Loading...
1997-10-15 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 15, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN LEWIS STONE ROBERT KARPELES ROBERT MC NALLY BRIAN CUSTER PAUL HAYES MEMBERS ABSENT BONNIE LAPHAM CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER -CHRIS ROUND STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-1997 TYPE II LI-1A DONALD PALMER OWNER: KATHRYN BROCKWAY 27 MINNESOTA AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A PORCH. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-26. TAX MAP NO. 127-7-12 LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES SECTION 179-26 DONALD PALMER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 54-1997, Donald Palmer, Meeting Date: October 15, 1997 Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: “ 27 Minnesota Avenue Applicant Relief Required: proposes construction of a 10 ft. by 16 ft. front porch. The proposed project requires relief from the setback requirements of §179-26. The required setback is 50 feet, the Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter proposed setback is 25.13 ft. 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be allowed to construct a 2. Feasible alternatives: front porch. A porch could not be constructed without relief from the 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? setback requirements. The required setback is 50 feet, the proposed setback is approximately 25 feet and may be interpreted as 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: substantial. Minimal impact is anticipated on 5. Is this difficulty self-created? the neighborhood or community. No. The difficulty is the Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, result of industrial zoning of a residential area. etc.):Staff comments: None applicable. Minimal impact to the neighborhood character is SEQR Status: anticipated as a result of the proposed action. Type II” MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Palmer, is there anything else you want to say, tell us about, add? MR. PALMER-No. I believe everything is covered. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-I have a question. Isn’t there a stoop on this house now? MR. PALMER-It’s just steps. MR. STONE-I know. I’m only thinking in terms of the variance that we need. It’s perfectly fine that it’s there. Because if there is a couple of feet or a foot and a half for the steps, aren’t there, Mr. Chairman? MR. THOMAS-I think that they call those temporary steps, that go into the front of the house. So they do exist. I do believe they’re termed temporary. 1 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. STONE-Okay. I only want to get the number right. MR. THOMAS-How far they are now, I couldn’t tell you. Any other questions for the applicant? MR. CUSTER-I just want to make sure I had the right place. It’s the light blue house? MR. PALMER-Yes, it is. MR. STONE-You did not have the sign up that you were given, right? You were given a pink sign to put up for our benefit? In your application, when you applied for this? MR. PALMER-I wasn’t sure what that was for. MR. STONE-It’s to put out there. It helps us find the property. MR. THOMAS-If there’s no other questions for the applicant, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions for the applicant? MR. KARPELES-Yes. Is this going to be a covered porch? MR. PALMER-It’s going to have a pitched overhang roof. MR. KARPELES-And the roof will come out the 10 feet? MR. PALMER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. MR. STONE-Well, lets look at this drawing, we’re talking in terms of relief. It says 35.13 to the north corner, and the house seems to go away, and we’ve got to have the right numbers. MR. THOMAS-Well, I’m not going to quibble about ten hundredths of a foot. I’m not going to quibble about plus or minus one foot. MR. STONE-Okay. Sometimes we do. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but, you know, the relief will be from the closest point, which is the 35.13 feet, according to this map. We’ll go from there. We’ll take it off that measurement, rather than, you know, say 25 feet on one corner and 27 feet on another, or something like that. So, it makes it easier all the way around. If somebody wants to challenge us, well, they can do that. Any more questions? Okay. Mr. McNally, do you want to tell me what you think? MR. MC NALLY-I don’t think that this is a substantial change in the area. It’s an improvement to the property. The amount of relief they’ve requested is minimal, and the feasible alternatives are few and far between. There’s nowhere they can have the front porch without some kind of a variance, and the size of their porch, being only 10 by 16, looks relatively minimal to me. I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-Like Bob said, there’s really no place else to put this. I mean, it’s got to come out from the front of the house, and that’s going to require a variance no matter what they do, and I think the size is minimal. I think it’ll be a nice addition for them to put on there. So I’m in favor of it. 2 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. THOMAS-All right. Jamie? MR. HAYES-As I’ve said before, I drive through this neighborhood every day to work, and there’s a lot of people that are working very hard to improve their property there, and these people certainly seem like that, and when granting relief, one of the concerns is always is, are they going to do it right, and I think they’re trying to do it right. So I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I basically agree. I did notice that this porch will come out further than the property immediately to the south, but I talked to a gentleman on that property, and he had no problem. It’s about the same as the property to the north. So we’re not going to create any kind of disparity between the properties there. So I have no problem. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. KARPELES-I have no problem with this. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I don’t see any problem with it either. It will more or less conform to the other homes in the neighborhood that do have porches. The existing set of steps there, like I said before, they look like temporary steps, and it’s something that would be a little unstable or even really slippery in the winter time. When you come out of that house, you have to immediately step down, rather than coming out on a level and then stepping down, and the 160 square foot porch is not unheard of. So, I would have no problem with this variance either. Would someone like to make a motion? Before we do that, if everybody would look at the Short Environmental Assessment Form. This is a Type II Action. Does anyone see any problems with the Short Environmental Assessment Form, or does anyone see any positive effects on the environment? If not, I will make a motion. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: th Duly adopted this 15 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-All right. Now we need a motion to approve, deny or table. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-1997 DONALD PALMER , Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Owner: Kathryn Brockway. Propose the construction of a front porch, dimensions of 10 feet by 16 feet. I move that they be granted relief from the front setback requirements of Section 179-26, and specifically that they be granted 25 feet of relief. The reasons for that would be that the applicant would be allowed to construct a front porch. That would certainly be of benefit to them, particularly in view of the existing temporary nature of the entrance to the home. There are no feasible alternatives to the project, since the porch could not be constructed without relief from the setback requirements of some kind. The relief, in my opinion, is not substantial, relative to the Ordinance, and that there will be minimal impact on the neighborhood or community, and in fact, in my opinion, it will be of benefit to the area. The difficulty is not self created. For these reasons, my motion is that we approve the variance. th Duly adopted this 15 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham 3 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. PALMER-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-1997 TYPE II SFR-1A MARK & CHRIS GOBLE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 35 BENNETT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED 24 FT. BY 24 FT. GARAGE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN SECTION 179-20. TAX MAP NO. 83-1-16 LOT SIZE: 0.36 ACRES SECTION 179-20 CHRIS GOBLE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 55-1997, Mark & Chris Goble, Meeting Date: October 15, Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: 1997 “ 35 Bennett Road Applicant Relief Required: proposes construction of a 24 ft. by 24 ft. detached garage. The proposed project requires relief from the side and rear setback requirements of the SFR-1 Acre zone § 179- 20. The required side setback is 20 feet, the proposed setback is 10 feet. The required rear Criteria for considering an Area Variance setback is 20 feet, the proposed setback is 10 feet. according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be 2. Feasible alternatives: allowed to construct a detached garage. Alternative locations on the property are limited due to the location of a septic field. An attached garage may be a feasible 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? alternative. Relief is approximately 50 4. Effects on the percent relative to the ordinance and may be interpreted as insubstantial. neighborhood or community: Minimal impact is anticipated on the neighborhood or community. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The lot configuration and the existing building location are Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): interpreted as the source of the difficulty. Staff comments: None applicable. Minimal impact to the neighborhood character is anticipated SEQR Status: as a result of the proposed action. Type II” MR. THOMAS-All right. Is there anything else you want to add, say, comment on? MRS. GOBLE-No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. HAYES-Are you anticipating the garage being of the same color scheme? Is it going to match the house? MRS. GOBLE-Absolutely. Yes. It’ll be grey vinyl sided, just like the house. MR. STONE-It is said that there are some limitations on the property. The septic field where, because, where you want to put the garage. Could you show us on this thing where the septic field is? It’s not listedon this drawing. LARRY CLUTE MR. CLUTE-The septic field, if you were to look straight up the edge of the driveway, the right side of the house. MR. STONE-As you face it, yes. MR. CLUTE-Correct. The tank itself is directly in line with the right side of the house, moving toward the left of the property. So bringing the garage close to the home really won’t work, because the tank is right there. MR. MC NALLY-So you’re saying the septic tank is on the side of the house? MR. CLUTE-No. It’s directly behind the home where they’re looking to place the garage. MR. STONE-So it’s right behind the home? 4 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. CLUTE-That’s correct. That’s why I would say the only other alternative would be to attach the garage. It could only stay in that plane. It couldn’t really move behind the house at all. MR. STONE-Right. I do want to thank you for the sign and staking the garage. It makes it a lot easier to imagine what it is you’re going to do. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? MR. KARPELES-Well, Staff has said one of the alternatives is to build an attached garage, and if we did that we would only have to grant the relief in the side lot line. Can you discuss why you want to do it where it is rather than attaching it? MRS. GOBLE-Well, basically, if we attached it, we’d have to rip up pavement that’s already down, blacktop, and if we attached it, it’s going to cut the property, it’s going to look like I don’t have as much property as I have, and if we attach it, I just feel like I have two small children, that’s going to give them less access to a yard. MR. CLUTE-That raises an expense for them, too. An attached garage is a more costly garage than a detached garage. Also attachment as Chris is describing, it won’t lend free access to the property since the garage on the far back side, they have more access to their back yard, more free use of the property. Whereas, if you attach the garage and have a 10 foot setback, you essentially just cut off your right side. Your access to your rear yard is cut right off. MR. THOMAS-When I drove by there last week and looked at it. It seemed to me that there was a garage being built onto the house, part of the house, on that right side. MRS. GOBLE-I don’t think you have the right house, then. MR. THOMAS-Your house is the only house under construction on Bennett Road? MRS. GOBLE-No. Right next door to me, they’re building a brand new house. MR. STONE-It says under construction, but it’s not really. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MRS. GOBLE-They haven’t started any construction at all. MR. STONE-No, but your chart says under construction. MR. THOMAS-Yes. See, on your map, it says house under construction. That’s the one I looked at. MRS. GOBLE-That’s next door. That’s right next door to me they’re building a house. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. CLUTE-Yes. All we did is really staked it out on the lot. We went as far as staking out what the anticipated location of a house would be. MR. THOMAS-Okay. That’s what threw me. MRS. GOBLE-My house is eight years old. That’s newly done. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-Your lot size is about a third of an acre? MRS. GOBLE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-You’ve been in the house eight years you said? MRS. GOBLE-Yes. It was eight years in July. MR. CUSTER-Was it SFR-1A when you moved in there? 5 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. CLUTE-No. I was the original builder of the home, and if you notice the setback on it, it was actually anticipated for a two car garage. That’s why back then it was a 30 combined, a 20/10. So I just went in and I was actually surprised when Chris called me for, I knew the zone had changed, but I had forgotten all about it because the house was, when I built it, I originally intended to have the two car garage. We had 20 foot to the left of the line, and it would have left 10 for the right side of the line. So I was kind of shocked. So at the time when the house went up, it would have been fine, the garage. MR. STONE-Noticing the stake, part of the garage is going to be behind the house, as you view it, just a foot or so? MR. CLUTE-The entire garage is going to be behind the house. MR. STONE-No. It’s going to be behind it from front to back. MR. CLUTE-No. The garage will be directly in line with the house. So the left side of the garage would be in direct line with the right side of the house. MR. STONE-The stake looked. MRS. GOBLE-It might be off slightly. We just tried to give you a general idea. It’s better than going out there and trying to, with your feet, you know. MR. STONE-So how much more, not that, you’ve got plenty of permeability, but how much more pavement are you going to have to put down? MRS. GOBLE-I haven’t even thought about it. MR. CLUTE-It’s going to be roughly probably 20 foot, if she gets the variance for the rear setback, too. If she doesn’t, then there will be 10 foot additional worth of concrete to get to the garage. If she can encroach on the rear line setback, then it will be 20 foot width of pavement. Whatever the existing width is, then 20 foot back. I don’t know what the existing width is. MR. THOMAS-Probably about 16. MR. CLUTE-Probably. MR. THOMAS-Sixteen by twenty. MR. CLUTE-Right. MR. THOMAS-So you’re talking probably another 320 square feet of coverage. See, in the SFR you have to have 80%, 65%. Yes, it looks like that’ll make it. The permeability will be all right. Any more questions before I open the public hearing? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this project? In favor of? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED HERBERT HOEGER MR. HOEGER-My name is Herbert Hoeger. I’m the neighbor. I had a letter from you, notice of the public hearing. MR. THOMAS-Is there anything that you’d like to say? MR. HOEGER-I have nothing against whatever they want to do. