Loading...
2006-10-18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/06) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 18, 2006 INDEX Area Variance No. 73-2005 Case Prime 1. Tax Map No. 290.10-1-5 Area Variance No. 61-2006 Stephen and JoAnn Borgos 13. Tax Map No. 301.9-1-18.2 Area Variance No. 59-2006 Kenneth Tingely 17. Tax Map No. 295.13-1-18 Area Variance No. 60-2006 Richard Christensen 22. Tax Map No. 252.00-1-30 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 10/18/06) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 18, 2006 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY CHARLES MC NULTY JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND ALLAN BRYANT ROY URRICO LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. ABBATE- Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals hearing dated October 19, 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 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. Now before calling the first case before us, I do have one announcement I am absolutely delighted to make. I’m pleased to announce that Mr. Bryant will seek another term on the Zoning Board of Appeals. He does this at personal sacrifice, I might add, and Mr. Bryant has made a significant contribution to this Board, and I’ll look forward to working with him during his next term in the spirit of cooperation, and thank you very much, Allan. We appreciate that. Mr. Secretary, do we have any correspondence that we should be reading into the record at this time? MR. UNDERWOOD-Not at this time. MR. ABBATE-Not at this time. Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2005 SEQRA TYPE: II CASE PRIME AGENT(S): CHAZEN COMPANIES OWNER(S): CASE PRIME ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: ROCKWELL ROAD & HILAND DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 4-LOT SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR TWO OF THE LOTS. CROSS REF. SUDIVISION NO. 16-2005 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 16.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.10-1-5 SECTION: 179-4-090 ILONA COYLE & STUART MESINGER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MS. COYLE-Good afternoon, Chairman Abbate, members of the Board. My name is Ilona E. Coyle, and I’m with Caffrey & Flower, and we represent R. Case Prime in this matter. Also joining us tonight is Stuart Mesinger of the Chazen Companies. He’s a Certified Planner. He has coordinated most of the engineering and planning work related to this proposed subdivision, and we are here tonight with a limited purpose. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/06) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, let me interrupt you just for a second, please, because I want to read something into the record, and then, Counselor, you can proceed. MS. COYLE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-What I’d like to read into the record is a letter from Justice Krogman, State of New York Supreme Court chambers, and in this letter, it was addressed to Counsel Coyle and also Counsel Radner, and basically it reads: Dear Counsels: With respect to Ms. Coyle’s request as contained in her letter dated August 8, 2006 for a clarification of this court’s decision, in an order dated June 6, 2006, the court has considered the contents of such letter along with a letter from Ms. Radner dated August 16, 2006, and a reply letter from Ms. Coyle dated August 22, 2006. Quite frankly, in terms of the scope of the remand the court believes said decision and order was clear, i.e. the scope of the hearing, be it public or otherwise, is limited to whether there is sufficient turning radius for fire trucks, see decision order Paragraph Eight. No other issue is relevant in so far as the court determined, Page Eight, that in the event the turning radius is sufficient, the petitioner’s variance should be granted. For purposes of this appeal, a letter may be considered an order of the court (the original of which is being simultaneously with the Warren County Clerk’s Office). Very truly yours, David B. Krogman, Supreme Court Justice. Now, what I believe this basically says, Judge Krogman states that the scope of the hearing, be it public or otherwise, is limited to whether there is sufficient turning radius for fire trucks, and that’s in decision in Page Number Eight in the order. No other issue is relevant in so far as the court determined, again Page Eight, that in the event the turning radius is sufficient, the petitioner’s variance should be granted. That’s an unquote. Counselor, would you agree? MS. RADNER-That’s exactly what the Judge has stated. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Counselor, if you’re prepared, please proceed. MS. COYLE-Yes, thank you. We are here tonight for the limited purpose, as you’ve said, of determining whether or not the turning radius of the, whether or not the driveway will meet the turning radius of a Queensbury fire truck. This is, the bigger picture here is that Mr. Prime is looking to subdivide into four lots a 16 acre parcel which he owns, and he initially went to the Planning Board, and the Planning Board referred this to the ZBA for an application for an Area Variance, because two of the lots did not front on a public street. So Mr. Prime had proposed to use a shared driveway, which would service three of the lots, and would exit onto Hiland Drive. When this was referred to the ZBA, the ZBA denied the initial application for an Area Variance. It was appealed to the court, and the court ruled that the Area Variance should be granted, so long as the turnaround met the turning radius for a Queensbury fire truck. Pursuant to the order of the court, Mr. Mesinger went to the Fire Marshal and he brought him a simulation demonstrating that a Queensbury fire truck, that a standard fire truck, in fact, could navigate the turnaround, and a standard fire truck is actually larger than the Queensbury fire truck, and based upon that, the Fire Marshal found that the Town of Queensbury Fire Marshal’s is satisfied that the roadway and property access are adequate for emergency services vehicles, quote, unquote. Based on the Fire Marshal’s finding, we hereby request that the ZBA find that the turning radius, that the turnaround has an adequate turning radius for the Queensbury fire trucks, and that the ZBA, pursuant to the court order, grant the Area Variance. MR. ABBATE-And, Counselor, the correspondence you refer to from the Fire Marshal is contained in the record? MS. COYLE-Absolutely. It was submitted as Exhibit A to our letter to the ZBA dated July 28, 2006. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Is there anything else you’d like to add at this time? MS. COYLE-No. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then I’m going to proceed and ask if any members of this Board have any questions regarding Area Variance No. 73-2005. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I don’t have that letter in my package. MR. ABBATE-The Fire Marshal’s letter? I do believe we have it here, and if we do, Jim, would you be kind enough to read it into the record, please. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/06) MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. I’ve got a letter from Caffrey and Flower here. So I will read that. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-It says, “I am writing to request that the Zoning Board of Appeals schedule Case Prime’s application for an Area Variance to be reviewed at the next available meeting. In accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in this matter, such review should be limited to the issue of whether the sketch plan does, in fact, meet the turning radius for fire trucks”, and that’s judgment Page Eight. “Mike Palmer, the Town of Queensbury Fire Marshal, has reviewed the proposed turnaround and has determined that the roadway and property access are adequate for emergency vehicles. This demonstrates that the proposed turnaround does meet the turning radius for fire trucks, and the Chazen Companies provided the Fire Marshal with a model demonstrating the turnaround would accommodate a standard fire truck which would be even larger than the fire trucks”. I think this is essentially what we read off of before there. The actual letter reads as follows. “Dear Mr. Lanaro: I have completed my review of the submitted information received July 17, 2006, reference to the above listed property. Based on the information provided on drawing FIG. 1, site plan drawing S1, review of Chapter 5 of the NYS Fire Code, and consultation with Chief Chip Mellon of the Bay Ridge Fire Company, the Town of Queensbury Fire Marshal’s office is satisfied that the roadway and property access are adequate for emergency services vehicles. I may be contacted at 761-8206 with any questions or comments. Respectfully, Michael J. Palmer, Fire Marshal Town of Queensbury” MR. ABBATE-Mr. Bryant, does that satisfy you? MR. BRYANT-Yes. I’m just wondering, this is really not, he addresses the issue, but he doesn’t really give any supporting documentation. I mean, I understand it’s a standard fire truck. That’s a standard fire truck now. Five years from now, that may not be a standard fire truck. I’m just wondering what went into the thought process, that’s all. MR. ABBATE-Of course I can’t respond to that because I have no idea how to interpret his thoughts and what have you, but if you would like to respond to that, please do. MR. MESINGER-Sure. The information that we submitted included the specifications of the fire truck, in other words, the design information. So there’s a length, a wheel base, a rear overhang, the fact that it’s a non-articulating vehicle and a speed, and so he had that information, in addition to the plan, when he reviewed it. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-All right. MR. GARRAND-I have a question for Counsel. The only thing we’re here to consider is whether or not there is, pursuant to the Article 78 and the order from Justice Krogman, we’re just here to consider whether or not there is adequate turning radius for a fire truck? MS. RADNER-That is what Judge Krogman has indicated this hearing should be limited to, right. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Any other members of the Board have any questions concerning Area Variance No 73-2005? If we have no other questions, then what I’m going to do is open a public hearing for Area Variance 73-2005, and would you folks excuse yourself from the table, please, and I’m going to ask, do we have any members of the public who would like to comment on Area Variance No. 73-2005, would you raise your hands please. Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ANNETTE DELAHOYD MS. DELAHOYD-My name is Annette Delahoyd. I live at 30 Hiland Drive, and I was under the understanding that this would be limited to the turning radius question in the broader scope of safety. Is that correct? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/06) MR. ABBATE-Judge Krogman made it quite clear, you’re absolutely correct. However, the public hearing is open and I have absolutely no control of the input from the public. MRS. DELAHOYD-Okay. Thank you. Then I have some maps I’d like to share with you, and I’d like to set them up. MR. ABBATE-Well, set them up, please by all means. MRS. DELAHOYD-Okay. The first map we have at the very end is a map from 1964. This map is a map from 1964, current tax map, 1969, and this was 2005 and this I’m not sure the date on. This came from the Department of Transportation. It’s a draft. MR. ABBATE-All right. Let the record show that you have submitted for exhibit six maps. MRS. DELAHOYD-Correct. Okay. The reason I’m doing this is because at the last meeting in January of 2006 I wasn’t here, and when I read the minutes, Mr. Stone, who was on the Board at the time, he wanted to know a history of the neighborhood, and I don’t think it was complete as given. So I’m going to start with the first map, 1964. This map was referred to in a Deed No. 441163. This deed is the deed of the property that my neighbor, Case, and his wife, Margaret Prime, own. I don’t know if you can see that down there, but that is basically all the lands that Dick Roberts and Case bought and th then subsequently sold to each other, and Jerry Howe, May 7 of ’64. Okay. Deed No. 441163 is bound by covenants and restrictions, and interestingly enough there’s a restriction. Number Six limits his lot to subdivision of two acre lots only, and I think that’s a very important point. Okay. So now that map at the very end has a one foot strip that’s approximately 200 and some odd feet. I don’t know if you can see the pink line, and I have maps for everybody here on the Board to look at. The lowest portion of the map that’s at the very end is then represented blown up down there with seven lots that one of the lots is mine, Lot Number One. That’s the Summit Lane area. That is referred to in Deed 441155. Okay. Our next map is the tax map. This is the how the neighborhood looks now. What I would like you to, if you can see