The URL can be used to link to this page

2006-05-24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/06) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 24, 2006 INDEX Area Variance No. 18-2006 Ken Kambar 1. Tax Map No.240.6-1-16 Area Variance No. 29-2006 Lee Jarvis 4. Tax Map No. 307.00-1-32 Area Variance No. 30-2006 John Schadwill 9. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-39 Area Variance No. 31-2006 D’Ella Auto Group 14. Tax Map No. 296.20-1-5 Area Variance No. 32-2006 James & Susan Mooney 19. Tax Map No. 226.12-1-70 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 05/24/06) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 24, 2006 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD JOYCE HUNT LEWIS STONE ROY URRICO RICHARD GARRAND, ALTERNATE LEO RIGBY, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ALLAN BRYANT CHARLES MC NULTY LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II KEN KAMBAR AGENT(S) KEVIN C. SPECK OWNER(S) KEN & DIANE KAMBAR ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 27 HANNEFORD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 138 SQ. FT. SHED ROOF ONTO THE FRONT OF A NEW HOUSE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: NO.AP 1-2005; AV 1-2005; SPR 24-2004; AV 18- 2004; AV 57-2003 AV 27-2003; AV 8-2002; BP 2005-509 SFD; BP 2005-046 DEMO, SFD; BP 2002-466 3 DECKS; BP 2002-143 DOCK; BP 2001-659 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 8, 2006 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.41 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.6-1-16 SECTION 179-4-030 KEN KAMBAR, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-When we heard this last, the Board requested more information, specifically more survey information and they did submit that information to us to make our decision with this this evening. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 18-2006, Ken Kambar, Meeting Date: May 24, 2006 “Project Location: 27 Hanneford Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes a 130.5 sq. ft. shed roof on the front of the existing residence. Relief Required: The applicant requests 15.1-feet of side setback relief (S. side), where 20-feet is the minimum, per § 179-4-030, for the WR-1A zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2005-509 (replaces BP 2004-666): Issued 3/15/05 for a 3,131 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. AV 1-2005: Approved 1/19/05 for 14.6-feet of side setback relief, for a new 3,839 sq. ft. SFD with attached garage. BP 2004-666: Issued 10/15/04 for a 1,944 sq. ft. residential addition with 3-car attached garage. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/06) SP 24-2004: Approved 6/15/04 for expansion of a nonconforming structure for construction of a 1,795 sq. ft. addition. AV 18-2004: Approved 3/24/04 for 14.6-feet of side setback relief and relief from the continuation requirements for the expansion of a 1,570 sq. ft. dwelling to 3,838.6 sq. ft., which includes an 880.6 sq. ft. attached garage. Staff comments: The applicant has submitted a revised survey map (showing existing site improvements) and a revised site development data page and FAR worksheet as requested by the Board at the March 29 meeting (see meeting minutes). AV 1-2005 granted 14.6-feet of (S.) side setback relief for the house, to site the house 5.4-feet from same. The final as-built survey shows the house at 6.6-feet from the (S.) side property line. Therefore, this request is for an additional .5-feet of relief (5.4 – 4.9). The applicant needs to remove the existing 257 sq. ft. detached garage to be in compliance with the 22% FAR requirement.” MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 18-2006 please approach the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record, would you be kind enough to identify yourself, please. MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, I just want on the record that I did have an ex parte communication with Mr. Kambar today when I was viewing the parcel, and we talked about the health of the lake. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. All right. Mr. Kambar, have you been before our Board before? MR. KAMBAR-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So you know the procedures. If at any time, since you’re not represented by counsel, if at any time there’s something you don’t understand, don’t hesitate to ask us, or if at any time during the hearing you feel you want to include something else that may help your case, stop us. We’d be more than happy to listen to it. Do you understand that? MR. KAMBAR-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Then would you proceed, please. MR. KAMBAR-Okay. Well, it’s just as Mr. Underwood read. We want to add a shed roof on the front of the house, which will break up that tall, boxy looking look. I don’t know why we didn’t think of that prior to doing this, but now that you look at it, it makes sense, and also we have a protruding roof halfway up on the garage next to it. As you know, I had a new survey made, and the house, the first (lost word) move the foundation over 1.6 feet from the original approved, it was originally approved at 5.4 feet from the side line, the south line. So now it’s 6.6 feet that corner, but since the house is on an angle, when you add six feet of porch roof, I would need an additional six inches to complete that roof, side setback. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and feel free, as we go on, if there’s anything else you wish to include, which may help your case, don’t hesitate, let us know. Do any of the Board members have any questions for the appellant? MR. URRICO-I’m just following up on last month’s questions. I read through the notes. I’m still not quite understanding why the detached garage is still up, when that was part of the condition of the previous variance? MR. KAMBAR-Yes, well, it’s still full of building materials and things that we took out of the house, and as soon as my garage is painted and they’re still working on trim work where they’re cutting and staining and things like that, as soon as that’s all done, I can take, and I want to paint the floor, and as soon as that is done, I want to move everything out of that garage, and someone is already going to take it away. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/06) MR. URRICO-How much time are we talking about? MR. KAMBAR-It’s a little frustrating. When the builders get done, hopefully within another month or so. DIANE KAMBAR MRS. KAMBAR-We were supposed to move in in July. MR. KAMBAR-Well, no, earlier than that. MRS. KAMBAR-Last July. We were supposed to move in last July, but hopefully it will be this July. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, any other questions of the Kambars? MR. STONE-You don’t have a CO yet, Mr. Kambar? MR. KAMBAR-No. MR. STONE-So that was certainly the condition of getting the CO, taking the garage down. MR. KAMBAR-Yes. That was an original condition. MR. ABBATE-All right, folks, members of the Board, any other questions for Mr. and Mrs. Kambar? Okay. Hearing none, then I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 18-2006, and would those wishing to be heard please approach the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself. Do we have any folks in the audience who would like to address Area Variance No. 18-2006? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-I have one public comment that was received. I believe this was done by phone message, but it was from Dave and Jane Hopper, who are neighbors, I believe, and they have no objections to this project and wish them well with their new home. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. It’s in the record. Before I ask members to offer their comments, I would like to inform the public that the comments that are going to be offered right now by members of this Board are directed to the Chairman, and the comments expressed by 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. 18-2006, and again, I respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the record to support our conclusions. 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 ensure a fair and open process, and Board members make decisions on reliable evidence contained in the record of Board deliberations. Having said that, do we have a volunteer? MR. GARRAND-In looking at the property, the basic character of the neighborhood seems to be a series of houses angled, facing lakefront. I don’t think granting this variance would necessarily alter the character of the neighborhood. I also commend you on the stormwater management and erosion control you’ve done on the property, with all the piping and everything that’s there. I don’t think this request is at all substantial. I think, you know, given the character of the neighborhood, everybody’s angled so that their houses can face the lake, and quite possibly the neighbor most significantly affected, Mr. Beals, doesn’t have any objections whatsoever to this variance. So I’d be in favor of this variance. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mrs. Hunt, would you mind? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree. I think this is a minimal request, and it’s actually only one corner of the house that’s affected, and I would have no objections. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Stone, please. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/06) MR. STONE-Well, for the record, let’s just get some of the information down. As Mr. Kambar said, because of a builder error, the relief we granted the last time for the basic structure was not needed to the degree that we granted it, because it was pushed to the north. Now, of course, with his request, we’re talking an additional six inches, compared to what we originally issued, even though the house itself is now further north, but I have no objection. I think that, I probably wasn’t enthusiastic about the project from the beginning, but I see no reason not to grant this additional small relief. Therefore, I would vote in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Rigby, please. MR. RIGBY-I agree with everything that’s been said. I think it’s going to improve the look of the house. I think it’s going to improve the neighborhood by having the porch roof. So I would not be in objection to it either. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, Mr. Rigby. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think it would be silly of us to get upset over six inches of intrusion. As you said it’s only a corner of the porch, and it will look better with the porch extending all the way across the front. So, I’d be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Yes. I concur for all the reasons given. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, and I listened to what the Board members had to say, and I concur with what they had to say, and I, too, would support the application. Having said that, now, let’s move on to closing the public hearing. The public hearing is now closed for Area Variance No. 18-2006, and I’m going to 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 the motion be repeated a second time. Having said that, do we have a motion for Area Variance No. 18-2006? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2006 KEN KAMBAR, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 27 Hanneford Road. The applicant proposes a 130.5 square foot shed roof on the front of the existing residence. The applicant requests 15.1 feet of side setback relief on the south side where 20 feet is the minimum as per Section 179-4-030 WR-1A zone. It should be noted that this is only an additional half foot from the Area Variance 1-2005 that was granted. The benefit, I don’t think, could be achieved by any feasible means to the applicant except by getting this six inches. There will certainly be no undesirable change to the neighborhood character or to nearby properties. The request is very minimal. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood or area, and whether the alleged difficulty is self-created, it’s only because of the desire to have the shed roof. So I would ask that we approve Area Variance No. 18-2006. Duly adopted this 24 day of May, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 18-2006 is seven yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 18-2006 is approved. Good luck to you. MR. KAMBAR-Thank you. MRS. KAMBAR-Thank you very much. MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/06) NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2006 SEQRA TYPE II LEE JARVIS AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S): LEE JARVIS ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 729 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3-LOT SUBDIVISION RESULTING IN LOTS OF 3.84, 1.55, AND 1.5 ACRES. RELIEF FROM THE REQUIRED DOUBLE THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS ABUTTING COLLECTOR ROADS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 10, 2006 LOT SIZE 6.88 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 307.00-1-32 SECTION 179-4-030; 179-19-020 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LEE JARVIS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 29-2006, Lee Jarvis, Meeting Date: May 24, 2006 “Project Location: 729 Luzerne Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 7.76-acre parcel into three lots of 1.5, 1.55, and 3.84, acres respectively. Relief Required: The applicant requests 64.56-feet of relief for lot 1 and 56.19-feet of relief for lot 2, from the required two times the lot width permitted in the zone in which the lot is located, for all residential lots fronting on a collector or arterial road, per §179-19-020. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SB 4-2006: Sketch plan, review and advisory recommendation, 3/28/06. BP 1997-714: Septic alteration, issued 11/18/99. Staff Comments: Lot 2 is an existing house site, lot 3 is proposed to share a driveway with the Stanton property. The zoning of this parcel is SR-1A, where 150-feet is the minimum lot width requirement for the zone. Luzerne Road is a collector road. §179-19-020 states that, “this requirement shall not apply under circumstances where adjoining residential lots exist or are proposed to be established and the width of each lot meets the required width of the zone and ingress or egress is limited to and provided by a single common driveway”. A feasible alternative may be that lots 1 and 2 share a driveway along their mutual property line and lot 2 abandon the existing driveway. This proposal has been reviewed by the Planning Board for the conceptual plan (see 3/28/06 Planning Board meeting minutes). The application will have to go back to the Planning Board for preliminary and final subdivision review.” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 10, 2006 Project Name: Jarvis, Lee Project Owner(s): Lee Jarvis ID Number: QBY06-AV-29 County Project#: May06-45 Current Zoning: SR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes a 3-lot subdivision resulting in lots of 3.84, 1.55 and 1.5 acres. Relief from the required double the minimum lot width requirement for residential lots abutting collector roads. Site Location: 729 Luzerne Road Tax Map Number(s): 307.00-1-32 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes a 3-lot subdivision resulting in lots of 3.84, 1.55 and 1.5 acres. The applicant requests relief from the required double the minimum lot width requirement for residential lots abutting collector roads. The information submitted shows the division of the lots and proposed house and septic locations. Lot 2 is an existing residential home and no changes are proposed. All three lots are to have access to Luzerne Road where it is required to have double lot width or shared driveways. The applicant has indicated that the lot layout is not practical. The parcel is located in the Suburban Residential one acre zone where all the lots meet the minimum of one acre. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. Warren County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Paul J. Gollhofer 5/12/06. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/06) MR. ABBATE-Okay. I see that the representatives of Area Variance No. 29-2006 are at the table. Would you be kind enough, please, to speak into the microphone and identify yourself, please. MR. STEVES-For the record, Matt Steves, with Van Dusen and Steves, representing Mr. Jarvis, and at the table with me is Mr. Lee Jarvis, the applicant. As stated in the Staff comments, and the application, this is property on the south side of Luzerne Road, west of West Mountain Road. The existing home site, Mr. Jarvis is looking to create a new Lot Three in the back for his new home, and have Lots One and Two for sale, Two being the existing house. We show that the existing driveway for Stanton, who is his sister, he’ll be sharing that driveway with Lot Three. The location of the driveway on Lot Two, even though Luzerne Road, even west of West Mountain Road, is considered a collector road, is right in the center of the lot to the garage that’s on the property. So we know the intent of the Code for the double the lot width is to create driveways of over 300 feet or at least 300 feet. So that you don’t have too many driveways coming out in a short distance along these collector roads. We have no driveways that are directly across the street whatsoever. It’s a vacant parcel. Mr. Jarvis’ parents own to the west, and their driveway is substantially more than 300 feet away, and we just think it’s the best alternative is to use a new driveway on Lot One, because trying to share a driveway between the two parcels, the current house lot, Lot Two, and Lot One, you’d have to create a driveway all the way around back near the septic area, or share the driveway and cut all the way down the front of the house, and we just don’t see that as a feasible alternative. That’s why we’re here in front of this Board. We did pass this in front of the Planning Board for a Sketch Plan, and they kind of concurred with that statement saying that it is kind of difficult to share the driveway Lot One and Two, but we did agree to share the driveway for Lot Three with the existing driveway of Stanton. MR. ABBATE-And you folks, based upon our determination this evening, will have to go before the Planning Board again? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board, do you have any questions concerning Area Variance No. 29-2006? MR. RIGBY-Which lot is the Stanton lot? MR. STEVES-The Stanton lot is in the southeasterly corner. It says Lands Now or Formerly of Pamela Stanton, and Mr. Jarvis is planning to convey .88 acres to her lot to increase her lot, but the driveway exists, she currently has a driveway on the easterly portion of our map. It’s the dashed line that is her driveway to her house in the back. MR. STONE-In looking at your survey, Mr. Steves, it looks like it on the Lands of Flewelling. MR. STEVES-No. There’s another white line that goes all the way down, just parallel to the driveway. Actually, the driveway is centered on the new lot line. She owns a 15 foot strip out on Luzerne Road, and the driveway’s within her 15 foot strip. It is not on the Lands of Flewelling. MR. STONE-So the driveway goes down, on either side of the property line? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. The other question is, I see the driveway going to your new house. Where is it going to go after that short stub? MR. STEVES-Wherever he may place the house. If you’ve been up to this property to look at it, it’s pretty much a big field. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. STEVES-And Mr. Jarvis, they’re anticipating building in the back, opposite his sister’s house. So it would stay within the bounds of Lot Three. MR. STONE-I realize that. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/06) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other Board members have any questions for Mr. Jarvis? MR. RIGBY-What is the distance between, on Lot One and Lot Two, the proposed house has a driveway, and Lot Three has the existing driveway. What’s the distance between those two driveways? MR. STEVES-About 320 feet. MR. RIGBY-Three hundred and twenty feet. Okay. MR. URRICO-Why would it be impossible to share a driveway? MR. STEVES-It’s not impossible. It’s just not practical. Would you want to have a driveway coming right across the front of your house parallel to the road, that almost acts like a service road? MR. URRICO-I don’t know if I would want to, but this is a collector road. There’s a reason why double the lot width is asked for. MR. STEVES-And I understand, and that’s why I started off my presentation with the fact that they’re trying to create driveways of 300 foot separation which we will meet. MR. URRICO-We’re asked to provide minimal relief. This is maximum relief. MR. STEVES-I believe it’s minimal relief, because of the fact that the driveways are 300 feet apart or shared. MR. URRICO-But it’s not double the lot width. MR. STEVES-Double the lot width is not required if you share a driveway. The intent of the Code is to maintain separation distances between driveways on collector roads. MR. URRICO-I think the sense is also to minimize the number of curb cuts going out onto a collector road. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. URRICO-So I still, why would it be impossible or improbable? MR. STEVES-I don’t think it’s, my personal feeling, and Mr. Jarvis’, is that it is not a practical solution to create a driveway that’s shared, and the house is to the westerly part of Lot Two, and the garage is in between the two buildings. I mean, it’s the only place it can really be. You’d have to either put a loop road around the back and then kind of curl into your driveway, or cut right along the front parallel to Luzerne Road. MR. URRICO-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Are you suggesting that this is a feasible alternative? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I just want to put it on the record. MR. STONE-Mr. Steves, can you explain your marks? I look on Lot One and the driveway appears to be solid lines coming in off the road. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. STONE-Then we go to Lot Two, and we seem to have two things, one with a wider cross hatch, if you will, or a more spacey one, and then a one that is kind of intermediate between that one and the solid lines. Are there two driveways on Lot Two? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/06) MR. STEVES-No, I believe you’re looking at the power line that’s crossing Luzerne Road into the existing home. The dash lines that are parallel, coming to the garage in the center of the lot, those dashed lines are the driveway. There’s like a gravel earthen driveway. MR. STONE-I understand. You’re saying those are power lines coming to the house? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. STONE-You don’t show them any other place, though. MR. STEVES-The other houses are proposed. There’s no power lines there yet. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other questions from members of the Board concerning Area Variance No. 29-2006? If not, then I will open up the public hearing, and the public hearing will be open for Area Variance No. 29-2006. Will those wishing to be heard please approach the table, or raise your hand, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself. Do we have any folks in the audience who would like to address Area Variance No. 29-2006? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-Okay. Before I ask members, again, to offer their comments, I would like to inform the public that the comments offered by members are directed to the Chairman only, and comments expressed by Board members to the Chairman are not open to debate. Now, I earlier respectfully reminded the Board members about procedures, and precedents that mandates we concern ourselves with the evidence. I don’t feel I have to go into that again. Having said that, now, do I have a volunteer who would like to address Area Variance No. 29-2006? MR. UNDERWOOD-In looking at the plot plan, and listening to the comments from the applicants, Lot One and Lot Two, their driveways will be separated by well over 300 feet. So I don’t think we can argue with that argument that you made about whether that was reasonable. I think it is reasonable, and I think the back lot, in essence, with the Stanton property, and the proposed house with the owner back there, I mean, that’s basically what amounts to a family subdivision in the backyard. So there’s a longstanding driveway already leading into that parcel, and I don’t think that that’s going to be anything that’s going to trigger anything in my mind that’s a negative. It is a collector road, as you mentioned. The one driveway in the middle out there that is going to be pre-existing. So I mean, that’s not going to change anybody, and Luzerne Road, once you get across the other side there, does create some traffic coming over the mountain, but I don’t think that it’s the huge amount of traffic that you have on the other part of Luzerne Road leading in towards Glens Falls. So, in this instance, I think we can be generous and allow this to go through. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. Stone, please. MR. STONE-I basically agree with Mr. Underwood. The only thing, and it may be my powers of vision. I thought there were two driveways on the east side, yours, and then there seemed to be another one very close. It’s not your property, I recognize. MR. JARVIS-The Flewelling’s driveway runs on the easterly side of the stone wall from my sister’s driveway. MR. STONE-Right. Yes. MR. JARVIS-There’s two driveways right there in, that’s been there forever. MR. STONE-Okay. They are right, those two are right together? MR. JARVIS-Yes. That’s the Flewelling, the land on the easterly side is the Flewelling/Stanton lot. MR. STONE-Okay, and the driveway on your property currently exists? MR. JARVIS-Most definitely. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/06) MR. STONE-We’re only talking about the possibility of using it to get to the back lot, correct? MR. JARVIS-Correct. MR. STONE-I think Mr. Underwood put it very clearly. I’m concerned with other property, but I think the requirements for the subdivision have been met to a large degree, and I would be in favor of the application. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. Rigby, please. MR. RIGBY-I believe that the intent of the Code is to be sure that the driveways are more than 300 feet apart. As long as the driveways are going to be more than 300 feet apart, I’d be in agreement as well. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-I’d have to agree with the other Board members. I think that having a separation there will prevent choke points on a collector road. So I’d be inclined to agree. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Well, I’m going to dissent on this one. I’m sorry, but I believe we have a limited number of collector roads in the Town, and I think when we grant relief we have to be very careful in not changing the balance on the community when we do this. I believe there are feasible alternatives. I think it will be an undesirable change in the neighborhood, not only in that neighborhood, but collector roads that run throughout Queensbury. So I would be against it. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Yes. Thank you. I would agree with the majority. I don’t think that it’s a feasible alternative to combine the driveways for Lots One and Two, considering that Lot Two already has a driveway there. So I would be in favor of this. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I would be in favor too. However, for the record, I’d like to say that I do believe that Mr. Urrico has a point, a valid point. However, in view of that, I would support the majority of the other Board members in supporting the application. Having said that, what I’m going to do is close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 29- 2006. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-Again, I respectfully remind the members that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, and we have five statutory criteria that must be carefully followed. Now, may I please have a volunteer for a motion, any motion, for Area Variance No. 29-2006? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2006 LEE JARVIS, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 729 Luzerne Road. They’re proposing to subdivide a 7.76 acre parcel into three lots, and as mentioned before, the applicant is requesting 64.56 feet of relief for Lot One and 56.19 feet of relief for Lot Two. Those two lots, as we mentioned in our discussions, their driveways will be more than 300 feet apart, and we don’t really feel that that triggers anything in our minds that’s going to affect traffic patterns on that busy collector road, which is Luzerne Road. In essence, the other lot in the back that will be shared, and that will be the Stanton lot, Lot Two’s an existing house site. Lot Three is proposed to share a drive with the Stanton property, and we don’t feel that the two back lots will have any impact at all, because that’s a pre-existing driveway that will just simply be shared by family members. So I would move for its approval. As mentioned, we don’t feel there’ll be any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to the properties nearby. There was no adverse response from the neighborhood in regards to this project. As far as the benefit being sought by the applicant, we didn’t feel that the circular drive proposed for Lots One and Two was 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/06) applicable at this time either, that that would be a substantial burden for the property owners, the new home and the house is pre-existing on site, and as far as the request, is it substantial, I don’t believe it is substantial, and as far as, is the difficulty self-created by the applicant? I don’t feel that it is because they want to subdivide their property and I think they’re doing it in a logical manner. So I would move for its approval. Duly adopted this 24 day of May, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. Urrico MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 29-2006 is six yes, one no. Area Variance No. 29-2006 is approved. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. JARVIS-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome, gentlemen. AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2006 SEQRA TYPE II JOHN SCHADWILL OWNER(S) JOHN SCHADWILL ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION 42 BRITTA LYNN DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,680 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE REQUIRED MINIMUM 40 FT. OF ROAD FRONTAGE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.07 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-39 SECTION 179-4-090 JOHN SCHADWILL, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 30-2006, John Schadwill, Meeting Date: May 24, 2006 “Project Location: 42 Britta Lynn Drive Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes to construct a 1,680 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief Required: The applicant requests 40-feet of relief from the required minimum 40-feet of road frontage for a principal building, per §179-4-090. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None Staff comments: The applicant proposes accessing a future house site from Hall Rd. by extending an existing private driveway. It appears that at least two properties access from the 51.07-feet of road frontage on Hall Rd. The applicant shows an option for access off of Reardon Road, shown as unimproved. This would require construction of the Town road for access. Although the request is substantial (100% of relief requested), feasible alternatives seem to be limited.” MR. ABBATE-Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 30-2006 please come to the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself, and your place of residence, please. MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, I had another ex parte conversation with the applicant’s father, who was present when I drove onto the land, and he did explain to me, without my comment, what was going on here. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/06) MR. ABBATE-Thank you, and also, before you identify yourself, I, too, I received a phone call, at 2:33 p.m., from Mr. Schadwill, attempting to explain the situation. I refused to hear it, and I indicated to him that I would only verify the fact that there is a hearing on Wednesday, and he is scheduled. Other than that, there was no further conversation. MR. RIGBY-I also had a communication with both Mr. Schadwill and Mr. Schadwill also, when I went up to the property, and just gathering information. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Anyone else on the Board? Okay. Good. Please, sir, would you be kind enough to speak into the microphone and identify yourself. MR. SCHADWILL-My name is John Schadwill. I’m here tonight because I propose to construct a 1,680 square foot single family dwelling and am asking for relief from the required minimum 40 foot of road frontage for a principal building. If I could have a minute, I would like to mention that I did receive a copy of the Zoning Board Staff notes. I’d like to clarify one item that was in there. In there reported as follows. It says, “The applicant shows an option for access off of Reardon Road, shown as unimproved. This would require construction of the Town road for access.” I would like to note that I do show a secondary option for access across what is labeled as Unimproved Reardon Road, but I’m not asking for construction of a Town road. MR. ABBATE-So noted. Continue. MR. SCHADWILL-At this time, I’d like to bring to the Board’s attention a deed I have for the parcel I own. The Board should already have received a copy of this, as it was attached to the application. This document conveys to myself a right of way to the easterly boundary of Reardon Road. This conveyance has been accepted and reserved and show in the deeds of the previous landowners since the subdivision was dissolved in the Year 1975. I’m asking the Board to consider this piece of information and find it an acceptable solution to the required minimum 40 feet of road frontage for a principal structure. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and again, since you’re not represented by counsel, if there’s anything during this proceeding you don’t understand, please stop us, we’ll be happy to explain it to you, and if you have any additional information you feel may help your case during this hearing, let us know and we’ll be more than happy to accept it, okay. All right. Having said that now, do we have any members of the Board who would like to address Area Variance No. 30-2006? MR. RIGBY-One question. The statement you just made about the deed, are you asking us to, if we grant this variance, that we are affirming that that property is owned by you? MR. SCHADWILL-Yes. The property is owned by me. I’ve got a right of way, written into my deed, that gives me access to Reardon Road. MR. RIGBY-Is there a question about that deed right now, whether the Town owns it or whether the? MR. SCHADWILL-There is some ongoing discussion with, I guess Supervisor Stec at this point. Our deed does not show that Town road that’s shown as unimproved in there at this point. That has been mentioned to the Town officials that they’re unaware that basically that exists there at this point. I guess I don’t know what else to tell you about that. MR. RIGBY-I’m just not sure, if we grant the variance, if we’re saying that, yes, you do own that property. MR. SCHADWILL-Well, at this point, I’ve got a deed, like I said, the right of way’s written in my deed over the Town property to the existing center line of Reardon Road. It’s not shown, that road’s not written into our deed at all, that Unimproved Reardon Road. The Town’s been made aware that there’s a possibility that they own that, but at the moment, they cannot prove, it’s actually under direction of Supervisor Stec. The Town’s attorney is looking into that to see whether they actually own that or not. MR. ABBATE-Staff, I’m going to admit that I’m a little confused. Can you help us out any, please? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/06) MRS. BARDEN-Not with what Mr. Schadwill is saying. This is not something that I was aware of. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. That’s fair enough. MR. STONE-Well, Mr. Schadwill, let me ask a question. Let’s say we accept the property lines that appear on the Steves survey that you’ve presented with your application, which shows you have a 1.07 acre lot extending north from this right of way to Reardon Road that’s shown here. Do you have access to this right of way? MR. SCHADWILL-Which right of way again? MR. STONE-The one that runs along the bottom of your property, east to west, pretty much east to west. I know what he’s talking about. I want to ascertain that he has access to this. MR. SCHADWILL-What’s labeled as right of way to Reardon Road, as per Deed 1257/151, I do have access to that. MR. STONE-Right, and that’s an easement? MR. SCHADWILL-That’s the right of way that’s conveyed in my deed. MR. STONE-Okay, and that also goes out over the adjoining property to the east out to Hall Road? MR. SCHADWILL-Reardon Road. MR. STONE-No, going the other way. MR. SCHADWILL-Yes, that’s correct, out to Hall Road. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Now, Mr. Schadwill, I have a problem with this plot. Number One, it’s not dated, nor is it stamped, unless I missed it somewhere along the line. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it’s Van Dusen and Steves. MR. ABBATE-Did I miss it, guys? I don’t see a date nor do I see it stamped or signed. MR. RIGBY-There’s a date down here, Chuck. MR. STONE-August 8, 2003. MR. ABBATE-2003, okay. All right. It’s dated 2003. MR. URRICO-Can I ask a question? MR. ABBATE-By all means, please. MR. URRICO-Is Edward Schadwill, is that your father? MR. SCHADWILL-Yes. MR. URRICO-Does he also have an option for access to Reardon Road? MR. SCHADWILL-That is, my right of way is actually based on his deed. MR. URRICO-Based on his deed. MR. SCHADWILL-Yes. MR. URRICO-And so that’s your option, is through that deed? MR. SCHADWILL-Yes, that’s correct. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/06) MR. URRICO-And how do you have the option, how does the deed spell out your access to Hall Road? MR. SCHADWILL-Basically what I’m looking for you guys is I believe once I get on to the right of way it does not matter which way I go. I do have permission from him to access his property there and follow the gravel driveway out to Hall Road. The relief I’m looking for is the 40 feet, and I believe that once I get on to the right of way, that is my relief. MR. STONE-And you would argue that if Reardon Road was improved per this survey, this phantom Town road, that you would, in fact, have more than 40 feet on that road? MR. SCHADWILL-That’s correct. I’ve got 117 feet on what is labeled here as Reardon Road, but per the Town Code, my property has to physically touch a road that is what they call improved, which has to have pavement on it. MR. STONE-Right. MR. STONE-And nobody in the Town seems to know whether or not the Town owns this so called Reardon Road, Town road unimproved? MR. SCHADWILL-That is correct. We started this process many months ago. We went to see Superintendent Missita. We’ve been down to talk to Craig Brown, and we’ve since followed up with Supervisor Stec, which he, at this time, has turned it over to the Town Attorney to see if, in fact, they do own what is called the Unimproved Reardon Road. MR. STONE-Have we received, Mr. Chairman, anything from the Town Attorney? MR. ABBATE-No. I was going to address that as soon as you were done. Let me make sure I heard you correctly. Did you say that the Town forwarded this to our Town Attorney? MR. SCHADWILL-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Has the Town Attorney addressed this issue? MR. SCHADWILL-As of yesterday, we hadn’t gotten word back from them. We had called up there. I did not get an answer back as to whether, it was sent to him, but there has been no resolution on that yet. MR. ABBATE-Well, I’m going to be meeting with the Town Attorney tomorrow morning anyway, and I can certainly raise this issue, but, from my point of view, I’m not to stable on this right now, particularly since you indicated that there may possibly be a legal interpretation, possibly even litigation. I don’t know. I said earlier to Staff that I’m a little confused, and I really am, on this whole issue, phantom roads and all this other business, but that’s my comment. The majority of the Board makes the decision. Do we have any other comments from the Board members before I open up the public hearing? None? Okay. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 30-2006, and would those wishing to be heard, do me a favor, please raise your hand and I’ll recognize you, ask you to come to the table, speak into the microphone and identify yourself. Do we have any members of the public who would like to address Area Variance No. 30-2006? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I see none. Okay. Then I’ll continue. Again, I’m going to ask members to offer their comments. I’d like to inform the public that the comments offered by Board members are directed to the Chairman and not open to debate. Having said that now, and having previously advised, respectfully, the Board members about our concern about evidence and judicial review, I don’t think it’s necessary to repeat it again. Do I have a volunteer who would like to address Area Variance No. 30-2006? MR. RIGBY-I’ll give you my thoughts. MR. ABBATE-Would you please, Mr. Rigby, please. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/06) MR. RIGBY-Subject to being able to comment again later, maybe. My original thought is coming off Hall Road, I have no problem at all. I mean, the only way to access this property is by granting the variance. So, coming off of Hall Road, I see, you know, I have no problem at all granting the variance. I have somewhat of a problem, and I think Reardon Road is a good solution, too. Either access is fine, but I have the same concern that you have, a little bit, about the legal implications. I don’t know what’s going on from a legal standpoint, and how our granting the variance from the Reardon Road side might affect the legal aspects of what’s going on right now. So, my comment is, you know, I have no problem with the variance at all. I think we should grant it, is my opinion, but I do have a problem with litigation being underway right now, (lost words) understanding what’s going on with that. Those are my comments. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rigby. Mr. Underwood, would you mind, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s amazing that the Town has to concern themselves with these pertinent issues, you know, that can change the course of humanity, but in this instance here, I think people have been using Reardon Road Town road and Unimproved Town road, whatever you want to call it, for a long period of time. Obviously, it would be in Mr. Schadwill’s interest to use the Reardon Road side for his access point, rather than traveling all the way across from Hall Road, which would be much longer to plow in the wintertime, too. So, in this instance here, whether or not the Town has made a decision or not, I think we can make a decision here tonight, and I think that, in this instance, it’s not going to affect the course of the Town or community or anybody’s access point. There was no concern from the neighborhood, and in this instance here, I don’t think we need to be concerned with it either. I think it’s a reasonable request. It’s a logical request. So I would be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-I’d have to agree with Mr. Underwood, with the exception, I wouldn’t want to make any decision based on Reardon Road at this point, but as far as Hall Road, I’d feel comfortable about approving this. Also, I’m not sure if, you know, any decision we make or any decision made by the Town could make this variance moot, by what they determine. I wouldn’t want to get into the legality of that, but at this point, you know, I’d be inclined to approve it for access from Hall Road. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Stone, please. MR. STONE-Well, I think Mr. Garrand just said it very well. There is no doubt that this is a buildable lot. It does have access to a Town road over a granted right of way to at least what is called Britta Lyn Road, which, I don’t know whether that’s a Town road or not, down closer to Hall, but the point is, there is access. Going out to Reardon Road is obviously a dilemma, in terms of what it is and so on, but if you walk this property, as I did today, and you look at this survey map and you see what is supposedly Reardon Road Unimproved, it ain’t nothing but woods. It is not a road, and if it were to go, it would go straight up a hill, in the middle of nowhere, and I think this thing should be easily resolved, but as Mr. Garrand says, let’s not talk about that. We’ll let Mr. Schadwill worry about that and grant, as far as I’m concerned, access to Hall Road and make it a legal lot. So I’m in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-I agree. I think this is not unlike many applications we’ve received from landlocked property owners needing access to a Town road. Regardless of the outcome of Reardon Road, that’s not going to be improved any time soon. So it’s not going to change the status of this property in any way. Therefore, the only way he’s going to be able to, he’s still going to need the variance. So I don’t see any problem. I don’t think the benefit can be achieved by other means. There’s no undesirable change in the neighborhood. The request is substantial, but only because the Town Code requires access on a Town road, which obviously he doesn’t have, but it’s a buildable lot, and he needs access to the road, to Hall Road. I don’t see any adverse physical or environmental effects, and I certainly don’t think this is self-created. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree. I don’t see any problem. I don’t see the access to Reardon Road as being a deterrent to granting this variance. So I would be in favor. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/06) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Now you wanted to make a statement. Go right ahead. MR. SCHADWILL-Yes, there’s a couple of things I’d like to mention. It should also be known that the Lands of Edward and Britta Schadwill, before they had access through Britta Lynn Drive, off of Reardon Road, this was their access. This is in their deed. They own this piece. This is still a driveway. It’s still accessible to Reardon Road at this point. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right, and I agree with my fellow Board members, and I’m going to support the application, and to answer Mr. Garrand, once we make a decision, only the Supreme Court can overturn us, not the Town. So, I’m always worried about making a decision, erring, if you will, on the side of caution, but tonight I think I’ll throw it to the wind and say that I’ll support the application. Right now, I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 30-2006. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And again, I’d respectfully remind the members we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the five statutory criteria. Having said that, is there a motion for Area Variance No. 30-2006? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2006 JOHN SCHADWILL, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: 42 Britta Lynn Drive. The applicant proposes to construct a 1,680 square foot single family dwelling. In doing so, the applicant is requesting 40 feet of relief from the required minimum 40 feet of road frontage for a principal building per 179-4-090. In supporting this variance, I make note of the balancing test, which requires that the benefit not be achieved by any means other, that are feasible to the applicant, and we don’t see any other feasible means being available to the applicant that would allow access to a Town road. There would be no undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties. The request, while it is substantial, is due basically toward the Zoning Code which requires access to a legitimate Town road, and we don’t see any adverse physical or environmental effects, and the applicant has not self-created this situation. It’s created by the Town Code. Duly adopted this 24 day of May, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Rigby, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 30-2006 is seven yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 30-2006 is approved. MR. SCHADWILL-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2006 SEQRA TYPE II D’ELLA AUTO GROUP AGENT(S) RIST- FROST ASSOC., P.C. ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 293 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,610 SQ. FT. SHOWROOM ADDITION AND NEW CANOPY FRONT ENTRANCE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE HC-ZONE. CROSS REF.: SPR 26-2006; AV 62-2004; FW 3-05; SP 38-05; AV 89-2004; BP 2005-709; BP 92-025; BP 89-035 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 10, 2006 LOT SIZE 4.97 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-5 SECTION 179-4-030 MICHAEL D’ELLA BELLA & JOHN CHAPMAN, REPRESENTING, APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 31-2006, D’ella Auto Group, Meeting Date: May 24, 2006 “Project Location: 293 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes a new façade and canopy on the front of the existing auto dealership. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/06) Relief Required: The applicant requests 3.6-feet of additional front setback relief, where 50-feet is the minimum, per § 179-4-030, for the HC-Int zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 26-2006: Pending, for this project. BP 2005-709: Issued 11/2/05, for 4,253 sq. ft. of commercial interior alterations and a 1,610 sq. ft. addition. FWW 3-2005: Approved 7/19/05, for changes made to the impervious surfaces on-site. SP 38-2005: Approved 7/19/05, for showroom addition, additional parking/display/car storage area and site improvements. AV 89-2004: Approved 11/24/04, front setback relief for a 1,610 sq. ft. addition. AV 62-2004: Denied 8/25/04, front setback relief and relief from the permeability requirements, for a 1,775 sq. ft. building addition and 21,750 sq. ft. expansion of parking. Staff comments: The ZBA approved 45.2-feet of front setback relief (AV 89-2004) for the 1,610 sq. ft. addition, on November 24, 2004 (see parcel history and resolution). This proposal is for additional relief of 3.6-feet for a new entranceway in front of the addition. This would put the previously approved addition and entranceway 1.6-feet from the front property line. Prior to that approval, the Board denied (AV 62-2004) for a 1,775 sq. ft. addition, requesting 46.79-feet of front setback relief (see parcel history and resolution). The addition has not been constructed yet, therefore, a feasible alternative may be to reduce the size of the addition to incorporate the new entrance. This variance request may not seem substantial (an additional 3.6-feet), however cumulatively the variance requests would result in 48.4-feet of relief from the front setback, which is substantial.” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 10, 2006 Project Name: D’Ella Auto Group Project Owner(s): Famiglia Bella ID Number: QBY-06-AV-31 County Project#: May06-43 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,610 sq. ft. showroom addition and new canopy front entrance. Relief requested from front yard setback requirements of the HC-zone. Site Location: 293 Quaker Road Tax Map Number(s): 296.20-1-5 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes construction of a 1,610 sq. ft. showroom addition and new canopy front entrance. The new construction is to be located 1.6 ft. from the front property line where 50 ft. is required. The information submitted indicates a recent addition was approved at 5 ft. from the property line. The purpose of the new addition is to address GM requirements for façade. The application includes a previous resolution in regards to the need to obtain NIMO (national grid) easement and the Della Auto group be responsible for the sewer equipment of a grinder pump. The drawings show the location of the new addition, lighting, landscaping, and elevation drawings. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. Warren County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Paul J. Gollhgher, Warren County Planning 5/12/06. MR. ABBATE-Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 31-2006 be kind enough to approach the table, speak into the microphone, and identify yourself, please. MR. D’ELLA BELLA-Good evening everyone. My name is Michael D’ella Bella. I’m the owner of D’ella. MR. CHAPMAN-John Chapman, representing Rist-Frost Associates. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now before we start this evening, gentlemen, I have several questions I’d like to ask, and a comment. First of all, I’d like to ask if we have a representative from National Grid, heretofore called NiMo, in the audience this evening? The answer to that, 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/06) apparently, is no. My first question to both of you gentlemen is this. Does D’ella have any position letter from National Grid, and if so, what is the nature and status of your access agreement with National Grid? And, two, have you discussed the 1.6 foot variance with National Grid? Those are my two questions. MR. D’ELLA BELLA-I had several conversations with Mr. Flaherty, with National Grid. I produced, two zoning hearings ago, a document from 1960 something when they built it, giving egress and ingress and right of use to the lands that National Grid owns, as everybody else does on Quaker Road. MR. ABBATE-The problem is that it’s not an R.O.W. It’s private property. There’s no R.O.W. It’s private property. MR. D’ELLA BELLA-It’s a right of way for me. MR. ABBATE-I don’t have that documentation. Do any of you members of the Board have that? Do you have that, Staff? MRS. BARDEN-I don’t have it, no. If Mr. D’ella Bella is saying that it was in a previous. MR. D’ELLA BELLA-We’re going back with this thing since 2004. We had to check the wires, the length of the wipers. MRS. BARDEN-Right. I’ve got it. MR. ABBATE-Did you say you do? MRS. BARDEN-Well, I have those files. So I can look for that. MR. ABBATE-Would you please. MR. URRICO-I remember documentation. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-I remember the last time you came in. MR. ABBATE-I just wanted to make sure. MR. D’ELLA BELLA-Yes, I understand, and I appreciate the question. MR. ABBATE-So for the record, then, what you’re basically saying, you do have position letter from National Grid, and they have permitted you to, there is an agreement with the nature and status of your access agreement? MR. D’ELLA BELLA-It was given when National Grid bought all that property in 1960 something, and I had a document that I also forwarded to Mr. Flaherty, several, a year ago. This has been going back and forth with National Grid because there’s an issue of who’s going to pay to move the wires. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. I just want to be satisfied. So, for the record, there is, in fact, a position letter with National Grid, that gives you access? MR. D’ELLA BELLA-Niagara Mohawk. MR. ABBATE-Well, it was called Niagara Mohawk. Now I think it’s called National Grid. MR. D’ELLA BELLA-National Grid, that’s correct. MR. ABBATE-That’s fine. That satisfies this. Now, my second question is this. Have you discussed the 1.6 variance with National Grid? The reason I raise that issue is that, if we were to approve this, it would be almost a zero tolerance, if you will. I believe, and correct me, Board members, if I’m wrong, I think it’s supposed to be a 50 foot, granted, we did grant X number of feet of variance to you the last time you were here, but this would bring it to one foot six inches closer to private property. Have you discussed that with National Grid? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/06) MR. D’ELLA BELLA-Not specifically, but in all my conversations with Mr. Flaherty all along, he’s trying to work with me because there’s an issue that has nothing to do with my project. It’s got something to do with National Grid and the Town, and he’s bending over backwards to try and help me. So, if you want me to ask him, I’ll ask him, but if it’s got anything to do with wires, they have a position, and the Town says one thing and they say another and they’re in court with it, and that’ll be in court forever. What I really was looking for tonight was, you know, 42 more inches, and since I was 100 feet away from Quaker Road, I mean, I’m not right on top of the road. So I’ve been using all that property as we park cars there. It’s all improved. We’ve been there for 25 years without any problems with Niagara Mohawk, National Grid, just General Motors continues to have their things that they want to do with the image facilities, and with this one, I really wasn’t even going to come back, but I did because it looks nicer than the front that we have, and because it’s covered, that’s the only reason why I’m moving it. Because it’s covered, when they walk into the building, they’re walking into the building with a three foot overhang, if you will, and I think we sent pictures of what it looks like. So it looks much nicer than it did before. So I’ve moved the building back several feet, took out over 1,000 feet already, and my whole reason for doing this was to put in the Cadillac. Cadillac needed the space. Plus, I had to get new bathrooms, and the bathrooms I have, they’re not accessible. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. D’ELLA BELLA-So that started the whole project, and from there, it’s been one thing after another with things that I had to do for the Town of Queensbury that I work real diligently, and thank you for all the help that I’ve been getting with your opinions here. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, thank you for addressing those two concerns of mine. I appreciate it. So you may continue with your argument. MR. D’ELLA BELLA-Okay. Because of the General Motors design, the 42 more inches is really the canopy that comes out of the building. My original building was 1700 and some odd square foot. So by taking out that five or six feet of the front, I reduced the amount of space that I need for display. So I moved all that back. So instead of the showroom being what I really wanted it to be, it’s smaller, because I couldn’t give us what I really need to do, and that’s customer access points. When someone comes in, we have several handicap customers that can’t use the bathroom, and I’m embarrassed. So that was a real big issue for me to do that. So I can’t shorten the building anymore and keep with the General Motors design, with the Cadillac, and I’ve been under contract with General Motors now for a little over three years, and I’ve been telling them I’m working diligently to get this project completed. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would you like to add anything? MR. CHAPMAN-No. I agree with Mr. D’ella Bella. He has worked diligently with the Town and bent over backwards, I believe, to present a good project to the Town, and as you can see from the photo, it’s a very attractive building. I think it will be very positive along Quaker Road, and a benefit to the community. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board, do you have any questions concerning Area Variance No. 31-2006? MR. STONE-Well, I have a question of Staff. Looking at the history, and I remember a lot of this, we did deny additional parking to the north, did we not? Did we ever grant permission for the parking that is now taking place back there? I mean, it seems the lot goes forever, and I just don’t remember, quite frankly. MR. D’ELLA BELLA-I could answer that. MR. STONE-I mean, you’ve got down denied for 62-2004. MRS. BARDEN-Right. MR. URRICO-If I recall, that issue was because the property behind him was not owned. Did you purchase? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/06) MR. D’ELLA BELLA-We had to buy the property. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-I recall that. MRS. BARDEN-So he no longer needed the permeability relief that he had sought. MR. STONE-Thank you. I just couldn’t remember. MR. ABBATE-Good question. Anyone else have any questions concerning Area Variance No. 31-2006? MRS. HUNT-I have a question. So the relief you’re requesting is just for the canopy? MR. D’ELLA BELLA-It’s 42 inches. It’s just the canopy, the building. MRS. HUNT-It’s not for the building, it’s just for the canopy? MR. CHAPMAN-The showroom will remain the same approved size. It’s strictly for the canopy, and it doesn’t project for the full length of the building, just for a partial width in the center. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have any other questions from Board members? Okay. If not, I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 31-2006, and if anyone in the audience would like to speak concerning this Area Variance, would you raise your hand and I’ll recognize you. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I see no hands. All right. Then I’ll continue on, and again, I’m going to ask Board members to offer their comments, and the comments will be directed to the Chairman and not open to debate. Having said that, now, I’m going to ask members to please offer their comments on Area Variance No. 31-2006, and I went through the precedents and mandates. I don’t believe I have to do that again. Do we have a volunteer? MR. STONE-I’ll start. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Stone, please. MR. STONE-When I first looked at this thing, I’m saying, how far are we going to keep going with this thing. Obviously we’ll be on Quaker Road pretty soon if keep chopping this thing off, but as Mr. D’ella Bella explains, we’re talking a canopy, and, yes, that is technically getting closer to the property line. I am more disturbed, as I talk, about all the cars parked in front of the building, because I don’t think people can see the building, but that’s marketing, and that’s not my concern, but as I drove on the property today, there are a whole bunch of cars in front of your showroom, and I know the business. You’re trying to sell cars, but I can’t see your building, but, nevertheless, I think the relief you’re asking, combined with what we’ve granted before, doesn’t disturb me too much, and I would be in favor. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. Mr. Rigby, please. MR. RIGBY-I’m pretty much in agreement with Mr. Stone. I think the 42 inches that Mr. D’ella Bella is asking for, combined with the limited amount of variance he’s asking for, the 42 inches, combined with the new design, is actually going to be a benefit to the community. I think the appearance is going to be something that is going to be much more pleasant than what’s there right now. So I’m in favor of it as well. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Well, I agree with Mr. Rigby. I think the benefits to the community, in addition to the handicap bathrooms, and the overall appearance is a benefit to the community. Forty-two inches, I don’t believe, is very significant. Also, I don’t see any objections to this project here. The only property owner seriously affected is National Grid, and they’re not here. So I’d have no objections to this. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/06) MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Well, as well noted, this section is always problematic for us because it presents some unusual problems we don’t usually see elsewhere in the Town, but I want to remind everybody that the overlay, this is the widest part of Quaker Road, and it’s probably not going to get much wider than that. So I really feel the encroachment is minimal. It’s far removed from the road. I think, as explained by Mr. D’ella Bella, I really think this project is going to benefit him, and I think it’s a good project. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes. I’m in agreement with my fellow Board members. I don’t think that the benefit could be achieved by any other way, given the relief for the canopy. I don’t think I would be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or to nearby properties. I think it would be an improvement. I don’t think it’s a substantial request. I think it’s rather minimal. I don’t think it’ll have any adverse physical or environmental effects and I would be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Last time we approved the Area Variance for what you had proposed previously, I think that you were pretty gracious as far as moving the building back, and I think that, in this instance here, it’s just the canopy, as you suggested. It’s not going to trigger anything, in my mind, that makes us want to stop this thing. So I would be in favor of it, too. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, I listened to Board members, and I did have some initial concern, but I listened to what Board members had to say, and it makes sense, and I, too, would support the application. Now, having said that, I’m going to then close the public hearing on Area Variance No. 31-2006. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And again, I’m going to respectfully remind the members that we have the task of balancing the variance with the five statutory criteria that we have that we must carefully consider. Having said that, is there a motion for Area Variance No. 31-2006? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2006 D’ELLA AUTO GROUP, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 293 Quaker Road. The applicant proposes a new façade and canopy on the front of the existing auto dealership. The applicant requests 3.6 feet of additional front setback relief where 50 foot is the minimum per Section 179-4-030 for the HC zone. The balancing test, can the benefits be achieved by other means? Well, GM has their mandates. I don’t see how the applicant can achieve benefits in another way for this project. Will it result in an undesirable change to the neighborhood? I don’t believe so. The request is 42 inches. I don’t believe that is substantial. I also don’t believe that the request will have any adverse physical or environmental impact on the neighborhood, and the difficulty is not self-created. Duly adopted this 24 day of May, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The second by Mr. Urrico has resulted in a vote of seven yes, zero no, and Area Variance No. 31-2006 is approved. MR. D’ELLA BELLA-Thank you very much. MR. CHAPMAN-Thank you very much, gentlemen. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/06) AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2006 SEQRA TYPE II JAMES & SUSAN MOONEY OWNER(S) JAMES & SUSAN MOONEY ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 346 CLEVERDALE ROAD CLEVERDALE, NY 12820 APPLICANT PROPOSES REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING DOCKS; NEW DOCK PROPOSED AT 700 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM THE ALLOWABLE CONFIGURATION REQUIREMENT. CROSS REF.: BP 2002-571 DOCK; AV 89-1995; BP 98-050 ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 10, 2006 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.53 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-70 SECTION 179-5-050A(6), (8) JAMES MOONEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 32-2006, James & Susan Mooney, Meeting Date: May 24, 2006 “Project Location: 346 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes to remove and replace portions of an existing “E” shaped dock. Relief Required: The applicant requests 31.73-feet of relief from the minimum 151-feet of lake frontage for an “E” shaped dock, per § 179-5-050. Additionally, 1-foot of (S.) side setback relief is required from the minimum 20-feet, per §179- 5-050. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2003-599: For a 189 sq. ft. dock. BP 2002-571: Issued, 7/10/02, for a 189.6 sq. ft. portion of a crib dock. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to remove and relocate (4-feet north) the northernmost slip and replace in kind the southernmost slip. The applicant has enough lake frontage (119.27-feet) for one straight “T”, “L”, or “U”- shaped wharf. A feasible alternative to the granting of relief from the required 151-feet of lake frontage for the “E” shaped dock could be to remove and not replace either slip on the end, creating a “U” shaped dock. A feasible alternative to the request for 1-foot of relief from the side setback may be to reduce the size of the slip by 1-foot, thus complying with the 20-foot setback.” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Review and Referral Form May 10, 2006 “Project Name: Mooney, James & Susan Project Owner(s): James & Susan Mooney ID Number: QBY-06-AV-32 County Project #: May06-46 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes replacement of existing docks; new dock proposed at 700 sq. ft. Relief requested from side setback requirements as well as relief from the allowable configuration requirement. Site Location: 346 Cleverdale Road Tax Map Number(s): 226.12-1-70 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to remove an existing dock configuration and to construct a new dock. The information submitted indicates the southern portion dock is to be replaced that is 19 ft. from the property line where 20 ft. is required. The north portion of the dock is to be moved four feet north. The applicant has indicated that the construction would allow for it to be in the same configuration with no effect on the character of the neighborhood. 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 Paul J. Gollhofer, 5/12/06. MR. ABBATE-Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 32-2006 please approach the table, speak into the microphone and please be kind enough to identify yourself. MR. MOONEY-James Mooney, 346 Cleverdale Road. I’m basically here to replace the existing docks. I own three boats. I do not rent dock space. The docks have been heavily hit 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/06) by ice over the last 10, 15 years, and I do build docks for a living, and my docks look worse than anybody else’s on the whole shoreline. Anyway, it does not interfere with the neighbor’s swimming area, boating whatever. The surface area of the new docks will remain under 700 square feet. The Park Commission has issued a permit for the work to be done. I guess that’s it. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and again, since you’re not represented by an attorney, if you have any questions or comments, don’t hesitate to let us know, please. MR. MOONEY-I understand. MR. ABBATE-All right. Having said that, do any members of the Board have any questions for Mr. Mooney? MR. RIGBY-I just had a quick general question, I guess. Can you give me a sense of what it is that you’re actually replacing the dock with? I mean, I know how the dock looks now. I was out there. So can give me a sense of how it’s going to look when it’s done? MR. MOONEY-It’ll basically look the same. The middle of the “E”, middle finger, was replaced in 2003. I was issued a permit. I don’t know why. I guess I shouldn’t have been, but I was. Now basically I was asking for just to replace the north dock, and that threw in the variance, for some reason. I had little discussion with Craig Brown, thinking that I was allowed to have a “U” shaped dock on the property. So what he suggested was go for the whole variance on the “E”, that way, because everything needs to be replaced on north and south. The middle is fine. MR. RIGBY-The middle section stays? MR. MOONEY-Right, that’s been replaced. MR. STONE-The covered portion. MR. RIGBY-Yes. MR. MOONEY-Yes. Well, no, the right hand, the southern portion of the covered dock needs to be replaced. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MOONEY-The middle finger of the “E” has been replaced, but the north is in detrimental problems. MR. STONE-No, I’m sorry, the slip is the one that’s covered. I meant the water. MR. MOONEY-Correct, and I proposed, what also threw it into a variance was I proposed to move the dock four foot north because the slip is only eight feet wide, and the boats today are about seven feet in width. That doesn’t leave you much space for moving it back and forth, and Sandy Bay is getting quite busy these days, and that’s why I wanted to do that, and a normal slip is twelve feet wide. MR. ABBATE-And this was a result of severe damage caused by ice and what have you? MR. MOONEY-Over the years it’s been hit. It’s like 80 years old, the dock. MR. RIGBY-So the southern leg of the dock is going to be replaced as it is today, right? MR. MOONEY-Correct. MR. RIGBY-No change to it. You’re just going to replace it. MR. MOONEY-Right. MR. RIGBY-And then the northern piece is going to be moved north a foot? MR. MOONEY-Four feet. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/06) MR. RIGBY-Four feet. MR. MOONEY-Right. MR. STONE-Staff is suggesting that that eight foot wide south heading jut could be one foot less, and then that would be in compliance. MR. MOONEY-Correct. MR. STONE-Is that something you could consider? MR. MOONEY-Yes. I believe my neighbors to the south have written a letter to the Town saying they didn’t object to that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it’s in the file. MR. STONE-That’s one of the things that I need to know. MR. MOONEY-My neighbors to the south are right on my property line. I mean, they’re like a foot away, and they share my water, and we don’t have a problem with that. So they didn’t care. We share our swimming area together all summer. We don’t have a problem. Usually, if a neighbor complains, you people don’t like that. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have any other questions for Mr. Mooney? Okay. If not, I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 32-2006. If those wishing to be heard from the public would raise their hand, I’d be more than happy to recognize you. Would you please speak into the microphone and for the record, identify yourself, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I heard the phrase covered dock, covered. Is there a boathouse involved in this project? MR. STONE-What do you mean by boathouse? MR. ABBATE-Not that I know of, no. MR. SALVADOR-Covered dock. MR. STONE-There’s just a cover, I believe. It’s covered. MR. SALVADOR-Covered. MR. STONE-One of the slips has an over top. MR. SALVADOR-Is it a boathouse? MR. MOONEY-It’s a sundeck. MR. STONE-It’s a sundeck. MR. SALVADOR-Is there a boat under the deck, a boat in the slip under the deck? MR. STONE-I believe there would be. MR. SALVADOR-We call that a boathouse, do we? MR. STONE-You call it a boathouse. I call it a dock. MR. SALVADOR-My point is, what is the scope of the project? Is it just a dock, or is it something, a covered dock, a boathouse? We have criteria for boathouses. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/06) MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s moving an uncovered portion four feet over. MR. SALVADOR-In the moving process, does it conform to our regulations? That’s all. I’ve tried to comment on this many, many times before. Anything called a covered dock, a boathouse, whatever you want to call it, is an integral part of what’s underneath it, or it’s not stable construction. You can’t permit one and toenail the other one on top of it. We can’t do that, and I think they’ve got to be addressed. It’s like permitting a foundation for a house, and then coming later and permitting the house structure. You don’t do that. One is integral to the other. That’s all my point is. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Salvador. Your point is well made and on the record. Mr. Mooney, would you be kind enough to please come back to the table. Okay. Is there anyone else in the public who would like to be heard regarding Area Variance No. 32-2006? MR. UNDERWOOD-There was one letter. MR. ABBATE-We have a letter. Would you read it into the record, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Dear Chairman Abbate: Our home in Cleverdale is next to the Mooney residence. We are directly to the south at 340 Cleverdale Road. We support their application to rebuild their docks. We feel it is very important for people to have newer and safer docks. Thank you. Robert & Elizabeth Birchenough 340 Cleverdale Road” MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. Now I’m going to, again, ask members to offer their comments on this particular Area Variance No. 32-2006, and we all know, now, the criteria which we must address. Having said that, do we have a volunteer who wishes to go first to address this particular Area Variance? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll go if you want. MR. ABBATE-Would you please, Mr. Underwood. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, in reviewing the request, I think, in essence what they’re really requesting is moving the one dock four feet further to the one side there, and I assume that’s a major undertaking with it being a crib dock, you’re going to have to rip all the 80 year old timbers out and re-do the whole thing, but in essence, you know, four feet of additional width on that place, you know, where the boats are going to be held in that “E” shape there isn’t really going, to me, trigger anything. I mean, it’s far enough away from the neighbor who’s most nearly affected that over to the line I believe it’s going to go from 53 to 49 feet I believe is going to be the setback change as a result of that. So I don’t really think that that’s substantial, and I think as far as the dock on the other side that will be replaced, it’s going to be replaced in exactly the same place where it’s currently constructed and it’s been there for 80 years. There doesn’t seem to be any neighborhood opposition to this. I think that even though the Code specifies that this is an illegal dock, under our present Code, with it’s “E” shape to it, I think if we were owners of that property and we wanted to replace our dock, we would probably request the same thing. I don’t think it’s anything in excess here that’s being requested. It’s a replacement for something that’s already there. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-I don’t think what’s being asked for is a lot. Like Mr. Underwood said, it’s four feet north. The existing dock does appear to be nonconforming, but I don’t see any reason why an applicant shouldn’t be able to replace what’s already there, because it’s damaged, and we do allow for replacing damaged docks. So I’d be in favor of this project. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Stone, please. MR. STONE-I’m a little more concerned than my other Board members. I’m concerned by the fact that if we’re going to do work on this dock, why we at least can’t make one side conforming. The more that something stays nonconforming, the more opportunities other people have to come and say, well, this dock doesn’t abide the side setback, and here’s an opportunity to make it conform. This is a relatively lake frontage. I mean, normally, even in Cleverdale, we’re talking 60, 70 feet, and here is approximately, I guess 120 feet, and I don’t see the difficulty in taking one foot off of the south facing finger. I have no problem with the “E” shaped dock. I mean, there’s certainly plenty of room to the right, and as Board 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/06) members have stated, it was damaged by ice, although even Mr. Mooney says not all at once. It’s been a slow wrecking, if you will, every year a little bit more, but, I’m not unhappy with allowing rebuilding of the dock, but if we’re going to do that, and the survey that I have in front of me says that finger is to be replaced, I would be more comfortable if, in fact, it was brought to 20 feet. Having said that, I will reserve judgment on my final vote. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Rigby, please. MR. RIGBY-I’m more along the lines of Mr. Underwood. I think that, you know, the southern section of the dock needs to be replaced, and that’s what it is, it’s a replacement. The northern end, you’re asking, really, for one foot of additional variance request. I don’t have any problem with that. So I’d be in agreement with the request. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Yes, thank you. I would be in agreement. As they say, it’s just replacing the one dock and moving the other four feet which does not impact the property to the north. So I would be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m general in agreement with my fellow Board members, although I do make note of what Mr. Stone said. I think there is an opportunity to be less intrusive, and make some adjustments to the plan. Also, Mr. Salvador raises a good point, too, regarding boathouses, and our definition says a structure which has direct access to a body of navigable water and one is used for the storage of vessels and associated equipment, and, two does not have bathroom or kitchen facilities. You don’t have any bathroom there or kitchen, right? And is not designed or used for lodging or residence. So, covered dock would seem to fall in line with that. It’s something that also should be addressed, I think. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Stone, I’d like to go back to you. You wanted to reserve judgment. MR. STONE-I’m probably going to vote no just on principal. I realize it’s going to pass, but I think here is an opportunity, and I’m quoting from Staff notes, Staff has made a particular statement about that, and I see no reason not to ask for that, so I will be in the minority. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I listened to what all the Board members had to say, but I must confess that I come on the side of Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Rigby and Mr. Garrand, and that is I will support the application. Having said that, I’m going to now close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 32-2006. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And then again I respectfully remind the Board members of the five statutory criteria. Having said that, is there a motion for Area Variance No. 32-2006? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2006 JAMES & SUSAN MOONEY, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 346 Cleverdale Road. The applicant is proposing to remove and replace portions of an existing E-shaped dock. Under the present day Code, the applicant is requesting 31.73 feet of relief from the minimum 151 feet of lake frontage, and that’s because he only has 120 feet of lake frontage. This E-shaped dock is not permitted on that, but we feel because it’s a pre- existing, and it’s been there for 80 years, we don’t have a problem with the replacement of it as it exists. The only change that will occur will be the moving of the northern most portion of that dock four feet further to the north, and additionally one foot of south side setback relief is required from the minimum 20 feet per Section 179-5-050 for that part that will also be replaced in its exact location. In general, we do not feel that there’s any detriment to the waterfront. The slight expansion to the north we don’t feel is going to trigger anything in our minds, either, and even though Staff has correctly pointed out that this shaped dock is not permitted in that zone, because it’s been there for 80 years, we don’t really feel that we should make them go with a conforming shape at this point in time. The one foot of relief from the south side setback, too, we don’t feel is substantial, and making that side one foot smaller really wouldn’t alter the course of history on the lake. So, in general, the balancing test falls 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/06) with the applicant. We don’t really feel that it’s a substantial request. So I would move for its approval. Duly adopted this 24 day of May, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. Stone MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 32-2006 is six yes, one no. Area Variance No. 32-2006 is approved. MR. MOONEY-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. 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 MR. ABBATE-Now we have one little item here we have to do, folks. I have to do a tabling. MR. UNDERWOOD-Susan, which one do you want us to do here? MRS. BARDEN-Kelly. MR. UNDERWOOD-Kelly. I think that we previously already made that resolution. MRS. BARDEN-That’s the debriefing notes. I thought you said you thought you made it last week? You did Casse and Hoffman. MR. ABBATE-Yes. We did something here. Last week, I have here in the record, here it is right here. Yes, last week there was a request for an extension of a tabling motion until submission deadline date of June the 15 to be on the agenda during the month of July 2006, th from David Kelly, and what we did, his letter to me was dated April 11. I think, then, we th need a tabling, don’t we? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Yes. I think you’re absolutely correct. This is based upon a request from the applicant, correct? MRS. BARDEN-I think so. MR. ABBATE-Okay. In a letter dated April 11, Mr. Lapper, who represents David and th Sally Kelly, has requested that we table this variance until the, it says deadline date June 15 th to be on the agenda during the month of July. If that’s the case, then here’s what we will do. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2006 DAVID R. KELLY, MD & SALLY N. KELLY, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 8 Rocky Shore Drive. Until July 19, 2006. Duly adopted this 24 day of May, 2006, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Abbate 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/06) NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-Area Variance No. 8-2006, David and Sally Kelly, 8 Rocky Shore Drive, will be tabled until the 19 of July, 2006. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate it. th MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have any public comment? MR. ABBATE-Yes, I’m sorry. Please come forward and identify yourself. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-I just have one short question. I noticed that tonight’s agenda was revised. There’s a note here that says they removed Area Variance No. 68-2005, per Chairman Abbate. MR. ABBATE-Yes, that’s correct. MR. SALVADOR-What was the reason for removing it? MRS. BARDEN-The Golden Corral. MR. SALVADOR-It says Northeast Dining and Lodging, Inc. d/b/a Golden Corral Restaurant. MR. ABBATE-Yes, yes, yes, you’re absolutely correct, and the reason behind that was the Planning Board had not yet addressed the complete issue of Northeast Dining, and so it made absolutely no sense to place them on our agenda, particularly due to the fact that the Planning Board wasn’t even going to hear it by that time. So it was an administrative thing more than anything else. MR. SALVADOR-You mean the Planning Board dances before the ZBA? I mean, that’s good news. MRS. BARDEN-It’s coordinated SEQRA review. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-So they need to get through SEQRA before they can come back for their variance. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. SALVADOR-The Planning Board is doing a SEQRA? MR. URRICO-They’re the Lead Agency. MR. ABBATE-Yes, they’re the Lead Agency. MR. SALVADOR-It’s good to hear. I think it’s right. I think it’s proper. Okay. So you made that determination. MR. ABBATE-I made that determination. MR. SALVADOR-It’s good to hear. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Charles Abbate, Chairman 27