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you? MR. STONE-Which property is yours, sir? MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Hoeger, what property do you have, behind them or to one side? MR. HOEGER-Where that abandoned camp. The last one where the bend is of the road. 6 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. CUSTER-That would be down this way. MR. STONE-So you’re adjacent to the property. MR. CUSTER-Aviation Road’s out here. So you’re coming in from Aviation, you’d be down on the bend? MR. HOEGER-No. Here’s Bennett Road, and here’s the other one parallel that goes around here. This is the one, and I have a piece here on this side of the road. MR. CUSTER-Okay. All right. Because they’re over here. MR. HOEGER-Yes. I don’t know where they are. MR. CUSTER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC NALLY-Very good. MR. THOMAS-Would anyone else like to speak in favor of? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? Is there any correspondence? MR. ROUND-No correspondence. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Brian, what do you think? Do you have anymore questions? Does anyone have any more questions for the applicant? Brian? MR. CUSTER-I’m in favor of the project. I keep in mind that the zoning changed after they purchased and built their original house, and I think in a way they’re almost unduly penalized by that, and to grant this relief is nothing substantial. So I have no problems with it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-I agree with Brian that the zoning change is obviously a little bit of the culprit here, and these people are just trying to develop their home, and outside of creating a nuisance for their neighbors or something that’s unattractive, I don’t think it falls into either one of those categories. I think I’m for it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-May I say I agree? MR. THOMAS-Yes. We’ll let you get away with it this time. MR. STONE-I think it’s fine. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. KARPELES-I don’t have any serious objection to it. I think it would be really minimum relief if they moved it up away from that back property line. I don’t see any big objection to it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I agree. There might be some minor different changes you could make by moving it forward or moving it to the side a bit, but Mrs. Goble’s comment to the effect that that would make it kind of monolithic to separate the front from the back yard is probably true. On balance, I think this is a good change and I would approve the variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and I’ll agree with the other Board members, and I don’t see any other really practical place to put this garage, and as the applicant has stated before, that the zoning did change and he did have room in there to put a 24 by 24 garage in at one point in time. Since the 7 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) zoning changed, the opportunity to put it there has been shot out, and also because of the location of the septic system and the center line of that water easement going through from Glens Falls, which I do believe is 20 foot wide, 15 or 20 foot wide. That puts a crimp on the property, too. So I would have no problem. Before I go for a motion, this is a Type II, and if you would look at the Short Environmental Assessment Form for this. Does anyone see any environmental conditions that would preclude this building from going up? Okay. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: th Duly adopted this 15 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, before we go to the motion, the application is part of the permanent record, right? MR. THOMAS-Absolutely. MR. STONE-Okay. I notice under proposed, it’s only for the garage, and the garage should be added, those numbers should reflect the house plus the garage, I believe, under proposed. It just says proposed building area 576, paved area 120, but those should be added to the numbers up above. MR. THOMAS-The existing paved area, proposed building area, 576; paved area 120. MR. STONE-Isn’t that the way the parcel is going to look if we grant the variance, Chris? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. ROUND-It’s been completed both ways. I haven’t taken issue with it. It should be existing, proposed, and then proposed, I think there should be some clarification on that. Then we could look at modifying the application so that it’s clear to the applicant and the Board. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and also while we’re on that page, it says on the side yard one, the existing is 21 feet, proposed is 20, 22 feet or is that 21? I don’t see where the 10 and 10 come in on the garage. MR. ROUND-The side yard one, proposed is 21, and it’s the same as the existing, at the other side of the house. So that doesn’t change. MR. CUSTER-We need a rear yard existing, though. MR. THOMAS-Yes. The rear yard really doesn’t exist. MR. STONE-It doesn’t come into play. MR. THOMAS-It doesn’t come into play on this, but the proposed does. It’s a proposed 10, required 20, which is in there for the rear yard, but the proposed 10 is not in there. MR. CUSTER-How are we going to grant the relief if we don’t know what we’re subtracting from? MR. THOMAS-Yes. Well, 20 foot is required. We’re granting relief of 10 feet from the 20. MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll move it. 8 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-1997 MARK & CHRIS GOBLE , Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: To Mark & Chris Goble, 35 Bennett Rd. The applicant proposes construction of a 24 by 24 detached garage. The proposed project requires relief from the side and rear yard setback requirements of the SFR-1 Acre zone, 179-20. The required side setback is 20 feet. The proposed setback is 10 feet, therefore granting 10 feet of relief. The required rear setback is 20 feet. The proposed setback is 10 feet, therefore granting 10 feet of relief. In granting this Area Variance, we recognize that the applicant would be allowed to construct a detached garage to their benefit. Alternative locations on the property are limited due to the location of the septic field, and the fact that an attached garage would greatly change the appearance of the house and access to the back yard. The relief is approximately 50% relative to the Ordinance, and in our judgment is not substantial in this particular situation. There will be minimal effect on the neighborhood or community, and the lot configuration and the existing building location are interpreted as the source of the difficulty, plus the fact that the zoning was changed since the house was constructed and therefore we don’t believe this difficulty is self created. th Duly adopted this 15 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-There you go. MRS. GOBLE-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-1997 TYPE II LI-1A EDWARD MANNEY, JR. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE WARREN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED TWO CAR GARAGE. REQUESTING RELIEF FROM SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16. TAX MAP NO. 112- 1-42 LOT SIZE: 0.16 ACRES SECTION 179-26 EDWARD MANNEY & MRS. MANNEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 56-1997, Edward Manney, Jr., Meeting Date: October 15, Project Location:Description of Project: 1997 “ 22 Warren Street Applicant proposes Relief Required: construction of a 24 feet by 24 feet detached garage. the proposed project requires relief from the setback requirements of the LI-1 Acre zone §179-26. The required side setback is 30 feet, the proposed setbacks are 2 feet and 25 feet. The required rear setback is 30 Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to feet, the proposed setback is 4.5 feet. Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be allowed to 2. Feasible alternatives: construct a 2 car detached garage. A garage could not be constructed 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the without relief from the setback requirements. Ordinance?: Yes, although construction could not occur on the property without some relief from 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: the ordinance. Minimal impact is anticipated on 5. Is this difficulty self-created? the neighborhood or community. No. The difficulty is the Parcel History (construction/site result of industrial zoning of a residential use property. plan/variance, etc.): Staff comments: None applicable. Minimal impact to the neighborhood character is aniticipated as a result of the proposed action. Construction could not occur on the SEQR Status: property without some relief from the ordinance. Type II” MR. THOMAS-All right. Is there anything that the Manney’s would like to add to the application, say, state, comments? MR. MANNEY-No, thanks. MR. THOMAS-Not a thing. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Well, yes. I did have a question that I asked you this afternoon. The building area that you list here, 847, that’s just the house? 9 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MRS. MANNEY-That’s the house and the shed. MR. STONE-It is the house and the shed. You re-calculated it. Fine. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Correspondence? MR. ROUND-Yes. I have a letter dated September 15, 1997, from Helen Baker and Tekla Baker, from 19 Warren Street, Hudson Falls, Tax Map ID 112-1-43, “We have no problem with Ed Manney building a two car garage two feet on his property from our border line.” And the other letter is dated the same date, September 15, 1997, location 23 Warren Street, Hudson Falls, and that’s from John Timinski, indicates “I have no problem with Ed Manney building a two car garage on his property, no matter where the boundary line is.” Those are the two letters that are of record. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any more questions for the applicant? MR. KARPELES-The location of that garage, wouldn’t it be preferable to rip down that shed and build a garage where the shed is? MRS. MANNEY-No. MR. KARPELES-You could ride right straight in. The shed isn’t a beautiful thing. MRS. MANNEY-No, but. MR. MANNEY-But I want to keep the shed because I was going to do it over, because I put my snowblower and my snowmobile and stuff in that. MR. THOMAS-Could you tell me where you septic system is? MRS. MANNEY-We have sewer. MR. THOMAS-You’ve got sewer. How did you get so lucky? MRS. MANNEY-Fort Edward. We live on the line. We’ve always had Fort Edward sewer. MR. THOMAS-Fort Edward sewer? Isn’t that kind of far away? MRS. MANNEY-It costs us much more, too, but that’s beside the point. MR. THOMAS-Seeing that you live on the border of Hudson Falls. MRS. MANNEY-Well, it used to be, but then Hudson Falls also gets their sewer from Fort Edward. It’s always been there. MR. STONE-A questions I would like, obviously the applicant can’t answer, is why is this whole area zoned Light Industrial when there isn’t anything but residential housing in there? Just a question. MR. THOMAS-It has to be rhetorical, because the powers that be meet on Monday night, not here. MR. STONE-It is rhetorical. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions? I do believe this was a Type II action. If everyone would look at the Short Environmental Assessment Form. Does anyone see any problem arising out of a 10 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) review of the Short Environmental Assessment Form that would preclude the building of this garage? MR. STONE-The question I would ask, is your back yard wet the way it is now? MRS. MANNEY-No, only in the spring. MR. STONE-Only in the spring, when there’s a lot of snow melting. MRS. MANNEY-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Because I notice that you’ve got the stream back there, and I was just curious, because you’re going to put a lot more roof in there, and I was just curious. MR. MANNEY-No. That stream has been there. MRS. MANNEY-As long as I’ve lived there. MR. MANNEY-Fifty, sixty years, as long as I can remember. MR. THOMAS-Does anybody have any questions? All right. I’ll make a motion. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: th Duly adopted this 15 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-All right. Would someone like to make a motion to approve, deny or table? I forgot something. We’ve got to go around and talk about it, and we’ll start with Jamie. MR. HAYES-Well, yes. These people have obviously been responsible citizens in this community for 50+ years, and outside of doing something that creates a hardship or nuisance to their neighbors, I can’t see why we wouldn’t let them do what they want to do. So I’m in favor. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I have no problems with this, especially since the neighbor to the south has no problem with the garage being two feet from the line, and fortunately for the Manney’s, the permeability requirement is only 30% in this area. If that weren’t the case, if it were residential we might have a problem, but that’s the way it goes. Therefore, I have no problem. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. KARPELES-Well, if I were a neighbor, I’d want that shed out of there, but I’m not a neighbor, so if the neighbors don’t object, I guess I don’t object. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I feel like Robert. That shed would be nice to be on the other side. It would be ideal if you could put it next to the. MRS. MANNEY-Yes, but once you remove that shed, you wouldn’t let us put it back up again. MR. THOMAS-You’ve got a point there. 11 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. MC NALLY-The lot, though, is only 50 foot wide, and there is no way they can have setbacks of 30 feet on either side and a garage at the same time. It pre-existed existing Code, and I have no problem granting a variance. It’s the only way they can do it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I’m not going to beat a dead horse. I agree. MR. THOMAS-All right. I have no objections either. I don’t see where else they could put that garage unless they moved it more toward the center of the lot, but then that. MR. MANNEY-I wouldn’t have any place to push my snow, then. MR. THOMAS-I was going to say, now if you move it to the center of the lot, where do you push the snow? Off the end of the driveway onto your neighbors? MRS. MANNEY-No. Can’t do that. MR. THOMAS-I don’t think so. So, I have no problem with this either. So, having said that, go ahead and start, Jamie. MR. HAYES-I’ll make my motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-1997 EDWARD MANNEY, JR. , Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: 21 Warren Street. The applicant proposes to construct a 24 by 24 ft. detached garage. The proposed project requires relief from the side setback requirements of the LI-1 Acre zone, Section 179-26. The required side yard setbacks are 30 feet, and the project applicants are proposing setbacks of two feet and twenty-five feet respectively. So they would need 28 feet and 5 feet of relief respectively. The required rear yard setback is 30 feet and the proposed setback is 4.5 feet, so the applicants would need 25.5 feet of rear setback relief. The benefit to the applicant is they would be able to construct a garage as they wish. The alternatives are limited based on the width of the lot and the classification, the zoning classification of the property. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? Yes, the relief is substantial, but there’s no construction of a garage possible without it, and I believe that we’ll get a minimal impact on the neighborhood and the community. th Duly adopted this 15 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. MANNEY-Thank you. MRS. MANNEY-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-1997 TYPE: UNLISTED LC-42A MARC GARVEY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 43 HUNTER LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO BUILD A GARAGE/STORAGE BUILDING SEPARATE FROM HOUSE TO MATCH HOUSE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS FROM SECTION 179-13. RELIEF IS ALSO REQUESTED FROM SECTION 179-13 LIMITING ONE PRIVATE GARAGE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/8/97 TAX MAP NO. 26-2- 17.20 LOT SIZE: 1.09 ACRES SECTION 179-7, 179-13 MARC & STACEY GARVEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 12 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 57-1997, Marc Garvey, Meeting Date: October 15, 1997 Project Location: Description of Proposed Project: “43 Hunter Lane Applicant proposes Relief Required: construction of a 24 feet by 26 feet detached garage/storage building. The proposed project requires relief from the setback requirements of the LC 42 zone §179-13. The required front setback is 100 feet, the proposed setback is 72 feet. The required side setback is 100 feet. The proposed setback is 42 feet. The request to construct a second garage (an attached Criteria garage exists), requires relief from the ordinance which limits a single garage structure. for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:2. Feasible The applicant would be allowed to construct a detached garage. alternatives: No construction or construction at an alternative location that may meet the setback 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? requirements. The relief is interpreted as 4, Effects on the neighborhood or community: insubstantial relative to the setback relief. 5. Is this difficulty self- Minimal impact is anticipated on the neighborhood or community. created? No. The difficulty is the result of setback requirements and the ordinance restrictions. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments: None applicable. Minimal impact to the neighborhood character is anticipated as a result of the proposed action. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. ROUND-We have notes from the Warren County Planning Board. The date is October 8, 1997, regarding Queensbury Area Variance 57-1997 “At a meeting of the Warren County th Planning Board held on the 8 day of October, 1997, the above application for an Area Variance to build a detached garage/storage building separate from the house to match house was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact” Signed Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Garvey. MR. GARVEY-How are you? This is my wife, Stacey. I did not have her on the application, but I wanted to introduce you to her. MR. THOMAS-Would you like to add anything, comment on anything? MR. GARVEY-Not really. Everything is pretty self explanatory. I put everything in there that I thought would be helpful for you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Questions for Mr. Garvey? MR. STONE-I have a question. The proposed setback in the front is 72 feet. Don’t you own all the way down to Hunter where it bends? MR. GARVEY-Yes, but just on that particular lot. If you keep the lot separate. MR. STONE-Okay. That lot that is still four acres there? MR. GARVEY-No. I own all three lots. The first lot is vacant. The second lot my house sits on, and the third lot is vacant. So the center lot, which my house is on, those are the setbacks that I used. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. GARVEY-Okay, but I do own all the way to the front, and all the way to the back. MR. STONE-But you have never combined these for tax? MR. GARVEY-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. So they are separate parcels. MR. GARVEY-Yes. MR. STONE-Talk to me about the building that’s there now. MR. GARVEY-It’s my home. MR. STONE-The glass structure. 13 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. GARVEY-That is just a greenhouse. My wife is very much into gardening and stuff like that. MR. STONE-Does that stay or go? MR. GARVEY-That stays. MR. STONE-It’s not reflected on the plan at all. MR. GARVEY-Okay. I just never put it there. I never thought there was any reason to put it there. MR. STONE-Well, as far as I’m concerned, it has a reason to be mentioned. MR. GARVEY-Okay. I didn’t know it had any bearing on anything. MR. STONE-Well, actually, where does that sit in relationship to the garage? Can you draw that for us? MR. GARVEY-Sure. MR. CUSTER-It’s about 20 feet from that? MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s going to be east of the garage and behind it. MR. GARVEY-Correct. MR. STONE-So the relief is, that doesn’t need relief, or didn’t need relief, I guess. MR. GARVEY-No. The main part is just the placement of the garage. Because they require 100 foot setbacks in that area. It’s pretty tough to do anything without relief. MR. THOMAS-How big is the existing garage? How many square feet? MR. GARVEY-It’s 24 by 24. MR. STONE-Five seventy-six. MR. THOMAS-Five seventy-six, just like the last one. So we’re talking about a total garage area of 1190 square feet, and the Ordinance only says 900. So we’re looking for 290 square feet of relief on that one. MR. STONE-Well, we’re looking for relief for a second garage, aren’t we? MR. THOMAS-That’s right. MR. STONE-That’s the first thing that we have to think about. MR. CUSTER-I’m not clear on that, Chris. Run that by me again? MR. THOMAS-The Ordinance states that you can have one 900 square foot garage, okay. Mr. Garvey’s existing garage is 576 square feet. He is asking for a 24 by 26 garage, which is 624 square feet, and the total combined is 1190 square feet, which is 290 feet more than the Ordinance allows. MR. CUSTER-So the fact that it’s attached doesn’t matter? MR. THOMAS-It doesn’t matter. The Ordinance states that there’s only one 900 square foot garage per property. MR. CUSTER-If he wanted to, he could build a boat storage? MR. THOMAS-If he wants to build it for boat storage, that’s fine. There’s no problem there, but he can’t put a car in it. 14 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. KARPELES-Have you ever considered building on to the existing garage? MR. GARVEY-If you look the way the house is, there’s really no way you could do it that would look good. MR. KARPELES-Well, maybe I didn’t look at those close enough. Aren’t those doors, I presume, face the driveway, right? MR. GARVEY-Correct. MR. KARPELES-So couldn’t you just build on the end of that, in the back of there? MR. GARVEY-With the pitch of the roof, it’s just, the roof would end up probably going into the ground. If you could understand what I mean. Are you talking about on each side of it? MR. KARPELES-The roof is in, the pitch is to the front and the back, right, is what you’re saying, right? Maybe you could draw that, too, because I had trouble visualizing. MR. GARVEY-Okay. MR. KARPELES-Is this the peak of the roof? MR. GARVEY-Correct. MR. KARPELES-So then it slopes down this way and then slopes down this way? MR. GARVEY-Correct, yes. MR. KARPELES-So the only way you could do that would be to modify the roof ? MR. GARVEY-Yes, and then the roof would be too, you’d have to, there’s really no way you could do it. You’d have to raise the roof, and the roof (lost word) end up going toward the ground. MR. KARPELES-Does it block any view or anything if you did that? MR. GARVEY-Yes. Because this is family room area here. MR. KARPELES-These are windows here? MR. GARVEY-Correct, yes. I thought my drawings were great. MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant? MR. GARVEY-On my application I put garage/storage building. The building will primarily be used for storage, storage of garden equipment, a motorcycle and stuff like that. As far as, will the garage be used as a garage for a car, the answer is no, but it, in fact, does look like a garage in itself. MR. THOMAS-Got to compare “Garage, Private”, with storage. MR. GARVEY-When I originally talked to Chris on this, I didn’t know there was a big difference between a garage and a storage building or storage building or storage facility, whatever you want to call it. MR. THOMAS-Lets see “Storage Shed - an accessory building used to store materials or small equipment, not including vehicles, which supports the principal use of the site.” And I do believe they would classify a motorcycle as a vehicle. MR. GARVEY-That’s fine. MR. THOMAS-So that means you couldn’t put the motorcycle in there. MR. GARVEY-Then I need a garage. 15 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. STONE-And a “Garage” says, “An accessory building or structure, attached or detached, used primarily to shelter no more than three (3) automobiles, provided that such garage may be used to shelter only one (1) commercial vehicle, but in no event shall such commercial vehicle exceed one and one-half (1½) tons’ capacity….and such garage shall not exceed nine hundred (900) square feet in area.” What’s the height of this building that you propose? There’s no dimensions on these drawings at all. MR. GARVEY-As far as height, it’s 15 feet. MR. STONE-Fifteen feet to the roof? MR. GARVEY-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Garvey, as I look at the survey, I see that you own lots 34, 36, and 38? MR. GARVEY-Yes. Correct. MR. MC NALLY-And your home is on lot 36? MR. GARVEY-The center one, correct. MR. MC NALLY-Are these lots combined or are they still separate as tax parcels? MR. GARVEY-They’re separate as tax parcels. MR. MC NALLY-Okay, and you consider the front of your home, the distance, the area in front where it says the septic tank? MR. GARVEY-Correct. That’s where my home faces. MR. MC NALLY-And that is from the front line of your house to the hashed line? Separating lot 36 and 38? MR. GARVEY-Yes. MR. STONE-Did you get a variance for that when you built the house? MR. GARVEY-I believe I did. I don’t remember, but obviously I must have. I got a variance when I installed my pool, because of setbacks, also. MR. STONE-It says we have none applicable, in terms of parcel history, and you’ve only got 30 feet, as it looks like, from the front of the house to the front of your middle lot, if you will. So there must have been a variance, I assume. MR. HAYES-Was this always zoned 42? MR. THOMAS-I don’t think this was LC-42 all the time. MR. GARVEY-They’ve had really strange, or a lot of problems in this area. MR. THOMAS-I think it used to be RR-3 back in there, if I’m not mistaken. MR. STONE-When was this built? MR. GARVEY-This was built in ’85, ’86, 13 years ago. MR. KARPELES-Do you know how many acres each one of these lots is? MR. GARVEY-They’re just like an acre and a third. MR. KARPELES-Each one? MR. GARVEY-Yes. 16 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. THOMAS-I would consider the front of the building the garage, from the property line, because this isn’t a corner lot. MR. STONE-That’s right. MR. THOMAS-It’s a center lot. So the front setback would be, well, would be the 92 would be the existing front setback, and side setback would be 30. The rear setback would be 48. Because these lots aren’t combined, you have to consider this as a separate lot. That makes it even harder. It’s in the LC-42 zone. MR. HAYES-Now the siding and everything else will be contiguous with the house? MR. GARVEY-Yes, everything. It’s going to be cedar sided, and the same type of roof. It’s going to have gable on it, just like my house, and windows and stuff like that, to match. MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of? In favor of this variance? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Correspondence? MR. ROUND-A letter dated September 18, 1997, “To Whom It May Concern: This letter is in reference to the variance for Marc and Stacey Garvey at 9 Hunter Lane, Queensbury, NY The Garvey residence would be enhanced by this proposed building, and the grounds of the property would be attractive and are always well maintained. As the only homeowner within view of the Garvey property, with a view of the proposed structure, I have no reservations whatsoever. Thank you. Susan Beadle, owner 11 Hunter Lane.” A letter dated September 18, 1997 from Gary and Nancy Ludwig, 34 Fox Road, Queensbury, NY, to Town of Queensbury, referencing the proposed building of a garage/storage area “Knowing the Garvey family on Hunter Lane in Ridge Knolls for over 10 years, we certainly do not object to a storage building on their property described here within. They’re homestead is always perfectly maintained and is an asset to the neighborhood and the Town of Queensbury. Sincerely, Gary & Nancy Ludwig” To the Town of Queensbury regarding proposed building of a garage/storage area, “Living at Hunter Lane myself, I have had an ample opportunity to see how meticulously the Garvey family care for their property. Therefore, I have no objections to any improvements they wish to make, including the proposed rd garage/storage area. Sincerely Sean Garvey” A letter dated September 23 from Rita and Dick Sage, 82 Hunter Lane, it’s noted that’s a front yard neighbor, Mr. and Mrs. Marc Garvey “Dear Stacey and Marc: Rita and I are happy to support your request for a variance to build a garage on your property. Your property is extremely well taken care of and is a credit to our neighborhood. An additional building on your lot will not detract in any way from the appearance of the neighborhood. Sincerely, Rita and Dick Sage” Noted backyard neighbor, letter dated September th 27, “To Whom It May Concern: As neighbors of Marc & Stacey Garvey, we have no objection to them erecting a garage/storage area. Their yard is meticulously kept. Therefore, there is no reason to believe this will become a detriment to the neighborhood. Sincerely, Linda Reynolds & Matthews Reynolds” And I believe that’s it for correspondence. MR. THOMAS-Well, you’re going to have your shot to get back at Sean Garvey next week, because he’s in for a variance. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant before we start? MR. KARPELES-Have you ever considered combining those lots? MR. GARVEY-No. That’s the way it is, and that’s the way it sits. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll start with you, Lew. What do you think? MR. STONE-I’ve got some concerns. I’m particularly concerned by having two buildings sitting on a fairly prominent part of the property. They both seem to be above the house slightly, as I noticed it. They’re on the up slope, if you will, from the house. It’s a lovely neighborhood, and your property certainly is extremely well kept. There’s no doubt about that. I’ve been by there 17 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) many times, but I’m going to listen to what everybody has to say, but I just have a concern that these two buildings, at the distance they’re going to be from the house, make it, to me, something that I don’t think I’m willing to grant a variance to erect, at this point in time. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. KARPELES-Well, I’m kind of on the fence. The reason why I asked if you were thinking about combining the properties is that I don’t think I’d have any problem, or not nearly as big a problem with it, if they were combined, because the thing I can see is some day maybe those lots being sold off, and then we’ve got a one and a third acre lot that has got two big garages on it, but I can understand how a person with four acres would need some extra room in the garage in order to store equipment, in order to maintain that lot, if it were a four acre lot. MR. GARVEY-The way we’ve built the house is, obviously we have no intention of ever parting out the front. The way the house is built, sits on there, there’s no way you could do it, and the front is pretty wet anyway. So I don’t think it would be feasible to build down there. Why the lots aren’t combined is really for no reason. MR. MC NALLY-Be that as it may, the side that faces Hunter Lane, where the garage is being built, is in many practical ways the front of the building. If you use that lot that you haven’t subdivided off yet as your front yard, which the way it’s set up, you essentially have a front yard which is a separate lot, and I see them basically as, you know, it’s not your front yard, but it is your front yard, and where’s the setback here? The relief, as far as I can tell, is 100 feet from the side lot. That’s the important point, and if it ever is sold off, that’s going to pose a problem. Did you ever consider moving it anywhere else, though on the lot, setting it back a little bit further from Hunter, maybe? MR. GARVEY-Yes. Just the way the property sits and the way the hill slopes in the back, you know, there really isn’t, if I put it in any other section of the lot, I’d have to build a driveway or drive over my lawn to get to it, and, you know, with the knolls go on the land, unfortunately there just really isn’t any other spot to put it, to have it useful. MR. THOMAS-Do you want to make any more comments on that? You’re next. MR. MC NALLY-In addition to what I’ve done already? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-My concern, I guess if I had to sum it up, is that there’d be some feasible alternatives with less, or requiring less of a variance than the 42 feet on that side that they’re talking about. If you move the garage and moved it to the southeast corner, you’re adjacent to the existing structure, or I guess to the north of the pool. I think there’s plenty of room there. I looked at the property and I didn’t see any particular structural problems with the land that would pose a problem. MR. GARVEY-Just like, if you look at the southeast corner, we have two huge gardens back there. MR. MC NALLY-I’m not saying in that corner. I’m just saying a little bit closer toward the existing garage in that direction, centering it more on the lot and away from Hunter Lane. I saw the gardens, and it’s impressive. You’ve done a wonderful job, with respect to your gardens, but the question is to us, if you balance the interests of the property owner and the neighborhood, the Town has said, for whatever reason, that there has to be a 100 foot setbacks. Our natural inclination is, where there are feasible alternatives, to grant as little relief as possible, and that’s why I asked you, now did you consider, in this property, trying to site this thing, putting it somewhat further back to lessen the impact on the road? That’s all. MR. GARVEY-The only way that we could have changed this is I could have angled it more, which would have probably saved about five or six feet, and there’s two huge trees in one section, and in the other section, when you start to move it closer, you block the section of view to the back corner of the house. MR. MC NALLY-At the end of this little paved area, where you plan to put this garage, there’s a basketball court. That’s essentially what the paved area has been thus far? 18 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. GARVEY-Basically as a car turn around. There’s a basketball hoop there, yes, but Stacey and I, we’ve thought of a lot of different alternatives we could use, and we needed some place to put a lot of our stuff, and we thought about putting it in different sections, as opposed to making it fit in with the neighborhood and with the design of the house and how it looks on the lot, and talking with quite a few different people about the project, we felt this was our best alternative. As I said, our objective is to protect the stuff that we use to keep our land the way it is, and our objective is to make sure it looks as nice as possible in the area, and with all the different options that we had, this was the best one that we could come up with, especially with the way the land, the lot goes. It sort of goes up to a hill and peaks on the top of the line of the second lot. Then it starts going down, and that’s probably one of the flattest areas there. Once you start to move it up north or whatever, then you’ve really got to move a lot of dirt at the end to kind of flatten it out. MR. CUSTER-I certainly understand the arguments put forth by my fellow Board members. However, I buy into Mr. Garvey’s assessment that, ideally, the front of the house is the other lot, and looking at that, that garage being sited where it is provides balance to the house, and had I had some objections from the neighborhood that that was an eyesore and not the way they wanted it to be, I may have tended to agree that way, but not hearing that, and knowing what the grounds look like, I don’t have a lot of problem with it, and I don’t even really believe that the relief is that substantial, in view of the fact that we have granted relief on this Board to other incidences where we have granted over 90% setback relief, and here we’re only looking at around 50%. So I don’t have any problems with this at this time. MR. THOMAS-Jamie? MR. HAYES-I agree largely with Brian. I think that the underlying zoning requirements, there is 42 feet of setback here, and that’s, compared to some of the applications we’ve just considered tonight, that’s substantial. I think the property itself is meticulous, and for Mr. Garvey to come in and say that he needs a building to continue what is obviously in conflict with the neighborhood, a compliment that the neighbors have appreciated unanimously, I think he’s got a legitimate concern, and I also do believe that that is a natural place for the garage, as the house sits on the property now, and if he’s going to make it continuous, as far as siding and everything else, which is an expense to the house, I would be in favor of the project. MR. THOMAS-It’s been the past practice of the Board, as long as I’ve been sitting here, for just a touch over five years, that there not be two garages on any one piece of property, and I’d like to answer Brian, there, on that statement that he made about the front of the lot facing to the west, that that lot, since they didn’t combine, Mr. and Mrs. Garvey did not combine those lots, either the 38 and 36 into two lots, those two lots into one lot, that the front of the house, by Ordinance, is the garage. The garage faces the front lot line, which is 92 feet setback. If the lots were combined, 36 and 38 were combined, then that would be a considered corner lot. It would have, you know, the front and the back, but it would not have any side, is that how it goes? A corner lot, there are two fronts and two rears, no sides. MR. ROUND-Just to clarify, regardless, setback on any is 100 feet, no matter what you want to argue. The front yard is, indeed, the 42 foot. It’s not the architectural front yard. It would be both front yards. MR. CUSTER-I’m not disputing that. I’m just saying that I agree because of the siting of the house that the logical look, even though that lot is separate, the front is to the parcel, not to the road, in my. MR. THOMAS-But if and when a motion is made that the measurements are going to have to be taken just like that, that the front lot line is, okay. MR. CUSTER-I understand that. MR. THOMAS-And getting back to what I was saying before, that historically this Board has not given out two garages on one lot. We’ve either had the existing garage, the applicant has closed that in and made it storage or living space and then added the other structure on it for their garage. They’ve added on to the existing garage. Very few garages have we given over 900 square feet. I can only think of three instances where we’ve given over 900 square foot of garage. Two of those were attached, and one was over 900 square feet, and that was detached, but that was on, I think, 20 acres of land. So, having said that, and this is, again, a Type II action. If you’d look at the Environmental Assessment Review form, has this got one with it? No, it doesn’t. Is this Unlisted? I don’t see it. 19 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. STONE-It says “Not Applicable” on Number 22, here, SEQRA determination. MR. THOMAS-Do we need it, or don’t we need it? MR. ROUND-For Type II we don’t. MR. THOMAS-For a Type II we don’t? MR. ROUND-No. MR. THOMAS-All right. Would someone like to make a motion? MR. CUSTER-Marc, any chance you can combine those two lots? MR. GARVEY-There’s, as far as combining lots, I really had no intention of combining them. For me to combine them, I don’t know what would be involved. MR. STONE-Just go to the County. Isn’t that all you have to do, Chris? MR. ROUND-There’s some different methods to do it, but from tax map portion, you can merge the lots into one tax map lot. MR. GARVEY-And, obviously, that would not effect the taxes I pay on the lots, or anything like that? It just makes that one? MR. ROUND-Typically, it would not. I can’t speak, I’m not the Assessor. MR. GARVEY-I guess if that would help the Board issue a variance for me, I would have no problem in combining the lots. I have no problem with working with you guys to help make your decision upon a good one. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions, comments? MR. STONE-The greenhouse has to stay? I mean, I’m more troubled by. MRS. GARVEY-What’s wrong with the greenhouse? MR. STONE-The two structures. The greenhouse is lovely. It’s the greenhouse plus the garage, basically, in the same part of the lot that’s troubling me. MRS. GARVEY-A gust of wind could come by and blow it down, you know. MR. GARVEY-Lew, I think if you saw, once it was completed, I think you would see, once the garage was there with the greenhouse, with Stacey’s garden. She’s planting a second garden right near them. MR. STONE-Could the greenhouse be put on the back of the garage? MR. THOMAS-Under Accessory Uses, Private Greenhouse is allowed in the LC-42 zone. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. GARVEY-Well, I’m just saying, the end result, once it’s done, I think it you’d be very pleased with it. MR. MC NALLY-Can we grant a variance contingent upon the lots being combined? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-So that, in the future, if there’s a subdivision, the property doesn’t look all cut up wrong. If you combine the lots. 20 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. THOMAS-That’s a reasonable request of the applicant, as a contingency to the variance, is to combine, but you have to state which lots, stuff like that. So if they did combine Lots 36 and 38, the building becomes, has two rear and no side setbacks. MR. GARVEY-My wife has a question. Her question to me was, would making this one lot, what good would that have, as opposed to keeping it the way it is now? I’m just asking MR. MC NALLY-All right. As I look at your lots, Chris’ comment to the effect that we’ve not historically granted variances with two garages, and that we’ve always been concerned about the square footage of garage space, storage space. I know the instances that I’ve seen it where someone’s been on top of West Mountain with 40 acres. In those cases, we don’t mind it. If you had more property subject to that use, then it wouldn’t be a concern to me. In addition, I’m really confused what the front of your property is, and what the boundaries of the properties are, and I think effectively, Lot 38 is your front yard. MR. GARVEY-You’re correct. MR. MC NALLY-But I think that, in some sense, by presenting us with a variance application showing a 30 foot setback and 72 foot setback, I am concerned that in the future, if there is a subdivision, then the setbacks will, in fact, possibly be far less than what the current zoning code requires. So, I would not be that concerned if the front yard was your front yard. It would look great, and then the side lot variance, who cares. That’s what I’m thinking. MR. STONE-Well, it’s also, if you did that, instead of asking for three variances, which you’re asking for now, we would be down to two. Is that right, Mr. Chairman? MR. THOMAS-Yes, because there are no side setbacks on a corner lot. MR. STONE-Right. So the first one would go away. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. STONE-The 72 would go away. MR. THOMAS-The 72 would go away, yes. MR. STONE-And we’re only talking the 42 and the 300 for the second garage. MR. THOMAS-And the second garage, yes, because that’s all you would need, because if 38 and 36 were combined, the 42 would still be a front yard setback, but there are two front yards and two rear yards in this case, and there are no side yards. So you were right. You would need a 58 foot variance from the front yard setback, and you would need a variance from the second garage. MR. STONE-Would that be a second garage or would that be a square foot thing? MR. THOMAS-It would be a, the Ordinance says you can have one 900 square foot garage, okay, and there would be two garages with a combined total of 1,190 square feet. So in Section 179-7 under the Definitions, you’d have to grant relief from that. So, having said that, does anyone else have anything they want to say, comments? I MR. CUSTER-Is it 24 by 26, the second garage? MR. GARVEY-Correct. MR. CUSTER-I get 1200 total square feet. MR. THOMAS-The existing garage is 24 by 24. MR. CUSTER-That’s 576. MR. THOMAS-And I’ve got 24 by 26 coming up to 624. MR. CUSTER-Right. MR. THOMAS-You’re right. I do come up with 1200. 21 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. MC NALLY-Is the possibility of combining the two lots something you would think about, and table this? MR. THOMAS-You could make it contingent on the variance, the granting of the variance, that Mr. and Mrs. Garvey have to combine Lots 36 and 38 into one contiguous lot, as a stipulation to the variance. That’s a reasonable request. We couldn’t ask them to combine 36 and 38 and do handstands down the road. That’s unreasonable. You could make it reasonable, but you can’t make it unreasonable. MR. MC NALLY-I’m not inclined, on that one particular lot, to approve any variance as it exists. I would consider moving it if they’re combined, or if I could see some kind of effort more substantive to perhaps reposition that further from Hunter Lane. I know you’ve explained some of the facts, but I’m not satisfied that it couldn’t be repositioned or alternatives considered that might be just as feasible, perhaps not what you want, but feasible. MR. HAYES-There’s like two big Oak trees right there to the right of that garage. MRS. GARVEY-Yes. You’d have to cut the trees down. You’d have to put it, and it would block our family room. It would be hovering over the pool area. MR. STONE-How about just making it parallel to the garage? Which you’d pick up five or six feet, wouldn’t you, if you? MR. GARVEY-I mean, we originally discussed squaring off of the house and angling it. MR. STONE-Because the house is square. Mr. Chairman, let me ask you a question. You brought it up, because of your long time experience on the Board. How concerned are you by granting relief for two garages, since you indicated that you could tick off on one hand the number of times we’ve done it in five years? MR. THOMAS-I’m very concerned, especially in an area like this which is residential, which is totally residential. The other areas that we have granted them before have been in the RR zones. The RR 3’s, RR 10 zones, which are three and ten acre zones. Now I’ll grant you this is four acres, but it’s strictly residential. These other areas that we’ve granted them, that were, there’s really some extenuating circumstances that we gave them a second garage, or a garage over 900 square feet. So I’ve always had trouble because I can see this thing snowballing. I really can. MR. MC NALLY-The last one I remember is the one on West Mountain, which was, I think, a 42 acre zone. MR. THOMAS-I think that was an LC-42, but I think the applicant also had 20 some odd acres, plus the terrain was very steep, except for that one place, and they didn’t have a garage in the house. This was just a separate garage. There was only one garage, and we granted them over the 900 square foot. It was a very large garage, but I do believe they were in a 20 acre zone, the terrain limited to where they could go, and I don’t think it was that much over 900. I think it was like 1,050 or something like that. So I just have a problem with two garages on one lot in a residential area. MR. GARVEY-Excuse me. With all the different alternatives and plans and stuff that we tried to work out with my property and what I could do with all my extra stuff, there wasn’t, unfortunately, really any other alternatives I had. We did plan maybe enlarging the garage. We even planned on maybe trying to work something. I have a full basement underneath the house, by storage underneath there, and there’s just, the way the lot sits, and the way the house sits, unfortunately there just isn’t a lot of alternatives, especially with the way the land moves and stuff like that. If you go up and down Ridge Road, there’s a lot of houses with additional garages that are separate from the house that do also have garages, and it’s my pure objective to make sure that it’s appeasing to everybody and to make sure it’s done right. My sole objective with this is to have something for storage, and something that looks nice. I could spend $7500 and put up a lousy garage, but I’ve really planned exactly where I want to put it, spent money, as far as a lot of extra expense, making sure it’s perfect, to make sure it fits the land, and hopefully get your approval, and that’s my supreme objective, to make sure it works fine and it’s not something I just whipped up and decided to do. It’s something that’s been coming up for a long time. MR. STONE-I think we appreciate that. What were you talking about storing in there? 