this, there is an extra lot here now that was pulled out in 1979. That’s the Sotanski lot. It was sold to the Stratfords. Maps Number One, Number Two, and this is Number Four. This particular piece right here, it’s very important. It shows the missing turnaround that I did not know was there, and it was deeded, this part was deeded to the Town in 1969. Hiland Drive was deeded in two sections, one in ’64, the second part in 1969, and you can see the cut off on here. Okay. There’s a triangular piece that Case referred to that I really didn’t know about, for a turnaround, because that’s been my issue all along, that there is no adequate turnaround, or turning radius on our street, even though it’s apparent there will be one on the private drive, and that’s the issue. There’s a turning radius for the private drive, but not on the public street. So actually I think you should just pass this right down the table. If you look at that, you’re going to see two portions. One’s a triangle and one’s sort of like a square kind of a thing at the other side. Well, the triangle came from that first subdivision. There’s a triangle held in reserve in 1964, cut off at the corner of where my lot would have normally gone. That piece was held in reserve by Dick Roberts until 1969 when it was needed to stick on the end of the street for a turnaround. In 1979, Gary Bowen bought the Kubricky land, which is now the property of Joan McGrath and Fred Unkauf, and that’s right here, and that was a perfect rectangle at one time when they bought it. However, it did not have road frontage. So Case and Margaret Prime gave, had an agreement, and they gave Gary Bowen a right of way to cross over that property. That is crossing over the one foot line that’s been held in reserve, it’s like the one foot by two hundred and twenty feet. So now it’s still a rectangle but Mr. Bowen can get into his property. In ’91, Mr. Bowen wants to sell his property and someone wisely didn’t want to buy it because it probably didn’t have road frontage, I’m just guessing that, it just had a right of way. So this triangle that had been deeded to the Town of Queensbury as an easement turnaround now gets sold to Gary Bowen and subsequently on the same day to the Wages. So what I’m saying here is what we’ve got is a map that, you know, we’ve got a really a great idea that that first map, there’s that one foot strip, which I think was probably in Case’s wisdom to keep traffic or a future road coming in from Ridge Road, to keep our area quiet and private, as we all enjoyed it, and then the road never got deeded all the way up. That first map shows the proposed Hiland Drive going even further, like 1300 feet. Subsequently, Hiland Drive was supposed to go about 1300 or 1400 feet up into that particular piece of property, the 21 acres that Mr. Prime owned, and it didn’t. It stopped right at, it stops right there, instead of going all the way up here. When this piece was sold out, pulled out, we got this little neck right here. So I think that gives you a really good visual of how this situation developed, and my concern for the safety, I was the one who complained about the snow plow. Now the snow plow has gone, for years everything went up and around on Case’s property, and it stopped about 10 years ago, I believe, but that was so well used that aerial photographs of the area end up, the 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/06) Department of Transportation thinks that there is a turnaround there because I questioned the transportation garage at the school, the bus garage, and they have that map on their computer. So I said where did you get it, and subsequently I found out where they got it, and so basically that’s the story of the neighborhood. I left out one map, this one. This the map that was proposed to the neighbors so that there would be a new turnaround, and this was sort of a compromise, but on Page 17 of the January 18 minutes, Mr. Prime said that I was incorrect in stating that there was no turnaround and indeed there was, and it was there long ago. That sent me on my quest, because I had never seen a turnaround, except the one that was on his property. So that’s when I found that piece, that hammerhead piece, with the triangle and then his easement, there were two easements. He granted one to the Town, and Dick Roberts granted one to the Town. So he said it was used by the Highway Department. I have a letter from the Highway Department I would like to submit tonight that says, yes, indeed, there is a turnaround easement but it’s never been used because it never was, because they always used his property, and then last October it seems to me that if there had been an easement, he should have told me, because I wouldn’t have gone looking for one, because he proposed this one. So, anyway, that’s it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you so much. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask you a question? That thing depicted by the Department of Transportation, how close is that turnaround to the proposed turnaround? MS. DELAHOYD-That’s it. See the proposed turnaround is basically on the old trace, as I gather, okay. MR. BRYANT-So the snow plows used to go around there is what you’re saying? MS. DELAHOYD-Forever, and then it stopped about 10 years ago, okay. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So at least we know that the snow plows will be able to get around. MS. DELAHOYD-Absolutely, but they don’t, they won’t go down there because it’ll be a private road. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MS. DELAHOYD-All right. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MS. DELAHOYD-You’re welcome. MR. ABBATE-And before I entertain anymore public input, I really would like to have copies for the record introduced, please, of those maps. MS. RADNER-If you could, ma’am, just number them to correspond with what you had up there so that when we’re looking at them later we’ll know which is which. MR. ABBATE-One through six, please. Do we have any other members of the public who’d like to address Area Variance No. 73-2005? JOAN MC GRATH MS. MC GRATH-Good evening. My name is Joan McGrath, and I live at 38 Hiland Drive, right next to Mr. Prime, and I would like to say again that I am opposed to giving him the variance. First I would like to talk about Hiland Drive, that it is a public road. As Annette said, the first portion of it, the westerly portion, was deeded to the Town with the Summit Road in 1964. The easterly portion was deeded in 1969. It is approximately 950 feet. From the two easements, there are two pieces of property which create a hammerhead type of turnaround which as Annette also said has never been used by the Town. One part of it is now actually our property, what I call sort of the nose sticking out, the second one on Mr. Prime’s property. This has never been used by the Town as a turnaround, due to the small area. A fire truck could not turn around there. A plow could not turn around there either. Hiland Drive is a short, hilly curved road. There are blind spots creating a safety issue for those who travel it. Several cars use it daily, thinking it is a short cut to Ridge Road. I’m suggesting to the Town that a traffic safety study be done to assure the neighbors that the Town is concerned, totally, about their safety, health, and welfare. Mr. Mesinger stated on January 8, ’06, at the ZBA meeting, with 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/06) respect to traffic, I think it’s fairly commonsense of observation that two houses, on a road that has only three other houses, is not a huge burden, but it’s a commonsense argument that is not a lot of additional cars, unquote. If traffic increases two percent, I can do the math also and state that it indeed is a great increase in traffic. There are several misstatements, I think, being made, regarding Suburban Residential One Acre zoning, as Annette pointed out, Mr. Prime’s deed does in fact state that he cannot subdivide unless he has the two acres for each parcel. He has noted on the variance application, Number Three and Number Four, the Queensbury Zoning Code requires a minimum lot size of one acre, therefore the 16.4 parcel could have a maximum density of 16 residential lots. Number Four, the relief is not substantial. As previously noted, the 16.4 acre parcel could be developed to a density of 16 residential lots according to the Queensbury Zoning Code. Mr. Mesinger also stated if Mr. Prime sold this land to a developer and the developer came in to me and said, what do I do with this, I would take this piece of land here, this is a driveway, and make a compliant cul de sac here and then I’d start radiating lots off of it, I could probably get six or eight lots pretty easily. All of this conveniently ignores the covenant in Mr. Prime’s deed restricting subdividing the property to two acres. Also, besides the misstatements, in terms of his application, several times in October and the January ZBA meeting it’s been alluded to that this is not self-created. I feel that it is a self-created problem that he has developed. I think he pays a great deal of attention to detail. I think he set out, certainly to look at all the areas and to keep the property the way it was, very quiet. He hasn’t developed it until now, and he has threatened numerous times before the Board, the Planning Board and the Supreme Court, if he really needs to build a cul de sac, he will put in four to eight houses. Due to this deed restriction, he can’t build anymore lots than what is already proposed, and he should not have relief for a purely financial gain. If houses are built in the character with the rest of the neighborhood, the cost of the cul de sac could easily be absorbed by those properties. Thank you. One other thing, I would like to publicly thank the Staff at the Queensbury Town Hall and the Warren County building for providing substantial information. They were really super. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. Do we have anyone else in the audience? FRED UNKAUF MR. UNKAUF-Thank you. I’m Fred Unkauf. I live at 38 Hiland Drive. Just a few items. First, in looking at the Supreme Court record, which overturned the previous decision to not grant the variance, I noticed some basically errors really incorrect statements that were made by Mr. Prime, and I’d like to get those correct for the record. Basically on Pages 11 and 15 of the Supreme Court record, it states that two of the neighbors were opposed to the variance, purely because they wanted to buy the property. The previous record clearly shows that the neighbors had a number of issues with regard to not granting this variance, and the offer to buy the property was only offered as an alternative remedy, not as an objection to the variance in any sense. I have much better ways to spend my money than to try to maintain the character of the neighborhood. In terms of safety issues, if one looks at the previous maps that we’ve had up here, it looks like Hiland Drive is made up of two straight line segments, but in fact there’s a substantial curve to the road. I’m not sure how that fits within the right of way that was granted the Town, but it wound up being a substantial curve, and going over a hill. So visibility is very poor. When cars come down that road, they would invariably, if they’re unfamiliar with the area, wind up on my driveway instead of making it up the rest of the way to Mr. Prime’s road, and I think that when we have more houses up there and we have guests that are unfamiliar with the area, that’s going to be a significant issue for us. We believe the Town really should do a traffic safety report to assess that issue. I think also in terms of the previous two Zoning Board meetings and also at the Supreme Court, there were again a number of threats made that if this variance wasn’t granted this property would be subdivided into as many as 16 units, but in fact, given the covenant that’s in Mr. Prime’s deed, and given the presence of the wetlands, it’s unlikely that he could develop it into more than he’s already planning to do. I should note that the first sketch plan that was offered to the Town actually showed one lot less than two acres. I believe it was 1.7 acres, which would have been in violation of the covenant, and I believe those covenants are in there for not just him but all his neighbors to be adhered to equally. