Loading...
1998-08-19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 19, 1998 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN PAUL HAYES LEWIS STONE ROBERT MC NALLY MEMBERS ABSENT BONNIE LAPHAM BRIAN CUSTER JOSEPH PORTER CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER -CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI Area Variance No. 37-1998, Diane Ercolini, MR. THOMAS-Before we get started tonight, is off Area Variance No. 59-1998, Joyce BearssArea until September. , is off until next week, and Variance No. 53-1998, Ferraro Entertainment, has been withdrawn. Having said that, I will call the first application under Old Business. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-1998 TYPE II HC-1A LEONARDO & CALLIOPI LOMBARDO OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 1583 STATE ROUTE 9 (LEO’S LOBSTER) APPLICANT PROPOSES GO-CART TRACK AND IS REQUESTING RELIEF FROM THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE HC-1A ZONE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 7/8/98, 8/12/98 TAX MAP NO. 33-1-10 LOT SIZE: 2.11 ACRE SECTION 179-23, 179-28 JOHN RICHARDS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-1998, Leonardo & Calliopi Lombardo, Meeting Date: Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: August 19, 1998 “ 15832 Rte. 9 Relief Required: Applicant proposes utilization of an existing go cart shelter structure. Applicant requests 35 feet and 19 feet of relief from the Travel Corridor Overlay zone 75 foot setback requirement, Section 179-28 and simultaneously requests 10 feet of relief from the 50 foot setback Criteria for considering an Area Variance requirement of the HC-1A zone, Section 179-23. according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain and operate a go cart track at the desired location with the preferred 2. Feasible alternatives: structure. Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the existing 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? building and no construction. 35 feet of TCO relief may be substantial, while the underlying zone HC-1A relief of 10 feet may be 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: interpreted as moderate. Minimal effects on the 5. Is this difficulty self-created? neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action. The Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, difficulty may be interpreted as self created. etc.): Special Permit No. 92 9/17/80 for a miniature golf course (approved) SP43-90 res. 10/16/90 expansion of the dining room (approved) SP 28-94 res. 10/18/94 expansion of a commercial building (approved) AV 36-95 res. 8/16/95 expansion of a commercial building Staff comments: (approved) BP 97-702 to construct a carport for a go cart track (not issued) Minimal impacts are anticipated as a result of this action as the NYS DOT right of way is wide in this area which allows for additional separation from the driving lanes. The proposed go cart track is within the area currently occupied by the miniature golf course. Previous determinations state SEQR Status: that relief would be necessary for this proposal. Type II” 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) MR. BROWN-Warren County Planning Board. “At a meeting of the Warren County Planning th Board, held on the 12 day of August 1998, the above application for an Area Variance for a go- cart track and is requesting relief from the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone and setback requirement of the HC-1A zone was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact” Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS-Good evening. My name is John Richards. I’m the attorney for Leo Lombardo, and this is a pretty cut and dried issue. All Mr. Lombardo is doing, there is an existing miniature golf course there, as you saw, that was approved, and there was a little concrete building that’s shown on the site plan there, that used to be the office, a receiving area there for the miniature golf, and he’s just extending the roof line of that out, a small way, to allow for rain protection for the go carts, and the only reason that there’s a setback violation, and let me just explain, this is a kind of a unique stretch of Route 9. I’ve had occasion, in other matters, to do some research on this, and it’s not just that it’s wide at the point, which it is, but the road bed was moved some time, I think about 50 years ago. I’m not sure of the dates, but the actual road was moved, it would be to the east, and yet the road bed was never abandoned by the County. So you have this weird stretch where the actual State ownership, I’m sorry, the State didn’t abandon it. The State ownership actually flares out because the road was moved, and property was taken on the east, but they didn’t release the property on the west. So while, technically, it is within that setback area, it’s nowhere near the actual macadam and traveled corridor, and I do have an old, 1977, survey, that I think shows this a little more graphically, if I can just briefly show the Board. MR. THOMAS-Sure. MR. RICHARDS-You can see, here is the current corridor, and the road used to go something like this, and it actually stops down by the Mohican, and below the Mohican, up to, I’m not sure how far up it goes, but they moved the bed from here over here, but they didn’t release this. So this is still owned by the State, which makes everything here subject to setback, although they were all originally set up and built according to how far they were from this road. So they’re much farther from the actual road bed than the setback requirements. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re saying they were built after the road had been moved? MR. RICHARDS-Actually, I’m not sure. All I can tell you is that the road bed is far closer to the buildings than it would be in a normal setback area on the same corridor. MR. STONE-When you say road bed, you mean right of way? MR. RICHARDS-Yes, actual right of way, but this is all right of way. MR. STONE-Right. MR. RICHARDS-But it’s far wider than the traditional 50 foot right of way. The pavement’s usually 25, one area is more than that, but it’s far wider, it’s probably 150, because of this realignment of the road and failure to release this previously traveled area. They should have released it to the adjoining areas (lost words), but they didn’t. So that’s what we’re dealing with, and that’s the only reason that we need a setback. MR. THOMAS-Okay. The first question I have for you is, have you approached the State to have them release that to you or abandon it to you? MR. RICHARDS-We did have one discussion with the State. We did not get into any abandonment of that. MR. THOMAS-Okay, because I know there’s other people that have done that farther north, up in Warrensburg, I know it’s been done. MR. RICHARDS-It would affect, my guess is you would probably have at least 10 adjoining neighbors that, it would make life a lot easier if the State would do that. A lot of the structures along there would not be, have any problem with conforming if that were released to the adjoining owners. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) MR. STONE-The line on this drawing that we have, that came with the application, is the building right on the property line, technically? This right here, Leo’s Lobster, the restaurant building, is right on the line. MR. RICHARDS-It is, it’s just about flush on the line, yes. MR. STONE-Flush on the line. Okay. I noticed that. I just wanted to, which obviously wouldn’t have been permitted today anyway. MR. RICHARDS-But if you went up there, you’d see all this area that is actually, appears to be part of New York State Route 9, the parking lot and there’s trees there. It’s totally abandoned, as far as any practical use by the State. MR. STONE-But isn’t there a plan to put sidewalk in on Route 9? LEONARDO LOMBARDO MR. LOMBARDO-There are sidewalks there already. There are. MR. STONE-They’re there already. Okay. MR. LOMBARDO-They were put in about 15 years ago. MR. HAYES-That’s more down the Million Dollar Half Mile. MR. STONE-Yes, that’s where they’re talking about. MR. MC NALLY-They’re going to start that next month. MR. STONE-Yes, I thought so. I looked at it, but I didn’t realize it was there. MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore 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? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there anymore questions for the applicant? Okay. If there’s no more questions for the applicant, lets talk about it. Mr. Stone, what do you think? MR. STONE-Looking at the property, and taking into consideration all of the facts about the right of way and the extreme width of the right of way, and looking where the proposed project is to be placed, I have really no problem whatsoever. I think it, anything in there is going to be an improvement over the abandoned golf course, in terms of visual effects, and applying the so called balancing test that we have, I don’t see any undesirable change in the neighborhood. I don’t think the request is substantial when you consider all the facts, in terms of where the road way is, and it’s certainly not going to be changed in the foreseeable future. The fact that it’s self created, you want to use your property. You had permission to use your property for something else before. I see no reason why you shouldn’t be allowed to put this thing in, particularly when we’ve heard nothing about, tonight, about the proposed use, not even talking about the variance, but nobody’s even objecting to the proposed use. So I think the benefit to the applicant far outweighs any detriment to the community. MR. THOMAS-All right. Jamie? MR. HAYES-I agree entirely. As I look at this map, his existing business is going to be far more of a concern, as far as the impact on ever expanding traffic lanes in the area, and that I agree with his attorney, that essentially it’s the creation of the lay out of the Travel Corridor itself, or the State’s property, so I really have no problem with the application, and I think turning that miniature golf course into an active use, a maintained use, would be an improvement to the community. So, I’m for it. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I agree with Lew and Jamie. The Travel Corridor Overlay and the setback is to ensure future expansion of the road and to ensure appropriate setback for visual impact and whatnot, and that’s ensured by the fact of the way this Route 9’s set up and the location of the business. I don’t have a problem with it. MR. THOMAS-All right. I don’t have any concerns about the proposed setback on this piece of property. It was a commercial use by site plan review. The applicant is just going to change it from a miniature golf course to a go cart track, and the only thing he’s asking for is just for a setback, on expanding an existing building, really. To me, the State should have abandoned that right of way when they relocated Route 9. I don’t see any use for the State for having that piece of right of way going back so far, and that’s really all we’re concerned about, is the setback in the Highway Commercial One Acre Zone and the setback because it is part of the Travel Corridor Overlay Zone. So, there’s really, it’s like Jamie said, the restaurant sits right on the property line. That would be more of a concern to anyone than the existing go cart track. The track itself cannot be relocated because of the Northway on the back of it, and because of the buildings on the north and south of it. So they can’t really go anywhere. So, I would approve this variance. Would someone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-1998 LEONARDO & CALLIOPI LOMBARDO , Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: 1583 Route 9. The applicant proposes the utilization of an existing go cart shelter structure which is within the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, and is not set back 50 feet from the highway, in accordance with Section 179-23, and they ask for 10 feet of relief with respect to that Section. The benefit to the applicant is that they would be permitted to maintain and operate a go cart at the desired location of the preferred structure. The feasible alternatives are limited. As you noted, the Northway is directly to the rear, and there are buildings on either side of the property. Moving the go cart structure forward is only going to make the proposed variance even worse than it would be otherwise. I don’t find the relief substantial to the Ordinance. They’re requesting 35 feet of relief on the one corner to the north, and 10 feet at that corner, under the 50 foot setback, and it might be otherwise substantial, were it not for the fact that the paved portion of Route 9 is so far removed from their front property line. There is effectively a buffer equal to or exceeding that 50 foot and 75 foot setback limits. The effects on the neighborhood are minimal. There’s an existing structure there. All they’re asking is to use the property essentially as it is right now, with minimal change. Whether or not the difficulty is self-created, I don’t know, but I think on balance, even if it is, the application should be approved, and I move that it be approved. th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Porter MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. RICHARDS-Thank you very much. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-1998 TYPE II LI-1A GLENN BATEASE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN EXISTING VIOLATION OF BUFFER ZONE AND EXPAND AREA OF FILL AND OCCUPATION OF THE BUFFER ZONE. CROSS REF. SPR 71-96 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8/12/98 TAX MAP NO. 135-2-2.2 LOT SIZE: 7.16 ACRES SECTION 179-26, 179-12 BILL NEALON & GLENN BATEASE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 52-1998, Glenn Batease, Meeting Date: August 19, 1998 Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: “ 71 Big Boom Rd. Applicant proposes to maintain the existing occupation of the buffer zone and to expand the limits of filling to include Relief Required: more of the buffer zone. Applicant requests 50 feet of relief from the requirement for a 50 foot buffer zone, Section 179-72. The applicant’s lot abuts residential zones therefore, a 50 foot buffer is to be maintained. The definition of Buffer Zone, Section 179-7 does Criteria for considering an Area Variance according not allow for disturbance or occupation. to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the existing conditions and expand on same in order to create areas to develop in the 2. Feasible alternatives: future. Feasible alternatives may include filling in compliance with the 3. Is this relief substantial buffer zone requirements and acquisition of additional property. relative to the Ordinance?: 50 feet of relief from the 50 foot requirement may be interpreted as 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: substantial. Substantial effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. There is a Department of Environmental Conservation classified stream in the vicinity which would be affected by this 5. Is this difficulty self-created? action. The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 71-96 res. 11/26/96 addition of courier service and site work SP 33-94 modification res. 7/22/97 site grading and access drive SP 33-94 res. 10/27/94 placement of 3 buildings SP 71-96 modification res. 8/25/98 pending Staff comments: variance Substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The adjoining residential zones, SR-1A and WR-1A may be significantly affected by the placement of this substantial amount of fill in this area, given the change in elevation from the proposed level of fill to the existing elevation. The toe of the slope, even at a severe 1/1 slope, would encroach onto SEQR Status: the neighboring properties, at least 50 feet. Type II” MR. BROWN-There’s no County. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Batease or Mr. Nealon. MR. NEALON-Members of the Board, my name is Bill Nealon. I’m an attorney in Glens Falls. I’m here on behalf of Mr. Batease who is here with me this evening. Firstly, I’d like to address the Staff notes. I have with me tonight, I’d submit to the Board, a letter from Russell O’Connor, the owner of the substantially abutting property that lies immediately to the east of the proposed development. As the Board may recall, Mr. O’Connor appeared before the Board some time ago, requesting permission to fill a substantial gully or ravine, which was on his property, in order to create a driving range or a golf facility of one sort or another. I believe that that facility is substantially finished, as to at least its preliminary phases. Mr. Batease’s property abuts that O’Connor property for all but about 100 feet in the extreme south corner, southeast corner of the property. It is my understanding that both Mr. O’Connor and his partner are interested in bringing the property that they own and the property that Mr. Batease is developing, to essentially like within the same rough grade of one another. I don’t make any representations on Mr. O’Connor, but that is my understanding. The original topography of this land, as the Board may recall, contained a substantial depression or ravine, as one moved easterly from Big Boom Road. In fact, it was zoned Light Industrial, but as it was originally configured, there was only a small portion of the lands that were suitably developed for industrial or light industrial purposes, under the initial topography that was there. Over the course of time, Mr. Batease has come to the Board requesting the authority to develop the lands in a light industrial zone. I believe that the adjoining land owner to the south has also been before this Board on other occasions, with similar requests. What is proposed here is to permit the full utilization of an industrial zone, which, in substantial part, is not abutted by any residential zone, rather a commercial zone, and as I indicated, Mr. O’Connor has no objection to the filling to, and for that matter somewhat over, the boundary that’s between the two properties. In a sense, that addresses one of the Board’s comments, by acquisition of additional properties to the east, that’s not necessary. In fact, the easterly owner rather joins Mr. Batease’s application. Addressing the issue of the stream, the Board’s Staff properly notes that there is a stream generally in the vicinity. It is not on Mr. Batease’s property. It is not as categorized even close to Mr. Batease’s property. I think the mapped stream, as shown, actually lies some significant distance away from the property line of Mr. Batease. There is, as well, a rise between Mr. Batease’s property and the main stem of that stream. His depicted on the easterly portion of the lands adjacent to Mr. Batease’s, would be Mr. O’Connor’s land, that’s where the stream is located. There are silt barriers that have already been in place, of which I believe the Board’s Staff is well aware, and they seem to be functioning as intended, and there’s been no new issue, as far as I am aware, regarding any infiltration into a protected stream. Regarding the portion of Mr. Batease’s property which is adjacent to the WR-1A zone, that being in the extreme southeast corner, there are no dwellings within, there’s some distance between this property and the nearest dwelling. If the Board were to so require, we could complete our project, as proposed, and 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) develop the site as Mr. Batease has indicated, by preserving some portion of that buffer, if, indeed, it was felt to be necessary, but again, it is quite some distance between this property and the residential, actually occupied residential zone, and it should also be noted that that stream lies some distance on the other side, which would preclude the development of lands immediately adjacent to Mr. Batease’s property, for residential or other purposes, as we understand it. The site itself, as noted, was one that had a very severe gully. It’s indicated in the topography shown on your maps as presented with the application. The filling of these lands really represents the only reasonable use for which this light industrially zoned premises can be effectively utilized. Mr. Batease does run an excavating business, and has need for, as well as storage and stockpiling, manipulation of certain construction materials, topsoil and gravel and so on, and to have that area relatively level and suitable for the growth and development of other compatible businesses would certainly serve the ends of the community in attracting business development to a zone which has been designated for that purpose by the Town. We’d certainly be happy to answer any questions that the Board might have, but I believe that, given the development of the adjacent property, that is the O’Connor property, for the purposes for which it has already been developed, and his concurrence with Mr. Batease’s intended development, I would submit that the potentially significant impact which Staff alludes to is really not germane to the issues before the Board. The lands adjacent to Big Boom Road and Corinth Road are among the most heavily developed in the Town, and certainly to invite an opportunity for further commercial development there is not out of line with the otherwise development, otherwise developable properties that are situated along that corridor. MR. THOMAS-Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Nealon? MR. MC NALLY-Bill, as I understand, this was a map submitted on your behalf? MR. NEALON-Mr. Batease filed the application. I really haven’t seen exactly what you have in front of you. MR. MC NALLY-As I understood, looking, at it, all right, this is Big Boom Road over here. MR. NEALON-That’s right. MR. MC NALLY-The hatched area on the bottom is the portion that has fill that was placed in that buffer zone? MR. NEALON-I don’t believe there is. MR. STONE-Or some is filled and the rest of it’s not. MR. MC NALLY-Yes. There’s a portion that’s filled with a road going down to the bottom. Is this what that portion is? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. That hatched area is the existing fill. MR. MC NALLY-Staff did the yellow marking? MR. BROWN-Yes. I just shaded in the area that you had drawn on the original map. I shaded in the area that was within the buffer zone. MR. MC NALLY-Because when I visited it, you could see a clearer line, but then there was a portion filled in, and that’s that portion filled in, in the rear of the property? That’s that portion in the back that was filled in? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. It’s sloped down to the toe of the bank. MR. MC NALLY-And the hatched area in the front is the cutaway into the bank, that approaches Big Boom Road? MR. BROWN-Yes. Actually, the hatched area in the front isn’t the required buffer zone. That was actually probably mislabeled on the map. That’s more of a setback requirement of the Light Industrial zone. MR. STONE-Okay, and that’s, there is excavation, on that side it’s been excavated? MR. BROWN-On this side it’s been filled. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) MR. STONE-On the east side it’s been filled, both sides have been filled? MR. BROWN-Both sides, correct. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HAYES-He filled up toward the road, too? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-There is no problem filling up toward the road. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. That setback is for structures. MR. THOMAS-That’s just setback, but the back, is the 50 foot buffer is what we’re talking about. MR. BROWN-The back is the 50 foot buffer that needs to be maintained, that’s correct. MR. STONE-This is not germane to your application, but is it your property across the street, too, or is that somebody else’s, where there’s earth materials stored? MR. BATEASE-No, that’s somebody else’s property. MR. MC NALLY-I’m still confused. Bill, when you said all the corrections, this is his property. O’Connor is up at this end with the golfing area? MR. STONE-No, no. Turn it up north/south. MR. MC NALLY-There’s no direction on here. MR. STONE-This is Big Boom. The driving range is over here. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. NEALON-O’Connor’s property runs from, essentially, Corinth Road, here, way back to here. MR. HAYES-And this is vacant up here. MR. NEALON-So he has no, the fill and buffer zone area that was of concern, as I understood the Staff, was that the Light Industrial zone abutted a commercial zone, now being a golf driving range, and Mr. O’Connor, the owner of that driving range, has no objection to the fill, even if it were to over spill somewhat onto his property. MR. HAYES-Where is the house that you were talking? MR. NEALON-The residential zone begins down here about two inches up from the, 100 feet, and the stream runs essentially on the edge of the map that you have, and essentially, if the Board felt it were absolutely essential to preserve some buffer zone in that area, we would do our best to accommodate the concerns of the Board, but as I indicated, it would appear that that particular area, as a residential zone, could never been developed, because of the existence of that stream running through there. MR. STONE-Well, I was just about to ask you that. I mean, certainly the fact that there is a golf driving range in there is fine for the moment, but the land is still zoned SR-1A, and there’s got to be some area in there that could be residential, lets assume the golf course, the driving range doesn’t go. It still could be built up with single family one acre zone, homes. MR. NEALON-Well, I think you really have to address Mr. O’Connor on that. It’s under his dominion and control, and he is specifically telling the Board that he has no objection to the filling, and the effective elimination of an undisturbed zone, as between his property and Mr. .Batease’s property. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) MR. STONE-I understand that, but, as you know well, variance goes with the land, and regardless of who owns it at any particular time, and he certainly, as anybody who owns property, can sell it, and it could be built up as single family. MR. NEALON-Well, once again, it’s not my position, here, to argue with the Board, but I think that the supposition that suddenly Corinth Road is going to become a single family residential haven within the Town of Queensbury is not very realistic. MR. STONE-I should say Suburban Residential. I’ve misstated. MR. NEALON-Well, even Suburban Residential. MR. STONE-Okay, but I just want to make sure I’ve said it correctly. All of a sudden I see it’s SR, rather than SFR. I understand, I’m just saying it is currently zoned SR-1A. It could be used SR-1A, regardless of what Mr. O’Connor says. Now, that’s, we have to factor this in to our particular. MR. NEALON-I understand. I’m simply trying to address those concerns by bringing the Board’s attention to the concurrence of the adjacent land owner, who is essentially consenting to whatever minimal burden that might impose upon his lands. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant? I have one question for Craig. That Suburban Residential One Acre zone, in the new Comprehensive Plan that’s been shown around, do you know if that’s going to be changed? MR. BROWN-I don’t know. MR. THOMAS-Right off the top of your head you don’t know. It seems to me there were some changes down in there. MR. BROWN-I don’t know if there’s any changes yet. I mean, there may be some proposals to do that, but I don’t think. MR. THOMAS-Yes, proposed changes. MR. BROWN-I don’t know. MR. THOMAS-I’m just kicking that around, too. Mr. Nealon, the future building shown along the back property line, there’s three of them. According to the zoning laws, that the back of the buildings would have to be 80 feet from that back property line. How far is that fill back now, from the property line to the top of the slope? Do you know, of the existing, you know, behind the existing storage building that’s there? MR. BATEASE-From the existing building now? MR. THOMAS-No, from the back property line, the east property line, okay, from there to the top of the existing slope, do you know what that distance would be? MR. BROWN-On your drawing, you can see the line, the outline of where that is. MR. STONE-Have you got a scale right there? MR. BROWN-Yes, I’ve got a scale. It’s about 140 feet, if this is the right scale, it’s about 140 feet from the property line. MR. THOMAS-So there’s nothing that says he couldn’t fill in within 50 feet of that property line, right? MR. BROWN-Place fill any place within 50 feet of the property line? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-The orange line is what? MR. THOMAS-That’s the buffer zone. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) MR. STONE-That’s right, this is 50 feet. MR. HAYES-That’s as far as he can disturb without a variance. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-That’s right. MR. BROWN-So there is area that can be developed without disturbing the buffer zone. Is that the question? MR. THOMAS-Right. That’s what I’m getting at, that’s what I’m trying to get to. MR. BROWN-Yes. It appears that there is. MR. THOMAS-So if you went 80 feet from the property line to the back of one of the future buildings, you would be within compliance. MR. NEALON-Well, that’s really not practical, from an engineering sense, because if we are coming 50 feet away from the property line, with an undisturbed zone, that essentially represents that portion where the toe of the slope must lie, 50 feet in from the property line. MR. THOMAS-Well, then you still have to go another 30 feet from that, for a rear setback. MR. NEALON-Yes, but the toe of the slope, if I recall the slope requirements, it’s probably going to bring that even further into that zone. So you’re essentially compressing either the available space for landscaping and employee parking and other issues in this industrial zone into a very tight bundle. The lands that would otherwise be usable are then never going to be developable for any rational purpose. I can understand the Board’s position, if one were in a position where there were incompatible actual uses on the adjacent properties, and certainly, as I’ve indicated before, if the Board were concerned about that one corner in the southeast, where it’s adjacent to an actual residential zone, even though significantly unoccupied residential zone, we would be more than happy to stipulate in the application that we would maintain that zone, in that southeast corner where it abuts the WR-1A zone, but as far as the balance of the property, I think the Board must recognize that we’re not suggesting here that the developed buildings are going to be closer than the required setbacks from the property line. We were presented, by Mother Nature, with a piece of property that was almost a ravine, and the Town Board, in its decision making process, any number of years ago, deemed that to be a Light Industrial zone. The folks who are occupying it now, Mr. Batease and the Seeleys, have done a good job, I submit, in trying to develop that, along the lines contemplated by the Ordinance when it designated that as a Light Industrial zone. Now, the fact that the topography is irregular means that there have to be some changes, and when there are changes, things get a little rough in the filled sections, but I think we all recognize that in order to make an attractive place for other businesses to locate, that will be dressed up and landscaped and such, when buildings and other permanent developments go in there, but in order to lay the foundation, so to speak, we need to be able to create a buildable section of significant, reasonably significant proportions, on that land without, at the same time, infringing on the rights of adjacent property owners, and that’s what we are endeavoring to do, and we have consulted, at some length, with Mr. O’Connor, the significant adjacent property owner. MR. STONE-A point of information for myself, are other parts of this land being excavated at the same time you’re talking about filling other parts? MR. NEALON-There are portions that are being leveled out, yes. MR. STONE-Leveled or dug down? MR. NEALON-Leveled. MR. STONE-Because I see a power shovel in there, which looks like it was taking, it wasn’t operating when I was there, but it looks like it might be extracting materials, which is perfectly legal in this zone. I’m not suggesting that it’s not. I’m just curious. MR. NEALON-Well, the northern portion of the property does rise up in some sort of a little sand hill, and some of that has been leveled out a little bit. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Craig, what’s the minimum slope? Is it a two on one or a three on one? MR. BROWN-Two on one. MR. THOMAS-Two on one. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. THOMAS-So how far back from that property line. MR. BROWN-Dave Wick’s from the Soil Conservation District, who we met with on the site on Monday with Glenn, stated to me that a severe slope but possibly a slope that could be manageable here would be a one on one and a half, and that’s about as steep as you could go. He’d prefer to see either one on two or maybe even one on three, depending on the type of material. Obviously, the smaller the material, the loose material, the flatter it needs to be, if it’s ledge or big broken rock, concrete, it can be steeper. MR. THOMAS-And how far back from the property line would that be, into Mr. Batease’s property, would a one and a half or two on one be? MR. BROWN-Well, given that the stream elevation, you can see at the property line there, that elevation is approximately 330, maybe, 340. The elevation that he wants to maintain is 377. So you’re talking about 40 feet, 45 feet of an elevation change, and one on one, it’s 45 feet out. One on one and a half, you’re out to 55 feet or 60 feet. MR. THOMAS-So, you’re beyond the buffer zone. MR. STONE-Starting at the buffer zone. MR. BROWN-What was your question, how far does it go from the top of the slope? MR. THOMAS-Well, from the property line to the top of the slope, using the slope that the Town requires, say, you know, if you can go to a one on one or a one and a half on one. MR. BROWN-Yes, if it’s a slope the Town requires, it’s going to be two on one. MR. THOMAS-So that would be 90 feet back. MR. BROWN-That would be 90 feet. MR. THOMAS-So 90 feet back from the property line to the west. MR. BROWN-To the top of the bank. MR. THOMAS-To the top of the bank. MR. BROWN-Approximately, based on these contours. I’m not sure how accurate they are. This is an old. MR. THOMAS-Well, like I said, I’m not looking for, but I just wanted to know, and what’s the, from the property line to the top of the slope now, how far is it from the property line? MR. BROWN-That was the 140 feet, based on this map. I didn’t do any field measurements on it. MR. THOMAS-All right. So it’s 140 feet. MR. BROWN-Based on this map. MR. THOMAS-So he could fill back 50 feet. MR. BROWN-Fifty feet, to get to the edge of the buffer zone. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) MR. THOMAS-Well, he could fill back 50 feet, and he’d still be 90 feet from the, or he’d still be 40 feet from the buffer zone. MR. BROWN-Well, that’s the top of the bank, 140. Now if you come down it, one on one, from a 35 feet bank, now you’re out 35 more feet. Now you’re 105 feet from the property line. So he could fill another 55 feet to get to the edge of the buffer. MR. THOMAS-All right. MR. BROWN-Approximately, based on this. MR. THOMAS-Based on that. So he could actually fill right up to the 50 foot buffer line. MR. BROWN-Sure, absolutely. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and then he’d still have his slope, and then he’d still have to have 30 foot of setback from that property line to the west, for any building. MR. BROWN-Right, which wouldn’t be an issue, because the buffer zone’s there. The buffer zone takes up the setback. MR. THOMAS-It’s the setback plus the buffer zone. You go 50 feet from the property line west to the buffer zone, and then there’s 30 feet beyond that. MR. BROWN-From the buffer zone. MR. THOMAS-From the 50 foot buffer zone, so he’d have to be back 80 feet. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. THOMAS-So he’d be well within that if he filled back. MR. BROWN-If he filled to the buffer zone. MR. THOMAS-To the buffer zone. MR. BROWN-The top of the bank would be beyond the 80 feet. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. BROWN-That appears to be correct. MR. THOMAS-Well, so there’s no big deal doing that. MR. BROWN-Filling to the buffer zone? No. MR. THOMAS-That’s legal. MR. STONE-So that brings it 45 feet. MR. NEALON-No, that brings it 90 feet. MR. STONE-Back from the buffer zone, 140. MR. THOMAS-So they would need a variance from the two on one, if they wanted to go back to the buffer zone. MR. HAYES-And still maintain the buildings in place. MR. STONE-But you’re asking to start the fill at the property line, basically. MR. MC NALLY-Right. He’s doing away with the buffer zone. MR. NEALON-Yes. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) MR. BROWN-What this proposal calls for is to continue this elevation at 377, which is at the back of that storage building, continue that elevation to the property line, and let the slope continue on to the adjoining property. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and then slope two on one onto the O’Connor property for 90 feet. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-Which would bring it into that stream. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-Which DEC said. MR. BROWN-That’s a bad idea. Yes, and as a result of this meeting on Monday, there’s an apparent of this disturbance of the better banks of a protected stream currently on the property, in this cross hatched area. There’s an area of fill that’s been placed that is a continuous slope down to the brook, and any sort of heavy storm or rain may cause some sort of erosion and cause a turbidity problem in the brook. MR. THOMAS-Wasn’t there a turbidity curtain there? MR. BROWN-Not in this area. MR. THOMAS-Not in the cross hatched area? MR. BROWN-No. There’s a small piece down at the end of this, the existing brook that flows into the classified, the protected stream, but there’s no siltation fence, no haybales, erosion control of any sort, any place on the property. MR. HAYES-I have a question for Mr. Batease, now. As far as this plan that’s shown here, trying to determine just how much you’re trying to develop the property. You’re proposing the existing building that’s there now, right? That’s up and running with your equipment, and then six other buildings. MR. THOMAS-Are there 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? MR. BROWN-I believe you’ve got a letter from Mr. O’Connor, if you’d like to read that in, in favor of. MR. THOMAS-I’ll read that with correspondence. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TIM BREWER MR. BREWER-Can I just look at the map, and see what it’s all about? MR. STONE-Sure, Tim, go right ahead. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone like to speak opposed? MR. BREWER-Could you hold on one minute? MR. THOMAS-Sure. I’ll read in the correspondence while you’re looking at that. A letter dated August 19, 1998, addressed to Glenn Batease “Dear Mr. Batease: We have no objection to you filling your property at 71 Big Boom Road to the property line. We understand that there may be a degree of over fill onto our adjacent property. Sincerely, Russell E. O’Connor, Co-owner” Also a Record of Field Inspection, dated August 17, 1998, the Site is Batease Excavating, Big Boom 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) Road, Parties Present were Craig Brown, Laura Nowicki, Bill Lupo, DEC; Dave Wicks, Soil Conservation, Glenn Batease, and an Assistant to Les Saltzman “9:00 am Site inspection, Bill stated that Glenn may need a permit for disturbance of more than 5 acres, however, in the spring of ’99, the threshold will be lowered to at least 2 acres at which time Glenn will need a permit. During this visit it was observed that there is an apparent violation of disturbance to the banks of a protected stream. This determination must be made by Mr. Saltzman. Also, a wet area flowing from the approximate middle of the fill area was determined to be a year round flow and therefore takes on the classification of the stream into which it flows, which in this case is protected.” MR. STONE-This draft thing, Craig. MR. THOMAS-Is this draft thing any? MR. BROWN-I don’t know what that is. MR. STONE-It was in the application. MR. BROWN-Those are notes from Laura. MR. STONE-Were they ever issued? It says “Draft”. MR. BROWN-I don’t know. This is correspondence from Laura. Obviously, she issued it to you. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it was in the packet, but I think it might be superseded by, yes, take that and throw that in the folder. The stream is right here. MR. STONE-Yes, they want to go this way. MR. THOMAS-No. They want to go this way. MR. STONE-They want to fill right in here. MR. THOMAS-Yes. They want this to be the top of the slope, here, level at this 377. That means in a two on one slope, you’d have to go 90 feet this way. MR. STONE-Well, that’s what I’m getting at here. That’s not what it says. He wants to the property line 377, and then slope down. MR. THOMAS-Yes, and then slope this way so it would go 90 feet this way. It’s 377 and a half right there at the building. So between this one is 45. So to get a two on one, you’d have to go back 90 feet this way. You’d start right here. This would be the top of the slope here. MR. STONE-From there. MR. THOMAS-From there and go back. Are you ready, Tim? MR. BREWER-Yes. I just want to ask you a couple of questions. MR. THOMAS-Go ahead. We might not be able to answer them, but Glenn might. MR. BREWER-Tim Brewer, Candleberry Drive in Queensbury. I’m looking at the center of the map, and there’s a berm shown, and then a silt fence. That area’s going to be filled? Or the perimeter? I guess I’m trying to figure out what you’re filling. MR. BATEASE-That area is filled. So this map here. MR. BROWN-The earthen berm and that silt fence shown on there, that’s from an old map. MR. BATEASE-So we’re beyond that. MR. BREWER-You’re beyond what? You’re beyond the berm here? MR. BATEASE-Yes. So we’re filled up to here, up to this line here. MR. BREWER-So there’s no depression where this was anymore? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) MR. BATEASE-That’s all, that’s basically within the elevation of this here, within probably three feet, all the way out here, and this is all the same elevation. This was the bigger ravine. MR. BREWER-I don’t know what the elevations are. I guess my confusion is the map is not accurate, I guess. MR. BATEASE-This elevation here, 377. MR. BREWER-That’s where? That’s at your building? MR. BATEASE-That’s at my building, right. MR. BREWER-What’s this elevation back here now? MR. BATEASE-That’s at the bottom of the ravine. MR. BREWER-Right, but what’s the elevation? MR. BATEASE-I’m not sure where it is. MR. BROWN-Down by that slope comes to about where that line (lost word) this is the top of the slope right here, and this area down here probably, about here to the toe, I would guess. MR. BREWER-But what’s the elevation? MR. BROWN-At that point, that’s the existing. That’s the contours that are on here. These contours are existing. MR. BREWER-So it’s at 340? MR. BROWN-Approximately, yes. MR. BREWER-So you’ve filled right from the back? MR. BROWN-He hasn’t filled down there yet. The top of the bank is here. The toe is approximately here, and the rest of the property is the existing contours. MR. BREWER-Okay, but you’d fill out here? MR. BATEASE-Yes, but this here starts going up again. So this is the deepest part of the ravine here. So this, back here, from here it start climbing again. MR. BREWER-Going back up. MR. BATEASE-Yes. MR. BREWER-Then why was this berm here? Wasn’t that to protect the stream? MR. BATEASE-No, that stream’s over here. MR. BREWER-Then why was the berm put there? MR. BATEASE-Well, I put that berm up to see, originally, when we were filling, this was all tapered down. So when it rained, some of that stuff was washed down over the hill. Now, the way this is graded here, when we would fill, most of the water settles over in here, in the road area, because it’s lower here and it’s higher here. So most of the runoff from the building runs down in here, where it’s sandy, and then just goes into the ground and runs off. MR. BREWER-I guess I’d have to go out there and look, but I just, the map is confusing because I don’t know what actually has been filled and what hasn’t been filled, and what. MR. BATEASE-See, this was a ravine all through here. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) MR. BREWER-The only reason I say why the berm was there is I remember, when this originally was started, the silt fence, the berm was there to stop runoff going down to the stream, regardless of. The map is not accurate, so I have to ask him. MR. NEALON-Well, he’s explaining as best he can, and so has Staff, that to this point as shown, it’s approximately 377 feet as being the elevation, and that’s what is there now. MR. BREWER-So you just want to fill in to the buffer. This is unused. There’s no houses there. MR. BATEASE-No. MR. BREWER-But it could potentially be used. MR. NEALON-Right now it’s a golf driving area on the other side. MR. BREWER-I know where the golf range is. MR. NEALON-And woodland, and Mr. O’Connor has indicated he has no objection to the proposed application by Mr. Batease. MR. BREWER-I guess my only concern is that I would ask for an accurate map so we could see what the elevations are and what they’re going to be, and whatever things are going to happen. I mean, that map has been drawn over four times. That’s my only concern. That’s why I was confused about it. MR. STONE-Join the group, Tim. MR. THOMAS-All right. Would anyone else like to speak for or against this variance application? I’ve read the correspondence. So I’ll close the public hearing now. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-I may re-open it. All right. Are there any other questions for the applicant, from the Board? MR. STONE-Well, the question that I would have, is it possible, because we’re dealing with a very complex situation here, as far as I’m concerned. We’re talking about sloping, here there, and where do we start, and where do we go, and I think Mr. Brewer makes a very good case. This certainly cries out for a survey, rather than a hand drawn, I mean, it may be based on some survey, but there’s so much hand drawn on here, I’ve been confused trying to look at it, and I think this is not a simple issue. It’s a matter of allowing the applicant to extend the fill all the way to the property line, and then slope it, in conformance with Town regulations, on somebody else’s property, as I understand it. If I’m wrong, please let me know, but that’s how I understand it. I think we need to know where these possibilities are going to take this property, with an accurate survey, without future buildings on there. I think we need to know what the land is going to look like, if the applicant’s variance were granted, and I think we have to know where the alternatives might, what alternatives that we have, and where they might fall on the same survey. I think we also need whatever report from DEC and Soil and Water, before we really can do anything. MR. BROWN-Unfortunately, that meeting was Monday, and I haven’t had a chance to draft a letter at this point, but we’re anticipating correspondence. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and could Mr. Batease go to Soil Conservation and get a, some kind of variance or letter, something stating that he could go on a steeper slope? MR. BROWN-They could probably work up a plan, based on the type of material that’s in there, and develop a stable slope. MR. THOMAS-So it wouldn’t have to be a two on one. It could be a one on one, or a one and one half on one. MR. BROWN-It may be that steep, yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay, but I think like Lew said, we’re going to need that map, a more accurate map showing the, what’s existing, where the existing contour lines are and what wants to be filled, 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) and I think the adjacent property owner should know that, according to Mr. Batease’s plan, that he plans, you know, if he plans to fill up to the line, and even a one on one slope, it looks like it’s about 45 foot of elevation difference. So it’s going to fill 45 feet onto his land, and according to Mr. O’Connor, I think it was Mr. O’Connor that wrote the letter, that he didn’t care if there was some filling on his land, but I don’t think he knows the extent as to what Mr. Batease wants to fill on his land, if he brings it back to the property line, and goes down. MR. NEALON-I wonder if we can just get a sense of the Board as to it’s concerns. I understand full well your concern, on behalf of Mr. O’Connor, and we’re certainly more than happy to address that. It’s a little bit difficult for me to glean, and I’m asking for the Board’s advice here, whether, on a philosophical basis, there is objection to the disturbance of the existing buffer zone, whether it be on, or as a part of the slope that has been discussed, whether it be one on one or one and a half on one or whatever, or whether it’s simply a matter of, we’re willing to look at this application as an application will include disturbance of this zone as part of either fill or a slope, and it’s a matter of how that is configured to be acceptable both to the Town and to Mr. O’Connor. MR. THOMAS-To me, I would bend toward giving a variance into that buffer zone, okay. I wouldn’t give the whole buffer zone. I would give some of the buffer zone because of the existing land, and that stream down there. My primary concern is protecting that stream from any fill, and like Craig said, if you can work some kind of deal out with the Soil Conservation as to the slope of the land, you know, I would go along with that, but my main concern is the stream and intrusion into the buffer zone. Like I said, I’d be willing to give somewhat into the buffer zone, but not the whole buffer zone, no. MR. NEALON-All right. Would that be so largely in the area of the stream or also concerned about that buffer zone right out to Corinth Road? MR. MC NALLY-There’s nothing definite in front of us, as far as your terms. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-I mean, I understand what you’re saying. You’re saying there’s a portion that’s commercial, and maybe it’s not as important, but I don’t know how far that is or where that is or what your real intentions are. MR. NEALON-Well, I’m just trying to get some idea of where the specific areas of concern of the Board are. MR. HAYES-Better information is going to provide, I think, a better, you know, examination from the Board or even more leniency, I would think. MR. STONE-Yes. I think Chris gave pretty much where I’m coming to at the moment, but I need to know, I mean Staff, in an attempt to be helpful, put this 50 foot zone on the map, but when you take the stream into consideration, this may not be the actual buffer zone that has to be I there. I mean, it’s a 50 foot, but the stream may make this have to go back further when we take all of DEC’s concerns into effect. MR. BROWN-Right, and according to the Town Code, from this stream in this zone, and Mr. Batease’s property is in the Light Industrial zone, he needs to maintain a 75 foot setback to any shoreline, lake, stream, etc. MR. STONE-So we really need to know where this stream is, as far as DEC is concerned. We need to know what this buffer zone is going to look like, but I certainly, in trying to give you guidance, I can’t conceive of ever agreeing to fill going to the property line and then sloped onto the other guy’s land, whatever it is. Now, Mr. Thomas talks about, he would like the beginning of the fill, he might give somewhere in the buffer zone, and I might be so inclined, too, but certainly the fill, in my mind, cannot go to the property line. MR. NEALON-The fill at 370? MR. THOMAS-Yes, at 377. MR. NEALON-I see. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) MR. MC NALLY-Chris, in these buffer zones, between zones, they’re not allowed to use that for parking? MR. THOMAS-No. MR. MC NALLY-In other instances where this has come to us, we’ve been very strict, no parking, no change of anything that’s natural, period, and I’m not sure, by filling it, necessarily, what use it will have to the applicant. MR. THOMAS-Well, we have given some variances recently. MR. MC NALLY-Is this application simply to fill it? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Or is to use it and pave it? MR. THOMAS-Well, to me, the application says right on the front, says to fill in gully, which is disturbance of the buffer zone, which, according to, the, in 178-7, under Definitions of Buffer Zone, it says that they cannot disturb that. It has to remain natural. MR. HAYES-You’re essentially doing it to develop the land going toward Big Boom Road, though, as far as, that’s what you’re looking to get that ground to grade so you can build buildings that are going to be serviced from Big Boom Road. MR. STONE-You’d like to go from your building, as far as you possibly can, at that grade level, as far as we’ll allow you to go, you’d like to go. Okay. MR. MC NALLY-You see, the future building is at the current level. I mean, the buildings that are written down here, as I understand your map, are on the level of the surface already, simply behind the buildings in the buffer zone that has to be filled. MR. NEALON-They would be. MR. STONE-It’s only the one building there. MR. NEALON-Yes, right. There’s only one building there now, that being the storage building. MR. BATEASE-I don’t want to build in the buffer. I just want to fill it so. MR. HAYES-You could get a flat spot to build the other ones behind your property, that will be the same as your existing building. MR. BATEASE-Right. MR. STONE-And to get as much land between your storage building and the future buildings as possible. I think we understand that. I think this has been very helpful to me in getting clarification, but I think we need to see exactly where this is going to be, and I think you’ve heard how I think, that it certainly can’t be filled, in my mind, to the property line. Where we start within the buffer zone I think depends a great deal on the stream and what we hear from DEC and Soil and Water, and a few other things. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, if I might read the definition for a Buffer Zone, I think it addresses the critical nature of the stream. A Buffer Zone is, “An unpaved natural area without buildings designed to reduce the possibility of adverse impact on land or water quality and/or conflicts of land use between two (2) or more zones. No parking or storage of vehicles of any kind or objects associated with the use of the property is permitted. When not inhabited with natural woody plants (i.e., trees and shrubs) sufficient to visually screen adjoining uses or zones, such buffer area shall be planted, regraded and/or fenced” MR. MC NALLY-Now, you could have put, slash, you could have put trunks, you could have put equipment, you could have put steel. You couldn’t put anything on that property, no asphalt, storage or anything. It is natural, period. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) MR. THOMAS-In a buffer zone, but we can give relief from that, and we have in the past in some instances. MR. NEALON-Well, we’re not proposing necessarily, and I’m bearing in mind the comments of the Board, that surveyors and other consultants that Mr. Batease might engage, based upon your comments, suggest that a different topography into that zone is appropriate, and we want the project, as it is ultimately, and I am unable to put a time frame on that ultimately, as it is ultimately configured. We want that to be an attractive location for a business to potentially locate. That’s the whole reason for the development of that Light Industrial zone. Obviously, if it doesn’t look visually appealing to a business that might locate there, they’re going to be disinclined to do so. So, it’s to our advantage to have that done in a responsible way, and that’s what we intend to do, bearing in mind, again, we’d like to maximize the use of the acreage that is available. MR. MC NALLY-What I don’t understand is, why would you want to spend so much time, effort and money filling in a buffer zone which you apparently have no real intent now to use in any particular way. I mean, if it’s supposed to stay natural, and you fill it and it stays natural, as it is now. There’s a different application, if you want another 20 feet to use or something, I don’t know if that’s before us. MR. NEALON-The issue there is one that I think Staff addressed, and perhaps you were studying pretty carefully there. You may not have heard the comment, but if we did nothing at all, within the zone. If it were to remain exactly as Mother Nature last had it, that means the toe of the slope, which has to pick up some 45 or thereabouts feet, would begin at the 50 foot from the property line point. So depending on the nature of the fill that would go in there, we would be back on a, either a one on one or a two on one slope, some 45 to 90 feet further west from the eastern property line, or potentially a grand total of almost 140 or 150 feet from the property line, and that substantially compromises the available space that can be used for building placement, and we recognize that we have an 80 foot minimum between the rear line for a facia, as it were, for a building to the property line, but under that configuration we would be some 140 or 150 feet from the property line, and there are no adverse uses in this area that I am aware of. MR. MC NALLY-No current adverse uses. MR. NEALON-That’s what the owners of that property are (lost word). They recognize what was there. They’ve filled substantially in order to create the use that is there. MR. MC NALLY-I’d like to see, if you’ve got something in mind, and I suppose these plans would show it, but I would like to see what the plans would say. MR. THOMAS-I’d like to see that stream on a map, okay, along with the property line, the topography lines, the existing buildings, proposed buildings. We wouldn’t hold you to a proposed building. I mean, it could be there, maybe it won’t be. Maybe it’ll be twice as big as whatever you show. MR. NEALON-Well, that’s all it would be. MR. THOMAS-But, I mean, just to show. What I really want to see is the stream in relation to the property line and the topography lines, and the area you propose to fill, from what’s existing now. I think this map goes way back, even before, because I think there’s been, well, there’s been property filled in there, some of this land’s been filled in since this map has been drawn. So, I would like to see, as it sits now, topography lines along, to the property line, and the existing stream for the length of the property, along the eastern property line. Okay. That’s what I’d like to see, and I think the rest of the Board members, I think that’s what they would like to see, also. MR. MC NALLY-Without any promises, though. MR. THOMAS-With no promises, but like I said, I have no problem, really, invading that 50 foot with some kind of fill, how much, I don’t know. That’s really going to be a consensus of the Board, but I have no problem going in, in this particular case, going into the fill, filling into the buffer zone, but I will still maintain the 50 foot buffer, plus the setback of 30 feet for any building. So it would be 80 feet from the property line. MR. NEALON-Well, that’s understood. I mean, we’re not quarreling with you. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) MR. THOMAS-No. We’re looking in the future on that one. I know the application says to fill in gully. I know there was other stuff on here, but it’s been whited out. I don’t know what was on there. So, if we could get that map, we would appreciate it, and maybe we could come up with something. Okay. So I think we will table this application, or would you like to submit a new one? MR. NEALON-Lets table it, if that’s the consensus of the Board, and we may supplement the application. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Do any of the Board members have any problems tabling this application for another map? MR. STONE-No. MR. MC NALLY-With that time limitation, though. MR. THOMAS-Yes, 62 days. MR. MC NALLY-If it’s tabled, as opposed to withdrawing. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-I’m just saying, if the applicant needs more time, he should keep that in mind. MR. THOMAS-Well, if at the end of 62 days, we can always extend it. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-1998 GLENN BATEASE , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: The reason for the tabling is for the applicant to provide the Board with an updated map showing the stream and its entire length of the eastern property line, the existing topography lines as it is today, and proposed buildings, and the existing buildings on a map. I would make this tabling for no more than 62 days, to allow the applicant to give us that map. th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Porter MR. THOMAS-So, if you can’t get it within 62 days, let us know, and we’ll extend it for you, but we won’t extend it indefinitely. Okay. MR. NEALON-I understand. Mr. Chairman, if the Board were kind enough to do so, the letter from Mr. O’Connor happens to be the only one that I have. MR. THOMAS-Yes. We’d like a copy of it for our file. So there’s the original right there, if you would send us just a copy of it, to keep in the file. MR. NEALON-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. NEALON-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Thank you. Bearss, what do you want to do with that, just read it in? MR. BROWN-Read it in, open the public hearing. MR. THOMAS-Open the public hearing, and leave the public hearing open. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) MR. BROWN-Leave the public hearing open and table it until next week. MR. THOMAS-Table it until next week. It sounds good to me. AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-1998 TYPE II SR-1A JOYCE BEARSS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 47 HERALD DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A DUPLEX ON AN UNDERSIZED LOT. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SR-1A ZONE. TAX MAP NO. 125-9-20 LOT SIZE: 0.52 ACRES SECTION 179-19 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 59-1998, Joyce Bearss, Meeting Date: August 19, 1998 Project Location: Description of Proposed Project: “47 Herald Drive Applicant proposes to maintain an existing duplex on a 0.52 acre lot. The building in question received both a Building Relief Required: Permit, 92-373 and a Certificate of Occupancy for a single family dwelling. Applicant requests 1.48 acres of relief from minimum area requirement of the SR-1A zone, Section 179-19. The SR-1A zone requires 1 acre of land per dwelling unit. This parcel is 0.52 acres will Criteria for considering an the density requirements of this zone call for 2 acres for a duplex. Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: 2. Feasible alternatives: Applicant would be permitted to maintain an existing duplex. Feasible alternatives may include reconfiguration of interior to eliminate two complete sets of living 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the facilities and acquisition of additional property. ordinance?:4. 1.48 acres of relief from the 2 acre requirement may be interpreted as substantial. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood are 5. Is this difficulty self-created? anticipated as a result of this action. The difficulty may be Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): interpreted as self-created. BP 92-373 – Staff comments: 6/25/92 Single Family Dwelling BP 93-509 - 9/1/93 Porch Addition Moderate impacts, in the form of additional requests for similar relief may be anticipated as a result of this SEQR Status: action. Type II” MR. THOMAS-Okay. Since no one is here to represent the applicant, I don’t think, I will open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this variance? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SCOTT FISHER MR. FISHER-Scott Fisher, 43 Herald Drive, Queensbury. I think the Staff report kind of sums up where I was going to go. Currently, they’re in violation of the residential code, SR-1A. My interpretation also was a self-created condition. After the initial CO was issued, the landowner and the developer/builder proceeded to turn it into a duplex, and my opposition is basically, if we allow this variance, it could be precedent setting. MR. THOMAS-Okay. You stated that after the initial Certificate of Occupancy had been issued, which was issued 7/24/92, for a single family dwelling, so it would have had to have been after that. Let me ask you, how do you know it’s a duplex? MR. FISHER-I’m familiar with the neighborhood and the neighbors. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. FISHER-I don’t know any of the specifics of the living arrangements, but my interpretation, it’s separate living arrangements, kind of an in-law scenario. Whether or not directly connected, I can’t say. MR. STONE-Do you know for a fact whether any of the second apartment or second dwelling were in place when the CO was issued? MR. FISHER-I don’t know for a fact. MR. STONE-Okay. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) MR. THOMAS-I’m going to have a bunch of questions for Staff on this one, but is there anything else, or is there anymore questions for? MR. FISHER-One other comment is, all the residents that purchased houses in the development I believe have in their contract that the whole subdivision is zoned single residential. I believe it’s part of the terms of our agreement with the builder, and we don’t want to vary from that. MR. STONE-Mr. Passerelli was given, I mean, his development was allowed to be a half acre, I assume, even though it was one acre? MR. BROWN-It’s an approved subdivision. MR. STONE-Yes. I assumed that. Where do you live in relationship to? MR. FISHER-Two doors down, the same side of the street. MR. STONE-Two doors down toward Luzerne? You’re up here. Okay. MR. FISHER-Going away from Luzerne Road. MR. STONE-Going away from Luzerne. MR. FISHER-Yes, deeper into the subdivision. MR. STONE-So you’re on the other side of the street that’s next to her? MR. FISHER-Yes. MR. STONE-You’re down, okay. You’re to the south? MR. FISHER-To the south. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-Was this home built for the current property owners, or was it occupied by Passerelli first as an office? MR. FISHER-No. I don’t think so. MR. STONE-The office is next door. There is an office next door, right, behind it, right now? MR. FISHER-Behind it currently. The house between my house and the applicant’s was the model home office at one point. MR. STONE-Okay. On the other corner. MR. FISHER-On the other corner. MR. MC NALLY-The model is right behind the Bearss parcel. MR. STONE-Now it is. MR. FISHER-Now it is. MR. MC NALLY-I spoke with Mrs. Bearss, and it is a two family, she said, the main part of the house is rented, and she occupies the space above the garage. MR. FISHER-That’s true. MR. STONE-It’s true. I was in the house. So I know. I was invited in. So, I can tell you exactly what’s there, when the time comes. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for Mr. Fisher? If not, thank you very much. MR. FISHER-Thanks. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) SUSAN ZIMMERMAN MRS. ZIMMERMAN-Hi. My name is Susan Zimmerman and I live at 45 Herald Drive. I live in the old model house, right next door to where Mrs. Bearss is. Now did I hear you say that she’s rented the other half of the house before? MR. STONE-Actually, what I was told, that they were co-owners. MRS. ZIMMERMAN-That’s right, and they still are co-owners to this point. MR. STONE-I understand that. I think that’s what triggered the whole thing, didn’t it, or something, Craig? I think that may have. MR. BROWN-I’m not sure. MRS. ZIMMERMAN-Right. Well, the house was built originally as single family, but then the extra kitchen, it was divided after the closing. So they made that their own problem when they did that. I moved into that area because it is zoned single family. I don’t want apartments in there. I didn’t move into an apartment complex, and if she’s allowed to do it, what’s going to stop anybody else in the development from doing it, or for that fact, the builder getting able to build a duplex in there? MR. THOMAS-Let me ask you a loaded question. Do you know of any other buildings that are duplexes in there, somebody else that is? MRS. ZIMMERMAN-Do I know? No. I do know of another house two doors down from me, which is right next door to him, who has, they had an in-law. MR. STONE-Mother-in-law they call it. MRS. ZIMMERMAN-Yes, but I think they had a son who was not quite all there living there at the time. So he had sort of his own space, but they sold the house. Now what those people are doing with that, I don’t know. I did hear that for a couple of months people were going in and out of there, but I don’t know, and I just heard that recently. MR. STONE-Was there a second kitchen in that other house? MRS. ZIMMERMAN-I don’t know about that, but I know it’s not anywhere near what this one is. MR. STONE-Just a question, since you’re hear, let me ask. That stand alone garage, there’s a detached garage next to the house. When was that built? Does anybody know? MRS. ZIMMERMAN-I don’t know. They use it as a shed. MR. STONE-Well, it’s got a garage door on it. If it looks like a garage and it tastes like a garage, then it might be a garage. MRS. ZIMMERMAN-It’s been used as a shed. I know that for a fact. I’ve never seen a car in there, and I’ve been there three years. It’s always had lawn stuff in it. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-You understand that the place was built, they closed on it, and then a kitchen was added after that? MRS. ZIMMERMAN-Right, a second kitchen. That’s what I’m saying. She caused this problem herself. It shouldn’t have been able to do that. I mean, this is what I understand. I mean, they shouldn’t have been able to build that house to begin with in there. MR. THOMAS-Well, they had a permit to build a single family dwelling. MRS. ZIMMERMAN-Right. Well, that’s what I’m saying. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) MR. THOMAS-And that’s what their Certificate of Occupancy was for, was for a single family dwelling that was issued on 7/24, and I see a copy of the deed that was supplied by the applicant, th that they closed on this property right around the 5, well, the warranty deed was, “This indenture st made the 1 day of October, 1992”. So, two and a half months later they bought this property. MR. STONE-Okay, and somewhere along the line the Assessor’s Office, which is separate from the Code Compliance Office or the Zoning Administrator’s Office, found out that it was a duplex, and they have the right to, however the right is to inventory property, and as Mrs. Bearss told me, she was taxed on the basis of it being a duplex for a number of years. Unfortunately, our two offices don’t talk to each other, and that’s, there’s no reason they have to, but they don’t talk to each other, from that standpoint. It would be nice if you would. MRS. ZIMMERMAN-I know there’s a petition that’s been going around the neighborhood. I don’t know whether you have that yet. They were going to fax it. All right. We can probably get more now that this has been tabled until next week, because there’s been many neighbors in our development that I’ve talked to that didn’t get a paper on this, which I feel everybody in the development should have. MR. STONE-Only 500 feet. MR. THOMAS-Five hundred feet within any property line, from any point on the property line. MRS. ZIMMERMAN-I mean, I can get more signatures, because I’ve got a lot of people that have said, well, send them down, we’ll sign it. Because nobody in the development wants to live in an apartment complex. I mean, we didn’t move there for that. MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. MC NALLY-Are there any restrictions in that development, separate and apart from the Zoning Ordinance, as part of your deeds? MRS. ZIMMERMAN-I don’t think we can have a clothes line. MR. MC NALLY-That kind of thing, does it limit it only to single families? MRS. ZIMMERMAN-I don’t know. I know when I moved there, I was told it was zoned single family, the development. MR. THOMAS-Right in this warranty deed it says, “Subject to a declaration of covenants and restrictions dated June 18, 1990 and recorded in the Warren County Clerk’s Office”. So there must be some kind of covenants and restrictions in there. So, we should be able to pull those out. MRS. ZIMMERMAN-I’m just concerned. We allow one person in there to do it, what’s going to stop anybody else? MR. BROWN-Yes, I don’t think it’s our point to enforce deed covenants and restrictions. That’s a civil matter. MRS. ZIMMERMAN-If she wants a duplex, let her go buy one some place else. MR. THOMAS-Are there any questions for Mrs. Zimmerman? MRS. ZIMMERMAN-Did I miss anything? Okay. I know as soon as I leave, I’m going to have something else I wanted to say. Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. MRS. ZIMMERMAN-Now, this is tabled until next Tuesday? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I will table this until next Wednesday. MRS. ZIMMERMAN-Next Wednesday, but that’s when the Planning Board is supposed to meet. MR. THOMAS-No. The Planning Board meets Tuesday. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) MR. STONE-This is next Wednesday. MRS. ZIMMERMAN-All right. Now, will they do the Planning Board? We just got notice today on the Planning Board. MR. THOMAS-No. They can’t do anything until. That’s be probably moved until September. MR. BROWN-They’ll probably do the same thing. They’ll probably open the public hearing and table it until September. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MRS. ZIMMERMAN-All right. We don’t have to come next Tuesday. MR. STONE-Well, to be sure they do it. MR. THOMAS-But they can’t do anything until we make a resolution, either to pass it. MRS. ZIMMERMAN-Now, if I come next Wednesday, I don’t need to raise my hand to come up? MR. THOMAS-Unless you want to. MRS. ZIMMERMAN-Okay. I don’t care. I might think of something else. MR. THOMAS-That’s right. In the mean time you can get more signatures on that petition. MRS. ZIMMERMAN-I can. If you want to give it back to me. MR. BROWN-Well, I think we need to enter it into the public hearing. MRS. ZIMMERMAN-All right. I’ll see the guy that was going around with it anyway. MR. STONE-Or we can enter it next week. MR. THOMAS-Well, we can enter what’s there now, and the additions next week. If you would start a second one that way, because we’re going to put this one into the minutes now, and then we’ll add a separate one next week. We don’t want to read all the names all over again. MRS. ZIMMERMAN-All right. Thanks. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anyone else who’d like to speak against this? CATHERINE ESELTINE MRS. ESELTINE-My name is Catherine Eseltine. I live at 91 Nicole Drive, which is right behind Sue Zimmerman’s house, and kitty corner from the. MR. STONE-Okay. Then you’re one street to the south? MRS. ESELTINE-Well, no. This house is here, and the model, and I’m across the street the model. MR. STONE-Right. Okay. MR. THOMAS-Okay. What would you like to tell us? MRS. ESELTINE-I’m one of the newest people. I’ve been there only about eight months, and single family again. That’s what we were told. So I don’t particularly want. MR. STONE-You were told that when? MRS. ESELTINE-What? MR. STONE-That you could only be one family? 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) MRS. ESELTINE-No. It’s supposed to be a single. MR. STONE-I understand that, but you said you moved in eight months ago. What were you told, by whom? MRS. ESELTINE-That we were all single family homes. MR. STONE-By whom? The realtor? MRS. ESELTINE-Yes. I’m pretty sure it was the realtor. MR. STONE-I’m just curious. MRS. ESELTINE-And every place you go, through the whole development is all single family. MR. THOMAS-Did you get a copy of the declaration of covenants and restrictions that I mentioned before? Were you given a copy of that by the realtor or someone? I know there’s a lot of paper in a house closing. MRS. ESELTINE-Probably, I might have it. I can look it up. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Well, it gives us the book and the page that this thing is listed on. So we can probably pull it, can you get that off the computer? MR. BROWN-No, that’s at the Clerk’s Office. MR. THOMAS-The Clerk’s Office. Okay. MRS. ESELTINE-There’s just a lot of lots available on Nicole Drive, and a couple, and I wouldn’t want to see a duplex go in there. The next thing it’ll be a four unit apartment. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-Let me ask a question, and I don’t want to put you on the spot, all of you. How would you feel if the owner owned the whole house and rented rooms out? MRS. ZIMMERMAN-That’s only going to create more traffic. MR. STONE-I just asked. I wasn’t asking for. Okay. I mean, she has the right to do that, does she not, to rent bedrooms, if she wanted to, at a single family? MR. BROWN-Up to a certain point, yes. I think you can have one additional member from another family. MR. STONE-One. Okay. MR. BROWN-There’s a restriction to that, but in this case, there’s two complete separate sets of. MR. STONE-Absolutely. There’s no question. MR. BROWN-If she was just renting a room, yes, there’s allowances for that. MR. STONE-Okay. I just really want them to know that, is what I’m really getting at. MR. THOMAS-Let me read this in, for the Board and for the public’s information. In our Definitions, under “Multiple Family Dwelling - Any building used or designed as a residence for two or more families living independently of each other, and doing their own cooking therein, including but not limited to, apartment houses, townhouse developments, certain condominium developments, and the conversion of existing single family dwellings”. So what this is saying is, if they don’t have a kitchen in there, that’s not a multiple family dwelling. So, it’s like the mother-in- law apartment, you know, over the garage. If you take the kitchen out and just have like a living room, a bathroom and a bedroom, you know, that would not be covered under Multiple Family Dwellings. They have to have a cooking unit to be a multiple family. So if this unit has a cooking unit in it, well then it’s multiple family, and it’s not supposed to be in that zone. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) MRS. ESELTINE-Fine. That’s what we’re here for. MR. THOMAS-That’s probably what we’re going to hinge everything on is that right there, because we’ve done this before, and it’s worked. MRS. ESELTINE-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-All right. Is there anyone else that would like to speak against this application? If not, correspondence. MR. BROWN-I have a petition. “We, the undersigned, disagree with applicant’s request for duplex housing. Herald Square Village was subdivided into “Single Family Residential”, and should remain as such. Allowing one duplex may set a precedent for future applications in Herald Square Village. Signed Mary Ann Backes, 3 Mabel Terrace; Mr. Backes, 3 Mabel Terrace; Don & Ann Kane, 2 Mabel Terrace; Debbie Cameron, 4 Mabel Terrace; Diane Michelucci, 6 Mabel Terrace; Lynne E. Acker, 7 Mabel Terrace; Roger Ruel, 10 Mabel Terrace; Ken Pagels, 8 Mabel Terrace; Shannon McAdams, 9 Mabel Terrace; Susan Zimmerman, 45 Herald Drive; Francis & Catherine Eseltine, 91 Nicole Drive; Donald Hewitt, 74 Nicole Drive; Mike Roberts, 24 Rose Lane.” MR. THOMAS-Okay, and there’ll be another one here next week with more names on it. MR. BROWN-Probably. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other letters or anything from any one? MR. BROWN-No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. At this time, since the applicant or his representative is not here, I will th table this application until the meeting next week, which is August 26. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-1998 JOYCE BEARSS , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Until the August 26, 1998 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. This will allow time for the applicant to make an appearance to present her application with representation. th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Custer, Mr. Porter MR. THOMAS-So we’ll all be here next week, listening to the same thing. I will leave the public hearing open at this time, for any other additional input from the public, either oral or written. Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-1998 TYPE II LI-1A HUGH SINCLAIR OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 343 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURE OVER CONCRETE SLABS AND CEMENT BLOCKS. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE, (**ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK RELIEF) AND RELIEF FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. SPR 37-98 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOT SCHEDULED TAX MAP NO. 146-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.52 ACRES SECTION 179-28, 179-79 HUGH SINCLAIR, PRESENT MR. THOMAS-We have to determine whether an application submitted by Hugh Sinclair is significantly different from a previous application, and I believe Mr. Sinclair is here, and if you want to come up to the microphone and tell us how it’s different, we will make a determination as to whether we will hear this next week or not. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) MR. SINCLAIR-I’m Hugh Sinclair, of All Pro Cleaning Service, and our building is on Corinth Road, 343. The difference in the proposed building is that it’s actually moved back. Instead of it being on the concrete existing slab, we’re proposing to move it back south of the existing concrete slab, and it has a whole different configuration than the original one that we submitted. I don’t really know how to present this. I have been, one of the main reasons, right now, for even proposing this is, in our last meeting, I believe that the determination to deny the variance perhaps could have been divided up, because there’s an existing building there that perhaps we could have okayed that part and denied the new structure on the concrete slab. There’s just a dire need to have space in order to house the equipment that I have, and it has to be housed before the weather changes. None of this equipment can freeze, and I have a real problem in the situation that we’re in right now. What other information can I give you at this point that’ll help? MR. STONE-Let me ask you a question. I’ve got two drawings of the thing, one after consultation with Dave Hatin, I think you said. MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. MR. STONE-What’s the difference there? MR. THOMAS-This is attached to the garage. MR. STONE-It’s attached. Okay. MR. THOMAS-Your first submission was not attached. MR. SINCLAIR-That’s right. MR. THOMAS-And there was a three foot space in there, and your newest submission was attached. MR. STONE-And this is considerably different than the last one. MR. SINCLAIR-Yes, sir. MR. THOMAS-That’s for us to determine. One question I have is the 10 by 12 addition. That was to the east of the storage. That was on the other Area Variance No. 36-1998, wasn’t it? MR. SINCLAIR-Yes, sir. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and on Area Variance No. 36-1998, you propose to construct a building or a structure on the cement slab to the west of the storage? MR. SINCLAIR-That was our original idea. th MR. THOMAS-Yes. That was your original, back on July 15. Okay. So now, this addition that you’re proposing between the storage and the garage, how many square feet is that, can you tell me? MR. SINCLAIR-Yes, I can. I’ve got it right here. It’s like 500 square feet, I think it is. It’s 588 and a half square feet. MR. BROWN-That’s total. That includes the 10 by 12, right? MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and that’s the total addition of the 10 by 12, plus the addition that’s behind the garage, between the storage and the garage, 588 square feet. MR. SINCLAIR-That’s right. MR. THOMAS-Okay, and the submission before was about 240, yes, it was 240, because there were two 10 by 12’s. Okay. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) MR. HAYES-Where was the 10 by 12 that you’re not proposing to build now, that you were proposing to build then? MR. SINCLAIR-The problem is we already have that building constructed, and that’s, when you come in to the property on the Merritt Road side, there’s a small structure there now that’s attached to the building. If we go ahead and build this next structure, we’re hoping to be able to get the previous building agreed upon by your Board here and build the next section also. MR. THOMAS-Okay. What he’s saying is the 10 by 12 exists. The number one addition exists, the 10 by 12 that’s connected to the east side of the storage building. MR. STONE-Right. MR. THOMAS-Okay. That’s existing, but he doesn’t have a variance, or a building permit for that, plus he wants the addition on. Now this addition on cement blocks. Do you propose putting the addition on cement blocks, or is that just addition on, that just shows that you’re pointing to a cement block? MR. SINCLAIR-I think it has to be built on cement blocks. MR. STONE-Yes. It’s not a slab. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. BROWN-There may be some building code issues. There may have to be a frost wall. MR. THOMAS-Okay, but you and Dave will take care of that. MR. BROWN-Yes. There’s no basement proposed or anything like that. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-But that particular piece, does that come under the request for variance, that, behind the garage? MR. BROWN-Right. Eight feet of that building, the 10 by 12 building. MR. STONE-The 10 by 12, I understand. MR. BROWN-Is within the 75 foot Travel Corridor. MR. STONE-Correct. MR. BROWN-And a portion of that additional building. MR. STONE-Okay. I see what you’re saying. MR. BROWN-About eight feet of it is within. MR. THOMAS-About eight feet of it comes within the Travel Corridor Overlay. MR. HAYES-I guess I’m saying, Chris, is where was the other building that we? MR. THOMAS-See where it says a cement slab? MR. HAYES-That’s where he’s going to put a big building? MR. THOMAS-That’s where Mr. Sinclair proposed to put another building on there, okay. You see where it says a dotted line? He was going to put a structure on that right there. MR. HAYES-And that’s what size now? It looked like 20 by 12, or something like that? MR. THOMAS-Twenty-two by. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) MR. SINCLAIR-Thirteen or so, but I think it’s going to be a little wider, because now they’re suggesting that it might be more passable, if it actually attaches to the building. th MR. THOMAS-Yes, but what Jamie’s talking about is back on the 15 he wasn’t here, that the cement slab, because that’s where it was going to be. MR. STONE-It was going to encroach upon Corinth Road more than. I’m looking at the possible review thing, the revised application, and it says, only one appears to be in violation, as the applicant proposes. Is this incorrect? MR. HAYES-That’s the 10 by 12, right? MR. BROWN-It’s all one structure now. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It’s all one piece. MR. BROWN-It’s all connected. He’s proposing to add on to the 10 by 12 that already was added on previously. It was included in the previous application. MR. STONE-And that one is what? MR. BROWN-That one’s 55 feet. The 10 by 12 is 55 feet from the Travel Corridor Overlay. MR. HAYES-So that’s already there. So we’re approving it to make it right? MR. THOMAS-Yes, it’s already there. MR. BROWN-It’s 55 feet from the. MR. STONE-Okay. So there are no violations as far as Merritt Road is concerned? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. THOMAS-No. Because this is a Travel Corridor Overlay Zone, anything within the 75 feet has to have a variance. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. THOMAS-And the only thing we’re going to determine tonight, is this significantly different than the last application that Mr. Sinclair submitted, Area Variance No. 36-1998. MR. HAYES-Are you going to attach it or aren’t you? I guess you put that out there. MR. SINCLAIR-Well, when I met with Dave Hatin, he and Craig, they thought that might be the way to do that, because if you’re going to have a separate wall, it has to be a certain number of feet, and there isn’t enough feet in there to do it. So it might be easier just to attach it. MR. THOMAS-What is it, 18 inches? MR. BROWN-That’s for residential. For commercial it’s 10 feet, unless you have a noncombustible surface. Then it’s 15, and it can go 10 if with noncombustible. MR. STONE-Is this okay from the Distribution Box? MR. BROWN-There’s no basement, so it’s just a frost wall, yes. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HAYES-I guess I, personally, would like to have that question answered, because if you were attaching those buildings, it certainly would be a different application as far as I was concerned. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/19/98) MR. SINCLAIR-We’re going to attach it. If that’s the only way we can build this thing, then we’re going to attach it. It’s even a benefit to us to attach it because it means that the building is going to be a little bit bigger. There’ll be a few more things that could be stored in there. MR. THOMAS-Yes. All right. Are there any more questions for Mr. Sinclair? If not, I’ll go down, either yes or no. Bob, is this significantly changed from Area Variance No. 36-1998? It’s a yes or no answer. MR. MC NALLY-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Lew? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll also say it’s yes. So we will hear it next week, and it’s already been advertised. So you’re all set. All you have to do is show up next week. Do you want some kind of motion or something? MR. BROWN-I don’t think so. I think this is just a discussion item. MR. THOMAS-Yes. It’s just a discussion item, and all four of us say, yes, that this is significantly different, and we will hear Area Variance No. 54-1998, Hugh Sinclair, on August th 26. Okay. Does anybody else have any business for the Board? We do have two sets of minutes, but I will hopefully wait for more people next week to come in, so we can go over those. MR. STONE-I move we adjourn. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Stone has made a motion to adjourn. Who would second it? MR. MC NALLY-Me. MR. THOMAS-Okay. The meeting is adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 30