22 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. GARVEY-I’ve got two tractors. I’ve got roto tillers. I’ve got leaf blowers. We’ve got a lot of equipment as far as the stuff for the greenhouse. MR. STONE-They’re all designed to run on open ground? MR. GARVEY-All the stuff is, most of my equipment. MR. STONE-Is it possible to put it on the further lot, the garage, as a stand-alone building? MR. THOMAS-You can’t do it. If it wasn’t used as a garage, I wouldn’t have any problem with it, but that’s what the application is asking for. MR. GARVEY-And that’s what I am asking for. MR. THOMAS-If it’s a garage, I have a problem with it. If it’s storage, I have no problem whatsoever. That’s the thing of it. It’s two garages on one piece of property, and I can see it snowball. If it was strictly for storage of your two tractors and your roto tillers, lawnmowers or whatever you’ve got, no problem whatsoever. MR. STONE-And the door was long enough that a vehicle couldn’t get in. MR. THOMAS-Well, I saw a red Porsche sitting there, and I think I can fit that thing in where any tractor could go. MR. GARVEY-But I plan to store a motorcycle in there, and there is a possibility I could store a car in the winter. I’m not going to lie to you guys. MR. STONE-We appreciate your candor. MR. THOMAS-See, that’s the problem I have, but I’m only one of seven votes. MR. STONE-Six. MR. THOMAS-Well, actually there’s seven members. MR. STONE-That’s true. MR. THOMAS-So, having said that, I’ll again ask if anyone would like to make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-1997 MARC GARVEY , Introduced by Brian Custer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: 43 Hunter Lane. With one caveat to the variance, that lots be combined, Numbers 36 and 38, therefore changing the relief required to eliminate the side setback request, and only requiring the front setback of 58 feet. The applicant proposes to construct a garage of 24 feet by 26 feet in dimension, and passing the variance would benefit the applicant by allowing him to have a detached garage which he will be able to store his many pieces of equipment needed to maintain his property. Alternatives, although there are some minor feasible alternatives, the applicant has indicated that this has been a well planned siting, and is perhaps the best one relative to the property. The relief is not substantial, in my estimation, and noticing the comments from the neighborhood and community, I would say that the effects are minimal and the difficulty is not self created, and I recommend that we accept the motion. Relief is also granted from Section 179-7, which requires a variance of an additional 300 square foot of total garage space, or 1200 total, 300 additional, and an additional building. th Duly adopted this 15 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: MR. ROUND-Just for clarification, you’re going to grant a front setback relief from the 42 feet. So you’d be granting 58 feet of front setback relief, as shown on the map, and relief from a second garage, relief from the Ordinance which limits a single garage, and the Ordinance which limits the garage structure to 900 square feet. MR. CUSTER-Correct. 23 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. ROUND-Contingent upon combining the lots. MR. CUSTER-Combining the lots. MR. MC NALLY-Do we issue the variance after they combine the deeds and present a deed, is that how it’s done? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. ROUND-If you’re not granting the relief from the 72 foot side setbacks, you don’t grant that relief, he can’t construct, he can’t get a building permit, so he’d have to demonstrate that he does not need the relief. MR. MC NALLY-I see. MR. THOMAS-Yes. He has to combine the lots before he can get the building permit. AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. McNally NOES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-Four to two, that’s it. It’s passed. MR. GARVEY-I appreciate it, gentlemen. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE 58-1997 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-1A JOHN MATTHEWS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CEDAR POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ENLARGE AN EXISTING SUMMER HOME TO A YEAR ROUND RESIDENCE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16 AND 50 PERCENT EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE; SECTION 179-79. CROSS REF. SPR 42-97 TAX MAP NO. 2-1-9 LOT SIZE: 2.68 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79 JOHN MATTHEWS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 58-1997, John Matthews, Meeting Date: October 15, 1997 Project Location:Description of Project: “ Cedar Point Road Applicant proposes a 1565 square foot expansion of a non-conforming residential structure in the Relief Required: WR-1A zone. The proposed project requires relief from §179-79 restricting expansion of non-conforming structures to a 50% threshold. The structure is currently located within the 50 foot shoreline setback (approximately 32 feet from shore). The proposed project also requires relief from the setback requirements of §179-16. The required side setback is 20 feet, the proposed setback is 19 feet. The required shoreline setback is 50 feet the proposed shoreline setback is approximately 32 feet. The shoreline setback request is based on conversion of a Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter porch/deck to living space. 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be allowed to construct 2. Feasible alternatives: addition(s) to an existing home. Alternatives are limited to an expansion less than 50 percent of the existing floor space or no construction and/or no 3. Is this relief substantial relative construction/conversion activities within 50 feet of the shore. to the ordinance?: The relief from the 50 percent expansion rule of non-conforming structures 4. cannot be gauged relative to substantial. The setback relief is interpreted as insubstantial. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal impact is anticipated on the neighborhood 5. Is this difficulty self-created?Parcel History (construction/site or community. No. plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments: None applicable. Minimal impact to the neighborhood/lakefront character is anticipated as a result of the proposed action. The plans have been reviewed for conformance to the 28 foot height restriction. The proposal will be reviewed by SEQR Status: the Planning Board. Unlisted” MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Matthews, is there anything else you’d like to add, tell us about, comments? 24 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. MATTHEWS-Well, my only comment is, that I want my proposal to enhance the area and what we’re trying to do is use the lay of the land to increase the size and make the house a year round liveable structure. MR. THOMAS-Okay. What was the original square footage of that house when it was first built? MR. MATTHEWS-It’s about 1200 square feet. MR. THOMAS-Okay. When was the original house built, do you know? MR. MATTHEWS-Thirty years ago, 1959. MR. THOMAS-Any questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Is the existing garage that you show here going? MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. So that’s out. MR. MATTHEWS-That’s out. MR. STONE-And just for, it may have nothing to do with this thing, but what is this proposed workshop? MR. MATTHEWS-That’s a workshop/storage building which is proposed, and we’re doing plans for it, presently. MR. STONE-And excavating. MR. MATTHEWS-Well, I did some excavating to find out where the rock was, so they could do the plans. MR. KARPELES-Is that what the excavation is up there now? MR. MATTHEWS-Correct. MR. KARPELES-It’s not the septic tank, then? MR. MATTHEWS-No. The septic system has been in and revised three years ago. MR. CUSTER-John, help me try to picture this in my head. You come down, park, and the main house is well below the existing garage grade. So that will be, where the main house is now, that’s going to be like the bottom floor? MR. MATTHEWS-Correct. MR. CUSTER-And then you’ll go up and into that level, okay. MR. MATTHEWS-Correct. Basically, we’ll be going in the front door of the house at parking lot grade level, as it is right now. MR. CUSTER-That’s what I had pictured, but I wanted to make sure of that. MR. MATTHEWS-The big black line that you see through it is going to be a stone wall, which kind of cuts its way through the structure. So it can be visible from both lake and as you come down the driveway you’ll see that stone curved wall there. MR. KARPELES-What’s the final square footage going to be of the house? It says 1565 square foot expansion. Is that on top of the 1200 square feet? MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. It’s about 2800 square feet. MR. STONE-Twenty eight hundred? 25 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. MATTHEWS-Around there. MR. STONE-It says 37 on your application. MR. MATTHEWS-Well, that’s the total building area. I mean, that includes the garage as it is and what not now. So right now we’ve got 2100 square feet, and that includes the existing garage. So that the total building area will be the 3760. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Does that include that workshop up in the back? MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. MR. STONE-That includes the workshop? MR. THOMAS-Which is 1640 square feet. MR. ROUND-No, that doesn’t include that. MR. MATTHEWS-No, I don’t believe so. MR. THOMAS-That was my next question to you. MR. ROUND-It’s not required, the construction of the other structure does not require any review by this Board. MR. CUSTER-Yes, you’re right. MR. THOMAS-Why? MR. ROUND-It’s not a part of his application. MR. THOMAS-How can you get a 1620 square foot building, garage, workshop, storage building? MR. ROUND-Accessory structure, storage structure, or boats, you know, by whatever name you want to call it. It’s not a garage. It’s a storage building. MR. MATTHEWS-Storage building. I’ve got four boats. I have a wood boat and two sail boats, one of which I storage in another barn down here in Glens Falls, and my daughter’s boat which I store in the boat house next door, presently, and I anticipate not being able to use some of these areas to store things in the future. So I’m trying to, plus I do a lot of woodworking, and that sort of thing on my own. The building that’s there now that is the garage is storage, and it’s packed full. MR. STONE-Your woodworking is an avocation or a vocation? MR. MATTHEWS-It’s just a hobby. MR. STONE-Okay. On the west side of the property, I see a house listed up above the garage. Isn’t there also a building down closer to the water, on the adjacent property? MR. MATTHEWS-On the adjacent lot? MR. STONE-Yes, to the west. MR. MATTHEWS-To the west, there’s one main structure. Behind it is like a guest cottage, and then down real close to the water, there’s a pump house. MR. STONE-I mean, when I was walking the property today, it looked as if the house up by where the driveway circles, and then there was something down closer to your actual, your current house. It’s just not on here. It looked fairly close to the line. MR. MATTHEWS-It is. It is quite close to the line. 26 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. STONE-There’s a shed, but there’s also something here. MR. MATTHEWS-No, the neighbors. MR. STONE-There’s a shed on the line, too. MR. KARPELES-Yes. The shed looks like it straddles the line. MR. MATTHEWS-That’s been there for 30 years. MR. STONE-To whom does it belong? MR. MATTHEWS-It belongs to me. It’s pre-existing, I guess. It’s just a woodshed anyway, but, yes, the neighbor’s guest house is fairly close to that line. I’d say it’s 15, 20 feet maybe off the line. MR. STONE-Lets go to the thing that is more troubling to me at the moment, and that’s the shoreline setback. Can you tell me, in the Staff notes it talks about closing in a porch, making that living space, therefore giving you the 32 feet from the lake. MR. MATTHEWS-The porch is already a porch closed in. What we’re asking for is relief which includes the structure as it is now, and that includes the enclosed porch. I mean, it’s a screened in porch. MR. STONE-Okay, but, Chris, does he need to ask for it? MR. ROUND-It’s a new construction project, and it’s conversion of a porch to a habitable living area. I guess that’s our interpretation. MR. STONE-Well, that’s what I’m trying to ascertain. MR. MATTHEWS-Well, I’m going by their guidelines. MR. STONE-Okay. So they’re saying you need a variance to be 32 feet, when you should be 50. MR. MATTHEWS-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. So we need 18 foot of relief if we are so inclined to grant it. MR. KARPELES-How does this thing fit in with our formula for square footage as opposed to land square footage? MR. ROUND-He’s got a relatively large lot. MR. STONE-It’s a huge lot. MR. KARPELES-Well, this is, in essence, new construction, rather than expansion of an existing facility, right? This would be just like there wasn’t a house there? MR. ROUND-No. He’s got an existing structure that you’re building around, up and back. MR. STONE-It’s his existing house, and I can’t tell from the cross hatching what’s what. MR. ROUND-Excuse me. Did the Board receive eight and a half by elevens from? MR. STONE-No. MR. MATTHEWS-I’ve got full sized ones. MR. ROUND-Of these presented, do you have extra copies? MR. MATTHEWS-This shows the setback line, the dotted line of the existing house, and the dotted line (lost words) garage. This is the plot plan as it exists right now. 27 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. KARPELES-What is the existing and what is new, on this shading? MR. THOMAS-The existing is this dotted line here. MR. KARPELES-The dotted line. MR. STONE-Okay. So you are closing in a screened porch, and making it fully winterized? MR. MATTHEWS-Plus we’re going up. MR. STONE-You’re going up, but you’re also closing in what is shown to be a screened porch and part of the deck you’re closing in. Okay. MR. THOMAS-And that is going to become the master bedroom. Is that going to be part of the master bedroom? MR. MATTHEWS-Well, some of those rooms are labeled wrong. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but I mean, as shown on this print, that’s where you’re closing in the porch? MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. MR. THOMAS-And part of the porch is going to be the master bedroom? MR. MATTHEWS-Correct. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in support of this variance? In support of? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to? In opposition of? Any correspondence? MR. ROUND-None. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant? If not, lets talk about it. MR. KARPELES-Well, I think if this is a revision to an existing structure, that, the way I read it, it’s 1200 square feet, the original house, which would allow for a 600 foot expansion, and he’s asking for 1565, which is well over twice what is allowed. I think that’s an awful lot of relief, and I also think that it would be desirable to get that back away from the lake, if at all possible. When I looked at it up there, it looked to me like your view would still be fine if you did move back away from the lake farther. MR. MATTHEWS-Do you mean demolish what’s there? MR. KARPELES-Yes. Well, you’re asking for almost two and a half times what is agreeable. MR. MATTHEWS-I realize that, but I feel that it’s in character with the neighborhood, and what’s there is small, in character with the neighborhood. MR. KARPELES-So that’s my thoughts. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lets see, okay, the other Bob. MR. MC NALLY-I have lots of questions. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Well, go ahead and shoot. MR. MC NALLY-As I understand it, sir, you’re looking for one variance with respect to the lake frontage, and that your existing structure, excuse me, your proposed structure will be 32 feet from the lake frontage. So you’re looking for 18 feet of relief. 