? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. To prevent anymore conversation, is there any business which may be properly brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals? On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Charles Abbate, Chairman 55