Loading...
1997-09-17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY PAUL HAYES LEWIS STONE ROBERT MC NALLY ROBERT KARPELES BRIAN CUSTER CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER -CHRIS ROUND STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-1997 TYPE II CR-15 BERNARD PALMER, SR. OWNER: TH SAME AS ABOVE MAIN STREET, SOUTH SIDE OF STREET, 4 HOUSE PAST RICHARDSON STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO OPERATE A CRAFT AND ANTIQUE SHOP IN A PORCH ATTACHED TO THEIR RESIDENCE, WHICH IS ON A 0.17 ACRE LOT. SECTION 179-24, COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL, REQUIRES ONE ACRE IN ORDER TO OPERATE A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS, SO RELIEF IS SOUGHT. APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED THE PORCH AND WILL NEED TO BUILD A HANDICAPPED RAMP, BOTH OF WHICH REQUIRE RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-24, AND FROM SECTION 179-28, TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE, WHICH REQUIRES A 75-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE EDGE OF THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 8/13/97 CROSS REF. SPR 27-97 TAX MAP NO. 131-5-24 LOT SIZE 0.17 ACRES SECTION 179-24 BERNARD PALMER, SR., PRESENT MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, in a continuing effort to avoid any kind of conflict of interest, I will recuse myself from this. MR. THOMAS-Yes, sir. MRS. LAPHAM-All right. So I would just read the new. That’s all I have that’s new. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Just read those new Staff Notes. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 44-1997, Bernard Palmer, Sr., Meeting Date: 9/17/97 “Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a porch which requires setback relief from the requirements of the CR-15 zone (Section 179-24) and the Travel Overlay zone (179-28). The applicant proposes operation of a commercial business (craft shop) in the referenced porch. Operation of a commercial enterprise in the CR-15 zone requires 1 acre of land (Section 179-24). Relief is also requested from the referenced setback requirements for the construction of a handicap access ramp. Relief required: RELIEF REQUIRED: Front Setback Proposed 19 ft.; Required 75 ft.; Side Setback East Proposed 14 ft.; Required 25 ft.; Side Setback West Proposed 20 ft. 22 Required 25 ft.; Area Proposed 7,500 ft. Required 43,560 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted operation of a commercial enterprise, and 2. Feasible alternatives: be permitted to construct structures for that purpose. Applicant could not construct porch to meet the setback requirements. Applicant could not operate a commercial 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: enterprise without relief requested. 4. Effects on the Setback relief and area requirement relief is interpreted as substantial. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) neighborhood or community: The Main Street corridor is zoned commercial with an increasing 5. Is this difficulty number of commercial enterprises located in existing residential structures. self created? Construction of a porch in advance of the granting of a variance is a self-created Parcel History (construction/site difficulty. The lot area requirement is not self created. plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments: None applicable The CR-15 setbacks and the Travel overlay setbacks were established to provide for the orderly development of Main Street corridor and for future highway improvements that may be required as a result of increase traffic. The proposed project is subject to site plan review. Issues that should be addressed as part of a site plan review include; access, parking, signage, and landscaping. The applicant proposes parking at the front/main street side of the structure with limited access to Main Street. Parking should be SEQR Status: directed to the rear of the property to minimize traffic interference. Type II” MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Palmer, do you have anything you want to add? MR. PALMER-Yes. I’ve got a new diagram there. MR. THOMAS-Yes. We have that. MR. PALMER-You’ve got the new one? MR. THOMAS-This is the one we’ve got. MR. PALMER-Could I come up there? MR. THOMAS-Yes. There’s no date on this one. MR. PALMER-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Is that the same one? MR. PALMER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anything you’d like to add to what you’ve already said from last month? MR. PALMER-Well, I think the concern last month was I didn’t fill out the whole sheet, and the concern was the wheelchair access, which I now have on the diagram, and another concern was pulling in and pulling out, and I think they told me I need a place to be able to park two cars. So it is questionable, with Chris, if I can get two cars in the front. So what I propose to do is tear down the garage and they can park out back also. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So you’re going to be able to get two parking spaces in the front, along with being able to access the ramp with the handicap ramp? MR. PALMER-I think so, but I’m going to have parking out back, too, just in case. I am tearing that garage down. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Chris, how many handicapped parking spaces does he need? MR. ROUND-He needs one spot. MR. THOMAS-He needs one spot. So you could conceivably get the one spot in the front, with no problem, because that’s 15 and a half feet wide. MR. PALMER-Well, the front is 50 feet wide. MR. THOMAS-No, I mean, you know, from the property line back to the access ramp. MR. PALMER-Yes, right. MR. THOMAS-Right, is 15 feet 8 inches you have on this diagram. MR. PALMER-Right. MR. THOMAS-So, I don’t know. Is that more than the width of a handicapped parking spot? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. ROUND-The width wasn’t as a concern as the length of the spot, 20 feet is typical parking reg. So if you’re parking parallel to Main Street, if you had two spots, you’re going to have to have one either dead end or access from the south, or the east side of the site. If there’s two parking spots end to end, you have 40 foot total length of parking spots. Fifty foot wide lot, so that’s 10 foot of access in that, from an access point, we need 20 feet for ingress and egress. MR. HAYES-As far as the turning radius and all that other? MR. ROUND-That’s not presented. That’s not, I didn’t look at it that way. It’s my interpretation that it be looked at at site plan approval. They could address those concerns. MR. THOMAS-Okay, but he only needs one. MR. ROUND-One handicapped spot. So he feasibly could site a handicapped spot in front of the property. MR. THOMAS-In the front of the property. MR. ROUND-Right. MR. THOMAS-Okay. And then how many parking spaces out back? MR. ROUND-He’s going to need a minimum of four total, one handicapped and three additional, because there’s two uses in the property. You have a residential use and then a commercial use. So you’d need two for each use. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. ROUND-So, I mean, there appears to be, there’s enough area in the rear of the property. MR. THOMAS-Okay. That takes care of the parking concern. He can fit it all in there no problem. MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Is there anything else you want to say? MR. PALMER-I don’t think so, sir. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I left the public hearing open. Would anyone like to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No, not that I’ve seen. MR. THOMAS-Read that Warren County thing I just saw you flip through. The Warren County Planning Board resolution, because it was approved with conditions. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Warren County, “At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, th held on the 13 day of September 1997, the above application for an Area Variance to operate a craft shop on existing front porch was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: With the condition that the means of egress/ingress would be such that a curb cut would limit access into the front yard area and the cars would be parked in an east-west direction, therefore parallel to the road. Configure the parking as to encourage driving onto the road rather than backing onto the road. This does not have to be a formal curb cut, it could be fencing or landscaping, just so that it is an impediment to traffic backing out.” Signed Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Do you understand what they were saying about that? MR. PALMER-Yes. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. THOMAS-Okay. All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Lets go down through and see what everybody thinks. Brian, we’ll start with you. MR. CUSTER-I’d like to apologize a little bit, because I was not here for the original night of the presentation. So I might be missing some background information. Mr. Palmer, looking at your diagram, the wheelchair access ramp, that is going to be built as it’s outlined there? MR. PALMER-Yes, right there on the side of the porch. MR. CUSTER-So you’re actually looking for greater than 19 feet of setback. It’s actually going to be 15 feet 8 inches from the road. MR. PALMER-From my property line, it will be 15 feet 8 inches. From the road, the white line on the road, it’s 29 feet 8 inches, and then you’ve got your, between the white line and my property line, you’ve got 5 foot of shoulder, and then my front yard, and then 5 more foot and then it’s the property line. MR. CUSTER-I’m clarifying because on the Staff Notes, I’m looking at 19 feet. So it should actually be 15 feet 8 inches, correct, Chris? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. PALMER-Fifteen feet eight inches from the front of the porch, from the front of the wheelchair ramp. MR. THOMAS-Yes, right, to the property line, because that’s the closest point to the right-of-way of the structure. MR. PALMER-Right. MR. THOMAS-So that would be. MRS. LAPHAM-And you’re supposed to have 75. MR. THOMAS-You’re supposed to have 75, and he has 15’8”, not 19. MR. CUSTER-And the application, if I’m not mistaken, is the porch area is the only retail portion, right? The main house is still going to be used residential? And it’s already up. I’m not sure if you came to us even prior to building it whether I’d grant a variance. I’d like to kind of hear what the rest of the Board has to say, but I’m not real positive here at this point. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob McNally? MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Palmer, can you tell me, how was it that this porch was built? What was the process and procedure that you went through to get that? MR. PALMER-I called Mr. Hatin and told him that I wanted to build a porch. I was taking my other porch down, and I wanted to put in a craft shop. I wanted to open up a business, and he sent me to Mr. Goralski, and I told him the same thing, and they said draw up the plans, there shouldn’t be any problems, and I believe my wife did the same thing, and she talked to somebody. We had a porch on there to start with. MR. CUSTER-Is the new porch on the footprint of the old porch? MR. PALMER-It’s about two foot wider, toward the road. I’m just guessing that. It’s the same length. MR. MC NALLY-But going back, you spoke with Mr. Goralski, and what happened then? Did you get a building permit or any other permits? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. PALMER-Yes. We told them right off that we wanted to open up a business, a craft shop, and they told me to get the plans and take them up to them, and I took them up to them, and I talked to a young lady, and she said I don’t see any problem with it. MR. MC NALLY-And then you just went ahead and started building? MR. PALMER-Well, we got a building permit. MR. MC NALLY-You said the porch is two feet wider than the old one. MR. PALMER-I’m just guessing on that. I would say that. MR. MC NALLY-How much longer is it? MR. PALMER-It’s the same thing as the other one, because they put it the same place where the other one was ripped down. MR. MC NALLY-Now, you haven’t torn down your garage yet, have you? MR. PALMER-No. MR. MC NALLY-And when did you buy this place? MR. PALMER-1973. MR. MC NALLY-You’ve resided there as your home ever since? MR. PALMER-That’s right. MR. MC NALLY-I’ll be honest. When I’ve gone by there several times, since your initial application. I was concerned that using just the front portion of the porches as a commercial property would cause some major problems regarding density and parking and cars. I’m not convinced that if I’m asked to balance the interests of the community against Mr. and Mrs. Palmer’s economic interests in starting a commercial business in their home, that I’d be inclined to vote in their favor. It seems a deviation, the magnitude of the deviation is relatively substantial. We’re looking at property which is on a lot, as I understand it, of something like 7500 square feet, but if it were to be converted to commercial use, even if it’s okay in that zone, would require an acre of land. Front yard setback, maybe 21 feet, 19 feet. It’s usually supposed to be 75. Side yard should be 25. You’re proposing 11 and 14, on one side, and on the other side, 17 and a quarter feet. I think by converting it to commercial use on such a small lot that it would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood, and it would pose a greater traffic problem along Main Street, and I think the lot’s too small. MR. PALMER-Do you know that there’s a business right next door to me? MR. MC NALLY-I’m very well aware of those other businesses. MR. PALMER-With the same size lot. MR. MC NALLY-Well, that may be, but you’re coming to me and asking for this application. No one came to me before. I wasn’t around at that time, but that’s my impression, sir. MR. THOMAS-Does anybody else have any questions? MR. KARPELES-Well, I kind of wonder about this building permit. MR. CUSTER-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Could Staff clarify that? MR. ROUND-I wasn’t on board originally, but my understanding was that Mr. Palmer did indeed apply for a building permit. There may have been some confusion as to what the building permit was for. I did review the building permit. I was under the impression that the original application was for replacement of a roof structure or improvement of a porch, in regards to the roof, and I 