28 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. MATTHEWS-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-All right, and there’s a 19 foot side lot variance that you’re looking for. Where is that? Is that to the west. MR. MATTHEWS-The line that’s parallel to the lot line, and we’re already nine feet from the line. I don’t know whether we need the nine foot or whether you go to here. MR. CUSTER-We go the closest. So that would be that corner right there. MR. MC NALLY-In other words, the corner of the building which you propose. MR. MATTHEWS-That’s the existing and the proposed. MR. CUSTER-It’s already there. It’s on the footprint. MR. MC NALLY-It’s nine foot. Okay. MR. STONE-Where do those numbers come from? MR. CUSTER-Do we have to grant that variance, Chris, if it’s on the footprint of the building? MR. THOMAS-I thought it was, but I was told if it’s built straight up from the existing footprint or the existing building, and the setback has not changed, they do not need a variance for it. I always was under the impression that there was a variance required, but I was told that there is not one required. MR. MC NALLY-At that corner, that’s a one story structure now? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And you’re proposing how many stories at that corner? MR. MATTHEWS-One additional. MR. MC NALLY-So there’ll be two floors then? MR. MATTHEWS-Correct. MR. THOMAS-So as they go up, they’ll still be the 9.1 feet from the lot line, but they do not need a variance for that because they are going up, and they are not going any closer to the property line, but like I said, I was under the impression they did, but I was told we don’t. MR. MC NALLY-That’s shown on the maps that you’ve handed to us. One of the maps, dated October 6, 1997, sk.16, the distance is 9.1 feet, I think it shows. MR. MATTHEWS-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-And the building, the third variance we’re looking for, is an increase in size greater than 50% of the existing structure. MR. THOMAS-Right. They’re looking for four variances. MR. MC NALLY-I just want to make sure I understand what they are. The existing building area, as it stands now, is 2195? That’s on the application. MR. MATTHEWS-That included the existing garage. MR. MC NALLY-Okay, and your proposal is a building area of 3,760 square feet. Is that correct? See, it’s confusing with so many structures, and I want to make sure I understand. MR. MATTHEWS-That includes the garage, this whole structure right here. MR. STONE-The 2160 includes the existing home and the garage. 29 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. MATTHEWS-And the garage. MR. STONE-Okay. Now, but you’re adding, and remember we’re talking up and down when we talk about square foot now. You’re talking both stories when you talk about square footage, according to the Waterfront zoning law. You have to consider all floors. MR. MATTHEWS-That’s what I did. That’s where the 3760 came up. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MATTHEWS-The first floor plus the whole second floor. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-But my question, is the 3760 plus the workshop? MR. MATTHEWS-No. MR. MC NALLY-So the workshop is an addition to the 3,760? MR. MATTHEWS-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. Is that set forth on the application as far as the square feet anywhere, or what, for the shop? MR. MATTHEWS-It’s not on the application. MR. MC NALLY-Do we know what the square footage is, by any chance? MR. THOMAS-Yes, it’s 1620, I figured, but Staff says that’s not part of the application, so we don’t even consider it. MR. MC NALLY-So we don’t have to worry about that at all. MR. STONE-At this point in time. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. THOMAS-That’s what I’m told. MR. MC NALLY-So where’s the fourth variance then? MR. THOMAS-You’ve got, from Section 179-79, okay, that’s the more than 50% expansion. You’ve got the shoreline setback. You’ve got the side line setback of one foot for the new structure, okay. MR. STONE-Where is that one foot? MR. THOMAS-See where the shed is? That line that parallels that is 19 feet. I take it back. I’m sorry. There’s only three variances required, 179, the setback and side setback. MR. MC NALLY-On the application, if you look on the second page, site development data, the side yard existing setback of nine feet, which is that corner we talked about. MR. MATTHEWS-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-Then you say it’s a proposal of 19 feet setback. MR. MATTHEWS-Well, that’s the additional. MR. MC NALLY-Is that the distinction between the line further back? MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. 30 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. MC NALLLY-That parallels it? MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, that’s the addition. MR. MC NALLY-So the requested variance is really the nine feet now? MR. STONE-We don’t need that we’re told. MR. THOMAS-The one foot from the 20 foot required for the new structure. MR. MATTHEWS-Right. MR. THOMAS-The existing structure is not even there, as far as setbacks are concerned. MR. MATTHEWS-See, that was confusing to me when I did the application, too, but I sat down with John and Chris. MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, may I ask Staff to help me with this footprint, and tell me a little bit about, does footprint mean anything to us? MR. ROUND-In this application, no, it does not. I guess what we’re looking at, you clarified it. We’re looking at 179-79. That’s a 50% expansion. That’s all livable for all building area. You’ve exceeded that threshold. So you’ve got to grant relief from that, the shoreline setback and the side line setback. So footprint doesn’t come into play. The only thing we’re talking about is from the side setback, creating a new structure. You’re taking that screen porch and you’re converting it to a, it’s going to be part of a new house, so you need to grant relief from this new structure. Whether there’s a footprint there or not, that doesn’t matter. It’s the same instance in previous cases where if you tear a structure down, you build it again, you need relief. There’s no grandfathering, per se. MR. STONE-The fact that you’re just going up along the two corner walls. MR. ROUND-That’s been the historical interpretation. If you’re building up, and you’re not increasing the nonconformity, then you’re not required to request relief. MR. MC NALLY-Don’t you increase the nonconformity, in the sense that there’s more structure? MR. ROUND-Well, that’s a matter for debate, I guess. That’s not been the interpretation, it’s my understanding. MR. MC NALLY-And the proposed workshop, sir, you have no intention of storing vehicles in there, it’s for boat storage and for workshop. So it’s a separate structure. MR. MATTHEWS-Boats and boxes of clothes and the piano. MR. MC NALLY-That’s within the side lot restrictions there? It meets it? MR. MATTHEWS-Way within it. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. Did you ever, did you give any thought, perhaps, to moving further back from the lake, incorporating less of the porch or less of the deck, in developing your plans? MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. That’s why we’ve got Carl Brant here. He’s my architect CARL BRANT MR. BRANT-My name is Carl Brant, from Brant Architects. Yes, we considered that, but, I mean, it’s a very pleasant porch now. It’s almost like part of the house. You say it’s a screened porch kind of thing, but I’ve been there many times, and it’s like a living space. So just why not use it, I mean, and go up from there. It just seems so appropriate and right to do. We’re not intending to go any closer to the lake with living space than is already there. That was just our, we wanted to preserve that, and go no closer, really, to any of the side lines than is presently there. You have to start somewhere, and it’s just so obvious when you look at that site, and the way that house is so low, that’s there now, kind of down in a hole, that, to build up over it, and as you come down the hill, you’ve kind of, then with that curved wall, it kind of stops you, and then you enter 31 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) the house at the upper level, the right level. A lot of thought went into it, believe me. I think when it’s done, it’ll be an asset to that piece of property, because what’s there now is kind of a run down, 50-ish sort of building. John’s been trying to maintain it, but it’s a camp. MR. THOMAS-Any more questions of the applicant? If not, we were at Mr. McNally for your thoughts. MR. MC NALLY-Well, it took some questions to formulate it. I’m always struck by how lake front property can be converted from summer use to year round use, and the amount of effort that goes into that kind of conversion, and it seems as if this plan demonstrates a lot of thought went into that process. I don’t doubt the property would be improved, and would be a betterment of the area. An odd kind of camp. It’s almost like a California camp. I’m always concerned, though, that 50 foot limit with respect to Lake George. This seems relatively nominal, but I always like to see people have given thought or re-organized things that maybe could have lessened any impact on the lake. It does seem minimal, though. I have to give it some thought, to be honest with you. MR. MATTHEWS-What our thought was that we weren’t increasing any impact on the lake. I mean, our living space is there right now. Our children and what not use the front yard and the dock really the idea is to stay in that area and not have to travel or walk 1500 steps more down the hill. MR. MC NALLY-We’re not talking about 1500 square feet. Don’t get me wrong. We’re literally talking 18 feet. MR. MATTHEWS-No. I mean coming from a further back level down. I mean, I’ve done a lot of work around the lake, and it’s so nice to be close, and it’s there, and it’s been there for 30 years. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t doubt it, but this is a nonconforming use. You’re increasing it’s size a fair amount more than the Code normally would allow. MR. THOMAS-Brian? MR. CUSTER-Well, I do, too, share Mr. McNally’s concern with anything that encroaches on that 50 foot line toward the lake. That line is determined for a reason, but the existing structure has been there, and John is not proposing, except for that small corner of the roof line there, which really doesn’t bring it any further to the lake, it just kind of enlarges the area. Beyond that, all the new is going up and then back upwards, and I think if I were to look at this as a new build, I’d have no problems with the size of the house, if there was no 50 foot limit, I guess is what I’m trying to say here, I would have no problems at all with the size of the house being built as a new construction, provided it met all the other requirements. Again, that little bit there is so minimal it doesn’t bother me, and I think that the fact that he and his architect have done their best to utilize the footprint that’s there, I can work with this at this time. I think 32 feet is still fairly adequate. Having said that, I guess that’s kind of where I am right now. I’d still like to hear what other people might have to say. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, expanding on basically what Bob and Brian have said, I think that we have a very sincere duty to vigorously protect any further encroachments on the lake, which you did with the Middleton application, but in cases where applicants are, in fact, not going, in a practical sense, any closer to the lake than they were, in the real sense, and looking to have properties, you know, when I walked on this property, this kind of renewal, when I visualize, seems like a positive thing to me. I mean, it’s clearly, with that garage behind there and the road underneath it, and I think if Mr. Matthews is going to spend the money to renew the property and improve, you know, we’re actually talking about a removal of a building. So we only have one structure. I think that, you know, I don’t think that the lake is suffering for that. I think, in fact, it would be a benefit to the neighbors, to the property, and certainly for the lives of the Matthews. So, if he had gone one foot closer to the lake, I would be totally against the project, but as it stands now, I would probably be for it, and the other question I had was, where it says elevation of Lake George at 320 feet, I’m wondering if that’s the mean water line or the Salvador water line. MR. THOMAS-Lew? MR. STONE-Well, let me just start from the beginning. First of all, I believe that 50 foot from the lake is the minimum that I would like to see buildings, but we have a new law, new, it’s a year old, 32 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) but we’re still, we’re working with it. I do recognize, however, that you are not going on a major encroachment on the 50 foot setback. You are not going any closer to the lake. You are encroaching upon it up in the southeast corner by, what, two or three feet, I guess, but that’s certainly not as much as the 18 feet that you are, the expansion of 50% on this lot doesn’t trouble me very much because it is, obviously, a very good sized lot, and it is still self-contained. It’s not like you’re rambling all over the neighborhood. I share the concern of my fellow Board members, in that if it were an inch closer than 32 feet, I would be compelled to say no. As it is right now, I will probably say yes. I’d still like to hear what our Chairman has to say. MR. CUSTER-How big is the lot? MR. STONE-Two point nine acres, two point six eight acres.. MR. CUSTER-Is that on here some place? MR. THOMAS-Yes. It’s on the application, the site development. MR. CUSTER-Okay. I’ve got it. MR. STONE-That road only goes to your house. I mean, the two properties on either side come down different ways. MR. MATTHEWS-Correct. The previous owner was friends with the neighbor, and when he built, he built the neighbor’s house at the same time that he built our house. The road coming in the other way wasn’t very good. So while they were both living, they used the same driveway, and the neighbor paid to have his driveway paved, so when we purchased it, they agreed to not use it anymore. MR. MC NALLY-You brought up the Middleton application, somebody did. Those people were going to build on the same blessed footprint, 10 feet from the shore, and we denied them because they had the opportunity of building elsewhere, or could have designed it so it would have been less of an impact, on the lake. Are we being consistent if we go one way or the other? MR. CUSTER-They weren’t truly on the footprint. They were squaring it off, and there really was no footprint, per se, there anyway. It was a piered house. MR. THOMAS-Every variance is done on its own merit, and you can look back and see, historically, what we do, you know, with other variances, but when push comes to shove, every variance is taken on its own merit. MR. MC NALLY-I’m just trying to figure out consistency with respect to what this Board decides, in similar applications. MR. STONE-Help me with the visual impact, where some of us are saying, all right, you’re not going an inch closer on that porch area, but what’s the visual impact going to be, if I were to look at it from the lake, that same corner, which is, it’s going to appear much closer to the lake because it’s going up another story, isn’t it? MR. MATTHEWS-The shoreline is not going to be touched. The shoreline is full of huge pine trees and growth. Right now, the visual impact from the lake is zero. You can hardly see the place. Yes. If we do go up another story, sure you’re going to see it. It’s going to look nice. Two houses down from us, we granted variances to re-do White’s house about three years ago, when they went up another level. Actually, they’re up 35 feet. How they ever did that I’ll never know, but. MR. STONE-There was no Ordinance. MR. THOMAS-At that time. It was 35 feet at that time. MR. MATTHEWS-And the same way with the Fuhrers. They did an expansion very similar to this last year, and their setbacks from the lake were the same. So I contend that it blends very nicely with the character of the neighborhood. MR. BRANT-It’ll look less camp-like, and more like the Adirondack home. 33 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. STONE-But just the fact that it goes from here and