Loading...
2006-04-26 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/26/06) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 26, 2006 INDEX Area Variance No. 25-2006 Christopher Kollar 1. Tax Map No. 226.12-1-47 Area Variance No. 6-2006 Richard and Alice Whitmore 4. Tax Map No. 309.5-1-43 Area Variance No. 23-2006 Austin J. & Sarah A. McCarroll 7. Tax Map No. 289.9-1-17 Area Variance No. 24-2006 Stephanie & Travis Norton 12. Tax Map No. 290.00-1-84 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 04/26/06) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 26, 2006 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY CHARLES MC NULTY LEWIS STONE RICHARD GARRAND, ALTERNATE LEO RIGBY, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ALLAN BRYANT JOYCE HUNT ROY URRICO LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. ABBATE-I’m going to juggle the agenda a little bit this evening, and in particular I’m going to ask if Mr. and Mrs. Kollar are here this evening? Would you be kind enough to come up to the table, please, and have a seat, and for the record give us your name and your place of residence, please. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2006 SEQRA TYPE II CHRISTOPHER KOLLAR OWNER(S): FREEBERN, ET AL MICHAEL FREEBERN ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 345 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF TWO EXISTING DWELLINGS (900 SQ. FT. AND 884 SQ. FT.) AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,300 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.37 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-47 SECTION 179-4-030 CHRISTOPHER KOLLAR, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 25-2006, Christopher Kollar, Meeting Date: April 26, 2006 “Project Location: 345 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes demolition of two existing seasonal dwellings (totaling 3,144 sq. ft.) and construction of one 3,300 sq. ft. single-family year-round residence. Relief Required: The applicant requests 5-feet of (North) side setback relief and 5-feet of (South) side setback relief, both from the 20-foot minimum per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2006-194: Pending, for a 3,300 sq. ft. SFD. Staff comments: 1 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/26/06) Floor plans were not submitted with this application nor with the building permit application, therefore, a FAR determination has not been made at this time. Applicant seeks side setback relief only. It appears as though there is area available for compliant construction. The applicant has indicated that the proposed is more compliant than what exists on site and that a new septic system and stormwater management would be installed. The Warren County Planning Board, at their April 12 meeting, recommended No County Impact for this project.” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form April 12, 2006 Project Name: Kollar, Christopher Owner(s): Freebern, Et Al Michael Freebern ID Number: QBY-06-AV-25 County Project#: Apr06-42 Current Zoning: WR- 1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes demolition of two existing dwellings (900 sq. ft. and 884 sq. ft.) and construction of a 3,300 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief requested from minimum side yard setback requirements of the WR-1A zone. Site Location: 345 Cleverdale Road Tax Map Number(s): 226.12-1-47 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to remove two seasonal dwellings of 1,784 sq. ft. footprint total to construct a 1,8550 sq. ft. footprint single family dwelling. The new home is to be located with 4 ft. to one side setback and 15 ft. on the other side where a 20 ft. setback is required on each side. The information submitted indicates the allowed floor area square footage is 3,546 and the applicant proposes 3,300 sq. ft. with the previous floor area square footage total being 3,144 sq. ft. The information also indicates a new septic system would be installed and the implementation of stormwater and erosion control measures would be installed with the new construction. 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, 4/14/06. DR. KOLLAR-I’m Dr. Christopher Kollar. My primary residence is 5 Carriage Way in Kinnelons, New Jersey. MR. ABBATE-Okay. The reason I asked you to come up first is I’m having a problem with the application. It’s my perception, as Chairman, that the application you have submitted is incomplete. Incomplete to the fact that there isn’t sufficient information for us to make an intelligent decision, and let me be more specific. In particular, Number One, you requested a waiver for a complete survey. DR. KOLLAR-Yes, I did. MR. ABBATE-I’m going to deny that. Number Two, we have no building permit. Number Three, we don’t know the location of your septic system. Number Four, there’s insufficient information for Staff to determine Floor Area Ratio, and finally, what I’m going to do is ask that basically, to resolve this, that a final survey be submitted to the Staff, and I can re- schedule you at the soonest possible date. Having said that, however, I’m certainly willing to let other Board members offer their point of view as well. Mr. Secretary, I think we have some correspondence concerning this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Just from them. I’ve got to dig it out. For the public’s information, this project is Area Variance No. 25-2006, and the owners are Freebern, et. al., and the location is 345 Cleverdale Road. It’s a WR-1A, Waterfront Residential One Acre zone, and the lot size is .37 acres. They asked for a waiver on some of the information, and that’s what the Chairman was questioning, whether we could make a decision based upon that. So, again, I’ll read in what you had asked a waiver for. This was a letter that was addressed by Mr. Craig Brown, who’s the Zoning Administrator for the Town of Queensbury. “Dear Mr. Kollar: I am writing to you as a follow up on a meeting we had on Friday, March 10, 2006 at which we discussed your proposal to demolish the two existing residences on the property in favor of one new single family dwelling. As discussed, your property lies within a Waterfront Residential, WR-1A zoning district. As I understand your proposal, based on our conversations as well as the follow up documentation that I received from you on March 14, 2006, the proposed location of your home creates a violation of the minimum side yard setback requirements for of the WR-1A zone for a lot of your size, therefore you will need to apply for and receive an Area Variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals should you wish to proceed with your project as planned. And as a follow up to that, he asked for a waiver on certain items. “I would request a waiver for the below mentioned items on the area variance 2 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/26/06) application. 1) The location of water supply and septic of adjoining properties as all properties get their water from the lake and the variance is for the house setback. 2) Percolation test location and results. This will be completed pending the decision of the Zoning Board and submitted with the application of a building permit. 3) Parking space requirements, number of parking spaces and design of ingress and egress. A small black top area shown on the plot plan is not to be changed at this time. 4) Location of the proposed energy distribution systems. The electric is from the street and the proposed propane fuel will be determined at the time of building permit submission. 5) Placement of drains culverts and retaining walls will also be determined (in conjunction with the building department) at the time of building permit submission.” So I think that’s what we want to address. MR. ABBATE-Yes, and at this point, before I ask for comments, in view of the fact that I feel that I should move a motion to table this, I notice, too, that in Staff comments, there is an indication that floor plans were not submitted with this application, nor with the building permit application. Therefore, a Floor Area Ratio determination has not been made at this time. Also there’s another indication that the applicant has indicated that the proposed is more compliant than what exists on the site, and that a new septic system and stormwater management would be installed. Now, having said that, I’m willing to entertain comments or concerns, in the event that I table this, so that Dr. Kollar can walk away with intelligent information in which to complete this application. So gentlemen, if you have any other concerns, I think it would only be fair to bring it to Dr. Kollar’s attention. MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, I applaud your decision, because as I looked at the property and I tried to figure out what was going on, it sounded as if, and I may be overstating it, that we were being asked to sign a blank check, and I don’t do that, and without knowing where the house is going to be, how high it’s going to be, what’s going