Loading...
2007-05-23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 23, 2007 INDEX Area Variance No. 33-2007 Larry Clute 1. Tax Map No. 295.14-1-21 Area Variance No. 34-2007 The Glen at Hiland Meadows, Inc. 9. Tax Map No. 296.8-1-3 Area Variance No. 35-2007 Gary Markwell 20. Tax Map No. 309.18-1-8 Area Variance No. 36-2007 Kenneth Tingley 26. Tax Map No. 295.13-1-18 Area Variance No. 37-2007 Jeffrey Howard 32. Tax Map No. 296.7-1-10 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 23, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT ROY URRICO ALLAN BRYANT CHARLES MC NULTY RICHARD GARRAND LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-MATT FULLER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. ABBATE-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals hearing dated May 23, 2007. Prior to setting this hearing in motion, I’d 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 appellant. Other than administrative items, public comments will be invited 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. All questions from the appellant or t he public will be addressed to this Board. All dialogues during the hearing will be between the appellant and this Board, and I’m going to ask the Secretary to monitor the time, and before I ask the Secretary to read any correspondence, I also would like to advise the public that the Board will be in Executive Session immediately after hearing the last appeal this evening, and upon returning from Executive Session, we will then enter into a public hearing again. Having said that, Mr. Secretary, do we have any correspondence that should be read into the record, and if so, would you be kind enough to read it, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t have any correspondence, but someone raised the point about whether Jeffery Howard was going to be heard this evening. MRS. BARDEN-I don’t see why not, was there a reason why? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, one of the members of the Board stopped there to look at it today, and was told that it had been postponed until next month or something like that. We had no idea. MRS. BARDEN-The applicant hasn’t submitted a formal request of that. So it’s advertised and on the agenda. MR. ABBATE-Okay. In that case, based upon Staff’s comment that they have not received a letter requesting postponement, we will indeed hear that project. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II LARRY CLUTE AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S): LARRY CLUTE ZONING: SFR-1A LOCATION: 43 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) ELDRIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,400 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SFD ON THE NEWLY CREATED LOT. DEED SUBMITTED ON MARCH 26, 2007 PRE-APPLICATION FORM SUBMITTED ON MARCH 26, 2007 CROSS REFERENCE: SUBD. NO. ; AV WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.31 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.14-1-21 SECTION: 179-4-030 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 33-2007, Larry Clute, Meeting Date: May 23, 2007 “Project Location: 43 Eldridge Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes construction of a 2,400 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. The lot and dwelling will be serviced by municipal water and an on-site septic system. The septic system is designed to accommodate a 2-bedroom structure. As building floor plans were not submitted with this application, these will need to be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit to verify the septic design. Relief Required: The applicant requests 4.5-feet of rear setback relief (structure will be 15.5-feet from rear), where 20-feet is the minimum for the SFR-1A zone, per §179-4-030. *The application, on the site development data page, states a rear setback of 15-feet; however, the survey shows 15.5-feet. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be permitted to construct the proposed 24’ x 50’ dwelling (1,200 sq. ft. building footprint), in the desired location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited to reducing the width of the proposed dwelling. The applicant was granted an area variance from the minimum lot width requirement (see parcel history), with that the siting of the structure is proposed at the south end of the parcel where it is the widest (72-feet). 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 4.5-feet of relief from the minimum 20-foot rear setback for the porch is moderate at 22.5%. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate adverse impacts may result from the granting of this variance. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SB 18-2006: Approved 1/16/07; Subdivision of a 1.03 acre parcel into two lots of 0.72 acres and .031 acres. AV 66-2005: Approved 6/21/06; Relief associated with a 2-lot residential subdivision; specifically, relief from the minimum lot size requirement for lot 1 and relief from the minimum lot size and lot width requirements for lot 2. *Lot 2 is the lot that is proposed to be built upon with this area variance request. Staff comments: 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) The applicant submitted the same application that was submitted with AV 66-2005; specifically, the site development data page and the criteria questions are not specific to this request. The Board should discuss any potential adverse impacts to the neighborhood as a result of the granting of this area variance request. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. ABBATE-Staff, would you do me a favor. That portion that was just read, dealing with, you indicate in Staff comments the applicant submitted the same application that was submitted with Area Variance No. 66-2005, specifically the Site Development Data page, and the criteria questions are not specific to this request. Could you help me out o that? What do you mean by that? MRS. BARDEN-It means when you saw this Area Variance before, requesting minimum lot size and minimum lot width relief for the two lot subdivision, the criteria questions, specifically, aren’t specific to the relief requested. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So then what are you suggesting, other than the statement that you made? MRS. BARDEN-I wasn’t suggesting anything. I’m proposing it to the Board. MR. ABBATE-All right. Here’s what we’ll do then. Let’s continue and then you can address the issue, okay. MR. BRYANT-In that regard, when you look at the signature page, for example, there are three dates on the signature page, one in 2005, one prior to the original variance approval in April 2006, and then one four days after the motion to approve the last variance. MRS. BARDEN-I’m sorry, on the signature page? MR. BRYANT-You can take care of this? MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. BRYANT-Okay. If you can do it, let’s hear it. MR. ABBATE-All right. Let me continue, then. The petitioner, obviously, is at the table. I’m going to ask you to be kind enough to please speak into the microphone and identify yourself and your place of residence, please. MR. STEVES-Matt Steves, representing Larry Clute. I live in Queensbury, New York, and Larry Clute is at the table with me. He’s the owner of the property. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now you’ve been before us a number of times. Do you want me to go through the procedures again? MR. STEVES-No, sir. MR. ABBATE-Okay, then would you be kind enough, please, to proceed, but prior to proceeding, it might be a good idea to clear this theory up a little bit, please. MR. STEVES-That’s what I’m going to do. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. STEVES-As stated, this was in front of you before for an Area Variance for the two lots. It was actually in front of you for the fact that it was a pre-existing lot that was separated by a road, and we got the variance before we had to go in for the Planning Board review to get the actual subdivision created for the lot width and the area on the lot 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) that is now in question. At the time you granted that variance, I think it was in June of 2006, and we, at the time, said that we had proposed to ask for the variances which was stated in the application for not only the area and the lot width, but for the rear setback, but the Staff said that when we got to the table that night, that they did not advertise it for the setback, only for the area and width variance, so that we needed to re-submit. That’s why you have four days later. So we re-submitted, and subsequent to that we were also in front of the Planning Board, and then that’s when the denial letter from the Zoning Administrator started to come into play with all variance applications. So we didn’t have that from your Zoning Administrator. So that we said, we’ll just wait until we get the subdivision approved. Then we’ll get the denial letter, which we submitted for a building permit, which shows the septic and everything, that was a question that the Staff had. That has been submitted. Then we got the denial letter from your Zoning Administrator, which should have been included in your packets, and then it was put back on for this zoning meeting. It’s always been advertised as a 15.5 foot rear setback, in all of our maps and all of the applications. It just wasn’t advertised at the last public hearing in front of this Board that way. That’s why all the confusion. It’s the same application because nothing has changed. It’s just re-dated and all we’re asking for now is the setback that we’ve always for from June of 2006. MR. ABBATE-Do you have a copy of the agenda in front of you? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Do you feel the public description is accurate, the project description to the public is accurate? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. Okay, then if you’re ready, go ahead and proceed. MR. STEVES-Again, Matt Steves, representing the applicant. These are two lots have now been approved by the Planning Board. The lots have been approved by this Board for area and for width. We have never the building location, septic location. It’s been in front of this Board for just about a year now with the same rear setback. We’d just like to have the rear setback so that Mr. Clute can build the house that he’s always proposed to build here, and as stated earlier, the building permit has already been submitted to the Town. MR. ABBATE-Now you know any time, of course, you recall now during the hearing, since you’re not represented by counsel, if you have any questions, by all means ask it, we don’t have any problems, or if you think of anything else that you feel would support your application, tell us. All right. Since he’s concluded, temporarily anyway, do we have any Board members who wish to address Area Variance No. 33-2007? MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Yes, Mr. Bryant. MR. BRYANT-I just want to clarify something on the Staff Notes, relative to the actual setback. It states that the application states a rear setback of 15 feet. However, the survey shows 15.5, and I seem to remember 15.5. It’s always been 15.5. That’s what you’re actually, you’re claiming that it’s going to be. MR. STEVES-We always leave a little leeway, 15.5 is what it’s going to be. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other questions from Board members? MR. GARRAND-Quick question. How wide is this house going to be? Do you have a plan for this house yet? MR. CLUTE-I don’t have the plan with me, but it was submitted to the Building Department. MRS. HUNT-It says 24 feet. MR. CLUTE-Right. It’s 24 depth. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) MR. GARRAND-Twenty-four feet wide. MR. CLUTE-Depth. MR. STEVES-From the road back, 24 feet. Road, parallel to the road? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. STEVES-Okay. Parallel to the road. Thirty-six? MR. CLUTE-It’s actually, we’ve decreased it. On this plan we went to a 50. I’ve actually shortened the home even down further to try and maximize, keep this home as far south as possible. So we’re actually a 24/32 plan submitted to the Building Department at this point. So we’re actually a much smaller footprint. MR. BRYANT-So the square footage is not correct on the Staff Notes? MR. STEVES-The 2400? No. MR. CLUTE-It’s much less. MR. BRYANT-Does somebody have a calculator? MR. UNDERWOOD-The footprint of the house is like 1,042 or something. MR. CLUTE-Right, and now we’re eight something, or seven something. MR. ABBATE-All right. So you’re telling me, then, that the project description is less than 2,400 square feet? MR. STEVES-I was just looking at the setback. Yes, it’s not a 2400 square foot. MR. ABBATE-It’s less? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, then we’re safe. Okay. All right. MR. STEVES-Substantially less. MR. BRYANT-One other question. When did you decide to shorten the building? I mean, when was that? Was that before your review with Staff or was it after? When did that happen? MR. CLUTE-Actually I’m under contract based on this approval. So it was actually a homeowner interested in the parcel. They wanted a much smaller home. MR. BRYANT-When did that take place? MR. CLUTE-About two months back. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So my question for, you presented this to Staff, I’m just curious as to how we got to this point and why that wasn’t corrected on the Staff Notes. Since Staff Notes are created after the discussion with the applicant, why this all wasn’t corrected. MR. STEVES-And after the denial letter. MR. ABBATE-It was after the denial letter. MR. STEVES-And that denial letter is based upon the applicants. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but the Staff Notes are not created until after they’re. MRS. BARDEN-I wouldn’t have verified this with any building permit application that would have come in subsequent to this. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Then I’ll proceed if we have no other questions. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 33-2007, and would those wishing to be heard please raise your hands. I’ll be more than happy to acknowledge you, and then I’ll ask you to step up to the table. Do we have any members of the public who would like to address Area Variance No. 33- 2007? Would you raise your hands please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised. Then I will continue. MR. UNDERWOOD-I have two letters. MR. ABBATE-Yes, would you read them, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Both these letters were received on May 23, addressed to Queensbury Planning Board. The first one is from Mike Sylvia at 6 Hummingbird Lane. “To Whom It May Concern: I was not surprised to see the notice in the mail requesting relief from the setback requirements for the .31 acre land hook on Bennett Road in Queensbury. This is a case of an applicant asking the same question over and over again until the desired answer is given. It’s not enough that the lot size is insufficient, now the plan is to put an oversize house on it. I live on property adjacent to the site and ask in the strongest possible terms that this application (and those in the future for the same type of relief) be denied. As relief was already given for the lot size, it is fair and reasonable to ask that the structure built upon it conforms to the existing standards. Mike Sylvia” And the second one, also addressed to the Town of Queensbury, Zoning Ordinance, “I am not able to attend the meeting tonight but would like to send my objection to this variance, 33-2007. Mr. Clute stated when he applied for a subdivision of the property on Eldridge Road that he needed smaller lots to conform with the lots in the neighborhood. The subdivision was granted. The house that he has under construction is larger than any other on the street. The proposed house at 2400 square feet appears to be almost double the size of any other house on the street. How does this conform to the neighborhood? What is the purpose of having a one acre building lot zoning if all you have to do is get a variance? As for septic, a 2400 square foot house would require a large system. As I understand it, the placement of the house would mean that the system would run to the North. There is a sharp drop off in the lay of the land to the North. Where is the effluent going to run? Down to the swimming pool on the street to the North? A building lot of .31 acre is not large enough to support a 2400 square foot house. Not to mention the lot is .69 acre below what it is supposed to be. I thought that Queensbury was trying to avoid putting one house on top of another. Obviously not. Thank you for your time. William Eichler” And that’s it, 9 Hummingbird Lane. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. Before we continue, would you like to comment on that? If not, I will continue. MR. STEVES-Just the comment to the Board is that, you know, we never showed the house at 2400. I have no idea why it came up that way. I really couldn’t tell you. It’s always been shown as just over 1,000 square feet. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. BRYANT-It’s going to be actually 768? MR. CLUTE-Yes, sir. MR. BRYANT-I noticed you didn’t do anything on the Floor Area Ratio worksheet. MR. STEVES-It doesn’t apply in this zone. MR. ABBATE-All right. 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 are not open to debate. May I respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the record to support our conclusions. And the evidence relied upon should be specifically stated. Additionally, any position you may take must be based on the regulatory review criteria of our laws and not simply on subjective preferences or not liking a project, and Board members are obligated to make decisions on reliable evidence contained in the record of the Board deliberations. I will now ask 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) members to please offer their comments on Area Variance No. 33-2007. Do I have a volunteer? MRS. HUNT-I would like to know exactly what the square footage will be of the building. MR. BRYANT-768. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s the footprint. MRS. HUNT-The footprint is 768. MR. BRYANT-768. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. Let’s see. Chuck, shall we start down at that end? Do you mind? Are you prepared? Okay. Thank you. MR. MC NULTY-I’m a little disturbed about the various numbers that have been floating around, and I guess also a little bit by the fact that the request before us now is described as a piece of something bigger that was handed to us at one point. So it’s not totally clear. At the same time that perhaps at least a regular citizen wouldn’t understand the complexity of Town of Queensbury Community Development Department and the fact that the people handling the Zoning Board business might not have the procedures or the time to go back and verify every little thing with the Building Department, but having complained about that, we knew when we granted the variance for this lot that it was a substandard size lot. We knew there were going to be building difficulties on it, and to ask for four and a half or five feet of relief from a 20 foot setback on this particular lot strikes me as probably being reasonable. I don’t see how anything short of a single wide mobile home might fit the setbacks that would be required. So, given all that, I think given the conditions and what not, that the balance probably falls in favor of the applicant. So I’ll be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. MR. GARRAND-At this point, if they’d have come before me and set a 2400 square foot home in front of us, on this piece of property, that I’d be really curious to see how they would fit it in and only asking for four and a half feet of setback, but since the request is rd for 768 square feet, which is roughly 1/3 of the 2400 square feet, I think this won’t have an undesirable change in the neighborhood. I think a house of this nature will fit right in. One other thing we really don’t want to see is repeated requests for a variance, a back porch this time, a front porch the next time, and whatever else might come along. Hopefully this will be the end of it. So at this point I would be in favor of this application. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Well, before I make my comment, I just want to say that it probably would have been helpful to have the minutes of the last meeting where there was a statement relative to whether or not it was advertised and why it had to be dropped and so forth and so on. MR. STEVES-I did have those. MR. BRYANT-I appreciate it. Thank you. Anyway. I agree with what has been said thus far. If you get a 71 foot lot depth, you calculate 30 feet for the front setback, 20 feet for the back rear setback. It leaves you 20 feet, and basically it’s one wide mobile home. That’s all you can fit on it. So I think the request is reasonable. I think we should be specific about the square footage of the house, so that there’s no question and it would satisfy the concerns of the neighbors. Other than that, it’s a nonconforming lot, as Mr. McNulty said, and I’d be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-The Planning Board unanimously approved the subdivision, and I think that they were, you know, recognized the data as presented to them is nothing 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) more than what we’re seeing here this evening, and I think that the, if we were going to make it compliant, as everyone has mentioned, it would only be about 19 and a half feet wide, and it’s kind of hard to put a hallway in and have access to your rooms without making it like a mobile home. So I, too, would be in agreement. It’s a reasonable sized home for the lot, and I think the concerns of the two letters were addressing, you know, that misnomer of the 2400 square feet. So I don’t have a problem with it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement with the rest of the Board, but I also want to express my concern about the mis-advertising of this did create two letters that seemed to be directed to that 2400 square feet, and so I’m not sure if those letters would be different if the square footage was advertised differently. So that concerns me that I don’t know if we’re getting the right reading on that, but I think it’s, in my estimation, this satisfies the balancing test. I’d be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mrs. Hunt, may I get back to you, please. MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to agree with my fellow Board members. We approved the lot, and I think this is probably the minimum relief that we could give. I would be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. For the record, as Chairman of this Board, I, too, am disturbed. I agree with Mr. McNulty. I agree with Mr. Urrico, and I agree with Mr. Bryant. I’m very disturbed, because again, here’s an inconsistency in Staff Notes, an inconsistency in the public project description, and the fact that I think we should have had the minutes of the last meeting included in our package, which we didn’t, but having said that, I think the request is reasonable. I, too, would support that as well. This is a category II, so we’re okay there. The public hearing is now closed for Area Variance No. 33-2007. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And I 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 must merely take each one into account in deciding whether to grant an Area Variance. Now, I’m going to ask that you please introduce your motion with clarity, and the motion itself is not subject to debate. Any member not favoring the motion may exercise the right to vote no, and/or introduce their own motion. Having said that, do I have a volunteer for a motion on Area Variance No. 33-2007? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MR. ABBATE-Please. Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2007 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 43 Eldridge Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 1536 square foot single family dwelling with a 768 square foot footprint. The lot and dwelling will be serviced by municipal water and on site septic system. The applicant requests 4.5 feet of rear setback relief. The structure will be 15.5 feet from the rear where 20 feet is the minimum for the single family residential one acre zone, per Section 179-4-030. Whether the benefit could be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant. I think we discussed that without the relief the house would be very narrow, more like a mobile home. Whether there would be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, I don’t think so. A lot of the other lots are small. The request is not substantial. It’s moderate. It will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects and it can be said to be self-created only in the fact that Mr. Clute wants to develop the property. So I would suggest that we pass the variance. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 33-2007 is seven yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 33-2007 is approved. Thank you very much. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2007 SEQRA TYPE: PREVIOUS PUD THE GLEN AT HILAND MEADOWS, INC. AGENT(S): DAVID WENDTH, SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. OWNER(S): EDDY PROPERTY SERVICES/GLENS FALLS HOME ZONE: PUD LOCATION: 39 LONGVIEW DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 12 INDEPENDENT LIVING APARTMENTS (12,280 SQ. FT.) AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM THE OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: TOO MANY TO LIST WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MAY 9, 2007 LOT SIZE: 45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.8-1-3 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-4-040 DAVID WENDTH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 34-2007, The Glen at Hiland Meadows, Inc., Meeting Date: May 23, 2007 “Project Location: 39 Longview Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicants propose a 12,280 sq. ft. expansion to The Glen at Highland Meadows, The addition will provide for 12 independent living apartments. Associated site work will include the construction of 19 new parking spaces. Relief Required: The applicants request front setback relief of 3.1-feet from the minimum 30-feet required, where proposed is 26.9-feet, per §179-4-030 for the Glen at Highland Meadows PUD. The applicants request relief from the minimum parking requirement, where 183 parking spaces are required and 161 are proposed (see parking calculation on C-102), therefore relief for 22 parking spaces is requested, per §179-4-040. The applicants propose to construct 19 parking spaces and keep the remaining in reserve to construct in the future if deemed necessary. The site plan indicates, “(12) new future parking spaces”, however, staff calculates 17 in this area. Staff comments: The Board should consider the appropriateness of reviewing this application at this time due to the recent Town Board resolution (by Planning Board recommendation) to reopen the SEQRA review associated with the Highland Park PUD (see resolutions). Site Plan review by the Planning Board is also required for this project (see recent site plan inspection report). SEQR Status: Previous SEQR” MR. UNDERWOOD-We also had a site plan inspection report that was submitted at the time, and that’s also included here. That was a letter sent to Mr. David Wendth on May th 9. “During a site plan inspection on May 8, 2007, the following deficiencies were discovered: 1)Area adjacent to south side of new parking spaces not stabilized, and area on west side of new parking spaces in need of better stabilization. It is my expectation you will propose a schedule by May 18, 2007 (subject to approval by this office) to correct the above referenced deficiencies. Should you have any questions or concerns please contact this office.” And that’s signed Bruce Frank, Code Compliance Officer. There was a significant report, and I’m not going to read through all the different sections of that, but I think that that probably, before we get started, you might want to address that. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) MR. WENDTH-Sure. Absolutely. MR. ABBATE-We have a little protocol here. Let me go through it. Gentlemen, I’m glad that you are sitting at the table. I’m assuming that you are representing Area Variance No. 34-2007, and if you are, would you be kind enough, please, to state your name, your place of residence, and we’ll go from there. MR. WENDTH-My name’s David Wendth. I’m a Senior Project Manager with Northeast Health, and the Eddy, and I reside in Waterford, New York. MR. ABBATE-Okay. LEONARD ANGERAME MR. ANGERAME-Leonard Angerame from Angerame Architects. I’m the architect for the project, and I reside in Guilderland, New York. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. I would agree, as a matter of fact, it was interesting that the Secretary had mentioned that, because I have some written notes here addressing just that. In the Planning Board record of resolution which was dated April 17, 2007, the Planning Board stated, “due to the recent developments that have arisen regarding stormwater, wetlands, and flooding”. I don’t have any documentation what that was all about, and also Staff included a letter from Mr. Frank dated May 9, 2007 stating, “It is my expectation you will propose a schedule by May 18, 2007 (subject to approval by this office) to correct the above referenced deficiencies.”Now would you be kind enough to address those, please. MR. WENDTH-Absolutely. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. th MR. WENDTH-Actually, we received the letter on the 18, and I was out that afternoon. Subsequent to coming back Monday morning, I didn’t see the letter. Mr. Frank had advised me that the letter was forthcoming. I had asked him if he could fax it down to me. At the time he indicated to me his fax machine was broken. So we waited for the U.S. Mail Service to do its job. That being said, we have reviewed this, and I think what has transpired is, when we bid this job, the two jobs out, and they were just two parking areas. One was an employee parking lot. The other was an expansion of the Independent Living parking area out in front of the building, in order to keep costs down on the project, because ultimately those costs get passed on to our residents, and we want to keep things at a minimum. We elected to do in-house at The Glen at Hiland Meadows much of the landscaping, so seeding, landscaping worked. Certainly, I think there was a miscommunication on our end from the standpoint of realizing that when the parking lot gets done, you have to do the landscaping at that time. The project out front, which was the independent living project, that project was completed last Fall, and we are actually actively in the process already of stabilizing those areas, both there as well as the employee lot and in speaking with Nick Norton who’s here with us tonight in the audience, he’s the Facilities Director, over the next two months they will be completing the landscaping issues or deficiencies that have been cited. So, an apology on our part. I think it’s lessons learned. We want to keep moving forward. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, do you know our procedures this evening? Are you an attorney by chance? MR. WENDTH-No, I am not. MR. ABBATE-Well, basically what we do, you present your case to us, and if during the course of the hearing there’s something you don’t understand, stop us, we’ll be more than happy to answer it for you, or, if you, all of a sudden decide that perhaps there’s information that you feel will help support your appeal, by all means, introduce that as well. Now, are you ready to proceed? MR. WENDTH-Sure. MR. ABBATE-Please do. MR. WENDTH-Okay. As indicated, my name is David Wendth. With me tonight is Len Angerame from Angerame Architect. He’s the architect of record, and actually both of us were involved in the original project of Hiland Meadows when it was first being 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) developed here with the Town. In October 2001, Hiland open its doors on its 45 acre site. If you’re not aware of it, it’s located over in the vicinity of Haviland Road and Meadowbrook Road. When we opened it, it included 62 independent living apartments, 18 cottages and 44 assisted living units. Part of the original plans that we submitted with the Town, and as we had advanced the project through the Planning Board process, early on we showed them that clearly there’s room for expansion, should the demand find itself here in the Queensbury area. We realized this was the case, however, as a matter of practice, we do not break ground until we are 70% pre-sold. Therefore we scaled the project back, two of the wings, independent at least, not developing them at the get go. Always indicated to the Town at that time we’d come back, certainly site plan review if we were to pursue the expansion, and that’s really where we are today. The project that we’re looking at, as we had mentioned, is 12 independent living apartments. The units would include a bedroom. One bedroom units would then, and in this case we’re looking to add porches and patios to them. Only through our experience since 2001, the residents really desire the experience of being outside here in the Adirondack area, and so we’re looking to enhance the project accordingly. The location would be off of our south wing. That is the wing, the independent living wing, which is closer to the Hiland Golf Club. So in order to get this going, obviously we’re looking to move forward with seeking some relief on the two variances that were discussed. I believe the first variance, if you will, which is the Area Variance, as we mentioned, allows us to maintain that architectural style that we have on our main building today. It allows us to duplicate the wing, approximately, of what we had prior, or what we have coming out on the north end, and I’ll let Len walk you through the drawings in a little bit to probably clear some things up for you. That being said, you know, I think we don’t see it having adverse effects. It’s just coming over the setback by approximately three feet to allow for these units to happen. Why don’t I let Len, if you wouldn’t mind, take the microphone, he can go over and show you the plans himself. MR. ABBATE-No, not at all, please do. MR. ANGERAME-As David mentioned, the proposed addition coming off the south wing here, which was part of the original design, and when we designed this facility, we had an addition that we had a wing that was extended out in this area, and also coming off this wing would be basically a duplication of this coming off. That’s how the original design was conceived, and as David mentioned, when they cut back because of sales, we cut it off at this area with the intention of always adding on. The only basic difference to this plan, as David mentioned also, is the decks and the patios which we did not end up putting over the setback. We kept that in the current setbacks, and basically tried to maintain the same style that currently exists there now. As you can see on the enlarged plan here, this basically is the line of the existing building right through here, actually right through here is the existing building. There’s a current stairway here that we ended up not needing because we added a stair at the end. So this became storage, but in order to get the apartments to work and to create sizes that are workable and salable, basically we could not really reduce any widths as we came down here, and basically that’s how we ended up with the three foot over the setback line. It’s important, too, that the views be maintained from the apartments and the privacy that we wanted to create in the design. The elevations, as you can see here, this is the existing building and this is the new addition. So we’re maintaining basically the same rooflines, carrying the same siding, window treatments, and the biggest change here is basically the addition of the patios and deck units which are covered deck areas, and this is the side of the building that is basically over our setback by three feet. So we’re trying to maintain the architectural style, trying to create a salable unit, and that’s basically why we ended up going over this three foot distance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Did the Planning Board approve, you know, where you’re proposing this? That was initially approved by the Planning Board and then you guys cut back on the size of the building? MR. WENDTH-As we advance our projects, as we were going through the Planning Board process, this is going back many years, so it seems, we had it originally in the plans, and then because of the desire to accelerate, let’s get to the market, let’s open it up, we know it’s going to work, phase it, if you will, for lack of a better expression. Let’s find natural break points in the building where we can break those wings down, or off, and have a viable project that we can move forward with, because, again, this model that we have here, I think early on the Queensbury/Glens Falls area had never really seen that type of housing before. So it was a real education for them, and so it was, I don’t want to say a difficult sell, because it wasn’t, but it was taking a little bit longer than we had hoped, and so made the decision, let’s make the building smaller. It’s still viable. We can go forward, and we can always come back when the demand continues and put 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) the wings back on, but the actual approved documents did not have these wings on them. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have any other Board members who have any questions? MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Wendth, are you the Senior Project Manager? Are you the owner, or? MR. WENDTH-I wish I was. No, I work for Northeast Health, which is the parent company of The Eddy. The Eddy is partner on this job with The Glens Falls Home. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I think, just a comment on what was said before you made your presentation relative to the site inspection. I think the Code Enforcement Officer was looking for a definitive schedule, as opposed to, we’re going to address it in the next two months. I mean, I think he’s looking for a little bit quicker resolution. MR. WENDTH-Okay. MR. BRYANT-But anyway, relative to the parking areas, I noticed somewhere you’ve claimed that you’ve indicated that there are 12 future parking spaces. Staff calculates 17. I find 18. So that’s neither here nor there. My question is relative to the ADA or handicap spaces. They seem to all be in the future parking. Did I miss something? MR. WENDTH-No. We currently have handicap parking in and around the main entrances of the building. MR. BRYANT-They exist. MR. WENDTH-They exist. They exist. MR. ANGERAME-Basically right in here you have them. MR. BRYANT-Those are existing? MR. ANGERAME-These are existing handicap spaces. MR. BRYANT-Okay. Those are existing? MR. ANGERAME-Yes. MR. WENDTH-Right. MR. BRYANT-Okay, and where are the future, proposed? MR. ANGERAME-The future parking is right here. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. ANGERAME-And we’re adding on. MR. BRYANT-Over there on the bottom. MR. ANGERAME-One spot over here, and one spot over here. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. URRICO-What would be the trigger for a proposed new parking? I mean, you say there are future parking spaces, but what would cause that to be used? MR. WENDTH-I think, again, it’s demand, and I really haven’t done my presentation piece, if you will, on the parking, if I may. Today, as our quick study indicates, we have 130 spaces on campus. That’s 1.23 spaces per dwelling unit. That is under your Code. Okay. That being said, back April timeframe, I had Nick Norton go out and he, at three different time intervals I believe it was, took a look at vacancies. On average we’re looking at 40% or 52 spaces being vacant at any point in time. So we know we have ample parking today, and even with 12 additional units, we would still have ample 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) parking on our campus. We want to have better proximity parking, certainly, for the 12 unit addition, and that’s why we’re looking to add the 19, okay. That being said, we have in a reserve bank, if you will, the 12 spaces, should we need to ever get there, and what is the trigger point? As we evolve and the campus continues to operate and function, staff sees when it’s at the point where, you know what, and that’s one of the impetuses, originally, to put the employee lot in, was that we had a slower fill up of residents coming in. Staff was accustomed to parking up near the building. We now had to push staff away. Let’s create a parking area for staff, dedicated for staff, so that the spaces, again, proximity parking to the building, are reserved for the residents, visitors, guests, what have you. So, again, they’re monitoring it continuously. MR. UNDERWOOD-Have you done any monitoring, are these people there permanently, or do these people, do they get up and leave on the weekends or are these people geriatric people? MR. WENDTH-Actually, I don’t want to speak. I’d invite Barbara LaBoff, who’s the Executive Director from The Glen to come up and address the Board. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have any other folks who have any questions? MR. BRYANT-I do have a question before. MR. UNDERWOOD-Let her answer first. My question would be, you know, we really don’t understand what your clientele is, who stays at this place. Do they get in their cars to go shopping? Do they go in and out, in and out, 15 times a day, or is it people that are there without vehicles? BARBARA LA BOFF MS. LA BOFF-Yes. Good evening. I’m Barbara LaBoff, the Executive Director, and I’ve been with the campus right from the beginning when it opened, and to answer your question, that varies. We have a certain percentage of people that actually don’t drive, that use our transportation. We provide transportation within a 20 mile radius. That’s a real benefit to people that are no longer able to drive, but then we have a good percentage of people that do drive. We also have people that are seasonal residents that are away. We’re lucky, in this area, that people live at the lake in the summer and live with us in the winter, and then we have people that live with us in the winter, or in the summer, and, you know, Florida in the winter or something. So it’s a real combination, but I think to get back to the additional area that we’d like to have available in case we need it, we also have a lot of guests and visitors. So, the addition of the staff parking lot has really, really helped make sure that we’re reserving all that close parking for our guests, for our visitors, for our residents. So it has worked out very nicely. MR. UNDERWOOD-I know in the past we’ve had concerns about holiday time, you know when a lot of family members show up, you know, with six vehicles or something. In that instance it’s always extraordinary. It’s not the normal day to day. MS. LA BOFF-Right. Right, and on those days you have a little less staff, generally, on holidays. So that’s why our staff parking lot has really been a huge benefit. The additional parking that we did build last year in the Fall in the front has, again, added a nice component for when we have those periodic guests and meetings or that type of thing. One of the things we do offer at The Glen is occasionally offering community space for organizations, local organizations to meet. So we always want to accommodate the residents first, but we’re always planning ahead. MR. URRICO-Along those lines, you had mentioned you were out there in April looking at the spaces. MS. LA BOFF-Yes. MR. URRICO-What about say in February and March when we were inundated with snow? What is the situation there? Are there spaces taken up by snow? MS. LA BOFF-No, not really. We’re able to push the snow away. We don’t lose any parking spots in the winter. MR. URRICO-Okay. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) MR. BRYANT-It’s a two part question. You mention that you sent someone out and they counted the spaces, the vacant spaces and so forth. MR. WENDTH-Right. MR. BRYANT-Zoning is based on studies and they come up with these formulas based on, you’ve had no formal study relative to the parking whatsoever? MR. WENDTH-I believe if the Town checks the records through the Planning Board process when we first came in, Creighton-Manning was involved, Shelly Johnston from their firm, and basically had reviewed our parking counts at that time, based on the population, and generally speaking, what we find, be it Queensbury, Town of Bethlehem, Niskayuna, East Greenbush, any towns where we have developed communities, codes do not exist specific for this type project. It’s not a nursing home. It’s not necessarily congregate care or multi-family dwelling, if you will. It’s a unique animal in that, as Barbara mentioned, we provide transportation. Many times residents will come with cars, and, true story, you will find after a period of time, the cars have square tires on them, because the residents decide, you know what, I like the fact that I don’t have to worry about driving anymore. I’ll leave my car in the parking lot because there’s a sense of independence, but I’m able to take advantage of the bus service that’s provided. That being said, where I was going with this with Shelly Johnston and Creighton-Manning what they time and time have done, they have found that our experience to date in operating facilities since 1982, ’83, throughout the greater Capital District, and now even up here in Queensbury, we know what we’re doing. We’ve been in this business for a long time, and we’re here not to skin the cat and find the easiest way to get through something. We want to do what’s right for our residents, because that’s their home. MR. BRYANT-Well, the second part of this question addresses that issue exactly. If you were here at the beginning of the meeting and the Chairman goes through a whole dissertation about what we’re allowed to do and so forth and so on, and one of the things is that we’re charged with granting the least amount of relief necessary, okay. That being said, you’ve got 12 spots in abeyance. Why not create those 12 spots during this construction period and then your relief is only, you’re requesting 10 spots versus, you know, the number that you’re requesting. So the question, this is not going to affect any of the residents. MR. WENDTH-I understand. MR. BRYANT-The fact that you have 12 extra spots is not going to. MR. WENDTH-Because I don’t believe that we need them. MR. BRYANT-That’s not the issue. The issue is there is a Code that exists, and we’re allowed to grant the least amount of relief necessary, and you have the space for the 12 spots. It’s not going to affect any of the residents. I mean, why not come to the table and say, we only need a variance for 10 spots? MR. WENDTH-I think for the good of the community, for maximizing green space on the campus and avoiding asphalt that will just be asphalt and sit there, day in and day out. MR. BRYANT-That’s what parking spaces are, aren’t they? MR. WENDTH-That’s correct. MR. BRYANT-I don’t see the benefit to the community of those 12 spaces. MR. WENDTH-Correct, but two parking spaces per dwelling unit, which is the Code, is in our estimation what we see, what we see here today at Glen at Hiland Meadows is significant and way beyond what is needed, and as long as we have the space that is available, should there be an issue, we can always create additional parking. To just build parking for the sake of building parking is not necessarily good development. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask a question? MR. WENDTH-Sure. MR. UNDERWOOD-Staff Notes refer to the fact that, you know, the Town Board is going to re-open SEQRA review on this, and I’m sure the Planning Board, when they review your plans, are going to get into that. Have you had any problems with runoff, with 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) flooding out in your area, or are they more concerned with downstream from you on Meadowbrook? MR. WENDTH-Not that we’re aware of. I know, as a matter of public record, some of our high school employees spoke at a public hearing. Jim Miller was there. I believe it was related to The Michaels Group project. Jim has worked on our project. He actually developed that master plan, a master plan for landscaping for the whole campus, that our staff can follow going forward over a five, ten year period, to continue to beautify the facility, and Jim emphasized to the Board that what, the experience that we have had at our project was really, and I’m not an engineer, but hydrostatic pressure caused by the building where water was coming in the building. We have since, over the past couple of years, corrected that by literally drilling holes in the side of the foundation to drain the water that had seeped into the building out and put it into a storm collection system at the time, and now it’s no longer a problem, but otherwise, on our site, no, there is not. There are no issues. MR. ABBATE-Any other questions from Board members at this particular time? All right. Hearing none, then let me move on. The public hearing will be open for Area Variance No. 34-2007, and would those wishing to be heard from the public to address this, if you would raise your hands, I’d be more than happy to recognize you. Do we have any members of the public who would like to address Area Variance No. 34-2007? Yes, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TIM DONOVAN MR. DONOVAN-My name’s Tim Donovan. I reside at 17 Prospect Drive, Queensbury, New York, and we were at a bit of a disadvantage because we couldn’t see the plot layout. I’m wondering if these are seniors who are living in this independent housing, if those additional 12 spaces were applied, would it make entrance and departure from the residences more convenient for those folks who may have ambulatory difficulties, or is it not an issue at all? MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Do we have any other members from the public who wish to address Area Variance No. 34-2007? I see no other hands. Gentlemen, would you be kind enough to address the concerns of one of our citizens, please. MR. WENDTH-If I may, the 12 future spaces which we are looking at are actually down here, across the road from the building. So certainly, from an ambulatory standpoint, our handicap spaces being in and around the building are there for residents who have those special needs. MR. DONOVAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. Do we have any other members of the public who wish to address Area Variance No. 34-2007? I see no hands raised, so I’m going to continue on. I’m going to ask members, again, to offer their comments, and I’d like to inform the public that the comments offered by the members are directed to the Chairman, and that comments expressed by Board members to the Chairman are not open to debate. I’ve already respectfully reminded the Board members about precedence mandating that we concern ourselves with the evidence on the record. I don’t feel I have to go through that again. Now I’m going to ask members to please offer their comments on Area Variance No. 34-2007. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we need to do any kind of a Short Environmental form, or is that because the Planning Board’s going to do SEQRA? They’re the Lead Agency on it. MR. ABBATE-Yes. Well, to answer your question, I hope I’m correct that the Planning Board does plan on doing a SEQRA review, and in addition to that, I’m going to address. MR. URRICO-Could I ask one more question? I’m sorry, I should have asked this earlier. MR. ABBATE-By all means, please. MR. URRICO-In the area that you’re proposing the 12 parking spaces, currently to the right of it on my map shows an asphalt surface. Is that currently there? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) MR. WENDTH-Yes, it is. That is the employee parking lot we were talking about. MR. URRICO-That is the employee parking lot. Okay. That answers my question. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. All right. Having said that, do we have a volunteer who would like to go first to address Area Variance No. 34-2007? MR. BRYANT-I have question. I want to ask Staff, relative to the comments, and I’ve read the resolution, but I’d like to know how that impacts us. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think in essence what they’re asking us for is that because SEQRA’s going to be re-opened, there are some outstanding issues that have not been dealt with from the previous, you know, stuff that was supposed to have been completed. When the completion review form is filled out, those things are all noted on there. That was attached to Bruce Frank’s letter. Those issues probably will have to be dealt with prior to the Planning Board addressing this new plan. I mean, I don’t think they’re going to let them skate on that and, you know, continue on with something else when they haven’t finished what they’ve done previously, but I think it’s up to us to decide, do we want to wait until they correct those deficiencies. MR. BRYANT-That’s part of my statement. MR. ABBATE-I’m going to address that, the statement you just made. MRS. BARDEN-Well, it’s two different issues. One is the site plan inspection report, and the other is the resolution by the Town Board requesting a public hearing and re-opening the SEQRA for the whole Hiland Park PUD. So there are two different things. One is specific to this project, and the other is for the whole PUD. MR. BRYANT-For the whole project. Right. That’s what I understood. MR. URRICO-So the issues raised by Bruce Frank’s letter are different than the resolution? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other folks? Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-It strikes me that the SEQRA that was done on this was done for the Planned Unit Development. That was done by the Town Board. SEQRA belongs to the Town Board in this instance. So I think it’s beyond us. I don’t think we have either a need or probably any business getting into the SEQRA directly. If the Town Board re- opens it, we can send comments to the Town Board, if we have a concern. MR. ABBATE-Yes. I concur with Chuck. I think that’s absolutely correct. However, there are some other issues we may want to consider. I’m just throwing out to the Board, we may want to consider, perhaps if you feel comfortable, perhaps not doing anything and submitting this to the Planning Board for comments and recommendations addressing some of the issues that I raised earlier and some of you folks raised earlier, but that’s just thrown out there. That’s up to you folks. Do we have anybody else who’d like to comment? MR. BRYANT-I think it was my turn to talk. I asked a question and you cut me off. MR. ABBATE-Did I cut you off? My goodness, I apologize. MR. BRYANT-Frankly, there are a number of issues. When we talk about the application as it stands, the setback issue is not an issue for me. It’s a minimal request, and I understand the design criteria, and so that’s not an issue for me. The parking on the other hand, I believe that requesting relief for 10 parking spaces is a lot better than for 22, and I don’t agree with the philosophy, you know, building parking for the sake of parking. There is a zone, a Code involved and therefore I think we ought to grant the smallest amount of relief necessary. When it comes to the other issues, the site inspection, frankly, I don’t think that we should act until the issues have been clarified and the site inspection until the Code Enforcement Officer is satisfied, Number One, and Number Two, relative to the SEQRA and the Town Board, I agree with Mr. McNulty, and 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) probably that should be worked out before we even come to the table with some sort of resolution. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I wrote that down, and we can address that into any particular motion coming up. Any other folks who’d like to address this at this time? None? All right. Let me continue on, then. Let’s see, I think we agreed that it’s a previous PUD there. So I don’t think we’re going to have to worry about Environmental Assessment Form. Okay. The public hearing now is going to be closed for Area Variance No. 34- 2007. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And again, I respectfully remind the members that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area. I went through this earlier today. I don’t believe I should have to do it again. Having said that, I am looking. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to poll the Board? MR. ABBATE-Yes. I’m looking for a poll right now. Yes. I would like to now ask members to please offer their comments on Area Variance No. 34-2007 and state a position, please. Do we have a volunteer? Would you please, Rick? Thank you? MR. GARRAND-Well, I see no problem with the applicant coming before us requesting the relief here. What I do see a problem with is the fact that the Town Board is looking into this for some very valid reasons, and they want to re-open the SEQRA to this for some very valid reasons. I don’t think we should be making a decision on this tonight. I think we should defer it until we hear from the Planning Board and/or the Town Board as far as what they think. At this point we’re unable to answer any possible adverse environmental effects this might have on the Meadowbrook Road area in general. So at this point I don’t feel comfortable considering this application. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Would anyone else like to go? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll go. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Underwood, would you, please? MR. UNDERWOOD-It was a unanimous request from the Planning Board to re-open the SEQRA on this project, and I think that, you know, barring also Mr. Frank’s letter that there were, you know, quite a few deficiencies as far as the completion of the Planned Unit Development in Phase I, if we’re going to call the old original project Phase I. I don’t really see that your request is a great request for the additional units that you wish to add on there, because I think that was part of your initial presentation to the Planning Board, although it wasn’t done at that time, and I think the Planning Board’s review of the project, re-opening of the SEQRA, is going to be dealing with runoff issues and infiltration, whether it’s exacerbated conditions downstream from this project. There doesn’t appear to be any problems on-site, but as far as the parking goes, we do have the designated number of parking spaces in the Code book that we’re supposed to follow, and in the past we’ve had other Planned Unit Development projects that were multi, two housing projects like this one is, and I think that, you know, we need to be careful not to minimize the parking. As I said at certain times of the year, there’s going to be over demand for the parking on site, and it most of the time is probably going to be sufficient, but I think at this time we could send this to the Planning Board, let them deal with all the outstanding issues, and then get back to us. I don’t think they’re going to deny you your addition on the building, and I think the real issue is probably going to be the parking and what’s adequate, and then we can come back to us. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Let’s see, Mrs. Hunt, would you like to comment, please? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I would have a problem with this, at this point, because of the SEQRA review that the Town is going to do, and though I don’t have any problem with the minimum setback, I do have a question about the parking. So I would like to wait until the SEQRA review is done with the Planning Board. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So you would support deferring this to the Planning Board? MRS. HUNT-Yes. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-Yes. At this time I’m not going to say anything about the application itself. I think we should defer this. There’s too many loose ends to be tied up. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Let’s see. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Every decision process needs a contrary voice, and I guess I’m going to be that on some of these things. On the parking, I’m always reminded of the K- Mart parking lot, and I think this in miniature might be the same thing. The applicant’s got experience in this area. I think we should listen to him. If he doesn’t think he needs the extra 12 spaces, I’d prefer to see grass instead of asphalt. On the other hand, the setback, it’s minor, but if it’s minor, why not shave off some of the units or kick that part of it off at an angle or re-design it, this is new construction at this point, and this is a preliminary indication. I’m mentioning it just for the applicant to have in mind. I don’t know where I would come down eventually. I will agree with everyone else on the SEQRA issue, even though the SEQRA issue may not be directly the fault of or caused by the applicant. Nevertheless, until we see that sorted out, I don’t think we can honestly act on this and know whether putting this addition on is or is not going to affect any of the issues that may come up on SEQRA. So I think that’s the important thing. At the same time, I’m not in favor of just saying simply, the Planning Board knows what they’re doing and we don’t so we’ll hand it to them, but in this case it’s the Town Board and the Planning Board that will be reviewing the SEQRA, and I think we ought to wait to see what they decide on that and then we can make our own independent decision on the issues before us. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. I believe, Allan, did we get to you? I think you commented. MR. BRYANT-I was first. MR. ABBATE-You were first. Okay. It’s been so long. Okay. My particular feeling on this is basically with the majority of the Board, I believe, and that is that I suspect we should defer this to not only the Planning Board, but the Town Board as well for recommendations, and if the Board decides to submit this to the Planning Board for their recommendations, I would suggest that we put a 60 day limit, as we have done in the past, to have them return their recommendations to us, and I believe that, in a motion, if the Board agrees to this, going to the Planning Board, deferring to the Planning Board and the Town Board, that we should, in our motion, indicate that we would like them to address some of the issues, such as stormwater and wetlands and flooding anything else you folks might feel about. So, having said that then, I’m going to move on and I’m going to close the public hearing on Area Variance No. 34-2007, and now we’ve reached the point where I’m going to, again, respectfully remind the members about our task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area. Having said that, I’m going to seek a volunteer for a motion for Area Variance No. 34-2007. Do we have anyone who’d like to volunteer? MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2007 THE GLEN AT HILAND MEADOWS, INC., Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 39 Longview Drive. Table for up to 60 days, for comment by both the Town Board, specifically, and they’re going to be re-opening the SEQRA review of the whole project, and also the Planning Board at that time also all outstanding issues, as far as deficiencies that were supposed to have been completed as far as part of Phase I will be dealt with at that time, and then they’ll get back to us and we’ll render our decision. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would you be kind enough to add in there that we would like the recommendations back to us no later than 60 days after submission to the Planning Board, please. Would you agree to that? MR. UNDERWOOD-That sounds fine to me. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-In a vote of seven yes, zero no, the motion is passed to forward, for recommendation to the Planning Board, the information contained in the motion, and also with the deadline of 60 days from the date submitted to the Planning Board which rd should be no later than the 23 of August 2007. Thank you very much, gentlemen. MRS. BARDEN-They haven’t actually submitted to the Planning Board yet. MR. ABBATE-Well, we’re going to give them 60 days, from 60 days until the time you submit it to the Planning Board. MR. WENDTH-I guess I’m not following. MRS. BARDEN-Sixty days after they submit to the Planning Board? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. They have not submitted yet, though. MR. ABBATE-Well, when are you planning on submitting it? MR. WENDTH-We were here tonight just seeking relief. Based on the relief, if granted, we were going to move to forward and submit to the Planning Board. MR. ABBATE-Okay. We are recommending that in our minutes of the meeting this evening, that Staff bring this to the attention of the Planning Board as soon as possible and that it will be 60 days from today that we want a recommendation back from the Planning Board. That’s plenty of time. MR. UNDERWOOD-Have they set any agenda with the Town Board for the SEQRA re- opening? I don’t think there has been yet. MRS. BARDEN-I don’t think they set an actual date for the public hearing, no. MR. ABBATE-Now, if you’re uncomfortable, I think you’ll find that we’re a fair Board. If you’re uncomfortable with. MR. WENDTH-I’m not uncomfortable. I’m just not following the sequence. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let me try it this way. Here’s what we’re going to do. A motion has been passed, okay, to go to the Planning Board for a recommendation, and I want an answer back in 60 days, and the reason we want an answer back in 60 days is because we want to make sure that you’re not adversely impacted. If we don’t come up with a deadline, it could be six months. MR. WENDTH-And you’re saying the 60 days, is that the SEQRA has been opened, reviewed and closed by the Town Board? Is that what you’re saying? MR. ABBATE-No. I am saying that we are looking for a recommendation from the Planning Board, addressing the motion that was passed this evening, to be brought back to us no later than 60 days. MR. UNDERWOOD-Have you been given any indication by the Town Board of when? MR. WENDTH-We have not spoken. Again, we met with Staff. The direction was first step is you get denied. You come to the Zoning Board seeking relief. Once you get your relief, you then submit an application for the Planning Board to have site plan review. MR. UNDERWOOD-Maybe what we want to do is not put any sixty day limit on it, just leave it open until such time. MR. ABBATE-Sure. Are you more comfortable with that if we just leave it open? I don’t have any problem with that. Okay. Then would you modify the motion to exclude the 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) deadline of 60 days, then. Okay. So the motion has been modified to exclude the 60 days, and if everyone’s happy with that, we’re happy with that. AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II GARY MARKWELL AGENT(S): LELAND E. JAROSZ OWNER(S): GARY MARKWELL ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 61 TWIN CHANNELS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2-LOT SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR ONE OF THE LOTS. CROSS REF.: BP 87-28 DECK ADDITION; BP 92-270 ABOVE GROUND POOL WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MAY 9, 2007 LOT SIZE: 4.39 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.18-1-18 SECTION: 179-4-090 LELAND JAROSZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 35-2007, Gary Markwell, Meeting Date: May 23, 2007 “Project Location: 61 Twin Channels Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes a 2-lot residential subdivision. With that, the 1.2-acre lot to be conveyed to Leland Jarosz is proposed to be accessed from Twin Channels Road. Relief Required: The applicant requests 40-feet of relief from the required minimum 40-feet of road frontage for a principal building, per §179-4-090. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be provided access from Twin Channels Road, as currently utilized. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited to creating new access from Big Boom Road. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 40-feet of relief from the minimum road frontage requirement of 40-feet is deemed considerable (100%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minor effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action, maintaining status quo. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 92-270: Issued 5/27/92, for an above-ground pool. Staff comments: Although the request is substantial (100% of relief requested), the feasible alternative identified by staff is impractical and would result in significant land disturbance where none is anticipated with this proposal. The applicant will need to make application to the Planning Board for review of a 2-lot subdivision. No application has been made to that effect as of the drafting of these notes.” 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) MR. ABBATE-I see that the petitioners are seated at the table. Would you be kind enough to speak into the microphone and tell us who you are and where you reside, please. MR. JAROSZ-I am Leland Jarosz, prospective buyer, and I live in Fort Johnson, New York, and I also am representing Gary Markwell, of Twin Channels Road, Queensbury. MR. ABBATE-And this gentlemen? MR. JAROSZ-This is Gary Markwell. GARY MARKWELL MR. MARKWELL-Gary Markwell, 61 Twin Channels Road, Queensbury. I’m the property owner. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Are either one of you attorneys? MR. JAROSZ-No, sir. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Did you hear what I said this evening about our procedures? MR. JAROSZ-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. It’s very simple. Just tell us what you want us to do and tell us your story, and we’ll go from there, and if you don’t understand something, stop us, and we’ll be more than happy to explain it to you. Are you ready to proceed? Please do. MR. JAROSZ-Okay. I am interested in buying a 1.2 acre parcel from Mr. Markwell. In the start of all this, I had a surveyor come in, Mr. Howard, of Bolster Associates out of Hudson Falls. It came down to the County says that there are three rods access, but the Town, after checking with the Assessor’s Office, and with the Town Highway Department, it comes down to 20 feet. No one ever took the right of way. The right of way is, like Mr. Bolster says, no one owns, it shows at this point no one owns it. All the surveys on all the property on that road go back 20 feet from the roadway, when you do a survey. All the surveyor’s pegs are back 20 feet. This is, I think when I talked with the Assessor, it’s from 1963 that was done, and it was never taken, but the County recognizes it at 49.5, but apparently the Town supersedes what the County says. Apparently I’m seeking relief of, since it’s only 20 feet, the access has been there for as long as the property’s been there, enable to purchase the property, and then we are required to do a subdivision beyond this, which, should the variance be granted, then I will make application for the subdivision, which is requiring, it’s like almost, there’s a three stage, if the Town makes this go through the three stages. If there had been 40 feet, it would have been just a simple paper transfer and it would have been no problem. Now Mr. Markwell is incurring added expenses of the survey and after the surveyor, he is not allowed to go into the, as far as the subdivision, because he does not hold an E- Exemption, which he advised me very few surveyors do. It’s all old time surveyors. So now it’s going to require an architect or an engineer, which is going to be quite expensive, on what should have been a simple property transfer. That is, in essence, that is the, I am seeking relief for the access to the property, and coming up Big Boom, well, you can’t see, but behind the house there’s like a 100 foot hill going up. It’s a cliff from the river, a flat land, and then another cliff going up to the existing, well, it’s 4.2 acres less, 1.2. So it would be like three acres. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Feel free if you wish to add anything during the hearing, please do. MR. JAROSZ-Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. ABBATE-Good. Thank you very much. Gentlemen, ladies on the Board, do we have any Board members that have any questions for the appellant? MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Yes, please. MR. BRYANT-I’m just confused a little bit. The access to your property, which is a smaller lot, is that Twin Channels Road? MR. JAROSZ-Yes, sir. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) MR. BRYANT-Okay. So the only thing you’re asking for, you’re basically landlocked. You have no road frontage, and that’s what you’re looking for? MR. JAROSZ-There’s 20 feet of road frontage, sir, at this point, and it doesn’t comply to what the Town wants. MR. BRYANT-Right, but the Staff Notes say, and that was my question. That’s a legal Town road, the Twin Channels Road? MR. JAROSZ-Yes, sir. MR. BRYANT-And it’s 20 feet wide? MR. JAROSZ-Yes. MR. BRYANT-So you basically have 20 feet of road frontage. MR. JAROSZ-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Yes, okay. So basically this first paragraph really should read he’s asking for relief of 20 feet. MRS. BARDEN-I think you’re right. MR. BRYANT-Okay. So the relief request is only 50% as opposed to 100%, and I don’t get the whole Staff Note issue about going to Big Boom Road because that still doesn’t give you road frontage. I’m not getting that. MR. JAROSZ-If I purchase the rest of it to get to the, I would have to purchase land from Mr. Markwell, which would be an exorbitant expense. MR. BRYANT-Is that what you’re referring to? MRS. BARDEN-Right. Well, Mr. Markwell has 189 feet of road frontage on Big Boom Road. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but it’s just confusing to me. MR. UNDERWOOD-The logical viewpoint is that the access for those camps down there, this is the last one there. It’s always been via Twin Channels Road, and so the only other alternative would be to go all the way up to Big Boom Road, which you’d have to go all the way up that big steep slope. MR. BRYANT-And you’d have to take 40 feet off the lot or something to get the access? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and you’d have to buy a right of way all the way through out to Big Boom Road, which doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. MR. GARRAND-Quick question. Are you going to maintain two residences on the lot, the Markwell lot? Because it shows on the drawing there’s a camp and a proposed house? MR. JAROSZ-The camp is a falling down camp that is just existing, put on because the surveyor has to put everything that is on. It’s basically a storage shed up there that probably is going to disappear in a few more years, and the house has to be there, according to the Town, you have to show a prospective house, even though Mr. Markwell may not use it. You have to show a well and a septic, something that is possibly in the future, but there are no plans for it. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MR. JAROSZ-Thank you, sir. MR. ABBATE-Any other questions from Board members? Okay. Hearing no other questions from Board members, we’re going to continue on here, and I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 35-2007. Do we have any folks in the audience? Yes, ma’am. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARTIN ANABLE MR. ANABLE-Martin Anable. I own 117 Big Boom Road. MRS. ANABLE MRS. ANABLE-We’re wondering how this is coming up. We’re on the Big Boom, and this is down, right behind us, I believe, and if he’s talking access from Big Boom Road, if I’m correct on the way it shows on the map, it’s right between us and our neighbors that he’s talking about coming through, and we want to know if that’s what he’s deciding to do. MR. UNDERWOOD-He doesn’t want to do that. That’s what the Town requires him to do. I mean, that’s what the Town tells us that everybody’s got to have access to a main road in Queensbury. MRS. ANABLE-Yes, because it’s a very skinny piece that comes up through, that’s still available. It’s like an “L” almost, not even, that comes between us and our neighbors, because you can see the tags that he’s put up at the edge of our property and in between, and we’re wondering if that’s where he’s planning on trying to come up through onto Big Boom Road. MR. URRICO-Can you show us on this map where? MRS. ANABLE-Yes, because I’m sort of curious on that ourselves. MR. UNDERWOOD-Here’s the camp down on the river, way down below. MRS. ANABLE-Where it’s highlighted. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you’re way up on top. MRS. ANABLE-Okay. We go down, this is that little piece right here. That’s between us and the neighbor. This is where we live. This is our vacant property down below. This is where the embankment is that he’s talking about coming up through. This piece right here is vacant. I don’t know who owns that. It’s just a very tiny little piece, and that’s our right of way right here. MR. UNDERWOOD-He prefers to come in this way, to the house that’s right on the water now. He’s well below you. MRS. ANABLE-Because like I say, that’s between us, and he’s been putting up the markers, up here on the edge, and that’s where we’re wondering if that’s where he’s. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that was just when they surveyed it, the surveyor marks. That’s all that is. MRS. ANABLE-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. Do we have anyone else in the audience who would like to address Area Variance No. 35-2007. We’ll continue here. Any other members of the public who would like to address this? I see no other hands raised. So what we’re going to do is continue on. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Yes, Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Just a question about, there’s a little triangular piece of property, it says it’s going to be retained by Mr. Markwell. That road that travels kind of south, is that road going to that property? What happens there? MR. JAROSZ-Mr. Markwell owns 14 acres. He owns 500 feet on the river. He’s keeping that piece to go in, can go in addition with the rest of it, but the surveyor could not put it both ways, because the Town would not accept it, with the hooks, to go both ways. So it could only go to the existing piece of property. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) MR. BRYANT-Okay. You’re not making that a separate building lot? MR. JAROSZ-It cannot be a separate building lot because I does not fit within requirements of the Town, and it’s over a hill to begin with, a steep hill going down. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. JAROSZ-There’s no way even you could legally put a camp there or anything. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s got to be one acre. MR. ABBATE-All right. Do we have any other Board members who’d like to make any comments concerning Area Variance No. 35-2007? Okay. Hearing none, we’ll move on. This is Category II so we don’t have to worry about that. The public hearing now is going to be closed for Area Variance No. 35-2007. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And again, I respectfully remind the members of the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, and I went through that earlier this evening, and I see no reason to have to respectfully remind the Board members again. Having said that, do we have a position from any of the Board members concerning Area Variance No. 35-2007? MR. UNDERWOOD-I just have one more question, and this would be addressed to Mr. Markwell. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-If you have all that frontage and you have 14 acres down there, do you have any intentions for the other 14 acres down there? I mean, are you piecemeal going to sell it off? MR. MARKWELL-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s something that’s been in your family for a long period of time, I take it. Was this the original family camp then down there, too? MR. MARKWELL-Right, the 4.3. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, okay. MR. ABBATE-All right. Having said that now, we need some positions. Why don’t we start with Mr. Bryant. MR. BRYANT-That little triangular piece is all part of your big lot now? When you do the subdivision, you’re going to basically have two pieces of property that are considered one lot? Is that what’s happening here? MR. MARKWELL-Yes, but the 4.3 is actually still under my mother’s name in Warren County. She had passed on three years ago, and she willed all the 4.3 to myself. I, back about 2000, purchased the 9.8, which sits beside. So with the 1.2 divided off, it leaves the triangular area that you spoke of, off to the side, which I’m still unsure of what to do, as to whether all is into one parcel. MR. BRYANT-Well, the logical thing would be for that piece to end up with your other piece of property, which is adjacent to this lot, because it makes absolutely no sense to have that little corner piece, and then this other piece, and they’re really not even connected. MR. JAROSZ-That’s what the surveyor had to hook it to that one, but he did a double hook, and the Town said, could not do that at that point. MR. BRYANT-Okay, because right now you’ve got the right of way through your own property, which is fine, but what’s going to happen if you sell one of the parcels? MR. JAROSZ-That’s what the surveyor did. He did the double hook and they rejected it. He had to re-do the whole thing. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) MR. BRYANT-Okay. I’m ready to give my poll MR. ABBATE-Would you, please. MR. BRYANT-Since we’re only dealing with the 1.2 acre lot, and that’s all we’re really talking about, the 20 feet of relief that’s required is substantial, but it makes a lot more sense than going to Big Boom Road. So I would be in favor of it. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. Mr. Garrand, please. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, I think it is inconceivable to try to build an access from Big Boom Road. I think that this is the most appealing alternative, both for the Town and the applicant. So I’d be in favor of this. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to agree. I think a 500 plus right of way to the property would be ludicrous. I think this is a good idea. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-I wish all of our waterfront properties that are isolated from the road had an easy solution like this one does, because there’s obviously adequate access to this piece of property off the existing road that’s there. So I’d definitely be in favor. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’ve paddled by that section of property many times. It’s a great piece of land. I hope you keep it green forever down there, but I would have to agree with what everybody else has said. I think it’s logical to come in off the Twin Channels Road. So, go for it. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Urrico, please. MR. URRICO-I’m in total agreement with everybody else. MR. ABBATE-Well, that makes it easy then. I think I’ll use that term myself. I am in full agreement with everybody else. So, having said that, let me move on. It’s a Category II. We don’t have to be concerned about that. I don’t know whether I closed the public hearing or not, but I’m closing it right now for Area Variance No. 35-2007, and again, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, I respectfully remind you that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, and you know the five factors to take into consideration, please. Having said that, I’m going to seek a volunteer to entertain a motion for Area Variance No. 35-2007. MR. BRYANT-I’ll make a motion. MR. ABBATE-Yes, Mr. Bryant, please. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2007 GARY MARKWELL, Introduced by Allan Bryant who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 61 Twin Channels Road. The applicant proposes a two lot residential subdivision. With that the 1.2 acre lot to be conveyed to Leland Jarosz is proposed to be accessed from Twin Channels Road. The applicant requests 20 feet of relief from the required minimum 40 foot of road frontage for a principal building per 179-4-090. Benefit to the applicant. The applicant would be provided access from Twin Channels Road, as he is currently. Feasible alternatives. There appear to be no feasible alternatives. Is the relief substantial? The request for 20 feet of relief from the minimum road frontage requirement of 40 feet is deemed considerable at 50%. The effects on the neighborhood or community. Actually no effects, or minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. It’s actually maintaining the status quo. That’s how the applicant gains access to the lot currently, and that won’t change. Is the difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, but the fact that that lot is primarily landlocked adds a little issue to it. So, for those reasons, I move that this application be accepted. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote is seven yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 35-2007 is approved. Thank you. MR. JAROSZ-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II KENNETH TINGLEY OWNER(S): KENNETH TINGLEY ZONING: LC-10A, SFR-1A LOCATION: 301 BUTLER POND ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SWIMMING POOL AND SEEKS RELIEF FOR PLACEMENT OF THE POOL IN THE FRONT YARD. CROSS REF.: AV 59-2006; 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 MR. UNDERWOOD-If this sounds familiar, we had already previously heard this, and he had to come back for some modifications because of noting where the septic tanks actually were was the place where we had granted him a variance last time for the pool. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 36-2007, Kenneth Tingley, Meeting Date: May 23, 2007 “Project Location: 301 Butler Pond Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of a 512 sq. ft. (16’ x 32’) in-ground pool in the front 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 due to the orientation of the house on the lot and the location of the septic system. 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. The lot is 3.42-acres and the pool will be screened by existing vegetation. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 59-2006: Approved 10/18/06; Location of a pool in the side yard. BP 1987-815: Issued, single-family dwelling. Staff comments: 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) A similar request was granted by the Board (see resolution and parcel history). The applicant is again before the Board due to the discovery of the location of the septic system in the side yard near where the proposed siting was to be, this proposal would move the proposed pool 30-feet from the side yard to the front yard. While the request is deemed considerable (100%), minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action due to the considerable size of the lot (3.5- acres) and existing vegetative screening that will help to divert any negative visual or audible impacts. And, feasible alternatives appear to be limited due to the orientation of the house and the location of the septic system. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. ABBATE-I see we have a gentlemen at the table. Would you be kind enough, sir, to speak into the microphone, tell us who you are and where you reside. MR. TINGLEY-Ken Tingley, 301 Butler Pond Road. MR. ABBATE-All right. You know what the procedures are by now. MR. TINGLEY-I do. MR. ABBATE-Go right ahead. MR. TINGLEY-As Mr. Underwood said earlier, this case may be familiar from last October. I went before the Board then requesting almost an identical variance for an in- ground pool in my backyard, for what the Town calls my side yard. The Board granted me that variance at that time for the side yard. It was later learned that the septic system, specifically a drywell, was in the location where the pool was going to be located. To allow for the pool, we moved it about 20 to 30 feet from its original planned location, to what I refer to is my back side yard, what strict interpretation of the Code would say is my front yard. So I’ve applied for a variance now for the front yard. My property on Butler Pond Road consists of three acres, but where my house is located is on an elevated bluff that leaves me with limited options of where I can put the swimming pool, due to the location of the septic system and a severe drop off on three of the four sides of the house. The property was built with the side of the house facing Butler Pond Road. The main entrance faces my garage. I would argue that the statutes preventing pools in front yards were intended for subdivisions in neighborhoods where houses were in close proximity to each other. This is not the case here. There are no neighbors close to me. Anyone even walking by on the road would probably not know we have the pool if the request is granted. The new location of the pool, like the last proposed location, will have no ill effects on the character of the neighborhood. My only neighbors are a community church about 300 to 400 feet below my property, and Mr. Tarantino, who’s above my property. Neither will be able to see the pool at any time of the year. Mr. Tarantino has no objections to the pool, either, and I believe there’s a letter of endorsement on file with the Board. The pool would not be visible from the road either because of the elevation, and across the street from the property is the Glens Falls Watershed property. I have a short slideshow, if you want to take a quick look at that, I can run you through that. MR. ABBATE-By all means. MR. TINGLEY-If you want to go back to the beginning. This is from the house. This is 301 Butler Pond Road, as you can see from the mailbox. That’s my driveway leading up the hill toward my house. Next slide. That’s from a little further back. You can see the mailbox off to the left, and you can see the house is significantly elevated and really no neighbors of any kind can be seen. This was about two or three weeks ago, and I took the picture, so the foliage had not really come in yet. When it does fully come in, you can not see the house at all. It’s totally obscured from this location, and this is right from across Butler Pond Road, and again, you’re looking up the hill. Where the pool would be located would be to the far upper right of the slide, in that area in back a little bit. So that gives you an idea of what it would look like from the road, and you wouldn’t be able to see it. This is at the top of the driveway. You can see, what you’re seeing is what I would call my front entrance, I guess what the Town would interpret as the side of my house. Next one, again, of the front entrance, and this is what’s facing Butler Pond Road, the side of my house, what the Town would call the front, my front yard. This is approximately where the pool would be located. The tree in the center would be close to 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) I guess where, it would go back to the right, the pool would go, and it kind of winds around in the corner there, you can see, it’s in the back of what I call my back yard, what you folks would say was the front yard still, and that just kind of shows the septic system. The flags that are marked there, that’s where the septic system, where we ended up finding all that. That’s, again, the front yard is where the, one of the drywells is. The next one, and that’s just kind of shows the house from above, and again, you can’t really see the location of the pool in the right front from way up there, and that’s about it. MR. ABBATE-Well, you’re well organized and structured. Would you like to join the Zoning Board of Appeals? MR. TINGLEY-Maybe at some point. MR. ABBATE-Having said, you know what our procedures are. If you want to add anything else during the hearing, please feel free to do so. All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, you heard what Mr. Tingley had to say. Do we have any questions, please? MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-Yes, Mr. Bryant. MR. BRYANT-Actually, I have a couple of problems with this package. In the package, I notice that Mr. Tingley requested a waiver from survey. I don’t see your acceptance letter in that. Number Two, because you know, you look at the survey, and it’s back from 1983, before I was born. The other question is, you know, it’s got this great sketch by IBS, how does this compare to the sketch dated 3/31/07? There’s no real comparison. I’ve got no real clue where the pool is going to be, and if we go by the slideshow, it looks like it’s going to be visible from the street because the house is visible from the street. So, you know, the other question I have relative to this relates to the composition of the package, and, you know, the resolution, our original resolution, is in the package, where I was the sole opposition to this original variance, but there were no minutes included in the package. Now you go on line and you look at the minutes, and that’s great, but the PDF function doesn’t work. So you can’t print the minutes. So, you know, here I am without minutes. I don’t, you know, it’s a very frustrating thing. So those are my issues with the package. It has nothing to do with the application. Okay, but I want to get back to the question I asked. How does this drawing dated 3/31, because I remember now, after looking through the package, some of the things I did request was, well, why can’t you put the pool in the backyard behind the garage, or something of that nature, and of course it was a question of proximity and the entrance to your house, and that sort of thing, which I understand, but how does that relate to the IBS drawing? What are we looking at here? In other words, where is the pool, on this drawing here, dated 3/31/07, it shows the pool there in the corner. It shows a lot of little trees. It shows a drywell, and so on. Is this the drawing that was created as a result of this, or is this different from this? MR. TINGLEY-Okay. You’re asking for the septic tank drawing? The septic tank location is located. MR. BRYANT-I don’t care where the septic tank, I want to know where the pool is. Here it shows the pool. It shows the pool here, but I don’t know how this relates to this drawing. Where exactly is the pool going to be? And this is, again, this speaks to the survey issue, and I know it’s an added expense and it could prolong the process, but this is why sometimes these things are required. MR. TINGLEY-The pool is on this drawing, though, right? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it is. MR. ABBATE-It’s on there. MR. BRYANT-I don’t even see what drawing you’re looking at. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re looking at the IBS one. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. TINGLEY-The pool is here and the septic tank and all that is located. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) MR. BRYANT-Yes, okay, so this was created after this, is all my question is. MR. TINGLEY-That is correct. MR. BRYANT-Okay. That’s what I want to know. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. Do we have other members of the Board who would like to address Area Variance No. 36-2007, any questions? All right. Hearing none, I’m going to move on. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 36- 2007, and do we have any members of the public who would like to address the issue? Yes, sir. Come up, have a seat, and what I’d like you to do is speak into the microphone, tell us who you are, and tell us where you reside, and then you can tell us how you feel. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DANIEL DONOVAN MR. DONOVAN-I’m Daniel Donovan, and I live at 17 Prospect Drive. Basically my comment is, technically, with the pool being on his “front yard”, and how it does look on the street, is there any way that he could possibly build a fence around the edge? MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s required to have a fence around it, a privacy fence around it. MR. DONOVAN-Okay. I was just wondering. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Anything else? MR. DONOVAN-No. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the audience? I see no other hands raised, and so I’m going to ask members to offer their comments on Area Variance No. 36-2007, and again, for the public, the comments offered to the Chairman are not open to debate. Do we have any folks who’d like to volunteer to discuss Area Variance No. 36-2007? Okay. Then I can move right on. This is a Category II, so I don’t have a problem with that. I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 36-2007, and again, I’ll respectfully remind the members about the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area. Remember what I said, please, while State law sets forth five factors to take into consideration, unlike a Use Variance test, this Board need not find in favor of the applicant on every one of the five factors. So please, take that into consideration, and if you take that into consideration, I’m going to respectfully request that a Board member move a motion for Area Variance No. 36-2007. MR. URRICO-I’ll go. MR. ABBATE-Would you please, Mr. Urrico. MR. URRICO-I basically am coming out in favor of this application. I believe the applicant has tried at least two other, or at least one other feasible alternative, turned out not to be right. So he has only basically two more locations to try after this, and neither one seems to be feasible. So I think he’s picked the right location. I don’t see any undesirable change in the neighborhood. I think he’s shown, and from visiting the property, I don’t see that pool affecting the neighborhood in any way. As far as the request being substantial, it is substantial only in the fact that what we consider, the Town of Queensbury considers, the front yard, but I do agree, in this case, the front yard/back yard are not significant to the project, and won’t create any problems. I don’t see any physical or environmental effects, and the difficulty is self-created in the sense that not everybody needs to have a pool. So he’s asking for a pool, and that’s creating the problem, but the balancing test definitely comes out in his favor. MR. ABBATE-All right. Mr. Urrico has made a motion to approve Area Variance No. 36- 2007. Is there a second? MR. URRICO-We’re polling. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re polling. MR. ABBATE-We’re just polling right now. Okay. We’re polling right now. Thank you, Mr. Urrico. How about Rick. Would you mind, please, Rick? 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) MR. GARRAND-Certainly. Mr. Chairman, this is a lot like the past application we saw for this pool. I was in favor of it then, and at this point I’ll be in favor of this application. I think it’s even a better placement than the application. It’s farther away from the church. So, like I said, I’d be in favor of this application. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please. MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m going to switch positions. I believe I was in favor of this last time, but I think the Ordinance was written prohibiting pools in the front yards, thinking in terms of what was going to be exposed to the public, and I think Mr. Bryant is pointing out, or somebody did, I think this is going to be visible, at least to some degree. It’s now moved into the area which is, Town wise at least, the front yard. There’s going to have to be a fence around this pool. At least part of that fence, if nothing else, is going to be visible from the road. Likewise there’s going to have to be some kind of equipment to house a pump house, a filter or whatever, which may or may not be visible from the road, but I think it’s moved down into the realm of being fairly obvious where it is and what it is, when somebody goes up and down the road, and I think that, in my mind at least, becomes a fair sized detriment. The argument that, this is just a small pool on a, whatever it is, three or four acre lot, doesn’t fly with me because that’s not the area that we’re talking about. The bulk of this, this lot is down the embankment and out over in back and doesn’t come into play. We’re basically talking about a suburban sized lot that we’re siting the pool in, and in my mind, the balancing test falls against the applicant. So I’m going to be opposed. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Let’s see. Mr. Bryant, please. MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. MR. BRYANT-I’m going to agree with what some of the Board members have said. Mr. Garrand said this is kind of like the application that was submitted last time, and Mr. Urrico states that not everybody is required to have a swimming pool by Code. However, I’m going to be basically in the same place I was last time, and I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. McNulty. There are a number of reasons why I’m opposed to this application. Number One, I believe that there are a number of feasible alternatives. One of the feasible alternatives is to build the pool in the backyard behind the garage. Yes, it might be a little bit inconvenient, but I’m sure we can circumvent that in other ways. Another feasible alternative is to either change the configuration of the pool. Possibly not even build a pool. Again, Mr. McNulty makes a point relative to the size of the lot, and I’ve got to totally agree. It doesn’t matter if it’s three acres or twenty-three acres, the Code is there for a particular purpose. The second area relates to the effect on the neighborhood, and, yes, there are a lot of trees blocking the area, but the reality is the pool is going to be visible, or at least the fence is going to be visible, from the street, therefore taking away the pristine atmosphere of the neighborhood, and so it does adversely effect the neighborhood and the environment. So, in my view, I think we need to look at the feasible alternatives. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mrs. Hunt, please. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. We granted a similar request before, and then because of the discovery of the septic system in the side yard where you were supposed to put the pool, it has to be moved, and I have no problem with it being moved to the front yard. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let’s see. Jim, did I get to you? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would you, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we have to keep this in mind, the setting. It is a rural setting in this instance here, and I think that the statutes, as we have them on the books, do relate, as Mr. Tingley said, more to close proximity subdivisions when people are one on top of another, but Mr. Tingley’s nearest neighbor doesn’t have any problem with it. He wrote a letter both times saying that he had no problem with the request, and I think that in this instance here Mr. Tingley has tried to work this out, I think, initially in his first form there, and it was a logical place to put it, but due to the fact that the septic system is there and you have topographic constraints with the steep banks, it’s about the only 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) place. I wouldn’t want my pool on the north side of the house on the other side of the garage. It would be cold all the time and it wouldn’t give you the southern exposure that makes pools a pleasant place to be on a hot summer day. I think that in this instance here, even though he’s asking for a lot of relief, it’s immaterial in this instance here, like it was the last time, and I don’t have a problem with where you’re requesting it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I believe that Mr. Tingley has made every effort possible to comply. It’s an unusual set of circumstances. Granted, a variance is requested, and I certainly take into consideration what Mr. Bryant had to say and what Mr. McNulty had to say, but I think there’s a certain limit that an individual has to go, reach, which I believe Mr. Tingley has reached, done everything possible at this particular time to comply, if you will, and so I’m in favor of the application. Having said that, I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No. 36-2007. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to respectfully request members of the Board to please bear in mind the balancing effect, benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, and take also into consideration that while State law sets forth five factors to take into consideration, unlike a Use Variance test, the Board need not find in favor of the applicant on every one of the five factors. Having said that, do I have a volunteer to move a motion for Area Variance No. 36-2007, please. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2007 KENNETH TINGLEY, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: 301 Butler Pond Road. The applicant is proposing installation of a 512 square foot in- ground pool, in the front yard of his property. In doing so, the applicant is requesting relief from the required placement of a pool in the rear yard only, for a principal structure, per 179-5-020 for the LC-10 and SFR-1A zones. The applicant has demonstrated that the benefit cannot be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant. There are other possible locations, but this is the most feasible location. The applicant will not be making any change in the character of the neighborhood as a result of this pool. While the request is substantial, it comes down to a definition of whether this is a front yard, which it is in Queensbury terminology, but in terms of where the house is located, it may not necessarily be a front yard, but even if it is, the applicant has demonstrated this is a great location for it. The request will not change the physical or environmental impact in the area, and the request is self-created. I move that we approve this Area Variance. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 36-2007 is five yes, two no. Area Variance No. 36-2007 is approved. Good night. MR. TINGLEY-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I had asked the question earlier on about the waiver. Were you able to locate the waiver? MR. ABBATE-No, I have not been able to locate the waiver. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, there was a letter in the file referring to the 1957 survey that was submitted, whether or not that was accurate, and it was accepted by both you and Blanche Alter. MR. BRYANT-So you have a letter from him saying that? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, in Ken Tingley’s. I’ll read it to you. MR. BRYANT-No, because I’m curious as to why it wasn’t included in the package. If they requested a waiver, and that’s included in the package, why wasn’t the letter from the Chairman granting the waiver included in the package? Because frankly I think the survey was required. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) MR. UNDERWOOD-It says, the reason why Mr. Tingley came before us, the septic system was placed in the wrong area. Since the survey is 20 years old, it would be in the best interest of all parties that a new survey be done. There are numerous advantages to this. However, Mr. Tingley has every right to request that the 1957 survey accompany this appeal. If that is his desire, I will accept that. Thank you, Chuck. So in other words, because it was a pool, it wasn’t going to directly impact anybody, you know, that it wasn’t not meeting the side setbacks. That’s why they didn’t do it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. BRYANT-In my view, that’s not a formal granting of the waiver, and I think the Chairman should have written a letter and it should have been in the file. So this way everybody understood it when we looked at the file. MR. ABBATE-Your comments are duly noted for the record. Thank you, Mr. Bryant. AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II JEFFREY HOWARD AGENT(S): NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S): JEFFREY HOWARD ZONING: PO LOCATION: 625 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 900 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENS OF THE PO ZONE AS WELL AS THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. ADDITIONALLY, RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES. CROSS REF.: AV 19-1999; SPR 12-99; BP 2000-250 COM’L BLDG.; 2001-681 SIGN WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.7-1-10 SECTION: 179-13-10 MR. UNDERWOOD-Evidently there’s been some kind of a miscommunication between Mr. Howard, the last one, and I think you were the one that told us at the beginning of the meeting. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-So evidently he thought that this had been tabled until next month or something. Maybe you can elaborate, because you spilled the beans to me. MR. URRICO-Don’t you think it’s unfair for somebody to speak on behalf of the applicant? MR. ABBATE-No, I don’t want you to speak on behalf of the applicant. MR. UNDERWOOD-He went to, for a site visit today. MR. URRICO-I know, but still, this is going to be on the record. MRS. BARDEN-If he’s not here, he’s not here. He’s just not in attendance. MR. ABBATE-All right. Let me try it this way, guys. Staff, do we have in the records, any correspondence from Mr. Howard? MRS. BARDEN-Ask Mr. Underwood. I don’t believe so. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t have anything in the packet, no. MRS. BARDEN-I haven’t seen anything. MR. ABBATE-Okay. If there’s nothing in the packet, ladies and gentlemen, the only choice I have is to table this, okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-The last one says Craig wanted me to ask you if you would like to reconsider placing Mr. Howard on a May 2007 ZBA agenda. That’s the only thing we have. MR. ABBATE-Right. I recall that one, and that’s all I know about. All right. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2007 JEFFREY HOWARD, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 625 Bay Road. Tabled to the June meeting. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) rd Duly adopted this 23 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: MR. FULLER-Just real quick, did you say which one? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, we’ll leave it up to the applicant, whichever one the applicant wants. MR. ABBATE-June or July. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s got to be June. MR. FULLER-Then you’re going to re-notice it. MR. BRYANT-I think Staff needs to find out, first of all, what precipitated this guy not showing up, and second of all, you must have some kind of correspondence or something, according to Mr. Clements, that he received notice that it was postponed until June. MRS. BARDEN-No. I don’t believe so. MR. BRYANT-Well, that’s what the man said. I’m just saying, we need to verify that. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would imagine what happened was he probably confused our date with the Planning Board date when he was going to meet with the Planning Board, and that’s probably where the problem came. MR. ABBATE-All right. Why don’t I just leave it as I had it, moving the motion to table this until June, and then if something comes up, we can always table it again. MR. UNDERWOOD-Maybe Staff can contact him and find out what happened, or something tomorrow. MR. ABBATE-Please. Staff, would you please do me a favor and contact him and would you send me an e-mail, please, as a result of that contact? MRS. BARDEN-What do you want me to ask him? MR. ABBATE-So that we know what’s going on. MR. UNDERWOOD-Just ask him where he was and when he thought the meeting was. MR. ABBATE-What happened. He’s on the agenda, officially on the agenda for this rd evening, May the 23. Now, he didn’t show up. There must be a reason for it. MRS. BARDEN-You want me to see if he still wants his application to be on the agenda? MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MR. ABBATE-Yes, please, and then send me an e-mail to verify it. Please. AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote is seven yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 37-2007 is tabled until June 2007. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll remind everybody not to throw out their Glen at Hiland Meadows. Save that for some other time. MR. ABBATE-Right, don’t throw it out. What we’re going to do now, we’re going to go into an Executive Session. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’ve got two minutes. Why don’t you do those and get them out of the way. MR. ABBATE-Yes, all right. Let me get the minutes out of the way. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) MR. FULLER-Aren’t you just doing the resolution to extend that? MR. ABBATE-No, we want to go into Executive Session because there’s been a number of issues raised, and we want to talk to you about it. MR. FULLER-Okay. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 18, 2007 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 2007, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-The vote is five yes, zero no. The ZBA minutes of April 18, 2007 are approved. April 25, 2007 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2007, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: rd Duly adopted this 23 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McNulty MR. ABBATE-The vote is six yes, one abstention. The ZBA minutes of April 25, 2007 are approved. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, I am moving a motion that we move into Executive Session to discussion litigation. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: rd Duly adopted this 23 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote is seven yes, zero no to move into Executive Session. Following Executive Session, we will then, Ms. G., move back into Executive Session. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t you just let Staff go, not knowing how long we’re going to be here, and they can just put that we closed our session when we came out of Executive Session. MR. BRYANT-There may be some resolutions. MR. ABBATE-There’s going to be some resolutions. We can’t do it. MRS. BARDEN-All right. Well, Maria can stay, because she takes the role call. I do not. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) MR. ABBATE-All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, I’m going to move a resolution regarding the Hoffman case, and Mrs. Jean Hoffman has requested an extension of the decision of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals on Area Variance No. 46-2005. MR. BRYANT-I think before you do that, you need to make a resolution to go out of Executive Session. MR. ABBATE-I already did, and we voted. MR. BRYANT-Yes, but not on the public record. MR. ABBATE-That’s right, too. You’re right. Thank you. MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: rd Duly adopted this 23 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-In a vote of seven yes, zero no, we are no longer in Executive Session, and back into hearing. Okay. Now, I’m going to move a resolution regarding Mrs. Hoffman. Mrs. Jean Hoffman has requested an extension of the decision of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals on Area Variance No. 46-2005 of December 20, 2006, the deadline for compliance which is to expire 30 May 2007, and the Zoning Board of Appeals is in receipt of a request from Counsel to Mrs. Hoffman dated May 15, 2007, requesting such extension, and the Zoning Board of Appeals is willing to consider such extension. MOTION THAT THE DEADLINE DISCUSSED ABOVE, AS CONTAINED IN THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION OF DECEMBER 22, 2006 IS HEREBY EXTENDED FROM MAY 30, 2007 TO JUNE 30, 2007. THAT THE CHAIRMAN, TOMORROW MORNING, WILL SEND A LETTER OF INVITATION, NOT ONLY TO MRS. HOFFMAN, BUT TO MR. KINERY, HER ATTORNEY AS WELL, AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS TO INVITE THEM TO APPEAR ON THEIR OWN BEHALF ON JUNE 20, 2007, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: rd Duly adopted this 23 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate NOES: NONE MR. ABBATE-The vote is seven yes, zero no. Be advised that the resolution as passed extends from May 30, 2007 to June 30, 2007. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, the only thing is, I think we extended the period of time so that we could hear Mrs. Hoffman explain how much time she needs. So I think you probably should amend the resolution to frame that kind of wording. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I can do that. MR. BRYANT-In other words, we’re going to temporarily extend this to the end of June, with the understanding that Mrs. Hoffman will be scheduled for one of the meetings in June to discuss any further extension. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’m going to modify the resolution, indicating that I have every intent, tomorrow morning, sending a letter of invitation, not only to Mrs. Hoffman, but to Mr. Keniry, her attorney, as well, and the reason for that is to invite them to appear on their own behalf on June 20, 2007. Okay. Does that do it, guys? And, Maria, I’m going to ask a favor. I was hoping Susan would be here, but would you do me a favor? Would you please bring this to the attention of Craig Brown, please, and tell Craig that when we meet to do the final agenda I’m going to be adding Mrs. Hoffman to the agenda? 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/07) MS. GAGLIARDI-Okay. MR. ABBATE-And also, Number Two, would you do me a favor, please, and ask, I think it was Sue Hemingway who wrote the letters for me, ask Sue to send another letter out to Mrs. Hoffman and Mr. Keniry, as well as a fax to each of them, and I’ll come in and sign them, ASAP. Please. Would you do that, please, then ask them to give me a call, I’ll be available to sign them. Please. MS. GAGLIARDI-Yes. Okay. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Anything else, guys? MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s it. MR. ABBATE-That’s it? All right. The hearing is closed. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Charles Abbate, Chairman 36