goes up this high, it kind of leans toward you if you’re looking at it. MR. MATTHEWS-Well, yes, actually, but when you look at it from out on the lake, existing garage that’s there is way up. So when you’re looking at it from the lake, you see the height now. So the visual impact isn’t really going to be there because the garage, that elevation of the structure is going to be about the same as what the garage is now. MR. KARPELES-I guess I would elaborate upon my first statements. If this were a new structure, I would have no objection to the size of it, in relationship to the lot. The only objection I would have would be the setback from the lake. I think that the very fact that you’re converting it from a summer camp to an all year round home has an impact on the lake. MR. MATTHEWS-Well, I’ve done every possible thing to protect that. I’ve put in a brand new septic system, as soon as I bought the property, a 2,000 gallon pump system, pumps all the way up behind the court to an all engineered designed, works beautiful, and there’s eight foot of soil under it. MR. KARPELES-But I think that because we’re seeing so many of these conversions from summer camps to all year round houses, is the primary purpose for this 50 foot lake setback. MR. MATTHEWS-I know. MR. KARPELES-And I think that we should adhere to it whenever we can. MR. MATTHEWS-Well, I’d agree with that if it were a new piece of property, but by the same token, I have to justify what the Town is taxing me every year for that piece of property, and it no longer becomes feasible to use that piece of property as a summer, two month residence. I have to sell other property, which I now live in, to live in this place year round. I can no longer afford to have a year round house and a summer home, when, I mean, the property is large enough and is taxed high enough that I just have to make it equal out, and I’m sure you can see that, as a homeowner. MR. THOMAS-All right. I guess it’s my turn. Going down through the five requirements for the balancing test, Number One, whether a benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant just stated that it’s really not feasible to tear the house down and build a whole new one. It’s more feasible, or it’s feasible just to make an addition to the existing house. An undesirable change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties, you know, it’s going to be basically a new structure on the outside, compared to what is now “a camp”. The request is substantial relative to the Ordinance. He’s looking for a two and a half times expansion of an existing structure. Will there be any adverse physical effects on the environment? No. Because Mr. Matthews has just stated that he just put in a brand new septic system, and that the trees along the lake will not be touched. Am I right about that? MR. MATTHEWS-Positive, guaranteed. MR. THOMAS-Okay. They will not be touched. So there is no real, there is no adverse effect. In fact, it helps the physical and environmental effects of the area with the new septic system, and whether the difficulty was self created, no because the Ordinance used to be 75 feet for a setback from the lake, and it was just recently changed to 50. So now, instead of asking for 43 feet, then the applicant is now asking for 19 feet, 18 feet. So, you know, I really have no problem with this, and also because of the size of the property, you know, the 2.68 acres. It is big. It is huge, and it’s really not cramped, next to the buildings on either side of it. There is some distance, even though I think they could have designed it to have that side setback of 20 feet rather than 19 feet, but since I’m not an architect. What’s the chances of changing that? Shaving a foot off that one side, to make it from 19 to 20 to meet that side setback? MR. BRANT-Well, I think one of the reasons that we ended up with that is there’s space taken up in the living space a for stairs and what not to get down in, and it just, once you start squeezing in, you just decrease the room for the furniture that we’ve got and what not. MR. THOMAS-Like I said, one foot, I don’t believe, is a big change. So I would have no problem with this variance application being approved. MR. STONE-I have one question. How far is your leachfield from the lake? 34 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. MATTHEWS-Several hundred feet. MR. STONE-Okay. I mean would agree it’s probably several hundred feet. I didn’t know if you had a number. MR. MATTHEWS-I don’t have a number. This is 336 to here, and then another. MR. STONE-Is that horizontal feet? MR. MATTHEWS-Horizontal. It looks like close to 10 inches from the shore. An inch equals 30. It’s about 300 feet. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant? Comments? If not, I’ll ask for a motion. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: th Duly adopted this 15 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-1997 JOHN MATTHEWS , Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Cedar Point Road on Lake George. The applicant proposes a 1565 square foot expansion of a nonconforming residential structure in a WR-1A zone. The relief required is three fold. One, as pertains to Section 179-79 which restricts expansion of nonconforming structures of which the present camp is to a 50% threshold. In this case, the building area of the old plus the new, with the removal of the existing garage would go from 2195 square feet to 3760 square feet, an addition of 1565 feet, well over 50%. The structure is currently located within the 50 foot shoreline setback. The screened in porch is approximately 32 feet from the shore at its closest point. The new structure will be built upwards and backwards from that closest point, but because of the zoning requirements we must consider a relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback of 18 feet. It should also be recognized that the new structure will also invade the 50 foot setback in the northeast corner of the furthest back area by a matter of two to three feet. The proposed project also requires relief from the setback requirements of 179-16, specifically the required side setback is 20 feet. The proposed setback is 19 feet, as far as new construction is concerned. It should be noted that the existing structure is currently nonconforming at 9.1 feet from the property line. It is noted that the shoreline setback request of the 32 feet is based on the conversion of the porch/deck to living space. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be allowed to construct additions and to winterize an existing summer camp. The alternatives are limited because of the 50% expansion rule and the fact that no new construction or conversion activities within 50 feet of the shore are allowed. The relief from the 50% rule of nonconforming structures is probably substantial, but it certainly would be an improvement to the overall property. The setback relief, as far as the one foot is concerned, is certainly insubstantial. The relief of 18 feet recognizes the fact that the current building currently sits at that point on the land. Minimal impact, as far as effect on the neighborhood or community is anticipated. The difficulty is not self created in that this nonconforming use is at 32 feet currently and, yes, the expansion could be considered to be self created, but in order to make an acceptable full time residence, the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the community. th Duly adopted this 15 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, should we reflect in the motion, I see here on one page a roof drainage water. 35 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. THOMAS-We’ll let the Planning Board take care of that. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-This has got to go before the Planning Board anyway. So they will be handling the particulars and like that, drainage and septic. It’s really not in our bailiwick. AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. Karpeles, Mr. McNally ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-What’s that, a four to two? So that means the project is granted. MR. MATTHEWS-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-1997 TYPE II LI-1A JOSEPH & DEBRA GROSS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A STORAGE BUILDING AND VEHICLE STORAGE AREA. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-26. CROSS REF. SPR 44-97 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/8/97 TAX MAP NO. 137-2-3.22 LOT SIZE: 1.50 ACRES SECTION 179-26 JOSEPH GROSS, PRESENT MR. HAYES-Mr. Chairman, I guess I should excuse myself because I’m in the area of notification. MR. THOMAS-So noted. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 59-1997, Joseph & Debra Gross, Meeting Date: October 15, Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: 1997 “ Big Bay Road Applicant has constructed an addition to an existing warehouse. The addition is a proposed storage area for Relief Required: equipment and vehicles. The proposed project requires relief from the setback requirements of §179-26. The required side setback is 30 feet, the proposed setback is Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 approximately 18.8 feet. of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be allowed to construct an 2. Feasible alternatives: additional warehouse at desired location on the property. Alternative locations on the property would allow for the desired construction within the setback requirement. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The requested relief is not interpreted as 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: substantial. Minimal impact is anticipated on 5. Is the difficulty self-created?: the neighborhood or community. Yes. The difficulty is self created. The applicant constructed the building at a location not in compliance with the Reg’s. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Staff comments: None applicable. Mr. Gross constructed the addition in advance of obtaining a building permit. He was issued a Stop Work Order, and has stopped work, and this proposal’s going to go before the Planning Board for a site plan review. I believe it has minimal impact on the character of the neighborhood and SEQR Status: community. Type II” MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Gross, would you like to add any comments? MR. GROSS-Well, I’ll start off that I screwed up. There’s no doubt about that. As far as Mr. Hayes, whether you want him excused, it’s no impact on me because his opinion, to me, is valued greatly, whether he wants it there or not. MR. THOMAS-The only reason he excused himself is because he is an adjoining neighbor, and Queensbury has an Ethics Law, and in order to avoid any difficulties now or in the future, I talked it over with Jamie and we decided it would be better if he bailed out. MR. GROSS-Okay. Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure if any of the neighbors have a problem with what I’ve done, I guess I’ll have to correct what I’ve done. 36 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. THOMAS-But that doesn’t preclude him from, at the public hearing, saying one way or the other. MR. GROSS-Okay. I was under the impression, I thought possibly it was 20 feet. I built the building. When Dave Hatin came out, I thought it was going to be a simple thing of getting a building permit. Two things happened to me. I thought cold storage didn’t need any planning review. Well, I stand corrected because I had previously asked that question, but it was for a building not touching another building. So, I got told I’ll go in front of the Planning Board, and then come to find out it is 30 feet, not 20 feet. So now I’m here to see you gentlemen and ask you if I can leave the building up. I’m just trying to run a business and trying to clean the place up. A few of you gentlemen I saw out there today, and then I was only there for half a day. You’ll see quite a bit of mess on the other side still. I mean, all that new fence. Everything you see I’ve done. I put a tremendous amount of money into the place. If you could see the inside of the block building upstairs, we’ve done a tremendous job with it. It was pretty run down. There was a gentleman that owned it, but in bankruptcy, and the whole thing was really a mess for about four years, and I picked it up. It’s really not much of an excuse. I’m just giving you a little history on it. So I cleaned it up, made myself a shop and office upstairs because I was renting a shop in Hudson Falls and had my office in my house, and that was not much liked by my neighbors, having my office in my home. So when this came up for auction, I grabbed it. I put money into it. I’ve moved out of Hudson Falls. I’ve moved to there. With the tax structure the way it is, not that it’s an excuse, I couldn’t burden Gross Electric with that overhead, with as much taxes and the largeness of the building. So what we did is, there’s an overhead crane in the metal building. We solicited and found an outfit out of Pennsylvania. I don’t know if you gentlemen are aware of mantros machines. They’ve rented it. There have been new jobs into the area. It’s been a plus for everybody. A plus for me, a plus for the Town, new jobs. Queensbury’s financed some of it for th them. Well, I couldn’t really get any commitments out of them until the 27, and they want to be in the first. So everything you see there, believe me, there’s thousands of dollars sitting in that little structure right now, and I want to get it closed in. So I’m just itching to get it finished and it’ll be done at a quality level. It’ll match the existing building. Everything I do, I do it in phases, and believe me, the end result is going to be quality. I think Bob’s, I think you’ve been down to my home in previous applications, and I do a nice job. A lot of people wonder what I’m going to do at the end, but I can assure you that it will look nice, and I needed a place to put that stuff, and other than renting other places to put it, I took a big chance putting it up, and I’m hoping you can grant me leaving it there, and I’ve gone through the expense of having an engineer study it and give twenty-five year water studies to make sure the runoff, and no way would I want to burden my neighbor with any kind of problem. We’ve put pipeage in. We’ve gone through the expense of buying more drainage culverts. As soon as I get the green light, I’ll have the excavator come in and contour that area, gravel it. All the water runoff will run into a basin. I think they’ve had Tom Nace engineer that and stamp that, just so you’re aware. It was total clutter, and I think Jamie will tell you. I had total clutter there, and I’m just trying to get everything to look better, neater. The reason for the metal roof between the buildings is simply just, it’s not going to be a, everything that I’ve done, that portion meets, other than the setback. I’m not putting walls on that. So there isn’t a fire rating on it. It’s just to park, we own about eight to ten trucks. About six are usually there. To park them in there in the winter and just avoid having to take an hour in the morning and shovel them off. MR. STONE-You’re talking between the two buildings? MR. GROSS-Right. MR. STONE-Where it’s open now? MR. GROSS-Yes, and you saw the red, did you see the red steel I had scarred? I put one piece across? There was a piece of red steel over your head. I’m going to put that red steel up and put a metal roof on it, and it’s going to alleviate a problem of having to try to plow between those buildings. It’s tough. We’ve hit the building a couple of times on both sides trying to plow that out. I mean, I’ll answer any other questions you have. The front of the place is going to be beautified by next year. I just can’t do everything at once, and we’re going to put shrubbery in and grass in. We just went through a major expense taking, even though I’m an electrical contractor, I’ve still got to pay the men. We took the overhead services down, put underground down. It was hideous, and we had to change off the meter. So instead of doing it, we could have done it much more economically. I decided to go for first class and I put everything underground. That’s why you see sand out front, and a little bit of divot, but that’ll change. MR. STONE-What about those propane tanks? Are they legal? 