to be on the walls of the house, in terms of visual impact and so on and so forth, if you’d carried through, I would have abstained. MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s fair enough. Gentlemen, do we have any other comments? Dr. Kollar, before I make a motion, would you like to, anything you’d like to say to us? DR. KOLLAR-Yes, I would. There should be a plot plan that was submitted with this, which shows a relative design. I do not own this property. This is a piece of property that I’ve put in a bid on, and the Freebern’s have accepted my bid, but it would be contingent upon me being able to put something on there that would be appealing to myself, my family and the community, and so to go to the extent of doing septic designs and formal architect plans, only to get shot down if the concept was just simply not going to be accepted, would run into tens of thousands of dollars and would seem impractical, because I am not looking to get a blank check. I’m looking for one variance, and that would be the side yard setbacks, not anything as far as the FAR was concerned or the septic design is concerned or the height of the house is concerned. That would all be constructed within the current building codes. The only thing that concerned me at the time that I looked at this property, was because of the width of the property and a quirk in the Zoning Ordinances, having a property that was this much wider is going to cause me to build a house that’s 10 feet thinner, and so it was really my intention to try to get a feel from the Zoning Board of Appeals as to whether or not this would be acceptable, because everything else that I’m looking to do would fall well within the confines, and from what I understand from the way Zoning Board’s work, all you would be doing is granting me that in the first place, and not granting me, okay, yes, you can go ahead and build anything. I think that’s the Building Department’s job, and if I came to the Building Department with plans that were not within the Ordinances, that they would then kick that back out, just like they kicked out this, and then send me back to see you again. So my attempt was to at least get a feel from the committee as to whether or not there would be a possibility of putting this to a 15 foot setback and that’s all, nothing else. MR. ABBATE-I appreciate what you have to say, and certainly there’s logic to what you have to say, but let me make this quite clear to you. We’re guided by New York State Statutes, and we must, we must make a decision based on the evidence that’s contained on the record. At the present time, there isn’t sufficient evidence in which to make an intelligent decision. So I would recommend, strongly recommend, I can table. Well, let me give you three choices. I’m not going to limit you to just one choice. I’m going to give you three choices. I can table this thing, based upon your request, or you could withdraw, it’s up to you, or you could request, if you will, that you will work with the Staff, based on a motion to adjourn, to supply the information that we’re requesting. The decision is entirely yours. You 3 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/26/06) can ignore everything that I said. The final decision is yours. I would strongly recommend that you request this Board to table, and I’m going to be specific. Is this your attorney? DR. KOLLAR-Yes, it is. MR. ABBATE-Counselor, you’re late. I called this afternoon. MR. ABBATE-Yes, I know, but I changed the schedule. You should have been here at seven o’clock. MR. I called and asked. MR. ABBATE-I know. I’m not going to go through this again. You can brief your counsel. DR. KOLLAR-I will. MR. ABBATE-So, specifically, let me be fair to you, specifically, number one, Staff needs sufficient information, and this is going to be a final survey, in an effort to determine Floor Area Ratio. Certainly a building permit’s going to be in order. Certainly we need the location in that complete survey including the septic system, and the definition of a complete survey you can pick up from Staff either this evening or tomorrow from Mr. Brown, because we passed a resolution, a motion a while back specifically stating what’s included in our survey, and I would strongly recommend that when you appear before us again, and I will schedule you, I’ll switch you in one way or another for the 28 of June, providing you have this th additional information prepared and submitted to Staff no later than the 15 of May. You do th that, and I guarantee you, Staff, Sue and Susan, 28 of June for Area Variance No. 25-2006, th please. We’ll work it, one way or another I’ll get you in. You have my word. Now, do you understand what I’m saying? DR. KOLLAR-Yes, we’ll table it. MR. ABBATE-Now, I need a decision from you. You have to officially ask this Board to please table your request. DR. KOLLAR-Okay. Will the Board officially table my request. MR. ABBATE-Yes, I will honor that. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2006 CHRISTOPHER KOLLAR, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: 345 Cleverdale Road. For the 28 of June 2006. th Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Rigby, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico MR. ABBATE-The vote to table Area Variance No. 25-2006 is six yes, zero no. The motion is carried. Area Variance No. 25-2006 is tabled for the 28 of June, 2006 hearing. Thank you, th Dr. Kollar. Thank you, counselor. DR. KOLLAR-Thank you very much. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2006 SEQRA TYPE II RICHARD AND ALICE WHITMORE OWNER(S): RICHARD AND ALICE WHITMORE ZONING YR. 1967 R-3 LOCATION 6 ARBUTUS DRIVE, OLD FORGE PARK SUBD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 912 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AND 228 SQ. FT. OPEN FRONT PORCH. 4 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/26/06) RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF 30 FT. REQUIRED IN THE 1967 ZONING CODE (R-3 ZONE) IN THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVED SUBDIVISION OLD FORGE PARK. CROSS REF. SUB. NO. 1-72; BP 91-186 INGROUND POOL WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE: 0.37 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.5-1-43 SECTION 179-4-030 RICHARD & ALICE WHITMORE, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-We previously heard this, and the public hearing is still open on this one, on February 15 of this year. th STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 6-2006, Richard and Alice Whitmore, Meeting Date: April 26, 2006 “Project Location: 6 Arbutus Drive, Old Forge Park Subd. Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes a 912 sq. ft. second-floor addition to their existing 1,312 sq. ft. single-family dwelling and a 228 sq. ft. front porch. Relief Required: The applicant requests 6-feet of front setback relief from the 30-foot minimum, per §179-4-030 for the R-3 zone (1967 zoning, for the Old Forge Park subdivision). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SB 1-72: Old Forge Park subdivision. Staff comments: As you will recall, this application was tabled on February 15, 2006 (see resolution and meeting minutes). Several members of the Board indicated that a smaller front porch (less than 8-feet in width) could be a feasible alternative to the proposed that would lessen the amount of relief required. Currently, the existing structure sits 30-feet from the front property line, which is the minimum front setback. This proposal would encroach 6-feet into the front setback, resulting in a 22-foot setback from the front property line. The size of the originally proposed 912 sq. ft. second-story addition will not change with the smaller porch of 228 sq. ft. (original request was 304 sq. ft.). It appears that the proposed is consistent with existing development and the character of the neighborhood.” MR. ABBATE-Good evening, Mr. and Mrs. Whitmore. Tell us, in your own words, what you would like us to do. MR. WHITMORE-Okay. My name is Rick Whitmore. This is my wife Alice. She’s got a photo she’d like to give each one of the Board members, if you’d like to look at it. What it is, basically, is what the home looks like now and what the proposal would look like in the future. It’s a home that’s built here in Queensbury, just to give you a better idea of what we’re looking to do. Our original visit here, we were looking for an eight foot porch, and after some discussion, you felt as though it wasn’t feasible. So what we’ve done is increase the size by 25%, reducing it to a 6 foot porch, which is still usable, and it would very much fit into the neighborhood as well. So what we’re looking for tonight is a variance for the six foot so we could continue with our project, please. