Loading...
1998-05-20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 20, 1998 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN LEWIS STONE ROBERT MC NALLY PAUL HAYES BRIAN CUSTER JOSEPH PORTER MEMBERS ABSENT BONNIE LAPHAM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR -CHRIS ROUND CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER -CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. THOMAS-Again, I’ll make the same announcement, that Craig Brown, Antiqua Motel, is off the agenda for tonight. It was listed as an Area Variance, and it’s supposed to be a Use Variance, and will probably be heard next month, because it has to go before Warren County Planning again. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-1998 TYPE II WR-1A CEA JAMES P. POLUNCI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 17 ASH DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 200 SQ. FT. ATTACHED DECK AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/13/98 TAX MAP NO. 39-1-55 LOT SIZE: 0.32 ACRES SECTION 179-16 JAMES POLUNCI, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 14-1998, James P. Polunci, Meeting Date: May 20, 1998 Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: “ 17 Ash Drive Applicant proposes construction of an approximately 200 sf attached deck to an enclosed three season porch which was enclosed last year BP97-346. Applicant has two alternatives proposed, they are: a 12 x 20 rectangular deck and a trapezoid shaped deck. The trapezoid shape is an attempt to better meet the Relief setback. Project appears to be within the Critical Environmental Area boundary. Required: Applicant requests relief from the side setback requirements of 179-16 (WR-1A). The Criteria for required setback is 12 feet and the proposed setback is approximately 2 feet. considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:2. Feasible Applicant would be permitted to construct a deck at the desired location. alternatives: Feasible alternatives included no construction or downsized construction of the deck 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the or relocation of the deck to the other side of the house. ordinance?:4. Effects on the The requested 10 feet of relief may be interpreted as substantial. neighborhood or community: As the neighboring home is in close proximity, there may be 5. Is this difficulty self-created? impact related to accessibility and visual issues. The difficulty Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): may be interpreted as self created. SPR 24-97 Enclosure to create a three season porch, resolution conditioning gutters to have downspouts Staff in order to control stormwater and a height restriction of 18 to 19 feet. BP 97-346 same comments: Neither of the two proposals address the side setback for the proposed walkway. Since this is in close proximity of the property line a more accurate plot plan (survey) may be helpful. The neighboring home is very close to the property line as well as the proposed deck area. Will this new deck become another three season porch? Currently, 5/13/98, the conditions of the previous variance have been only partially addressed. The height condition appears to be in 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) accordance with the variance, however, there are no gutters on the enclosed three season porch. SEQR Status: Type II” th MR. ROUND-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 13 day of May 1998, the above application for an Area Variance for the construction of a 200 sq. ft. deck which will be attached to an existing structure was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact” Tracy M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Polunci, is there anything else you’d like to tell us about the new addition? MR. POLUNCI-To address the gutters, the permit that was issued was a two year permit to complete the project, the three season porch. It’s approximately nine months into the particular project. The gutters will be put on. What needs to be done, the eaves need to be boxed in, finish boxing in, and the gutters will be installed. So because the permit was a permit that gave a two year window for completion. We haven’t violated that condition at this point, and fully plan to take care of that this summer. MR. THOMAS-Okay. What about the deck? You’re awful close to the property line there. MR. POLUNCI-Yes, I realize that, and I have offered alternate Plan B, which would give a trapezoid shape on the property line, which would move in six feet, which would give it an eight foot from the property line at the farthest point closest to the lake. MR. THOMAS-Okay. What about the three by eight foot walkway connecting the existing deck to the new deck? MR. POLUNCI-That would be just for access. MR. THOMAS-It would be, but since that’s probably, you know, how close to the property line is that? MR. POLUNCI-I would estimate that to be, to start off at, I would say that’s about three feet. MR. THOMAS-Start off at three feet? MR. POLUNCI-Start off at five, and because the line comes in, to go about three feet, and it would be just enough to get onto the deck, and it would be three feet from the building, which would put it nine feet from the corner of the deck, facing the lake, and it’s strictly access from a door which comes off from the side. There is an existing deck at that point, which is in, basically, a state of disrepair, and there’s a set of stairs, which go down along the deck. I’d be removing those stairs and eliminating them. MR. THOMAS-My question still is, how close is the closest point of that deck, that three by eight foot deck, to the property line? What’s the closest point? MR. POLUNCI-The closest point to the existing deck? MR. THOMAS-The proposed three by eight foot deck on the side. MR. POLUNCI-Two feet. No, the three by eight deck, the closest point would be, from its point of emergence, I’d say it would go three to four feet from the property line. MR. THOMAS-Your drawing shows it right on the property line, because you have a two foot, because you’re looking for a two foot setback from the property line on the deck, the 12 by 20 deck, and according to your drawing here, even the enlarged one, it shows that walkway to connect decks, three by eight foot, being right on the property line. MR. POLUNCI-I don’t see that. You’re looking at the existing deck being right on the property line. MR. THOMAS-No, it’s this one right here. Walkway to connect decks, right here, three by eight. MR. STONE-It’s right here. This little thing here. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) MR. POLUNCI-Yes. MR. STONE-It’s this little piece right here. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Okay. MR. POLUNCI-I see it about three feet from the property line, and again, the purpose is to come out a door which is on the side of the three season porch, walk along it, and then enter the deck. Okay. Is there anyone else that has any questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Is that original three season porch on the other person’s property? MR. POLUNCI-The porch on the side? MR. STONE-Yes. When I look at your drawing here, it looks like it’s on the. MR. POLUNCI-Yes, but what happened, in 1972, it was on our property, and the other person’s house was on our property. In 1972, I have documentation that shows that for the sum of $1.00, they changed the boundary line because the other person’s house was on our property, and for the cost of $1.00, they moved the boundary line in to make sure that their house was on their property, and neither owner was involved in this, because neither owner, present owner, owned the property at that time. In so doing, they put the other house on their own property, selling that bit of property with the documentation that I have here, but also put the existing structure on the other person’s property. MR. STONE-And your thing down by the water, too, as it looks. MR. POLUNCI-And the thing down by the water, also, but this, I have documentation here which I can present. I guess what I’m trying to say, that prior to that property acquisition, I would not have violated the boundary line that had with the original property line, but I realize that has nothing to do with this day and age, and your decisions need to be based upon fact. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? MR. MC NALLY-Do you have a current survey? MR. POLUNCI-No, I don’t. I know that that would probably be something that would be desirable, but if you look at, strictly from an economic point of view, I want to build a deck that’s going to cost me $1,000, and I’m estimating that the current survey would cost me in the neighborhood of $1,000 to do, and it’s nice to have surveys for when you’re purchasing properties and selling them, I know that, but it imposes a financial burden that, I think, needs to be weighed in this whole request. MR. STONE-On what basis did you draw these heavy property lines? MR. POLUNCI-I obtained these from the Town of Queensbury on their drawings. These drawings were given to me when I put on the three season porch, last summer. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. POLUNCI-And it was taken off their, the maps that they had, and actually, they’re not even up to date, because there’s a garage located on our neighbor’s property, which doesn’t even show up on this particular map. MR. STONE-Yes, but that’s on the other side of his property line. MR. POLUNCI-Yes, but I’m just saying, I’m just dating the documents. MR. CUSTER-If we go to the trapezoid shape, really then you’d need a side setback from your three by eight foot walkway because that would be closest to the property. MR. POLUNCI-Yes. MR. CUSTER-And you said that’s about three feet, four feet? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) MR. POLUNCI-I’d like to make it three feet, just enough just to walk from the door, existing door, to the deck. Right now, it wouldn’t really, like I say there’s a deck that’s in a state of disrepair that’s probably about a six by eight deck, and also there’s a set of stairs that actually go down through there that are existing, that are, that would be just removed and taken out of the way. So I wouldn’t, I think I might even be buying a little distance from the neighboring property, based upon removing the stairs. I’m pretty, when you take a look at that boundary line moving in, the original property had a width of 50 feet, and by moving that boundary line in to accommodate the house on the next lot, really, I’m looking at a distance of 41 or 42 feet, I’m estimating, there, and if you take into consideration the 12 foot setbacks, it really gives me a window of construction there that’s probably 27, 28 feet to put anything on the front of that building, without violating the setbacks. MR. STONE-Is this a road? Is this his driveway? MR. POLUNCI-That’s nothing. I don’t know what that is. Actually, they’re here, and it almost looks like it’s, I don’t even know, it looks like a topographical sketch of some sort, but there is not a driveway that goes down in there. There’s a driveway that goes to a garage, which is pretty much congruent to that little shed which is in front of my building, that’s located right there. MR. MC NALLY-Do you have your existing deed? MR. POLUNCI-Do I have my existing deed? MR. MC NALLY-Does it show an easement across your property at all? MR. POLUNCI-No, I have that, it’s back in Central New York. I didn’t think I’d need that. MR. THOMAS-Are there any more questions for the applicant? MR. POLUNCI-I’m willing to go by any recommendation or, you know, change in this particular plan that you so recommend, also. I’m very flexible in that nature. It’s just, we’d like to have a deck on the front of our addition and enjoy it. MR. STONE-But the question. I still, you want a three foot wide walkway from the house, and the question that we’re still groping with, because we need to know eventually, is how far is that three foot side from the property line? It’s obviously going to be inside the existing deck. MR. POLUNCI-It’ll be on my property, and my answer to that is, based upon my drawing that I have here, that three foot wide will be two to three feet from the property line, and it’ll be a walkway that’s probably, lets see, that’s a 15 foot addition, and it comes out about, it’s probably three foot by eight foot from the existing deck that is there, that’s in the state of disrepair. MR. STONE-But the point we’re going to make, eventually, is it can’t be two to three. It’s got to be two, 2.6, 2.8 or three, and we need to know that if we’re going to grant a variance, right, Mr. Chairman? MR. THOMAS-Absolutely. MR. STONE-I mean, that’s how we, when we do a motion, we need to know exactly what we’re granting. The other question. This existing deck, now, I was there. Is that the thing that’s falling down? MR. POLUNCI-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. So you would fix that at the same time? MR. POLUNCI-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. So that would be refurbished, and on the same line it is now? MR. POLUNCI-Yes, but I don’t know what your regulations are upon repair, replacement or whatever, that something’s there, that you’d have to have a variance if you’re going to replace something or repair it. I don’t know at what point you replace versus repair, in terms of materials imparted into the structure. It’s my understanding that your grandfathered on any type of structure, and even if you almost replace it, at what point do you repair versus replace? I don’t know. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Polunci, in your application, you say basically there are no feasible alternatives. Did you ever consider placing the deck on the opposite corner of your property, away from your neighbor’s house, and accessing it through another door or opening? MR. POLUNCI-I would have to take and cut a new doorway into the porch to do that, and it’s a consideration, obviously, I’d have to take and actually put another doorway in. I mean, I could keep the existing deck that’s in a state of disrepair there, and have that doorway going out. I’d actually have two doorways coming out, one from the screened in porch on the side of the house, and one from the three season porch, and a deck that I could just replace, and in order to do that, I would have to take out a window that’s in, and put a doorway in place of the window, and wrap it around on the other side. There’s about an 18 foot setback on the other side. MR. MC NALLY-That’s what I was going to ask you. You’ve got 18 feet between the building and your other neighbor’s line? MR. POLUNCI-Yes, according to the diagrams we have here. That has been kind of an area where boats are brought in and brought out, including my neighbor’s, drop them in the lake. I don’t know how it would impact that, but that certainly could be a possibility. It would mean that I would basically have to remove a window, put a second door in the room, and wrap it around the other side. MR. MC NALLY-May I ask, what are you plans for that little structure down by the water, too? MR. POLUNCI-Well, I plan on retiring in four years and living in the house, and at some point, I’m probably going to, I would guess, remove that structure from the water, or reduce it in size, and get it out of there. MR. MC NALLY-You have no definite plans, it would be fair to say, as you sit here today? This is just something, perhaps, in the future, you might be doing? MR. POLUNCI-Yes. I would say that it’s highly probable that I would remove it. I will be coming back to you probably in another year or two for an addition on the other end of this, and I won’t violate any setbacks on the other end, but I’d be coming back to you for an addition on the other end, and then I’m going to renovate the original camp, and we plan on retiring there. I used to be a builder, by the way, for 15 years, when I was teaching school, and built several, four or five houses in Queensbury. So I plan on doing the construction myself, but as far as the structure down by the lake, it will be removed down the road, dismantled and taken apart. MR. STONE-It looks like it was a bullpen for cheering a race that was going on, whatever races were going on on the lake, or something. MR. POLUNCI-Well, it’s a screened in porch. It has an outdoor barbecue, and it has power. MR. STONE-Is that what it is? MR. POLUNCI-Yes. Right now I use it for storage, but it’s in a state of, you know, you’re either going to put some money in to fix it up, or else tear it down, and I would guess that, it would be more feasible to tear it down. MR. THOMAS-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 BURTON PERKINS MR. PERKINS-I’ll give you this diagram. We have a survey of the property. It was done in ’86. My name is Burton Perkins. I live at 76 Ash Drive, Glen Lake. I have a letter I want to read. I don’t know whether it will have any bearing on this at all. “First of all, it is not our intention to alienate our neighbors, but we feel that we have to respectfully oppose the relief for the setback requirement of WR-1A zone for the following reasons. One, we did not oppose the variance for the 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) addition of the room built on the front of the Polunci property last year because we felt that it replaced the porch that it was already there, and it is enclosed. So that the noise is minimal. When anyone is sitting on this enclosed porch on the side of said property, even normal conversation can be heard in our kitchen and living room. Privacy, anyone sitting on the proposed deck will have a clear view of the inside of our living room when our door is open, because of the proximity of the building. We, as most people who have bought property on the lake, like the view from our windows and we don’t want our view to be blocked because of more building toward the lake.” MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anything else you’d like to add to that? MR. PERKINS-I don’t think so. MR. THOMAS-Are there any questions for Mr. Perkins? MR. MC NALLY-I’m not sure what property you own, sir. If you’re looking at the lake, do you own the property immediately to the left of the applicant? MR. PERKINS-Right. It used to be the former Frances Hart. Frances and Harry Hart owned it. MR. POLUNCI-Correct. MR. STONE-The one that sits down close to the water, right near the property line. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I’m showing two different property lines on here. MR. STONE-Yes, I see that, too. MR. THOMAS-And you said this was a survey from 1986? MR. PERKINS-Right. I have it up home. I’ve got the survey map up there. Where those measurements are, there’s stakes in the ground right there. MR. STONE-If you show a straight line. MR. PERKINS-It’s not straight. It comes up at an angle. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but this one here came off the Town map, supposedly, and it shows two crooks in it, here, across the porch, down here, and crooks again. This line here. You know, it’s shown straight on here. MR. STONE-It’s shown straight on this one, yes. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but on this one here, it’s not. MR. PERKINS-That line goes back about halfway to their screen porch, on the side, and there’s a concrete block with a peg in it, and then it straightens off and goes the other way. It jags off, as you’re looking up to the lake, it goes this way and then it goes that way. MR. MC NALLY-Do you know anything of an easement or a right-of-way between the two houses? MR. PERKINS-No, there’s none. There’s easements on the property with Miller, between the two places, Miller, on the driveway. MR. STONE-That’s on the right side. MR. PERKINS-That’s on the right side. MR. STONE-That’s that common driveway. MR. THOMAS-Then you go back here, and this is the door, going out to the deck. That would be this one right here. That’s not nine feet. MR. CUSTER-This corner right here is actually over the line. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) MR. THOMAS-Yes, right. It’s shown three feet off. MR. STONE-Well, according to this drawing, it’s over the roof. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it’s over the roof, but that property was jagged or rearranged somehow. MR. HAYES-He did that one by hand, though, too. MR. STONE-Yes, I agree. MR. CUSTER-Do we want to accept this as accurate, Chris? MR. THOMAS-Neither one. MR. STONE-The one that’s falling down is in here somewhere. MR. THOMAS-Is there something you’d like to say? MRS. PERKINS MRS. PERKINS-I’m Mrs. Perkins, and the piece of paper you’ve got is not a map to scale, because I’m not an engineer. It’s just a rough map drawn so that you can see the lines. MR. THOMAS-Yes. We’ve having a problem here because one map shows the property line a different way than the one you’ve drawn in. MR. HAYES-The one from Queensbury shows it closer. MR. PERKINS-It is closer. MRS. PERKINS-It is closer. It’s a rough sketch. MR. PERKINS-At one point on their screened porch that’s there, the existing screened porch, is three foot off our line. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but now it shows the property line going through the. MR. STONE-He shows it going through that porch. MR. THOMAS-Going through the overhang, at least. MR. PERKINS-No. MR. STONE-Well, that’s what your neighbor shows. MR. ROUND-I guess it just points to the inaccuracies of the information you have in front of you, and that the map that the applicant has attached is a GIS map, apparently, and it’s generated from tax map information, overlay air photos. So you can’t rely on the accuracy of that, as well. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-So we don’t have an accurate situation. I mean, I know, looking at the property, I don’t want to use an adjective, but it was like, wow, these are really close together, the way they are now. Almost like fitting a tailpipe between the two properties to find the line. MR. PERKINS-But the original change on that property line there, when Mrs. Hart owned it, they had to have space to build a bathroom, and there were two ladies, two elderly ladies, that owned the property at the time, and they turned that five foot chunk down on the bottom, and then back, like in a triangle, to two foot, that’s so she could put a bathroom in there. MR. THOMAS-All right. Are there any other questions for Mr. and Mrs. Perkins? Okay. Thanks. Is there anyone else that would like to speak opposed? PETER CHRISTIAN 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) MR. CHRISTIAN-Hi. My name is Peter Christian. MR. STONE-And where are you in relation? MR. CHRISTIAN-Facing the lake. MR. STONE-Well, in relation to the applicant’s property. MR. CHRISTIAN-Yes, in relation to the applicant’s property, looking at the lake, from that, looking at the lake, I’m to his left. MR. STONE-So you’re beyond Mr. Perkins? MR. CHRISTIAN-Beyond Mr. Perkins. MR. STONE-The very next house? MR. CHRISTIAN-Yes. There’s a large white house there. The basic opposition is the perimatic view from the side of my porch, entrance to the kitchen and the home. From the distance probably, we sometimes eat on the side porch, to the opening or the passageway between the addition, Mr. Polunci’s addition, and Mr. Perkins’ house, when you look at it from a distance of approximately 78 feet, from our porch, we can see the lake, and the perimatic view is approximately about 11 inches or so. As you get close, of course, you can see much more of the lake. My concern is that, if a deck is put on there, my view will be totally cut off from the lake, seeing any of the lake at all from that angle, and then eventually, and it seems like most people that put decks on at the lake, most that I have experienced, at one time or another or another they usually screen them in and then eventually window them in, and then that would really cut the view down. There wouldn’t be any view for me whatsoever. That’s probably my main thing. It’s just more like boxed in in the city. MR. STONE-His property, his setback from the lake, is well within the specifications of WR-1. It’s 85 feet, and it only has to be 50, or the average of the two properties on either side, whichever is greater, and it’s 50 feet, when you compare with the Perkins’ property. I mean, so that’s, we hear you, but he’s entitled to do that. MR. CHRISTIAN-Well, I can’t remove Mr. Perkins’ house, of course, but the view, so you have a better view of the lake from the side of my home where the porch is, but the view was greater before there was an addition on the residence that is now Mr. Polunci’s. That view has been already cut more than in half. I’m afraid that, my question would be that a deck being put on, from the distance of my house, if eventually this is screened in, with furniture, etc., there would be absolutely no view of that end of the lake whatsoever. You couldn’t even see the water. MR. STONE-Is this your property on this drawing that Mr. Polunci gave us? MR. CHRISTIAN-Yes. MR. STONE-This is your property, and this is the area from which you’re talking about. MR. CHRISTIAN-We’re right in here. So you look over across through here, then there isn’t, it’s gone, because right now you can see the lake, see as it goes into the. MR. THOMAS-Can you see over the top of the Perkins’ house? MR. CHRISTIAN-I really can’t see over the top of the Perkins’ house. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. CHRISTIAN-Is that it? MR. THOMAS-Yes, unless anybody on the Board has a question? No. That’s it. Thank you very much. Does anyone else wish to speak opposed? Is there any correspondence? No correspondence. I’ll close the public hearing. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Come on back up. After you’ve heard some opposition, go ahead and. MR. POLUNCI-The first thing I’d like to say is that Mr. and Mrs. Perkins are great neighbors, lovely people, and I have the utmost respect for them, and we haven’t had a problem in the three or four years we’ve been there. They’re very nice people, and I wouldn’t want to impinge upon their privacy whatsoever. I would be willing to take Mr. Perkins’ survey of the property line and reduce the size of the deck and move it away from the property line so that it falls within the 12 foot setback. So my deck is going to be, it may go out 12 or 14 feet, but it would fall within the, clearly within the ground rules which have been set by the County. That’s the first thing I’d like to say. The second thing I’d like to say is it will be a deck and it will never be enclosed or a roof on it or whatever, and I would gladly sign a statement to that effect. We already have a three season porch there, and to continue to do that, you know, would defeat the whole purpose of it. So if indeed I did do that, I don’t think I would be violating any setback on either side. I’d be within the 12 foot setback each way, and I could move the deck out and make sure that I’m the proper distance from the lake, and the only thing I’m saying is I have a little porch on the side coming off my side screened in porch, the one which is in a state of disrepair, if I could just, you know, replace that, no walkway or anything else added on, and just put my deck on. I would just take out a window and put in a set of sliding glass doors, so I have access from the front of the three season porch. MR. THOMAS-So what you’re telling us is you can bring this deck within conformance. MR. POLUNCI-Within conformance. MR. THOMAS-So you wouldn’t even have to be here to see us. MR. POLUNCI-Yes, and I’m doing that basically because of, I’ll tell you right now from the heart, Mr. and Mrs. Perkins are great people, and great neighbors, and I would want to go with their wishes. MR. THOMAS-Again, I’ll say it, that you can bring that porch in compliance, 12 feet both sides, and within 50 feet of the lake. MR. POLUNCI-Yes. The only thing I ask is that the porch that is on the side, the little deck that’s on the side, that’s in a state of disrepair, if I can just replace it. MR. STONE-Of course, he can do that. Can’t he? MR. ROUND-Yes. Generally, you can do repair. MR. POLUNCI-Yes. Again, at what point does repair become replacement? I don’t know. MR. THOMAS-That’s up to Mr. Round. MR. STONE-But you would also like to get rid of the steps, I would gather. MR. POLUNCI-I’m going to take the steps right out. MR. STONE-But you’d like to extend it over the steps, and come around the front of the three season porch. MR. POLUNCI-That’s what I originally wanted to do, but if I’m not going to be in compliance in doing that, I’ll back off on that. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re saying that that proposed walkway as you’ve called it, is a walkway to nowhere? MR. POLUNCI-I won’t put it in. It won’t be constructed. I have the side door there, coming off. MR. STONE-You’re just going to fix the existing deck? MR. POLUNCI-Fix the existing deck, replace the existing deck, and then I’m going to reduce the size of the, I can show you on the diagram. This has been finished, but instead of my deck going the complete length of the building, I’ll reduce it back to the point where it’s in compliance. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) MR. STONE-You don’t need to be here then. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-You’re withdrawing your application, in other words. MR. THOMAS-So you could also go over six feet the other way, because you’re 18 feet off. MR. POLUNCI-Yes, I know, but. MR. THOMAS-And then put a side door. MR. POLUNCI-Well, I’m going to put, where one of the windows is in, I’ll take the window out and put a set of sliding glass doors in, to have access through the front, or I could take another window off on the side and do it. MR. THOMAS-So what you’re saying is that you’re going to withdraw this application and you’re going to submit a plan to the building? MR. POLUNCI-I’m not going to put you on the spot to make a decision. MR. THOMAS-That’s what we’re here for. MR. POLUNCI-Well, I’m going to do this out of respect for my neighbors who have been great neighbors. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-So the process works again. MR. THOMAS-So you need to make a statement saying that you’re withdrawing Area Variance No. 14-1998, into the microphone, and that you’ll be bringing in a proposed drawing to be in conformance with the setbacks within the WR-1 Acre zone. MR. POLUNCI-And as I say, I’m just looking at a building permit, without filling out any of the additional paperwork to do that. MR. THOMAS-Right. Okay. So you’re withdrawing this application. MR. POLUNCI-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you very much. So that’s it for us on this one. AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-1998 TYPE II SFR-10 RUSSELL J. & DARLENE L. PALMER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CORNER OF CARLTON DRIVE AND GREENWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF AN ABOVE-GROUND POOL ON A CORNER LOT. APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. TAX MAP NO. 72-5- 17 LOT SIZE: 0.02 ACRES SECTION 179-20, 179-67 DARLENE PALMER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 18-1998, Russell & Darlene Palmer, Meeting Date: May 20, Project Location:Description of Proposed 1998 “ Intersection of Carlton and Greenway Project:Relief Required: Applicant proposes installation of above ground pool on a corner lot. Applicant requests relief from the setback requirements for accessory structures of 179-20 (SFR- 10) Section 179-67 Accessory structures rear setback is 20 feet. Applicant proposes setbacks of 5 Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town feet and 7 feet. Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant will be able to construct a swimming pool in 2. Feasible alternatives: desired location. Due to site constraints there appears to be no feasible 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: alternatives other than no construction. 4. Effects on the The requested relief of 15 feet and 13 feet may be interpreted as substantial. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) neighborhood or community: 5. Is Minimal impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. this difficulty self-created?Parcel History The difficulty may be intepreted as self created. (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Staff Septic alteration 6/18/97 permit #97326 Comments: Since this lot is a corner lot, there are two front yards and two rear yards. The rear set back for a pool is 20 feet and the side setback is 10 feet. The issue of the existing overhead power line might be addressed. ?NIMO? Minimal impacts are anticipated as a result of this SEQR Status: action. Type II” MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-I want to say, first, I appreciate the paint job on the ground. MR. THOMAS-Yes. We don’t get to see those too often. All right. Is there anything else you’d like to add to the application, talk about, mention? MRS. PALMER-The only thing that we had discussed today, and it was mentioned, is the power lines, and I did check with Building and Codes, and we found out, through Niagara Mohawk and I believe the Town of Queensbury, that requirements are 18 feet, which will require that the power line be moved up two feet from where it is now, on the pole, and we would be in compliance. MR. STONE-There is a steel cable on that, isn’t there, or not? Would it require a steel cable? MRS. PALMER-Yes. There is. MR. STONE-I thought there was, yes. MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-The only question that I had, the stuff that was there for the pool, is that in anticipation? MRS. PALMER-Our neighbors got divorced. We got a good deal on the pool. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. CUSTER-All right. That answers that question. MR. THOMAS-If there’s not anymore questions for the applicant, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Correspondence? MR. STONE-There are two letters in the. MR. ROUND-None. MR. THOMAS-Yes, there’s two letters. MR. STONE-Well, there’s two in here, Chris, with the packet. MR. THOMAS-With the application. MR. ROUND-I don’t have them in here. MR. THOMAS-All right. I’ve got it right here. A letter dated April 27, 1998, “To Whom It May Concern: We, the residents of 4 Carlton Drive, state that we have no objection to a variance being granted to the residents of 6 Carlton Drive to allow them to install an above ground pool. We understand that this variance will allow them to set the pool within 20 feet of our property line. Sincerely, Robert B. Patch and Melita B. Patch”, and the second letter is dated April 27, 1998, “To Whom It May Concern: I, the resident of 1 Greenway Drive, state that I have no objections to a variance being granted to the residents of 6 Carlton Drive to allow them to install an above ground pool. I understand that this variance will allow them to set the pool within 20 feet of my 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) property line.” Do they really know what they mean? They’re not, that pool’s going to be closer than 20 feet. It’s going to be, what, five and seven feet. Do they understand that, do you think? MRS. PALMER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-I’ll take you word for it. MRS. PALMER-In fact, all three of, the lady and Mr. and Mrs. Patch both had offered to come tonight, and we had told them that we really didn’t think it was necessary. MR. THOMAS-Okay. You’re going to have to tell me who signed this second letter. I asked you this morning, and I forgot. MRS. PALMER-Her name is Mary Eldridge Orton. MR. CUSTER-They would be across the street from you? MRS. PALMER-They’re in the back. Ortons are in the back, Patches are right next door. MR. CUSTER-Because I’m looking at your house, Patches to the right? MRS. PALMER-Yes. MR. CUSTER-And Ortons are immediately behind them? MRS. PALMER-Yes. MR. CUSTER-And that’s One? MRS. PALMER-That’s 1 Greenway. MR. CUSTER-Okay, because you’re on Carlton, right? MRS. PALMER-Because we’re actually on Carlton and Greenway, right on the corner. MR. CUSTER-That corner throws me off a little bit. MR. STONE-You’re obviously putting the pool in so you never have to leave when the new road is fixed. MRS. PALMER-I hope so. MR. THOMAS-Is there any other correspondence? MR. ROUND-No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-The only thing I would say, I would never dissuade someone who is in favor of your project from coming. We really like to hear people who say they have no problem. MR. THOMAS-Yes, we like to hear it. MR. STONE-We really like to hear it. I mean, we got the letters, but it’s very nice to hear someone say, I don’t have a problem. MRS. PALMER-Well, I figured they were in their 70’s. So it was kind of like. MR. STONE-Well, we certainly appreciate that, too, but. MR. THOMAS-All right. Lets talk about it. I’ll start with Mr. Stone. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) MR. STONE-I have absolutely no problem with this thing, particularly my comment that I wrote when I looked at the property, is what did the neighbors say, and the neighbors seem to have no problem with it. I have no problem with it whatsoever. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-I agree. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I agree. I would like to have seen, and I think you know I would have liked to have seen the pool moved over a little bit, but I also understand why you don’t want to cut down that tree, and given that the neighbors really don’t care, and the pool was there already, in another person’s yard, not quite that close to the fence, but almost, I don’t think it really would make a difference. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Joe? MR. PORTER-I’m in favor of it. I’m also in agreement with Bob. The power line just makes me paranoid, irregardless of what the height situation is. MRS. PALMER-Well, unfortunately, we would have liked to have had the pool on the other end. Originally, we thought we could put it on what we consider our side yard, when we were told, no, you don’t have a side yard, you have two front yards and two back yards. So we’re really in constraint with what room we have to work with, where our sewer line takes up our whole back yard. MR. STONE-Just promise us, don’t sit in the pool if it’s storming out. MRS. PALMER-I promise I won’t. MR. THOMAS-Brian? MR. CUSTER-I tend to agree with everyone. I don’t have any problems with it. MR. THOMAS-I agree with everyone else, with the exception that I know for a fact that that power line has got to sit 10 feet vertically away from the edge of that pool, and their only alternative is to bury that underground service at their own expense. So, I know what the rules say. I know what the State law says. MR. MC NALLY-When you say 10 feet away, you mean not over the pool. It’s got t be actually to the side. MR. THOMAS-Ten feet from any edge of the pool. MR. STONE-From any edge. MR. THOMAS-From any edge of the pool. MRS. PALMER-Well, then there’s a lot of pools in our development that are in illegally, because I walked the neighborhood today, and I counted at least five, that the power lines went directly over them. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. CUSTER-It’s got to come this way. MR. THOMAS-Either that or bury it, but like I said, I have no objection to it. In fact, you told me this morning that your insurance guy was there, looked at it, raised your bill and said goodbye. So he must have seen the power line there. So, he’s the one that’s going to have to be paying the claims if anything happens. Heaven forbid. So, I would give it a yes. So would someone like to make a motion? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-1998 RUSSELL J. & DARLENE L. PALMER , Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Intersection of Carlton and Greenway. The applicant proposes installation of an above ground pool on a corner lot, and is seeking relief from the 20 foot setback requirement for accessory structures. Therefore, the applicant is asking for setbacks of 5 and 7 feet, or relief of 15 and 13 feet. The applicant will benefit in that they will be able to construct a swimming pool in the desired location. The feasible alternatives are none. Due to the site constraints, there are no alternatives other than no construction. The relief of 15 and 13 feet may be interpreted as substantial, but neighbors abutting the property on two sides have expressed no concern whatsoever. Minimal impacts are anticipated on the community or neighborhood as a result of this action, and while this difficulty may be interpreted as self created, this is of no concern, as far as granting this variance is concerned. th Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Custer, Mr. Porter, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-There you go. MRS. PALMER-Thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-As I announced before, the application for Craig Brown as the Antigua Motel has been cancelled and will probably re-appear next month because it was listed as an Area Variance instead of a Use Variance, and it has to go before the County Planning Board again. AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-1998 TYPE II CR-15 RANDOLPH K. WINSLOW OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 60 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT EXISTING GARAGE INTO A CAR AUDIO/ELECTRONICS SALES AND INSTALLATION FACILITY. APPLICANT INTENDS TO CONTINUE USE OF THE EXISTING HOUSE AS A RESIDENCE. RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-24, WHICH REQUIRE 15,000 SQ. FT. PER DWELLING UNIT AND ONE ACRE FOR COMMERCIAL USE. CROSS REF. SPR 16- 98 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/13/98 TAX MAP NO. 134-6-3 LOT SIZE: 0.51 ACRES SECTION 179-24 RANDOLPH K. WINSLOW, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-1998, Randolph Winslow, Meeting Date: May 20, 1998 Project Location: Description of Proposed Project: “60 Main Street Applicant proposes to Relief convert existing garage into a car audio/electronics sales and installation facility. Required: Applicant requests relief from the density requirements of 179-24 (CR-24), which Criteria for considering an requires 15,000 sf per dwelling and one acre for commercial use. Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to establish and operate a commercial facility and have his residence 2. Feasible alternatives:3. at the same site. Feasible alternatives are limited to no construction. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The required square footage for this dual use 4. Effects on the neighborhood or is 58,560 sf, the existing parcel contains 21,677 sf. community: Substantial impacts on the neighborhood maybe anticipated as this proposal is for a 5. Is this difficulty dual use (residence and business) on a relatively small lot on a travel corridor. self-created?Parcel History (construction/site The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. plan/variance, etc.):Staff comments: None applicable Substantial impacts are anticipated as this appears to have site constraints: room for one car at a time in the garage and only two parking sites proposed. 179-66 (Off Street parking and loading) requires that there be 5. Further, this site SEQR Status: fronts on a Travel Corridor (Main Street). Type II” th MR. ROUND-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 13 day of May 1998, the above application for an Area Variance to convert existing garage into audio/electronics 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) mobile electronics installation facility was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact” Tracy M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Winslow. MR. WINSLOW-I’m Randolph K. Winslow. MR. THOMAS-Is there anything you want to tell us about? MR. WINSLOW-There’s a few things. We were informed, because our retail area is only 60 square feet, we were only in need of one to two parking spaces, because the other area is shop area, which is not counted in the amount of parking spaces, I was told, and also there’s a business which just put on an addition directly next to me, which is Double A Provisions, which has much traffic in and out of the same area, the same traffic corridor, and I don’t see how we could adversely affect the traffic pattern or anything there. The people have sufficient room to turn vehicles completely around, and drive onto the road without backing, and the house next door to me, between Double A Provisions, is only a temporary dwelling. It will be destroyed not very long from now, probably. It’s also my aunt’s home. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Which is that? Is it on the road side? MR. WINSLOW-That would be 62 Main Street. That’s directly between Double A Provisions and 60 Main Street. MR. STONE-That’s the one that shares the driveway? MR. WINSLOW-Yes. That’s the one that shares the driveway. They have no vehicles, and it is my aunt. MR. HAYES-She has a life estate, right? That’s, Double A Provisions? MR. WINSLOW-Right, yes. Correct. She has a life estate. She stays there until she’s done with the property, her and her husband, and the people at 58 Main Street, I believe it is right directly next door to me on the other side of the house, are also my relatives. MR. THOMAS-All right. Staff had mentioned about the five parking spaces. My question is, where do you park for park for your house, where do you keep your vehicle, and there’s another name on here, Timothy O’Hare? MR. WINSLOW-Timothy O’Hare. That’s my partner, yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. That’s your partner. Where’s the employee parking on here? MR. WINSLOW-Well, we really don’t have any as of yet, but I can park on the other side of my house. MR. THOMAS-Okay. What about this, Chris, the five required parking spaces? MR. ROUND-Well, typically, it’s two for each use, is the minimum, and then I think Mr. Winslow’s correct. It’s based on square footage. I think he does have room on the property to achieve what’s required, and if he doesn’t need that, the Planning Board, it’s a Planning Board issue. The Planning Board can grant relief, or, as long as he can demonstrate that he has sufficient space on the site, he doesn’t necessarily have to construct them, if he’s not going to utilize them. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. ROUND-But, as a rule, you need two for your residential use and two for your, for an alternative use, and then the parking schedule is one per 100 square feet of retail space, I believe. MR. WINSLOW-And I do have enough room on there, if I put the cars diagonally, to obtain four parking spaces marked out nine foot by twenty foot parking spaces, which is what is required. I can get four out of it. MR. STONE-But you’re saying you could park on your? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) MR. WINSLOW-On the opposite side of my house, yes. MR. STONE-But that’s not your property. MR. WINSLOW-No, that is my property. I own right to the edge of their driveway on the property at 58 Main Street. MR. STONE-I see, it says a porch and a walkway here on the (lost word). MR. WINSLOW-Right, but I do have enough area there to obtain parking. MR. THOMAS-Yes. That was blacktopped right up to the house, wasn’t it? MR. WINSLOW-No. MR. THOMAS-No, there’s grass. That’s right. MR. WINSLOW-There’s grass there now, but that’s not. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Are you conducting the business now? MR. WINSLOW-I am not conducting it as of yet. I have all my paperwork and all my tax numbers and all those forms. We’re just waiting for the rest of these meetings to be done. MR. THOMAS-How many cars at a time do you work on? MR. WINSLOW-One. That’s all we can work on there. MR. THOMAS-Just one at a time. Okay. Since there’s two of you, I thought maybe you could squeeze two in there. MR. WINSLOW-Well, I more do the paperwork and take care of phone. See, we do stuff out at dealerships, and things, too, we will be doing it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So you have a, it’s a mobile. MR. WINSLOW-It will be more mobile than. MR. THOMAS-Okay. This is more or less just where your base is. MR. WINSLOW-Yes, and if we have customers that want to bring them there, we need the place to be open so we can. MR. THOMAS-Do you have an additional vehicle for that business? MR. WINSLOW-Not as of yet. We’re going to use my personal vehicle for now. MR. THOMAS-Okay, but when it comes time to get the other vehicle. MR. WINSLOW-Yes, we will make arrangements for more parking areas on the other side of the property. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-What other side of the property? We’re talking about 58 Main Street? MR. WINSLOW-Between 58 and 60. My place is 60. I have like 30 foot left over there, and they actually could use this to turn around, because they have no way to get turned around except to back directly out onto the road from their house. MR. MC NALLY-Well, then the drawing that you’ve given us, I don’t see any space on your side of the property closest to 58 Main. Could you show me what you mean? 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) MR. WINSLOW-Okay. MR. STONE-Yes, that was my question, too, Bob. MR. MC NALLY-If you look at this, here’s Main Street, and there’s 58 Main on that side. Now, is your drawing wrong? It doesn’t show any space. MR. WINSLOW-It could be wrong, because this is from this point over here, where there’s a driveway that starts. Let me see what you’ve got here. Wait a minute. MR. MC NALLY-This is what was in your application. MR. WINSLOW-Yes. There is like 15 feet here. The drawing must be off a little bit, but there is, because they actually have pavement that’s on my property line over there. Their driveway actually is on my property line. These three houses were all owned by relatives, and they just did what they wanted to do back then, in the old days, and didn’t have to, but I can find more parking space if I need it, and Mr. Aronson, I’m sure that I could talk him into allowing me to use his parking lot across the street for our personal vehicles, during business hours. MR. MC NALLY-Have you ever considered reconstructing, by removing the porch, or providing access to the rear of your property, so that vehicles could turn around or park back there? MR. WINSLOW-Because of where the septic system is in the area, you really, driving out there isn’t really a good thing. Like right here, I can park another car right here on the grass, just add some blacktop, and I can add one more space here, but if we put them this way, we can put four in. MR. MC NALLY-Is there space enough to get out without backing into the road? MR. WINSLOW-Yes. I turn around there every day. I never back into the street, and I’ve seen it with five, six cars in the yard, and everybody turns around. MR. STONE-Your aunt’s property will be Aronson’s property? MR. WINSLOW-It is Aronson’s property, but she has. MR. STONE-I understand. So half of that driveway is on your property? MR. WINSLOW-He owns, at the end of the driveway, at the Corinth Road end of this driveway, he only owns two feet of driveway. The rest of the opening out there is mine. He owns two foot of driveway. There’s two foot of blacktop that’s on his side. The way these people, they shared driveways back then. It was a common driveway. MR. STONE-Right, but there’s another building over here, isn’t it, to the west? MR. WINSLOW-And there’s a garage which is being torn down by Mr. Aronson before the summer is over. That’s on his side, and that’s going to be torn down before the summer is over. MR. STONE-And there’s only two feet that’s his of that blacktop? MR. WINSLOW-No, at the end of the driveway, at the Corinth Road end, he has two foot of driveway. The rest of it is mine. It’s actually a square driveway. 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? Any correspondence? MR. ROUND-I have none. Do you have any? MR. THOMAS-No, not in my packet. MR. ROUND-Just checking. I don’t have any. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Does anyone have any more questions for Mr. Winslow? If not, we’ll talk about it. Jamie, what do you think? MR. HAYES-Well, I think, you know, clearly he’s asking for what I would consider substantial relief, and I do believe that there would be some negative impacts on the neighborhood. I think that Broad Street is an overtaxed corridor already, and I think that there’s evidence to support that, but I guess I would listen to the rest of the Board’s feelings as to whether the benefit to the applicant, Mr. Winslow, would outweigh those two considerations. So I guess I have strong reservations about a great deal of the test, but, you know, but does the benefit to Mr. Winslow outweigh that? I guess I could go either way with that. I would be willing to listen. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-This lot, for commercial use, is undersized by about half. The lot is adequate for a residence. I think it could be made adequate for a business, but basically the business is being shoe horned into one corner of the lot, and I don’t think that that’s going to be a benefit to the community, and I don’t think it’s very feasible where it is now. If you take two private cars, and you take a business car, and if someone’s being worked on, and if another person or two have to drop off their cars to have some work done on it later in the day, you’ve got a lot of vehicles, and as much as I, with all due respect, I see that with the next door neighbor’s lot. If you pull onto it, you can turn around. I don’t really think that this lot by itself you can really turn around anywhere. Now, I’ve got grave concerns about the adequacy of the existing facility for use in this business, and to meet the existing Ordinance. I also think the effects on the neighborhood are somewhat strong. If there were some re-organization of the property, if parking were to the rear, if there were a circle that parked cars could turn around on, I might be more inclined to do this, but it seems like we’re shoehorning a business into this property, and I don’t think it’s appropriate. MR. THOMAS-All right. Joe? MR. PORTER-I agree with Bob. We’re kind of cramming everything into one area, and it does, I think, substantiate a little re-figuring and re-shuffling things around, I think it could be feasible, but as it stands, the way it’s drawn, it’s really not a workable situation with that heavy corridor. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I tend to agree with Bob and Joe. The parking bothers me. I understand that most people, a reasonably prudent person would probably back the car up and try to turn around before exiting the premises, but that’s a reasonably prudent person. Lord knows we have a lot of people on the streets driving that aren’t reasonably prudent, and I think the inclination would be, occasionally, for one of them to back out onto the road to try to exit the premises. I think it’s going to present a very serious hazard, as that traffic continues to build along that thoroughfare. If something could be done, as Bob suggested, to alleviate that situation and move that parking around, I might be able to support this a little bit better, but right now, I’m kind of against it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-Well, I will just read from the note that I wrote when I looked at the property. I think it’s too big a variance, and I think there’s a precedent involved here. We’ve had a fairly long history with the adjoining property. So much so that the owner of the corner lot, Double A Provisions, was kind of forced to buy two different properties to get the variance granted that we gave him. I just think it’s too big a variance, and I’m inclined to say no. I think there’s something better that can be done. This can be located somewhat better than it is now. MR. THOMAS-Going through the balancing act here, whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, not on this particular piece of property it can’t because the garage exists. They could put a new building out back, and take away the garage that’s there, but that’s really not feasible. An undesirable change in the neighborhood? I don’t think so, because the garage exists. The applicant says he’s only going to have one car in there at a time, working on it, plus they do road calls and stuff like that, to other auto dealers. Is the request substantial? Yes. The request is quite substantial. It’s like Bob said, it’s over half of what’s required by the Ordinance. Whether request will have adverse physical or environmental effects? I don’t think so, not really, because of the, if he does what he says, you know, he has two parking spaces, can make 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) four, and there’s not cars pulling in and out of there all the time, unless he’s got, you know, the retail area is really agressive in the advertisment and people want to stop in there, then you could have a problem, but, I don’t know. You’d have to see on that one, and the alleged difficulty is self- created? Well, yes, it is because the applicant is asking to change from a garage to an audio electronics installation area. So right now I’m sitting on the fence, but I think I would have to agree with the other Board members, as no, because of what the others have said, they have a strong feeling for what’s going on in that corridor. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion. MR. ROUND-I know you’ve given some directions to the applicant for re-configuration of the lot. I don’t know if you want to pass judgment on it now or if you want to table it to entertain that kind of discussion with the applicant. MR. THOMAS-Would you like us to table this to see if there’s something else you can do? MR. WINSLOW-Well, I’d like to add a couple of things. Last summer there was a tattoo shop operating across the street, with absolutely no more parking than what I have, and with loud Harley Davidson motorcycles driving in and out all day long, and loud stereos all night long, and they somehow got a variance to open this business, and Wags Diner has hardly enough parking for what they need over there. The Northway Diner, because it’s a grandfather clause, it’s left in there, and the reason that I want to open this business is because right now I’m on social security, making $139 a month, and I can’t live this way, and I really need to open this business to make a decent, honest living. It’s, keep the little guy down type of thing, and, I mean, most of our stuff is done at dealerships. We have a bunch of car dealerships that are ready to give us work, as soon as we can open and have a place where we can store our things and use, when they don’t have space for us at their establishment. That’s our main customer is dealerships. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Again, for the Board, the balancing test reads, “The Board of Appeals shall balance the benefit to the applicant with detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community”. So, having said that, and the applicant does not want us to table it for a re- configuration, I would ask for a motion to either approve or deny, or to table it. MR. MC NALLY-I’m sympathetic, but I don’t think we should table it without a specific plan in front of us, and I don’t think we should be the ones to suggest what the plan, in the specifics, should be. I don’t know anything about the tattoo parlor. I don’t know anything about Wags, other than it’s a restaurant, but since I’ve been here, I know that we haven’t granted any variances for those businesses, and since I’ve been here, other people along Main Street have applied for combined residential and commercial uses on undersized lots, and from what I understand, with an appropriate application, there is a better chance of passing, where more of the lot is used, rather than a small portion, but I don’t see that here today, and if the applicant does not want to table it, then I would make a motion, Mr. Chairman. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-1998 RANDOLPH K. WINSLOW , Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by 60 Main Street. The applicant proposes to convert an existing residential garage into a car audio electronics and installation facility with a retail sales area and a garage/work area for the business. The applicant requests relief from the density requirements of Section 179-24, which requires 15,000 square feet for every residental dwelling, and an additional one acre, which in my recollection is about 43,000 square feet, for each commercial use. While there would certainly be a benefit to the applicant, in that he would be permitted to establish and operate a commercial facility and have his residence at the same site, thereby allowing him to come off social security and perhaps become a successful businessman, on balance, I believe the factors weigh against granting a variance with respect to this particular application. The feasible alternatives are not necessarily limited to no construction. I do believe the lot could be re-configured and used in other fashion, which would allow a better ingress and egress, would allow for less density, and would allow for a better use, more appropriate and in conformity with the existing Ordinance. The relief is, in my opinion, substantial relative to the Ordinance. As I noted above, the square footage normally required for both a residential and business use of this type, is 58,560 square feet, whereas the existing parcel contains 21,677 square feet, and in all honesty, given the application, it appears that approximately one tenth, or less, of that 21,000 square feet is being used or dedicated to this particular commercial use. So while the lot may be 21,000 square feet, the use is much smaller than that. So the relief would be substantial. This is an existing residential property, and the effects on the neighborhood or community weigh against granting this application because there would be an increase in traffic, in my opinion, and there is no guarantee that there would only be one or two cars parked on what are, in my opinion, inadequate facilities, as it now stands. I would 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) wish the applicant success, if he started a business, and have as many customers as possible. I can’t read the future, though, and in my opinion, the impact would be negative, particularly when you consider how strong and traveled this corridor is, and is the difficulty self-created? I can interpret it as being self created, given that the application, I don’t think this application should be passed, and that there are other alternatives that might have been considered and used, and for all these reasons, I move that the application be denied. TIMOTHY O’HARA MR. O’HARA-Excuse me. My name is Timothy O’Hara. I’m in parntership. May I speak? MR. THOMAS-Yes, before I call for a second. MR. O’HARA-Hi. My name is Timothy O’Hara. I would be in partnership with Randy Winslow in this venture. He’s a little upset right now, but that’s understandably so. We have quite a few friends that hang out there. In many cases, many times, there are far more than five cars in that parking lot, and everybody gets out of there without backing into the road. Like I said, the lot does extend quite a ways beyond, you know, the edge of the garage, or what looks like the garage on the other property, which Mr. Aronson’s informed us will be demolished by the end of the summer, because he needs to do that for a fire access, and I would have to assume at that point, that I don’t know what the right-of-way and fire codes are, but he would probably have to widen the driveway onto his property, to accommodate fire access without having to come onto Randy’s property. I don’t know what the Code is, if that’s required or not, but he’s in favor of this, and like I said, he said he’d do anything. We’d be able to park our cars in his lot across the street. We don’t expect to have that, you know, as we do want to do a good business, but I don’t expect to have that much consistent large traffic at all times. Most of the time appointments are going to be made. A car will be dropped off. We’re going to offer shuttle service to people within a five mile radius. So, you know, the number of cars, because we knew this would be a problem, we wanted to keep the number of cars on the property to an absolute minimum, but in all honesty, our financial resources are strapped to the limit, and we don’t have the resources to do anything else, to be absolutely honest with you, as far as relocating the garage or anything like that. We could extend the driveway a bit toward the house, if we needed to gain a little room there for a little bit more, but we don’t have much beyond that. We’ve been putting this place together, and I’ve been there consistently, day in and day out basis for three or four weeks, and there is a lot of traffic there at certain hours of the day, but a great portion of the day, the traffic is quite light and it’s very easy to get in and out of there, certain heavy traffic times, but the light at Richardson Street provides many opportunities for people to get out very safely, because it does stop traffic there. I mean, as Randy said, this is an opportunity for him to become a tax payer rather than somebody who’s collecting, and he’s been very active in wanting to get this done and get up and going, and I can understand your reluctance, but, I mean, within the constraints of the finances we have to deal with, we do have a good location. We have, in my opinion, a more than adequate driveway. We can handle the parking for the business that we think we’re going to do. I would hope that we could possibly get a positive result out of this, because like I said, we don’t have really have the finances to move a building or do any large paving projects, or the time, before we run out of our own personal funds, to do anything like that, and there’s an opportunity for me to be involved in business. I mean, I’ve been doing this for 20 years. I worked for myself rather than somebody else, and it’s Randy’s opportunity to become an upstanding member of the community, per se, and I just, you know, I think if you spent the day there, you’d see that I think your questions about parking, and as far as, I mean, if you see, like I said, we’ve got friends and we’ve got six, seven cars in the yard. We’ve never really had a problem, and I don’t see, that’s why we never thought that this would become a problem, and had no contingency plan for it, and like I said, in being there every day and seeing what goes on, I really don’t see, I mean, I know we’re on less than half the parcel, half of what you require, but, I mean, I will say this. There’s a lot of businesses that seem to be on a lot smaller, and again that’s no excuse, but I do think that we can provide a good business there. We can provide a, I mean, we’re in the process of fixing the building up so it looks nice as well. In fact, it looks nicer than it did, and I don’t think, I really don’t believe that we’re going to have a real parking problem. In fact, we’ve actually figured out there is room for up to five, if we park diagonally, we can squeeze five in, and still maintain good access to the garage. I mean, we could even get more if we needed to, but there is substantial room there, because the property extends, I think it’s almost six feet, I’ll say at least five feet from the garage. So there’s, from the edge of his garage. So there’s another five feet of driveway to the right, when you’re looking directly at the garage. So there’s quite a bit of room. I mean, I drive a ’69 Buick, which is a 20 foot long car, and I can almost drive a circle in the driveway. So there’s plenty of room for people to turn around there. So, I hope you take that into consideration before you make your final decision. Thank you very much. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob, do you want to withdraw your motion, in consideration of what has just been said? MR. MC NALLY-With all due respect, I’m in favor of the business being there, but I don’t believe density is appropriate, or that they’ve provided us an appropriate plan. I sympathize, but I don’t, I would just as soon not withdraw my application. MR. THOMAS-Or your motion? Okay. Then I’ll ask for a second. MR. MC NALLY-I mean, if you’re not going to table it, sir, and come back again with something better. MR. O’HARA-Well, I don’t see how. What would be better? MR. WINSLOW-My financial situation right now, I mean, we just spent $1,000. MR O’HARA-We don’t have any money. MR. STONE-Well, one of the things that you said in your presentation, which was a very excellent presentation, is that the owner of the property to the west had said certain things. That’s what you say. I think if you came back, possibly, with assurances, written assurances or verbal assurances, that some of the parking, your employee parking, if you will, could be on his property. I mean, that addresses one of the issues. I think Bob is concerned still, as I, with the fact that this is a large variance, but if we had hard fact about alternatives, than maybe we could. MR. O’HARA-Would that be enough to tip this the other way? MR. HAYES-You can’t say that, but. MR. MC NALLY-When I look at the turnaround area now, if Aronson, your next door neighbor, decides to put a fence up that driveway, no one’s going to be turning around. MR. WINSLOW-He has to leave that open for a fire lane. MR. MC NALLY-But you have to understand, as a Board, we don’t know what’s going to happen in the future. MR. O’HARA-Understood. MR. MC NALLY-And if we grant a variance for this business, and Radio Shack buys it from you the day afterwards and decides to put 60 cars up and down the street, there really is nothing to stop that, but your suggestion that you could perhaps get someone’s permission, giving you an easement which allows your cars to be parked to the rear, and again, I was there. The porch certainly is something I would not remove. Maybe some sweat equity. I don’t even know what the space is. I don’t see a measurement on your diagram. Can you access through your property some other way? These are the kind of things that, as a Board, we have to consider, as to the community as a whole. So it would be a great benefit to you, (lost words) the community, if you come back later with something better, to meet those concerns, we’d certainly be more favorable. We couldn’t guarantee a positive result, but. MR. O’HARA-The only thing that we could do right now, that I could see, (lost words) feasible for us would be to have Aronson give us an easement to park on his property. MR. MC NALLY-The applicant, Mr. Winslow, indicated he had 15 feet on the other side of the house. It’s not on the diagram. Is that another way around? Perhaps you’ve got family on the other side, they would grant an easement? It needs to be something written and something that we can sink our teeth into, not something like we think someone will let us. It’s got to be written down in blood, so that we’re not concerned that it’s not going to fly. Do you understand what I’m saying? CANDY WINSLOW MRS. WINSLOW-My other question, and I’m Candy Winslow, and I’m the owner of the property. What if we put our personal cars in back of the garage, (lost words) between the shed 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) and the garage, where I have my close lines right now? If you look on the paper, I’ll show you exactly what I mean. This area in here. What if we put our personal cars there, even? It would leave all this open. MR. STONE-In other words, you’re saying build, or at least designate, more parking areas? MRS. WINSLOW-Yes. MR. STONE-They don’t have to be your personal cars. It just has to be more parking area. MRS. WINSLOW-Yes, as parking areas between the shed and the garage, because I have more close lines there. It wouldn’t take me anything to take my close lines down and move them out back. MR. STONE-How do you get there? Can you get there on your property? MRS. WINSLOW-Yes. You can get through right on the side of the house, right on the side of the garage and the house, right up through. MR. MC NALLY-Between the porch and garage? MRS. WINSLOW-Yes. MR. STONE-I think what we’re saying is we’d like to see that drawn in and, with Mr. Aronson’s comments, one way or the other. MR. O’HARA-We’ll accept a motion for tabling. We’ll try to meet this criteria. MR. MC NALLY-If they’re willing to table it, I’m willing to withdraw the motion. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-I move we table the application, then. MR. THOMAS-Okay, for. MR. MC NALLY-One month? MR. THOMAS-Well, yes, until next month, but for the applicant to bring in further drawings showing a better parking plan. MR. STONE-Plus commitment, too, from the neighbor. MR. THOMAS-Yes, commitment. MR. MC NALLY-Well, the concern is density. The Ordinance requires an acre for a reason, because they don’t want things shoehorned into a tight space. They want it adequate for parking and turnaround, too. I think that’s a concern. I don’t know how you’re going to address it, but that’s a concern. MR. THOMAS-Yes. That’s our concern. So, if you need to talk to the Planning Department, they’re downstairs right over in the next building. You can talk to them, bring the drawings in to them. See what they think about it. MR. ROUND-I know time was a consideration. Would you entertain this information at the next week’s meeting? MR. THOMAS-Next week’s meeting? MR. ROUND-Yes. Do you know what date you’re on the Planning Board? MR. WINSLOW-We’re on tomorrow night. MR. ROUND-Tomorrow night? Potentially, we may be able to push that to the following Thursday, so that you still could accomplish it in a relatively short time frame. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) MR. WINSLOW-That would be excellent. MR. ROUND-I think we can work with you. MR. THOMAS-What’s next Wednesday? How filled is that one? MR. STONE-We’ve got six again. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Do you think you could have those drawings in? MR. O’HARA-We’ll make them. MR. ROUND-That’s an option. If you can’t, you could always come back the following month, but just leave that so that you do have the opportunity, at the Board’s discretion. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-1998 RANDOLPH K. WINSLOW , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: th For a period of one week, until the May 27 Zoning Board of Appeals hearing. th Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Custer, Mr. Porter, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-So, we’ll see you next week. MR. WINSLOW-Thank you. Does that mean we don’t have to be here for tomorrow night’s meeting? MR. ROUND-Yes. I’ll remove that from the agenda and see if we can get it moved to the next week. If you call my office tomorrow, we’ll make sure that’s the case, that they can remove that. USE VARIANCE NO. 22-1998 TYPE: UNLISTED NC-10 LEEMILT’S PETROLEUM, INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CORNER OF DIXON AND AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RETAIL CARPET SALES IN A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE. SINCE THIS IS NOT A LISTED USE IN SECTION 179-25, A USE VARIANCE IS REQUIRED. CROSS REF. SPR 23-98 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/13/98 TAX MAP NO. 91-1-1 LOT SIZE: 0.32 ACRES JAMES BENEDETTI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 22-1998, Leemilt’s Petroleum, Inc., Meeting Date: May 20, Description of Proposed Project: 1998 “ Applicant proposes retail carpet sales center in a Relief Required: Neighborhood Commercial zone. Since this is not a listed use in this zone, 179- Criteria for considering an Use Variance according 25 (NC-10), a Use Variance is necessary. to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Can the applicant realize a reasonable return, provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence? 2. Is the alleged hardship relating to the property in question uniquel, and does this hardship apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood? 3. Will the requested use variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? The variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as no exterior improvements are proposed and there are 4. Is the alleged hardship self-created: existing commercial uses nearby. The alleged hardship Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): may be interpreted as self created. UV - 14-1993 to conduct two businesses AV 55-1993 revised site plan to improve parking and traffic Staff comments: flow UV 85-1995 to conduct two businesses Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as the proposal is consistent with previous variances and existing 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) SEQR Status: character of the area. Issues relating to garbage/refuse have been raised. Type Unlisted” MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there a representative from Leemilt’s here? MR. HAYES-Mr. Chairman, I think I will excuse myself. I own property directly to the south of the apartments there. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Let the record show that Mr. Hayes excused himself from this variance due to a possible conflict, being a property owner within 500 feet. MR. BENEDETTI-James Benedetti. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Were you here before when we did this? MR. BENEDETTI-The first time. MR. THOMAS-For the carpets? MR. BENEDETTI-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Is this the same outfit? MR. BENEDETTI-Yes. MR. THOMAS-They bailed out, now they’ve decided to come back? st MR. BENEDETTI-Yes. We left and moved to the Mt. Royal Plaza, and our lease is up June 1, so we want to go back. MR. THOMAS-You want to go back to there? MR. BENEDETTI-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-The Mt. Royal Plaza which is getting more empty every day. MR. BENEDETTI-Exactly. MR. THOMAS-I don’t have any questions for the applicant, because I went through the 1993 one, and I know exactly what was there, and basically what he’s going to have there is what was there last time. Just give us a quick rundown. MR. BENEDETTI-The main question I think that was raised was the garbage removal, from before, because we had a few problems with garbage. We don’t take garbage anymore. We haven’t taken garbage in a year. None whatsoever. No scrapes come back to the building from a job site. They go directly to the dump. So, on the left side of the building, if you’re looking at the front of the building, there’s a dumpster enclosed for the gas portion, which could use a little work, in my opinion, but that’s about it. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re the renter, or do you own the property? MR. BENEDETTI-Yes. I own the business that wants to rent the property. MR. STONE-You own the business that wants to go in there. So you’re not the person who has to tell us whether or not you can make, he can make money as zoned. MR. BENEDETTI-You have a letter in your packet there, I believe, from them. If you need more financial information, I’m sure they’ll provide it for you. They did it in 1993. They’ve rented it two times, I believe, since then, since I left, and the last one was a two year lease that couldn’t survive. So he left, I think, eight months into it. MR. STONE-Well, the question that I have though, this is the first gas station that one comes to driving east on Aviation Road from a huge residential area. It would seem to me that a gas station, 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) the first gas station you come to, ought to be able to have a reasonable financial return as a gas station, and that’s the information that I need. MR. BENEDETTI-Yes, but you also have to realize that I owned that gas station, back in 1993, and the most gallons of gas you’ll ever pump out of there is 58,000 because you’re only pulling from a small segment of people. Yes, it’s a large area, but, I mean, you’ve got to realign those tanks every five years. It’s not feasible. Getty has proven it. They’ve proved it before, and if you st need the financial information, I could get it to you. My lease is up June 1 and I would like to be in and operating out of this building. MR. THOMAS-Do we have that 1993 variance? Do you have that file with you? MR. STONE-I said I’d like to see the minutes. MR. CUSTER-Pumping 58,000 gallons over what time period? MR. BENEDETTI-In the course of a month. 58,000 gallons in the course of a month, you’re talking about an electric bill that exceeds $800 a month just to keep the canopy on, plus you’ve got 120 hours of people that need to work there, 120 hours you have to be open. MR. CUSTER-What do you make, about four cents a gallon? MR. BENEDETTI-Yes, exactly. Anywhere from four to seven, and you still have to pay rent to Getty for the property as a leasee. When it’s all said and done, I got rid of it because you can’t make money there, and Getty can’t make money there renting it at, I paid $350 a month for the gas station. MR. STONE-But it’s also a convenience store. MR. BENEDETTI-It’s not a convenience store. I mean, it has cigarettes, but I wouldn’t classify it as a convenience store. You’ve got Sokol’s right next to it. So there’s no point in putting a convenience store there. MR. MC NALLY-Did we get any financials at all with this application? MR. THOMAS-Have you got the financials from ’93? MR. ROUND-I don’t have that in front of me. Do you have the copy of the Getty? MR. STONE-No, I don’t. MR. THOMAS-No. MR. STONE-I’ve got an act as agent. That’s all we’ve got here. MR. CUSTER-So you’re taking in about $2500 a month in retail, a gas station? MR. BENEDETTI-In the gas station, yes. MR. CUSTER-And you’re spending about, you’re breaking even is what you’re saying? MR. BENEDETTI-If you didn’t sell cigarettes out of there, you’d never break even. You’ve got to pay Workman’s Comp to the tune of $17 per 1,000 to keep someone out there pumping gas. As soon as you switch that from a full service station to self serve, you drop to 25,000 or less because you have Stewarts across the street. MR. MC NALLY-These aren’t financials, though. MR. STONE-No. MR. THOMAS-No. They aren’t the financials we usually see, but, you know, this same exact business was in there, in 1993, and bailed out in ’95, and then Ralph Garafolo came in there with this trains and a flower shop. MR. STONE-Yes, but there also is an apartment upstairs. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) MR. THOMAS-Plus the apartment upstairs. MR. BENEDETTI-Right. The apartment was vacant up until, I’m renting the apartment with the rest of the building, is the agreement I have with Getty, because they can’t rent it. It hasn’t been rented since 1995. I have about $7,000 worth of work to do in that apartment to make it liveable. MR. STONE-Yes. I noticed you working the other day. MR. BENEDETTI-Yes, in the apartment, at my expense. MR. CUSTER-Has Getty tried to sell the property? MR. BENEDETTI-That I can’t answer. I don’t know. MR. MC NALLY-Do you know if Getty has attempted to lease the back portion for some of the permitted Type II uses under Neighborhood Commercial zones, Professional Office, a restaurant, drugstore, stationary, grocery store, barber shop, produce stand, that kind of thing? MR. BENEDETTI-I don’t know that. I don’t know who’s inquired on the building and who hasn’t. I know they tried for a variance to get an automotive shop or something in there, which is just going to create more havoc. MR. MC NALLY-Was it originally used as a gas station with repair services and what not? MR. BENEDETTI-Yes, I mean, I think years, and years and years ago. MR. CUSTER-Chris, you basically accepted the premise back in ’93? MR. THOMAS-Yes. They came through with the financials, and I mean financials that you’d need to be an accountant to read, but it showed that without that business being rented out, there was no doubt that they couldn’t make a go here. As far as the other Type II businesses, you know, you can’t do a grocery store. Sokol’s is right next door. MR. STONE-Professional Office, housing units, daycare center, restaurant without alcoholic beverage, stationary store. MR. MC NALLY-It might be more suitable for a professional office, in some sense, but that would be less parking, but I don’t know without numbers. MR. THOMAS-Back in ’93, we went through this, and I think we did it over two meetings, and as far as the Type II actions, the Type II uses, we couldn’t come up with a feasible one, and the applicant couldn’t come up with any, either. So, you know, they went with the carpet store. They had their two year lease went out. Ralph Garafolo came in there with his trains and his flowers, two years, he’s out. So, now the same applicant wants to come back and occupy the same space. MR. STONE-But who owns the property? MR. BENEDETTI-Leemilt’s owns Getty Petroleum. Leemilt’s Petroleum owns the property. MR. STONE-They’re a local corporation? MR. BENEDETTI-I believe they’re based out of Kingston. MR. STONE-Okay, but they own the property, and Getty has put, has franchised them as a Getty dealer? MR. BENEDETTI-Leemilt’s owns Getty, the gas company Getty, from my understanding. I mean, it could have changed three times from the last time I’ve dealt with corporate. MR. STONE-So this is the corporate Getty, Leemilt is? MR. BENEDETTI-Leemilt’s. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) MR. STONE-We have a letter here from Getty in Newark, NJ, Getty Petroleum Marketing. It doesn’t say anything about Leemilt. MR. CUSTER-Leemilt’s has got to be a franchisee. MR. BENEDETTI-No. Leemilt’s is the company that owns Getty Petroleum. MR. THOMAS-Leemilt’s is the parent company. MR. BENEDETTI-Leemilt’s is the parent company that owns Getty. MR. CUSTER-Okay. MR. STONE-I wish guys who write letters would tell you. MR. ROUND-I think it’s probably a regional operator of Getty franchises, or, you know, the licensee, because Getty is John Paul Getty, who died a couple of years ago, an I think he owns the facility. MR. STONE-You’re speaking for your landlord, in a sense. MR. BENEDETTI-Exactly. MR. THOMAS-Yes, and there’s a written thing in the, for Mr. Benedetti to speak on behalf of Leemilt’s. MR. STONE-I understand that. Speaking and furnishing financial data are two different things, Mr. Chairman. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s true. MR. STONE-Right now, I’m being hard. I’m not saying I’m not agreeing with what you guys did before. MR. THOMAS-No, but if you go back to the 1993 record and pull that, you can see, and the financial hasn’t changed a bit. If you go back to the 1993 records, five years ago, it’s probably even worse now than it was then. MR. BENEDETTI-Yes, because if you go down to A-Plus and those places near the mall there, they pump 2, 3, 400,000 gallons of gas, on a weekly basis. You’re talking a station that will never pull any traffic from the other side of the bridge. You either live there and get gas there, or you don’t get gas there, I mean, if you look at it realistically. That’s why they can’t make money, and they have to come up, I think, probably within the next five years and change the tanks again. MR. STONE-No, I’m not quarreling with what you guys did. It’s just that Use Variances, you know how tough we are. MR. THOMAS-We are tough on them, but if I had thought of it, I would have called the Planning Office and had copies of the financial statements put in the folders, but I didn’t. MR. MC NALLY-Now, you said that there was another variance even before that, for the same type of business? Twice they’ve demonstrated, by financial relief for a Use Variance. MR. THOMAS-Yes. They have because when Ralph Garafolo came in, they used the same thing, because Leemilt, you know, they’ve been in there twice, and it’s the same applicant or the same person that’s coming back to use the building again. So nothing has changed. MR. STONE-It’s good for you. MR. BENEDETTI-It’s excellent for us, definitely. MR. STONE-Well, when we say gasoline station or facility, does that mean repair, though? 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, they used to do repairs there, but they don’t do repairs there anymore. They just sell gas, because the carpeting goes with the old service bay. That’s where they store the carpets. MR. STONE-I understand that. No, I realize that. I understand that. MR. MC NALLY-Have we got financials in the old application or something? MR. STONE-Do you have them there, Chris, did you get them? MR. ROUND-Yes, but I think it’s a little difficult to sift through this stuff, and I think I’d put that back on the applicant to demonstrate the financial evidence, rather than to sit here and sift through the file for. MR. THOMAS-Yes, there was an accounting sheet in there, I remember, very small. MR. ROUND-There is a sheet about rental rates and. MR. STONE-Yes, but I think we have to be very careful, Chris, on a Use Variance, because you know how tough we are. MR. THOMAS-I know. MR. STONE-We were just very difficult here. MR. THOMAS-But I went through the same thing five years ago. So, you know, I was the only one on this Board that was there then, and in my mind, I know the financials, and they were proven back then, and it’s the same circumstance now. I’m just sorry I didn’t have Staff give us another, give us the run down on it, or just send us the old file. MR. BENEDETTI-That’s also why you see the building starting to fall apart. The flower boxes are all weeds. It’s an eyesore, as you drive down the street. MR. STONE-What happens to this, you know, we keep talking about making Aviation Road wider in one place, tearing it up and re-building it again as we’re doing now in front of the School. Is there any move afoot, Chris, to widen Aviation and take this building out? MR. THOMAS-No, not take this building out, but I understand they are going to widen Aviation to a four lane highway, up as far as Potter Road, at some point in time, but as far as taking that, no, because they have more land, they can take more land on the north side. MR. CUSTER-The other side. MR. THOMAS-Which is more feasible than to take, you know, this point out. MR. MC NALLY-This application doesn’t really change the setbacks of the existing building. MR. THOMAS-No. It’s a Use Variance, not an Area Variance, actually put a use in there that was already in there once before, where everything was explained. In fact, it’s the same person. I’ll stand behind it. MR. STONE-If the Chairman makes a statement, I would go along with it. We’ve got to have a public hearing first, though. MR. THOMAS-Yes. I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this? In favor of? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAUL HAYES MR. HAYES-I guess I’d make one quick comment. I’m not aware of the financial data, but I will back Mr. Benedetti up in the fact that, as it stands now, the building is deteriorating. The apartment upstairs, the surrounding area, as being unrented, there is some deterioration, and I think 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) that, if anything, that’s a detriment to the neighborhood, per se. An operating business, if it’s a clean one, would probably be a compliment. I would have to say. MR. STONE-One could ask, though, if the landlord is going to do anything to fix it up, once he gets this tenant in there. MR. HAYES-I can’t speak for that, but it is deteriorating now, and I think that that is a germane comment. MR. HAYES-Okay. Is there anyone else who’d like to speak in favor of? Would anyone like to speak opposed? RICHARD REYNOLDS MR. REYNOLDS-My name’s Richard Reynolds. I was also here in ’93. I’m on both sides of the fence in this one. The only thing I request, that the Use Variance be granted, that when Mr. Benedetti vacates the property, that it has to come before the Board again for any new variance. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that’s standard. MR. REYNOLDS-Because we had a big problem with Leemilt’s wanting to get a repair station in there, and it was an overuse of the variance, as it is, as it stands right now. MR. THOMAS-When was that? MR. REYNOLDS-’93. MR. THOMAS-Trying to get a repair? MR. REYNOLDS-A repair shop. MR. THOMAS-I don’t remember that. Unless it was early ’93. MR. REYNOLDS-It was early ’93. MR. THOMAS-Because I came in August of ’93. MR. REYNOLDS-No, it was earlier than that. It was before Mr. Benedetti had come through, and Mr. Turner was on the Board at the time, I believe, the Chairman at the time, and ever since then, I’ve shown up, when Mr. Garafolo was there, and it’s always been that when that business levels, the Use Variance has to go back up before the Board. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Let me ask you this, when we approved the Use Variance for the carpet, did you have any problems whatsoever with the? MR. REYNOLDS-None at all. Mr. Benedetti was a fine tenant. The trash removal part of it maybe got out of hand a couple of times. I spoke to him, and it was all taken care of. MR. THOMAS-Well, he’s already stated that the trash disposal is done from wherever the carpet’s installed right to the dump. MR. REYNOLDS-That’s fine with me. I’m actually in favor of the carpet business, because it is a quiet business that goes back in. MR. CUSTER-Where are you located, Mr. Reynolds? MR. REYNOLDS-I’m located at the corner of Helen and Dixon. I face the property. MR. CUSTER-Okay. MR. THOMAS-So you have no problem with except? MR. REYNOLDS-No, I have no problem, except. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) MR. THOMAS-Yes, but that will be the stanard, that is the standard. If a use ceases to exist, the Use Variance. MR. REYNOLDS-I just didn’t want some kind of open Use Variance to Leemilt’s. MR. THOMAS-No. We don’t do that. MR. REYNOLDS-And I was here with the financial records, and at one point they showed a $90,000 loss, then the next month they were showing a $10,000 loss. Their records weren’t that great. I have them at home. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-Yes, well, these are ’92 that I’m looking at. MR. REYNOLDS-Yes, and at one month they showed a $90,000 and the next month they showed a $10,000. So it shows that they make $70,000 the next month. MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, it fluctuates from month to month. MR. REYNOLDS-I understand, but I just didn’t like the way the ledgers were done and stuff. MR. THOMAS-Well, that’s corporate America for you. MR. REYNOLDS-I know. I understand. MR. THOMAS-Like I said, you’ve got to be an accountant to read them. MR. REYNOLDS-Yes, thank you for your time. MR. THOMAS-Thanks. Is there anyone else who’d like to speak opposed? Is there any correspondence? MR. ROUND-No, there is not. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Are there any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Then I’ll ask for a motion. Have you got that motion there from 1993? MR. ROUND-I just have the tabling motion. That’s all I have. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 22-1998 LEEMILT’S PETROLEUM, INC. , Introduced by Brian Custer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Corner of Dixon and Aviation Roads. Description of the proposed project, allowing the Use Variance would allow the applicant to establish a retail carpet sales center in a Neighborhood Commercial zone, under zoning code no. 179-25. Allowing the Use Variance, based on the demonstration by the applicant of the four criteria, the first one being that a reasonable rate of return is not sustainable under the current usage, and we have documentation of past financial records that so state that, the past financial information was already posed during a prior Use Variance under UV 14-1993. The second criteria relates to the hardship relating to the property in question is unique, and does this hardship apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood, and I don’t believe that that is true at this point. Will the requested Use Variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No, and all indications are that it will benefit it, as proven by past Use Variances which were granted on the same type of business usage, and lastly, the alleged hardship, is it self created? It is interpreted by my motion that it is not self created, and therefore, I make the recommendation to approve the variance. That the variance is contingent upon the fact that if the applicant’s agent leaves the premises, the future applicants will have to come for another Use Variance. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) th Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone, Mr. Custer, Mr. Porter, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Hayes MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SEQRA SHOWS THAT THERE WILL BE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: th Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Porter, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Hayes MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. BENEDETTI-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Move it right back in. AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-1998 TYPE II WR-3A CEA ROBERT & ALICE HAYES OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCKHART MOUNTAIN ROAD, ON THE LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS OF THE WR-3A ZONE. APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING RELIEF FROM THE 900 SQ. FT. AREA RESTRICTIONS FOR GARAGE RESTRICTIONS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/13/98 TAX MAP NO. 1-1-14 LOT SIZE: 2.59 ACRES SECTION 179-16 179-7 ROBERT HAYES, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 17-1998, Robert & Alice Hayes, Meeting Date: May 20, Project Location:Description of Proposed Project: 1998 “ Route 9L Applicant proposes Relief Required: construction of a 9298.6 sf single family dwelling. Applicant requests relief from the height restrictions of 179-16 (WR-3A). The maximum height for a permitted use in this zone is 28 feet. The proposal calls for a maximum height of 32.5 feet. Additionally, the applicant is requesting relief from the 900 sf area restrictions for garages. Applicant proposes 901 sq. feet. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:2. Applicant would be permitted to construct desired residence. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives include no construction and down sized construction. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The ordinance limit is 28 feet the 4. proposal shows 32.5 feet. Maximum square footage for garages is 900 sf, 967 sf are proposed. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Effects on the neighborhood may be interpreted as 5. Is this difficulty self-created? minor to moderate. The difficulty may be interpreted as self Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):Staff created. None applicable. comments: Predictable impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The applicant may have alternatives available in the form of a down sized proposal. Further, the issue of relocating the existing stream/drainage path on the site or into the adjacent stream might be addressed. Should SEQR Status: the stream be relocated on site the structure must meet the stream setbacks. Type II” th MR. ROUND-“At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 13 day of May 1998, the above application for an Area Variance for the construction of an A-1 residence which seeks relief from height restrictions was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact” Tracy Clothier, Chairperson. Regarding the garage, I think there’s a revised drawing in front of us, and we may not need that relief. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Hayes. MR. R. HAYES-Good evening. I’d like to introduce Gary Van Alstyne who’s the professional engineer that’s been working on this project, and I’d also like to introduce by wife Alice who’s a property owner. My wife and I hope to build a house here and move permanently, on a full time basis, to the Town of Queensbury. We currently live in Clifton Park and had summered on the lake for about 14 years. I did a brief handout. I’m not going to take the time to read it. I note the lateness of the hour. I attempted to contact 20 property owners that were within 500 feet, given a list by Chris, and the results of that, I’ve given each of you a copy of the letter I wrote. I included a picture which was in color, of what we anticipate the building to look like, and a site plan. Three were returned as undeliverable at the address. I received one affirmative phone call, 12 written affirmative responses, and to date I have not received any negatives. There was one question that a gentleman raised about, if I intended to blast, and he was concerned about his well, and I wrote him back and said that there was no blasting anticipated, and therefore, I think that was a settled matter. There are two variances. The first one is somewhat definitional, and I ask your guidance on it. The garage as it’s proposed, if you were to look at the floor area that would be used for a garage, is 900 feet, meets the Ordinance, no variance required. If you look at the garage structure, as one would reasonably look at a garage, there is a staircase at the end of the garage. If you add that staircase, and you say, hey, that’s part of the garage, count that as well, it goes downstairs to a basement area, then it would be about 1,000 square feet. So it’s somewhat of a definitional. I’ve chatted with Chris and other people in the zoning department. They thought it would be best to bring it, and that way there wouldn’t be an issue later on about it. So on one hand, it may require a variance. On the other hand, it may not. You’ll have to interpret that issue. The second is one of building height, and Gary, I think, had a schematic that you can take a look at, and essentially what we have is, looking from the road side, it’s a typical two story house. Four bedrooms upstairs, a living room, kitchen and study on the first floor, and a walkout basement. The result, however, of the Zoning Ordinance, when you calculate the height, because of the contour of the land going down toward the lake, it’s about four feet taller than what the Ordinance allows. I would imagine vista and scenic view are extremely important to adjacent property owners. This particular parcel to the rear is abutted by, essentially, an escarpment or cliffs. I think Mr. Stone said he tried to walk up them. He knows how steep they are. There is no property really, beyond that it’s Lockhart Mountain is directly behind that on the other side of 9L. Generally, the house sits back the full 75 feet from the lake, if you can see from the drawing, and it’s farther back than the adjacent property. So I don’t think it has much of an impact on anybody else’s view. It’s the deepest property in a cove on Plum Point. It’s the farthest one in if you will. Gary, did you want to show them what that is? GARY VAN ALSTYNE MR. VAN ALSTYNE-I can just point out, we took a cross section of the lot. If you went out to the site, you probably noticed there’s an existing barn in this area, where the driveway goes down in. We took a cross section right through here, through the corner of the lot, right to the lake, right through the escarpment, to generate this section, which is true to scale in both horizontal and vertical, which shows the elevation differences from 9L down to the lake, and this is where the rock outcrops are, and from 9L elevation to the peak of the house is about 16, almost 17 feet. The peak of the house is down below 9L. Even from the top of the outcrop, it’s over 10 feet below. You see where the existing grade going down to the lake and where we are, it’s necessary to grade around the house, and right at the peak is where we generate our tallest peak, 32 and a half feet. So there really is, I believe that except for right immediately right at the house, there will be no intermission of any view to the lake from any area up on here, just seeing out into the general portion of the lake. MR. STONE-What are the plans for the top of the hill there, in terms of the trees that are there? MR. R. HAYES-We’re not going to take anything down. We want as many trees as we can keep on the lot. The only thing we are going to remove is sort of a barn or a shed that you probably saw. MR. STONE-Well, on the road. MR. R. HAYES-On the road. MR. STONE-Yes, I appreciate that. I go around that corner fast. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) MR. R. HAYES-That’s the only thing down there. There’s also a privy, and we’re not planning on keeping that either. MR. CUSTER-Gary, what’s the pitch of the roof? MR. VAN ALSTYNE-The pitch of the roof? I will defer that to the builder who’s here also. BUILDER-I believe that most of it is an 8/12. MR. CUSTER-8/12. MR. VAN ALYSTNE-Which, as you know, tends to come in handy in the winter season. MR. STONE-In the winter, yes. MR. VAN ALSTYNE-The only thing that would happen up on top of the hill, and I’ve talked with DOT about it, and I’m going to meet with them out there, is this existing driveway location is not the best location for visibility, nor for access into this location. The existing driveway is over a 20% grade, and what we’re looking to do is flatten it out to a more reasonable grade and pull the driveway entrance out to where you can maximize the site distance in each direction and also come out in between the large hardwoods that are out along that house. MR. THOMAS-What about the steepness of the driveway? Joe Porter here is a road construction person, and he could probably understand anything that you say. So, you know, I know that the Town has a requirement for the grade on a slope of a driveway. MR. VAN ALSTYNE-All right. What we’ve looked at here is that the existing driveway in this section right here was about 22%, because it was a little over 20%, and what we looked at doing was trying to drop that as low as we could without traversing all through the whole site to get down to the house, and what we looked at was between 13 and 15%, at the steepest portion, right through here, and fairly consistent. That would involve, my understanding and observations out at the site, is when 9L was constructed, this barn used to be on the other side of the old road, and it was moved, and when the State built 9L, as you can tell out in the field, there’s a lot of fill placed up on top of the rock, and what we’re looking to do is cut down, cut the driveway down into that fill and use it to build up down here, so that we can flatten the grade out to make a reasonable grade. MR. STONE-And that driveway is going to go right under the escarpment? MR. VAN ALSTYNE-Right under this little (lost word), and then it will fall away from it. There are, we’ve tried to locate, there are several large trees out there, we’d like to work right around, and we would like to have the flexibility to adjust that driveway this way or that to work around the trees. MR. PORTER-I’ve seen the plans. Do you have soil borings? MR. VAN ALSTYNE-We did test pits down in the lower area, and what we found was generally a topsoil layer getting down into some sand and gravel. Digging down six feet in this area we didn’t hit any of the rock that you would expect with the escarpment here, but this appears to be a lot of outwashed gravel that’s built up over time. As you got further down into some of these areas down in here, one, the ground water level came up a little bit, and it did get a higher plain of silt content, but as we were up in here, much better material. MR. THOMAS-So as far as the height of the structure, you know, you would have to blast to get down into the rock to get your 32, or to get your 28. MR. STONE-To get your 28. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. PORTER-I see you’ve got a couple of soil borings right where the house goes? MR. VAN ALSTYNE-We did a couple of test pits down in here, where we didn’t know where the elevation of the house was, but we guessed at it, and with the depth that we went, those test pits were below footing level, which is still above the lake level. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) MR. THOMAS-Right. MR. VAN ALSTYNE-But below footing level. MR. THOMAS-So you couldn’t lower the grade to bring the house down to 28 feet? MR. VAN ALSTYNE-Lowering the grade? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. VAN ALSTYNE-Well, that would be, it’s relative to the height of the house. We brought the grade around the side, you can’t bring the grade up any more on the house without getting into (lost words) above the foundation. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. PORTER-Can you lower it and still stay above the water level? MR. VAN ALSTYNE-Well, we’re at, I believe, two to three feet above, nine feet, high water to finished floor, take off four to five feet for your foundations. So now we’re at four feet to high water, still wanting to get pitch out of there, so there’s maye a little bit of room, but the only thing that that would impact is, you know, this elevation, but by dropping this part of the house, you’d also drop all the levels in the house, and the grade around the house. So we would still have that 32 feet. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-You’ve got data elevation at 110 feet or 110 meters? MR. VAN ALSTYNE-Feet. MR. STONE-The lake level is about 300 and. MR. VAN ALSTYNE-That was, I think, the surveyor just took a local data. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. VAN ALSTYNE-He didn’t tie it into the (lost word). MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Well, the basic question about the stream. MR. THOMAS-Yes, well, we’ll talk about that later. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. STONE-I’ll open a public hearing now. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of? In favor of this proposal? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARGY MAYNARD MRS. MAYNARD-Yes. I’m Margy Maynard. You have on your record Margaret Bishop Maynard. My brother and I co-own the property that abuts this property on the west. We have had, my family has been coming to the lake since the early 1900’s. The property that is next to the Hayes’ we bought, the family bought, in 1923. The house, or as we have always called it, the camp, was built in 1924 and 1925 by my grandfather Stores Bishop, and my father Bo Bishop and his brother Stores. It was designed by them also, with help from my father’s work, co-worker’s friends in Schenectady. The shorefront, as you might have noticed, is one of the very few natural beaches on the lake. I’ve been going down to this house for as long as I can remember, over 60 years. In my case, over 55. In my brother’s case, and there is correspondence from him which I assume will be read later. All of our families have enjoyed it, and I speak for my brother tonight, 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) and also for all the Maynards, my husband’s in the back, and for my brother and his wife. There have been a lot of changes that have occurred in Plum Bay through our lifetime, but the bottom line has always been the lake, the quality of the water in the lake, which many of us use, and many of us used for many years as drinking water, and the very, and the shoreline and the very special ambiance of this Bay. There is no question that that is our family’s concern. The two variances only triggered our concern. When we got the packet of information, and I do appreciate everything that the Hayes’ have done, the packet was wonderful, by the way. They have found markers that my husband and I looked for for an hour this summer, and I’ll explain that in a minute, up by 9L, and that we appreciate greatly. When we got the packet, we went down to Rhode Island where my brother was, and the four of us went over it, and we were surprised that there was, that the stream, which we, for as long as I can remember, have called our stream, partly was on totally their property, as you will see in your maps. There was also, on this small 8 and a half by 11 map, a dotted line which looked to us like a divergence of the tiny stream to a larger one, and basically, by the way, we’re talking about two streams. One small, one coming from a spring, one larger, which flows all the time. My family’s a fishing family, and it’s not a trout stream. It’s just flowing all the time, off French Mountain and down the hill into the lake, most of which is on our property, that larger stream. We didn’t know what the dotted line was, but assumed it was a divergence of the smaller stream to the large one, which when my husband and I went to the Zoning Board, that was verified from their maps. We decided the first week in May that we needed to come up here to take a look from our home, that is, in Cape Cod, to take a look at the situation first hand. We have a new dock, and from our dock, we stood and we looked and noticed that, at this point in time, both streams were running. One small, the littler one, on their side of the property, into the lake, the larger one on our side of the property. It’s that stream that doesn’t cease. It continues. The rivlets from the small stream are also going into the larger stream, on our property. They sort of meander over through a delta. We walked along the joint property line, all the way up to 9L, and then along 9L on both sides. We noticed that it’s apparent that the smaller stream, as, I don’t know whether it was Mr. Hayes or somebody said, I know exactly who he’s talking about in regards to the blasting. There’s a spring, and somebody draws water from that spring, and it comes out on the other side of 9L, runs along 9L a little bit, goes under the highway in a culvert, and comes out, we assume, underneath the ledge on the Hayes property, and at one point resurfaces and then continues on down to the lake. Our stream, this is a constantly flowing spring. It trickles down through the Hayes’ property, and last August, because we put in this new dock, I had to find the corner property marker by the lake, and I was rummaging around in boots and so forth, trying to find this marker, and saw this tiny rivlet coming in from the Lockhart’s, what was then the Lockhart property. Now we all remember it was a very dry summer everywhere. I followed this rivlet up and noticed that it was coming down through the Lockhart property. I didn’t ever realize that there was this tiny little stream coming into the larger one. We then, after having gone around the property, or not around, but around on 9L, we then went to the Zoning Board that day, met with Laura Nowicki and Sue Cipperly, and have met Sue Cipperly and Chris Round, and we then had an opportunity to look at the bigger maps, which the Zoning Board had, and our assumption was verified that this dotted line indeed was some kind of a divergence of the smaller stream into the larger stream, when the stream is on their property. I’m not sure whether the Hayes’ realize exactly what’s going on here. There are times when this runoff situation from 9L, from French Mountain, is intense. It might have happened tonight if we’d have had a thunderstorm. The water just comes pouring off the, down the mountain, off the highway, turns left, goes under the culverts, and then pours down off, down the mountain, or down the slope into the lake. There are times when I’ve stood there and watched this fan like of sediment coming into the lake from what I call our stream, and at that time, from their stream, too, because what was a small trickle during the summer, all of a sudden becomes a larger body of water, because of the amount of the runoff. In 1995, my brother wrote a letter to Mary Arthur Beebe, Executive Director of the Lake George Association, expressing his concern about this storm runoff, and in it he stated that the composition of the Bay has changed remarkably in 75 years, particularly in the last 15 since the Top of the World construction occurred. We have photos, as he said in the letter, that shows the beach narrower than it is now. We walk into the Bay, and the depth of the Bay is much less than it was, even 25 years ago, and it is encumbent, when you put your foot down on the Bay, it is a combination, now, of sand and silt. You can just tell the difference, and when I was rummaging around, trying to find the marker, much of this stream has come down and it’s created a delta, and much of that is silt, from the road, from French Mountain, and it continues to happen today. We have skunk cabbage growing down in this area, which we’ve never had before, because it’s always moist from one source or another. It doesn’t stop running, gentlemen, it doesn’t. It might at some times, if you were to stand on our dock and look back toward the stream, the larger stream. You might not see it from the dock because when its momentum is less, when it’s less intense, it kind of drops into the sand, but it goes into the lake. All year. Much more so in the spring, not this spring because we don’t have the snow runoff or the snow melt, or not as much. We, on Cape Cod, didn’t have any. While I was here in early May, or early this month, I called the Lake George 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) Association, just to find out what they thought of asphalt driveways, what was their position, and they told me that they really don’t have, they have just an educational sort of operation to try to get property owners to voluntarily do some storm control, but they, unfortunately, don’t have any legislation to back them up. There is pending legislation for new builders and for developers, but it hasn’t been passed yet. I also called the Lake George Park Commission, talked to Roger Smith there, and he said that he had no jurisdiction at this time, but if the erosion during the construction became excessive, he wanted to know about it, and he’d go take a look, and since then, I have talked to the DEC, which I did Monday from the Cape, and we went over to the DEC this morning, and, my husband and I, and I talked to Joe Prall there, and got a sense of where they stand. I have in hand the correspondence that Mr. Hayes has sent back and forth, and I guess Mr. Van Alstyne, mostly. So I have in hand what occurred between these two groups of people. I do know that he gave me this book which states that you need a permit when you disturb a stream bed or banks, and he says, this is as stream which, granted, is not a stream that’s on their maps. Just like the stream that Mr. Hayes was inquiring about, which is classified an intermitten stream, this is a stream that doesn’t appear on their maps, but he said, if it was a stream, it flowed into Lake George, which is a Double A quality lake, then there needs to be concerns. When the request for the variance came to our home on Cape Cod, we realized there were two variance requests, the garage as well as the height, and I think some of our questions about the garage, by the way, have been answered today. I am concerned about the width of the driveway. That’s a tremendous amount of area, asphalt area, for water to come running down into the lake, and I’m an avid gardner, and I think if there’s a lot of landscaping done on this piece of property, and you have some topsoil. I was glad to hear that there is some already there, even with sod, a good thunderstorm or a good runoff is going to cause a lot of the sediment to wash into the lake. The erosion control during the construction must be monitored very, very carefully. You have, I believe, a letter from my brother. You also have a letter from Dr. Blake, and I want to emphasize that to have year round neighbors is not something we frown upon. It’s a joy. Dr. Blake was our year round neighbor up until recently. It was a real comfort to have a year round neighbor kind of keeping an eye on our seasonal house, and we’re really going to feel the same way. It’s going to be great. It’s not what, change doesn’t worry us. It’s inevitable. That property, we figured, might be sold one day, and it might, and certainly somebody would build a home there. No question about it, but we are worried about the irrepairable damage to the Bay, such as we’ve seen in the past 15 years. The entire Lake George basin is being affected this way, and in any way and at any time when and where, we can stem this tide to some extent, we all wish to do so. So those are our concerns, and we hope that they’ll be addressed and listened to, and see if we can come to some resolution, because we figure that there may be other solutions to this problem than diverting a smaller stream into a larger one. Thanks very much. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Is there anyone else who’d like to speak opposed? All right. The inevitable correspondence. MR. ROUND-A letter from James M. Blake, Dr. James Blake, it’s been transcribed. It says “Dear Ms. Cipperly: I wish to thank you for your letter of May 15 and the information referring to the Variance requests to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals scheduled for the meeting on May 20, 1998. The request from Craig Brown”, and I’ll skip over this because there was also for the Antiqua Motel. “The request of Robert and Alice Hayes for changes in the construction of a one family home includes specific environmental changes and specific property changes suggests possible changes which may further effect the character of Lake George in the area and are not in keeping with the established regulations for property bordering Lake Geroge and should be fully investigated for needed corrections. Having owned my own home and lived there on the Lake since 1955 I have observed specific environmental changes in the past and which continue to occur at present which in my opinion are related to construction which has occurred in the area above the Lake. Such has resulted in the development of a large and increasing in size and volume delta in the bay adjacent to the stream and lake on the property referred to. This enlarging delta now needs attention and correction as well or further preventative efforts. This has been called to the attention of the Lake George Park Commission with photos and inspection having been done but no corrective or preventative measures to date. Referring to the specific changes requested for the house itself, one simply asks what are the indications and needs for such changes in a new house in height and sizes which exceed that as determined as established by the Planning Board as appropriate for lakeside property. Yours very truly, James M. Blake” This letter is from F. Michler Bishop, Ph.D., NY, NY, “Dear Board Members: I am writing this letter out of concern over the development proposed for the land next to the property my sister and I own on Plum Bay, Lake George. I have looked at the plans my sister received from Mr. and Mrs. Hayes. Careful examination appears to reveal that the builder’s intention is to eliminate the spring currently running on that property and to divert its water to the stream that runs primarily on our property and then into the lake. In addition, all of the water from a long entrance driveway also appears to 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) be channeled into the same diversion. I strongly oppose the current plans as they would adversely affect the bay and the lake. I have spent time at our house on Plum Bay for the past fifty-five years. There have always been two small streams entering the lake; one, the larger, off our property; the other, much smaller, off the adjacent property owned previously by the Lockharts. As a child, I spent many hours damning and diverting each, although reprimanded by my grandmother for playing on the Lockhart’s property. Both streams ran all summer, although, as to be expected, both had very little, if any, water during August. Over the past forty years, in addition to summers, I have spent time at our camp all year round and have become familiar with the extraordinary quantities of muddy water that cascade down those streams during thaws and after summer thunderstorms. Currently, nothing stops water that starts way up on the Top of the World road from tearing down the mountain, joining water washing off 9L, and then dumping directly into those streams and hence into Plum Bay. I wrote the Lake George Association in April of 1995 about my concerns because the bay near our property is approximately one half the depth it was when I was a child, and the silt has accumulated at such a rapid rate that we now have a large beach where no beach appears in photographs taken in 1925 when the camp was built. Consequently, adding more run off from a long driveway without including the necessary catch basins and dry wells will only make the problem worse. And diverting the water to our stream is, of course, unacceptable – and perhaps illegal. I am hoping that the town will take whatever steps necessary to ensure that the construction is done in a manner that does not adversely affect the bay and the lake. Thank you. Sincerely, F. Michler Bishop” There is a letter, his letter of record I won’t read in, that he did reference from 1995. We have a phone call inquiry from Margaret Bishop Maynard, as Mrs. Maynard, has discussed, outlining the concerns that she’s addressed tonight, and I won’t read that into the record. I think you’ve addressed that. That’s acceptable. I thought I had another letter. MR. THOMAS-There’s that form letter with all the signatures. MR. ROUND-Yes, I have that. Did you direct a letter to us, Mrs. Bishop? No? Okay. I thought I was looking for another letter from. I have a letter from N. Robert Hayes, Jr. and Alice Hayes, and I’ll read this into the record. “Ladies and Gentlemen: My wife, Alice, and I have purchased the Lockhart parcel and plan to build a year-round residence on the property. The house plans are for four bedrooms upstairs and a kitchen, living room, and study on the first floor. As you know, the land slopes down towards the lake so the cellar will have a walk-out door and be finished on the outside the same as the rest of the house so that it looks appealing from the lakeside. In reviewing the plans with the Town of Queensbury Building Department, it appears that the proposed plan meets all of the normal zoning requirements for setback, sidelines, and area, but it does not meet the restriction on height. The Town has a rule limiting how tall a structure can be, presumably to prevent a new house from blocking the view of an existing structure. The Lockhart property has a forty foot escarpment on the Route 9L side, so the house will not in any way diminish anyone’s view of the lake. We have applied to the Town Zoning Board of Appeals to request a variance to the height restriction. As a nearby property owner, the Town is required to provide you with notice of the variance application. In order to help you visualize the building plan, we have enclosed a map showing the property with the house and driveway. Also enclosed is a computer generated photograph showing approximately to scale how the house will actually look from the lake. We hope you will agree that the house is well designed and will fit in with the topography of the land. We respectfully request your support of our application to the Town. If, based upon your review of the map and photo, you have no objection to the variance, please sign the attached letter of support and return it to me in the enclosed stamp envelope. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us. We look forward to meeting you this summer, and we will do all that we can to be good neighbors. Very truly yours, Bob and Alice Hayes” The reply indicates, “To the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Ladies and Gentlemen: I/we have reviewed a proposed site plan map and computer-generated photograph showing the house that Bob and Alice Hayes would like to build, and I/we have been advised that a variance has been requested to the Town’s building height regulation. I/we have no objection to the height variance request.” And we have the attached materials as referenced, and we do have replies, as Mr. Hayes indicated, 12 written replies affirmative, one phone call report, and three undeliverable, and I’ll read those individuals that did sign the replies. One is Robert A. O’Brien, I believe. MR. THOMAS-Give the dates on that, too. th MR. ROUND-Dated May 5, 1998. Dated May 10, Elizabeth M. Ercole. Dated June 5, 1998, th Margaret M. Sullivan and William F. Sullivan. That must be incorrect. That must be May 5. May 3, 1998, William Buchwald, Jr.; April 29, 1998, Howard Lockhart Dorothy Lockhart; April 27, 1998, Frank J. Lockhart, Jessie C. Lockhart; April 29, 1998, David Montana, Claudia Montana; May 1, 1998, Edwin H. Freihofer, II or third or fourth. I know there are several 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) st Freihofers in the area. May 1, this is not a form letter. It’s from Nick Markwardt of Las Vegas, NV, to the ZBA “Ladies and Gentlemen: I have reviewed the Haye’s letter of April 21, a proposed site plan mapand a computer generated photograph showing the proposed house, landscaping and Lakefront that Bob and Alice Hayes would like to build. I have been advised that a variance has been requested for the Town’s building height regulation. I have no objection to the height variance request in the full context presented.” Signed Mr. Markwardt. Again, an nd affirmative response on the form letter as previously referenced, dated May 2 from James Meisner; May 10, 1998 from Craig Brown, the Antiqua owner/operator. May 1, 1998, from a Kook E. Jung Hongja Jung, affirmative. Handwritten response from Peg Sullivan indicating “Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hayes: I’m sorry that this is a bit late getting back to you. We were in Florida for the winter and on our way home so it took a while to catch up with us. Your home looks beautiful. I only hope you’ll be as happy at Lake George as we have been. We’ll look forward to meeting you when we return to the lake at the end of June. Welcome neighbor!! Sincerely, Peg Sullivan” Again, a handwritten note from Howard Lockhart, “Mr. and Mrs. Hayes, My concern is will blasting or excavating disturb source of water (spring) across from wood barn. Howard Lockhart” “Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hayes:”, dated May 1, 1998, “The house looks wonderful. We hope all goes well with the variance, good luck! Ed & Denise Freihofer” “Dear Bob & Alice, I have examined your dock and would like to discuss it with you. Thanks, Craig P.S. It was nice meeting you and good luck with the zoning board.” And that’s the extent of our public correspondence. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Mr. Hayes, is there anything you’d like to say in response to any of these letters or concerns? MR. R. HAYES-Yes, sir, I would. I think the issues raised by Mrs. Bishop are. MRS. MAYNARD-Excuse me. I was a Bishop, but I am now a Maynard. MR. R. HAYES-I beg your pardon, are absolutely accurate. I think her description a quality description. In fact, I use the very word “delta”, in describing the situation to Gary when I first looked at it. It’s very obvious that there has been runoff. If you walked on the former property of Lockhart that we now own, you’ll see a very deep channel that has eroded. I’m certain that that material has found its way into the Bay. I don’t know how much of it is natural, how much is from construction on Lockhart Mountain and how much of it is from culverts that were inserted when they built 9L. I don’t know that history, but I do agree with her, with respect to the water situation, and I can assure this Board, although I realize it’s not directly related to the garage or the height, that we want to do everything that we can to maintain the quality of the lake, to try and do the best job that we can with the water that’s on the property. We have one stream that flows most of the year, that is primarily on the adjoining property. A little of it’s on our property, and we have this smaller drainage way or whatever that runs, apparently, some of the time, and maybe not so much during the height of the summer, but we want to do the right thing with that, and we realize that if we disturb any kind of a stream, that a permitting process would be required, that there would be public input in that process, and it’s just one of many permits. We need a dock permit to repair the dock. We need a Department of Transportation permit to do the road, and we need the consent of this Board with respect to the garage and the height. So it’s all part of the process, but I couldn’t agree with you more about the issue and the problem, and I can assure you, I’m as concerned about it as she is. She’s got a lot more experience on that property than I do, and I would really consider her and her family a tremendous resource to have in trying to design something that would work well and maybe really improve on a problem that has existed for a number of years on the Lockhart property. Also, just for the record, we don’t intend to build a macadam driveway. It’s going to be gravel, and for the reason of runoff. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for Mr. Hayes? He’s not related to you, is he, Jamie? MR. HAYES-No. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Are there anymore questions for Mr. Hayes? MR. STONE-Just a comment that I could make to both property owners, as a very involved person with the Lake George Association. Private property is difficult for governments to do anything 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) about streams, but that doesn’t say that private property owners can’t build catchments on their own property to try to prevent deltas from forming. It is an ongoing process all around the lake. Certainly, much of it has come from man. I’ve been spending the last three or four, couple of weeks trying to get some money to help the various communities around the basin, but private property, we have to fall back on private citizens to take care of streams on their property, because you can’t ask the government to go in and do it. So, while their streams are beautiful the way they are, I would encourage Mr. Hayes and the adjoining property to do what they can to help prevent this material getting into the lake. It’s going to get there. It flows downhill. Whether it’s man or nature, it’s going to flow. We have to do what we can to stop it. MR. THOMAS-Before we go any farther, would you care to identify what your association with the Lake George Association is? MR. STONE-I’m a volunteer Vice President. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So there you go. There’s the Lake George Association sitting right there. MR. R. HAYES-I couldn’t agree more with your statement. MR. STONE-And just for the record, the Lake George Association is a volunteer group who tries to protect the lake through advocacy, community, education, but we are not the Park Commission, and I want to get that on the record. We have no regulatory powers whatsoever. We try to convince. I thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman. MR. THOMAS-All right. If there are no more questions for the applicant, the public hearing is closed. Well, lets talk about it. Bob, what do you think? Now, we’re just talking about the height, and I really haven’t heard any, you know, any description about the garage. MR. STONE-I don’t even know where it is on the. MR. THOMAS-I know where it is on the print, it’s shown. Right here. MR. STONE-Well, I see it says “garage”, but I don’t know what the definition MR. VAN ALSTYNE-I do have that. I don’t have copies, but, yes, this is the garage and the entrance here. MR. STONE-And how far does it go? MR. VAN ALSTYNE-Oriented that way, and this is the location. It’s 26 by 34, a three car garage. This is the stairway that Mr. Hayes was referring to, with just a stairway and a (lost word). MR. STONE-But it goes somewhere into here, though. It doesn’t go all the way up this far, does it? MR. VAN ALSTYNE-No. MR. STONE-No. So it’s in here somewhere. MR. CUSTER-So, in other words, you could have had a wall there, enclosing that? MR. VAN ALSTYNE-Yes. It could be enclosed, but it’s just open to the garage. MR. STONE-Chris, you made some comment. MR. ROUND-Well, I think the original proposal may have been a little larger than this, the present one that’s in front of us right now, and this is 900 square feet. We wouldn’t interpret the stairway and the access to the stairway to be part of the garage, the use, in that this conforms to the Ordinance, and it wouldn’t require relief. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So we’re not going to worry about the garage. MR. ROUND-Correct, but we just wanted to bring it up in front of you, just so that it’s on the record. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) MR. THOMAS-Okay. So you’re going to say the stairs that go down into the? MR. ROUND-Right, and it’s the area that’s utilized for vehicle storage. MR. THOMAS-Storage, is what you’d consider the garage. MR. ROUND-Right. MR. STONE-And he’s not going to put them on the stairs, he hopes. MR. ROUND-Well, stranger things have been done. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Robert, what do you think? MR. MC NALLY-This is a large piece of property. The house is, in some sense, removed from the adjacent neighbors, and from any neighbors to the rear, that is away from the lake. The slope of the land makes it such that it’s unlikely that it will cause a problem at the proposed height, to anyone along the road or behind the property, and there’s a difference of only 4.5 feet, I believe, 32.5. So that’s 4.5 feet above the existing Ordinance. I always wonder why, sometimes, houses are designed where the Ordinance says 28 feet, at a greater height, but overall, I don’t have a problem with the existing structure. MR. THOMAS-All right. Joe? MR. PORTER-I agree with Bob. As far as the height restriction, I don’t have a problem with it either. I just, just a comment, a little off the record, going back to the soil erosion and what it does to the lake. I’ve just, over the last couple of years, done a couple of jobs for the Lake George Association and the Village on the collection systems that they’re trying to instill, and when we did it from Prospect Mountain, it does work. It was a big project, and I think it could go back to the landowners to make their own system work, because there are facilities to make it work, but it’s a very critical area. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I have no problems with the project. I think the escarpment hides the proposed elevation increase so that there, it’s pretty well mitigated, and I’d just ask that Mr. Hayes and his wife, I’m sure they want to live there permanently for a long time. They don’t want see that Bay filled up with silt, either. MR. R. HAYES-No, we don’t. MR. CUSTER-So, I concur with Mr. Porter, do something to put a catch-basin in or something. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Lew? MR. STONE-I agree. I applaud the applicant’s response, attitude toward taking care of the water or the gravel driveway and all of that. The height, having stood at the top of this property, having walked down to the bottom of this property, and climbed back up, nobody going to see it, this extra four feet. I have no problem whatsoever. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-Yes. I agree with the rest of the Board. I think that it’s just a good fit, and I think that Mr. Hayes definitely intends to touch the bases, like everybody has commented and everybody would like to see. So I can’t see any reason not to approve this. So, I’m in favor. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I have just one question for Mr. Van Alstyne. Within the 75 foot shoreline setback, on this print, it says “end of pipe unknown”. Do you know what that is? Did you ever find out what that is? MR. VAN ALSTYNE-Well, that what from the surveyors that did the topo survey, and what it was is, as I’m sure Mrs. Maynard can attest, that end of the culvert, which is right here along, there’s an existing driveway that comes right around here. There’s a culvert underneath. That was buried in sediment, and that’s why. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) MR. THOMAS-Okay. That’s the unknown, probably is an old culvert that will be removed. MR. VAN ALSTYNE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I have, like the others, I have no problem with this application for the five and a half feet of difference. The floor to area ratio has been met. This is a pre-existing, nonconforming lot, being at 2.59 acres. So no variance is needed from that. One other thing I’d like to say, too, for Mrs. Maynard and Dr. Bishop and Dr. Blake, that your concerns about the stream and the erosion and the filtering of the sediment into Lake George doesn’t come under our jurisdiction, but what I’m going to propose, that this plan go before a site plan review before the Planning Board, and they will look at that. As far as erosion, you control that, and stuff, and, you know, all your concerns. It’s very nice of you to mention with the nice little soliloquey you gave, but like I said, we have no control over that, but the Planning Board does. So whoever makes the resolution, I’m going to ask them to include that this project be sent to the Planning Board for site plan review, where they will take care of things as you’ve mentioned. So, having said that, I would ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-1998 ROBERT & ALICE HAYES , Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Route 9L. The applicant proposes construction of a 9,298.6 square foot single family dwelling. The applicant requests relief from the height restrictions of Section 179-16, Waterfront Residential Three Acres. The maximum height for a permitted use in this zone is 28 feet. The proposal calls for a maximum height of 32.5 feet, which calls for a relief in the total of 4.5 feet. The benefit to the applicant would be that he could construct the house as outlined in the plans provided. The feasible alternatives in this circumstance really only are downsized construction, which we don’t see. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The total relief is 4.5 feet, and I don’t think that that would be substantial. I think it’s fairly minimal, considering the topography of the land in particular. The effects on the neighborhood or community? We have more or less positive feedback from surrounding neighbors, and I believe that the effects on the neighborhood would be minor, if not positive, based on the quality of the construction and plans provided. Is the difficulty self created? I think it is self created, but it is an existing lot, and they’re basically building a year round single family home on that, and that’s certainly a noble cause. Based on that fact, I would move for its approval. That this project be sent before the Planning Board for Site Plan Review. th Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Custer, Mr. Porter, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham MR. THOMAS-There you go. You’ve got your height restriction, but, like I said, we’re asking that this be sent to the Planning Board to take care of any site problems. MR. ROUND-Do youwant to limit the scope of their review to stormwater, are there particular issues that you would like the? MR. THOMAS-Stormwater, to the streams, streams and stormwater. That seems to be the big concern. MR. ROUND-I’m just trying to bring focus to what their review is, rather than have them do a whole. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I don’t know if they want to look at the driveway, and as far as construction is concerned, isn’t there a State law about, they have to? MR. ROUND-Yes, there is erosion and sedimentation control structures that they’ll have to put in place during construction. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Okay. So, other than that, you’re all set with us. You’ll just have to go take care of that. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/20/98) MR. HAYES-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Good luck on that. That’s a big project. MR. STONE-Okay. Have we got to do minutes? MR. THOMAS-Yes, we are going to do minutes. We are not going to let minutes go again. CORRECTION OF MINUTES February 18, 1998: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 1998 AS WRITTEN , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Custer: th Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Porter, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Lapham March 18, 1998: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 18, 1998 AS PRINTED , Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: th Duly adopted this 20 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Porter, Mr. McNally, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman 42