37 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. GROSS-Yes. Agway better make sure they’re legal. Agway put them in. So, you know, with any kind of luck, we’ll get NiMo to bring, they’re at Curtis, and with any kind of luck, they’ll bring gas down the street for us, if we can all petition for it on the street, possibly, and get rid of those propane tanks, but, no, they were just put in. MR. STONE-From a setback standpoint, I don’t know whether they count. MR. GROSS-No. Well, they don’t meet building codes. There’s a certain setback, and the reason you see two 500 gallon tanks is because, and they had to do it that way. I’ll be honest with you. I don’t know all the rules on that. They came in. If it’s wrong, they’re going to change it. Agway, it’s purely their expense, and I put the wooden fence, in the beginning, up and of course I raised it because the road level’s so much higher that I was trying to get rid of that, and believe me, I take a lot of pride in the way things look, and I’m not proud of the way there’s clutter right now, and I don’t like that. I want the driveway sealed, but to me that’s a big thing. To a lot of people that would be nothing, but to me it means a lot. My truck’s got to be washed. Everything has to be just right, and so that fence meant a lot, and the last thing my neighbor, Jamie, needs to do is look at that. I’ve asked him if the wire was offensive. If it was, I’d take it down. I’d take the higher level down if he didn’t want to look at it, but it’s not, it was better than letting it sit under the snow in the middle of the winter, you’ve got to go by it. MR. KARPELES-I’ve got to determine, in my own mind, if I would have approved this if you’d done it before the fact instead of after the fact. MR. GROSS-I understand. MR. KARPELES-In order to help me with that, why is it desirable that you built it there? MR. GROSS-The reason it’s so desirable is, this map isn’t 100% correct. I’m in litigation, right now there’s a 50 foot strip on the other side of the property, to the Cook’s side of the property. I’m in litigation for it. MR. KARPELES-You mean on the north side? MR. GROSS-Correct, on the north side. There should have been a dotted line put down there. I don’t legally own that 50 foot. So I could not go to the north side of this building. It also would have, obviously would have cut off any kind of roadway going into the back. The reason I first looked into putting in a cold storage building in the back, completely, I didn’t want to go behind Mantros machines because one of the stipulations for them to lease from me was that I’d be willing to, they’ve been putting machine lathes in there. They’re hiring six new people. They’ve got this vision. This business is going to skyrocket right off. One of the stipulations is that I would be willing to give another 40 feet off the back of that building. Now, of course, that’s contingent, again, on this Town, whether they’ll let me put up 40 more (lost words), but myself, I’m willing to go through the expense to put it up, as long as I can get some kind of long term lease out of them to warrant putting that up. So I couldn’t build behind them, and the big area behind, I’ll be honest with you, is that I’m just looking at the idea that if I would put a small structure. I consider this a small structure. Believe me. I would have loved much more, if I were to put a small structure back there, it took all my options away of putting another metal building back there. The whole reason for me to move out of my home with my office, which I was really comfortable, to moving to this location, was it’s industrial, and I’ve got this envisioned that hopefully I can try to make a retirement for myself and make my business a little, take a little burden off myself by possibly putting another building back there to bring in more jobs and another business. Now, whether or not I’d be able to be granted that at that time, I don’t know, but I’ll be honest with you. I am soliciting and looking at out of town businesses right now that may be interested in coming into this area, and I’ll build to suit. It’s so enticing being right off the Northway, and I’m trying to sell that feature, just like I’m trying to sell the lots at the end of the road, and I haven’t sold any eight of them yet, but that’s the idea behind it, and I’m not a real estate person. I run an electrical business, keep men working, but I’m just trying to dabble a little bit and I was trying to leave my option open, sir, to answer your question why I did pick that. I kind of looked at that as a dead space, area. MR. KARPELES-It would seem it is also more accessible to you than it would be for any other location on the property. 38 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. GROSS-It’s perfect. See, I have purchased a garage door to go on that end wall of my building, and I can just literally take my fork truck and drive it through there and never have to go outside. It’ll be cold, but at least it’ll be. MR. STONE-The west end is going to be closed in? MR. GROSS-They’ll have a garage door on both ends, and I’m still kind of fine tuning that with Dave Hatin, because it’s going to depend on what the rules are for fire ratings and that stuff, to be honest with you, but whatever it takes to make it, if he tells me leaving one end open, you know, I’m definitely going to close in the west end with a garage door, and if he tells me leaving the east end open relieves me of some of the fire problems, then I will do that, because if you notice, I fenced that little area in. It would be my little lock up area. So my tenants, I’m going to clean that right hand side. If they need some lay down area or something. I can’t, I’ve got to give them some space. I’d have that and I could still keep my lock up area. One roll of wire, no lie, could be $25,000, for what we install. We do all the industrial, you know, Finch Pruyn, IP. We wire the schools. Unfortunately we couldn’t get Queensbury. We were fourth bidder. MR. STONE-What’s going on behind you? You go back to that berm back there? MR. GROSS-That’s Pro Craft. I don’t own that property, sir. Yes, that’s really kind of how I got caught, to be honest with you. Dave was going back there to check on things buried in the ground, and he looked over and said, what’s Joe doing, and Dave and I know each other. He came right over and started chewing me a new but, and he was rightfully so. I couldn’t stand there and say much, other than, you know, I wanted to finish putting the metal siding on it and close up the insulation and kind of close that corner in so you’d see, because by then the damage was done. MR. STONE-Dave caught you because of the other guy? MR. GROSS-Yes. I’m not throwing stones. Had I been a little quicker and gotten it done, maybe he wouldn’t have noticed, but I was doing it myself because the contractor bailed out on me, but that’s pretty much the, any other questions? MR. THOMAS-I just have one question for the Staff. It says in the required relief in the Staff notes that the required setback is 30 feet. The proposed setback is approximately 18.8, and according to the drawing here, it looks like 21.7 to the corner of the building. Is that concrete covered? MR. GROSS-No, it isn’t. Do you see the cardboard? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. GROSS-That cardboard’s actually going to come to the end of the concrete. So that 21 may come down to, because of the angle of the thing there, it might end up turning 20 feet. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but what I’m talking about is where’d the 18.8 feet come from? Is that from the end of the concrete? MR. STONE-That’s at the very end by the concrete. MR. THOMAS-Is that structure? Is it building? MR. GROSS-It’s not going to be a structure, and what it’s going to be is, by putting that concrete in front of those wire spools, so my fork truck doesn’t keep getting stuck. MR. THOMAS-Well, you know that’s just a slab on the ground, right? MR. GROSS-Correct. MR. THOMAS-So that’s actually, we don’t have to take that into consideration. Do we? MR. ROUND-No, but you’ve got to understand. This has been in a state of development as it’s come to your attention. So I guess Joe needs to be clear in what relief he does need. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s what I’m driving at, because we have to give specific relief. 39 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. ROUND-Yes. So we need an exact distance to the corner of that carport, Joe, is what the Chairman’s looking for. MR. THOMAS-Well, the closest point, to me, looks like right now that 21.7 to the storage shed. MR. ROUND-The carport’s going to be a structure also. There’s going to be overhead structure at that point. MR. THOMAS-But that’s coming out how far? MR. GROSS-Well, it’s coming right out to that black line, sir. Right above that Number 10. It’s going to come out right above that Number 10 drywell. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So that’s going to extend down to here. MR. ROUND-To here, that’s why I use this number. MR. GROSS-And I guess Chris is right. I’m telling you that’s where it’s going to end, but I can’t tell you that number. I mean, I’m going to approximate it will end up being 20, but if you could relieve me. I’m going to say 20 maybe. MR. ROUND-20.25, something like that. MR. THOMAS-We don’t quibble over inches, but what if this concrete slab is covered all the way down? You don’t anticipate doing that? MR. GROSS-Not at all. No, I’ve gone through the expense of putting that steel rack up with the wire, and the roof over that, well, a little tiny four foot roof over that, and I’ll put, basically I just wanted to put the concrete there again, just so I can, I’m just going to sneak out under that catwalk, and use my forklift. They get stuck very easily. We bought the kind to go outside, but we’ve pulled it out with a back hoe quite a few times. MR. THOMAS-All right. Any more questions for Mr. Gross? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance, in favor of? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAUL HAYES MR. HAYES-My name is Paul Hayes. I’m Mr. Gross’s neighbor to the, immediate neighbor to the south. I’d just like to say that Mr. Gross, as far as I’m concerned has accurately depicted at least the history of the property, in terms of the neighbor before him was having financial difficulty, and he has spent a significant amount of money to improve a lot of the aspects of the property, and in doing so, he has often communicated with me in advance, and expressed my concerns quite well. So I guess in that way, I would say that as a neighbor I’m in favor of the variance. MR. THOMAS-All right. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of? Opposed? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Any correspondence? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for Mr. Gross? All right. Mr. McNally, back to you as Number One. MR. MC NALLY-I was impressed by Mr. Gross’s explanation of the history of the structure. I was disappointed that the application only came after the structure was built. It always seems to me that we’re subject to criticism from people, and they complain that if you get it built, the Board is simply going to approve it in a knee jerk fashion, and that’s not something I like to see, ever, but it is in an industrial area, and Mr. Gross would certainly benefit from the granting of this Area Variance. It will allow him to reserve the remaining balance of his property. He, I presume, has subleased to someone else. The impact on the neighborhood is nominal, however. So I think I’d be in favor of it, grudging favor, just because it’s after the fact. MR. GROSS-I understand. 40 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) MR. THOMAS-Brian? MR. CUSTER-Well, I, too, as the rest of the members of this Board have always stated, we don’t like it when it’s been done and you’ve got to come and ask us for forgiveness and all that stuff, but I think you’ve been more than chastised enough for that already tonight, and had you come before the Board asking for the variance with your reasoning, prior to doing this, I would have had no problems with it, with granting the variance. MR. THOMAS-Lew? MR. STONE-Well, I really thought we had our first chance at turning something down, but obviously I agree with everybody else. Your explanation was very candid, very clear, the fact that your neighbor, notwithstanding the fact that he is a fellow Board member, but his acceptance of your explanation and his acknowledgment of your good citizenry, if you will, in spite of the feeling that I have, that everybody else seems to have expressed that why does this have to happen. If you had come before us without doing anything, I would see no reason why we wouldn’t have granted, particularly in light of Mr. Hayes’ comments. So, again, reluctantly, I will vote yes. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. KARPELES-Yes. Once you get over your mad because it’s already built, then you see that it is the only thing that makes any sense, if you’re going to put an addition on there. So I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I look at the structure or building that’s already been built. I would look at it, as Bob does, you know, would I have granted a variance had the applicant come in before building the building. In this case, yes, I would have gone along with it, due to the fact that he can’t build behind the existing building, where Mantros Machine is, because of a commitment at some point in time to put an addition on there. I would have asked why he couldn’t go build it out back somewhere in the existing area in the rear. I can see that Mr. Gross wants to expand or possibly build another building back there for some other industrial or commercial use. I could see where, having been around the electric industry for 25 years, that Mr. Gross needs to have that space close to the workshop, and I know how heavy those wheels can be, and I know how much work that the industrial electricians do, and I know they don’t use those little breakers like they use in their house. I know most of that equipment weighs tons, and I know it has to be worked on before it gets put in place. So I have no objection as to granting a variance to put the building where it has already been started to be constructed. The only thing I would like to comment on, though, is something that Mr. Stone brought up as to the legality of those gas tanks being where they are, within the side yard setback of 30 feet. I have no idea what the requirement is for propane tanks above the ground, within the side line setback. So, if Staff would check on that. So, having said that. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-1997 JOSEPH & DEBRA GROSS , Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: Gross Electric. The applicant has constructed an addition to an existing warehouse, and the addition is a proposed storage area for equipment and vehicles. In order for this project to be legal, we must grant him a relief of 10 feet on the east end, and 4.4 feet on the west. The benefit to the applicant, construction of the additional warehouse will now be legal and he can finish it. There are alternatives where the building could be built, but they are not feasible, mainly because he has committed the land on the west side to another use, and it appears that this would be the most accessible point that it could be built as far as the existing building is concerned. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The requested relief is not substantial, as has been pointed out by the amount of relief that has to be granted, and the impact on the neighborhood or community is minimal, and his closest neighbor to the south has spoken in favor of this variance, so therefore it has no negative neighborhood problems. There are no physical or environmental adverse effects known, other than possibly the propane tank, which is to be investigated by the Staff. The difficulty is self created because it was built before the fact, before the building permit was issued. th Duly adopted this 15 day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas 41 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/15/97) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Hayes, Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-There you be. So you and Mr. Hatin hash it out. MR. GROSS-Thank you, gentlemen. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 42