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and you’re not represented by counsel, so I’ll just take a different approach. During the course of the hearing, if there’s anything you don’t understand, all you have to do is stop us, raise your hand and I’ll recognize you and you can ask, and if anything, during the course, you say, gee, maybe I should have mentioned this, don’t hesitate. We’ll be more than happy to listen to what you have to say. MR. WHITMORE-Okay. Thank you. 5 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/26/06) MR. ABBATE-Fair enough? Okay. Good. Gentlemen, would you like to address Mr. and Mrs. Whitmore. MR. STONE-Just a quick question, statement, Mr. Chairman, in the Staff notes, I think it was trying to use the last one. It says 22 foot setback. It should be 24. MRS. WHITMORE-That’s right. MR. ABBATE-Yes, that’s correct. MR. STONE-I know how it happened. It’s very easy. MR. ABBATE-I wrote it down. I’m glad you picked it up. Gentlemen, any other questions for Mr. and Mrs. Whitmore? MR. STONE-I do have a question, and thank you for the picture, because when I parked out in front, and I looked up over the roof, what is that behind the tree, behind the house? MR. WHITMORE-That’s a solar panel. It’s quite efficient. It’s good this time of year, of course. It’s for heat and water. I have just the heat hooked up now, but it’s very efficient. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s what I thought it might be, but it doesn’t appear on any of the pieces of paper that you provided. MR. WHITMORE-Well, I’m going to take that off, to be honest with you. I’ve had it 25 years probably, and it’s worked well. As far as the future plans for it, I really have none at this time. Right now I’d just as soon put a second story on. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-So it wouldn’t bother you at all if we granted an approval, that as a condition we would request that you remove that solar panel, it wouldn’t bother you? MR. WHITMORE-I’ll do it tomorrow. I’ll do it tonight. MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen, any other questions concerning Mr. and Mrs. Whitmore? MR. STONE-Well, the only question I have is are you going to be able to find your way into the house? The appearance is so different on this picture. You’ll have to learn all over again where you live, what your house is. MR. WHITMORE-We would be very excited to have everybody over after. MR. ABBATE-All right. Since there are no other questions, before I ask members to offer their comments, I’d like to inform the public that the comments that are about to be offered by members are directed to the Chairman only, and the comments expressed by the Board to the Chairman will not be open to debate. So, gentlemen, I’d ask you to please offer your comments on Area Variance No. 6-2006, and before you do, again, 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. Thank you. We haven’t heard from this gentleman in a long time. Why not start out with him. Mr. Rigby. MS. HEMINGWAY-Mr. Chairman, there’s a public hearing scheduled for tonight. MR. ABBATE-I didn’t open the public hearing? MS. HEMINGWAY-No. MR. ABBATE-Shame on me. Okay. I’ll open the public hearing. The public hearing will be open for Area Variance No. 6-2006. Do we have any folks in the audience who would like to address Area Variance No. 6-2006. If so, raise your hands and I’ll be happy to recognize you. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN 6 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/26/06) MR. ABBATE-None? Thank you for reminding me, Sue. Now I’ll move back to the members of the Board. Mr. Rigby, please. MR. RIGBY-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. MR. RIGBY-The last time when you were here before the Board, the only concern I had was a little bit too much front setback, and I asked if you could reduce that, that I’d be willing to agree with your proposal, and that’s exactly what you’ve done. You’ve taken two feet off the front porch. I think the project’s a good project. The home will be an improvement over what’s there now, and it’s going to be a big plus to the neighborhood. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Great, thank you. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-I think Mr. Rigby has probably said it. I’ll agree with the applicant that a front porch less than six feet wide is basically going to be useless. So I think they’ve made an attempt to minimize what they’re asking of us, and it strikes me as a reasonable project. I’d be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I was fully in support of what you asked for last time with the eight foot porch on the front. So the six foot one doesn’t change my mind. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-The last time you came before us, it did seem as though your request was a little excessive, but at this point, I see you’ve made a good faith effort to be more compliant. I think it would be a wonderful addition, and I’d be in support of it. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and Mr. Stone, please. MR. STONE-Well, after listening to all the people who were here the last time when I wasn’t, I was in Hawaii, I’m sorry, but I think it’s refreshing to see someone who comes in and wants this, and then listens to the Board and says, well they’re not going to give me what I really want. So you’ve modified it. You’ve made it less, and I would agree with the rest of the Board, that it’s worthy of a yes vote. MR. ABBATE-And I would agree with my fellow Board members. I’m impressed. Not that that’s really dramatic or anything, but I truly am, from the beginning, from the original to this right here, I wish all the public could see this. It’s a heck of an improvement, and I think it will add immensely to the neighborhood. Okay. Having said that, I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 6-2006. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to respectfully, again, remind the members 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. Now, is there a motion for Area Variance No. 6-2006? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2006 RICHARD AND ALICE WHITMORE, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: 6 Arbutus Drive, Old Forge Park Subd. The applicant proposes a 912 square foot second floor addition to their existing 1312 square foot single family dwelling, and a 228 square foot front porch. The applicant, therefore, requests six feet of front setback relief from the thirty foot minimum per 179-4-030 for the R-3 zone, which was the 1967 zoning for the Old Forge Park subdivision, in which this property lies. In considering this application, we have to balance the benefit to the applicant with the detriment to the community. Well, basically, I don’t think there is any detriment to the community. We have not heard any neighbors. I think Mr. Whitmore has made a very valid case for the appearance and the construction of the properties in his immediate neighborhood. Certainly a second story is not on the table, really. 7 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/26/06) It’s just the fact that it needs a porch to make this house look attractive enough, and I don’t think you can achieve the benefit of a porch without putting a porch on, and the minimum relief that we are willing to grant of six feet certainly will provide an adequate porch, at the same time minimize the incursion into the setback zone. I do not believe there will be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, as demonstrated by Mr. Whitmore in his application. The request is substantial by some standards, but six feet on thirty, considering the rest of the neighborhood, I would not consider to be substantial, and there will be no adverse physical or environmental affects. Obviously, the alleged difficulty, the difficulty of putting a porch on the house in the setback zone is self- created, but I think that is minimal compared to the other factors. So therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve Area Variance No. 6-2006. Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 6-2006 is six yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 6-2006 is approved. Mr. and Mrs. Whitmore, enjoy. MRS. WHITMORE-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II AUSTIN J. & SARAH A. MC CARROLL AGENT(S): MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR OWNER(S): AUSTIN J. & SARAH A. MC CARROLL ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 25 SULLIVAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,276 SQ. FT. ADDITION WITH 336 SQ. FT. CONNECTOR ONTO THE EXISTING 1,376 SQ. FT. DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE. CROSS REF. AV 57-2004; BP 98-728, 2-CAR DET. GARAGE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 289.9-1-17 SECTION 179-4-030 MIKE O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-We granted a variance for this, I believe, back in 2004. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Right, Area Variance No. 57-2004. MR. UNDERWOOD-Essentially what they’re doing is they’re asking for, I think, the same amount of relief. Just a little bit of history on the project. At that point in time, they had hoped to keep this as a seconds structure, the original log cabin structure, and then re-build a new house. In this instance here this evening, they’re going to be building this addition on with a connector attaching that. So that removes, which was the sticking point the last time, was having the two structures on site, even though it was going to be converted to a sleeping cabin. So, again, this evening the only thing that we’re going to be dealing with is the side setback requirements, which I think we granted the last time, but I think that the attorney will get into that in a minute here. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 23-2006, Austin J. & Sarah A. McCarroll, Meeting Date: April 26, 2006 “Project Location: 25 Sullivan Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes construction of a new 2,726 sq. ft. residence, conversion of existing 1,376 sq. ft. residence to sleeping quarters (remove kitchen), and attach new residence, garage and sleeping quarters as one unit by constructing a 336 sq. ft. connector. Relief Required: 8 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/26/06) The applicant requests 4-feet of (West) side setback relief from the 25-foot minimum, per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 57-2004: Approved 8/25/04, 4-feet of side yard setback relief for the construction of a 2,701 SFD (see resolution). BP 98-728: 810 sq. ft., detached 2-car garage. Staff comments: This is a very similar proposal as the above application (AV 57-2004), which has expired. The Board approved relief for the side yard setback for the new residence of 4-feet. The Board did not, however, grant approval for the conversion of the existing dwelling to an oversized (1,875 sq. ft.) accessory structure. This proposal includes a 336 sq. ft. enclosed and heated connector, essentially joining the new residence, detached garage, and existing, converted residence (removal of kitchen) into one 4,092 sq. ft. residential structure. Therefore, the relief previously sought for the oversized accessory structure is no longer required. It appears that a revised building plan could alleviate the need for the variance request.” MR. ABBATE-Okay. Good evening, Counselor, good evening, Mr. and Mrs. McCarroll. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, for the purpose of your record, I’m Mike O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the McCarrolls The McCarrolls are here with me. Basically I think Mr. Underwood pretty well stated the application and the arguments for the application. There are a couple of things, though, that I would probably highlight. I haven’t been representing the McCarrolls throughout this thing, but I understand that they had at least two prior meetings on the other application, which was similar to this, and at that time, they had no neighborhood opposition. In fact, they had one neighbor or two of the neighbors that came and spoke in favor of it. When I looked at the minutes of the meeting where you granted the four foot setback and said that it was not substantial, it had no detrimental effect on the character of the neighborhood, would have no environmental detriment to the neighborhood, you also talked about the second building which he hoped to preserve, and it seemed as though, and probably there’s a presumption here, which is always dangerous, but it seemed to be that there was a lot of concern at that time as to precedents that you would be setting and what would happen in the future, not that you didn’t trust Mr. McCarroll or Mrs. McCarroll and what their intentions were to use it for their family, and you did not want to allow, basically, two residences on this one acre lot. So when we looked at it, we tried to determine how we could make this one residence, and I think we met with Craig Brown and I think Susan, went over plans, and satisfied them that with a substantial connection, not just an open porch or something of that nature, we could eliminate the issues that were presented to the Board on the last application as to there being two residences on this property and that there would only be one residence. So it left us with just the issue of the four foot setback, and if you look at the drawings, that’s actually not four foot for the whole width or depth of that building. This is on a large lot, and it sets, the building itself, the part that we’re talking about, sets back 88 feet from the road, which I think also makes it probably very much less noticeable, much more minimum, and what not, but you only go back a distance of twenty feet for that four foot setback, and then there’s a jog, sorry, that’s only at two feet setback, the first twenty feet of that building, and then with a little jog that comes out is where you get to the four foot of relief, or the need for relief of four feet, and that’s only an 18 foot portion of the building, and then you go back into where you would only need two feet relief. So we’re not actually asking for four feet relief for the whole depth of the building. We’re asking for four feet relief for a portion of the building, and the rest would be two feet. Understand that we’re talking, in our terms, in your terms, you do talk about four feet relief, but it’s not, it’s less than what it would appear to be on paper. If you take a look at what they’re doing, and I did, with Bob Nedemeyer, who is the builder/designer, and we tried to juggle the floor plan, so that we wouldn’t come back here at all, after we had the Staff approval of the connection between the two units, and we really couldn’t do it. The garage that was built is substantial. We tried to adjust the floor plan of the building and it throws everything off within the house, to take four feet out of that house. I think the figures that Mr. McCarroll gave you are fair figures. You’re talking $70,000 and a total, probably, of $130,000 differential, to him as 9 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/26/06) the applicant. That’s the benefit that the applicant would save by not having to start all over again, as opposed to, I think, very little impact, or minimum impact, upon anybody. If you take a look at the site statistics, I think in this zone you’re required to have 30% permeability or 70% permeability. You can’t have more than 30% non-permeable. Mr. McCarroll an Mrs. McCarroll will end up having 85% permeability with 15% non-permeable. If you look at what they could build, if they started over from scratch, what they’re asking is not substantial. They could build 9506 square feet, and what we’re proposing here is a lot less than that. So they don’t approach the Floor Area Ratio issue that you sometimes see. This is Waterfront Residential. It really is not a waterfront home. If you’ve been to the site and visited it, I think the lot’s on Glen Lake, on the portions that would say be opposite this between the house and the lake, those lots on the lake are probably about 200 feet deep. You’ve got 50 feet of road, and you’ve got another probably 6, 700 feet before you get to the McCarroll property. This is really a back lot. It’s not a lake lot. So we’re not talking about anything that will have any visual impact on the lake. I think it fits in within the neighborhood. If you’ve seen, and I think you have actual sketches in your packet, they’ve done a nice job architecturally to have it fit in and be an improvement to the neighborhood. So, if I were going to go through your five tests, which I think somebody will have to take a look at, the benefit to the applicant certainly outweighs any possible detriment, and I’ve not recognized the detriment because we’ve done away with the issue of whether you’re setting a poor precedent or what would happen in the future. You’re going to have one structure. The benefit to the applicant certainly outweighs the detriment to the community. It is minimal relief. You’re talking about a 25 foot setback in what’s basically a residential neighborhood on the side line and we are saying that we can come to 21 feet of it for most of the house and the rest of the house would probably be at 23 feet. So it’s minimum. It’s not substantial. I don’t think it’ll change the character of this neighborhood in any manner, and I don’t know of anything that is adverse from a physical or environmental issue. They are going to establish a new septic system which will handle the bedrooms that are in this new residence, as well as the bedrooms in the remaining portion. So that’s our basic presentation. If you’ve got questions, we’d be glad to try and answer them. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Counselor. Gentlemen, do you have any questions for Counsel or Mr. and Mrs. McCarroll? Okay. While you’re thinking about it, there’s a Staff note, and help me out, because I want to ensure that all the applicable information is included in the record. It says that it appears that a revised building plan could alleviate the need for the variance request. Would you address that for me please. MR. O'CONNOR-I think they’re saying make the house smaller, but we’ve looked at that from a traffic flow within. We’ve looked at it from a floor plan type thing, and it would make the house very awkward. I also looked at whether we could move this forward or backward, and maybe then shove it over, and that didn’t work. One time or another I came up with a bright idea. If you take a look at the connecting walkway, there’s probably about six feet. I said, well, we’ll just make the connection shorter, and everybody smiled and said it would work, and then somebody said, then we wouldn’t be connected, we wouldn’t be touching the garage, if we aren’t moving the garage. So we’ve looked at all alternatives we think that are reasonable, particularly when you look at the potential impact on anybody. I don’t think there is any impact. MR. ABBATE-Now, one other thing, then I’m sure my Board members have something to say. The connector is attached to living space. Shouldn’t that space contained within the connector be included in this Floor Area Ratio as well? MR. O'CONNOR-It is. MR. ABBATE-You don’t have it in there. MR. O'CONNOR-We believe it is. MR. ABBATE-It may be, but I couldn’t find it. Somebody help me out, will you, please. Is it in there? It is in there? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Staff says it’s in there. MRS. BARDEN-Three hundred and thirty-six. 10 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/26/06) MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. STONE-They only have 4,000 feet to play with. MR. ABBATE-Which is not very much. MR. O'CONNOR-I did the math a couple of times because in all honesty, it wasn’t Mr. McCarroll, I think it was the designer, he wasn’t counting what was above the garage and he wasn’t counting a couple of other, a covered porch and some other things, and we thought we were all ready to file, and then all of a sudden I’m starting to look at it and saying, no, we need to change this and change that, and they were very kind and we did that. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, this is very similar to one that we allowed just down the road on Glen Lake, on the other side of the inlet, whatever that’s called. MR. UNDERWOOD-St. Mary’s Bay. MR. O'CONNOR-St. Mary’s Bay. MR. ABBATE-St. Mary’s Bay, yes. MR. STONE-Yes, St. Mary’s Bay, very similar to what they did when we said the same kind of questions about two houses on the same property, and it’s come out to be a very attractive project, and I think this looks like it will be, too. The only thing I would ask, and I don’t think it’s necessarily a condition, but when you drive by your property, where the house is going to be, with all the hedges you have, you can’t even see where it’s going to be, and is it your intent to keep it that way? Things do die, and they go away, but. AUSTIN MC CARROLL MR. MC CARROLL-I saw you drive by today, I think. MR. STONE-I know you did. MR. MC CARROLL-Why didn’t you come in? MR. STONE-Because I’d just as soon not get involved in a discussion. We’re better off if we don’t have any ex parte communication. So, I knew I could avoid that one today. MR. O'CONNOR-I think the answer is there’s no plan to clear trees. MR. STONE-That’s all. Well, it’s not trees. It’s more bushes, but it looks very attractive, actually, the way it is. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. GARRAND-Just one question for Counsel. You’re definitely going to remove the kitchen facilities from that other part of the house? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. ABBATE-You may wish to consider that as a condition, whoever does the motion. Any other comments at this time? Okay. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 23-2006, and if we have any folks in the audience who’d like to address this Area Variance, would you raise your hand for me so I can recognize you, please. I don’t see any hands in the audience. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-So then I’ll move on. I’m going to ask the members to offer their comments, and again I’d like to remind the public that the comments that members offer are directed to the Chairman and they’re not subject to debate by the public. So I would ask Board 11 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/26/06) members to please offer their comments on Area Variance No. 23-2006. Gentlemen. All right. I don’t hear any comments or I don’t see any effort to make any particular comments on the thing, so then what I’ll do is I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 23- 2006. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And at this point I’m going to respectfully remind the members, again, we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, and recall the mandated five statutory criteria that we must carefully consider, and if there are any conditions, please make them very clear. Is there a motion for Area Variance No. 23- 2006? MR. STONE-Did you want our comments, or were those questions you were asking for? MR. ABBATE-I was asking for comments. I was asking for comments, and I didn’t hear a word. MR. STONE-That’s fine. Usually we do it more formally than that. MR. ABBATE-You want me to go through the formal aspect of it? Okay. I’ll be happy to do it. Let me change my personality here. I’d respectfully remind the members 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. Please introduce your motion with clarity. In the event a member does not understand the motion as stated, please advise me and I will request that the motion be repeated a second time. The motion itself is not subject to debate. Any member not favoring the motion may exercise the right to vote and/or introduce a motion to deny. Is there a motion for Area Variance No. 23-2006? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll make the motion. MR. ABBATE-Okay, Jim, would you, please. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2006 AUSTIN J. & SARAH A. MC CARROLL, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 25 Sullivan Road. They’re proposing construction of a 2,726 square foot residence and conversion of an existing 1,376 square foot residence to sleeping quarters, and by doing so they will be removing the kitchen. They’re going to be attaching the new residence to the garage, and the sleeping quarters as one unit by construction of a 336 square foot connector, and specifically they’re seeking four feet of relief on the west side setback, and that’s from the 25 foot setback requirements of the Waterfront Residential One Acre zone that this project exists in. It does not appear that the Board feels that this is a grand request. It’s going to allow them to preserve the original cabin on the property, and I think it probably could be done in a more compliant way, had the garage not been there, but since the garage is pre- existing, we all realize that that’s why they’re requesting this relief. As far as detriment to the neighborhood, we don’t feel there’s any detriment to the neighborhood. There aren’t any environmental concerns, and they will be upgrading to a septic system that accommodates all those bedrooms also. So at this point in time I would ask that we approve this variance. Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 23-2006 is six yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 23-2006 is approved. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. 12 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/26/06) MR. ABBATE-Okay, guys. AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2006 SEQRA TYPE II STEPHANIE & TRAVIS NORTON OWNER(S): STEPHANIE & TRAVIS NORTON ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 920 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 576 SQ. FT. 2-CAR DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE SR-1A ZONE. CROSS REF. SPR 16-2006 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.69 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.00-1-84 SECTION 179-4-030; 179-6-060 STEPHANIE & TRAVIS NORTON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 24-2006, Stephanie & Travis Norton, Meeting Date: April 26, 2006 “Project Location: 920 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes a 576 sq. ft., 2-car detached garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests 60-feet of shoreline setback relief from the 75-foot minimum, per §179- 4-030 for the SR-1A zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 16-2006: Pending, for filling or hardsurfacing within 50-feet of a wetland. BP 2005-754: Pending, for a 576 sq. ft. garage BP 2005-313: Issued 5/20/05, for a 192 sq. ft. deck. BP 2002-921: Issued 11/14/02, for construction of an 832 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Staff comments: The applicant has supplied elevation drawings and pictures of the property to illustrate what the garage will look like and where it will be placed. The applicant has indicated that the garage would require a variance at any location on the property as the site is surrounded by wetlands. Although the requested relief is substantial, it does not appear that the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by any other method other than an area variance due to the site constraints. The Warren County Planning Board, at their April 12 meeting, recommended No County Impact with the condition that, “Implementation of appropriate stormwater and erosion control measures for the garage due to the proximity to the wetland.” Site plan review is required (SP 16-2006) for filling or hardsurfacing within 50-feet of a wetland, per §179-6-060.” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form April 12, 2006 Project Name: Norton, Stephanie & Travis Owner(s): Stephanie & Travis Norton ID Number: QBY-06-AV-24 County Project#: Apr06-46 Current Zoning: SR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 576 sq. ft. 2-car detached garage. Relief requested from minimum shoreline setback requirements of the SR-1A zone. Site Location: 920 Ridge Road Tax Map Number(s): 290.00-1-84 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a 24 x 24 sq. ft. detached garage. The garage is to be located within the 75 ft. required setback from shoreline – designated wetland area. The information submitted shows the location of the garage on the site where the building is located 15 ft. from the side property line. The plans note the edge of the wetland is located along the applicants property line and crosses onto the property at the rear. The applicant has indicated that the garage would require a variance at any location on the property as the site is surrounded by wetland. The applicant also indicates the purpose is to house their vehicles and lawn equipment as there have been a theft and a vehicle accident causing damage to the applicant’s property. The plan does not identify stormwater and erosion control measures. Staff recommends no county impact with the condition that 13 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/26/06) implementations of appropriate stormwater and erosion control measures for the garage due to the proximity to the wetland. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with Stipulation The Warren County Planning Board recommends No County Impact with the condition that implementation of appropriate stormwater and erosion control measures for the garage due to the proximity to the wetland.” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 4/14/06. MR. ABBATE-Would you be kind enough, please, to speak into the microphone, for the record identify yourself and your place of residence. MRS. NORTON-My name is Stephanie Norton, and my address is 920 Ridge Road in Queensbury. MR. ABBATE-Okay. What we’d like you to do, now, is just explain to us what you are attempting to do and what you would like us to do, please. MRS. NORTON-Okay. I would like to build a garage. It would be detached from my house, and I would like you to grant me a variance because of our proximity to the wetlands. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and any time during this hearing if there’s something you don’t understand, feel free to raise your hand, stop us, and we’ll do everything we can to explain it to you, and if there’s anything you may have forgotten during the hearing, stop us, we’ll allow you to introduce it. Fair enough? MRS. NORTON-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Gentlemen, do we have any questions for Mrs. Norton, please? MR. STONE-Well, let me ask a question. Did you build this house? I mean, did you have it built for you? MRS. NORTON-Yes. MR. STONE-Did you have permission to fill the wetlands in when you built the house? It appears to me that the land has been built up underneath the home, and I would surmise that it was wetlands before you built the house. MRS. NORTON-No. We purchased the land and it was already filled. MR. STONE-It was already filled. MRS. NORTON-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. Just under where you were going to place the house. MRS. NORTON-Did you drive by the house? MR. STONE-Yes. MRS. NORTON-The entire area that’s filled was all filled when we purchased property. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Gentlemen? MR. GARRAND-Can you tell me exactly where the garage is going to be placed on the lot? I’m not sure. MRS. NORTON-Did you have a copy of the survey? MR. GARRAND-No. MR. STONE-I don’t, either. MRS. NORTON-All right. I gave copies for everyone, actually. 14 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/26/06) MR. UNDERWOOD-There’s one in the, I’ll pass it down so everybody can look at it. MRS. NORTON-Okay. I had it drawn on there. Because I actually gave a packet with photographs and surveys for each one of you. MR. ABBATE-If you’d like to pass them out, by all means. MRS. NORTON-Well, I already turned them in at the Town of Queensbury. MR. UNDERWOOD-There’s nothing in the file. So it must not have gotten stuck in there. MS. HEMINGWAY-The photographs are in the file. MR. UNDERWOOD-They never got handed out. MS. HEMINGWAY-Yes, they did. They were on the top of each, those are extras. That’s all. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We got extra survey maps if anybody wants one. MR. STONE-So this is going to be where that kind of shed is now, or? MRS. NORTON-The shed is further back in the property. MR. STONE-Further back? Okay. MRS. NORTON-Yes. I actually have a picture I can show you. It’s going to go. MR. STONE-Between the car and that shed? MRS. NORTON-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s what the survey says, but it’s. MR. ABBATE-Any other questions, gentlemen, for Mrs. Norton? MR. GARRAND-Looking at this, where you’re placing the garage, could there have been another alternative to place it closer to the house? MRS. NORTON-I really don’t think so because of where the deck is. The deck is there, unless we had, if you were sitting on your deck, the garage would actually be right there, right against the deck if it’s really much closer. There’s not a lot of space in between the deck and the garage right now. MR. STONE-Are there going to be two curb cuts on Ridge? MRS. NORTON-Yes. MR. STONE-For one house there’s going to be two curb cuts? MRS. NORTON-For the entrances of the driveway, is that what you’re asking me? MR. STONE-Yes. MRS. NORTON-Yes. So that we can have a horseshoe driveway, so that we can pull in and pull out, so we don’t have to back out onto the road. MR. UNDERWOOD-You don’t want to back out on that road. MRS. NORTON-No, it’s 55 in front of our house, and we’re lucky if they do that. MR. STONE-I understand that. I just don’t know if that’s something that, who gives that permission, Susan? 15 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/26/06) MR. UNDERWOOD-Site Plan review. MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. GARRAND-Are there sliding glass doors on the side of the house where the deck is? MRS. NORTON-Yes. MR. GARRAND-There are? MRS. NORTON-Yes. MR. GARRAND-So the possibility of having an attached garage, then, really isn’t a possibility. MRS. NORTON-No. MR. ABBATE-And, Staff, this automatically is assigned to site plan review. Is that correct? MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Good. Okay. The only concern that I have is the 60 feet of shoreline setback from the 75 foot minimum. I don’t know what we can do about that, but that certainly is substantial. Other questions, gentlemen, you’d like to ask Mrs. Norton? Okay. Let me continue. I’m going to open the public hearing for Area Variance No. 24-2006, and ask if we have any members of the audience who’d like to address this issue, please raise your hand and I’ll identify you and you can come up and say your peace. There apparently is none. Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I’m now going to ask Board members to offer their comments on Area Variance No. 24-2006. You know the requirements and the mandates, gentlemen, that we are concerned with. So I don’t have to go through those again. How about Mr. Garrand, be kind enough to start out. MR. GARRAND-Okay. First of all, looking at this, we’re here to grant the least amount of relief to the applicant possible. I do have issues with the fact that we’re going 45 feet in, that’s quite a bit of relief. I think it would be, you know, granted you do have, you are constrained by the wetlands, but there are other ways, you know, it could be closer. I do agree that it, you know, you should have a garage, but there may be other feasible alternatives to get it. MRS. NORTON-Do you have a suggestion for us, as to where we could put it? Because we did try to think of every possible place that we could put it on the property, and with the need for the turn around driveway, and the fact that the deck was there, not to have the garage butted right up against the deck, and if you’re looking at just the survey, a good portion of that is not filled in, so there’s, I can’t put it behind my house. I can’t put it on the right side of my house because of the fact that there’s not enough room. MR. GARRAND-Yes, I saw the right side. You’re right there. There isn’t enough room. MRS. NORTON-And if I were to put it behind my house, it would be the same amount of relief. It might even be more behind the house. MR. STONE-Have you ever considered, I assume you’re driving straight in from Ridge Road. I mean, it’s facing Ridge. Could it face to the north so that it could be tucked in behind the house a little bit? MRS. NORTON-It’s going to require the same amount of a variance because the wetlands go completely around our house. MR. STONE-Okay, which I can’t tell from this survey. I mean, I see the line, but I don’t know. 16 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/26/06) MRS. NORTON-I do have more photos if you’d like to see, for all around the house. MR. STONE-That would be helpful. MRS. NORTON-Sure. MR. ABBATE-Where are you at the present time on this? What is your position? MR. GARRAND-I’m sort of sitting on the fence on this. MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s fair enough. Okay. No problem. Okay. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think in a practical sense in this instance, you know, we usually don’t have this problem where we’ve previously filled in wetlands. I mean, we have many instances in Town where properties request similar things and no matter where you put the garage, you’re going to be within the setback allowance from the wetland, you’re going to need relief from that, and I think that where they want to place the garage here, it’s already filled in where the garage is going to be. I don’t really see that this is going to trigger any additional impact on the wetlands that are presently surrounding that site there. The County requested that they do some kind of stormwater intervention, but, you know, when you’re surrounded by wetlands, that’s what wetlands are for, to take care of runoff, and I really don’t think that this garage is going to trigger any problems for anybody. As far as the proposed driveway, whether it’s a U-shaped drive or they end up with a single lane drive in there, obviously they need a turn around because you don’t want to back out onto that busy road at any point in your time. Anybody who’s ever had to pull off of that road knows that, and I think that in this instance we can grant the relief that’s necessary, even though it appears to be substantial relief. We shouldn’t, you know, not let these people build a garage for that reason. I don’t think it’s a good enough reason. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. Stone, please. MR. STONE-Well, I beg to differ with Mr. Underwood in this particular case. I really think that particularly when we have Army Corps of Engineers flag wetlands, it’s a wetland. It’s not something that happened overnight. It’s there, and I think any further incursion into, or close incursion to the wetlands is too much. I think I might be more comfortable, but I’m not sure I could even go with that, if it were closer to the back of the house and maybe facing north so that you could tuck it in. I mean, there seems to be a fairly large space behind the house, in the pictures that you have, and it is all filled. Mr. Underwood is correct in that, but I think I would like it more there, because that would seem to be a little less incursion into the wetlands, but again, I don’t have survey and I’m guessing, but I think wetlands must be approached with care. So I would, at this point in time, I would say no. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’m going to agree with Mr. Underwood. Looking at this lot, it’s easy to say, okay, it should never have been filled to begin with. I don’t know how it happened. Maybe it happened way back before the wetlands law was in place or whatever, but if it was a request today, we clearly would say no, but it’s there. It’s been filled. There’s a house on it. They’re parking cars on it. As was pointed out in the application, almost any place on that lot that a garage is placed it’s going to need a variance. I don’t see the garage itself, other than possibly the construction process, having any real potential damage to the wetland in addition to what’s already happened with the fill and the house being there. I think if the construction controls are tight, so there’s no erosion into the wetland during construction, I think there’s a clear benefit to the applicant, and there may be a benefit to the wetland in the case that vehicles, snow blowers or whatever that might be leaking oil will be leaking on a cement garage floor instead of into the ground if they’re just parked out there now. So there may be actually a slight advantage to having the garage there, but I think the bottom line for me is it’s just a question, do you allow a garage or don’t you, because any place you put it I think it’s going to have the same effect. So for that reason, I’d be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Rigby, please. 17 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/26/06) MR. RIGBY-Well, I’m kind of on the fence here, too, but maybe I can make up my mind as I’m talking here. I think if I were looking at this, if it were my home, I’d want to look at it and say, is there something I can do that would give the house a great appearance and also reduce the amount of variance that’s being granted here, and I think one of the things that I would look at, and I don’t know, you said you don’t think it’s a possibility, but I’m kind of thinking maybe it’s something you should look at, is the possibility of an attached garage attached to the home, reducing the amount of setback, the amount of variance that’s required, and probably giving the house a nice aesthetic look as well. That’s one of the alternatives I think I’d like to see you come back with possibly, is, you know, maybe look at that, get a feel, get a sense, or maybe some other alternative that reduces the amount of variance that we’re possibly asking for here. So I think that there just needs to be a little bit more work done, maybe another alternative looked at, and I think right now I’m going to lean toward Mr. Stone’s view more so than Mr. McNulty and Mr. Underwood. So I’d be opposed to it right now. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Can we go back to Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Well, at this point, I really haven’t heard anything that would cause me to change my mind to support this project, right now. It does seem like a very significant amount of relief being asked for here, and I do believe there are alternatives, possibly moving the garage over a little bit and also Mr. McNulty mentioned also as far as the environmental impact goes, what you have in the garage is also oil, petroleum products, and all sorts of things that are going to be sitting closer to a wetland. So at this point, I wouldn’t be in favor of the project. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. There’s certainly merit to what everyone has said this evening. Nobody’s completely right and nobody’s completely wrong. May I offer this to you. I would strongly recommend that, having listened to what was said this evening, that you, it might be in your best interest if you request this Board to table your application, and perhaps, and I’d re-schedule you, and come back to us perhaps with some feasible alternatives if you can, based upon some of the concerns of the Board members, such as, one, the garage being attached to the house, and there were a couple of other items as well, but that’s entirely up to you. You can ignore what I have just said and say, no, I think I’d like you folks to vote on my variance this evening, but I suspect that based upon what I have heard, there may not be sufficient support for your variance, and I suspect it would be in your best interest to request that it be tabled, but the decision is yours. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I interrupt just for a second? MR. ABBATE-By all means, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I didn’t read the County Planning Board Referral Form in, but essentially the plan did not identify any problems with this. They said that Staff recommends No County Impact with the condition that the implementation of appropriate stormwater and erosion control measures for the garage due to the proximity to the wetland, and I think that they were pretty adamant that as long as, I mean, this is going to undergo site plan review here, you know, the Planning Board, I think, is probably going to be not signing off on this unless they agree that it’s a reasonable thing. MR. ABBATE-And if I were to cast my vote, I would probably be supporting your application, but even at that, it would fail to be a majority to support. So the decision is yours. MRS. NORTON-I guess I would have to table this. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine, then I’ll certainly honor that. Now, is there any question in your mind as to what some of the Board members are concerned about? We might as well clear it up right now. MRS. NORTON-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Go ahead. MRS. NORTON-My large concern is that I can’t put it behind my house without asking for even more of a variance. From the back of my house to the wetland, it’s less than 50 feet. So, 18 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/26/06) Mr. Stone, that would be what you were asking me to do. I know that you said in the photo it looks like it’s a large area, but it’s really not. It’s less than 50 feet from the back of my house to the edge of the wetland, the edge of the fill. MR. STONE-I think one of the things that I would like is a better delineation of the actual wetland so that we know what it is. I mean, I see where the line starts out, but then I don’t know where it goes, around the back of the house. So, obviously, if the wetland is delineated, then we should be able to figure out where it is. Right now I have a gap. I have a line that comes back here and stops. So, I mean, I hear what you’re saying. I’m not disputing what you say, but I don’t have evidence to that effect. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, what I would recommend on that particular point, is you write this down and then you get together with Staff, and say, one of the major concerns with one of the Board members was they needed clarification of boundaries of wetlands and what have you, and work it out with those folks, that’s one area, and I think another feasible alternative was recommended by Leo. I think you indicated that perhaps the garage could be attached. Consider that as a feasible alternative, if you can. MRS. NORTON-But then I would need a variance, still, for the garage and then the deck would also have to need another variance because no matter where I try to put that, it’s going to stick off the house, too. MR. ABBATE-Well, write these down and discuss this with Staff and you’d be amazed. Sometimes solutions come out of this, and I think, there were some concerns on your end there. Specifically what were your concerns? What would you like to see done? MR. GARRAND-The level of relief they’re asking for at this point seems to be very significant. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MRS. NORTON-And what, to you, is a feasible amount? I mean, if I moved the garage so that it actually essentially almost touches the deck. If I just move it over so that it almost touches the deck, is that still considered substantial? MR. GARRAND-I couldn’t tell you, offhand, how many feet that would be. A lot of times what I do is I do the math on it, but offhand I couldn’t tell you whether that would be significant or not. MRS. NORTON-It would be approximately 20 feet. MR. GARRAND-Twenty feet? MRS. NORTON-Yes, if I moved it so it almost touches the deck. MR. GARRAND-As opposed to the 45 feet that it would be moving in? MRS. NORTON-It would move it 20 feet towards the house. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’d need 20 feet less relief. MR. STONE-So it would be 40 feet of relief, rather than 60. MR. ABBATE-Right. Exactly. MR. GARRAND-That is considerably less. MRS. NORTON-Because I think, well, actually, I don’t think, one inch is thirty feet. So I don’t have a ruler, so I can’t, but from the corner of the deck to the garage, maybe that’s only about 15 feet, about half an inch, do you agree, about a half an inch? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MRS. NORTON-So the best I could do would be 15 feet, and that would have it touching the deck pretty much. 19 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/26/06) MR. ABBATE-Well, you take all these things into consideration and get together with Staff and raise these issues and see if you can’t come up with some feasible alternatives. What I will do is request that, you’ll have this information in to Staff by no later than the 15 of th May, and, let’s see, I’ll squeeze it in, again, for the 28 of June, Susan and Sue, for Area th Variance No. 24-2006, please, and that way there we’ll get you in as soon as possible. Okay. Now, what I need from you is this. It’s a formality. If you feel you would like to table your appeal, I would like you to ask me to honor it, and then I will go through the motion. MRS. NORTON-Yes, please, would you honor that? MR. ABBATE-Yes, I will. MRS. NORTON-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-I will honor the request to table Area Variance No. 24-2006. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2006 STEPHANIE & TRAVIS NORTON, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: 920 Ridge Road. To be re-scheduled for a hearing on the 28 of June 2006. th Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico MR. ABBATE-The vote to table Area Variance No. 24-2006 is six yes, zero no. The motion is carried. Area Variance No. 24-2006 is tabled for the 28 of June 2006 hearing. th MRS. NORTON-That’s fine. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Okay. Any other matters to be brought before this Board? JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador, and I thank Mr. Chairman for allowing me this time. On the 29 of March, this Board heard an Area Variance 20-2006 for a Martha th Schmulbach on 96 Seelye Road. That Area Variance was approved with this caveat, and I’m reading from the minutes. Mr. Abbate: Area Variance No. 20-2006 is approved and before you go, I want it understood, and, Staff, please make a note of this, that this will go to the Planning Board for site plan review, and I would also like you to note to the Planning Board that it is the desire of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals that a copy of the minutes of this meeting accompany that. Would you do that for me. I have taken the trouble to attend many Planning Board meetings since this time and I have yet to see this project on the agenda. Further, the applicant stated, during the course of the hearing, Mr. Auffredou is quoted, on the septic, again, I just want to reiterate for the record, there’s no evidence of any nonconformity or any noncompliance. The septic system is apparently working fine. It was replaced, and as I understand it in 1990 through the permit process and I think, in my view, again, as I stated earlier, that can be looked into during site plan review. It is what it is. We’re not expanding the number of bedrooms. The septic system does not need to be expanded in size as a result of this project. The Warren County Staff comments, I should say the County recommendation was read into the record. No County Impact with the stipulation. The Warren County Planning Board recommends No County Impact with the condition that the septic system be brought into compliance. Staff notes read, details of the existing septic system should be provided and also located on the site plan. It appears that some alterations may have been done to the system in 1990, possibly a new tile field. Possibly. This should be a matter of record. The existing system is sized for two bedrooms and the proposed new construction will result in two bedrooms, however, because of the proposed increase in floor area, the existing septic system should re-evaluated. Now I haven’t seen this on the agenda of the local Board of Health either, the septic system. I don’t know 20 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/26/06) what the status of construction is. You gave a conditional approval, and the way I look at it, nothing should happen until these other conditions are satisfied, and I don’t think it’s being enforced, but assure me I’m wrong. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now I’m going to respond to that. Staff, Mr. Salvador has made a point. Would you be kind enough to address that issue and request that Staff reduce to writing that issue and furnish Mr. Salvador a copy and a copy to this Board, please. MRS. BARDEN-Well, I think that they’re aware that they need site plan review. They need site plan review for expansion of a nonconforming structure. I’m not sure if they do have a site plan in yet. They have a building permit to do the basement, which they’ve done, which the Board was aware of at the time. MR. STONE-They raised the building and were about to move it onto the thing. MRS. BARDEN-Right, and they didn’t need any approval or site plan approval variances or site plan approval for that, but for the rest of the project, they still need site plan review. MR. SALVADOR-They shouldn’t be doing anything without site plan review. MR. ABBATE-You say it’s at site plan review right now? MRS. BARDEN-I’m not sure if they have an application in yet. They know that they need site plan review and approval by the Planning Board. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Can you do this for me, then? MRS. BARDEN-Sure. MR. ABBATE-Tomorrow we have our debriefing. Would you please be kind enough to bring this concern, as a matter of fact, it’s my concern now, too, to the attention of the Zoning Administrator tomorrow, please. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, and we’ll see if we can get an answer for you. Your five minutes are up, Mr. Salvador. No extensions. Five minutes. Sorry, that holds true for everyone. This hearing is adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Charles Abbate, Chairman 21