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. Do we have anyone else in the public? MARY JANE SOTANSKI MRS. SOTANSKI-I am Mrs. Sotanski, Mary Jane Sotanski, of 21 Hiland Drive. My husband, Thomas Sotanski, is providing you with pictures of the lot, the road, of Hiland 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/06) Drive, as they were taken this evening at four o’clock in the afternoon, understanding that, in the wintertime, when the snow is on the ground and the snow plow comes through this area, that road shrinks significantly, all right. I believe, and I am in hopes th that you have received our letter dated to you October 14, in objection to granting this variance for this subdivision, and it is not our, we could care less, really, if Case Prime subdivides this property, in accordance with the covenants on his property that they be no less than two acres. Our main concern, having raised five of our seven children over the last 15 years, on our property, which is next door to Case Prime’s at 21 Hiland Drive. The safety for our children, our grandchildren, any future children, and anyone that lives in this area, because of the conditions of the road, and as you can see from these pictures, the road, you cannot see, at the top of the hill where Annette’s property ends and our property ends, you cannot see any oncoming or pedestrian or traffic coming that way. We’ve appeared at all of the Board meetings and objected to Case Prime’s application for this variance. I also want you to understand that Case Prime, at one point in time, was an Assistant District Attorney for Warren County. He has a practice, and it’s listed as Case Prime, a law practice on 100 Bay Street. It’s in the telephone book as of today. He is an attorney, and he has access to all the laws, and his statement that he was ignorant of the law, for an attorney to say that to this Board, it just seems to me ludicrous. It really seems to me to be an abomination of what he’s sworn to do as an officer of the court, which is to preserve and to protect the community. He certainly is not interested in preserving and protecting this community. He is instead and in fact more interested in a profit motive, at the expense of the health, safety and welfare of his neighbors, and God forbid that there’s a death on this road. This Board has come together and they have had the guts to turn around and say, we disagree with this variance, and you have stopped this once before, and it is our petition and our hope and our dream that you will have the guts to come through and do this again, because the children of our neighborhood, and the potential children of the neighborhood, and the people that walk these streets every day, day and night, summer, fall, winter, spring, their lives are endanger unless something is done, and if he’s going to do it, he needs to do it in accordance with the law. Absolutely within accordance of the law. Not with the accordance of a variance. I don’t believe that a variance should be the issue here. I think his following the law should be the issue here, and if this variance is granted, then I want to know, within enough time, so that I can move some of my ornamental, very expensive daylilies that we’ve used to beautify the area and I also want to be able to post my property, so that I don’t have to subject anyone to Mesinger and Case Prime and whoever else he decides to have trample all over my property and any new neighbors coming in and trampling and trespassing all over my property, and that is the least that I’m asking from this Board, and I thank you very much for your attention to this matter. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. TOM SOTANSKI MR. SOTANSKI-I’m Tom Sotanski. On this road, the Town plow has to back up. He backs up to Summit, turns around, then he backs into Hiland Drive. To do the other side of the road, and one day they hit the mail person, a new one, didn’t know enough, she parked on this hill, in a blind spot, and they ran into each other, and Casey doesn’t know about this because his house is all the way back in the back. He can’t see this, and the Town trucks have been stuck. I’ve been watching them at night, midnight, two o’clock in the morning, they send out another truck to help them out, because he tries to turn around and he just basically goes into the mud, and the road is not wide enough, Hiland Drive, from our driveway up to Case’s house. It’s just not wide enough. There’s a lot of work to be done there, and what if they bring in sewers? I’m not going to be responsible for paying for that, and water, whatever, and that’s basically about the road. It’s happened. That’s all I know that’s happened, but basically, there’s been 18 wheelers come up that way because they think it’s a short cut to Ridge, and Casey doesn’t see this. He tries to back up. He can’t turn around, and this happens quite often. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. BRYANT-I’m trying to understand. Your real objection is the problem with the road. MRS. SOTANSKI-Absolutely. The safety of the road is our main, main, main objective. That road, you cannot see, when someone is coming up Hiland Drive to Summit Lane, and over the top of that hill, back down on the other side, which goes to Annette’s property, Unkauf’s property, and into Case property, that road, you cannot see a pedestrian. God forbid there was a kid there when the snow plow hit the mail truck, God forbid. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/06) MR. BRYANT-What does that have to do with his property, that’s all I want to know. MRS. SOTANSKI-If he has two more houses on that property, we now have a potential of a minimum of six cars, the two from Case and Peggy’s property, and four more from the other two properties, four more. Our kids were teenagers in there. We watch Case and Peggy Prime pull out of there all the time. They drive at speeds that are not conducive to the weather or the road conditions, and I can’t picture having two more homes with four more cars, or more shooting out of that private road. That, to me, is the biggest safety issue that I have concerns for, and if you look on those pictures, you’ll see there’s a red flag. There are wires there that are too low, and a fire truck can’t get under those wires, and that condition’s going to have to be corrected, and that goes from that little triangle piece that was supposed to be the original turnaround, tee, whatever, hammerhead, whatever, from that telephone pole right on down, right through that driveway, that private road, and that’s going to have to be corrected because a fire truck can’t get under there, and that’s something that Case is going to have to pay for. MR. SOTANSKI-Casey’s property, the road is not wide enough. It’s going to have to be widened considerably. On Annette’s property, the Town’s going to have to make the road wider, and on my property. So we’re, you know, two cars cannot fit, two big cars or a truck or whatever cannot fit on this road. You have to slow down to let the other guy pass. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. SOTANSKI-The road was not built for what we’re talking about, and the fire truck, he could get stuck up there in the road. I’m telling you right now, and then the proposed circle runs on my property. I don’t want that. That’s on my property, at least the one map that I’ve seen. I don’t want it, and Joan and Fred don’t want it. So this turnaround has to be farther back where it is now, and the one reason why the Town plowed Case’s road was because he was a DA guy. He had to get out. That’s the problem when we had the Town, there was no problem with the plow when we were there, but once they stopped going up to Casey’s house, they got stuck, every winter almost. MR. ABBATE-Are you finished? MR. SOTANSKI-Yes, I’m finished. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you so much, folks. Appreciate that. Thank you. Do we have anyone else in the audience who would like to address Area Variance 73-2005? I see no one else in the audience. MR. UNDERWOOD-I have one letter. MR. ABBATE-Yes, would you read it into the record, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-This letter was received on 10/13. It was addressed to Mr. Abbate and the Zoning Board of Appeals, RE: Case Prime and Chazen Companies project that they’re proposing here. “Dear Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood and the Board: We are writing to oppose relief from “minimum road frontage requirements for two lots” of a proposed 4-lot subdivision. Simply stated, relief in this regard creates hardship for the neighborhood, the environment, and for the “public” who must move in and out of our neighborhood. Given relief, how will Mr. Prime and Chazen Companies create a turn- around that accommodates the likes of: Emergency vehicles and school buses? Town Plows, Sanders, and Trucks? Utility Installation/Repair and Fuel Oil/Propane delivery? Given relief, how will Mr. Prime and Chazen Companies create a turn-around that: does not egress on private property? Cause degradation of adjoining property due to standing water/water run-off, snow plowing and salting, and the increased potential (by 2) for hazardous waste spill? Given relief, how will Mr. Prime and Chazen Companies create a turn-around that: Accommodates increased vehicle traffic, where inadequate frontage will both necessitate and encourage parking/turning/backing into, upon and alongside private property and driveways? Is it true that some local and governmental site maps show Mr. Prime’s private road as a still public turn-around, while some of those same (or additional) local and governmental site maps show a triangle of land, between private property, with a now existing Utility Pole in its center as the public turnaround? If indeed no map any longer accurately reflects current reality, is there indeed safe and adequate frontage so as not to impinge upon or impair the neighborhood, the environment, and the “public” who must move in and out of our neighborhood? Mr. Abbate, it is our desire to not see additional homes built in this most rare and unique neighborhood. There is great value in preserving open space and a quality of life that makes for “wellness”. Too much 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/06) of our lives are closely observed and frenetic, and our Hiland Neighborhood models both an old, and a better way to help stay well. Mr. Prime, all the same, has chosen to subdivide; we expect him to abide by “best practices”, and we trust you will hold him and Chazen Companies to the same. One final question: what undue hardship are the Prime’s claiming: relief, because no neighbor has offered to purchase the property they desire to sub-divide – or relief, because the sale of four home lots will yield a small profit - or relief, because they anticipate extraordinary expenses in their twilight years? Neighbors today and tomorrow will endure any hardship Mr. Prime and Chazen Companies claims, should the Board grant relief. Mr. Abbate, set an appropriately high and just standard that guarantees fairness, and creates good for all concerned. Yours Truly, The Reverend Arlen G. Vernava Robin R. Vernava 18 Hiland Drive” MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Counsel, would you please approach the table, and if you would like to address any of the comments that were made, you certainly may. Proceed, please. MS. COYLE-We would like to reiterate the limited scope of the hearing. The court has limited your review to the specific issue of whether or not the turn around is adequate to meet the turning radius of a fire truck. That is the only question remaining. The Town’s primary objection, prior to the court’s decision to the safety of the turnaround and the objection to the prior opinion which we obtained from the Fire Chief, was that the ZBA wanted an opinion from the Fire Marshal. We have produced, or rather the Chazen Companies have produced, a simulation, demonstrating that the turnaround will meet the turning radius both for the Queensbury fire trucks and actually for a standard fire truck, which is in fact larger than the Queensbury fire trucks. The Fire Marshal went ahead and said that that was adequate, and that that meant that the turning radius of a fire truck had been met. Therefore it doesn’t appear that there is any question remaining, and while the public may have raised other issue, those other issues are outside the jurisdiction of the ZBA at this time. MR. ABBATE-Counselor, I disagree with you. I have an obligation to follow a certain format that’s set forth by New York State Statutes, and part of that format is to open a public hearing. I have no control over what the public may say or may not say, and when the public raises issues, we have a responsibility to listen and perhaps even respond. So I disagree with your position. MS. COYLE-Well, of course the public may speak and may say whatever it wants. The Supreme Court has limited the jurisdiction of your decision to the limited issue of the turnaround of the fire trucks. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’m not going to argue the case, but that’s debatable. Okay. You can talk to our Counsel about that. Do you have anything else you wish to bring up at this time? MS. COYLE-I’m happy to answer any questions you may have about the fire trucks, specifically, and the turning radius of a fire truck and whether or not the fire trucks meet the turning radius of the driveway. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-I have a question for our Counsel. I’m curious because, never having been through the process, or having attended a Supreme Court session, as per this one here this evening, I think that when we had our last meeting, it was implied that that was one of the issues, the fire turnaround capability of what was proposed, but I think that there were other concerns that the Board had also, and, you know, it’s hard to get into the mindset of what the Judge was, made his decision based upon. When you appear in that session with the Judge, is it just the person who is asking his appeal of the Judge, is he the only one present at that hearing? MS. RADNER-This is a preceding that’s based under Article 78, and this isn’t LA Law or Boston Legal where we go and we argue things in front of the Judge. This is done in the nature of a summary proceeding. Ms. Coyle had the opportunity to submit argument to the Judge as did we, as your Town Counsel, submit argument to the Judge. In addition, the Judge had the entire records made before this Board, which included all of your minutes, your decisions, any records that were submitted, just as this evening we’ve had people submit items that will be in the record. Every single item that was included in the record was bound together in a volume and was presented to the court. The court went through that information, and in an eight page decision, which I hope each of you received, went through the analysis and made a determination, and I think you’ve heard 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/06) several times tonight what that determination was, but basically the court’s letter, as read into the record by Chairman Abbate, referenced Page Eight of the decision. I can review that for you if you’d like. I’ve got it open to that page right now. Finally the court is not persuaded by the respondent’s argument that the petitioner’s failure to obtain input from the Town Fire Marshal should have been fatal to his application for a variance. Even member Abbate, who voted in opposition to the petitioner’s application and expressed concern that the petitioner’s project might not allow access for emergency vehicles, stated that he would be satisfied with the Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Department sending us a letter for the record indicating that it does in fact meet the turning radius for fire trucks. Thus it is clear from the record that approval by the local fire department would be sufficient, so long as it indicates that the turning radius of the proposed turnaround is sufficient to overcome community concerns. In light of the foregoing, the court hereby remands the respondents denial of the petitioner’s application for an Area Variance. However, assuming on remand competent proof is presented that the sketch plan does, in fact, meet the turning radius for fire trucks, the petitioner’s variance should be granted. So your hands have been tied to a considerable extent by the courts. If you feel that, on remand, which is what this proceeding is called, a remand, competent proof has been that the sketch plan does in fact meet the turning radius of trucks, the court has indicated that the petitioner’s variance should be granted. Now, the applicant’s attorney is aware, as are you aware, that we did file a Notice of Appeal, and, subject to your direction, we do still have the possibility of perfecting that appeal to uphold your original decision, and I believe that the applicant knows that that risk is still out there as well. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t know whether this opens up a can of worms or not, because I really was not concerned with the fire turnaround. That was not part of my argument, and not part of the why I voted the way I did the last time, and I think that a significant argument was made by the neighborhood concerning the possibility of purchasing that property to keep it out, to keep it from being developed, and I’m just wondering, did that even enter into his decision making process. I don’t see anything in there to indicate that to me. MS. RADNER-The court felt that that analysis went to who owned the property, not the Use Variance standards, and we argued otherwise, but the court rejected our argument, but the court has, but the court has decided that that argument didn’t come down to whether the relief was necessary. It came down to ownership issues, which shouldn’t have been considered by the Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-So in all cases the court basically supports the fact that all property should be developed for any reason, to its maximum potential? MS. RADNER-The court felt, in this situation, that in order to achieve the goal of this applicant, that based on the record before you, there was not sufficient evidence to support your denial. MR. ABBATE-We have another question from Mr. Urrico. MR. URRICO-Well, the question I had is referring specifically to that turning radius, and have we determined what is turning radius? MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s a good question, Roy, because addressing the turning radius, in accordance with Judge Krogman, I also notice that in effect supporting what you’re saying that I’m concerned, and I had no knowledge of this before, that I see low lying wires that are tacked with some type of danger type of thing, which I had no knowledge of this before. So, I’m concerned, not only with what you had to say, but I’m concerned that we have received additional information that was not available to us before, and so this raises the issue of what our next step is going to be. MR. URRICO-The second part of my question is when this simulation was given to the Fire Marshal, or the sketch was given to the Fire Marshal, did it take into account a specific area of the road, or did it take into account various areas of the road? MR. MESINGER-You should have a copy of this drawing. It’s a drawing prepared July 13, 2006. I have an enlarged copy if you’d like. It was prepared by Joe Lanaro. He’s a licensed engineer in the State of New York. It’s signed, stamped and sealed, and what it does is there’s a shaded area overlaying onto the proposed roadway, and the shaded area is the actual template, the turning radius template, for the fire truck, and it also includes the data that I outlined to Mr. Bryant earlier, and if you don’t have it in the record, I brought extra copies, and I also have a blow up of it. So he was actually presented with not only the design information, but drawn on a map, and the drawing 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/06) pretty clearly shows that the proposed driveway can accommodate the turning radius of that truck. MR. URRICO-Did it also take into account the wires? MR. MESINGER-This is the first I’ve heard of the wires. What you have here is somebody coming up and saying to you, there’s low wires, a truck can’t go through. That’s not. MR. ABBATE-Would you like copies of the photographs? MR. MESINGER-I’d be happy to see a copy of the photograph, but I guess the point in front of you is that if that’s an issue, it would be taken into account in site plan review. It doesn’t go to the driveway frontage issue that is in front of you. There’s unsafe conditions on roads throughout the Town of Queensbury and throughout Warren County. The issue in front of you is the driveway frontage issue. The court has said the only thing that’s left for you to consider is, does this road meet the fire truck turning radius. Remember there’s another step to this process. After you find, as I think you have to, that the variance ought to be granted, we have to go see the Planning Board. That issue is now out there and we’ll certainly look into it at that time. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to ask Counsel a question. I just want to be clear in my mind what this court decision basically says. Does the court decision say that it’s overruling our original determination that, our decision, our original decision, with the exception of the fire truck issue? Is that what it’s saying? MS. RADNER-Basically, yes. The court overruled your determination on the other issues and said there was competent evidence on the fire truck turning radius issue, and so gave the applicant the opportunity to present that evidence to you. MR. BRYANT-So it negated all of our other objections to the original application. So my next question would be, next logical question would be, why are we having this hearing if the Judge has already made the decision on the variance, and now he has proof positive, from the Fire Marshal, why are we having this discussion when it limits our ability to really respond to all the issues of the application? MS. RADNER-You’ve made the applicant’s argument very well for them. They would argue that that’s precisely what you’re here to do, just to accept the fact that your decision has been overruled otherwise, decide whether or not there’s competent evidence on the turning radius issue, and grant the variance. This Board’s charge is to go through the five factors when considering an Area Variance. You’ve now had evidence presented to you on the issue of the turning radius, and by enlarge the evidence presented to you this evening from members of the public also was limited to that issue. The public actually took heed of the content of the decision, I believe. You should now consider that information, go through the five factors for the Area Variance, once again, go through your factors and vote. MR. BRYANT-Can I see the court judgment? MS. RADNER-Absolutely. I’ve got it right here. This is the full judgment, not just the letter order that followed up. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Would the Board like to take a five or ten minute recess? MR. BRYANT-Please. MR. ABBATE-Okay. This Board will recess for five or ten minutes, please. All right, folks. Are we all set? All right, folks, we’re back in session again. Do we have any questions from the Board to the appellant or counsel? MR. GARRAND-I just have one question for Counsel and the applicants here. This is a private turnaround. What guarantee do the residents down here have that this area is going to be plowed for emergency vehicles to ingress and egress from this area? MS. COYLE-The plowing issue, again, does not relate to the turnaround issue. We’re specifically asking about whether or not the turning, the turnaround has the radius for a fire truck. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/06) MR. BRYANT-I disagree. I disagree completely. MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen, we don’t want to argue this case right now, please. MS. COYLE-Furthermore, even if it were a part of the turnaround issue, Mr. Prime has already discussed in previous meetings that there would be mutually restrictive covenants on all of the lots which would require plowing. MR. MESINGER-There are, just as a practical matter, in the Town of Queensbury, hundreds and hundreds of private driveways that serve multiple houses that are plowed. It’s a routine thing. You’re not creating something out of the ordinary. Mr. Abbate, if I may, I just wanted to go on the record about the photographs that you were nice enough to offer me the opportunity to review, which I did during the break, they were the photographs of the power line that were submitted to you, and I have looked at them, and essentially they are unscaled pictures with no scale or point of view of a power line with a red flag on it, and I don’t think they constitute competent evidence of whether or not a truck can make a turning radius. There’s no height. There’s no scale. I don’t know what they mean. As far as I know, they don’t mean anything, and there’s certainly no analysis of how they would impact fire truck safety. I think it’s a good question for site plan review, and when we get there, we’ll get some competent people out there to measure it and find out. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I have not closed the public hearing. So I see an individual in the back of the room who would like to make a comment, but after that comment, I’m going to move a motion. So would you come to the table, please, and you will be limited to five minutes. MR. UNKAUF-The red flag was put there by the fire company. Fred Unkauf, 38 Hiland Drive. The red flag was put there by the power company after the last major power outage we had about a year back. They put it there because the power lines were not high enough for their own trucks to get through. That’s why they put the flag there. I asked them if I could remove the flag, and they said absolutely not. It’s a safety issue for the power trucks. MR. ABBATE-All right. So what you’re telling us, then, that the red flags, as indicated in the photographs you submitted to us this evening, are the work of the power company? MR. UNKAUF-They’re the work of the power company. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. UNKAUF-And I would assume a ladder truck would have the same problem getting under there. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. MRS. SOTANSKI-I just have one more thing to say. I’m Mary Jane Sotanski at 21 Hiland Drive. The one thing that I forgot to mention to you before is that all of the children, all of my children, and I know that all of the Wages children on Hiland Drive, and I know that the children on Summit Lane, they have to walk to Rockwell Road in order to meet the school bus, all right, and that is a safety issue. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do you have anything to add at this particular time, Counsel, anything else you wish to add? MS. COYLE-No, if there are no questions. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. MS. RADNER-Mr. Abbate, did you close the public hearing? MR. ABBATE-I didn’t. Thank you very much. The public hearing for Area Variance No. 73-2005 is closed. Thank you, Counsel. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/06) MOTION FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2005 CASE PRIME TO RENDER A DECISION WITHIN THE ALLOCATED TIME AS SPECIFIED BY STATUTES, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: The purpose of this is to research and read the entire record of this particular appeal, and the reason for that is we are obligated to provide a fair and unbiased hearing and I think taking the allocated time would allow us to do just that. th Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote for the motion to render a decision within the allocated time as specified by statutes is seven yes, zero no. We will then render our decision within the allocated time, I believe it’s 60 or 62 days. All right. Thank you very much. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I would like to get a copy of the turnaround schematics? MR. ABBATE-Counselor, do we have that in the record? MR. MESINGER-You do. MR. ABBATE-We do. MR. MESINGER-But I’d be happy to give you, I brought extra copies. MR. ABBATE-Counselor, do me a favor, please, give it to Staff. Ms. Barden, do me a favor, please. Counsel is going to provide you with a map. Would you please reproduce that and see that members of this Board receive that ASAP. Please, and anything else. AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II STEPHEN AND JO ANN BORGOS AGENT(S): MICHAEL BORGOS, ESQ. OWNER(S): STEPHEN AND JO ANN BORGOS ZONING: SFR-1A LOCATION: 289 POTTER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED GARAGE IN EXCESS OF THE 900 SQ. FT. MAXIMUM SIZE FOR SUCH STRUCTURES. RELIEF FOR THE OVERSIZED GARAGE IS REQUESTED. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2006-391; NOT.AP 7-2006 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 10 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.9-1- 18.2 SECTION: 179-2-010 MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 61-2006, Stephen and JoAnn Borgos, Meeting Date: October 18, 2006 “Project Location: 289 Potter Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicants propose installation of a 996 sq. ft. garage. Relief Required: The applicants request relief from the maximum 900 sq. ft. floor area requirement for a garage in a residential district, per §179-5-020 for the SFR-1A zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicants would be permitted to construct the proposed oversized garage on their property. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives include removal of the third bay and identifying this as storage area. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/06) The request for 96 sq. ft. over the maximum 900 sq. ft. for a garage may be considered minimal (11%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minor effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created.” MR. ABBATE-I see Counsel is before the Board. Counsel, would you be kind enough to tell us who you are, please. MR. BORGOS-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. I’m Michael Borgos on behalf of the applicant. MR. ABBATE-Okay. If you are prepared to proceed, please do. MR. BORGOS-I am. I hope the Board will remember, I think everybody was here last month, except Mr. Bryant, and hopefully he’ll be able to follow along and ask me any questions if there is anything that he is not aware of. You will recall that this structure was designed with the Code in mind, and this section that we’re talking about now was clearly designated as a storage area and designed as such with the firewall separation, fire door, etc. It was the Zoning Administrator’s determination that the door, an overhead door of greater than six feet in width would permit the entry of a car, an automobile, into this space, and that would designate it, then, as a garage. This Board denied the application last month to overturn that. So we’re here before you today to ask for a variance of the 96 square feet. As you’ve heard Mr. Underwood read that application into the record, the purpose would be for storage, shelving, lawn furniture, primarily a lawn and garden tractor with a side discharge shoot and the rear bagger and they’re probably bigger than Town Counsel’s vehicle or Mini Cooper, you’ve probably seen it. They’re getting bigger, and you need space for it, and that’s why we need the overhead door. The other reason for the overhead door, of course, as we mentioned last time, was to make it aesthetically consistent with the other two doors for the regular garage, which is I think about 776 square feet. So we believe the relief is minimal. We don’t think there’ll be any impact upon the neighborhood because it’s such a large parcel, 10 acres in size, and the Code was really geared toward single acre lots. So with that, if there are any questions, I’d be happy to answer them. MR. ABBATE-Yes. One of the Board members has asked for time, please. MR. GARRAND-Counselor, Mr. Chairman, at this point I’d just like to recuse myself to avoid a potential conflict of interest. MR. ABBATE-You may. Thank you very much. Do any members of the Board have any questions for Counsel concerning Area Variance No. 61-2006? MR. MC NULTY-I do. As I recall at the appeal hearing, Steve Borgos said something to the effect that because this third stall had been built, intended to be for storage, that it might not meet Code for a garage. Do you have any knowledge as to whether that is correct or not, or where we’re going with that kind of an issue? MR. BORGOS-I believe it’s actually, as it’s been constructed, they elected to go with a garage code firewall, drywall, rather. I think that was the issue that he was thinking of. When it was originally designed, they didn’t have to do that on the southernmost wall, but the builder went ahead and put that in. So as built it is there. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. So it would meet Code as a garage? MR. BORGOS-That’s right. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Any other members have any questions for Counsel? MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I have a question for you. In the package, there is a letter requesting a waiver of the survey. Was that granted? I don’t see any response. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/06) MR. ABBATE-Yes, and you’re absolutely correct, and that waiver was granted. It was sent to the Zoning Administrator and the Zoning Administrator brought it to my attention. I went down, looked over the facts of the case, and based upon the information that was presented, I felt that it was warranted. Yes, to answer your question, it was waivered. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I don’t see anything in the record, and it really should be. th MR. BORGOS-There was a letter dated September 26. MR. ABBATE-May we have that, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ve got it. MR. ABBATE-We have it. Never mind. Would you read that into the record for me, would you please, Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Having reviewed your letter of request from a waiver from our requirement for a stamped, signed survey map of the subject property together with your proposed project plans I hereby find your request to be reasonable and appropriate for this matter and grant you a waiver from this mapping requirement for this project.” And that’s signed Chuck Abbate. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Do we have any other questions for Counsel at this time? None? Okay. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 61-2006, and do we have anyone in the audience who would like to address this issue? I see no hands raised, so I’m going to continue. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-Since I see no hands that are raised, the public hearing is now closed for Area Variance No. 61-2006. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-Now I’m going to continue. I’m going to respectfully remind the members that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, and while State law sets forth five factors to take into consideration, again, unlike a Use Variance test, this Board need not find in favor of the applicant on every one of the five factors. Rather we merely take them into account in deciding whether to grant an Area Variance. Now, I’m going to request that if you have comments to make, please introduce your comments and/or motion, with clarity. Please. In the event a member moves a motion to disapprove and believes the appeal is substantial, please make clear your judgment. Having said that, I’m going to ask members of the Board for their comments, please. MRS. HUNT-Whether this benefit could be achieved by other means? I think the oversized garage is preferable to another building of 249 square feet. I don’t see any undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties. This is a 10 acre piece of property. It’s not a substantial request. I’m mean, going to 996 square feet from 900 square feet is not a substantial difference, and I don’t think it’ll have any physical or environmental effects, and it’s self-created only in the fact that the people want to have some storage area. So I would be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Do we have any other members who would like to comment? MR. URRICO-Code doesn’t vary proportionately to the size of the property, unfortunately, but the impact does. So this is 96 square feet on a 10 acre lot. So that the substantiality of the request is minimized greatly by that. So I would be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. MR. BRYANT-I just want to ask Counsel a question. Any plans to subdivide that lot? MR. BORGOS-No, not at this time. MR. BRYANT-It’s going to stay like that, in perpetuity? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/06) MR. BORGOS-Yes. They’ve always resided in relative isolation. Their current residence is on just over four acres, and surrounded by the Glens Falls Watershed, several thousand acres. So they like their privacy, and that’s their intent, and as they design their driveway and house location, they want to be isolated. MR. ABBATE-As you know, Counselor, words are crucial. You said not at this time. For the record, let me ask you this, are there plans to divide this property? MR. BORGOS-No. Absolutely no plans at the time. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, so that’s cleared up. Thank you very much. MR. BRYANT-He qualifies it with, at this time. MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s why I raised that issue. MR. BORGOS-Okay. No plans. MR. BRYANT-Then my comment is as follows. I’m going to agree with Mr. Urrico. As long as it remains 10 acres, the 10% on the garage is inconsequential. So I’m going to be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Would you feel better, Mr. Bryant, if we had as a condition that the lot be not subdivided? MR. BRYANT-What is the zoning of that lot? MR. ABBATE-SFR-1A, One Acre, Single Family Residential. MR. BRYANT-I would prefer that there’s an attachment to the amendment indicating that. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, whoever makes the motion, that would be fine. MR. UNDERWOOD-I, last time, said I would have no problems with your request if you were going to come in and ask for this this evening, and I think that on larger lots in Town we’ve granted this variance numerous times in the past, and I have no problem granting it this evening. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, and Mr. McNulty. MR. MC NULTY-As has been pointed out, this is a relatively minor increase in size, so that’s reasonable. I think there was a point made at the last hearing that I think is still valid, that the appearance of the front of the garage area would be drastically changed if the applicant was forced to put in a six foot wide, or a narrower door. So I think that’s also a plus in favor of the applicant getting the variance. I’d be in favor mainly because of those reasons. I think it’s going to be pretty difficult to guarantee that that lot will forever in the future stay 10 acres. So I’m not basing it on that. It’s a case, you’d have to have a permanent deed restriction, because at some point this house is going to pass to son, daughter, or get sold somewhere along the line, and at that point we’ve lost control, but minimal good justification for why, and no indication that this was done deliberately, just to get what they wanted. So I’d be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. I, too, will support the members of the Board. I think the request is not unreasonable, and I join and echo, if you will, the comments of all the Board members. So I, too, would be in favor of that. Now I respectfully reminded the members about the balancing and also about doing a motion with clarity. So, having said that, is there a motion for Area Variance No. 61-2006? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MR. ABBATE-Please. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2006 STEPHEN & JO ANN BORGOS, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 289 Potter Road. The applicant’s propose installation of a 996 square foot garage. The applicant’s request relief from the maximum 900 square foot floor area requirement for a 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/06) garage in a residential district per Section 179-5-020 for the SFR-1A zone. While I believe the benefit could be achieved by some other means to the applicant, I think this is the best of all possible solutions. It’s a 10 percent increase over the maximum, and it’s not significant. There would be no undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties. Actually I think the three doors matching is aesthetically more pleasing. It’s not a substantial request, and it will have no adverse physical or environmental effects, and it could be said to be self-created, but I propose we approve Area Variance No. 61-2006. th Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 61-2006 is six yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 61-2006 is approved. Thank you, Counselor. MR. BORGOS-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-For the record, I would like to make note of the fact that Mr. Garrand recused himself, and this is consistent with his previous recusal. Thank you, Counselor. MR. BORGOS-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II KENNETH TINGLEY OWNER(S): KENNETH TINGLEY ZONING: LC-10A/SFR-1A SPLIT LOCATION: 301 BUTLER POND ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF AN IN-GROUND SWIMMING POOL. RELIEF REQUESTED IN ORDER TO LOCATE THE POOL IN THE SIDE YARD. CROSS REF. BP 87-815 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 3.19 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.13-1-18 SECTION: 179-5-020 KEN TINGLEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No.59-2006, Kenneth Tingley, Meeting Date: October 18, 2006 “Project Location: 301 Butler Pond Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of a 512 sq. ft. in-ground pool in the side yard of the property. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the required placement of a pool in the rear yard only of a principal structure, per §179-5-020 for the LC-10 and SFR-1A zones. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to install the pool in the desired location on the property. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for a pool in a location other than the required rear yard only could be deemed considerable (100%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minor effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/06) The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 1987-815: Issued, single-family dwelling. Staff comments: While the request for relief could be deemed considerable, minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. Feasible alternatives appear to be limited by the location of the existing septic system in the rear yard. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. ABBATE-Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 59-2006 approach the table, which he has, speak into the microphone and please identify yourself. MR. TINGLEY-Kenneth Tingley. MR. ABBATE-Okay, Mr. Tingley, let me explain the rules. Since you haven’t hired counsel, there’s a little more flexibility. If at any time during this hearing there’s something you don’t understand, stop us, we will explain it to you. If at any time during this hearing you’ve thought of something that might support your case even further, stop us and we’ll be more than happy to listen to you. MR. TINGLEY-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Now, having said that, if you are prepared, please tell us why we should approve your appeal. MR. TINGLEY-Sure. Essentially we have a case here when the house was constructed, it was constructed with the side facing the road. So what I would consider my backyard, a strict interpretation of the Code is that it’s the side yard. So, it’s obviously, for the amount of, where this house is located, it is on a bluff. It’s on very much of a plateau type situation with a steep drop off, as I indicated on the maps, on each side. So you can’t really go, you don’t have too much flexibility there, and to actually put it in the back of the house, as I stated earlier, that’s where the septic system, there’s only 22 feet to the significant drop off there. So I’m fairly limited in what we can do. As far as, again, the character of the neighborhood, very limited amount of houses up on Butler Pond Road. Mr. Tarantino just to the north of us. He’s sent in a letter. I have a copy of that. You should have that, that he certainly has no objection to it. The church is below us, would not be visible in any way, and that’s at least three to four hundred feet away as well, not much activity there except on Sundays, and other than that, there really isn’t any neighbors that would be affected, that I see at all. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Secretary, would you read that into the record, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-“I’m writing to you in response to your August 4, 2006 letter regarding the above referenced project. As I understand your request, your position is that the proposed project; a 16 x 32 in ground pool, does not require any setback relief therefore such a stamped, signed map is not necessary. Having reviewed your letter of request for a waiver from our requirement for a stamped, signed survey map of the subject property, together with your proposed project plans I hereby find your request to be reasonable and appropriate for this matter and grant you a waiver from this mapping requirement for this project.” Signed Mr. Abbate. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I do want to make a comment about that. I think a survey, in this particular case, might have been helpful because of the various elevations, okay. So that, you know, to see it in person and to actually have the dimensions so you know what we’re talking about in inches and feet and so forth and so on. MR. TINGLEY-I certainly do have, brought pictures if you would, certainly if the Board would like to see that. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/06) MR. ABBATE-If you would like to introduce those, you certainly may. The waiver was basically based upon the statistical analysis, in that Mr. Tingley really had no options because of the septic system of where to put his pool. Would I be correct in that statement? MR. TINGLEY-That’s correct. It would be on one side or the other. MR. BRYANT-I just wanted clarification, though, because in reality, isn’t anything beyond the back face of the house the back? So in fact that pool couldn’t go into that corner, be closer to the porch actually. MR. ABBATE-Don’t ask me that question. You want to ask the applicant. MR. BRYANT-No, I asked Staff, but Staff, you know, wasn’t quite clear, but I wanted to make sure that what I’m saying is correct. Anything beyond the plane of the back of the house is the backyard. Okay. So in reality this pool could go into this corner. It would be identical, it would affect the septic system. It would be identical to the position of the porch that it has now, but without a clear cut survey, I don’t know what the elevation and how that’s going to be affected, that corner of the lot. MR. ABBATE-Would you like to address that, Mr. Tingley? MR. TINGLEY-Sure. If you look at the distance from the porch to the drop off there, that’s about 48 feet, and this whole corner, the septic system, that’s approximately where it is, there’s only 20 feet to one side. So what you’re talking about is fitting 16 feet into 20, which is a really tight fit, and it just doesn’t work. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think there would be concerns about the distance from the edge of the precipice there, too, and it really goes down. MR. TINGLEY-Yes, we’re talking a very steep drop off. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but I don’t see any difference, I mean from your sketch. I don’t see any difference in putting the pool in this corner, the same distance from the property line as you’ve got now, or the drop off as you’ve got now and still allow you the closeness to the porch, and yet still be in the back yard. MR. TINGLEY-I know there’s a concern over whether there’s a leaching field there or not, and that, you know, when I originally bought the house, the septic system I was told was approximately there, and from there there was supposedly a leaching field that went out. So there’s that concern as well. Exactly how far that goes out, you know. MR. ABBATE-Well, you’ll have to base your decision on the information that you have. Let me, if you’re still concerned, let me go through this and talk to the other members first. Do we have any other members of the Board who would like to ask Mr. Tingley any questions? MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got one. Is this going to be an in-ground pool? MR. TINGLEY-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-So it’s going to have some kind of a fence around it. MR. TINGLEY-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-Which will be visible from the church. MR. TINGLEY-What we were thinking of was something, right now the way, and I do, again, have a picture that shows the, if I can show you the. MR. ABBATE-Yes, why don’t you introduce that to us, Mr. Tingley, and make it easier. MR. TINGLEY-I will. There’s some pictures of the house from each side that shows you the side, they’re labeled on the back, and to answer this one question, this’ll give you, this is the view from the church, and I’ll, you can get a close up on it, but you can see that there’s, once you put the fence in, you won’t see the fence. I mean, obviously there’s a change in the winter, I mean, we’re anticipating that you would probably put in something that would not be very noticeable, whether it be chain link or something very, that would 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/06) blend in with the character of the current geography, but that’s essentially the view from the church parking lot. MR. ABBATE-And while we’re looking at the pictures, do any of the other Board members have any questions for Mr. Tingley? I hear no other questions, then I’ll wait for the pictures to be passed out. We have correspondence, Mr. Secretary. Would you read it into the record, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Please note that the undersigned as adjoining owner to Ken Tingley has no objection to the application before the Zoning Board of Appeals to permit the installation of an in-ground swimming pool in the “side yard” of Tingley. If you have any questions concerning my position in this matter, please feel free to contact me at my office or home. Very truly yours, Dennis J. Tarantino” Dennis Tarantino is the neighbor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. TINGLEY-The one thing I did want to reiterate, too, is the fact that there aren’t many houses up there, but there are two of my neighbors, including Mr. Tarantino and Mr. Borgos, who have pools that are in their side, or would be characterized as their front yards. So there is precedent within the neighborhood. Obviously those happened before that went into effect. MR. ABBATE-All right. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 59- 2006, and do we have anyone in the audience who would like to address? You would like to address that. Would you excuse yourself for a second while this individual wishes to address Area Variance No. 59-2006. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MICHAEL BORGOS MR. BORGOS-Michael Borgos, 29 Maple Drive, however I used to reside at 286 Butler Pond Road. I spent a lot of years there. I’m very familiar with the property, and I’m here to support the application. I think this is a perfect example of what the Zoning Board can do for the constituents within the Town. This is clearly a different lot than what the designers of the Code would have imagined. It’s not a subdivision. Certainly Mr. Tingley’s pointed out correctly there are other pools in the neighborhood that are in the side yard, and everybody’s lot is a little different, especially on hillsides, and I can tell you from across the street, you would never see this pool. There is substantial vegetation. It’s not going to impact anyone, and I really doubt there’s going to be any impact from the church looking up at that as well. If anything, the required height for a fence is four feet. I really don’t think that’s going to be a concern either, and I was living there at the time that Mr. Maille built that house, before Mr. Tingley bought it. Mr. Maille is a well known contractor, certainly was well-known at the time, but he was well-known for doing things that may have been a little different than what the Code set forth, and he was one that I would imagine over built that leach field. So it’s very possible that he might, you know, if he were to put the pool in the other location, near the leach field, it could disrupt something there. So I think the location chosen really is the only option for him. So with that I’d just like to voice support for the application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else in the audience who would like to address Area Variance No. 59-2006? I see no other hands raised. Mr. Tingley, would you come back to the table, please. Thank you. Before I ask members to offer their comments, I’d like to inform the public that the comments offered by members are directed to the Chairman, and comments expressed by Board members to the Chairman will not be open to debate. Again, I’d 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. Board members are obligated to make decisions on reliable evidence contained in the record of the Board’s deliberations. I will now ask Board members to please offer their comments on Area Variance No. 59-2006. MR. URRICO-I see no reason to oppose this application. Judging from the criteria that we’re asked to abide by, the applicant has convinced me that this benefit cannot be achieved by any other feasible means. I believe when the Code was constructed, there was not a specific template in mind, but certainly if they did have one, this lot would not have fit that template. I think there would be no undesirable change in the neighborhood 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/06) character or to nearby properties. I think the only one that could be affected is the church, but other than that, I don’t see a problem. The request is considered substantial only because of the definition, and the definition in this case refers to the position of the pool in relation to where the property faces, and if there really is in essence a back yard, from all other manner of concern, I believe, and I don’t think the request is going to have an adverse environmental effects. I do think the difficulty is self-created. Not everybody has to have a pool. So in that case I would say that it is, but I would be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Do we have someone else who’d like to comment? MRS. HUNT-I have to agree with Mr. Urrico. I have no problem with this. I’d be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Tingley, going up there, you can’t see anything on your property from the church. It just looks almost totally obstructed by trees. MR. TINGLEY-Yes. It’s really grown up significantly. MR. GARRAND-Basically when I looked at this property, standing in his driveway, I thought I was looking at the front door. To me it’s just a question of the orientation of the house and the Statute, as it’s written, of the Town Code. Basically I thought that was his back yard where he’s going to be placing the pool. With that in mind, I’d be in favor of this application. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, I’m in favor, too. I think the balance falls to the applicant in this case. There’s certainly a lot of mitigating circumstances that, as he says, the pool itself probably is not going to be visible from anywhere. Sitting in the church parking lot at this time of year, you can see his house, and I think when he puts a fence up, you are going to be able to see the fence. As long as it’s not an extremely gaudy fence, I don’t see any problem with it, from the church’s viewpoint, and I think that’s the only place there’s going to be any possible potential impact. So, given that, I’m willing to grant an exception to my rule, that some places are not meant to have pools. In this case, I think we can get one in there without it being a problem. So I’d be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’d be in agreement with everybody else. I think that in this instance the Code is reflective of more close quarters. When houses are located next to each other, certainly you don’t want to be looking at a pool out your side window. In this instance it’s on a three acre lot where there’s never going to be anything else around it. It’s not a problem. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, and Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately I’m going to disagree because I think there is a feasible alternative. There is an open area in the rear where the pool would probably fit, but not knowing where the leach field is, it’s hard to tell if that’s a viable, feasible alternative, but in any event, I’m going to assume that the leach field doesn’t go all the way to the drop off point and that you still have room for the pool in that back corner, and that’s considered the rear. So I’m going to be negative on this one. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I listened to what the Board members had to say, but in particular I was paying close attention to what one of the members of the public, who was supporting Mr. Tingley’s application had to say, and his comments are applicable. This Board is not an advocate for either the Town nor the appellant. We are sometimes referred to as a safety valve, and what that safety valve basically does, it allows circumstances like this, this Board to make an intelligent decision as to whether or not to grant the application, and I would agree with the majority of the Board members that your application is reasonable, and I suspect if I were in the same position that you are, I would be requesting the same thing. So I will support the application, and I’m going to ask, again, I’m going to remind the Board members about the task of balancing, I’ve already gone through all of that. I don’t see any reason to have to go through that again. So, having said that, I’m going to ask for a motion for Area Variance No. 59-2006. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/06) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2006 KENNETH TINGLEY, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 301 Butler Pond Road. Applicant proposes installation of a 512 square foot in-ground pool in the side yard of his property. The applicant is requesting relief from the required placement of the pool in the rear yard only of a principal structure per Section 179-5-020 of the LC-10 and SFR-1A zones. Looking at the balancing test, can the benefits by achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant? Given the topography of the property, I don’t believe so. Will it produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or to the character of any other properties in the neighborhood? No, the pool probably won’t be visible for any other neighbor within the immediate surrounding area. Whether the request is substantial. I don’t deem it substantial in that the statute basically says a pool has to be in the rear. I would consider this the rear of the property, considering the front entrance is on the direct opposite side of the house. Whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental impacts on the neighborhood, no, it will not. The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, in that he wants the pool. So I’d be in favor of this application. th Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-Area Variance No. 59-2006 is approved. MR. TINGLEY-Thank you very much. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II RICHARD CHRISTENSEN OWNER(S): RICHARD CHRISTENSEN ZONING: RR-5A LOCATION: 480 LOCKHART MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 816 SQ. FT. WORKSHOP/GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF.: BP 2006-557 PENDING; BP 95-671 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 3 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 252.00-1-30 SECTION: 179-4-020 RAY KRAFT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 60-2006, Richard Christensen, Meeting Date: October 18, 2006 “Project Location: 480 Lockhart Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an 816 sq. ft. detached garage/workshop. Proposed accessory structure includes 312 sq. ft. of second-story storage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a second garage on the property, per §179-5-020 for the RR-5A zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 2. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired structure on the property. 3. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include expanding the existing 2-car attached garage, not to exceed 900 sq. ft., thus eliminating the additional freestanding structure. 4. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for two garages where one is permitted per lot may be interpreted as considerable relative to the ordinance (100%). 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/06) 5. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minor effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 6. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2006-557: Pending, associated with this application. BP 1995-671: Issued 11/29/95, single-family dwelling w/ 2-car attached garage. Staff comments: While the request for relief could be considerable, minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. The property is zoned RR (residential) where garages are a permitted use in the zone. The relatively substantial lot size (3- acres) helps to mitigate the effect of an additional accessory structure on the property. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. ABBATE-Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 60-2006 please approach the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourselves, please. Good evening, gentlemen. RICK CHRISTENSEN MR. CHRISTENSEN-Hello. My name is Rick Christensen. This summer I bought a house at 480 Lockhart Mountain Road. MR. KRAFT-Ray Kraft. MR. CHRISTENSEN-Ray’s going to be my builder. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, you heard what I said earlier. Since you have not retained an attorney, if there’s anything you don’t understand during this proceeding, stop us, we’ll be happy to explain it to you, and during the proceeding, if there’s anything you may have forgotten to tell us which may enhance your cause, if you will, stop us again and please feel free to introduce it. MR. CHRISTENSEN-Okay. MR. ABBATE-So, if you’re prepared, explain to us why you feel we should approve your appeal. MR. CHRISTENSEN-Okay. Like I say, I just bought the house this summer. I’ve got a considerable amount of woodworking tools in storage that I’m paying rent on every month because I don’t have a place to have a workshop. I bought the house with the intent of building another garage. That’s why I looked for acreage. There is a house right down the road that has built a very similar shop, kind of gave me the idea of what I wanted to do. I have plans of re-doing an old boat. I’ve got furniture to re-do. It’ll primarily be a workshop. I also have a corvette that I need to store in the wintertime, and two other cars, and so the two other cars will stay in the house garage, which is just big enough for two cars. I have no other storage in there. I’ve got a garden tractor, a four- wheeler, and then like it was stated earlier, I really don’t have any storage in the house because the basement is completely finished into a playroom, and so things like patio furniture and that kind of thing, I don’t have any place to store that. That would be the reason for the storage above the garage. Basically that’s it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Do we have any questions from members of the Board to address Area Variance No. 60-2006? 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/06) MR. URRICO-I have a question. You said when you looked at this property, you looked at it with the idea of having a second garage. Did the question ever come up when you were looking that second garages are not something that’s permitted in Queensbury? MR. CHRISTENSEN-Yes. I did. I’ve talked to several people, and like I say, it looked like a precedent had been set right down the road a gentleman did just exactly what I want to do, so I knew I’d have to go through this procedure, but thinking that I had three acres, it shouldn’t be a problem. I have no neighbors that look onto my property at all. I’m completely isolated from any neighbors. So it would have no effect that way. So I was fairly confident that I’d be able to get the necessary approval. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other questions from members of the Board? MR. BRYANT-You mention in your application that you’re paying $60 a month to store your tools or equipment or whatever. What about your corvette? MR. CHRISTENSEN-No, that’s in one of the garages, and the other two cars are outside. They can’t go in the garage. I’ve still got stuff ranging from the move in one bay, and the corvette’s in the other bay. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So my question is, if you eliminate the overhead door for this building that you’re building and you use it as a workshop storage area, a normal accessory structure, wouldn’t that be satisfactory? MR. CHRISTENSEN-I guess I’m not following you. Just don’t put an overhead door on it? MR. BRYANT-Yes, then it’s not a garage, it’s an accessory structure. MR. URRICO-You’re allowed a larger garage plus an accessory structure. MR. CHRISTENSEN-Well, I’ve got three cars to garage, and I’ve only got a two car garage. So I think somewhere I’m going to need three garages. MR. ABBATE-Why don’t we clear this up. Staff, Mr. Urrico made an excellent point. Would you clear this up for Mr. Christensen, please, specifically the fact that if you don’t have a door, etc., you can use it as a utility. MRS. BARDEN-Well, I think, the relief is specific to a second garage. So if it’s storage space, it should be, it would be fine. The relief is specific to the second garage. If you eliminate the overhead door, and there’s no way to get a car in there, it would just be another accessory structure, it would be storage only. MR. CHRISTENSEN-Well, that would create a couple of problems for me. One would be, again, the third garage that I feel I need, and the other, I want an overhead door because if I start re-doing the boat, I need to be able to get the boat in and out of the workshop. MR. ABBATE-That’s all right. Staff has cleared it up for us, and you’ve stated your position, which is perfectly okay. Not a problem. Do any other members of the Board have any questions for Mr. Christensen? MR. URRICO-What’s the current size of your garage, the garage that’s there? MR. CHRISTENSEN-I don’t know if it’s on that paperwork or not, but it’s only enough for two cars, so probably. MR. UNDERWOOD-Probably 600. MR. ABBATE-Six hundred feet would you say, Jim? Okay. MR. URRICO-See, what I was trying to say is that you can expand that garage to 900 feet, 900 square feet and still build the accessory structure, and that would give you room to put your corvette and also have a second area for your equipment. MR. ABBATE-Without a variance. MR. URRICO-Without a variance. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/06) MRS. BARDEN-It does say that it is 432 square feet, but that’s probably an approximate, but you’re right, the maximum is 900 square feet. MR. CHRISTENSEN-The garage right now really doesn’t lend itself to expansion. It’s built into an A-Frame house, and if I was to do anything out the back, it would block off my back yard to any access, because I’m at the foot of a hill there, a little bit. It would make things a little more difficult. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Underwood would like to comment on something, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-If you look at the current way that the garage is constructed, you’d have to rip the roof off and totally reconfigure to add another bay on there, you know. So it wouldn’t make sense to do that. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Do we have any other questions from members of the Board? MR. GARRAND-Mr. Christensen, is this picture submitted by you? MR. CHRISTENSEN-Yes. MR. GARRAND-Well, this is just an example of a feasible alternative. These don’t look like overhead doors here, which would qualify as a second garage. This looks to me like just an accessory structure. MR. CHRISTENSEN-Well, not to argue with you, but those are overhead doors. Those are those carriage house doors that do fold up, and as a matter of fact, he has an old car stored in there. I haven’t talked with the gentleman, but that’s the one that I saw and got the idea from. That is, as a matter of fact, it’s a taller than normal seven foot door. It’s probably like a nine foot garage door. MR. GARRAND-But it is, you know, another type of accessory structure, is a feasible alternative in this situation. MR. CHRISTENSEN-Okay. MR. BRYANT-Now you bought the property in the summer? MR. CHRISTENSEN-Yes. MR. BRYANT-This summer that just passed? MR. CHRISTENSEN-Yes. MR. BRYANT-And you anticipated you’re going to get all this done and you’re going to put the garage up before the snow flies? MR. CHRISTENSEN-Well, it would have been nice, but with everything else we’ve got going on with the move, it might not happen. MR. BRYANT-Understandable. So what did you plan on doing with your corvette this winter? MR. CHRISTENSEN-Leaving it right where it is, and I’ll leave the other two, at least one, maybe two primary vehicles out in the snow, and I’ve got a John Deere garden tractor that’s in the one bay. So I’d either leave the tractor in the bay or leave the car in the bay. Something’s got to come out. I’ve also got a four-wheeler. It’s parked in the back yard with a tarp over it, I use for plowing. It’s got a four foot plow on it. MR. ABBATE-Any other questions for Mr. Christensen at this time? Okay. Hearing none, I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 60-2006, and do we have anyone in the audience who would like to address this issue? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I see no one in the audience. So, based upon that, we’re going to go to the next step, and again, what I’m going to do I’m going to ask members to offer their comments, and their comments are going to be direct to the Chairman, and not open to 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/06) debate or discussion by the appellant or anyone else. Do I have a volunteer to offer their comments on Area Variance No. 60-2006? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’ll go. MR. ABBATE-Would you please, Mr. Underwood. MR. UNDERWOOD-Although the request is substantial, I think that we have to keep in mind that the vast majority of the building that he’s requesting here is going to be used as a wood car shop area, and that he’s intending to use this structure for his personal usage. It’s not going to be a commercial site. It’s located up on Lockhart Mountain Road. It’s a Rural Residential area. Certainly if you go up on Lockhart Mountain Road there’s plenty of extra excess structures that. If you go up to Gillis’ on the corner there where all the boats are stored, it’s a hodgepodge of everything, but I think he’s making an attempt here to make something that does fit in, and as he’s suggested, there’s one up the road that’s very similar to what he’s asking and requesting us to do here. It is a substantial request, but I don’t think it’s out of character with the neighborhood. I mean, there are some considerations as to maybe the siting of it. Maybe during site plan review that could be considered, which way you orient the thing, so you look at less of it from the road, if you’re even going to see it from the road that much, but as he says, he doesn’t have any near neighbors that are going to be affected, and I don’t think the substantiality of this falls against the applicant. I think the applicant’s requesting something that probably a lot of people up there might want. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Next. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I’ll be next. MR. ABBATE-Would you, please. MR. BRYANT-I’m going to disagree with Mr. Underwood. The request is substantial. The fact is it’s a three acre lot, and a zoned five acre area. There aren’t any neighbors now, but the way Queensbury’s developing, I’ve watched that whole area, Potter Road, West Mountain Road. They’re shooting up like crazy. That’s going to change rapidly. Again, the request is substantial. Some thought should be put into just an accessory structure, rather than another garage, because that’s going to lead to more and more, and then we’re going to need an accessory structure for the stuff that we’re building and so forth and so on. The lot is way too small for the zoned area, and I think it’s excessive. So I’m going to be opposed. MR. ABBATE-Okay. May I move to Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Well, I agree with Mr. Underwood. I think that there wouldn’t be any undesirable changes to the character of the neighborhood. While it’s substantial, it’s an attractive building that you plan to put in I don’t think it will have any adverse physical or environmental effects, and I would be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Well, that leaves Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, and Mr. McNulty. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, I believe the benefits can be achieved by other means by this applicant. I also agree that this 100% is substantial. The fact that he wants to build a second garage I also believe is self-created. Therefore I’d be not in favor of this project. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement with Mr. Bryant and Mr. Garrand. I believe there are some feasible alternatives. We’ve brought them up tonight. I do believe also, I’m not sure how the other property managed to get around or get that second, that accessory structure which looks like a garage, but if we grant this, then we basically change the Code for this area, and we’re going to be allowing second garages to everybody in that neighborhood. So that would definitely change the character of the neighborhood. I would be against it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-I, too, have problems with this. The fact that similar structures exist in the general neighborhood, if anything, is a negative. I think as we pointed out before that 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/06) in an Area Variance there is no such thing as a precedent, at least properly there isn’t. So just because somebody else has got something, that doesn’t mean it entitles anyone else to it, and I’ll agree, if we keep allowing this kind of thing, we are changing the nature of the neighborhood. Although the alternatives may not be what the applicant wants, I think there is the potential for doing something that would give him an alternative, whether it’s awkward or not. Expanding the current garage, that’s one possibility, or another possibility is converting the current garage into living space and make the separate structure larger. You could build a separate three stall garage that has 900 square feet of garage space and isolate the wood shop in an area where you can’t get a car into it, and that would be storage space. So I think there’s some possible alternatives that can be investigated as well. So for all those reasons, I’m going to be opposed. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Mr. Christensen, it would appear that you may not have support for your appeal. However, I’m going to provide you with every opportunity for a fair and impartial hearing and I’m going to suggest to you that you may wish to consider one of three options, and it’s entirely up to you. You may consider that we table your appeal so that you can re-think what you’ve submitted and come back to us, to Staff that is, with a new set of plans that you think we may go along with, based upon what you’ve heard this evening, or, two, you could withdraw your appeal, which means there’s no action on our part, or, three, you can request that we continue to hear your appeal, and I’d be happy to do that, but as you’ve heard, I suspect that there will be no consent to approve your appeal. So, the choice is up to you. Would you like me to say it again? MR. CHRISTENSEN-No. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would you like to come back to us? MR. CHRISTENSEN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-All right. Then here’s what I would suggest you do, if you wish to come back to us, and also, request Staff to provide you with the minutes of our meeting as soon as possible so that you can digest this. So what I would like for you to do is to address me and say, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take that first option and request that you be kind enough to table our application until I re-think this thing and submit new information to Staff. Would you like to do that? MR. CHRISTENSEN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would you ask me to do that. MR. CHRISTENSEN-Yes, will you please table the motion, I’ll accept your Number One option. MR. ABBATE-Yes. I will honor your request that we table the motion and I’m going to th suggest to you that you submit any of the modifications to Staff no later than the 15 of November, and I will schedule you for a new hearing in December. Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2006 RICHARD CHRISTENSEN, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 480 Lockhart Mountain Road. Re-scheduled for a hearing on December 2006. th Duly adopted this 18 day of October, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote to table Area Variance No. 60-2006 is approved, and tabled for a hearing during December 2006. Fair enough? Thank you very much, and this hearing is adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Charles Abbate, Chairman 27