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) don’t know what other communications were involved. So sometimes things do get clarified at the time of application that may have not been noted on the application, and that’s as much as I have to offer on that. MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Palmer, you don’t have your building permit application here by any chance, do you? MR. PALMER-I brought it. MR. MC NALLY-May I take a look at it? MR. CUSTER-Yes, can we look at that please. MR. PALMER-That’s what it says. It says roof over porch. MR. MC NALLY-This is the permit. You don’t have any of the materials that you submitted to the Building Department, do you? The application? In other words, you indicated that you were going to use this as a commercial business, and I was wondering if maybe in that application you had any such materials. MR. PALMER-The only thing I have is what my builder submitted, as to what he was going to build. MR. MC NALLY-Did you file for the permit yourself, or did your builder? MR. PALMER-My builder. MR. MC NALLY-Who is he? MR. PALMER-Richard Lansette. MR. MC NALLY-Lansette. Well, if I look at your permit, sir, it says it’s for roof over porch. Can you explain maybe how it was that the permit was issued for that, but you requested one for a commercial? MR. PALMER-I don’t know that. I didn’t pick up the permit. He did. MR. HAYES-Is it possible to get a copy of that from the office? MR. THOMAS-Yes. You probably wouldn’t be able to get it until tomorrow at the earliest. MR. PALMER-You know, we’re not trying to pull the wool over anybody’s eyes. We told them up front that we wanted to open up a craft shop, and I did that before I even ripped the old porch off. MR. KARPELES-Well, how could they ever grant a building permit without a variance? For even a roof over a porch. MR. ROUND-Well, it was an existing porch, and apparently it was replacement of an existing over an existing porch. MR. KARPELES-An existing roof. I see. MR. PALMER-I’d just like to say something, one comment about messing up the traffic on the Main Street. A craft shop is not going to be that busy, and a couple three more cars on that street isn’t going to bother anything. There’s more cars and traffic problems on that street. So a few more cars isn’t going to bother it. I wouldn’t think so. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone have any other comments for Mr. Palmer? MR. PALMER-And my neighbors would like to get it open because they’d like to come over, and most of them would be walking. So you don’t have to worry about driving their cars over there. MR. THOMAS-Well, if there’s no more questions for the applicant, Bonnie, what do you think, yes, no, maybe? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MRS. LAPHAM-Maybe. I tend to lean in the direction of Bob McNally and Brian, in that I think that’s a very congested area, and this is going to make it worse. I also fail to see how what was originally intended as a building permit for a repair, is what it sounds like, suddenly became a whole new porch and a craft shop, before coming here, but yet when you go up and down the main street, all his neighbors do have little businesses there. So, as I said, I’m not quite sure yet, but I’m probably less inclined than I am inclined. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. KARPELES-I tend to agree with Bob. I think 15 feet 8 inches setback, front setback is a long, long way from 75 feet. It’s a tremendous amount of relief. I also think that 7500 square feet as opposed to an acre is a tremendous amount of relief, and I think that although one shop might not create that much traffic, we are setting a precedent where a bunch of shops like that are going to create a lot more traffic, in an already congested area. So I’m leaning against it right now. I kind of, like Bonnie, I’m open. MR. THOMAS-Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, it’s a difficult question in a difficult area. I mean, certainly the Main Street corridor there has a myriad of businesses, as Mr. Palmer has pointed out, that are open and running there, many of which are not in compliance, but like the other Board members, it seems that in a balancing test, that this seems to be a lot of relief that’s being asked, and it’s difficult to overcome that in the long run. So I would say I’m probably leaning against as well. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’m leaning against it also, because it is a large request of relief from the setbacks. The applicant is asking for 59 feet, 4 inches from the front setback, 9 feet from the east side, 5 feet from the west side, 26,000 square feet from the total area. Also we have to take into consideration the two times the lot width on an arterial, which would require 300 feet of lot front, and the applicant only has 50. So we’re looking at 250 feet of relief on that. That’s an awful lot of relief, but on the other hand, you know, the Ordinance says he can have it, but he needs an acre of land. I’d like to give it to him, but I really can’t. So, having said that, I’ll entertain a motion. MR. PALMER-Can I say something, sir? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. PALMER-It’s supposed to be 75 feet from the road back? MR. THOMAS-To your closest point, yes. MR. PALMER-You know that all the businesses on that street, I don’t think any of them are 75 feet, except for the new drug store. Over on Western Avenue, they’re building a new shopping center, and that’s not 75 feet from the road. MR. THOMAS-I don’t think that’s in a CR-15 zone, either. DIANA PALMER MRS. PALMER-So that particular zone that you’re talking about is only where our property is? MR. THOMAS-Yes. It’s up and down, well, it’s from. MRS. PALMER-Is it all of Main Street, or is it just the area? MR. THOMAS-Yes. It’s most of Main Street. I would say just west of where the new shopping center is, out to the Northway. Yes, I think that whole corridor in there is CR-15, and as far as those other businesses that are there, they must have been there before zoning, you know, zoning laws were changed. MRS. PALMER-When were the zoning laws changed? MR. THOMAS-I think it’s 1/25/93. That’s the date I have on this. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. PALMER-There’s no way we can comply to the new zoning laws, because our house was built in the 1930’s. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but the porch wasn’t. MR. PALMER-The porch that was there was. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but that was just the porch at the time. MR. PALMER-I could have just enclosed it, but I had to tear it down because it was old, and the structure wasn’t very good. So we tore it down, to be on the safe side. MR. THOMAS-Then again you put another one back up, just a little bigger than the one that was there. There’s no problem with that, because you said it was, what, two feet wider, or two feet deeper than the existing one. This one here says it’s 12 feet. The existing one was probably 10 feet, 9 feet, 10 feet, somewhere in there. We know that you have to replace structures from time to time, because they get old, like that. There’s no problem there, but the problem here is that you use that structure, and you’re changing the use of it, from a porch to a retail operation. MR. PALMER-We said that up front. We told them that up front, and I don’t think you’d believe us, but we told them that up front, and if you got Mr. Hatin here or Mr. Goralski here, I would tell them that. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Well, I was hoping Mr. Goralski was going to be here. MR. PALMER-And also the man next door to me, he just opened up his business, and it was past 1993, and next door to him, Impressive Imprints, that was past 1993. MR. THOMAS-I’ve been here for five years, which is 1992, and I don’t remember ever hearing any variances for those businesses to come in here, because they would require an acre. They’d have to go through the same thing you are right now. MR. PALMER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-And I don’t remember seeing them, and how they got in there, I couldn’t tell you. MR. PALMER-They were here. The man next door said he didn’t have any trouble. He’s got the same lot size I do, and the man next door to him, all he said is you need a wheelchair ramp, which you told me last time I was here, and I’m building a wheelchair ramp. MR. THOMAS-Well, what’s the pleasure of the Board, here? Do you want to move it? MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-1997 BERNARD PALMER, SR. , Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: The applicant has constructed a porch which requires setback relief from the requirements of a CR-15 zone and the Travel Overlay zone. The applicant proposes operation of a commercial business in the referenced porch. Operation of a commercial enterprise in the CR-15 zone requires one acre of land. Relief is also required from the referenced setback requirement for the construction of a handicapped ramp. The distance from the edge of the handicapped access ramp, the setback would be 15 feet 8 inches, and 75 feet is required. This is a tremendous amount of relief, and the area of the lot is 7500 square feet, and the required area is 43,560 square feet, which is again a tremendous amount of relief. The two side setbacks are also substantial, although not in the magnitude of the others. I believe that this relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance, and will have a negative effect on the community and neighborhood, due to increased traffic and setting a precedent for granting this type of relief in that area. The fact that the porch was built without getting a variance is a self-created difficulty. Since the porch is already constructed, we will grant a setback relief of 56 feet front setback, but this is to be used for non commercial purposes. th Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: MR. CUSTER-Could I just clarify something? MR. THOMAS-Go ahead. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. CUSTER-If we vote this way, then he has to take the whole porch down? I don’t think we want to do that, do we? MR. KARPELES-I don’t know. I would just think you can’t use it as a commercial enterprise. That’s the way I would understand it. MR. CUSTER-Yes. I wouldn’t mind if the porch stays, but. MR. THOMAS-Well, he has a right to replace the porch, because of the structure itself, but we can put it in there, if it makes you feel more comfortable, that the porch will stay as it was previous to the renovation of it, or replacement of it. MR. PALMER-I had a building permit to build the porch. MR. CUSTER-I just wanted to be clear on that. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. KARPELES-That’s a good point. MR. ROUND-Mr. Chairman, you should clarify that the front setback, that you would permit the 19 foot front setback, because apparently it was an expansion of a previous existing nonconforming setback, and so if you did grant that front setback and denied the commercial use, I think you would be. MR. THOMAS-That would cover it? MR. ROUND-That would cover it. MR. THOMAS-And there would be no mistake. MR. ROUND-Right. So that we’re not in an enforcement action to tear down that porch, because there is some question as regards to the original size and the new size. So I think that would cover all basis. MR. CUSTER-So it would be a negative, positive motion. MR. THOMAS-Yes, something like that. AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. THOMAS-So the application is denied. MRS. PALMER-I’d like to say something, please, before we leave. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MRS. PALMER-Do you people have anything to do with who issues these permits? I mean, I know you’re the Zoning Board. You have nothing to do with that? MR. THOMAS-No. The only thing the Zoning Board of Appeals is here to do is we grant relief from the law. We don’t make the laws. We don’t enforce them. We grant relief from them. MRS. PALMER-So that’s another whole area altogether? MR. THOMAS-That’s Mr. Round’s area, down there, with building permits. MRS. PALMER-Because apparently there was a lot of confusion between what was granted by the contractor to what we have, and why we were denied today. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. PALMER-Thank you for letting us leave the porch there, but I just kind of wonder, is it my property or yours? AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-1997 TYPE II WR-1A CEA HARRY RUECKER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE GUNN LANE, OFF OF CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A DECK ATTACHED TO AN EXISTING HOME. THE DECK WILL NOT MEET THE SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN SECTION 179-16, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8/13/97 TAX MAP NO. 12-3-18.4 LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES SECTION 179-16 HARRY RUECKER, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-Just let the record show that Mr. Ruecker has submitted a new plot plan, showing a reduced area of the deck, reduced from, I think it was a 20 foot setback to a 35 foot setback from the lake front. Is there anything else you’d like to add there, Mr. Ruecker? Nothing? MR. STONE-Is that 35 feet, is that what that is? MR. THOMAS-Yes, 35 feet from the shoreline to the deck. MR. THOMAS-How many square feet is that deck now? MR. RUECKER-The measurements are there. MR. ROUND-I didn’t calculate it. MR. STONE-Well, there’s 100, and there’s about 200. It’s about 400 and something. MR. ROUND-Yes. I get roughly 450 square feet, assuming a 10 by 25 attached to the house or to the existing deck, and assuming a roughly 10 by 20 dimension on the other odd shaped portion off. So it’s between four and four hundred and fifty square feet. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Does anyone else have any questions for the applicant? If not, I left the public hearing open. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-So we’re basically ending up with 15 feet of relief from the lake? MR. THOMAS-From the front setback, yes. All right. I’ll start with you, Lew, since you weren’t here for the last one. MR. STONE-Well, I’m very pleased that Mr. Ruecker has seen fit to listen to our concerns, in terms of closeness to the lake is concerned. I would certainly prefer to be 50 feet from the lake, but 35 is certainly better than 20, and I would be inclined to go along with it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. KARPELES-I have no problem with this. