Loading...
2006-09-27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 INDEX Area Variance No. 8-2006 David R. Kelly, M.D. & Sally N. Kelly 1. Tax Map No.239.15-1-3 Area Variance No. 58-2006 Lee Rosen 9. Tax Map No. 227.14-1-24 Area Variance No. 53-2006 Debra & Michael Young 12. Tax Map No. 301.18-1-67 Area Variance No. 54-2006 Lyn and Mitchell Derway 17. Tax Map No. 288.16-1-15 Area Variance No. 55-2006 Marjorie S. Dugan Estate 21. c/o McPhillips, Fitzgerald & Cullum, LLP Tax Map No. 239.18-1-27 & 28 Area Variance No. 57-2006 Daniel L. Hunt 29. Tax Map No. 308.1-1-56 & 308.1-1-57 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 09/27/06) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY RICHARD GARRAND, JR. ALLAN BRYANT JOYCE HUNT ROY URRICO CHARLES MC NULTY GIS SPECIALIST-GEORGE HILTON STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. ABBATE-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals hearing dated September 27, 2006. Prior to setting this hearing in motion, I would like to acquaint you with information that will familiarize you with the responsibilities of this Board, the mandated legal requirements we are guided by, and the procedures for a hearing before this Board. The function of the Zoning Board of Appeals is to listen to and consider all evidence that appears on the record, and may bear upon the issue we are deciding. This Zoning Board of Appeals can grant (or deny) two types of relief; interpretive and variance. In either case, this Board will affirm, reverse or modify the enforcement officer’s decision. In doing so, this Board will either permit or deny the requested relief. If the appeal is for an interpretation, this Board’s decision will be based on the Town of Queensbury zoning regulations. If the appeal is for a variance, this Board’s decision will be based on the standards of proof contained in NYS Town Law 267-b. Additionally, the Zoning Board of Appeals may only authorize the minimum variance necessary to relieve the applicant. We will invite public comments on each appeal, however, in the interest of time please be crisp, organized and limit your comments to only the facts and information given this evening. On opening the public hearing the public will be allowed a maximum of 5 minutes to comment on a specific appeal. The purpose of this time limitation is to provide each member of the public an opportunity to be heard, and also to limit the length of the hearing to a reasonable time frame. Ms. Hemingway, would you please monitor the time. Mr. Secretary, do we have any correspondence? MR. UNDERWOOD-Not at this time. MR. ABBATE-Okay. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II DAVID R. KELLY, MD & SALLY N. KELLY AGENT(S): JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S): DAVID R. KELLY & SALLY N. KELLY ZONING: WR-3A LOCATION: 8 ROCKY SHORE DRIVE APPLICANTS PROPOSE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING 1,892 SQ. FT. TWO- STORY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ANDTO REBUILD A 2,662 TWO AND ONE-HALF STORY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. NEW INFORMATION SUBMITTED 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 SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.89 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-3 SECTION: 179-4-030 JON LAPPER & CURTIS DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-The Board previously heard this last on March 15, 2006. Before I read the Staff notes, I’ll just read Mr. Lapper’s letter that was sent in, and that was th received on August 15, because it kind of explains the changes from last time. “As you are aware, our office represents David R. Kelly, M.D. and Sally N. Kelly with regard to their proposed demolition and reconstruction of their residence that exists on 8 Rocky Shore Drive. When this matter was heard before the ZBA in March of 2006, the Board identified that they wanted to see certain changes made to the proposed plan. At this time, we are submitting to you a revised plan of our proposed demolition/reconstruction 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) for the subject residence. Our earlier application had requested shoreline setback relief of 53 feet where 75 feet is required under Section 179-4-030. However, after that application was before you, the Zoning Administrator had advised us that the point in which the measurement was being made was in error. As a result, although our client has now agreed to move this structure back an additional five feet from the lake, the relief requested at this time is now for a setback of 20.9 feet which requires 54.1 feet of relief. However, as the survey clearly indicates, this amount of relief is only needed for one small portion of the property where the shoreline is closest to the house. Due to the modifications that have been made with storm water as well as with the septic, we feel that this application should be looked as a positive change. As the Board will recall, this site has a significant grade and in order to maintain the integrity of this site, the location that is being presented for the residence is as far back from the lake as the engineer believes is possible. The house has been modified so that now we are requesting a house that is in total, including the loft and basement, 2,920 square feet. This proposed residence will be 2 ½ stories. Even with these changes to the residence, the site still maintains the required floor area ratio. It is my understanding that this matter was tabled until the September 15, 2006 Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda. If you could please this matter on the next available Planning Board agenda, we would appreciate it. To supplement your files, we are hereby enclosing a new site plan map, elevation drawing, a storm water plan, a revised site development sheet, a survey and wastewater replacement plan. If you need anything further in order to satisfy this request, please do not hesitate contact me. Very truly yours, BARTLETT PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES, P.C. Jonathan C. Lapper STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 8-2006, David R. Kelly, MD & Sally N. Kelly, Meeting Date: September 27, 2006 “Project Location: 8 Rocky Shore Drive Description of Proposed Project: The applicants propose demolition of the existing 1,892 sq. ft. two-story (22’4” high) single-family dwelling and build a 2,662 sq. ft. 2½- story (28’ high) single-family dwelling. Relief Required: The applicant requests shoreline setback relief of 53-feet, where 75-feet is the minimum, per §179-4-030 for the WR-3A zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 9-2003: Approved 3/25/03, for 945 sq. ft. boathouse. AV 8-2003: Approved 2/19/03, for side setback relief for boathouse. Staff comments: As you will recall, this application was tabled on February 22, to notice an accurate description of the project. The existing house sits 17-feet from the shoreline, while the proposed is 22-feet from same. This variance request should be considered substantial because the applicant is seeking 70% of relief (53-feet) from the required 75-foot minimum shoreline setback. The application shows an existing front setback of 280-feet and proposed at 265-feet. It is also identified that a feasible alternative is to locate the residence further from the shoreline on the steep slope. It appears that there are other areas other than the steep slope that the new house could be sited. To date, a building permit for a septic alteration has not been applied for nor issued by the Town. The Warren County Planning Board did review this project and recommended “No County Impact” on February 8, however because the project description listed with their review was also erroneous, we have asked that it be reviewed again and a new recommendation or reissue same be made.” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 13, 2006 Project Name: Kelly, David & Kelly, Sally Project Owner(s): David R. Kelly & Sally Kelly ID Number: QBY-06-AV-8b County Project#: Sep06-39 Current Zoning: WR-3A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicants propose demolition of the existing 1,892 sq. ft. two-story single-family dwelling and to 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) rebuild a 2,662 two and one half story single family dwelling. Relief requested from shoreline setback requirements. Site Location: 8 Rocky Shore Drive Tax Map Number(s): 239.15-1-3 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes the demolition of an existing 1,892 sq. ft. two-story, single-family dwelling to construct a 2,662 two and one half story single family dwelling. Relief requested from shoreline setback requirements. The building is to be located 20.9 ft. from the shore where 75 ft. is required. The information submitted shows the location of the home, septic, lake waterline, storm water measures, and access to the site. The applicant has indicated that the relief requested is only due to the shoreline shape of the lot and the house is setback that is feasible. The board reviewed a similar application in Feb 06 and recommended no county impact where the ZBA had requested a revised plan. This application is the revised information. Staff does not identify an impact on County resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no County impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 9/14/06. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Secretary, when you read the letter initially, what were those figures, 2,900 and something? What did you say? MR. LAPPER-It’s actually 2,990. MR. UNDERWOOD-2920 is what you’ve got. MR. ABBATE-What is the difference, 2920 and the 2,662 feet in the project description? Can anybody help me out there? MR. LAPPER-That was last time. Those were the old notes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So the 2662 is from the old? MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. ABBATE-All right. Now I understand it. Okay. Well, the petitioner and counsel is obviously before the Board, and I’m going to request that you folks please speak into the microphone and identify yourself and your relationship with this appeal, please. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, project attorney. Curt Dybas, project architect, and David Kelly, property owner, and Sally Kelly is here as well. Very briefly, I think that the cover letter explained what we’ve done since we were here last time, but in general we had a pretty detailed discussion of this in March, and the Board was generally in favor of the project, and so I would characterize it, after we went through discussion of why it would be much more disturbance to the site to try and locate the house on top of the hill rather than down by the lake, but the Board sent us away saying, gee, if you could move it back closer to the hill and increase the setback to the lake, that that would be a positive thing, and that would be something that the Board would feel more comfortable with. We’ve gone through a bunch of changes, or Curt and David have, and that’s where we are now. That’s why we’re back before you. Right now the house is 10 foot 9 inches from the lake, and so what we’re proposing is to move it, last time it was going to be five feet back farther than where it is now and what’s proposed now is to move it 10 feet back farther. That’s not going to require blasting the wall. It’s going to require scraping the wall, the hill, but that will be resurfaced with granite that comes off of the hill. It’s not man made but just a stone wall that’ll come from the hill itself. So it’ll still look very attractive, but in terms of the resource that everyone’s trying to protect, it’s going to essentially double the distance from the lake, and certainly we’re not talking about building a huge mansion here. This is .9, or nine percent floor area ratio. So in terms of the size of the lot, obviously, if a different location were chosen on the site, meaning where we’re proposing the septic field, a much, much larger house could be constructed here. That’s why I think the project should be looked at as modest in terms of, compared to other people on the lake, they’re not maxing out what they could do with the size of their lot. They’re building a somewhat larger house than they have now, but certainly not something that’s a huge house. The Chairman asked about the few hundred feet that the house increased in size, and part of that, just in terms of the re- design, in order to get the house farther from the lake, it required modifying the design so that the portion of the house which is in the rear is now on a diagonal which is not as efficient a use of space, and that’s what accounted for the few hundred square feet of difference, but certainly our goal was to listen to the Board’s request and to move the house back away from the lake, and that’s what we’ve done. Some other benefits of this would be certainly the brand new conforming septic system. That’s now been fully engineered and submitted to the Planning Board, who submitted to both Boards at the 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) same time. There was something in the Staff comments about that it hadn’t been approved yet, and I don’t know if that was from the old comments. I don’t recall. It was the old comments. Okay. So now it’s been fully designed and submitted, and all of the stormwater which currently just runs into the lake is now going to be infiltrated. So there’s two major benefits, a brand new stormwater system and brand new septic system, and doubling the distance of the house from the lake, from where it is now. Anything that you’d like to add at this point, David? Okay. We’re here for questions. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much, Counselor. Do any members of the board have any questions for the appellant? MR. URRICO-I want to clarify one thing. You said it’s 2,990 square feet? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Curt just pointed out that we misread his hand drawn plans. That’s what we had, 2,920. I thought you said 2,990. Okay. Never mind. Scratch that from the record. It’s correct, 2,920. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MRS. HUNT-And how far will that closest point be from the lake? MR. LAPPER-That’s 20.9 feet, and that’s just from that one little, that little inlet, just because it’s an uneven shore. The majority of the house is farther from the lake. MR. BRYANT-Could you speak to the Staff comments relative to locating the house in a more compliant location? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Is that because of a grade issue? MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. It’s because this is a very steep slope. So, I mean, you’re not going to blast the whole mountain down to move it back another 20 feet. What you’d have to do would be to build the house on top of the hill, and our point last time, which the Board agreed with, was that if you were going to do a clearing and leveling, at the top of the hill, if you’re looking from the lake, you would see a scar. You’d be changing the whole landscape, taking out a lot of trees. It would be the area where the septic system is located, where you’d put it at the top of the hill. So it would be, you know, on a high point overlooking the lake, rather than having the mountain behind it. MR. BRYANT-Okay. That’s what I thought. MR. LAPPER-Yes. We think that’s not a feasible alternative, or not a preferable alternative anyway. MR. ABBATE-Any other members of the Board have any questions for the appellant? MR. URRICO-A follow up to my previous question. So, in March you came before us with a house that was 2662 square feet. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. URRICO-And you were asking relief of 53 feet from the shoreline? MR. LAPPER-Right, yes. MR. URRICO-And now we have a house that’s 258 feet difference. MR. LAPPER-Is that the right number? Okay, 258 feet. MR. URRICO-And now you’re also requesting 1.1 feet longer, more. MR. LAPPER-That has to be explained, because when we went back to get the certified survey, really Craig Brown pointed out that it was that little inlet that you can see, the little jog on the map. So it wasn’t being measured from the right place, but in terms of the closest distance to the lake, it’s just at that one area where the lake comes in, but the house is five feet back farther from the lake. I mean, essentially what we were asking for last time was wrong, and we’re really five feet closer to the lake than it appeared, but 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) what we’re doing now, we’ve moved it back farther than what we came in last time by an additional five feet. MR. URRICO-But you’re asking for more relief than the last time. MR. LAPPER-Yes, because the relief has to be calculated, we asked for the wrong relief last time, because it was calculated from the main part of the lake, rather than from that little inlet, but the house, no matter how you look at it, the house is five feet farther back than where it was when we were here last time, which is what you had asked us to do. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other Board members have any questions? Okay. If there are no other questions, then what I’m going to do is open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 8-2006, and if we have any members of the public who would like to address this issue, if you would be kind enough to raise your hand, I will acknowledge you and ask you to come to the table. Do we have anyone in the public who would like to address Area Variance No. 8-2006? None? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that Mr. Matthews was here last time on the old application. He’s the immediate neighbor, and pointed out, he was very supportive of the proposal. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and I think the Secretary has something he wishes to read. th MR. UNDERWOOD-We have one letter that was received on September 26. This is from the Lake George Association, comments RE: David and Sally Kelly, Area Variance No. 8-2006 at 8 Rocky Shore Drive. “A 59-foot shoreline relief variance request for a new home on Rocky Shore Drive will replace a non-conforming two-story house with a three-story, 2920 sq. ft. house at a maximum height of 28 ft. Although this home is not that excessive in size, its 54% increase over the existing dwelling (proposed home 2920 sq. ft./ existing 1892 sq. ft.) is substantial when considering its ledge location only 21 feet from Lake George. With this said, it is recognized that alternatives for mitigating construction on this steep, rocky shoreline are limited. The applicant has proposed constructing a new home five feet further away from the lake than the previous proposal presented to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, but with the presumed blasting of the hillside behind the home necessary to accommodate an additional wing and the presumed blasting of the hillside to the south to enlarge the parking area to almost twice its current size, the five foot setback seems to be relatively insignificant. I would propose that the large parking area be reduced in size to accommodate a small turnaround and drop off area and that all parked cars remain in the upper parking lot. This would allow the home to be moved back quite a bit further from the lake and a lakeside buffer strip to be planted for infiltration of stormwater. Increasing the amount of permeable surface between the house and the lake (with the removal of the impermeable pavement that is currently there and mandating the planting of a natural buffer strip) would be very beneficial to Lake George and its future water quality. The applicant had previously proposed minimal tree removal for construction of the new non-conforming home, but tree removal in this revised application has been increased due to the “…..addition of fill to the site….” (per the engineer). For many reasons, a new home is desired on this site and the applicant should have the ability to construct one. Regardless, non-conforming property owners who purchase on the shores of Lake George with the intent for future new construction should not assume that a variance relief would be granted. Many lakes grant no variances at all due to the potential impact that accompanies these variances. Blasting approvals for the new foundation should be discussed separately from this shoreline setback variance. The LGA thanks you for your careful review of this variance request for a new home within 21 ft. from the lake. Sincerely, Kathleen S. Lindberg Bozony Land Use Management Coordinator” MR. ABBATE-Okay. Counsel, would you like to respond? MR. LAPPER-Yes, thank you. I’d just like to distinguish a few points that she raised. At the end of the first paragraph, I want to point out that she said it is recognized that alternatives for mitigating construction on this steep, rocky shoreline are limited. So it’s nice to see that that’s acknowledged. She started out by saying a 59 foot shoreline relief variance requested and it’s 54 feet. So the math is wrong, that’s 75 minus 21. When we talk about the size of the house, I think that, yes, it’s going from 1892 to 2920, but because it’s only a nine percent floor area ratio, that’s, compared to what we see every 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) day or see other people ask for, that’s really minimal. The hill will not be blasted. I think that’s important. I mean, she was making an assumption that the hill would be blasted. It’s just going to be some scraping in an area of the hill to get it back there, but not blasting. There may be a little bit of blasting at one corner of the foundation. We don’t know yet. That’s possible, but that’s not unusual when you’re building on the lake because there’s so much ledge, but the hill is not going to be blasted, and the tree removal. Curt, do you want to address that? MR. DYBAS-The only tree, well, she refers to the engineer, and I don’t know where she got the indication that we’re taking trees down to construct this house. I mean, the house, basically, is being constructed in a cleared area that’s on the site right now. The only trees that I am aware of being removed, there’s up where we have to construct the septic system, up on the top of the hill. MR. LAPPER-And what we pointed out last time was that there were going to be trees, that there’ll be trees in front of the area where the trees are being removed for the septic system. So when you look from the lake, you’re going to see the existing trees. The trees that will be removed won’t be visible because they’ll be behind the trees that will remain. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Do you have anything else you’d like to say before we start with our procedures here? Okay. Fine. I’m going to, at this point, ask Board members to offer their comments, and again, I’m going to inform, not only the public but the appellant and his representatives as well, that these comments that are going to be offered are directed to the Chairman and they are not open to debate. So, may I respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates that we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the record to support our conclusions. And the evidence relied upon should be specifically stated. 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. One other thing. Please bear in mind that, unlike a Use Variance test, this Board need not find in favor of the applicant on every one of the five factors set forth by State law. This Board must merely take each one of the factors into account. Having said that, I would like to ask Board members to please offer their comments on Area Variance No. 8-2006. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. MR. BRYANT-Frankly, I’m perplexed at this one. I’m inclined to vote in favor of it at this point. I recognize that it is a substantial request. The relief is substantial, but it’s actually an improvement over the existing condition, and as the counsel has stated, it’s going to improve handling of the stormwater, and other factors, the septic system and so forth and so on. I’m inclined, but I don’t want to say that that’s the way I’m going to vote at this point. I’d like to hear what the other Board members have to say. MR. ABBATE-Not a problem. Thank you, Mr. Bryant, I appreciate that. Do we have anyone else who’d like to go? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’ll go. MR. ABBATE-All right. Please, Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the last time you came in here, I think that there was considerable public comment about the fact of where this house was presently located versus, you know, what was proposed on site with the expansion. I still have concerns about the distance that you are set back from the lake, and I think that’s something that we need to think about, and that is whether we maintain the status quo and we all just say, well, that’s good enough, you know, we can’t do any better than that, or that we try to achieve something that is going to be, you know, to benefit for the lake, and that is not just to single out a single property, in this case yours here this evening, but I think in general I think we need to be adamant in the future that, you know, when we have new construction proposed, even though it may be difficult and it may be more expensive to undertake construction in a more appropriate area than what’s proposed here this evening, I think that that is a feasible alternative that needs to be considered, and I think that even though you’ve gone to considerable attempt here to get this proposal through here with your mitigating stormwater and septic and things like that, I think last time I 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) think I made the suggestion that you could move this up to where your present parking area is further up the hill there. It’s going to cost more money. It’s going to more of an undertaking. I think that other than that, I don’t really think that this is an improvement over what we saw last time. I think that, you know, it’s more of a band aid approach what we’re trying to do here. I think a lot of these structures, I mean, this is going to be 28 foot high, which is the maximum that you can have on Waterfront Residential. If you were going to plant like 50 trees in front of it so no one could see it from the lake, I might be more, it might be more appropriate, but I think the fact that it’s just going to be sitting there, 21 feet from the lake, is not appropriate, and I think that you’re going to need to modify it and come back again. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Do we have anyone else that would like to volunteer? MR. GARRAND-Certainly. Looking at this, one of the things I’m considering most here is adverse environmental effects, and, having been down there twice during a rainstorm, I noticed that stormwater runoff is a huge problem down there. I had the opportunity to stand next to the house, and basically the water just runs over your feet when you’re standing next to the house. Stormwater control is a big problem also, given the fact that the contours of this property, moving the property back, I see almost no other way besides blasting, other than situating the property where it is. From one end of the property to the other, you appear to have about a 16 foot grade from one corner of the property to the other. To move that structure up higher, I see no other way without blasting into the side of that hill, and to me, that’s an adverse environmental impact. At this point, I don’t see any other way that you can achieve what you’d like to achieve here. So, at this point, I’d be in favor of what you’re attempting to do. MR. LAPPER-We’re definitely going to improve the stormwater by infiltrating all that. MR. ABBATE-We’ll give you an opportunity to respond later. MR. LAPPER-Of course. MR. ABBATE-All right. We’re left with Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty and Mr. Urrico. MRS. HUNT-I’ll go. MR. ABBATE-Would you please. Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. MRS. HUNT-While I do see some improvements over the last time, I am concerned about the 258 square foot addition to the size of the building, and the closeness to the lake, but I do have to agree with Mr. Garrand that the idea of blasting does not make a lot of sense, and I guess I would be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Okay. I guess that leaves Mr. McNulty and Mr. Urrico. MR. URRICO-I echo what Jim said. I appreciate the effort and reconfiguration that you’ve offered, but I’m having problems reconciling the change with the requested increased relief, despite the fact that you’ve enlarged the house somehow from the last time to now. So we’ve added 258 feet, which I understand is not on the table. That’s not an issue, but at the same time, the relief from the shoreline is on the table, and somehow they’re related. I’m having difficulty with that. To me, this is not minimum relief and I think we need to work a little harder in getting it closer to what would be acceptable. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Well, admittedly, this is a difficult decision. On the one hand I can agree with the applicant that if you accept the idea that a new place is destine to be on this property, there certainly is something to be said for not creating a big scar further up the hill, or leaving a scar further down once you remove the house, but I think I’ve got to come down on the same side as Mr. Underwood. When we’ve got major reconstruction we’ve got to start somewhere of saying, no, it’s got to comply or it’s got to be a lot closer, and there is an alternative in leaving the structure that’s there now and repairing it if necessary. If that does not meet the landowner’s needs, then the option is find another piece of property, which is a tough thing to do, and I’m sure is not what they would like to do, but I think all things balanced in my mind, the closeness to the lake and whatnot, it outweighs the benefit of avoiding something further up. So I think I’ve got to see something that is definitely further back from the lake before I’d approve it. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-I think, I agree somewhat with Mr. Underwood. However, I do also agree with Mr. Garrand, that blasting is not really a feasible alternative. I think the environmental impact is going to be such that it’s going to be more severe than the placement of the house in the suggested location. Again, it’s an improvement in wastewater management. It’s an improvement in the septic system. You’re moving the house back from the existing location. It’s an improvement in the actual setback from the lake. It’s not a perfect solution, but I think it’s the only one that we can accomplish. So I’m still, I’m going to be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Obviously we have several points of view here, and I listened to what both folks, those who say no and those who say yes, but I have in mind this. You folks have come before us before, and we gave you certain recommendations, and it’s my opinion that you have made every effort to do what we have suggested. Do I entirely agree that this is probably overall the best thing? Well, it’s certainly better, as a couple of folks have mentioned, than blasting. If we’re concerned with the environment, if we’re concerned with the lake, I think blasting would be an unfortunate set of circumstances. Having listened to what both sides of the Board, it’s three to three, and then having reviewed my notes and listening to what you folks have had to say, I have to say that I think that the appellant made an honest effort to meet our requirements and to take into consideration the health, safety and welfare of the community. As such, I would support the application. Having said that, I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 8-2006. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-Again, I would 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 factors to take into consideration. I’m going to ask for a motion, and I’m going to request that whoever introduces the motion make it with clarity. The motion itself will not be subject to debate, and any member not favoring the motion may exercise their right to vote no, and/or introduce their own motion. Having said that, I’m going to request a motion for Area Variance No. 8-2006, please. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2006 DAVID R. KELLY, M.D. & SALLY N. KELLY, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 8 Rocky Shore Drive. The applicant’s propose demolition of the existing 1892 square foot two story 22 feet 4 inch high single family dwelling, and build a 2,920 square foot two and a half story 28 feet high single family dwelling. The applicant requests shoreline setback relief of 54.1 feet where 75 is the minimum, as per Section 179-4-030, for the WR-3A zone. Whether this benefit could be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant. They came before us. We made suggestions and they made an effort to meet our requests. I don’t think an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties would occur. In fact, I think leaving the house in this area is better than blasting the hill. The request is substantial, but the property layout makes it difficult to put the house any other place. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects. Actually the house will be further from the lake than it was before, and whether the alleged difficulty is self-created, it is in the fact that the Kelly’s want a new house, but also it’s not self-created because the property is such as it is. So I make a motion we approve Area Variance No. 8-2006. th Duly adopted this 27 day of September, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 8-2006 is four yes, three no. Area Variance No. 8-2006 is approved. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II LEE ROSEN AGENT(S): ETHAN HALL – RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S): DONNA ROSEN ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 165 PILOT KNOB ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 1,166 SQ. FT. CAMP AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 2,104 SQ. FT. TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: AV 11-2006 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.2444 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.14-1-24 SECTION: 179-4-030 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Lee Rosen, Meeting Date: September 27, 2006 “Project Location: 165 Pilot Knob Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes the demolition of an existing 1,166 sq. ft. residential structure and the construction of a new 2,104 sq. ft. residential structure. Relief Required: The proposed construction requires 9’ 3” of relief from the side yard setbacks listed in §179-4-030 of the Zoning Ordinance. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 11-2006, side yard relief for a proposed residential structure approved by ZBA on 2/22/2006. Staff comments: This application appears to be the same request as AV 11-2006, with the addition of second floor living space over the proposed enclosed porch. As this new floor space was not previously granted side yard setback relief, relief is required for this added element to the proposed construction.” MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 13, 2006 Project Name: Rosen, Lee Owner(s): Donna Rosen ID Number: QBY-06-AV-52a County Project#: Sep06-41 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing demolition of existing 1,166 sq. ft. camp and construction of a new 2,104 sq. ft. two-story single-family dwelling. Relief requested from side setback requirements. Site Location: 165 Pilot Knob Road Tax Map Number(s): 227.14-1-24 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant is proposing demolition of an existing 1,166 sq. ft. camp and construction of a new 2,104 sq. ft. two-story single-family dwelling. Relief requested from side setback requirements. The home is to be located 10 ft. +/- from the side yard setback where 20 ft. is required. The information submitted shows a portion of the home in the Town of Queensbury and the Town of Fort Ann with septic, spring water source and other site items. Staff does not identify an impact on County resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no County impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 9/14/06. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would you be kind enough to speak into the microphone, identify yourself and your relationship with this particular appeal, please. MR. HALL-Yes, my name is Ethan Hall. I’m the project architect representing Lee and Donna Rosen. MR. ABBATE-Now, Mr. Hall, are you an attorney? MR. HALL-No, I am not. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Since you’re not an attorney, let me explain to you basically our procedures, which I indicated earlier. In view of the fact that you’re not an attorney, just state your case to us, why you feel this should be approved, and just remember that the burden of proof is on your shoulders to prove to us that your request is viable, if you will, and during the course of this hearing, if there’s anything you don’t understand, again, in view of the fact that you’re not an attorney, stop us and we’ll be more than happy to explain it to you, or, during the course of the hearing, if there’s anything else you think 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) perhaps you may have forgotten to tell us, which may help your appeal, again, stop us, we’ll be more than happy to listen. Having said that, if you’re prepared, proceed. MR. HALL-Sure. Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall. I’m here representing the applicants. We were here back in February, I believe, presented basically the same plan that you see now. We received a variance, proceeded forward with the building permit application. As we started into construction drawings for the building, the applicant started looking at the size of the bedroom, for the master bedroom, and the size of the master bathroom upstairs. He came to my office and he said, wouldn’t it be nice if we just expanded that second floor out over the porch that we had designed, and I said yes, but we should have asked for that in the beginning. He said, well, I’d like to take a look at that, I’d like to see what would be entailed with expanding out over that deck. So I went back and I met with Mr. Brown and we discussed that a little bit, and basically that’s why we’re here tonight. We are asking for the additional eight feet so that we can extend the second floor bedrooms out over the porch, the screen porch that was on the building originally. If you look at the proposed elevations, our proposed elevation, the only change is that the porch roof goes away. The front wall of the second floor would move out over what was previously approved to be the porch roof, and that front wall just moves forward. Everything else on the building remains as it was. The approved side yard setback will remain as it was for the first floor and the second floor. We’re just asking for this additional eight feet over the porch. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Have you finished, up to this point? MR. HALL-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. Having finished, I’m going to ask members of the Board if they have any questions for Mr. Hall. MR. BRYANT-Your presentation kind of confused me a little bit, because I was under the impression, from looking at the documents, that the second floor really is not increasing the relief that’s already been approved. MR. HALL-That’s correct. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So you’re not really asking for anything more, other than the fact that we’re building a second floor over the porch. It wasn’t included in the original application that’s already been approved? MR. HALL-That’s correct. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. HALL-Yes. The side yard variance is what we were granted, and that remains. MR. BRYANT-That’s going to stay the same. You’re not asking for anything. It’s just what was approved. MR. HALL-So we can extend out over the porch. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I understand now. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other members of the Board have any questions for Mr. Hall? MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, I just have one. The septic system, you say the existing septic system that’s been there? MR. HALL-Yes, the septic system that’s installed there now was re-designed by Nace Engineering and put in, I believe, in 2003. It’s a brand new system. It’s an Eljen system. It’s set back from the lake. MR. GARRAND-Okay. My question is, is it, maybe Staff could answer, is it capable of handling a three bedroom, two bath house? MR. HALL-Yes, it was designed for a three bedroom, two bath house. It was designed with this design in mind. MR. GARRAND-Okay. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) MR. ABBATE-Any members of the Board have any other questions? MR. URRICO-The bedroom is going over the porch? MR. HALL-That’s correct. MR. URRICO-And the steps are going to still be there, concrete steps, the concrete steps coming out from the porch area? MR. HALL-There would, yes. MR. URRICO-It says “conc” steps. Is that concrete? MR. HALL-On the site plan? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. HALL-The site plan, I think what you’re looking at is the original, and there’s two site plans on that. MR. URRICO-Okay. So they’re wood steps now? MR. HALL-Yes, they are wood steps. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other members have any questions? All right. No other questions, I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 58-2006, and if we have any members of the public who would like to address this, if you would be kind enough to raise your hands, I’ll be more than happy to recognize you. Do we have anyone in the public who would like to address Area Variance No. 58-2006? I see no hands raised, then I will continue. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I’m going to now ask members to offer their comments, and again I’ll inform the public that the comments that are going to be offered by members of the Board are going to be addressed to the Chairman, and consequently they are not open to debate. I’ve already reminded the Board members about precedence mandating our concerns, and so and so, and I see no reason to have to repeat that. I’m going to now ask members to offer their comments on Area Variance No. 58-2006. Do we have a volunteer. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. MR. GARRAND-I see this as not being very much different than AV 11-2006 that was previously approved by the Board. I don’t see too much has changed here. At this point, I don’t think it makes any undesirable change in the neighborhood whatsoever. It doesn’t seem like a substantial request. So at this point I’d be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else like to make their comments, please. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman. I agree with what’s been said. You’re not asking for any more relief. It’s the same thing we’ve already approved. We’ve already hashed it out, and there’s really not going to be any change to the structure that’s going to be noticeable. So, with that in mind, I’d also be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Any other? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I would have to agree a little more room upstairs might be helpful. It’s not any more relief than what we granted last time. So, I’m all for it. MR. ABBATE-All right. Ladies, gentlemen? MRS. HUNT-I have to agree. We’ve already been through it and we agreed to it. I don’t think it’s a big change. I would be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now we’re down to Mr. McNulty and Mr. Urrico. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) MR. MC NULTY-I’ll go first. I basically can say ditto. It appears that there’s certainly benefit to the applicant and no apparent additional detriment to the community. So I’d be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Yes, I agree. Had this been presented with the first application, the results would have been the same. So I’d be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. I listened, again, to what you had to say and what our Board members had to say, and quite frankly, I agree with every one of their comments. So, consequently, I, too, would be in favor of approving this application. The public hearing is now closed for Area Variance No. 58-2006. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And again, I earlier reminded the members that we have State laws requiring us to take a look at five factors. I don’t believe I have to go through that again. Having said that, I am seeking a motion for Area Variance No. 58-2006. Do I have one, please? MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, I’ll make a motion. MR. ABBATE-Would you, please. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2006 LEE ROSEN, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 165 Pilot Knob Road. The applicant proposes the demolition of an existing 1,166 square foot residential structure and the construction of a new 2,104 square foot residential structure. The proposed construction requires 9.3 feet of relief from the side yard setbacks listed in Sub Section 179-4-030 of the Zoning Ordinance. Parcel History: Area Variance No. 11-2006 granted side yard relief for the proposed residential structure approved by the ZBA on 2/22/2006. Whether benefits can be achieved by any other means, I don’t believe it can be achieved by any other means, without affecting other setback areas. Will this addition cause undesirable change in the neighborhood? No, you’re just adding a second floor to what’s existing there where the porch is. The request is not substantial. Any adverse environmental impacts? I can’t see any adverse environmental impacts here. Is the difficulty self-created? In a sense, yes, it is self- created. You’re asking for the same setback that you had before, for that side of the building. So in that sense it is self-created, but given the balancing test, you’ve got four out of five. th Duly adopted this 27 day of September, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 58-2006 is seven yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 58-2006 is approved. MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II OWNER(S): DEBRA & MICHAEL YOUNG LOCATION: 9 FAWN LANE ZONING: SR-20 APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF AN INGROUND SWIMMING POOL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2006-501 PENDING WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.18- 1-67 SECTION: 179-5-020 DEBRA & MICHAEL YOUNG, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 53-2006, Debra & Michael Young, Meeting Date: September 27, 2006 “Project Location: 9 Fawn Lane Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes to construct an in ground swimming pool in the rear yard of an existing residential property. Relief Required: The applicant requests 15 feet of relief from the rear yard setback requirements for swimming pools listed in §179-5-020 C of the Zoning Ordinance. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2006-501, in ground swimming pool. Staff comments: The application materials include a signed sealed survey of the property. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and I see that the folks are at the table. Would you be kind enough to speak into the microphone, tell us who you are, and your relationship to this appeal, please. MR. YOUNG-I’m Mike Young, and I’m one of the property owners. MRS. YOUNG-I’m Debra Young, one of the property owners. MR. SPRAGUE-I’m Dan Sprague, the builder. MR. ABBATE-Great. All right. Thank you very much. Again, I’m assuming that you have not retained counsel. MR. YOUNG-No. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So you heard what I said earlier. Since you don’t have counsel, we have a little more flexibility on your part to ask questions and to provide us with additional information. Having said that, if you’re prepared, please tell us why you feel we should approve your appeal. MR. YOUNG-Okay. Basically we looked at the layout and the limited amount of space that we have to put the pool in, and one of our bigger concerns was, as it was noted in the information was the closeness of the pool to the house, problems with snow or water runoff. Also safety factors, because we would have a garage that ran the length of the pool, concerns about if kids got on the roof and tried to jump in the pool. So we felt the farther it was back towards the back property line, those issues would be, you know, addressed. Also, it would really have the least impact on any neighbors, because the property in back of us is forever wild or common property that will never be built on. MR. ABBATE-Okay. DAN SPRAGUE MR. SPRAGUE-That area there has community septics. It’s not unusual for this variance. For example, we have six pools in that neighborhood, and all six have variances, three on that street. When you look at their back yard is the community septic is in this common area that they’re talking about, and it does not back up to anybody else’s property. So it wouldn’t effect any houses or any houses that are going to be built there, and they have picked one of the smaller pools, trying to fit it into that area, and that’s kind of what happened in that neighborhood up there. There’s probably only two or three houses that you can get a pool in without coming in front of you for the variance and usually it’s on the rear setback because of the community septics. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Is that, right now, have you concluded what you wanted to say to us? All right. Then we will continue on. You having given us your impression of why we should approve it, I’m going to ask Board members if they have any questions to ask you. Board members, do we have any questions to ask Mr. and Mrs. Young? MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, I have one. MR. ABBATE-Yes. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) MR. GARRAND-The drawing you submitted here, does that accurately depict what’s on the property here? MR. YOUNG-Yes. MR. SPRAGUE-There is a concrete deck that’s behind the house that I don’t see on here. MR. GARRAND-Okay. That’s the one with the storm windows, the porch on the back? MRS. YOUNG-Yes. MR. GARRAND-With the storm windows in it. all right. How far is that going to be from the pool? MRS. YOUNG-It’s around 10 feet. MR. SPRAGUE-I was going to say 10 feet. MR. YOUNG-It’s actually 10 plus. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Also not noted on the drawing here, there’s a shed on the property. MR. SPRAGUE-Okay. I saw that, too, but if you look down the whole development, they have the right, I guess, to use the community part of it, and if you notice all the sheds are on the community development part of it, and they maintain and mow it, but that community part of it is where all the septics are. So if you look down through there, which, you know, I’m not here for that issue but is all the sheds in that whole community are on the community development. MR. ABBATE-What’s the size of the shed? MR. YOUNG-It was an eight by ten, I believe. MR. ABBATE-Eight by ten? MR. YOUNG-Yes. MR. ABBATE-All right. You’re under. You don’t need a permit. MRS. YOUNG-Right, we already checked on that. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Anybody else have any questions for Mr. and Mrs. Young? MR. GARRAND-Was a permit issued for that expansion on the back of the house at all? MRS. YOUNG-Yes. MR. GARRAND-Okay, because I didn’t see that in our paperwork. MR. ABBATE-A permit was issued for that. MR. YOUNG-Correct. MR. ABBATE-Well, the only reason I raise that issue is because I don’t see it as a cross reference, okay, but you say it’s been issued. MR. YOUNG-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. It’s on the record, you’ve indicated it’s been issued. That’s fine. Do we have any other questions for Mr. and Mrs. Young? MR. ABBATE-Okay. No questions, then I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 53-2006, and if we have any folks in the public who would like to address or make comments concerning this particular appeal, if you’ll raise your hand, I’ll be more than happy to recognize you and ask you to come up to the table. Do we have anyone in the public who would like to address Area Variance No. 53-2006? No? Okay. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then I’m going to continue on, and again, I’m going to ask the Board members to offer their comments, and I went through the fact that their comments are going to be directed to me, and it will not be subject to debate by either the public or the appellant. Having said that, I’m going to ask members if they will please offer their comments on Area Variance No. 53-2006, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’ll go first. MR. ABBATE-Please, thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think Mr. Sprague pointed out that there are similar pools that we’ve granted relief for in this neighborhood, and I really don’t see any reason why we would not grant relief for this request here this evening. I think the pool could be possibly located closer to the house, but I think that we’ve also gotten into the issue of safety before with people jumping off the roof of the garage, and it makes sense to keep it where they want it. I think it’s mitigated, too, by the fact that the green space behind, everybody sort of has more property than they actually own. So it makes sense. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Anyone else like to comment? MR. URRICO-I’ll go. MR. ABBATE-Would you, please. MR. URRICO-Yes, I agree with Mr. Underwood. This is s a perfect example of, we say we review each application on its own merits, but once we grant relief such as this, then t that becomes the norm for that neighborhood. So there’s no longer an exception any longer. It’s not going to change the character of the neighborhood because we’ve already granted relief for several like this. So this is not out of character. I would be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Excellent observations. Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Do we have anyone else who’d like to comment, please? MRS. HUNT-I’ll go. MR. ABBATE-Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Yes, I would be in favor. I have to agree with my fellow Board members. It’s a modest pool, and certainly that forever wild behind mitigates the amount of relief you need, and I would be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Another Board member wish to comment? MR. BRYANT-I’ll go, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Would you, please. Thank you. MR. BRYANT-I’ve got to say a couple of things. A couple of Board members mention that there are five or six other pools. I think you made that observation. The fact that we made that mistake six times before doesn’t mean that we’ve got to continue making the same mistake. When it comes to feasible alternatives, a feasible alternative could be not to put a pool in the backyard. Looking at the sketch, you really don’t have any place in the back yard to put a pool to be compliant. You can’t put it much closer to the house, and even if you could, you’re still not going to make up the amount of space that you need for these setbacks. So I would tend to be not in favor of the application. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. Mr. McNulty or Mr. Garrand, please. MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got mixed feelings on this. As has been pointed out, we have granted several similar things in the past, and, as Mr. Bryant points out, just because we’ve made mistakes doesn’t mean that we’re obligated to continue those mistakes, if those were mistakes. This is a unique neighborhood. There aren’t too many like it around. There’s some, but not too many where there’s some common area behind that allows a better buffer than you’d find in a normal neighborhood. I can’t really buy the 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) reason for putting it as close to the back lot line is to prevent kids from jumping off the roof. The simple answer there is teach the kids the meaning of no. So I can’t buy that as an excuse. On the other hand, moving that pool two or three feet closer to the house isn’t significant, and I can understand not wanting a pool five feet from your back house wall. So the positioning I can’t really quibble with, only the excuse for it. On the other hand I think, like Mr. Bryant said, and I’ve said it before, too, there are some lots in Town that simply weren’t meant to have a pool. I suspect that the vote, in the final analysis, is going to be in favor, but I think I’m going to side with Mr. Bryant and vote no on this. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Well, at this point, I’d have to agree with Mr. Bryant and Mr. McNulty on this one. The property does have other areas where you might be able to situate a pool like this, but also at the same time 75% relief, numerically, seems substantial, as well as the fact that you’re also, you know, you may erect other structures, a pool filter housing, decking, anything else around it, which is going to put it right up against the property boundary. At this point, I don’t feel inclined to approve this project. MR. ABBATE-Well, we have another three and three vote, ladies and gentlemen, and I have to agree with both sides of the issue here. I can understand all of that. However, the major function of a Zoning Board of Appeals is to act as a safety valve, if you will, and we also ensure, if we possibly can, no abuse of individual property owners, or owners of property. In this particular case, yes, there are some comments, good comments, that were made by Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, and Mr. Garrand, but also there were some excellent comments made by Mrs. Hunt and Mr. Underwood, and Mr. Urrico as well. Now what would I do if I were in your situation? Would I possibly request the same thing? In all probability I would. Now what would be the adverse effect on the community, on the health, safety and welfare of the community if we approve this? I hardly think there would be really no adverse effect, I do believe. Having stated that, then, having listened to both sides of the argument, on balance, I believe that your request is not unreasonable, and I would support your request. Having said that, I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 53-2006. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And again, Board members know the task that we have of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area. Having said that, I’m going to seek a motion for Area Variance No. 53-2006. Do I have one? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll make the motion. MR. ABBATE-Would you, please. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2006 DEBRA & MICHAEL YOUNG, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 9 Fawn Lane. They’ve proposed construction of an in-ground swimming pool in the rear yard of the existing residential property, and they’re requesting 15 feet of relief from the rear yard setback requirements. Although we would consider the 15 feet of relief substantial, at 75%, we have pointed out that these are very small, narrow lots here, that this pool, although it could be built in a more compliant area closer to the house, they’ve requested it there for safety reasons, which the majority of us seem to agree upon. I feel, also, that as far as a negative effect, that there will be no effects on the neighborhood character, because we already have substantial numbers of these pools existing that we’ve granted relief for previously. Secondly, I think that it’s mitigated by the fact that we have the green space that’s existing behind those homes which makes the lots appear larger than the actual property owners own because of the common property that’s shared behind. So as far as that goes, I don’t really think there’s any difficulty with this, and I think that we can approve it as proposed. th Duly adopted this 27 day of September, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-Area Variance No. 53-2006 is approved. MR. YOUNG-Thank you. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II LYN AND MITCHELL DERWAY OWNER(S): LYN AND MITCHELL DERWAY ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: 66 COURTHOUSE DRIVE APPLICANT HAS INSTALLED AN INGROUND SWIMMING POOL IN THE REAR YARD OF THE PROPERTY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM REAR YARD REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2006-443 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.16-1-15 SECTION: 179-5-020 LYN & MITCHELL DERWAY, PRESENT MR. URRICO-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to recuse myself. Even though I didn’t receive notice, I do live in the same neighborhood, on the same street. MR. ABBATE-Yes, Mr. Urrico, not a problem. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 54-2006, Lyn and Mitchell Derway, Meeting Date: September 27, 2006 “Project Location: 66 Courthouse Drive Description of Proposed Project: The applicant seeks rear yard setback relief for an in ground swimming pool that has been constructed at this location. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the rear yard setback requirements for swimming pools listed in §179-5-020 C of the Zoning Ordinance. The amount of rear yard setback relief requested is 2 feet. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2006-443, in ground swimming pool Staff comments: The application file contains a survey of the property showing the pool that has been constructed. Included in the application materials is a letter of support of this request from the neighbor immediately adjacent to and behind this property.” MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’m assuming we have before us Mr. and Mrs. Derway. Is that correct? MR. DERWAY-That is correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would you be kind enough to speak into the microphone and tell us who you are, please. MR. DERWAY-Okay. I’m Mitch Derway. MRS. DERWAY-Lyn Derway. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and you probably have listened to what I said earlier. I’m assuming you have not retained an attorney. MR. DERWAY-No. MR. ABBATE-So we’re going to have a lot of flexibility. What we’re going to ask you folks to do is explain to us why you feel we should approve your request for a variance. MR. DERWAY-Okay. Basically everything that you have read is correct, and we hired Baker Pools to come, based on the fact that they’re professionals, to put this pool in, and they told us what the setbacks are, which we knew. We did up the drawing that he showed us that we needed to and we applied for the permit. Got the permit, and he put in the pool. After, I think it was a week later, we received a letter in the mail saying that someone came out, checked our site, and found out that the pool was two feet too far 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) back. We approached Baker Pool and he just came to the conclusion that he made an honest mistake and said, well, you’ll have to go and file paperwork to rectify the situation, of which we did. We put in that paperwork. Then we were requested to have the property surveyed. We weren’t denying the fact that we thought that the pool was where it was supposed to be. We agreed that it was the two feet too far back. We got the survey and basically that’s the situation. One thing that it doesn’t show on there, because this being a topographical type map, there is a six to seven foot incline in our backyard, and basically that’s one of the reasons that he used for coming up with his error. So that’s the only other thing I could think of. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any members of the Board have any questions for Mr. or Mrs. Derway? MR. BRYANT-Yes, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Please. MR. BRYANT-Is somebody from Baker Pools here? MR. DERWAY-Negative. MR. BRYANT-So we’re just, basically, you’re saying that they made an error, and we have to assume that they did, in fact, make an error? MR. DERWAY-Yes, and that is correct. MR. BRYANT-Isn’t this more, rather than a, for the Town of Queensbury to resolve, isn’t this a civil matter between you and Baker Pool? I mean, if Baker Pool made a mistake, why don’t they rectify it? Why assume that the easy way to resolve it is to come to the Town and get a variance for somebody’s mistake? I’m not blaming you, but I’m just saying, why isn’t Baker Pool here to defend himself? We had another pool application and a pool installer was here, and came to the table. This is really an issue between you and Baker Pool, and I’m just wondering the thought process and the pool installer and why he’s not here to defend himself. MR. DERWAY-I guess my answer to that was when this issue did come about, we contacted people here, and basically they’re the ones that told us what roles to go through and what forms to fill out, so on and so forth, and that’s what we did. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. ABBATE-When you say people here, you mean the Staff? MR. DERWAY-Correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I just wanted to clear that up. All right. Thank you. Anyone else on the Board have any questions for Mr. or Mrs. Derway? Okay. Since there are no other questions, I’m going to open up the public hearing, and if there are any members of the public who would like to address this particular appeal, if you will raise your hand, I’ll be more than happy to recognize you. Do we have anyone in the public who would like to address Area Variance No. 54-2006? I see no hands raised. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-I have one letter. MR. ABBATE-We have one letter. Mr. Secretary, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-RE: Area Variance Lyn and Mitchell Derway, “Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: Please accept this letter in support of the Area Variance application by Lyn and Mitchell Derway to locate their swimming pool with an 18 foot rear setback. We own the property directly behind and adjacent to the Derway property and do not oppose the action they are seeking. Sincerely, Jacqueline and James Donnelly” MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other correspondence? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Good. I’m going to ask, at this point now, that members offer their comments on your appeal. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question, please? MR. ABBATE-You certainly may. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one further question. When you recognized there was a two foot discrepancy, and, you know, the relief that you’re requesting is not substantial, okay, but when you recognized there was a discrepancy, okay, with the layout, did you approach the pool company to rectify the situation? MR. DERWAY-We informed them of the letter that we had received, and he also suggested that we talk to the Town and see what they say for us to do in this matter. MR. BRYANT-So in other words, they basically didn’t take responsibility, you know, he’s not taking responsibility for the action. He’s saying go to the Town and get a variance? MR. DERWAY-Yes, basically I would say he’s waiting to see, you know, what we found out, yes. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Any other Board members like to comment on this? Okay. Then I’ll continue on. I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 54-2006. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And again, I’m going to ask members to remember what our responsibilities are. I see no reason to have to repeat it. I’m going to request a motion, and I’m going to request that your motion be made with clarity. Having said that, I’m going to request a motion for Area Variance No. 54-2006. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want our comments first? MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. I will ask members to offer their comments on Area Variance No. 54-2006. Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, we get numerous applications where contractors made a mistake. I can recall one application where a contractor made an 11 foot mistake, and we get these applications all the time, and local contractors then expect the Town of Queensbury to resolve it by issuing variances or some kind of magical site plan review or whatever, and I don’t think that that’s the function of the Board, but I want to be fair, and I do want to look at the application on its merits. The request for relief, the two feet relief, is not, is minor. The neighbor adjacent to the area of the pool says that it’s a reasonable request. There are no other concerns from the neighborhood, and so I’m going to have to vote in favor of it, but frankly I’m upset because I think this is the responsibility of the contractor. This is not your responsibility. Now it shouldn’t be your responsibility to have to survey your property, to have to go through this aggravation. I mean, this is a contractor. I was in the construction business for 25 years, and I made mistakes of two inches that cost $20,000. So I know, you know, there is a responsibility. The contractor has to take the responsibility for what he does, but it seems more and more common that these guys make mistakes and then they expect the Town to wave a magic wand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome, and thank you for your comments, Mr. Bryant. Do we have other comments, any volunteers? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a comment. MR. ABBATE-Please, Mrs. Hunt. MRS. HUNT-Yes. I would be in favor. I don’t think the benefit could be achieved by any other feasible means. I mean, tearing out this pool and putting in a new one is not a feasible alternative. It’s not going to change the neighborhood character or properties, and it’s certainly a modest request, and it was not self-created. It was created by the builder, the contractor. So I would be in favor. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll go next. MR. ABBATE-Jim? All right. Go ahead. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I don’t think there’s been any substantiation of, you know, any adverse effects of this if this pool stays where it’s been located here, and I think that it’s understandable, when you measure down a hill, that you’re not measuring straight out from the property line. So that’s probably the difference. I imagine if you went out there with a tape and went to the property line, it probably would be 20 feet along the ground there. So I don’t really see any negative effects here. I think that, even had you come in and asked for two feet of relief, we probably would have given it to you anyway, given the size of your lot, and I think it’s an honest mistake. It’s a mistake. We can live with it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I think Mr. McNulty wanted to go next. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Yes, I’ve got to agree with Mr. Bryant on many of the points that he made. Half of me is inclined to say, no, make the contractor dig it up and move it. On the other hand, as has also been pointed out, it’s two feet. You’ve got a nice tall big fence in the back. So whether this pool is two feet closer to that fence or not, I can’t see how it affects the neighbor behind you, and they’ve indicated that it doesn’t. So, to put the applicant through the hassle of having the pool moved, I don’t think is fair. I think at the same time, though, at least I would serve notice on this pool contractor that the next time that we get a situation like this in front of us, against this pool contractor, I am going to vote against it, and insist that he move it, because like Mr. Bryant says, everybody makes a mistake, but they’ve got a responsibility to fix them when they do. So I’ll be in favor in this instance. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. GARRAND-Well, Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Bryant on this one. This isn’t the venue to rectify contractor error, but by the same token, looking at the criterion for a variance on this, there is nothing here besides the first one on the balancing test that I can see to vote against it. These people didn’t create the problem, it was the contractor, and basically it’s not affecting the neighborhood in any real way, shape or form. Neighbors aren’t objecting to it. So I’d be in favor of this application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I tend to, again, agree with everything that the Board members have said. I said earlier that this Board acts as a safety valve, because we are not an advocate for either the Town or an advocate for the appellant. Not at all. We’re an independent Board, but in support of what Mr. Bryant said and what Mr. McNulty said, I just want to just bring this to your attention, so that you know that this Board takes a number of criteria into consideration, and our objective is to come up with a fair decision, and I think a fair decision is what you’re going to see this evening, but I want to caution you, as well as the public, case law makes it quite clear that in the event a contractor makes a mistake, the burden of responsibility of that mistake falls clearly on the shoulders of the individual who contracted with that contractor, if you will, and the errors of the contractor are also the errors of the individual who hired that individual, and case law will show, and the courts have backed the fact that when the ZBA makes a decision, that you have a responsibility, even though it may have been a contractor error, you are still responsible, but you heard what the members of the Board have said this evening, and I think they were quite fair. They were unbiased, and I think they made a very, very good decision, particularly when they took into consideration the impact it would have on you folks in the event we said, no, you had to tear it up. Okay. So just understand that we do have an option to say absolutely not, and we would be supported. Now, I am going to support the application as well. Having said that, I’ve closed the public hearing for Area Variance No. 54-2006, and then I’m going to ask the Board members again to please take into consideration the five factors that we have to take into consideration when we make a decision to vote, support or deny, if you will. Now I’m going to ask for a motion from the Board members for Area Variance No. 54-2006. Do I have a motion? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MR. ABBATE-All right, Mrs. Hunt. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2006 LYN AND MITCHELL DERWAY, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) 66 Courthouse Drive. The applicant seeks rear yard setback relief for an in-ground swimming pool that has been constructed at this location. The applicant requests relief from the rear yard setback requirements for swimming pools listed in Section 179-5- 020C of the Zoning Ordinance. The amount of rear yard setback relief requested is two feet. Could this benefit be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant? I don’t think so. It would mean removing this pool and putting in a new one, which does not seem feasible. It will not make any undesirable changes in the character of the neighborhood or to nearby properties. The neighbor to the rear has no problem with it. The request of two feet is certainly not substantial. The request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects, and whether the difficulty was self-created, it was created by the contractor, but as the Chairman has said, the homeowners are still responsible for that, but it certainly was not something they did willingly. So I make a motion we approve Area Variance No. 54-2006. th Duly adopted this 27 day of September, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 54-2006 is seven yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 54-2006 is approved. Good luck. MR. DERWAY-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II MARJORIE S. DUGAN ESTATE C/O MC PHILLIPS, FITZGERALD & CULLUM, LLP AGENT(S): MC PHILLIPS, FITZGERALD & CULLUM, LLP & VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S): MARJORIE S. DUGAN ESTATE ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES LOT LINE CHANGES IN ORDER TO SITUATE THE TWO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, CURRENTLY ONE ON ONE LOT, TO BE SEPARATED AND LOCATED ON TWO LOTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 1.81 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18- 1-27 & 28 SECTION: 179-4-030 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-Just to explain this, because Staff notes don’t really get into exactly what’s going to happen here, but I’ll refer to the Warren County referral form from the Planning Board up there. “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 13, 2006 Project Name: Marjorie S. Dugan Estate Owner(s): Marjorie S. Dugan Estate ID Number: QBY-06-AV-55 County Project#: Sep06-40 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes lot line changes in order to situate the two single family dwellings, currently on one lot, to be separated and located on two lots. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements. Site Location: Route 9L Tax Map Number(s): 239.18-1-27 & 28 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes a lot line adjustment to separate two single family dwellings to individual lots. The homes are currently on one lot, to be separated and located on two lots. The lot currently is 1.59 acres where one lot is to be 1.10 acres and the other lot is to be 0.71 acres. The minimum lot size allowed is 1 acre. The information submitted shows the lot arrangement with each home being on a separate lot. 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, 9/14/06. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 55-2006, Marjorie S. Dugan Estate c/o McPhillips, Fitzgerald & Cullum, LLP, Meeting Date: September 27, 2006 “Project Location: Route 9L Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between two lots, one of which currently has two residential structures. The result would be that each structure would be located on its own lot. Relief Required: 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) The applicant requests relief from the lot size requirements of the WR-3A zone listed in §179-4-030 of the Zoning Ordinance. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 8-2004, construction of 640 sq. ft. boathouse. It appears that this approval expired, as construction of this project did not take place within one year of approval of the variance. Staff comments: The map submitted with this application proposes the elimination of an existing driveway and the construction of a new shared driveway. Should the ZBA vote to approve this application, consideration should be given to stipulating that this application appear before the Planning Board for Site Plan Review in order to address the stormwater impacts of eliminating the existing drive and constructing a new driveway.” MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. I see we have before us several individuals. Would you folks be kind enough to speak into the microphone, identify yourself and tell us what your relationship is to this appeal, please. MR. STEVES-Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves. I represent the Dugan Estate. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MELISSA LESCAULT MS. LESCAULT-And I’m Melissa Lescault from McPhillips, Fitzgerald and Cullum and I represent the Dugan Estate as well. Also present are some of the family members of the Dugan Estate are also present here, in order to give their opinions, if necessary. Normally you heard what I said about having an attorney, but Mr. Steves has been coming before us so many times, it doesn’t apply to him. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Again, Matt Steves representing the Dugan Estate. This is property that’s located on 9L, lakeside on the north side of the road, in that particular location. There’s two tax parcels, as has been described previously, of 1.59 and .22. There was an old foundation on the easterly lot, the .22. What we’re trying to do is there’s two primary structures on the existing larger lot, is to adjust the lot line of the small lot on the east, move that line to the west, and create two parcels around the existing structures, because of the fact that there are two primary structures. In looking at this, we did the topography on the site, for the purpose, because the driveway, if anybody has visited that site, it is an extremely steep driveway, extremely difficult to get in and out of, especially at the angle that it approaches onto 9L. So we look at this, in order to move that lot line, to accommodate the shared driveway which is a requirement of the zone anyways, and to put it in the best location along the entire road frontage, looking at the sight distances when we did the topography, and establishing a driveway of 15%, compared to the one that, worst case scenario, has a 28% slope. They were much more suitable for ingress and egress onto 9L. We also had Hutchins Engineering perform test pits and perc tests, and that is depicted upon the map where we show an area where septic systems, if ever need to be for these places could be re-located in a compliant location. It meets all the required setbacks and the soils there are suitable for those septic systems. We did that in anticipation, so we had all the answers, so that the clients and ourselves could decipher whether or not this was a feasible alternative to adjust this lot line, and we believe it’s a better scenario than what exists now. You have two primary structures on one lot, and we have a lot that is really problematic, that if somebody was to buy that narrow lot, it would be in for variance, after variance, after variance, and we thought by creating two lots that were more conforming with the neighborhood, maybe not meeting the required lot area, but we think more in conformance than a small lot on the east that really is problematic in its current configuration and cleans up, again, a lot that has two primary structures. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. Do any members of the Board have any questions for Ms. Lescault or Mr. Steves. MR. UNDERWOOD-Matt, is it Waterfront Residential Three Acre? It is three because it’s 75 foot setback. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) MR. HILTON-If I may, Mr. Chairman, I just want to state, for the record, state that, as I’ve written in the notes, I’ve referenced it as being in the RR-3A zone. The information I have shows that it’s in the RR-3A zone. If you look at the map, if it were R, WR-1A, these parcels would, in fact, conform. So, all the information I have states, or points to it being in the WR-3A zone. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you for clearing that up for the record. MR. STEVES-And we concur with that. MR. ABBATE-And you concur. Okay. That’s fine. All right. Members of the Board have any questions for the appellant? MR. BRYANT-Just a clarification, please. You said if it was a one acre zone, the new proposed lots would still have a lot that’s less than an acre. MR. HILTON-The map I’m looking at, correct, you’re right. You would have a .71 and a 1. MR. BRYANT-So in reality this lot, if it is in a Three Acre Waterfront Residential zone, that the lots, as they exist now, are not conforming. MR. HILTON-Correct. MR. BRYANT-Okay, and now you’re taking two nonconforming lots and making two nonconforming lots. MR. HILTON-Correct, yes. Yes, my apologies. I was looking at the 1.1, but, ultimately, yes, it’s in a WR-3A zone and your statement’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-The County referral form is the one that had Waterfront Residential One Acre. So that’s where I got it from, sorry. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Fine. Any other questions from Board members? MR. BRYANT-Just out of curiosity, how old are these houses? MR. UNDERWOOD-One is 47, the other is 100. MS. LESCAULT-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Years. MS. LESCAULT-Yes. MR. ABBATE-All right. Any other questions from the Board members? MR. URRICO-Is there any possibility that they can be made more conforming or more equal in terms of size? MR. STEVES-There’s a possibility to do that, but what we were looking for is the existing primary structure that is located on the easterly portion of the property is maintaining the required setbacks from that, and our prime objective here is, because of the two structures and trying to create two lots, was the location of the driveway, and you can see in putting the driveway further east, is a better scenario for the driveway location, but yet is not as good a scenario as creating an equally divided parcel. Because the only way, by the Town Code, you consider a shared driveway shared is the property line must be within the bounds of the driveway. So, I agree that, could we create a line that kind of angled way back over to the east and took a bunch of lake frontage away, yes, but in looking at it in the practical standpoint, it doesn’t make any sense. MRS. HUNT-The total acreage is 1.59? MR. STEVES-1.59 and .22. MRS. HUNT-That’s for the two houses. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) MR. STEVES-1.59 is the current tax parcel that is the larger parcel, and the current easterly parcel is the .22. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is the Estate going to hold both properties as created if we approve this? MR. STEVES-At this time. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, okay. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, Staff recommends that you have a site plan review. MR. STEVES-For the stormwater. MR. BRYANT-Yes. MR. STEVES-And we don’t disagree. We have done, as I just stated before, test pits, perc tests, topography, so that we could not only design the sites for the best lot lines, but also in preparation for that, but we didn’t want to go to that extent. Mr. Hutchins, Tom Hutchins of Hutchins Engineering, is prepared to move forward with that, but we wanted to make sure that that was something that this Board was in favor of before we did that, but if it was a stipulation of an approval, we’d have no problem going before the Planning Board for site plan review. MR. BRYANT-That was the question. MR. ABBATE-Any other questions? MR. UNDERWOOD-If the Estate decides to unload one of these properties, that shared drive will remain for both properties? I mean, that could be part of the resolution if we make that that they not create another driveway. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. That’s why we showed it that way. We already made them aware that this is the best scenario, and we showed it that way, and the other one would have a notation to be removed, must be removed at the completion of the new driveway. MR. URRICO-I have a question for Staff. Is there any way to determine what the sizes of the properties on either side of that property is? MR. STEVES-I can answer. The average of about the five or six parcels to the east and west of this and ours averages about .72. There’s a .77, .63, .94, and then ours at .71 and 1.1, would be the average of the five parcels in that area, in that bay. MR. HILTON-Yes, I’m showing .94 directly to the east, and .61 immediately to the west. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other questions? All right, no other questions, then I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 55-2006. I’m going to ask if we have any members of the public who would like to address this particular appeal. Raise your hands and I’ll be more than happy to recognize you. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHARLES FREIHOFER MR. FREIHOFER-My name is Charles Freihofer. I live next to the applicant’s property. This has been my permanent and only residence for over 25 years. I thank you for allowing me to speak with regard to this proposal. On the surface we’re discussing what appears to be an effort to create two lots, neither of which meets the Town’s requirements for a minimum area. This proposal comes about as a result of the failure of the property to sell. It’s been on the market for over a year, as it now exists as a single entity, which in turn is the unfortunate result of an expectation of an unrealistic selling price, which was set at a time when lakefront properties were enjoying strong seller’s market, a situation that has since come to a standstill at best. The question is, what will this proposal, if approved, create? Twice as many people, twice as much traffic, twice as much noise, twice as much waste disposal, and so on. A second set of docks and boathouses on one of the longest stretches of minimally disturbed shoreline in the Town of Queensbury. What are the benefits? To the present owners, actually none. They are 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) not making this application to improve their habitat. There is only a perceived benefit in the form of finally selling a property that has not sold yet, as the result of poor advice, further resulting in unrealistic price expectations. This, of course, poses the question as to whether if a property will not sell at an unrealistic price, will half of the property sell at half of that unrealistic price? Now I was addressing benefits. Having established that this proposal, if approved, will provide the applicants with nothing more than a perceived, and in my opinion misguided opportunity to make the property more marketable. If successful, they will not be living with the results. What are the benefits to the neighbors who will have to live with those results? I have made an honest effort to evaluate this proposal from that perspective, and I have come up with absolutely none. I have not only the experience but a three foot jog in my living room wall from when I was denied a three foot encroachment on a sideline setback, as a reminder of how strict this Board, albeit some years ago, can be when it adheres to its regulations and protects neighbor’s rights and interests, and I hasten to add, so that there is no misunderstanding, that the applicants were not a party to that action. I trust, however, that these values are still in force. That ends my prepared remarks, but listening this evening, to repeated concerns of Board members, several of you, almost all of you at one time or another, I must say that simply put this would set a precedent that would change the character of the neighborhood and certainly impact the area. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Freihofer. Yes, sir. LIONEL BARTHOLD MR. BARTHOLD-My name is Lionel Barthold. We also have been 25 year full time residents of that bay. I’d like to add to the comments made by Mr. Freihofer. This property is currently listed at two and a half million dollars. The motive of the variance is not to relieve a family problem or hardship of any kind, but rather to increase the market price. That’s quite clear. That, in my view, is a self-imposed hardship. The buildings, as it’s pointed out, are very old. They’re un-insulated. They’re unsuitable for year round residences. This is a classical tear down situation in the market. Whoever buys that property, or these two properties, if it becomes so, will tear those buildings down, and you will be faced, by request for half a dozen variances and setback on septic and other matters. You’re going to see, or we will see, if this is divided, two large permanent houses, on those vary narrow lots, that range as low as 100 feet between the road and the lake. You’re also going to see another dock, in a bay that already has a dock that serves off shore residences. So there’s a lot of traffic in that bay, a lot more than the houses there would indicate. If you divide, well, I would personally question the septic system on a lot that has an, if you divide it in two, has an average distance from the lake, including the house, of slightly over 100 feet, maybe 110 foot average. I think it’s a dangerous precedent, and it would have far reaching affects in Queensbury and elsewhere. We happen to have a two and a half acre lot. Does this mean that I can come back to this Board, if you approve it, and ask that I subdivide that into three lots? Be careful of the precedent. That’s my only comment. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much for your comments. Do we have anyone else in the audience who would like to address Area Variance No. 55-2006? All right. I see no other hands raised. Do we have anything else to read, Mr. Secretary? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. I’m going to ask Board members to offer their comments concerning this particular request for a variance, but before I do, I’m going to give the appellant and his representative an opportunity to respond to the comments that were made. MR. STEVES-Thank you. In response to a few of the comments, I believe I’ve already addressed most of those, but I’ll just go over it real briefly. We’re not proposing to take the larger lot and subdivide it into two, as maybe somebody thinks in that. We have two tax parcels now. We’re only going to end up with two tax parcels. We’re just trying to make them a little bit more in conformance with the area, take a lot on the easterly end that really is nowhere near conforming and sliding it to the west. We have two tax parcels. We’re going to end up with two tax parcels. We’re not creating any new lots. As far as the impact of usage, we’re not changing anything. The only thing that we’re changing, we, in our opinion, and the applicant’s opinion and professionally is in improving the lot by creating a new driveway that allows much better access and safer access, not only for the people using this, but people driving up and down 9L, but there is no, in this application in front of you tonight, there’s no proposal for a new dock. There’s no proposal for a new building, for a tear down, and if somebody did come in in the future 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) looking to do such, you have two lots that have substantial enough frontage of the lake to, if somebody wanted to put in a dock, they wouldn’t need a variance to put in the dock, and so therefore if you’re going to be creating more variances, I don’t see any, and as far as the septic system, I addressed that at the beginning. That was one of our concerns is to make sure that we had an area that we could place two compliant septic systems before we even came in front of this Board, before we even decided where to move the lot line to. That was a concern of the applicant as well as his consultants. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I’m going to ask members, now, to offer their comments and do we have someone that would like to respond? MR. BRYANT-I have a question, and then I’ll make my comments. MR. ABBATE-Go ahead. MR. BRYANT-Did you ever consider, rather than creating these two nonconforming lots from this already nonconforming lot, did you ever consider absorbing that little parcel into the big parcel and just make one lot? MR. STEVES-We still have the difficulty of two primary structures on the lot. MR. BRYANT-But the reality, though, is, at this point, that eventually one of those structures is going to have to come down, and eventually that would be a compliant or an almost compliant lot. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. I can’t argue that point. MR. BRYANT-So let’s don’t even consider the fact that you’ve got two structures. Did you ever consider making that one lot instead of two? MR. STEVES-Did I ever consider that? MR. BRYANT-Yes, well the owner or whoever. MR. STEVES-Not that I know of, no. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, again, do we have any members who would like to address this particular Area Variance No. 55-2006? MR. URRICO-I’ll go. MR. ABBATE-Please. MR. URRICO-I appreciate what you’re trying to do, but the fact of the matter is, we’re already in a nonconforming situation here with a nonconforming lot, and your request is to take that nonconforming lot and continue to make it nonconforming but in a different way. MR. STEVES-But two lots we have now. MR. URRICO-But they would both be nonconforming. MR. STEVES-Understood. I just wanted to make sure you understood, two lots. MR. URRICO-So in taking the balancing test, whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. Well, I’m thinking that you already have the benefit. You already have the benefit of a nonconforming lot with a nonconforming situation. So the answer to that is yes. The lots, whether it will have a change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties, well, the goal here is to make the zoning three acre. That was the reason why the zoning was changed for that area, and whereas most of the lots in that area are substandard, to grant this would be to rubber stamp the nonconforming situation and say, okay, we’re going to ignore the three acres. We’re never going to achieve it, but I don’t think that’s the realm of this Board to do that. As far as whether the request is substantial, again, I think we’re taking a nonconforming lot with a nonconforming situation and I think it’s substantial. As far as adverse environmental effects, there’ll probably be a request, if we grant this, there’ll probably be a request for another dock. Another dock creates a creates another problem. I see other problems coming as a result of the properties being separated. So I think yes to that as well, and I think the difficulty is self-created as well. So I would be against it. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Any other members wish to comment at this time? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’ll go next. MR. ABBATE-Jim, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would have to echo Roy’s sentiments. I think on face value it seems a reasonable approach what you’re trying to do here, but I think in listening to the comments of the neighbors who would be affected and in consideration of the impact on Lake George, if we continue to usurp the Code, so to speak here, by creating two more substandard size lots which will have substantial huge mc mansions probably erected on them once they sell at that cheaper price, I would have to agree that’s probably a great end run way to get that accomplished. I don’t think it’s reasonable. I think that eventually this lot may sell and I don’t think that, you know, that .22 acre lot down there, it’s probably, you know, one of those lots that either ought to be added on, as Mr. Bryant suggested, to this whole lot, and create a more compliant lot that reaches towards that three acre compliance and would allow for a substantial dwelling to be created on that lot. I don’t think that because something is there, that that sets any Code, or that we have to presume that we’re going to have two dwellings on site, on that lot in the future. If someone wants to build on that lot in the future, they can build a single dwelling there that’s compliant, as far as I’m concerned. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bryant, I believe you wanted to go next? MR. BRYANT-Yes, sure, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I’ve got to agree with Mr. Underwood and Mr. Urrico, but I want to paint it in a different picture. What you’re creating is a situation with two lots that somewhere down the road these older houses can be demolished and you would then want to build new structures on two separate lots. Now, they’re both going to be nonconforming lots. So whatever you do you’re going to have to come before the Board, but in reality, if you have a tax parcel, we can’t deny you the right to build. We’d have to agree to some kind of variance so that you could build something on each one of those lots. If the situation remains status quo, or you joined both lots into one giant lot, as the neighbors are suggesting, somewhere down the road when you demolish the house, you’re going to be left with one house and one building lot, which is a more desirable end result for the environment and for the neighborhood than to have two separate building lots. So, from that standpoint, the impact on the neighborhood is going to be substantial. You’re going to have the two building lots as opposed to one building lot, which is what you have now. So in that view, I’m going to be opposed to that. I know that your response is going to be, well, we have two existing houses on, it’s a nonconforming situation, which will be rectified with time. One of the houses eventually will be demolished, and this Board will never allow you the second house on that lot. So the reality is you get back into the realm of normalcy, and so that’s what our objective is, and I think that’s why I’d have to be on the negative side. MR. STEVES-If I could make one quick comment to that. MR. ABBATE-No, the comments offered by members of this Board are directed to me as the Chairman, and they’re not subject to debate by either the appellant or the public. Who else would like to go next? Please, Rich, go ahead. MR. GARRAND-Well, basically, what we’re trying to do here is grant the minimum necessary relief to the applicants. Dividing this up into two parcels can ultimately have negative environmental impacts. We’re looking, in the WR-3A zone, for something more compliant. By dividing this lot up or having these two tax parcels so noncompliant, we’d basically be increasing the noncompliance in this area, and therefore I’d be opposed to this application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Next would be either Mrs. Hunt or Mr. McNulty, please. MRS. HUNT-I’ll go. MR. ABBATE-Please. MRS. HUNT-I have to agree with my fellow Board members. I would be against whittling down the Code. I mean, it should be three acres and we’re going to go down to one section would be less than an acre. I would definitely be against it. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, and I believe Mr. McNulty is next, please. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is a tough one because the applicant, in some ways, makes a valid point, that it’s conceivable that these two properties could be sold to separate owners, and we could have somebody back in here wanting to build something on the narrow sliver of a lot, and if that should happen, we might well be better off splitting it the way the applicant’s proposing, but we’re dealing with what if’s. We don’t know what’s going to happen here, and that’s where I hit the sticking point. I’ve got to compliment the applicants. They did not come in here hollering that they couldn’t sell the property and therefore they want to split it. That came from somebody else as a suggestion, and it may be true, it may not be true, and I think they’ve done a real good job of looking at the future potential and where there’s a location for viable septic systems and coming up with an intelligent plan for a shared driveway and that whole thing. I think, you know, if I were going to approve something, this is the kind of thing I’d like to approve, because I think it’s a good job that’s been done, but, given that we’re dealing with what we know and everything else is conjecture, there’s at least a 50/50 chance that somebody will come along and buy both these parcels and combine them into one and we’ll have something a lot closer to a conforming lot, and as has been pointed out, at some point in the future, one building instead of two on it. So, for that reason, I’ve got to agree with the rest of the Board members, and I’d be opposed. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I, too, will agree with the rest of the Board members, but in particular I would probably have echoed the same comments that Mr. McNulty has echoed. However, I have a couple of options for you. It’s obvious that you have no support for your appeal this evening, okay, and to provide you with every opportunity for a fair and impartial hearing, I’m merely going to suggest, and the decision is yours to consider, either tabling it to do something else or withdrawing your request. The decision is yours and only yours to make. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. ABBATE-We could go ahead with the vote if you wish, but you will not have the support. MR. STEVES-Okay. Could you give me about ten seconds to consult here? MR. ABBATE-Absolutely. You may have that. You may have more than ten seconds. MR. STEVES-And can I make one comment? MR. ABBATE-Yes, you may now. MR. STEVES-I appreciate it and I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I wasn’t trying to interrupt. Allan brought up a great point when he said that you have an existing tax parcel, no matter what the size is, that somebody could come in and it’s hard to deny somebody some type of building on that tax parcel, and I’m not saying I’m trying to sway you. What I’m trying to say is that’s what we realize, too, when we looked at this, knowing that all we’re doing by keeping that small parcel is making a problem parcel for this Board and the Town and that’s why we tried to adjust it to the best of our ability, and I appreciate the comments that Mr. McNulty made and that you have made, and that’s the only thing I wanted to say. MR. ABBATE-All right. Well, I need a decision. You can request tabling. If you don’t desire that, that’s fine. If you want to withdraw, that’s fine, too. MR. STEVES-Okay. She’s just going to go ask our client. MR. ABBATE-You would like some time. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Why don’t we take this opportunity, then, to have about a ten minute break. Is that sufficient time? MR. STEVES-That would be great. MR. ABBATE-All right. We’ll take a ten minute break, folks. Before you start, one of the Board members has requested to make one further comment. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) MR. BRYANT-I just wanted to respond to what you said. I agree with what you’re saying, okay, but the reverse is also true. Because regardless of what you build on that one giant lot, you’re always going to have difficulty because it’s a nonconforming lot. So whether you do it this way or you do it that way, it’s still going to be difficult. So I agree with what you’re saying, and I understand it, but also understand what I’m saying is that one lot you’re still going to have difficulty. MR. STEVES-And I agree, and that’s what makes the world go round. MR. ABBATE-Absolutely. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Now what conclusion have you come to? MR. STEVES-Go ahead and vote. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. All right. I’m going to close the public hearing on Area Variance No. 55-2006. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And again, I remind the Board members of the five factors we must take into consideration. Having said that, I’m going to seek a motion for Area Variance No. 55-2006. Do I have one? MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2006 MARJORIE S. DUGAN ESTATE, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 3300 Route 9L. The applicant is proposing a lot line adjustment between two lots. The current tax parcel is 1.59 acres, plus an existing .22 acre extension of that, and they’re proposing to divide this parcel into two separate tax parcels, one of .71 acres and one of 1.10 acres. In making this motion, the applicant requests relief from the lot size requirements of the WR-3A zone listed in the Zoning Ordinance as 179-4-030. In making this motion for a denial, I’m basing this on the five criteria which we’re asked to use as a test. One being whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant already has the benefit of a nonconforming lot with a nonconforming situation. Whether the undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties will occur. Already lots are substandard in this area which is designated as a WR-3A zone. These lots would be under that WR-3A zone. So therefore there would be a possible change in the neighborhood character. The request is substantial in that, again, this is a nonconforming lot with a nonconforming situation and we would be creating two nonconforming lots out of the nonconforming lot that already exists. As far as an adverse physical or environmental effect, by creating two substandard lots, one, a good situation would be the combination of the two driveways into one, but in doing so, we’re also creating possible needs for an additional dock, as well as perhaps other environmental needs that are going to be the result of a new tax parcel, and, yes, the alleged difficulty is self-created. th Duly adopted this 27 day of September, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-Area Variance No. 55-2006 is disapproved. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. STEVES-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II DANIEL L. HUNT OWNER(S): DANIEL L. HUNT ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: AMERICAN WAY (PRIVATE DRIVE) OFF LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES LOT LINE CHANGES TO REMOVE ROAD FRONTAGE FROM ONE LOT AND ADD THE FRONTAGE TO ANOTHER. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: ADMINISTRATIVE 2 LOT SUBDIV. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 1.56 & 1.452 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.1-1-56 AND 308.1-1-57 SECTION: 179-4-090 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) DANIEL HUNT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 57-2006, Daniel L. Hunt, Meeting Date: September 27, 2006 “Project Location: American Way (private drive) off Luzerne Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between two lots that will result in one lot not having frontage on a public highway. This lot will have access to Luzerne Rd. from an existing private drive located adjacent to this property. Relief Required: The applicant requests full relief from the frontage requirements listed in §179-4-090 of the Zoning Ordinance. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2003-757, 1440 sq. ft. Single Family Dwelling with attached garage Staff comments: The application file contains a signed, sealed survey of the property.” MR. ABBATE-I see we have someone at the table. I’m assuming that you are Mr. Hunt? MR. HUNT-Yes, sir. MR. ABBATE-And would you be kind enough to speak into the microphone and confirm that, please. MR. HUNT-Yes, sir. My name is Daniel Hunt. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. HUNT-I am the property owner. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now you heard our format this evening. What we’re asking you to do for us is to tell us why you feel, present information to us why you feel we should approve your appeal. MR. HUNT-Just like everything Jim just read, I feel that the road frontage, minimum road frontage requirement that I need to build a new house, that’s a good thing, obviously, but unfortunately for me, I have two lots, and one of them has no road frontage, and the existing lot that has the frontage already has a home on it, and I would like to remove the frontage from that lot and give it to the vacant lot so that I may build a new house on that particular lot. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and any time during the hearing if there’s anything else you think you’d like to add, please feel free to do so. Okay. MR. HUNT-Yes, sir. MR. ABBATE-All right. Members of the Board, do we have any questions for Mr. Hunt? MR. BRYANT-I have a question. I’m not really understanding what you’re doing here. I mean, I’m looking at the survey. All four houses are yours? MR. HUNT-No, the one out front is not mine. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So this used to be, you’re adding another line here, in other words, this used to be one lot or two lots and now you’re making it three? MR. HUNT-No. It’s always been three separate deeded lots. MR. BRYANT-Okay. What are you moving? MR. HUNT-I think I jotted on there, removing this line and adding this line, if you’ll notice. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) MR. UNDERWOOD-This line to be added. MR. HUNT-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-He’s adding, he wants to add like almost like, he’s narrowing Lot Number One. MR. HUNT-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and so then he’s going to have like a right of way on that proposed drive there. MR. HUNT-Correct, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-To access Lot Number Three in the back. MR. HUNT-Correct. So in other words the lot that’s all the way out in the back, which I think you said is Three, would now have the road frontage. MR. BRYANT-Well, Lot Number Three still doesn’t have any road frontage. MR. MC NULTY-It would be tied to Luzerne Road by the right of way. MR. HUNT-Yes. MR. BRYANT-By the right of way. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. Correct? MR. HUNT-Correct. MR. MC NULTY-Because the right of way would belong to this last lot. MR. HUNT-Exactly, yes. MR. MC NULTY-Whereas now it belongs to the next lot over. MR. HUNT-Correct, the middle one. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I understand now. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-All right. Any other Board members have any questions for Mr. Hunt? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 57-2006. Apparently there is no one in the room who would like to address Area Variance No. 57-2006. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-So I will move on and ask that members of the Board offer their comments. Do we have someone who would like to volunteer? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll go. MR. ABBATE-Please. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think what he’s proposed here is reasonable. Although it seems at face value to be extraordinary request here, I think that, you know, this is as a result of the configuration of these, and they’re longstanding lots. They weren’t newly created. So I mean, the hardship is really his hardship not being able to build something back there on that third lot, and I think that as far as the size of the lots go, there is compliant area for a home to be constructed there, but they do need access. So I would be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Underwood. Do we have anyone else? Please, Mr. Bryant. MR. BRYANT-I have a question for Staff. What is the zoning in that particular case? 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) MR. HILTON-I believe it is SR-1A. It is, SR-1A, Suburban Residential 1-A. MR. UNDERWOOD-He’s got two acres on that back lot. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I’m sorry. Yes, I see it now. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. Anyone else have any comments for Mr. Hunt? Please, gentlemen, ladies. MRS. HUNT-I think it’s a reasonable request. I have no problem with it. This is a lot that’s already there and it’s just making it accessible. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Bryant, you made a comment there. Are you in favor of this or against this? MR. BRYANT-I’m in favor of it. It’s a reasonable request. Not really affecting anybody by Niagara Mohawk. MR. ABBATE-All right. We’ll go to Mr. Garrand then. Rick? MR. GARRAND-I agree with Mr. Underwood and Mr. Bryant here. I don’t think the request is out of line. I don’t see any possible physical or environmental side effects here, and as far as the neighborhood is concerned, this is basically right now as it is it’s a dead end road that ends, I believe, at your property. It’s woodland beyond your property. Two acres plenty of room to build a house back there. So at this point I’d be in favor of this proposal. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Chuck, would you mind going? MR. MC NULTY-No. I’ll agree. I see no detriment to anyone in the area there. Certainly there’s more inadequate access for emergency vehicles and that sort of thing, which we’re assuming is the prime reason for the connection to a Town road. So I think there’s clear benefit to the applicant, and it certainly outweighs anything that goes the other direction. So I’d be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-I often wonder what goes on in an applicant’s mind when they have a similar case right before their one, but these are not the same, and I don’t see a problem with this one. I’d be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, and I agree with the majority of the Board members. I really don’t see any particular problems. The request is reasonable, and we’re going to go from there. The public hearing for Area Variance No. 57-2006 is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to seek a motion. Is there a motion for Area Variance No. 57-2006? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2006 DANIEL L. HUNT, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: American Way (private drive) off Luzerne Road. He’s proposing a lot line adjustment between two lots that will result in one lot not having frontage on a public highway, and this lot will have access to Luzerne Road from the existing private drive located adjacent to the property. In essence he’s requesting full relief from the frontage requirements. I think we need to recognize that the road that currently exists to the second parcel back there will now be extended to the third parcel in the back. Then probably a home will be constructed on site as a result of that. It’s a reasonable request. These are pre-existing, nonconforming, well, I guess they would be conforming lots except that they don’t have frontage. So both the second and third lots would need relief for this, and I don’t think that we would find any change or negative to the neighborhood as it is. So I move for its approval. th Duly adopted this 27 day of September, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/27/06) Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 57-2006 is seven yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 57-2006 is approved, and good luck to you. MR. HUNT-Thank you, sir, I appreciate it. MR. ABBATE-If there is nothing else that anyone wishes to say, then this hearing is closed. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Charles Abbate, Chairman 33