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-No, not with the alterations. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. McNally down there at the end. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. MC NALLY-Yes. I’d be more of a stickler for the letter of the law, but it is a substantial reduction on your original request, sir. That was a very substantial deck. I see that there’s a camp apparently to the south of your home. Is that sir? MR. RUECKER-That is a home. He would be very insulted if Jerry Hewlett were here and you called it a camp. He would have come by and speak in favor of it tonight, but then I would have had to take him home, and I can’t take him home, because I have to go back to work. MR. MC NALLY-Would it be fair to say, though, that that camp is close to the lake? MR. RUECKER-Is that camp close to the lake? MR. MC NALLY-Yes, sir. MR. RUECKER-Very close. MR. MC NALLY-And that the deck that you’re proposing is further from the lake than the existing structure right next to you? MR. RUECKER-Absolutely. Is it back further? MR. MC NALLY-No, is it closer to the lake? MR. RUECKER-Than his home? MR. MC NALLY-Lets start again. MR. RUECKER-Go ahead, start again. MR. MC NALLY-Your proposed deck as you’ve amended it further from the lake? MR. RUECKER-My proposed deck. MR. MC NALLY-Is further from the lake than his existing structure? MR. RUECKER-No. It is not closer to the lake than his existing structure. MR. MC NALLY-Is it further from the lake? How’s that? MR. RUECKER-What do you really want to know here? Do you want to know if this deck is closer to the water than my neighbor’s home? MR. MC NALLY-It’s not, right? MR. RUECKER-Correct, it is not. MR. MC NALLY-I would approve it. MR. RUECKER-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Brian? MR. CUSTER-I’m not even going to get involved with this. I think it’s okay. MR., THOMAS-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree. We asked for a change, and he gave one. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I have no problem with this one here as long as that deck stays a deck and it is not ever enclosed. That’s the only thing that I’ve seen happen before. We’ve granted relief for decks, and two years later they’re closed in, and it becomes living area rather than a deck. So I would put that stipulation in the motion. MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, the one thing I would ask. Can somehow we date or mark this as an exhibit, this particular submission? There’s no date or anything on it. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. CUSTER-On the diagram. MR. STONE-On the diagram. MR. RUECKER-Put today’s date on it. MR. THOMAS-Take the original, find one that says 35 feet on it. Okay. Write on it “Original”, put today’s date on it, 9/17/97, and put your initials under it. Okay. Any more questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-1997 HARRY RUECKER , Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: To construct a deck attached to an existing home on Gunn Lane off Cleverdale Road, which does not meet the shoreline setback requirements in a WR-1A zone. I move that he be given permission to construct a deck, as depicted in the map submitted this evening, in accordance with an original map dated 9/17/97. The extent of the setback is to be 35 feet from the water frontage, and this variance is to be granted only with the stipulation that the deck is constructed as depicted in the diagram, and further, that it be used only for deck purposes, and that it never be enclosed or otherwise used for residential purposes. I find that the extent of the relief requested, in view of the fact that he’s cut back on his plans, is insubstantial. When balancing the interest of the public and Mr. Ruecker, I find that we should grant that variance. th Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-So get a building permit for the deck as shown on the print submitted today. MR. RUECKER-Okay. A couple of questions. If this deck is not attached to the home, it’s not attached to the home, and it’s on the surface of the ground, I understand I don’t need a building permit, correct? MR. ROUND-No. It would still be considered a structure, and you still would require a building permit. MR. RUECKER-Well, these contractors are not all singing on the same hymn sheet here. MR. ROUND-I guess you’d have to consult with our Building Department. It’s not my avenue of expertise. MR. RUECKER-All right. I was told if it was not attached to the house, I would not need a building permit. Okay. I’ll check that out. MR. ROUND-Yes. I can’t answer that for you. MR. RUECKER-Okay. My other question is, as I’m building this, if I don’t like this little jog or whatever else that I put in there, and it doesn’t look right, and I set it back even more than 35 feet. Say I set it back 40 feet. You’re not going to have any objection of me changing my conformity here? MR. THOMAS-No, because the setback is a minimum, or a, what is it, a minimum of 35 feet to the lake front. MR. RUECKER-Right. MR. THOMAS-If you want to go back 40 feet from the lake front. You can’t go any closer. MR. RUECKER-No. I’m just saying, I just heard words here, and I’ve got to pick this out very carefully now, when you said exactly the way it is drawn. It’s definitely not going to be more than 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) 35 feet from the lake, but it might not be exactly the way it is drawn. I might have a little curve in it. I might have, I don’t know yet. MR. THOMAS-Well, how about we say as substantially as depicted in the drawing. We don’t know the square footage. Well, as long as he doesn’t go back any closer than 35 feet, and doesn’t encroach on the side setbacks. MR. ROUND-Well, we tend to get in trouble when we say “approximately” or “in general conformance”. We’ve had a couple of issues that are before us currently, and if Mr. Ruecker proposes a different layout, a different structure, that he make that known to the Board. MR. THOMAS-Okay. That sounds fair. MR. RUECKER-Come back again? I thought the main reason I was here was because of the lake. MR. THOMAS-Yes. That’s the only relief you need from. MR. RUECKER-But I really don’t want somebody to come by and say, hey, Jesus, all of a sudden you’ve got a big curve on here and it’s not straight, that’s all. MR. THOMAS-I don’t see, as long as Mr. Ruecker is no closer than 35 feet to the lake, and meets the side setbacks, as long as it’s within that envelope, I don’t see any problem there. MR. MC NALLY-But when I made the motion, though, I don’t want to see a deck 35 feet from the lake, to fill in all those empty spaces there. MR. ROUND-That’s where we would get in trouble. MR. THOMAS-Yes. That’s where we run into a problem. MR. MC NALLY-He shows a deck where a point approaches the lake, and it seems like a minimal intrusion. If he’s suddenly going to fill in everything up until 35 feet to the lake, I have a problem with that, maybe. MR. RUECKER-You also approved on the square footage. MR. MC NALLY-If he does that, I don’t want that. I’ll deny it. MR. CUSTER-Yes. I see what you’re saying. I agree. MR. RUECKER-I’m not following you. MR. CUSTER-If you square off the edges. MR. MC NALLY-If you start going like this, sir, that’s not. MR. RUECKER-No, I don’t want that. MR. MC NALLY-I know that, but that’s not what I made the motion for. MR. RUECKER-I agree, but I don’t want to make it like that. MR. THOMAS-We’ll leave it as depicted. MR. KARPELES-Just say as per the drawing. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s, you know, I think we’ll leave it as per the drawing, as Bob said. If he wants to change it, he’ll have to come back and see us. If it changes from that drawing. MR. RUECKER-No problem, thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-1997 TYPE II SR-1A LARRY CLUTE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CORNER OF RALPH ROAD AND EISENHOWER APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A LOT WHICH WILL RESULT IN TWO LOTS. THE PROPOSED LOTS WILL NOT MEET THE AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SR-1A ZONE. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE AREA REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN SECTION 179-19, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 120-1-60.1 LOT SIZE: 1.39 ACRES SECTION 179-19 LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-The public hearing had been opened, and I left it open. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. “Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Meeting Date: August 27, 1997 Variance File No. 42-1997 Area Variance Tabled Motion to Table Area Variance No. 42- 1997 and Area Variance No. 43-1997 Larry Clute, Introduced by Chris Thomas, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: For a period of up to 62 days, so that the owner/applicant of the property can come in and present his case for a decision by the Board. Duly adopted this th 27 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes. Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE Signed Bonnie M. Lapham, Secretary, Zoning Board of Appeals” MR. THOMAS-Mr. Clute. MR. CLUTE-Yes, sir. I apologize for my absent mindedness at the last meeting. I got a little involved in my children’s school shopping. It went over my head. I simply forgot about the last meeting. So my apologies. MR. THOMAS-All right. Is there anything you’d like to add to your application? MR. CLUTE-No, sir. I think it’s pretty straight forward. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there any questions for the applicant? MR. CUSTER-I have a question. When you bought the land, was the zoning different? How long ago did you buy that? MR. CLUTE-It depends on how you look at it, I guess. I’ve been in the process of trying to purchase this land for just shy of four years. Just finally gained possession, kind of went from the State back to the County and all over the place, but it was small zoning over there all the lots. It was SR-20 or something like that, but I don’t know when that was, to be honest with you. I don’t know if that was when my interest was sparked in it or not. MR. CUSTER-Because that little development behind those two lots, those lot sizes are more in the size of what you’re looking to get to. MR. CLUTE-Yes, to be honest with you, yes. The average lot sizes in that, if you’re considering it a neighborhood, the average lot size of the neighborhood is 16,000, and what I’m looking for, roughly, is basically the same thing. One of the lots, if split, would be two 18’s, and the other lot would be two 22’s. So in all actuality, I’d be a little larger than average lot sizes for the neighborhood. MR. CUSTER-Thank you. MR. STONE-I don’t know which one we’re talking about, the one with the diagonal line. MR. CLUTE-The one with the diagonal line would be the larger of the two lots that I’m looking to split. That one with the diagonal line would be, if the variance is granted, would be two 22,000 square foot lots. MR. STONE-Right. How would that work in terms of house placement and things like that? MR. CLUTE-I’d place them at an angle. The one on the corner, I was going to angle toward the corner. The one directly behind it could follow the same angle. There’s no extension of that street, of that Eisenhower. So in all actuality, it would be kind of appealing. It would be the last house on the right. So it would be the same angle as the corner lot house, which would be angled. MR. STONE-And so facing northeast, approximately? 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. CLUTE-Pretty much, yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Of course that would actually put it into the development a little more, the Geneva Place. MR. CLUTE-Which, the further one, or the corner? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, both of them, if they’re angled northeast, they would be looking back kind of into the Geneva Place development. There’s a circle there. MR. CLUTE-Actually, I think it would give you a little bit more relief, because if I were to put it, say, straight onto Ralph, if I put it straight on Eisenhower, then it would give you a further buffer between Geneva and the new housing. If I were to put it straight on Ralph Road, then I think you’d be a little bit closer to the first house. At an angle, it lends to a little bit more back yard, I guess, or buffer zone between those existing houses. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. MR. CLUTE-Because I’m trying to leave, there’s like an existing buffer now. I don’t want to call it undergrowth. It’s a little more than undergrowth, between all the housing now and that would stay in place, essentially, and that’s, the property lines are right in that growth. MRS. LAPHAM-I get it now. Geography was not my forte. When you said angles, you lost me. MR. MC NALLY-So I understand which ones we’re talking about, do we know which variance applies to which two lots? MR. HAYES-Looking at our sheets, which variance is the first variance. MR. CLUTE-Honestly, I don’t know. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll make that decision. MR. CLUTE-Okay. MR. STONE-No, 43 is the 18,000 one. MR. HAYES-That’s what I’m asking. MR. THOMAS-Yes, 42 would be the one on the left. MR. HAYES-Okay. That’s what I wanted to know. MR. THOMAS-Forty-three is on the right. MR. STONE-Right. MR. HAYES-You built other homes in that neighborhood, Mr. Clute? MR. CLUTE-Yes, a substantial amount of them, yes. Every one of them in Geneva, and a good portion of them on Dawn Road. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? MR. MC NALLY-You want us to subdivide it just so you can build the four homes? There’s nothing that would prevent you from building a home on each of those two lots as they’re now set out? MR. CLUTE-No, nothing would prevent me from building the homes. It would prevent me from building the homes affordably, and able to sell them in that neighborhood. Yes, and, no, I would not be able to build homes and sell them in that neighborhood. I could build a home, yes, but I wouldn’t be able to really do anything in that neighborhood, otherwise, without splitting them down. MR. MC NALLY-And you said you’ve been chasing this land for four years? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. CLUTE-I chase any land in that neighborhood. I live, personally, right there in that neighborhood. So any piece of property that comes up for sale or for any reason, I chase. MR. MC NALLY-When did you buy it? MR. CLUTE-I just finally gained possession of it, truly possession of it, only two weeks ago, to be honest with you. I submitted for this prior to actually having title to the property, but I knew it was going to happen four years ago, to be honest with you. It was just a big legal chase. The properties are difficult over there. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions? If not, I’ll open the public hearing, and the public hearing is already opened. Would anyone like to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-Well, there was from Queen Victoria’s Grant Homeowners Association, but I read that last time. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-So I wouldn’t read it again. MR. THOMAS-No. It’s already been read into the record from the last time. MRS. LAPHAM-Right. MR. ROUND-The letter wasn’t in regard to this particular action. It was in regard to another matter that, a piece of land that Mr. Clute owns that they were looking at utilizing for stormwater retention area for, I forget the name of the subdivision. MR. CLUTE-Yes. They’re looking to relieve the stormwater, the drainage off of Queensbury Forest, and I have a fairly large parcel over there that’s one of the candidates for a possible answer, I guess, to the water, and the letter from Queen Victoria’s Grant is in concern of that. MR. THOMAS-Okay, as long as Mr. Clute knows what it says. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Is there any other questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-I have a question. The average lot size you say in the neighborhood, can you define the neighborhood for me? How far afield did you go? MR. CLUTE-I pretty much stuck with the Howard Street to Geneva Estates, Geneva Estates being the newer homes just behind these two parcels. Howard Street bordering Harris, or would be the next street up from Harris. MR. STONE-So basically land that you owned at one time, and developed? MR. CLUTE-No. I bought my home there. I grew up there. So I just buy, any time there’s a parcel there, I just buy it there. MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions? If not, lets see what everybody thinks. Bonnie, what do you think? MRS. LAPHAM-I think it will be a good project because Larry Clute builds nice homes, affordably priced housing which is definitely needed in Queensbury. If he is not allowed to 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) subdivide these two lots into four, then he’s going to be, I think, will be priced out of that neighborhood, because what would be built there to conform with a larger lot is going to be a larger house, and the whole thing’s going to end up with a larger price tag, and the people that live there, like the people that bought their homes in Geneva Place, for example, would not be able to afford these larger houses on larger lots. People that can wouldn’t necessarily want to move there because you’d never want to own the most expense house on the block, and so I think what he’s proposing is very workable for that particular, for those two particular properties. We’re only supposed to be discussing one at the moment. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I’ll have the same opinion for the next one, so you can just ask me once. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I’ll ask you again. I won’t even use another piece of paper. Bob? MR. KARPELES-I pretty much agree. I think that the lots are consistent with the lot size in the immediate neighborhood, the adjacent neighborhood, and there’s no neighbors here objecting to it. The neighbors must not feel strongly against it. So, at this point, I don’t see any objection to it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I assume we’re talking 42? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-The two bigger lots. I have no objection either. The only concern I have is, I mean, I heard what you said about how you are going to position the houses, but you’re taking a lot that is twice as large on one side as it is on the other side, and I’m, I hear you talking about twisting the houses, but I have a concern, but you’ve got to sell them. I don’t have to sell them. MR. THOMAS-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with the rest of the Board members. I think you could possibly even expand on the fact that the homes that he has built in that neighborhood are an improvement, not just consistent, they’re an improvement with what was immediately, in certain areas as I saw when I toured the neighborhood. There were trailers and other things. I think it’s an improvement, and I think the fact that you live in the neighborhood as well, you’re not asking anybody else to live with something that you’re not willing to live with yourself, and that’s also evidence of good faith in my mind. So I’m in favor. MR. THOMAS-Brian? MR. CUSTER-I tend to agree with just about everything that’s been said so far, and I’m in favor of the variance. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. McNally at the end. MR. MC NALLY-I agree that with respect to Variance No. 42-1997, by breaking up this lot or creating two lots that are in conformity with the existing properties in the neighborhood, and lot sizes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I agree with the other Board members that it does bring this one lot into more conformance with what’s in the neighborhood, even though it is a one acre zone. Mr. Clute, as Jaime stated, he lives right there in the neighborhood. So he’s taken on the responsibility for it, and I applaud him for it. So, having said that, I’ll ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-1997 LARRY CLUTE , Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: The project location is Ralph Road and Eisenhower. The applicant proposes to subdivide a lot which will result in two lots. The proposed lots will not meet the requirements for the SR-1A zone. Relief is being requested from the area requirements listed in Section 179-19 of the Suburban Residential One Acre. The benefit, the applicant would be allowed to create two lots to build on them. The feasible alternatives are limited, based on the marketable price for the lots in the neighborhood on that size. The relief is substantial based on the fact that the applicant is 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) proposing lots that are 22,750 square feet, and the Ordinance calls for 43,560 square feet, but I do believe that the proposed lots are consistent with the neighborhood, and weighing the benefits to the applicant versus the possible detriment to the neighborhood, I think that the application should be approved. So, specifically, the applicant is applying for, in this instance, on both new lots, 21,810 feet of area variance. th Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: MR. ROUND-I hate to open this up. The 42-1997 does refer to the 18,000 square foot lots. MR. STONE-No, 42 is the 22,000. MR. ROUND-If you look at the total lot sizes, 0.9 acres and 18,000 and 18,000 is 36,000 square feet, and that’s less than an acre. MR. STONE-I’m looking at Staff Notes. MR. HAYES-Should I change it to approval of Area Variance No. 43-1997? MR. THOMAS-No, because we already heard 42. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, that’s the one that’s 1.39. MR. STONE-No. We were talking on the 22,000. MR. ROUND-Yes. I guess you were always referring to 43 the whole discussion, I believe the whole discussion was to 43. MR. HAYES-I guess the only question would be under the public. Is there different public input? MR. THOMAS-On the 43? MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. THOMAS-We’ll find out. We’ll have to start this all over again. MR. STONE-I guess the Staff Notes were screwed up. MR. MC NALLY-Can we move to table it, open up the other one, and then vote on both? MR. THOMAS-That’s a good idea. MR. MC NALLY-Two separate motions, or one combined. MR. THOMAS-The only application I have has all four lots on one. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. THOMAS-I don’t know how these got split anyway. MR. ROUND-I’m not clear in that regard as well, but I believe it’s two separate actions. Two separate lots. So that a variance is required for two different. MR. HAYES-Two different parcels. MR. ROUND-Two different parcels, and then that introduced all the confusion, and the references weren’t corrected after Mr. Clute came in and revised the drawing that he had presented previously. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I won’t table it. I won’t vote. I’ll just say, I’ll just hold it for now. The public hearing is closed. We won’t vote on it. We’ll just delay it. We’ll hear the other variance, and if there’s a problem, then we’ll address it. If not, then it’ll fly. Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-And then you’ll vote on both of them after? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. THOMAS-And then we’ll vote on both at the same, and then we’ll vote on them individually. MRS. LAPHAM-Afterward. MR. THOMAS-Afterwards, after we hear 43, which we just heard. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. So then we now have to hear 42? MR. THOMAS-Yes. Okay. We’ll put a hold on the second and the vote on that, and we’ll go into Area Variance No. 42-1997, Larry Clute. AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-1997 SR-1A LARRY CLUTE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CORNER OF RALPH ROAD AND EISENHOWER APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A LOT WHICH WILL RESULT IN TWO LOTS. THE PROPOSED LOTS WILL NOT MEET THE AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SR-1A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE AREA VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN SECTION 179-19, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 120-1- 60.55 LOT SIZE: 0.90 ACRES SECTION 179-19 LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-Read the tabling motion. MRS. LAPHAM-All right. “The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below stated meeting and has resolved the following: Meeting Date: August 27, 1997 Variance File No. 42-1997, Tabled Motion to Table Area Variance No. 42- 1997 and Area Variance No. 43-1997 Larry Clute, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: For a period of up to 62 days so that the owner/applicant of the property can come in and present his case for a decision by the Board. Duly adopted this th 27 day of August, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE” MR. THOMAS-Okay, and this variance here is basically the same thing. Any questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-I’m not sure they’re quite the same thing, Mr. Chairman. I mean, one, we’re taking an over an acre lot and dividing it into two. I mean, we should just be aware that this is a smaller lot, and we are going to end up with two smaller lots, approximately 4,000 square foot less in each case. I don’t think it changes my mind, but I think we have to be aware that these, in fact, are considerably smaller, 4,000 over 22,000 is approximately 20%, less than 20%. So they’re different in that standpoint. I don’t think it changes my mind, but I just want to make sure we’re all aware of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? If not, the public meeting was held open. Would anyone like to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Would anyone like to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. THOMAS-Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. The same letter from Queen Victoria’s Grant. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? I’ll start down at the far end. Mr. McNally, what’s your opinion on this one? MR. MC NALLY-If I look at the map submitted by Mr. Clute, and even though the proposed lots were only approximately 18,000 square feet, each of those lots do approximate the existing lots in the neighborhood, within the surrounding area. They’re about a third of an acre each. For the reasons that we discussed in the Area Variance 43-1997, I don’t have any problem with it. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-Yes. I’m pretty much in agreement with Bob. Even though there is a diminution in lot size compared to the other variance, I don’t think it’s substantial enough to warrant changing my opinion. I’m in favor of the variance. MR. THOMAS-Jaime? MR. HAYES-My opinion is the same as the last time. MR. THOMAS-Lew? MR. STONE-I agree. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. KARPELES-Yes, I agree. MRS. LAPHAM-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I do, too. I was in favor then. I’m in favor now. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’m in agreement also. We have a motion for Area Variance No. 43-1997. The motion has been made. I need a second on that one. MRS. LAPHAM-Second. MR. THOMAS-Vote, Maria. th Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: MR. MC NALLY-Just so the record is clear, the 43-1997 is the two lots being divided to plus or minus 22,750 feet? MR. THOMAS-Yes. AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-Okay. Now, I would need a motion for Area Variance No. 42-1997, for Larry Clute, for dividing one lot into two 18,000 plus or minus square foot. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-1997 LARRY CLUTE , Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Ralph Road and Eisenhower. The applicant proposes to subdivide a lot which would result in two lots. The proposed lots will not meet the area requirements for the SR-1A zone. Relief is being requested from those area requirements. The benefit to the applicant would be that it would allow him to make two lots out of one. The feasible alternatives are limited based on the neighborhood economics. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The relief is substantial, based on the fact that the proposed lots are only going to be 1800 square feet, versus the required 43,560, but I don’t believe the effect on the neighborhood or community would be negative. In fact, I believe they would be positive. Therefore, I make a motion to approve the area variance in the amount of 25,560 square feet, for both lots. th Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-There. We got that one taken care of. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, may I point out, on the tabling motion, that up on the top, Bonnie Lapham is still listed as Acting Secretary. MR. THOMAS-Well, I’ll talk to Ms. Davidsen about that. All right. You’re all set. MR. CLUTE-Thank you kindly. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-1997 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-1A MICHAEL SUNDBERG OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 204 MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 7.47 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THTE LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-30, LOTS ABUTTING COLLECTOR OR ARTERIAL ROADS. TAX MAP NO. 46-2-9.1 LOT SIZE: 7.47 ACRES SECTION 179-30 MICHAEL SUNDBERG, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 51-1997, Michael Sundberg, Meeting Date: September 17, PROJECT LOCATION: Description of Proposed Project: 1997 “204 Meadowbrook The applicant proposes to subdivide a 7.47 acre lot into two lots creating a 6.47 acre lot with 418.50 feet of frontage on Cronin Road and an 1 acre lot with 50 feet of frontage on Meadowbrook Road. Relief Required: The project is before the Planning Board (7-1997) on September 23, 1997. The applicant requests relief from §179-30 requiring lots abutting collector/arterial roads to have Criteria for considering an Area Variance double the zoning required lot width of 100 feet. according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be 2. Feasible alternatives: permitted to create a two lot subdivision. Alternative lot configurations for a two lot subdivision are feasible although the applicant could not subdivide the property as 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the presented without relief from the requirement. ordinance? The required lot width is 300 feet, the proposed lot width may be interpreted as 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: approximately 200 feet. The addition of an additional driveway/curb cut in excess of the existing density is proposed as a result of the 5. Is this difficulty self-created? subdivision. The historical subdivision of the property as it Parcel History (construction/site has occurred has contributed to the difficulty created. plan/variance, etc.): None applicable. The parent parcel has been subdivided on several Staff Comments: occasions and this subdivision is subject to planning board approval. §179-30 was implemented to reduce the number of ingress/egress points along arterial and collector roads. Alternative, and potentially more attractive subdivision designs for the property could have been developed for the property, although the existing property layout reduces the available alternatives. SEQR Status: Unlisted” MR. THOMAS-Mr. Sundberg, is there anything you’d like to add to this application? MR. SUNDBERG-No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Any questions for the applicant? MR. CUSTER-I have one. I don’t know how much merit it really has, but just out of curiosity. Mr. Sundberg, on the map parcel, there’s a weird thin sliver that goes toward the lands of Beth Schermerhorn. Is there any reason for that? It looks funny. Why would you cut it that way? MR. SUNDBERG-This lot, this is already an existing lot on the tax map. It was .9 acres, but they told me that it was created without going through the proper subdivision process. So I’m going through the proper subdivision process now, but to make it an acre, I put another sliver. There was already a 10 foot sliver on there, and I just increased it by 17 feet, to make it a full acre. MR. CUSTER-Fine. MR. THOMAS-I have a question of Staff. Down at the bottom of the Staff Notes it says, required lot width. Lot width is 300 square feet, proposed lot width may be interpreted as approximately 200. Where do you get that 200? I tried finding 200. I couldn’t find it. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. ROUND-I’m interpreting 200 feet as you’ve got 50 feet of road frontage, 100 foot behind the Flynn property, and then another additional 50 feet behind the Turner property. MR. THOMAS-To me, that wouldn’t be road frontage. MR. ROUND-No. We’re not talking road frontage, lot width. It’s not road frontage. That’s width. You’re required to have 40 foot on a municipal road. For this, I’ve got to correct my notes. Relief required, the zoning regs requires 150 foot lot width, because we’re on an arterial, we need 300 foot lot width. Lot width is not necessarily road frontage. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I haven’t seen this one yet. This is the first time I’ve run into this, where the lot did not border on the road, to meet the lot width. MR. ROUND-Yes. Maybe you can lend insight to me in that regard, as far as, has it been the Board’s interpretation that that requirement applies to road frontage as opposed to an average lot width? If you had like key hole shaped lots where you had 50 foot of frontage in the front, and then if it diagonaled back and you had a 200 foot in the rear, would you, would it be the interpretation that you would take an average of the two? MR. SUNDBERG-If they’d meant road frontage, they would have said road frontage, I think. They said lot width, not road frontage. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Like I said, this, that just threw me. Like I said, I haven’t run into this before. MR. STONE-We also have the road frontage that’s supposed to be 100 feet. Isn’t that what the Staff Notes say? MR. ROUND-No, that was an incorrect, required lot width of 150 feet. It was a typo. MRS. LAPHAM-And it doesn’t have to be 150 because it’s a collector road. MR. ROUND-No, but I mean, that’s one of the ambiguities of the Code, and as a practical application, lot width would apply to road frontage, but in this case, it doesn’t. MR. CUSTER-Actually, you could say there’s not 100 foot of width here, though. If you’re going by that. You could say the whole thing’s 300. MR. ROUND-Well, it’s my interpretation that it’s an average of 200 feet, and that’s where I’m giving you that figure, and he’s looking for 300. MR. SUNDBERG-The bulk of the property is 200 feet wide. MR. CUSTER-I’d say it’s 300. MR. THOMAS-Well, yes, you’ve got that 345 in the back. MR. CUSTER-If you’re going to add the lands behind Flynn and Turner, you’ve got to add the lands behind Piper. That’s another 100 feet. He doesn’t even have to come here now. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. ROUND-No, I’m saying an average. If you do cross sections, you do strips 27 foot wide, right, the whole length of the property, and you average the 27 foot wide strips, you wouldn’t come up with a 300 foot average. Do you follow me? MR. CUSTER-I’ll buy that more. I’m splitting hairs here. MR. ROUND-Yes. No, I’m trying to give you insight into my interpretation of the lot width. MR. STONE-If you divide it up into a series of rectangles, you wouldn’t come up with. MR. ROUND-Right. I mean, I didn’t do that. When I look at this lot, I see a 200 foot wide lot with some irregularities. I guess that would impact your, the amount of relief you’re granting, and 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) I’m new to the dynamic, as far as how you’d write your variances. So, given that, I can develop some more information for the Board. MR. CUSTER-I’m try and split some hairs so we don’t have to vote on it. MR MC NALLY-Mr. Sundberg, you said that the lot had been subdivided before? Could you tell me about that? MR. SUNDBERG-It had been created. What happened is the one acre lot below it. MR. MC NALLY-Is that tax map 46-2-9.6? MR. SUNDBERG-Yes. When I created that one, when I subdivided for that lot, part of that property, I bought the original nine acre property from my grandparents, and they retained a life estate. Part of that property today still had a life estate in it. You go all the way up to the top of it, and the little, the rectangle that says proposed to be conveyed to James and Sharon Piper, that was also part of that. I knew I was going to sell that to them. So what I did is I just, when I created the one, I just drew a line all the way along to the end of my property, and got the life estate signed over to me. So that I would have clear title on it, so that I could subdivide this one and sell the other one, and rather than do it three different times, I also did the little piece for Turner. Rather than do that three different times, I just did one big chunk, and that’s how this lot came into effect. Because now it doesn’t have my grandmother on the life estate, Warren County said, this is now a separate property. What I thought would happen was it would just remain part of the big lot, but they created a new tax map number for the (lost words). That’s how that one was created without the subdivisions. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JIM PIPER MR. PIPER-My name is Jim Piper. I reside at 206 Meadowbrook Road, the property right next door, and I would just like to say I am not opposed if they grant a variance for Mr. Sundberg to build a single family home out there. I think it would meet with the rest of the neighborhood. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Well, I guess I’m confused in terms of this word “subdivide”. You’re already telling me this lot exists in terms of the County. MR. SUNDBERG-Yes. MR. STONE-The one acre lot, and therefore the 6.47 exists. MR. SUNDBERG-It was .9 acres. It wasn’t a full acre. When you drew the line, it was only 10 feet instead of 27. So it was actually .87 acres that exists according to the County. MR. ROUND-If I may clarify. Mr. Sundberg had created a two lot subdivision previously, through administrative methods that we have on the Codes. The creation of this lot would be a three lot subdivision, which requires Planning Board approval. The County had incorrectly created a tax map lot which was not in compliance with our zoning requirements, and that’s why the matter’s before the Board tonight. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions? If not, lets move right along on this one. Before I start that, this is an Unlisted Action. So we have to do the old short form for that. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, MICHAEL SUNDBERG, SHOWS THAT IT HAS NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: th Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-That takes care of that. All right. Brian, what do you think? MR. CUSTER-I’m in favor of the variance. I think it will help Mr. Sundberg build a home in a nice area that already has that same continuous flavor, so to speak. Hearing no opposition from the neighbors, in fact only hearing encouragement, furthers my resolve in that direction. So, I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Yes. The nature of the lots that are there now, you know, is causing the problem, and I agree with Brian. I think it’s consistent with the other development in the neighborhood. The neighbors are positive, and it is one acre. So, I mean, there’s plenty of land there. So I’m in favor. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-Yes. I have no objection. I was just, I’m still only confused a little bit about this 6.47 doesn’t really come in to our decision tonight. MR. ROUND-No, it does not. MR. STONE-Because it was in Staff Notes. MR. ROUND-I wanted to include that to clarify. The tax map number, in our perspective, there is still an existing nine, one which is subdivided into a created nine, seven. So I want to be clear what we’re dealing with, and that is the nine, seven. Nine, seven, as it exists on the tax map today, does not, is smaller than this lot. So I just wanted to clarify how large the lot is, and that the area requirement is not a point of contention. MR. STONE-Then I have no problem. MR. ROUND-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. KARPELES-I have no problem with it. The only thing we’re considering is the width of the lot, the 200 feet versus 300 feet. It’s certainly wider than some of the other lots there, most of the other lots that are there. So I see no objection to it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I agree with the other Board members. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-It’s an odd shaped lot, but it’s substantially comports with the Statute. I don’t have a problem with it. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. THOMAS-All right. I don’t have a problem with it either. It’s wider than most of the other lots on the road, as Bob has said. What else can you say? I mean, he’s only looking for relief of 100 feet from the Ordinance. Having said that, would someone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-1997 MICHAEL SUNDBERG , Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: 204 Meadowbrook. The applicant wishes to create a one acre lot by taking land from his contiguous holdings that will be reduced to 6.47 acres, to make a one acre lot, whose average width will be approximately 200 feet. The Ordinance calls for 300 feet. So therefore the applicant is seeking relief of approximately 100 feet in width. The benefit to the applicant, he would be permitted to create a one acre conforming lot, and adjust an incorrect designation ala Warren County. Feasible alternatives, this is a feasible alternative to make a one acre lot a conforming lot, which would eventually contain one home. The relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance, in that the required lot width is supposed to be 300 feet. The proposed lot width with taking into the character of the lot is approximately 200 feet. The addition of this lot in the neighborhood would be in conformity with the existing properties. There would be an addition of an additional driveway cut, but that is perfectly normal for a lot of that size. The difficulty is not really self created, the fact that the lot was designated as a substandard lot by Warren County and the applicant wishes merely to correct that deficiency. We’re offering relief from 179-30. th Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-So, you just have to go see the Planning Board and bow to their wishes. MR. SUNDBERG-Right. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-1997 TYPE II SFR-1A DONALD & CARLEEN SAWYER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE GARRISON ROAD, OFF BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION THAT WILL NOT MEET THE REQUIRED SIDE SETBACK OF 20 FEET. SEEKS RELIEF OF 5 FEET. TAX MAP NO. 106-3-18 LOT SIZE: 31,000 SQ. FT. SECTION 179-20 DONALD & CARLEEN SAWYER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 52-1997, Donald & Carleen Sawyer, Meeting Date: PROJECT LOCATION:Description of Proposed September 17, 1997 “ 36 Garrison Road Project: The applicants propose to construct an addition to an existing garage. The addition is Relief Required: located at the southwest corner of the existing structure. The applicant requests relief from §179-20 requiring a 20 foot side setback. The existing house and garage are located 15 feet from the side property line. The proposed addition is to be located 15 feet from the side Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town property line. Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct an addition to an 2. Feasible alternatives: existing garage. The configuration of the existing garage limits 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: alternatives. The required setback is 20 4. Effects on the feet and the proposed setback is 15 feet and is interpreted as minimal relief. neighborhood or community: The construction activity and variance request has minimal impact 5. Is this difficulty self-created? on the neighborhood. The existing structure location is the Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): cause of the request. None applicable. Staff Comments: The applicant’s neighbor to the south indicated no opposition to the request. SEQR Status: The existing construction layout is the most logical orientation for the addition. Type II” MR. THOMAS-All right. Any additions the applicants would like to make? MR. SAWYER-Not at this time, I have none. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. THOMAS-Okay. My first question is, how big is the addition in square feet? MR. SAWYER-It’s a 12 by 24 addition on the rear. MR. THOMAS-Two hundred and eight-eight square feet. Okay. How big is the existing garage? MR. SAWYER-That’s a 24 by 24. MR. STONE-Five ninety-six. MR. THOMAS-Five ninety-six. MR. STONE-It’s 50% now. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Well, we’re not worried about that. I wanted to see how close we were going to get to the 900 square feet. MR. ROUND-It’s 864. It’s still below 900. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Right. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and how far is the proposed addition set back from the lot line, front lot line? MR. SAWYER-From the front lot line, I believe we are well within the limitations. Exactly what the front line is, I’m not sure. MR. THOMAS-The Ordinance calls for 30 feet. MRS. SAWYER-It’s 32 feet. MR. SAWYER-It’s 32. MR. THOMAS-It’s 32. Any other questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-When this house was built, how old was the house? MR. SAWYER-I believe it was built around the early 50’s. MR. STONE-So before there was zoning. That’s why it’s at 15 feet rather than 20. MR. SAWYER-Correct. The actual site line is not going to change whatsoever, on the side setback. MR. STONE-On Staff Notes, Chris, it says south. Do you mean south, or do you mean what I would call west? MR. THOMAS-I would say west. MR. ROUND-I thought I said southwest. It’s a southwest corner. MR. STONE-You mean to the next house as you go toward Glen? MR. ROUND-Yes, you’re correct. MR. THOMAS-Yes. That’s the neighbor that has no objection. MR. ROUND-Yes, the Jacobs are to your. MR. SAWYER-Yes, they would be to the west. MR. THOMAS-The people across the street don’t care. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. ROUND-I stand corrected. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Just to make sure. Any other questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Is this going to be garage space? MR. SAWYER-Yes, it is. MR. STONE-And you’re going to continue to use the old part as garage, too, so it would just be a larger garage? MR. SAWYER-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-Is the roof line going to change in any respect? How is this going to change? MRS. SAWYER-Well, right now it’s just your basic straight ranch on the front, and we have a sag, actually, over our garage. It comes out a little bit. It jogs out a little, but the roof line just continues, and there’s a sag, and we want to put a gable, and so we need more space anyway. We’ve got a small boat and all that that we’d like to keep everything inside. So it’ll make our ranch into a little ell ranch. MR. MC NALLY-I see. MR. SAWYER-Instead of just having a gable on the east and west end, the garage addition will have a gable which will face the south. MR. MC NALLY-It’ll face Garrison. MRS. SAWYER-Right. MR. SAWYER-Correct. MR. STONE-So it’s going to be like this? MRS. SAWYER-Yes, it’ll break up the roof line, so it’ll take some of the weight off. MR. SAWYER-Looking at the house, you will see the new gable. MR. STONE-So you’re going to extend that roof back into the old, over the old garage? MR. SAWYER-That’s right. MRS. SAWYER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-At the same height? MR. SAWYER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-I had to ask. MRS. LAPHAM-It sounds like it will look, visually, be an improvement. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MRS. SAWYER-Yes, we think so. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant? I’ll see what everybody thinks. I’ll start with Jaime. MR. HAYES-The side setback is really going to remain the same, and I think, as far as people in the neighborhood including their boats and other miscellaneous things in additional storage, I think that’s a big positive, myself, and they’re willing to spend the money. I think it’s a positive move. I would be in favor. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I’m pretty much of the opinion, they don’t get much easier than this one. MR. THOMAS-You’ve got that right. MR. CUSTER-The request for relief is very insubstantial, and I think it’s a nice improvement to the neighborhood, and I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I agree. It’s a relatively insubstantial request that they’re making. It’s an extension of 12 feet along one side of their building, which is 15 feet from the line rather than 20. The addition, I’m sure, will be in accordance with the rest of the homes in the neighborhood and will be built properly. There is no real setback problem in front of the house. It would certainly provide a good benefit to the Sawyers, without any real impact to the surrounding neighbors. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I agree with the other Board members. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. KARPELES-I agree, too. I think it’s a plus for everybody. It gives them more storage space, and improves the looks of the house. No negatives. MR. THOMAS-Lew? MR. STONE-I agree. I think it’s great that the neighbor to the west has no problems with it, which is always nice to hear when a neighbor doesn’t have a problem, we hear it the other way. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I agree with the other Board members. I think this will be an improvement to the house. The five feet of relief is really not that substantial. They’re going to maintain the same line as the house, and the applicants will be able to improve their sagging roof with a new one. So, having said that, I will ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-1997 DONALD & CARLEEN SAWYER , Introduced by Brian Custer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: 36 Garrison Road, Queensbury. The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing garage that is located in the southwest corner of the existing home. The applicant is seeking relief from Section 179-20, requiring a 20 foot side setback to the existing setback, which is 15 feet. Therefore, this motion grants five feet of setback relief. By granting this motion, we provide the benefit to the applicant and allow them to put the addition on the existing garage. There’s limited feasible alternatives due to the configuration of the existing structure. The relief is not substantial relative to our Ordinance, and the effect on the neighborhood and community is minimal. The difficulty is not what I would call self created, in the sense that the existing structure is the cause of the request. th Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-There you go. MRS. SAWYER-Okay. Thank you. MR. SAWYER-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Just get your building permit and you’re going to town. AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-1997 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-1A HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE MEADOWBROOK ROAD, NORTH FROM QUAKER ROAD, SITE ON LEFT APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT WILL NOT MEET THE 50 FT. BUFFER REQUIRED BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 59-2-9 LOT SIZE: 1.26 ACRES SECTION 179-20 PAUL ARENDS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 53-1997, Habitat for Humanity, Meeting Date: September PROJECT LOCATION:Description of Proposed Project: 17, 1997 “ Meadowbrook Road The applicants propose construction of a single family home on tax map lot 59-2-9 on Relief Required: Meadowbrook Road. The applicant requests relief from §179-20 requiring a 50 Criteria for considering an foot buffer area between residential and commercial/industrial zones. Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct single family home on a 1.26 acre lot zoned for that 2. Feasible alternatives: purpose. The configuration of the lot and the existing Town of 3. Is the relief substantial relative to Queensbury sewer easement restrict alternative locations. the Ordinance?: The required buffer zone is 50 feet. The proposed house location will 4. Effects apparently meet the zoning setback of 20 feet. Relief is not interpreted as substantial. on the neighborhood or community? The construction activity and variance request has minimal 5. Is this difficulty self-created?Parcel History impact on the neighborhood. No. (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):Staff Comments: None applicable. The property borders the Highway Commercial zone and a 50 foot buffer is required for both the residential property and the commercial property. Residential properties are located in the immediate vicinity and no commercial activity is currently occurring to the south. The existing sewer easement SEQR Status: precludes a house location capable of meeting the 50 foot buffer. Unlisted” MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Arends, is there anything else you’d like to add or say? MR. ARENDS-No, not at this time. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any questions for the applicant? MR. KARPELES-Where is the buffer supposed to be? MRS. LAPHAM-I was going to say. I want to make sure I got the right lot. MR. KARPELES-I never found the lot. I couldn’t find it. MR. LAPHAM-I think I found it, but I just want to make sure that I was right. MR. STONE-I don’t know. Could you tell us where the commercial area is? MR. ROUND-It’s directly to. MR. CUSTER-Behind the car dealerships and everything. MR. ROUND-Right. These are all car dealerships. MR. STONE-Here, but the corner is also commercial, highway commercial. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. ROUND-Right. MRS. LAPHAM-So this lot is the first vacant parcel as you turn up Meadowbrook, right, on the west side of Meadowbrook, or is it on the east side of Meadowbrook? MR. STONE-It’s on the west side. There’s a trailer on the property, a boat trailer, I believe. MR. THOMAS-You go up and over the hill. There’s the storage place that’s on the left? As you go beyond there, probably 400 feet on the left hand side. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. So there’s a couple of houses in there. MR. THOMAS-Yes. There’s a couple of houses in between there. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Then I know where you mean. MR. ARENDS-There’s a house on each side. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. Well, I couldn’t decide whether it was on the corner where it was vacant, or up farther where it’s vacant where you’re pointing out now, and I didn’t have time to get in here and look at the tax maps. MR. THOMAS-I have a question for Staff. The staff notes say that this is an SFR-1 Acre zone, and on this map that we have here, submitted by the applicant, it says it’s an SR-20 zone. MR. ROUND-That map’s incorrect. MR. THOMAS-Okay. It’s an SFR-1 Acre? MR. ROUND-One Acre zone, yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So the setbacks, the front has to be 30. The sides have to be 20, and the rear has to be 20. MR. CUSTER-Is there 20 there? I see 14, but then there looks like there’s space between that and the house. Is that the 20? MR. STONE-Well, that’s the 10 foot setback line that the surveyor drew in, which is correct, because. MR. THOMAS-Yes, then the house is actually 14. MR. CUSTER-So they need side setback, then. MR. THOMAS-They need side setback of six feet. MR. STONE-Six feet, right. MR. ROUND-Well, I’d ask the applicant, Mr. Arends, I’m not aware of what, I believe that the configuration was in a state of flux, at the time that the application was made. We did not receive, I was anticipating a revised layout, and we hadn’t received it from them. MR. HAYES-So it will be the 20 feet, then, in? MR. THOMAS-So we don’t have to worry about the side setback of 20 feet. MR. ROUND-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Unless the sewer comes into play. Does the sewer come into play? Does the sewer right-of-way easement come into play then? MR. ROUND-Yes. That’s what they’re dealing with. I’ll let Mr. Arends speak. MR. ARENDS-If we have the requirement of the 50 foot setback, it’s 100 feet across. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. ARENDS-We’ve got 50 feet this way, and we’ve got another 30 feet for the sewer easement. That’s 80 feet. There’s 20 feet left to build. MR. STONE-Okay, but if we got rid, if we gave relief from the commercial buffer, we still have 20 feet setback from the property line. Is that correct, Chris? MR. THOMAS-Yes. Instead of 14, they would have 20. MR. ROUND-That’s my understanding. They still would meet the side setback, even though the layout may be incorrect at this time. MR. STONE-Mr. Arends is saying, no, you’re saying it’s 30 feet from the north side of the lot, 30 feet to the south is easement. MR. THOMAS-No. From the north end, where the iron pipe is, on the highway line, 20 feet is property. The next 30 feet is easement, and then the next 50 feet. He’s got 20, 30 and 50, going from north to south, along the highway line there. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-I have two questions for staff. Number One is, is that easement, is that an easement that’s going to be sold or given to the Town for their exclusive use, or is it just for the line to be there? MR. ARENDS-We’ve submitted the easement to the Town, and we can’t build over the easement, obviously, and the Town has the right to access the sewer line or whatever it needs to do. MR. ROUND-Typically, those types of easements are utilized, 30 foot’s common for a pipe line. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. ROUND-And there will be no creation of any structures within that. They’ll have access, it’s an easement. It’s not a granting of land. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It’s not a taking, it’s a granting of a crossing, and then my question becomes, they don’t need side setback on the north side, then. MR. ROUND-Correct. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Now, this buffer thing. Isn’t the buffer required in the commercial zone, not the residential? MR. ROUND-The way it’s read, it’s required in both zones. MR. STONE-Yes. We had that with Double A. MR. ROUND-That’s a clarification, I guess. I don’t know the historical basis for that. MR. THOMAS-To me, the 50 foot should be the responsibility of the commercial, not the residential. MR. ROUND-I would agree with you, because that’s the higher value land. MR. HAYES-What’s the intent of the protection. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It’s to protect the, you know, you shouldn’t require 50 feet on the residential to protect it from the commercial. MR. ROUND-Right. MR. THOMAS-Put that on your list of things to do, to submit to the Town. MR. ROUND-I’ve got it on my list here. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ve got that straightened out. Any more questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-We’re saying the lot is, you’re saying it’s at least 20 feet to the north of the easement, and the easement’s 30. So that’s 50 feet. So we’re dealing, we have to put the house in 50 feet, and if we take out 20, the house has to be 30 foot wide, if we grant relief from the buffer. MRS. LAPHAM-And it shows, according to this, the house is going to be 34 feet. MR. THOMAS-But where the house is, what’s that next lot to the south? Is that highway commercial you said? MR. ROUND-It’s zoned Highway Commercial, but it’s currently residential, but it’s zoned Highway Commercial. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-So the house is 14 feet from the southern boundary? MR. STONE-No, it’s 14, according to this. MR. THOMAS-Well, according to this, but the applicant said they were going to move it to 20 feet, right? MR. ARENDS-If we can, if it fits. MR. ROUND-That’s why I was hoping from the applicant some clarification in that regard, because as you know, you’ve got to grant relief. MR. MC NALLY-Specific number. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, we can grant relief from the buffer zone, and then the applicant may have to come back when he proposes to construct the house. MR. ROUND-Yes. I think they would, I would think they would like to do it all tonight, but I don’t have a layout, and the applicant hasn’t provided a final layout. MR. HAYES-Do you want to give them six feet of side yard setback? MR. STONE-But they haven’t got a design yet. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. ROUND-Arends, do you know, I mean, they can grant relief from the buffer requirement, but the setback for the zone is 20 feet, and if you’re not going to be able to comply with the setback for the zone, that you should request relief from that, at this time, and I guess if you could add some clarification to that. MR. ARENDS-Our concern is that we want to start doing this building this fall, because of, we’re concerned about the water table on this property. So it’s to our benefit to start this in the fall. If we don’t start it in the fall, we probably won’t be able to start it in the spring. So what we would like to do is to get the footers in and to get up until the decking completed this fall. So, you know, if the process is going to entail us coming back in and whatever all that is, this may cause us some difficulties. I thought this had been provided to you. MR. ROUND-No. We haven’ t received any other revised plan. MR. THOMAS-Have you granted the easement, yet, to the Town? MR. ARENDS-Yes. We did that two or three weeks ago. MR. THOMAS-Yes, you know if you had shifted that easement to the north like six feet, then you could have moved the house to the north six feet, and you’d be all right. Even four feet if you had shifted that, because I don’t think the pipes have to be exactly in the middle of the right-of-way. They can vary. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. ROUND-Not necessarily, it depends on how it’s written. MR. THOMAS-Yes, see what they did, this is what they did is they put the pipes in the middle of the right-of-way, it looks like, you know, and if they had shifted the right-of-way on the road, you know, like six feet to the north, then they’d have been all right. They could have moved that house six feet to the north and still had the two feet in there, or even if they moved it four, then they’d be right on the edge of that right-of-way, but the rules and regulations say you have to have 20 feet on the side. So the only way you’re going to get 20 feet in there is to chop off four feet off the house and butt it right up against that south easement line. MR. STONE-Or you could move the house back on the property, because that line is curving away. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-The easement line. I don’t know if it’s physically possible from a groundwater. MR. HAYES-We can’t grant them like 10 feet of side yard relief? MR. THOMAS-We could grant them six foot, because they want 14. We could grant them six, but was it advertised for side setback? That’s the thing of it. MR. ROUND-It wasn’t, because it was my impression that they were, that they would comply with the side setback. MR. THOMAS-Lets see, how are we going to do this. MR. HAYES-Can we advertise it for next week? MR. THOMAS-No, it’s too late. The only thing we can do to get that 20 feet is like Lew says, move that house back, or if they can get the Town to give back that easement, re-negotiate that easement and move it to the north four to six feet, but that’s. MR. ROUND-I don’t know the mechanics of it. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I don’t either. I don’t think I want to. MRS. LAPHAM-Moving the house back might not be practical. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Well, that’s a fairly flat lot. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, what I was thinking, is this correct, that Habitat for Humanity tries to be very affordable and keep costs down, and if you move the house back farther, then you need a longer driveway, and it’s going to make the project more expensive. MR. HAYES-Is it a crushed stone driveway or a paved driveway, do you know? MR. ARENDS-The driveway’s not paved. MR. HAYES-It’s crushed stone, then. Yes, that’s really not that big, they could move it back. MRS. LAPHAM-And it wouldn’t be that expensive? MR. HAYES-No. MR. CUSTER-No. MR. THOMAS-They’d probably have to move it back 30 feet at least. MR. HAYES-Have you purchased the home? I mean, would it be possible to move it back a few feet, and then have the house be 32 feet instead of 34 or something? 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. ARENDS-We could check that out. MR. HAYES-That’s what I’d do. You could move it back about 20 feet and make the house 32 instead of 34 feet. It would probably be all right. MR. STONE-Well, this is a stick built house, though, isn’t it? MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. STONE-You said you purchased the house. MR. HAYES-When I say purchase, I mean, purchase the kit or the trusses or anything like that that would be where you couldn’t change the plan. MR. ARENDS-No, we have not done that. MR. MC NALLY-Do you have a home designed already? MR. ARENDS-Yes, we do have a house design for this, which is essentially the 26 by 34. MR. THOMAS-Is this map you submitted, is that, well, I can tell you right here. It’s right to scale. If you move the front of the house to where the back of the house is, that’s 50 feet across there, where the back of the house is. According to this print, is 50 feet across. So if you move that house back 26 feet, okay, 20 feet off that south property line would give you 30 feet, and you want 34. You would probably have to be about 90 feet back from the property line, the front property line, in order to get a 34 foot house in there, 20 foot off that property line. Unless you want to re-advertise it also for a side line setback. MR. ROUND-I would suggest that you grant the relief to the buffer, and then they can apply for a building permit and meet the side setback, and if they can’t meet that, then they would have to go for additional variance. MR. THOMAS-They’d have to come in for another variance, but in the meantime. MR. ROUND-At least they would have that. I was under the impression, you’ve got to understand, there’s several individuals involved with Habitat for Humanity. There’s difficulty and some communication problems, but if you could change the orientation of the house in order to meet the setback. I mean, there’s alternatives available, and that was my understanding was that the orientation was going to be changed in order to meet the side setback. MR. STONE-So we grant the buffer. MR. ROUND-Grant the buffer relief. MR. STONE-The onus is on the applicant. MR. ROUND-Right. MR. KARPELES-Okay. That sounds good. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lets see, I closed the public hearing. Anymore questions for the applicant? I’ll make a fool of myself again and go with this, since this is an Unlisted Action. MR. CUSTER-I think we’re okay here, unless this book is old. MR. MC NALLY-If this property is in SR-1A zone. MR. THOMAS-No, SFR. MR. MC NALLY-It’s SFR. MR. THOMAS-Yes, there’s a difference. They’re completely different. It’s what two predecessors ago called the most Holy of zones in the Town of Queensbury, Mr. Turner. MR. STONE-Single Family Residential? 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. THOMAS-SFR-1 Acre is the most Holy of. You guys over there on the far right, are you on the same page as us with the SFR and the SR? MR. CUSTER-I thought I was to begin with. MR. MC NALLY-I was thinking we might be able to do something, but we can’t. MR. THOMAS-No, we can’t change the zone. That’s the Town Board’s bailiwick, and they got in trouble for that, a lot of trouble. All right. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO IMPACTS THAT ARE NEGATIVE TO THIS LOT , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: th Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-All right. PETER PHAIR MR. PHAIR-Is there any open for objection here against this? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I opened the public hearing, didn’t I? MR. PHAIR-No, you didn’t. MR. THOMAS-I’m sorry. MRS. LAPHAM-I thought you did. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of? Against? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PETER PHAIR MR. PHAIR-I have one question here. My name is Peter Phair. I own the property to the north of the property, okay. CAROL PHAIR MRS. PHAIR-And I’m Carol Phair, landowner also, at 131 Meadowbrook Road, on the north side of the property. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. PHAIR-I’m a landowner as well, co-sign. It says here, applicant proposes construction of single family home that will not meet the 50 foot buffer between required commercial residential zone there. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. PHAIR-And we’re talking 20 here. What are we talking 50 here? This lot is 98 feet wide, minus the easement of the sewer, which is 20, and then the 50? I’m just trying to figure out exactly where they’re putting this home here. MR. HAYES-Fifty feet from the border of the commercial home. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. PHAIR-Okay. Now the commercial line, the way they have it staked right now, is approximately 12 to 15 feet off my neighbor’s driveway, and I don’t know if he wrote a letter or not, Mr. Cleveland, Michael Cleveland. He’s supposed to be here on his way from work, and he basically told me that if there’s a house built there, he will sell his property. He’s lived there for 26 years, I think. So I don’t know what’s going on with him. He’s supposed to be here. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay, and he hasn’t sent, there’s been no correspondence at all. MR. PHAIR-And I was wondering, you were saying something about a possible change in the proposal here, if it hasn’t been sent out to the local neighbors, I think it should be. Shouldn’t it, or can you just change it while he’s sitting here? MR. THOMAS-No. I can’t change it while he’s sitting here, because it has to be advertised. It has to be legal. MR. PHAIR-Right. MR. THOMAS-The only thing he’s asking for right now is relief from the buffer zone. MR. PHAIR-But from what I understand, he wants to put a foundation in by October. MR. THOMAS-He does, okay, but what he has to do is come in, make an application for a building permit, after we take care of this buffer zone. If he meets the setbacks, on the side setbacks, there’s no problem, but if he doesn’t, then he has to come back here in front of us before he can do anything. MR. PHAIR-And that would be re-advertised again? MR. THOMAS-That will be re-advertised in the paper. The 500 foot notices will be sent out again, but it’s like Mr. Round said, he’s been dealing with several different people from this Habitat for Humanity, and he’s getting, you know, information from a bunch of different sources. MR. PHAIR-Okay. So if we pass something here tonight, does that open up any possibilities of my neighbors to show up and oppose this, before there’s a foundation put in? MR. STONE-Yes and no, maybe not. If they build 20 feet or more away from the south line, they don’t need to come back here. MR. PHAIR-Okay. Now when you say 20 feet, it says here in this advertised paper here that it’s 50 feet. MR. CUSTER-That’s the buffer zone from the commercial property. MR. PHAIR-That’s for the for the commercial property, not for the residential property? MR. CUSTER-Right. MR. PHAIR-Okay. I assumed it was 50 feet there. MR. THOMAS-It applies to both sides, but it is for the commercial property. MR. HAYES-That’s the relief they’re seeking tonight. MR. PHAIR-Okay. MR. CUSTER-And then there’s a setback requirement which is 20 feet. MR. PHAIR-So I think there is a miscommunication here, because my neighbor assumes that there’s going to be a 50 foot boundary between him and this house that’s being built. MR. STONE-He’s in a commercial zone now. He’s nonconforming as it is. MR. PHAIR-Okay. Well, I spoke to him already, and, like I said, he assumes that it’s 50 feet off his boundary, and that way he is basically assured that the property wasn’t going to be built on, because there’s only, if you do the math there, there’s 70 minus 98. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. STONE-You’re correct. MR. CUSTER-But he only needs 20. MR. STONE-No, but he needs the 50. We’re talking about granting the 50, in other words. MR. CUSTER-We’re going to give them 30 feet of relief. MR. PHAIR-Which I consider to be major. Isn’t that considered major, more than half? MR. THOMAS-No. You’ve got to give them 50 feet of relief, plus the 20. He has to have the whole buffer, okay, for a total of 50 feet. He needs 50 feet, and then the setback goes from there. MR. STONE-Now we’ve made this just a regular SFR-1 lot. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-And then you would need 20 feet side setback. MR. CUSTER-I understand what you’re getting to, now. MRS. LAPHAM-Which he might not need to come back again if the he moves the house back. MR. STONE-Which he might not. MR. PHAIR-Then I have one other question for you. I own the landlocked property behind this lot. Now if there is a sewer easement, do I have access down that sewer easement, more or less going through this person’s side yard to get to my landlocked property? MR. MC NALLY-Well, do you have an easement across his property already? MR. PHAIR-No, the sewer line is the only one, and the sewer line as well goes through my back lot. So I was wondering, with it connecting as in. MR. HAYES-The easement would run to the Town, right, not? MR. PHAIR-Not for personal use. MR. HAYES-Right. MRS. PHAIR-We did at this time want to say that this land, as it stands right now, does have value for us, and we would be interested in proposing a purchase of this lot, from Habitat for Humanity, at a fair market value, based on an appraisal. MR. THOMAS-Well, there’s the man to talk to right there, the President, but this isn’t the place to do it. MRS. PHAIR-I mean, it shows that there is, perhaps, another alternative for making use of this donation, in giving to them. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-You’re saying that you object to us considering granting a variance of the buffer, relief from the buffer, that’s what you’re objecting to? MRS. PHAIR-Yes, we are. MR. STONE-You would like the lot to be not buildable for the first 50 feet to the north, from your neighbors to the south property line? MR. PHAIR-Right, because right at this time, I run a commercial site there. MRS. PHAIR-We have a lawn care business. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. PHAIR-We have a lawn care business, and the trucks start early in the morning, and I know Queensbury, when there is a problem, they have to respond. That means I have to come before the Board sometimes and explain what’s going on. MRS. PHAIR-We do have a lawn care business which operates on our site, with the approval of the Town. MR. PHAIR-Right now, with the buffer that we have from neighbors, it makes it easier for us to run our operation as well, O’Connor’s to the north of us. MR. STONE-But you are in an SFR zone, right? MR. PHAIR-Correct. MRS. PHAIR-We are. We have a variance for our business. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Well, lets run this one through and see how it washes. MRS. PHAIR-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Anything else? MRS. PHAIR-No. MR. THOMAS-Anything else you’d like to say, Mr. Arends? MR. ARENDS-Well, why don’t you take your action and let me see what, where we’re going right now is in terms of giving us the, hopefully, the variance for the 50 foot buffer zone. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. ARENDS-And then assuming that’s approved, if it is, then I have some questions for you. MR. THOMAS-All right. Was there any correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Well, lets go down to the far right there. Bob, what do you think? The 50 foot buffer zone, that’s the only we’re talking about. MR. MC NALLY-This is a piece of property, which if you were to apply that 50 foot buffer zone, would, particularly with the easement, limit all use of the property. In view of that, in view of the fact that they wish to construct a single family residence on the property, I think that, overall, the benefit to the community and to the individual, Habitat for Humanity, would be beneficial. There are no feasible alternatives for this particular lot, to construct or use it for the purposes for which it’s currently zoned, as a single family residence, if you don’t grant relief from the buffer zone requirement. There is the additional requirement of the 20 foot side lot setback, and it appears as if that wasn’t resolved, as to whether or not a variance would be required. It doesn’t look like it was ever advertised, but as to the buffer zone, I don’t have a problem whatsoever granting it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I tend to agree with Bob, because I don’t think you can render somebody’s property useless, which is essentially what we would be doing, and doing one thing at a time, I don’t have any problem with this buffer zone. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. KARPELES-Well, the buffer, a buffer zone is supposed to buffer between a commercial and a residential area, and the way I understand it, as I say, I couldn’t find the lot, so I didn’t see it, but I understand there’s a house next to this. So I wonder what we’re buffering, and we’re buffering residential from residential, and I don’t see much sense in that. So I guess I have no objection. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-It’s my understanding, which it could be erroneous, that the intent of a buffer zone, as I envision it, would be to protect residential, existing residential from commercial, which could be a higher more density oriented use, and in this case in particular, with the nature of the Glens Falls, you know, the Habitat for Humanities, the properties that are going to be donated or purchased at a reasonable price to put these facilities in are going to be in situations like this. I think that it might even be where they belong, in certain circumstances. So I would be in favor of it. I think it’s the only, as Bob pointed out, that, you know, if we enforced that 50 foot buffer, I think it essentially makes the property completely useless, and I don’t think that benefits anyone. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I tend to agree with everybody else. Granting them a variance will allow them to use the lot, and currently right now because of the design of the easement and the way the law is written, the property is not feasible at all unless we grant some relief. So, I’m in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and I agree with the rest of the Board. MR. STONE-May I say something? MR. THOMAS-Lew, I’m sorry. I forgot you. MR. STONE-No. I agree with everything else I’ve heard. We were talking earlier, I mean, 179- 72 is what we’re talking about, and it’s interesting in that it says the commercial’s got a grant a buffer zone, which sounds logical to me, but so does the residential, and if the residential is willing to live next to the commercial, why should they be forced to provide a buffer zone? So I would be inclined to go along with granting the variance. MR. THOMAS-My thoughts exactly. If that was a commercial property south of there, I would say that buffer zone would definitely be needed. Even the Ordinance calls for 50 foot on the commercial and also 50 foot on the residential side, but since this isn’t a commercial use on the south side, I don’t see where that buffer is needed, because like one of the Board members said, it would be buffering residential against residential. So I have no problem whatsoever with granting a 50 foot relief from the buffer zone requirement. Does anyone else have anything to say or any more questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Well, the one thing we did say is this, in essence, if we grant this relief, this makes this an SFR-1 Acre lot with the normal restrictions upon it. MR. THOMAS-Yes, with the normal setbacks from the property line. MR. STONE-Normal setback restrictions, yes. Which they may be able to live with, may not be able to live with. MR. THOMAS-All right. Does somebody want to move it? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-1997 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY , Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: Meadowbrook Road. The applicants propose the construction of a single family home on Tax Map lot number 59-2-9 on Meadowbrook Road. Specifically, the applicant is requesting relief from Section 179-20 requiring a 50 foot buffer area between residential and commercial and industrial zones. The benefit to the applicant would be the applicant could construct a single family home on the lot in question. The feasible alternatives, the configuration of the lot in the existing Town of Queensbury sewer easements make the configuration extremely difficult, if not impossible, to be within that 50 foot buffer zone. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The required buffer zone is 50 feet, and we’re not sure where the house is going to be, but it would certainly be well within that buffer zone. So that relief is substantial. The effect on the neighborhood, the construction activity and variance requests seems to have a minimal impact on the neighborhood. So the specific relief requested is simply relief from the buffer zone requirement, as further defined in 179-72C. th Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. STONE-Should we, I know in 179-20 there is an asterisk, which talks about the 50 foot buffer. Should we also reference 179-72, which is the specific paragraphs talking about it? It is contained in the table. Paragraph C. MR. HAYES-Right. That would be appropriate. MR. STONE-So would you accept that addition, as further defined in 179-72? MRS. LAPHAM-C. MR. HAYES-That’s fine. AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-Well, if you can squeeze that thing in there, with a 20 foot setback on the south property line, you won’t have to see us again. MR. ARENDS-Okay. With regard to, if we were to come back for the 20 foot setback, to get relief from that, in terms of your advertising, by what date will we have to get that to you, and then when would the Board meet? th MR. ROUND-It would be the 24, which is the last Wednesday of this month, and the Board would meet on the third or fourth Wednesday of the month of October. MR. ARENDS-So we would have to have it in by 9/24? MR. ROUNDS-Correct. MR. ARENDS-Okay. Thank you. MR. THOMAS-All right. One last thing, on this Kladis application. I’ve got conflicting numbers here. For an extension to the approval of the September 18, 1997 Zoning Board of Appeals approval, and on this one here from the Kladis’ themselves, it was from a 1996 approval. MR. STONE-Well, it couldn’t have been ’97, because we didn’t do it. This is September. MR. THOMAS-All right. Maybe September 18, 1997 is when it expires. It would be one year. MR. STONE-That could be. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, because it’s 9/18/96 is the date they have. MR. THOMAS-Yes. All right. It’s a ’97. So now we have to go from tomorrow until, they want to go until December 31, 1998. I can’t see that. I wouldn’t go any more than a year. I would go to September 18, 1998. MR. CUSTER-I agree. MR. THOMAS-They’re asking for December 31, 1998. MRS. LAPHAM-Because they say that they won’t have time to work on this project before winter. I don’t understand why they want to go until next December, which includes two winters. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I don’t know, how much have they got left to do? MR. ROUND-Well, apparently, Mr. Kladis called and wanted to appear, but he was tied up at his place of business. They’re working on constructing the house. The variance granted a height of the seawall, and they haven’t done any of the work on the seawall, they haven’t commenced any work on it at all. It doesn’t require a building permit. So if they had a building permit, they would have taken action on the variance. So they weren’t able to trigger it that way. So they need the extension on the variance. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) MR. STONE-And it was advertised for tonight? MR. ROUND-Extensions aren’t. MR. STONE-Aren’t advertised. So we could do it next week. MR. THOMAS-No, because it expires tomorrow. MR. STONE-Expire tomorrow, you’re right. MR. THOMAS-Well, the thing of it is, this is just for that dumb wall that goes around. MR. ROUND-Yes. It’s just for the seawall. MR. THOMAS-And I can’t see going 15 months, and I don’t see where it’s going to take them 15 months to build that seawall anyway. MR. STONE-The house is almost done, from the outside. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-I can tell you that. MR. THOMAS-Well, this is just for the seawall. I mean, it’s no big deal. MR. ROUND-I don’t know, maybe just put the end of the year on it. I’m not sure, as far as extending a variance. Typically, when you extend a variance for a year term anyway, not anything above and beyond a year. MR. THOMAS-No. I don’t think we can go above and beyond a year anyway. MR. STONE-This is the one with the little bay in there? MR. THOMAS-Yes, right, the little inlet there that’s washing out. MR. STONE-And they wanted it to be much higher, and we let them go. MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, they wanted to go across the whole front with the building, or the whole front if the property and the lake, and we said no, just the lagoon. So is everybody agreeable to a year? Okay. MOTION THAT WE EXTEND AREA VARIANCE NO. 83-1996 ROBERT & ANGELA KLADIS FROM SEPTEMBER 18, 1997 UNTIL SEPTEMBER 18, 1998 , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: th Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-That takes care of that. CORRECTION OF MINUTESB July 23, 1997: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF JULY 23, 1997 AS PRESENTED , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: th Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/17/97) NOES: NONE July 30, 1997: NONE MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF JULY 30, 1997 , Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: th Duly adopted this 17 day of September, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McNally, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 42